Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom

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

Volumn 116, Issue 39, 2019, Pages 19251-19257

  Deslauriers, Louis ^a   McCarty, Logan S ^a,b   Miller, Kelly ^a   Callaghan, Kristina ^a   Kestin, Greg ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Constructivism; Evidence based teaching; Scientific teaching; Undergraduate education

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; MOTIVATION; PERCEPTION; PHYSICS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TEACHING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK; EDUCATION; EMOTION; FEMALE; MALE; PROBLEM BASED LEARNING; PSYCHOLOGY; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY;

EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; EMOTIONS; FEMALE; FORMATIVE FEEDBACK; HUMANS; MALE; PERCEPTION; PHYSICS; PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING; STUDENTS; TEACHING; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 85072644634     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1821936116     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am. J. Phys. 66, 64-74 (1998).
2. C. H. Crouch, E. Mazur, Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. Am. J. Phys. 69, 970-977 (2001).
3. L. Deslauriers, E. Schelew, C. Wieman, Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science 332, 862-864 (2011).
4. S. Freeman et al., Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410-8415 (2014).
5. J. M. Fraser et al., Teaching and physics education research: Bridging the gap. Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 032401 (2014).
6. L. Deslauriers, C. Wieman, Learning and retention of quantum concepts with different teaching methods. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. 7, 010101 (2011).
7. W. K. Adams et al., New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. 2, 010101 (2006).
8. E. Brewe, L. H. Kramer, G. O'Brien, Modeling instruction: Positive attitudinal shifts in introductory physics measured with CLASS. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. 5, 013102 (2009).
9. J. Watkins, E. Mazur, Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 42, 36-41 (2013).
10. C. Henderson, M. H. Dancy, Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. 3, 020102 (2007).
11. J. Handelsman et al., Education. Scientific teaching. Science 304, 521-522 (2004).
12. M. Stains et al., Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science 359, 1468-1470 (2018).
13. C. Henderson, T. Stelzer, L. Hsu, D. Meredith, Maximizing the benefits of physics education research: Building productive relationships and promoting institutional change. American Physical Society Forum on Education Newsletter, Fall 2005, pp. 11-14. https:// www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/fall2005/maximize.html. Accessed 20 June 2019.
14. M. Dancy, C. Henderson, Framework for articulating instructional practices and conceptions. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. 3, 010103 (2007).
15. R. M. Felder, R. Brent, Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. Coll. Teach. 44, 43-47 (1996).
16. D. U. Silverthorn, P. M. Thorn, M. D. Svinicki, It's difficult to change the way we teach: Lessons from the Integrative Themes in Physiology curriculum module project. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 30, 204-214 (2006).
17. A. P. Fagen, C. H. Crouch, E. Mazur, Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. Phys. Teach. 40, 206-209 (2002).
18. C. Turpen, M. Dancy, C. Henderson, Faculty perspectives on using peer instruction: A national study. AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 325-328 (2010).
19. J. W. Belcher, Improving Student Understanding with TEAL [TEAL = Technology Enhanced Active Learning], The MIT Faculty Newsletter, vol. XVI, no. 2, 2003. http:// web.mit.edu/fnl/vol/162/belcher.htm. Accessed 20 June 2019.
20. M. H. Dancy, C. Henderson, Beyond the individual instructor: Systemic constraints in the implementation of research-informed practices. AIP Conf. Proc. 790, 113-116 (2005).
21. R. M. Felder, Random thoughts: Sermons for grumpy campers. Chem. Eng. Educ. 41, 183-184 (2007).
22. R. M. Felder, Random thoughts: The link between teaching and research. 2. How to strengthen each without weakening the other. Chem. Eng. Educ. 44, 213-214 (2010).
23. C. Henderson, M. Dancy, M. Niewiadomska-Bugaj, Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. 8, 020104 (2012).
24. M. Vuorela, L. Nummenmaa, How undergraduate students meet a new learning environment? Comput. Human Behav. 20, 763-777 (2004).
25. K. Nguyen et al., Students' expectations, types of instruction, and instructor strategies predicting student response to active learning. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 33, 2-18 (2017).
26. S. Tharayil et al., Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning. Int. J. STEM Educ. 5, 7 (2018).
27. J. Kruger, D. Dunning, Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 1121-1134 (1999).
28. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, R. R. Cocking, Eds., How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (National Academy Press, 1999).
29. S. R. Porter, Self-reported learning gains: A theory and test of college student survey response. Res. High. Educ. 54, 201-226 (2013).
30. S. K. Carpenter, M. M. Wilford, N. Kornell, K. M. Mullaney, Appearances can be deceiving: Instructor fluency increases perceptions of learning without increasing actual learning. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 20, 1350-1356 (2013).
31. D. M. Oppenheimer, The secret life of fluency. Trends Cogn. Sci. 12, 237-241 (2008).
32. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory. Phys. Teach. 30, 141-158 (1992).
33. K. K. Perkins, M. Gratny, Who becomes a physics major? A long-term longitudinal study examining the roles of pre-college beliefs about physics and learning physics, interest, and academic achievement. AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 253-256 (2010).
34. E. Gire, B. Jones, E. Price, Characterizing the epistemological development of physics majors. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ 5, 010103 (2009).
35. S. P. Bates, R. K. Galloway, C. Loptson, K. A. Slaughter, How attitudes and beliefs about physics change from high school to faculty. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. 7, 020114 (2011).
36. D. J. Jones, K. W. Madison, C. E. Wieman, Transforming a fourth-year modern optics course using a deliberate practice framework. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. 11, 020108 (2015).
37. K. A. Ericsson, R. Th. Krampe, C. Tesch-Römer, The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol. Rev. 100, 363-406 (1993).
38. H. White, A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48, 817-838 (1980).
39. A. Abadie, S. Athey, G. W. Imbens, J. Wooldridge, When should you adjust standard errors for clustering? (NBER Working Paper 24003, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA) https://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w24003 (November 2017).
40. C. Diemand-Yauman, D.M. Oppenheimer, B. E. Vaughan, Fortune favors the bold (and the Italicized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition 118, 111-115 (2011).
41. M. R. Lepper, M. Woolverton, "The wisdom of practice: lessons learned from the study of highly effective tutors" in Improving Academic Achievement, J. Aronson, Ed. (Academic Press, 2002), pp. 135-158.
42. W. B. Wood, K. D. Tanner, The role of the lecturer as tutor: Doing what effective tutors do in a large lecture class. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 11, 3-9 (2012).
43. D. R. Stead, A review of the one-minute paper. Active Learn. High. Educ. 6, 118-131 (2005).
44. B. Uttl, C. A. White, D. W. Gonzalez, Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Stud. Educ. Eval. 57, 22-42 (2017).
45. N. Kornell, H. Hausman, Do the best teachers get the best ratings? Front. Psychol. 7, 570 (2016).