A Reflection on the Current State of Active Learning Research
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Interest in active learning continues to grow worldwide. Although the large volume of active learning research has provided a myriad of ways to implement active learning in the classroom, the construct remains underdeveloped and difficult to operationalize because of three main issues in the research literature: (a) the variation in active learning activities in research and in practice; (b) the dichotomy between active learning and lecture; and (c) whether “active” in active learning refers to behavioral activity, cognitive activity, or both. The purpose of this reflection article is to articulate these issues so that active learning can move beyond its current status as a “curious construct.” By discussing avenues for future research that address those issues, our goal is to move the field forward by helping researchers focus on why active learning is effective, which forms of it are the most effective, how it should be implemented to maximize learning, and for whom different active learning interventions are the most effective. Just as active learning is easy to prescribe, it should also be easy to implement.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
References
Aguillon, S. M., Siegmund, G. F., Petipas, R. H., Drake, A. G., Cotner, S., & Ballen, C. J. (2020). Gender differences in student participation in an active-learning classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(2), article 12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-03-0048
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Arthurs, L. A., & Kreager, B. A. (2017). An integrative review of in-class activities that enable active learning in college science classroom settings. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 2073–2091. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1363925
Association of American Universities (AAU). (2017). Progress toward achieving systemic change: A five-year status report on the AAU undergraduate STEM education initiative. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/STEM-Education-Initiative/STEM-Status-Report.pdf
Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, L. E., Bahrick, A. S., & Bahrick, P. E. (1993). Maintenance of foreign language vocabulary and the spacing effect. Psychological Science, 4(5), 316–321. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9280.1993.tb00571.x
Bajak, A. (2014, May 12). Lectures aren’t just boring, they’re ineffective, too, study finds. Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/lectures-arent-just-boring-theyre-ineffective-too-study-finds
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (2000). On the relationship between recognition speed and accuracy for words rehearsed via rote versus elaborative rehearsal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.26.3.638
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ED336049). ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED336049.pdf
Carpenter, S. K. (2017). Spacing effects on learning and memory. In J. T. Wixted (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory, Vol. 2 of Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (J. H. Byrne, Series Ed.) (pp. 465–485). Academic Press. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.21054-7
Center for STEM Learning. (2016). TRESTLE mini seed grant proposals: Transforming education, supporting teaching and learning excellence. University of Colorado Boulder. https://www.colorado.edu/csl/sites/default/files/attached-files/trestle_rfp-_minigrant_0.pdf
Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00081
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning: The case for fully guided instruction. American Educator, 36(1), 6–11. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ971752.pdf
Collins, B. V. C. (2019). Flipping the precalculus classroom. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 50(5), 728–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1535098
Connell, G. L., Donovan, D. A., & Chambers, T. G. (2016). Increasing the use of student-centered pedagogies from moderate to high improves student learning and attitudes about Biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-03-0062
Cowan, N., Rouder, J. N., Blume, C. L., & Saults, J. S. (2012). Models of verbal working memory capacity: What does it take to make them work? Psychological Review, 119, 480–499. https://doi.org/1037/a0027791
Crimmins, M. T., & Midkiff, B. (2017). High structure active learning pedagogy for the teaching of organic chemistry: Assessing the impact on academic outcomes. Journal of Chemical Education, 94, 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00663
Dawson, P. (2015, July 2). Will the University of Adelaide’s lecture phase-out be a flop? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/will-the-university-of-adelaides-lecture-phase-out-be-a-flop-44074
de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
deWinstanley, P. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2002). Successful lecturing: Presenting information in ways that engage effective processing. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2002(89), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.44
deWinstanley, P. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2004). Processing strategies and the generation effect: Implications for making a better reader. Memory & Cognition, 32(6), 945–955. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196872
