Student Learning Gains Through Curriculum Modification in a College Introductory Human Nutrition Course
Authors: Stewart Maria L 
Published: November 2023

Colleges and universities often encourage faculty to use alternative teaching approaches that emphasize “active learning.” Active learning has been defined as an “instructional method that engages students in the learning process. In short, active learning requires students to do meaningful learning activities and think about what they are doing” (1). In Spring 2013, this instructor taught two sections of an introductory human nutrition course at the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM): one section was taught in a technology enhanced classroom that was conducive to active learning (ActLearn, n=64) while the other section was taught in a large auditorium designed for lecture (Lect, n=286). Both sections used the same textbook and the same core presentation materials. Student learning was assessed via the exact same graded items: three assignments, ten weekly online quizzes, three midterm exams, and final exam. Both sections met for 75 minutes, two days per week, for 15 weeks. The only differences between the ActLearn and Lect sections were the instructional approach, physical classroom, and student enrollment. The ActLearn curriculum consisted of approximately 35% lecture and 65% active learning components. The active learning components included small group discussion questions, problem solving via case studies, and reinforcement of key content and skills with instructor and teaching assistant guidance. Reinforcement activities focused on skills needed to complete Assignment 2 (personal diet analysis), Assignment 3 (MyPlate and food group identification), and preparation for midterm and final exams. The Lect curriculum consisted of approximately 75% lecture and 25% reinforcement activity/video. Due to the high enrollment of the Lect section, instructor and teaching assistant interaction was limited. Statistical tests (t‐test, chi‐square test) were conducted with SAS statistical software (v 9.4). This study was approved by the University of Hawaii at Manoa Human Studies Program CHS# 21168. The percent of students receiving letter grades A, B, C, D, or F was similar between sections (p= 0.7057). When comparing student scores on graded items, students scored significantly better on Assignment 2 and Assignment 3 in ActLearn compared to Lect (mean score 9.5/10 vs 9.3/10, p=0.0418; 8.8/10 vs 8.5/10, p=0.0112). Midterm exam and final exam scores did not differ between sections. The end‐of‐semester teaching evaluation scores were statistically similar between sections, with the exception of one question: The instructor stresses important points in lectures/discussions (rated on a five‐point scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree). ActLearn students rated this question higher than Lect students (4.78 vs 4.61, p = 0.0295). These data demonstrate that the reinforcement activities enhanced student learning as demonstrated by improved scores on Assignments 2 and 3. Additionally, the students recognized the reinforcement activities in class based on the higher score on the end‐of‐semester teaching evaluations. In conclusion, although active learning curriculum may place greater burden on the instructor, the gains in student learning are measureable and have a positive impact on student performance.Support or Funding InformationTravel to this conference is supported by the University of Hawaii at Manoa Honors Program.