ArticleAEM education and training2021
Comparison of Active Learning Techniques: Audience Response Questions Versus Small Group Discussion on Immediate- and Long-term Knowledge Gain.
Article in AEM education and training, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesActive learning techniques help with motivation, involvement, and retention during didactics. There are few studies comparing different active learning methods, and these have yielded mixed results. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of two active learning methods-small-group discussion and audience response system (ARS)-on immediate- and long-term knowledge gain.
methodsThis was a prospective experimental study of emergency medicine (EM) subinterns and residents. Participants were randomized into two groups, and baseline knowledge was assessed with a multiple-choice pretest. Didactic sessions on salicylate toxicity and ocular trauma were given to both groups utilizing either small-group discussion or ARS. A crossover design was utilized to ensure that both groups received instruction by each method. A multiple-choice posttest was administered following the didactics and again 2 months later. Pre- and posttests were identical. All test items were written by an academic faculty member with advanced training in medical education and item writing and were based on the goals and objectives of the session. Test items were piloted with a reference group of learners. Didactic instructors were blinded to test items. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model.
resultsThirty-eight subinterns and residents participated in the study. Both instructional methods showed immediate- and long-term knowledge gain. The linear mixed-effects model did not demonstrate any significant difference between instructional methods on immediate knowledge gain (mean difference = 0.18, p = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.52 to 0.88) or long-term knowledge gain (mean difference = -0.42, p = 0.36, 95% CI = -1.32 to 0.47).
conclusionIn this small study, there was no significant difference between instructional methods on immediate- and long-term knowledge gain in EM subinterns and residents.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.