Developing critical thinking and professional skills in animal science students through case-based learning and cognitive interventions

Abstract

Case-based learning immerses students in real-world scenarios, prompting observation, action, and reflection, enhancing cognitive skills. The open-ended nature of such learning can challenge students to reach higher levels of critical thinking; however, we have noticed that without guidance, students often do not know how to approach these types of questions. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate how two low-input interventions affect cognitive skill development and impact student performance on case studies. Three semesters of an undergraduate animal physiology course employed a case-based assessment strategy to provide a more practical evaluation of student understanding and ability to apply their knowledge. Semester 1 (S1) represented no intervention, Semester 2 (S2) included two dedicated class periods of instructor-led guidance on metacognition and approaching case studies, and Semester 3 (S3) utilized an online peer evaluation platform, where students consistently evaluated and provided feedback to each other. In S2 and S3, surveys were administered to understand changes in students’ perceptions of their own cognitive skills. S3 students had improved (P < 0.05) performance when compared to their pre-intervention case study and the average case study scores from S1 and S2. When comparing changes in perceptions, students’ confidence in their cognitive skills generally increased in S2 and S3. While peer evaluation improved student performance, free responses indicated that students did not enjoy peer evaluation and felt that it was not beneficial to their learning. Peer evaluation provides a unique opportunity for students to actively engage in the learning process and to practice cognitive skills. This process holds dual benefit as reviewing peers requires students to reflect, analyze, and evaluate, which are cognitive skills needed to solve case studies and needed for future careers in animal science.

The animal science workforce requires employees who can critically think to solve pressing issues, however, there is a disconnect in the university lecture setting to effectively train those skills. This study identified peer-evaluation as an effective tool to support student cognitive skills development and improve performance on case studies based on real-world scenarios.

Introduction

As the animal industry workforce faces increasingly complex challenges, there is a growing demand for animal science graduates who possess hands-on experience and the cognitive ability to apply their knowledge in real-word contexts. However, foundational animal science courses are often highly enrolled and lecture-based, limiting opportunities for experiential learning. Additionally, these courses are often many students’ first exposure to rigorous college expectations, which require them to employ higher level thinking they may not have yet developed. Since critical thinking skills and procedural knowledge develop gradually, intentional course design is needed to help equip students with these skills and better prepare them for their post-graduate careers.

Bloom’s taxonomy is a hierarchical method of classifying learning objectives into levels of complexity, where the knowing of a fact is only the beginning of understanding (Hoque 2016). ­Learners progress from lower order cognitive skills (remembering and understanding) that they are often comfortable with, to higher order cognitive skills (applying, analyzing, and evaluating) that are still developing (Bloom et al.1956; Anderson 1999; Anderson and Krathwohl 2001). Evaluation is one of the most advanced cognitive skills and requires time, practice, and reflection to master (Anderson 1999). Instructors often want students to utilize higher order skills, but struggle to find effective training methods that fit within the existing curriculum (Halpern 2001; Abrami 2008), necessitating the need for teaching strategies that are simple to implement.

Experiential learning offers one of the most effective ways to develop higher-order cognitive skills, as students are put into real world scenarios and learn from the completion or active participation in that activity (Eyler 2009; Moore 2013; Kolb and Kolb 2017; Harris and Bacon 2019). However, experiential learning is often only achievable in small enrollment courses, such as those with laboratory components. Thus, case-based learning presents a scalable alternative, allowing students in high-enrollment courses to practice their knowledge application and evaluation skills. In case-based reasoning, learners analyze real-world scenarios, apply prior knowledge, explore potential solutions, and determine the most logical outcome (Kolodner 2014; Mcfee et al. 2019). This approach in classrooms promotes active, student-centered learning as they work through the process of recalling, integrating, and reconstructing existing knowledge (Pintrich 2002; Kolodner 2014; Burgess et al. 2021). Previous studies have reported increased engagement and enthusiasm for case-based reasoning, which results in enhanced or consistent performance and improved self-reported confidence in material from students (Grauer et al. 2008; McNaught et al. 2007; Kaddoura 2011; Raza et al. 2019; Burgess et al. 2021; Cen et al. 2021). Case-based reasoning also involves reflecting on current and past experiences to solve problems, helping strengthen their ability to apply, analyze, and evaluate information.

