In this study, we examined two types of group presentation assignments for use in a large, introductory biology course. Students were placed into groups of 6 to 8 members, and tasked with researching a topic and preparing a 10-minute in-class presentation. The assignments varied by course section; in the control section, each group's topics were selected to complement the course topic, whereas in the iterative sections, each group's topic would derive from the previous group's presentation. Students’ critical thinking skills were assessed before and after the semester's presentations, and exit surveys were conducted. Results show that students in the iterative group performed better than control on exam questions, and overall interest in biology was high in both groups as a result of the presentations. Overall, performing group presentations in an iterative style enhanced learning by mimicking the scientific process of inquiry and discovery.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
August 2017
Research Article|
August 01 2017
Using Iterative Group Presentations in an Introductory Biology Course to Enhance Student Engagement and Critical Thinking
Anna Aguilera,
Anna Aguilera
3ANNA AGUILERA is an Assistant Professor in the Biology Department at Simmons College, Boston, MA; email: Anna.aguilera@simmons.edu.
Search for other works by this author on:
Jesse Schreier,
Jesse Schreier
2JESSE SCHREIER is a Coordinator of Instructional Technology at Massasoit Community College, Brockton, MA; e-mail: jschreier@massasoit.mass.edu.
Search for other works by this author on:
Cassandra Saitow
Cassandra Saitow
1CASSANDRA SAITOW is an Instructor in the Biology Department at Simmons College, Boston, MA; e-mail: Cassandra.saitow@simmons.edu.
Search for other works by this author on:
The American Biology Teacher (2017) 79 (6): 450–454.
Citation
Anna Aguilera, Jesse Schreier, Cassandra Saitow; Using Iterative Group Presentations in an Introductory Biology Course to Enhance Student Engagement and Critical Thinking. The American Biology Teacher 1 August 2017; 79 (6): 450–454. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2017.79.6.450
Download citation file:
Sign in
Don't already have an account? Register
Client Account
You could not be signed in. Please check your email address / username and password and try again.
Could not validate captcha. Please try again.