| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Articles |
*Digital Media Center, and Biology Program, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN 55455
Submitted February 8, 2008; Revised June 3, 2008; Accepted June 20, 2008
Monitoring Editor: Marshall Sundberg
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Research in life sciences education has demonstrated the educational potential of active-learning techniques (McClanahan and McClanahan, 2002; Knight and Wood, 2005; Freeman et al., 2007), but much of this literature focuses on small classes, considers only small-scale implementations of active learning, or takes biology majors as subjects rather than the general student population. In this paper we describe the implementation and evaluation of a large-enrollment, introductory-level class that adopted a variety of active-learning techniques. By replacing most lecturing with student-centered activities (e.g., hands-on exercises, group work, practice quizzes), we tried to bring the effects of not lecturing into sharp focus. We showcase a mixed bag of results regarding the impact of active-learning techniques, including improvements in student learning outcomes along with less positive student evaluations of the course and its instructors. We conclude by recommending a mixed-format approach that blends structured active-learning exercises with mini-lectures to maximize the strengths of each approach to teaching.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The challenges we encounter in Biology 1001 are documented in the literature on large-lecture environments (Wulff et al, 1987; Carbone, 1999; Cuseo, 2007) and on the shortcomings of the lecture method more generally (Penner, 1984; Milton, et al., 1986; Slavin, 1991; Bligh, 2000; Stanley and Porter, 2002; Cuseo, 2007). They include:
In the fall of 2006, we decided to address these challenges. We believed that because science itself is dynamic, multidisciplinary, and problem-based, science courses are ideal candidates for student-centered approaches (Hake, 1998; Herreid, 1998; Zoller, 2000; Handelsman et al., 2004; DeHahn, 2005; Smith et al., 2005; Armstrong et al., 2007).
To make room in the class sessions for active-learning exercises, we made a conscious decision not to "cover" all of the class material during the designated class meetings. Previous research has shown that content-intensive courses can be less effective than minimized-content classes at promoting overall student understanding, particularly with nonscience majors (Sundberg et al., 1994; Crouch and Mazur, 2001; Knight and Wood, 2005). We felt that certain concepts and areas of knowledge received sufficient treatment in the class materials, especially in the textbook, so we decided not to discuss these areas during class even though students were held responsible on quizzes and exams for mastering them.
A lecture section of Biology 1001 that historically enrolled more than 500 students was split into two smaller sections of approximately 250 students each. The first section had course elements including lecture, unannounced quizzes, and multiple-choice exams; this will be referred to as the "traditional" section. The second section had course elements that included a wide variety of structured, ungraded, group activities, extremely shortened lectures, unannounced quizzes, a few graded homework assignments, and multiple-choice exams nearly identical to those of the first section. This was our "active" section. Both sections were team-taught by the same two experienced instructors and both included identical 20-person lab sections supervised by a graduate teaching assistant (differences between the sections are summarized in Table 1). Aside from two graded homework assignments, taking the place of two unannounced quizzes in the active section, grades were based on the same exercises in both courses. Both sections were offered in 75-min blocks on Tuesdays and Thursdays for 15 wk; the active section met from 11:15 to 12:30, whereas the traditional section met from 8:15 to 9:30.
|
In their groups, students engaged in four different types of activities (activities are listed in Supplemental Material 1):
Hypotheses
We used the two sections of Biology 1001 to study the effects of active learning in a quasi-experimental design. We hypothesized that the incorporation of group activities into the class would have positive effects on student:
Sample
The active section contained 263 students and the traditional section contained 240 students. Although students could not be randomly assigned to the two sections, analysis of demographic data indicated no significant differences between the two groups on variables such as students' year in school, overall GPA, and gender.
