Adv Physiol Educ ADInstruments
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Advan. Physiol. Edu. 26: 174-184, 2002;
1043-4046/02 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pelaez, N. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pelaez, N. J.
ADV PHYSIOL EDUC 26:174-184, 2002
© 2002 American Physiological Society

HOW WE TEACH

PROBLEM-BASED WRITING WITH PEER REVIEW IMPROVES ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN PHYSIOLOGY

Nancy J. Pelaez

Department of Biological Science, College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California 92834

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether problem-based writing with peer review (PW-PR) improves undergraduate student performance on physiology exams. Didactic lectures were replaced with assignments to give students practice explaining their reasoning while solving qualitative problems, thus transferring the responsibility for abstraction and generalization to the students. Performance on exam items about concepts taught using PW-PR was compared with performance on concepts taught using didactic lectures followed by group work. Calibrated Peer ReviewTM, a Web-delivered program, was used to collect student essays and to manage anonymous peer review after students "passed" three calibration peer reviews. Results show that the students had difficulty relating concepts. Relationship errors were categorized as 1) problems recognizing levels of organization, 2) problems with cause/effect, and 3) overgeneralizations. For example, some described cells as molecules; others thought that vesicles transport materials through the extracellular fluid. With PW-PR, class discussion was used to confront and resolve such difficulties. Both multiple-choice and essay exam results were better with PW-PR instead of lecture.

Key words: active learning; elementary physiology; writing to learn




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Integr. Comp. Biol.Home page
B. E. Timmerman, D. C. Strickland, and S. M. Carstensen
Curricular reform and inquiry teaching in biology: where are our efforts most fruitfully invested?
Integr. Comp. Biol., August 1, 2008; 48(2): 226 - 240.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Adv. Physiol. Educ.Home page
D. L. Tauck
Using a classic paper by Gottschalk and Mylle to teach the countercurrent model of urinary concentration
Advan Physiol Educ, June 1, 2006; 30(2): 63 - 66.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Adv. Physiol. Educ.Home page
P. Poronnik and R. W. Moni
The Opinion Editorial: teaching physiology outside the box
Advan Physiol Educ, June 1, 2006; 30(2): 73 - 82.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Adv. Physiol. Educ.Home page
N. J. Pelaez, D. D. Boyd, J. B. Rojas, and M. A. Hoover
Prevalence of blood circulation misconceptions among prospective elementary teachers
Advan Physiol Educ, September 1, 2005; 29(3): 172 - 181.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online