↓ Skip to main content

PNAS

Article Metrics

Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
4228 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7624 Mendeley
citeulike
20 CiteULike
Title
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, May 2014
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott Freeman, Sarah L. Eddy, Miles McDonough, Michelle K. Smith, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hannah Jordt, Mary Pat Wenderoth

Abstract

To test the hypothesis that lecturing maximizes learning and course performance, we metaanalyzed 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. The effect sizes indicate that on average, student performance on examinations and concept inventories increased by 0.47 SDs under active learning (n = 158 studies), and that the odds ratio for failing was 1.95 under traditional lecturing (n = 67 studies). These results indicate that average examination scores improved by about 6% in active learning sections, and that students in classes with traditional lecturing were 1.5 times more likely to fail than were students in classes with active learning. Heterogeneity analyses indicated that both results hold across the STEM disciplines, that active learning increases scores on concept inventories more than on course examinations, and that active learning appears effective across all class sizes--although the greatest effects are in small (n ≤ 50) classes. Trim and fill analyses and fail-safe n calculations suggest that the results are not due to publication bias. The results also appear robust to variation in the methodological rigor of the included studies, based on the quality of controls over student quality and instructor identity. This is the largest and most comprehensive metaanalysis of undergraduate STEM education published to date. The results raise questions about the continued use of traditional lecturing as a control in research studies, and support active learning as the preferred, empirically validated teaching practice in regular classrooms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,098 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7,624 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 163 2%
United Kingdom 26 <1%
Brazil 16 <1%
Canada 13 <1%
Netherlands 9 <1%
Australia 9 <1%
Spain 5 <1%
Germany 5 <1%
Norway 5 <1%
Other 50 <1%
Unknown 7323 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1476 19%
Researcher 896 12%
Student > Master 804 11%
Student > Bachelor 645 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 491 6%
Other 2099 28%
Unknown 1213 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 951 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 873 11%
Engineering 571 7%
Chemistry 410 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 377 5%
Other 2878 38%
Unknown 1564 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2857. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,131
of 23,393,453 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#66
of 99,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6
of 228,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#2
of 931 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,393,453 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 99,360 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 228,625 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 931 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.