Evaluating the Impact of Active Learning Strategies on Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor Domains in Undergraduate Allied Health Students
Keywords:
Active learning, Allied health students, Cognitive domain, Affective domain, Psychomotor skills.Abstract
Background: Active learning helps in having meaningful interaction between students and teachers, creating an engaging learning environment that boosts communication, confidence, and participation. Absence of such an environment may affect student productivity and learning outcomes. Aim: To determine the effect of active learning strategies on the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains in the allied health students and explore interrelationships between learner attributes. Methods: This is an observational cross-sectional study which included 150 first-year Allied health students after Institutional ethical clearance. The students were assigned with selected topics and asked to present them for 3–5 minutes before the first internal examination. For the Preparedness and performance assessment, for theory and practical with a validated self-report and interview-based Likert scale questionnaire. The scores were analysed across cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. Descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation, and multiple regression analysis were performed. Results: Mean scores were 8.21 ± 3.12 for the cognitive domain, 5.15 ± 1.81 for the affective domain, and 7.41 ± 1.41 for the psychomotor domain. Pearson’s correlation showed significant positive associations (P < 0.01) between confidence and fluency, content and body language. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated a significant negative relationship between teamwork and skill. Conclusion: Active learning strategies improved learner engagement across domains. Educational approaches should balance development of individual skills with collaboration and interpersonal communication to strengthen teamwork and group learning outcomes.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
References
1. Hartikainen S, Rintala H, Pylväs L, Nokelainen P. The concept of active learning and the measurement of learning outcomes: a review of research in engineering higher education. Educ Sci. 2019;9(4):276.
2. Wilke RR. The effect of active learning on student characteristics in a human physiology course for non-majors. Adv Physiol Educ. 2003;27(4):20723.
3. Nur S, Short M. Secondary English language teacher educators: voices from Bangladesh. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2020;8(6):2251-2260. doi:10.13189/ujer.2020.080608.
4. Erlina D, Marzulina L, Astrid A, Desvitasari D, Sapriati RS, Amrina RD, et al. Linguistic intelligence of undergraduate EFL learners in higher education: a case study. Univers J Educ Res. 2019;7(10):2143-55.
5. Shankar V, Kutty K, Chacko T. Small-groups application based learning approach (SABLA): from pilot to curricular change in physiology. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2018;62(4):479-82.
6. Bonwell CC, Eison JA. Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington (DC): George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development; 1991.