76
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Significance

          Despite active learning being recognized as a superior method of instruction in the classroom, a major recent survey found that most college STEM instructors still choose traditional teaching methods. This article addresses the long-standing question of why students and faculty remain resistant to active learning. Comparing passive lectures with active learning using a randomized experimental approach and identical course materials, we find that students in the active classroom learn more, but they feel like they learn less. We show that this negative correlation is caused in part by the increased cognitive effort required during active learning. Faculty who adopt active learning are encouraged to intervene and address this misperception, and we describe a successful example of such an intervention.

          Abstract

          We compared students’ self-reported perception of learning with their actual learning under controlled conditions in large-enrollment introductory college physics courses taught using 1) active instruction (following best practices in the discipline) and 2) passive instruction (lectures by experienced and highly rated instructors). Both groups received identical class content and handouts, students were randomly assigned, and the instructor made no effort to persuade students of the benefit of either method. Students in active classrooms learned more (as would be expected based on prior research), but their perception of learning, while positive, was lower than that of their peers in passive environments. This suggests that attempts to evaluate instruction based on students’ perceptions of learning could inadvertently promote inferior (passive) pedagogical methods. For instance, a superstar lecturer could create such a positive feeling of learning that students would choose those lectures over active learning. Most importantly, these results suggest that when students experience the increased cognitive effort associated with active learning, they initially take that effort to signify poorer learning. That disconnect may have a detrimental effect on students’ motivation, engagement, and ability to self-regulate their own learning. Although students can, on their own, discover the increased value of being actively engaged during a semester-long course, their learning may be impaired during the initial part of the course. We discuss strategies that instructors can use, early in the semester, to improve students’ response to being actively engaged in the classroom.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Force concept inventory

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.

              People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A
                pnas
                pnas
                PNAS
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                24 September 2019
                4 September 2019
                4 September 2019
                : 116
                : 39
                : 19251-19257
                Affiliations
                [1] aDepartment of Physics, Harvard University , Cambridge, MA 02138;
                [2] bDepartment of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University , Cambridge, MA 02138;
                [3] cSchool of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University , Cambridge, MA 02138
                Author notes
                1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: louis@ 123456physics.harvard.edu .

                Edited by Kenneth W. Wachter, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved August 13, 2019 (received for review December 24, 2018)

                Author contributions: L.D., L.S.M., and K.C. designed research; L.D., L.S.M., K.M., K.C., and G.K. performed research; L.D., L.S.M., and K.M. analyzed data; and L.D., L.S.M., K.M., and G.K. wrote the paper.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4800-5770
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7981-9267
                Article
                201821936
                10.1073/pnas.1821936116
                6765278
                31484770
                6a00fba8-33a3-48c0-865f-f42cd2149f46
                Copyright © 2019 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

                This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 7
                Categories
                Physical Sciences
                Applied Physical Sciences
                Social Sciences
                Psychological and Cognitive Sciences

                scientific teaching,undergraduate education,evidence-based teaching,constructivism

                Comments

                Comment on this article