Assessment of a novel group‐centered testing schema in an upper‐level undergraduate molecular biotechnology course

Abstract

Providing students with assignments that focus on critical thinking is an important part of their scientific and intellectual development. However, as class sizes increase, so does the grading burden, prohibiting many faculty from incorporating critical thinking assignments in the classroom. In an effort to continue to provide our students with meaningful critical thinking exercises, we implemented a novel group-centered, problem-based testing scheme. We wanted to assess how performing critical thinking problem sets as group work compares to performing the sets as individual work, in terms of student attitudes and learning outcomes. During two semesters of our recombinant DNA course, students had the same lecture material and similar assessments. In the Fall semester, student learning was assessed by two collaborative take-home exams, followed immediately by individual, closed-book in-class exams on the same content, as well as a final cumulative exam. Student teams on the take-home exams were instructorassigned, and each team turned in one collaborative exam. In the Spring semester, the control group of students were required to turn in their own individual take-home exams, followed by the in-class exams and final cumulative exam. For the majority of students, learning outcomes were met, regardless of whether they worked in teams. In addition, collaborative learning was favorably received by students and grading was reduced for instructors. These data suggest that group-centered, problem-based learning is a useful model for achievement of student learning outcomes in courses where it would be infeasible to provide feedback on individual critical thinking assignments due to grading volume.

Comparing Two Models of Collaborative Testing for Teaching Statistics

“…Collaborative groups generally consist of three to seven students. Student self-selection into groups is a common approach (Gorvine & Smith, 2015; LoGiudice et al, 2015), but authors have recommended random assignment to prevent students who know their group composition in advance from dividing material among themselves for study, a tactic referred to as cognitive loafing (LoGiudice et al, 2015; Siegel et al, 2015; Srougi, Miller, Witherow, & Carson, 2013). As such, collaborative testing groups were comprised of four to five randomly assigned students that changed for each test.…”

Integrating Bioinformatics Tools Into Inquiry-Based Molecular Biology Laboratory Education Modules

“…Bioinformatics tools in this course are first introduced through active learning assignments performed in collaborative groups, which we have found to be the most effective for student learning ( Srougi et al, 2013 ; Tanner, 2017 ). Peer interactions are critical for learning key concepts and provide valuable experience in working in diverse groups, a critical skill in the biotechnology workforce.…”

Integrating research into a molecular cloning course to address the evolving biotechnology landscape

“…Students complete two midterm exams (10% each) that are composed of two evenly weighted components: a group take‐home portion and an individual in‐class portion 33 . A cumulative, individual final exam (15%) is given at the end of the course.…”