Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology.

The aim of this study was to determine whether problem-based writing with peer review (PW-PR) improves undergraduate student performance on physiology exams. Didactic lectures were replaced with assignments to give students practice explaining their reasoning while solving qualitative problems, thus transferring the responsibility for abstraction and generalization to the students. Performance on exam items about concepts taught using PW-PR was compared with performance on concepts taught using didactic lectures followed by group work. Calibrated Peer Review, a Web-delivered program, was used to collect student essays and to manage anonymous peer review after students "passed" three calibration peer reviews. Results show that the students had difficulty relating concepts. Relationship errors were categorized as (1) problems recognizing levels of organization, (2) problems with cause/effect, and (3) overgeneralizations. For example, some described cells as molecules; others thought that vesicles transport materials through the extracellular fluid. With PW-PR, class discussion was used to confront and resolve such difficulties. Both multiple-choice and essay exam results were better with PW-PR instead of lecture.

[1]  Penny E. Lee.  Language in thinking and learning : Pedagogy and the new Whorfian framework , 1997 .

[2]  Lillian C. McDermott.  Guest Comment: How we teach and how students learn—A mismatch? , 1993 .

[3]  S Mierson,et al.  A problem-based learning course in physiology for undergraduate and graduate basic science students. , 1998, The American journal of physiology.

[4]  Helping undergraduates repair faulty mental models in the student laboratory. , 2000, Advances in physiology education.

[5]  D. Macbeth,et al.  On an Actual Apparatus for Conceptual Change. , 2000 .

[6]  Silverthorn Dee Unglaub.  Human Physiology: An Integrated Approach , 1998 .

[7]  Effects of an applied supplemental course on student performance in elementary physiology. , 2000, Advances in physiology education.

[8]  H R Goldberg,et al.  Student test scores are improved in a virtual learning environment. , 2000, Advances in physiology education.

[9]  Exploring the context of biomedical research through a problem-based course for undergraduate students. , 2000, Advances in physiology education.

[10]  M LillianC.,et al.  How We Teach and How Students Learna , 1993 .

[11]  E. Mortimer,et al.  Anomalies and conflicts in classroom discourse , 2000 .

[12]  R R Wilke,et al.  The effects of discovery learning in a lower-division biology course. , 2001, Advances in physiology education.

[13]  McNeal,et al.  Student-Active Science: Models Of Innovation In College Science Teaching: Proceedings On The NSF Sponsored Conference On Inquiry Approaches To Science Teaching, Held At Hampshire College, June 1996 , 1997 .

[14]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Learning Together and Alone , 1999 .

[15]  Robert Karplus,et al.  Science teaching and the development of reasoning , 1977 .

[16]  Joseph D. Novak,et al.  Learning How to Learn , 1984 .

[17]  S P Rao,et al.  Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. , 2000, Advances in physiology education.

[18]  D U Silverthorn,et al.  How accurate are our assumptions about our students' background knowledge? , 1999, The American journal of physiology.

[19]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .