Effectiveness of inquiry-based learning in an undergraduate exercise physiology course

Advances in Physiology Education

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 76-80

  Nybo, Lars ^a   May, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Bachelor students; Designing exercise tests; Learning outcome

Indexed keywords

CARDIOVASCULAR FUNCTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EVALUATION STUDY; EXERCISE; FEMALE; HEALTH STUDENT; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LEARNING; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESPIRATORY FUNCTION; TEACHING; TIME FACTOR; YOUNG ADULT;

CARDIOVASCULAR PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; CURRICULUM; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EXERCISE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; LEARNING; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESPIRATORY PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; STUDENTS, HEALTH OCCUPATIONS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TEACHING; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84957886302     PISSN: 10434046     EISSN: 15221229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/advan.00161.2014     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Berg A, Bergendahl C, Lundberg B, Tibell L. Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. Int J Sci Educ 25: 351-372, 2003.
2. Biggs J. What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Educ Res Develop 31: 39-55, 2012.
3. 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.
4. Ernst H, Colthorpe K. The efficacy of interactive lecturing for students with diverse science backgrounds. Adv Physiol Educ 31: 41-44, 2007.
5. Furtak EM, Seidel T, Iverson H, Briggs DC. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 82: 300-329, 2012.
6. Fyrenius A, Bergdahl B, Silen C. Lectures in problem-based learning-why, when and how? An example of interactive lecturing that stimulates meaningful learning. Med Teach 27: 61-65, 2005.
7. Hake RR. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66: 64-74, 1998.
8. Kolkhorst FW, Mason CL, DiPasquale DM, Patterson P, Buono MJ. An inquiry-based learning model for an exercise physiology laboratory course. Adv Physiol Educ 25: 45-50, 2001.
9. Michael JA, Wenderoth MP, Modell HI, CliffW, Horwitz B, McHale P, Richardson D, Silverthorn D, Williams S, Whitescarver S. Undergraduates' understanding of cardiovascular phenomena. Adv Physiol Educ 26: 72-84, 2002.
10. Minner DD, Levy AJ, Century J. inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. J Res Science Teach 47: 474-496, 2010.
11. Myers MJ, Burgess AB. Inquiry-based laboratory course improves students' ability to design experiments and interpret data. Adv Physiol Educ 27: 26-33, 2003.
12. Rivers DB. Using a course-long theme for inquiry-based laboratories in a comparative physiology course. Adv Physiol Educ 26: 317-326, 2002.
13. Ruiz-Primo MA, Briggs D, Iverson H, Talbot R, Shepard LA. Impact of undergraduate science course innovations on learning. Science 331: 1269-1270, 2011.
14. Scott K. A multilevel analysis of problem-based learning design characteristics. Interdiscip J Problem Based Learn; doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1420.