Introduction

There has been a shift from traditional teacher-centred teaching towards student-centered teaching approaches in science courses which increasingly focus on professional standards (Brawner et al., 2001). Industrial employers for example have reported increasing disappointment with graduate performances, suggesting that universities overemphasize content with not enough focus on team-based communication skills (Coll and Zegwaard, 2006). Communication skills are vital for today’s scientists, so it is important to foster such skills early in a researcher’s career (Moni et al., 2007). Universities have responded by developing and promoting communication skills as a graduate attribute and supporting greater emphasis on professional development for university teachers by increasing their awareness of pedagogical approaches to improve quality outcomes for students (Ramsden, 2003). There is evidence to suggest that small group work within disciplines is a means to aid learning that reflect working as a professional scientist (Brahmia and Etkina, 2001; Zemke et al., 2004); to promote deep learning in science (Chin and Brown, 2000) and to develop communication skills (Gillies and Ashman, 2003). In addition, co-operative learning tasks in which students assist other peers to learn through explaining topics to each other, i.e. elaborated help, have been correlated with academic achievement (Gilles, 2003).

We have reported a case study designed to enhance student learning in a second-year Pharmacology module on Drug Dependence at The University of Queensland (Moni et al., 2008). Briefly, a PharmaCALogy-based module was successfully re-designed for use in the Collaborative Teaching and Learning Centre (CTLC). Associated with this, traditional teaching and assessment practices were replaced using a three-phase (researching ― peer teaching ― team writing) Jigsaw built pedagogy (Oblinger, 2006) to support co-operative learning around the writing of a Technical Report (weighted as 5% of the course) based on structured teamwork. Improved academic results and generally supportive student opinions were reported. However, some concerns were noted from our evaluation. First, additional support for student learning around the assessment task was clearly required because most students reported that too little time had been allotted to completing their assessment, some lacked clear understanding of staff expectations around the teamwork, and some reported difficulties with working in groups to write their assignment. Second, although most teams achieved high academic results, many students considered that summatively assessing group assignments was unfair. Third, we did not explore the relative impact of each learning phase and in particular, whether the peer teaching was effective in supporting the understanding of Drug Dependence. This approach has proven successful in the teaching of core scientific concepts (Chin and Brown, 2000; Teixeira-Dias et al., 2005).

We report now, a case study of the next year’s cohort of Science students. In doing so, we shift emphasis away from the social learning space afforded by the CTLC at our university, to the sequential phases by which teams completed their assignments. We describe adaptations to our teaching and assessment to further support team formation, and the role of peer teaching as an example of elaborated help, in enhancing academic success for student teams.

Methods

The Pharmacology course and students

Principles of Pharmacology and Toxicology (BIOM2041) is the foundation course for Science students at The University of Queensland. It is the only Pharmacology course offered in the second year of the three-year Bachelor of Science degree program, and runs in semester two (from July–December). It has a broad focus on core concepts. In 2004, 40% of students failed the traditional course which contained heavily-weighted high-stakes examinations at the end of semester and no group-based assessment. From semester two in 2005, a new course design introduced continuous, individual assessment of practicals (15% Laboratory Report, 5% Pharmacogenetics quiz), an assignment to profile the pharmacology of assigned drugs (10%), a group-based Technical Report (5%) which is the focus of this case study, and a final examination (65%) of multiple choice and short answer questions. The enrolment was 285 students in semester 2, 2006.

Two key research questions underpinned this case study:

1. How can learning be more effectively supported in the co-operative learning task?
2. What is the role of peer teaching in enhancing learning in the co-operative learning task?

 

Forming student groups

The composition, structure and management of groups has an important impact the development of a learning community (Gillies and Ashman, 2003; Chapman et al., 2005). There is evidence that allowing students to group themselves for group writing tasks results in increased group satisfaction and higher academic achievement, regardless of their previous grades (Chapman et al., 2006). Further, student self-nomination into groups reduces the administrative teaching time compared with grouping by academic performance or skills assessment (Colbeck et al., 2000; Blowers, 2003).

