让我们活跃起来:利用技术增强观众互动,促进主动学习

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AEM Education and Training Pub Date : 2024-05-19 DOI:10.1002/aet2.10950
Simanjit K. Mand MD, Stephen J. Cico MD, Med, Mary R. C. Haas MD, MHPE, Nicole E. Schnabel MD, Benjamin H. Schnapp MD, MEd
{"title":"让我们活跃起来:利用技术增强观众互动,促进主动学习","authors":"Simanjit K. Mand MD,&nbsp;Stephen J. Cico MD, Med,&nbsp;Mary R. C. Haas MD, MHPE,&nbsp;Nicole E. Schnabel MD,&nbsp;Benjamin H. Schnapp MD, MEd","doi":"10.1002/aet2.10950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Active learning, the process of engaging learners to partake in their education through participation and discussion, has gained significant traction in medical education over the past decade.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Active learning methods enhance audience attentiveness and overall educational enjoyment.<span><sup>2-4</sup></span> Recent literature also highlights enhanced knowledge acquisition and retention with active learning approaches compared to passive learning methods, indicating both immediate and potential long-term benefits.<span><sup>2, 3, 5-10</sup></span></p><p>Active learning, however, has potential drawbacks. Within large group settings, it can inadvertently lead to learners feeling anxious, ashamed, or inadequate compared to their peers if it exposes knowledge gaps. This can hinder their ability to engage fully in the learning process.<span><sup>11, 12</sup></span> It remains necessary to ensure learners are provided with psychological safety to concentrate solely on the learning task at hand without the risk of feeling self-conscious among their peers.<span><sup>13</sup></span></p><p>Technology-enhanced audience interaction offers the advantage of promoting active learning while still ensuring psychological safety for learners. These platforms enable participation with the option of anonymity, addressing learner concerns about potential negative exposure to knowledge deficits and creating a supportive learning environment by encouraging participation by all.<span><sup>4</sup></span> The versatility and diversity of options for engagement can allow for easy integration into a variety of existing educational resources. While technology-enhanced audience interaction can be used in a variety of educational environments and situations, here we explore key considerations for use in large group settings.</p><p>Technology-enhanced audience interaction can be accomplished using a variety of different software programs; factors related to the presentation content, targeted learners, software characteristics, and learning environment may influence the optimal software choice for a given learning activity. Software selection will first depend on the objectives of the presentation and intended level of learner participation. Presenters may wish to use certain software to gamify content (e.g., multiple-choice questions, polls) to assess learner recall and retention of subject matter while encouraging friendly competition to maintain attention. Others may wish to use software to perform a real-time needs assessment of their audience to tailor education delivery; presenters can ask learners questions and, based on accuracy of responses, focus subsequent teaching material on topics which the learners have not yet mastered. Even further, a presenter may want to choose software that offers whiteboards to facilitate discussion-based sessions and collaborative knowledge building in environments such as a flipped-classroom.</p><p>While certain learning environments may benefit from presenters being able to clearly identify participants, such as situations needing individual assessment and feedback, others may offer anonymity while still allowing audience members to complete self-assessments. In presentations involving large groups, such as national conferences or Grand Rounds presentations, or settings with less familiarity among the presenter and learner audience, anonymity can allow for greater audience participation. Furthermore, in sessions meant to engage students or trainees, or presentations covering sensitive subject matter, anonymity may enhance psychological safety for both audience responses and questions to promote a safe learning environment. Anonymous formats may also provide a medium for presenters to receive honest learner input or feedback.</p><p>Once the intent of software use has been established, software-specific factors such as integrability, ease of use, and data analysis capability are several characteristics for a presenter to consider. The amount of time required to incorporate the software into their learning plan is one primary factor that may impact choice. Several software programs offer premade graphics and templates that enhance efficiency (e.g., Mentimeter, Padlet, Slido), while others have fewer templates that may appeal to those who wish to exercise their creativity or use a more individualized format. Software programs also vary in their interface for participants; some software options utilize a unique code with which participants can easily join from their personal device, while others require the download of an application or a tedious sign-up and log-in process. Lastly, the option to obtain summative reports from the presentation for further use may also impact which software program is selected (see Table 1 for a comparison of features for various software platforms).</p><p>Presenters must now also consider if the presentation will take an in-person, virtual, or hybrid format. Most software programs were developed to create an interactive and engaging in-person experience, but several (e.g., Slido and PollEverywhere) are specifically marketed for their ability to incorporate easily into common virtual conferencing software programs. Other applications, such as Zoom, offer the ability to do audience polling and collaboration within the software program itself.</p><p>Technology-enhanced audience interaction can present challenges. First, technology can prove to be a distraction to learning. Learners will often send text messages, make calls, or do other activities on mobile devices during the time they are supposed to be learning.