Amedee Marchand Martella , Melissa Swisher , Richard E. Mayer
{"title":"大学课程讲授中应融入多少主动式教学以促进主动学习?","authors":"Amedee Marchand Martella , Melissa Swisher , 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":"{\"title\":\"How much active teaching should be incorporated into college course lectures to promote active learning?\",\"authors\":\"Amedee Marchand Martella , Melissa Swisher , 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}","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}
How much active teaching should be incorporated into college course lectures to promote active learning?
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.
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.