The Hidden Economic Costs of Active Learning

Today's Guest Blogger is Katelyn Cooper. Katey is a PhD student in Sara Brownell's Biology Education Research lab studying ways to promote equity in undergraduate biology education. Specifically she is interested in how different social identities impact student experiences in biology. Katey is also an Academic Success Coordinator in the School of Life Sciences

---

National recommendations call for college biology instructors to create active learning environments for all students (AAAS, 2011), but can all students afford to learn this way? Active learning has been shown to increase student learning and decrease the failure rate (Freeman et al., 2014), yet the student economic challenges associated with active learning are often hidden.

The economic costs to students of doing active learning

While active learning can be done in a low cost way (e.g. students drawing on the whiteboard), several new technologies have been developed to aid instructors in implementing active learning in large enrollment courses. Because these technologies often make the job of the instructor easier, instructors are incentivized to adopt them into their class. However, undergraduates are often responsible for purchasing these tools and technologies. These extra costs are commonly revealed to students only after they have enrolled in the course and may not be accounted for by the student when they are financially planning for the semester. While scholarships and financial aid are often directed toward tuition and housing, there may not be options to subsidize these hidden expenses.

Consider three examples:

• Access to online learning- One of the common ways that instructors use active learning is to have students engage with the material prior to coming to lecture. Recently, this has been called “flipping the class” so that students read and/or watch videos outside of the normal lecture time (Tucker, 2012; Herreid and Schiller, 2013). The frequency with which students need to access the internet is increased for those enrolled in active learning classes that use a “flipped” format. While students can access computers in libraries and computer labs, there are a limited number of computers and set hours for these facilities, which place constraints on availability. Further, the time spent commuting to the library or computer lab is time that more advantaged students can spend doing homework.
• Clickers- The use of a student response system is an easy way to quickly assess student understanding in a large-scale course and allows instructors to tailor the class in real time to maximize student learning (Wood, 2004). However, clickers can cost students up to $100 and some companies require an additional registration fee per class. Instructors may require students to purchase these devices by using their responses to clicker questions for participation points. Additionally instructors can often choose among different technologies, which may require students to invest in multiple systems for different courses.
• Supplemental online learning materials- Many textbook companies now provide supplemental online material for an additional fee (e.g. Pearson’s Mastering Biology). This supplemental material can include interactive videos, practice questions, and a test bank for instructors to use to quiz students on their reading. These questions can be used by instructors to “flip” their classrooms, so students read and answer questions outside of class. However, some instructors make the purchase of this supplemental material mandatory for all students if they assign course points for students completing quizzes administered on this platform.

What can instructors can do about it? 

1. Be cognizant of student financial challenges-The first step in attempting to alleviate this inequity is for instructors to recognize the potential economic challenges for students. While an unexpected $100 expense likely is manageable for a faculty member, $100 for students who have to take out loans to pay for college may mean that they have to go without a necessity.
2. Be transparent about costs and understanding of individual student issues- Instructors can provide students with a detailed syllabus, including information about these extra costs, before students sign up for the course. Furthermore, instructors can post assignments in advance, providing students with ample time to plan their personal and work schedules around accessing computers.
3. Advocate for students who are struggling financially-When choosing from a range of possible active learning technologies, instructors can talk with providers about strategies to accommodate students who cannot afford access to their technologies. Companies may be willing to work with these students and provide discounts or even free access. However, instructors need to create an open environment in which students feel comfortable coming to them to discuss financial constraints.
4. Change in policies: from extra costs to course fees- Up until this point, these costs are treated like textbook costs. However, if instructors require students to use these technologies to gain course points, then it seems like including them in a course fee would be more appropriate. This would minimize the out-of-pocket expenses that are required of students and scholarships and financial aid may be able to be used to cover them more easily. 
   

Lessening financial challenges should lead to enhanced student learning in active learning environments

We encourage faculty members to continue to use technologies in their efforts to convert courses, particularly large enrollment courses, into active learning environments. However, we hope to promote awareness that student financial challenges may be a barrier for them in using some of these technologies. These technologies have been shown to improve student learning and we want to continue to harness that power, but we want to do so in a way that doesn’t disadvantage certain groups of students.

---

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011). Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action, Washington, DC: http://visionandchange.org/files/2013/11/aaas-VISchange-web1113.pdf (accessed 19 March 2015).

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.

Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62-66.

Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.

Wood, W.B. (2004). Clickers: a teaching gimmick that works. Dev. Cell 7, 796–798.