<span><sup>14</sup></span> Second, there is always a risk for technology failure. This is particularly salient in large group or high-stakes settings, such as presentations at national conferences or Grand Rounds. In unfamiliar locations, Wi-Fi connections can be slow (e.g., public connections) and inconsistent, and sometimes certain types of domains are blocked or inaccessible.<span><sup>15</sup></span> When at all possible, testing of technology should be completed before the presentation. Lastly, presenters must consider not only the extra time that can be required to reformat entire presentations, courses, or curricula to accommodate technology-enhanced audience interaction, which may be in short supply in a busy academic practice, but also the amount of time required for audience members to log into or access the software platform during the learning activity.</p><p>An additional consideration for incorporating technology-enhanced audience interaction is the cost for a subscription. Though most of the resources listed in Table 1 have free tiers, often those “free” or “trial” accounts come with limitations in use (see Table 1, Free Account Features column). These can include limiting the number of responses or participants, limits to the number of questions that can be asked, or limitations on the types or ways of presenting data. Some institutions and departments may have subscriptions to one or more platforms, but others do not. It can be a lengthy process to get approval to access these software programs and obtain subscriptions or available funds may be unable to be used to purchase licenses.<span><sup>16</sup></span></p><p>Lastly, technology is ever-changing; upgraded features become available for existing software platforms in addition to novel applications released on a seemingly daily basis. There is also risk for the migration or loss of familiar resources; Jamboard, currently available through Google, will no longer be accessible after October 2024. This endless evolvement of resources requires presenters to maintain familiarity with existing software platforms and have a pulse on up-and-coming resources that may better suit their needs. Because of the potential drawbacks of technology-enhanced audience interaction, it is always worth considering whether a technological solution is the best one to create a safe, effective active learning environment for your learning activity or whether low or no technology solutions may be equally or more effective.</p><p>\n \n </p><p>Technology-enhanced audience interaction can offer a way to create additional active learning opportunities for your presentation while protecting the psychological safety of your learners. While technology offers the promise of exciting and novel ways for creating this environment, it is not the only way to do so and can have potential downsides. The presenter should carefully consider whether an audience response software is a good fit for the targeted audience, content, and environment.</p><p>All authors contributed to the study concept and design, drafting of the manuscript, critical and revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aet2.10950","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Let's get active: The use of technology-enhanced audience interaction to promote active learning\",\"authors\":\"Simanjit K. Mand MD,&nbsp;Stephen J. Cico MD, Med,&nbsp;Mary R. C. Haas MD, MHPE,&nbsp;Nicole E. Schnabel MD,&nbsp;Benjamin H. Schnapp MD, MEd\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/aet2.10950\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Active learning, the process of engaging learners to partake in their education through participation and discussion, has gained significant traction in medical education over the past decade.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Active learning methods enhance audience attentiveness and overall educational enjoyment.<span><sup>2-4</sup></span> Recent literature also highlights enhanced knowledge acquisition and retention with active learning approaches compared to passive learning methods, indicating both immediate and potential long-term benefits.<span><sup>2, 3, 5-10</sup></span></p><p>Active learning, however, has potential drawbacks. Within large group settings, it can inadvertently lead to learners feeling anxious, ashamed, or inadequate compared to their peers if it exposes knowledge gaps. This can hinder their ability to engage fully in the learning process.<span><sup>11, 12</sup></span> It remains necessary to ensure learners are provided with psychological safety to concentrate solely on the learning task at hand without the risk of feeling self-conscious among their peers.<span><sup>13</sup></span></p><p>Technology-enhanced audience interaction offers the advantage of promoting active learning while still ensuring psychological safety for learners. These platforms enable participation with the option of anonymity, addressing learner concerns about potential negative exposure to knowledge deficits and creating a supportive learning environment by encouraging participation by all.<span><sup>4</sup></span> The versatility and diversity of options for engagement can allow for easy integration into a variety of existing educational resources. While technology-enhanced audience interaction can be used in a variety of educational environments and situations, here we explore key considerations for use in large group settings.</p><p>Technology-enhanced audience interaction can be accomplished using a variety of different software programs; factors related to the presentation content, targeted learners, software characteristics, and learning environment may influence the optimal software choice for a given learning activity. Software selection will first depend on the objectives of the presentation and intended level of learner participation. Presenters may wish to use certain software to gamify content (e.g., multiple-choice questions, polls) to assess learner recall and retention of subject matter while encouraging friendly competition to maintain attention. Others may wish to use software to perform a real-time needs assessment of their audience to tailor education delivery; presenters can ask learners questions and, based on accuracy of responses, focus subsequent teaching material on topics which the learners have not yet mastered. Even further, a presenter may want to choose software that offers whiteboards to facilitate discussion-based sessions and collaborative knowledge building in environments such as a flipped-classroom.