Measures
Data collection instruments included the standard online University of Minnesota Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) form1; in-class quizzes and exams; and a survey of science confidence, interest, and understanding that was administered to both sections of the class at the beginning and at the end of the term (see Supplemental Material 1 for the full text of the survey). Because this survey was administered in class, response rates were high (see Table 2 for details). Questions on this survey were drawn from the Student Assessment of Learning Gains instrument developed by the Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities project.2 Students in the active section also evaluated specific in-class activities as well as general course elements.
|
Finally, an online follow-up survey was delivered in March 2007 that repeated the initial questions about science confidence and interest and that asked additional questions of the students in the active section, focusing primarily on their perceptions of group work. Seventy-four students from the traditional course (30.8% of the total) and 76 students from the active course (28.9%) completed this follow-up survey. Unless reported otherwise, significant differences should be interpreted at 
= 0.05.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Analysis of the distribution of final grades revealed that students at the bottom end of the grade distribution appear to have benefited most from active learning. The traditional section had a wider range of grades, stronger negative skewing, and a larger SD than the active section. Perhaps most revealing, in the traditional section, 11 of 240 students had final grades under 40 percentage points; in the active section only one student out of 263 had a final grade this low (see Table 3), and this one student did not actually complete the course. In fact, an analysis of our Biology 1001 classes offered since fall 2002 revealed that the fall 2006 active section was the only large-enrollment section (excluding the smaller summer and evening sections) in which no student completing the course received an "F."
|
There were no significant differences between beginning-of-term confidence levels for the two sections, but end-of-term survey results showed significantly higher confidence levels for students in the traditional section on five out of nine items (other items showed no significant difference). Students in the traditional section therefore appear to have made greater gains in confidence during fall 2006 than did students in the active section.
Figure 1 shows the differences in the percentage of students who said they were extremely or highly confident for the following items at the end of the term (all differences significant at = 0.05):
|
On the March 2007 follow-up survey, however, there were no significant differences between confidence levels for the two sections, indicating that the section differences in confidence that were apparent at the end of fall 2006 had disappeared by March 2007.
Science Interest
Another set of nine questions on the beginning and end-of-term surveys asked students about their degree of interest in science. Interest levels dropped very slightly on all questions from the beginning to the end of the semester for both sections of Biology 1001. Beginning and end-of-term interest levels were statistically the same for both sections.
On the March 2007 follow-up survey, there were no significant differences in science interest for the two sections.
Usefulness of Class-Related Activities
An extra 12 questions on the end-of-term survey asked students about the value (in terms of preparing for exams) of a variety of activities related to the class (e.g., reading the text, coming to class, working in groups).
Students in the traditional section found 3 of 10 items significantly more useful in preparing for exams than students in the active section did. Students in the active section found one item significantly more useful, namely "doing the assigned reading in the text."
Figure 2 shows the differences in the percentage of students who said the following activities were extremely or highly useful (all differences significant at = 0.05):
|
Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Scores
Student evaluations of the instructors (on items such as overall teaching ability, knowledge of subject, respect and concern for students, how much learned, the course overall) were significantly and substantially higher in the traditional than in the active section (Table 4). The response rate for this online survey was 
50% for both sections.
|
Qualitative Data
Narrative data were gathered from an analysis of nearly 150 responses to open-ended questions on the end-of-term SET form and from a student focus group held in October 2006. Several prominent themes emerged from these data, including:
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
A number of worries remain, however, about using active-learning techniques in large classes. For instance, students in the active-learning section finished the term with significantly lower confidence in some of their science-related skills and knowledge. The active-learning students also valued reading the textbook more, and going to class less, than their colleagues in the traditional section. We hypothesize that these results show the power of the student views about teaching and learning noted above. Because there was very little direct presentation of information in the active-learning section, students may have felt they were not learning. But our learning outcome data show that they did learn, confirming what others have noted (Gremmen and Potters, 1997; Emerson and Taylor, 2004), namely that student perceptions of their own learning are not always accurate. In fact, students may have been given a more authentic taste of scientific practice by being faced—repeatedly—with real-world phenomena, data, and ambiguity.
One common source of instructor resistance to active-learning techniques is the worry that these techniques take time away from lecture, which means that not all of one's course material can be covered in a more student-centered class. It is true that active learning takes time, but our data suggest that there is no need to present everything in class. Certain topics lend themselves to independent learning, and our qualitative data show that students are not disturbed by being held responsible for material that was not "covered" in class as long as they are made aware of what they must learn on their own.
