Impact Of Collaborative Self-Study On Medical Students’ Learning In An E-Learning Inverted Classroom: A Biochemistry Seminar Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48047/8az5wk25Keywords:
flipped learning, preparing before class, teaching in medicine, an introduction to biochemistry and cooperative learningAbstract
First, the students study by them and after that, the teacher leads a group session to consolidate and extend their knowledge. Following this method, students are supposed to prepare well ahead of the face-to-face meetings, so good materials and clear instructions for preparation are necessary. The focus of this study was to discover how various types of self-study material and instructions affect medical students’ learning of biochemistry in an inverted e-learning classroom. Moreover, the study asked if students learning together in pairs during self-learning achieved higher gains than those who studied alone. Using an e-learning method and inverted classroom setup, the research was carried out in a biochemistry second-year medical seminar. The study team divided 196 students among three even groups, each of which received unique materials and instructions for the self-study period. I asked students to complete tests at the beginning of the face-to-face sessions to check what they knew. During the study, students filled in questionnaires assessing their motivation, how interested they were and how much they did self-study. Prior to on-site sessions, those who had collaborated during self-study achieved much better results on formative tests than those who studied solo. The role played by the actual materials used was small, since almost every student completed their preparation tasks. Both participants benefited from the dyadic learning approach and they both reported more motivation, greater interest in what they were studying and spent longer studying. According to the study, the help given during the self-study phase is much more valuable than the study materials themselves when it comes to learning in an e-learning inverted classroom. Teamwork led to the greatest achievements among the groups studied.
Downloads
References
johnson l, adams becker s, estrada v, report fanmch. Higher education edition. Austin new media consort. 2014:2014.
lage mj, platt gj, treglia m. Inverting the classroom: a gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. J econ educ. 2000;31:30–43.
kühl s, toberer m, keis o, tolks d, fischer m, kühl m. Concept and benefits of the inverted classroom method for a competency-based biochemistry course in the pre-clinical stage of a human medicine course of studies. Gms. J med educ. 2017;34.
o’flaherty j, phillips c. The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: a scoping review. Internet high educ jai. 2015;25:85–95.
street se, gilliland ko, mcneil c, royal k. The flipped classroom improved medical student performance and satisfaction in a pre-clinical physiology course. Med sci educ springer us; 2015;25:35–43.
tune jd, sturek m, basile dp. Flipped classroom model improves graduate student performance in cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal physiology. Ajp adv physiol educ. 2013;37:316–320.
bösner s, pickert j, stibane t. Teaching differential diagnosis in primary care using an inverted classroom approach: student satisfaction and gain in skills and knowledge. Bmc med educ. 2015;15:63.
morgan h, mclean k, chapman c, fitzgerald j, yousuf a, hammoud m. The flipped classroom for medical students. Clin teach. 2015;12:155–160.
bohaty bs, redford gj, gadbury-amyot cc. Flipping the classroom: assessment of strategies to promote student-centered, self-directed learning in a dental school course in pediatric dentistry. J dent educ. 2016;80:1319–1327.
ferreri sp, o’connor sk. Redesign of a large lecture course into a small-group learning course. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. American association of colleges of pharmacy. 2013;77:13.
mclaughlin je, roth mt, glatt dm, gharkholonarehe n, davidson ca, griffin lm, et al. The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Acad med. 2014;89:236–243.
pierce r, fox j. Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a "flippedclassroom" model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. Am j pharm educ american association of colleges of pharmacy. 2012;76:196.
critz cm, knight d. Using the flipped classroom in graduate nursing education. Nurse educ. 2013;38:210–213.
missildine k, fountain r, summers l, gosselin k. Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction. J nurs educ. 2013;52:597–599.
gilboy mb, heinerichs s, pazzaglia g. Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. J nutr educ behav. 2015;47:109–114.
lake da. Student performance and perceptions of a lecture-based course compared with the same course utilizing group discussion. Phys ther. 2001;81:896–902.
prober cg, khan s. Medical education reimagined: a call to action. Acad med. 2013;88:1407–1410.
ojennus dd. Assessment of learning gains in a flipped biochemistry classroom. Biochem mol biol educ. 2016;44:20–27.
harrel km. Enhancing active learning in a medical gross anatomy and embryology course: a flipped classroom approach. Faseb j. 2016;30.
curran s, royer d. Student attitudes toward a flipped classroom design for circulatory system in medical school gross anatomy. Faseb j. 2017;31.
