ArticlePloS one2026
Use of a specific set of learner-centered evidence-based teaching practices correlates with higher exam performance across seven STEM departments.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myriad studies support the claim that active learning improves student academic performance in STEM, yet lecture remains the dominant form of instruction. Many faculty offer multiple reasons for not using active learning with many expressing confusion as to what active learning is. In an effort to better understand how specific elements of active learning might contribute to enhanced academic performance, we used a more fine-grained classroom observation tool, PORTAAL, to observe teaching practices across 146 STEM courses. We used a principal component analysis to identify specific sets of teaching practices and we found a continuum of implementation of teaching practices that ranged from instruction-centered to learner-centered. The instruction-centered practices included high Bloom's level questions, students working alone, instructors answering and explaining questions, and providing alternative answers. The learner-centered practices were volunteer or randomly-called students explaining answers, instructors prompting students' logic, and instructors giving positive feedback. Using a linear mixed model to analyze the data from all courses, we found medium and medium-high levels of learner-centered teaching practices correlated with higher student exam performance compared to instruction-centered practices. We also analyzed interactions of both binary gender and first generation status with learner-centered teaching on exam scores. We propose that when instructors use these learner-centered practices, they shift the responsibility of the intellectual work of the problem-the learning-to the students. As even moderate levels of these learner-centered practices have a positive correlation with exam performance, faculty may incorporate these few key elements of learner-centered practices into their own teaching to enhance student learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.