Active Learning Concepts

ACTIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES
IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
TEACHING FOR LEADERSHIP,
INNOVATION, AND CREATIVITY
This page intentionally left blank
ACTIVE LEARNING
STRATEGIES IN HIGHER
EDUCATION: TEACHING FOR
LEADERSHIP, INNOVATION,
AND CREATIVITY
EDITED BY
ANASTASIA MISSEYANNI
Deree The American College of Greece, Athens, Greece
MILTIADIS D. LYTRAS
PARASKEVI PAPADOPOULOU
CHRISTINA MAROULI
United Kingdom North America Japan India Malaysia China

Emerald Publishing Limited
Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK
First edition 2018
Copyright r 2018 Emerald Publishing Limited
Reprints and permissions service

Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in

any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence
permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency
and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the
chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the
quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or
otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties,
express or implied, to their use.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-78714-488-0 (Print)

ISBN: 978-1-78714-487-3 (Online)
ISBN: 978-1-78714-944-1 (Epub)
ISOQAR certified
Management System,
awarded to Emerald
for adherence to
Environmental
standard
ISO 14001:2004.
Certificate Number 1985

ISO 14001
Contents
About the Authors ix
Preface xvii
Acknowledgments xxi
Introduction
Anastasia Misseyanni, Miltiadis D. Lytras,
Paraskevi Papadopoulou and Christina Marouli 1
SECTION I: ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION:

A THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Chapter 1 Toward an Epistemology of Active Learning

in Higher Education and Its Promise
Lorayne Robertson 17
Chapter 2 Designing for Active Learning:

A Problem-Centered Approach
Susan Stetson-Tiligadas 45
SECTION II: ACTIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES IN HIGHER

EDUCATION: “STORIES” AND LESSONS LEARNT
Chapter 3 Active Learning Stories in Higher Education:

Lessons Learned and Good Practices in STEM Education
Anastasia Misseyanni, Paraskevi Papadopoulou,
Christina Marouli and Miltiadis D. Lytras 75
Chapter 4 Concepts and Communication in the

Early Stages of an Environmental Science Degree:
A Case Study of Formative Activities and Tasks
Peter J. Shaw 107
vi Contents
Chapter 5 Active Learning Strategies: Stories and Lessons

Learnt Studying Environment in the Field
Daniel Moscovici and Emma Witt 133
Chapter 6 Online Learning as the Catalyst for More

Deliberate Pedagogies: A Canadian University Experience
Lorayne Robertson, Wendy Barber and William Muirhead 151
Chapter 7 Active, Cooperative Learning in Online

Higher Education. The Learning Design for “Change Management”
at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Eva Rimbau-Gilabert 169
Chapter 8 Engaging the Nonart History Student: A Tale of Five

Football Players (and Others) in Roman Art
Gretchen Kreahling McKay 187
Chapter 9 Preservice Teachers and Active Learning in

Technology-Enhanced Learning: The Case of the University of
West Bohemia in the Czech Republic
Zbyněk Filipi and Lucie Rohlı´ková 211
Chapter 10 Intercultural Talent Management Model

and its Application as an Active Teaching and Learning
Strategy. Preservice Teachers in a New Time and
Space Dimension: Virtuality
Eileen Sepúlveda-Valenzuela, Marcelo Careaga Butter and
Marı´a Graciela Badilla-Quintana 247
Chapter 11 Active Learning in Practice: Techniques and

Experiences in Information Systems Courses in Brazil
Ronney Moreira de Castro, Sean W. M. Siqueira,
Ce´sar Augusto R. Bastos and Maria Cristina Pfeiffer Fernandes 273
Chapter 12 Using Socrative App for Accounting Students in

Higher Education
Ine´s González-González, Cristina Alcaide-Muñoz and
Ana Isabel Jimenez-Zarco 293
Contents vii
Chapter 13 Enhancing Learner Autonomy and Active

Learning Using Digital Portfolio
Linda Pospisilova 315
SECTION III: A VISION FOR HUMANITY THROUGH

HIGHER EDUCATION
Chapter 14 The Pedagogical Legacy of Dorothy Lee and

Paulo Freire
Azril Bacal Roij 339
Chapter 15 A New Vision for Higher Education: Lessons from

Education for the Environment and Sustainability
Christina Marouli, Anastasia Misseyanni,
Paraskevi Papadopoulou and Miltiadis D. Lytras 361
Index 389
About the Authors
Cristina Alcaide-Muñoz is a PhD Student in the Business Administration

