3.8 Article

Comparison of student confidence and perceptions of biochemistry concepts using a team-based learning versus traditional lecture-based format

Journal

CURRENTS IN PHARMACY TEACHING AND LEARNING
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 302-310

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cptl.2016.11.020

Keywords

Team-based learning; Biochemistry; Pharmacy students; Confidence

Funding

  1. Cedarville University School of Pharmacy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate differences in student confidence and perceptions of biochemistry concepts using a team-based learning (TBL) format versus a traditional lecture-based format at two universities. Educational Activity: Two pedagogies (TBL vs lecture-based) were utilized to deliver biochemistry concepts at two universities in a first-professional year, semester-long biochemistry course. A 21-item instrument was created and administered pre-post semester to assess changes in confidence in learning biochemistry concepts using Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (eight items, 5-point, Likert-type) and changes in student perceptions of biochemistry utilizing the theory of planned behavior (TPB) domains (13 items, 7-point, Likert-type). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to evaluate pre-post changes, and Mann Whitney U tests for differences between universities. Findings: All students (N=111) had more confidence in biochemistry concepts post-semester, but TBL students (N=53) were significantly more confident. TBL students also had greater agreement that they are expected to actively engage in science courses post-semester, according to the perceptions of biochemistry subscale. No other differences between lecture and TBL were observed post-semester. Summary: Students in a TBL course had greater gains in confidence. Since students often engage in tasks where they feel confident, TBL can be a useful pedagogy to promote student learning.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available