To the Editor. A study of more than 6,000 students found standard lectures to be less effective than lectures which included some form of an interactive activity regardless of class size or student preparedness.1 A classroom feedback or audience response system is 1 example of an interactive tool that can be employed to promote student achievement. The advantages of classroom feedback are well described in pharmacy education: improving student understanding of concepts; improving classroom engagement, participation, and discussion; and creating instructor awareness of student difficulties.2,3
According to a 2007 study of college students, 99.7% owned a mobile phone and 94% sent and received text messages.4 In response to this growing popularity of mobile phones among college students, research using the short message service (SMS) or text messaging functionality as a response mechanism for classroom feedback has appeared in a limited number of basic science courses in the last decade. The results of a 2-year analysis of using interactive SMS in the classroom mirrored that of traditional classroom feedback technologies with improvements recorded in student engagement and classroom discussion.5
In addition, Web-based programs are available that offer the capability to use SMS on a much broader scale. This letter describes the use of an SMS classroom feedback in the pharmacotherapy course at the University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Pharmacy in which students were asked to take out their mobile phones to contribute to classroom learning.
Short patient cases with multiple-choice answers were developed and embedded within a PowerPoint lecture using the Web-based SMS provider Polleverywhere (Chicago, IL). The lecture was presented directly to 25 students at the near campus and broadcasted synchronously to 57 students at the distance campus. Students were asked to respond to the patient case questions via their mobile phone using SMS messaging. Students also had the option to respond using a wireless enabled laptop computer by visiting a specified Web site where responses could be submitted.
Seven poll questions were administered at approximate 20-minute intervals over a 2.5 hour lecture period. The 20-minute intervals were chosen to correspond with diminishing learner attention occurring between 10 and 20 minutes. Using the system was voluntary, and expenses incurred by text messaging were paid by students. On average more than 70% of the class responded to each poll.
At the completion of the lecture for which the text polling technology was initially incorporated, a Web-based survey instrument was made available for students to complete, gauging their perceptions of the technology. The survey instrument was completed by 48 of 82 (58.5%) students. An enhanced level of engagement was perceived by 85.4% (41/48) of students. Use in future lectures was preferred by 95.8% (46/48) of students, and a majority, 91.4% (43/47), perceived that the classroom feedback provided an educational benefit. Free-form feedback was provided by 22 students, all positive in nature, limiting speculation why 30% of the class did not participate in the polls. One student commented: “I think the text polling is a great tool. It allows you, as the instructor, to get instant feedback in regards to your effectiveness in teaching, and it allows us, as students, to get needed clarity immediately!” Another stated: “I feel that the text polls functioned to solidify material that was previously presented and at the same time reinforce the knowledge. I cannot overstate how helpful I believe this was.”
This letter describes an SMS classroom feedback tool that was incorporated into a multicampus pharmacotherapy lecture with the purpose of improving student engagement and understanding of lecture material. Based on student survey feedback, this method presents a potential new way to deliver active learning. These results do not provide evidence to suggest improved learning outcomes by incorporation of an SMS classroom feedback as only student perceptions of learning and engagement were assessed. Furthermore, this article does not speak to learner preference for either clicker-based classroom feedback or SMS classroom feedback as these students were not asked to compare or provide a preference.
Possible future applications include incorporating an ongoing freeform feedback loop in which students may pose questions, submit comments, and request clarifications throughout the lecture. Professors would then have the opportunity to choose when, how, and if to respond to freeform SMS. Further study exploring the successfulness of SMS classroom feedback in achieving active-learning principles in comparison to a control group, either no classroom feedback or traditional clicker-based classroom feedback, is indicated.
Eric Wombwell, PharmD
School of Pharmacy University of Missouri
REFERENCES
- 1.Powell K. Spare me the lecture. Nature. 2003;425(6955):234–236. doi: 10.1038/425234a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Cain J, Black EP, Rohr J. An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73(2) doi: 10.5688/aj730221. Article 21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Medina MS, Medina PJ, Wanzer DS, Wilson JE, Er N, Britton ML. Use of an audience response system (ARS) in a dual-campus classroom environment. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(2) doi: 10.5688/aj720238. Article 38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Becker M, Hanley M. Cell phone usage and advertising acceptance among college students: a three-year analysis [presentation]. AEJMC Southeast Colloquium, Auburn, Alabama, March 2008.
- 5. Scornavacca E. A two-year analysis of students’ learning experience using interactive SMS in the classroom. Eighth International Conference on Mobile Business, June 2009; 110-114.