CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 455Innovative Teaching MethodsEvaluation of Teaching PracticesScience Education and Pedagogy

Prescribed Active Learning Increases Performance in Introductory Biology

Open access
Freeman, Scott, O'Connor, Eileen, Parks, John W., Cunningham, Matthew, Hurley, David, Haak, David, Dirks, Clarissa, Wenderoth, Mary Pat·2007·CBE—Life Sciences Education
DOI 10.1187/cbe.06-09-0194PMC PMC1885904
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We tested five course designs that varied in the structure of daily and weekly active-learning exercises in an attempt to lower the traditionally high failure rate in a gateway course for biology majors. Students were given daily multiple-choice questions and answered with electronic response devices (clickers) or cards. Card responses were ungraded; clicker responses were graded for right/wrong answers or participation. Weekly practice exams were done as an individual or as part of a study group. Compared with previous versions of the same course taught by the same instructor, students in the new course designs performed better: There were significantly lower failure rates, higher total exam points, and higher scores on an identical midterm. Attendance was higher in the clicker versus cards section; attendance and course grade were positively correlated. Students did better on clicker questions if they were graded for right/wrong answers versus participation, although this improvement did not translate into increased scores on exams. In this course, achievement increases when students get regular practice via prescribed (graded) active-learning exercises.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1187/cbe.06-09-0194

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Both self- and peer-evaluation of work are avenues for providing meaningful feedback without formal grading on correctness that can positively influence students' learning (Sadler and Good, 2006; Freeman et al., 2007; Freeman and Parks, 2010).

    “In summary, both self- and peer-evaluation of work are avenues for providing meaningful feedback without formal grading on correctness that can positively influence students' learning (Sadler and Good, 2006; Freeman et al., 2007; Freeman and Parks, 2010).”

    From Teaching More by Grading Less (or Differently) (2014) · cites this paper as Freeman et al., 2007

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Angelo T. A., Cross K. P. Classroom Assessment Techniques. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bloom B. S. New York: Longmans Green; 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, by a Committee of College and University Examiners. [Google Scholar]
  3. Born W., Revelle W., Pinto L. Improving biology performance with workshop groups. J. Sci. Educ. Tech. 2002;11:347–365. [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyd B. L. Formative classroom assessment: learner focused. Ag. Educ. Mag. 2001;73:18–19. [Google Scholar]
  5. Byrd G. G., Coleman S., Wernath C. Exploring the universe together: cooperative quizzes with and without a classroom performance system in Astronomy 101. Astron. Educ. Rev. 2003;3:26–30. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cech T., Kennedy D. Doing more for Kate. Science. 2005;310:1741. doi: 10.1126/science.1123580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  7. Cortright R. N., Collins H. L., Rodenbaugh D. W., DiCarlo S. E. Student retention of course content is improved by collaborative-group testing. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2003;27:102–108. doi: 10.1152/advan.00041.2002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  8. Cota-Robles E. H., Gordan E. W. New York: College Board; 1999. Reaching the Top: A Report of the National Task Force on Minority High Achievement. [Google Scholar]
  9. Crouch C. H., Mazur E. Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am. J. Phys. 2001;69:970–977. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dirks C., Cunningham M. Enhancing diversity in science: is teaching scientific process skills the answer? CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2006;5:218–226. doi: 10.1187/cbe.05-10-0121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  11. Ebert-May D., Brewer C. A., Allred S. Innovation in large lectures—teaching for active learning. BioScience. 1997;47:601–607. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gandara P., Maxwell-Jolly J. New York: College Board; 1999. Priming the Pump: Strategies for Increasing Underrepresented Minority Graduates. [Google Scholar]
  13. Handelsman J., et al. Scientific teaching. Science. 2004;304:521–522. doi: 10.1126/science.1096022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  14. Knight J. K., Wood W. B. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol. Educ. 2005;4:298–310. doi: 10.1187/05-06-0082. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  15. Lyman F. T. The responsive classroom discussion: the inclusion of all students. In: Mainstreaming Digest. In: Anderson A., editor. College Park: University of Maryland Press; 1981. pp. 109–113. [Google Scholar]
  16. Matsui J., Liu R., Kane C. M. Evaluating a science diversity program at UC Berkeley: more questions than answers. Cell Biol. Educ. 2003;2:117–121. doi: 10.1187/cbe.02-10-0050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  17. Mazur E. Peer Instruction: A User's Manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  18. McConnell D. A. Using conceptests to assess and improve student conceptual understanding in introductory geoscience courses. J. Geosci. Educ. 2006;54:61–68. [Google Scholar]
  19. Meltzer D. E., Manivannan K. Transforming the lecture-hall environment: the fully interactive physics lecture. Am. J. Phys. 2002;70:639–654. [Google Scholar]
  20. Moore R. Attendance and performance: how important is it for students to attend class? J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2003;32:367–371. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mosteller F. The “Muddiest Point in the Lecture” as a feedback device. On Teach. Learn. J. Harvard-Danforth Cent. 1989;3:10–21. [Google Scholar]
  22. Peters A. Teaching biochemistry at a minority-serving institution: an evaluation of the role of collaborative learning as a tool for science mastery. J. Chem. Educ. 2005;82:571–574. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sharma M. D., Mendez A., O'Byrne J. W. The relationship between attendance in student-centred physics tutorials and performance in university examinations. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2005;27:1375–1389. [Google Scholar]
  24. Steele C. M. A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am. Psychologist. 1997;52:613–629. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.52.6.613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  25. Thomas P. V., Higbee J. L. The relationship between involvement and success in developmental algebra. J. Coll. Read. Learn. 2000;30:222–232. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zeilik M., Morris V. J. The impact of cooperative quizzes in a large introductory astronomy course for non-science majors. Astron. Educ. Rev. 2004;3:51–61. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Freeman, S., O'Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
ORCID
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Publisher
American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
Published
2007-06
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
132-139
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1187/cbe.06-09-0194
PMC
PMC1885904
OpenAlex
W2133819396
Cited by
455
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 20
FWCI
54.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Washington
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
active learning, clickers, course design, introductory biology, gateway courses, student failure rates, study groups, practice tests, student attendance
MeSH terms
Biology, Curriculum, Educational Measurement, Female, Humans, Male, Seasons, Students, Models, Educational, Risk Assessment, Problem-Based Learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review