</p><p>While certain learning environments may benefit from presenters being able to clearly identify participants, such as situations needing individual assessment and feedback, others may offer anonymity while still allowing audience members to complete self-assessments. In presentations involving large groups, such as national conferences or Grand Rounds presentations, or settings with less familiarity among the presenter and learner audience, anonymity can allow for greater audience participation. Furthermore, in sessions meant to engage students or trainees, or presentations covering sensitive subject matter, anonymity may enhance psychological safety for both audience responses and questions to promote a safe learning environment. Anonymous formats may also provide a medium for presenters to receive honest learner input or feedback.</p><p>Once the intent of software use has been established, software-specific factors such as integrability, ease of use, and data analysis capability are several characteristics for a presenter to consider. The amount of time required to incorporate the software into their learning plan is one primary factor that may impact choice. Several software programs offer premade graphics and templates that enhance efficiency (e.g., Mentimeter, Padlet, Slido), while others have fewer templates that may appeal to those who wish to exercise their creativity or use a more individualized format. Software programs also vary in their interface for participants; some software options utilize a unique code with which participants can easily join from their personal device, while others require the download of an application or a tedious sign-up and log-in process. Lastly, the option to obtain summative reports from the presentation for further use may also impact which software program is selected (see Table 1 for a comparison of features for various software platforms).</p><p>Presenters must now also consider if the presentation will take an in-person, virtual, or hybrid format. Most software programs were developed to create an interactive and engaging in-person experience, but several (e.g., Slido and PollEverywhere) are specifically marketed for their ability to incorporate easily into common virtual conferencing software programs. Other applications, such as Zoom, offer the ability to do audience polling and collaboration within the software program itself.</p><p>Technology-enhanced audience interaction can present challenges. First, technology can prove to be a distraction to learning. Learners will often send text messages, make calls, or do other activities on mobile devices during the time they are supposed to be learning.<span><sup>14</sup></span> Second, there is always a risk for technology failure. This is particularly salient in large group or high-stakes settings, such as presentations at national conferences or Grand Rounds. In unfamiliar locations, Wi-Fi connections can be slow (e.g., public connections) and inconsistent, and sometimes certain types of domains are blocked or inaccessible.<span><sup>15</sup></span> When at all possible, testing of technology should be completed before the presentation. Lastly, presenters must consider not only the extra time that can be required to reformat entire presentations, courses, or curricula to accommodate technology-enhanced audience interaction, which may be in short supply in a busy academic practice, but also the amount of time required for audience members to log into or access the software platform during the learning activity.</p><p>An additional consideration for incorporating technology-enhanced audience interaction is the cost for a subscription. Though most of the resources listed in Table 1 have free tiers, often those “free” or “trial” accounts come with limitations in use (see Table 1, Free Account Features column). These can include limiting the number of responses or participants, limits to the number of questions that can be asked, or limitations on the types or ways of presenting data. Some institutions and departments may have subscriptions to one or more platforms, but others do not. It can be a lengthy process to get approval to access these software programs and obtain subscriptions or available funds may be unable to be used to purchase licenses.<span><sup>16</sup></span></p><p>Lastly, technology is ever-changing; upgraded features become available for existing software platforms in addition to novel applications released on a seemingly daily basis. There is also risk for the migration or loss of familiar resources; Jamboard, currently available through Google, will no longer be accessible after October 2024. This endless evolvement of resources requires presenters to maintain familiarity with existing software platforms and have a pulse on up-and-coming resources that may better suit their needs. Because of the potential drawbacks of technology-enhanced audience interaction, it is always worth considering whether a technological solution is the best one to create a safe, effective active learning environment for your learning activity or whether low or no technology solutions may be equally or more effective.</p><p>\\n \\n </p><p>Technology-enhanced audience interaction can offer a way to create additional active learning opportunities for your presentation while protecting the psychological safety of your learners. While technology offers the promise of exciting and novel ways for creating this environment, it is not the only way to do so and can have potential downsides. The presenter should carefully consider whether an audience response software is a good fit for the targeted audience, content, and environment.</p><p>All authors contributed to the study concept and design, drafting of the manuscript, critical and revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37032,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AEM Education and Training\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aet2.10950\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AEM Education and Training\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.10950\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.10950","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

