1. There are tomes of evidence that team-based learning is highly effective in improving comprehension, critical thinking, and content retention when a course is delivered in a student-centered, inquiry-based format. 1,2 However, this format may necessitate a more wholesale conversion of the lecture format that is more feasible in a class with fewer students. I addressed whether a more conservative integration of team-based activities had a significantly positive impact on learning and retention in a moderately large course in animal physiology. Team-based Learning in a Large Lecture Course: Effective Even in Small Doses Effective Even in Small Doses Caron Inouye, Biological Science, California State University, East Bay, Hayward, CA Course: Fall 2009 Principles of Animal Physiology (BIOL 3151), a core requirement for all biology majors, 80 students enrolled. Pre-activity assessment: A specific lecture unit (topic) was followed by a multiple-choice question (Fig. 1A) with individual student responses recorded via iClicker®. The answer was not discussed with students. Team activity: Immediately after the pre- activity, students divided into groups of 3-4 to discuss (for 10-15 min.) a series of “questions for thought” based on the topic (Fig. 1B). Post-activity assessment: Individual student responses to an isomorphic multiple-choice question (Fig. 1C) were recorded via iClicker® and compared to pre-activity responses. Assessment of content retention: A formative exam was given 24 d after the team activity. Student scores on a multi-part question assessing the same topic as well as overall exam performance were compared. Comparison to previous year: Student performances on isomorphic exam questions of the same topic and overall exam performance during the Fall 2008 offering of BIOL 3151 when no team activities were done were compared to the Fall 2009 scores. 1.Michael, J. 2006. Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Adv. Physiol. Educ. 30: 159-167. 2.Prince, M. 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J. Engr. Educ. 93(3): 223-231. 3.Smith, M.K., W.B. Wood, W.K. Adams, C. Wieman, J.K. Knight, N. Guild, and T.T. Su. 2009. Why peer discussion improves student performance on in- class concept questions. Science 323: 122-124. I would like to thank the following for their help, encouragement, and support of this project: ASM, NSF, and my Biology Scholars Program colleagues; Bernie Salvador (IT); Michael Hedrick (Biology Chair); Michael Leung (Dean); and my infinitely patient family (Ned, Dayton, & Mariko Garrett). The CSU East Bay IRB has approved this project. INTRODUCTION RESULTS METHODS CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There was a dramatic increase in the percentage of students (from 44% to 74%) correctly answering the isomorphic assessment question immediately following the team activity (Fig. 2). Mean student score on the exam question that assessed the team-discussed topic (x = 65.6%, SD = 19.2%, N = 73) were not significantly different from mean overall exam score (x = 63.5%, SD = 28.9%, N = 73; paired t = -0.9, df = 72, p = 0.37). Mean student score on isomorphic exam questions assessing the team-discussed topic was significantly greater in 2009 (x = 63.5%, SD = 28.9%, N = 73) than in 2008 (x = 37.6%, SD = 23.8%, N = 78) when no team activities occurred (unpaired t = 6.1, df = 149, p << 0.001; Fig. 3). Figure 2. Proportion of students answering the assessment question incorrectly (red) or correctly (blue) before and after the team activity; N = 61. Figure 3. Difference in mean score (% of total points) on an exam question assessing the particular topic between 2008 (when no team activity was done) and 2009 (with team activity). The 2008 and 2009 exam questions were isomorphic. Mean overall student performances on exams were not significantly different between 2008 (x = 65.5%, SD = 15.7%, N = 49) and 2009 (x = 65.6%, SD = 19.2%, N = 73; unpaired t = 0.05, df = 120, p = 0.48; Fig. 4). Figure 4. Comparison of overall mean exam scores (% of total points) for students taking the course in 2008 (when no team activities were done) and in 2009 (when team activities were performed). A B C Figure 2. Screen shots of the pre-activity question (A), the questions given to the students to discuss during the team activity (B), and the isomorphic post-activity question (C). Student responses to questions A and C were recorded using iClicker ®. These questions were posed after a lecture unit on properties of animal cell membranes that enable homeoviscous adaptation. Students show marked improvements in both formative and summative assessments of concept learning once the concept has been actively discussed in a structured team discussion. Such peer discussion has also been shown to be an effective strategy in a very large (>300 student) lecture course. 3 Students show some degree of content retention (> 3 weeks) once the content has been discussed in team discussion. A pair-wise comparison of individual student performances on post-activity questions and overall exam scores indicates that there is a consistency in performance between the two assessments, so that students who show concept understanding just after team discussion also demonstrate this understanding in another format some weeks later. The lack of a statistically significant increase in exam scores between 2008 and 2009 is a strong indicator of the need to increase the frequency of these team-based activities in the course. These results suggest that even sporadic use of team- based learning (group discussion) activities is effective in increasing understanding of particularly difficult concepts, and more importantly, in the retention of these concepts.