CBELife Sciences Education

Vol. 13, 584586, Winter 2014

Feature

Current Insights

Recent Research in Science Teaching and Learning

Deborah Allen
Department of Biological Sciences and Center for Teaching & Assessment of Learning, University of Delaware,
Newark, DE 19716
This feature is designed to point CBELife Sciences Education
readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education as well as more general and noteworthy publications in
education research. URLs are provided for the abstracts or
full text of articles. For articles listed as Abstract available,
full text may be accessible at the indicated URL for readers
whose institutions subscribe to the corresponding journal.
1. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor
N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP (2014). Active learning increases
student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 84108415. [Abstract
available at www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8410. abstract]
Online publication of this meta-analysis last spring no
doubt launched a legion of local and national conversations
about how science is best taughtas the authors state the
essential issue, Should we ask or should we tell? To assess
the relative effectiveness of active-learning (asking) versus
lecture-based (telling) methods in college-level science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) classes, the
authors scoured the published and unpublished literature
for studies that performed a side-by-side comparison of the
two general types of methods. Using five predetermined criteria for admission to the study (described fully in the materials and methods section), at least two independent coders
examined each potentially eligible paper to winnow down
the number of eligible studies from 642 to 225. The working definition of what constitutes active learning (used to
determine potential eligibility) was obtained from distilling
definitions written by 338 seminar attendees; what constitutes lecture was defined as continuous exposition by the
teacher (quoted from Bligh, 2000). The eligible studies were
situated in introductory and upper-division courses from a
full range of enrollment sizes and multiple STEM disciplines
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.14-09-0147
Address correspondence to: Deborah Allen ([email protected]).
2014 D Allen. CBELife Sciences Education 2014 The American
Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American
Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an AttributionNoncommercialShare
Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).
ASCBand The American Society for Cell Biology are registered trademarks of The American Society for Cell Biology.

and included majors and nonmajors as participants. The frequency of use and types of active-learning methodologies
described in the 225 eligible studies varied widely.
Quantitative analysis of the eligible studies focused on
comparison of two outcome variables: 1) scores on identical
or formally equivalent examinations and 2) failure rates (receipt of a D or F grade or withdrawal from the course).
Major findings were that student performance on exams and
other assessments (such as concept inventories) was nearly
half an SD higher in active-learning versus lecture courses,
with an effect size (standardized mean weighted difference)
of 0.47. Analyses also revealed that average failure rates were
55% higher for students in the lecture courses than in courses
with active learning. Heterogeneity analyses indicated that
1) there were no statistically significant differences in outcomes with respect to disciplines; 2) effect sizes were lower
when instructor-generated exams were used versus concept
inventories with both types of courses (perhaps because concept inventories tend to require more higher-order thinking
skills); 3) effect sizes were not significantly different in nonmajors versus majors courses or in lower versus upper-division courses; and 4) although active learning had the greatest positive effect in smaller-enrollment courses, effect sizes
were higher with active learning at all enrollment sizes. Two
types of analyses, calculation of fail-safe numbers and funnel plots, supported a lack of publication bias (tendency to
not publish studies with low effect sizes). Finally, the authors
demonstrated that there were no statistically significant differences in effect sizes despite variation in the quality of the
controls on instructor and student equivalence, supporting
the important conclusion that the differences in effectiveness
between the two methods were not instructor dependent.
In one of the more compelling sections of this meta-analysis, the authors translated the relatively dry numbers resulting from statistical comparisons to potential impacts on
the lives of the students taking STEM courses. For example,
for the 29,300 students reported for the lecture treatments
across all students, the average difference in failure rates
(21.8% in active learning vs. 33.8% with lecture) suggests
that 3516 fewer students would have failed if enrolled in an
active-learning course. This and other implications for the
more beneficial impact of active learning on STEM students
led the authors to state, If the experiments analyzed here
had been conducted as randomized controlled trials of medical interventions, they may have been stopped for benefit.
That is, the control group condition would have been halted

584

Downloaded from http://www.lifescied.org/ by guest on August 13, 2015

Current Insights

because of the clear, beneficial effects of the treatment. The

authors conclude by suggesting additional important implications for future undergraduate STEM education research.
It may no longer be justified to conduct more first-generation research comparing active-learning approaches with
traditional lecture; rather, for greater impact on course design, second-generation researchers should focus on what
types and intensities of exposure to active learning are most
effective for different students, instructors, and topics.
2. Weiman CE (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA Early Edition, published ahead of print
22 May 2014. [Available at www.pnas.org/content/
early/2014/05/21/1407304111.full.pdf+html]
This provocative commentary by Carl Weiman highlights
the major findings reported in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences by Freeman et al. (2014) and underscores
the implications. The graphical representations displaying
the key data on effect sizes and failure rates presented in
the Freeman et al. meta-analysis are redrawn in the commentary in a way that is likely to be more familiar to the
typical reader, making the differences in outcomes for active learning versus lecture appear more striking. Weiman
concludes by elaborating on the important implications of
the meta-analysis for college-level STEM educators and administrators, suggesting that it makes a powerful case that
any college or university that is teaching its STEM courses
by traditional lectures is providing an inferior education to
its students. One hopes that it will inspire administrators
to start paying attention to the teaching methods used in
their classrooms establishing accountability for using active-learning methods.
3. Yadav A, Shaver GM, Meckl P, Firebaugh S (2014). Casebased instruction: improving students conceptual understanding through cases in a mechanical engineering
course. J Res Sci Teach 51, 659677.
[Abstract available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

doi/10.1002/tea.21149/full]
National societies, committee reports, and accrediting
bodies recommend that engineering curricula be designed
to prepare future engineers for the complex interdisciplinary nature of the field and for the multitude of skills and
perspectives they will need to be successful practitioners.
The authors posit that case-based instruction, with its emphasis on honing skills in solving authentic, interdisciplinary, and ill-defined problems, aligns well with these recommendations. However, the methodology is still relatively
underutilized, and its effectiveness is underexamined. This
article describes a study designed to advance these issues
by comparing lecture- and case-based methods within the
same offering of a 72-student, upper-level, required course
in mechanical engineering.
The study used a within-subjects, posttest only, A-B-A-B
research design across four key course topics. That is, two lecture-based modules (the A or baseline phases) alternated with
case-based modules (the B or treatment phases). Following
each module, students responded to open-response quiz questions and a survey about learning and engagement (adapted
from the Student Assessment of Learning Gains instrument).
The quiz questions assessed ability to apply knowledge to

problem solving (so-called traditional questions) and ability to explain the concepts that were used (conceptual questions). This study design had the advantage that the same
students experienced both the baseline and treatment conditions twice. The authors describe in detail the pedagogical
approaches used in both sets of the A and B phases.
The quizzes were scored by independent raters (with high
interrater reliability) on a 03 scale; scores were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods. Survey items were analyzed using a principal-components factor analysis; composite scores were generated for a learning confidence factor
and an engagementconnections factor. Analyses revealed
that the two pedagogical approaches had similar outcomes
with respect to the traditional questions, but conceptual understanding scores (indicating better understanding of the
concepts that were applied to problem solving) were significantly higher for the case-based modules. Students reported
that they appreciated how cases were better than lecture in
helping them make connections to real-world concerns and
see the relevance of what they were learning, but there were
no significant differences in students perceptions of their
learning gains in the case-based versus the lecture modules.
The authors note that many studies have likewise demonstrated that students perceptions of their learning gains in
more learner-centered courses are often not accurate reflections of the actual learning outcomes.
The authors conclude that while these results are promising indications of the effectiveness of case-based instruction
in engineering curricula, the studies need to be replicated
across a number of semesters and in different engineering
disciplines and extended to assess the long-term effect of
case-based instruction on students ability to remember and
apply their knowledge.
Although this study was limited to an engineering context, the case-based methodologies and research design seem
well-suited for use in action research in other disciplines.
4. Heddy BC, Sinatra GM (2013). Transforming misconceptions: using transformative experience to promote positive affect and conceptual change in students learning
about biological evolution. Sci Educ 97, 723744.
[Abstract available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

doi/10.1002/sce.21072/abstract]
Well-documented challenges to conceptual change faced
by students of evolution include the necessity of unseating
existing nave theories (such as natural selection having
purposiveness), having the ability to view the complex and
emergent nature of evolutionary processes through systems-type thinking, and being able to see the connections
between evolutionary content learned in the classroom and
everyday life events that can facilitate appreciation of its importance and motivate learning. To help students meet these
challenges, the authors adapted a pedagogical model called
Teaching for Transformative Experiences in Science (TTES)
in the course of instruction on six major concepts in evolutionary biology. This article reports on a comparison of the
effectiveness of TTES approaches in fostering conceptual
change and positive affect with that of instruction enhanced
with use of refutational texts (RT). Use of RTs to promote
conceptual change, a strategy with documented effectiveness, entails first stating a misconception (the term used by
the authors), then explicitly refuting it by elaborating on a

Vol. 13, Winter 2014

585

Downloaded from http://www.lifescied.org/ by guest on August 13, 2015

D. Allen

scientific explanation. By contrast, the TTES model promotes

teaching that fosters transformative learning experiences
teaching in which instructors 1) place the content in a context allows the students to see its utility or experiential value;
2) model their own transformative experiences in learning
course concepts; and 3) scaffold a process that allows students to rethink or resee a concept from the perspective of
their previous, related life experiences.
The authors designed the study to address three questions
relevant to the comparison of the two approaches: would
the TTES group (vs. the RT group) demonstrate or report 1)
greater conceptual change, 2) higher levels of transformative
experience, and 3) differences in topic emotions (more positive affect) related to learning about evolution? The study
used three survey instruments, one that measured the types
and depth of students transformative experiences (the Transformative Experience Survey, adapted from Pugh et al., 2010),
another that assessed conceptual knowledge (Evolutionary
Reasoning Scale; Shulman, 2006), and a third that evaluated
the emotional reactions of students to the evolution content
they were learning (Evolution Emotions Survey, derived
from Broughton et al., 2011). In addition to Likert-scale items,
the Transformative Experience Survey contained three openended response questions; the responses were scored by two
independent raters using a coding scheme for degree of outof-school engagement. The authors provide additional detail
about the nuances of what these instruments were designed
to measure and their scoring schemes and include the instruments in the appendices. The Evolutionary Reasoning Scale
and the Evolution Emotions survey were administered as
both pre- and posttests, and the Transformative Experience
survey was administered only at the end of the intervention.
The treatment (TTES, n = 28) and comparison (RT, n = 27)
groups were not significantly different with respect to all
measured demographic variables and the number of high
school or college-level science courses taken.
Briefly, the evolutionary biology learning experience that
participants were exposed to was 3 d in duration for both the
treatment and comparison groups. On day 1, the instructor
(the same person for both groups) gave a PowerPoint lecture
on the same six evolutionary concepts, with illustrative examples. For the treatment group only, the instructor drew from
his own transformative experiences in connection with the
illustrative examples, describing how he used the concepts,
what their value was to him, and how each had expanded
his understanding and perception of evolution. On days 2
and 3 for the treatment group, the students and instructor
engaged in whole-class discussions about their everyday experiences with evolution concepts (and related misconceptions) and their usefulness; the instructor scaffolded various
reseeing experiences throughout the discussions. For the
comparison group, misconceptions and refutations were
addressed in the course of the day 1 lecture, and on days 2

and 3, the participants read refutational texts and then took

part in discussions of the texts led by the instructor.
Survey results and accompanying statistical analyses indicated that both groups exhibited gains (with significant
t statistics) in understanding of the evolution concepts as
measured by the Evolutionary Reasoning Scale (Shulman,
2006). However, the gains were greater for the treatment
(TTES) group: effect size, reported as a value for eta-squared,
2, equaled 0.29. The authors point out by way of context
for this outcome that use of RTs, along with follow-up discussions that contrast misconceptions with scientific explanations, has been previously shown to be effective in promoting conceptual change; thus, the comparison was with
a well-regarded methodology. Additionally, the Transformation Experience survey findings indicated higher levels of
transformative experience for the TTES group participants;
they more extensively reported that the concepts had everyday value and meaning and expanded their perspectives.
The TTES group alone showed pre- to posttest gains in enjoyment while learning about evolution, a positive emotion
that may have classroom implications in terms of receptivity to learning about evolution and willingness to continue
study in this and related fields.
The authors conclude that the TTES model can effectively
engage students in transformative experiences in ways that
can facilitate conceptual change in content areas in which
that change is difficult to achieve. In discussing possible limitations of the study, they note in particular that the predominance of female study participants (71% of the total) argues
for its replication with a more diverse sample.
I invite readers to suggest current themes or articles of interest in life sciences education, as well as influential papers
published in the more distant past or in the broader field of
education research, to be featured in Current Insights. Please
send any suggestions to Deborah Allen ([email protected]).

REFERENCES
Bligh DA (2000). What's the Use of Lectures? San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Broughton SH, Sinatra GM, Nussbaum EM (2011). Pluto has been
a planet my whole life! Emotions, attitudes, and conceptual change
in elementary students learning about Pluto's reclassification. Res
Sci Educ 42, 122.
Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt
H, Wenderoth MP (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 111, 84108415.
Pugh KJ, Linnenbrink-Garcia EA, Koskey KLK, Stewart VC, Manzey
C (2010). Motivation, learning, and transformative experience: a
study of deep engagement in science. Sci Educ 94, 128.
Shulman A (2006). Qualitative differences between nave and
scientific theories of evolution. Cogn Psychol 52, 170194.

CBELife Sciences Education

586

Downloaded from http://www.lifescied.org/ by guest on August 13, 2015