This explanation is consistent with previous research indicating that active learning has a greater impact on student mastery of higher- versus lower-level cognitive skills ( 6– 9), and the recognition that most concept inventories are designed to diagnose known misconceptions, in contrast to course examinations that emphasize content mastery or the ability to solve quantitative problems ( 10). Although student achievement was higher under active learning for both types of assessments, we hypothesize that the difference in gains for examinations versus concept inventories may be due to the two types of assessments testing qualitatively different cognitive skills. We followed guidelines for best practice in quantitative reviews ( SI Materials and Methods), and evaluated student performance using two outcome variables: ( i) scores on identical or formally equivalent examinations, concept inventories, or other assessments or ( ii) failure rates, usually measured as the percentage of students receiving a D or F grade or withdrawing from the course in question (DFW rate).įor the data on examinations and other assessments, a heterogeneity analysis indicated that average effect sizes were lower when the outcome variable was an instructor-written course examination as opposed to performance on a concept inventory ( Fig. The active learning interventions varied widely in intensity and implementation, and included approaches as diverse as occasional group problem-solving, worksheets or tutorials completed during class, use of personal response systems with or without peer instruction, and studio or workshop course designs. More specifically, we compared the results of experiments that documented student performance in courses with at least some active learning versus traditional lecturing, by metaanalyzing 225 studies in the published and unpublished literature. To test the efficacy of constructivist versus exposition-centered course designs, we focused on the design of class sessions-as opposed to laboratories, homework assignments, or other exercises. 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. This is the largest and most comprehensive metaanalysis of undergraduate STEM education published to date. 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. Trim and fill analyses and fail-safe n calculations suggest that the results are not due to publication bias. 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. 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.

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).

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.

Freing fman