Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2018
  • Online publication date: April 2018

15 - The Interactive Classroom

1.Michael, J.. Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Adv Physiol Leduc 2006; 30: 159–67.
2.Knight, J. K., Wood, W. B.. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education 2005; 4: 298310.
3.National Research Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999.
4.Wilke, R. R.. The effect of active learning on student characteristics in a human physiology course for nonmajors. Advances in Physiology Education 2003; 27: 207–23.
5.History.com Staff. History in the Headlines: A Taste of Lobster History. 2011. www.history.com/news/a-taste-of-lobster-history (accessed November 15, 2017).
6.Evans, K. H., Ozdalga, E., Ahuja, N.. The medical education of generation Y. Acad Psychiatry 2016; 40: 382–5.
7.LaBan, M. M.. A late Y2K Phenomenon: Responding to the learning preferences of generation Y – bridging the digital divide by improving generational dialogue. PMR 2013; 5: 596601.
8.Gleason, B. L., Peeters, M. J., Resman-Targoff, B. H. et al. An active-learning strategies primer for achieving ability-based educational outcomes. Am J Pharm Educ 2011; 75: 186.
9.Thistlethwaite, J. E., Davies, D., Ekeocha, S. et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. Med Teach 2012; 34: e421–44.
10.Jones, R. W.. Problem-based learning: description, advantages, disadvantages, scenarios and facilitation. Anaesth Intensive Care 2006; 34: 485–8.
11.Onyon, C.. Problem-based learning: A review of the educational and psychological theory. Clin Teach 2012; 9: 22–6.
12.Rosenblatt, M. A.. The educational effectiveness of problem-based learning discussions as evaluated by learner-assessed satisfaction and practice change. J Clin Anesth 2004; 16: 596601.
13.Al-azri, H., Ratnapalan, S.. Problem-based learning in continuing medical education: Review of randomized controlled studies. Can Fam Physician 2014; 60: 157–65.
14.Carrero, E., Gomar, C., Penzo, W., Rull, M.. Comparison between lecture-based approach and case/problem-based learning discussion for teaching preanaesthetic assessment. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2007; 24: 1008–15.
15.Colliver, J. A.. Effectiveness of PBL curricula. Med Educ 2000; 34: 959–60.
16.Rajan, S., Khanna, A., Argalious, M. et al. Comparison of two resident learning tools-interactive screen-based simulated case scenarios versus problem-based learning discussions: A prospective quasi-crossover study. J Clin Anesth 2016; 28: 411.
17.Sakai, T., Karausky, P. L., Valenti, S. L. et al. Use of a problem-based learning discussion format to teach anesthesiology residents research fundamentals. J Clin Anesth 2013; 25: 434–8.
18.Korin, T., Thode, J. B., Kakar, S., Blatt, B.. Caffeinating the PBL return session: Curriculum innovations to engage students at two medical schools. Acad Med 2014; 89: 1452–7.
19.Wong, T. H., Ip, E. P., Lopes, I., Rajagopalan, V.. Pharmacy students’ performance and perceptions in a flipped teaching pilot on cardiac arrhythmias. Am J Pharm Educ 2014; 78: 185
20.McLaughlin, J. E., Rhoney, D. H.. Comparison of an interactive e-learning preparatory tool and a conventional downloadable handout used within a flipped neurologic pharmacotherapy lecture. Curr Pharm Teach Learn 2015; 7: 12–9
21.Pierce, R., Fox, J.. Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. Am J Pharm Educ 2012; 76: 196
22.Chen, F., Lui, M. A., Martinelli, S. M.. A systematic review of the effectiveness of flipped classroom in medical education. Med Educ 2017; 51(6): 565670.
23.Martinelli, S. M., Chen, F., DiLorenzo, A. N., et al. Results of a flipped classroom teaching approach in anesthesiology residents. J Grad Med Educ 2017 Aug; 9(4): 485–90.
24.Morton, D. A., Colbert-Getz, J. M.. Measuring the impact of the flipped anatomy classroom: The importance of categorizing an assessment by Bloom’s taxonomy. Anat Sci Educ 2017; 10: 170–5.
25.McLaughlin, J. E., Griffin, L. M., Esserman, D. et al. Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. Am J Pharm Educ 2013; 77: 196.
