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

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 111, Issue 23, 2014, Pages 8410-8415

  Freeman, Scott ^a   Eddy, Sarah L ^a   McDonough, Miles ^a   Smith, Michelle K ^b   Okoroafor, Nnadozie ^a   Jordt, Hannah ^a   Wenderoth, Mary Pat ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Constructivism; Evidence based teaching; Scientific teaching; Undergraduate education

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATION; EFFECT SIZE; ENGINEERING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; MATHEMATICS; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; SCIENCE; STUDENT; TEACHING;

CONSTRUCTIVISM; EVIDENCE-BASED TEACHING; SCIENTIFIC TEACHING; UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION;

ACHIEVEMENT; COMPREHENSION; ENGINEERING; HUMANS; MATHEMATICS; MENTAL COMPETENCY; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING; SCIENCE; STUDENTS; TECHNOLOGY; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84902199999     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Brockliss L (1996) Curricula. A History of the University in Europe, ed de Ridder-Symoens H (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK), Vol II, pp 565-620.
2. Piaget J (1926) The Language and Thought of the Child (Harcourt Brace, New York).
3. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in Society (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA).
4. Handelsman J, et al. (2004) Education. Scientific teaching. Science 304(5670):521-522.
5. PCAST STEM Undergraduate Working Group (2012) Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, eds Gates SJ, Jr, Handelsman J, Lepage GP, Mirkin C (Office of the President, Washington).
6. Haukoos GD, Penick JE (1983) The influence of classroom climate on science process and content achievement of community college students. J Res Sci Teach 20(7):629-637.
7. Martin T, Rivale SD, Diller KR (2007) Comparison of student learning in challenge-based and traditional instruction in biomedical engineering. Ann Biomed Eng 35(8):1312-1323. (Pubitemid 47115170)
8. Cordray DS, Harris TR, Klein S (2009) A research synthesis of the effectiveness, replicability, and generality of the VaNTH challenge-based instructional modules in bioengineering. J. Eng Ed 98(4).
9. Jensen JL, Lawson A (2011) Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 10(1):64-73.
10. Momsen JL, Long TM, Wyse SA, Ebert-May D (2010) Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. CBE Life Sci Educ 9(4):435-440.
11. Ruiz-Primo MA, Briggs D, Iverson H, Talbot R, Shepard LA (2011) Impact of undergraduate science course innovations on learning. Science 331(6022):1269-1270.
12. Springer L, Stanne ME, Donovan SS (1999) Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Rev Educ Res 69(1):21-51.
13. Bowen CW (2000) A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievement. J Chem Educ 77(1):116-119.
14. Lipsey MW, et al. (2012) Translating the Statistical Representation of the Effects of Educational Interventions into Readily Interpretable Forms (US Department of Education, Washington).
15. Montori VM, et al. (2005) Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: A systematic review. JAMA 294(17):2203-2209. (Pubitemid 41571138)
16. Pocock SJ (2006) Current controversies in data monitoring for clinical trials. Clin Trials 3(6):513-521.
17. National Center for Education Statistics (2012) Digest of Education Statistics (US Department of Education, Washington).
18. National Science Board (2010) Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 (National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA).
19. National Center for Education Statistics (2012) STEM in Postsecondary Education (US Department of Education, Washington).
20. Seymour E, Hewitt NM (1997) Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences (Westview Press, Boulder, CO).
21. Goodman IF, et al. (2002) Final Report of the Women's Experiences in College Engineering (WECE) Project (Goodman Research Group, Cambridge, MA).
22. Watkins J, Mazur E (2013) Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. J Coll Sci Teach 42(5):36-41.
23. Slavich GM, Zimbardo PG (2012) Transformational teaching: Theoretical underpinnings, basic principles, and core methods. Educ Psychol Rev 24(4):569-608.
24. Dunlosky J, Rawson KA, Marsh EJ, Nathan MJ, Willingham DT (2013) Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psych Sci Publ Int 14(1):4-58.
25. Eddy S, Crowe AJ, Wenderoth MP, Freeman S (2013) How should we teach tree-thinking? An experimental test of two hypotheses. Evol Ed Outreach 6:1-11.
26. Freeman S, Haak D, Wenderoth MP (2011) Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 10(2):175-186.
27. Lorenzo M, Crouch CH, Mazur E (2006) Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. Am J Phys 74(2):118-122. (Pubitemid 43258527)
28. Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S (2011) Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science 332(6034):1213-1216.
29. Burgan M (2006) In defense of lecturing. Change 6:31-34.
30. Henderson C, Beach A, Finkelstein N (2011) Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. J Res Sci Teach 48(8):952-984.
31. Bonwell CC, Eison JA (1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom (George Washington Univ, Washington, DC).
32. Bligh DA (2000) What's the Use of Lectures? (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
33. Reed JG, Baxter PM (2009) Using reference databases. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, eds Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), pp 73-101.
34. Rothstein H, Hopewell S (2009) Grey literature. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, eds Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), pp 103-125.
35. White HD (2009) Scientific communication and literature retrieval. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, eds Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), pp 51-71.
36. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB (2001) Practical Meta-Analysis (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).
37. Orwin RG, Vevea JL (2009) Evaluating coding decisions. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, eds Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), pp 177-203.
38. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford). Available at www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed December 14, 2012.
39. Borenstein M (2009) Effect sizes for continuous data. The Handbook of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, eds Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), pp 221-235.
40. Hedges LV (2007) Correcting a significance test for clustering. J Educ Behav Stat 32(2):151-179.
41. Donner A, Klar N (2002) Issues in the meta-analysis of cluster randomized trials. Stat Med 21(19):2971-2980.
42. Davis D (2012) Multiple Comprehension Strategies Instruction (MCSI) for Improving Reading Comprehension and Strategy Outcomes in the Middle Grades. (The Campbell Collaboration, Oxford). Available at http://campbellcollaboration.org/ lib/project/167/. Accessed December 10, 2013.
43. Puzio K, Colby GT (2013) Cooperative learning and literacy: A meta-analytic review. J Res Ed Effect 6(4):339-360.
44. Hedges LV, Hedberg EC (2007) Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educ Eval Policy Anal 29:60-87.
45. Borenstein M, et al. (2006) Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Biostat, Inc., Englewood, NJ).
46. Hedges LV (2009) Statistical considerations. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, eds Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), pp 38-47.
47. Raudenbush SW (2009) Analyzing effect sizes: Random-effects models. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, eds Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), pp 295-315.
48. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (1999) Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80(4):1142-1149. (Pubitemid 29279918)
49. Fleiss J, Berlin JA (2009) Effect sizes for dichotomous data. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, eds Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), pp 237-253.
50. Greenhouse JB, Iyengar S (2009) Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, eds Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), pp 417-433.
51. Sutton AJ (2009) Publication bias. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, eds Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), pp 435-452.