Active Learning: Does It Work? By: Brian Pinney, Ph.D. Educational Specialist Active learning is all the rage these days, but just like any possible education fad, one must ask: does it work? Prior to putting in the effort to integrate more active learning teaching in your lessons, this is a critical question. The short answer is: it depends. Our first challenge in answering this question is actually understanding what is meant by “active learning” in the literature. This joins other such terms as “problem-based learning” or “inquiry” (Woods et al., 2000). Active learning is somewhat poorly defined as any instructional method that engages students in the learning process (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). There are obviously clarifications of this depending on the author you are reading. It is critical to note that learning is an active process. Whether or not students are engaged in “active learning” the act of learning is active. This misnomer is one of my bigger pet peeves but that is a topic for a different writing. The biggest challenge in examining the literature on different instructional approaches that fall under an umbrella is determining the similarity in defined terms: are we all talking about the same thing? The answer with active learning (as with PBL, and inquiry) is typically “no”. This is primarily the result of authors labeling a host of different instructional approaches as “active learning” even though they may share few similarities. For example, taking a pause break in lecture to have students think critically about what they’ve learned is considered “active learning” as would a full PBL experience. These are obviously dramatically different exercises but all fall under the same umbrella as far as research on “active learning” goes.
The second challenge comes in measuring effectiveness to determine if it works. If active learning is about higher order thinking and problem solving, are we measuring that? Often, we look at measures of academic success which may not be trying to measure these things in order to determine effectiveness. Disregarding that being a good idea or not, it is a reality of many of the research studies that look at instructional approaches. Therefore, instead of answering the original question, I’ll change the question to: what elements consistent with active learning are supported by empirical research? Here, there is agreement. Promoting student engagement positively impacts student learning outcomes (Astin, 1993; Hake, 1998; Redish et al, 1997; Laws et al, 1999). These studies typically find that the improved learning gains are due to the nature of the active engagement and not the extra time given to the topic (Prince, 2004). Collaborative learning, reviewed over nearly a century, has been remarkably consistent in finding improved learning outcomes relative to individual work (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998). These results are also found in meta-analyses presented by Springer et al. (Springer et al., 1999) looking at 37 studies in students in undergraduate STEM areas. An important caveat: a reduction in performance was seen on poorly structured activities (students have to know what to do in order to maximize their benefits). Lastly, cooperative learning tends to result in better learning outcomes (Johnson et al., 1998) than competitive and come with the bonus of teaching teamwork and other skills that are desirable in medical professionals. These are skills that must be practiced to improve. Looking to start improving retention in your lecture with minimum modification? Ruhl et al. (1987) showed a significant improvement in retention by taking 2 minute pauses three times (roughly evenly spaced) during their lecture and having students worked in pairs to clarify their notes. When compared to students with straight lecture on short and long-term retention, the clarification group saw 108 correctly recalled facts vs. 80 correct for the lecture only group and approximately an 8% increase in text score performance for the clarification group over lecture only. In summary, many of the ideas inherent in active learning are not new and have been well studied even though “active learning” has been a recent push. The most consistent gains from active learning approaches tend to: 1) engage the students in their learning process (get them to actually do something that isn’t listening to lecture and taking notes), 2) be collaborative (students working together in small groups tends to show gains… but make sure there is some structure), and 3) be cooperative instead of competitive (having groups compete is fine and can be beneficial, but there should be some level of cooperation among students within those groups). Astin, A. (1993). What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. Josey-Bass: San Francisco, CA. Bonwell, C.; Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-Engagement vs Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. American Journal of Physics. 66(1), p. 64 Johnson, D.; Johnson, R.; & Smith, K. (1998). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. 2nd Edition, Interaction Book Co., Edina, MN Laws, P.; Sokoloff, D.; & Thornton, R. (July 1999). Promoting Active Learning Using the Results of Physics Education Research. UniServe Science News, 13. Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education. July 2004, p. 223-231. Redish, E.; Saul, J.; Steinberg, R. (1997). On the Effectiveness of Active-Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories. American Journal of Physics. 61(1), p. 45 Springer, L.; Stanne, M.; & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. 69(1), p. 21-52. Woods, D.; Felder, R.; Rugarcia, A.; Stice, J. (2000). The Future of Engineering Education. III. Developing Critical Skills. Chemical Engineering Education. 34(2), 108-117.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorCenter for Teaching and Learning staff Archives
May 2017
|