When Active Learning Fails… and What to Do About It

Silverthorn, Dee U.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_61

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study provides indication that one group (Group 2) resisted active learning (Silverthorn 2020 ). It confirms Owens et al ( 2020 ) that this group struggled when authoritative information is absent, and students are unfamiliar with active learning as compared to traditional teacher-centered instruction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Active learning is based on learning with others e.g., group learning (Hodges 2018 ), project-based learning, or team-based learning (Michaelsen and Sweet 2008 ). However, students often resist active learning Silverthorn ( 2020 ). A study by Owens et al ( 2020 ) in science education shows different reasons of student resistance e.g., students struggle when authoritative information is absent, and students are unfamiliar with active learning as compared to traditional teacher-centered instruction.…”

Section: Literature Review and Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring Artifact-Generated Learning with Digital Technologies: Advancing Active Learning with Co-design in Higher Education Across Disciplines

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Active learning strategies increase student engagement and performances, however, there is student resistance toward such instructional interventions. To overcome student resistance groupwork can be useful. In addition, digital technology can be used to redesign courses to add active learning techniques and support learning with and not from technologies. We developed active learning strategies in a digital environment, artifact-generated learning (AGL). The aim of this exploratory research was to study student engagement in AGL setting by focusing on how student work together, student satisfaction, motivation, and roles. We conducted an open course with students from various disciplines. We applied Chi's conceptual framework of the three active learning levels of active-constructiveinteractive (interactive is highest level), to study the AGL intervention in student groups. Methods of focus groups, observations, and online questionnaires were conducted to analyze group interaction. Results, presented for four student groups, indicate two groups were active-constructive, one group was interactive, and one group reached beyond the highest level that we call co-design level. Implications raise awareness to distinguish between active learners and co-designers. An interactive group is not necessarily a co-designer. A co-designer is an active student who also acts beyond the given course design as s/he constructively searches for and utilizes other resources in order to accomplish set goals. To overcome student resistance, a new process-based assessment format may enhance students to become co-designers on the group level.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%