Effectiveness of an audience response system on orthodontic knowledge retention of undergraduate dental students – a randomised control trial

Figures & data

Table 1 Student perception questionnaire for the audience response system (ARS).

1.	Response pads are easy to use	10.	Response helped in learning material
2.	The instructor clarified the correct answer for response pad questions	11.	Response pads helped me feel comfortable participating in a group activity
3.	The lecture and response pads were effectively integrated	12.	Response pads would reduce the likelihood I would ask a question
4.	I enjoyed using the response pads	13.	Response pads stimulate me to think about course concepts
5.	Advantages of response pads outweigh the disadvantages	14.	Summarised class responses help me track my progress
6.	I would like to see response pads used in more parts of the course	15.	Response pads make it easier for me to concentrate/pay attention
7.	I had enough time to answer the questions using the response pad	16.	Response pads encouraged me to work harder to answer questions
8.	I did not feel under pressure when using a response pad	17.	Response pads would encourage me to work harder to prepare for a seminar/class
9.	I am confident that response pads accurately record responses

Figure 1 CONSORT Flow Diagram of participants through the study

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and significance testing of multiple-choice questions (MCQ) scores by teaching group and time.

	Baseline			Post-lecture			Difference
	Mean	SD	95% CI	Mean	SD	95% CI	Mean	SD	95% CI	Significance
Didactic	6.7	2.0	6.0–7.4	9.5	1.8	9.0–10.1	2.8	2.0	2.2–3.5	0.000
Audience response system (ARS)	7.9	1.8	7.3–8.5	11.5	2.3	10.6–12.2	3.6	2.3	2.8–4.3	0.000
Difference	1.2	0.4	0.3–2.1	2.0	0.5	0.9–2.1	0.8	0.5	0.89–1.15
Significance	0.009			0.000			0.15

Figure 2 Line graphs showing mean and 95% confidence intervals for didactic and ARS groups at baseline and post-lecture

Figure 3 Distribution of responses to the student perception questionnaire