Active learning tools improve the learning outcomes, scientific attitude, and critical thinking in higher education: Experiences in an online course during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Active teaching methodologies have been placed as a hope for changing education at different levels, transiting from passive lecture-centered to student-centered learning. With the health measures of social distance, the COVID-19 pandemic forced a strong shift to remote education. With the challenge of delivering quality education through a computer screen, we validated and applied an online course model using active teaching tools for higher education. We incorporated published active-learning strategies into an online construct, with problem-based inquiry and design of inquiry research projects to serve as our core active learning tool. The gains related to students' science learning experiences and their attitudes toward science were assessed by applying questionnaires before, during, and after the course. The course counted on the participation of 83 students, most of them (60.8%) from postgraduate students. Our results show that engagement provided by active learning methods can improve performance both in hard and soft skills. Students' participation seems to be more relevant when activities require the interaction of information, prediction, and reasoning, such as open-ended questions and design of research projects. Therefore, our data show that, in pandemic, active learning tools benefit students and improve their critical thinking and their motivation and positive positioning in science.

Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; active learning; biology course; critical thinking; e-learning; higher education.

FIGURE 1

Passive (teacher‐centered) and active (student‐centered) learning in classroom or remote teaching models

FIGURE 2

The methodology tools used during the validation course were positively evaluated by the participants. (a) Course evaluation by participants. (b) Contribution in the course in learning cell culture. (c) The open‐ended question on “course strengths” was content analyzed, and the responses were classified into categories that included similar statements

FIGURE 3

The audience of attendants to the course was heterogeneous. (a) Participants' educational background, divided between complete and incomplete. Others include “specialist” as complete and “Incomplete second degree” and “residency” as incomplete. (b) Distribution of participants' institutions in Brazilian states (highlighted in gray). (c) Students' previous experience with cell culture techniques

FIGURE 4

Students showed a rapid evolution in their performance during the course. (a) General average score in each questionnaire (0%–100%); multiple‐choice and open‐ended questions represent 50% of the score each; (b) Proportion of students within score ranges in Q1 (n = 49) and Q2 (n = 26). (c) Students' scores average only in the multiple‐choice questions between questionnaires; (d) Students' scores average only in the open‐ended questions between questionnaires

FIGURE 5

Highly engaged students have better performances in open‐ended questions. (a) Students' scores average in the multiple‐choice questions within each engagement subgroup; (b) Students' scores in the open‐ended questions within each engagement subgroup. (c) Venn diagram, representing the number of participants in each activity (Q1, Q2, IRP, and TOP IRP). (d) Total score (%) in Q1 and Q2 analyzed in groups classified by the level of engagement in the course activities. The questionnaire to which the average scores refer is indicated by the horizontal bars (Q1 or Q2). (e) Students average in multiple‐choice questions within each group engagement. (f) Students average in open‐ended questions within each group engagement

FIGURE 6

Students demonstrate a positive feeling about active learning tool. (a) Percentage of responses from students on the multiple‐choice question “How do you think the course contributed to your learning?,” with possible answers “excellent,” “moderate,” and “insufficient.” (b) Percentage of responses to the multiple‐choice question “In the questionnaires, what type of question do you prefer?” with possible answers “multiple‐choice,” “open‐ended,” and “I have no preference.” (c) Percentage of students' responses to the question “How do you evaluate the problem‐based questions present in the questionnaires?” with possible answers “They were excellent,” “They were very difficult,” and “They were very simple.” (d) Percentage of responses to the question “How did you feel during the conduct of the inquiry research project?,” with possible responses being “motivated,” “comfortable,” and “apprehensive.” The percentage of responses was calculated on the number of students who answered the questionnaire (n = 50)

FIGURE 7

Active methodologies are able to increase the incorporation of knowledge, motivation in front of science and students show gains in soft skills. (a) Answers to the open question “what are the main gains you obtained with the course?” were categorized among common themes (showing categories that comprise 6% [n = 3] or more of the answers). (b) Student responses to the question “how motivated are you to solve scientific problems using critical thinking after the course?” on a scale of 1 to 5 (1: Nothing; 5: Very). The percentage of responses was calculated on the number of students who answered the questionnaire (n = 50)