Driessen, E. P., Knight, J. K., Smith, M. K., Ballen, C. J. (2020). Demystifying the meaning of active learning in postsecondary biology education. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-04-0068
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
Evans, T., & Dietrich, H. (2022). Inquiry-based mathematics education: A call for reform in tertiary education seems unjustified. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.12149
Eyler, J. (2018). “Active Learning” has become a buzzword (and why that matters). Rice University Center for Teaching Excellence. Retrieved from https://cte.rice.edu/blogarchive/2018/7/16/active-learning-has-become-a-buzz-word
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107707085
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Gallimore, R., Lam, D. J., Speidel, G. E., & Tharp, R. G. (1977). The effects of elaboration and rehearsal on long-term retention of shape names by kindergarteners. American Educational Research Journal, 14(4), 471–483. https://doi.org/10.2307/1162344
Gardiner, J. M., Gawlik, B., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (1994). Maintenance rehearsal affects knowing, not remembering; elaborative rehearsal affects remembering, not knowing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 107–110. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200764
Gleason, B. L., Peeters, M. J., Resman-Targoff, B. H., Karr, S., McBane, S., Kelley, K., Thomas, T., & Denetclaw, T. H. (2011). An active-learning strategies primer for achieving ability-based educational outcomes. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 75(9), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe759186
Goossens, N. A. M. C., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Tabbers, H. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (2014). The benefit of retrieval practice over elaborative restudy in primary school vocabulary learning. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 177-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.05.003
Hartikainen, S., Rintala, H., Pylväs, L., & Nokelainen, P. (2019). The concept of active learning and the measurement of learning outcomes: A review of research in engineering higher education. Education Sciences, 9(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040276
Hood, S., Barrickman, N., Djerdjian, N., Farr, M., Gerrits, R. J., Lawford, H., Magner, S., Ott, B., Ross, K., Roychowdury, H., Page, O., Stowe, S., Jensen, M., & Hull, K. (2020). Some believe, not all achieve: The role of active learning practices in anxiety and academic self-efficacy in first-generation college students. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 21(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.2075
Johnson, E., Andrews-Larson, C., Keene, K., Melhuish, K., Keller, R., & Fortune, N. (2020). Inquiry and gender inequity in the undergraduate mathematics classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 51(4), 504–516. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc-2020-0043
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.591717
Karpicke, J. D. (2017). Retrieval-based learning: A decade of process. In J. T. Wixted (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory, Vol. 2 of learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (J. H. Byrne, Series Ed.) (pp. 487–514). Oxford: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.21055-9
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative Science, 331(6018), 772–775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327
Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, W. R. (2014). Retrieval-based learning: An episodic context account. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 61 (pp. 237–284). Academic Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-12777-007
Karpicke, J. D., & O’Day, G. M. (in press). Elements of effective learning. In M. J. Kahana & A. D. Wagner (Eds.), Oxford handbook of human memory (Vol. 2). Oxford University Press.
Karpicke, J. D., & Smith, M. A. (2012). Separate mnemonic effects of retrieval practice and elaborative encoding. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.004
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x
Kruit, P. M., Oostdam, R. J., van den Berg, E., & Schuitema, J. A. (2018). Effects of explicit instruction on the acquisition of students’ science inquiry skills in grades 5 and 6 of primary education. International Journal of Science Education, 40(4), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1428777
Lombardi, D., Shipley, T. F., Astronomy Team, Biology Team, Chemistry Team, Engineering Team, Geography Team, Geoscience Team, & Physics Team. (2021). The curious construct of active learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(1), 8–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620973974
Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., Calderhead, W. J., Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., & Freer, B. D. (2010). Learning the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms: Contributions of explicit instruction and experimentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017972
Martella, A. M., Lovett, M., & Ramsay, L. (2021a). Implementing active learning: A critical examination of sources of variation in active learning science courses. Journal on Excellence in College, 32(1), 67–96.