gutmann j, kühbeck f, berberat po, fischer mr, engelhardt s, sarikas a. Use of learning media by undergraduate medical students in pharmacology: a prospective cohort study. Plos one. 2015;10:e0122624.
felder e, fauler m, geiler s. Introducing e-learning/teaching in a physiology course for medical students: acceptance by students and subjective effect on learning. Plos one. 2013;37:337–342.
cabrera af, nora a, crissman jl, terenzini pt, bernal em, pascarella et. Journal of college student development. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. American college personnel association. 2002.
johnson dw, johnson rt, smith ka. Cooperative learning returns to college what evidence is there that it works? Chang mag high learn taylor & francis group. 1998;30:26–35.
kalaian sa, kasim rm. Effectiveness of various innovative learning methods in health science classrooms: a meta-analysis. Adv heal sci educ. 2017;22:1151–1167.
slavin re. Cooperative learning : theory, research, and practice: allyn and bacon; 1994.
hänze m. Was bringen kooperative lernformen? Ergebnisse aus der empirischen lehr-lern- forschung. Friedrich jahresh. Xxvi. Seelze: friedrich verlag; 2008. P. 24–25.
kooloos jgm, klaassen t, vereijken m, van kuppeveld s, bolhuis s, vorstenbosch m. Collaborative group work: effects of group size and assignment structure on learning gain, student satisfaction and perceived participation. Med teach. 2011;33:983–988.
kollar i, fischer f, hesse fw. Collaboration scripts – a conceptual analysis. Educ psychol rev. 2006;18:159–185.
fischer f, kollar i, stegmann k, wecker c. Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educ psychol. 2013;48:56–66.
schmidmaier r, eiber s, ebersbach r, schiller m, hege i, holzer m, et al. Learning the facts in medical school is not enough: which factors predict successful application of procedural knowledge in a laboratory setting? Bmc med. Educ. 2013;13:28.
stark r, kopp v, fischer mr. Case-based learning with worked examples in complex domains: two experimental studies in undergraduate medical education. Learn instr pergamon. 2011;21:22–33.
bloom bs, krathwohl dr, masia bb. Taxonomy of educational objectives. New york: d. Mckay; 1956.
anderson lw, krathwohl dr, bloom bs. Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing a revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New york. Ny: longman; 2001.
team rdc. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: the: r foundation for statistical computing; 2017.
efron b, tibshirani rj. An introduction to the bootstrap. New york: chapman hall; 1993.
webb nm. Peer interaction and learning in small groups. Int j educ res pergamon. 1989;13:21–39.
vygotsky l, kozulin r. Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes: harvard university press; 1978.
weinberger a, fischer f, mandl h. Fostering computer supported collaborative learning with cooperation scripts and scaffolds. Proc conf comput support collab learn found a cscl community international society of the learning sciences. 2002:573–4.
weinberger a, stegmann k, fischer f, mandl h. Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. Scripting comput. Collab. Learn. Boston, ma: springer us; 2007. Pp. 191–211.
abelson r, schank rc. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding, an inquiry into human knowledge structures. J pragmat north-holland. 1979;3:211–217.
hämäläinen r, oksanen k, häkkinen p. Designing and analyzing collaboration in a scripted game for vocational education. Comput human behav. 2008;24:2496–2506.
schellens t, van keer h, de wever b, valcke m. Scripting by assigning roles: does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? Int. J. Comput. Collab. Learn. 2007;2:225–246.
schoonenboom j. The effect of a script and a structured interface in grounding discussions. Int j comput collab learn. 2008;3:327–341.
hautz we, kämmer je, schauber sk, spies cd, gaissmaier w. Diagnostic performance by medical students working individually or in teams. J am med assoc. 2015;313:303–304.
elzie c, goodmurphy cw. The benefits of pair-share concept mapping in anatomy and embryology. Faseb j. 2017.
kwok ap, lau a. An exploratory study on using the think-pair-share cooperative learning strategy. J math sci. 2015;2:22–28.
beck k. Extreme programming explained : embrace change: addison-wesley; 2004.
beck k, grenning j, martin rc, beedle m, highsmith j, mellor s, et al. Manifesto for agile software. Development. 2001.
anggraini k, nurweni a, suparman u. The comparison of collaborative learning techniques: think-pair-share and co op – co op in improving students’ descriptive writing. U-jet. 2017;6.
goodfellow i, bengio y, courville a. Mit press. 2016. Deep learning.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
