Search for: All records

Not AActive, hands-on learning is essential for engineering education, fostering deep engagement and enhancing knowledge retention. This multi-institutional study investigates how different instructional methods—Hands-On, Virtual, and Lecture-only—combined with four distinct Low-Cost Desktop Learning Modules (LCDLMs: Hydraulic Loss, Double Pipe, Shell & Tube, and Venturi Meter) affect student engagement and learning outcomes. Anchored in the ICAP framework (Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive), the study measured cognitive engagement through direct observations, virtual screen recordings, and self-reported surveys. It assessed learning gains using normalized pre- and post-tests among 2,316 undergraduate engineering students from eight universities. Results indicate that virtual instruction yields significantly higher learning gains, while the Shell & Tube module enhances active engagement through tangible, hands-on experiences. In contrast, the Hydraulic Loss module demonstrates the greatest impact on quantitative knowledge growth. These findings underscore the potential of integrating virtual simulations with physical learning tools to optimize instructional design in engineering education. Implications for future research include refining measurement instruments and exploring the long-term effects of hybrid instructional models. 

Misinformation around scientific issues is rampant on social media platforms, raising concerns among educators and science communicators. A variety of approaches have been explored to confront this growing threat to science literacy. For example, refutations have been used both proactively as warning labels and in attempts to inoculate against misconceptions, and retroactively to debunk misconceptions and rebut science denialism. Refutations have been used by policy makers and scientists when communicating with the general public, yet little is known about their effectiveness or consequences. Given the interest in refutational approaches, we conducted a comprehensive, pre-registered meta-analysis comparing the effect of refutation texts to non-refutation texts on individuals’ misconceptions about scientific information. We selected 71 articles (53 published and 18 unpublished) that described 76 studies, 111 samples, and 294 effect sizes. We also examined 26 moderators. Overall, our findings show a consistent and statistically significant advantage of refutation texts over non-refutation texts in controlled experiments confronting scientific misconceptions. We also found that moderators neither enhanced nor diminished the impact of the refutation texts. We discuss the implications of using refutations in formal and informal science learning contexts and in science communications from three theoretical perspectives.