Student's opinion on a problem-based learning method of teaching comparative animal physiology

Authors

  • Bernardo Baldisserotto Departamento de Fisiologia, Centro de Ciências da Saúde - CCS, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria - UFSM, Santa Maria, RS.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X26718

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to verify the opinion of students in relation to a learning methodology, where emphasis is not placed on the accumulation or memorizationi of specific knowledge, but in the use of dedution to solve problems related to a particular subject. This study was carried out with undergraduate students of the course "Comparative Animal Physiology" (classes of 10 to 15 students each), from the Federal University of Santa Maria, Southern Brazil. During each class the students discussed the answers to a given question, provided by the teacher, with the aid of available references; after which a written report of their conclusions had to be done. The evaluation of the students was basead on these reports. At the end of the semester, the students (44 on the whole) answered (anonymously) a questionnaire to evaluat this method, with relation to lectured-centered classes. According to the students, if compared with lectures, this method offered a restrict vision of the subject, but it is more interesting and improves their performance. There is no difference between these methods in relation to elucidation of doubts. The students did not think that too much time was lost translating English texts. Most students prefer this system instead of lectures, and the evaluation methodology was unanimously approved. Based on these results, it can be concluded that this method can be used to teach Comparative Animal Physiology with good results.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ávila Pires, F.D. Perfis e caricaturas: reflexões sobre a formação do biólogo. Cien. Cult., v.36, n.10, p.1762-64, 1984.

Beraldo, W.T.; Alvarenga, G.P. Non-directive method for teaching physiology. The Physiologist, v.26, n,4, p.229-30, 1983.

Libâneo, J.C. Democratização da escola pública: a pedagogia crítico-social dos conteúdos. 7.ed., Edições Loyola, São Paulo, 1984.

Moreira, E.S.A.; Caixeta, F.N.; Carvalho, H.C.; Beirão, P.S.L. Ciclo básico em questão. Ciência Hoje, v.13, n.78, p.18-20, 1991.

Rangachari, P.K. Design of a problem-based undergraduate course in pharmacology: implications for the teaching of physiology. Am. J. Physiol., v.260, p. S14-21, 1991.

Richardson, D.; Birge, B. Teaching physiology by combined passive (pedagogical) and active (andragogical) methods. Am. J. Physiol., v.268, p. S66-74, 1995.

Xavier, G.F.; Sawaya, M.I.; Mimura, O.M.; Freitas, J.C. Uma abordagem de ensino visando a participação ativa do aluno. Cien. Cult., v. 38, n. 10, p.1671-74,1986.

Downloads

Published

1997-12-10

How to Cite

Baldisserotto, B. (1997). Student’s opinion on a problem-based learning method of teaching comparative animal physiology. Ciência E Natura, 19(19), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X26718

Issue

CIÊNCIA E NATURA, V. 19, N. 19, 1997

Section

Articles

License

To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.

 

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. 

Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

In particular, 

Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.