Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL®) marginally effects student achievement measures but substantially increases the odds of passing a course

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 10, 2017, Pages

  Walker, Lindsey ^a   Warfa, Abdi Rizak M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACHIEVEMENT; ADULT; CONTROLLED STUDY; EFFECT SIZE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICS; PEDAGOGICS; RISK FACTOR; SKILL; STUDENT; TEACHING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; META ANALYSIS; PROBLEM BASED LEARNING; PROCEDURES; SCIENCE;

EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HUMANS; LEARNING; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING; SCIENCE;

EID: 85031087883     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186203     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Brewer CA, Smith D, editors. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. AAAS; 2011.
2. National Research Council. A framework for K-12 science education practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standard, board on science education. Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012.
3. National Research Council. Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. National Academies Press; 2012.
4. President’s council of advisors on science and technology. Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, 2012.
5. Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2015.
6. Kuhn D, Arvidsson TS, Lespereance K, Corprew R. Can engaging in science practices promote deep understanding of them? Science Education, 101 (2), 232–250, 2017.
7. Moog R. Process oriented guided inquiry learning. In McDaniel M. A., Frey R. F., Fitzpatrick S. M., & Roediger H. L. (Eds.), Integrating cognitive science with innovative teaching in STEM disciplines. St. Louis: Washington University in St. Louis Libraries. [Ereader version] http://dx.doi.org/10.7936/K7PN93HC, pp147–166, 2014
8. Hanson D, Wolfskill T. Process workshops–A new model for instruction. J Chem. Educ., 77, 120–130, 2000.
9. Farrel JJ, Moog RS, Spencer JN. A Guided inquiry general chemistry course. J Chem. Educ., 76 (4), 570–574, 1999.
10. Straumanis A, Simons EA. A Multi-institutional assessment of the use of POGIL in organic chemistry. ACS symposium series, 994, 226–239, 2008.
11. Bunce D, Havanki K, VandenPlas JR. A Theory-based evaluation of POGIL workshops: Providing a clearer picture of POGIL adoption. ACS symposium series, 994, 100–113, 2008.
12. Canelas DA, Hill JL, Novicki A. Cooperative learning in organic chemistry increases student assessment of learning gains in key transferable skills. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., Advance Article, https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00014F, 2017.
13. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci., 111 (23), 8410–8415, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 PMID: 24821756
14. Cooper MM. It is time to say what we mean. J Chem. Educ., 93, 799–800,2016.
15. Hora MT. Limitation in experimental design mean the jury is still out on lecturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci., 111 (30) E3024, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1410115111 PMID: 25024170
16. Bénéteau C, Fox G, Holcomb J, Xu X, Lewis J, Ramachandran K, & Campbell S. Peer led guided inquiry in calculus at the university of South Florida. J STEM Educ., 17 (2), 5–13, 2016.
17. Perry D, Wight RD. Using an ACS general chemistry exam to compare traditional and POGIL instruction. ACS symposium series, 994, 240–247, 2008.
18. Hein S. Positive impacts using POGIL in organic chemistry. J Chem. Educ., 89, 860−864, 2012.
19. Mohamed A. R. Effects of active learning variants on student performance and learning perception. IJ-SOTL, 2 (2), 1–14, 2008.
20. Shatila A. Assessing the impact of integrating POGIL in elementary organic chemistry. PhD Thesis, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, 2007.
21. Eaton, L. The Effect of process-oriented guided-inquiry learning on student achievement in a one semester general, organic, and biochemistry course. Mathematical and Computing Sciences Master’s Thesis, Paper 102, St. John Fisher College, Rochester, NY, 2006.
22. Chase A, Pakhira D, Stains M. Implementing process-oriented, guided-inquiry learning for the first time: Adaptations and short-term impacts on students’ attitude and performance. J Chem. Educ., 90, 405 −416, 2013.
23. Barthlow MJ, Watson SB. The effectiveness of process-oriented guided-inquiry learning to reduce alternative conceptions in secondary chemistry. School Sci. Math., 114 (5), 246–255, 2014.
24. Murphy KL, Picione J, Holme TA. Research and teaching: Data-driven implementation and adaptation of new teaching methodologies. J Coll Sci Teach, 40 (2), 78–84, 2010.
