CETL: Maryellen Weimer on Resources on Learner-Centered Teaching

Allen, D. (2014). Recent research in science teaching and learning. Cell Biology Education--Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 584-586.

Designed to point readers to current articles of interest in life sciences education as well as more general and noteworthy publications in education research. URLs are provided for the abstracts or full text of articles.

Benassi, V. A., Overson, C. E., & Hakala, C. M. (2014). Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum. Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology web site: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php

An amazing free resource with chapters summarizing much of the current research on learning with many chapters written by those doing the research and writing about it with accessible language and suggestions for implementing what the research has established.

Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P., & White, H. B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL.. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 262-273.

Problem-based learning, process-oriented guided inquiry learning, and peer-led team learning are student-centered, active-learning pedagogies commonly used in science education. The characteristic features of each are compared and contrasted to enable new practitioners to decide which approach or combination of approaches will suit their particular situation.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okorafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 111(23), 8410-8415.

To test the hypothesis that lecturing maximizes learning and course performance, the authors meta-analyzed 225 studies that reported data on examination scores or failure rates when comparing student performance in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses under traditional lecturing versus active learning.

Halpern, D. F., & Hakel, M. D. (2008). Applying the science of of learning to the university and beyond: Teaching for long-term retention and transfer. Change, 35(4), 36-41.

Discusses the goal of college teachers in the U.S. to teach for long-term retention and transfer of learning. Addresses the reason behind the goal, as well as principles involved in enforcing the agenda of college teachers and the implications of the principles.

Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159-167.

There is a growing body of research within specific scientific teaching communities that supports and validates the new approaches to teaching that have been adopted. These data are reviewed, and their applicability to physiology education is discussed. Some of the inherent limitations of research about teaching and learning are also discussed.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.

This study examines the evidence for the effectiveness of active learning. It defines the common forms of active learning most relevant for engineering faculty and critically examines the core element of each method. It is found that there is broad but uneven support for the core elements of active, collaborative, cooperative and problem-based learning.

Weiman, C. E. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 111(23), 8319-8320.

Weiman provides an understandable summary of the  Freeman, et al. meta-analysis, with easier graphics, plus insightful and pointed comments. If you ever need to make the case for active learning or have colleagues that are still unconvinced, here's the compelling evidence.