Therefore at the beginning of the semester, students were allowed to select their own groups of 3 students and instructed to work in these for the whole course. Approximately 90% of students self-selected. The remaining 10% did not know anyone in the course with whom they would like to work and were therefore randomly assigned into new groups of three. The Drug Dependence co-operative assessment was administered during week 9 of the 13-week semester, following six three-hour practical sessions of group work.

The learning principles, explicit teaching strategy and assessment

Learning

The Drug Dependence module was designed in accordance with the cooperative learning criteria of Johnson and Johnson (1994). These criteria are: positive interdependence (shared goals, resources and unique individual roles in task completion); face-to-face communication; individual accountability; collaborative skills including peer teaching; and group processing (evaluating goals, performance and reflection on learning).

Explicit teaching strategy

A one-hour lecture preceding the assessment task was delivered by one of the authors (ID). In this, students first volunteered to individually write responses to the question, “does assessable group work appeal to you or not? Please write your reasons.” Then student volunteers formed a group and in front of the whole class but under the facilitation of the lecturer, completed a “broken squares” problem-solving task designed to promote group co-operation (Bavelas, 1973). Briefly, each member was given one of five cardboard shapes which when correctly assembled, formed a square. Students were encouraged to compete with the other groups to complete their own square but could only offer their pieces to others without talking or other prompts. Students soon realised that the fastest solution was when they co-operated. By focusing on helping others form their squares, they discovered that both their own goals and those of the group were met. The lecturer then led a class discussion about the finding, “no one is done until everyone is done” and the relevance of team work to relationships, employment and personal success. The assessment tasks and marking details were then described, followed by an introduction of the major concepts of Drug Dependence — physical and psychological dependence, effects of reinforcement and withdrawal, the central mesolimbic dopaminergic pathways and categories of stimulant and depressants.

Assessment

Students were presented with the following learning objectives:

1. to demonstrate understanding of the concepts associated with drug dependence
   - substance abuse, addiction, tolerance, types of dependence, reinforcement, reward and withdrawal;
2. to demonstrate understanding of the pharmacological actions of specific drugs of dependence;
3. to recall the methods used for assessing drug of dependence in animal models; and
4. to work effectively as a team leading to the submission of a group NOI.

 

Using the Jigsaw model of teaching (Slavin, 1990) the learning task was broken up into three equally demanding pieces and divided amongst the three team members. The assessment task was a group written assignment (7% of the course) followed by an individual quiz (3% of the course). Students worked in their groups of three, with each completing separate literature research – one focusing on the central concepts underpinning Drug Dependence; a second exploring the dependency properties of one stimulant and one depressant drug allocated randomly at the start of the assessment period; and the third investigating which animal models were appropriate to the drugs allocated to their group. Each group was given a list of primary research articles (about 9 per panel) as examples they might locate from the PubMed database and use in their assessment.

The PharmaCALogy software (Pharma-CAL-ogy, 2008) was also available to support experimental designs for animal models of Drug Dependence. Three hours were timetabled for this activity. Following a recommended time for research (60 minutes), students returned to their original group and taught each other what they learnt in their expert panel (peer teaching, 30 minutes).

The students were then required to write a mini grant proposal or Notice of Intent (NOI) as a group (60 minutes). This activity required students to organize their retrieved information and teach one another in four specific sections for the grant proposal. Students were also required to complete an organizational table frequently used for the preparation of grants in the Biosciences. The table was included to help students synthesize their NOI (See Appendix 1 for a full task description as provided to students). The recommended lists of references did not take significant amounts of time and use of the CTLC allowed students access to computing and space resources vital for the success of this kind of group task (Brett and Nagra, 2005).

In addition to the group submission, students had to complete a summative quiz individually in the last five minutes of the session. This quiz (Fig. 1) was a disaggregated but real NOI written by one of the teaching team (ID) for a grant application. Specifically, every student was given an envelope with six coloured pieces of paper, each with one section of a mini grant proposal written by an academic following the guidelines the students were given in class. The subheadings were removed from the grant proposal prior to printing and cutting. Students were asked reconstruct the NOI they were given to reflect the organization used in their own mini grant proposal. Students were informed that their results for the quiz would be the average of what the group achieved. Therefore, if students did not complete the reconstruction correctly, they would receive lower marks on the quiz and would reduce the group average.

