Active-learning settings and physics lectures: a performance analysis

Abstract

We have divided a non-physics undergraduate student cohort into two parallel teaching settings. We offered a highly interactive flipped class (SCALE-UP) to one group of 52 students and a reformed LECTURE to the remaining 318 students. We compared student performance in both settings, based on a common midterm exam. The SCALE-UP students performed significantly better on conceptual problems, but for numerical problems, SCALE-UP and LECTURE students showed similar results.

Peer Learning as a Key Component of an Integrated Teaching Method: Overcoming the Complexities of Physics Teaching in Large Size Classes

“…Conversely, many studies have compared the effectiveness of interactive-engagement methodologies and traditional lectures in relation to physics teaching. Some wide and significant meta-analyses [13,17] emphasize that active learning is more effective, particularly with regard to conceptual understanding [27,28]. Nevertheless, this students' learning assessment is frequently performed through the same standardized concept inventories [83], like the Force Concept Inventory [84], and thus the effectiveness of the educational strategy as a function of the assessment test difficulty, i.e., the complexity of the concepts checked, is not investigated.…”

“…Since research focused on LSC may not be receiving proper attention, particularly with regard to the European context [28], further investigations appear to be needed and appropriate on the integration of PL into traditional lectures, as a possible solution to the problems posed by LSC in academic physics courses.…”

“…Firstly, there are a number of common reasons frequently indicated by instructors to explain their resistance to active learning strategies, such as lack of time, limited resources and a dearth of university or departmental support, along with some problems concerning syllabus content coverage [25,26]. Secondly, learners exposed to a student-centered educational strategy show undeniable improvements in conceptual understanding, but these improvements do not always correspond to as many gains in their problem-solving skills [27,28]. As a result, active methods require further investigation to confirm their specific impact and effectiveness.…”

“…Regardless of any numeric threshold, a large class appears to be an environment where the quality of learning may be negatively impacted by the number of learners. Moreover, research on active learning carried out in Europe frequently involves small (N < 50) or medium (50 ≤ N < 100) size classes [28,35,36], so university lecturers have little evidence regarding how to devise active pedagogies in large class formats. As a part of the active strategies, peer learning (PL) is probably deemed disadvantageous in large size classrooms, in spite of its value in supporting effective learning in higher education [37].…”

Gender, prior knowledge, and the impact of a flipped linear algebra course for engineers over multiple years

“…This result also led the authors to take a rather despairing position about the potential of the flipped format in engineering disciplines: “engineering appears to not be a suitable candidate for the flipped class method when compared to other disciplines” (Cheng et al, 2019, p. 810). While a review by Kerr (2015) found that students' grades improved in flipped classes and that students reported a higher satisfaction with the flipped format, the majority of studies in Kerr's meta‐analysis examine the impact of the flipped format in classrooms of small sizes; indeed, it is common to look at flipped approaches in classes of 20–50 students (e.g., Mason et al, 2013; Schiltz et al, 2019). In the 2019 meta‐analysis by Lo and Hew (2019), only 6 out of the 29 studies included concerned classes with more than 100 students.…”