A Comparison of Three Teaching Techniques in Anatomy and Physiology

2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda J. Carpenter ◽  
Andrea L. Boh
Keyword(s):  
Student Satisfaction ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Teaching Techniques ◽  
Anatomy And Physiology ◽  
Study Guides ◽  
The Third ◽  
Active Learning Strategies ◽  
Response Systems

Abstract The relative impact on student learning of three active learning strategies was studied. Sixty-three students in an undergraduate anatomy and physiology class used study guides for the respiration section, study guides combined with group quizzes for the phonation section, and study guides combined with student response systems (clickers) for the articulation and resonance section. Learning was measured by administering weekly quizzes, and student satisfaction was evaluated by a survey at the end of the third section of the course. Quiz scores were significantly higher under the clicker condition; students preferred clickers, but found the study guides to be most educationally beneficial. Study guides helped students organize information prior to class; clickers reassured them about what they had learned.

scholarly journals Promoting Active Learning in Physiology Lectures Through Student Response Systems: To Click or Not to Click

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Thibeault
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Student Comprehension ◽  
Small Group Discussions ◽  
Active Learning Strategies ◽  
Response Systems ◽  
Concept Theory

Courses in physiology engage students through active learning strategies including small group discussions, group work, and opportunities to explore a scientific problem and explain their findings. Many of these active learning exercises take place in tutorial and laboratory settings. Unfortunately, traditional physiology lectures are often limited to conveying information through lecturing and PowerPoint slides. This approach provides little opportunity for student engagement above lower-order cognition, i.e., writing notes, listening, memorization (Freeman et al. 2014). Student response systems (e.g., clickers) are a valuable tool to facilitate active learning in the lecture setting that could enable students to take control of their learning (“Do I truly understand this topic/concept/theory?”) (Hwang, Wong, Lam & Lam 2015). In addition, clickers provide valuable instant feedback to the lecturer about student comprehension, and can be used to track participation and attendance. Many platforms are now available including clicker devices and virtual clickers to facilitate active learning and meta-cognitive exercises in the lecture setting. Student feedback response platforms may provide a way to introduce active learning into the lecture setting with physiology lectures resulting improved engagement and better achievement of learning outcomes. This workshop provides practical strategies and examples to help instructors evaluate the benefits, challenges, and methods of integrating student response systems into the physiology lecture setting.

Student Response System Technology in Accounting Information Systems Courses

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Newmark ◽  
Lloyd “Pat” Seaton ◽  
Matthew Stallings
Keyword(s):  
Information Systems ◽  
Student Satisfaction ◽  
Accounting Information ◽  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response System ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Accounting Information Systems ◽  
Perceived Satisfaction ◽  
Response Systems ◽  
Class Interaction

ABSTRACT Student Response Systems (SRSs), also known as clickers, are posited to increase class participation and enhance active learning. In this study, we evaluate perceived effectiveness and student satisfaction with SRSs in Accounting Information Systems classes over several semesters. We also provide additional analyses to determine how SRSs are used in the classroom and which student characteristics and aspects of the classroom experience appear to be related to perceived satisfaction. We find three factors that explain 58% of the variation in SRS satisfaction. These are learning, environment, and class interaction. Two of these factors (learning and environment) are affected by variation in the way the system is used (participation mode vs. quiz mode), and all three are affected by the gender of the student. We find that gender is not directly related to overall satisfaction. In addition, we propose a model for SRS satisfaction based on our exploratory results.

scholarly journals Student Response Systems: a rationale for their use and a comparison of some cloud based tools

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Compton ◽  
Jason Allen
Keyword(s):  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Score Analysis ◽  
Response Systems ◽  
Analysis System

Student Response Systems (SRS) take many forms but we argue that there are compelling reasons to use some form of SRS in lectures and seminars at some points in the year, irrespective of subject taught and setting. Deciding which tool to use can be a challenge which is why we have selected a range of cloud based SRS types with varying functions and levels of difficulty and offer reviews of each here using the 'SCORE' analysis system enabling the reader to compare the perspectives of experienced users of each tool before trialling one or more of them. The tools we review here are:  Todaysmeet, Slido, Polleverywhere, Mentimeter, Socrative, Kahoot and Zeetings.** Note from Authors 17th May 2018: Since publication we have received notice that Todaysmeet will cease operating in June 2018

scholarly journals Clickers, Best Uses and Benefits

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Renato Herrera Hernández
Keyword(s):  
First Trimester ◽  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response System ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Response System ◽  
Large Size ◽  
Quality Of Teaching ◽  
Response Systems ◽  
Engaging Student

<p>This study provides an analysis of the use student response systems in undergraduate and postgraduate classrooms. Research was conducted utilising a qualitative analysis approach, grounding theories by reviewing related literature, interviewing lecturers and conducting class observation. The study was carried out over two consecutive trimesters, summer 2010 and first trimester of 2011, at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. By conducting this research it is hoped to help improving the quality of teaching. Within this study, it was determined that student response systems are useful for both engaging student and increasing their overall enjoyment of the class. The benefit of using student response systems in the classroom was also found to be dependent on preserving the novelty of the technology and keeping students’ responses anonymous, by redesigning lecturers to have proper student response system questions in order to make the most out of the technology. Overall, this study determined that the decision whether or not to utilise student response systems in the classroom should be made based on the level of education of the class and its objectives, whether it is a lecture, tutorial or seminar, with clickers working best in large size, undergraduate classrooms.</p>

Attitudes Toward the Use of Student Response Systems Survey

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terri Friedline ◽  
Aaron R. Mann ◽  
Alice Lieberman
Keyword(s):  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Response Systems

Student Response Systems for Active Learning

2011 ◽  
pp. 803-807
Author(s):  
Lisa Byrnes ◽  
Stephanie J. Etter
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
Subject Matter Expert ◽  
Student Response ◽  
Cognitive Resources ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Wrong Answer ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Passive Learning ◽  
Learner Centered ◽  
Response Systems

The importance of a student’s involvement in learning is well documented and well known. It is easy to sum up research related to active learning by simply saying, “students who participate in the learning process learn more than those who do not” (Weaver & Qi, 2005, p. 570). Active learning seeks to create a learner-centered environment and engage students as active participants in their education. The opposite of this is passive learning, which is thought of as the traditional way of teaching where the professor is a subject matter expert whose role is to convey the knowledge to an audience of students (Barr & Tagg, 1995). While the success of active learning is well documented, some instructors may find it difficult to fully engage students as active learners in the classroom. Active learning requires student participation, which is easier for some students than it is for others. Larkin and Pines (2003) found theF common practice of calling on students to promote active learning in the classroom resulted in a “clear and unmistakable pattern of avoidance behavior as reported by both male and female students” because many students seek ways to avoid the psychologically unpleasant situation of providing the wrong answer and looking foolish. Larkin and Pines (2003) argue that if a student’s emotional and cognitive resources become directed towards avoiding the immediate threat of being called on, then arguably the practice of calling on students may reduce active learning, which was the intended goal of calling on the student in the first place. Fortunately, educational technologies are able to assist in this challenge.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document