Case-based activities require problem solving, reasoning, and critical thinking, which are skills that are valued in higher education (Tawfik and Kolodner 2016; Leake 2017; Franco et al. 2018). However, students often need practice and training to learn how to effectively approach and solve cases using these skills. Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate two low-input instructional strategies for their effectiveness in training students’ evaluative cognitive skills and improving performance on case-based assessments. In addition, we sought to understand students’ perceptions of their own cognitive skill development between strategies.

Materials and methods

Participation and inclusion

All procedures for this study were approved for exempt status by the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board (IRB; protocol #4134) at Colorado State University. This study was performed with data from undergraduate students enrolled in a Functional Large Animal Physiology (ANEQ 305) course during the spring 2022 (S1; n = 48), spring 2023 (S2; n = 59), or fall 2023 (S3; n = 95) semesters. A grade of C or better is required to progress into the next major courses and thus, students who dropped, withdrew, or did not complete the course with a C or better were not included in the performance portions of this study (spring 2022 n = 14; spring 2023 n = 11; fall 2023 n = 7). Due to the anonymous administration of the surveys, students could not be removed post-hoc from ­survey data.

Course format

Functional Large Animal Physiology serves as the required introductory physiology course for undergraduate students majoring in Animal or Equine Sciences and an optional course for non-majors (Table 1). The course is conducted over a 16-week period, meeting for three 1-hour lecture periods per week. The curriculum covers topics organized by body system, as well as fundamental physiological principles such as homeostasis and cell biology (Table 2). The course incorporates a blend of in-class activities, quizzes, and online homework assignments for practice and formative assessment. For the present study, in lieu of summative exams, student knowledge was assessed by case study, and the three evaluated semesters were all taught by the same instructor.

Table 1.

Demographics of students enrolled in ANEQ 305 across the three evaluated semesters.

	Spring 2022		Spring 2023		Fall 2023
	Count	Percentage	Count	Percentage	Count	Percentage
Sex
Male	3	4.50%	13	18.30%	7	6.70%
Female	63	95.50%	58	81.70%	97	93.30%
Racially Minoritized
Minoritized	19	28.80%	17	23.90%	24	23.10%
Non-minoritized	47	71.20%	54	76.10%	80	76.90%
Class Level
Freshmen	0	0.00%	4	5.60%	2	1.92%
Sophomore	34	51.50%	34	47.90%	71	68.30%
Junior	19	28.80%	25	35.20%	24	23.10%
Senior	12	18.20%	5	7.00%	6	5.80%
Post Bachelors	1	1.52%	3	4.20%	1	0.96%
Major
Animal Science	33	54.10%	38	56.72%	55	55.00%
Equine Science	23	37.70%	17	25.37%	34	34.00%
Other	5	8.20%	12	17.91%	11	11.00%

Table 2.

Functional large animal physiology (ANEQ 305) course material, assessment, and intervention timeline over the 16-week semester for spring 2022 (S1; n = 48), spring 2023 (S2; n = 59), or the fall 2023 (S3; n = 95) semesters.

Week	Topic	Assignment
		S1	S2	S3
1	Introduction & Homeostasis	Pre-test	Pre-test	Pre-test
				Pre-survey
		Pre-survey	Pre-survey	Intro Kritik Activity
		Quiz 1	Quiz 1	Quiz 1
2	Cell & Membrane Physiology	Quiz 2	Quiz 2	Quiz 2
				Intro Kritik Activity
3	Nervous System	Quiz 3	Quiz 3	Quiz 3
4	Nervous System	Quiz 4	Quiz 4	Quiz 4
		Case Study 1	Case Study 1	Case Study 1
5	Muscular System	Quiz 5	Quiz 5 *S2 Intervention*  Case Study 1 Resubmission	Quiz 5 Peer Evaluation 1
6	Endocrine System	Quiz 6	Quiz 6	Quiz 6
7	Endocrine System	Quiz 7	Quiz 7	Quiz 7
		Case Study 2	Case Study 2	Case Study 2
8	Cardiovascular System	Quiz 8	Quiz 8	Quiz 8
				Peer Evaluation 2
9	Cardiovascular/Respiratory System	Quiz 9	Quiz 9	Quiz 9
		Mid-survey	Mid survey	Mid-survey
10	Respiratory System	Quiz 10	Quiz 10	Quiz 10
11	Immune System	Quiz 11	Quiz 11	Quiz 11
		Case Study 3	Case Study 3	Case Study 3
12	Digestive System	Quiz 12	Quiz 12	Quiz 12
				Peer Evaluation 3
13	Urinary System	Quiz 13	Quiz 13	Quiz 13
14	Lactation	Quiz 14	No Quiz 14	Quiz 14
15	Finals Preparation	Final Prep	Final Prep	Final Prep
16	Finals Week	Post-test	Post-test	Post-test
		Post-survey	Post-survey	Post-survey
		Final Case Study	Final Case Study	Final Case Study

