Enhancing active learning in the student laboratory

Author:

Modell Harold I.1,Michael Joel A.2,Adamson Tom3,Horwitz Barbara3

Affiliation:

1. Physiology Educational Research Consortium, Seattle, Washington 98115

2. Department of Molecular Biophysics and Physiology, Rush Medical College, Chicago, Illinois 60612

3. Section on Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, California 95616

Abstract

Modell, Harold I., Joel A. Michael, Tom Adamson, and Barbara Horwitz. Enhancing active learning in the student laboratory. We previously examined how three approaches to directing students in a laboratory setting impacted their ability to repair a faulty mental model in respiratory physiology (Modell, HI, Michael JA, Adamson T, Goldberg J, Horwitz BA, Bruce DS, Hudson ML, Whitescarver SA, and Williams S. Adv Physiol Educ 23: 82–90, 2000). This study addresses issues raised by the results of that work. In one group, a written protocol directed students to predict what would happen to frequency and depth of breathing during exercise on a bicycle ergometer, run the experiment, and compare their results to their predictions (“predictor without verification”). In a “predictor with verification” group, students followed the same written protocol but were also required to show the instructor their predictions before running the experiment. Students in a third group reported their predictions verbally to an instructor immediately before exercise and reviewed their results with that instructor immediately after exercise (“instructor intervention group”). Results of this study were consistent with our earlier work. The predictor with verification and predictor without verification protocols yielded similar results. The instructor intervention protocol yielded higher success rates in repairing students’ mental models. We subsequently assessed the efficacy of a prediction period at the beginning of the lab session and a wrap-up period at the end to compare predictions and results. This predict and wrap-up protocol was more effective than the predictor without verification protocol, but it was not as effective as the instructor intervention protocol. Although these results may reflect multiple factors impacting learning in the student laboratory, we believe that a major factor is a mismatch between students’ approaches to learning and the intended learning outcomes of the experience.

Publisher

American Physiological Society

Subject

General Medicine,Physiology,Education

Reference6 articles.

1. Students' misconceptions about perceived physiological responses.

2. Undergraduate students' misconceptions about respiratory physiology.

3. Minstrell J. Teaching for the development of understanding of ideas: forces on moving objects. In: AETS Yearbook: Observing Science Classrooms, edited by Anderson C. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, 1984.

4. Modell HI. Designing protocols for student laboratories. Comp Life Sci Educ 8: 91–94, 1991.

5. Promoting Active Learning in the Life Science Classroom: Defining the Issues

Cited by 34 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3