Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of remote response devices: an effective interactive method in the long- term learning

  • Radiological Education
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the use of personal response systems (PRS) or clickers improved learning and retention of radiology concepts within a group of medical students.

Materials and methods

A total of 175 medical students attended 17 thoracic radiology lectures. Half of the information was taught with traditional teaching methods. The other half was performed using multiple-choice Power Point slides with PRS. Three months later, the students were tested using questions about the topics explained with and without PRS. We compared the average numbers of correct answers, wrong answers and unanswered questions between the topics explained with PRS and those without.

Results

The average number of correct answers was significantly higher in the interactive teaching (PRS) questions than in the passive education questions (63.6 vs. 53.2 %, p < 0.05). The percentages of wrong and unanswered interactive teaching questions were significantly lower than those in the passive education questions (23.4 vs. 27.4 % p < 0.005 and 13 vs. 19.5 % p < 0.005 respectively).

Conclusions

Interactive learning with the use of remote response devices (PRS) is an effective method in teaching radiology because it improves learning and retention of knowledge.

Key Points

• Education techniques have greatly evolved in recent years.

• There are various methods of teaching the subject of radiology.

• Different studies have demonstrated students’ preferences regarding interactivity.

• Personal response systems are an effective tool to encourage student participation.

• Personal response systems or clickers also improve learning and retention of concepts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

PRS:

Personal response systems

MCQ:

Multiple choice questions

References

  1. Nyhsen CM, Steinberg LJ, O'Connell JE (2013) Undergraduate radiology teaching from the student’s perspective. Insights Imaging 4:103–109

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2011) Undergraduate education in radiology. Insights Imaging 2:363–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kourdioukova EV, Valcke M, Derese A, Verstraete KL (2011) Analysis of radiology education in undergraduate medical doctors training in Europe. Eur J Radiol 78:309–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Oris E, Verstraete K, Valcke M (2012) ESR Working Group on Undergraduate Education. Results of a survey by the European Society of Radiology (ESR): undergraduate radiology education in Europe-influences of a modern teaching approach. Insights Imaging 3:121–130

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Branstetter BF 4th, Faix LE, Humphrey AL, Schumann JB (2007) Preclinical medical student training in radiology: the effect of early exposure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:9–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gunderman RB, Siddiqui AR, Heitkamp DE, Kipfer HD (2003) The vital role of radiology in the medical school curriculum. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1239–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Holt NF (2001) Medical students need more radiology education. Acad Med 76:1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Collins J, Dotti SL, Albanese MA (2002) Teaching radiology to medical students: an integrated approach. Acad Radiol 9:1046–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Branstetter BF 4th, Humphrey AL, Schumann JB (2008) The long-term impact of preclinical education on medical students’ opinions about radiology. Acad Radiol 15:1331–1339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA et al (2010) Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet 376:1923–1958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nyhsen CM, Lawson C, Higginson J (2011) Radiology teaching for junior doctors: their expectations, preferences and suggestions for improvement. Insights Imaging 2:261–266

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Maleck M, Fischer MR, Kammer B et al (2001) Do computers teach better? A media comparison study for case-based teaching in radiology. Radiographics 21:1025–1032

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Norman GR, Brooks LR, Cunnington JP, Shali V, Marriott M, Regehr G (1996) Expert-novice differences in the use of history and visual information from patients. Acad Med 71:62–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Regehr G, Norman GR (1996) Issues in cognitive psychology: implications for professional education. Acad Med 71:988–1001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mennin SP, Friedman M, Skipper B, Kalishman S, Snyder J (1993) Performances on the NBME I, II, and III by medical students in the problem-based learning and conventional tracks at the University of New Mexico. Acad Med 68:616–624

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schmidt HG, Machiels-Bongaerts M, Hermans H, Cate TJ, Venekamp R, Boshuizen HP (1996) The development of diagnostic competence: comparison of a problem-based, an integrated, and a conventional medical curriculum. Acad Med 71:658–664

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hecht S, Adams WH, Cunningham MA, Lane IF, Howell NE (2013) Student performance and course evaluations before and after use of the Classroom Performance System™ in a third-year veterinary radiology course. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 54:114–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tregonning AM, Doherty DA, Hornbuckle J, Dickinson JE (2012) The audience response system and knowledge gain: a prospective study. Med Teach 34:e269–e274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kung JW, Slanetz PJ, Chen PH, Lee KS, Donohoe K, Eisenberg RL (2012) Resident and attending physician attitudes regarding an audience response system. J Am Coll Radiol 9:828–831

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. FitzPatrick KA, Finn KE, Campisi J (2011) Effect of personal response systems on student perception and academic performance in courses in a health sciences curriculum. Adv Physiol Educ 35:280–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Graeff EC, Vail M, Maldonado A, Lund M, Galante S, Tataronis G (2011) Click it: assessment of classroom response systems in physician assistant education. J Allied Health 40:e1–e5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Satheesh KM, Saylor-Boles CD, Rapley JW, Liu Y, Gadbury-Amyot CC (2013) Student evaluation of clickers in a combined dental and dental hygiene periodontology course. J Dent Educ 77:1321–1329

