Enhancing the radiology learning experience with electronic whiteboard technology

Michael L. Lipton, Leah G. Lipton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively evaluate the use of an interactive whiteboard for use in teaching diagnostic radiology and MRI physics. MATERIALS AND METHODS. An interactive whiteboard (SMART Board model 3000i) was used during an MRI physics course and diagnostic radiology teaching conferences. A multiquestion instrument was used to quantify responses. Responses are reported as simple percentages of response number and, for ordinal scale questions, the two-tailed Student's t test was used to assess deviation from the neutral response. RESULTS. All of the subjects attended all sessions and completed the assessment questionnaire; 89% of respondents said that image quality of the SMART Board was superior to that of a projector-screen combination, 11% said that the image quality was similar, and none said that it was inferior. Sixty-seven percent of respondents said that the SMART Board's display of diagrams was superior to that of a conventional whiteboard, 33% said it was similar, and none said it was inferior. Participants thought that the smaller SMART Board display compared with the projector screen was an unimportant limitation (p = 0.03). Room lighting did not degrade image quality (p = 0.007), and a trend toward preference for the lighted room (while using the SMART Board) was detected (p = 0.15) but was not significant. The impact of the SMART Board on the visual material and flow of teaching sessions was favorable (p = 0.005). All of the subjects preferred the SMART Board over a traditional projector and screen combination. CONCLUSION. Learners endorsed that the SMART Board significantly enhanced learning, universally preferring it to the standard projector and screen approach. Major advantages include enhanced engagement of learners; enhanced integration of images and annotations or diagrams, including display of both images and diagrams simultaneously on a single screen; and the ability to review, revise, save, and distribute diagrams and annotated images. Disadvantages include cost and potentially complicated setup in very large auditoriums.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1547-1551
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume194
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2010

Fingerprint

Radiology
Physics
Learning
Technology
Teaching
Teaching Materials
Aptitude
Lighting
Students
Costs and Cost Analysis
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Computers
  • Education
  • Electronic whiteboards
  • SMART board
  • Teaching aids

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Enhancing the radiology learning experience with electronic whiteboard technology. / Lipton, Michael L.; Lipton, Leah G.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 194, No. 6, 06.2010, p. 1547-1551.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b6ccdfd4dbab4c8d942ef9de8f253a31,
title = "Enhancing the radiology learning experience with electronic whiteboard technology",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively evaluate the use of an interactive whiteboard for use in teaching diagnostic radiology and MRI physics. MATERIALS AND METHODS. An interactive whiteboard (SMART Board model 3000i) was used during an MRI physics course and diagnostic radiology teaching conferences. A multiquestion instrument was used to quantify responses. Responses are reported as simple percentages of response number and, for ordinal scale questions, the two-tailed Student's t test was used to assess deviation from the neutral response. RESULTS. All of the subjects attended all sessions and completed the assessment questionnaire; 89{\%} of respondents said that image quality of the SMART Board was superior to that of a projector-screen combination, 11{\%} said that the image quality was similar, and none said that it was inferior. Sixty-seven percent of respondents said that the SMART Board's display of diagrams was superior to that of a conventional whiteboard, 33{\%} said it was similar, and none said it was inferior. Participants thought that the smaller SMART Board display compared with the projector screen was an unimportant limitation (p = 0.03). Room lighting did not degrade image quality (p = 0.007), and a trend toward preference for the lighted room (while using the SMART Board) was detected (p = 0.15) but was not significant. The impact of the SMART Board on the visual material and flow of teaching sessions was favorable (p = 0.005). All of the subjects preferred the SMART Board over a traditional projector and screen combination. CONCLUSION. Learners endorsed that the SMART Board significantly enhanced learning, universally preferring it to the standard projector and screen approach. Major advantages include enhanced engagement of learners; enhanced integration of images and annotations or diagrams, including display of both images and diagrams simultaneously on a single screen; and the ability to review, revise, save, and distribute diagrams and annotated images. Disadvantages include cost and potentially complicated setup in very large auditoriums.",
keywords = "Computers, Education, Electronic whiteboards, SMART board, Teaching aids",
author = "Lipton, {Michael L.} and Lipton, {Leah G.}",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
doi = "10.2214/AJR.09.3729",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "194",
pages = "1547--1551",
journal = "American Journal of Roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Enhancing the radiology learning experience with electronic whiteboard technology

AU - Lipton, Michael L.

