Response to “Interpret with Caution: COPUS Instructional Styles May Not Differ in Terms of Practices That Support Student Learning,” by Melody McConnell, Jeffrey Boyer, Lisa M. Montplaisir, Jessie B. Arneson, Rachel L. S. Harding, Brian Farlow, and Erika G. Offerdahl

Wieman, Carl

doi:10.1187/cbe.21-05-0126

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, our study suggests that even though the link between active learning and better student outcomes is so strong, we cannot blindly assume that every instance of more student thinking and discussion automatically equates to better learning. This caution is especially important given that there are several established classroom observation tools Although the creators of such protocols are clear in stating measuring time spent on classroom activities cannot tell you about the quality and therefore the effect of that instruction, there has been a tendency among users to over-interpret observation protocol findings and assume that teaching styles with more time spent on active learning are inexorably better [41,58,59]. While it is clear that pure lecturing typically produces poor learning compared to many kinds of active learning, there are many other factors that influence teaching effectiveness and it matters how that active learning is implemented [9,58].…”

Section: Implications For Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples include the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS), which uses a set of codes to categorize student and instructor behavior within every two minutes of class time [55], Decibel Analysis for Research in Teaching (DART), which analyzes the volume and variance of classroom audio-recordings to estimate the percentage of time spent in active learning [56], and the Practical Observation Rubric To Assess Active Learning (PORTAAL), which measures the minutes students could spend in thinking or discussion as a component of its score [57]. Although the creators of such protocols are clear in stating measuring time spent on classroom activities cannot tell you about the quality and therefore the effect of that instruction, there has been a tendency among users to over-interpret observation protocol findings and assume that teaching styles with more time spent on active learning are inexorably better [41,58,59]. While it is clear that pure lecturing typically produces poor learning compared to many kinds of active learning, there are many other factors that influence teaching effectiveness and it matters how that active learning is implemented [9,58].…”

Section: Implications For Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of time spent on active learning on exam performance: A controlled case study on a course with different instructors but identical teaching materials

Lee

Maloy

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Active learning, including student thinking and discussion in class, has been shown to increase student learning gains. However, it is less clear how variations in how instructors implement active learning affect student gains. Our study aims to investigate the extent to which the time spent on individual active learning activities influences student performance. We hypothesized that instructors who let students spend more time on individual thinking and peer discussion on practice problems associated with particular learning objectives will have better student exam scores on exam questions addressing those objectives. To test this hypothesis, we obtained a large data set of classroom recordings and student exam scores from an introductory biology course at a large four-year university, where three instructors shared identical teaching materials and exams for different course offerings. Contrary to our hypothesis, although the three instructors spent significantly different amounts of time on episodes of thinking and peer discussion, there was no correlation between the total time spent on active learning activities and student performance on exam questions. Linear mixed-effects modeling of the effect of length of episodes of student thinking and discussion on exam score found that the amount of course time spent on active learning activities did not reliably predict student performance on associated exam questions. This result held true even when only considering learning objectives with high variations in performance between offerings, difficult exam questions, or within-instructor performance. Although our study was only conducted in one course, our results imply that time spent per individual episode of student thinking or peer discussion may not be the primary factor explaining the positive effects of active learning and that it may be worthwhile to explore other factors.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of time spent on active learning on exam performance: A controlled case study on a course with different instructors but identical teaching materials

Lee

Maloy

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Culturally responsive postsecondary performance measurement: amplifying student perceptions of success

Hoare

Goad

2022

Quality in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Time spent on active learning activities does not necessarily correlate with student exam performance: a controlled case study

Cen,

Lee,

Contreras

et al. 2024

J Microbiol Biol Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Active learning, including student thinking and discussion in class, has been shown to increase student learning gains. However, it is less clear how instructor-level variation in the implementation and timing of active learning activities affects student gains. Our study aims to investigate the extent to which the time spent on individual episodes of active learning activities influences student performance. We hypothesized that instructors who let students spend more time on peer discussion and individual thinking on practice problems associated with particular learning objectives would have better student exam scores on exam questions addressing those objectives. To test this hypothesis, we obtained a large data set of classroom recordings and student exam scores from an introductory biology course at a large 4-year university, where three instructors shared identical teaching materials and exams for different course offerings. Contrary to our hypothesis, although the three instructors spent significantly different amounts of time on episodes of thinking and peer discussion, there was no correlation between the total time spent on active learning activities and student performance on exam questions. Linear mixed-effects modeling of the effect of the length of episodes of student thinking and discussion on exam score found that in the context of shared instructional materials, the amount of course time spent on active learning activities did not reliably predict student performance on associated exam questions. This result held true even when only considering learning objectives with high variations in performance between offerings, difficult exam questions, or exam questions requiring higher-order thinking skills. Although our study was only conducted in one course, our results imply that time spent per individual episode of student thinking or peer discussion may not be the primary factor explaining the positive effects of active learning and that it may be worthwhile to explore other factors.

show abstract

Response to “Interpret with Caution: COPUS Instructional Styles May Not Differ in Terms of Practices That Support Student Learning,” by Melody McConnell, Jeffrey Boyer, Lisa M. Montplaisir, Jessie B. Arneson, Rachel L. S. Harding, Brian Farlow, and Erika G. Offerdahl

Abstract: This letter expands on the cautions about the use of COPUS discussed in the article by McConnell and colleagues in the June 2021 issue of LSE.

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Effect of time spent on active learning on exam performance: A controlled case study on a course with different instructors but identical teaching materials

Effect of time spent on active learning on exam performance: A controlled case study on a course with different instructors but identical teaching materials

Culturally responsive postsecondary performance measurement: amplifying student perceptions of success

Time spent on active learning activities does not necessarily correlate with student exam performance: a controlled case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About