To test the hypothesis that lecturing maximizes learning and
course performance, we metaanalyzed 225 studies that reported
data on examination scores or failure rates when comparing student
performance in undergraduate science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) courses under traditional lecturing
versus active learning. The effect sizes indicate that on average,
student performance on examinations and concept inventories increased
by 0.47 SDs under active learning (n = 158 studies), and
that the odds ratio for failing was 1.95 under traditional lecturing
(n = 67 studies). These results indicate that average examination
scores improved by about 6% in active learning sections, and that
students in classes with traditional lecturing were 1.5 times more
likely to fail than were students in classes with active learning.
Heterogeneity analyses indicated that both results hold across
the STEM disciplines, that active learning increases scores on concept
inventories more than on course examinations, and that active
learning appears effective across all class sizes—although the
greatest effects are in small (n ≤ 50) classes. Trim and fill analyses
and fail-safe n calculations suggest that the results are not due to
publication bias. The results also appear robust to variation in the
methodological rigor of the included studies, based on the quality
of controls over student quality and instructor identity. This is the
largest and most comprehensive metaanalysis of undergraduate
STEMeducation published to date. The results raise questions about
the continued use of traditional lecturing as a control in research
studies, and support active learning as the preferred, empirically
validated teaching practice in regular classrooms.