2004 OPEN FORUM Abstracts
COMPARISONS BETWEEN THREE INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS OF TEACHING RESPIRATORY MECHANICS
L. Johnson, Jr., Ph.D., RRT
Alphonso Baldwin, Ph.D., RRT, R-PFT
Mary Copeland Simmons, MPH, RRT
Kandy Woods, MPH, RRT
For correspondence, contact Patrick L. Johnson, Ph.D., RRT, Professor, Florida A&M University, School of Allied Health Sciences, Division of Cardiopulmonary Science, Ware-Rhaney East Building Room 335, Tallahassee 32307-3500 or by electronic mail: email@example.com.
Research Question: When teaching complex principles, does differences in pre- and post-test score results coincide with use of different instructional methods?
Method: Respiratory mechanics were taught using (1) traditional lecture format, and laboratory instruction supplemented by lecture using (2) the Medishield© lung simulator, and (3) Michigan Instrument TTL 2600i dual lung simulator using a desk top computer system with a DOS driven 2.2 version of Pneumo View© software. Subjects consisted of students enrolled in the junior and senior year of their baccalaureate program of study in respiratory therapy, health care management, health information management, health science, and occupational therapy. From 58 volunteers, 28 subjects were randomly selected and assigned to one of three groups. The subjects had a minimum of one semester study of human anatomy and physiology and no prior experience or education associated with mechanical ventilation. First, a pre-test consisting of 20 multiple-choice questions that corresponded with content introducing principles of airway resistance, dynamic, and static compliance was administered. Afterwards, all subjects were given a copy of the respiratory mechanics lecture notes. Second, a lecture was presented to Group 1. Group 2 was given a laboratory recitation accompanied by demonstrations using the Medishield simulator and obtained numerical data from the pressure gauge and volume scale of the Medishield simulator. Group 3 was given a laboratory recitation modified to coincide with the TTL simulator and desk top computer and obtained numerical data from the screen of the compute monitor connected to the computer and TTL dual simulator. Both lung simulators were manipulated to during sessions to augment normal and abnormal changes in airway resistance and lung compliance. Third, a post-test parallel in content and level of difficulty was administered after each of the sessions. Students entered their pre- and post- test responses to questions on to Scantron© answer sheets. The answer sheets were scanned and test scores computer generated.
Analysis: SPSS© version 11.0 was used in conducting sampling and statistical procedures. Differences computed for pre- and post-test scores were 5.5 for Group 1, 5.6 for Group 2, and 0.75 for Group 3.
Results: A significant difference (p = .015) was observed between means for pre- and post-test scores of the groups. To determine which of the group's test scores was significantly different from the others, the Games-Howell multiple comparisons procedure was conducted. Results of this analysis indicated that differences in pre and post-test scores of Group 1 (Lecture) and Group 3 (TTL lab) approached statistical significance (p = 0.052). There was no statistical SPSS version 11.0. Pre- and post-test scores were collected and entered into a SPSS spreadsheet. Differences between pre- and post-test mean scores were computed. The one-way ANOVA procedure was performed to compare for differences in means of pre- and post-test group scores (p< 0.5). The differences in the means between significance observed between test scores of Group 1and Group 2 (p = 0.99) or Group 2 and Group 3 (p = 0.074).
Conclusion: Further investigation is indicated in replicating this study using a larger sample size to determine if a difference in instructional method alters test performance when teaching complex principles.