Active vs. Passive Teaching in Close-up: Implications for Student Success at University

© AI

In an era where the demand for innovative educational strategies is paramount, the effectiveness of teaching methods in fostering student learning has come under scrutiny. A recent study by Evgeniy Terentev, Irina Shcheglova, Denis Federiakin, Yuliya Koreshnikova, and Jamie Costley delves into the contrasting realms of active and passive teaching approaches within the context of economics and management education at a leading Russian university. By examining how these teaching methodologies influence student performance across various cognitive levels, the authors aim to shed light on the vital role of instructional practices in preparing students for success in an increasingly complex and competitive knowledge economy.

In the realm of higher education, preparing students for lifelong learning and development remains a critical objective. However, traditional teaching methods have raised concerns regarding their effectiveness in fostering meaningful student growth. Research indicates that many students exhibit minimal progress or even stagnation in their learning journeys. A significant contributor to this issue is the reliance on teaching approaches that may not equip students with the necessary skills for success in today’s rapidly evolving knowledge economy.

Understanding the distinction between active and passive teaching methods is essential for evaluating their influence on student learning. Active teaching, characterized by student-centered learning, engages students as co-creators of knowledge, typically leading to improved learning outcomes. In contrast, passive teaching aligns with traditional lecture-based instruction. While numerous studies advocate for active engagement, evidence regarding its superiority across various educational contexts remains inconclusive. In certain disciplines, such as medical sciences, passive methods may yield better results despite students perceiving active classrooms as more beneficial.

The study seeks to clarify how different teaching approaches influence learning at various cognitive levels, particularly in economics and management education at a Russian university. Drawing on data from a comprehensive research project, the authors aim to assess professional business and economic competencies through standardized testing and student surveys. Two hypotheses drive this inquiry: first, that students exposed to passive teaching methods will excel in basic recognition and understanding; and second, that students experiencing active teaching methods will demonstrate higher levels of explicit and implicit understanding.

The study categorizes teaching methods into passive and active approaches, as defined by Brooks and Brooks. The passive approach primarily involves lectures with assessments focused on students’ ability to reproduce information, leading to a largely passive learning experience. Conversely, the active approach promotes interaction, critical thinking, dialogue, and practical application of knowledge. Research generally suggests that students taught through active methods outperform their peers in passive environments, thereby enhancing critical thinking and teamwork skills. However, the effectiveness of active learning can vary; passive methods sometimes benefit low-performing students or those from underrepresented backgrounds, particularly in STEM fields.

To analyze the impact of these teaching approaches on cognitive levels, the study employs Bloom’s taxonomy, which categorizes learning outcomes based on cognitive complexity. Active learning aligns with higher-order skills, while passive learning primarily addresses lower-order skills like knowledge and comprehension. The research examines three data sources: results from the Test of Understanding in College Economics (TUCE), student surveys about their learning experiences, and demographic information from 4,121 undergraduate students enrolled in economics or management programs.

Employing models for Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment (CDM), the study evaluates students' cognitive competence in economics, using dichotomous values to denote mastery. By cross-classifying items based on content and cognitive levels, the study isolates the impact of each cognitive level, allowing for precise modeling of students’ competencies. The analysis reveals that passive teaching negatively impacts student performance across all cognitive levels, whereas active teaching improves recognition and explicit understanding but shows limited effectiveness in developing implicit understanding.

The findings underscore the need for individualized instruction, experiential learning, and fostering curiosity to enhance student engagement and cognitive outcomes. The study's limitations include reliance on student perceptions and a focus on a single university, which may hinder the generalizability of the results. Future research should explore effective strategies used by students who attain higher cognitive levels, aiming to inform and enhance instructional practices in higher education.

 

Read the full paper at: https://vo.hse.ru/article/view/16364/19993