Comparison of Final Exam Test Scores of Neuroscience Students Who Experienced Traditional Methodologies versus Problem-Based Learning Methodologies

Abstract

Faculty members in the Occupational Therapy Department at Belmont University needed to determine if an alternative teaching method, consisting of lecture and problem-based learning (PBL), was more effective than a traditional lecture method in maximizing student achievement in neuroscience. This study was undertaken to determine if students who participated in an alternative methodology (experimental group) would perform differently on a comprehensive final exam than students who experienced a traditional lecture approach (control group). A second purpose was to determine if the experimental group achieved a greater score on higher-level thinking test questions than the control group. There were two research questions for this study. First, "Will there be a significant difference in the mean final unit test score of the experimental group in comparison with the control group?" Second, "Will there be a significant increase in the mean final unit test score on higher-level thinking items between the experimental and control groups? For research question one, a two-tailed independent samples t-test was used to compare mean test scores of the two groups. Based on a P value of. 846, it was determined that there was not a significant difference in total test scores between the two groups. For research question two, a one-tailed independent samples t-test resulted in a P value of. 491; therefore, it was determined that there was not a significant difference on higher-level thinking test scores between the two groups. However, a bi-modal distribution of the scores for the experimental group suggests that some performed well under PBL conditions while some did not. Potential implications of this bimodal distribution are discussed to assist OT educators in choosing appropriate instructional methodologies. The findings suggest that faculty should continue to explore variables that may affect performance under PBL conditions and achievement in neuroscience.

Problem-Based Learning in Professional Entry-Level Therapy Education: A Review of Controlled Evaluation Studies

“…The second study (Liotta-Kleinfeld et al, 2001), conducted in occupational therapy education revealed there was no diff erence in the fi nal unit test score of the PBL group in comparison with the control group (p= .846). Additionally, further analysis determined that there was no signifi cant diff erence on higher-level thinking between groups (p= .491).…”

“…Study outcomes were classifi ed according to whether the competencies of PBL students were better than (positive), the same as (no diff erence), or worse than (negative) those of students in the control groups, based on a signifi cance level of .05%. One study measured three of the four outcome variables (Lohse et al, 2003), two measured two (Finch, 1999;Liotta-Kleinfeld et al, 2001) and the three remaining studies only reported results for one of the outcome variables. Does PBL result in increased student knowledge?…”

“…Only three of the six included studies investigated an entire PBL curriculum (Finch, 1999;Tichen et al, 1991;van Duijn, 2005). The other three examined a single module (Liotta-Kleinfeld et al, 2001), two modules (Lohse et al, 2003) and multiple PBL modules (Kaufmann et al, 1997), respectively. In one study, the PBL curriculum was the control group for the assessment of another method of education (Titchen et al, 1991).…”

“…Twenty-six full-text papers were retrieved, 20 of which were excluded. The remaining six studies met the review's inclusion criteria (Finch 1999;Tichen & Cole 1991;van Duijn 2005;Liotta-Kleinfeld et al, 2001;Lohse et al, 2003;Kaufmann et al, 1997). A manual search of references from these studies did not yield any new trials that met the criteria.…”

“…The majority were in physiotherapy (Tichen et al, 1991;van Duijn, 2005;Kaufmann et al, 1997) and were conducted in the United States. There was one study included from each of the following professions: occupational therapy (Liotta-Kleinfeld et al, 2001), dietetics (Lohse et al, 2003), and podiatry (Finch 1999). No studies in orthoptics or radiography were included.…”