Journal article
Audience-response systems for evaluation of pediatric lectures--comparison with a classic end-of-term online-based evaluation.
- Bode SF Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Zentrum für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin, Freiburg, Germany.
- Straub C Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Zentrum für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin, Freiburg, Germany.
- Giesler M Universität Freiburg, Kompetenzzentrum Evaluation Baden-Württemberg, Freiburg, Germany.
- Biller S Universität Basel, Medizinische Fakultät, Studiendekanat, Basel, Switzerland.
- Forster J St. Josefskrankenhaus, Freiburg, Germany.
- Krüger M Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Zentrum für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin, Freiburg, Germany.
- 2015-06-04
Published in:
- GMS Zeitschrift fur medizinische Ausbildung. - 2015
ARS
Audience Response System
Evaluation
Lecture
Pediatrics
Attitude of Health Personnel
Computers, Handheld
Curriculum
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Feedback
Germany
Humans
Mathematical Computing
Pediatrics
Software
Students, Medical
Surveys and Questionnaires
English
AIM
Course evaluations are often conducted and analyzed well after the course has taken place. By using a digital audience response system (ARS), it is possible to collect, view and discuss feedback during or directly following a course or lecture session. This paper analyzes a student evaluation of a lecture course with ARS to determine if significant differences exist between the results of the ARS lecture evaluation and those of the online evaluation at the end of the semester. In terms of the overall evaluation, consideration is given to the level of students' prior knowledge, the presentation of the lecture material by the lecturers and the relevance of the lecture topic for students.
METHOD
During the 2011-12 winter semester, the lecture on Pediatrics at the Freiburg Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine (Zentrum für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin (ZKJ) Freiburg) was evaluated using ARS. Thirty-four lectures were evaluated by an average of 22 (range 8-44) students, who responded to four questions each time an evaluation took place.
RESULTS
On a 6-point Likert scale (1=very good to 6=deficient), the students rated their level of preparedness with a mean of 3.18, the presentation of the lecture with 2.44, and the relevance of the lecture topic with 2.19. The overall evaluation of the lecture course by means of ARS resulted in 2.31. The online evaluation conducted at the end of the semester yielded a score of 2.45. Highly significant correlations were seen between the results of the ARS for the overall evaluation, assessment of prior knowledge, lecture presentation, and the estimated relevance of the lecture topic.
CONCLUSION
The use of ARS is suitable for immediate evaluation of lectures, in particular regarding timely feedback for the individual lecturer/lecturers. In comparison with an end-of-term evaluation, ARS yielded a better assessment.
Course evaluations are often conducted and analyzed well after the course has taken place. By using a digital audience response system (ARS), it is possible to collect, view and discuss feedback during or directly following a course or lecture session. This paper analyzes a student evaluation of a lecture course with ARS to determine if significant differences exist between the results of the ARS lecture evaluation and those of the online evaluation at the end of the semester. In terms of the overall evaluation, consideration is given to the level of students' prior knowledge, the presentation of the lecture material by the lecturers and the relevance of the lecture topic for students.
METHOD
During the 2011-12 winter semester, the lecture on Pediatrics at the Freiburg Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine (Zentrum für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin (ZKJ) Freiburg) was evaluated using ARS. Thirty-four lectures were evaluated by an average of 22 (range 8-44) students, who responded to four questions each time an evaluation took place.
RESULTS
On a 6-point Likert scale (1=very good to 6=deficient), the students rated their level of preparedness with a mean of 3.18, the presentation of the lecture with 2.44, and the relevance of the lecture topic with 2.19. The overall evaluation of the lecture course by means of ARS resulted in 2.31. The online evaluation conducted at the end of the semester yielded a score of 2.45. Highly significant correlations were seen between the results of the ARS for the overall evaluation, assessment of prior knowledge, lecture presentation, and the estimated relevance of the lecture topic.
CONCLUSION
The use of ARS is suitable for immediate evaluation of lectures, in particular regarding timely feedback for the individual lecturer/lecturers. In comparison with an end-of-term evaluation, ARS yielded a better assessment.
- Language
-
- English
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.3205/zma000960
- PMID 26038683
- Persistent URL
- https://folia.unifr.ch/global/documents/159936
Statistics
Document views: 10
File downloads: