- Email: [email protected]
Enhance learning with an audience response system
EDITORIAL
Enhance learning with an audience response system David L. Turpin, DDS, MSD, Editor-in-Chief Seattle, Wash
I
t was the fourth quarter of an NFL game, and the quarterback had just thrown his third interception. The coach’s words filled my head, “You can’t expect to win the game if you give the ball away.” Never having been a coach, I was about to turn away from the TV when the announcer asked for my opinion. “Would you put in the backup quarterback now? Yes or no?” All I had to do was to go online, and my vote would be recorded along with thousands of others, followed by immediate feedback of the vote tally. I did it and was suddenly back into the game. What, you are probably asking, does this have to do with enhanced learning for health care professionals? The authors of an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association wanted to know whether traditional continuing medical education (CME) activity produced changes in physician behavior or health care outcomes, or whether including an interactive element would be more effective (Davis D, O’Brien MAT, Freemantle N, Wolf FM, Mazmanian P, Taylor-Vaisey A. Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? JAMA 1999;282:867-74). The authors reviewed published reports of randomized controlled trials of formal didactic and interactive CME interventions, and concluded that an exclusively didactic modality of education seldom led to changes in performance. Knowledge is clearly necessary, but knowledge alone is not sufficient to bring about change in physician behavior and treatment outcomes. The data suggest instead that an interactive element to the CME session can result in changes in professional practice and, on occasion, health care outcomes. With a better understanding of how busy people learn, the Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists (PCSO) implemented an audience response system (ARS) at its 67th Annual Session, held in October in Vancouver, British Columbia. Leading the continuing education committee, Chair Stan Hall has been eager to implement the relatively new ARS technology to en-
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:607 Copyright © 2003 by the American Association of Orthodontists. 0889-5406/2003/$30.00 ⫹ 0 doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.009
hance audience participation and provide immediate feedback on program effectiveness. The wireless ARS used at the PCSO meeting consisted of a network of handheld keypads that allowed audience members to communicate, anonymously, with the presenter. The system turned passive audience members into active participants and helped the speaker tailor the presentation to the listeners’ needs. It all started months before the meeting, when the speaker was asked to develop a series of questions designed to fulfill the educational objectives of the course or presentation. Using preplanned questions ensures that the issues are adequately addressed and that the audience stays focused on the original course objectives, but impromptu questions can be added during the presentation. At the beginning of the scientific meeting, the attendees are taught how to use the response terminals to answer questions. The results can be tabulated instantaneously and displayed. The speaker asks a question, the audience responds, and the speaker can address the responses as desired. The speaker can also elicit additional audience reactions. At the end of the PCSO meeting, the 600 attendees were asked to use the ARS once more, to give the meeting organizers feedback on the ARS itself. They were asked to rate, on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), several statements about the ARS; responses are in parentheses. ● ● ● ● ●
The ARS significantly increased my involvement in the presentations. (3.97) The ARS could have been more fully exploited by the speakers. (3.10) The PCSO should continue to use ARS technology in future meetings. (4.06) The ARS increased the level of my “take-home” information from the program. (3.18) The additional cost of using ARS (approximately $4 per attendee) is a cost-effective educational tool. (3.79)
The strengths of the ARS are obvious from the results of this short survey. Because it is such a flexible program and experienced presenters will become better at writing more effective questions, it has great promise for increased use at orthodontic educational meetings in the future. 607
Enhance learning with an audience response system David L. Turpin, DDS, MSD, Editor-in-Chief Seattle, Wash
I
t was the fourth quarter of an NFL game, and the quarterback had just thrown his third interception. The coach’s words filled my head, “You can’t expect to win the game if you give the ball away.” Never having been a coach, I was about to turn away from the TV when the announcer asked for my opinion. “Would you put in the backup quarterback now? Yes or no?” All I had to do was to go online, and my vote would be recorded along with thousands of others, followed by immediate feedback of the vote tally. I did it and was suddenly back into the game. What, you are probably asking, does this have to do with enhanced learning for health care professionals? The authors of an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association wanted to know whether traditional continuing medical education (CME) activity produced changes in physician behavior or health care outcomes, or whether including an interactive element would be more effective (Davis D, O’Brien MAT, Freemantle N, Wolf FM, Mazmanian P, Taylor-Vaisey A. Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? JAMA 1999;282:867-74). The authors reviewed published reports of randomized controlled trials of formal didactic and interactive CME interventions, and concluded that an exclusively didactic modality of education seldom led to changes in performance. Knowledge is clearly necessary, but knowledge alone is not sufficient to bring about change in physician behavior and treatment outcomes. The data suggest instead that an interactive element to the CME session can result in changes in professional practice and, on occasion, health care outcomes. With a better understanding of how busy people learn, the Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists (PCSO) implemented an audience response system (ARS) at its 67th Annual Session, held in October in Vancouver, British Columbia. Leading the continuing education committee, Chair Stan Hall has been eager to implement the relatively new ARS technology to en-
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:607 Copyright © 2003 by the American Association of Orthodontists. 0889-5406/2003/$30.00 ⫹ 0 doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.009
hance audience participation and provide immediate feedback on program effectiveness. The wireless ARS used at the PCSO meeting consisted of a network of handheld keypads that allowed audience members to communicate, anonymously, with the presenter. The system turned passive audience members into active participants and helped the speaker tailor the presentation to the listeners’ needs. It all started months before the meeting, when the speaker was asked to develop a series of questions designed to fulfill the educational objectives of the course or presentation. Using preplanned questions ensures that the issues are adequately addressed and that the audience stays focused on the original course objectives, but impromptu questions can be added during the presentation. At the beginning of the scientific meeting, the attendees are taught how to use the response terminals to answer questions. The results can be tabulated instantaneously and displayed. The speaker asks a question, the audience responds, and the speaker can address the responses as desired. The speaker can also elicit additional audience reactions. At the end of the PCSO meeting, the 600 attendees were asked to use the ARS once more, to give the meeting organizers feedback on the ARS itself. They were asked to rate, on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), several statements about the ARS; responses are in parentheses. ● ● ● ● ●
The ARS significantly increased my involvement in the presentations. (3.97) The ARS could have been more fully exploited by the speakers. (3.10) The PCSO should continue to use ARS technology in future meetings. (4.06) The ARS increased the level of my “take-home” information from the program. (3.18) The additional cost of using ARS (approximately $4 per attendee) is a cost-effective educational tool. (3.79)
The strengths of the ARS are obvious from the results of this short survey. Because it is such a flexible program and experienced presenters will become better at writing more effective questions, it has great promise for increased use at orthodontic educational meetings in the future. 607