Abstract
The objective of this experiment was to compare the impact of a cooperative learning format with a traditional lecture-oriented format in the teaching of introductory biology. Differences were found in favor of the cooperative learning format in measures of student satisfaction, the ability to find information on one's own, the acquisition of factual knowledge, and the ability to work with others. The results of this study affirm the viability of using a cooperative learning approach over a traditional lecture format.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Astin, A. W. (1991).Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan.
Astin, A. W. (1993).What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beardsly, T. (1992). Teaching real science.Scientific American, 267, (4): 98–108.
Bransford, J. D., Goldman, S. R., Hasselbring, T. S., Pellegrino, J. W., Williams, S. M., & Vye, N. (1993). The Jasper Series: Theoretical foundations and data of problem solving and transfer. In L. A. Penner, G. M. Batsche, H. M. Knoff, & D. L. Nelson (Eds.),The challenge in mathematics and science education: Psychology's response (pp. 113–151). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Calabi, P. (1992, October).Collaborative learning in science. Unpublished paper presented at the national conference of the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, Wesley Chapel, Florida.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (Eds.) (1991).Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 47. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, J. L., Prescott, S., Cook, L., Smith, L., Mueck, R., & Cuseo, J. (1990).Cooperative learning and college instruction: Effective use of student learning teams. Carson, CA: California State University Foundation.
Fisher, A. (1992). Why Johnny can't do science and math.Popular Science, 241, (3): 50–55, 98.
Goodwin, L., Miller, J. E., & Cheetham, R. D. (1991). Teaching freshmen to think does active learning work?BioScience, 41: 719–722.
Greeno, J. G. (1993). For research to reform education and cognitive science. In L. A. Penner, G. M. Batsche, H. M. Knoff, & D. L. Nelson (Eds.),The challenge in mathematics and science education: Psychology's response (pp. 153–192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Groccia, J. E., & Miller, J. E. (1996). Collegiality in the classroom: The use of peer learning assistants in cooperative learning in introductory biology.Innovative Higher Education, 21: 87–100.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989).Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991).Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
Miller, J. E., & Cheetham, R. D. (1990). Teaching freshmen to think—active learning in introductory biology.BioScience, 40: 388–391.
Miller, J. E., Wilkes, J., Cheetham, R. D., & Goodwin, L. (1993). Tradeoffs in student satisfaction: Is the “perfect” course an illusion?Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 4: 27–47.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983).A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington DC: United States Department of Education.
Nelson, D. L. (1993). Roles of cognition, emotion, and social interaction in mathematics and science education. In L. A. Penner, G. M. Batsche, H. M. Knoff, & D. L. Nelson (Eds.),The challenge in mathematics and science education: Psychology's response (pp. 51–60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Brent, D. H. (1975).SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pace, C. R. (1990).The college student experiences questionnaire (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA Graduate School of Education.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Form A). (1980). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Additional information
Judith E. Miller is Director of Educational Development and Professor of Biology and Biotechnology at WPI, Worcester, Massachusetts. She received the Ph.D. in Microbiology from Case Western Reserve University and the B.S. in Biological Sciences from Cornell University. Her special interests include the restructuring of technical courses to include cooperative learning and educational productivity. James E. Groccia is the Director of the Program for Excellence in Teaching at the University of Missouri, Columbia. He received the Ed.D. in Educational and Counseling Psychology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, the M.S.Ed. in Social Science Education from Hofstra University, and the B.A. in Psychology from Hartwick College.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miller, J.E., Groccia, J.E. Are four heads better than one? A comparison of cooperative and traditional teaching formats in an introductory biology course. Innov High Educ 21, 253–273 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01192275
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01192275