Search for: All records

Abstract A substantial amount of media comparison research has been conducted in the last decade to investigate whether students learn Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) content better in immersive virtual reality (IVR) or more traditional learning environments. However, a thorough review of the design and implementation of conventional and IVR conditions in media comparison studies has not been conducted to examine the extent to which specific affordances of IVR can be pinpointed as the causal factor in enhancing learning. The present review filled this gap in the literature by examining the degree to which conventional and IVR conditions have been controlled on instructional methods and content within the K-12 and higher education STEM literature base. Thirty-eight published journal articles, conference proceedings, and dissertations related to IVR comparison studies in STEM education between the years 2013 and 2022 were coded according to 15 categories. These categories allowed for the extraction of information on the instructional methods and content characteristics of the conventional and IVR conditions to determine the degree of control within each experimental comparison. Results indicated only 26% of all comparisons examined between an IVR and conventional condition were fully controlled on five key control criteria. Moreover, 40% of the comparisons had at least one confound related to instructional method and content. When looking at the outcomes of the studies, it was difficult to gather a clear picture of the benefits or pitfalls of IVR when much of the literature was confounded and/or lacked sufficient information to determine if the conditions were controlled on key variables. Implications and recommendations for future IVR comparison research are discussed. 

Abstract Active learning is a popular approach to teaching and learning that has gained traction through research on STEM educational improvement. There have been numerous university- and national/international-level efforts focused on transitioning courses from the lecture method to active learning. However, despite these large-scale changes, the active learning literature has not been assessed on its methodological rigor to ensure instructional recommendations are rooted in rigorous research studies. The purpose of the present review was to determine areas of strengths and areas in need of improvement and to provide specific recommendations on how to continue or improve active learning research to strengthen the respective literature base and increase confidence in results. We assessed the articles included in the Freeman et al. (PNAS, 111:8410–8415, 2014) meta-analysis as well as a random sample of more recent active learning articles (2015–2022) on 12 internal validity controls (i.e., control procedure used to prevent a threat to the internal validity of a study). Results indicated that there were high percentages of articles that did not meet each internal validity control. In fact, no articles from the Freeman et al. meta-analysis and no sampled 2015–2022 articles met each of the 12 internal validity controls. Therefore, the active learning literature contains numerous internal validity control issues that need to be addressed if we are to determine the extent to which active learning interventions are effective and if there are any boundary conditions for when particular active learning interventions are or are not effective. 

Abstract Over the past 30 years, several reviews have examined scholarly contributions of individual researchers and institutions in the field of educational psychology (Fong et al., Educational Psychology Review 34:2379–2403, 2022; Greenbaum et al., Educational Psychology Review 28:215–223, 2016; Hsieh et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 29:333–343, 2004; Jones et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 35:11–16, 2010; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 23:173–181, 1998; Smith et al., Contemporary Educational Psychology 28:422– 430, 2003). However, no reviews have specifically examined scholarly impact as measured by citations since (Walberg, Current Contents 22:5–14, 1990) did so over 34 years ago. The present review focused on the period from 1988 to 2023, identifying the most cited articles and authors since Walberg’s study that focused on the period from 1966–1988. Whereas most of the previous reviews have been limited in terms of brief time periods (e.g., six years) and a small set of journals (e.g., five), our scope included 12 educational psychology journals across 36 years. The most cited article (over 9000 times) by (Ryan and Deci, Contemporary Educational Psychology 25:54–67, 2000) had more than twice as many citations as the second most cited article by (Pintrich and Groot, Journal of Educational Psychology 82:33–40, 1990). Most of the top 30 most cited articles, including four of the top five, addressed the topic of motivation. With regard to highly cited authors, the top five were John Sweller, Richard E. Mayer, Fred Paas, Richard M. Ryan, and Reinhard Pekrun. Several of the 30 most cited authors have never appeared in previous lists of most productive authors. Finally, keyword and cluster analyses revealed most popular topics and collaborative networks among many of the most cited authors that may partly explain their productivity. Examining article and author impact is an important complement to productivity when considering scholarly contributions to the field of educational psychology. 

Cognitive load theory (CLT) has driven numerous empirical studies for over 30 years and is a major theme in many of the most cited articles published between 1988 and 2023. However, CLT articles have not been compared to other educational psychology research in terms of the research designs used and the extent to which recommendations for practice are justified. As Brady and colleagues found, a large percentage of the educational psychology articles reviewed were not experimental and yet frequently made specific recommendations from observational/correlational data. Therefore, in this review, CLT articles were examined with regard to the types of research methodology employed and whether recommendations for practice were justified. Across several educational psychology journals in 2020 and 2023, 16 articles were determined to directly test CLT. In contrast to other articles, which employed mostly observational methods, all but two of the CLT articles employed experimental or intervention designs. For the two CLT articles that were observational, recommendations for practice were not made. Reasons for the importance of experimental work are discussed. 

Given that the active learning literature lacks systematic investigations on how the intensity and integration of lecture and active learning affects learning, we conducted two experiments to examine the impact of these variables. The first experiment involved 146 participants who learned about biological taxonomies through pure lecture or pure active learning. Participants in the pure lecture condition scored significantly higher on a posttest than those in the pure active learning condition. The second experiment involved 219 participants who learned about biological taxonomies through pure lecture, a lecture and active learning activity that were interspersed, or a lecture and active learning activity that were blocked. Participants in the interspersed condition scored significantly higher than participants in the blocked and pure lecture conditions (which did not significantly differ). Based on these experiments, it may not be a question of either/or but rather a question of how to integrate lecture and active learning.