Section A. The human cytochrome P450 (P450; CYP) superfamily is the most prominent group of drug metabolizing enzymes, processing >90% of all prescribed drugs. The function and localisation of these proteins have significant implications for efficacy of medications. Variations in the expression level and/or isoforms of these enzymes are largely responsible for individual variability in drug metabolism, which can result in adverse drug reactions. P450s are primarily expressed in liver, however an increasing number have been found in brain. To date, brain P450 research has mostly been conducted in non-human species. However, recent developments of specialized research tools has allowed for exploration of these enzymes in the human brain. Section B. The P450 3A family is responsible for the metabolism of over 50% of all prescribed drugs. P450 3A4 and 3A5 are expressed in human brain regions associated with drug dependence including the mesocorticolimbic dopaminergic system. In the liver, P450 3A activity is inhibited by alcohol and smoking decreases P450 3A5 expression in the lung. Considering the potential importance of these enzymes in metabolism of therapeutics and drugs of abuse it is critical to study the expression of the P450 3A enzymes in the alcohol- and nicotine-dependent human brain. This is vital to further clarify the mechanisms underlying drug dependence. The P450 3A enzymes exhibit a number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) which result in splicing defects that lead to altered expression and enzyme activity. Functionally significant CYP3A SNPs have been observed in Asian, African-American and Caucasian populations and frequencies of some SNPs differ between ethnic groups. Preliminary research by this group revealed the presence of an N-terminal truncated P450 3A4 isoform in human brain microsomes. Clearly, analysis of the P450 3A enzymes and their isoforms is essential to elucidating their role in alcohol and nicotine dependence. Section C. This project will determine the expression pattern of P450 3A4, 3A5, 3A7 and 3A43 in the human brain. Four distinct subject groups will be analyzed for expression in major areas associated with drug dependence: amygdala, nucleus accumbens and frontal cortex. Samples are age-, sex-, race- and post-mortem delay-matched. The four experimental groups are: alcoholics and controls with/without smoking co-morbidity. Section D. Expression of CYP3A mRNA and protein will be assessed using real-time PCR and Western immunoblotting. The cellular localization of these enzymes will be investigated using specific markers for neurons, glia and astrocytes. This group has in place a system for in-house antibody production. Our previous work yielded highly specific P450 3A4 and 3A5 antibodies, not previously available. This was one of the major reasons research into this family of enzymes has been limited in the past. P450 3A7 and 3A43 specific antibodies will be produced for this work. Section E. Samples from the four groups of subjects will be sequenced to identify polymorphisms in the P4503As. Polymorphisms will be cross-checked against observed P450 3A expression levels to determine correlations. This group’s association with the NSW Tissue Resource Centre will allow for the collection of more samples if previously unidentified polymorphisms are revealed. This group has developed a robust method for P450 expression in bacterial membranes for the analysis of enzyme function. Polymorphic P450 3As will be expressed and their activity towards alcohol and nicotine compared to wild type. The metabolism of specific, well characterized targets of the P450 3A family will also be assessed. Section F. This project will determine the expression of the individual P450 3A enzymes and their isoforms in the centres of drug addiction of alcohol and/or nicotine dependent subjects. This information will be linked with the enzymes’ metabolic function, specifically with allelic variations. This research will further unravel the pharmacological mechanisms underlying drug addiction, by examining whether P450 expression and function is associated with drug dependence.

Figure 1 The 3% individual quiz given to students after their group-based Notice of Intent. This quiz had six sections (A-F) which were disaggregated and labeled out-of-sequence to generate multiple versions for assessment. Each student was then given one version, and required to arrange them in the correct order. One half-mark was removed from a maximum of 3, for every error.

 

Marking of assessment

The criteria sheet for marking the NOI is in Figure 2. Two tutors with significant prior experience in criterion-referenced assessment marked the NOIs. These tutors were also present at all of the sessions in which students completed the task. Tutors were trained for this specific cooperative task by the academic in charge of the intervention (ID) and marking criteria were discussed between the tutors and this lecturer to ensure alignment in their respective interpretations.