主动学习是指让学习者通过参与和讨论来参与其教育的过程,在过去十年的医学教育中得到了极大的发展。1 主动学习方法提高了受众的注意力和整体的教育乐趣。2-4 最近的文献还强调,与被动学习方法相比,主动学习方法提高了知识的获取和保留,这表明它既有直接的好处,也有潜在的长期好处。在大型小组环境中,如果暴露出知识差距,可能会无意中导致学习者感到焦虑、羞愧或与同伴相比不足。这可能会妨碍学习者全身心投入学习过程的能力。11, 12 因此,仍有必要确保学习者的心理安全,使他们能够全神贯注地完成手头的学习任务,而不会有在同伴中感到自卑的风险。这些平台使学习者可以选择匿名参与,解决了学习者对知识缺陷可能带来的负面影响的担忧,并通过鼓励所有人参与创造了一个支持性的学习环境。技术增强型观众互动可用于各种教育环境和情况,在此,我们将探讨在大型小组环境中使用技术增强型观众互动的主要注意事项。技术增强型观众互动可使用各种不同的软件程序来实现;与演示内容、目标学习者、软件特性和学习环境有关的因素可能会影响特定学习活动的最佳软件选择。软件的选择首先取决于演示的目标和学习者的预期参与程度。演示者可能希望使用某些软件将内容游戏化(如多项选择题、投票),以评估学习者对主题内容的记忆和保持情况,同时鼓励友好竞争以保持注意力。还有一些人可能希望使用软件对听众进行实时需求评估,以便有针对性地开展教学;主讲人可以向学员提问,并根据回答的准确性,将后续教学材料的重点放在学员尚未掌握的主题上。此外,主讲人可能希望选择提供白板的软件,以便在翻转课堂等环境中促进基于讨论的课程和协作式知识构建。某些学习环境可能会受益于主讲人能够清楚地识别参与者的身份,例如需要个人评估和反馈的情况,而其他学习环境则可以提供匿名功能,同时仍然允许听众完成自我评估。在涉及大型团体的演讲中,如全国性会议或大讲堂演讲,或者在演讲者和学习者听众不太熟悉的情况下,匿名可以让听众更多地参与进来。此外,在旨在吸引学生或学员参与的会议上,或在涉及敏感话题的演讲中,匿名可增强听众回答和提问的心理安全,从而促进安全的学习环境。一旦确定了使用软件的意图,软件的具体因素,如集成性、易用性和数据分析能力等,都是演示者需要考虑的几个特点。将软件纳入学习计划所需的时间是影响选择的一个主要因素。一些软件程序提供预制图形和模板,可提高效率(如 Mentimeter、Padlet、Slido),而其他软件的模板较少,可能会吸引那些希望发挥创造力或使用更个性化格式的人。软件程序为参与者提供的界面也不尽相同;有些软件选项使用一个独特的代码,参与者可以通过个人设备轻松加入,而其他软件则需要下载应用程序或繁琐的注册和登录过程。最后,从演示中获取总结报告以供进一步使用的选项也会影响到选择哪种软件程序(各种软件平台的功能比较见表 1)。演示者现在还必须考虑演示是采用现场演示、虚拟演示还是混合演示的形式。大多数软件程序的开发都是为了创造一种交互式和引人入胜的现场体验,但也有一些软件程序(例如,Professor...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Let's get active: The use of technology-enhanced audience interaction to promote active learning

