Active versus Passive Teaching: Students’ Perceptions and Thinking Skills
Abstract
Most studies show that active teaching approaches positively affect student development when compared to passive teaching approaches. However, the literature is still unclear if an active teaching approach is more effective in all circumstances. This is because some studies find no differences in learning gains between the two approaches. Therefore, this study looks at how different levels of knowledge from Bloom’s taxonomy are affected by the active versus passive teaching approach. The research was conducted with a group of students of economics and management. A validated standardized instrument to assess microeconomic and macroeconomic competencies (TUCE Test) allows us to model added value to the following cognitive levels: knowledge and understanding, explicit application, and implicit application. The cognitive levels are constructed in accordance with a revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy. The results show that the active teaching approach is positively linked to academic performance at two cognitive levels: recognition and understanding and explicit understanding, with no significant relationship at the level of implicit understanding. On the other hand, a passive teaching approach has a negative relationship with academic outcomes at all the three cognitive levels.
Downloads
References
Anderson L.W., Krathwohl D.R. (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Arum R., Roksa J. (2011) Academy Adrift: Limited Learning on Our Campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Attard A., Di Ioio E., Geven K., Santa R. (2010) Student Centered Learning. An Insight into Theory and Practice. Bukarest: Education International, European Students Union.
Barr R.B., Tagg J. (1995) From Teaching to Learning – a New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education. Change, vol. 27, no 6, pp. 13–24.
Bean J.C., Melzer D. (2021) Engaging Ideas: The Professor's Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Biesta G. (2014) The Beautiful Risk of Education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Bloom S.B., Krathwohl R.D. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York, NY: Longmans.
Børte K., Nesje K., Lillejord S. (2020) Barriers to Student Active Learning in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 28, no 3, pp. 597–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1839746
Branzetti J., Gisondi M.A., Hopson L.R., Regan L. (2019) Aiming beyond Competent: The Application of the Taxonomy of Significant Learning to Medical Education. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, vol. 31, no 4, pp. 466–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2018.1561368
Brooks J.G., Brooks M.G. (1999) In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Clark B.R. (1983) The Higher Education System. Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley, LA: University of California.
Cuban L. (2013) Why So Many Structural Changes in Schools and So Little Reform in Teaching Practice? Journal of Educational Administration, vol. 51, no 1, pp. 109–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231311304661
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, vol. 116, no 39, pp. 19251–19257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
Dong F.M. (2014) Teaching Learning Strategies: Connections to Bloom's Taxonomy. Journal of Food Science Education, vol. 13, iss. 4, pp. 59–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4329.12043
Federiakin D., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia O., Kardanova E., Kühling-Thees C., Reichert-Schlax J., Koreshnikova Y. (2022) Cross-National Structure of Economic Competence: Insights from a German and Russian Assessment. Research in Comparative and International Education, vol. 17, no 2, pp. 225–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17454999211061243
Freeman S., Eddy S.L., McDonough M., Smith M.K., Okoroafo N., Jordt H., Wenderoth M.P. (2014) Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, no 23, pp. 8410–8415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Haidet P., Morgan R.O., O'Malley K., Moran B.J., Richards B.F. (2004) A Controlled Trial of Active versus Passive Learning Strategies in a Large Group Setting. Advances in Health Sciences Education, vol. 9, no 1, pp.15–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:AHSE.0000012213.62043.45
Hake R. (1998) Interactive-Engagement vs. Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. American Journal of Physics, vol. 66, no 1, pp. 64–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Hamouda A.M.S., Tarlochan F. (2015) Engaging Engineering Students in Active Learning and Critical Thinking through Class Debates. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, no 191, pp. 990–995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.379
Hartikainen S., Rintala H., Pylväs L., Nokelainen P. (2019) The Concept of Active Learning and the Measurement of Learning Outcomes: A Review of Research in Engineering Higher Education. Education Sciences, vol. 9, no 4, Article no 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040276
Henderson C., Dancy M., Niewiadomska-Bugaj M. (2012) Use of Research-Based Instructional Strategies in Introductory Physics: Where Do Faculty Leave the Innovation-Decision Process? Physical Review Special Topics — Physics Education Research, vol. 8, no 2, Article no 020104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.020104
Jensen K., Bennett L. (2016) Enhancing Teaching and Learning through Dialogue: A Student and Staff Partnership Model. International Journal for Academic Development, vol. 21, no 1, pp. 41–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1113537
