JOLT 2012 - PAPER 3

Journal of Learning and Teaching

2012 Series: Paper 3

Introduction

As part of the assessment for a postgraduate certificate in learning

and teaching (PGCert), I was asked to reflect upon my teaching

and identify an area in which I felt my teaching itself and/or

student learning could be enhanced. As it was my first semester of

teaching I was given hours to teach on a first year undergraduate

module, titled ‘Bioenergetics of the Exercising Human’. My role

was to teach students key concepts and skills they need within the

laboratory environment, skills which will be utilised continuously

throughout the rest of their Sport and Exercise Science degree.

During my teaching hours it became slowly apparent to me that

although the module is well designed it has one major flaw, within

the laboratory environment learning progress is poorly monitored.

With the exception of two laboratory reports, both of which are

summative assessments, one written mid-semester and one at

conclusion of the module, no other assessments take place to

monitor student progress. This therefore poses two key questions:

how do we know that students are learning from laboratory style

methods? And how do we determine whether or not students

are making the link between theory and practice? Formatively

assessing students can be an important key in the process of

monitoring student learning. In this paper the need for monitoring

learning and why it is becoming of importance within higher

education will be discussed; furthermore methods which can be

utilised to enhance this process will be reviewed.

Literature Review

The laboratory-based environment is designed to encourage

diagnostic and communication skills, in addition to providing a

team approach to learning (Black and Smith, 2006). Providing the

Monitoring Learning within the Laboratory-Based Learning Environment

learner with a ‘hands on experience’ is known to enrich the learning

process by reducing the amount of time spent simply observing

and visually learning from the teacher, encouraging active student

participation. It has also been suggested that learning by ‘doing’ is

not only effective but leads to greater understanding and retention

of information (Randall and Burkholder, 1990) due to a direct

action-to-reaction response (Feldmann and Hofinger, 1997).

Sport and exercise physiology, a discipline of sports medicine

that involves the study of the body’s response to physical stress

has employed the use of the laboratory environment for numerous

years. It allows the learner to engage in activities such as study

design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, in order to

gain a greater understanding of basic principles used within this

discipline. However, although it is suggested that this environment

leads to greater retention of information, often learning is poorly

monitored, therefore the teacher is left unaware of the student

learning process and progress.

It has been reported that often students exploring theory through

laboratory experiments experience difficulty in integrating their

understanding of concepts gained in the lecture with physical

phenomena observed in the laboratory (Nakhleh, 1994). Friedler

and Tamir (1990) report that students seem to experience four

major difficulties in carrying out laboratory work; (1) an inadequate

understanding of the basic concepts underlying the lab, (2) an

inability to relate their observations to their theoretical knowledge,

(3) an inability to order their observations so that irrelevant details

are filtered out, and (4) weak links and even gaps in their knowledge

which slow down students’ understanding or even mislead

them. In addition to the findings of Friedler and Tamir (1990)

Abstract

Monitoring of student learning is a huge challenge for faculty members teaching within the laboratory environment and can present

the teacher with difficult situations. Although the laboratory based environment is designed to encourage more active student

participation, it appears that students often find it difficult to establish the link between theoretical knowledge and laboratory based

practice, leaving students confused and apathetic. Therefore, a need to monitor learning within this environment is key, as the

question; ‘are students really learning?’ is raised. This paper explores various effective methodologies that could be employed in

order to monitor learning within the laboratory environment.

Carla Gallagher, Sport and Exercise Science



other researchers have explored the difficulties faced within the

laboratory environment, reporting that those students who have

difficulty making decisions on how to focus their observations

(Nakhleh and Krajcik, 1993) and those who routinise procedures

without gaining corresponding understanding encapsulate gaps

within their knowledge structure (Mulder and Vedonk, 1984).

Moreover students often need to establish a purpose of an

experiment and understand the teacher’s reasons for carrying out a

particular task, in order to conceptualise the information provided. It

has been reported that within the laboratory environment students

focus too much attention on completion of a task (Hart et al. 2000),

focusing relatively little attention on understanding an experiment.

