IJAR.2023.251
Type of Article: Original Research
Volume 12; Issue 1 (March 2024)
Page No.: 8834-8839
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2023.251
The Use of an Audience Response System in a Dental Gross Anatomy Practical Exam
Maha Ahmad 1, Fadia Hanna 1, Naama Sleiman 1, Douglas A. MacDonald 2.
*1 University of Detroit Mercy, School of Dentistry, 2700 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Detroit, MI 48208-2576.
2 University of Detroit Mercy, College of Liberal Arts and Education, 4001 W. McNichols, Detroit, MI 48221-3038.
ORCiD:
Maha Ahmad: 0000-0001-6960-4388
Naama Sleiman: 0000-0002-0442-8878
Douglas A. MacDonald: 0000-0002-2100-1526
Corresponding Author: Maha Ahmad, Associate Professor, Division of Integrated Biomedical Sciences, University of Detroit Mercy School of Dentistry, 2700 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Detroit, MI 48208-2576, E-Mail: Ahmadmk1@udmercy.edu
ABSTRACT
Background: Traditional methods for administering and scoring gross anatomy practical laboratory examinations are time and resource-intensive and can be susceptible to errors in grading. Alternative approaches, such as audience response systems (e.g., clickers) and computerized scoring, appear to hold promise to improve the examination experience for students and improve the efficiency and accuracy of grading.
Method: To assess perceptions of using such systems, two cohorts of students who completed the gross anatomy practical examination using clicker technology at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Dentistry were invited to complete the survey.
Results: A total of 155 students completed the study. Responses reflect a mostly positive appraisal of the use of clicker technology by most students. In particular, students reported that submitting responses was easier and that the speed of grading and feedback on examination performance improved considerably.
Conclusion: Based on the survey results, the use of audience response systems appears to have more benefits than liabilities and seems to be a worthwhile technology to use for practical laboratory examinations.
Keywords: Gross Anatomy, Practical Examination, Clickers, Audience Response System.
REFERENCES
[1]. Guttmann GD. The current status of the anatomical sciences curriculum in U.S. and Canadian dental schools. J Dent Educ 2003;67(3):375-9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2003.67.3.tb03639.x
PMid:12665069
[2]. Schubert S, Schnabel KP, Winkelmann A. Assessment of spatial anatomical knowledge with a ‘three-dimensional multiple choice test’ (3D-MC). Med Teach 2009;31(1):e13-7.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590802334325
PMid:19253152
[3]. Meyer AJ, Innes SI, Stomski NJ, Armson AJ. Student performance on practical gross anatomy examinations is not affected by assessment modality. Anat Sci Educ 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1037/t56685-000
[4]. Chirculescu A, Chirculescu M, Morris J. Anatomical teaching for medical students from the perspective of European Union enlargement. European Journal of Anatomy 2007;11:63.
[5]. Schoeman S, Chandratilake M. The anatomy competence score: a new marker for anatomical ability. Anat Sci Educ 2012;5(1):33-40.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.263
PMid:22127894
[6]. Daly FJ. Use of electronic anatomy practical examinations for remediating “at risk” students. Anat Sci Educ 2010;3(1):46-9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.120
PMid:19927334
[7]. Inuwa IM, Taranikanti V, Al-Rawahy M, Habbal O. Anatomy practical examinations: how does student performance on computerized evaluation compare with the traditional format?. Anat Sci Educ 2012;5(1):27-32.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.254
PMid:21916021
[8]. Shaibah HS, van der Vleuten CP. The validity of multiple choice practical examinations as an alternative to traditional free response examination formats in gross anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2013;6(3):149-56.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1325
PMid:23109285
[9]. Kreiter CD, Ferguson K, Gruppen LD. Evaluating the usefulness of computerized adaptive testing for medical in-course assessment. Acad Med 1999;74(10):1125-8.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199910000-00016
PMid:10536635
[10]. Ogilvie RW, Trusk TC, Blue AV. Students’ attitudes towards computer testing in a basic science course. Med Educ 1999;33(11):828-31.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00517.x
PMid:10583791
[11]. Zielinska W PW. Experience with the audience response system as a formative assessment tool in first year medical curriculum 2007.
[12]. Alexander CJ, Crescini WM, Juskewitch JE, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Assessing the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ 2009;2(4):160-6.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.99
PMid:19670428 PMCid:PMC2802184
[13]. Leedy PD OJ. Practical research planning and design. 9th ed ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Merrill-Prentice Hall, 2009.
[14]. Chaudhry MA. Assessment of microbiology students’ progress with an audience response system. J Microbiol Biol Educ 2011;12(2):200-1.
https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v12i2.306
PMid:23653765 PMCid:PMC3577263
[15]. FitzPatrick KA, Finn KE, Campisi J. Effect of personal response systems on student perception and academic performance in courses in a health sciences curriculum. Adv Physiol Educ 2011;35(3):280-9.
https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00036.2011
PMid:21908838
[16]. Llena C, Forner L, Cueva R. Student evaluation of clickers in a dental pathology course. J Clin Exp Dent 2015;7(3):e369-73.
https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.52299
PMid:26330932 PMCid:PMC4554235
[17]. Doucet M, Vrins A, Harvey D. Effect of using an audience response system on learning environment, motivation and long-term retention, during case-discussions in a large group of undergraduate veterinary clinical pharmacology students. Med Teach 2009;31(12):e570-9.
https://doi.org/10.3109/01421590903193539
PMid:19995158
[18]. Krippendorf BB, Bolender DL, Kolesari GL. Computerized grading of anatomy laboratory practical examinations. Anat Sci Educ 2008;1(5):220-3.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.46
PMid:19177415
