Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: a randomised trial.
Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: a randomised trial.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1472-6920-7-25
复制
发表时间：
2007-07-27
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Devitt, Peter
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Duggan, Paul M;Palmer, Edward;Devitt, Peter
背景：电子投票系统已被用于各种学科的教育。这些研究的结果好坏参半。由于这些研究的结果喜忧参半，我们检验了EVS系统是否可以增强讲座对教育结果的影响。方法：将阿德莱德大学127名五年级医学生按性别、住院身份和学业成绩分层，然后随机分成两组，和63名学生。每组都接受了关于两个临床主题的连续40分钟的讲座。其中一组收到了这两个主题的EVS。另一组只接受传统教学。评估是通过两份包含15个问题的多项选择问卷(McQ)进行的，评估知识和解决问题的能力，并以书面形式在讲座前后立即进行，并在8-12周后在线重复进行。每堂课都填写了标准化的机构学生问卷，独立观察员评估了学生在讲座期间的行为。结果：2/3的学生参加了EVS课程，59%的学生参加了传统课程。EVS组的一半学生和传统组的41%的学生完成了所有问卷。电子课与传统课的多项智商得分差异无统计学意义(p=0.785)。宫颈癌讲座显示，在所有参数中，学生对电动汽车的支持率都更高。乳腺癌讲座在7项参数中有5项高于传统讲座(p<；0.001)。在EVS课程中，观察到的更高层次的讲师与学生的互动增加了，而减少了另一位讲师的互动。两位讲师都认为，电动汽车讲座很难准备，他们能够跟上传统讲座的节奏，两种讲座风格的教育价值相似，他们对继续使用电动汽车技术持中立至略有好感的态度。两位讲师在传统讲座的准备容易程度、他们在EVS讲座中保持准时的能力以及个人对EVS讲座的满意度等问题上存在分歧。讲师们认为，EVS鼓励学生参与，并帮助确定学生在哪里遇到困难。结论：在这种情况下，在大型小组讲座中使用EVS技术并没有提供比更传统的授课形式更大的优势。
BACKGROUND: Electronic Voting Systems have been used for education in a variety of disciplines. Outcomes from these studies have been mixed. Because results from these studies have been mixed, we examined whether an EVS system could enhance a lecture's effect on educational outcomes.METHODS: A cohort of 127 Year 5 medical students at the University of Adelaide was stratified by gender, residency status and academic record then randomised into 2 groups of 64 and 63 students. Each group received consecutive 40-minute lectures on two clinical topics. One group received the EVS for both topics. The other group received traditional teaching only. Evaluation was undertaken with two, 15-question multiple-choice questionnaires (MCQ) assessing knowledge and problem solving and undertaken as a written paper immediately before and after the lectures and repeated online 8-12 weeks later. Standardised institutional student questionnaires were completed for each lecture and independent observers assessed student behaviour during the lectures. Lecturer's opinions were assessed by a questionnaire developed for this study.RESULTS: Two-thirds of students randomised to EVS and 59% of students randomised to traditional lectures attended. One-half of the students in the EVS group and 41% in the traditional group completed all questionnaires. There was no difference in MCQ scores between EVS and traditional lectures (p = 0.785). The cervical cancer lectures showed higher student ranking in favour of EVS in all parameters. The breast cancer lectures showed higher ranking in favour of traditional lectures in 5 of 7 parameters (p < 0.001). The observed higher-order lecturer-students interactions were increased in the EVS lecture for one lecturer and reduced for the other. Both lecturers felt that the EVS lectures were difficult to prepare, that they were able to keep to time in the traditional lectures, that the educational value of both lecture styles was similar, and that they were neutral-to-slightly favourably disposed to continue with the EVS technology. The 2 lecturers disagreed regarding the ease of preparation of the traditional lecture, their ability to keep to time in the EVS lecture, and personal satisfaction with the EVS lecture. The lecturers felt that EVS encouraged student participation and helped identify where students were having difficulty.CONCLUSION: In this setting, EVS technology used in large group lectures did not offer significant advantages over the more traditional lecture format.