Research examining purposes, uses and, learning from laboratories

have drawn important conclusions. Johnstone and Wham (1982)

noted that laboratory work often cognitively overloads students

with too much information to recall. Furthermore, Hodson (1990)

described laboratory work as often being dull and teacher-

directed, and highlighted the fact that students often failed to

relate the laboratory work to other aspects of their learning. Thus,

it is becoming increasingly apparent from the literature that there

is a need to monitor learning within the laboratory environment

to ensure that links are being made between theory and practice.

This paper will explore methodologies that could be employed in

order to monitor learning within this highly active, rich environment.

Verbal presentations, peer assessment, formative assessments,

response cards, and concept mapping will all be discussed; these

methods should stimulate creativity and actively involve students

within the learning process.

Verbal Presentations and Peer Assessment

Verbal presentations are a method of information delivery, in which

an individual or group explains the content of a topic to an audience

or learner. In academic environments verbal presentations are

often formative, taking many forms, including talks, seminars

or research proposals. Nevertheless, within higher education

presentations are frequently used as a method of summative

assessment as opposed to formative assessment. However, in

recent years, it has been suggested that verbal presentations

are integrated into the classroom environment as a means of

monitoring learning. To engage students more actively within the

laboratory environment, Black and Smith (2004), asked students

to give reviews for each laboratory in a presentation style. Their

research had three main aims; (1) to encourage active student

participation, (2) to provide opportunity for the students to learn

a topic in greater depth, and (3) to give the students a chance to

give a verbal presentation. From this research they found students

not only accepted the opportunity to review previous laboratory

classes but reviews were also valued by most of the students.

In addition, students felt that they gained experience, benefited

from the presentation, and most importantly verbal presentations

allowed students to understand course content in more depth. As

a result, it would appear that presentations can be a useful tool for

establishing themes and concepts throughout a semester.

Another benefit arising from the use of verbal presentations is the

opportunity for peer assessment to take place. Peer assessment

is defined as the process through which groups or individuals

rate their peers (Falchikov, 1995) and can take a formative or

summative approach (Dochy et al. 1999). Peer review as part of a

formative assessment, the primary function of which is to provide

information for learners about their progress, not only helps

develop the students own skills of reflection (Somervell, 1993),

but also develops attitudes of responsibility towards other group

members (Burnett and Cavaye, 1980). Research investigating the

advantages of peer assessment has reported that students are

very positive towards the process (Dochy et al., 1999; Orsmond

et al. 1996). Keaten and Richardson (1993) also affirmed that

peer assessment fostered an appreciation for the individuals’

performance within the group and interpersonal relationships

in the classroom. On the other hand, research by Brindley and

Scoffield (1998) reported that students viewed peer assessment

as a biased process; further to this a number of students doubted

the ability of other students to interpret the criteria and assess

work. Therefore, it would appear more appropriate for this method

to be utilised for general feedback and should not necessarily play

a major role in the assessment process.

Overall, verbal presentations are a valuable way to assess and

monitor learning throughout a course module. Also, presenting

under formative conditions allows students to gain confidence

in discussing course material and ideas to a wider audience.

Moreover, engaging students in the peer assessment process

allows individuals to foster skills of personal judgement (Magin

and Helmore, 2001) and gain a greater insight into how grading is

obtained by the teacher. Additionally, peer assessment of verbal

presentations could highlight to the teacher aspects of module

content which students are finding complex.



Formative Assessments

Formative assessment refers to assessment that is specifically

intended to generate feedback on performance to improve

and accelerate learning (Sadler, 1998). In general, within higher

education, formative assessment and feedback should be used

to empower students as self-regulated learners (Nicol and

Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). In addition to self-regulated learning,

formative assessments enable students to actively monitor their

own learning alongside identifying a number of different learning

processes, for example, setting of and orientation towards learning

goals, the strategies used to achieve goals, the management of

resources, the effort exerted, and reactions to external feedback

(Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). From the teachers viewpoint

formative assessments are used to provide the learner with

external feedback, for example, praise or constructive criticism.

