The effects of passive and active learning on student preference and performance in an undergraduate basic science course

Abstract

Active learning is based on self-directed and autonomous teaching methods, whereas passive learning is grounded in instructor taught lectures. An animal physiology course was studied over a two-year period (Year 1, n = 42 students; Year 2, n = 30 students) to determine the effects of student-led seminar (andragogical) and lecture (pedagogical) teaching methods on students' retention of information and performance. For each year of the study, the course was divided into two time periods. The first half was dedicated to instructor-led lectures, followed by a control survey in which the students rated the efficiency of pedagogical learning on a five-point Likert scale from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). During the second period, students engaged in andragogical learning via peer-led seminars. An experimental survey was then administered to students using the same scale as above to determine students' preferred teaching method. Raw examination scores and survey results from both halves of the course were statistically analyzed by ANOVA with Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test. By the end of the study, student preference for peer-led seminars increased [mean ± SD: (2.47 ± 0.94)/(4.03 ± 1.36), P < 0.04], and examination scores significantly increased [mean ± SD: (73.91% ± 13.18)/(85.77 ± 5.22), P < 0.001]. A majority of students (68.8%) preferred a method that contained peer-led seminars and instructor-led lectures. These results may indicate that integration of active and passive learning into undergraduate courses may have greater benefit in terms of student preference and performance than either method alone.

Student Perceptions to Teaching Undergraduate Anatomy in Health Sciences

“…Moreover, the positive attitude towards lecture materials supports the inclusion of auditory, and reading-writing sensory modalities as part of a multimodal approach to teaching (Minhas et al, 2012;Breckler et al, 2009). …”

“…The favorability of lectures is often overwhelming, with students often agreeing that they were more beneficial than self-directed learning (Davis et al, 2014). Despite the push for more active modes of learning, these responses have shown that more traditional modes of delivery cannot be entirely ignored when developing curricula in anatomy and physiology (Choi-Lundberg, Low, Patman, Turner, & Sinha, 2016;Minhas, Ghosh, & Swanzy, 2012). Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that no singular approach (lectures, dissection/prosection, models, technology or living anatomy) fulfills all teaching objectives, thus a multimodal approach is best (Kerby et al, 2011).…”

“…Although not favored by first years (Davis et al, 2014), students do appreciate its incorporation into a mixed mode of delivery in teaching (Minhas et al, 2012). The rise of more progressive modes of teaching has largely been influenced by the prevalence of technology in daily life.…”

Eighty Students, Five Cadavers, and Two Professors: Innovative Teaching Practices in an Undergraduate Human Gross Anatomy Course

“…Active learning has been shown to be very effective in teaching college and medical students complex scientific and medical information (King 1993, Leonard 2000, Minhas et al 2012). Significant changes have occurred within anatomical education at the medical school level, including the movement away from stand-alone anatomy lecture and lab towards problem-and/or team-based approaches where anatomy is part of a multidisciplinary learning experience (Drake 2014, Johnson et al 2012).…”

CATE: A Circuit Analysis Tool for Education

“…From the student perspective, CATE provides both active and passive learning opportunities 1 Usage is self-directed to provide flexibility and is driven by a student's needs. 2,3 CATE can help reinforce lecture material and provides many practice problems.…”