Active learning, the process of engaging learners to partake in their education through participation and discussion, has gained significant traction in medical education over the past decade.1 Active learning methods enhance audience attentiveness and overall educational enjoyment.2-4 Recent literature also highlights enhanced knowledge acquisition and retention with active learning approaches compared to passive learning methods, indicating both immediate and potential long-term benefits.2, 3, 5-10

Active learning, however, has potential drawbacks. Within large group settings, it can inadvertently lead to learners feeling anxious, ashamed, or inadequate compared to their peers if it exposes knowledge gaps. This can hinder their ability to engage fully in the learning process.11, 12 It remains necessary to ensure learners are provided with psychological safety to concentrate solely on the learning task at hand without the risk of feeling self-conscious among their peers.13

Technology-enhanced audience interaction offers the advantage of promoting active learning while still ensuring psychological safety for learners. These platforms enable participation with the option of anonymity, addressing learner concerns about potential negative exposure to knowledge deficits and creating a supportive learning environment by encouraging participation by all.4 The versatility and diversity of options for engagement can allow for easy integration into a variety of existing educational resources. While technology-enhanced audience interaction can be used in a variety of educational environments and situations, here we explore key considerations for use in large group settings.

Technology-enhanced audience interaction can be accomplished using a variety of different software programs; factors related to the presentation content, targeted learners, software characteristics, and learning environment may influence the optimal software choice for a given learning activity. Software selection will first depend on the objectives of the presentation and intended level of learner participation. Presenters may wish to use certain software to gamify content (e.g., multiple-choice questions, polls) to assess learner recall and retention of subject matter while encouraging friendly competition to maintain attention. Others may wish to use software to perform a real-time needs assessment of their audience to tailor education delivery; presenters can ask learners questions and, based on accuracy of responses, focus subsequent teaching material on topics which the learners have not yet mastered. Even further, a presenter may want to choose software that offers whiteboards to facilitate discussion-based sessions and collaborative knowledge building in environments such as a flipped-classroom.

While certain learning environments may benefit from presenters being able to clearly identify participants, such as situations needing individual assessment and feedback, others may offer anonymity while still allowing audience members to complete self-assessments. In presentations involving large groups, such as national conferences or Grand Rounds presentations, or settings with less familiarity among the presenter and learner audience, anonymity can allow for greater audience participation. Furthermore, in sessions meant to engage students or trainees, or presentations covering sensitive subject matter, anonymity may enhance psychological safety for both audience responses and questions to promote a safe learning environment. Anonymous formats may also provide a medium for presenters to receive honest learner input or feedback.

