Design and plan learning activities and/or programmes of study
Appropriate methods for teaching, learning and assessing in the subject area in the subject area and at the level of the academic programme
Promote participation in higher education and equality of opportunity for learners
Active learning is about deliberately requiring students to think, respond, discuss, apply or practise during class. It do not require academics to abandon explanation. Instead, they combine concise teaching with structured opportunities for students to process and use what they are learning. Examples include short problem-solving tasks, concept questions, peer instruction, think–pair–share, structured small-group discussion, case analysis, quick writing tasks, response-system questions and targeted feedback after students attempt a task.
There is strong evidence that active learning improves student achievement in higher education. In undergraduate STEM, Freeman et al. (2014) found that active learning increased examination or concept-inventory performance by about 0.47 standard deviations and reduced failure rates compared with traditional lecturing.
The effect is not limited to STEM. In humanities and social sciences, Kozanitis and Nenciovici (2023) found that active instruction improved assessment performance by 0.489 standard deviations across 104 studies. The effect was stronger in some subject areas, smaller groups and upper-level courses, but the overall finding supports active instruction across higher education.
Some specific strategies have promising evidence. Peer Instruction shows large positive effects, although the review includes mixed education levels and the effect may be inflated by study and publication features (Balta et al., 2017). Team-based learning shows a moderate positive effect, but the quality of the primary studies is weaker (Swanson et al., 2019). Small-group learning also has positive evidence for achievement, persistence and attitudes (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999).
The evidence is more cautious for classroom response systems or clickers. Hunsu et al. (2016) found a very small effect on cognitive outcomes overall. Importantly, when comparison classes used a similar question-based pedagogy without clickers, the clicker effect was negligible. This suggests that the value comes from the questions, discussion and feedback, not from the technology itself.
The strongest evidence comes from two broad higher-education meta-analyses: Freeman et al. (2014) in undergraduate STEM and Kozanitis and Nenciovici (2023) in humanities and social sciences. Supporting evidence comes from meta-analyses of peer Instruction (Balta et al., 2017), small-group learning (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999), team-based learning (Swanson et al., 2019) and audience response systems (Hunsu et al., 2016). The evidence base includes hundreds of studies and tens of thousands of students, but the quality of individual studies varies.
Balta, N., Michinov, N., Balyimez, S., & Ayaz, M. F. (2017). A meta-analysis of the effect of Peer Instruction on learning gain: Identification of informational and cultural moderators. International Journal of Educational Research, 86, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.009
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
Hunsu, N. J., Adesope, O., & Bayly, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect. Computers & Education, 94, 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.013
Kozanitis, A., & Nenciovici, L. (2023). Effect of active learning versus traditional lecturing on the learning achievement of college students in humanities and social sciences: A meta-analysis. Higher Education, 86, 1377–1394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00977-8
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021
Swanson, E., McCulley, L. V., Osman, D. J., Scammacca Lewis, N., & Solis, M. (2019). The effect of team-based learning on content knowledge: A meta-analysis. Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731201
