Small-Group Learning in an Upper-Level University Biology Class Enhances Academic Performance and Student Attitudes Toward Group Work

To improve science learning, science educators' teaching tools need to address two major criteria: teaching practice should mirror our current understanding of the learning process; and science teaching should reflect scientific practice. We designed a small-group learning (SGL) model for a fourth year university neurobiology course using these criteria and studied student achievement and attitude in five course sections encompassing the transition from individual work-based to SGL course design. All students completed daily quizzes/assignments involving analysis of scientific data and the development of scientific models. Students in individual work-based (Individualistic) sections usually worked independently on these assignments, whereas SGL students completed assignments in permanent groups of six. SGL students had significantly higher final exam grades than Individualistic students. The transition to the SGL model was marked by a notable increase in 10th percentile exam grade (Individualistic: 47.5%; Initial SGL: 60%; Refined SGL: 65%), suggesting SGL enhanced achievement among the least prepared students. We also studied student achievement on paired quizzes: quizzes were first completed individually and submitted, and then completed as a group and submitted. The group quiz grade was higher than the individual quiz grade of the highest achiever in each group over the term. All students – even term high achievers –could benefit from the SGL environment. Additionally, entrance and exit surveys demonstrated student attitudes toward SGL were more positive at the end of the Refined SGL course. We assert that SGL is uniquely-positioned to promote effective learning in the science classroom

2013 Alan Blizzard Award Feature Article - Enriching Educational Experiences through UBC’s First Year Seminar in Science (SCIE113)

The First Year Seminar in Science (SCIE113) was developed during 2009/2010 academic year through an exemplary collaboration between faculty, administrators and educational support staff in the Faculty of Science at the University of British Columbia (UBC). SCIE113 reflects the vision and values of the Faculty of Science and UBC by offering an enriched educational experience to its first year students. The small class format provides students an intimate connection with faculty, an opportunity for significant engagement early in their academic careers, and helps with transitioning to the university environment.The overall goal of SCIE113 is to introduce skills that cross disciplinary boundaries and that every scientist and student in science must master: how to constructively build an evidence-based argument and how to communicate effectively. The overarching course goals are to define and discuss the elements of a scientific approach, to think like a scientist, and to communicate science through writing. SCIE113 fosters the development of authentic scientific scholars through the construction, integration, and use of argumentation skills and through an exploration of science as a way of knowing using a collaborative class environment.  SCIE113 engages students in interactive and collaborative activities and promotes learning of scientific argumentation and writing skills. In-class and out-of-class activities allow students to frequently discuss, debate, and defend their views of science. Specific learning activities such as case studies, targeted readings, and examinations of media and scientific articles allow students to evaluate the validity of scientific claims and to construct a scientific argument. Meanwhile, activities such as reflections, in-class writing, peer review, and discussions on the fundamentals of writing help students to improve their writing skills which are assessed by three short essays and a term project. The guided peer review process, which fosters collaboration, enables students to provide expert-like feedback to their peers. Faculty and TA feedback completes the review process.  SCIE113 is an exemplary model of collaboration and is guided by best practices in instructional design.SCIE113 is a model of collaborative course design and instruction with a large, multi-disciplinary teaching team. The design of SCIE113 is guided by best practices and continues to evolve in response to emerging research. The teaching team consists of faculty and teaching assistants from 14 different departments, representing four Faculties, with a wide range of expertise and experience in fostering student learning. The teaching team meets bi-weekly to cultivate reflective practice and to support faculty in their professional development for teaching this writing intensive course.SCIE113 is informed by the scholarship of teaching and learning.SCIE113 is informed by comprehensive research that is incorporated into course design and implementation and utilizes validated assessment tools. Frequent feedback from students and faculty, and measures of perceived and actual learning gains, ensure successful course implementation and promote student learning.

Typical lesson plan and marking scheme used in our fourth-year undergraduate biology course.