Department at the Public University of Navarre, Spain. She holds a
research grant in the Department of Business Administration (Public
University of Navarre) to develop the line of research based on operations
management, focusing on high-performance manufacturing organiza-
tions. Her research encompasses operations management, particularly,
quality management and strategic planning. Moreover, she teaches
operations management and human resources management at the Public
University of Navarre.
César Augusto R. Bastos is a PhD Student in Information Systems at
the Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO), Brazil.
He has experience in education, focusing on educational technology,
and more specifically on the following subjects: Teaching-Using compu-
ters, Robotics, and Physics. He attained his Bachelor in Licenciatura
em Fı́sica from the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (1988) and
Master in Computer Science from the Universidade Federal do Rio de
Janeiro (2005), Brazil.
Azril Bacal Roij has a long higher educational career in Perú, México,
Sweden, and Spain. He was Humanities Endowment Scholar at
Otterbein College (1995), and Visiting Lecturer at UCLA (1996). He is
currently affiliated with the Sociology Department, taught a course on
Dorothy Lee at the Anthropology Department, Uppsala University. He
teaches peace education/culture of peace at “Centro Internacional de
Prospectiva y Altos Estudios” (CIPAE), Puebla, México. He held aca-
demic administrative posts in Perú and México. His work covers
various fields, and he has authored books, chapters, and journal articles
on: ethnicity, citizenship, national identity, higher education, peace
education, rural development, and intercultural dialogue.
Marı́a Graciela Badilla-Quintana is Assistant Professor and Associate
Researcher at CIEDE-UCSC, Universidad Católica de la Santı́sima
Concepción, Chile. She is a Journalist, Licentiate in Social Communica-
tion, Teacher of Primary Education, Master in Education, and PhD in
Pedagogical Investigation. Currently, she is Director of the Doctoral
in Education program, and Editor-in-Chief of the REXE Journal.
x About the Authors
Her research focuses on ICT integration on Educational Innovation

and includes immersive virtual worlds and gamification. Between 2016
and 2018 she is Visiting Researcher (postdoc) in the Laboratory for
Embodied Cognition and Embodied Games at Arizona State Univer-
sity, USA thanks to Becas Chile scholarship.
Wendy Barber holds a BPHE, BEd, Med, and a PhD from the
University of Toronto. She is Assistant Professor in the Faculty of
Education at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in
Oshawa, Canada and has also been a program director in that faculty.
Her research interests are: Health and Physical Education, wearable
technologies for fitness and well-being, as well as working in the
Education Informatics Lab (EILab.ca) developing leading edge frame-
works for Fully Online Learning Communities. She is a passionate
advocate for teacher education, and she currently teaches in both gradu-
ate and undergraduate programs.
Marcelo Careaga Butter is Associate Professor and Associate
Researcher at CIEDE-UCSC, Universidad Católica de la Santı́sima
Concepción, Chile. He is Professor of History and Geography, Master
in Education (in curriculum specialty) and has a PhD in Philosophy
and Educational Sciences. Currently, he is Head of the Educational
Computer and Knowledge Management Unit. His research focuses on
Cybernetic Curriculum, Knowledge Management and Virtual Epistemology,
and Integration of ICT in educational and intercultural contexts.
Currently, he is a postdoctoral fellow in the final phase related to ICT
and Knowledge Management in intercultural contexts at the University
of Bristol, UK.
Zbyněk Filipi has a Master’s Degree in Pedagogy, specialized in
Computer Science, and a Doctorate in Pedagogy. He works at the
Department of Computer Science and Educational Technology at the
Faculty of Education at the University of West Bohemia in Pilsen,
Czech Republic, which provides training for pre-service teachers,
focused on computer science. He lectures on didactics and digital liter-
acy. He is the author and co-author of articles focused on ICT in educa-
tion. He has gained a wide range of experience in implementing projects
for the professional development of teachers.
Inés González-González is a Professor in the Business Administration
Department of the Public University of Navarre, Spain. She has a PhD
in Business Administration Accounting and Finances from the
University of Valladolid, and Executive MBA for the European School
About the Authors xi
Business of Madrid, both in Spain. She has worked as a Manager at

several companies linked to Public Administration, and has worked as a
Strategy Consultant. She has written more than 40 papers in prestigious
international journals, having presented communications in national
and international Congresses, and is directing doctoral research theses.
She was Senior Researcher at i2TIC. Award in Education and
Emerging Technology, 2017 awarded by The Financial Studies Center
(CFS).
Ana Isabel Jimenez-Zarco is Associate Professor in the Business and
Economic Studies of the Open University of Catalonia, Spain. She was
Senior Researcher at i2TIC. She has PhD in Economics and Business
from the University of Castilla La Mancha and Postgraduate in
Building Models in Ecology and Natural Resource Management
from the Polytechnic University of Catalonia. Both universities are in
Spain. She was Evaluator at the European Union Program “Marie
Sklodowska-Curie Actions Innovative Training Networks.” She is an
author of over 70 national and international publications. Award in
Education and Emerging Technology, 2017 awarded by The Financial
Studies Center (CFS).
Gretchen Kreahling McKay received a BA in Art at Colby College,
USA, and her MA and PhD in the History of Art from the University
of Virginia, USA. Currently, she is Professor of Art History and Chair
of the Department of Art and Art History at McDaniel College, USA,
and a speaker and consultant on active learning in the higher education
classroom. She was the recipient of the 2015 Ira G. Zepp Distinguished
Teaching Award at McDaniel College. She is also the Faculty Mentor
to the McDaniel College Green Terror football team.
Miltiadis D. Lytras is Research Professor of Information Systems at
Deree The American College of Greece, with a research focus on
semantic web, knowledge management, and e-learning, with more than
100 publications. He has authored/(co-)edited more than 45 special
issues in international journals and 42 books. He has served as the (Co)
Editor-in-Chief of 8 international journals (e.g., International Journal
on Semantic Web and Information Systems, International Journal of
Knowledge Society Research, International Journal of Knowledge and
Learning, International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning).
Christina Marouli is Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies at
Deree The American College of Greece. She has a long career as
Educator in diverse contexts and as Consultant on environmental
xii About the Authors
issues, while she has worked for years in non-governmental organiza-

