Students’ Perception of a Discussion-Driven Classroom Environment in an Upper-Level Ruminant Nutrition Course with Small Enrollment

Abstract

This 3-yr classroom research project studied students' perception of the learning environment when class time was reserved primarily for discussion of preassigned reading material as an alternative to a lecture in ruminant nutrition. A student-assessment-of-learning-gain instrument with 46 items was administered anonymously as a survey 3-wk into the semester and as a course evaluation at the end of the semester. Scores, collected on a scale of 1 to 10, were analyzed to determine differences between survey and evaluation, the variation due to student cohort (years 2003, 2004, and 2005), and student standing (undergraduate or graduate) for 5 selected items: item 1 = My level of interest/ curiosity for nutrition is; item 17 = The reading assignments help me learn; item 18 = The in-class discussions help me learn; item 24 = I would prefer the professor lecture; item 38 = I am learning a lot in this class. Although students indicated a preference to using class time for discussion rather than lecture, the degree of consensus was low, as 10% of scores indicated a strong desire for lecture, whereas another 10% indicated strong opposition to lecture. Reading assignments and in-class discussions contributed positively to the perception of learning and both were correlated positively with level of interest in the topic. In the evaluation, the desire for lecture was correlated negatively with level of interest in the topic and the self-assessed level of learning. Students reported a greater interest in the topic at the end of the semester than at wk 3; however, the self-reported learning gains from discussion-related activities varied with student cohort. Graduate students reported a higher interest, more learning from discussion-related activities, and less desire for lecture than undergraduates. Although graduate students were more impervious to the discussion format, undergraduates perceived more learning if the discussion was student-centered (i.e., focused on their questions and answers), rather than subject-centered (i.e., focused on the paper content).

Reviewing affective, behavioural and cognitive learning gains in higher education

“…Cognitive learning gains were measured in 22 studies (e.g., Seymour, Daffinrud, Wiese, & Hunter, 2000;Ojennus, 2016), comprising 39 student samples, totalling 18,024 higher education students. Pre-post testing was used in four studies (Wattiaux and Crump 2006;Lim, Hosack, and Vogt 2012;Hatch et al 2014;Stolk and Martello 2015;), and two studies used a form of pre-post testing through reflection (Douglass, Thomson, and Zhao 2012;Nagel et al 2012) all totalling to seven student samples. Only in one sample (Stolk and Martello 2015) did students report lower cognitive ability at the post-test than at the pre-test, but the difference was not significant.…”

Students' Perception of Case‐Based Continuous Assessment and Multiple‐Choice Assessment in a Small Animal Surgery Course for Veterinary Medical Students

“…Our overall approach to data analysis was based on similar work in the field. 4 The 5 rating scale items were coded from 1 to 5. The not applicable response was coded as 0.…”

“…4 Low CAC reflects either insufficient items or the fact that the items have little in common. 4 The degree of consensus among student questionnaire responses was determined for each of the 4 questionnaire surveys; the 2 initial surveys and the 2 follow-up surveys. This was determined by calculation of the interquartile range (IQR), which contains the middle 50% of responses and excludes scores at the upper and lower ends of the range.…”

“…Internal consistency for question items was assessed using the Cronbach α coefficient (CAC), which ranges from 0 to 1. The higher the CAC, the higher the indication that, taken collectively, items reliably represent a particular student perspective . Low CAC reflects either insufficient items or the fact that the items have little in common .…”

“…The higher the CAC, the higher the indication that, taken collectively, items reliably represent a particular student perspective . Low CAC reflects either insufficient items or the fact that the items have little in common . The degree of consensus among student questionnaire responses was determined for each of the 4 questionnaire surveys; the 2 initial surveys and the 2 follow‐up surveys.…”