Bold indicates employment of intervention relevant to the study.

Pre- and post-test

For each semester, students were assigned a bookending pre and post-test to gauge students’ knowledge prior to starting the course and their acquisition of knowledge and retention by the end. The tests were assigned the first and final weeks of the semester via the Canvas learning management system (Canvas LMS; Salt Lake City, UT). The identical tests contained 50 multiple choice, true/false, and matching style questions that covered all topics throughout the semester (∼5 questions per topic). Students were allowed 50 minutes to complete the test with only one attempt allowed. All students were encouraged not to study and regardless of test performance, received points for completion.

Case study implementation

Case studies 1–3 each covered ∼2 body systems of material and were assigned via Canvas. For each case study, students were provided an introductory scenario and then tasked with answering 10–12 free response questions related to the physiological concepts present in the scenario. Questions were designed according to Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive domains to build from questions requiring lower order skills, such as remember and understand, up to those requiring higher order skills, such as apply, analyze, and evaluate (Figure S1). Students were granted 2 weeks to complete their case studies outside of class, utilizing notes, lectures, and online sources. The final case study was cumulative and had free response questions related to every major physiological system covered in the course previously. Students were allowed 2 weeks to complete the final case study and were expected to only use course materials and their own knowledge while completing their case study. Case studies were submitted electronically and analyzed by the Turnitin software (Oakland, CA) for plagiarism. In all semesters, case studies were graded using standardized rubrics and individualized feedback was provided by teaching assistants and/or the instructor.

Cognitive skill development

The three evaluated semesters represent periods of differing intervention strategies to help students in the application, analysis, and evaluation skills needed to complete the case studies. In S1, students received no intervention and attempted the case studies on their own, with only individualized feedback after submission guiding their development. In S2, students completed the first case study on their own without intervention, but, between case study one and two, an instructor unrelated to the course with expertise in education provided two periods of training in cognitive processes. This training included presentation and active-learning activities that demonstrated how knowledge is built, stored, and utilized. Additionally, the course instructor walked through how to approach case studies from a procedural standpoint. This intervention only occurred after the first case study, and on all subsequent case studies, no further intervention was implemented but individualized feedback was still employed after all submissions. In S3, the peer evaluation software Kritik (Toronto, ON), was used as an intervention. For case studies one through three, students submitted their completed case study to the online program and were randomly assigned 5 of their peers to anonymously evaluate and provide feedback. Students were provided the standardized rubric and a key to use for grading. In addition, students were required to provide individual written feedback based on their determination of their peer’s performance. The program also assigns a feedback grade based on the quality of feedback students provide to their peers, encouraging thoughtful and intentional feedback. After peer feedback was provided, students would respond to comments and suggestions on the platform before the final grade was assigned. After all final submissions were made, the teaching assistants reviewed all submissions, corrected scores, and provided additional feedback as needed. Peer evaluation occurred three times during the semester but did not occur for the final case study, and thus grades were determined solely by the teaching assistants. The instructor was involved in the ongoing study and thus grading for case studies was done primarily by teaching assistants not involved in the data analysis. Instructor grading of case studies only occurred via grade adjustments if there was a grade appeal.