Our implementation of active learning could be improved. Many students, particularly underclassmen, see learning as the accumulation of unambiguous information and resist active-learning techniques when they believe these techniques fail to provide them with needed information. Classroom activities could therefore be structured in such a way that they do not compete with students' needs. A concerted effort to explain to students that class time will be spent on activities designed to grapple with the most difficult concepts, classroom assessments, and customized mini-lectures may help create a better perception that classroom activities are meeting students' needs. The implementation described herein did not include a comprehensive explanation of active learning, nor were we overtly solicitous of student metacognition. Research shows that first-year students in particular are more receptive to active-learning techniques, so proper introduction of their value seems imperative to capture the enthusiasm of all students (Messineo et al., 2007).
One way to accomplish a more positive student reception of active-learning courses would be to organize classes so as to achieve a judicious balance of student-centered activities and presentation-style instruction. There were many indications in our qualitative data that students would welcome a class structure that split time approximately evenly between active-learning exercises and mini-lectures.
Further, students' desire to know the right answer could be accommodated by ensuring that active-learning exercises scaffold students to the point at which they grasp the relevant information, or by integrating such exercises with mini-lectures that present factual information more directly. Finally, instructors should be sure that class activities align properly with what is measured by class exams.
The substantial disparity in SET scores noted above represents a further worry about using active-learning techniques in large classrooms. To the extent that student evaluations figure into the faculty reward system, this disparity could function as a significant deterrent to faculty who might otherwise like to introduce greater variety into their lecture-based classes.
Our hypothesis is that SET scores in the traditional section were high because both professors are energetic, experienced, and likeable instructors. They are good performers who work well in the lecture-mode classroom. As noted above, lecturing directs student attention toward the lecturers themselves rather than toward other features of the class. By contrast, the active-learning section was the first time either instructor had taught a class in this mode. The majority of the activities were developed just before or during fall semester 2006, and student responses indicate that some of the activities were simply unsuccessful.
We believe, therefore, that SET scores for large classes that involve active learning will improve when instructors become more experienced and comfortable with this mode of teaching; when the learning activities themselves have been fine-tuned; and when the class features a balance of active learning with mini-lectures. Furthermore, insofar as it is possible and effective, instructors should make an effort to explain fully the value of active learning and to dispel the tendency to view it as simplistic or unrelated to assessments.
We were pleased to find a significant increase in class attendance in the active section, despite the fact that the number of unannounced quizzes was the same in both sections. We were also somewhat surprised by this finding, given that students in the active section valued coming to class significantly less than students in the traditional section did. It is possible that students feel less anonymous in a class devoted to active learning than in a lecture-based class, and that this feeling motivated greater attendance. This same perceived loss of anonymity might also contribute to students' preference for a traditional approach in required courses (Machemer and Crawford, 2007).
Attendance may also function as a mediator variable in the context of this study, because attendance was significantly correlated with student learning outcomes (r = 0.435, p < 0.01). In other words, as Freeman et al. (2007) note, attendance may be a mechanism by which active learning has some of its effects on student learning outcomes.3 However, because attendance is likely to be confounded with a number of other variables (e.g., high-performing students may be more likely to attend class), it is difficult to determine the degree to which this is true.
|
CONCLUSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
But we are close to a tipping point at which we can recognize that "active learning" or "scientific teaching" or "engaged pedagogies" make a significant difference in large lecture formats (Handelsman et al, 2004; Prince, 2004; Smith et al., 2005). Our findings push us closer to this point, by showcasing the positive effects of active teaching methods on learning outcomes, particularly for low-performing students. Given constraints on the average instructor's time and student expectations for content delivery, however, we believe a mixed-format approach may be the best plan for large lecture classes. Far from advocating wholesale abandonment of lecture, we must recognize the evolution of classroom practices that include different ways of engaging students.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
2 For more information, see www.sencer.net.
3 Freeman and colleagues also found that active learning has good effects on low-performing students. See Freeman et al., 2007.
Address correspondence to: J. D. Walker (jdwalker{at}umn.edu)
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Bland, M., Saunders, G., and Kreps Frisch, J. (2007). In defense of the lecture. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 37(2), 10–13.
Bligh, D. A. (2000). What's The Use Of Lectures? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burgan, M. (2006). In defense of lecturing. Change 38, 30–35.