tions for women and children. She has founded and directed the Center
of Excellence for Sustainability at the American College of Greece. She
has been a recipient of a Fulbright scholarship for research on multicul-
tural environmental education and has significant experience in experi-
ential and active learning as well as in collaborative teaching and
learning practices.
Anastasia Misseyanni is Associate Professor of Environmental Studies
at Deree The American College of Greece. She has research experi-
ence in the fields of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Her present
research interests focus on innovative teaching and learning strategies in
higher education and science pedagogy, with emphasis on active learn-
ing; also on Mediterranean biodiversity, green roofs, and sustainability
in higher education. She has developed and taught many undergraduate
natural science and environmental studies courses. She is coordinator of
the Deree Environmental Studies program and serves as Head of the
Department of Science and Mathematics at Deree The American
College of Greece.
Ronney Moreira de Castro graduated in Systems Analysis from the
Higher Education Center of Juiz de Fora, Brazil. He is a Specialist in
Computer Science as well as an MSc, both from the Federal University
of Viçosa, Brazil, and a PhD Student in Information Systems at the
Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO), Brazil. He
is currently Professor and Coordinator of the Bachelor of Information
Systems at Granbery Methodist College, Brazil. He has experience in
Computer Science, with emphasis on Software Engineering and Web
projects. His research is currently focused on the area of computer edu-
cation, more specifically on Active Learning.
Daniel Moscovici is Associate Professor of Environmental Studies &
Sustainability at Stockton University, USA. He has completed a PhD
in Environmental Planning & MS in Environmental Studies at the
University of Pennsylvania, USA, and an MBA at Villanova University,
USA. His main areas of interest include natural resource management,
environmental pedagogy, regional planning, and land conservation.
William (Bill) Muirhead is the founding Associate Provost at UOIT. He
completed a PhD at the University of Alberta, Canada, in the area of
online and distance education. An active researcher, he has attracted
and participated in more than $8m of funding. He is the recipient of
numerous awards including those from the Government of Alberta,
About the Authors xiii
Canadian Association for Distance Education, Association for Media

in Education, Industry Canada, and from UOIT for Excellence in
Leading Teams. He has conducted research on aspects of online educa-
tion, learning technology infrastructure development, and digital liter-
acy in health-related fields.
Paraskevi Papadopoulou is Professor of Biology at Deree The
American College of Greece. Her research interests are focused in the
fields of Structural Biology/Molecular Biophysics and Bioinformatics.
She contributed to the development of genetic testing protocols for rare
genetic diseases. Her current research engagement is on Mediterranean
biodiversity and green roofs, in addition to higher education research
and innovative ways of teaching and learning in STEM disciplines and
big data analytics in Bioinformatics and Healthcare. She has served as
Head of the Department of Science, Technology and Mathematics at
Deree The American College of Greece for 6 years.
Maria Cristina Pfeiffer Fernandes graduated in Engenharia Elétrica
from Pontifı́cia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (1977), Brazil
is Master in Production Engineering from Universidade Federal do Rio
de Janeiro (1984), and has a PhD in Production Engineering from
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (1989), Brazil. She has experi-
ence in education, with a focus on the following subjects: distance learn-
ing, collaborative learning, web-based learning environment, web, and
education.
Linda Pospisilova is a University Teacher of Specific and Academic
English in Bachelor, Master, and Doctoral programs of the Faculty of
Chemical Technology, University of Pardubice, Czech Republic, with
years of experience in eLearning and ePortfolio areas. She researches
ePortfolio, student autonomy, and goal setting in language learning and
deals with LMS Moodle course management, methodology, and admin-
istration. She is also a part of the Czech Padagogy Wheel translation
team, an author of several online courses which have been awarded
EUNIS prizes, and a Mahara system administrator.
Eva Rimbau-Gilabert is a Human Resources Lecturer at the Economics
and Business Faculty of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Open
University of Catalonia, UOC, Spain) and a member of the Digital
Business Research Group (DigiBiz). Since 2004, she has taught at the
UOC in the areas of human resource management, change manage-
ment, and corporate social responsibility. She is also a member of
the UOC’s Academic Committee for the Doctoral Programme in
xiv About the Authors
Information and Knowledge Society. She has served as Academic

