Utilizing Audience Response to Foster Evidence-based Learning in a Pilot Study: Does It Really Work?

Abstract

Introduction Radiology residency programs are increasingly using audience response systems (ARS) in educational lectures. It is imperative that this is investigated to assess if learning outcomes in trainees are actually improved. Methods The primary objective of this randomized prospective unblinded pilot study was to assess the effect of ARS on long-term learning outcomes, with a secondary objective of understanding perceptions of ARS amongst radiology residents. Twenty-two radiology residents were randomized into two groups of 11 residents each receiving five identical musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology lectures. One group received lectures through ARS and the other through traditional didactics. A pretest and identical posttest were completed by all residents at baseline and eight months later, respectively. Residents also completed a pre and post five-question Likert scale survey designed to measure perceptions of ARS. Results Wilcoxon rank sum tests revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups of residents on the pretest (p = 0.47) or the posttest (p = 0.41). Of the five questions designed to gauge perceptions of ARS, “How often do you study radiology outside of work?” resulted in statistical significance between groups after the lecture series via ordinal logistic regression, with the ARS group six times more likely to study compared to the non-ARS group (Odds ratio = 6.52, P = 0.04, 95% Confidence Interval [1.1, 38.2]). There was no statistical difference in response to this question prior to the lecture series. Discussion Use of ARS was associated with increased likelihood of studying radiology without significant difference in long-term learning outcomes.

Effectiveness of 3D-printed models prepared from radiological data for anatomy education: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of 22 randomized, controlled, crossover trials

“…Fourteen studies dealt with undergraduate students of medical, dental, and allied health sciences, whereas 8 studies dealt with residents and interns [Tables 1 and 2 ]. [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ]…”

A Gamified Social Media–Based Head and Neck Radiology Education Initiative of the American Society of Head and Neck Radiology: Viewership and Engagement Trends at 3 Years

“…[31][32][33][34][35] Gamified learning strategies have made inroads in radiology education, including such tools as in-lecture audience response systems, resident or fellow leaderboards, game fiction scenarios and roleplaying, and positive reinforcement with performance rewards for trainees. [36][37][38][39] We intentionally gamified the #ASHNRCOTW initiative to rely on audience submission of GIF images as the primary means of participation. The benefits of using GIF images are 3-fold: 1) Participants can drop hints at the correct answer without spoiling it for other participants, 2) participants weave a storylike tapestry of memorable GIF images that combine narrative and flashbulb episodic memory with factual medical information (semantic memory) to augment learning, and 3) GIF images offer a lighthearted and often comical vehicle for approaching learning, which adds to the enjoyment of participation.…”

Where technology succeeds and fails in education

“…Several studies have shown that an audience response system is an effective and engaging tool in medical education [5][6][7][8][9]. Kung et al [7] found that surveyed radiology residents believed they learned better from lectures that incorporated an audience response system, felt more comfortable answering questions via an audience response system, and were more likely to attend a lecture that incorporated an audience response system.…”

“…Lecturers have claimed that inserting questions can disrupt the flow of a lecture, that an audience response system requires more time investment and expertise, and that many systems only allow for multiple-choice or true/false questions [8,10]. In addition, the long-term effect on learning is controversial [5,6,11]. Awan et al [5] found that when residents were examined at baseline and 8 months following on a series of musculoskeletal radiology lectures, there was no statistical difference in the test scores between the group that received instruction using an audience response system and the group that did not.…”

“…In addition, the long-term effect on learning is controversial [5,6,11]. Awan et al [5] found that when residents were examined at baseline and 8 months following on a series of musculoskeletal radiology lectures, there was no statistical difference in the test scores between the group that received instruction using an audience response system and the group that did not. Conversely, Rubio et al [11] found that radiology trainees who were instructed using an audience response system did demonstrate statistically significant improvement in long-term (3 months) retention vs. the control group.…”