Loading…

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

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), whe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Biochemistry and molecular biology education 2005-11, Vol.33 (6), p.387-393
Main Authors: Anderson, William L., Mitchell, Steven M., Osgood, Marcy P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3847-8242c9fc9abeaf4d83ef3a6b21911e08cea2f979a5a9024c9fa48ef60cf868433
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3847-8242c9fc9abeaf4d83ef3a6b21911e08cea2f979a5a9024c9fa48ef60cf868433
container_end_page 393
container_issue 6
container_start_page 387
container_title Biochemistry and molecular biology education
container_volume 33
creator Anderson, William L.
Mitchell, Steven M.
Osgood, Marcy P.
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/bmb.2005.49403306387
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_870292194</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ758885</ericid><sourcerecordid>870292194</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3847-8242c9fc9abeaf4d83ef3a6b21911e08cea2f979a5a9024c9fa48ef60cf868433</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkM1u1TAQhSNERUvhDSrkHatc_JfY3kGvyk_Vig2srYkzBqPEvthJ0d3xCH1GngRXt1RdsprRnO_MjE7TnDG6YZTyN8M8bDil3UYaSYWgvdDqSXPCOmFaIbl5WnupaKuZ6o6b56X8oNXWS_WsOeas0j1VJ03cpnkHOZQUSfKkLOuIcSE7zD7lGaJDEiJxKdUJLOEGyYSQY4jfCMSRLBnGsIQUYaqCW9aMf37fDlBwJENI7jvOoSx5T9wEpWB50Rx5mAq-vK-nzdf3F1-2H9urzx8-bd9dtU5oqVrNJXfGOwMDgpejFugF9ANnhjGk2iFwb5SBDgzlsqIgNfqeOq97LYU4bV4f9u5y-rliWWz9w-E0QcS0FqsV5aZuk5WUB9LlVEpGb3c5zJD3llF7F7StQdu7oO2joKvt1f2BdZhxfDD9S7YCZwcAc3AP8sWl6rTWXZXfHuRfYcL9f92059fnj1_4C0fYmS0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>870292194</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of student performance in cooperative learning and traditional lecture‐based biochemistry classes</title><source>Wiley</source><source>ERIC</source><creator>Anderson, William L. ; Mitchell, Steven M. ; Osgood, Marcy P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Anderson, William L. ; Mitchell, Steven M. ; Osgood, Marcy P.</creatorcontrib><description>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 &lt; 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1470-8175</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1539-3429</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/bmb.2005.49403306387</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21638607</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>USA: John Wiley &amp; Sons Inc</publisher><subject>Biochemistry ; Comparative Analysis ; Cooperative Learning ; Instructional Effectiveness ; Introductory Courses ; Learning Experience ; Lecture Method ; Medical Schools ; PBL ; Problem Based Learning ; Problem Solving ; Standardized Tests ; Student Attitudes ; Student performance ; Teaching Methods ; Testing</subject><ispartof>Biochemistry and molecular biology education, 2005-11, Vol.33 (6), p.387-393</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2005 International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3847-8242c9fc9abeaf4d83ef3a6b21911e08cea2f979a5a9024c9fa48ef60cf868433</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3847-8242c9fc9abeaf4d83ef3a6b21911e08cea2f979a5a9024c9fa48ef60cf868433</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ758885$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21638607$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Anderson, William L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, Steven M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osgood, Marcy P.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of student performance in cooperative learning and traditional lecture‐based biochemistry classes</title><title>Biochemistry and molecular biology education</title><addtitle>Biochem Mol Biol Educ</addtitle><description>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 &lt; 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.