Puzzle-based versus traditional lecture: comparing the effects of pedagogy on academic performance in an undergraduate human anatomy and physiology II lab

BMC Medical Education

Christine Yukech¹  Jamie Parker¹  Anthony Deeter¹  Lucas Stetzik¹ 

[1] University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA

关键词: Concept;    Performance;    Physiology;    Anatomy;    Pedagogy;    Teaching;    Lecture;    Puzzle;   

Others  :  1224521
DOI  :  10.1186/s12909-015-0390-6

 received in 2014-03-03, accepted in 2015-06-11,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

A traditional lecture-based pedagogy conveys information and content while lacking sufficient development of critical thinking skills and problem solving. A puzzle-based pedagogy creates a broader contextual framework, and fosters critical thinking as well as logical reasoning skills that can then be used to improve a student’s performance on content specific assessments. This paper describes a pedagogical comparison of traditional lecture-based teaching and puzzle-based teaching in a Human Anatomy and Physiology II Lab.

Methods

Using a single subject/cross-over design half of the students from seven sections of the course were taught using one type of pedagogy for the first half of the semester, and then taught with a different pedagogy for the second half of the semester. The other half of the students were taught the same material but with the order of the pedagogies reversed. Students’ performance on quizzes and exams specific to the course, and in-class assignments specific to this study were assessed for: learning outcomes (the ability to form the correct conclusion or recall specific information), and authentic academic performance as described by (Am J Educ 104:280–312, 1996).

Results

Our findings suggest a significant improvement in students’ performance on standard course specific assessments using a puzzle-based pedagogy versus a traditional lecture-based teaching style. Quiz and test scores for students improved by 2.1 and 0.4 % respectively in the puzzle-based pedagogy, versus the traditional lecture-based teaching. Additionally, the assessments of authentic academic performance may only effectively measure a broader conceptual understanding in a limited set of contexts, and not in the context of a Human Anatomy and Physiology II Lab.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a puzzle-based pedagogy, when compared to traditional lecture-based teaching, can effectively enhance the performance of students on standard course specific assessments, even when the assessments only test a limited conceptual understanding of the material.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Stetzik et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Tanner K, Allen D. Approaches to biology teaching and learning: understanding the wrong answers–teaching toward conceptual change. Cell Biol Educ. 2005; 4:112-7.
• [2]Boaler J. Alternative approaches to teaching, learning and assessing mathematics. Eval Program Plann. 1998; 21:129-41.
• [3]Rivers DB. Using a course-long theme for inquiry-based laboratories in a comparative physiology course. Adv Physiol Educ. 2002; 26:317-26.
• [4]Thomas J. A review of research on project-based learning. The Autodesk Foundation, San Rafael, CA; 2000.
• [5]Tretten R, Zachariou P. Learning about project-based learning: assessment of project-based learning in Tinkertech schools. The Autodesk Foundation, San Rafael, CA; 1997.
• [6]Falkner N, Sooriamurthi R, Michalewicz Z. Puzzle-based learning for engineering and computer science. Computer. 2010;20–28.
• [7]Fisher KM, Wandersee JH, Moody D. Mapping biology knowledge. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands; 2001.
• [8]Frey BB, Schmitt VL, Allen JP. Defining Authentic Classroom Assessment. Practical Assessments Research & Evaluation. 2012. p.17.
• [9]Newmann FM, Archbald DA. The nature of authentic academic achievement. Toward a new science of educational testing and assessment. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY; 1992.
• [10]Newmann FM, Wehlage G. Authentic pedagogy and student performance. Am J Educ. 1996; 104:280-312.
• [11]Newmann FM. Authentic assessment in social studies: standards and examples. Handbook of classroom assessment: learning, adjustment and achievement. Academic, San Diego, CA; 1997.
• [12]Newmann FM. Research news and comment: an exchange of views on “semantics, psychometrics, and assessment reform: a close look at ‘authentic’ assessments“. Educ Res. 1998; 27(6):19-20.
• [13]Palm T. Performance assessment and authentic assessment. Practical assessments research & evaluation. 2008;13.
• [14]Barron BJS, Schwartz DL, Vye NJ, Moore A, Petrosino A, Zech L et al.. Doing with understanding: lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. J Learn Sci. 1998; 7:271-311.
• [15]Kraemer EW, Lombardo SV, Lepkowski J. The librarian, the machine, or a little of both; a comparative study of three information literacy pedagogies at Oakland University. Coll Res Libr. 2007; 68:330-42.
• [16]Merrick KE. An empirical evaluation of puzzle-based learning as an interest approach for teaching introductory computer science. IEEE Trans Educ. 2010; 53:677-80.
• [17]Michalewicz M. Puzzle-based learning: an introduction to critical thinking, mathematics, and problem solving. Hybrid Publishers, Melbourne Victoria Australia; 2008.
• [18]Greening T, Kay J, Kingston JH, Crawford K. Problem-based learning of first year computer science. Proceedings of the 1st Australasian Conference on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery. 1996.13-8.
• [19]Wood DF. Problem based learning. BMJ. 2008; 336:971.
• [20]Rubinstein J, Dhoble A, Ferenchick G. Puzzle based teaching versus traditional instruction in electrocardiogram interpretation for medical students–a pilot study. BMC Med Educ. 2009; 9:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Parhami B. Motivating computer engineering freshmen through mathematical and logical puzzles. IEEE Trans on Educ. 2009; 52:360-4.
• [22]Presthus W, Bygstad B. Business intelligence in college: a teaching case with real life puzzles. J Inform Technol Educ: Innovations In Practice. 2012;11.