scholarly journals How much structuring is beneficial with regard to examination scores? A prospective study of three forms of active learning

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus H. Reinhardt ◽  
Evelyne N. Rosen
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Collaborative Group ◽  
Cooperative Group ◽  
Cooperative Groups ◽  
Traditional Lecture ◽  
Collaborative Groups ◽  
Learning Group ◽  
Group A ◽  
A Prospective Study

Many studies have demonstrated a superiority of active learning forms compared with traditional lecture. However, there is still debate as to what degree structuring is necessary with regard to high exam outcomes. Seventy-five students from a premedical school were randomly attributed to an active lecture group, a cooperative group, or a collaborative learning group. The active lecture group received lectures with questions to resolve at the end of the lecture. At the same time, the cooperative group and the collaborative group had to work on a problem and prepare presentations for their answers. The collaborative group worked in a mostly self-directed manner; the cooperative group had to follow a time schedule. For the additional work of preparing the poster presentation, the collaborative and cooperative groups were allowed 50% more working time. In part 1, all groups worked on the citric acid cycle, and in part 2, all groups worked on molecular genetics. Collaborative groups had to work on tasks and prepare presentations for their answers. At the end of each part, all three groups were subjected to the same exam. Additionally, in the collaborative and cooperative groups, the presentations were marked. All evaluations were performed by two independent examiners. Exam results of the active lecture groups were highest. Results of the cooperative group were nonsignificantly lower than the active lecture group and significantly higher than the collaborative group. The presentation quality was nonsignificantly higher in the collaborative group compared with the cooperative group. This study shows that active lecturing produced the highest exam results, which significantly differed from collaborative learning results. The additional elaboration in the cooperative and collaborative learning setting yielded the high presentation quality but apparently could not contribute further to exam scores. Cooperative learning seems to be a good compromise if high exam and presentation scores are expected.

Strategies for Active Learning in Music Classrooms

2020 ◽  
pp. 175-192
Author(s):  
Colleen M. Conway
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
Group Work ◽  
Transmission Model ◽  
Cooperative Groups ◽  
Learning Groups ◽  
Collaborative Groups ◽  
Grouping Students ◽  
Games And Simulations ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Music Classrooms

Chapter 9 provides a focus on learner-centered pedagogy and a move away from the transmission model of teaching leads to active learning. I open this chapter with an extended discussion of some of the various types of group work including cooperative as well as collaborative learning groups. Cooperative groups work together on a task that is most often presented or designed by the instructor whereas collaborative groups are often involved in task generation as well as completion. Strategies for grouping students as well as room set-up, planning for group work, and assessment of group activities are addressed. The second part of the chapter provides suggestions for specific types of problem-based learning including case-based teaching, games, and simulations.

Instructors’ professional vision for collaborative learning groups

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 346-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Micah Gideon Modell
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Collaborative Group ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Think Aloud ◽  
Professional Vision ◽  
Group Project ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Learning Group ◽  
Think Aloud Protocol ◽  
Group Projects

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate how instructors approach the task of diagnosing collaborative learning group dysfunction when presented with an opportunity and a request to do so. Design/methodology/approach This mixed methods study asked instructors experienced in using group work to sequentially respond to weekly instalments of reflective journal entries representing a fictional member of a collaborative learning group working through a group project. A web-based instrument captured quantitative and qualitative data during the first phase where instructors worked on their own and in the second phase where participants used a think-aloud protocol while engaging in the same task. The data were analysed to understand their professional vision (what they notice and how they make sense of it as well as consistency across instructors) for collaborative group projects. Findings This study found that instructors were consistent neither in what they noticed nor in how they made sense of what they perceived. This resulted in a tendency not to label dysfunctional groups as such. Social implications If the instructors lack professional vision for group projects, the students are unlikely to learn to work in groups and the instructors will find it difficult to seek help and learn from one another. Originality/value This is an exploratory study because there was minimal extant research on the topic. Methods included the use of narrative fiction and a remote think-aloud protocol.

scholarly journals Is Peer Interaction Necessary for Optimal Active Learning?

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debra L. Linton ◽  
Jan Keith Farmer ◽  
Ernie Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
Student Performance ◽  
Instructional Materials ◽  
Cooperative Groups ◽  
Traditional Lecture ◽  
Group Processing ◽  
Learning Techniques ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Learning Interventions ◽  
Optimal Implementation

Meta-analyses of active-learning research consistently show that active-learning techniques result in greater student performance than traditional lecture-based courses. However, some individual studies show no effect of active-learning interventions. This may be due to inexperienced implementation of active learning. To minimize the effect of inexperience, we should try to provide more explicit implementation recommendations based on research into the key components of effective active learning. We investigated the optimal implementation of active-learning exercises within a “lecture” course. Two sections of nonmajors biology were taught by the same instructor, in the same semester, using the same instructional materials and assessments. Students in one section completed in-class active-learning exercises in cooperative groups, while students in the other section completed the same activities individually. Performance on low-level, multiple-choice assessments was not significantly different between sections. However, students who worked in cooperative groups on the in-class activities significantly outperformed students who completed the activities individually on the higher-level, extended-response questions. Our results provide additional evidence that group processing of activities should be the recommended mode of implementation for in-class active-learning exercises.

