Advan. Physiol. Edu. 31: 118, 2007;
doi:10.1152/advan.00056.2006
1043-4046/07 $8.00
ADV PHYSIOL EDUC 31:118, 2007
© 2007 American Physiological Society
ILLUMINATIONS
Peer-Guided Cooperative Learning Enhances the Performance of Refresher Students
Sharmila Torke,
Reem Rachel Abraham,
K. Ramnarayan and
Subramanya Upadhya
Department of Physiology,
Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal Campus,
Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India,
E-mail: sharmilatorke{at}yahoo.com
Many creative strategies have been developed in recent years to promote active learning, some of which encourage students to work collaboratively with peers. Students actively involved in learning retain information longer than when they are passive learners (1). However, faculty members are often reluctant to incorporate active learning activities in the class as excessive preparation time is required for devising strategies that promote active learning (2). It is possible to develop activities that do not require much preparation time to promote active learning in a small class. Peer-guided cooperative learning (PCL) was one such activity introduced as a learning method to a class of refresher students. The undergraduate medical program at Melaka Manipal Medical College (Manipal, Karnataka, India) is a 5-yr academic program. Students are taught basic science subjects in the first year, which include anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry. The first-year curriculum is spread over four blocks, and each block has a 10-wk duration. At the end of the first year, students undertake a summative examination. Those who fail in this examination have to repeat a training program of 6-mo duration (a refresher course). In physiology, there are no lecture classes during the refresher course. Instead, the allotted hours are usually used to conduct class tests. The topics for these tests were announced at the commencement of the refresher course. Test scores contributed to the continuous assessment. However, the performance of these students was found to be unsatisfactory. Factors like a lack of motivation, passive learning, etc., may have contributed to the students' poor performance. PCL was introduced to these students (n = 25) in an effort to improve their performance on examinations.
This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Research Committee. At the commencement of the class, students were administered a test (test 1). After the test, PCL was introduced to the class. The class was divided into five small teams with four to five members in each team. One member from each team was given the responsibility of leading the discussions in the right direction. Each team was given a subtopic to prepare for presentation. They were instructed to discuss the subtopic with their team members and present the same subtopic after 15 min. They were also told that they would be evaluated on the whole topic after the presentations by all teams. After 15 min, each team presented their subtopic. The leader from each team chose two members to make the presentations. Other members of the team were made responsible in clarifying the doubts raised by other team members. Students were required to be attentive during the presentations of all teams as they were to be evaluated later. The teacher's role in PCL was only to act as a facilitator. To test the impact of PCL on student performance, another test (test 2) was conducted after PCL. Both tests (tests 1 and 2) consisted of similar types of questions (incomplete statements, multiple true-false questions, and short-answer questions) and were out of 20 marks. After test 2, a survey regarding the utility of PCL was administered to the students. Students were asked to indicate their response to the statements in a questionnaire. Student responses to PCL are shown in Table 1. The statements shown in Table 1 were framed to take into consideration some of the limitations of the refresher students as observed by the faculty members. Student performances in the two tests were compared by a paired t-test. Analysis of the student scores revealed that students performed better in test 2 compared with test 1 (P < 0.001). The mean (SD) score for test 1 was found to be 12.50 (2.35) and that for test 2 was15.68 (2.12). Thus, PCL had a positive impact on student performance.
The student survey and analysis of test scores revealed that PCL was well received by the students. It also demonstrated better understanding of the subject by the students and it promoted teamwork among the students. Although some of the students found it stressful, they agreed that it helped to improve their performance. Some of them opined that PCL should be a regular classroom activity.
 |
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- Cross PK. Teaching for learning. Am Assoc Higher Educ Bull 39: 3–7, 1987.
- Rao SP, DiCarlo SE. Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Adv Physiol Educ 24: 51–55, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Copyright © 2007 by the American Physiological Society.
TOP
REFERENCES