Director of several programs: the Bachelor’s Degree in Labour Sciences,
the Master’s Degree in Work Safety, and the Graduate Studies of Busi-
ness and Economics.
Lorayne Robertson is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at
the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Ontario, Canada.
She specializes in online course design, program design, and quality
assurance. Other research interests include investigations of the student
experience and instructor role in polysynchronous online environments,
with a particular focus on digital technologies and assistive technologies
at the point of instruction in applied settings such as schools, colleges,
and higher education. She is a former school principal, district superin-
tendent, and education officer in Ontario, earning her doctorate at the
University of Toronto, Canada.
Lucie Rohlı́ková has focused on higher education, distance education,
and the use of technologies in education since 1998, and has been pub-
lishing her work on higher education continuously since then. She has
gathered extensive practical experience in the use of blended learning
for the training of academic staff, and has implemented several projects
with a specific focus on training pre-service teachers and new faculty
members. Since 2010, she has popularized mobile technologies enhanced
learning, and she leads the Czech Pedagogy Wheel Team.
Sean W. M. Siqueira is Associate Professor at the Federal University of
the State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO), Brazil. He is Editor-in-Chief of
the RBIE: Brazilian Journal on Computers in Education. He is the
founder and coordinator of the Semantics and Learning research group
and is a member of the special committees on Computers and
Education (CEIE) and on Information Systems (CESI), both from the
Brazilian Computer Society (SBC). His research interests are knowledge
representation, web science (including social and semantic web), and
advanced technologies for teaching and learning.
Eileen Sepúlveda-Valenzuela is an English Teacher from Universidad
Católica de la Santı́sima Concepción, Chile. She has a Master in
Technology and Knowledge Management in Education. She is a second
year PhD Student at the University of Bristol, UK, thanks to Becas
Chile scholarship. She has researched on the use of digital technology in
education and has worked as research assistant for Universidad
Católica de la Santı́sima Concepción. Currently, she is researching
about intercultural dialogue in Chilean higher education.
About the Authors xv
Peter J. Shaw is Associate Professor at the University of Southampton,

UK, specializing in interdisciplinary environmental science. He has a
diverse background, holding degrees in Physics, Environmental and
Ecological Sciences, and Biology. His interests in education encompass
pollution, freshwater and marine science, resource and waste manage-
ment, and contemporary environmental issues. He is a long-standing
executive member of the UK’s Committee of Heads of Environmental
Sciences through which he has been involved with developing Profes-
sional Body accreditation of Environmental Science degrees.
Susan Stetson-Tiligadas has a PhD in Education with a specialization in
Instructional Design for Online Learning. She has been teaching at
Deree The American College of Greece since 2006 in the English for
Academic Purposes program and more recently in the MA TESOL pro-
gram. She also helped develop the Online Faculty Training program
and co-facilitates this program at the college. As an instructional
designer, she has worked with subject-matter experts in Psychology,
TESOL, Music, and Writing. Her research interests include motiva-
tional instructional strategies, instructional design theories, learner-
centered instruction, and online professional development.
Emma Witt is Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies at Stockton
University, a position she has held since September 2014. She completed
a PhD in soil science at the University of Kentucky and an MS at the
University of Minnesota. Her main areas of interest include implement-
ing a range of active learning techniques in the classroom and field, as
well as researching hydrologic responses to disturbance.
Preface
Undoubtedly, higher education is in an era of transition. The quest for

fast integration of knowledge into innovative services and products,
capable of promoting a socially inclusive sustainability vision for our
societies, challenges the design of academic programs as well as the pri-
orities of higher education top administrators and policy officers.
At the same time, the young generation is more and more attached to
the use of technology in their daily lives; they have transformed into
technology advocates, with various side effects mainly their motiva-
tion not to use the monolithic, static learning content that is promoted
in the traditional learning paradigm for decades.
In another context, the archetypal vision and mission of the academic
learning process, especially as it relates to the cultivation of active citi-
zens, personalities with critical thinking and creativity, aiming to con-
tribute to better societies, is also being reconsidered.
What should be the vision for the learning strategies in higher educa-
tion of our century? Which are the determinants of a learning philoso-
phy promoting knowledge dissemination, the development of skills and
competencies, and the ethos and social responsibility of students?
Which is a viable and sustainable model for the integration of the
numerous learning technologies that appear every few years and
are promoted as panacea for any learning insufficiency? How can we
facilitate a collaborative, distributed culture of mutual understanding,
respect, and cross-fertilization between peers, disciplines, institutions all
over the world? Is there a way in our turbulent times to cultivate peace-
making processes and long-term sustainable i.e., simultaneously
environmentally friendly, socially just, and economically viable
interactions between nations, religions, and cultures based on shared
values incorporated in modern educational systems? Which is, at the
end of the day, the best contribution of education to the well-being and
happiness of all the stakeholders involved?
With such big questions, our book is a rather humble effort to reposi-
tion the focus of our scientific teaching and learning community to the
basics. In our opinion, active learning is not a simple didactic approach
in a complex world. We define active learning as a holistic philosophy
for a humanistic vision in higher education, where individuals, groups,
xviii Preface
institutions, and nations contribute to a global transformation in bal-