26.McLaughlin, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M. et al. The flipped classroom: A course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Acad Med 2014; 89: 236–43.
27.Critz, C. M., Knight, D.. Using the flipped classroom in graduate nursing education. Nurse Educ 2013; 38: 210–13.
28.Kapp, K. M.. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2012.
29.Yunyongying, P.. Gamification: Implications for curricular design. J Grad Med Educ 2014; 6: 410–12.
30.Akl, E. A., Pretorius, R. W., Sackett, K. et al. The effect of educational games on medical students’ learning outcomes: A systematic review: BEME Guide No 14. Med Teach 2010; 32: 1627.
31.Shiroma, P. R., Massa, A. A., Alarcon, R. D.. Using game format to teach psychopharmacology to medical students. Med Teach 2011; 33: 156–60.
32.O’Leary, S., Diepenhorst, L., Churley-Storm, R., Magrane, D.. Educational games in an obstetrics and gynecology core curriculum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1848–51.
33.Telnar, D., Bujas-Bobanovic, M., Chan, D. et al. Gabe-based versus traditional case-based learning: Comparing effectiveness in stroke continuing medical education. Can Fam Physician 2010; 56: e345–51.
34.Akl, E. A., Kairouz, V. F., Sackett, K. M. et al. Educational games for health professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 28: CD006411.
35.Bene, K. L., Bergus, G.. When learners become teachers: A review of peer teaching in medical student education. Fam Med 2014; 46: 783–7.
36.Soriano, R. P., Blatt, B., Copit, L. et al. Teaching medical students how to teach: A national survey of students-as-teachers programs in US medical schools. Acad Med 2010; 11: 1725–31.
37.Gregory, A., Walker, I., Mclaughlin, K. et al. Both preparing to teach and teaching positively impact learning outcomes for peer teachers. Med Teach 2011; 33: e417–22.
38.Nestel, D., Kidd, J.. Peer assisted learning in patient-centered interviewing: The impact on student tutors. Med Teach 2005; 27: 439–44.
39.Kibble, J. D., Bellew, C., Asmar, A. et al. Team-based learning in large enrollment classes. Adv Physiol Educ 2016; 40: 435–42.
40.Thompson, B. M., Schneider, V. F., Haidet, P. et al. Team-based learning at ten medical schools: Two years later. Med Educ 2007; 41: 250–7.
41.Koles, P., Nelson, S., Stolfi, A. et al. Active learning in a year 2 pathology curriculum. Med Educ 2005; 39: 1045–55.
42.Koles, P. G., Stolfi, A., Borges, N. J. et al. The impact of team-based learning on medical students’ academic performance. Acad Med 2010; 85: 1739–45.
43.Anwas, K., Shaikh, A. A., Sajid, M. R. et al. Tackling student neurophobia in neurosciences with team-based learning. Med Educ Online 2015; 20: 28461
44.Haidet, P., O’Malley, K. J., Richards, B.. An initial experience with “Team Learning” in medical education. Acad Med 2002; 77: 40–4.
45.Fatmi, M., Hartling, L., Hillier, T. et al. The effectiveness of team-based learning on learning outcomes in health professions education: BEME Guide No. 30. Med Teach 2013; 35: e1608–24.
46.Parmlee, D., Michaelsen, L. K., Cook, S. et al. Team-based learning: A practical guide: AMEE guide no 65. Med Teach 2012; 34: e275–87.
47.Kaddoura, M.. Think pair share: A teaching learning strategy to enhances students’ critical thinking. Educ Res Quart 2013; 36: 324.
48.Slone, N. C., Mitchell, N. G.. Technology-based adaptation of think-pair-share utilizing Google drive. JoTLT 2014; 3: 102–4.
49.Prahl, K.. Best practices for think-pair-share active-learning technique. Am Bio Teach 2017; 79: 38.
50.Nestrel, D., Tierney, T.. Role-play for medical students learning about communication: Guidelines for maximizing benefits. BMC Med Educ 2007; 7: 3.
51.Baile, W. F., Blatner, A.. Teaching commination skills: Using action methods to enhance role-play in problem-based learning. Simul Healthc 2014; 9: 220–7.
52.Bosse, H. M., Schultz, J. H., Nickel, M. et al. The effect of using standardized patients or peer role play on ratings of undergraduate communication training: A randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 87: 300–6.
