1. Learning by Doing: An Empirical Study of Active Teaching Techniques
Jana Hackathorn, Erin D. Solomon, Kate L. Blankmeyer, Rachel E. Tennial, Amy M. Garczynski
Presented by Sterling McLeod

2. Background/Motivation
Conventionally, higher education classroom time is largely spent on verbal communication of material without meaningful interaction with students
Students are to passively absorb the information and do whatever is necessary to master material before an exam
Usually leads to students taking notes during class and learning material on a deep level outside of class
Research suggests that this style of teaching:
Does not engage students
Relies heavily on instructor’s ability to describe things
Does not maintain student attention
Does not promote critical thinking
Misc. other bad things…

3. Background/Motivation
Active Teaching - Any technique that involves the students in the learning process and holds students responsible for their own learning1
This definition creates a large umbrella over many techniques
Group discussions
Games
Journaling
Field trips
Demonstrations
Routinely asking questions while lecturing
1 Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Rep. No. 1). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

4. Background/Motivation
Active teaching techniques change the pace of the typical classroom environment
In-class time is no longer simply an “information dump”
These techniques promote creativity and provide more freedom on the instructor’s part to find the best ways to engage students
Different techniques will engage students differently
Some may warrant more critical thinking by the students (e.g. discussions)
Some may lead to better comprehension through observing phenomena rather than listening to how it works (e.g. visiting a mental hospital)
Desirable to have empirical data to support this

5. Study
To assess learning, first three levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (cognitive levels) are evaluated:
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
Four techniques are examined:
Lecture, Demonstration, Discussion, In-class activities

6. Study First three levels of Bloom’s taxonomy as evaluation criteria:
Knowledge
Ability to remember facts, terms, basic concepts of material
Measured by questions asking students to identify, list, or describe basic concepts
Comprehension
Ability to compare and contrast ideas and give descriptions of material
Measured by prompts asking students to reword information in a meaningful matter
Application
Ability to use acquired knowledge
Measured by applying material to new constructs

7. Study
Lecture
“Information Dump”
Presenting information with little opportunity for interaction
Generally, instructors introduce concepts, give definitions, and show examples of how phenomena work
Students may be able to retain basic concepts such as vocabulary terms, but will not understand intricacies of applying material
Hypothesis on lecturing: Students taught by lecture would score higher on knowledge level questions than comprehension and application level questions

8. Study
Demonstrations
Activities that show how phenomena work, e.g. examples on board, using props, etc.
Students observe (or participate) rather than listening and interpreting
Do not engage all students and do not promote critical thinking
Students may understand concepts, but may not recognize vocabulary or have increased ability to apply material
Hypothesis on demonstrations: Students taught through demonstrations would score higher on comprehension level questions than knowledge and application level questions

9. Study
Discussions
Students give and receive information
Students must build off previous contributions – requires comprehension of material and critically thinking about progression of material
Hypothesis on discussions: Students taught through discussions would score higher on comprehension level questions than knowledge and application level questions

10. Study In-class Activities
Arguably the most active teaching method
Usually involve all students in a class working to solve a problem
Students manipulate constructs themselves to make phenomena occur
In order to apply material, students must understand concepts
Hypothesis on in-class activities: Students taught with in-class activities would score higher on both comprehension and application level questions than knowledge

11. Study Hypotheses on student scores based on teaching technique:
Lecture: knowledge > comprehension, application
Demonstrations: comprehension > knowledge, application
Discussions: comprehension > knowledge, application
In-class Activities: comprehension, application > knowledge
In-class Activities > Lecture

12. Method Students were taught with 1 of the 4 techniques
Learning assessed with 6 quizzes and 4 exams
Participants
Social Psychology course
Midwestern university
51 students (18 men, 33 women)
Average GPA = 3.31 (SD = 0.66)
Average Age = (SD = 0.76)
46% were psychology majors
Procedure
Material taught through whichever technique he/she thought complemented the material
Two research assistants (unaware of hypotheses) created quizzes to assess learning
Two other R.A.s (also unaware) graded quizzes
Instructor graded exams

13. Results Knowledge Comprehension Application M SD Lecture .760 .169
.878
.109
.919
.100
Demonstrations
.678
.212
.698
.285
.808
.157
Discussions
.820
.180
.621
.267
.856
.098
In-Class Activity
.789
.163
.872
.142
.900
.088

14. Results/Discussion
Hypothesis 1: Students taught by lecture will have higher scores on knowledge questions than comprehension and application questions.
(Lecture Scores: knowledge > comprehension, application)
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application M SD
Lecture
.760
.169
.878
.109
.919
.100
Demonstrations
.678
.212
.698
.285
.808
.157
Discussions
.820
.180
.621
.267
.856
.098
In-Class Activity
.789
.163
.872
.142
.900
.088

15. Results/Discussion
Hypothesis 1: Students taught by lecture will have higher scores on knowledge questions than comprehension and application questions.
(Lecture Scores: knowledge > comprehension, application)
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application M SD
Lecture
.760
.169
.878
.109
.919
.100
Demonstrations
.678
.212
.698
.285
.808
.157
Discussions
.820
.180
.621
.267
.856
.098
In-Class Activity
.789
.163
.872
.142
.900
.088
Hypothesis 1 not supported by data.

