Basic Principles of Active Learning

Active Learning Series: Topic Intro | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

Active Learning Series 
Part 1:
Foundations of Active Learning

Overview

What is Active Learning?

In a very broad sense, active learning strategies are instructional activities that engage students in doing things as well as thinking about what they are doing (adapted from Bonwell and Eison, 1991). Active learning approaches support the student-centered, co-construction of knowledge, skills, and values (more than the transmission of information from the instructor to the students).

By participating in individual and group activities related to the subject matter, such as reading, writing, discussing, and reflecting, students develop their higher-order thinking skills. Providing students with timely feedback from peers and instructors, as well as helping them think about their own learning (i.e., metacognition), further supports learning by doing.

—

Benefits of Active Learning for Faculty and Students

  • The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) has followed the engagement experiences of thousands of college students since 2000. Their consistent results show that hands-on, integrative, and collaborative active learning experiences lead to high levels of student achievement and personal development (Kuh et al., 2017).
  • Owens et al. (2017) found that active learning can positively impact student motivation.
  • Reimer et al. (2016) found active learning to be particularly beneficial to first-generation college students in STEM courses, boosting both retention and passing rates.
  • Freeman et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis involving high enrollment lectures and found that active learning increases student performance on exams by an average of 6% and decreases failure rates from 34% to 22%.
  • Gray et al. (2010) found that students who used “hands-on” active learning outperformed the control group, who passively received a lecture, on a concept test by a mean of 68%.

—

Varied Opportunities for Active Learning

A course plan provides a roadmap for the instructor of what students will learn in class and how class time will be used effectively to achieve learning goals. Traditionally, course planning starts with the content, which focuses attention and effort on what the instructor will teach and how they will teach it.

In contrast, a more integrated design—a learner-centered approach to course planning—begins with an examination of situational factors and works “backwards” from traditional planning.

Beginning with the context of the teaching and learning situation, Fink (2005) suggests answering the following questions:

  • How many students are in the class?
  • Is the course at the lower division, upper division, or graduate level?
  • How long and frequent are the class meetings?
  • Will the class be delivered live, online, in a laboratory, etc.?
  • What physical elements of the learning environment will affect the class?
  • Citation
  • Center for Educational Effectiveness [CEE]. (2024). Active Learning Series. Just-in-Time Teaching Resources. Retrieved from https://cee.ucdavis.edu/JITT
  • References
  • Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Washington, DC: George Washington University. 

    Fink, L. D. (2005). Integrated course design. IDEA Paper #42 (pp. 1–7). Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center. 

    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. 

    Gary, K., Steer, D., McConnell, D., & Owens, K. (2010). Using a student-manipulated model to enhance student learning in a large lecture class. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(1), 86–95. 

    Kuh, G., O’Donnell, K., & Schneider, C. (2017). HIPS at ten. Change, 49(5), 8–16. 

    Owens, D., Sadler, T., Barlow, A., & Smith-Walters, C. (2017). Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1 

    Reimer, L. C., Schenke, K., Nguyen, T., O’Dowd, D. K., Domina, T., & Warschauer, M. (2016). Evaluating promising practices in undergraduate STEM lecture courses. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(1), 212–233.