Perception surveys

Throughout the course, surveys gauged students’ self-reported perceptions of the format of the course and change in cognitive skills. Survey development followed a multi-step process to ensure validity. Face and content validity were established through review by faculty with expertise in animal science or learning assessment, who confirmed that the items were clearly worded, aligned with the intended construct, and adequately represented the cognitive skills targeted by the study. Internal consistency reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.83), indicating that the items measured a cohesive underlying construct.

Surveys were administered at the beginning (pre; excluded from S1), middle (mid), and end (post) of the semester. Surveys were composed of 3–5 Likert scale questions per topic, asking students to rank their agreeance based on a 5-point scale of completely disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree and completely agree. There were also free response questions that delved into thoughts on the course and self-perceived cognitive skill improvements over the semester. Student responses were collected anonymously through Canvas and full credit was automatically applied after completion.

Statistical analysis

Case study performance throughout the semester was analyzed using the mixed procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) for the effects of treatment (intervention), time (case study), and the interaction, with case study score as a repeated measure and best fit statistics to select the appropriate covariate structure. All single timepoint performance data was analyzed by ANOVA to assess the main effect of treatment. Semester was included as a covariate in all analysis to account for the differences in student numbers due to increased enrollment. Surveys were analyzed by semester to illustrate perceptions of each intervention strategy. For Likert scale questions, completely agree and somewhat agree were collapsed and considered agreeance. Similarly, somewhat disagree and completely disagree were collapsed as disagreeance, while the neutral category was left unchanged. Summary statistics of Likert scale questions were performed in Excel, and a Chi-squared analysis was performed in SAS to determine change in perceptions from the pre-survey to the post-survey. For all quantitative data, means were considered different at P < 0.05 and a tendency at P < 0.10. All data are presented as mean ± standard error.

Qualitative analysis

A thematic analysis of free response questions was completed to determine primary influences of the intervention or cognitive skill development that may affect student performance or perceptions, as previously described (Braun and Clarke 2006). Briefly, free responses were extracted from Canvas and researchers read and familiarized themselves with responses. Three coders then assigned initial codes related to student perceptions, challenges, learning processes, and cognitive skill development. Major themes were then refined, and each response was assigned to the corresponding themes. Final themes were organized to illustrate how students described their engagement in the course and development of their cognitive skills. Representative quotations were selected to support each theme and demonstrate student perspectives.

Results

Demographics

Across the three semesters included in this study, the demographic composition of enrolled students was generally consistent. The majority of students in each semester identified as female and of a non-minoritized race. Students were predominantly sophomores, with juniors comprising 23–35% of the cohort depending on semester. Classes were comprised of primarily animal and equine science majors with 8–18% being non-majors depending on semester.

Performance

In S1 the score on case study four was lower (P < 0.05) than case studies one, two, or three, which did not differ from each other (Fig. 1). In S2, scores on case study two (after a singular instructor led intervention) were lower (P < 0.05) than case studies one, three, or four, which did not differ from each other. S3 scores were highest (P < 0.05) for case study two following the first round of the peer evaluation intervention. Scores on case study three remained higher (P < 0.05) than case studies one and four, with case study four being the lowest (P < 0.05). When compared across semesters, the average grade on case studies after intervention (2–4) was higher (P < 0.05) in S3 where peer intervention was employed, compared to S1 or S2, which did not differ (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.

Case study scores within a semester with no intervention (S1), instructor led (S2), or peer evaluation (S3) interventions. ^abcd means differ (P < 0.05) between case studies.

Fig. 2.

Average case study scores after intervention (case studies 2–4) between semesters with no intervention (S1), instructor led (S2), and peer evaluation interventions (S3). ^ab means with differing superscripts differ P < 0.05.

No differences were present between pre-to-post test retention, first case study score, final case study score, or final grade. For the post-test alone, S3 (58.75% ± 1.31) tended (P < 0.10) to have higher scores compared to S1 (53.77% ± 1.84), while S2 (56.62% ± 1.67) did not differ from S1 or S3.

