Using an ACTIVE teaching format versus a standard lecture format for increasing resident interaction and knowledge achievement during noon conference: a prospective, controlled study

BMC Medical Education

Rosanne Granieri²  Kathryn Berlacher³  Adam P Sawatsky¹ 

[1] Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, USA;Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;Division of Cardiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

关键词: Lecture;    Active teaching;    Conference;    Graduate medical education;    Medical education;   

Others  :  866339
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-129

 received in 2014-02-06, accepted in 2014-06-26,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The traditional lecture is used by many residency programs to fulfill the mandate for regular didactic sessions, despite limited evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness. Active teaching strategies have shown promise in improving medical knowledge but have been challenging to implement within the constraints of residency training. We developed and evaluated an innovative structured format for interactive teaching within the residency noon conference.

Methods

We developed an ACTIVE teaching format structured around the following steps: assemble (A) into groups, convey (C) learning objectives, teach (T) background information, inquire (I) through cases and questions, verify (V) understanding, and explain (E) answer choices and educate on the learning points. We conducted a prospective, controlled study of the ACTIVE teaching format versus the standard lecture format, comparing resident satisfaction, immediate knowledge achievement and long-term knowledge retention. We qualitatively assessed participating faculty members’ perspectives on the faculty development efforts and the feasibility of teaching using the ACTIVE format.

Results

Sixty-nine internal medicine residents participated in the study. Overall, there was an improvement in perceived engagement using the ACTIVE teaching format (4.78 vs. 3.80, P < 0.01), with no increase in stress or decrement in break time. There was an improvement in initial knowledge achievement with the ACTIVE teaching format (overall absolute score increase of 11%, P = 0.04) and a trend toward improvement in long-term knowledge retention. Faculty members felt adequately prepared to use the ACTIVE teaching format, and enjoyed teaching with the ACTIVE teaching format more than the standard lecture.

Conclusions

A structured ACTIVE teaching format improved resident engagement and initial knowledge, and required minimal resources. The ACTIVE teaching format offers an exciting alternative to the standard lecture for resident noon conference and is easy to implement.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Sawatsky et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education: The Next Accreditation System: Milestones. http://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/tabid/430/ProgramandInstitutionalAccreditation/NextAccreditationSystem/Milestones.aspx webcite
• [2]Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education: Common Program Requirements. http://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRs2013.pdf webcite
• [3]Hill SJ, Butler DJ, Guse C: Conference formats in family practice residencies. Fam Med 2000, 32(6):417-21.
• [4]Picciano A, Winter R, Ballan D, Birnberg B, Jacks M, Laing E: Resident acquisition of knowledge during a noontime conference series. Fam Med 2003, 35(6):418-22.
• [5]Warner S, Williams DE, Lukman R, Powell CC 2nd, Kundinger K: Classroom lectures do not influence family practice residents’ learning. Acad Med 1998, 73(3):347-8.
• [6]Zoorob RJ, Mainous AG 3rd, Neill RA, Matheny SC: Teaching conferences in family practice residencies. Acad Med 1996, 71(10):1026.
• [7]Gene Hern H Jr, Wills C, Alter H, Bowman SH, Katz E, Shayne P, Vahidnia F: Conference attendance does not correlate with emergency medicine residency in-training examination scores. Acad Emerg Med 2009, 16(Suppl 2):S63-6.
• [8]Cacamese SM, Eubank KJ, Hebert RS, Wright SM: Conference attendance and performance on the in-training examination in internal medicine. Med Teach 2004, 26(7):640-4.
• [9]FitzGerald JD, Wenger NS: Didactic teaching conferences for IM residents: who attends, and is attendance related to medical certifying examination scores? Acad Med 2003, 78(1):84-9.
• [10]Shetler PL: Observations on the American Board of Surgery in-training examination, board results, and conference attendance. Am J Surg 1982, 144:292-4.
• [11]McDonald FS, Zeger SL, Kolars JC: Associations of conference attendance with internal medicine in-training exam scores. Mayo Clin Proc 2008, 83(4):449-53.
• [12]Sawatsky AP, Zickmund S, Berlacher K, Lesky D, Granieri R: Understanding resident learning preferences within an internal medicine noon conference lecture series: a qualitative study. J Grad Med Educ 2014, 6(1):32-8.
• [13]Davis D, Davis N: Selecting educational interventions for knowledge translation. CMAJ 2010, 182(2):E89-E93.
• [14]Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR (Eds): How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 2000.
• [15]Thomas KG, Thomas MR, York EB, Dupras DM, Schultz HJ, Kolars JC: Teaching evidence-based medicine to internal medicine residents: the efficacy of conferences versus small-group discussion. Teach Learn Med 2005, 17(2):130-5.
• [16]Ozuah PO, Curtis J, Stein RE: Impact of problem-based learning on residents’ self-directed learning. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001, 155(6):669-72.
• [17]Shellenberger S, Seale JP, Harris DL, Johnson JA, Dodrill CL, Velasquez MM: Applying team-based learning in primary care residency programs to increase patient alcohol screenings and brief interventions. Acad Med 2009, 84(3):340-6.
• [18]Bataldan MK, Warm EJ, Lgio LS: Beyond a curricular design of convenience: replacing the noon conference with an academic half day in three internal medicine residency programs. Acad Med 2013, 88:644-51.
• [19]Duggan PM, Palmer E, Devitt P: Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: a randomised trial. BMC Med Educ 2007, 7:25.
• [20]Schackow TE, Chavez M, Loya L, Friedman M: Audience response system: effect on learning in family medicine residents. Fam Med 2004, 36(7):496-504.
• [21]Ramoska EA, Saks M: Implementation of an audience response system improves residents’ attitudes toward required weekly conference. Med Teach 2011, 33(10):861.
• [22]Tregonning AM, Doherty DA, Hornbuckle J, Dickinson JE: The audience response system and knowledge gain: a prospective study. Med Teach 2012, 34(4):e269-74.
• [23]Kung JW, Slanetz PJ, Chen PH, Lee KS, Donohoe K, Eisenberg RL: Resident and attending physician attitudes regarding an audience response system. J Am Coll Radiol 2012, 9(11):828-31.
• [24]Stoddard HA, Piquette CA: A controlled study of improvements in student exam performance with the use of an audience response system during medical school lectures. Acad Med 2010, 85(Suppl 10):S37-40.