Hi Friends!
Here's something I just posted to my blog and I've re-posted here to ignite some discussion/reflection:
This past week, I had an opportunity to hear Justin Reich (MIT Teaching Labs Researcher) speak for the second time and he referenced a white paper called: "Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics”. His interpretation of the paper was that the data indicated that "it is almost unethical to use lecturing in a control group when comparing with active learning." It reminded me of a recent article I wrote inspired by the book, Teaching Minds by Robert Schank.
While you can access the entire 6-page paper here to come up with your own interpretations, I’ve quoted the abstract from the paper below, for your convenience:
Significance
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology has called for a 33% increase in the number of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) bachelor’s degrees completed per year and recommended adoption of empirically validated teaching practices as critical to achieving that goal. The studies analyzed here document that active learning leads to increases in examination performance that would raise average grades by a half a letter, and that failure rates under traditional lecturing increase by 55% over the rates observed under active learning. The analysis supports theory claiming that calls to increase the number of students receiving STEM degrees could be answered, at least in part, by abandoning traditional lecturing in favor of active learning.
Abstract
To test the hypothesis that lecturing maximizes learning and course performance, we metaanalyzed 225 studies that reported data on examination scores or failure rates when comparing student performance in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses under traditional lecturing versus active learning. The effect sizes indicate that on average, student performance on examinations and concept inventories increased by 0.47 SDs under active learning (n = 158 studies), and that the odds ratio for failing was 1.95 under traditional lecturing (n = 67 studies). These results indicate that average examination scores improved by about 6% in active learning sections, and that students in classes with traditional lecturing were 1.5 times more likely to fail than were students in classes with active learning. Heterogeneity analyses indicated that both results hold across the STEM disciplines, that active learning increases scores on concept inventories more than on course examinations, and that active learning appears effective across all class sizes—although the greatest effects are in small (n ≤ 50) classes. Trim and fill analyses and fail-safe ncalculations suggest that the results are not due to publication bias. The results also appear robust to variation in the methodological rigor of the included studies, based on the quality of controls over student quality and instructor identity. This is the largest and most comprehensive metaanalysis of undergraduate STEM education published to date. The results raise questions about the continued use of traditional lecturing as a control in research studies, and support active learning as the preferred, empirically validated teaching practice in regular classrooms.
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Scott Freeman, Sarah L. Eddy, Miles McDonough, Michelle K. Smith, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hannah Jordt, and Mary Pat Wenderoth.
Big Questions
Two big questions that are still circling in my head include:
- What does “good” active learning look like in my subject area?
- How can I make progress to move away from a lecture-based approach without completely overwhelming myself?
Has this research sparked any questions in your head? I would love to hear about them if you’re willing to share!
Replies
Thanks Kyle, for bringing this research to discussion! It's great to read research that statistically supports what many of us have come to accept as truth through our own classroom experience. For me, I am constantly trying to improve what "good" active learning looks like in my classroom. While I know with certainty that it does NOT include giving my students an algorithm to solve certain Math questions, I do continue to struggle with how to truly connect the active learning in Math class to true student inquiry, so that the insatiable love of learning that children have as little ones is re-born in our adolescent students. In our NORCAN work this year, we are hopeful that STEAM tasks may provide an answer.
As for your question about moving toward more active learning without completely overwhelming myself, that's what our team is for! As you know from our experience with TLLP, if we can work in the classroom as a team and combine our individual talents as teachers, then trying something new seems less intimidating, not to mention so much more fun!
I couldn't agree with you more about algorithms and "steps". Until recently, I was giving students notes that would include steps/procedures to solve a problem of a certain type. I totally sucked out the curiosity and fun from the experience.
This semester, I've been experimenting with avoiding giving students a formally structured note. My concern with the typical "math note" was that students were using this as the only thing that mattered. Memorizing my examples and really, not knowing what to do when the situation changed. So far, things have been going well, but I am thinking as the semester starts to wind down, I might go back and look at consolidating some big ideas as a group.
Thanks for chiming in!