Likert-scale rankings

Agreeance with the statements “I can identify key concepts and vocabulary from bulk content” and “I can take multiple ideas from different concepts and combine them to create new understanding” increased (P < 0.05) in both S2 and S3 (Table 3). Agreeance with the statements “I am able to explain the meaning of key concepts and vocabulary I identify,” “I am able to link similar concepts together,” and “I am able to take prior knowledge and apply it to new scenarios” increased (P < 0.05) in S3 but did not substantially change for students in S2.

Table 3.

Change in perceptions of cognitive skills across the semester in which interventions were employed.

Question	Cognitive Domain	Semester	Agreeance Pre-survey	Agreeance Post-survey	P-value
Q1. I can identify key concepts and vocabulary from bulk content.	Analyze	2	63/72 (87.5%)	62/64 (96.9 %)	0.02
		3	88/104 (84.6%)	91/99 (91.9%)	0.01
Q2. I am able to explain the meaning of key concepts and vocabulary I identify.	Understand	2	65/72 (90.3%)	59/64 (92.2%)	0.11
		3	89/104 (85.6%)	89/99 (89.9%)	0.004
Q3. I am able to link similar concepts together	Analyze	2	69/72 (95.8%)	61/64 (95.3%)	0.19
		3	91/104 (87.5%)	89/99 (89.9%)	0.02
Q4. I can take multiple ideas from different concepts and combine them to create new understanding.	Create	2	58/72 (80.6%)	56/64 (87.5%)	0.02
		3	70/104 (67.3%)	83/99 (83.8%)	0.0004
Q5. I am able to take prior knowledge and apply it to new scenarios.	Apply	2	67/72 (93.1%)	59/64 (92.2%)	0.14
		3	92/104 (88.5%)	90/99 (90.9%)	0.05

Agreeance was considered responses of somewhat agree or completely agree. Frequency of response and percentage are presented relative to total responses. Change in agreement was determined for each Likert-scale question by comparing responses at the beginning and end of the semester between instructor led (S2) and peer evaluation interventions (S3). bold P-values indicate significance.

Free responses

In the mid-semester survey students were asked “What feedback do you have about the course so far?” (Table 4). In S1, difficulty interpreting questions was mentioned 12 times out of all 60 responses. Case study preference and challenge had less frequency at 9 and 4 mentions, respectively, out of 60 students. In S2, challenge to understand content was the most mentioned theme with 21 out of 71 responses containing this theme. Case study preference (14 mentions) and challenge with course pace (11 mentions) were mentioned less frequently out of the 71 responses. In S3, major themes were positive perception of case studies/assignments and negative perceptions of peer evaluation. Positive perceptions of case studies/assignments were mentioned 29/101 times while negative perceptions of peer evaluation were mentioned 21/101 responses.

Table 4.

Major themes identified in the mid-semester survey when prompted with “what feedback do you have about the course so far.”

Semester	Theme	Frequency	Examples
1	Difficulty understanding questions/content	12/60	“For the case studies, I also struggle to find the answers to what we have learned in class until after the fact when we are shown the answers. The questions and the wording of the scenarios also really confuse me.”
	Case Study Preference	9/60	“I like the case studies in the course because they give me an opportunity to see if I am understanding the knowledge or not in a practical application scenario.”
	Challenge with Case Studies	4/60	“I struggle with the case studies because of the complexity but overall learning about physiology has been my favorite class taken at CSU”
2	Difficulty understanding questions/content	21/71	“The focus on linking concepts and applying previous knowledge to new situations is a challenge but is something I have always struggled with. I personally take a very long time to grasp concepts so sometimes catching things that are said in lectures is hard…”
	Case study preference	14/71	“I am enjoying the course as well as having case studies as opposed to exams, it helps make the information more tangible and allows for adequate application of thought instead of with exams where it seems most information is almost parrot learning and then forgotten once the exam is over.”
	Challenges with course pace & material amount	11/71	“Course content can be very extensive in a way that a lot of information is required to be able to get a complete understanding of how human and animal functions work and how they work.”
3	Case study preference	29/101	“I appreciate the case studies because they allow me to deep dive into the material and really link the concepts learned in class together, in “real life” scenarios. I think the case studies are more productive in terms of actually learning rather than exams…”
	Negative perception of intervention	21/101	“I don’t have too much feedback except that I think the kritik reviews and evaluations are somewhat of a waste of time. It’s more helpful just going through the correct answers than having to correct other people and write a whole synopsis. I don’t mind it, but I do feel like it’s not as productive in the learning experience as many of the other activities.”