<p>a) Typical lesson plan used in the Refined SGL sections. Lessons began with a quiz on the previous day's material: this quiz was completed by individuals first, and the same quiz was then attempted by the group. The quiz was subsequently taken up in-class. The rest of the lesson consisted of instructor-led lecture and discussion, interspersed with student-centred activities. Some lessons (6 per term) were entirely devoted to in-class group assignments; other lessons (8 per term) were devoted to seminar presentations. b) Marking scheme used in the Refined SGL sections. Students were evaluated using a variety of instruments. Group-based evaluations included the group seminar, group quizzes and assignments, and participation, whereas individuals were evaluated on their written report, individual quizzes, and midterm and final exams. In order to reinforce the importance of learning concepts rather than memorization, we allowed students one double-sided “cheat sheet” for both exams. Participation marks were based on peer assessment: each student rated the performance of every other member of their group according to five categories (attendance and daily participation, preparation, responsibility, respect and seminar participation).</p

Student attitudes toward small-group learning improved over the term.

<p>Students in the Refined SGL environment completed the Student Attitudes toward Group Environments (SAGE) questionnaire twice, once at the start (Entrance) and once at the end (Exit) of the course. Each question on the SAGE survey contributed to one of four subscores. (a) Student attitudes toward the quality of product produced in groups and toward peer support offered in groups were more positive on the exit survey than on the entrance survey. There was no change in attitudes toward student interdependence. Students expressed much less frustration with group members on the exit survey. (b) The positive shifts in attitude expressed by all students were also reflected in term high achievers' responses. (c) High achievers' attitudes towards peer support shifted significantly more over the term than did the attitudes of all students. Entrance survey scores were subtracted from exit survey scores for each of the four subscores. These data suggest that students – even term high achievers – develop a more positive perspective toward working in groups after taking a course structured around SGL. Asterisks indicate p<0.05 versus entrance survey (a, b; paired t test) or versus all students (c, unpaired t test); n = 36 (all students), n = 7 (term high achievers – one term high achiever did not complete both surveys).</p

The effectiveness of small-group-learning (SGL) is borne out in final exam performance.

<p>Grades from final exams were examined for five terms of a fourth-year Developmental Neurobiology course. Terms with similar learning environments were combined: students either worked in an Individualistic environment (2005 and 2006) or worked in permanent small groups (Initial SGL, 2007; and Refined SGL, 2008 and 2009). We incorporated changes in Refined SGL that improved on the design of the Initial SGL setting (e.g. by introducing individual quizzes prior to group quizzes). a) The class average for the final exam was higher in the Refined SGL environment than it was for both other groups. b) Box plots of the same data reveal an increase in median (line), 75^th percentile (upper limit of box) and 25^th percentile (lower limit of box) with the introduction of SGL. Whiskers represent the 10^th and 90^th percentiles: the grade at the 10^th percentile exhibits a remarkable, positive shift with the introduction of SGL. c,d). Comparison of exam grade distributions between these three groups showed that students in the Initial SGL performed better than students in the Individualistic setting, and that students in the Refined SGL environment performed better than students in both other groups. This indicates that our SGL environment benefits academic performance, and that refinements made since its initial implementation have made the SGL model more effective. Asterisks indicate significant differences between groups (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA, Dunn's test (a); Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness-of-fit test (d)); n = 61 (Individualistic), n = 76 (Initial SGL), n = 82 (Refined SGL).</p

Small-group learning benefited all students, including term high achievers.

<p>In the Refined SGL environment, students first wrote each quiz individually, and then completed the same quiz in small groups immediately after (13 quizzes over the term). For the group quiz, group members had to consider and debate possible answers, since a single answer was submitted and graded for the entire group. When all quiz grades were considered, group quiz grades were significantly higher than individual quiz grades (left panel). Interestingly, group grades were also significantly higher than individual grades of term high achievers (middle panel). Term high achievers were those students who had the best average individual quiz grade over the term in each group (one student per group). Average group quiz grades were not significantly different from the individual grades of the daily top-performing student on each quiz (right panel). These data suggest that even term high-achieving students profit from small-group learning, that groups perform as well as their daily top-performing student on any given quiz, and that the daily top performer in groups changes from quiz to quiz. Asterisks indicate p<0.05 versus group quiz grades (paired t test); n = 39 (all students), n = 8 (group grades, term high achievers, daily top performer).</p