Active learning tools improve the learning outcomes, scientific attitude, and critical thinking in higher education: Experiences in an online course during the COVID ‐19 pandemic

  1. Izadora Volpato Rossi
  2. Jordana Dinorá de Lima
  3. Bruna Sabatke
  4. Maria Alice Ferreira Nunes
  5. Graciela Evans Ramirez
  6. Marcel Ivan Ramirez

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Active teaching methodologies have been placed as a hope for changing education at different levels, transiting from passive lecture‐centered to student‐centered learning. With the health measures of social distance, the COVID‐19 pandemic forced a strong shift to remote education. With the challenge of delivering quality education through a computer screen, we validated and applied an online course model using active teaching tools for higher education. We incorporated published active‐learning strategies into an online construct, with problem‐based inquiry and design of inquiry research projects to serve as our core active learning tool. The gains related to students' science learning experiences and their attitudes toward science were assessed by applying questionnaires before, during, and after the course. The course counted on the participation of 83 students, most of them (60.8%) from postgraduate students. Our results show that engagement provided by active learning methods can improve performance both in hard and soft skills. Students' participation seems to be more relevant when activities require the interaction of information, prediction, and reasoning, such as open‐ended questions and design of research projects. Therefore, our data show that, in pandemic, active learning tools benefit students and improve their critical thinking and their motivation and positive positioning in science.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1002/bmb.21574
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.22.423922: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Although we have achieved good results as an online course model for higher education, we have encountered some limitations in our study. The course was presented in a short time (3 inconsecutive days) which hampered a robust evaluation regarding the impact of active tools in student progress. Also, the experimental course was transmitted simultaneously with other activities of the hosted congress, which may have impacted on students’ outcomes due to other demanding activities. In addition, because it is an optional course (as a satellite event), there were no ways to require student participation, nor condition performance to the approval of the course. This could have been caused, among other possible reasons, by the low responsiveness in certain activities, showing that part of the students only engages in activities when they are requirements for approval. Previous experiences with the theme were not considered as a differential advantage, students from different fields in health and biological sciences were analyzed together; the same happened to undergraduate students and postdoctoral fellows, for example. Finally, a point that can be seen in a positive and negative way was the heterogeneity of the class. This was interesting because it brought the most different backgrounds to the same class, however, it also made it difficult to know about the level of knowledge among students, since the same knowledge could be very basic or essential for some and very advanced or spe...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.22.423922v1 on bioRxiv