Very well conducted research showing that, in the study sample, active learning does not produce any significant gains compared with the inactive variety. What is most interesting is the reason the authors discover for this, which fits perfectly with the model of soft/hard technologies that I have been developing and writing about in my forthcoming book on how learning technologies work. In brief, it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. Softer constructivist methods are extremely effective if the teacher uses them skillfully but, if not, they are pretty hopeless and may be positively harmful. Most studies of active learning have involved researchers who know what they are doing and engage with passion and enthusiasm as well as expertise, whereas this study simply grabs a random sample or people using active learning methods in their classrooms. The one and possibly the only benefit of harder formulaic methods of teaching is that they are rather more resilient to bad teachers (and/or those that do not have enough time or energy for the task as a result of other pressures).
There are other good insights in this paper - it is well worth reading if you have an interest in education.
Bookmarks are a great way to share web pages you have found with others (including those on this site) and to comment on them and discuss them.
We welcome comments on public posts from members of the public. Please note, however, that all comments made on public posts must be moderated by their owners before they become visible on the site. The owner of the post (and no one else) has to do that.
If you want the full range of features and you have a login ID, log in using the links at the top of the page or at https://landing.athabascau.ca/login (logins are secure and encrypted)
Posts made here are the responsibility of their owners and may not reflect the views of Athabasca University.
Comments
This article made me think of other kinds of educational research I should be reading up on as a learning designer.
I haven't taken biology since high school, but I am aware of the three concepts the "cheetah question" was supposed to activate (the existence of phenotypic variation within a population, the heritability of that variation, and differential reproductive success among individuals). When I read the question, my mind went immediately to the third concept, and when I saw the rubric I realized that for me the first two were presupposed (or is it entailed? implied?) by the third. I probably would have gotten 33% on this question even though I essentially knew the answer.
I can recall analagous situations both as a teacher and learner where I did not spell things out that seemed obvious in the context, and I should have, either to get full points on an assessment or to get the pertinent information across to students. Here are some issues relating to my job that this article brings to mind:
I don't know if I got what you had hoped we would from this article, but I liked it.
- Mary Pringle