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fernández-Alemán JL, García AB, Montesinos MJ, Jiménez JJ (2014) Examining the benefits of learning based on an audience response system when confronting emergency situations. Comput Inform Nurs 32:207–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nelson C, Hartling L, Campbell S, Oswald AE (2012) The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 21. Med Teach 34:e386–e405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Vana KD, Silva GE, Muzyka D, Hirani LM (2011) Effectiveness of an audience response system in teaching pharmacology to baccalaureate nursing students. Comput Inform Nurs 29:105–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rubio EI, Bassignani MJ, White MA, Brant WE (2008) Effect of an audience response system on resident learning and retention of lecture material. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:W319–W322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schackow TE, Chavez M, Loya L, Friedman M (2004) Audience response system: effect on learning in family medicine residents. Fam Med 36:496–504

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hettinger A, Spurgeon J, El-Mallakh R, Fitzgerald B (2014) Using Audience Response System technology and PRITE questions to improve psychiatric residents’ medical knowledge. Acad Psychiatry 38:205–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wenz HJ, Zupanic M, Klosa K, Schneider B, Karsten G (2014) Using an audience response system to improve learning success in practical skills training courses in dental studies - a randomised, controlled cross-over study. Eur J Dent Educ 18:147–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Book C, Byers J, Freeman D (1983) Student expectations and teacher education traditions with which we can and cannot live. J Teach Educ 34:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rogers LF (2003) Imaging literacy: a laudable goal in the education of medical students. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gunderman RB (2005) Medical students are our future. J Am Coll Radiol 2:795–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cohen-Matsliah SI, Motanis H, Rosenblum K, Barkai E (2010) A novel role for protein synthesis in long-term neuronal plasticity: maintaining reduced postburst afterhyperpolarization. J Neurosci 30:4338–4342

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dudai Y (2004) The neurobiology of consolidations, or, how stable is the engram? Annu Rev Psychol 55:51–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Abraham WC, Williams JM (2008) LTP maintenance and its protein synthesis dependence. Neurobiol Learn Mem 89:260–268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Alberini CM (2008) The role of protein synthesis during the labile phases of memory: revisiting the skepticism. Neurobiol Learn Mem 89:234–246

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kihlstrom JF (2013) How students learn and how we can help them. Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley. http://socrates.berkeley.edu/kihlstrm/GSI_2011.htm. Accessed 18 Dec 2013

  38. Diemand-Yauman C, Oppenheimer DM, Vaughan EB (2011) Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition 118:111–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bjork RA (1994) Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In: Metcalfe J, Shimamura A (eds) Metacognition: knowing about knowing. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 185–205

    Google Scholar 

  40. Craik F, Tulving E (1975) Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. J Exp Psychol 104:268–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Richland LE, Bjork RA, Finley JR, Linn MC (2005) Linking cognitive science to education: generation and interleaving effects. In: Bara BG, Barsalou L, Bucciarelli M (eds) Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual conference of the cognitive science society. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 1850–1855

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bandura A (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol 37:122–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bandura A, Adams NE (1977) Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognit Ther Res 1:287–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. DiClemente CC (1981) Self-efficacy and smoking cessation maintenance: a preliminary report. Cognit Ther Res 5:175–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Alexander CJ, Crescini WM, Juskewitch JE, Lachman N, Pawlina W (2009) Assessing the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ 2:160–166

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Premkumar K, Coupal C (2008) Rules of engagement-12 tips for successful use of “clickers” in the classroom. Med Teach 30:146–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Richardson ML (2014) Audience response techniques for 21st century radiology education. Acad Radiol 21:834–841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nicholson BT, Bassignani MJ (2009) Radiologist/educator knowledge of the audience response system and limitations to its use. Acad Radiol 16:1555–1560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Leung CP, Klausner AP, Habibi JR, King AB, Feldman A (2013) Audience response system: a new learning tool for urologic conferences. Can J Urol 20:7042–7045

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jesús Ciro Pueyo. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional review board approval was not required because this study was accorded with the attendants of the subject and the members of the staff from the school of medicine. Written informed consent was not required for this study.

Methodology: prospective, experimental, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Av. Pio XII, 36, 31008, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain

    Maite Millor, Jon Etxano, Pedro Slon, Paula García-Barquín, Alberto Villanueva, Gorka Bastarrika & Jesús Ciro Pueyo

Authors
  1. Maite Millor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jon Etxano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pedro Slon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paula García-Barquín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alberto Villanueva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gorka Bastarrika
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jesús Ciro Pueyo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maite Millor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Millor, M., Etxano, J., Slon, P. et al. Use of remote response devices: an effective interactive method in the long- term learning. Eur Radiol 25, 894–900 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3468-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3468-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation