2004 OPEN FORUM Abstracts
COMPARISONS BETWEEN THREE INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS OF TEACHING RESPIRATORY MECHANICS
Patrick
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:
patrick.johnsonjr@famu.edu.
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.