The Effectiveness of Active Learning Strategies in Enhancing Student Engagement and Academic Performance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62843/jssr.v5i1.471Keywords:
Active Learning, Student Engagement, Academic Performance, Problem-Based Learning, Flipped Classroom, Collaborative Learning, Instructional Strategies, Higher EducationAbstract
Active learning has been widely adopted in modern educational practice as a new paradigm different from simple knowledge acquisition. In this study, a survey, interviews with instructors, and analysis of the student's performance in different classes before and after the implementation of the active learning strategies are used. According to the studies, student engagement has been enhanced, performance has increased, satisfaction levels have improved, and course completion rates have been found to have equally increased as a result of the integration of active learning strategies, including PBL, Flipped classes, and collaborative activities. When comparing students in active learning situations with students under information transmission or conventional classroom learning, statistics show that the former performs better as per the tests. Also, active learning methods are embraced by instructors through recognizing that it has more benefits than disadvantages; despite the fact that it has problems such as more time-consuming and students' resistance. The findings indicate that Alger is a highly effective pedagogy that improves student learning if institutions provide training for faculty and require its structural use. These implications have implications for the curriculum, the teaching & learning processes as well as the institutional policies that can be placed in an educational setting in order to enhance students’ performance in higher learning institutions.
References
Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning is not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061
Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. ASEE National Conference Proceedings.
Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the Real World: Essays Illustrating Fundamental Contributions to Society, 56-64.
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2012). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. John Wiley & Sons.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ERIC Digest.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus the feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862-864. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). Gamification: Toward a definition. CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. Macmillan.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(02)00025-7
Eison, J. (2010). Using active learning instructional strategies to create excitement and enhance learning. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 7(1), 5-15.
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 97-131). Springer.
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
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 of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A. B., & Handelsman, J. (2013). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 341(6153), 1455-1456. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240487
Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213-1216. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204820
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. (2011). Increasing the impact and diffusion of STEM education innovations. Science Education, 95(4), 577-600.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:edpr.0000034022.16470.f3
Hora, M. T. (2012). Limitations in experimental design mean that the jury is still out on lecturing versus active learning: Response to Freeman et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(26), E1516.
Hora, M. T. (2012). Organizational factors and instructional decision-making: A cognitive perspective on the implementation of pedagogical reforms. The Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 207-235. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0001
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0099
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record (1970), 115(3), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500307
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Michael, J. (2007). Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. College Teaching, 55(2), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.3200/ctch.55.2.42-47
Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. Routledge.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x
Roediger, H. L., 3rd, & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
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
Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. University of Chicago Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Wieman, C. E. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8319–8320. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407304111
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Copyright in the Journal of Social Sciences Review is retained by the author(s). Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its integrity is maintained and its original authors, citation details and publisher are identified.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
SSR's Editorial Board shares the vision of providing free access to information, education, and science for everyone, thus promoting its content through an OPEN ACCESS POLICY, fulfilling the DOAJ definition of open access. The JSSR adheres to an Open Access and Copyright Licensing Policy based on the belief that making research freely accessible to the public promotes greater global knowledge sharing.
The JSSR uses the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. The authors who apply and publish in JSSR consent to abide by the copyright policy set out in the Creative Commons 4.0 license (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license).
- Copyright in the Journal of Social Sciences Review is retained by the author(s).
- Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its integrity is maintained and its original authors, citation details and publisher are identified.
While "By 'open access' to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself."