BIOM2041 Drug Dependence Criteria Sheet Student Names: ...............................................      7% of course assessment Drug Names X / Y Criteria 7–6 5–4 3 2–1 CONTENT table is completely accurate, logical & easy to understand all technical concepts, drug details & animal models are accurate and comprehensive table is mostly accurate & logical & easy to understand technical concepts, drug details & animal models are mostly accurate and detailed table is not accurate or not logical main technical concepts, drug details & animal models are presented accurately table is neither accurate nor logical technical concepts, drug details & animal models are mostly inaccurate FORMAT all content is in correct section and well integrated all of text is logical & coherent throughout most content is in correct section and integrated most of text is logical & coherent key information is in correct section most of text is logical & coherent most content is not in correct section little of text is logical & coherent REFERENCING well balanced variety of reference sources used references are used appropriately, and citation style is correct and consistent some variety of reference sources used references are used appropriately, and citation style is mostly correct most information obtained from one source references are cited but often not appropriately or correctly references are not included QUALITY OF WRITING formal style of expression consistently used grammar, punctuation, and spelling are accurate, clear, concise and consistent formal style of expression mostly consistent with some grammar, punctuation and spelling errors formal style of expression is inconsistent with some grammar, punctuation and spelling errors informal style of expression with significant and many errors Markers comment and Grade:

Figure 2 Standards-referenced criteria sheet used by tutors for marking the Notices of Intent submitted by each student team. Trained markers were tutors for the Drug Dependence sessions. Marking was checked by one of the authors (ID). X and Y refer to one of the three stimulant drug names and one of the three depressant drug names allocated randomly to each group on the day of assessment.

 

Student surveys

After the assessment had been submitted, students were asked to complete two opinion surveys. The first focused on the NOI assessment task. This survey included six 5-point Likert items and three open-ended responses, “which aspect helped you learn the most – the research, peer teaching or writing the NOI?” The second survey entailed an assessment of their team members. This survey had nine 5-point Likert items and the question, “do you think that all team members should receive the same mark for the assignment?”

Descriptive statistics of each item of the nonparametric data included median ± interquartile range (IQR). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to estimate whether survey data medians were different from the midpoint (hypothetical median = 3) of the 5-point scale. Significance was represented by two-tailed p values calculated using GraphPad Prism Version 4. The internal consistency of all survey items was measured using Cronbach α coefficient using SPSS Version 16.0. Observed α-values of 0.8 or higher indicated that survey items reliably measures related themes or constructs on which survey questions are based. Open-ended responses to these questions were inductively coded into consensus themes according to the method of Bennett (2003). Prior to completing the survey, students were informed about the purposes of the survey and advised that their participation was voluntary and anonymous.

Results and Evaluation

Academic achievement

For the whole cohort (n = 285) the mean ± SD for the group-based NOI was 80 ± 13% (mean of 5.6 from the maximum of 7 marks); and for the averaged quiz marks, 73 ± 13% (mean of 2.2 from a maximum of 3 marks).

Student opinion surveys

Pre-teaching survey

This survey had 124 respondents (44% of the class enrolment). Most of these (n = 89, 72%) reported wrote that assessable group work did not appeal to them because it allowed for social loafing and group marks do not reflect the effort put in by individuals. Typical responses included, “sometimes all members do not contribute evenly” and, “members who do all the work get better marks for those who do little work.” From the pre-teaching survey, 28% of respondents reported assessable group work was appealing.

Figure 3 Student responses (median ± IQR) to items of the opinion survey

Closed items were, in this task, I: (1) learned about Pharmacology more effectively than by other methods, (2) enjoyed working in my groups, (3) felt responsibility to contribute to my group, (4) got along with all the other group members (5) did NOT learn to work effectively in groups.
Responses were: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = undecided; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree. * Represents P < 0.05 based on the difference in median values from the scale midpoint of 3, using the Wilcoxon signed-rank non-parametric test.

