Active Learning

What Is It?

Active learning in higher education refers to instructional methods that engage students in the learning process more directly than in traditional lecture-based settings. Instead of passively receiving information, students actively participate in activities that promote analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of class content. Here are some key aspects and benefits of active learning:

Key Aspects of Active Learning

  1. Collaborative Learning: Students work together in pairs or small groups to discuss concepts, solve problems, or complete projects. This can include peer teaching, group problem-solving, and collaborative projects.
  2. Problem-Based Learning (PBL): Students learn about a subject through the experience of solving an open-ended problem. This approach encourages students to develop research, problem-solving, and critical thinking skills.
  3. Case Studies and Simulations: Real-world scenarios and simulations are used to apply theoretical knowledge in practical contexts. This helps students develop practical skills and understand the relevance of their learning.
  4. Interactive Technology: Tools such as clickers, online discussion boards, and interactive simulations are used to engage students and provide immediate feedback.
  5. Flipped Classroom: Students prepare before class by watching videos or reading materials, and class time is used for discussions, problem-solving, and other interactive activities.

Benefits of Active Learning

  1. Enhanced Engagement: Active learning strategies typically result in higher student engagement as students are more involved in their learning process.
  2. Improved Understanding and Retention: By actively participating in their learning, students often achieve a deeper understanding of the material and better retention of knowledge.
  3. Development of Critical Thinking Skills: Activities such as problem-based learning and case studies encourage students to think critically and develop problem-solving skills.
  4. Better Academic Performance: Research indicates that students in active learning environments often perform better on assessments and have higher overall academic achievement compared to those in traditional lecture-based courses.
  5. Increased Motivation: Active learning can increase students' motivation and interest in the subject matter, as they see the direct application and relevance of what they are learning.

Challenges of Active Learning

  1. Preparation and Training: Both students and instructors may need additional preparation and training to effectively engage in and facilitate active learning activities. 
  2. Classroom Management: Managing a classroom with active learning can be more challenging, requiring instructors to effectively coordinate group activities and ensure all students are participating.
  3. Assessment: Developing fair and comprehensive assessments for active learning activities can be complex, requiring different approaches than traditional testing.

What are techniques to use?

Brief, easy supplements for lectures

The Pause Procedure— Pause for two minutes every 12 to 18 minutes, encouraging students to discuss and rework notes in pairs. This approach encourages students to consider their understanding of the lecture material, including its organization. It also provides an opportunity for questioning and clarification and has been shown to significantly increase learning when compared to lectures without the pauses. (Bonwell and Eison, 1991; Rowe, 1980; 1986; Ruhl, Hughes, & Schloss, 1980)

Retrieval practice—Pause for two or three minutes every 15 minutes, having students write everything they can remember from preceding class segment. Encourage questions. This approach prompts students to retrieve information from memory, which improves long term memory, ability to learn subsequent material, and ability to translate information to new domains. (Brame and Biel, 2015; see also the CFT’s guide to test-enhanced )

Demonstrations—Ask students to predict the result of a demonstration, briefly discussing it with a neighbor. After the demonstration, ask them to discuss the observed result and how it may have differed from their prediction; follow up with an instructor explanation. This approach asks students to test their understanding of a system by predicting an outcome. If their prediction is incorrect, it helps them see the misconception and thus prompts them to restructure their mental model.

Think-pair-share—Ask students a question that requires higher-order thinking (e.g., application, analysis, or evaluation levels within Bloom’s taxonomy). Ask students to think or write about an answer for one minute, then turn to a peer to discuss their responses for two minutes. Ask groups to share responses and follow up with the instructor's explanation. By asking students to explain their answer to a neighbor and to critically consider their neighbor’s responses, this approach helps students articulate newly formed mental connections.

Peer instruction with ConcepTests—This modification of the think-pair-share involves personal response devices (e.g., clickers)or polling. Pose a conceptually based multiple-choice question. Ask students to think about their answer and vote on a response before turning to a neighbor to discuss. Encourage students to change their answers after discussion, if appropriate, and share class results by revealing a graph of student responses. Use the graph as a stimulus for class discussion. This approach is particularly well-adapted for large classes and can be facilitated with a variety of tools (e.g., Poll Everywhere, etc.). More information is available in the CIRTL MOOC An Introduction to Evidence-Based College STEM Teaching. (Fagen et al., 2002; Crouch and Mazur, 2001)

Activities to replace some lecture

Strip sequence—Give students the steps in a process on strips of paper that are jumbled; ask them to work together to reconstruct the proper sequence. This approach can strengthen students’ logical thinking processes and test their mental model of a process. (Handelsman et al., 2007) An example from Aarhus University is provided below.

