Participation strategies and student performance: An undergraduate health science retrospective study

Abstract

Objective: This research explores participatory evidence-based teaching methods in a health science course to see if a relationship emerged between the level of student participation and course performance, the type of participation and course performance, or the amount of participation and course performance and level of demonstrated learning. Methods: Level of student participation was dichotomous (100% or ,100%), and differences between groups on a knowledge test were compared using an unpaired t test. Type of participation was also dichotomous (in class or out), and differences in course performance on the knowledge test were compared using the unpaired t test. Amount of participation and course performance and level of demonstrated learning were also tested after the knowledge test was measured using a matrix based upon Bloom's taxonomy. Results: Students who participated 100% of the time scored 6% higher on average than students with less than 100% participation (t[183] ¼ 3.55, p ¼ .0005, d ¼ 0.52). There was no difference between groups when assessing for differences in course performance by type of participation. Students with 100% participation scored higher on the short answer question section of the examination (t[183] ¼ 4.58, p ¼ .0001, d ¼ 0.68), but there was no difference on the multiple choice question part of the examination. Conclusion: Full participation in the course was related to higher examination scores and higher scores on examination questions assessing higher levels in the cognitive domain.

Educational intervention about oral piercing knowledge among dental students and adolescents at schools

“…Active participation of students in preparing and giving talks, and having direct contact with adolescents, was the difference between both groups (T2 inter-T2 control). These results are in line with other studies which have demonstrated that active learning obtains leads to results and produces higher long-term retention knowledge in students [19][20][21] . Traditional approaches produce short-term retention of course content because they do not include elaboration.…”

One Small Step in the Lecture Hall, One Big Step for Student Motivation: Short Bursts of In-Class Small Group Work

“…Bolden et al (2019) showed location matters when delivering the same material to two groups of students, one in a smaller classroom and one in a large lecture hall. Students in the smaller classroom scored themselves higher in meaningful processing and active participation, which includes engaging with the readings, writings, discussions, or creating and problem solving (Starmer et al, 2015). Students in the larger classroom scored themselves higher in a better overall understanding of the material including having more focused attention, a deeper processing of material, and more advanced learning.…”

Exploring the Role of M-learning in Elementary Education

“…They corresponded to Starmer et al (2015) regarding the importance of active course participation and teacher-student interaction satisfaction in the learning outcome of course satisfaction in m-learning (Baker, 1999;Buriel, 1983;Hughes et al, 2001).…”

“…With adequate spontaneous talking or question-asking in class, facilitated by functions of mlearning, but not necessarily face-to-face, learners' active course participation can increase their satisfaction toward teacher's teaching because of the good interaction with teachers (Cazden, 1986;Mehan, 1980). They may also feel satisfaction toward their peers when the different forms of interaction enabled by m-learning in class satisfies their expectations among peers (Cazden, 1986;Mehan, 1980;Starmer, Duquette, & Howard, 2015).…”