What Do You Mean Active Learning Doesn?t Work!?!
1. Andrews, T.M., Leonard, M.J., Colgrove, C.A., &
Kalinowski, S.T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning
in a random sample of college biology courses, CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10,
394-405. Retrieved 11 April 2012. DOI:10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061
Active Learning
Although ?active learning? as an approach to classroom
instruction has been around for decades, its widespread acceptance and
deployment has been hastened by the publication of numerous studies
demonstrating that active learning techniques have a positive and significant
impact on student learning. As an ?instructional method that engages students
in the learning process? (Prince, 2004, p. 223), active learning is comprised
of a host of classroom activities such as class discussion, group-work,
structured student debates, simulations, games, and collaborative problem-solving.
Along with its corollaries ? constructivism, collaborative learning, team-based
learning (Michaelsen, Bauman-Knight, & Fink, 2003), & problem-based
learning ? active learning often is contrasted with passive learning, a
modality most frequently associated with lecture-based pedagogies.
Among the most important studies that have secured active
learning?s place of prominence in the scholarship of teaching and learning is a
seminal meta-analysis conducted by Michael Prince, who concludes that, ?Although
the results vary in strength, this study has found support for all forms of
active learning examined? (2004, p. 7). However, the authors of the study
considered here note that there is the potential for significant bias in
existing scientific literature on the impact of active learning techniques.
Andrews, Leonard, Colgrove, and Kalinowski contend that given that most studies
are authored by instructors who 1) are deeply interested in science education,
and 2) are engaged in the scholarship of teaching and learning, it is possible
that this interest and engagement might enhance their ability to deploy active
learning effectively resulting in the gains observed and reported. The authors,
therefore, hypothesize that the results produced by instructors with extens
ive experience
using and researching active learning teaching techniques are not comparable to
the larger population of science instructors who may not be engaged in
educational research.
Data & Methods
The authors randomly selected 77 colleges and
universities from a list of 144 institutions (comprised of the 2 largest in
each state + top 50 according to the U.S. News & Report rankings). From
these randomly selected schools, the authors identified introductory biology
courses that included a unit on natural selection and invited 88 instructors to
participate in the three-semester study. Of these, 33 (38%) instructors
accepted the invitation resulting in a sample that included 29 courses at 28
institutions in 22 states; controls for self-selection bias were employed using
comparative data collected from non-participants.
For student data, the authors employed the Conceptual
Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) ? Abbreviated version, a 10-question
multiple-choice test on the topic of natural selection that has been subjected
to validity tests by instrument developers and inter-rater reliability testing
by the authors. Additionally, students completed an open-ended question in
which they applied knowledge of natural selection to a question regarding the
adaptive ability of cheetahs to run quickly; responses to these questions were
graded using an established rubric, the results of which were subjected to
inter-rater reliability testing (Pearson?s r = 0.93). Data regarding student
experiences, instructor teaching methods, frequency of classroom activities,
and the like were collected via instructor and student surveys.
For the analysis, the authors primarily used the Cohen?s
d for repeated measures statistic to measure learning gains, but compared the
Cohen?s d results with other established learning gains measures (e.g.
normalized gains, % change, raw change) to confirm their findings. To establish
the relationship with the theoretical variables of interest, the authors
employed a generalized linear regression model that included a host of controls
for instructor and student variation.
Findings
There are four main findings reported in this article.
First, instructors reported using active learning techniques frequently (8.03
instances/week). Second, learning gains were modest for both the CINS test
(Cohen?s d = -0.11 to 1.26; mean effect size = 0.49; normalized gain = 0.26)
and the open-ended question (Cohen?s d = -0.16 to 0.58; mean effect size =
0.15; normalized gain = 0.06). Third, no association between the frequency of
active learning activities and how much students learned about natural
selection was found. That is, student learning was not positively associated
with the amount of active learning used. Fourth, other factors, such as
overcoming misconceptions, course difficulty, and how interesting a course was,
were positively associated with student learning.
Discussion and Implications
The implications of the finding that active learning is
not associated with student learning has implications for two important groups
in the academy: 1) researchers and faculty development professionals, and 2)
instructors. For the former, the authors recommend that researchers need to
identify what it is about active learning that makes it effective. Those
findings, in turn, need to inform the development of a broad set of active
learning strategies and exercises that are fungible [i.e.,interchangeable],
useful, and easily distributed to a broad population. Faculty development
programs can be built around these strategies and exercises to train and
support the general population of instructors in using active learning more
effectively. For the latter, instructors cannot assume that they are effective
teachers just because they are using active learning exercises; they need
empirical evidence that is garnered through a carefully planned assessment
protocol to help them under
stand what is and
what is not working. Furthermore, given that it is highly unlikely that students
will not alter their a priori beliefs about a particular topic (e.g. natural
selection) without targeted instruction, instructors need to identify what
preexisting beliefs students possess and plan their approach to the topic
accordingly.
Four methodological issues may limit the effectiveness
and accuracy of this study. First, the selection process does not really appear
as random as the authors purport with an a priori winnowing of possible
participants and participants? self-selection into the study. Second,
self-reported frequencies of events and activities is a highly individuated
task that can introduce biased or incorrect responses due to a host of factors,
not the least of which is individual memory. Third, the number of courses
included in the analysis is relatively small, limiting the statistical power to
detect with a great deal of accuracy the impact of active learning techniques.
Fourth, although the CINS is both a valid and reliable instrument, it might not
be the appropriate instrument given the amount of instructor, course, and
institutional variation inherent to the study.
While the article?s title is jarring and certainly grabs
one?s attention, the general thrust of this research is not that active
learning is inherently ineffective, but active learning can be executed poorly,
just like any other teaching technique. Most instructors need coaching,
examples of good practice, and faculty development programs that encourage a
fundamental shift in pedagogical approach if it is to be effective.
References
Michaelsen, L., Bauman-Knight, Arletta, & Fink, D.
(2003) Team-based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College
Teaching, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of
the research. Journal of Engineering Edu
--------
1. The authors used multiple calculations for learning
gains, each of which were highly intercorrelated, to demonstrate general
consistency in results regardless the methodology used.
No comments:
Post a Comment