↓ Skip to main content

Puzzle-based versus traditional lecture: comparing the effects of pedagogy on academic performance in an undergraduate human anatomy and physiology II lab

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Puzzle-based versus traditional lecture: comparing the effects of pedagogy on academic performance in an undergraduate human anatomy and physiology II lab
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0390-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucas Stetzik, Anthony Deeter, Jamie Parker, Christine Yukech

Abstract

A traditional lecture-based pedagogy conveys information and content while lacking sufficient development of critical thinking skills and problem solving. A puzzle-based pedagogy creates a broader contextual framework, and fosters critical thinking as well as logical reasoning skills that can then be used to improve a student's performance on content specific assessments. This paper describes a pedagogical comparison of traditional lecture-based teaching and puzzle-based teaching in a Human Anatomy and Physiology II Lab. Using a single subject/cross-over design half of the students from seven sections of the course were taught using one type of pedagogy for the first half of the semester, and then taught with a different pedagogy for the second half of the semester. The other half of the students were taught the same material but with the order of the pedagogies reversed. Students' performance on quizzes and exams specific to the course, and in-class assignments specific to this study were assessed for: learning outcomes (the ability to form the correct conclusion or recall specific information), and authentic academic performance as described by (Am J Educ 104:280-312, 1996). Our findings suggest a significant improvement in students' performance on standard course specific assessments using a puzzle-based pedagogy versus a traditional lecture-based teaching style. Quiz and test scores for students improved by 2.1 and 0.4 % respectively in the puzzle-based pedagogy, versus the traditional lecture-based teaching. Additionally, the assessments of authentic academic performance may only effectively measure a broader conceptual understanding in a limited set of contexts, and not in the context of a Human Anatomy and Physiology II Lab. In conclusion, a puzzle-based pedagogy, when compared to traditional lecture-based teaching, can effectively enhance the performance of students on standard course specific assessments, even when the assessments only test a limited conceptual understanding of the material.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 26%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 32%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Chemistry 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 6 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2016.
All research outputs
#11,060,247
of 13,934,958 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,698
of 2,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,286
of 232,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,934,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 232,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them