Providing external feedback allows the learner to identify and

generate internal feedback, as they monitor their engagement

with learning activities, and tasks, and assess progress towards

goals e.g. module aims (Butler and Winne, 1995). In support, Black

and William (1998) concluded from a review of 250 studies that

this generation of feedback consistently resulted in learning and

achievement across all content areas, knowledge and skill types,

and levels of education. Therefore suggesting that using formative

assessments as a tool to provide external feedback is effective.

On the other hand, research studying the effectiveness of

assessing students using this system have criticised the method

for being too controlled by the teacher. Boud (2000) stated if

formative assessment is exclusively in the hands of teachers,

then it is difficult to see how students can become empowered

and develop the self-regulation skills needed to prepare them

for learning outside university and throughout life. Therefore,

it is suggested that self-assessment methods are developed

within the learning environment (e.g. student generated formative

assessment questions). In support of self-assessment methods,

Zimmerman and Schunk (2004) reported that learners who are

more self-regulated are more effective learners: they are more

persistent, resourceful, confidents and higher achievers.

In short, it is important that formative assessments are used as

a tool for monitoring progress of students on an individual basis

however, teachers should be aware that this method is more

effective when student self-regulated learning is applied.

Response Cards

Response cards are cards, signs, or items that are simultaneously

held up by all students in the class to display their responses to

questions or problems presented by the teacher (Heward et al.

1996; Gardner et al. 1994) and can be presented in different forms

i.e. pre-printed and write-on. Response cards are of invaluable use

as teachers are able to easily detect the responses of individual

students and further monitor those students who appear to be

lower down the learning process on a one-to-one basis. The

response card method also allows the teacher to steer away from

conventional methods, which only enable one student to answer a

proposed question at any one time (Brophy and Evertson, 1976),

leading to wider classroom participation (Narayan et al. 1990;

Gardner et al. 1994).

Furthermore, it is well established that conventional methods often

result in more frequent responses by high-achieving students and

almost no responses from low achieving students (Maheady, et

al. 1991). A study by Gardner and colleagues (1994) reported the

frequency of student response was fourteen times higher with

response cards compared with hand-raising, suggesting that

response cards lead to increased student participation within

the learning environment. In addition to increased participation,

response cards are also an effective tool for the teacher. As

previously mentioned, response cards allow the teacher to gain

immediate feedback, and maintain close, continual contact

with relevant outcome data they need to make well informed,

instructional decisions (Bushell and Baer, 1994). Moreover, Gardner

and colleagues (1994) reported response cards to be a valuable

tool in the teaching of basic scientific concepts and definitions.

In sum, response cards are an appealing tool for use within higher

education. Prevailing evidence would suggest that this method

leads to increased active student participation, which makes it

an attractive idea for the laboratory environment. Moreover, as

science education requires students to retain a multitude of facts

and definitions, response cards provide a quick, easy and effective

way of monitoring progress within groups of students.

Concept Mapping

Concept mapping is a meta-cognitive tool which visually represents

knowledge as a hierarchical framework of concepts and concept

relationships (Iuli and Helleden, 2004). More importantly the

process of concept mapping makes it necessary for learners to



find matching ‘knots’, core terms and connections between core

terms, which accounts for deep understanding of theory (Vohle,

2009). Since their development in the 20th century, concept

maps have been widely utilised and are most widely known within

science education. Concept mapping has been shown to be useful

for (1) providing a summary of a person’s existing knowledge,

(2) revealing gaps in understanding, (3) designing curricula

and instructional materials, (4) assessing student learning, (5)

facilitating communication and arriving at shared understandings

among groups of individuals and (6) understanding the processes

by which scientists construct new knowledge (Iuli, 2004; Mintzes

et al. 1998 and 2000; Novak, 1998; Novak and Gowin, 1984).