25. Vanags T, Pammer K, Brinker J. Process-oriented guided-inquiry learning improves long-term retention of information. Adv. Physiol. Educ., 37, 233–241, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00104.2012 PMID: 24022769
26. Jin G, Bierma T. STEM for non-STEM majors: Enhancing science literacy in large classes. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching, 42 (6), 20–26, 2013.
27. Vacek J. Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL), a teaching method from physical sciences promotes deep student learning in aviation. The Collegiate Aviation Review, 29 (2), 78–88, 2011.
28. Roller M.C. Fundamental nursing: Process-oriented inquiry-learning (POGIL) research. Journal of Leadership and Instruction, 20–23, 2015.
29. Roller MC, Zori S. The impact of instituting process-oriented guided-inquiry learning (POGIL) in a fundamental nursing course. Nurse Education Today, 50, 72–76, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.12.003 PMID: 28012981
30. Brown SD. A Process-oriented guided inquiry approach to teaching medicinal chemistry. Amer. J. Pharm. Educ., 74 (7), Article 121, 2010.
31. Brown PJB. Process-oriented guided-inquiry learning in an introductory anatomy and physiology course with a diverse student population. Adv. Physiol. Educ., 34, 150–155, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00055.2010 PMID: 20826770
32. Brown SD, Pond BB, Creekmore KA. A Case-based toxicology elective course to enhance student learning in pharmacotheraphy. Am J Pharm Educ., 75 (6), Article 118, 2011.
33. Kim JJ. Process-oriented guided-inquiry learning (POGIL) in high school chemistry setting. Master’s Thesis, California State University, Northridge, CA 2016.
34. Pierce R, Fox J. Vodcasts and Active-Learning Exercises in a “Flipped Classroom” Model of a Renal Pharmacotherapy Module. Am J Pharm Educ., 76 (10), Article 192, 2012.
35. Warfa A, Schneider JL. Student Successes and Progressions in General Chemistry Courses Utilizing POGIL Intruction. TRUSE paper conference, St Paul, MN, 2013.
36. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097, 2009. PMID: 19621072
37. Warfa A. Using Cooperative Learning to Teach Chemistry: A Meta-Analytic Review. J Chem Educ., 93 (2), 248–255, 2016.
38. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Statistical Software, 36, 1–48, 2010.
39. The R Project for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/ (last accessed June 2017).
40. Bowen CW. A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievement. J Chem Educ, 77 (1), 116–119, 2000.
41. Hedges LV. An Unbiased Correction for Sampling Error in Validity Generalization Studies. J. Appl. Psych., 74, 469−477, 1989.
42. Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psych. Methods, 11, 193−206, 2006.
43. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis; John Wiley: Chichester, UK, 61−85, 2009.
44. Rosenthal R. The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641, 1979.
45. Orwin RG. A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157–159, 1983.
46. Ruiz-Primo MA, Briggs D, Iverson H, Talbot R, Shepard LA. Impact of undergraduate science course innovations on learning. Science 331 (6022), 1269–1270, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198976 PMID: 21393529
47. Baytiyeh H. Disparity between college preparation and career demands for graduating engineers. Int. J. Eng. Educ., 28 (5), 1221–1231, 2012.
48. Whittington CP, Pellock SJ, Cunningham RL, Cox JR. Combining content and elements of communication into an upper-level biochemistry course, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 42 (2), 165–173, 2014.
49. Martin R, Maytham B, Case J, Fraser D. Engineering graduates’ perceptions of how well they were prepared for work in industry, Eur. J. Eng. Educ., 30(2), 167–180, 2005.
50. Wright R. Point of view: Content vs. process: Is this a fair choice? CBE Life Sci Educ., 4, 189–198, 2005.
51. Springer L, Stanne ME, Donovan SS. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Rev Educ Res 69(1), 21–51, 1999.
52. Seymour E, Hewitt NM. Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview Press: Boulder, CO, 1997.
53. Watkins J, Mazur E. Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. J Coll Sci Teach, 42 (5), 36–41, 2013.
54. Dirks C, Cunningham M. Enhancing diversity in science: Is teaching science process skills the answer? CBE Life Sci Educ., 5 (3), 218–216, 2005.
55. Borenstein M. Effect sizes for continuous data. In The Handbook of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, Eds.; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, 221−235, 2009.
56. The Pogil Project, www.pogil.org (accessed last August 20th, 2017).