Effect of time spent on active learning on exam performance: A controlled case study on a course with different instructors but identical teaching materials
Cen, X.; Lee, R. J.; Maloy, J. P.; Owens, M. T.
Show abstract
Active learning, including student thinking and discussion in class, has been shown to increase student learning gains. However, it is less clear how variations in how instructors implement active learning affect student gains. Our study aims to investigate the extent to which the time spent on individual episodes of active learning activities influences student performance. We hypothesized that instructors who let students spend more time on peer discussion and individual thinking on practice problems associated with particular learning objectives will have better student exam scores on exam questions addressing those objectives. To test this hypothesis, we obtained a large data set of classroom recordings and student exam scores from an introductory biology course at a large four-year university, where three instructors shared identical teaching materials and exams for different course offerings. Contrary to our hypothesis, although the three instructors spent significantly different amounts of time on episodes of thinking and peer discussion, there was no correlation between the total time spent on active learning activities and student performance on exam questions. Linear mixed-effects modeling of the effect of length of episodes of student thinking and discussion on exam score found that the amount of course time spent on active learning activities did not reliably predict student performance on associated exam questions. This result held true even when only considering learning objectives with high variations in performance between offerings, difficult exam questions, exam questions requiring higher-order thinking skills, or within-instructor performance. Although our study was only conducted in one course, our results imply that time spent per individual episode of student thinking or peer discussion may not be the primary factor explaining the positive effects of active learning and that it may be worthwhile to explore other factors.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Undergraduate students with and without mental health concerns have different perceptions of disclosing mental health challenges to instructors 96%
- A national professional development program fills mentoring gaps for postdoctoral researchers 96%
- Environmental influences and individual characteristics that affect learner-centered teaching practices 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Preprint peer review enhances undergraduate biology students' disciplinary literacy and sense of belonging in STEM 95%
- Remote Learning Barriers and Opportunities for Graduate Student and Postdoctoral Learners in Career and Professional Skill Development: A Case Study 94%
- Flying in the Face of Adversity: A Drosophila-based Virtual CURE Provides Semester-long Authentic Research Opportunity to the Flipped Classroom. 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A structured reflective process supports student awareness of employability skills development in a science placement module 96%
- A framework for decolonising and diversifying biomedical sciences curricula: rediscovery, representation and readiness 91%
- CRISPR-based knockin mutagenesis of the pioneer transcription factor FOXA1; optimization of strategies for multi-allelic proteins in cancer cells 81%
Similar papers in this journal
- Open-loop lab-on-a-chip technology enables remote computer science training in Latinx life sciences students 92%
- Evaluation of the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on the Medical Final Examination 91%
- Speaker responses to audience-induced social-evaluative threat: Evidence from scientific presentation tasks in immersive virtual reality 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.