Using Student-Led Discussions and Snapshot Lectures to Stimulate Active Learning and Accountability: A Mixed Methods Study on Teaching an Implementation Science Course
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2022
Using Student-Led Discussions and Snapshot Lectures to Stimulate Active Learning and Accountability: A Mixed Methods Study on Teaching an Implementation Science Course
We theorized that integrating student-led class activities would foster accountability and active learning in a graduate-level public health implementation science course. We used mixed methods to collect students’ feedback about two active-learning teaching techniques, wherein students were randomly selected to lead class discussions and deliver short, informal “snapshot” lectures. Students reported that both activities encouraged student initiative, engagement with the material, and completion of the assigned readings. However, students thought that the student-led discussions were more enjoyable, made the course more interesting, and contributed more to their learning. These techniques can stimulate active learning and student accountability in public health courses.
BonwellC. C.EisonJ. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (Report No. ISBN-1-878380-08-7). George Washington University. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED336049.pdf
3.
CasteelM. A.BridgesK. R. (2007). Goodbye lecture: A student-led seminar approach for teaching upper division courses. Teaching of Psychology, 34(2), 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/009862830703400208
4.
DrummB. T.RaeM. G.WardS. M. (2019). Active peer-mentored learning can improve student understanding of physiological concepts in an undergraduate journal club. Advances in Physiology Education, 43(3), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00049.2019
5.
FreemanS.EddyS. L.McDonoughM.SmithM. K.OkoroaforN.JordtH.WenderothM. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
6.
GeorgiouH.SharmaM.D. (2015). Does using active learning in thermodynamics lectures improve students’ conceptual understanding and learning experiences?European Journal of Physics, 36(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/36/1/015020
7.
GoodmanJ.AnsonR.BelcheirM. (2015). The effect of incentives and other instructor driven strategies to increase online student evaluation response rates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(7), 958–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.960364
8.
HarrisN.BaconC. E. W. (2019). Developing cognitive skills through active learning: A systematic review of health care professions. Athletic Training Education Journal, 14(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.4085/1402135
9.
HoeftM. E. (2012). Why university students don’t read: What professors can do to increase compliance. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060212
10.
HsiehH.-F.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
11.
KremerJ.McGuinnessC. (1998). Cutting the cord: Student-led discussion groups in higher education. Education + Training, 40(2), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400919810206848
12.
LeiS. A.BartlettK. A.GorneyS. E.HerschbachT. R. (2010). Resistance to reading compliance among college students: Instructors’ perspectives. College Student Journal, 44(2), 219–229.
13.
LUMA Institute. (2012). Innovating for people: Handbook of human-centered design methods.
McMullenV. B. (2014). Using student-led seminars and conceptual workshops to increase student participation. College Teaching, 62(2), 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2014.885876
MichelN.CaterJ.VarelaO. (2009). Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(4), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20025
MinhasP.GhoshA.SwanzyL. (2012). The effects of passive and active learning on student preference and performance in an undergraduate basic science course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 5(4), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1274
20.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2019). Engagement insights: Survey findings on the quality of undergraduate education (Report No. ED604974). Indiana University Bloomington. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604974.pdf
21.
NelsonC. E. (2010). Want brighter, harder working students? Change pedagogies! Some examples, mainly from biology. In MillisB. J. (Ed.), Cooperative learning in higher education: Across the disciplines, across the academy (pp. 119–139). Stylus.
22.
PanaderoE.JonssonA. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9(June), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002
SageM.SeleP. (2015). Reflective journaling as a flipped classroom technique to increase reading and participation with social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(4), 668–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2015.1076274
25.
TharayilS.BorregoM.PrinceM.NguyenK. A.ShekharP.FinelliC. J.WatersC. (2018). Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0102-y
26.
WeimerM. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
27.
WiemanC. E. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8319–8320. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407304111
