... Similarly, some studies reported no difference between active and traditional teaching methods in overall test scores, but found active learning methods superior either on measures of lower-level skills such as recalling facts (Sawyer et al., 2017) or-more often-on measures of higher-level cognitive skills such as critical thinking (e.g., Haak et al., 2011;Persky, 2012;Redekopp & Ragusa, 2013;Richmond & Kindelberger Hagan, 2011;Wiggins, Chiriac, Abbad, Pauli, & Worrell, 2016). Further, although most studies show that students were more engaged in, learned more from, and/or enjoyed more the active learning format as compared with the traditional one (e.g., Allen & Baughman, 2016;Cavanagh, 2011;Frost, 2017;Hoffman & Goodwin, 2006;Lawson, 1995;Owen & Siakaluk, 2011), some studies found just the opposite (e.g., Copeland, Scott, & Houska, 2010;Forsey, Low, & Glance, 2013;Jensen, 2011;Khanova, McLaughlin, Rhoney, Roth, & Harris, 2015;Malmquist & Collins, 2017;Roehling, Root Luna, Richie, & Shaughnessy, 2017;Tsang & Harris, 2016;Venkatesh et al., 2016;White et al., 2014). These conflicting results may not matter much, though, because student ratings of active learning methods show little or no correlation with academic performance as measured by exams, quizzes, or final grades (e.g., Allen & Baughman, 2016; Elliott et al., 2010;Wesp & Miele, 2008). ...