Does active learning work? A good question, but not the right one.

Abstract

Some studies of active learning methods suggest that they are effective teaching tools, whereas others have found them to be no better than traditional lecture methods. The situation is much like the one that began to play out in the 1950s with respect to the effects of psychotherapy. In that realm, it eventually became clear that the question "does therapy work?" was not the right one. It was more important to ask "which therapies result in clinically significant benefits when delivered by whom in what manner to which clients with what problems and how durable are the benefits"? This article suggests that it is time for researchers in the scholarship of teaching and learning to go beyond asking whether active learning "works" and address instead of a set of deeper questions about it. Doing so will require a more systematic and critical analysis of existing evidence as well as a new generation of research designed specifically to fill in the gaps in our understanding of what active learning methods can and cannot do.

Characterizing student engagement with hands-on, problem-based, and lecture activities in an introductory college course

“…Our study answers the call by Bernstein and other scholars of teaching and learning for a "second generation" of active learning research involving deeper, more specific study of defined instructional methods and the underlying processes associated with their benefits (Bernstein, 2018;Daniel & Poole, 2009;Freeman et al, 2014). We examined student interest and motivation in an introduction to animal sciences course relative to three specific instructional techniques: video lectures, case studies, and laboratory stations.…”

“…The recent proliferation of research on active learning, however, has left important questions unanswered (Bernstein, 2018). For example, the predominant focus on connecting instructional techniques with performance outcomes has blurred distinctions between active teaching and active learning (Chi & Wylie, 2014).…”

“…Still, active instruction encompasses a wide variety of educational methods (Bonwell & Eison, 1991), and there is little empirical research describing specific course activities involved in promoting active learning in the college classroom (Rowles, 2012). Research that does assess specific course activities tends to consider unitary activity types-obscuring substantial variation in instructional design, content, and implementation (Bernstein, 2018). Further, relatively little research has examined underlying cognitive and emotional processes that may mediate the effects of active learning on performance outcomes (Daniel & Poole, 2009).…”

Active transitive inference: When learner control facilitates integrative encoding

“…By interacting with the environment, testing hypotheses through experimentation, or otherwise directing the flow of information during study, active instruction lets learners shape their experience according to their own goals and existing knowledge. Despite the intuitive appeal of such personalized learning, however, evidence for the efficacy of learner-directed instruction is mixed (Alfieri et al, 2011;Bernstein, 2018). Educational psychologists generally endorse the constructivist view that conceptual knowledge is assembled by the learner, but increasingly question whether the learner always benefits from collecting the raw materials themselves (R. E. Clark, 2009).…”

“…There is a need to better understand how overt control over study interacts with basic cognitive processes involved in memory and knowledge formation (Bernstein, 2018; T. M. Gureckis & Markant, 2012).…”