Collaborative Active Learning Activities Promote Deep Learning in a Chemistry-Biochemistry Course

Abstract

Currently in higher education, there is a move towards providing more student-centred learning experiences, where students are actively involved in the learning process. To promote learner engagement and communication between peers, many educators utilise collaborative active learning activities. This study aimed to demonstrate that an active learning curriculum developed for a Chemistry-Biochemistry unit, allowed students to gain a deep understanding of the content, while developing key academic skills. In each face-to-face session of the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit, students participated in collaborative active learning activities including Participation+ and a variety of Padlet activities. The students were also challenged to develop their written communication skills, by taking part in a formative In-Class Writing Task. Survey results indicated that the active learning curriculum provided an engaging, interactive environment that was conducive to the students developing an understanding of the course’s underlying concepts and developing key academic skills. The students communicated their deep understanding of the content verbally during active learning activities and in writing during the In-Class Writing Task, written assignment and final exam. Students who consistently communicated deep knowledge of the content during the In-Class Writing Task achieved high marks on the summative written assignment, final exam and unit total. This study clearly demonstrates that the active learning curriculum employed in the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit provided a collaborative and engaging learning environment, where many students developed a deep understanding of the content and acquired the skills to communicate their knowledge both orally and through written communication.

Background

Currently, there is a push towards providing more student-focused learning experiences in higher education that utilise active learning [1]. An active learning activity involves students analysing, discussing, evaluating, comparing or solving problems within a context relevant to the newly learnt information [2–4]. By challenging students with tasks directly related to the material during in-class sessions, they have the opportunity to critically think about the content and begin to build their own unique understanding of the material, while developing critical thinking, problem-solving and oral and written communication skills [5–10]. While engaging in active learning activities, students often make connections between the newly learnt information and their prior knowledge, assisting them to achieve a deep understanding of the content [10–14]. Students who possess a deep level of understanding on a specific subject matter can apply their knowledge to context-specific problems and scenarios that require critical evaluation.

Active learning activities enhance student engagement during on-campus sessions by providing opportunities for students to collaborate with their peers and the educator, which increases the students’ sense of social connectedness and belonging [3, 15–18]. Collaborative learning activities have been shown to enhance student confidence, are perceived by students to be of higher value than non-collaborative activities and allow the educator to vary the level of challenge appropriately for the current needs of the student cohort [19, 20]. During peer-to-peer collaboration exercises, students have the opportunity to explain their understanding of the content, gain novel perspectives and attempt to connect the content to their prior knowledge [11]. Engaging in collaborative learning also promotes the development and enhancement of critical thinking skills [21].

After students attempt a learning activity, it is vital that they receive feedback to check their understanding of the content. Providing feedback to students has many benefits including promoting skill development, motivating future learning and allowing students to adjust their learning approach during the semester [22, 23]. The use of e-learning tools, such as Socrative, where students answer questions and receive real-time feedback has been shown to increase participation, engagement and discussion, during in-class sessions [24].

The Chemistry-Biochemistry curriculum was designed to encourage students to adopt a deep approach to their learning through engaging in collaborative active learning activities during the in-class sessions. The teaching approach, learning activities and learning materials were all tailored to assist the students to develop a deep understanding of the content and the academic skills needed to be successful in the assessment tasks. This study aims to demonstrate that the active learning curriculum of the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit (i) encourages students to take a deep approach to their learning and (ii) allows them to develop the key academic skills required to develop a deep understanding of the content, and coherently communicate their understanding.

Methods

Student Cohort

This study analysed a group of 30 students enrolled in an accredited Chemistry-Biochemistry unit at Endeavour College of Natural Health, Brisbane campus (Australia). Endeavour College of Natural Health is an open-access institution, where the domestic students are required to have completed the final hear of high school (year 12) prior to commencing study, but no scientific background knowledge is assumed. The students in the Chemistry-Biochemistry cohort, who ranged from secondary school leavers through to mature aged students, were enrolled in a Bachelor of Health Sciences specialising in either Nutritional and Dietetic Medicine, Naturopathy or Myotherapy. In each 3-h on-campus session, the students attempted active learning activities (total time ~ 1 h) at regular intervals, after the educator had presented the required information. Although attendance was not compulsory, the average student attendance was ~ 80%, which meant that the majority of the students in the study participated in many active learning sessions throughout the semester (~ 21 sessions).