</description><subject>Biochemistry</subject><subject>Comparative Analysis</subject><subject>Cooperative Learning</subject><subject>Instructional Effectiveness</subject><subject>Introductory Courses</subject><subject>Learning Experience</subject><subject>Lecture Method</subject><subject>Medical Schools</subject><subject>PBL</subject><subject>Problem Based Learning</subject><subject>Problem Solving</subject><subject>Standardized Tests</subject><subject>Student Attitudes</subject><subject>Student performance</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Testing</subject><issn>1470-8175</issn><issn>1539-3429</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkM1u1TAQhSNERUvhDSrkHatc_JfY3kGvyk_Vig2srYkzBqPEvthJ0d3xCH1GngRXt1RdsprRnO_MjE7TnDG6YZTyN8M8bDil3UYaSYWgvdDqSXPCOmFaIbl5WnupaKuZ6o6b56X8oNXWS_WsOeas0j1VJ03cpnkHOZQUSfKkLOuIcSE7zD7lGaJDEiJxKdUJLOEGyYSQY4jfCMSRLBnGsIQUYaqCW9aMf37fDlBwJENI7jvOoSx5T9wEpWB50Rx5mAq-vK-nzdf3F1-2H9urzx8-bd9dtU5oqVrNJXfGOwMDgpejFugF9ANnhjGk2iFwb5SBDgzlsqIgNfqeOq97LYU4bV4f9u5y-rliWWz9w-E0QcS0FqsV5aZuk5WUB9LlVEpGb3c5zJD3llF7F7StQdu7oO2joKvt1f2BdZhxfDD9S7YCZwcAc3AP8sWl6rTWXZXfHuRfYcL9f92059fnj1_4C0fYmS0</recordid><startdate>200511</startdate><enddate>200511</enddate><creator>Anderson, William L.</creator><creator>Mitchell, Steven M.</creator><creator>Osgood, Marcy P.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons Inc</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200511</creationdate><title>Comparison of student performance in cooperative learning and traditional lecture‐based biochemistry classes</title><author>Anderson, William L. ; Mitchell, Steven M. ; Osgood, Marcy P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3847-8242c9fc9abeaf4d83ef3a6b21911e08cea2f979a5a9024c9fa48ef60cf868433</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Biochemistry</topic><topic>Comparative Analysis</topic><topic>Cooperative Learning</topic><topic>Instructional Effectiveness</topic><topic>Introductory Courses</topic><topic>Learning Experience</topic><topic>Lecture Method</topic><topic>Medical Schools</topic><topic>PBL</topic><topic>Problem Based Learning</topic><topic>Problem Solving</topic><topic>Standardized Tests</topic><topic>Student Attitudes</topic><topic>Student performance</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Testing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Anderson, William L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mitchell, Steven M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osgood, Marcy P.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Biochemistry and molecular biology education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Anderson, William L.</au><au>Mitchell, Steven M.</au><au>Osgood, Marcy P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ758885</ericid><atitle>Comparison of student performance in cooperative learning and traditional lecture‐based biochemistry classes</atitle><jtitle>Biochemistry and molecular biology education</jtitle><addtitle>Biochem Mol Biol Educ</addtitle><date>2005-11</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>387</spage><epage>393</epage><pages>387-393</pages><issn>1470-8175</issn><eissn>1539-3429</eissn><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 &lt; 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.</abstract><cop>USA</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons Inc</pub><pmid>21638607</pmid><doi>10.1002/bmb.2005.49403306387</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1470-8175
ispartof Biochemistry and molecular biology education, 2005-11, Vol.33 (6), p.387-393
issn 1470-8175
1539-3429
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_870292194
source Wiley; ERIC
subjects Biochemistry
Comparative Analysis
Cooperative Learning
Instructional Effectiveness
Introductory Courses
Learning Experience
Lecture Method
Medical Schools
PBL
Problem Based Learning
Problem Solving
Standardized Tests
Student Attitudes
Student performance
Teaching Methods
Testing
title Comparison of student performance in cooperative learning and traditional lecture‐based biochemistry classes
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T02%3A01%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20student%20performance%20in%20cooperative%20learning%20and%20traditional%20lecture%E2%80%90based%20biochemistry%20classes&rft.jtitle=Biochemistry%20and%20molecular%20biology%20education&rft.au=Anderson,%20William%20L.&rft.date=2005-11&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=387&rft.epage=393&rft.pages=387-393&rft.issn=1470-8175&rft.eissn=1539-3429&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/bmb.2005.49403306387&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E870292194%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3847-8242c9fc9abeaf4d83ef3a6b21911e08cea2f979a5a9024c9fa48ef60cf868433%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=870292194&rft_id=info:pmid/21638607&rft_ericid=EJ758885&rfr_iscdi=true