Does active learning improve student performance? A randomized experiment in a Chilean university

Alcalde, Pilar and Nagel, Juan (2015): Does active learning improve student performance? A randomized experiment in a Chilean university.

Abstract

We study the causal effect of an active learning teaching method on grades. We designed a randomized experiment with students at an undergraduate business and economics program in Chile. Two groups were taught by the same professor: the control group used traditional lectures, while the treatment group used an active learning method. Treated students failed the class less but the effect was not significant. They also had significantly better grades at the end and during the semester. The treatment effect was larger for males and students with high application scores. The effect does not appear instantaneously, and appears to fade away at the end of the semester. Results suggest students allocate effort differently across both groups, and this interacts with the treatment effect.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Classroom experiments, course performance, peer instruction, innovation in teaching
• Subjects: A - General Economics and Teaching > A2 - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics > A20 - General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C21 - Cross-Sectional Models ; Spatial Models ; Treatment Effect Models ; Quantile Regressions; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C90 - General

References

Armstrong, N., S.M. Chang, and M. Brickman. 2007. Cooperative learning in industrial-sized biology classes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6 (2): 163-171.

Bergstrom, T.C. 2009. Teaching Economic Principles Interactively: A Cannibal's Dinner Party. The Journal of Economic Education, 40 (4): 366-384.

Bilgin, I. 2006. Promoting pre-service elementary students' understanding of chemical equilibrium through discussions in small groups. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4 (3): 467-484.

Bilgin, I., E. Senocak, and M. Sözbilir. 2009. The effects of problem-based learning instruction on university students’ performance of conceptual and quantitative problems in gas concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5 (2): 153-164.

Brouhle, K. 2011. Exploring Strategic Behavior in an Oligopoly Market Using Classroom Clickers. The Journal of Economic Education, 42 (4): 395-404.

Brown, B., and C. Liedholm. 2002. Can Web Courses Replace the Classroom in Principles of Economics? American Economic Review, 92 (2): 444-448.

Carmichael, J. 2009. Team-based learning enhances performance in introductory biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38 (4): 54.

Cartera, L. and T. Emersona. 2012. In-Class vs. Online Experiments: Is There a Difference? The Journal of Economic Education, 43 (1): 4-18.

Figlio, D., M. Rush, and L. Yin. 2013. Is it Live or Is It Internet? Experimental Estimates of the Effects of Online Instruction on Student Learning, Journal of Labor Economics, 31 (4): 763-784.

Freeman, S., S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth. 2014. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (23): 8410-8415.

Ghosh, S. and F. Renna. 2009. Using Electronic Response Systems in Economics Classes. The Journal of Economic Education, 40 (4): 354-365.

Green, A. 2014. The case for the traditional classroom. International Review of Economics Education, 16: 87-99.

Giraud, G. 1997. Cooperative learning and statistics instruction. Journal of Statistics Education, 5 (3): 1-13.

Hurley, J. D. 2002. Effect of extended use of systematic instruction model on student achievement and content coverage in a “C” programming class. PhD Thesis (Texas A&M University, College Station, TX).

Joyce, T. J., S. Crockett, D. A. Jaeger, O. Altindag, and S. D. O'Connell. 2014. Does classroom time matter? A randomized field experiment of hybrid and traditional lecture formats in economics. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 20006.

Keeler, C. M., and R. K. Steinhorst. 1994. Cooperative learning in statistics. Teaching Statistics, 16 (3): 81-84.

Knight, J. K., and W. B. Wood. 2005. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell biology education, 4 (4): 298-310.

Lawson, T. J., J. H. Bodle, M. A. Houlette, and R. R. Haubner. 2006. Guiding questions enhance student learning from educational videos. Teaching of Psychology, 33 (1): 31-33.

Lovelace, T. L., and C. K. McKnight. 1980. The effects of reading instruction on calculus students' problem solving. Journal of Reading: 305-308.

Moelter, M. J., R. D. Knight, and C. Hoellwarth. 2005. A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms. American Journal of physics, 73 (5): 459-462.

Olitsky, N. H., and S. B. Cosgrove. 2014. The effect of blended courses on student learning: Evidence from introductory economics courses. International Review of Economics Education, 15: 17-31.

Pandy, M. G., A. J. Petrosino, B. A. Austin, B. A., and R. E. Barr. 2004. Assessing adaptive expertise in undergraduate biomechanics. Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (3): 211-222.

Paschal, C. B. 2002. Formative assessment in physiology teaching using a wireless classroom communication system. Advances in Physiology Education, 26 (4): 299-308.

Prince, M. 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (3): 223-232.

Salemi, M. K. 2009. Clickenomics: Using a Classroom Response System to Increase Student Engagement in a Large-Enrollment Principles of Economics Course. The Journal of Economic Education, 40 (4): 385-404.

Roach, T. 2014. Student perceptions toward flipped learning: New methods to increase interaction and active learning in economics. International Review of Economics Education, 17: 74-84.

Tirosh, D., and P. Tsamir. 2004. What can mathematics education gain from the conceptual change approach? And what can the conceptual change approach gain from its application to mathematics education? Learning and Instruction, 14 (5): 535-540.

Valcarcel, V. 2013. Instituting a Monetary Economy in a Semester-Long Macroeconomics Course. The Journal of Economic Education, 44 (2): 129-141.

Van Dijk, L. A., G. C. Van Der Berg, and H. Van Keulen. 2001. Interactive lectures in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26 (1): 15-28.

Vosniadou, S., and L. Verschaffel. 2004. Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning and instruction, 14 (5): 445-451.

Walker, J. D., S. H. Cotner, P. M. Baepler, and M. D. Decker. 2008. A delicate balance: integrating active learning into a large lecture course. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7 (4): 361-367.

Williamson, V.M., and M. W. Rowe. 2002. Group problem-solving versus lecture in college level quantitative analysis: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(9): 1131.