Impact of Undergraduate Science Course Innovations on Learning

Ruiz-Primo, María Araceli; Briggs, Derek C.; Iverson, Heidi L.; Talbot, Robert M.; Shepard, Lorrie A.

doi:10.1126/science.1198976

Cited by 195 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

130

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this is the largest and most comprehensive metaanalysis of the undergraduate STEM education literature to date, the weighted, grand mean effect size of 0.47 reported here is almost identical to the weighted, grand-mean effect sizes of 0.50 and 0.51 published in earlier metaanalyses of how alternatives to traditional lecturing impact undergraduate course performance in subsets of STEM disciplines (11,12). Thus, our results are consistent with previous work by other investigators.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics

Freeman

Eddy

McDonough

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

6,394

178

4,541

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 n calculations 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.constructivism | undergraduate education | evidence-based teaching | scientific teaching L ecturing has been the predominant mode of instruction since universities were founded in Western Europe over 900 y ago (1). Although theories of learning that emphasize the need for students to construct their own understanding have challenged the theoretical underpinnings of the traditional, instructorfocused, "teaching by telling" approach (2, 3), to date there has been no quantitative analysis of how constructivist versus exposition-centered methods impact student performance in undergraduate courses across the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. In the STEM classroom, should we ask or should we tell?Addressing this question is essential if scientists are committed to teaching based on evidence rather than tradition (4). The answer could also be part of a solution to the "pipeline problem" that some countries are experiencing in STEM education: For example, the observation that less than 40% of US students who enter university with an interest in STEM, and just 20% of STEM-interested underrepresented minority students, finish with a STEM degree (5).To test the efficacy of constructivist versus exposition-centered course designs, we focused on the design of clas...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics

Freeman

Eddy

McDonough

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

6,394

178

4,541

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly positive results have been found in a variety of secondary implementations in physics classrooms at a wide variety of institution types [13,17]. The PI pedagogy has also spread to other science disciplines [18][19][20][21][22].…”

Section: A Peer Instructionmentioning

confidence: 56%

How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of Peer Instruction

Dancy

Henderson

Turpen

2016

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Preparing and Supporting University Physics Educators.] The lack of knowledge about how to effectively spread and sustain the use of researchbased instructional strategies is currently a significant barrier to the improvement of undergraduate physics education. In this paper we address this lack of knowledge by reporting on an interview study of 35 physics faculty, of varying institution types, who were self-reported users of, former users of, or knowledgeable nonusers of the research-based instructional strategy Peer Instruction. Interview questions included in this analysis focused on the faculty's experiences, knowledge, and use of Peer Instruction, along with general questions about current and past teaching methods used by the interviewee. The primary findings include the following: (i) Faculty self-reported user status is an unreliable measure of their actual practice. (ii) Faculty generally modify specific instructional strategies and may modify out essential components. (iii) Faculty are often unaware of the essential features of an instructional strategy they claim to know about or use. (iv) Informal social interactions provide a significant communication channel in the dissemination process, in contrast to the formal avenues of workshops, papers, websites, etc., often promoted by change agents, and (v) experience with researchbased strategies as a graduate student or through curriculum development work may be highly impactful. These findings indicate that educational transformation can be better facilitated by improving communication with faculty, supporting effective modification by faculty during implementation, and acknowledging and understanding the large impact of informal social interactions as a mode of dissemination.

show abstract

“…Similarly positive results have been found in a variety of secondary implementations in physics classrooms at a wide variety of institution types [3,11]. The PI pedagogy has also spread to other science disciplines [12][13][14][15][16]. There is a lack of conclusive results regarding whether PI is effective at reducing the gender gap in student performance [9,17,18].…”

Section: A Peer Instructionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Perceived affordances and constraints regarding instructors’ use of Peer Instruction: Implications for promoting instructional change

Turpen

Dancy

Henderson

2016

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Preparing and Supporting University Physics Educators.] In order to promote sustained and impactful educational transformation, it is essential for change agents to understand more about faculty perceptions associated with either adopting or not adopting a research-based instructional strategy (RBIS). In this paper, we use interviews with 35 physics faculty to examine barriers and affordances to the use of the research-based instructional strategy of Peer Instruction. We found that the most common reasons faculty give for aligning their instruction with Peer Instruction is that it is not lecture and they have had positive experiences with Peer Instruction. The most common reasons faculty give for not using Peer Instruction are concerns about the time it will take, the loss of content coverage, and having had bad experiences with it. Additionally, we found the perceived barriers to be very different depending on whether the interviewee was a user of Peer Instruction or not, with nonusers being more concerned with time and users being more concerned with implementation difficulties. It is important for change agents to understand and address concerns faculty have about implementing researchbased instructional strategies. Based on these results we offer four recommendations for those interested in promoting educational transformation toward research-based instructional strategies: (1) do not waste a lot of time criticizing lecture-based instruction and convincing faculty of the value of research-based strategies (they are already dissatisfied with lecture), (2) understand and address concerns faculty have about implementing active learning techniques, (3) focus on supporting and encouraging faculty experiences with RBIS, (4) address concerns faculty new to RBIS have about the time and energy needed to change.

show abstract

Impact of Undergraduate Science Course Innovations on Learning

Cited by 195 publications

References 12 publications

Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics

Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics

How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of Peer Instruction

Perceived affordances and constraints regarding instructors’ use of Peer Instruction: Implications for promoting instructional change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About