Nicole asked:
> How are you defining outcomes? Test scores? Critical thinking? Meeting
> course objectives? Improved skill?
Well, the first link answers how learning was assessed: "Most of the test
questions were clicker questions previously used at another university,
often slightly modified." Thus, it would be test scores.
> I would also be interested if there is any evidence to support this
> statement.
I might not be following this sentence, but the evidence was in a peer
reviewed article in the journal Science.
> There is certainly support for active learning, but lectures
> can also be active and engaging.
They can be, but you'll search far and wide in the peer reviewed
literature for a publication that finds that students actually learn as
much from lecture than from active learning. Several posts here earlier
today mentioned some of the classic publications that finds that active
learning leads to more learning.
One reason is quite straightforward -- the typical lecture will quickly
swamp students' working memory. This is a key point of the second paper
mentioned below. That paper was particularly impressive to me as it used
findings from cognitive science (actually, so did the first paper). I'm a
firm believer that we should use findings from cognitive science in our
teaching.
> And I think any method, done badly, will result in poor outcomes.
Most certainly. But the literature very strongly supports the proposition
that students learn more from well-designed active learning activities
than they do from a well-designed lecture. This is entirely consistent
with what is known about how people learn.
- Bill
> 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.
--
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.
|
