An Assessment of the Active Learning Worksheets in an Undergraduate Human Anatomy and Physiology Course
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55420/2693.9193.v14.n2.273Keywords:
Active learning, Anatomy & Physiology, Undergraduate Hispanic-serving institutionAbstract
Anatomy & Physiology I is a demanding gateway science course for community college students. It is particularly challenging for underrepresented Hispanic students who must navigate course content, language barriers, and work-related time constraints. This paper introduces a new active learning strategy to promote meaningful learning and conceptual understanding of Anatomy & Physiology, enhancing students' academic success. The teaching strategy incorporates enhanced lecture presentations and discussions. It also includes periodic pauses for students to engage in active learning activities aligned with learning outcomes. These activities spark student interest and provide immediate feedback on their understanding of challenging topics. The study indicates that the pass rate, mainly grades of C+ and above (a requirement in all nursing courses), was consistently higher for active learning participants than those who attended traditional lectures. This evidence suggests that an active learning environment boosts academic performance among our ethnically diverse students.
Metrics
References
Astin, A. (1993). Diversity and Multiculturalism on Campus: How Are Students Affected? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 25, 44-49. doi:10.1080/00091383.1993.9940617
Atamturktur, S., Lee, K., & Tian, R. (2015). Assessment of a Technology-Enhanced Review Workshop before Final Exams in an Undergraduate Human Anatomy and Physiology Course. HETS Online Journal, 5, 5-20. doi:10.55420/2693.9193.v5.n2.217
Bonwell, C. C. (2006). Enhancing the lecture: Revitalizing a traditional format. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 31-44. doi:10.1002/tl.37219966706
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (1 ed.). Washington DC: Jossey-Bass.
Burrowes, P. A. (2003). A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works: Lord's constructivist model put to test. The American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 491-502.
Daniel, K. L. (2016). Impacts of Active Learning on Student Outcomes in Large-Lecture Biology Courses. The American Biology Teacher, 78(8), 651-655.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009). Active Learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2, 4.
Harris, D., Hannum, L., & Gupta, S. (2004). Contributing Factors to Student Success in Anatomy & Physiology: Lower Outside Workload & Better Preparation. The American Biology Teacher, 66, 168-175. doi:10.2307/4451650
Husmann, P., Barger, J., & Schaefer, A. (2015). Study Skills in Anatomy and Physiology: Is There a Difference? Anatomical sciences education, 9. doi:10.1002/ase.1522
Klionsky, D. J. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the lecture hall. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27, 334-338.
Lawson, A. E. (2001). Promoting creative and critical thinking skills in college biology. Bioscene—The Journal of College Biology Teaching, 27(1), 13-24.
Leonard, W. H., Speziale, B. J., & Penick, J. E. (2001). Performance Assessment of a Standards-Based High School Biology Curriculum. The American Biology Teacher, 63(5), 310-316. doi:10.2307/4451117
Lord, T. R. (1997). Comparing traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology. Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 197-217.
Lord, T. R. (1997). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology. Innov High Educ, 21, 197–216. doi:10.1007/BF01243716
Lord, T. R. (1998). Cooperative learning that really works in biology teaching. Using constructivist-based activities to challenge student teams. The American Biology Teacher, 60(8), 580-588.
Lord, T. R. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22-28.
Lord, T. R. (2001). 101 Reasons for Using Cooperative Learning in Biology Teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 63(1), 33-38. doi:10.1662/0002-7685
Mckee, G. (2002). Why is biological science difficult for first-year nursing students? Nurse education today, 22, 251-257. doi:10.1054/nedt.2001.0700
Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Adv Physiol Educ, 30(4), 159-167. doi:10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Murphy, L., Eduljee, N., & Croteau, K. (2021). Teacher-Centered versus Student-Centered Teaching. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education, 4, 18-39. doi:10.36021/jethe.v4i1.156
Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223-231. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Rao, S., & Dicarlo, S. (2001). Active learning of respiratory physiology improves performance on respiratory physiology examinations. Advances in Physiology Education, 25, 127-133. doi:10.1152/advances.2001.25.2.55
Slominski, T., Grindberg, S., & Momsen, J. (2019). Physiology is hard: a replication study of students’ perceived learning difficulties. Advances in Physiology Education, 43(2), 121-127.
Sturges, D., Maurer, T., Allen, D., Gatch, D., & Shankar, P. (2016). Academic performance in human anatomy and physiology classes: A 2-yr study of academic motivation and grade expectation. Advances in Physiology Education, 40, 26-31. doi:10.1152/advan.00091.2015
Thaman, R., Dhillon, S., Saggar, S., Gupta, M., & Kaur, H. (2013). Promoting active learning in respiratory physiology - Positive student perception and improved outcomes. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 3. doi:10.5455/njppp.2013.3.27000
Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. (1999). Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Co-Participation in Science Classrooms. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Vol. 6). Science & Technology Education Library: Springer.
Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model: Towards real reform in science education. Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Mervan Agovic
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Open Access Policy Statement
HETS Online Journal has adopted an open access policy and provides immediate access to its content free of charge to the reader. The journal does not pass on the cost of publication or submission of manuscripts, known as an Article Processing Charge (APC), to authors.
HOJ is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA.