Martella, A. M., Yatcilla, J., Martella, R. C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Karatas, T., Ozen, Z., Park, H., Simpson, A., & Karpicke, J. D. (2021b). Quotation accuracy matters: An examination of how an influential meta-analysis on active learning has been cited. Review of Educational Research, 9(2), 272–308. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321991228
Martella, A. M., Yatcilla, J., Park, H., Marchand-Martella, N. E., & Martella, R. C. (2021c). Investigating the active learning research landscape through a bibliometric analysis of an influential meta-analysis on active learning. SN Social Sciences, 1, Article 228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00235-1
Martella, A. M., Schneider, D. W., Karpicke, J. D., & O’Day, G. M. (2022). Beyond active learning versus lecture: How dosage amount and dosage schedule affect student learning [Manuscript in preparation]. Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue university.
Matlen, B. J., & Klahr, D. (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing? Instructional Science, 41(3), 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9248-z
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63(8), 760–769. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.760
Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed). Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2022). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pre-training, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 243-260). Cambridge University Press.
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
MIT. (2021). Technology-Enhanced Active Learning. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/edtech/casestudies/teal.html
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Maczuga, S. (2015). Which instructional practices most help first-grade students with and without mathematics difficulties? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 184–205. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714536608
Nissen, J., Van Dusen, B., & Kukday, S. (2022). A QuantCrit investigation of society’s educational debts due to racism, sexism, and classism in biology student learning. bioRxiv. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.05.490808v1.full
O’Day, G. M., & Karpicke, J. D. (2021). Comparing and combining retrieval practice and concept mapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(5), 986–997. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000486
Opdal, P. A. (2021). To do or to listen? Student active learning vs. the lecture. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 1196, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-021-09796-3
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_12
Pekrun, R., & Perry, R. P. (2014). Control-value theory of achievement emotions. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 120–141). Taylor & Francis.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Rhodes, A. (2021). Lowering barriers to active learning: A novel approach for online instructional environments. Advances in Physiology Education, 45(3), 547–553. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00009.2021
Richardson, D. (2008). Don't dump the didactic lecture; fix it. Advances in Physiology Education, 32(1), 23–24. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00048.2007
Rissanen, A. (2018). Student engagement in large classroom: The effect on grades, attendance and student experiences in an undergraduate biology course. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 18(2), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-018-0015-2
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Rosenshine, B. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1995.9941309
Salehi, S., Burkholder, E., Lepage, G. P., Pollock, S., & Wieman, C. (2019). Demographic gaps or preparation on performance of students in introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), Article 020114. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020114
Shadle, S. E., Marker, A., & Earl, B. (2017). Faculty drivers and barriers: Laying the groundwork for undergraduate STEM education reform in academic departments. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0062-7
Shaughnessy, J. J. (1981). Memory monitoring accuracy and modification of rehearsal strategies. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(2), 216-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90389-3
Shekhar, P., Borrego, M., DeMonbrun, M., Finelli, C., Crockett, C., & Nguyen, K. (2020). Negative student response to active learning in STEM classrooms: A systematic review of underlying reasons. Journal of College Science Teaching, 49(6), 45–54. https://www.nsta.org/journal-college-science-teaching/journal-college-science-teaching-julyaugust-2020/negative-student
Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.592
Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., Eagan, M. K., Esson, J. M., Knight, J. K., Laski, F. A., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Lee, C. J., Lo, S. M., McDonnell, L. M., McKay, T. A., Michelotti, N., Musgrove, A., Palmer, M.S., Plank, K. M., Rodela, T. M., … & Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities: Lecture is prominent, but practices vary. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470. http://chemistry.as.virginia.edu/sites/chemistry.as.virginia.edu/files/2018-Stains%20et%20al-Science-%20COPUS%20profiles.pdf
Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1-2), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021808.72598.4d
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022193728205
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., … Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
UGA Office of Instruction. (2021). Active learning. Retrieved from https://ovpi.uga.edu/initiatives/active-learning/
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Developmental education. Challenges and strategies for reform. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/education-strategies.pdf
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751-796. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456
Weinstein, Y., Madan, C. R., & Sumeracki, M. A. (2018). Teaching the science of learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0087-y
Zakrajsek, T. (2018). Reframing the lecture versus active learning debate: Suggestions for a new way forward. Education in the Health Professions, 1(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.4103/EHP.EHP_14_18