- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Costs of success: Financial implications of implementation of active learning in introductory physics courses for students and administrators

Eric Brewe

Remy Dou

Robert Shand

  • Physics Department, School of Education, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA

  • Teaching and Learning, Florida International University, Miami, Florida 33199, USA

  • Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010109 – Published 9 February, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010109

Abstract

Although active learning is supported by strong evidence of efficacy in undergraduate science instruction, institutions of higher education have yet to embrace comprehensive change. Costs of transforming instruction are regularly cited as a key factor in not adopting active-learning instructional practices. Some cite that alternative methods to stadium-style, lecture-based education are not financially viable to an academic department. This paper examines that argument by presenting an ingredients approach to estimating costs of two instructional methods used in introductory university physics courses at a large public U.S. university. We use a metric common in educational economics, cost effectiveness (CE), which is the total cost per student passing the class. We then compare the CE of traditional, passive-learning lecture courses to those of a well-studied, active-learning curriculum (Modeling Instruction) as a way of evaluating the claim that active learning is cost prohibitive. Our findings are that the Modeling Instruction approach has a higher cost per passing student (MI=$1,030/passing student vs Trad=$790/passing student). These results are discussed from perspectives of university administrators, students, and taxpayers. We consider how MI would need to adapt in order to make the benefits of active learning (particularly higher pass rates and gains on multiple measured student outcomes) available in a cost-neutral setting. This approach aims to provide a methodology to better inform decision makers balancing financial, personnel, and curricular considerations.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (36)

  1. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
  2. A. V. Knaub, K. T. Foote, C. Henderson, M. Dancy, and R. J. Beichner, Get a room: the role of classroom space in sustained implementation of studio style instruction, Int. J. STEM Educ. 3, 8 (2016).
  3. S. R. Singer, Advancing research on undergraduate science learning, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 50, 768 (2013).
  4. N. Kober, Reaching Students What Research Says about Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2014).
  5. H. M. Levin, Waiting for godot: Cost-effectiveness analysis in education, New Directions for Evaluation 2001, 55 (2001).
  6. E. Brewe, V. Sawtelle, L. H. Kramer, G. E. O’Brien, I. Rodriguez, and P. Pamelá, Toward equity through participation in Modeling Instruction in introductory university physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010106 (2010).
  7. E. Brewe, L. Kramer, and G. O’Brien, Modeling instruction: Positive attitudinal shifts in introductory physics measured with CLASS, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 013102 (2009).
  8. E. Brewe, A. Traxler, J. de La Garza, and L. H. Kramer, Extending positive CLASS results across multiple instructors and multiple classes of Modeling Instruction, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020116 (2013).
  9. I. Rodriguez, G. Potvin, and L. H. Kramer, How gender and reformed introductory physics impacts student success in advanced physics courses and continuation in the physics major, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020118 (2016).
  10. E. Brewe, Modeling theory applied: Modeling Instruction in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 1155 (2008).
  11. E. F. Redish, New Models of Physics Instruction Based on Physics Education Research, Proceedings of the Deustchen Physikalischen Gesellschaft (Jena, 1996).
  12. J. M. Wilson, The CUPLE physics studio, Phys. Teach. 32, 518 (1994).
  13. R. J. Beichner and J. M. Saul, Introduction to the SCALE-UP (student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs) project, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” - Research on Physics Education (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2003), p. 1.
  14. E. E. Etkina, S. Murthy, and X. Zou, Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design, Am. J. Phys. 74, 979 (2006).
  15. National Research Council, Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering, edited by S. R. Singer, N. R. Nielsen, and H. A. Schweingruber (National Academies Press, Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research; Board on Science Education; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2012), pp. 1–231.
  16. J. Wellman, Financial characteristics of broad access public institution, in Stanford Conference on Mapping Broad Access Higher Education (Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis, Stanford, 2011).
  17. D. N. Harris and S. Goldrick-Rab, The (un)productivity of American higher education: From cost disease, to cost-effectiveness, in American Education Finance Association (Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education, Richmond, VA, 2010).
  18. B. L. Castleman and L. C. Page, Summer Melt: Supporting Low-Income Students Through the Transition to College (Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA, 2014).
  19. D. Jenkins and O. Rodríguez, Access and success with less: Improving productivity in broad-access postsecondary institutions, Future of Children 23, 187 (2013).
  20. C. Belfield, P. Crosta, and D. Jenkins, Can community colleges afford to improve completion? measuring the cost and efficiency consequences of reform, Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 36, 327 (2014).
  21. H. M. Levin and E. Garcia, Accelerating community college graduation rates: A benefit-cost analysis, J. Higher Educ. 89, 1 (2018).
  22. C. Brown and C. Belfield, How cost-effective are lectures? A review of the experimental literature, in Cost-Effectiveness and Educational Policy, edited by H. Levin (Eye On Education, Larchmont, NY, 2002).
  23. D. A. Bligh, What’s the Use of Lectures? (Intellect Books, Exeter, 1998).
  24. J. Spencer and J. Pearson, Cost Effectiveness in Medical Education, edited by K. Walsh (Radcliffe Publishing, Oxford, 2010), pp. 48–60.
  25. K. Walsh, Cost effectiveness in medical education: conclusion and next steps, in Cost Effectiveness in Medical Education, edited by K. Walsh (Radcliffe Publishing, Oxford, 2010), pp. 130–134.
  26. K. Walsh, H. M. Levin, P. Jaye, and J. Gazzard, Cost analyses approaches in medical education: There are no simple solutions, Med. Educ. 47, 962 (2013).
  27. J. Zietz and H. H. Cochran, Jr., Containing cost without sacrificing achievement: some evidence from college-level economics classes, Journal of Education Finance 23, 177 (1997).
  28. H. M. Levin, P. J. McEwan, C. R. Blefield, A. Brooks Bowden, and R. Shand, Economic Evaluation in Education: Cost-Effectiveness and Benefit-Cost Analysis, 3rd ed. (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 2017).
  29. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 (National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2014).
  30. E. Brewe, L. H. Kramer, and G. E. O’Brien, Changing Participation Through Formation of Student Learning Communities, AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 85 (2010).
  31. J. P. Zwolak, R. Dou, E. A. Williams, and E. Brewe, Students’ network integration as a predictor of persistence in introductory physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010113 (2017).
  32. Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (2008).
  33. J. Gainen, Barriers to success in quantitative gatekeeper courses, New Dir. Teach. Learn. 1995, 5 (1995).
  34. E. Seymour and N. M. Hewitt, Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1997).
  35. G. Crisp, A. Nora, and A. Taggart, Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree: An analysis of students attending a Hispanic Serving Institution, Am. Educ. Res. J. 46, 924 (2009).
  36. State Higher Education Executive Officers, State Higher Education Executive Officers, Tech. Rep. (2014).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010109– Published 9 February, 2018
  • Received 5 September 2017
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation