Randomized controlled studies comparing traditional lectures versus online modules

We assessed the efficacy of traditional lectures versus online modules with respect to student learning in an undergraduate introductory biochemistry course in two successive years. In the first year, students had the options of attending live lectures by the course instructor and viewing online modules pre-recorded by the instructor, with the lectures and modules covering identical content; in addition, all students had a mandatory weekly application session. Utilizing pre-course and post-course tests as an instrument with which to measure learning during the course, we observed significantly increased learning (0.7 standard deviations) with attendance of traditional lectures and decreased learning with use of online modules, even after adjustment for grade point average. In the second year, the course had the same curriculum, but students were randomized to either live lectures or online modules for the first half of the course, crossing over to the other modality during the second half. With randomization, no difference in learning was observed between the two groups. Our study results suggest that although students who self-select to attend live lectures may be better primed to learn, there is no difference in learning with traditional lectures versus online modules. Furthermore, we found that students were better engaged when viewing online modules than when attending lectures in person. These findings suggest aspects of the lecture experience can be shifted to online modules in STEM courses without impacts on student learning so as to use classroom time more fully for application-based active learning interventions.