AU - Lipton, Leah G.

PY - 2010/6

Y1 - 2010/6

N2 - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively evaluate the use of an interactive whiteboard for use in teaching diagnostic radiology and MRI physics. MATERIALS AND METHODS. An interactive whiteboard (SMART Board model 3000i) was used during an MRI physics course and diagnostic radiology teaching conferences. A multiquestion instrument was used to quantify responses. Responses are reported as simple percentages of response number and, for ordinal scale questions, the two-tailed Student's t test was used to assess deviation from the neutral response. RESULTS. All of the subjects attended all sessions and completed the assessment questionnaire; 89% of respondents said that image quality of the SMART Board was superior to that of a projector-screen combination, 11% said that the image quality was similar, and none said that it was inferior. Sixty-seven percent of respondents said that the SMART Board's display of diagrams was superior to that of a conventional whiteboard, 33% said it was similar, and none said it was inferior. Participants thought that the smaller SMART Board display compared with the projector screen was an unimportant limitation (p = 0.03). Room lighting did not degrade image quality (p = 0.007), and a trend toward preference for the lighted room (while using the SMART Board) was detected (p = 0.15) but was not significant. The impact of the SMART Board on the visual material and flow of teaching sessions was favorable (p = 0.005). All of the subjects preferred the SMART Board over a traditional projector and screen combination. CONCLUSION. Learners endorsed that the SMART Board significantly enhanced learning, universally preferring it to the standard projector and screen approach. Major advantages include enhanced engagement of learners; enhanced integration of images and annotations or diagrams, including display of both images and diagrams simultaneously on a single screen; and the ability to review, revise, save, and distribute diagrams and annotated images. Disadvantages include cost and potentially complicated setup in very large auditoriums.

AB - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively evaluate the use of an interactive whiteboard for use in teaching diagnostic radiology and MRI physics. MATERIALS AND METHODS. An interactive whiteboard (SMART Board model 3000i) was used during an MRI physics course and diagnostic radiology teaching conferences. A multiquestion instrument was used to quantify responses. Responses are reported as simple percentages of response number and, for ordinal scale questions, the two-tailed Student's t test was used to assess deviation from the neutral response. RESULTS. All of the subjects attended all sessions and completed the assessment questionnaire; 89% of respondents said that image quality of the SMART Board was superior to that of a projector-screen combination, 11% said that the image quality was similar, and none said that it was inferior. Sixty-seven percent of respondents said that the SMART Board's display of diagrams was superior to that of a conventional whiteboard, 33% said it was similar, and none said it was inferior. Participants thought that the smaller SMART Board display compared with the projector screen was an unimportant limitation (p = 0.03). Room lighting did not degrade image quality (p = 0.007), and a trend toward preference for the lighted room (while using the SMART Board) was detected (p = 0.15) but was not significant. The impact of the SMART Board on the visual material and flow of teaching sessions was favorable (p = 0.005). All of the subjects preferred the SMART Board over a traditional projector and screen combination. CONCLUSION. Learners endorsed that the SMART Board significantly enhanced learning, universally preferring it to the standard projector and screen approach. Major advantages include enhanced engagement of learners; enhanced integration of images and annotations or diagrams, including display of both images and diagrams simultaneously on a single screen; and the ability to review, revise, save, and distribute diagrams and annotated images. Disadvantages include cost and potentially complicated setup in very large auditoriums.

KW - Computers

KW - Education

KW - Electronic whiteboards

KW - SMART board

KW - Teaching aids

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953235648&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953235648&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2214/AJR.09.3729

DO - 10.2214/AJR.09.3729

M3 - Article

C2 - 20489095

AN - SCOPUS:77953235648

VL - 194

SP - 1547

EP - 1551

JO - American Journal of Roentgenology

JF - American Journal of Roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 6

ER -