Students in traditional lecture STEM courses are 1.5 times more likely to fail than students in active-learning courses¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q4·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2014 · checked against its sources 2026-10-18 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q4 i2 Across 67 independent comparisons, the odds ratio for failing was 1.95 under traditional lecturing, equivalent to a risk ratio of 1.5 favoring active learning. → Freeman S 2014
Evidence¶
Freeman S 2014¶
Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS 111(23):8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
q4 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r3
Random-effects meta-analysis of 67 independent comparisons of failure rates (usually DFW rate) in undergraduate STEM courses. Average failure rates were 21.8% under active learning versus 33.8% under lecturing, "a difference that represents a 55% increase".
"The overall mean effect size for failure rate was an odds ratio of 1.95 ( Z = 10.4, P << 0.001). This odds ratio is equivalent to a risk ratio of 1.5, meaning that on average, students in traditional lecture courses are 1.5 times more likely to fail"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Active learning raises undergraduate STEM examination and concept-inventory performance by about 0.47 SDs compared with traditional lecturing — related
- Active learning narrows the passing-rate gap between minoritized-group and non-minoritized students in undergraduate STEM by 45% on average — related
- Active learning reduces the examination-score achievement gap between minoritized-group and non-minoritized students in undergraduate STEM by 33% on average — related
- About two-thirds of Freeman et al. (2014) articles reported results favoring only the active learning group, but most comparisons were active learning versus lecture with weak internal validity controls — related
- High-intensity active learning narrows achievement gaps far more than low-intensity active learning; intensity of in-class active engagement is positively correlated with narrower gaps — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
lecturing-increases-stem-failure-rates |
title |
Students in traditional lecture STEM courses are 1.5 times more likely to fail than students in active-learning courses |
description |
Students in traditional lecture STEM courses are 1.5 times more likely to fail than students in active-learning courses |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
strong |
newest_evidence |
2014 |
source_checked |
2026-10-18 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-13 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — freeman-s-2014 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.