Forfattere: Hussain, F. N., Wilby, K. J.

År: 2019

Kilde: Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 11(11), 1196-1204

Sammendrag:

Background: Audience response systems (ARS) are increasingly being used to support learning and assessment. Despite widespread use, the effects on educational outcomes and student learning are largely unknown. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the impacts of using ARS in pharmacy education.

Methods: A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and three pharmacy education journals. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they reported outcomes relating to the use of ARS in student pharmacist education and were published in English.

Results: Eleven studies were included. Endpoints related to course grades, information recall, student perceptions, and faculty perceptions. Few studies were identified that assessed the impact of ARS on course grades and those that did reported mixed results. ARS demonstrated improved student recall immediately following an educational activity but effects were not lasting. Students had positive perceptions regarding ARS classroom use, especially for participation, engagement, and attention to educational content. Faculty members were positive towards the use of ARS for teaching purposes but expressed concerns regarding the use for assessment.

Implications: The use of ARS positively benefited student participation and engagement in the classroom setting, as a tool to enhance active learning. Positive perceptions from faculty and feasibility of use also support that ARS may be an effective teaching strategy to better engage students in the learning process. The impact on student academic performance is inconclusive and must be further explored.

DOI / Lenke: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2019.07.004

Metodisk kvalitetsvurdering:

Artikkelen har en klar og tydelig problemstilling og klare inklusjons og eksklusjonskriterier. Søket er avgrenset til “audience response systems”, “student response systems” og “clickers”. Søket er godt dokumentert, søkeord og databaser er oppgitt. I tillegg er det søkt i tre farmasitidsskrifter og referanselister ble gjennomgått. Artikler som ikke rapporterte effekter (kunnskapsutbytte, studentprestasjoner, og studenters og læreres vurdering) ble ekskludert. Fulltekstene er gjennomgått av to av forskerne og prosessen er dokumentert med et flytdiagram. 11 studier er inkludert i analysen. Mulige skjevheter er vurdert i henhold til etablerte retningslinjer, men forskjeller mellom studiene forhindret bruk av ett kvalitetsvurderingsinstrument. Kjennetegn og hovedfunn i artiklene er presentert i teksten og en tabell. Det er ikke foretatt noen kvantitativ metaanalyse.