1887

Action Research to Improve the Learning Space for Diagnostic Techniques

    Authors: Ellen Ariel1,*, Leigh Owens1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Supplemental materials available at http://jmbe.asm.org
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Douglas 4811, Townsville, Queensland, Australia. Phone: +62 747 814123. Fax: + 62 747 791526. E-mail: Ellen.Ariel@jcu.edu.au.
    • ©2015 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2015 vol. 16 no. 2 167-177. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.930
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • HTML
    73.75 Kb
  • XML
  • PDF
    302.29 Kb

    Abstract:

    The module described and evaluated here was created in response to perceived learning difficulties in diagnostic test design and interpretation for students in third-year Clinical Microbiology. Previously, the activities in lectures and laboratory classes in the module fell into the lower cognitive operations of “knowledge” and “understanding.” The new approach was to exchange part of the traditional activities with elements of interactive learning, where students had the opportunity to engage in deep learning using a variety of learning styles. The effectiveness of the new curriculum was assessed by means of on-course student assessment throughout the module, a final exam, an anonymous questionnaire on student evaluation of the different activities and a focus group of volunteers. Although the new curriculum enabled a major part of the student cohort to achieve higher pass grades (p < 0.001), it did not meet the requirements of the weaker students, and the proportion of the students failing the module remained at 34%. The action research applied here provided a number of valuable suggestions from students on how to improve future curricula from their perspective. Most importantly, an interactive online program that facilitated flexibility in the learning space for the different reagents and their interaction in diagnostic tests was proposed. The methods applied to improve and assess a curriculum refresh by involving students as partners in the process, as well as the outcomes, are discussed. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education

References & Citations

1. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR2001A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectivesLongmanNew York
2. Berk RA2003Professors are from Mars, students are from snickers: how to write and deliver humor in the classroom and in professional presentationsStylus Publishing, LLCSterling, VA
3. Biggs J2003Teaching for quality learning at university, 2nd edition (Society for Research into Higher Education)McGraw Hill and Open University PressBerkshire, England
4. Bowling KG, Klisch T, Wang S, Beier M2013Examining an online microbiology game as an effective tool for teaching the scientific processJ Microbiol Biol Educ1450510.1128/jmbe.v14i1.505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v14i1.505
5. Brockbank A, McGill I2007Facilitating reflective practice in higher educationOpen University PressBerkshire, England
6. Brookfield SD1995Becoming a critically reflective teacherJossey-BassSan Francisco, CA
7. Cavalieri J2009Veterinary student responses to learning activities that enhance confidence and ability in pig handlingJ Vet Med Educ36394910.3138/jvme.36.1.3919435989 http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.36.1.39
8. Chapell MS, et al2005Test anxiety and academic performance in undergraduate and graduate studentsJ Educ Psychol9726827410.1037/0022-0663.97.2.268 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.268
9. Dunn R1990Understanding the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model and the need for individual diagnosis and prescriptionJ Read Writ Learn Disabil Internat622324710.1080/0748763900060303 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0748763900060303
11. Kapp KM2012The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and educationJohn Wiley & SonsSan Francisco, CA
12. Krathwohl DR2002A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: an overviewTheory Practice41421221810.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
13. Marton F, Saljo R1976On qualitative differences in learning – I: outcome and processBrit J Educ Psychol4641110.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
14. Marton F, Saljo R1976On qualitative differences in learning – II: outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the taskBrit J Educ Psychol4611512710.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x
15. Meyer JHF, Land R2003Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines Rust CImproving student learning: improving student learning theory and practice – ten years onOxford Centre for Staff and Learning DevelopmentOxford, UK
16. Nguyen K, McDaniel MA2014Using quizzing to assist student learning in the classroom: the good, the bad, and the uglyTeach Psychol421879210.1177/0098628314562685 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0098628314562685
17. Offerdahl EG, Montplaisir L2013Student-generated reading questions: diagnosing student thinking with diverse formative assessmentsBiochem Molecul Biol Educ421293810.1002/bmb.20757 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20757
18. Peteroy-Kelly MA2007A discussion group program enhances the conceptual reasoning skills of students enrolled in a large lecture-format introductory biology courseJ Microbiol Biol Educ8132110.1128/193578807X14285807236222236538153577144 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/193578807X14285807236222
19. Pintrich PR2002The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessingTheory Practice41421922510.1207/s15430421tip4104_3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
20. Roediger HL, Agarwal PK, McDaniel MA, McDermott KB2011Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: long-term improvements from quizzingJ Experiment Psychol Applied1738239510.1037/a002625222082095 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026252
21. Roshier AL, Foster N, Jones MA2011Veterinary students’ usage and perception of video teaching resourcesBMC Medical Educ11110.1186/1472-6920-11-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-1
22. Rowe JWK2002First year engineering students’ approaches to studyIntl J Elec Eng Educ39320120910.7227/IJEEE.39.3.3 http://dx.doi.org/10.7227/IJEEE.39.3.3
23. Sander PHow should we research our students – part oneThe Higher Education Academy[Online.] www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/Documents/resources/database/id496_research_our_students_part1_sander.pdf
24. Savin-Baden M2003Facilitating problem-based learningThe Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University PressBerkshire, England
25. Tanner K, Allen D2004Approaches to biology teaching and learning: learning styles and the problem of instructional selection—engaging all students in science coursesCell Biol Educ319720110.1187/cbe.04-07-005015592590533116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-07-0050
26. Tomanek D, Montplaisir L2004Students’ studying and approaches to learning in introductory biologyCell Biol Educ325326210.1187/cbe.04-06-004115592598533129 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-06-0041
27. Tripp D1993Critical incidents in teaching: developing professional judgmentRoutledgeNew York
jmbe.v16i2.930.citations
jmbe/16/2
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.930
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.930
2015-12-01
2017-05-24

Abstract:

The module described and evaluated here was created in response to perceived learning difficulties in diagnostic test design and interpretation for students in third-year Clinical Microbiology. Previously, the activities in lectures and laboratory classes in the module fell into the lower cognitive operations of “knowledge” and “understanding.” The new approach was to exchange part of the traditional activities with elements of interactive learning, where students had the opportunity to engage in deep learning using a variety of learning styles. The effectiveness of the new curriculum was assessed by means of on-course student assessment throughout the module, a final exam, an anonymous questionnaire on student evaluation of the different activities and a focus group of volunteers. Although the new curriculum enabled a major part of the student cohort to achieve higher pass grades (p < 0.001), it did not meet the requirements of the weaker students, and the proportion of the students failing the module remained at 34%. The action research applied here provided a number of valuable suggestions from students on how to improve future curricula from their perspective. Most importantly, an interactive online program that facilitated flexibility in the learning space for the different reagents and their interaction in diagnostic tests was proposed. The methods applied to improve and assess a curriculum refresh by involving students as partners in the process, as well as the outcomes, are discussed. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/16/2/jmbe-16-167.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.930&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

Interquartile range of student final exam grades before (grey) and after (black) curriculum refresh. Quartile 1 = 0 to < 25%, quartile 2 = 25 to < 50%, quartile 3 = 50 to < 75%, and quartile 4 = 75 to 100%.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2015 vol. 16 no. 2 167-177. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.930
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

Percentage of scores of 1 to 5 (where 1 is not useful at all and 5 is very useful) provided by students in the assessment of different learning activities.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2015 vol. 16 no. 2 167-177. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.930
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error