If you run a Google Scholar search on the phrase “active learning” you will find many peer-reviewed articles, literature reviews, and reports from a variety of Centers for Teaching and Learning that will define active learning, point to its’ theoretical foundation and offer a list of examples of how it can be implemented.
Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching assistant director Cynthia Brame (2016) offers one of the better information sites/reports on active learning – https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/active-learning/. Brame includes a section that deals with the question of whether or not there is evidence that active learning works. The question of whether or not active learning works is extremely important so most academic Centers for Teaching and Learning will point to research that confirms that active learning is beneficial. They often qualify these assertions of effectiveness by indicating that while research confirming active learning efficacy is conducted in a specific discipline or context, the bulk of the evidence suggests that active learning approaches are effective across disciplines (Ambrose et al, 2010; Bonwell and Eison, 1991; Chickering and Gamson, 1987).
For example, Joel Michael’s (2006) article, Where’s the evidence that active learning works? explores the effectiveness of active learning in the sciences by examining how it was used in a variety of contexts. Michael (2006) points to the following key active learning factors that need to be incorporated:
- Learning involves the active construction of meaning by the learner.
- Learning facts (“what”–declarative knowledge) and learning to do something (“how”–procedural knowledge) are two different processes.
- Some things that are learned are specific to the domain or context (subject matter or course) in which they were learned, whereas other things are more readily transferred to other domains.
- Individuals are likely to learn more when they learn with others than when they learn alone.
- Meaningful learning is facilitated by articulating explanations, whether to one’s self, peers, or teachers.
Perhaps one of the most important considerations Michael (2006) asserts is:
Active learning and student-centered pedagogical approaches put the focus on the learner and what the learner does. However, active learning doesn’t just happen; it occurs in the classroom when the teacher creates a learning environment that makes it more likely to occur.
There are other examples of active learning research in the Sciences that confirm the efficacy of active learning and confirm the challenges of implementing active learning effectively (Prince, 2004 & Freeman et al., 2014). But there are also examples of research that suggest that active learning cannot be applied as a treatment and there was no association between student learning gains and the use of active-learning instruction (Andrews et al., 2011). The following summary (Andrews et al., 2011) suggests why active learning may not be effective:
Although active learning has the potential to substantially improve student learning, this research suggests that active learning, as used by typical college biology instructors, is not associated with greater learning gains. We contend that most instructors lack the rich and nuanced understanding of teaching and learning that science education researchers have developed. Therefore, active learning as designed and implemented by typical college biology instructors may superficially resemble active learning used by education researchers, but lacks the constructivist elements necessary for improving learning.
The research suggests that while centers for teaching and learning promote active learning and many instructors may attempt to include active learning by adding a class discussion or small group discussion within a project context you can’t apply active learning by applying a treatment or process without considering the bigger constructivist elements that are required. To make active learning work you need to consider how you and your learner think about learning, whether your learning approach is active and learner-centered and what type of learning environment have you created. These three key factors (changing thinking about learning, changing the learning approach, and creating a significant environment) are at the core of the Learner’s Mindset and can be realized by creating a significant learning environment (CSLE) where you give your learners a choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities (COVA) which is what we refer to as the CSLE+COVA framework.
Both the Learner’s Mindset and the CSLE+COVA are more contemporary implementations of the constructivist theories and approaches that are well supported by research. The authentic learning opportunities that are part of COVA are one of the more effective ways to facilitate active learning. Older learning theorists like Piaget often referred to active learning as part of the concrete activities and social dynamics that made up an effective learning environment. See my post Piaget’s Key Implications for Learning for a more detailed explanation.
While educators who wish to help their learners learn how to learn and believe that incorporating active learning is a step in the right direction, there often is a push back from many learners who are familiar and comfortable with the current information transfer system and test-based standards. The post Why do so many prefer passive learning? reviews current research that reveals that even though active learning may yield better achievement most students prefer the traditional lecture-based model.
I do not offer these examples of pushback or challenges to active learning to discourage educators. I do so in order to remind educators that even though most constructivists advocate a student-centered approach this doesn’t mean that the learner always knows what they need. All too often our learners have figured out how our current information transfer system works so any deviation from what they. know or are comfortable with will be met with resistance.
References
Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061
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. (2016). Active learning [Center for Teaching]. Vanderbilt University. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/active-learning/
Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin March 1987, 3-7
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.
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
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
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
