Less teaching, more learning: 10-yr study supports increasing student learning through less coverage and more inquiry

American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 325-335

  Luckie, Douglas B ^a   Aubry, Jacob R ^a   Marengo, Benjamin J ^a   Rivkin, Aaron M ^a   Foos, Lindsey A ^a   Maleszewski, Joseph J ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Cooperative; Inquiry; Laboratory; Research; Undergraduate

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870900993     PISSN: 10434046     EISSN: 15221229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/advan.00017.2012     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Anjur SS. Student-centered physiology in high schools. Adv Physiol Educ 35: 161-167, 2011.
2. Aronson BD, Silveira LA. From genes to proteins to behavior: a laboratory project that enhances student understanding in cell and molecular biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 8: 291-308, 2009.
3. Casem ML. Student perspectives on curricular change: lessons from an undergraduate lower-division biology core. CBE Life Sci Educ 5: 65-75,2006.
4. Casotti G, Rieser-Danner L, Knabb MT. Successful implementation of inquiry-based physiology laboratories in undergraduate major and nonmajor courses. Adv Physiol Educ 32: 286-296, 2008.
5. Derting TL, Ebert-May D. Learner-centered inquiry in undergraduate biology: positive relationships with long-term student achievement. CBE Life Sci Educ 9: 462-472, 2010.
6. DiCarlo SE. Cell biology should be taught as science is practised. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7: 290-296, 2006.
7. DiCarlo SE. Too much content, not enough thinking, and too little fun!Adv Physiol Educ 33: 257-64, 2009.
8. Donovan MS, Bransford JD, Pellegrino JW. How People Learn:Bridging Research and Practice. Washington, DC: National Academy, 1999.
9. Feldon DF, Peugh J, Timmerman BE, Maher MA, Hurst M, Strickland D, Gilmore JA, Stiegelmeyer C. Graduate students' teaching experiences improve their methodological research skills. Science 333:1037-1039, 2011.
10. FitzPatrick KA, Campisi J. A multiyear approach to student-driven investigations in exercise physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 33: 349-355,2009.
11. Handelsman J, Ebert-May D, Beichner R, Bruns P, Chang A, DeHaan R, Gentile J, Lauffer S, Stewart J, Tilghman SM, Wood WB. Education.Scientific teaching. Science 304: 521-522, 2004.
12. Henige K. Undergraduate student attitudes and perceptions toward lowand high-level inquiry exercise physiology teaching laboratory experiences.Adv Physiol Educ 35: 197-205, 2011.
13. Hoskins SG, Stevens LM. Learning our LIMITS: less is more in teaching science. Adv Physiol Educ 33: 17-20, 2009.
14. Howard DR, Miskowski JA. Using a module-based laboratory to incorporate inquiry into a large cell biology course. Cell Biol Educ 4: 249-260,2005.
15. Jensen JL, Lawson A. Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 10: 64-73, 2011.
16. Knight JK, Wood WB. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ 4: 298-310, 2005.
17. Krontiris-Litowitz J. Articulating scientific reasoning improves student learning in an undergraduate anatomy and physiology course. CBE Life Sci Educ 8: 309-315, 2009.
18. Lord T, Orkwiszewski T. Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory. Am Biol Teacher 68: 342-345, 2006.
19. Luckie DB, Maleszewski JJ, Loznak SD, Krha M. Infusion of collaborative inquiry throughout a biology curriculum increases student learning:a four-year study of "Teams and Streams" . Adv Physiol Educ 28:199-209, 2004.
20. Luckie D, Harrison SH, Ebert-May D. Model-based reasoning: using visual tools to reveal student learning. Adv Physiol Educ 35: 59 - 67,2011.
21. Momsen JL, Long TM, Wyse SA, Ebert-May D. Just the facts?Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. CBE Life Sci Educ 9: 435-440, 2010.
22. Morgan E. BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists (online). http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309085357[21 Oct. 2011].
23. Myers MJ, Burgess AB. Inquiry-based laboratory course improves students'ability to design experiments and interpret data. Adv Physiol Educ 27: 26-33, 2003.
24. Schwartz MS, Sadler PM, Sonnert G, Tai RH. Depth versus breadth:how content coverage in high school science courses relates to later success in college science coursework. Sci Educ 93: 798-826, 2009.
25. Silverthorn DU, Thorn PM, Svinicki MD. It's difficult to change the way we teach: lessons from the Integrative Themes in Physiology curriculum module project. Adv Physiol Educ 30: 204-214, 2006.
26. Smith J, Cheruvelil K. Using inquiry and tree-thinking to "March through the animal phyla": teaching introductory comparative biology in an evolutionary context. Evol Educ Outreach 2: 429 - 444,2009.
27. Treacy DJ, Sankaran SM, Gordon-Messer S, Saly D, Miller R, Isaac SR, Kosinski-Collins MS. Implementation of a project-based molecular biology laboratory emphasizing protein structure-function relationships in a large introductory biology laboratory course. CBE Life Sci Educ 10:18-24, 2011.
28. Wilterding JH, Luckie DB. "Stream" -lined education: increasing student-initiated learning with an investigative DNA "stream" . J Coll Sci Teach 31: 303-307, 2002.
29. Wood WB. Inquiry-based undergraduate teaching in the life sciences at large research universities: a perspective on the Boyer Commission Report.Cell Biol Educ 2: 112-116, 2003.
30. Wright RL, Klymkowsky MW. Points of view: content versus process:is this a fair choice?: undergraduate biology courses for nonscientists:toward a lived curriculum. Cell Biol Educ 4: 189-196, 2005.
31. Zheng AY, Lawhorn JK, Lumley T, Freeman Assessment S. Application of Bloom's taxonomy debunks the "MCAT myth" . Science 319: 414-415, 2008.