Cohort scheduling of freshman exercise physiology majors improves social integration and perceptions of faculty but not academic performance.

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Miriam Leary, Wei Fang, Andrew Layne, Beth Nardella, Lori Sherlock, Emily Ryan, Jim Thomas, Brian Leary, Lena Maynor
{"title":"Cohort scheduling of freshman exercise physiology majors improves social integration and perceptions of faculty but not academic performance.","authors":"Miriam Leary, Wei Fang, Andrew Layne, Beth Nardella, Lori Sherlock, Emily Ryan, Jim Thomas, Brian Leary, Lena Maynor","doi":"10.1152/advan.00070.2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cohort scheduling intentionally places students in the same sections of several classes (e.g., biology, algebra, and writing) with a consistent peer group and is typically done for small groups (<30 students) to enable better interaction among students. The goal of this study was to compare cohort scheduling to traditional scheduling methods among freshmen in a physiology-related program. Outcomes included retention to the university and major, semester grades, and institutional integration and perceived group cohesion. Incoming freshmen (<i>n</i> = 209) were randomized into control (<i>n</i> = 43; scheduled with traditional methods) and intervention (<i>n</i> = 166; coenrolled in first-year seminar course, biology, and medical terminology) groups. Outcomes were collected via surveys or requested from the university registrar. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of retention to the university or major and no differences between groups in pass/fail rates for the first-year seminar or biology courses. At the end of the semester, there were no differences between groups in Perceived Cohesion for Small Groups (<i>P</i> = 0.102) or the Institutional Integration Scale (<i>P</i> = 0.357). However, the intervention group scored higher on the Institutional Integration Scale's subscales related to social integration and faculty. Cohort scheduling did not impact retention to the university or major but improved secondary outcomes related to retention, specifically social integration and student perceptions of faculty.<b>NEW & NOTEWORTHY</b> Compared with traditional scheduling methods, cohort scheduling freshman in physiology programs does not improve retention but improves students' social integration and perceptions of faculty.</p>","PeriodicalId":50852,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Physiology Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11426994/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Physiology Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00070.2024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cohort scheduling intentionally places students in the same sections of several classes (e.g., biology, algebra, and writing) with a consistent peer group and is typically done for small groups (<30 students) to enable better interaction among students. The goal of this study was to compare cohort scheduling to traditional scheduling methods among freshmen in a physiology-related program. Outcomes included retention to the university and major, semester grades, and institutional integration and perceived group cohesion. Incoming freshmen (n = 209) were randomized into control (n = 43; scheduled with traditional methods) and intervention (n = 166; coenrolled in first-year seminar course, biology, and medical terminology) groups. Outcomes were collected via surveys or requested from the university registrar. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of retention to the university or major and no differences between groups in pass/fail rates for the first-year seminar or biology courses. At the end of the semester, there were no differences between groups in Perceived Cohesion for Small Groups (P = 0.102) or the Institutional Integration Scale (P = 0.357). However, the intervention group scored higher on the Institutional Integration Scale's subscales related to social integration and faculty. Cohort scheduling did not impact retention to the university or major but improved secondary outcomes related to retention, specifically social integration and student perceptions of faculty.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Compared with traditional scheduling methods, cohort scheduling freshman in physiology programs does not improve retention but improves students' social integration and perceptions of faculty.

运动生理学专业大一新生的队列安排能改善社会融合和对教师的看法,但不能提高学习成绩。
群组排课有意将学生安排在几门课(如生物、代数和写作)的相同部分,并有一个一致的同伴群体,通常是为小组(n = 209)随机分为对照组(n = 43;用传统方法排课)和干预组(n = 166;共同参加一年级研讨课、生物和医学术语)。结果通过调查或向大学教务处申请收集。各组在大学或专业的保留率方面没有明显差异,在一年级研讨课或生物课程的及格/不及格率方面也没有差异。学期结束时,各组在 "感知小组凝聚力"(P = 0.102)或 "院校融合量表"(P = 0.357)方面没有差异。然而,干预组在机构融合量表中与社会融合和教师相关的分量表上得分更高。与传统的排课方法相比,对生理学专业的大一新生进行群组排课并不能提高学生的留校率,但却能改善学生的社会融合度和对教师的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
19.00%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Physiology Education promotes and disseminates educational scholarship in order to enhance teaching and learning of physiology, neuroscience and pathophysiology. The journal publishes peer-reviewed descriptions of innovations that improve teaching in the classroom and laboratory, essays on education, and review articles based on our current understanding of physiological mechanisms. Submissions that evaluate new technologies for teaching and research, and educational pedagogy, are especially welcome. The audience for the journal includes educators at all levels: K–12, undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信