Editing Active learning (section)

==Research evidence==
[[File:Shimer College Home Economics cooking 1942.jpg|thumb|Shimer College Home Economics cooking 1942]]

Numerous studies have shown evidence to support active learning, given adequate prior instruction.

A meta-analysis of 225 studies comparing traditional lecture to active learning in university math, science, and engineering courses found that active learning reduces failure rates from 32% to 21%, and increases student performance on course assessments and concept inventories by 0.47 standard deviations. Because the findings were so robust with regard to study methodology, extent of controls, and subject matter, the National Academy of Sciences publication suggests that it might be unethical to continue to use traditional lecture approach as a control group in such studies. The largest positive effects were seen in class sizes under 50 students and among students under-represented in STEM fields.<ref name=Freeman>{{cite journal |last1=Freeman |first1=Scott |last2=Eddy |first2=Sarah L. |last3=McDonough |first3=Miles |last4=Smith |first4=Michelle K. |last5=Okoroafor |first5=Nnadozie |last6=Jordt |first6=Hannah |last7=Wenderoth |first7=Mary Pat |title=Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America |date=10 June 2014 |volume=111 |issue=23 |pages=8410–8415 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1319030111 |pmid=24821756 |pmc=4060654 |bibcode=2014PNAS..111.8410F |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Richard Hake (1998) reviewed data from over 6000 physics students in 62 introductory physics courses and found that students in classes that utilized active learning and interactive engagement techniques improved 25 [[percent points]], achieving an average gain of 48% on a standard test of physics conceptual knowledge, the Force [[Concept inventory|Concept Inventory]], compared to a gain of 23% for students in traditional, lecture-based courses.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hake |first1=Richard R. |title=Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses |journal=American Journal of Physics |date=1 January 1998 |volume=66 |issue=1 |pages=64–74 |doi=10.1119/1.18809 |bibcode=1998AmJPh..66...64H |s2cid=14835931 }}</ref>

Similarly, Hoellwarth & Moelter (2011)<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hoellwarth |first1=Chance |last2=Moelter |first2=Matthew J. |title=The implications of a robust curriculum in introductory mechanics |journal=American Journal of Physics |date=15 April 2011 |volume=79 |issue=5 |pages=540–545 |doi=10.1119/1.3557069 |bibcode=2011AmJPh..79..540H |url=https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1332&context=phy_fac |url-access=subscription }}</ref> showed that when instructors switched their physics classes from traditional instruction to active learning, student learning improved 38 percent points, from around 12% to over 50%, as measured by the Force Concept Inventory, which has become the standard measure of student learning in physics courses.

[[File:Cover to cover reading versus problem or project based learning.png|thumb|370px|Example of [[Problem-based learning|problem]]-/[[project-based learning]] versus reading cover to cover. The problem-/project-based learner may memorize a smaller amount of total information due to actively spending time searching for the optimal information across various sources, but will likely learn more useful items for real-world scenarios, and will likely be better at knowing where to find information when needed, including technology use.<ref>Image by Mikael Häggström, MD, using source images by various authors. Source for useful context in problem-based learning: {{cite journal|title=Understanding Medical Education - Problem-based learning|author=Mark A Albanese, Laura C Dast|date=2013-10-22|url=https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118472361.ch5|website=Wiley Online Library|doi=10.1002/9781118472361.ch5 |url-access=subscription}}</ref>]]
In "Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research", Prince (2004) found that "there is broad but uneven support for the core elements of active, collaborative, cooperative and [[problem-based learning]]" in engineering education.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Prince |first1=Michael |title=Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research |journal=Journal of Engineering Education |date=2004 |volume=93 |issue=3 |pages=223–231 |doi=10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x |s2cid=1165523 }}</ref>

Michael (2006),<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Michael |first1=Joel |title=Where's the evidence that active learning works? |journal=Advances in Physiology Education |date=1 December 2006 |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=159–167 |doi=10.1152/advan.00053.2006 |pmid=17108243 |s2cid=317906 }}</ref> in reviewing the applicability of active learning to physiology education, found a "growing body of research within specific scientific teaching communities that supports and validates the new approaches to teaching that have been adopted".

In a 2012 report titled "Engage to Excel",<ref>[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_feb.pdf President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing on million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.  Retrieved from whitehouse.gov]</ref> the [[United States President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology]] described how improved teaching methods, including engaging students in active learning, will increase student retention and improve performance in [[STEM fields|STEM]] courses.  One study described in the report found that students in traditional lecture courses were twice as likely to leave engineering and three times as likely to drop out of college entirely compared with students taught using active learning techniques.  In another cited study, students in a physics class that used active learning methods learned twice as much as those taught in a traditional class, as measured by test results.

Active learning has been implemented in large lectures and it has been shown that both domestic and International students perceive a wide array of benefits. In a recent study, broad improvements were shown in student engagement and understanding of unit material among international students.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Marrone |first1=Mauricio |last2=Taylor |first2=Murray |last3=Hammerle |first3=Mara |title=Do International Students Appreciate Active Learning in Lectures? |journal=Australasian Journal of Information Systems |date=15 March 2018 |volume=22 |doi=10.3127/ajis.v22i0.1334 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Active learning approaches have also been shown to reduce the contact between students and faculty by two thirds, while maintaining learning outcomes that were at least as good, and in one case, significantly better, compared to those achieved in traditional classrooms. Additionally, students' perceptions of their learning were improved and active learning classrooms were demonstrated to lead to a more efficient use of physical space.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Baepler |first1=Paul |last2=Walker |first2=J.D. |last3=Driessen |first3=Michelle |title=It's not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms |journal=Computers & Education |date=September 2014 |volume=78 |pages=227–236 |doi=10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006 }}</ref>

A 2019 study by Deslauriers et al. claimed that students have a biased perception of active learning and they feel they learn better with traditional teaching methods than active learning activities. It can be corrected by early preparation and continuous persuasion that the students are benefiting from active instruction.<ref>{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1073/pnas.1821936116| issn = 1091-6490| volume = 116| issue = 39| pages = 19251–19257| last1 = Deslauriers| first1 = Louis| last2 = McCarty| first2 = Logan S.| last3 = Miller| first3 = Kelly| last4 = Callaghan| first4 = Kristina| last5 = Kestin| first5 = Greg| title = Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom| journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences| date = 2019-09-04| pmid = 31484770| pmc = 6765278| bibcode = 2019PNAS..11619251D| doi-access = free}}</ref>

In a different study conducted by Wallace et al. (2021), they came to the conclusion that in a comparison between students being taught by an active-learning instructor vs. a traditional learning instructor, students who engaged in active-learning outperformed their counterparts in exam environments.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wallace |first1=Colin S. |last2=Prather |first2=Edward E. |last3=Milsom |first3=John A. |last4=Johns |first4=Ken |last5=Manne |first5=Srin |title=Students taught by a first-time instructor using active learning teaching strategies outperform students taught by a highly-regarded traditional instructor |journal=Journal of College Science Teaching |date=2021 |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=48–57 |doi=10.1080/0047231X.2021.12290517 |url=https://www.nsta.org/journal-college-science-teaching/journal-college-science-teaching-marchapril-2021/students-taught |arxiv=2004.09684 |s2cid=216035951 }}</ref> In this setting, the instructor focused on active-learning was a first-time instructor, and the individual who was teaching the traditional style of learning was a long-time instructor. The researchers acknowledged the limitations of this study in that individuals may have done better because of depth in specific sections of the class, so the researchers removed questions that could be favoring one section more than the other out of this analysis.