COVID-19: Reversing the Gains of Active Learning

Jeffrey Ludwig

doi:10.31686/ijier.vol9.iss6.3184

Authors

Jeffrey Ludwig

University of California, Irvine

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2677-371X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol9.iss6.3184

Keywords:

active learning, remote learning, COVID-19, team-based quizzes, asynchronous lectures, traditional learning

Abstract

COVID-19 and its ensuing pandemic ignited an atomic bomb on educational systems across the world invoking an emergent and abrupt transition to remote learning. The aftershocks were unpredictable but left a crippled educational system where students were forced into their bedrooms, sometimes deported to their homelands in different time-zones and isolated from their friends and peers. Learning quickly transitioned from social face-to-face interactions to an estranged and detached face-to-computer dependence. Although some introverted students welcomed this transition, many were dissatisfied, and their performance reflected this sentiment. In this study, we compare students’ performance in an undergraduate mathematics class in a large research-intensive university in the Western United States of America over a 2-year time period from 2019 to 2020. This started as a traditional lecture-style course for 3 quarters, transitioned to a hybrid lecture style with integrated adaptive team-based quizzes for 2 quarters, and abruptly changed with the COVID-19 pandemic to online lectures with team-based quizzes for 1 quarter. We demonstrate in our retrospective data analysis that the performance gains from the traditional lecture-style transition to active learning were subsequently lost in the movement to remote learning. We discuss the many obstacles that may have accounted for this loss of performance and suggest future directions for improving remote active learning methodologies.

Author Biography

Jeffrey Ludwig, University of California, Irvine

Department of Mathematics

References

Adedoyin, O.& Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments. http://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180

Berkey, D. & Halfond, J. (2015). Cheating, Student Authentication and Proctoring in Online Programs. New England Board of Higher Education. Available: https://neghe.org/journal/cheating-student-authentication-and-proctoring-in-online-programs/

Bolden, E., Oestreich, T., Kenney, M. & Yuhnke, B.T. (2017). Location, location, location: A comparison of student experience in a lecture hall to a small classroom using similar techniques. Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), pp. 139-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417742018

Buerch, J., Malmstrom, T. & Peppers, E. (2003). Learning Environments and Learning Styles: Non-traditional Student Enrollment and Success in an Internet-based Versus a Lecture-based Computer Science Course. Learning Environments Research. 6, 137-155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:102493002433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024939002433

Business Meetings, The Case for Face-to-Face. Forbes Insights 2009

Deslauriers, L, McCarty, L.S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K. & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 116(39). 19251-19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116

Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital Competence in Practice: An Analysis of Frameworks. Technical Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. European Union. https://doi.org/10.2791/82116.

Freeman, S. Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. & Wenderoth, M.P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111(23). pp. 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

Hassenburg, A. (2009). Distance Education Versus The Traditional Classroom. Berkeley Scientific Journal. 13(1). Available: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3859m52h DOI: https://doi.org/10.5070/BS3131007609

Kemp, N. & Grieve, R. Face-to-face or face-to-screen? (2014). Undergraduates’ opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning. Front Psychol. 5:1278. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278. PMID 254292276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278

Konig, J., Jager-Biela, D.J. & Glutsch, N. (2020). Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. 43(4), pp. 608-622. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650

Managing Across Distance in Today’s Economic Climate: The Value of Face-to-Face Communication. A Report by Harvard Business Review Analytic Services. June 2009. pp. 1-12.

McCarthy, J.P. & Anderson, L. (2000). Active Learning Techniques Versus Traditional Teaching Styles: Two Experiements from History and Political Science. Innovative Higher Education. 24(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IHIE.0000047415.48495.05

Muilenburg, L.Y. & Berge, Z.L. (2007). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education. 26(1), pp. 29-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081269

Orlov, G., McKee, D., Berry, J., Boyle, A., CiCiccio, T., Ransom, T., Rees-Jones, A. & Stoye, J. (2020). Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: It is Not Who You Teach, but How You Teach. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper Series No. 28022. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28022. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w28022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w28022

Otter, R.R., Seipel, S., Graeff, T., Alexander, B., Boraiko, C., Gray, J., Peterson, K. & Sadler, K. (2013). Comparing student and faculty perceptions of online and traditional courses. The Internet and Higher Education. 19: pp. 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.08.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.08.001

Raes, A., Vanneste, P., Pieters M., Windey I., Noortgate W.V.D. & Depaepe, F. (2020). Learning and instruction in the hybrid virtual classroom: An investigation of students’ engagement and the effect of quizzes. Computers & Education. 143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103682. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103682

Shachar, M. & Neumann, Y. (2003). Differences Between Traditional and Distance Education Academic Performances: A Meta-Analytic Approach. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 4(2) https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.153 DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.153

Thrope, M (1998). Assessment and third generation distance education. Distance Education. 19(2), pp. 265-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791980190206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791980190206

Venton, B.J. & Pompano, R.R. (2021). Strategies for enhancing remote student engagement through active learning. Anal Bioanal Chem. 18:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03159-0. PMID 33458779 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03159-0

Wang, C.H., Shannon, D. & Ross, M. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education. 34(3), pp. 302-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835779. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835779

Wei, H.C. & Chou, C. (2020). Online learning performance and satisfaction: do perceptions and readiness matter? Distance Education. 41(1). pp. 48-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1724768. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1724768