The Effects of Virtual Labs and Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement and Motivation in

Anatomy Instruction.

Andy Saltarelli, Ph.D.Faculty Center for Innovative Teaching

Central Michigan Universityfacit.cmich.edu

William Saltarelli, Ph.D.College of Health ProfessionsCentral Michigan Univeristy

300 students per semester

4 credit course

15 lab sections taught by 7 GAs

1 large lecture and 2 labs per week

DEW ~30%

HSC 214 – Human Anatomy

HSC 214 – Anatomy StudyVirtual Labs via Simulation

SoftwareAnatomy & Physiology Revealed 3.0

(APR)

Cooperative Learning via Jigsaw

(Johnson & Johnson, 1998)

Two Interventions

Study #1 – Spring 2010

APR Only Lab

Cadaver Only Lab

Simulated LabCadaver

Lab

Conclusions:

Results: Cadaver-only students performed better than APR-only

Explanation: We did not teach students how to use the APR software well and perceptions of software were poor

Solution: Infuse active learning (e.g., cooperative learning) to ameliorate observed negative effects of simulation software

VS

Study #2 – Fall 2011 Experimental-control Study:

2 Instructional Technology (APR, Cadaver) X 2 Cooperative Learning (Jigsaw, No Jigsaw)

APR +

Jigsaw

APR +

Individual

Cadaver +

Jigsaw

Cadaver +

Individual

APRSoftware

CadaverOnly

Jigsaw Individual

Study #2 – Fall 2011 Jigsaw + APR Software

Study #2 – Results

Quantitative:

Outcome Variables

Achievement (Quiz Grade, 1-Week Retention, Overall Course Grade)

Intrinsic Motivation (Relatedness, Interest, Value)

Cooperative Perceptions (Cooperative, Competitive, Individualistic)

Conflict Regulation (Epistemic, Relational)

Attitude Toward Technology

Achievement Results

Result: Students who participated in the jigsaw activity performed better* than those that didn’t on the 1-week retention quiz. *Wilks's λ=.97, F(1,218) p = .04

Results: Achievement

Result: Students who studied with APR in lab performed worse on the intial quiz, but the same as cadaver-only on the 1-week retention quiz.

Results: Motivation

Result: Students who participated in the jigsaw activity had higher motivation* than those who didn’t participate. *F=5.96, P=.01

Results: Motivation

Result: Students who studied with APR in lab had lower motivation* than cadaver-only students. *F=28.83, P<.001

Results: Motivation

Result: Results suggest* that the jigsaw activity ameliorated decreases in motivation observed in the APR group. *Jig x APR Interaction, F = 6.57, p = .01

Results: Epistemic Regulation

Result: Students who participated in the jigsaw activity had higher epistemic regulation (more focused on learning content)* those who didn’t participate. *Wilks's λ=.95, F(1,213) p < .01

Study #2 – Results Qualitative (Regarding Jigsaw Activity):

•I liked how I was able to teach and be taught at the same time.

•I liked teaching my objectives to others. It helped me learn more in depth.

•I liked this activity because it allows us to work together more and receive feedback from each other.

•I enjoyed teaching the material to others. It makes it so I have to master it in order to teach it.

•The group activity helped me get more involved and learn different ways to study the material.

Next Steps Analyze Remaining Data & Submit Manuscript for

Publication

Jigsaw and APR are being introduced large-scale in HSC 214 (honors section)

Present simulations and cooperative learning as evidence-based, proof-of-concept “interventions” to improve student learning and retention in large STEM courses (e.g., MTH 105, CHM 132-133)