In-Course Evaluation via Mobile Device Audience Response System –a Pilot Project in Postgraduate Medical Education at a University Children’s Hospital
Abstract
Background : Evaluation is a crucial quality improvement tool in medical education. Several factors might have hampered implementation of routine evaluation into postgraduate teaching lectures: lack of urgency, low value of feedback in general, and lack of time. Accrediting bodies will require evaluation in the near fut ure. We aimed to implement an innovative in - course evaluation via mobile device (MD).
Summary of Work: Our prerequisite criteria for innovative evaluation were: evaluation should i) be anonymous and ii) available on - site in different lecture rooms; iii) take less than five minutes to complete the questions; iv) costs, as well as preparation and analysis of evaluations should be manageable and time - efficient, and v) it should allow for immediate feedback to the lecturer. We chose the gratis mQlicker web - ba sed MD (smart phone, tablet, laptop) audience response system (ARS) for our pilot project.
Summary of Results: During the ongoing pilot project, six lectures by different lecturers were voluntarily evaluated via MD - ARS. A total of 107 evaluations containi ng 8 - 14 questions each were completed. Creation and analysis of different question types (check box, numbers, free text) was time - efficient and user - friendly. Anonymous log - in and completion of evaluation was easy but limited by availability (28 - 66%) and t ype of attendees’ MDs. Response rates were 70 - 100% of attendees with MD. Attendees’ satisfaction was high with 72% wanting to continue this new in - course evaluation. Immediate confidential one - to - one feedback with graphs and tables was appreciated by the lecturers.
Discussion : In - course evaluation was feasible via MD - ARS. Limitations applied to availability and type of MD. Only short questions can be read on the MD screen. Increased MD - ARS evaluation rates could be reached by officially asking people to br ing MDs and participate in the evaluation.
Conclusion : Innovative in - course evaluation using MD - ARS was feasible in our setting. New technologies can help implementing evaluation without time - consuming aftermath.
Take Home Messages: ARS via MD can be ada pted to suit in - course evaluation.
Summary of Work: Our prerequisite criteria for innovative evaluation were: evaluation should i) be anonymous and ii) available on - site in different lecture rooms; iii) take less than five minutes to complete the questions; iv) costs, as well as preparation and analysis of evaluations should be manageable and time - efficient, and v) it should allow for immediate feedback to the lecturer. We chose the gratis mQlicker web - ba sed MD (smart phone, tablet, laptop) audience response system (ARS) for our pilot project.
Summary of Results: During the ongoing pilot project, six lectures by different lecturers were voluntarily evaluated via MD - ARS. A total of 107 evaluations containi ng 8 - 14 questions each were completed. Creation and analysis of different question types (check box, numbers, free text) was time - efficient and user - friendly. Anonymous log - in and completion of evaluation was easy but limited by availability (28 - 66%) and t ype of attendees’ MDs. Response rates were 70 - 100% of attendees with MD. Attendees’ satisfaction was high with 72% wanting to continue this new in - course evaluation. Immediate confidential one - to - one feedback with graphs and tables was appreciated by the lecturers.
Discussion : In - course evaluation was feasible via MD - ARS. Limitations applied to availability and type of MD. Only short questions can be read on the MD screen. Increased MD - ARS evaluation rates could be reached by officially asking people to br ing MDs and participate in the evaluation.
Conclusion : Innovative in - course evaluation using MD - ARS was feasible in our setting. New technologies can help implementing evaluation without time - consuming aftermath.
Take Home Messages: ARS via MD can be ada pted to suit in - course evaluation.
Date Issued
2016
Publication Type
Conference Item
Subject(s)
Language(s)
en
Additional Credits
Title of Event
Access(Rights)
metadata.only