ance with nature and with respect toward nature as well. Active learning
is a transformative process that brings together knowledge artifacts,
learning contexts, humans, and social problems as well as challenges for
the present and future of our societies. The ultimate contribution of
active learning is an innovative way of thinking, where reality and truth
are not a case of black and white, where teaching and learning are an
exploratory journey to the wealth of knowledge and different realities,
and, finally, where nothing is taken for granted but the provision of a
fruitful learning context, full of interactions, that can reveal to everyone
his or her own path to inner achievement and fulfillment.
Active learning in our approach is a new way of understanding the
dialogue between the accumulated knowledge, the inner inquiry of each
person for personal development, and the social exploration for secur-
ing a better world for all. Active learning is about balancing personal
motivation for self-fulfillment with group capacities for high impact
contributions in business, culture, education, and every domain of
human activity.
Active learning is a holistic approach. It is transparent in any aspect
of higher education and has direct implications and prerequisites for
administration, faculty, government, and various stakeholders. The
resources required for active learning implementation should be invest-
ments with great return in terms of social value, sustainability, and
development.
Active learning, furthermore, is about linking human minds and
souls in a creative spiral of knowledge transformation and skills devel-
opment at individual, group, and institutional level. It is hard to accept
this in the context of a technocratic society where the specialization and
the focus on core disciplines is something like an axiom.
Active learning is about interdisciplinary integration and intersection.
This is an additional challenge for higher education. Without a system-
atic process of launching interdisciplinary programs and curricula, there
will always be a critical lack of creativity and impact. It is time to link
innovation with active learning strategies that interact with many disci-
plines at the same time. This will bring back the focus of education to
the object of the matter. The learner is not an abstract concept. It is a
complex entity with a personality, a psychological background, and
cognitive capacities, developing within a certain social context. It is a
real challenge for our times to reconsider the motivation we should
prompt in the young generation. If the motivation is strictly related to
narrow economic models of return on investment or employability
Preface xix
terms, our society will always be in lack of responsive actions to address

the big social challenges of our times.
Our Active Learning Strategies in Higher Education is in fact a jour-
ney. At the end of its reading, researchers, academics, policy makers,
and students will realize that this is just the beginning. This is because
active learning requires a personal vision: the vision of an out-of-the-
box education to consider your learning process as a constructive
process that brings you together with other people from all over the
world. Active learning is about modifying your context, from the micro-
world of your personal beliefs and understandings to a whole universe
of magnificent human contributions.
We do believe that our times are the most suitable for such a human-
istic shift in the design and delivery of programs in higher education.
Global collaboration for the big challenges of our times, such as the
preservation of our planet, poverty, socially inclusive and just develop-
ment, smart and sustainable cities, mutual respect, and generation of
new knowledge for providing sustainable solutions to social problems,
is the vision for the active learning philosophy we propose. At the end
of the day, it is about bringing more light into our souls. We do believe
that we all deserve it. Let us imagine and work for a better world for
all, for us now and the next generations and for all living beings.
Learning can always make the difference, as it decreases ignorance
which feeds our problems, can mobilize emotions, and can motivate our
action.
Our next planned edition goes a step further. It provides practical
guidelines for active learning that can lead to social transformation.
People can always make it! Margaret Mead a renowned anthro-
pologist said “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, commit-
ted citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever
has.” We do believe in the capacity of the global community of creative
minds and caring individuals to use active learning for the development
of a new culture that will lead to more sustainable societies.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the great scholars and academics who contributed to

this edition.
Introduction
Anastasia Misseyanni, Miltiadis D. Lytras,

Paraskevi Papadopoulou and Christina Marouli
In the 21st century knowledge society, higher education (HE) is

experiencing a multidimensional transition. Shifting from the traditional,
lecture-focused classroom setting to more learner-centered environments,
integration of knowledge from different disciplines, interdisciplinary col-
laborations, use of information and communication technologies (ICTs)
to enhance learning, globalization, and internationalization of HE, as
well as emphasis on sustainability are some of the elements of this transi-
tion. Innovation and creativity are key drivers of change. HE is a signifi-
cant tool for developing well-informed and knowledgeable citizens, well
prepared to face the international job market; it also plays an important
role in developing socially responsible and creative individuals, ready to
address contemporary global challenges; these roles need to be strength-
ened and reconceived today.
With this book, we attempt to explore active learning strategies used
in HE; strategies that promote leadership, innovation, and creativity.
Active learning is a term used by educators to describe a more “learner-
centered” approach to teaching. It involves students “doing” things and
reflecting on what they are doing. Active learning practices may range
from simple methods such as interactive lectures and class discussion to
case study analysis, role-playing, experiential learning, peer teaching,
and flipped lessons. Active learning may involve problem-based, visual-
based, collaborative, project-based, or game-based learning. The
editors’ long teaching experience in natural sciences and information
technology has led to an initial focus on strategies used in Science,
Active Learning Strategies in Higher Education: Teaching for Leadership,

