The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 21
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Audience response systems (ARS) represent one approach to make classroom learning more active. Although ARS may have pedagogical value, their impact is still unclear. This systematic review aims to examine the effect of ARS on learning outcomes in health professions education. METHODS: After a comprehensive literature search, two reviewers completed title screening, full-text review and quality assessment of comparative studies in health professions education. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis of immediate and longer term knowledge scores were conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 1013 titles were included. Most studies evaluated ARS in lectures (20 studies) and in undergraduates (14 studies). Fourteen studies reported statistically significant improvement in knowledge scores with ARS. Meta-analysis showed greater differences with non-randomised study design. Qualitative synthesis showed greater differences with non-interactive teaching comparators and in postgraduates. Six of 21 studies reported student reaction; 5 favoured ARS while 1 had mixed results. CONCLUSION: This review provides some evidence to suggest the effectiveness of ARS in improving learning outcomes. These findings are more striking when ARS teaching is compared to non-interactive sessions and when non-randomised study designs are used. This review highlights the importance of having high quality studies with balanced comparators available to those making curricular decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.101 | 0.294 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it