Post-assessment survey

Participation in the post-assessment survey was very high (n = 270, 95%). Most students did not agree that the assessment task helped them learn Pharmacology more effectively than by other (unspecified) methods. Yet, it was clear that the majority of students enjoyed working in their group, felt responsibility to contribute to their group, felt they got along with other group members and did learn to work effectively in groups (Fig. 3). The Cronbach α coefficient of 0.989 was showed consistency between the answers.

There were 235 responses (82%) to the open survey questions. Of the three phases (research, peer teaching, writing the NOI) 63% of respondents reported that peer teaching helped them learn the most. These responses were qualified with statements such as, “explanations in layman’s terms” and, “explained to our level of understanding”. Many students also made comments such as, “teaching people was an excellent way to learn how to talk about what you understand and what you don't.” The research phase was favoured by fewer students (22%), with most students commenting that “reading articles” or “own research” were most beneficial to their learning. Writing of the NOI (15%) was also favoured by some. In the case of the writing, students commented that “Integrating different concepts” was the most useful aspect in helping their learning.

Peer assessment survey

The assessment of their team members's performance was answered by 88% of students. Of these replies, 88% reported they were satisfied or very satisfied with their team members's performance in the cooperative learning task. The median was significantly different from the survey mid-point category of "undecided" (p < 0.0001). Again, the Cronbach a coefficient of 0.963 indicated consistency between the scores on different answers. More specifically, respondents reported team members worked effectively, were reliable and hard working, were easy to communicate with, helped them to stimulate and/or develop ideas, provided the team with data or information (about the NOI), showed a good understanding of all aspects of the assessment task and completed their assigned tasks in a timely fashion. Of importance, 87.5% of students responded with a "yes" to the question, "should all team members receive the same mark?" A typical affirming comment was, "we put an equal amount of work into completing the report." This left 12.5% (n = 26) who still felt that it was not fair to give all group members the same mark. As students wrote their names on the peer assessment survey, attitudes could be correlated with their academic results on the assessment. On analysis of past academic records of the students who felt a group mark was unfair, most of them (22 of the 26) had a grade point average greater than 5.0 (from a maximum of 7.0). Contrasting the average mark for the whole class was (80%) these students averaged 82% (p = 0.4930, t-test).

Open-ended responses supported the other survey data, where 48% of students indicated that they felt they worked effectively in their group and enjoyed working together. Furthermore, 30% of the students indicated that they felt that their peers were effective teachers. Only 8.5% of students indicated that they did not find their peers effective teachers and only 2.5% indicated that students felt their group did not work effectively together.

Students reported major challenges in the cooperative task. A total of 304 student comments were tallied and grouped into themes. 53% of the responses reported that a lack of time was the most significant challenge of the task. The second most identified concern was a fear that the quality of the writing was not of a good standard (15% of responses). Other issues were identified – understanding the assessment task, researching the topic and ineffective peer teaching each were reported by 7% of students. Use of resources was a challenge to 5%, excessive workload was reported by 4% and difficulties with group organization by 3%.

Discussion

This case study reported academic achievement and changes of students’ opinions of group-based assessment. Importantly, we can only assert but not prove, that group effects influenced the reported high academic scores and generally favourable opinions towards group work. Proof would require an appropriately controlled experimental design. Our data were collected around two research questions.

How can learning be more effectively supported in the co-operative learning task?

A combination of careful design of assessment and explicit teaching was used in this study. The assessment task was designed to promote co-operative learning (Johnson and Johnson, 1994) using a Jigsaw design (Slavin, 1990). It had been modified from the previous year according to feedback from students. First, the task weighting was increased from 5% to 10% of the course for the same length of work. Second, an earlier and more comprehensive attempt was made to help students form work groups e.g. group registration at the beginning of the course; the “broken squares” role play and explanation of group work in the introductory lecture; the provision of key research references to reduce student time searching databases. Third, the task was structured around a mini grant proposal, the NOI, which is more closely related to the practices of a scientist compared with the previous audiovisual trigger (Moni et al., 2008).