16. Results/Discussion
Contrary to initial beliefs about lecture, its scores for knowledge were the lowest out of all cognitive levels
Knowledge level questions are generally based around memorization and a common complaint of lecture is that students do not maintain attention
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application M SD
Lecture
.760
.169
.878
.109
.919
.100
Demonstrations
.678
.212
.698
.285
.808
.157
Discussions
.820
.180
.621
.267
.856
.098
In-Class Activity
.789
.163
.872
.142
.900
.088
Data suggests lecture is very effective (at least for this subject, teacher, and class)
Scores for lecture in all levels were 76% or above (very good!)
Highest score in comprehension and application

17. Results/Discussion
Hypothesis 2: Students taught by demonstrations will have higher scores on comprehension questions than knowledge and application questions.
(Demonstrations Scores: comprehension > knowledge, application)
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application M SD
Lecture
.760
.169
.878
.109
.919
.100
Demonstrations
.678
.212
.698
.285
.808
.157
Discussions
.820
.180
.621
.267
.856
.098
In-Class Activity
.789
.163
.872
.142
.900
.088
Hypothesis 2 partially supported by data.

18. Results/Discussion
This suggests that students may learn to apply material by watching others manipulate phenomena
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application M SD
Lecture
.760
.169
.878
.109
.919
.100
Demonstrations
.678
.212
.698
.285
.808
.157
Discussions
.820
.180
.621
.267
.856
.098
In-Class Activity
.789
.163
.872
.142
.900
.088

19. Results/Discussion
Hypothesis 3: Students taught by discussions will have higher scores on comprehension questions than knowledge and application questions .
(Discussion Scores: comprehension > knowledge, application)
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application M SD
Lecture
.760
.169
.878
.109
.919
.100
Demonstrations
.678
.212
.698
.285
.808
.157
Discussions
.820
.180
.621
.267
.856
.098
In-Class Activity
.789
.163
.872
.142
.900
.088
Hypothesis 3 not supported by data.

20. Results/Discussion
Significantly lower results in comprehension than other levels
Discussions could include incorrect information – even if corrected, being exposed to it may interfere with learning
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application M SD
Lecture
.760
.169
.878
.109
.919
.100
Demonstrations
.678
.212
.698
.285
.808
.157
Discussions
.820
.180
.621
.267
.856
.098
In-Class Activity
.789
.163
.872
.142
.900
.088
Repeatedly hearing vocabulary words may help increase memory for knowledge level learning

21. Results/Discussion
Hypothesis 4: Students taught by in-class activities will have higher scores on comprehension and application questions than knowledge questions.
(In-class Activity Scores: comprehension, application > knowledge)
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application M SD
Lecture
.760
.169
.878
.109
.919
.100
Demonstrations
.678
.212
.698
.285
.808
.157
Discussions
.820
.180
.621
.267
.856
.098
In-Class Activity
.789
.163
.872
.142
.900
.088
Hypothesis 4 supported by data.

22. Results/Discussion
Hypothesis was correct, but knowledge level scores are still high
Suggests that in-class activities may be most effective technique in general
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application M SD
Lecture
.760
.169
.878
.109
.919
.100
Demonstrations
.678
.212
.698
.285
.808
.157
Discussions
.820
.180
.621
.267
.856
.098
In-Class Activity
.789
.163
.872
.142
.900
.088

23. Results/Discussion
Hypothesis 5: Students taught by in-class activities will have higher overall scores than students taught by lecture.
(In-class Activity scores > Lecture scores)
Overall score = percentage of correct answers in all categories
Hypothesis 5 supported by data.
Hackathorna, Jana, et al. "The Journal of Effective Teaching." JET (2011): 40.

24. Results/Discussion
More evidence that in-class activities are the most effective technique
Overall scores increase as the technique becomes more active
However, previous data on individual level assessment suggests that each method has advantages and disadvantages
Lecture has lowest overall score, but performed extremely well when measuring cognitive levels
Hackathorna, Jana, et al. "The Journal of Effective Teaching." JET (2011): 40.

25. Study Limitations, Misc. Notes
Full content coverage is an issue with active teaching – instructors must consider how much time is spent learning what material
Mixing in various teaching techniques can appeal to a wide range of learning styles
The class was an upper level course so some students may have gone over material in previous classes
46% of the students took a course with the instructor previously – those students were more aware of his/her style of teaching
Elective course
Experimenter bias may have been present because the instructor was the experimenter