The relative effectiveness of different active learning implementations in teaching elementary school students how to design simple experiments.

Abstract

“Active learning” has been used to describe classrooms that have varied widely with respect to instructional topics, age of learners, and the procedures used to operationalize the general notion of the term. In most cases, the specific variant of active learning under investigation has been more effective than the particular control used for comparison. The goal of the current study was to unambiguously describe, implement, and assess 4 different active learning implementations that varied based on the instructional technique employed by the teacher. The specific topic taught was the procedure for constructing experiments in which a single causal factor is clearly identified and there are no confounds. The procedure is commonly known in the literature on early scientific thinking as the “control of variables strategy” (CVS). The sample consisted of 145 3rd- and 4th-grade students from 3 schools. Students in each grade at each school were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 active learning conditions. Learning of CVS was measured through a hands-on, active learning activity and a written pre- and posttest. Results indicated that compared to minimal guidance/minimal guidance/activity, modeling/direct guidance/activity resulted in significantly higher levels of CVS knowledge on the hands-on activity. When examining student learning from pre- to posttest, students in all conditions had significant learning gains. However, the largest effect sizes were for modeling/direct guidance/activity followed by modeling/modeling/activity, and the weakest effect size was for minimal guidance/minimal guidance/activity. Thus, more direct/explicit forms of active learning promoted higher learning of CVS than more inquiry-based forms.

Quotation Accuracy Matters: An Examination of How an Influential Meta-Analysis on Active Learning Has Been Cited

“…Nevertheless, lecture is not necessarily ineffective in that it can be an efficient way to disseminate information (see research on explicit/direct instruction, for example (e.g., Klahr & Nigam, 2004; Martella et al, 2020). Lectures have the potential to provide context and structure for a subject, facilitate the development of an idea, promote listening and note-taking skills, give students access to new information in the field, and allow students to learn from content experts in the field, among other possible benefits (French & Kennedy, 2017).…”

Experiential - Participatory Teaching Techniques in Primary Education: Exploring the Views of Greek Teachers

“…At the same time, in the sixth question a fairly high percentage (80%) of teachers answered between the options "Moderately" and "Very" (Tables 8 and 9). This means that the respondents' statements are positive regarding the fact that the educational needs and interests of students are met in the best possible way through the use of experiential -participatory teaching techniques.In line with the data of questions ( 5) and (6) in several researches and studies, it is demonstrated that the utilization of experiential -participatory teaching techniques achieve active participation in the learning process by taking into account the needs and interests of students (Barta et al, 2022;Evangelou, 2023a;Hackathorn et al, 2011;Martella et al,2020;Linsenmeyer, 2021;Lombardi et al,2021;Vosniadou et al, 2020;Wolff et al, 2015;Yennita & Zukmadini, 2021).…”

“…From the literature review, it is found in numerous researches and studies that experientialparticipatory teaching techniques, when utilized during the learning and teaching process, arouse the interest of students and achieve their active participation in the learning process (Chugai et al, 2017;Hackathorn et al, 2011;Koutsoukos et al, 2021;Lygda et al, 2021;Martella et al,2020;Wolff et al, 2015;Zayapragassarazan & Kumar, 2012) taking into account students' needs and interests (Barta et al, 2022;Evangelou, 2023a;Linsenmeyer, 2021;Lombardi et al, 2021;Vosniadou et al, 2020;Yennita & Zukmadini, 2021), enhance student learning, contribute to high learning outcomes (Armbruster et al, 2009;Barta et al, 2022;Evangelou, 2023a;Hyun et al, 2017;Johnson et al, 2014;Johnson & Johnson, 2017;Linsenmeyer, 2021;Rissanen, 2014;Sakata, 2022;Slavin, 1985Slavin, , 2015Surakarn et al, 2020;Termos, 2013), as well as improve social relationships among work group members in the classroom through interaction and collaboration among students (Courau, 2000;Evangelou, 2023a;Kaldi et al, 2009aKaldi et al, , 2009bKaldi et al 2011;Kaldi, 2014;Louizou et al, 2019;Surakarn et al, 2020).…”

Defining Active Learning: A Restricted Systemic Review

“…For example, Nguyen et al (2021) define active learning as, "classroom-based activities designed to engage students in their learning through answering questions, solving problems, discussing content, or teaching others, individually or in groups" (2). This common approach that active learning is activity driven aligns with one of the currently most cited definitions (see Martella, Klahr, and Li 2020) from Freeman et al (2014): "Active learning engages students in the process of learning through activities and/or discussion in class, as opposed to passively listening to an expert" (8413). In addition to activity-driven ones, definitions emphasizing engagement are also common: "The core elements of active learning are student activity and engagement in the learning process" (Prince 2004, 223).…”