Innovation, and Creativity, 1 13
Copyright r 2018 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 978-1-78714-488-0
2 Anastasia Misseyanni et al.
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines; the

book has been enriched, however, with chapters describing learning
experiences from other disciplines as well. The challenge of having to
deliver large volumes of information while escaping from the traditional
lecture approach and trying to promote deeper learning by stimulating
student engagement, motivation, and confidence is addressed. Active
learning empowers learners, as it helps them develop more responsibil-
ity, participate in the construction of knowledge, and challenge main-
stream thinking and opinions. And this is an essential step in the
development of informed, socially responsible, and creative individuals.
The use of ICTs in promoting an active learning environment is also
explored in this book. Emerging technologies and applications for
Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM)
Education and other disciplines have received growing attention in
recent years from various perspectives. A key strategic shift in the focus
of educational strategies is evident, from content-oriented approaches
to a collaborative, dynamic, media-enriched evolving paradigm. It
seems that we are at a crossroad where the traditional classroom-based
model of education has to be critically enriched with technology-
enabled, value-added components. Active learning, enhanced and sup-
ported by the use of ICTs, is a key element leading toward the new
model in HE.
The overall scope and main objective of the book is to expose the
reader to the latest developments in active learning strategies used in
HE, to provide good examples of such strategies, and to inspire teaching
for leadership, innovation, and creativity. The book also aims to serve
as a reference edition as well as a guide for teachers, professionals, and
researchers; it can also be used as a teaching material at undergraduate
and/or graduate level in the relevant domain.
The book is divided into three main sections. The first section is more
theoretical and includes two chapters that elaborate on the epistemology
of Active Learning and its unique contribution to HE. Steps in design-
ing active learning experiences based on different learning theories are
also outlined.
In the second section, the authors’ teaching experiences in undergrad-
uate and graduate courses are presented in the form of “stories.” Eleven
different case studies, which explore different active learning approaches
used in STEAM and other disciplines, are presented. This section starts
with a more general chapter on “stories” from STEM disciplines and
continues with two chapters relevant to the environmental studies field,
with emphasis on formative assessment and fieldwork as ways to
Introduction 3
increase learning and promote student engagement. A chapter on how

to engage non-history students in an art history course provides an
example of active learning in Arts/Humanities. Seven chapters in the
second section include case studies that explore the use of ICTs in pro-
moting active learning. Two of these chapters discuss online learning;
one of them also emphasizes collaborative learning. Two chapters on
technology-enhanced learning for pre-service teachers, a chapter on
active learning in an Information Systems course, a chapter on the use
of ICTs in an Accounting course, and a chapter on the use of digital
portfolios are also included. The overall aim of this section is to identify
and communicate innovative teaching and learning strategies, discuss
challenges faced, and provide a guide for future studies on increasing
learning effectiveness in different disciplines. It also aims to provide
examples of how ICTs can improve the learner’s experience and to
show how new, advanced learning designs and educational models can
expand the frontiers in applied learning technologies toward smart
learning and a knowledge society vision.
In the last section, a new vision for HE is presented. A debate paper
on the pedagogical legacies of Dorothy Lee and Paulo Freire and a
chapter on a new vision for HE based on lessons from Education for
the Environment and Sustainability are included. This section provides
insights for strategic policy making in HE, as well as a guide for teach-
ing and learning that is fit for contemporary societies that need cultural
and social transformations to effectively face significant environmental,
social, and economic challenges.
The editors of this book aim to promote a humanistic vision in uni-
versities and colleges, linking education to sustainable development,1
prosperity, and socially cohesive and caring communities. They suggest
that HE and all education today should be appropriately designed
for individual change, empowerment, integration, and social transfor-
mation. As authors and editors of this book, we believe it is a unique
value proposition for HE.
1
In this book, we use sustainable development to underline the need for a balanced
and harmonious relationship between human societies and the environment, an inte-
grated approach to environment society economy and culture. Sustainable
development and sustainability imply an integrated and deeply ethical approach,
looking forward to the future, as was discussed in the document “Our Common
Future” prepared by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987.
As stated above, the target audience of this book are educators