In S2 and S3 the post-survey prompted students with the question “Did your personal evaluation of your cognitive skills change throughout the semester? If so, in what way?” (Table 5). Major themes identified across S2 & S3 were similar such as increased confidence in cognitive skills; improved study skills; unsure if skills changed/struggling with skills; cognitive skills stayed the same; or decreased confidence in cognitive skills. There were 33/64 responses in S2 and 59/99 responses in S3, which is over half of all responses for both semesters, that mentioned increased confidence in skills. In S2, 16/64 students mentioned they were unsure if cognitive skills changed or that they stayed the same. Students also mentioned change in cognitive skills in relation to improving study skills (6/64 mentions) and a decreased confidence in cognitive skills (4/64 mentions). More students (25/99 mentions) in S3 noted a change in cognitive skills through improved study skills. Comments of decreased/stayed the same in cognitive skills confidence (10/99) and unsure about/struggling with cognitive skills (9/99) appeared at a close frequency in all S3 responses.

Table 5.

Major themes identified in the post-survey when prompted with “did your personal evaluation of your cognitive skills change throughout the semester? If so, in what way?”.

Semester	Theme	Frequency	Examples
2	Increased confidence in cognitive skills	33/64	“Towards the end of the semester I was more focused on understanding and being able to apply. I realized that I needed to be able to logically think, evaluate what I know and then go from there. But as I went through the semester I realized I needed to work on my cognitive skills so I tried to remember blooms taxonomy of learning pyramid and start at the bottom and go through each step.”
	Unsure/no change in cognitive skills	16/64	“I have been struggling with writing the case studies and still find it difficult to find a starting point still because it all seems so complicated in my mind.”
	Decreased confidence in cognitive skills	4/64	“At the start of the semester I was very confident in my cognitive skills, specifically my ability to identify key concepts and my ability to take multiple ideas to create new understandings. I feel that I have this capability in some areas still, but I don’t think that I had it in this physiology class. I struggled a lot to connect ideas to form new understandings, and my confidence in my cognitive skills throughout this course has actually decreased.”
	Improved study skills	6/64	“I think my cognitive skills improved over the semester. I always have had a very front-to-back approach while doing homework/projects, and learning about metacognition showed me that there are other, more efficient ways to do things.”
3	Increased confidence in cognitive skills	59/99	“Yes, I believe they did. This is because when doing the case studies, I truly had to apply my learning and think about how the concepts related to each other. I was also encouraged to explain everything and explain why everything happened and how every step in the process came to be.”
	Unsure/no change in cognitive skills	9/99	“I think I am now better at identifying the important concepts and vocabulary from the bulk but I still struggle with linking concepts together.”
	Decreased confidence in cognitive skills	10/99	“I became less confident in my cognitive skills over the course of the semester.”
	Improved study skills	25/99	“Yes, my evaluation of my cognitive skills did change throughout the semester, and it notably improved. The focused efforts in my studies enabled me to better remember names, and functions, and understand the various physiological processes. Overall, the semester has been instrumental in enhancing my cognitive abilities ad deepening my comprehension of different physiological endeavors.”

Discussion

While case studies cannot replace physical hands-on learning in a laboratory setting, they remain an effective strategy to provide active learning opportunities in large enrollment lecture courses. For this instructional strategy to be effective, students must have the cognitive skills and procedural knowledge to approach a case study, which is often lacking in an undergraduate population (Stovey and Trimmer 2020; Braithwaite and Sprague 2021). The present study demonstrated that implementing any intervention was more effective than providing none, at improving students’ perceptions of their cognitive skill; however, peer evaluation as an intervention improved student performance on the subsequent case studies and average case study score overall, despite students’ expressed dislike for the strategy. We postulate that repeated peer evaluation requires students to revisit material and employ evaluative cognitive skills, similar to those needed to complete a case study, thereby providing direct practice and improving performance and confidence.

