Active Learning for STEM
This week, I have enjoyed several conversations with colleagues on STEM education, so I would like to share a recent article on the topic, which I believe is generalizable to many academic areas. The paper is entitled, “Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate STEM” written by Theobald, Hill, Tran and Freeman (2020). The authors tested the hypothesis that underrepresented (UR) students in active-learning classrooms experience narrower achievement gaps than UR students in traditional lecturing classrooms. Bayesian regression analyses showed that on average, active learning reduced achievement gaps in examination scores by 33% and narrowed gaps in passing rates by 45%. The reported proportion of time that students spend on in-class activities was important, as only classes that implemented high-intensity active learning narrowed achievement gaps. Meaningful reductions in achievement gaps only occur when course designs combine deliberate practice with inclusive teaching.
The authors define traditional lecturing as continuous exposition by the instructor with student involvement limited to occasional questions; and active learning as any approach that engages students in the learning process through in-class activities, with an emphasis on higher-order thinking and group work.
Exam scores that are lower on average for UR students in “gateway” STEM courses, along with failure rates that are higher (“Let’s Weed Out the Weed Out Math Classes”). In a different paper by Klingbeil et al. (2019), the authors found that “engineering departments worry about calculus sequences driving attrition.” Rather than changing the content of the calculus course, they focused on preparing students for calculus by emphasizing “engineering motivation for math.” In lieu of traditional calculus prerequisites such as precalculus or college algebra, the engineering faculty launched a contextualized math course. Emphasizing problem-based learning, the course covers topics students need in sophomore engineering classes, including linear equations, quadratic equations, 2-D vectors and complex numbers.
Most efforts to reduce achievement gaps and increase the retention of UR students in STEM focused on interventions that occur outside of the courses. For example, supplementary instruction (SI) programs can be offered as optional companions to STEM courses that have high failure rates. Most studies show UR students gain from SI, although almost all studies fail to control for self-selection bias—the hypothesis that volunteer participants are more highly motivated than nonparticipants.
Although styles of lecturing vary, all are instructor-focused and grounded in a theory of learning that posits direct transmission of information from an expert to a novice. Active learning, in contrast, is grounded in constructivist theory, which holds that humans learn by actively using new information and experiences to modify their existing models of how the world works.
Faculty who are new to active learning may need to start their efforts to redesign courses with low-intensity interventions that are less likely to improve student outcomes. If so, the goal should be to persist, making incremental changes until all instructors are teaching in a high-intensity, evidence-based framework tailored to their courses and student populations. We propose that two key elements are required to design and implement STEM courses that reduce, eliminate, or reverse achievement gaps: deliberate practice and a culture of inclusion. Deliberate practice emphasizes 1) extensive and highly focused efforts geared toward improving performance—meaning that students work hard on relevant tasks, 2) scaffolded exercises designed to address specific deficits in understanding or skills, 3) immediate feedback, and 4) repetition of authentic, active tasks.
Many of you are and have been integrating active learning into your class for years. In our pursuit of continuous improvement, I would like to [re]share the list of 289 Active Learning Strategies and an open invitation to discuss course [re]design (btw, the next in-person CDS will be held this Wednesday, March 8 at the University of Doha for Science and Technology).
References
Theobald, E., Hill, M., Tran E. & Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math, PNAS, 117(12) 6476-6483. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0988-1900
Klingbeil, N. W., Rattan, K. S., Raymer, M. L., Reynolds, D. B., & Mercer, R. (2019). The Wright State Model for Engineering Mathematics Education: A Nationwide Adoption, Assessment and Evaluation. Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Annual Conference. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/knoesis/953