Joe M. (2006) Where’s the Evidence that Active Learning Works? AJP Advances in Physiology Education, vol. 30, no 4, pp. 159–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.20
Johnson M.S., Sinharay S. (2018) Measures of Agreement to Assess Attribute‐Level Classification Accuracy and Consistency for Cognitive Diagnostic Assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, vol. 55, no 4, pp. 635–664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12196
Kálmán O., Tynjälä P., Skaniakos T. (2020) Patterns of University Teachers’ Approaches to Teaching, Professional Development and Perceived Departmental Cultures. Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 25, no 5, pp. 595–614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1586667
Kapur M. (2016) Examining Productive Failure, Productive Success, Unproductive Failure, and Unproductive Success in Learning. Educational Psychologist, vol. 51, no 2, pp. 289–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457
Keeling R., Hersh R. (2012) We’re Losing Our Minds. Rethinking American Higher Education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137001764
Kirschner P.A., Clark R.E., Sweller J. (2006) Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, vol. 41, no 2, pp. 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Klahr D., Nigam M. (2004) The Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early Science Instruction Effects of Direct Instruction and Discovery Learning. Psychological Science, vol. 15, no 10, pp. 661–667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x
Köhn H.F., Chiu C.Y. (2018) How to Build a Complete Q-Matrix for a Cognitively Diagnostic Test. Journal of Classification, vol. 35, no 2, pp. 273–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-018-9255-0
Krause K.L., Coates H. (2008) Students’ Engagement in First-Year University. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 33, no 5, pp. 493–505. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892
Lavi R., Tal M., Dori Y.J. (2021) Perceptions of STEM Alumni and Students on Developing 21st Century Skills through Methods of Teaching and Learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, vol. 70, no 4, Article no 101002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101002
Long D. (2012) Theories and Models of Student Development. Environments for Student Growth and Development: Librarians and Student Affairs in Collaboration (eds L.J. Hinchliffe, M.A. Wong), Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries, pp. 41–55.
Lord T., Baviskar S. (2007) Moving Students from Information Recitation to Information Understanding—Exploiting Bloom's Taxonomy in Creating Science Questions. Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 36, no 5, pp. 40–45.
Loyalka P., Liu O.L., Li G., Kardanova E., Chirikov I., Hu S. et al. (2021) Skill Levels and Gains in University STEM Education in China, India, Russia and the United States. Nature Human Behaviour, vol. 5, no 7, pp. 1–13. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01062-3
Maheshwari G., Thomas S. (2017) An Analysis of the Effectiveness of the Constructivist Approach in Teaching Business Statistics. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, vol. 20, pp. 83–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.28945/3748
Matheson C. (2008) The Educational Value and Effectiveness of Lectures. The Clinical Teacher, vol. 5, no 4, pp. 218 –221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-498X.2008.00238.x
McDonald R.P. (1997) Normal-Ogive Multidimensional Model. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (eds W.J. van der Linden, R.K. Hambleton), New York, NY: Springer, pp. 257–269.
Miller C.J., McNear J., Metz M.J. (2013) A Comparison of Traditional and Engaging Lecture Methods in a Large, Professional-Level Course. AJP Advances in Physiology Education, vol. 37, no 4, pp. 347–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00050.2013
Miller J.L., Wilson K., Miller J., Enomoto K. (2017) Humorous Materials to Enhance Active Learning. Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 36, no 4, pp. 791–806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1238883
Nagel MT., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia O., Schmidt S., Beck K. (2020) Performance Assessment of Generic and Domain-Specific Skills in Higher Education Economics. Student Learning in German Higher Education (eds O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, H. Pant, M. Toepper, C. Lautenbach), Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27886-1_14
Norman G., Schmidt H. (2000) Effectiveness of Problem-Based Learning Curricula: Theory, Practice and Paper Dart. Medical Education, vol. 34, no 9, pp. 721–728. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00749.x
O’Connor K. (2020) Constructivism, Curriculum and the Knowledge Question: Tensions and Challenges for Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, vol. 47, no 2, pp. 412–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1750585
Otting H., Zwaal W., Tempelaar D., Gijselaers W. (2010) The Structural Relationship between Students’ Epistemological Beliefs and Conceptions of Teaching and Learning. Studies in Higher Education, vol. 35, no 7, pp. 741–760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070903383203
Pithers R.T., Soden R. (2000) Critical Thinking in Education: A Review. Educational Research, vol. 42, no 3, pp. 237–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/001318800440579
Prince M. (2013) Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 93, no 3, pp. 223–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Quaye S.J., Harper S.R. (2014) Making Engagement Equitable for Students in U.S. Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Rupp A.A., Templin J., Henson R.A. (2010) Diagnostic Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications. New York, NY: Guilford.
