International journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN:2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 5, Issue 4 (April 2018), Pages: 67-72

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Students perceptions of audience response system in classroom feedback: A qualitative study

 Author(s): Samantha Ismaile 1, 2, *, Fuad Alhosban 3

 Affiliation(s):

 1Collage of Nursing, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Saudi Arabia
 2Health Sciences (Nursing) Higher Colleges of Technology, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
 3Information Technology, Khawarizmi International College, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2018.04.008

 Full Text - PDF          XML

 Abstract:

The aim of this study was to explore students’ attitudes to formative feedback from classroom questions, peer interactions, and post-lecture sessions. We used a qualitative approach involving focus groups interviews. A complete cohort of second-year nursing students (n = 120) attending a therapeutic communication course as part of a Bachelor of Nursing Program participated in this study. Of them, 49 volunteered to contribute to focus group interviews. NVivo (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia) was used to organize data using the content analysis method. All students were women aged 18–24 years. Most considered the ARS a useful tool that aided learning by providing instant, anonymous feedback. Some felt that there were barriers to peer interactions, including lack of interest in participating or not knowing the answers. In conclusion, ARS use improved students’ learning and encouraged a deep learning approach. Post-lecture feedback was most influential, followed by feedback from classroom questions, and lastly feedback from peer interactions. 

 © 2018 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Nursing students, Audience response system, Feedback, E-learning

 Article History: Received 2 December 2017, Received in revised form 7 February 2018, Accepted 13 February 2018

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2018.04.008

 Citation:

 Ismaile S and Alhosban F (2018). Students perceptions of audience response system in classroom feedback: A qualitative study. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(4): 67-72

 Permanent Link:

 http://www.science-gate.com/IJAAS/2018/V5I4/Ismaile.html

----------------------------------------------

 References (21)

  1. Abdel ME and Collins M (2017). Students' perceptions of lecturing approaches: Traditional versus interactive teaching. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 8: 229–241. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S131851   [Google Scholar]  PMid:28360541 PMCid:PMC5364003 
  2. Atlantis E and Cheema BS (2015). Effect of audience response system technology on learning outcomes in health students and professionals: An updated systematic review. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(1): 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000035   [Google Scholar] PMid:25734861     
  3. Biggs J and Tang C (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]     
  4. Biggs JB (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. Higher Education Research and Development, 8(1): 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436890080102   [Google Scholar] 
  5. Bove AA (2008). Internet-based medical education. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 51(1): 61-70. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2008.0013   [Google Scholar]  PMid:18192766 
  6. Charlton BG (2006). Lectures are such an effective teaching method because they exploit human evolved human psychology to improve learning. Medical Hypotheses, 67(6): 1261–1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2006.08.001   [Google Scholar]  PMid:16949216 
  7. DeBourgh GA (2008). Use of classroom "clickers" to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills. Nurse Education in Practice, 8(2): 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2007.02.002   [Google Scholar] PMid:18291324     
  8. Egelandsdal K and Krumsvik RJ (2017). Clickers and formative feedback at university lectures. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1): 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9437-x   [Google Scholar] 
  9. Eggert CH, West CP, and Thomas KG (2004). Impact of an audience response system. Medical Education, 38(5): 576-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01889.x   [Google Scholar]  PMid:15107129 
  10. Grzeskowiak LE, Thomas AE, To J, Phillips AJ, and Reeve E (2015). Enhancing education activities for health care trainees and professionals using audience response systems: A systematic review. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 35(4): 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CEH.0000473130.55806.87   [Google Scholar]  PMid:26953857 
  11. Hattie J and Gan M (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In: Mayer RE and Alexander PA (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction: 249-271. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon, UK.   [Google Scholar]     
  12. Hattie J and Timperley H (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1): 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487   [Google Scholar] 
  13. Higgins R, Hartley P, and Skelton A (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1): 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120099368   [Google Scholar] 
  14. Hughes C (2005). Effective feedback, enhanced learning. In the 13th Improving Student Learning Symposium, Centre for Bioscience Bulletin, Andrews, UK.     
  15. Ismaile S, Alhosban F, and Hawamdeh S (2017). Making learning fun to increase nursing students' success: Formative feedback in communication learning. Australian Medical Journal, 10(12):1014-1021. https://doi.org/10.21767/AMJ.2017.3228   [Google Scholar] 
  16. Ko LN, Rana J, and Burgin S (2017). Teaching and learning tips 5: Making lectures more "active". International journal of Dermatology, 57(3): 351-354. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijd.13701   [Google Scholar] PMid:28741651     
  17. Lizzio A, Wilson K, and Simons R (2002). University students' perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1): 27-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120099359   [Google Scholar] 
  18. Marton F, Hounsell DJ, and Entwistle NJ (1984). The experience of learning. Edinburgh. Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, UK.   [Google Scholar] PMCid:PMC1900525     
  19. Meyer JHF (2004). Variation in student learning: an empirical nested model. Centre for Learning, Teaching and Research in Higher Education, University of Durham, Durham, UK.   [Google Scholar]     
  20. Sawdon M (2009). Improving knowledge retention using KEEpad. Medical Education, 43(5): 487-487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03332.x   [Google Scholar]  PMid:19344342 
  21. Shute VJ (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1): 153-189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795   [Google Scholar]