In a new, carefully done RCT that held instructors constant, using "active learning' techniques caused students to *feel* like they learned less, but they actually learned more.
Damning. If you’re relying heavily on student evals of teaching to judge teaching effectiveness, you may be penalizing (not promoting/not hiring/not retaining) faculty who espouse methods that produce more learning. This is human behavior; account for it.
‘though students felt as if they learned more through traditional lectures, they actually learned more when taking part in classrooms that employed so-called active-learning strategies.’
RCT shows students learn more when they are made to participate actively, but think they learn less. This resonates so much with my experience with students who - to my great surprise! - preferred that I lecture in discussion section.
Students learn more in active learning classes, but rate their actual learning to be lower than in lecture class.
Teachers / Profs / Lecturers and Students: (1) Active learning works, even though it feels like it doesn't. (2) A dynamic (traditional) lecturer will result in better course evals, even though that doesn't work as well as active learning. PNAS paper:
Students learn more in active classrooms, but they think they are learning more from a lecture-based class.
Students in active learning classrooms learn more, but feel like they're learning less. h/t
My internal narrative while reading a new article in PNAS: A tragedy in three acts
While active learning is once again proved superior, a new study also shows that college students may prefer being lectured at (& incorrectly believe it's more effective): . One solution: discuss these findings (& the reasons for them) with students
New study: students prefer to work less and learn less; faculty rewarded for reinforcing this preference.
New paper out showing that (IN PHYSICS), as suspected, students perform better in active (vs. passive) classrooms, but if you ask them how much they *feel like they learned*, students report having learned more in passive (vs. active) environments. 1/n
“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.”
Charismatic lecturers make students feel like they learn more. Active learning makes them actually learn more. Caveats: only physics class evaluated, one university in one culture.
People learn more in active classrooms but think they're learning less h/t
This paper is something. ps, the corollary is probably that TED talks are useless.
"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" via
Here's a paradoxical thing about actual learning and feeling of learning: ...a superstar lecturer could create such a positive feeling of learning that students would choose those lectures over more effective but more effortful active learning.
There are good reasons I do not take feedback asking for more passive instruction on board, & why I teach via small-group discussions where I'm able, here are some of them: "students in the active classroom learn more, but they feel like they learn less"
The paradox: Active learning is a desirable method if you want students to learn ... but students really don't desire the method. h/t h/t Robert Bjork for original idea
Fascinating study shows that although active learning produces better learning outcomes, students *think* that passive learning (i.e. traditional lectures) is better and rate it more highly.
Active Learning Works But Students Don’t Like It , via in a Harvard physics class
Active learning ==> increase learning, decreased feeling of learning