Schunk D.H. (2012) Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. Boston: Pearson.
Shah R.K. (2019) Effective Constructivist Teaching Learning in the Classroom. International Journal of Education, vol. 7, no 4, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v7i4.600
Shcheglova I., Koreshnikova Y., Parshina O. (2019) The Role of Engagement in the Development of Critical Thinking in Undergraduates. Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, vol. 1, no 1, pp. 264–289. http://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2019-1-264-289
Sia C.J.L., Lim C.S. (2018) Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment: An Alternative Mode of Assessment for Learning. Classroom Assessment in Mathematics (eds D. Thompson, M. Burton, A. Cusi, D. Wright), Springer, Cham: Springer, pp. 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73748-5_9
Snellman L. (2015) University in Knowledge Society: Role and Challenges. Journal of System and Management Sciences, vol. 5 no 4, pp. 84–113.
Sprague D., Dede C. (1999) Constructivism in the Classroom: If I Teach This Way, Am I Doing My Job? Learning and Leading with Technology, vol. 27, no 1, pp. 6–21.
Stains M., Harshman J., Barker M.K., Chasteen S.V. et al. (2018) Anatomy of STEM Teaching in North American Universities. Science, no 359 (6383), pp. 1468–1470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892
Sweller J., Kirschner P.A., Clark R.E. (2007) Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries. Educational Psychologist, vol. 42, no 2, pp. 115–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426
Tabachnick B.G., Fidell L.S., Ullman J.B. (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson, vol. 5, pp. 481–498.
Tabrizi S., Rideout G. (2017) Active Learning: Using Bloom's Taxonomy to Support Critical Pedagogy. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, vol. 8, no 3, pp. 3202–3209. http://dx.doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2017.0429
Van Bergen P., Parsell M. (2019) Comparing Radical, Social and Psychological Constructivism in Australian Higher Education: A Psycho-Philosophical Perspective. The Australian Educational Researcher, vol. 46, no 3, pp. 41–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0285-8
Vrontis D., Thrassou A., Melanthiou Y. (2007) A Contemporary Higher Education Student-Choice Model for Developed Countries. Journal of Business Research, vol. 60, no 9, pp. 979–989. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.023
Walstad W.B, Rebeck K., Butters R.B. (2013) The Test of Economic Literacy: Development and Results. The Journal of Economic Education, vol. 44, no 3, pp. 298–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2013.795462
Walstad W.B., Watts M.W., Rebeck K. (2007) Test of Understanding in College Economics: Examiner's Manual. New York, NY: National Council on Economic Education.
White P.J., Larson I., Styles K., Yurlev E., Evans D.R., Rangachari P.K. (2016) Adopting an Active Learning Approach to Teaching in a Research-Intensive Higher Education Context Transformed Staff Teaching Attitudes and Behaviours. Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 35, no 3, pp. 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1107887
Wirth R.J., Edwards M.C. (2007) Item Factor Analysis: Current Approaches and Future Directions. Psychological Methods, vol. 12, no 1, pp. 58–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.58
Wulf C. (2019) From Teaching to Learning: Characteristics and Challenges of a Student-Centered Learning Culture. Inquiry-Based Learning–Undergraduate Research (ed. H.A. Mieg), Cham: Springer, pp. 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14223-0
Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia O., Förster M., Brückner S., Happ R. (2014) Insights from a German Assessment of Business and Economics Competence. Higher Education Learning Outcomes Assessment: International Perspectives (ed. H. Coates), Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
.jpg){kind=small}
