Students' perception of a discussion-driven classroom environment in an upper-level ruminant nutrition course with...

This 3-yr classroom research project studied students' perception of the learning environment when class time was reserved primarily for discussion of preassigned reading material as an alternative to a lecture in ruminant nutrition. A student-assessment-of-learning-gain instrument with 46 items was administered anonymously as a survey 3-wk into the semester and as a course evaluation at the end of the semester. Scores, collected on a scale of 1 to 10, were analyzed to determine differences between survey and evaluation, the variation due to student cohort (years 2003, 2004, and 2005), and student standing (undergraduate or graduate) for 5 selected items: item 1 = My level of interest/ curiosity for nutrition is; item 17 = The reading assignments help me learn; item 18 = The in-class discussions help me learn; item 24 = I would prefer the professor lecture; item 38 = I am learning a lot in this class. Although students indicated a preference to using class time for discussion rather than lecture, the degree of consensus was low, as 10% of scores indicated a strong desire for lecture, whereas another 10% indicated strong opposition to lecture. Reading assignments and in-class discussions contributed positively to the perception of learning and both were correlated positively with level of interest in the topic. In the evaluation, the desire for lecture was correlated negatively with level of interest in the topic and the self-assessed level of learning. Students reported a greater interest in the topic at the end of the semester than at wk 3; however, the self-reported learning gains from discussion-related activities varied with student cohort. Graduate students reported a higher interest, more learning from discussion-related activities, and less desire for lecture than undergraduates. Although graduate students were more impervious to the discussion format, undergraduates perceived more learning if the discussion was student-centered (i.e., focused on their questions and answers), rather than subject-centered (i.e., focused on the paper content).