Encourage Active Learning¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (3 for) · 9 studies (4 quant-synthesis, 2 theoretical, 1 causal, 1 review, 1 associational), q2–q4 · 3 of 9 report an effect size

Description¶

Active learning positions learners as generators, not receivers, of cognitive work: they discuss, write, solve, teach, and apply material during instruction rather than only afterward. The strategy spans a continuum from simple (think-pair-share, minute papers) to complex (problem-based inquiry, peer instruction), but its defining feature is that learners must do something with the content — retrieve it, connect it to prior experience, or use it to produce an answer — while the instructor is present to guide and correct. Making the learning process itself explicit ("why we are doing this activity") is part of the strategy, not an add-on.

Design Implications¶

Active learning reliably improves performance relative to lecture-only instruction, with the largest gains in conceptual understanding and failure-rate reduction Active learning improves exam performance and reduces failure rates. [+S]. The mechanism is generative processing: activities that require learners to select, organize, and integrate information produce deeper encoding than reception alone Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+M]. Not all "activity" is equal, however — what matters is the cognitive work demanded, not physical or verbal busyness; a lively discussion that never moves beyond opinion produces less learning than a quiet written reconstruction of an argument [~M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Tasks that require a generative act: answering, predicting, explaining, applying, or critiquing — not merely attending
• Instructor modeling of the target behaviors (asking questions, listening, giving feedback) so learners know what active engagement looks like
• Time and structure: activities must be bounded, with a clear product, and followed by instructor synthesis or feedback
• Psychological safety for discussion and error-making, since active tasks surface misconceptions publicly

Constraints¶

• Increases preparation load and demands skilled facilitation; poorly run activities consume time without producing learning [~M]
• Novices can be overloaded by open-ended inquiry with minimal guidance; unguided discovery underperforms guided forms of active learning [-S]
• Students accustomed to passive roles may resist and rate active formats lower even while learning more — perceived effort and felt learning can diverge from actual learning gains [-M]
• Large classes and fixed lecture halls constrain some formats, though peer-discussion variants scale well

Implementation Variability¶

• Individual — minute papers, predict-then-observe, self-explanation prompts, muddiest-point reflections
• Pair/small group — think-pair-share, peer instruction with clicker questions, jigsaw reading
• Whole class — structured Class Discussion, debate, case analysis
• Course-level — flipped designs move exposition outside class and reserve contact time for active work (Flipped Classroom)

Target Learners¶

• Undergraduate and adult learners, where the evidence base is strongest Active learning improves exam performance and reduces failure rates. [+S]
• Learners with some prior knowledge, who have enough schema to generate and test ideas; complete novices need more structure first [~M]
• Struggling students benefit disproportionately — active formats narrow achievement gaps relative to lecture [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Conceptual understanding and misconception repair — active tasks expose and confront faulty models
• Application and transfer — using knowledge in novel or authentic situations (Application)
• Metacognition and self-regulation — reflection and self-monitoring built into activities Self-monitoring improves self-regulation. [+M]

Instructions¶

1. Open with a task, not a transmission: pose a question, prediction, or short problem before explaining (Activation)
2. Give learners an individual generative step — write, solve, or commit to an answer (Practice)
3. Structure peer interaction: compare answers, defend reasoning, reach consensus (Collaboration)
4. Have groups or individuals report out; make thinking visible and respond to surfaced misconceptions (Articulation)
5. Close with instructor synthesis that connects activity outcomes to the target concepts — the debrief, not the activity itself, consolidates learning
6. Name the process: tell learners why the activity is structured this way so the strategy itself becomes learnable

Related Strategies¶

• Activate Prior Knowledge — the opening task in step 1 doubles as activation, giving new material something to attach to
• Use Worked Examples — the complementary passive-to-active bridge; examples reduce load for novices before active problem solving begins
• Formative Assessment — most active-learning activities double as assessment-for-learning opportunities
• Use real-world problems, open-ended class discussions, and inquiry-oriented experiments as higher order thinking strategies

Examples¶

• Peer Instruction (Eric Mazur, Harvard) — students answer a conceptual question individually, discuss with neighbors, then re-answer; widely adopted in physics and beyond (Peer Instruction)
• Flipped STEM courses — pre-class videos replace lecture; class time runs problem-solving workshops (Flipped Classroom)
• Case-based teaching — learners analyze real scenarios and defend decisions, as in business and medical education (Case-Based Learning)
• Tutoring context — a tutor gives tutees real-life situations to analyze and models active listening and questioning behaviors, making the learning process explicit

Key Sources¶

• 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. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
• Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
• 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. PNAS, 116(39), 19251–19257. doi:10.1073/pnas.1821936116
• Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
• Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. George Washington University.