and researchers, undergraduate and graduate students in the area of
teaching and learning in HE. The book can also serve as a guide for
educators and researchers; it can provide insights into pedagogies of
engagement and give lessons and ideas for teaching and learning in spe-
cific fields. It may become a start for exchanging ideas and promoting
research on the scholarship of teaching in HE.
A more detailed summary of the content of the chapters based on the
chapter abstracts is presented below.
Chapter 1 concerns itself primarily with questions of how students in
HE studies can best acquire, apply, create, and share knowledge. It
examines the epistemological claims of the supporters and detractors of
active learning while simultaneously exploring the nascence and devel-
opment of some of the major understandings that presently underpin an
epistemology of active learning. While the focus of earlier works may
have been on changes that HE instructors should make to improve stu-
dent understanding of key STEM concepts, this chapter addresses
changes in the roles of both students and instructors as the co-creators
of active learning environments and learning communities. A particular
focus is given to the significance of metacognition as a critical skill that
enables students to assess their own learning and also critically assess
sources of information. The chapter includes a framework that indicates
trends toward high-impact active learning skills for students in STEM
HE and the research which theorizes and supports these new instruc-
tional imperatives.
Chapter 2 outlines the potential steps to take in designing active learn-
ing experiences based on several theories underlying the learning process.
The chapter examines theories of learning and instruction including
information processing, schema acquisition, and cognitive load theory.
An explanation of how these theories support problem-centered learning
as well as a rationale for the need to help learners develop domain-
general, flexible problem-solving skills that will transfer to future needs
and contexts is presented. The second half of the chapter focuses on
designing active learning experiences based on: the selection of real-
world problems as the foundation for learning, activating prior knowl-
edge, demonstration of the process or concept, multiple opportunities
for practice with relevant scaffolding, and the chance to integrate that
knowledge into the learners’ own context. Examples of assessments,
strategies, and activities to foster active, problem-centered learning
drawn from the literature are also provided.
Introduction 5
Chapter 3 discusses the active learning strategies used in STEM disci-

plines and analyzes the potential of active learning to redefine the value
proposition in academic institutions. After providing the theoretical
underpinnings of active learning as an evolving practice, an attempt is
made to connect it with different learning theories and present an inte-
grative model in which institutional strategies, learning strategy, and
ICTs work synergistically toward the development of knowledge and
skills. In this chapter, the authors present the results of a survey examin-
ing “stories” of active learning from the STEM disciplines, identifying
good teaching practices and discussing challenges and lessons learnt.
The key idea is that active engagement and participation of students is
based on faculty commitments and inspiration and mentoring by fac-
ulty. The authors finally present a stage model for the implementation
of active learning practices in HE. Emphasis is placed on a new vision
for HE, based on systematic planning, implementation and evaluation
of active learning methods used, collaboration, engagement with society
and industry, innovation and sustainability, for a better world for all.
Chapter 4 is a case study from the environmental science field. It
focuses on a specific first-year course (module) offered at the University
of Southampton, UK. “Environmental Science: Concepts and Commu-
nication” aids students in their journey into Environmental Science by
preparing them to face the challenges of university study and beyond. It
thus engages students in independent learning and provides them with
opportunities to develop and enhance the skills necessary to do so. For-
mative and student-led activities and tasks are considered important
tools to achieve this aim. This chapter provides an overview of selected
formative and student-led activities with focus on methods and
approaches, values and benefits, and the practicalities of delivery. Three
assessments are reviewed: a practice essay, a communication exercise,
and a practice presentation. The intended benefits and value of these
assessments are (1) engagement with environmental issues and topics,
and (2) development and enhancement of study skills. The value of such
work is only realized, however, with student engagement. Delivering
this module has demonstrated that formative elements are most effective
when orientated to tutor group activities. Motivation for engagement
appears most effective when the visibility or absence of students’
work is brought to the foreground though working in small groups.
There is added value in that the collation and sharing of feedback
within a small group permits students to learn not only from their own
work but also from the work of others.
Chapter 5 focuses on field-based education for environmental studies

which has been a foundational principle for the Environmental Studies
program at Stockton University, and began in 1971. Located within the
445,000-hectare Pinelands National Reserve, on an 800-hectare campus
near Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA, two professors in the program
discuss their rationale and experiences teaching students about the envi-
ronment within the environment. Expounding on the interdisciplinary
literature of field-based learning, the authors present four unique case
studies including local and regional experiences, as well as student learn-
ing abroad. The first case proposes that learning outdoors might be ben-
eficial for students with learning disabilities. This is exemplified during a
one-week field study to the 2.4-million-hectare Adirondack Park &
Preserve. The second instance reveals the benefits of working with local
towns and environments; acting as consultants in a multidisciplinary
capstone experience. Next, the authors show how on campus data col-
lection and hypothesis formulation help students to learn about envi-
ronmental design and statistical analysis. Finally, an international trip
to the Caribbean opens the minds of students through a service learning
project. While on campus, in town, across the United States or at an
international destination, learning in the field gives students the oppor-
tunity to expand their knowledge through field-based active learning
strategies.
Chapter 6 explores issues of quality teaching, learning, and assess-
ment in HE courses from the perspective of teaching fully online (poly-
synchronous) courses in undergraduate and graduate programs in
education at a technology university in Ontario, Canada. Online courses
offer unique opportunities to capitalize on students’ and professors’ dig-
ital capabilities gained in out-of-school learning and apply them to an
in-school, technology-enabled learning environment. The critical and
reflective arguments in this chapter are informed by theories of online
learning and research on active learning pedagogies. Digital technolo-
gies have opened new spaces for HE which should be dedicated to creat-
ing high-quality learning environments and high-quality assessment.
Moving a course online does not guarantee that students will be able to
meet the course outcomes more readily, or that they will necessarily
understand key concepts more easily than previously in the physically
co-present course environments. All students in HE need opportunities
to seek, critique, and construct knowledge together and then transfer
newly-acquired skills from their coursework to the worlds of work, ser-
vice, and life. The emergence of new online learning spaces helps us to
re-examine present higher education pedagogies in very deliberate ways
Introduction 7
to continue, to maintain, or to improve the quality of student learning

in HE. In this chapter, active learning in fully online learning spaces is
the broad theme through which teaching, learning, and assessment
strategies are re-considered. The key elements of the authors’ theoretical
framework for active learning include (1) deliberate pedagogies to estab-
lish the online classroom environment; (2) student ownership of learning
activities; and (3) high-quality assessment strategies.
Chapter 7 describes and analyzes the result of an active, co-operative
learning design adopted in “Change Management,” an elective course in
the University of Catalunya, Spain, which is a fully online university.
The chapter describes the context and the foundation that supports the
learning design, outlines the learning activities and their evolution, and
presents the results of a student survey to assess the effectiveness of the
design in reaching its main goals. The results of the survey suggest that
students perceived this design as enhancing their teamwork competence,
while being interesting and motivating, and useful to learn the course’s
content. Therefore, the desired goals were attained and the design was
kept, with minor changes, in subsequent editions of the course. In addi-
tion, students without prior teamwork experience valued collaborative
activities more than students who had previously worked in teams in
other subjects of their degrees. In contrast, no differences were found
for individual learning activities. This suggests that the design can be
useful in introductory courses where students are asked for the first time
to learn in virtual teams.
Chapter 8 is a case study from Humanities and Arts. It presents how
an instructor in a Roman Art class at a US University managed to
engage five football players; it provides an account of how she tried to
engage the class as a whole. The author discusses the commitment she
made to making each class period one in which an active learning
technique was used, often paired with some lecture, sometimes not,
to engage students and help them learn about Roman Art and
Architecture. She discusses the type of assignments she thought would
work, based on research and her own observation, as well as the results
of a focus group held with the football players a year later. Football
players tend to be kinetic learners and thus were chosen as the follow-
up to see how the active learning techniques in this class met objectives.
Specifically, this chapter discusses the inclusion of a Reacting to the
Past game, a research project on “Daily Life in Ancient Rome,” case
studies where students had to create an artifact (a list, a floor plan, a
propaganda program, etc.) in response to a prompt, and presentations
on different methodologies of interpreting an image from a Pompeiian

tavern.
Chapter 9 presents innovative approaches to active learning that
were introduced into the teaching of pre-service teachers at the Faculty
of Education of University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, in the Czech
Republic. Over the last three years, the Technology Enhanced Learning
course has seen substantial innovations in both the content and use of
teaching strategies designed to prepare the students for their profes-
sional lives. The whole update of the course was implemented using the
results of action research all individual changes were rigorously
tracked and analyzed. Besides practical activities with tablets and smart-
phones, during which students familiarize themselves with various types
of applications and reflect on their use in teaching, the course was
extended by the use of practical aids for the efficient inclusion of mobile
technologies for teaching the Czech version of Allan Carrington’s
Padagogy Wheel. During the teaching, students work with internet
applications and cloud services. Teaching is complemented with com-
munication on the Facebook social network. A close link to profes-
sional life is achieved through workshops, which in-service teachers
from elementary and high schools provide to pre-service teachers. A sig-
nificant part of the teaching consists of co-operative projects between
pre-service teachers and pupils of elementary schools. The innovative
approach to active teaching in the Technology Enhanced Learning
course is apparent even during the exam. In the course of the exam,
students process, present, and defend a lesson plan for the implementa-
tion of an activity using digital technologies.
Chapter 10 examines how to apply effective teaching and learning
strategies as an essential component in understanding the complexity of
human groups, especially in educational contexts. To look for the rela-
tionship between the contributions that people make, it is critical to
understand the singularities of cultures when developing innovations
and to foster leadership in education. This chapter presents an experi-
ence developed in HE in Chile, focused on the ability of pre-service tea-
chers to enhance the development of individual talents as an active
teaching and learning strategy that aims to create a society made up of
integrally developed people in educational contexts. In addition, the
authors make reference to the use of virtual learning environments as a
vehicle to connect students between physical and virtual boundaries.
This strategy is based on the Talent Management Model which was
implemented in intercultural primary schools by professors and pre-
service teachers from the south of Chile. The virtuality dimension
Introduction 9
promoted the detection of individual traits of students and contributed

to the development of a cultural identity. