Research Update

Karin Sargrad, Drexel University

In the last issue of Food for Thought, the research committee began a series of articles on the effectiveness of different approaches of conducting nutrition education. Allison Karpyn, chair of the Pennsylvania Nutrition Education Network (PA NEN) research committee, shared an article on the use of text messaging in nutrition education. In the next issue, we will review current research on innovative practices within our field. This month, however, we would like to share some ideas about another innovative approach to education.

An interactive multimedia (IMM) presentation uses technology to bring educational theorems into action. As Confucius taught us, “What I hear, I forget. What I see, I remember. What I do, I understand.” Using this idea of interaction, the likelihood that participants will understand our messages increases.

One type of IMM is a Classroom Response System (sometimes called a Personal Response System or an Audience Response System), a set of hardware and software that facilitates teaching activities in the following manner:

  • An educator poses a multiple-choice question to groups of individuals via an overhead or computer projector. Many will use PowerPoint.
  • Each individual in the audience submits his or her answer to the question using a handheld transmitter (often called a “clicker”) that beams an infrared or radio-frequency signal to a receiver attached to the teacher’s computer.
  • Software on the teacher’s computer collects the individuals’ answers and instantaneously produces a chart showing how many people selected each of the answer choices.

Although initial capital outlay for a Classroom Response System is higher than traditional blackboard or paper-and-pencil educational methods, 1 a recent study showed that interactive multimedia is a cost-effective method of delivering nutrition education, especially to large numbers of people. 2 This study concluded that use of this technology in public forums “could reach additional low-income persons at decreasing yearly costs.”

Unfortunately, no studies of the use of Classroom Response System as a nutrition education technique could be found in the literature at this time. Some studies have looked at the effectiveness of Classroom Response Systems in teaching concepts other than nutrition. One study by the Cooperative Extension Service in California found that participants in a wildlife management workshop showed a slightly higher knowledge level and reported a significantly greater enjoyment of the workshop than participants in a traditional classroom. 3 Another study involving migraine sufferers concluded that “the use of keypads at seminars or lectures is valuable in promoting enthusiastic audience participation, and the understanding of the diverse symptoms and manifestations of a condition.” 4 Numerous studies have examined the effectiveness of ARS on professional or medical education and have found beneficial learning outcomes when compared to conventional methods. 5

Nutrition educators could use the Classroom Response Systems in a variety of ways, many of which have yet to be fully explored. We can learn from the many websites that describe and market the technology 6 and others that promote its use in formal classroom settings for both adult and child learners. 7 Additionally, some researchers have examined using these systems to collect data for program evaluations. 8 As educators we are challenged to creatively transfer the initial use of a new technology to our own settings and audiences. At this date, very few research studies, if any, have compared the effectiveness of this new technique to a more traditional model of nutrition education.

The Classroom Response System can be used to ask factual or conceptual nutrition questions; to survey opinions about food, nutrition, or physical activity; to gather dietary intake information; or to play educational games with nutrition messages. We are limited only by our imaginations!

 

  1. A start up system from Turning Point that includes the receiver, thirty-two clickers, and compatible software costs less than $1,500.
  2. S. M. Gould and J. Anderson, “Economic analysis of bilingual interactive multimedia nutrition education,” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 34, no. 5, (Sept.–Oct. 2002):273–78.
  3. T. P. Salmonand J. N. Stahl, “Wireless audience response system: does it make a difference?” Journal of Extension 43, no. 3 (3RIB8) (June 2005); www.joe.org/joe/2005june/rb10.shtml.
  4. E. A. MacGregor and J. N. Blau, “Migraine: an informative method of communication,” Headache 32, no. 7 (July 1992): 356–59
  5. R. Latessa and D. Mouw, “Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning,” Medicine 37, no. 1 (January 2005):12–14.
  6. www.turningtechnologies.com/; www.audience-voting-keypads.com/
  7. www.vanderbilt.edu/cft/resources/teaching_resources/technology/crs.htm; www.rlhec.org/Technology/index.html
  8. E. J. Gamito, L. Burhansstipanov, L. U. Krebs, L. Bemis, A. Bradley, “The use of an electronic audience response system for data collection,” Journal of Cancer Education 20, no. 1 (suppl.) (Spring 2005): 80–86.