Impact of Concurrent Enrollment in Animal Reproduction Laboratory and Lecture Courses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v69i1.170Keywords:
undergraduate, animal science, teaching, animal reproductionAbstract
Our study investigated the potential impacts of concurrent enrollment of undergraduate students in lecture and laboratory animal reproduction courses on final course percentages. Student learning outcomes and structure of the laboratory course were designed to provide hands-on learning opportunities, which coincided with concepts discussed in lecture. A total of 307 students were included in the analysis. Students concurrently enrolled in laboratory and lecture had a greater (P<0.001) final course percentage in the lecture compared with those enrolled in lecture alone. Students in the science degree option had a greater (P<0.03) final lecture course percentage compared with those in the production degree option, and juniors had a greater (P=0.05) final course percentage when compared with sophomores. At the end of the semester, students were surveyed about the perceived value of the laboratory course on their learning. Among students enrolled in laboratory sections, 98.4% indicated the hands-on activities improved their knowledge of course concepts in lecture. These student beliefs are supported by our results, which suggest that taking the laboratory and lecture together improves student final course percentages and that students value the hands-on learning opportunities provided in laboratory sections.
Downloads
References
Bormann, J. M., Moser, D. W., & Bates, K. E. (2013). Factors affecting student performance in an undergraduate genetics course1. Journal of Animal Science, 91(5), 2438–2443. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5839
Buchanan, D. S. (2008). ASAS Centennial Paper: Animal science teaching: A century of excellence. Journal of Animal Science, 86(12), 3640–3646. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1366
Burk, S. V., Rossano, M. G., Silvia, W. J., Vanzant, E. S., Pescatore, A. J., & Harmon, R. J. (2013). Factors associated with course withdrawal and final course grade in an introductory animal science course. NACTA Journal, 57(2), 16–23.
Grizzle, J. M., Saxton, A. M., Snow, P., & Edmonds, C. (2008). A virtual laboratory for undergraduate instruction in domestic animal reproductive physiology: help or hindrance?. NACTA Journal, 52(1), 49–54.
Gucwa, K., & Cheng, H. (2014). RoboSim for integrated computing and STEM education. 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, 24.1058.1-24.1058.17. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--22991
Handur, V., Kalwad, P. D., Patil, M. S., Garagad, V. G., Yeligar, N., Pattar, P., Mehta, D., Baligar, P., & Joshi, G. H. (2016). Integrating class and laboratory with hands-on programming: its benefits and challenges. 2016 IEEE 4th International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITE.2016.041
Harris, D. E., Hannum, L., & Gupta, S. (2004). Contributing factors to student success in anatomy & physiology: lower outside workload & better preparation. NACTA Journal, 66(3), 168–175.
Haury, D. L., & Rillero, P. (1994). Perspectives of hands-on science teaching. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Enviromental Education.
Horvath, D. J., & Inskeep, E. K. (1968). Role of the laboratory in the teaching of animal science. Journal of Animal Science, 27(Symposium), 952–955. https://doi.org/10.1093/ansci/27.Symposium.952
Lancaster, S. H., & Robinson, J. S. (2011). Factors associated with student success in an introductory plant science course. NACTA Journal, 55(2), 26–31.
Maiga, H. A., & Bauer, M. L. (2013). Using interactive flash games to enhance students’ learning in animal sciences. NACTA Journal, 57(3), 60–66.
McMillan, M., Bullion, A., Stutts, K., Kelley, S., Beverly, M., & Rakowitz, L. (2009). Variables affecting final grade outcome in undergraduate-animal science courses. NACTA Journal, 53(2), 29–33.
Peffer, P. A. L. (2011). Demographics of an undergraduate animal sciences course and the influence of gender and major on course performance. NACTA Journal, 55(1), 26–31.
Poole, D. H., & Moore, J. A. (2016). Using review sessions to promote student learning in an animal reproduction course. NACTA Journal, 60(2), 202–206.
Pratt-Phillips, S., & Schmitt, S. (2009). The effect of previous experience on performance in an introductory-level undergraduate equine science class. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 29(5), 450–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2009.04.145
Ragland, E. C., Radcliffe, S., & Karcher, E. L. (2023). A review of the application of active learning pedagogies in undergraduate animal science curricula. Journal of Animal Science, 101, skac352. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skac352
Roberts, G. (2006). A philosophical examination of experiential learning theory for agricultural educators. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.01017
Soberon, M. A., Cherney, D. J. R., & Kiely, R. C. (2012). Predictors of performance in an animal nutrition classroom. NACTA Journal, 56(3), 6–9.
Wells, K., VanLeeuwen, D., Seevers, B., White, L., & Cruces, L. (2019). Impact of traditional lecture and hands-on learning on students’ knowledge gain in animal science courses. NACTA Journal, 63(2), 319–321.
Woiwode, R. (2016). 1747 Increase in demand for hands-on instruction in animal science curriculum. Journal of Animal Science, 94(suppl_5), 851–851. https://doi.org/10.2527/jam2016-1747
