How much active teaching should be incorporated into college course lectures to promote active learning?

IF 3.9 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Amedee Marchand Martella , Melissa Swisher , Richard E. Mayer
{"title":"How much active teaching should be incorporated into college course lectures to promote active learning?","authors":"Amedee Marchand Martella ,&nbsp;Melissa Swisher ,&nbsp;Richard E. Mayer","doi":"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2024.102316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A long-standing controversy in the learning sciences involves the appropriate balance between more didactic forms of instruction (e.g., lecture) and those that involve more active teaching (e.g., student learning activities). There have been calls for second generation research that examines how much class time should be allocated to student learning activities and how much to lecture to maximize student learning in college courses—a question of the appropriate mix of instructor lecture and student activity. The purpose of the present study was to systematically compare the effects on learning outcomes of two mixtures of learning activities and lecture during a college course on research methods: <em>mostly lecture</em> (consisting of ∼67 % to 75 % lecture and ∼25 % to 33 % learning activities), and <em>mostly activity</em> (consisting of ∼67 % to 75 % learning activities and ∼25 % to 33 % lecture). In a between-subjects design, students in a research-methods in psychology course experienced in-class lessons that were mostly lecture or mostly activity across two different lessons. Participants in the <em>mostly activity</em> condition scored significantly higher on an assessment of learning than those in the <em>mostly lecture</em> condition for a lesson on single-case research designs (<em>d</em> = 0.38) which was less complex but performance between the two instructional conditions was similar for the lesson on direct observational methods which was more complex. Theoretical implications involve potential refinements to generative learning theory. Practical implications involve recommendations for when to provide high amounts of student learning activities during a class period.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10635,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Educational Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Educational Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361476X24000614","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A long-standing controversy in the learning sciences involves the appropriate balance between more didactic forms of instruction (e.g., lecture) and those that involve more active teaching (e.g., student learning activities). There have been calls for second generation research that examines how much class time should be allocated to student learning activities and how much to lecture to maximize student learning in college courses—a question of the appropriate mix of instructor lecture and student activity. The purpose of the present study was to systematically compare the effects on learning outcomes of two mixtures of learning activities and lecture during a college course on research methods: mostly lecture (consisting of ∼67 % to 75 % lecture and ∼25 % to 33 % learning activities), and mostly activity (consisting of ∼67 % to 75 % learning activities and ∼25 % to 33 % lecture). In a between-subjects design, students in a research-methods in psychology course experienced in-class lessons that were mostly lecture or mostly activity across two different lessons. Participants in the mostly activity condition scored significantly higher on an assessment of learning than those in the mostly lecture condition for a lesson on single-case research designs (d = 0.38) which was less complex but performance between the two instructional conditions was similar for the lesson on direct observational methods which was more complex. Theoretical implications involve potential refinements to generative learning theory. Practical implications involve recommendations for when to provide high amounts of student learning activities during a class period.
大学课程讲授中应融入多少主动式教学以促进主动学习?
长期以来,学习科学领域一直存在着一个争议,即如何在说教式教学(如讲授)和主动式教学(如学生学习活动)之间取得适当的平衡。有人呼吁开展第二代研究,探讨在大学课程中,应将多少课时分配给学生学习活动,多少课时用于讲授,以最大限度地提高学生的学习效果--这就是教师讲授和学生活动的适当组合问题。本研究的目的是系统地比较大学研究方法课程中学习活动和讲授两种混合方式对学习效果的影响:讲授为主(讲授占 67% 至 75%,学习活动占 25% 至 33%),活动为主(学习活动占 67% 至 75%,讲授占 25% 至 33%)。在主体间设计中,心理学研究方法课程的学生在两节不同的课上经历了以讲授为主或以活动为主的课堂教学。在复杂程度较低的单案例研究设计课程中,以活动为主的学生在学习评估中的得分明显高于以讲授为主的学生(d = 0.38),但在复杂程度较高的直接观察法课程中,两种教学条件下的学生表现相似。理论影响包括对生成性学习理论的潜在改进。实践意义包括建议何时在课堂上提供大量的学生学习活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Contemporary Educational Psychology
Contemporary Educational Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
16.50
自引率
3.90%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Contemporary Educational Psychology is a scholarly journal that publishes empirical research from various parts of the world. The research aims to substantially advance, extend, or re-envision the ongoing discourse in educational psychology research and practice. To be considered for publication, manuscripts must be well-grounded in a comprehensive theoretical and empirical framework. This framework should raise critical and timely questions that educational psychology currently faces. Additionally, the questions asked should be closely related to the chosen methodological approach, and the authors should provide actionable implications for education research and practice. The journal seeks to publish manuscripts that offer cutting-edge theoretical and methodological perspectives on critical and timely education questions. The journal is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Contents Pages in Education, Australian Educational Index, Current Contents, EBSCOhost, Education Index, ERA, PsycINFO, Sociology of Education Abstracts, PubMed/Medline, BIOSIS Previews, and others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信