An Intervention-Based Active-Learning Strategy To Enhance Student Performance in Mathematics

Gaganpreet Sidhu, Seshasai Srinivasan

Abstract


Experiments were performed to study the effect of integrating an intervention strategy on student learning in an active learning environment in three different undergraduate mathematics courses. In these pedagogical experiments, the learning was measured via several subjective tests and the overall final grade for each course. For each course the comparison was made between two sections, one receiving the material via traditional instruction (control section) and the second receiving the material via instruction based on the active learning strategy (experimental section). It was found that students taught using the latter approach performed significantly better in the tests and exams, reflecting a good understanding of the material.

Full Text:

PDF
rticle

References


Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D. L., Allain, R. J., Bonham, J. W., Dancy, M. H., & Risley, J. S. (2007). The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) Project. http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4517&DocID=183

Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2-Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring”, Educational Researcher, 13, 4-16.

Buck, J. R., & Wage, K. E. (2005). Active and Cooperative Learning in Signal Processing Courses. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 22(2), 76–81.

Butler, A. C., Marsh, E. J., Slavinsky, J. P. & Baraniuk, R. G. (2014). Integrating Cognitive Science and Technology Improves Learning in a STEM Classroom. Educ. Psychol. Rev., 26, 331-340.

Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What's So Good About Problem-Based Learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61–79.

Crouch, C.H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.

Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E. & Wieman, C. (2011). Improving Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class. Science, 332, 862-864.

Freeman, S., O‘Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P., (2007). Prescribed Active Learning Increases Performance in Introductory Biology. Cell Biology Education, 6, 132–139.

Hoellwarth, C., Moelter, M. J., & Knight, R. D. (2005). A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms. American Journal of Physics, 73(5), 459–462.

Kirshner, P. A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of the Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.

Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching More by Lecturing Less. Cell Biology Education, 4, 298–310.

Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.

Lewis, S. E., & Lewis, J. E. (2005). Departing from Lectures: An Evaluation of a Peer-Led Guided Inquiry Alternative. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(1), 135–139.

Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): First Findings. Cell Biology Education, 3, 270–277.

Love, D. A. & Kotchen, M. J. (2010). Grades, Course Evaluations and Academic Incentives. Eastern Economic Journal, 36, 151-163.

McCreary, C. L., Golde, M. F., & Koeske, R. (2006). Peer Instruction in the General Chemistry Laboratory: Assessment of Student Learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 804–810.

Michael, J. (2006). Where‘s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167.

OECD. (2012). Education at a glance 2012. OECD indicators. Paris: OECD.

Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.

Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.

Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The Many Faces of Inductive Teaching and Learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14–20.

Roselli, R. J., & Brophy, S. P. (2006). Effectiveness of Challenge-Based Instruction in Biomechanics. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 311–324.

Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of Undergraduate Research Experiences. Science, 316, 548–549.

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.

Tien, L. T., Roth, V., & Kampmeier, J. A. (2001). Implementation of a Peer-Led Team Learning Instructional Approach in an Undergraduate Organic Chemistry Course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606–632.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). (2011). Global Education Digest 2011. Montreal: UIS.

Wage, K. E., Buck, J. R., Wright, C. H. G., & Welch, T. B. (2005). The Signals and Systems Concept Inventory. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(3), 448–461.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/ijpte.v2i1.19568

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Gaganpreet Sidhu, Seshasai Srinivasan

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

  

International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education

Print ISSN: 2597-7792
Online ISSN: 2549-8525
Website: https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/ijpte/index
Email: ijpte@mail.uns.ac.id
Published by: Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sebelas Maret
Ir. Sutami Street, No. 36A, Surakarta, Jawa Tengah Indonesia