Once the intent of software use has been established, software-specific factors such as integrability, ease of use, and data analysis capability are several characteristics for a presenter to consider. The amount of time required to incorporate the software into their learning plan is one primary factor that may impact choice. Several software programs offer premade graphics and templates that enhance efficiency (e.g., Mentimeter, Padlet, Slido), while others have fewer templates that may appeal to those who wish to exercise their creativity or use a more individualized format. Software programs also vary in their interface for participants; some software options utilize a unique code with which participants can easily join from their personal device, while others require the download of an application or a tedious sign-up and log-in process. Lastly, the option to obtain summative reports from the presentation for further use may also impact which software program is selected (see Table 1 for a comparison of features for various software platforms).

Presenters must now also consider if the presentation will take an in-person, virtual, or hybrid format. Most software programs were developed to create an interactive and engaging in-person experience, but several (e.g., Slido and PollEverywhere) are specifically marketed for their ability to incorporate easily into common virtual conferencing software programs. Other applications, such as Zoom, offer the ability to do audience polling and collaboration within the software program itself.

Technology-enhanced audience interaction can present challenges. First, technology can prove to be a distraction to learning. Learners will often send text messages, make calls, or do other activities on mobile devices during the time they are supposed to be learning.14 Second, there is always a risk for technology failure. This is particularly salient in large group or high-stakes settings, such as presentations at national conferences or Grand Rounds. In unfamiliar locations, Wi-Fi connections can be slow (e.g., public connections) and inconsistent, and sometimes certain types of domains are blocked or inaccessible.15 When at all possible, testing of technology should be completed before the presentation. Lastly, presenters must consider not only the extra time that can be required to reformat entire presentations, courses, or curricula to accommodate technology-enhanced audience interaction, which may be in short supply in a busy academic practice, but also the amount of time required for audience members to log into or access the software platform during the learning activity.

An additional consideration for incorporating technology-enhanced audience interaction is the cost for a subscription. Though most of the resources listed in Table 1 have free tiers, often those “free” or “trial” accounts come with limitations in use (see Table 1, Free Account Features column). These can include limiting the number of responses or participants, limits to the number of questions that can be asked, or limitations on the types or ways of presenting data. Some institutions and departments may have subscriptions to one or more platforms, but others do not. It can be a lengthy process to get approval to access these software programs and obtain subscriptions or available funds may be unable to be used to purchase licenses.16

Lastly, technology is ever-changing; upgraded features become available for existing software platforms in addition to novel applications released on a seemingly daily basis. There is also risk for the migration or loss of familiar resources; Jamboard, currently available through Google, will no longer be accessible after October 2024. This endless evolvement of resources requires presenters to maintain familiarity with existing software platforms and have a pulse on up-and-coming resources that may better suit their needs. Because of the potential drawbacks of technology-enhanced audience interaction, it is always worth considering whether a technological solution is the best one to create a safe, effective active learning environment for your learning activity or whether low or no technology solutions may be equally or more effective.

Technology-enhanced audience interaction can offer a way to create additional active learning opportunities for your presentation while protecting the psychological safety of your learners. While technology offers the promise of exciting and novel ways for creating this environment, it is not the only way to do so and can have potential downsides. The presenter should carefully consider whether an audience response software is a good fit for the targeted audience, content, and environment.

All authors contributed to the study concept and design, drafting of the manuscript, critical and revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AEM Education and Training
AEM Education and Training Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
22.20%
发文量
89
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Paths to learning: How residents navigate transience in supervisory relationships in the emergency department General emergency physician perceptions of caring for children: A qualitative interview study 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0: An evidence-based mnemonic to aid recall and interpretation of heart rate values for pediatric patients presenting for acute care “Ardor and diligence”: Quantifying the faculty effort needed in emergency medicine graduate medical education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1