Tipping The Scales: Finding The Most Effective Balance Between Lecture Versus Active Learning Across Academic Levels In Engineering

As seen in the quote above, the concept of active learning can be traced back to the time of Confucius (551-479 BC). Of late, much work and research has been done on the effectiveness and engagement value of experiential education. Research indicates that in the proper measure and implementation, lessons can be successfully embedded into well-planned activities to illustrate and/or supplement the course lecture content to effectively educate students as young engineers and simultaneously challenge and inspire them. However, with the current trend of incorporating more active learning into our curricula, we are mindful that a “one size fits all” approach may not be the best option to achieve the most success for all classes and levels in engineering. This research sets out to identify the framework for a proportional profile of learning modes across academic levels in engineering, starting with the freshman year and tracing on through to the senior year. Strong correlations between the infusion of carefully selected and implemented active learning modes and metrics of amount learned and overall teaching effectiveness have already been established. Thus, we extended the research to investigate the perceived value and effectiveness of active learning (AL) versus traditional lecture (TL), primarily for core engineering courses. This follow-on work sought to assign percentage approximations to the ideal balance of AL vs. TL at various engineering class levels. Our premise was that, as students mature academically, their requirements concerning class design will also change and they will change in such a way as to be different from each other across progressive levels. Essentially, we expected linear incremental change. Students across three academic levels were surveyed on several elements of class presentation and the results were insightful in terms of the ratio of active learning to traditional lecture and the reasons for the perceived effectiveness of each. In general, the first-year freshmen engineering students preferred more AL to TL in a 55:45 ratio, third-year middlers expressed a significantly lower inclination toward active learning at 40:60, while surprisingly the fifthyear seniors reported their overall AL:TL proportion at approximately 60:40, reversing back to a ratio higher than the freshmen. Further enquiry was made as to the rationale for these profiles as well as what motivates and engages students in class. The responses are presented and evaluated in light of academic year (level), learning style, and GPA to determine which, if any, of these factors have a bearing on the results.