Keywords

1 Introduction

Educators develop learning environments to improve students’ learning capacity that results in optimum learning outcomes [1]. Part of an educator’s job is to ensure the quality of students’ learning process and to offer sufficient feedback and evaluation for continuous improvement [2]. Each educator builds an environment to keep the students engaged to achieve the course’s major outcomes. Considering the diversity of learning between students provides an environment that acknowledges the role of each student on a topic and places the student in a correct position from the beginning of the course [3]. Interteaching is a teaching strategy that places the students in a well-established behavioral collaborative learning environment by exposing the students to different behaviors including reading, writing, discussion, and listening [4]. This can be achieved by giving a guide to the students at the beginning of classes, followed by class discussion, recording their understanding, evaluating their understanding on a scale, lecturing by the instructor, and finally students’ assessments [5]. The assessments usually include project writing and presentation based on class discussion, frequent formative feedback, and a final summative exam. To improve class discussion, students are exposed to earn participation marks depending on their performance [6]. This is not affecting the students’ exam grades but affects the final marks. It has been observed that students performed better on quizzes following the Interteaching style when compared to traditional instructor lecturing style, and hence it has been seen as an effective and challenging alternative to traditional methods [7]. Interteaching acknowledges the student diversity in learning and encourages the students to improve their learning capacity.

To measure the students’ learning outcomes following the implementation of a new teaching style, educators usually assign several types of assessments followed by suitable types of evaluations [8]. Two major types of evaluation strategies are known, formative and summative feedback [9, 10]. Summative feedback is usually quantitative and comes at the end of a semester or a year [11]. Summative feedback compares the performance of students to standards. These standards were set according to well-designed rubrics to show the students the scale where their work falls. Rubrics is a scale for making sure that students are graded on an identical standard and to avoid any bias [12]. On the other hand, formative feedback is a tool to highlight the students’ critical areas to learn for future improvement to be utilized to determine students’ next learning objectives [13].

While an educator uses both feedbacks, it is important to train the students to generate formative and cumulative feedback while the teaching process is on. It may be helpful to have students respond to a piece of knowledge on a scale or by writing down self-perceived areas of strength and weakness, or writing a reflection on their overall performance [14]. In other words, students are allowed to set their own goals for the next step in the learning process. Generating a focus discussion by presenting a topic-related piece of data or news can help the students stay focused, while the teaching process is running [15, 16]. As the educator moves forward in the course, students will regularly make sure they understand the materials to give efficient feedback for expected questions. Students spend less time understanding the materials and the educator reaches excellent learning outcomes. Here, we have employed a modified Interteaching behavioral style on graduate students by developing an environment that started with presenting the students with news to build their focus discussion. This is followed by lecturing and assessment using frequent formative feedback, and summative evaluation (Fig. 1). The main goal of this teaching strategy is to enhance the students’ learning capacity, engagement, and focus to ensure their acceptance for a new topic.

Fig. 1
3 interconnected blocks. Topic guide and student focus discussion, student recording and lecturing, and formative feedback and summative evaluation.

Teaching triangle strategy

Full size image

2 Methods

2.1 Teaching Style and Tools

Master’s students at the college of pharmacy from two different batches were exposed separately to two different teaching styles in two different years, the traditional instructor-centered-based and the Interteaching styles. In the instructor-centered teaching style, the lectures were delivered by the instructor followed by regular questions at the end of the lectures. The assessments were made by summative evaluation at the end of the semester. In the Interteaching style, students were exposed to a mix of instructor- and student-centered styles. Students experienced a blended-teaching approach.

In both teaching styles, the course materials were sent to the students through a learning management system (LMS) one week prior to lectures. The students were exposed to a regular face-to-face teaching style including the use of whiteboard, PowerPoint slides, illustrations, graphics, and media. Students were attracted during the lectures by asking regular and continuous questions from the instructor, related videos, and real-life pictures with explanatory discussions. Students can use their cell phones and access the Internet to search for more related information and applications during the lectures. Furthermore, the students explored the use of computer programs, freely available software, and databases with the instructor. The students were then given anonymous information required to use all skills that were accumulated with time from either the lectures, course materials, or the available online resources to follow up on the teaching process and for practical implementation.

2.2 Establishing an Interteaching Style

In the case of Interteaching style and at the beginning of the course, named “DNA-information technology”, MSc students (26 students, 1 male and the rest are female) were asked whether they know a picture that belongs to a 2018-Nobel prize awarded scientist Frances H. Arnold [California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Pasadena, CA, USA]. Furthermore, the students were asked how much they understood from an associated paragraph, which simply explains Arnold’s scientific achievements (Fig. 2). A focus discussion was started between students that were moderated by the instructor. The students record their obtained knowledge and evaluate their understanding on a scale of 1–10. This was followed by a brief lecture by the instructor and formative feedback. For the formative feedback, the students were asked regularly to read the same paragraph at the end of every following lecture and scale it on a scale of 1–10 in terms of understanding the same paragraph in comparison to the knowledge gained during the lecture. The students were also asked to highlight the points in the paragraph that became fully clear for them and those that were not.

Fig. 2
A text box. It briefs about a researcher and her findings.

A paragraph representing the scientific achievement of a 2018 Nobel prize-awarded scientist, Frances H. Arnold. Simply, the paragraph explains a genetic engineering tool that she employed to pursue her goal and develop her engineered final product, a new enzyme. The paragraph was adapted from the news

Full size image

2.3 Summative Evaluation

In the summative evaluation, students were asked to use all the skills gained during the course to solve a problem-based question using a specialized computer program for genetic engineering and to design a new biological device [17]. The students were subjected to a tutorial of 2 h with the instructor on the program and other available online resources. The students were advised to revise their procedures with the instructor at regular time intervals but with minimal intervention to ensure they were progressing in the right direction. The students were divided into groups of 2–3 and given two weeks to solve the problem and to develop their own slide presentation to represent and assemble the course materials required to solve this problem. Each group discusses the project in a conference-based setting with all other students. In the problem-based learning project, the students were given a gene sequence and asked to engineer the gene using a simulated computer program and to ensure the correct expression of the gene. They were also asked to put a procedure for the purification of the product, the engineered enzyme, and test its functionality. The students were also exposed to a final problem-based exam testing their ability to identify and fix a real research procedure for a master’s student at a scientific laboratory. Students were evaluated using rubrics. The rubrics were generated based on a template created by the Rubistar database at http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php.

2.4 Feedback Evaluation

At the end of the course, students were given a written questionnaire to give feedback about it. This included, Were the objectives of the course materials achieved? (evaluate on a scale from 1 to 5), Did the scope of the course reach? (evaluate on a scale from 1 to 5), Are you satisfied with the learning activity and outcomes? Did you find the learning environment enthusiastic? Further, they have asked to comment on what they found good or bad about the course: In addition, how to improve the teaching style offered? The feedback was collected randomly after the final class without identifying the students’ names. However, the students record their obtained knowledge and evaluate their understanding 1–10.

3 Results

3.1 Teaching Cycle

Interteaching strategy was developed with master’s students while learning a biotechnology course for the first time. The new teaching style was compared to the traditional instructor-centered based teaching style, where the instructor used to deliver regular lectures followed/interrupted by interactive questions with the aid of Internet access. The assessment was performed using summative evaluation including midterm and final exams. The instructor asked the student to prepare a presentation related to the course subject without identifying a specific question or research problem. In the Interteaching style, the students were exposed to a photo and paragraph (Fig. 2) as a preparatory guide followed by a discussion between the students moderated by the instructor. The students also used their cell phones and the Internet to search for related information. Within every following lecture, students presented the same paragraph in Fig. 2 and began the discussion, recording their notes and scaling their understanding. Then the instructor delivered a brief lecture interrupted by focused discussion and questions. The students then compared their understanding at the end of the lecture followed by evaluation on a scale of 1–10. The assessment of students was performed using formative feedback and summative evaluation.

3.2 Assessment Cycle

Formative feedback

While the instructor-centered style did not employ formative feedback, the Interteaching style did (Table 1). In the Interteaching style, students at the course’s beginning were asked to scale their understanding of the paragraph presented in Fig. 2. At the end of every following lecture, the students were also asked to re-read the paragraph and re-scale their understanding and to match their gained knowledge to the information in the provided paragraph in Fig. 2. The results showed that the students positively accepted the idea and liked the teaching style. The students’ curiosity about the topic was attended to from the beginning of the course, and their acceptance of the information in the paragraph increased over time (Fig. 3). By the end of the lectures, students’ understanding of the paragraph increased dramatically from zero to 95%. Because the topic is new for all students, they were more curious and interacted more. All students showed no significant difference regarding the received knowledge.

Table 1 Teaching styles and associated outcomes
Full size table
Fig. 3
A visual analog scale score of evaluation scale versus pre-lectures, first lecture, second lecture, and third lecture. The mean value of each lecture is 0, 2.4, 7, and 8.5. Values are estimated. The p-value for pre-lecture to the second lecture is less than 0.0001.

Measuring the students’ perceptive and understanding the topic and teaching style over time on a scale of 1–10. The points represent the number of students who agreed on a specific scale. The asterisk represents the level of significance

Full size image

Project writing and presentation

In the Interteaching style, students in a group of 2–3 were assigned a problem-based project that required incorporating all learning materials. The student groups used a simulation computer-based program to integrate all project components into one design. The students were able to present their designs on a PowerPoint slide and explain all their procedures in a collaborative teaching style. The educator feedback was generated in a conference setting style where the students sat together, reviewed their work, and had a conversation about the outcomes. All the students showed significant efforts and an amazing understanding of the topic. However, the students in the instructor-centered style in a group of 2–3 were presented with information related to the subject they collected from published literature.

The students were graded based on their knowledge, accuracy of the information, clarity of the objective, conclusion, visuals, flow of presentation, and the students’ linguistic, confidence, and explanation. All students in the Interteaching style received an ‘A’ grade, while those with the instructor-centered style received a ‘B+’ grade.

Summative evaluation

In the Interteaching style, students were exposed to a final problem-based exam, which tested their individual abilities to identify a research problem of a master’s student and the possibility to fix the student’s design. The exam stood for 1 h, and it was paper-based. Twenty-two students out of 26 received an ‘A’, while the rest received ‘B+’. The results indicated that students’ understanding of the topic was excellent and the objectives of the course were reached successfully. On the other hand, students in the instructor-centered style were similarly exposed to a similar problem-based exam, and they received an average ‘B.’

3.3 Measuring the Learning Outcomes of the Students

To measure the learning capacity of the students, they were asked to answer a summative questionnaire including what the major scope of the course is, rating the overall course objective, what is good and bad about the course/teaching style, and how to improve the teaching style if the students replace the role of instructor. In the Interteaching style, 14 students out of 26 rated the overall objectives of the course as 4∕5, while 12 students rated the course overall objectives as 4.5–5∕5 (Fig. 4a). Furthermore, most of the students were able to identify the scope of the course and describe it in other words such as ‘Biotechnology’, ‘Biotechnology techniques’, and ‘Practice in Biotechnology’. Twenty-six students rated the scope of the course as 4–5∕5 (Fig. 4b). Overall, 95% of the students accepted the course, 60% were attracted to the field, and 100% found the course very understandable and interesting (Table 1).

Fig. 4
2 scatterplots of student number versus evaluation rates 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, and 5. The common plots in both graphs are (1, 0), (2, 0), (3, 0), and (4,14). Other plots in A are (4.5, 5) and (5, 5). Other plots in B are (4.5, 0) and (5, 12). Values are approximated.

Measuring the students’ learning capacity and their feedback regarding the topic and teaching style on a scale of 1–5 at the end of the course. a Students rate how many objectives of the course were achieved. b Students rate how much the scope of the course has reached. Every point represents the number of students who agreed on specific value

Full size image

The students also liked the topic; they found the assignment extremely helpful and the material highly informative. They liked the integration between the theory and the hands-on practical application. However, they did not like the brief time allocated for the course. The students also suggested a few ways to improve the course teaching style including more videos and illustrations and more computer-based practice with the instructors. In the case of instructor-centered, 70% of the students found the course was difficult, 50% accepted the subject and only 10% were attracted to the field (Table 1).

4 Discussion

Driven by the demand to increase the effectiveness of learning outcomes, educators are continuously challenged to incorporate creative pedagogical tools that actively increase learning delivery and potential learning outcomes. Here, we designed, implemented, and evaluated a new teaching strategy by using an Interteaching approach for the first time at our institution (Fig. 1). The outcomes from this strategy were compared to the traditional instructor-centered strategy. Our new learning strategy recognizes the potential of blending 3D components of assessments along with a student-focus teaching model.

The course was planned to creatively address and integrate the crucial components of the teaching–learning process including the use of student-focus learning, teaching–learning interactive activities, and strategies to follow on student engagement. The steps used to plan the course (i) started by giving a preparatory guide accompanied by essential questions that control the students’ focus and define the aimed objectives of the course, (ii) followed by designing a plan for the learning process, (iii) developing the teaching delivery methods with the period schedule, (iv) assessing the learning outcomes, and (v) finally evaluating the progress of learning process with student assessment results, feedback, and SWOT analysis. This teaching plan is aligned with a well-designed Interteaching style as previously described [18]. The planning of a course is a crucial roadmap to the success of a learning strategy [19].

Typically, the Interteaching approach started with a preparatory guide in the form of a group of questions prepared by the instructor to help the students’ engagement in the learning process [7, 18]. However, we tackle the students’ interest and motivate their learning process by introducing the topic as a case study-simulated learning, where we choose a Nobel Prize winner as the prestigious achievement in the field that emotionally inspired the students and motivated them to learn more effectively. This raises attractive questions followed by group discussion, thus increasing the curiosity-based motivation, and students’ contribution during the learning process. It is challenging to produce a range of learning activities to captivate the students’ interest and create an environment for student-focused learning activities.

It is well-known that starting a course with a problem or challenging questions, like the use of case-scenario in our study, provides a deep understanding of the concepts, expands the students’ perception, improves their critical thinking skills, enhances leadership skills, and enhances the analytical skill to solve a problem creatively [20]. The students in this study were subjected to a schematic approach to define the problem, discuss views, collect information, evaluate such information, make conclusions, and create a product [21]. We have also increased students’ engagement by assigning problem-based learning (PBL) that required research, design, and implementation of students’ minds-on activity. The implementation of PBL is a fundamental scientific learning approach that effectively helps in the success of the learning process, particularly when implementing a new topic [22].

Interteaching style establishes an environment that can achieve maximum learning regardless of students’ diversity [23], herein, only a blend of methods and approaches can provide such richness and achieve the desired learning outcomes. Furthermore, we have monitored the students’ learning to ensure that they remained focused and stayed within the scope of the standard learning outcomes. Alignment of the course activities and assessment tools with learning outcomes is critical for an effective, integral, creative teaching delivery approach [24].

The feedback cycle developed in this study between the instructor and the students is one of the most important aspects to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness and achievement of the course plan [25]. The effectiveness of feedback to enhance learning capacity was assessed; the results indicated a positive response from students. Formative feedback is effective only if students act on it to improve their future work and learning [26]. Therefore, the students were asked to provide formative and cumulative feedback about the strengths and weaknesses of their performance to foster their learning. We have conducted a written questionnaire that reflects the student’s ideas, experiences, and attitudes with the learning experience as summative feedback. Students’ evaluation indicates the effectiveness of the new teaching method when compared to the traditional teaching style, which is consistent with previous reports [7, 27].

The students’ performance during the course work was assessed using well-defined rubrics based on Bloom’s taxonomy. Bloom’s taxonomy is used to design rubrics to assess student performance [28], develop formative assessment questions at the appropriate cognitive level [29], and assess the course design [30] (Table 2). Bloom’s Taxonomy is a well-defined and accepted tool for categorizing the types of learning into six diverse levels: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation [31].

Table 2 Assessment tools of the course design and assessment based on Bloom’s taxonomy
Full size table

Whenever a new technique is introduced and implemented, it is important to know how the learner interacts and accepts it. Therefore, a SWOT analysis was conducted to link the use of the triangle teaching strategy in terms of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) (Table 3) [32]. SWOT analysis involved the continuous collection of key data during the entire course interaction. The study used empirical observations of 26 students’ performance when using the Interteaching strategy for the first time to teach a biotechnology course. The students’ performance was measured in problem-solving skills, presentation skills, critical thinking, applied knowledge, and formative/summative feedback. SWOT analysis indicated the success of employing the Interteaching strategy since the analysis was in the direction of strengths and opportunities (Table 3), like previously published reports [18, 22, 27]. Evaluation is an excellent opportunity to determine the level of the desired academic goals [33]. The results of students’ performance gave solid feedback on how well the teaching plan works, how effective it is, and the future to enhance the learning outcomes.

Table 3 SWOT analysis
Full size table

5 Conclusion

In the current study, the instructor challenged a new teaching strategy (Interteaching) to inspire, monitor, and positively motivate the students by constructing a pedagogical tool to develop a learning activity environment that focuses on the student capability. The students were given a short preparatory guide to evaluating their knowledge regarding a specific topic in biotechnology. This is followed by a regular evaluation of the preparatory guide for every class pre- and post lecturing. Further, the study examined the impact of blending 3D components of a feedback cycle, assessment tools along with student-focus teaching on student performance. The use of the Interteaching approach was compared to the traditional instructor-centered strategy. The major outcomes of the Interteaching strategy revealed the significant engagement of the students in the learning process, besides skills development and noticeable innovation. The results also showed a real motivation of the students to the teaching strategy to reach the learning competencies required in the real-life world.