Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses

Abstract

Previous research has suggested that adding active learning to traditional college science lectures substantially improves student learning. However, this research predominantly studied courses taught by science education researchers, who are likely to have exceptional teaching expertise. The present study investigated introductory biology courses randomly selected from a list of prominent colleges and universities to include instructors representing a broader population. We examined the relationship between active learning and student learning in the subject area of natural selection. We found no association between student learning gains and the use of active-learning instruction. Although active learning has the potential to substantially improve student learning, this research suggests that active learning, as used by typical college biology instructors, is not associated with greater learning gains. We contend that most instructors lack the rich and nuanced understanding of teaching and learning that science education researchers have developed. Therefore, active learning as designed and implemented by typical college biology instructors may superficially resemble active learning used by education researchers, but lacks the constructivist elements necessary for improving learning.

Figure 1.

Comparison of instructor reports of their weekly use of specific active-learning exercises and instructor reports of their general use of active-learning exercises as defined by Hake (1998a). The line in the middle of the box represents the median weekly frequency of active-learning use for instructors in the group. The top of the box represents data points in the 75th percentile and the bottom of the box represents data points in the 25th percentile. The space within the box is called the interquartile range (IQR). Whiskers represent the lowest and highest data points no more than 1.5 times the IQR above and below the box. Data points not included in this range are represented as circles.

Figure 2.

Relationship between learning gains (Cohen's d) and the number of active-learning exercises an instructor used per week. The number of active-learning exercises per week was calculated by summing the number of times per week instructors reported using all of the exercises described in Table 2. (A) Learning gains on the CINS-abbr (n = 33). (B) Learning gains on the cheetah question (n = 29).

Figure 3.

Relationship between four different calculations of learning gains on the CINS-abbr and the number of active-learning exercises an instructor used per week. The CINS-abbr was scored out of 10 points, so a raw change of one is equivalent to earning one more point on the posttest than on the pretest. Overall, these graphs are very similar; there is no evidence of a positive relationship between learning gains and the use of active-learning instruction, no matter how we calculate learning gains.