ADAM GOODSTEIN

MS. KUHN
BALA 103W
9/22/14
HW #1

Many recognize education as one of the most important aspects of a society and it
is for this reason that studies are constantly made to find the most effective methods of
education. Richard Perez-Penas analysis of a study about the effects of active learning, a
new educational method, on students is described in a New York Times article on
September 2, 2014, Active Role in Class Helps Black and First-Generation College
Students, Study Says. The goal of this paper is to identify the issue, themes and
conclusion discussed in Perez-Penas article, to examine the reasons supporting the
conclusion, and the potential author bias that a reader of the article can expect from
Perez-Pena.
The main issue discussed in the article is whether classes that focus on more
active roles for students can have a greater positive impact on students than more passive
lecture classes. In addition to this issue, Perez-Pena focuses on the theme of whether
classes that focus on more active roles for students have a greater positive impact on
black students and college students whose parents did not go to college than on other
students.
Richard Perez-Pena resolves both the issue and the theme with the results of a
study. He argues that active learning has a positive impact on students and especially on
black students and first-generation college students.
The study was recorded over six semesters three classes with passive lectures
and another three classes in which the students were engaged in a more active role and
included around four hundred students. According to the article, the study found that
active learning raised average test scores more than three percentage points and
significantly reduced the number of students who failed the exams. These two findings
effectively support Perez-Penas conclusion. The score increase was doubled, to more
than six percentage points for black students and first-generation college students. This
finding supports Perez-Penas theme by showing that black students and first-generation
students in fact benefitted the most from active learning. Further, surveys taken showed
that the students in the more active classes were more likely to have done the reading
[and to spend] more hours on the work, participate more in class and to view the class
as a community.
Although one of the studys authors said that the study doesnt describe the
reasons for the disparate behavior, she speculated that it might have been due to the fact
that disadvantaged students possess poorer study skills. Therefore, a more active
approach can contribute to the teaching of those skills. Additionally, according to PerezPenas article, research shows that disadvantaged students are less likely to participate in
class, and report feeling intimidated or isolated, and therefore could benefit from classes
that demand participation.
Richard Perez-Pena is journalist on the New York Times staff who typically
writes articles relating to schools and universities. Although this fact does not point to
any specific bias that Perez-Pena may have, it does reveal his interest in education and
establish his credibility and reliability due to his knowledge of the area. The study he

relies on in the article to base his conclusions upon seems to be reliable. However, given
that he is interested in education, he may have been more inclined to accept this study
than try to point at some of the failings of the study. In fact, Perez-Pena never presents
another side to combat the findings of this study.
In my opinion, there are a number of flaws with the studys conclusions that
impact the merit of this article. The study involved Dr. Hogan teaching over a number of
semesters and comparing the grades of one semester to another, taking note of the
method employed in teaching the class. The study also surveyed students asking if they
had completed the assigned readings, spent time on work, participated in class and
viewed the class as a community.
One major problem with the study is that it was not double blind; Dr. Hogan knew
the goal of the study, taught the classes she was studying and compared the grades from
one semester to the next. This is, of course, not to say that she intentionally fixed the
results of the experiments, but it is nearly impossible to conduct an unbiased experiment
when one participant is fully aware of the possible outcomes. It is possible Dr. Hogan
was unintentionally in overly passive in the first three lectures knowing that the class was
under study for being passive. This could have caused her students to be disengaged with
her, negatively affecting their grades and willingness to complete work. Conversely, Dr.
Hogan may have been unintentionally overly active in her active learning classes due to
her knowledge of the study. This may have enabled her to establish better relationships
with the students and positively affected their grade and willingness to complete work.
These problems did not necessarily occur during Dr. Hogans study, but the fact that
there is a possibility that they did undermines the studys credibility.
One problem with the authors reasons supporting his conclusion is in his
explanation for the grade improvement disparity between underprivileged students and
privileged students. He quotes Dr. Hogan and writes that research has also shown
that black students and first-generation college students are less likely to participate in
class, however he does not offer any support to this statement. Without citing the
research showing this, the statement can be misinterpreted as something based on
stereotypical views of particular groups skills.
In any case, whether it is due to more involved teachers, students, or a
combination of the two, the study suggests that active learning is a more effective method
of teaching than passive and that black students and first-generation college students
benefit the most from this method.