About the SA Blog Network



Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Interactive Learning Closes College Science Achievement Gap–on a Shoestring Budget

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

students learn better acheivement gap for disadvantaged students closes with active structured learningWe all know how to get to Carnegie Hall: practice. The same holds true for a range of goals—from improving a golf swing to giving a good presentation.

As a graduate student at the University of Washington, David Haak wondered if this principle could be used to help boost the performance of students—especially those considered high-risk—in introductory undergraduate science courses.

These huge lecture classes are key portals to higher-level sciences, but in them, students are often not given the chance to practice the critical thinking and articulation skills by which they’ll be judged in crucial midterm and final exams.

At U.W., students from educationally or economically disadvantaged backgrounds, many of who were underrepresented minorities and the first in their family to attend college, had previously been more than twice as likely to fail the intro Biology 180 lecture course than other students.

But Haak, now at Indiana University, and his colleagues decided to take a page from the  latest K–12 pedagogical lesson books and start introducing more active-learning elements into the courses. For his more structured course design, he included previously proven tools, such as small group discussions, short weekly exams and class-wide quizzes where students use clickers to register their answers in a central computer system—allowing an instructor to get instant feedback on the class’ comprehension.

The team then analyzed student grades from several academic years of the biology course given in both standard and active-learning formats. Even when controlling for student ability and individual faculty differences, the team found that the courses with the most active learning elements saw improved learning for all students. And those who benefited the most were the disadvantaged students. The achievement gap between them and their more advantaged peers was cut nearly in half.

With this sort of interactive learning, "they find out how to apply information in new ways, to develop higher-order thinking," Haak said in a prepared statement. "Such higher-order thinking is the first step in mastering science." The class structure thus provided students the chance to practice and hone skills all semester, supporting what the researchers call the Carnegie Hall hypothesis.

And Haak and his colleagues maintain that the active-learning environment, with its quizzes and buzzer questions, is actually leading students to a deeper understanding of the material rather than just better test-taking skills. "The high level of exam questions in this course suggests that the performance gains we document here reflect actual learning gains," they wrote in a paper describing the work, which published online June 2 in Science.

Countless programs—many of them successful—have funneled more resources toward mentoring or tutoring for high-risk students. But such initiatives are often vulnerable in tight financial times. The classroom model described in the new study proved itself effective in the midst of budget cuts. Even as class size more than doubled—from 345 to 700 students—lab time was cut by 30 percent and the ratio of teaching assistants-to-students fell by about half, the improvements in student achievement were sustained.

"If the Carnegie Hall hypothesis is correct, highly structured courses may be able to reduce the achievement gap while raising the performance of all students without requiring additional resources," Haak and his coauthors noted in their paper.

Scott Freeman, a U.W. biology lecturer and coauthor of the paper, acknowledged that although the approach is affordable once it is up and running, developing a good interactive course can take time, money and enthusiasm on the part of the professors and departments. "Most faculty lack training in these techniques and may also lack the time to develop needed materials," Freeman said in a prepared statement. But given his school’s positive results, he added, "we should move to active learning as quickly as possible."

Image courtesy of iStockphoto/monkeybusinessimages

Rights & Permissions

Comments 3 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. ImproperUsername 5:52 pm 06/2/2011 is a model.

    Link to this
  2. 2. bucketofsquid 3:47 pm 06/13/2011

    Passive learning exists only in the minds of lazy educators. The more active the learning, the more is actually learned. All of the best teachers I’ve encountered require some form of feedback on a continual basis. The worst ones just lectured or read to the students and had only 1 or 2 major tests to determine the grade.

    Link to this
  3. 3. johneducationpro 1:43 am 11/13/2013

    Having Proper education is Very important now days, because it will help us getting good jobs in Future and give more education. But today with rising College education cost there are many potential Students who are not able to get college education because of high tuition fees. Those potential students can get college degree from Life experience degree program also only if they professional working experience.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American


Get All-Access Digital + Print >


Email this Article