In the laboratory environment concept mapping should not be

underestimated, and can be a useful tool either pre- or post-

laboratory classes. It provides students with an opportunity to

reflect on the meaning of experiments which have taken place

and on how the observations made in the laboratory relate to the

concepts they learn within the class or previous lectures (Nakhleh,

1994). Concept mapping will also enable students to make the

link between various concepts. Additionally getting students to

develop a concept map allows the teacher to identify gaps within

their student’s knowledge and recognise where students are

finding it difficult to make theoretical links.

Conclusion

It is becoming increasingly important to monitor student learning

within the laboratory environment to ensure that students

are establishing the link between theoretical knowledge and

laboratory-based practice. Without continuous monitoring of

learning students will continue to encapsulate gaps within their

knowledge. Verbal presentations and practice examinations

provide an informal opportunity for students to demonstrate their

understanding of a single topic, at the same time as developing

greater communication skills. Additionally, verbal presentations

allow the opportunity for peer assessment to take place. Concept

mapping and response cards are also beneficial ways of integrating

groups of students, developing teamwork skills as well as allowing

the teacher to monitor individual learners. Finally, if we implement

the monitoring of learning within the laboratory environment it is

likely to have many beneficial outcomes; teachers will understand

their students and their learning progression and students should

become more motivated to learn within this highly demanding

environment.

References

BLACK, V.H. AND SMITH, P.R. (2006), Increasing active student

participation in histology, The Anatomical Record, 2788, pp. 14-17.

BLACK, P. AND WILLIAM, D. (1998), Assessment and classroom

learning, Assessment in Education, 5, 7-74.

BROPHY, J.E. AND EVERTSON, C.M. (1976), Learning from

Teaching: A Developmental Approach, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

BOUD, D. (2000), Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment

for the learning society, Studies in Continuing Education, 22,

pp.151-167.

BRINDLEY, C. AND SCOFFIELD, S. (1998), Peer assessment in

undergraduate programmes, Teaching in Higher Education, 3, pp.

79-90.

BURNETT, W. AND CAVAYE, G. (1980), Peer assessment by fifth

year students of surgery, Assessment in Higher Education, 2, pp.

273-278.

BUSHELL, D. AND BAER, D.M. (1994), Measurably superior

instruction means close, continual contact with the relevant

outcome data: revolutionary!, in Gardner, R., Sainato, D.M.,

Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E, Heward, W.L., Eshleman, J. and Grossi,

T.A (Eds.), Behaviour Analysis in Education: Focus on Measurably

Superior Instruction, Monterey, CA.

BUTLER, D.L. AND WINNE, P.H. (1995), Feedback and self-

regulated learning, a theoretical synthesis, Review of Educational

Research, 65, pp. 245-281.

DOCHY, F., SEGERS, M. AND SLUIJSMANS, D. (1999), The use

of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: a review,

Studies in Higher Education, 24, pp. 331-350.

HARRIS, H. AND BRETAG, T. (2003), Reflective and collaborative

teaching practice: working towards quality student learning

outcomes, Quality in Higher Education, 9, pp. 179-185.

FALCHIKOV, N. (1995), Peer feedback marking: developing peer

assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32,

pp. 175-187.



FELDMANN, L.J. AND HOFINGER, R.J. (1997), Active

participation by sophomore students in the design of experiments,

paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference,

Pittsburgh, PA.

FRIEDLER, Y. AND TAMIR, P. (Eds.) (1990), The student laboratory

and the science curriculum. (Routledge: London).

GARDNER, R., HEWARD, W.L. AND GROSSI, T.A. (1994),

Effects of response cards on student participation and academic

achievement: a systematic replication with inner-city students

during whole-class science instruction, Journal of Applied

Behaviour Analysis, 27, pp. 63-71.

HART, C., MULHALL, P., BERRY, A., LOUGHRAN, J. AND

GUNSTONE, R. (2000), What is the purpose of this experiment?