How well students feel about how they performed can be as important as evaluating the academic outcome of their group work. Self-perception and the learning community in which students are working, can strongly influence learning (Chapman et al., 2005). In the pre-teaching survey prior to the cooperative group task, 72% of respondents reported that assessable group work did not appeal to them. Uneven effort and the possibility of resulting unfair marks were the main concern. Following the cooperative task, 87.5% of students agreed that all team members should receive the same mark. Their accompanying comments were often based on the even contributions of members to the team effort. However, the number of respondents in the pre-teaching survey (n = 123) and post-teaching survey (n = 220) were very different. Therefore, these results provide tentative reassurance that the task design was successful in overcoming issues of social loafing often encountered by students in group projects.

The literature on group work depicts how academic achievement of team members and the method of grouping affect the outcomes of group work (Chapman et al., 2006; Colbeck et al., 2000). However, there is little mention of student’s satisfaction with their team’s effort compared to academic outcomes has been made. Of the 12.5% (n = 26) who felt that it was not fair to give all group members the same mark, their groups still achieved highly despite some dissatisfaction with their peers. It may be that some higher achievers took a more dominant role in the writing of their NOI. There is evidence that high achieving students often dislike group work due to their dependence on others to obtain marks (Mills, 2003). It is possible that these students had higher expectations of their colleagues than those of the assessment criteria for this task. Indeed studies have shown that students often assess themselves more harshly than their teachers (Hanrahan and Isaacs, 2001).

What is the role of peer teaching in enhancing learning in the co-operative learning task?

The task was designed so that each group shared the goal of writing a grant proposal (positive interdependence). Further, since each member researched a separate component of the content areas required for the task and all three parts were necessary for the completion of the group’s goal, there was also a high level of interdependence. The three assigned roles were of equal importance to the completion of the task. Furthermore, each group was given separate reference lists ensuring that students were heavily reliant on all other team members to achieve their learning goals. The nature of the task easily lent itself to the face-to-face requirement of effective cooperative tasks. The design also aimed to encourage collaborative skills and in particular, peer teaching. This collaboration was because each student was responsible for research and understanding of a separate component of the knowledge necessary to complete the task. Therefore, the requirement for students to teach what they had learnt effectively to the other team members was of great importance.

Most students achieved highly, both on the written NOI group assignment, and their quiz in which they individually reconstructed a real NOI written by one of the authors (ID). Therefore, the task was adequately designed to promote student learning and the task goals and criteria were sufficiently explicit. The assessment results indicate that students successfully taught each other and worked cooperatively in this task. As reported by 63% of students, peer teaching was of benefit to their understanding, more beneficial than either researching or writing their NOI. Importantly, the Jigsaw teaching strategy provided a supportive classroom environment considered essential to encourage students to be critical active learners, and in which academics are encouraged to adopt cost-effective teaching methods (Anderson and Boud, 1996).

This study highlighted the need to assist students learn through teamwork. Incorporating smaller formative tasks and exemplars during the semester prior to the summative task (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) is called for in future years. These tasks might reduce the perception of time limitation and task clarity as the main stressors and help students to develop a sense of learning community, greater understanding of the assessment and improve specific organisational and communication skills relevant to pharmacological research (Prichard et al., 2006). Further, including peer assessment into formative and summative assessment tasks may help to promote more effective communication between students about their own expectations (Hanrahan and Isaacs, 2001). Future useful studies might usefully focus more on how students perform their roles within each stage of the Jigsaw cooperative task.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Associate Professor Lesley Lluka for support of this project, and to Dr Karen Moni for careful reading of this manuscript.

Communicating author

Dr Roger W. Moni, Head of Educational Research Unit, School of Biomedical Sciences and Associate Fellow of The Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia. r.moni@uq.edu.au, Tel: (617)-334-69865; Fax: (617)-336-51766

References

Anderson, G. and Boud, D. (1996). Extending the Role of Peer Learning in University Courses. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8–12 July. www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/anderson.html (accessed 11 May 2008)

Bavelas, A. (1973) The Five Squares Problem: An Instructional Aid in Group Cooperation. Studies in Personnel Psychology 5(2), 29–38

