What’s interesting is that the original Freeman (2014) PNAS article had already made it clear that future studies using lecture as control should be avoided. Here are my favorite passages:

"If the experiments analyzed here had been conducted as randomized controlled trials of medical interventions, they may have been stopped for benefit—meaning that enrolling patients in the control condition might be discontinued because the treatment being tested was clearly more beneficial.”

"In addition to providing evidence that active learning can improve undergraduate STEM education, the results reported here have important implications for future research... Given our results, it is reasonable to raise concerns about the continued use of traditional lecturing as a control in future experiments."

-msk

--------------------------
Michael S. Kirkpatrick
Assistant Professor
Department of Computer Science
James Madison University




On Sep 1, 2016, at 2:11 PM, Neil Haave <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Yes, Wieman pulls no punches in that PNAS article. Maryellen Weimer provided a commentary on it a few months ago on her Teaching Professor blog. The need to move SoTL beyond always comparing using the "traditional lecture" (or continuous exposition as Derek Bruff defines it) as the control in pedagogical research was also discussed in an editorial last year in CBE-LSE.

Cheers

Neil

Neil Haave, PhD
Associate Professor, Biology
Managing Editor, CELT
Vice-President, AIBA
Faculty Affiliate, CTL

University of Alberta, Augustana Faculty
Rm C155, Science Wing, Classroom Building, Augustana Campus
4901 - 46 Avenue, Camrose, AB, CANADA   T4V 2R3


"We do not learn from experience . . . we learn from reflecting on experience" - John Dewey

On 1 September 2016 at 11:58, Sibley, James Edward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi

Carl Wieman had a recent article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science…comparing lecture to active learning…no surprises….active learning won by a lot

What was fun was some of the language he used…

Lecturing is pedagogical malpractice
 
"lectures—the pedagogical equivalent of bloodletting”

"If a new antibiotic is being tested for effectiveness, its effectiveness at curing patients is compared with the best current antibiotics and not with treatment by bloodletting."

Basically making the point of if we are going to compare new teaching techniques to something, perhaps lectures aren't the best anymore.

His commentary is here:

And the commentary is on this article:


<jim_signature_small.png>

Jim Sibley 

Director 
<Screen Shot 2015-10-09 at 3.47.28 PM.png>
Faculty of Applied Science 
University of British Columbia 

CEME 1214-6250 Applied Science Lane 
Vancouver, BC Canada 
V6T 1Z4 
Phone 604.822.9241 
Email: [log in to unmask]


Check out my book Getting Started with Team–Based Learning

Check out my TBL website at www.learntbl.ca





© Copyright 2015, Jim Sibley, All rights reserved The information contained in this e-mail message and any attachments (collectively "message") is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient (or recipients) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, use, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail, and delete the message.

To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click here.

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 here.

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 here.

Further information about the UBC Mailing Lists service can be found on the UBC IT website.