Curriculum Design Strategy

The constructive alignment strategy employed to develop the Chemistry-Biochemistry curriculum was achieved using backwards design, where the learning outcomes guided the creation of and aligned to the assessment tasks, learning materials and the teaching strategies [25, 26]. The curriculum was designed to encourage students to take a deep approach to their learning. There was also an emphasis on developing key academic skills such as critical thinking, problem solving and written and verbal communication.

Assessment Tasks

The students were assessed through two summative MCQ quizzes, a written assignment and a final exam. To encourage students to take a deep approach to their learning, the educator regularly communicated that a deep understanding of the material was needed to be successful in the unit’s assessment tasks. The summative MCQ quizzes were well aligned with the teaching materials, as they examined the concepts seen in the formative conceptual multiple-choice questions in each in-class session. The written case study assignment challenged students to identify and explain links between metabolic pathways and a disease state, promoting a deeper understanding of the content. The final exam consisted of conceptual multiple-choice questions and written questions. The written questions were written in the style used in the tutorial questions and the “One Step at a Time” Padlet activity. Each written question was split into four to six sub-questions, which probed specific aspects of an overarching topic.

Active Learning Activities used in the Chemistry-Biochemistry Sessions

Participation+

Participation+ is a novel active learning activity developed by the authors of this study that consists of a discussion portion, focused on a three-tiered conceptual question (Fig. 1a), followed by related conceptual multiple-choice questions. To begin Participation+, the educator introduced the three-tiered conceptual question, before the students engaged in a 2 to 5-min peer-to-peer discussion. During the initial discussion period, the students responded to any or all of the sub-questions in groups of two or three. Students were not required to put forward formal answers to the Participation+ questions, which helped foster an environment where the students were comfortable sharing their ideas. During this time, the educator acted as a facilitator, assisting specific student groups where required. If Participation+ was run with a large group, it may be useful to have extra moderators to address student queries during the student discussion portion of the activity. Next, the educator facilitated a group discussion based on the Participation+ questions, or alternatively specific student groups were invited to discuss the questions with the educator. In the final part of Participation+, students attempted conceptual multiple-choice questions (MCQs) pre-built into a quiz on the Socrative online platform (Fig. 1b). These conceptual MCQs tested the students understanding of the overarching concepts addressed in the three-tiered Participation+ question. By accessing the Socrative platform, the educator provided immediate feedback to students on their conceptual MCQ responses and clarified any misunderstandings.

Fig. 1.

Components used to run Participation+ in a Chemistry-Biochemistry in-class session. a Sample three-tiered Participation+ question, highlighting the key concepts and posing three interrelated conceptual questions. b Sample conceptual MCQ, used in the last part of Participation+, which students attempted on Socrative (web platform)

Conceptual Multiple-Choice Questions

To set the context for the question, the conceptual MCQ displays the key concept(s) and the relevant background information. Each of the potential answers to the conceptual MCQs are a sentence that makes connections between different aspects of a concept or between multiple concepts. The students attempted the conceptual MCQs during the on-campus sessions via Socrative (web platform). The questions were also accessible via the learning management system for revision.

Connection Finder

The Connection Finder activity uses Padlet, which is a web and app-based platform, where the educator can create a specific Padlet page to deliver a learning activity. Students can post on the Padlet using written responses and drawings or by adding images. All of the student Padlet posts are visible to those viewing the Padlet, which promotes information sharing and discussion.

The Connection Finder activity was run with groups of four to six students. Each group was assigned a topic specific Padlet that contained ten to twelve related concepts. To begin the activity, students worked individually, adding up to six posts on the Padlet describing how two or more of the concepts were related. Next, the student groups downloaded a PowerPoint template from their Padlet and worked as a group to prepare a short group presentation to coherently explain five of their concept linkage explanations from the Padlet. The PowerPoint slides could contain dot points, flow charts, concept maps and images. The PowerPoint presentations were uploaded to the Padlet, where they were easily accessible by the cohort for revision. This activity was primarily used as a revision activity during revision sessions, due to being time-intensive. A shorter modified version of the activity could be utilised, where students identify links between the related concepts, prior to an educator-led discussion based on the responses.

One Step at a Time

For the One Step at a Time activity, students were directed to a Padlet that contained four to six conceptual sub-questions related to an overarching topic (e.g. a specific metabolic pathway). Students worked in pairs to formulate and post their responses onto the Padlet, using a combination of the written response and draw functions. After the students had posted their answers, the educator led a group discussion based on the Padlet responses to clarify any misunderstandings and highlight some of the insightful answers.

Set the Scene

For the Set the Scene activity, students worked individually posting onto a Padlet about how their past experiences and prior knowledge related to the session’s topic. The educator used these Padlet responses to create a concept map to demonstrate the links between the collective student knowledge and the new topic.

Running the Active Learning Activities in the Chemistry-Biochemistry Sessions

In a typical Chemistry-Biochemistry in-class session, content delivery by the educator was interspersed with active learning activities. After the educator had presented the content on the first overarching topic (~ 20 to 40 min), the Participation+ activity was run (~ 15 to 20 min). Next, the educator presented content on the second overarching topic, before again running Participation+. In the interest of time, at the conclusion of other overarching topics, the educator ran either a Padlet activity or the students attempted conceptual MCQs on the online platform Socrative (~ 10 min).

Altogether, students usually spent roughly 1 h participating in active learning activities, during the 3-h in-class sessions. For these active learning activities to run effectively with high student engagement, it was important for the educator to stick to the time constraints of each activity and act as a facilitator of learning.

In-Class Writing Task

An In-Class Writing Task was implemented in the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit at the beginning of semester (pre-test condition), the middle of semester (session 13) and the end of semester (session 23). During each In-Class Writing Task, students were given a choice of two questions and had 10 min to respond under exam conditions. The questions provided relevant background information and were open-ended, allowing students to discuss and link many different concepts (Table 1A). Each student response was rated on a level 0 to level 5 scale by the educator and a research assistant, indicating whether they had communicated a surface or deep level of understanding, or a combination of both (Table 2). After completing each In-Class Writing Task, the students were shown example student responses corresponding to each writing level. The only individualised feedback that the students received on the In-Class Writing Task was the writing level they had achieved.

Table 1.

Sample student responses corresponding to each of the five writing levels (B–F) for an In-class Written Task Question (see Table 2 for an explanation of each writing level)

Table 2.

Writing-level scale used to assess the level of understanding demonstrated in the student responses to the In-Class Writing Task

Level 0: Does not display knowledge about the relevant content

Level 1: Sometimes displays accurate surface recall knowledge about the relevant content

Level 2: Mostly displays accurate surface recall knowledge about the relevant content

Level 3: Sometimes displays a deep understanding of the relevant content

Level 4: Mostly displays a deep understanding of the relevant content

Level 5: Consistently displays a deep understanding of the relevant content

Student Survey

In the second last week of semester, the students completed a voluntary anonymous survey. The electronic survey consisted of seven Likert scale questions and three open response questions. The Likert scale survey questions focused on assessing the effectiveness of Participation+ and determining to what extent the active learning Chemistry-Biochemistry curriculum assisted the students to develop key academic skills. The open response questions surveyed key areas including engagement, peer interaction and confirming understanding of content.

Results

Student Survey

Students found the collaborative active learning activity, Participation+, very useful for confirming their understanding of the content, with 92% of students agreeing that Participation+ assisted their understanding of the underlying concepts of the session (Table 3A). Participation+ appeared to enhanced peer interaction, with 81% of students indicating that Participation+ helped promote interaction with their peers (Table 3B). Participation+ was useful for students to establish what they had and had not understood from the sessions, as 85% of students agreed that Participation+ helped them identify the concepts that they were struggling with during the Chemistry-Biochemistry sessions (Table 3C). However, it appears that only about half the students incorporated the Participation+ questions into their study outside of class, as only 54% of students found Participation+ useful for revision (Table 3D).

Table 3.

Summary of results from Participation+ Likert scale (1, strongly disagree; 2, disagree; 3, unsure; 4, agree; 5, strongly agree) questions (n = 26). A. Likert scale responses to the statement “Participation+ helped me understand the underlying concepts of the sessions”. B. Likert scale responses to the statement “Participation+ actively helped to promote interaction with my peers that aided learning”. C. Likert scale responses to the statement “Participation+ helped me to identify concepts that I was struggling with”. D. Likert scale responses to the statement “Participation+ was useful for learning/revision outside of class time”

Participation+ Likert scale questions	Strongly disagree (%)	Disagree (%)	Unsure (%)	Agree (%)	Strongly agree (%)	Likert score
A. Underlying concepts	0	0	8	31	62	4.5
B. Peer interaction	0	4	15	23	58	4.3
C. Struggling concepts	0	0	15	39	46	4.3
D. Revision	4	15	27	27	27	3.6

Sixty-nine percent of students agreed that the unit’s active learning curriculum allowed them to develop their critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Table 4A). The curriculum assisted students to communicate their understanding coherently through their writing, as 69% of students agreed that the active curriculum helped them to develop their written communication skills (Table 4B). Fifty-eight percent of students agreed that the active learning curriculum allowed them to develop their oral communication skills (Table 4C). The students were given many opportunities to develop their oral communication skills during collaborative active learning activities throughout the semester.

Table 4.

Summary of results from curriculum Likert scale (1, strongly disagree; 2, disagree; 3, unsure; 4, agree; 5, strongly agree) questions (n = 26). A. Likert scale responses to the statement “The active learning curriculum allowed me to develop my critical thinking and problem-solving skills”. B. Likert scale responses to the statement “The active learning curriculum allowed me to develop my written communication skills”. C. Likert scale responses to the statement “The active learning curriculum allowed me to develop my oral communication skills”

Curriculum Likert scale questions	Strongly disagree (%)	Disagree (%)	Unsure (%)	Agree (%)	Strongly agree (%)	Likert score
A. Critical thinking and problem solving	0	12	19	46	23	3.8
B. Written communication	0	15	15	54	15	3.7
C. Oral communication	4	19	19	35	23	3.5

Fifty-eight percent of students identified that the active learning activity Participation+ was the most engaging aspect of the Chemistry-Biochemistry course, with 15% of these students specifying that the Socrative portion of Participation+ was most engaging (Fig. 2a). Padlet, which was used for a variety of different active learning activities (see methods section), was identified by 19% of students to be the most engaging part of the course (Fig. 2a). Students commented on how these active learning activities assisted in consolidating their understanding of the content presented in the in-class sessions:

I found the group work during Participation+ and using Padlet most engaging as that is the way I learn best. This is because it helps solidify everything I have learnt by bouncing ideas off of other people.

Fig. 2.

Summary of responses from the student survey to open-ended questions about the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit (n = 26) regarding a the most engaging aspect(s) of the course, b the most useful aspect(s) of the course for promoting peer interaction and c the most useful aspect(s) of the course for confirming understanding of the course content. The activities identified by students, in response to the central topic, are shown above the circles in each panel, with the numbers indicating the number of students who identified each activity. The grey hexagons correspond to frequently occurring themes identified from student explanations about why they had chosen the activities

Several students commented that Participation+ was useful to assess what they had understood from the n-class sessions:

The most engaging part was the Participation+ because it forced me to test my knowledge and identify what I knew and didn’t know, which I was often surprised by.

In response to an open-ended question, 92% of students identified Participation+ as the most useful aspect of the course for promoting peer interaction (Fig. 2b). The Padlet activities were also popular, with 27% of students identifying the Padlet activities as being the most useful for promoting peer interaction (Fig. 2b). Students explained that the collaborative active learning activities employed in the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit allowed idea exchange with their peers, which exposed them to different perspectives and consolidated their understanding of the content:

… many times, my partner and I would have different understandings of the concepts and this led to more discussion and ultimately a deeper understanding of the material.

Students commented that they enjoyed talking to peers about what they had learnt in the session, which allowed them to build relationships with their peers:

Participation+ proved most useful as it allowed for discussion and input of ideas from others which could then be discussed within the group, consolidating learning whilst also building relationships among peers.

The final part of Participation+, where students independently attempted conceptual MCQs related to the key concepts raised in the Participation+ questions (via Socrative), was frequently identified by students as being useful for confirming their understanding of the content (62% of students) (Fig. 2c). Other students identified the Padlet activities (31%), Participation+ as a whole (15%), the In-Class Writing Task (15%) and the tutorial questions (12%), as most useful for assessing their understanding of the content (Fig. 2c). Of these students, some identified that they found these activities useful to prompt their recall of information from previous sessions:

I found the in class writing activities and Padlet activities most useful as they made me have to recall information that I learnt previously.

In-Class Writing Task

To establish a baseline of the students’ capacity to communicate their understanding of scientific concepts, the students attempted an In-Class Writing Task at the beginning of the semester on basic Chemistry concepts. This Writing Task was used as the pre-test control condition, to compare with the results from In-Class Writing Tasks from half way through (session 13) and at the end of semester (session 23), to establish whether the students’ capacity to communicate their understanding of scientific concepts had changed throughout the semester.

In session 23, 52% of students displayed only deep knowledge in their In-Class Writing Task responses (level 4), an increase of 21% from session 13 (Fig. 3a, b). This increase corresponded to a large decrease in students displaying a combination of surface and deep knowledge (level 3: ↓ 16%), and a smaller decrease in students is displayed surface-level knowledge (levels 1 and 2: ↓ 5%) (Fig. 3a, b).

Fig. 3.

In-Class Writing Task analysis. a Percentage of students achieving writing levels 1 to 4 in the In-Class Writing Task in the pre-test control condition (n = 30), session 13 (n = 29) and session 23 (n = 23). b Percentage of students demonstrating surface knowledge (writing levels 1 and 2), deep knowledge (writing levels 4 and 5) and a combination of both surface and deep knowledge (writing level 3) in the In-Class Writing Task. c Change in the students’ writing level from the pre-test condition to their average writing level across the two In-Class Writing Tasks (n = 22). d Average writing level across the two In-Class Writing Tasks, comparing student groups who averaged 3.5 or more (average writing level (AWL) ≥ 3.5) (n = 12) and less than 3.5 (average writing level (AWL) < 3.5) (n = 10)

Forty-five percent of students improved their average writing level achieved in the In-Class Writing Tasks, compared with the pre-test condition (Fig. 3c). Thirty-two percent of students maintained the writing level they achieved in the pre-test condition in the In-Class Writing Tasks later in semester (Fig. 3c). However, 60% of these students had already displayed a deep understanding in their writing in the pre-test task. The remaining 23% of students showed a decrease in their average writing level for the In-Class Writing Tasks, compared with the pre-test condition (Fig. 3c). Of the students whose average writing level decreased from the pre-test condition, 88% of them achieved level 4 in the pre-test condition but were unable to maintain this high standard across both the session 13 and session 23 In-Class Writing Tasks, where more complex concepts were addressed.

AWL ≥ 3.5 Versus AWL < 3.5

Students were allocated to either the average writing level (AWL) < 3.5 or the AWL ≥ 3.5 group, based on their average score across the two In-Class Writing Tasks. Those in the AWL ≥ 3.5 group had an average writing level of 3.9 and consistently conveyed a deep understanding of the content in their writing, whereas the AWL < 3.5 group, who had an average writing level of 2.9, did not consistently demonstrate a deep understanding of the content in their writing (Fig. 3d).

Figure 4 shows that the students in the AWL ≥ 3.5 group achieved more highly on the written assignment, final exam and overall unit total than those in the AWL < 3.5 group. On average, the AWL ≥ 3.5 group achieved 79% on the written assignment, 8% higher than the average mark of the AWL < 3.5 group (71%) (not statistically significant, p = 0.12). On the final exam, the AWL ≥ 3.5 group (75%) outperformed the AWL < 3.5 group (61%) by 14% (statistically significant, p = 0.01). Students in the AWL ≥ 3.5 group were also more likely to gain a higher overall mark for the unit, with the AWL ≥ 3.5 group (81%) outperforming the AWL < 3.5 group (71%) by 10% (statistically significant, p = 0.03).

Fig. 4.

Analysis of achievement for students who achieved an average writing level (AWL) of less than 3.5 (AWL < 3.5) (n = 10) versus those who averaged 3.5 or more (AWL ≥ 3.5) (n = 12) on the two In-Class Writing Tasks

Discussion

Active Learning Activities: Confirming Understanding

Effective meaningful learning requires students to be active in the learning process, where they make connections, interpret, elaborate, reason and relate newly learnt content to their prior knowledge [27]. In the Chemistry-Biochemistry in-class sessions, the active learning activity Participation+ allowed students to engage in peer-to-peer conversions where they addressed conceptual questions, before attempting conceptual MCQs on the same topic(s) (via Socrative). Overall, the students found Participation+ useful for a variety of reasons including to confirm their understanding of recently acquired knowledge, to recall and utilise previously acquired knowledge, to relate the learnt information to a specific context, to identify areas that required revision and to prepare them for assessment tasks (Fig. 2c).

Participation+ shares some similarities with Think-Pair-Share, created by Lyman [28]. During Think-Pair-Share, students think independently about the answer to a question before engaging in a peer discussion, and finally sharing their answer with the rest of the group. The major difference between Participation+ and Think-Pair-Share is the conceptual MCQs that students attempt to conclude Participation+. The conceptual MCQs challenge students to interpret the presented information and critically think about the concepts involved. The conceptual MCQs used in Participation+ resemble the ConcepTest questions, developed by Mazur [29], where the MCQs challenge the student to think about the concept, rather than recognising keywords.

While participating in challenging activities during the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit, such as Participation+, it was common for some students to experience confusion. Experiencing confusion during a challenging learning task has been shown to be beneficial for student learning, as it allows the student to reach a deeper understanding of the content, provided the state of confusion is resolved [30, 31]. Collaborative discussions between peers, and those that included the educator, were useful for identifying and rectifying student misconceptions during the Chemistry-Biochemistry in-class sessions.

The use of e-learning tools that allow students to answer questions and receive immediate feedback has been shown to enhance engagement and increase student participation during in-class sessions [24]. For straightforward tasks, i.e. answering MCQs, immediate feedback has shown to be more effective than delayed feedback [32]. Many Chemistry-Biochemistry students nominated the Socrative portion within Participation+ as being most useful for confirming their understanding of the content (Fig. 2c). This was likely to due to the real-time feedback they received on their responses to the MCQs in Socrative, as well as feedback from the educator, which provided a tangible way for the students to assess their understanding as they progressed through the in-class sessions. Student engagement with the Socrative conceptual MCQs was further enhanced through close alignment with the summative assessment tasks, including the in-semester quizzes and the final exam.

Active Learning Activities: Peer Interaction and Engagement

It has been well-documented that collaborative active learning activities stimulate student engagement, motivation and participation [3, 16–19]. In the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit, students identified the collaborative active learning activities Participation+ and Padlet as highly engaging (Fig. 2a). Participation+ was identified by the students as the most useful part of unit for promoting peer-to-peer interaction, as the activity provided a platform for idea exchange, allowed them to build relationships and teamwork skills and assisted in confirming their understanding of the content (Fig. 2b). The students’ learning experiences were enriched by engaging in these collaborative learning activities, which challenged them to reassess either own perspective, promoting synthesis and integration of the new material [33, 34]. Engagement in the active learning activities was key for the students to gain maximum benefit, as engaged students got far more out of the activities than those less willing to participate. However, it appears that the vast majority of students benefitted from the active learning curriculum, as the failure rate of the cohort studied was 6.67%, compared with the previous 4 years where the failure rate was steady between 20 and 23%, where a didactic teaching approach was used. Although, in this case the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit was part of an undergraduate program, designing a course curriculum to aid deep learning and skill development is applicable across all levels of tertiary courses, independent of cohort size.

Active Learning Activities: Academic Skill Development

During the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit, the students developed and utilised critical thinking, problem-solving and oral communication skills, while participating in the collaborative active learning activities Participation+ and Padlet (Table 4A, B). It has been well-documented that challenging students to apply their knowledge through active learning activities fosters the development of key academic skills [5–7, 35].

Throughout the semester, the students attempted tasks that challenged them to write coherently including the In-Class Writing Task, the Padlet activities, tutorial exercises, the written assignment and the final exam. These tasks assisted many students to develop their academic writing skills throughout the semester (Table 4B). Future iterations of the unit will provide specific scaffolding activities as preparation for the written assignment later in semester [36].

In-Class Writing Task

The In-Class Writing Task was used to develop and evaluate the students’ academic writing skills, to determine whether they were communicating a surface or deep level of understanding, or a combination of both. To communicate a deep understanding of the content in their writing, the students required written communications skills and deep knowledge of the concepts referred to in the questions. The active learning curriculum of the unit, where students engaged in collaborative learning activities, gave the students many opportunities to develop a deep understanding of the content and key academic skills. These learning experiences were shown to be beneficial, as 45% of students improved their average writing level across the two In-Class Writing Tasks, compared with the pre-test condition, and 52% of students displayed a deep level of understanding in their writing (level 4) by the end of semester (Fig. 3b, c). An additional 22% of students showed some evidence of deep understanding in their writing in the final In-Class Writing Task, meaning 74% of students demonstrated the capacity to communicate a deep understanding of the content in their writing (Fig. 3b). Taken together, the students’ achievement in the In-Class Writing Task, in comparison with the pre-test condition, suggests that the active learning curriculum assisted students to develop a deep understanding of the content, which they were able to communicate through their writing. However, it should be noted that the absence of a control group that received a didactic course delivery, rather than a curriculum focused on active learning, was a limiting factor. It should also be noted that this intervention was performed in a specific context, that being a first-year undergraduate Chemistry-Biochemistry unit, meaning its suitability to other contexts is unproven. However, the active learning activities employed in the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit to promote a deep understanding of the content are likely to be more widely applicable to other courses, including more advanced courses, such as in a medical or advanced science degree. Students undertaking active learning activities in advanced courses could draw on their in-depth prior knowledge, which is likely to increase their engagement and capacity to collaborate with their peers, maximising the benefits of these activities.

AWL ≥ 3.5 Versus AWL < 3.5

Students who averaged 3.5 or higher across the two In-Class Writing Tasks (AWL ≥ 3.5 group) likely took a deep approach to their learning, as they consistently communicated a deep understanding of the content through their writing. In contrast, some students in the AWL < 3.5 group may have relied on a surface learning approach, which led to them display surface-level knowledge in their writing. It has been demonstrated in the literature that students are more likely to adopt a deep approach to their learning when the assessment tasks of the unit require a deep understanding of the content [10–13, 37]. The students in the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit were informed throughout the semester that a deep understanding of the content was required to achieve highly in the assessment tasks.

The AWL ≥ 3.5 group outperformed the AWL < 3.5 group (14%, p = 0.01) in the final exam and the overall unit total (10%, p = 0.03) (Fig. 4). This suggests that the deep knowledge and academic writing skills developed and acquired by the AWL ≥ 3.5 group across the semester aided their performance in the assessment tasks, where they were required to apply their deep content knowledge to novel contexts. This result is consistent with the literature which suggests that deep learners are better at applying their knowledge to novel contexts than surface learners [38, 39]. It is possible that the AWL ≥ 3.5 had a higher drive and motivation to learn than the AWL < 3.5 group, which may have partially contributed to the difference in achievement between the groups. In the future, additional scaffolded activities should be employed to enhance the students’ academic writing skills, while deepening their understanding of the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit’s content, to allow more students to reach the level achieved by the AWL ≥ 3.5 group.

Conclusions

Engaging in collaborative active learning activities throughout the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit helped many students develop a deep understanding of the content and key academic skills, such as written and oral communication, critical thinking and problem solving. The students who developed a deep understanding of the unit’s content, which they could coherently communicate during the In-Class Writing Task, consistently outperformed the other students on the major assessment tasks of the unit. Based on student achievement and the student survey results, the active learning curriculum employed in the Chemistry-Biochemistry unit assisted the students to take a deep approach to their learning, where they developed the skills required to achieve a deep understanding of the content and communicate their understanding to others.

Abbreviations

AWL

Average writing level

MCQ

Multiple-choice question

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics Approval

For this research project, we gained ethics approval from the Endeavour College of Natural Health HREC (Approval Number: 20160723).

Informed Consent

No personal data was used in this publication. All student results and quotes have been deidentified. However, students gave their consent to participate in the study and have the results published by signing a form detailing the study and how the results would be used.