Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of an online student response system to support learning of Physiology during lectures to medical students

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Online-based response systems are increasingly used as a continuous assessment tool in classroom due to availability and ease of access. The present study aimed to validate the utilisation of online-based exercises for teaching to medical students. For this study, Socrative, a free online platform was used in teaching a physiology component of a second year module. Students’ performance and evaluation of this approach was investigated with regard to participation in the class, understanding of the concepts and performance in the final exam. The performance of the class in multiple choice questions (MCQs) related to Socrative daily activities at the end of module and final exams was greater by some 24% (P < 0.05) compared to performance in questions with no Socrative background exercise. Moreover, the exam performance of students in 2016 after the introduction of Socrative was higher by 14% (P > 0.05) compared to a previous year, 2014 where no Socrative activities were used. The students’ feedback regarding the utilisation of online-based exercises showed ~85% of respondents think that these activities were either ‘very important’ or ‘important’ to enhance their participation in the class and ~88% indicated that it is either ‘very useful’ or ‘useful’ to consolidate their understanding of this module’s material. The findings from this study indicate that the use of online-based exercises through Socrative was positively received by medical students as an interactive classroom activity that also enhanced performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ali, S. H., Carr, P. A., & Ruit, K. G. (2016). Validity and reliability of scores bbtained on Multiple-Choice Questions: Why functioning distractors matter. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Rukban, M. O. (2006). Guidelines for the construction of multiple choice questions tests. Journal of Family and Community Medicine, 13(3), 125–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. (2010). Likert scale examples for surveys. ANR Program evaluation: Iowa State University, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, B. & McCarthy, M. (2015). What does Multiple Intelligences theory and practice have to offer universal design for learning? Available at: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwit9oy19YDTAhVDAcAKHTCLBoUQFggZMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucc.ie%2Fen%2Fmedia%2Facademic%2Fteachingandlearning%2FWhatdoesMultipleIntelligencestheoryandpracticehavetoofferuniversaldesignforlearning.docx&usg=AFQjCNHPbMtr2zZocOkozxtNSZHu0F_CEw.

  • Castleberry, A. N., Schneider, E. F., Carle, M. H., & Stowe, C. D. (2016). Development of a Summative Examination with Subject Matter Expert Validation. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(2), 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coca, D. M., & Slisko, J. (2013). Software Socrative and smartphones as tools for implementation of basic processes of active physics learning in classroom: an initial feasibility study with prospective teachers. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(2), 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossgrove, K., & Curran, K. L. (2007). using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7, 146–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dakka, S. M. (2015). Using socrative to enhance in-class student engagement and collaboration. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 4(3), 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dervan, P. (2014). Enhancing in-class student engagement using socrative (an Online Student Response System): a report. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 6(3), 1801–1813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eijsvogels, T. M. H., van den Brand, T. L., & Hopman, M. T. E. (2013). Multiple choice questions are superior to extended matching questions to identify medicine and biomedical sciences students who perform poorly. Perspectives on Medical Education, 2, 252–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajjar, S., Sharma, R., Kumar, P., & Rana, M. (2014). Item and test analysis to identify quality multiple choice questions (MCQs) from an assessment of medical students of Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 39(1), 17–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulek, J. C., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: the impact of laptop use on student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2).

  • Heelan, A. (2015). Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Implications for Education. Universal Design in Education Conference, Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology.

  • Lasry, N. (2007). Peer instruction: Comparing clickers to flashcards [Online]. Available: Retrieved 2017, from http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702186v1. [Accessed].

  • Latham, A., & Sharon Hill, N. (2013). Preference for anonymous classroom participation: linking student characteristics and reactions to electronic response systems. Journal of Management Education, 38(2), 192–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavin, A. M., Korte, L., & Davies, T. L. (2011). The impact of classroom technology on student behavior. Journal of Technology Research, 2, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefever, R. & Currant, B. (2010). How can technology be used to improve the learner experience at points of transition?, http://technologyenhancedlearning.net/files/2010/04/ELESIGliteraturereviewFINAL240210.pdf.

  • Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGahee, T. W., & Ball, J. (2009). How to read and really use an item analysis. Nurse Educator, 34, 166–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nawalaniec, N. (2015). Socrative (Snowy release). Journal of the Medical Library Association, 103(4), 236–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rae, M. G., & O'Malley, D. (2017). Using an online student response system, Socrative, to facilitate active learning of Physiology by first year graduate entry to medicine students: a feasibility study. MedEdPublish. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2017.000004.

  • Silverthorn, D. U. (2006). Teaching and learning in the interactive classroom. Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 135–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tim Wood, T. & Cole, G. (2001). Developing Multiple Choice Questions for the RCPSC Certification Examinations. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada office of Education.

  • Tretinjak, M. F., Bednjanec, A. & Tretinjak, M. (2015). Interactive teaching with Socrative. 38th International Conventionon Information and Communication Technology Electronics and Microelectronics MIPRO 2015 - Proceedings, 848‑851.

  • Wash, P. D. (2014). Taking advantage of mobile devices: using Socrative in the classroom. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 3(1), 99–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeong, F. M. (2015). Use of constructed-response questions to support learning of cell biology during lectures. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 16(1), 87–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, University College Cork, Western Gateway Building, Cork, Ireland

    Mohammed H. Abdulla

Authors
  1. Mohammed H. Abdulla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammed H. Abdulla.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdulla, M.H. The use of an online student response system to support learning of Physiology during lectures to medical students. Educ Inf Technol 23, 2931–2946 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9752-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9752-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation