Enhancing active learning in the student laboratory

Harold I. Modell, Joel A. Michael, Tom Adamson, Barbara A Horwitz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study addresses issues raised by the results of that work. In one group, a written protocol directed students to predict what would happen to frequency and depth of breathing during exercise on a bicycle ergometer, run the experiment, and compare their results to their predictions ("predictor without verification"). In a "predictor with verification" group, students followed the same written protocol but were also required to show the instructor their predictions before running the experiment. Students in a third group reported their predictions verbally to an instructor immediately before exercise and reviewed their results with that instructor immediately after exercise ("instructor intervention group"). Results of this study were consistent with our earlier work. The predictor with verification and predictor without verification protocols yielded similar results. The instructor intervention protocol yielded higher success rates in repairing students' mental models. We subsequently assessed the efficacy of a prediction period at the beginning of the lab session and a wrap-up period at the end to compare predictions and results. This predict and wrap-up protocol was more effective than the predictor without verification protocol, but it was not as effective as the instructor intervention protocol. Although these results may reflect multiple factors impacting learning in the student laboratory, we believe that a major factor is a mismatch between students' approaches to learning and the intended learning outcomes of the experience.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)107-111
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education
Volume28
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2004

Fingerprint

Problem-Based Learning
Students
Learning
Breathing Exercises
Exercise
Running

Keywords

  • Misconceptions
  • Respiratory physiology
  • Student laboratory protocols

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology

Cite this

Enhancing active learning in the student laboratory. / Modell, Harold I.; Michael, Joel A.; Adamson, Tom; Horwitz, Barbara A.

In: American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 28, No. 3, 09.2004, p. 107-111.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Modell, Harold I. ; Michael, Joel A. ; Adamson, Tom ; Horwitz, Barbara A. / Enhancing active learning in the student laboratory. In: American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education. 2004 ; Vol. 28, No. 3. pp. 107-111.
@article{0798877e5e0b40469adeb5c1e73b3e06,
title = "Enhancing active learning in the student laboratory",
abstract = "This study addresses issues raised by the results of that work. In one group, a written protocol directed students to predict what would happen to frequency and depth of breathing during exercise on a bicycle ergometer, run the experiment, and compare their results to their predictions ({"}predictor without verification{"}). In a {"}predictor with verification{"} group, students followed the same written protocol but were also required to show the instructor their predictions before running the experiment. Students in a third group reported their predictions verbally to an instructor immediately before exercise and reviewed their results with that instructor immediately after exercise ({"}instructor intervention group{"}). Results of this study were consistent with our earlier work. The predictor with verification and predictor without verification protocols yielded similar results. The instructor intervention protocol yielded higher success rates in repairing students' mental models. We subsequently assessed the efficacy of a prediction period at the beginning of the lab session and a wrap-up period at the end to compare predictions and results. This predict and wrap-up protocol was more effective than the predictor without verification protocol, but it was not as effective as the instructor intervention protocol. Although these results may reflect multiple factors impacting learning in the student laboratory, we believe that a major factor is a mismatch between students' approaches to learning and the intended learning outcomes of the experience.",
keywords = "Misconceptions, Respiratory physiology, Student laboratory protocols",
author = "Modell, {Harold I.} and Michael, {Joel A.} and Tom Adamson and Horwitz, {Barbara A}",
year = "2004",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1152/advan.00049.2003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "107--111",
journal = "American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education",
issn = "1043-4046",
publisher = "American Physiological Society",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Enhancing active learning in the student laboratory

AU - Modell, Harold I.

AU - Michael, Joel A.

AU - Adamson, Tom

AU - Horwitz, Barbara A

PY - 2004/9

Y1 - 2004/9

N2 - This study addresses issues raised by the results of that work. In one group, a written protocol directed students to predict what would happen to frequency and depth of breathing during exercise on a bicycle ergometer, run the experiment, and compare their results to their predictions ("predictor without verification"). In a "predictor with verification" group, students followed the same written protocol but were also required to show the instructor their predictions before running the experiment. Students in a third group reported their predictions verbally to an instructor immediately before exercise and reviewed their results with that instructor immediately after exercise ("instructor intervention group"). Results of this study were consistent with our earlier work. The predictor with verification and predictor without verification protocols yielded similar results. The instructor intervention protocol yielded higher success rates in repairing students' mental models. We subsequently assessed the efficacy of a prediction period at the beginning of the lab session and a wrap-up period at the end to compare predictions and results. This predict and wrap-up protocol was more effective than the predictor without verification protocol, but it was not as effective as the instructor intervention protocol. Although these results may reflect multiple factors impacting learning in the student laboratory, we believe that a major factor is a mismatch between students' approaches to learning and the intended learning outcomes of the experience.

AB - This study addresses issues raised by the results of that work. In one group, a written protocol directed students to predict what would happen to frequency and depth of breathing during exercise on a bicycle ergometer, run the experiment, and compare their results to their predictions ("predictor without verification"). In a "predictor with verification" group, students followed the same written protocol but were also required to show the instructor their predictions before running the experiment. Students in a third group reported their predictions verbally to an instructor immediately before exercise and reviewed their results with that instructor immediately after exercise ("instructor intervention group"). Results of this study were consistent with our earlier work. The predictor with verification and predictor without verification protocols yielded similar results. The instructor intervention protocol yielded higher success rates in repairing students' mental models. We subsequently assessed the efficacy of a prediction period at the beginning of the lab session and a wrap-up period at the end to compare predictions and results. This predict and wrap-up protocol was more effective than the predictor without verification protocol, but it was not as effective as the instructor intervention protocol. Although these results may reflect multiple factors impacting learning in the student laboratory, we believe that a major factor is a mismatch between students' approaches to learning and the intended learning outcomes of the experience.

KW - Misconceptions

KW - Respiratory physiology

KW - Student laboratory protocols

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=10344265058&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=10344265058&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1152/advan.00049.2003

DO - 10.1152/advan.00049.2003

M3 - Article

C2 - 15319193

AN - SCOPUS:10344265058

VL - 28

SP - 107

EP - 111

JO - American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education

JF - American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education

SN - 1043-4046

IS - 3

ER -