Advertisement

Active learning in osteopathic education: Evaluation of think-pair-share in an undergraduate pathology unit

Published:December 27, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijosm.2021.12.001

      Abstract

      Background

      Fostering student engagement in low-resource learning environments is a common challenge in health professional education. Content-rich subjects, in particular, are associated with a high risk for disengagement. It is possible to enhance the student experience by incorporating principles of active learning and cognitive psychology within traditional forms of instruction.

      Objectives

      This study explored osteopathy student perceptions of think-pair-share, a teaching strategy that combines elements of retrieval practice with cooperative learning. Furthermore, this study sought to quantify the effect of think-pair-share on self-reported engagement and academic achievement.

      Methods

      Osteopathy students in year two of the program at < details on Title page> were invited to participate. A pre-post design which conceptualised think-pair-share as an educational intervention was used. Twelve pathology lectures were divided into subtopics of 12–20 min duration. After each sub-topic, a short-answer question was posed to the class for consideration using the think-pair-share approach. A post-test survey assessed self-reported engagement and perceptions of the teaching strategy.

      Results

      Seventy-six second-year osteopathy students participated. Participants reported significantly higher levels of engagement (p < 0.001) following instruction with think-pair-share. Whilst the intervention did not appear to have an impact upon final grades, the majority of learners were satisfied with the approach. Qualitative feedback on the think-pair-share strategy was largely positive: perceived benefits to learning emerged as a dominant theme. Learners also valued the collaborative nature of this teaching strategy.