Students in both intervention strategies expressed increased confidence in their ability to perform cognitive skills by the end of the semester. The biggest improvement in confidence was in their ability to combine multiple ideas from different concepts to create new understanding, which is the highest order cognitive domain (create) according to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl 2001). This improvement was also reflected in broad increases in agreeance on Likert scale questions from the pre-to-post survey. Additionally, students reported improved cognitive skills by the end of the semester in over half of the total free responses and change between surveys increased significantly for all prompts in S3. Increases in confidence for S3 are likely a result of repeated practice, or reconstruction, of those skills by building and using them in new scenarios (Schwartz 2009; Holmes et al. 2015).

Undergraduates often master skills within remembering and understanding cognitive domains, as they frequently rely on strategies such as rote memorization or repetition, but find challenge when asked to apply, analyze, or create (Crowe et al. 2008; Momsen et al. 2010; Aquino Nunez et al. 2025). Demonstration, either by an instructor or through seeing their peers work, appears to be beneficial in helping students acquire these higher order skills. Biwer et al. (2020) similarly saw an increase in student self-reported confidence in cognitive skills after instruction in metacognition and critical thinking throughout three teaching sessions. As students are shown what critical thinking looks like in a hierarchical format, they can sooner apply those skills within tasks (Mahdavi 2014; Avargil et al. 2018; Resnick 1975). For this reason, case-studies were also intentionally scaffolded from lower order to higher order skill questions, to help students build connections and progress from declarative to procedural knowledge, even without further intervention. Additionally, transfer of knowledge is supported in a social learning environment (Billing 2007) and peer feedback may promote socialization and student dialogue, reflection, and cognitive engagement in a large lecture course Reese-Durham (2005), potentially contributing to the improvement in student performance seen in this strategy compared to others.

The S2 intervention employed metacognitive teachings but we did not see improvement in student performance, despite increased confidence in cognitive skills. Differences in the structure and frequency of interventions likely contributed to the patterns observed across semesters. In S2, the intervention occurred only once between case study one and two, whereas in S3, students engaged in peer evaluation for all three case studies. Thus, students in S3 received more practice with evaluative reasoning, feedback interpretation, and retrieval. Variation in the placement of an intervention within the unit sequence, type of intervention, teacher-student interaction, and course structure itself may also influence student confidence or training of cognitive skills (Kim and Sax 2011; Salari et al. 2018). It is possible that the increased confidence reported by students in S2 may have manifested in increased performance if the intervention was repeated or expanded upon throughout the semester like the S3 intervention. While the differences in frequency were intentional for this study, they represent a limitation that future research could address by standardizing frequency across formats. Further research is needed to understand how these variables play a role in training cognitive skills in case-based learning and how they influence the extent to which students practice or internalize higher-order cognitive skills.

Students in the peer evaluation intervention performed better when compared to other semesters and their own pre-intervention case study. Final case study performance decreased compared to all previous scores, likely due to the increased rigor of the assessment. Unlike earlier case studies, which allowed students to use outside resources, the final required more independent application of previously learned concepts. This combination of higher-order cognitive skill use and increased reliance on memory retrieval likely elevated the cognitive load making the assessment more challenging (Cadaret and Yates 2021). Evaluation is considered a higher-order skill and having students practice it repeatedly can improve their ability to apply analytical and integrative reasoning, like that needed on case studies (Schwartz 2009). Peer evaluation has been successful in improving student writing through the process of receiving feedback from others and relating the feedback they are giving to their own writing (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick 2006; Ekahitanond 2014; Huisman et al. 2018). It also takes some of the grading and feedback burden off the teaching team. In this study, equipped with an assessment key and standardized rubric, students gave and received feedback about the content of their writing rather than the quality, but this still appeared beneficial. As students practice critically reading, critiquing, and communicating their decisions when evaluating peers, they are practicing higher-order skills and self-regulated learning (Liu and Carless 2006; Li et al. 2019; Burgess et al. 2021; Iglesias Pérez et al. 2022), which likely contributed to making those skills more readily available for subsequent case-studies. Additionally, the timeline of submission provided students with two weeks to work on their own case study, after which they engaged in peer evaluation the following week. This cycle may have functioned as a structured retrieval practice opportunity, prompting students to reengage and retrieve the core concepts from their initial case study as they evaluated their peer’s work. While case studies were based on the units in which they were assigned, physiology as a discipline naturally builds on itself and these retrieval practices may have helped solidify and connect foundational knowledge to new concepts (Bada and Olusegun 2015; Pekary et al. 2021; Menon et al. 2025), improving future performance.

