IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2205.03393.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Right Tool for the Job: Matching Active Learning Techniques to Learning Objectives

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah A. Jacobson
  • Luyao Zhang
  • Jiasheng Zhu

Abstract

Active learning comprises many varied techniques that engage students actively in the construction of their understanding. Because of this variation, different active learning techniques may be best suited to achieving different learning objectives. We study students' perceptions of a set of active learning techniques (including a Python simulation and an interactive game) and some traditional techniques (like lecture). We find that students felt they engaged fairly actively with all of the techniques, though more with those with a heavy grade weight and some of the active learning techniques, and they reported enjoying the active learning techniques the most except for an assignment that required soliciting peer advice on a research idea. All of the techniques were rated as relatively effective for achieving each of six learning objectives, but to varying extents. The most traditional techniques like exams were rated highest for achieving an objective associated with lower order cognitive skills, remembering concepts. In contrast, some active learning techniques like class presentations and the Python simulation were rated highest for achieving objectives related to higher order cognitive skills, including learning to conduct research, though lectures also performed surprisingly well for these objectives. Other technique-objective matches are intuitive; for example, the debate is rated highly for understanding pros and cons of an issue, and small group discussion is rated highly for collaborative learning. Our results support the idea that different teaching techniques are best suited for different outcomes, which implies that a mix of techniques may be optimal in course design.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah A. Jacobson & Luyao Zhang & Jiasheng Zhu, 2022. "The Right Tool for the Job: Matching Active Learning Techniques to Learning Objectives," Papers 2205.03393, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2205.03393
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.03393
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goebel, Jessica & Maistry, Suriamurthee, 2019. "Recounting the role of emotions in learning economics: Using the Threshold Concepts Framework to explore affective dimensions of students’ learning," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Roach, Travis, 2014. "Student perceptions toward flipped learning: New methods to increase interaction and active learning in economics," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 74-84.
    3. Abidoye, Babatunde & Dissanayake, Sahan T.M. & Jacobson, Sarah A., 2021. "Seeds of Learning: Uncertainty and Technology Adoption in an Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Game," Applied Economics Teaching Resources (AETR), Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 3(3), September.
    4. Gorry, Devon & Gilbert, John, 2015. "Numerical simulations of competition in quantities," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 49-61.
    5. Avi J. Cohen & Andrea L. Williams, 2019. "Scalable, scaffolded writing assignments with online peer review in a large introductory economics course," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 371-387, October.
    6. Carol G. Johnston & Richard H. James & Jenny N. Lye & Ian M. McDonald, 2000. "An Evaluation of Collaborative Problem Solving for Learning Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 13-29, December.
    7. Stephanie M. Brewer & James J. Jozefowicz, 2006. "Making Economic Principles Personal: Student Journals and Reflection Papers," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 202-216, April.
    8. Mike Aguilar & Daniel Soques, 2015. "Fiscal Challenge: An Experiential Exercise in Policy Making," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(3), pages 285-299, July.
    9. Obeng-Odoom, Franklin, 2019. "Pedagogical pluralism in undergraduate urban economics education," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. J. Zhu & L. Zhang, 2023. "Educational Game on Cryptocurrency Investment: Using Microeconomic Decision-Making to Understand Macroeconomics Principles," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 262-272, April.
    2. Jiasheng Zhu & Luyao Zhang, 2023. "Educational Game on Cryptocurrency Investment: Using Microeconomic Decision Making to Understand Macroeconomics Principles," Papers 2301.10541, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2023.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jung Eon Kwon & Hyung Rok Woo, 2017. "The Impact of Flipped Learning on Cooperative and Competitive Mindsets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Catherine Y. Co & Jonna Holland, 2019. "Teaching International Microenterprise Development: An Interdisciplinary Experiential Learning Approach," Journal of Economics Teaching, Journal of Economics Teaching, vol. 4(1), pages 27-39, May.
    3. Elsa Galarza Contreras & Marianne Johnson, 2007. "Internationalising Intermediate Microeconomics: Collaborative Case Studies and Web-Based Learning," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 6(1), pages 9-26.
    4. Xiaodan Zhou & Ling-Hsiu Chen & Chin-Ling Chen, 2019. "Collaborative Learning by Teaching: A Pedagogy between Learner-Centered and Learner-Driven," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Joshua M. Duke & Titus O. Awokuse, 2009. "Assessing the Effect of Bilateral Collaborations on Learning Outcomes," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(2), pages 344-358.
    6. Rita A. Balaban & Donna B. Gilleskie & Uyen Tran, 2016. "A quantitative evaluation of the flipped classroom in a large lecture principles of economics course," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(4), pages 269-287, October.
    7. Anna Maximova & Steve Muchiri & Mihai Paraschiv, 2023. "A Stroll Down the Dollar Street: Teaching Per-Capita GDP Using Internationally Comparable Photographs," Journal of Economics Teaching, Journal of Economics Teaching, vol. 8(2), pages 87-113, May.
    8. Julen Izagirre-Olaizola & Jon Morandeira-Arca, 2020. "Business Management Teaching-Learning Processes in Times of Pandemic: Flipped Classroom at A Distance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Becker, Ralf & Proud, Steven, 2018. "Flipping quantitative tutorials," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 59-73.
    10. Gourley, Patrick, 2021. "Back to basics: How reading the text and taking notes improves learning," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    11. Grogan, Kelly A., 2017. "Will this be on the test? How exam structure affects perceptions of innovative assignments in a masters of science microeconomics course," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-8.
    12. Fritz Dresselhaus & Jessika A. Bohlmann & Roula Inglesi-Lotz, 2015. "Assessing the impact of just-in-time methodology, in-lecture activities, and tutor-assisted post-lecture activities in the course experience of first year students in Economics at the University of Pr," Working Papers 562, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    13. Nilss Olekalns, 2002. "The Teaching of First Year Economics in Australian Universities," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 848, The University of Melbourne.
    14. Parrado-Martínez, Purificación & Sánchez-Andújar, Sonia, 2020. "Development of competences in postgraduate studies of finance: A project-based learning (PBL) case study," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    15. Paul Dalziel, 2011. "Schumpeter's 'Vision' and the Teaching of Principles of Economics to Resource Students," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 10(2), pages 63-74.
    16. Wolfe, Marketa Halova, 2020. "Integrating data analysis into an introductory macroeconomics course," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    17. S. Cook & C. Elliott, 2016. "Innovations in Economics Education: An Introduction to Economic and Econometric Tools for Teaching and Learning," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1180038-118, December.
    18. Hua-Xu Zhong & Po-Sheng Chiu & Chin-Feng Lai, 2021. "Effects of the Use of CDIO Engineering Design in a Flipped Programming Course on Flow Experience, Cognitive Load," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, January.
    19. Kristin Stowe, 2010. "A Quick Argument for Active Learning: The Effectiveness of One-Minute Papers," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 10(1), pages 33-39, Summer.
    20. Depro, Brooks, 2022. "Making introductory economics more relevant: Using personalized connections to introduce environmental economics," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2205.03393. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.