Bennett, J. (2003) Evaluation Methods in Research. London, UK: Continuum

Blowers, P. (2003) Using Student Skill Self-assessments to Get Balanced Groups for Group Projects. College Teaching. 51, 106–110

Brahmia, S. and Etkina, E. (2001) Switching students ON to science: An Innovative Course Design for Physics Students. Journal of College Science Teaching 31, 183–187

Brawner, C.E., Felder, R.M., Allen, R.H. and Brent, R. (2001) In, SUCCEED Faculty Survey of Teaching Practices and Perceptions of Institutional Attitudes toward Teaching, p 126. 1999–2000. Arlington, VA.: National Science Foundation

Brett, P. and Nagra, J. (2005) An Investigation Into Students’ Use of a Computer-based Social Learning Space: Lessons for Facilitating Collaborative Approaches to Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 36, 281–292
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00457.x

Chapman, C., Ramondt, L. and Smiley, G. (2005) Strong Community, Deep Learning: Exploring the Link. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 42, 217–230
doi:10.1080/01587910500167910

Chapman, K.J., Meuter, M., Toy, D. and Wright, L. (2006) Can’t We Pick Our Own Groups? The Influence of Group Selection Method on Group Dynamics and Outcomes. Journal of Management Education 30, 557–569
doi:10.1177/1052562905284872

Chin, C. and Brown, D.E. (2000) Learning in Science: A Comparison of Deep and Surface Approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37, 109–138
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2<109::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-7

Colbeck, C.L., Campbell, S,E. and Bjorklund, S.A. (2000) Grouping in The Dark: What College Students Learn from Group Projects. Journal of Higher Education 71, 60–83
doi:10.2307/2649282

Coll, R. and Zegwaard, K. (2006) Perceptions of Desirable Graduate Competencies for Science and Technology New Graduates. Research in Science & Technological Education 24, 29-58
doi:10.1080/02635140500485340

Gillies, R.M. (2003) The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Junior High School Students During Small Group Learning. Learning and Instruction 14, 197–213
doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00068-9

Gillies, R.M. and Ashman, A.F. (2003) Co-operative learning: The Social and Intellectual Outcomes of Learning in Groups. London, UK: Routledge Falmer

Hanrahan, S.J. and Isaacs, G. (2001) Assessing Self- and Peer-assessment: The Student’s Views. Higher Education Research and Development 20, 53–70
doi:10.1080/07294360123776

Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1994) Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Mills, P. (2003) Group Project Work with Undergraduate Veterinary Science Students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 28, 527-538

Moni, R. W., Depaz, I. and Lluka, L.B. (2008) Student Perceptions of Social Learning Space: Designing and implementing a Co-operative Assessment Task in Pharmacology. Bioscience Education e-Journal 11-9. doi:10.3108/beej.11.9

Moni, R.W., Hryciw, D. Poronnik, P. and Moni, K.B. (2007) Using Explicit Teaching to Improve How Bioscience Students Write to the Lay Public. Advances in Physiology Education 31, 167–175
doi:10.1152/advan.00111.2006

Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) Formative Assessment and Self-Regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice. Studies in Higher Education 31, 199–218
doi:10.1080/03075070600572090

Oblinger, D. G. (2006) Learning Spaces. EDUCAUSE. www.educause.edu/learningspaces (accessed 18 March 2008)

Pharma-CAL-ogy (2008) Teaching and Learning Technology-based Materials for Pharmacologists www.pharmacalogy.com/index1.html (accessed 11 May 2008)

Prichard, J.S., Stratford, R.J. and Bizo, L.A. (2006) Team-skills Training Enhances Collaborative Learning. Learning and Instruction 16, 256–265
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.005

Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Slavin, R.E. (1990) Cooperative learning: Theory, Research and Practice. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

Teixeira-Dias, J., Pedrosa de Jesus, H., de Souza, F.N. and Watts, M. (2005) Teaching for Quality Learning in Chemistry. International Journal of Science Education 27, 1123–1137
doi:10.1080/09500690500102813

Zemke, S.C., Elger, D. and Beller, J. (2004) Tailoring Cooperative Learning Events for Engineering Classes. In: Proceeding of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition: American Society for Engineering Education