Or can students learn something from doing experiments?, Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 37, pp. 655-675.

HEWARD, W.L., GARDNER, R., CAVANAUGH, R.A., COURSON,

F.H., GROSSI, T.A. AND BARBETTA, P.M. (1996), Everyone

participates in this class: using response cards to increase active

student participation, Teaching Exceptional Children, 28, pp. 4-10.

HODSON, D. (1990), A critical look at practical work in school

science, School Science Review, 71, pp. 33-40.

IULI, R.J. AND HELLEDEN, G. (2004), Using concept maps as a

research tool in science education research, paper presented at

the Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept

Mapping, Pamplona, Spain.

JOHNSTONE, A.H. AND WHAM, A.J.B. (1982), The demands of

practical work, Education in Chemistry, 19, pp. 71-73.

KEATEN, J.A. AND RICHARDSON, M.E. (1992), A field

investigation of peer assessment as part of the student group

grading process, paper presented at the Western Speech

Communication Association Convention, Albuquerque, NM.

MAGIN, D. AND HELMORE, P. (2001), Peer and teacher

assessments of oral presentation skills: how reliable are they?,

Studies in Higher Education, 26, pp. 287-298.

MAHEADY, L., MALLETTE, B., HARPER, G.F. AND SACA, K.

(1991), Heads together: A peer-mediated option for improving

the academic achievement of heterogeneous learning groups,

Remedial and Special Education, 12, pp. 25-33.

MINTZES, J.J., WANDERSEE, J.H. AND NOVAK, J.D.

(Eds.)(1998), Teaching Science for Understanding: A Human

Constructivist View, San Diego: Academic Press.

MINTZES, J.J., WANDERSEE, J.H. AND NOVAK, J.D. (Eds.)

(2000), Assessing Science Understanding: A Human Constructivist

View, San Diego: Academic Press.

MULDER, T. AND VEDONK, A.H. (1984), A behavioural analysis

of the laboratory learning process, redesigning a teaching unit on

recrystallization, Journal of Chemical Education, 61, 451-453.

NAKHLEH, M.B. AND KRAJCIK, J.S. (1993), A protocol analysis

of the influence of technology on students’ actions, verbal

commentary, and thought processes during the performance of

acid-base titrations, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30,

pp. 1149-1168.

NAKHLEH, M.B. (1994), Chemical education research in the

laboratory environment. How can research uncover what students

are learning?, Symposium: What is Research in Chemistry

Education, 71, pp. 201-205.

NARAYAN, J.S., HEWARD, W.L., GARDNER, R., COURSON,

F.H. AND OMNESS, C. (1990), Using response cards to increase

student participation in an elementary classroom, Journal of

Applied Behaviour Analysis, 23, pp. 483-490.

NICOL, D.J. AND MACFARLANE-DICK, D. (2006), Formative

assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven

principles of good feedback practice, Studies in Higher Education,

31, pp. 199-218.

NOVAK, J.D. (1998), Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge,

Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations,

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

NOVAK, J. D. AND GOWIN, D. B. (1984), Learning How to Learn,

New York: Cambridge University Press.

ORSMOND, P., MERRY, S. AND REILING, K. (1996), The

importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment,

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, pp. 239-249.

RANDALL, W.C. AND BURKHOLDER, T. (1990), Hands-on

laboratory experience in teaching-learning physiology, Advances

in Physiology Education, 259, pp. S4-S7.



SADLER, D.R. (1998), Formative assessment: revisiting the territory,

Assessment in Education, 5, pp.583-593.

SOMERVELL, H. (1993), Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher

education: the case for self,-peer and collaborative assessment,

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18, pp. 221-233.

VOHLE, F. (2009), Cognitive tools 2.0 in Trainer Education,

International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4, pp. 583-593.

ZIMMERMAN, B.J. AND SCHUNK, D.H. (2001), Self-regulated

Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives,

London, Routledge.

Documents

JOLT 2012 - PAPER 3