I Search Therefore I Learn - Active and Collaborative Learning in Language Teaching

2012 ◽  
pp. 103-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivana Marenzi ◽  
Wolfgang Nejdl
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Active Learning ◽  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Specific Subject ◽  
Learning Group ◽  
Active And Collaborative Learning ◽  
Collaborative Search

In Content and Language Integrated Learning the context is to explicitly teach a subject through a foreign or second language, and therefore, implicitly to teach the language through this subject. Adding the activity of collaborative search is part of constructing the context, and hence making language learning real. With these goals in mind, collaborative and active learning is supported by the LearnWeb2.0 infrastructure, which helps students in collaborative searching and organization of resources. In LearnWeb2.0, searching is focused on a specific subject providing materials from Web 2.0 platforms; ratings and comments are directly linked to the resources and shared within the learning group. The authors present two CLIL courses, one in Germany and one in Italy, for which LearnWeb2.0 was used. For both courses, the authors present the tasks they designed to foster students’ active and creative learning, and discuss how these tasks were supported by our infrastructure. They present the evaluation design and results for both courses. Based on this, they discuss commonalities and differences in both scenarios, from the educational and cultural point of view, and how these influence students’ performance and satisfaction. Finally, the authors discuss lessons learned and ideas for improving educational setup and functionalities for future LearnWeb2.0 based courses.

A “Mixed” Strategy for Collaborative Group Formation and Its Learning Outcomes

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 440-462
Author(s):  
Anal Acharya ◽  
Devadatta Sinha
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Learning Styles ◽  
Group Formation ◽  
Learning System ◽  
Regression Coefficients ◽  
Collaborative Group ◽  
Subject Knowledge ◽  
Personal Learning ◽  
Learning Group ◽  
Prototype Learning

This study uses homogeneity in personal learning styles and heterogeneity in subject knowledge for collaborative learning group decomposition indicating that groups are “mixed” in nature. Homogeneity within groups was formed using K-means clustering and greedy search, whereas heterogeneity imbibed using agenda-driven search. For checking learning effectiveness, a simple schema of collaborative learning was proposed and prototype learning system developed using Android Emulator. Multiple regression analysis was applied on their learning results to derive regression coefficients for determining learning efficiency. The derived set of regression coefficients suggests more the time taken to form groups, better the student learning quality.

scholarly journals More than Chalkboards: Classroom Spaces and Collaborative Learning Attitudes

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Clinton
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Student Perceptions ◽  
Learning Environments ◽  
Peer Interaction ◽  
Perceived Value ◽  
Learning Spaces ◽  
Traditional Lecture ◽  
Learning Attitudes ◽  
Aviation Students

The well-known benefits of collaborative learning have prompted the development of active learning classrooms that are designed to facilitate peer interaction. Given the expense of designing active learning classrooms, examining student perceptions of these learning spaces is critical. Furthermore, it is not well understood how the type of classroom (active learning or traditional lecture) relates to students’ perceptions of collaborative learning. In this study, aviation students (N = 46) were enrolled in the same course taught in the same active-learning manner by the same professor with one section taught in an active-learning classroom and one taught in a traditional lecture classroom. Results indicated that students perceived the active-learning classroom as much better suited to collaborative learning than the traditional lecture classroom. In addition, students in the active-learning classroom reported higher-levels of perceived value of collaborative learning, both in terms of enjoyment and usefulness, than did students in the traditional lecture classroom. Implications for designing learning environments and promoting the value of active learning to students are discussed.

Collaborative Learning in the Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Classroom

2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn S. Potts ◽  
Sarah M. Ginsberg
Keyword(s):  
Collaborative Learning ◽  
Student Retention ◽  
Student Learning ◽  
Student Learning Outcomes ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Traditional Lecture ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Improve Student Learning

Abstract In recent years, colleges and universities across the country have been called upon to increase the quality of education provided and to improve student retention rates. In response to this challenge, many faculty are exploring alternatives to the traditional “lecture-centered” approach of higher education in an attempt to increase student learning and satisfaction. Collaborative learning is one method of teaching, which has been demonstrated to improve student learning outcomes.

Learning to Collaborate

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin J. S. Zollman
Keyword(s):  
Computer Simulations ◽  
Collaborative Group ◽  
Collaborative Groups ◽  
Collaborative Interactions ◽  
The Cost

This article presents a rudimentary model of collaboration with the aim to understand the conditions under which groups of scientists will endogenously form optimal collaborative groups. By analyzing the model with computer simulations, I uncover three lessons for collaborative groups. First, in reducing the cost borne by scientists from collaborating, one benefits the members of the group. Second, increasing the number of potential collaborative partners benefits all those involved in a collaborative group. Finally and counter intuitively, this model suggests that groups do better when scientists avoid experimenting with new collaborative interactions.

CLINICAL OUTCOME AND COST COMPARISON OF CARPAL TUNNEL WOUND CLOSURE WITH MONOCRYL® AND ETHILON®: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY

Hand Surgery ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (02) ◽  
pp. 189-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anis Dosani ◽  
Sameer K. Khan ◽  
Sheila Gray ◽  
Steve Joseph ◽  
Ian A. Whittaker
Keyword(s):  
Carpal Tunnel ◽  
Wound Closure ◽  
Unit Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Absorbable Suture ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
A Prospective Study

This prospective non-randomised two-cohort study compares the use of an absorbable suture (Poliglecrapone [Monocryl]: Group A) and a non-absorbable suture (Polyamide [Ethilon]: Group B) in wound closure after elective carpal tunnel decompression. The primary outcome was scar cosmesis as assessed by the Stonybrook Scar Evaluation Scale (SBSES); the financial cost of wound closure was compared as a secondary outocome. All fifty patients completed follow-up. At six weeks, there was no significant difference in the two groups regarding scar tenderness (p = 0.5), although residual swelling was more evident in the absorbable group (p = 0.2). The mean SBSES score at six weeks was 4.72 in Group A, and 4.8 in Group B (p = 0.3). The unit cost per closed wound of Monocryl was three times than Ethilon (p < 0.05). Ethilon is thus cost-effective without compromising the cosmetic outcome, and we recommend using this as the preferred suture for closure of carpal tunnel wounds.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document