Concept map—Concept maps are visual representations of the relationships between concepts. Concepts are placed in nodes (often, circles), and the relationships between indicated by labeled arrows connecting the concepts. To have students create a concept map, identify the key concepts to be mapped in small groups or as a whole class. Ask students to determine the general relationship between the concepts and to arrange them two at a time, drawing arrows between related concepts and labeling with a short phrase to describe the relationship. By asking students to build an external representation of their mental model of a process, this approach helps students examine and strengthen the organization within the model. Further, it can emphasize the possibility of multiple “right” answers. More information and a tool to do online concept mapping can be found at the Institute for Human & Machine Cognition. (Novak and Canas, 2008)

Mini-maps. Mini-maps are like concept maps, but students are given a relatively short list of terms (usually 10 or fewer) to incorporate into their map. To use this approach, provide students a list of major concepts or specific terms and ask them to work in groups of two or three to arrange the terms in a logical structure, showing relationships with arrows and words.   Ask groups to volunteer to share their mini-maps and clarify any confusing points. Mini-maps have many of the same strengths as concept maps but can be completed more quickly and thus can serve as part of a larger class session with other learning activities. (Handelsman et al., 2007)

Categorizing grids. Present students with a grid made up of several important categories and a list of scrambled terms, images, equations, or other items. Ask students to quickly sort the terms into the correct categories in the grid. Ask volunteers to share their grids and answer questions that arise. This approach allows students to express and thus interrogate the distinctions they see within a field of related items. It can be particularly effective at helping instructors identify misconceptions. (Angelo and Cross, 1993)

Student-generated test questions. Provide students with a copy of your learning goals for a particular unit and a figure summarizing Bloom’s taxonomy (with representative verbs associated with each category). Challenge groups of students to create test questions corresponding to your learning goals and different levels of the taxonomy. Consider having each group share their favorite test question with the whole class or consider distributing all student-generated questions to the class as a study guide. This approach helps students consider what they know as well as implications of the instructor’s stated learning goals. (Angelo and Cross, 1993)

Decision-making activities. Ask students to imagine that they are policy-makers who must make and justify tough decisions. Provide a short description of a thorny problem, ask them to work in groups to arrive at a decision, and then have groups share out their decisions and explain their reasoning. This highly engaging technique helps students critically consider a challenging problem and encourages them to be creative in considering solutions. The “real-world” nature of the problems can provide incentive for students to   dig deeply into the problems. (Handelsman et al., 2007)

Content, form, and function outlines. Students in small groups are asked to carefully analyze a particular artifact—such as a poem, a story, an essay, a billboard, an image, or a graph—and identify the “what” (the content), the “how” (the form), and the function (the why). This technique can help students consider the various ways that meaning is communicated in different genres. (Angelo and Cross, 1993)

Case-based learning. Much like decision-making activities, case-based learning presents students with situations from the larger world that require students to apply their knowledge to reach a conclusion about an open-ended situation. Provide students with a case, asking them to decide what they know that is relevant to the case, what other information they may need, and what impact their decisions may have, considering the broader implications of their decisions. Give small groups (3-5) of students time to consider responses, circulating to ask questions and provide help as needed. Provide opportunities for groups to share responses; the greatest value from case-based learning comes from the complexity and variety of answers that may be generated.

References

Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., Norman, M.K., and Mayer, R.E. (2010). How learning works: seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Angelo, T.A. and Cross, K.P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: a handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barkley, E. (2010). Student engagement techniques: a handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bonwell, C. C., and Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASH#-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Brame, C.J. and Biel, R. (2015). Test-enhanced learning: the potential for testing to promote greater learning in undergraduate science courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14, 1-12.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Carr, R., Palmer, S., and Hagel, P. (2015). Active learning: the importance of developing a comprehensive measure. Active Learning in Higher Education 16, 173-186.

Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin March 1987, 3-7

Crouch, C.H. and Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am. Journal of Physics 69, 970-977.

Fagen, A.P., Crouch, C.H., and Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: results from a range of classrooms. Physics Teacher 40, 206-209.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., and Wenderoth, M.P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111, 8410-8415.

Haak, D.C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., and Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science 332, 1213–1216.

Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66, 64-74.

Handelsman, J., Miller, S., and Pfund, C. (2007). Scientific teaching. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Hyman, R.T. (1980). Improving discussion leadership. New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press.

Laws, P., Rosborough P, and Poodry, F. (1999).Women’s responses to an activity-based introductory physics program. American Journal of Physics 67, S32–S37.

Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C.H., Mazur, E. (2006). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics 74, 118–122.

Lumpkin, A., Achen, R., and Dodd,R. (2015). Student perceptions of active learning. College Student Journal 49, 121-133.

Novak, J.D. and Canas, A.J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 2008-01 (retrieved from http://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/theory-of-concept-maps).

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education 93, 223-231.

Rowe, M.B. (1980). Pausing principles and their effects on reasoning in science. In Teaching the Sciences, edited by F. B. Brawer. New Directions for Community Colleges No. 31. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ruhl, K., Hughes, C.A., and Schloss, P.J. (1987). Using the Pause Procedure to enhance lecture rcall. Teacher Education and Special Education 10, 14-18.

Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Briggs, D., Iverson, H., Talbot, R., Shepard, L.A. (2011). Impact of undergraduate science course innovations on learning. Science 331, 1269–1270.

Schneider, M. (2001). Encouragement of women physics majors at Grinnell College: A case study. Phys. Teach. 39, 280–282.

Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., Donovan, S.S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Rev. Educ. Res. 69, 21–51.

 

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Collaborative Learning and Problem-Based Learning: Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. 

Interactive Technology and Flipped Classroom: Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of the Research. In ASEE National Conference Proceedings.

General Benefits: Freeman, S., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.