53.Bosse, H. M., Nickel, M., Huwendiek, S. et al. Cost-effectiveness of peer role play and standardized patients in undergraduate communication training. BMC Med Educ 2015; 15: 183–8.
54.Skye, E. P., Wagenschutz, H., Steiger, J. A, Kumagai, A. K.. Use of interactive theater and role play to develop medical students’ skills in breaking bad news. J Cancer Educ 2014; 29: 704–8.
55.Stobbs, N.. Role-play without humiliation: Is it possible. Clin Teach 2015; 12: 128–30.
56.Lane, C., Rollnick, S.. The use of simulated patients and role-play in communication skills training: A review of the literature to August 2005. Med Educ 2008; 42: 637–44.
57.Bylund, C. L., Brown, R. F., di Ciccone, B. L. et al. Training faculty to facilitate communication skills training: Development and evaluation of a workshop. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 70: 430–6.
58.Mayer, R. E.. Introduction to multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E., ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005; 116.
59.Meltzer, D. E., Manivannan, K.. Transforming the lecture hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture. Am J Phys 2002; 70: 639–54.
60.Greer, L., Heaney, P. J.. Real-time analysis of student comprehension: An assessment of electronic student response technology in an introductory earth science course. J Geosci Educ 2004; 52: 345–51.
61.Felix, S., Bode, N., Straub, C. et al. Audience-response systems for evaluation of pediatric lectures – comparison with a classic end-of-term online-based evaluation. GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung 2015; 32(2): 18603572.
62.Stoneking, L. R., Grall, K. H., Min, A. et al. Role of an audience response system in didactic attendance and assessment. J Grad Med Educ 2014; 6: 335–7.
63.Clauson, K. A., Alkhateeb, F. M., Sing-Franco, D.. Concurrent use of an audience response system at a multi-campus college of pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ 2012; 76: Article 6.
64.DiVall, M. V., Hayney, M. S., March, W. et al. Perceptions of pharmacy students, faculty members, and administrator on the use of technology in the classroom. Am J Pharm Educ 2013; 77: Article 48.
65.Cain, J., Black, E. P., Rohr, J.. An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. Am J Pharm Educ 2009; 73: Article 21.
66.Llena, C., Forner, L., Cueva, R.. Student evaluations of clickers in a dental pathology course. J Clin Exp Dent 2015; 7: e369–73.
67.Rahman, A., Jacker-Guhr, S., Staufenbiel, I. et al. Use of elaborate feedback and an audience-response-system in dental education. GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung 2013; 30(3): 18603572.
68.Draper, S. W., Brown, M. I.. Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. JCAL 2004; 20: 8194.
69.Alexander, C. J., Cerscini, W. M., Juskewitch, J. E. et al. Assess the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ 2009; 2: 160–6.
70.Uhari, M., Renko, M., Soini, H.. Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Med Educ 2003; 17: 12.
71.Hasan, R., Fry, J., DeToledo, J. et al. Effectiveness of pairing weekly reading assignments and quiz with audience response system for neurology resident learning (P1.315). Neurology 2014; 82 (Suppl. 10): P1.315. www.neurology.org/content/82/10_Supplement/P1.315 (accessed November 15, 2017).
72.Slain, D., Abate, M., Hodges, B. M. et al. An interactive response system to promote active learning in the doctor of pharmacy curriculum. Am J Pharm Educ 2004; 68: 19.
73.Robson, N., Popat, H., Richmond, S. et al. Effectiveness of an audience response system on orthodontic knowledge retention of undergraduate dental students. J Orthod 2015; 42: 307–14.
74.Duggan, P. M., Palmer, E., Devitt, P.. Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: A randomized trial. BMC Med Educ 2007; 7: 25.
75.Hettinger, A., Spurgeon, J., El-Mallakh, R. et al. Using audience response system technology and PRITE questions to improve psychiatric residents’ medical knowledge. Acad Psychiatry 2014; 38: 205–8.
76.Shackow, T. E., Chavez, M., Loya, L. et al. Audience response system: Effect on learning in family medicine residents. Fam Med 2004; 36: 496504.
77.Pradhan, A., Sparano, D., Ananth, C. V.. The influence of an audience response system on knowledge retention. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1827–30.
78.Caldwell, J. E.. Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sci Educ 2007; 6: 920.