Despite performing better, S3 students had negative perceptions of participating in peer evaluation. The negative perception of peer feedback was not the most frequently mentioned theme, but it was a theme that stood out compared to others due to the direct mention of the intervention strategy implemented. Peer evaluation requires increased effort and time from students on an already challenging assignment, which likely contributed to the negative perceptions. Other studies have similarly noted that students typically have a negative perception of peer feedback even though it improves student performance during assessment (Aminu et al. 2021; Tenório et al. 2016). The desirable difficulty that comes with completing this additional task may have led to decreased motivation to participate in peer feedback. Additionally, the type of feedback received (positive or negative) can influence intrinsic motivation to complete the assignment (Redifer et al. 2021). However, the increased effort and practiced evaluative skills required students to practice cognitive skills related to understanding, analysis, and applying, that are critical for successful completion of a case study and likely contributed to increased performance on their own assignments. There is evidence that explicit training in how to provide peer feedback enhances both the quality of the feedback and students’ attitudes towards the process (Min 2005; Kaya and Yaprak 2020; Simonsmeier et al. 2020). Incorporating dedicated training on feedback strategies may therefore help reduce negative perceptions while maintaining or enhancing the observed performance and confidence benefits from peer evaluation.

No differences were observed in final course grade between interventions, indicating that improvements in case study performance were likely attributable to the interventions rather than differences in student cohort ability. The demographic patterns across semesters suggest that the observed differences in student performance or confidence outcomes are unlikely to be driven by major shifts in cohort characteristics. The slight variation in class level, particularly the higher proportion of sophomores in S3, likely reflects typical enrollment patterns in animal science curriculum, where foundational physiology or management courses are commonly taken in the second or third year. However, these shifts are not large enough to explain differences in case-study performance, especially given that final course grades did not differ by semester. Similarly, the percentage of racially minoritized students remained stable across offerings, reducing the likelihood that cultural or educational background differences contributed meaningfully to the observed outcomes. It is possible that differences in performance on case studies were overcome by enhanced performance on other course components such as in-class activities, assignments, and quizzes. The absence of differences in final course grade also suggests that peer-evaluation supports task specific skill development rather than comprehensive improvements in overall course mastery. Nevertheless, targeted development of cognitive skills has been shown to improve students’ ability to apply those skills on assessments (Salari et al. 2018; Biwer et al. 2020) and benefits may be seen in subsequent courses as those skills are refined.

Conclusions and implications

Developing higher-order cognitive skills is particularly critical in animal sciences, where students must integrate physiological mechanisms, management principles, data interpretation, and complex decision-making in a professional setting. Employers consistently note critical thinking, problem solving, and communication (including the ability to give and receive feedback) as essential workforce competences for graduates entering animal agriculture, veterinary medicine, and research (Hodgson et al. 2013; Wulster-Radcliffe et al. 2025). Case-based assessment and peer evaluation can simulate real-world decision-making scenarios encountered in production management, reproductive planning, disease outbreak response, and diagnostics. Thus, integrating these strategies within lecture courses provides students with meaningful practice in skills directly aligned with professional expectations in the discipline. While this study focused on two low-input intervention strategies, there are a multitude of strategies that educators may use in the classroom to train cognitive skills. The context, content, feasibility, and outcome objectives of the course should guide which interventions should be implemented.

Supplementary Data

Supplementary data is available at Translational Animal ­Science online.

Funding

This project was funded in part by the Colorado State University Y-Cross Ranch Agriculture Endowment and the Colorado State Univeristy Agriculture Experiment Station.

Disclosures

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Glossary

List of Abbreviations: 

(S1)

Semester 1 spring 2022

(S2)

Semester 2 spring 2023

(S3)

Semester 3 fall 2023