Is active learning really better? | New Mexico State University

Dear Aggie,

I have heard about active learning, and am curious to know more about it. Is it just another teaching and learning "buzzword", or is it really better than my clear and organized lectures?

~Actively Curious

Dear Actively Curious,

Thank you for your question; this is a topic near and dear to my heart. The short answer to your question is that, yes, active learning is more effective than straight lecturing. But let's take a closer look at what it is and the evidence for its efficacy.

What is active learning?

Active learning is any approach that has students doing anything to meaningfully engage with the material. This can include discussing the material, writing about the material, reflecting on the material, analyzing data or scenarios related to the material, and designing or predicting experiments, interventions or outcomes, based on the material. It is pretty much anything that intentionally goes beyond passively listening to a lecture. You can get an overview of basic active learning strategies at this webpage from the University of Minnesota.

What does the evidence say about active learning?

There have been literally thousands of papers written about active learning (a recent PubMed search for active learning returned just over 34,000 results). I am just going to highlight a few articles that (I think) make a particularly convincing case.

Scott Freeman and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 225 studies that compared STEM courses taught by active learning and traditional lecturing (Freeman et al., 2014). They found that exam scores were 6% higher (over half a letter grade—enough to impact passing or failing the exam!) with active learning, and that course failure rates were higher with traditional lecturing.

Elli Theobald and colleagues extended this work in 2020 (Theobald et al., 2020). They looked at exam scores from 15 studies (representing 9,238 students) and course pass/fail rates from 26 studies (representing 44,606 students). In this case, they looked at disparities (gaps) in exam scores and course pass rates between minoritized groups in STEM and their well-represented peers. Active learning reduced these gaps in exam scores and pass rates by 33% and 45%, respectively. They also found that the intensity of active learning was important. In order to maximize the benefits of active learning on both pass rates and on reducing disparities in pass rates, active learning had to occur at "high" intensity (taking up a substantial portion of class time). As they note: "Active learning benefits all students but offers disproportionate benefits for individuals from underrepresented groups."

Finally, an empirical study published in 2011 put active learning and traditional lecturing head-to-head in week 12 of an undergraduate introductory physics course. A control section was taught by a highly accomplished and experienced faculty member, and the parallel experimental section was taught by an inexperienced postdoc, using active learning strategies. Both sections were comparable prior to week 12, scoring 51% and 59% on the first two exams, and having attendance around 55% of students, and engagement at about 45%. During week 12, attendance in the experimental section increased to 75% and engagement increased to 85%. Both sections took a 12-question multiple choice test on the content of week 12. The control section scored 41% and the experimental section scored 74% (despite the fact that the postdoc was only able to get to 11 out of the 12 topics during their week of instruction). Finally, student surveys indicated that students in the experimental section enjoyed the active learning approach.

I hope that this information will be enough at least partially satisfy your curiosity. If you'd like to learn more, or start to implement some active learning strategies in your courses, the NMSU Teaching Academy is a great place to start!

~Aggie

Resources

Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E. and Weiman, C. (2011) Improved Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class. Science 332: 862-864.
Freeman et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(23): 8410-8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Theobald, E. J., M. J. Hill, E. Tran, S. Agrawal, E. N. Arroyo et al., 2020 Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117: 6476-6483.
University of Minnesota, Basic Active Learning Strategies. https://cei.umn.edu/teaching-resources/active-learning