Literature DB >> 21638607

Comparison of student performance in cooperative learning and traditional lecture-based biochemistry classes.

William L Anderson1, Steven M Mitchell, Marcy P Osgood.   

Abstract

Student performance in two different introductory biochemistry curricula are compared based on standardized testing of student content knowledge, problem-solving skills, and student opinions about the courses. One curriculum was used in four traditional, lecture-based classes (n = 381 students), whereas the second curriculum was used in two cooperative learning classes (n = 39 students). Students in the cooperative learning classes not only performed at a level above their peers in standardized testing of content knowledge and in critical thinking and problem-solving tasks (p < 0.05), but they also were more positive about their learning experience. The testing data are in contrast to much of the medical school literature on the performance of students in problem-based learning (PBL) curricula, which shows little effect of the curricular format on student exam scores. The reason for the improvement is undoubtedly multifactorial. We argue that the enhancement of student performance in this study is related to: 1) the use of peer educational assistants, 2) an authentic PBL format, and 3) the application of a multicontextual learning environment in the curricular design. Though educationally successful, the cooperative learning classes as described in this study were too resource intensive to continue; however, we are exploring incorporation of some of the "high context" aspects of the small-group interactions into our current lecture-based course with the addition of on-line PBL cases.
Copyright © 2005 International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

Year:  2005        PMID: 21638607     DOI: 10.1002/bmb.2005.49403306387

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biochem Mol Biol Educ        ISSN: 1470-8175            Impact factor:   1.160


  12 in total

1.  Cooperative learning in industrial-sized biology classes.

Authors:  Norris Armstrong; Shu-Mei Chang; Marguerite Brickman
Journal:  CBE Life Sci Educ       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.325

2.  Gauging the gaps in student problem-solving skills: assessment of individual and group use of problem-solving strategies using online discussions.

Authors:  William L Anderson; Steven M Mitchell; Marcy P Osgood
Journal:  CBE Life Sci Educ       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Using a Novel Student-centered Teaching Method to Improve Pharmacy Student Learning.

Authors:  Xin Meng; Lianrong Yang; Hui Sun; Xiaowei Du; Bingyou Yang; Hongwei Guo
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.047

4.  Tools and collaborative environments for bioinformatics research.

Authors:  Paolo Romano; Rosalba Giugno; Alfredo Pulvirenti
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2011-10-07       Impact factor: 11.622

5.  Comparison of the effect of lecture and blended teaching methods on students' learning and satisfaction.

Authors:  Roya Sadeghi; Mohammad Mehdi Sedaghat; Faramarz Sha Ahmadi
Journal:  J Adv Med Educ Prof       Date:  2014-10

6.  Patching a leak in an R1 university gateway STEM course.

Authors:  Stephen Lee; Brian R Crane; Thomas Ruttledge; Dominique Guelce; Estella F Yee; Michael Lenetsky; Matthew Caffrey; Walter De Ath Johnsen; Anthony Lin; Shuting Lu; Marc-Anthony Rodriguez; Aboubacar Wague; Kane Wu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Contrasting Cases: Students' Experiences in an Active-Learning Biology Classroom.

Authors:  Lisa B Wiltbank; Kurt R Williams; Lauren Marciniak; Jennifer L Momsen
Journal:  CBE Life Sci Educ       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  Making it stick: use of active learning strategies in continuing medical education.

Authors:  Brenda A Bucklin; Nancy L Asdigian; Joy L Hawkins; Ulrich Klein
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 2.463

9.  A Sandwich-model experiment with personal response systems on epigenetics: insights into learning gain, student engagement and satisfaction.

Authors:  Georgia Katsioudi; Efterpi Kostareli
Journal:  FEBS Open Bio       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 2.693

10.  Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL*

Authors:  Thomas Eberlein; Jack Kampmeier; Vicky Minderhout; Richard S Moog; Terry Platt; Pratibha Varma-Nelson; Harold B White
Journal:  Biochem Mol Biol Educ       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.160

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.