      Conclusions

      Think-pair-share is an inexpensive teaching strategy that was received well by osteopathy students. This easily implemented technique can transform a didactic lecture into a collaborative community of active learners.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ahlfeldt S.
        • Mehta S.
        • Sellnow T.
        Measurement and analysis of student engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use.
        High Educ Res Dev. 2005; 24: 5-20
        • An B.
        The role of academic motivation and engagement on the relationship between dual enrolment and academic performance.
        J High Educ. 2015; 86: 98-126
        • Baleghizadeh S.
        The effect of pair work on a word-building task.
        ELT J. 2010; 64: 405-413
        • Biggs J.
        • Tang C.
        Teaching for quality learning at university. fourth ed. McGraw Hill, Berkshire, England2011
        • Casuso-Holgado M.
        • Cuesta-Vargas A.
        • Moreno-Morales N.
        • Labajos-Manzanares M.
        • Baron-Lopez F.
        • Vega-Cuesta M.
        The association between academic engagement and achievement in health science students.
        BMC Med Educ. 2013; 13: 1-7
        • Chi M.
        • de Leeuw N.
        • Chiu M.
        • LaVancher C.
        Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding.
        Cognit Sci. 1994; 18: 438-477
        • Creswell J.
        Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. third ed. Sage, London2009
        • Dol S.
        Think-pair-share: an active learning strategy to teach theory of computation course.
        Int J Educ Res Technol. 2014; 5: 62-67
        • Elberson K.
        • Vance A.
        • Stephenson N.
        • Corbett R.
        Cooperative learning: a strategy for teaching pathophysiology to undergraduate nursing students.
        Nurse Educat. 2001; 26: 259-261
        • Emerson T.
        • English L.
        • McGoldrick K.
        Evaluating the cooperative component in cooperative learning: a quasi-experimental study.
        J Econ Educ. 2015; 46: 1-13
        • Fitzgerald D.
        Employing think-pair-share in associate degree nursing curriculum.
        Teach Learn Nurs. 2013; 8: 88-90
        • Gale N.
        • Heath G.
        • Cameron E.
        • Rashid S.
        • Redwood S.
        Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13: 1-8
        • Hoddinott P.
        • Thomson G.
        • Morgan H.
        • Crossland N.
        • MacLennan G.
        • Dykes
        • et al.
        Perspectives on financial incentives to health service providers for increasing breast feeding and smoking quit rates during pregnancy: a mixed methods study.
        BMJ Open. 2015; 5: 1-13
        • Kaddoura M.
        Think Pair Share: a teaching and learning strategy to enhance students' critical thinking.
        Educ Res Q. 2013; 36: 3-24
        • Karge B.
        • Phillips K.
        • Jessee T.
        • McCabe M.
        Effective strategies for engaging adult learners.
        J Coll Teach Learn. 2011; 8: 53-56
        • Kothiyal A.
        • Majumdar R.
        • Murthy S.
        • Iyer S.
        Effect of think-pair-share in a large CS1 class: 83% sustained engagement’, from the 6th International Congress of Environmental Research.
        2013 (12th-14th August, 2013)
        • Krathwohl D.
        A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: an overview.
        Theory Into Pract. 2002; 41: 212-218
        • Kyndt E.
        • Raes E.
        • Lismont B.
        • Timmers F.
        • Cascallar E.
        • Dochy F.
        A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings?.
        Educ Res Rev. 2013; 10: 133-149
        • Lyman F.
        The responsive classroom discussion: the inclusion of all students.
        in: Anderson A. Mainstreaming digest. University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland1981: 18-24
        • McLeod G.
        • Vaughan B.
        • Carey I.
        • Shannon T.
        • Winn E.
        Pre-professional reflective practice: strategies, perspectives and experiences.
        Int J Osteopath Med. 2020; 35: 50-56
        • Mandernach B.
        Assessment of student engagement in higher education: a synthesis of literature and assessment tools.
        Int J Learn Teach Educ Res. 2015; 12: 1-14
        • Michael J.
        Where's the evidence that active learning works?.
        Adv Physiol Educ. 2006; 30: 159-167
        • Molin F.
        • Haelermans C.
        • Cabus S.
        • Groot W.
        The effect of feedback on metacognition – a randomized experiment using polling technology.
        Comput Educ. 2020; 152: 1-21
        • Morgan B.
        • Keitz R.
        Cooperative learning effectiveness with undergraduate Hispanic students.
        Natl For Multicult Issue J. 2011; 9: 1-8
        • Morgan B.
        • Rosenberg G.
        • Wells L.
        Undergraduate Hispanic student response to cooperative learning.
        Coll Teach Methods & Styles J. 2010; 6: 7-12
        • Nik Azlina N.
        CETLs: supporting collaborative activities among students and teachers through the use of think-pair-share techniques.
        Int J Comput Sci Issues. 2010; 7: 18-29
        • Rao S.
        • DiCarlo S.
        Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes.
        Adv Physiol Educ. 2000; 24: 51-55
        • Ritchie J.
        • Lewis J.
        Qualitative Research Practice – a guide for social science students and researchers.
        Sage, London2003
        • Roediger H.
        • Pyc M.
        Inexpensive techniques to improve education: applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice.
        J Appl Res Memory Cogn. 2012; 1: 242-248
        • Rowe M.
        Wait time: slowing down may be a way of speeding up.
        Teach Educat. 1986; 31: 43-50
        • Shute V.
        Focus on formative feedback.
        Rev Educ Res. 2008; 78: 153-189
        • Slone N.
        • Mitchell N.
        Technology-based adaptation of think-pair-share utilising Google drive.
        J Teach Learn Technol. 2014; 3: 102-104
        • Szostek C.
        Assessing the effects of cooperative learning in an honours foreign language classroom.
        Foreign Lang Ann. 1994; 27: 252-261
        • Tsang K.
        The use of midpoint of Likert scale: the implications for educational research.
        Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre J. 2012; 11: 121-130
        • Wefald A.
        • Downey R.
        Construct dimensionality of engagement and its relation with satisfaction.
        J Psychol. 2009; 143: 91-111
        • Vaughan B.
        • Grace S.
        Perception of peer physical examination in two Australian osteopathy programs.
        Chiropr Man Ther. 2016; 24: 1-11
        • Vaughan B.
        • Grace S.
        • Gray B.
        • Kleinbaum A.
        Engaging with evidence-based practice in the osteopathy clinical learning environment: a mixed methods pilot study.
        Int J Osteopath Med. 2019; 33: 52-58
        • Vaughan B.
        • Moore K.
        • Kleinbaum A.
        Near-peer teaching in osteopathy clinical education.
        Int J Osteopath Med. 2017; 25: 42-45