Carbone, E. (1999). Students behaving badly in large classes. New Dir. Teaching Learning 77, 35–43.
Cotner, S., Baepler, P., and Kellerman, A. (2008). Scratch this!: the IF-AT as a technique for stimulating group discussion and exposing misconceptions. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. (in press).
Crouch, C. H., and Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. Am. J. Phys. 69, 970–977.
Cuseo, J. (2007). The empirical case against large class size: adverse effects on the teaching, learning, and retention of first-year students. J. Fac. Dev. 21, 5–22.
DeHaan, R. L. (2005). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. J. Sci. Educ. Tech. 14, 253–269.[CrossRef]
Emerson, T. L. N., and Taylor, B. A. (2004). Comparing student achievement across experimental and lecture-oriented sections of a principles of microeconomics course. South. Econ. J. 70, 672–693.
Epstein, M. L., Lazarus, A. D., Calvano, T. B., Matthews, K. A., Hendel, R. A., Epstein, B. B., and Brosvic, G. M. (2002). Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. Psych. Record 52, 187–201.
Freeman, S., O'Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., Dirks, C., and Wenderoth, M. P. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 6, 132–139.
Gremmen, H., and Potters, J. (1997). Assessing the efficacy of gaming in economic education. J. Econ. Educ. 28, 291–303.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 66, 64–74.
Handelsman, J. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science 304, 521–522.
Herreid, C. F. (1998). Why isn't cooperative learning used to teach Science? Bioscience 48, 553–559.
Knight, J. K., and Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 4, 298–310.
Krueger, R. A., and Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Machemer, P. L., and Crawford, P. (2007). Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Act. Learn. Higher Educ. 8, 9–30.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User's Manual, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McClanahan, E. B., and McClanahan, L. L. (2002). Active learning in a non-majors biology class: lessons learned. Coll. Teach. 50, 92–96.
Messineo, M., Gaither, G., Bolt, J., and Ritchey, K. (2007). Inexperienced versus experienced students' expectations for active learning in large classes. Coll. Teach. 55, 125–133.
Milton, O., Pollio, H. R., and Eison, J. A. (1986). Making Sense of College Grades, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Penner, J. (1984). Why Many College Teachers Cannot Lecture, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Powell, K. (2003). Spare me the lecture. Nature 425, 234–236.[CrossRef][Medline]
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. J. Engr. Educ. 93, 223–231.
Rehm, J. (2007). Burgan battles: lecture - strawman or villain? The National Teaching and Learning Forum 3. no pagination.
Stanley, C. A., and Porter, M.E. (2002). Teaching large classes: a brief review of the research. In: Engaging Large Classes: Strategies And Techniques For College Faculty, ed. C.A. Stanley and M.E. Porter, Bolton, MA: Anker, 143–152.
Slavin, R. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership 48, 71–82.
Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: classroom-based practices. J. Engineer. Educ. 94, 87–101.
Sundberg, M. D., Dini, M. L., and Li, E. (1994). Decreasing course content improves student comprehension of science and attitudes towards science in freshman biology. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 31, 679–693.[CrossRef]
Walker, J. D., and Jorn, L. (2007). Net Generation Students at The University of Minnesota: Student Technology Survey 2007, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Digital Media Center, Office of Information Technology.
Wilson, K., and Korn, J. H. (2007). Attention during lectures: beyond ten minutes. Teaching of Psychology 34, 85–89.
Wulff, D. H., Nyquist, J. D., and Abbott, R. D. (1987). Students' perceptions of large classes. In: Teaching Large Classes Well. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, ed. M.G. Weimer, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 17–30.
Zoller, U. (2000). Teaching tomorrow's college science courses – Are we getting it right? J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 29, 409–414.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. W. Preszler Replacing Lecture with Peer-led Workshops Improves Student Learning CBE Life Sci Educ, September 1, 2009; 8(3): 182 - 192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Armbruster, M. Patel, E. Johnson, and M. Weiss Active Learning and Student-centered Pedagogy Improve Student Attitudes and Performance in Introductory Biology CBE Life Sci Educ, September 1, 2009; 8(3): 203 - 213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
