How are you defining outcomes? Test scores? Critical thinking? Meeting course objectives? Improved skill?
I would also be interested if there is any evidence to support this statement. There is certainly support for active learning, but lectures can also be active and engaging. And I think any method, done badly, will result in poor outcomes.
Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:11 PM, Bill Goffe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> It isn't TBL, but for direction comparison between a very active classroom
> and one based on lecture by "by a motivated faculty member with high
> student evaluations and many years of experience teaching this course" see
> Deslauriers, Schelew, and Wieman, "Improved learning in a large-enrollment
> physics class," Science 332.6031 (2011): 862-864. For a non-paywalled
> version, see http://www.math.unm.edu/mctp/gstts/science.pdf .
>
> A key part of this study as students had no incentive to study for the
> assessment that compared learning in the active classroom to the lecture
> based one (the experiment lasted for just one week). Thus, it just
> measured the classroom component, which is something that we can control.
> It is awfully hard for us to influence how much students study!
>
> The mean score on the assessment for the lecture-based class was 41% and
> it was 74% for the active class; this difference was about 2.5 standard
> deviations.
>
> I would think that such a study design would be rather straightforward to
> do in other settings -- compare lecture to TBL for a week or so and give
> an assessment that students only receive credit for completing. Likely
> TBL would achieve similar results. If no one has done such a study I
> really hope that someone does!
>
> Part of the reason for this large result is described in an earlier paper
> by the last author of the above paper: "Why Not Try a Scientific Approach
> to Science Education,"
> http://cwsei.ubc.ca/SEI_research/files/Wieman-Change_Sept-Oct_2007.pdf .
> TBL certainly fits into the reasons he's describes.
>
> - Bill
>
> P.S. The last author of the first paper is a leader in STEM education
> research. He's at Stanford with a joint appointment between physics
> and their Graduate School of education. He's received both a Nobel
> Prize and Carnegie Foundation's U.S. University Professor of the Year
> Award (for teaching).
>
> Terri asked:
>
>> I have heard it stated that the worst implementations of TBL leads to
>> better student outcomes than the best lecture courses with the most
>> esteemed professors. Is this statement based on research or is it
>> anecdotal? If based on research, could someone please post citations?
>> I'd love to pass it along to my instructional designer. Thanks!
>
> --
> Bill Goffe
> Senior Lecturer
> Department of Economics
> Penn State University
> 304 Kern Building
> University Park, PA 16802
> 814-867-3299
> [log in to unmask]
> http://cook.rfe.org/
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click the following link:
> https://lists.ubc.ca/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=TEAMLEARNING-L&A=1
>
> Further information about the UBC Mailing Lists service can be found on the UBC IT website.
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click the following link:
https://lists.ubc.ca/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=TEAMLEARNING-L&A=1
Further information about the UBC Mailing Lists service can be found on the UBC IT website.
|
