FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2155748321> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2155748321 endingPage "118" @default.
• W2155748321 startingPage "118" @default.
• W2155748321 abstract "IlluminationsPeer-Guided Cooperative Learning Enhances the Performance of Refresher StudentsSharmila Torke, Reem Rachel Abraham, K. Ramnarayan, and Subramanya UpadhyaSharmila TorkeDepartment of Physiology, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal Campus, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India, E-mail: , Reem Rachel AbrahamDepartment of Physiology, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal Campus, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India, E-mail: , K. RamnarayanDepartment of Physiology, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal Campus, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India, E-mail: , and Subramanya UpadhyaDepartment of Physiology, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal Campus, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India, E-mail: Published Online:01 Jan 2007https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00056.2006MoreSectionsPDF (28 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInWeChat 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. Table 1. Student attitudes regarding PCL QuestionYesNoNot Sure1. PCL promoted better understanding of the subject.20322. PCL motivated me to learn.18433. PCL was less stressful.19514. PCL helped to reduce my misconceptions about the topic.19245. PCL improved my communication skills.14566. The interaction with my peers improved my performance.13577. I could retain information better with PCL than with self-learning.16458. PCL increased my concentration regarding the topic.17719. PCL permited useful interactions with my peers.1843The numbers indicate the numbers of students who responded to each statement. PCL, peer-guided cooperative learning. REFERENCES1 Cross PK. Teaching for learning. Am Assoc Higher Educ Bull 39: 3–7, 1987.Google Scholar2 Rao SP, DiCarlo SE. Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Adv Physiol Educ 24: 51–55, 2000.Link | ISI | Google Scholar Download PDF Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation Cited ByWhat factors motivate male and female Generation Z students to become engaged as peer teachers? A mixed‐method study among medical and dental students in the gross anatomy course25 October 2021 | Anatomical Sciences Education, Vol. 15, No. 4The influence of tutor training for peer tutors in the dissection course on the learning behavior of studentsAnnals of Anatomy - Anatomischer Anzeiger, Vol. 208Development and implementation of a technical and didactical training program for student tutors in the dissection courseAnnals of Anatomy - Anatomischer Anzeiger, Vol. 192, No. 6Does a combined technical and didactical training program improve the acceptance of student tutors in the dissection course? A prospective controlled randomized studyAnnals of Anatomy - Anatomischer Anzeiger, Vol. 192, No. 6 More from this issue > Volume 31Issue 1January 2007Pages 118-118 Copyright & Permissions© 2007 American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00056.2006PubMed17327594History Published online 1 January 2007 Published in print 1 January 2007 Metrics" @default.
• W2155748321 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2155748321 creator A5012320415 @default.
• W2155748321 creator A5020598079 @default.
• W2155748321 creator A5051071814 @default.
• W2155748321 creator A5075149182 @default.
• W2155748321 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W2155748321 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2155748321 title "Peer-Guided Cooperative Learning Enhances the Performance of Refresher Students" @default.
• W2155748321 cites W2118467461 @default.
• W2155748321 doi "https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00056.2006" @default.
• W2155748321 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17327594" @default.
• W2155748321 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2155748321 type Work @default.
• W2155748321 sameAs 2155748321 @default.
• W2155748321 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2155748321 countsByYear W21557483212012 @default.
• W2155748321 countsByYear W21557483212016 @default.
• W2155748321 countsByYear W21557483212021 @default.
• W2155748321 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2155748321 hasAuthorship W2155748321A5012320415 @default.
• W2155748321 hasAuthorship W2155748321A5020598079 @default.
• W2155748321 hasAuthorship W2155748321A5051071814 @default.
• W2155748321 hasAuthorship W2155748321A5075149182 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConcept C2778714735 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConcept C42058189 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConcept C77967617 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConceptScore W2155748321C145420912 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConceptScore W2155748321C154945302 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConceptScore W2155748321C15744967 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConceptScore W2155748321C19417346 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConceptScore W2155748321C2778714735 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConceptScore W2155748321C41008148 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConceptScore W2155748321C42058189 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConceptScore W2155748321C509550671 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConceptScore W2155748321C71924100 @default.
• W2155748321 hasConceptScore W2155748321C77967617 @default.
• W2155748321 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2155748321 hasLocation W21557483211 @default.
• W2155748321 hasLocation W21557483212 @default.
• W2155748321 hasOpenAccess W2155748321 @default.
• W2155748321 hasPrimaryLocation W21557483211 @default.
• W2155748321 hasRelatedWork W2182425290 @default.
• W2155748321 hasRelatedWork W2529908991 @default.
• W2155748321 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2155748321 hasRelatedWork W2753387996 @default.
• W2155748321 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2155748321 hasRelatedWork W2909727390 @default.
• W2155748321 hasRelatedWork W2954748270 @default.
• W2155748321 hasRelatedWork W2983537239 @default.
• W2155748321 hasRelatedWork W4206153547 @default.
• W2155748321 hasRelatedWork W2085612065 @default.
• W2155748321 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W2155748321 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2155748321 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2155748321 magId "2155748321" @default.
• W2155748321 workType "article" @default.