Did you see this article from Education Week shared on NSTA’s Facebook page? Study: Interactive Tools Matter More Than Teaching Methods
The article has more details, but basically in the 12th week of the semester, a college physics class was divided up. For the next week (3 hours of instruction), one section continued the lecture approach with the professor while the second was taught by two graduate students using an “interactive method including short, small-group discussions, in-class ‘clicker’ quizzes, demonstrations and question-answer sessions. The teachers got real-time graphic feedback on what the students were learning and what they weren’t getting. ” On a quiz covering that week’s content, the second group outperformed the first “The best scores in the traditional class were below average for the interactive class”  “In addition, student attendance and attention were higher in the interactive class. ”
Those of us in the K–12 world are probably not surprised by the results. Many of us already vary the instructional strategies in a class to get students actively involved and use formative assessments for feedback on student learning. But it’s a fascinating study, and one that could be validated with your own teacher action research.
From what I read, I do wonder if perhaps the novelty of the strategies (technology and collaboration vs. large-group lecture) and having two instructors contributed to the results. It would be interesting to follow up on these variables.
The EdWeek article begins by asking “Who’s better at teaching difficult physics to a class of more than 250 college students: the highly rated veteran professor using time-tested lecturing, or the inexperienced graduate students interacting with kids via devices that look like TV remotes?” I think this question poses a false dichotomy based on stereotypes—the stodgy veteran lecturer vs. the hip technology-using newbie. I would like to see a study on what happens when “highly rated veteran” teachers use collaborative strategies and technologies—for more than 3 hours of instruction!

In a workshop this week, teachers (which included veterans and newbies) used several Web 2.0 tools that could foster student engagement and collaboration. I observed that when the participants (teachers) used  the discussion forums on the course Moodle site, their contributions were more detailed and reflective than if we would have asked them to share out loud.
Another tool we used was lino a web-based communication  system that mimics posting sticky-notes on a bulletin board. The instructor creates a board and shares the URL with others who can post notes on it. The applications are endless—we asked the groups of participants to each post 4 notes: a definition, examples, nonexamples, and questions (color coded). Each team worked on a laptop, but they could what others were posting in real time. We then debriefed as a large group, with all of the notes visible on screen.  The “canvas” can be saved. I could also see using a canvas for an ongoing KWL chart for each class, a quick way to review, or an exit activity. Hmmm.
We also dabbled with Mindmeister, a tool for brainstorming and creating mindmaps (similar in concept to Inspiration). Once again, the instructor sets up the map and shares the URL. In real time, others can contribute. The map can be saved. It was interesting to see the collaboration in real time via laptops as participants added to or commented on and idea from someone on the other side of the room.
Both of these tools have a basic free version that requires login for the instructor. Others do not need a login to participate. I’m sure that students (and teachers) would catch on quickly!
Note: the study was recently published in Science.  A paid AAAS membership is necessary to see the entire article.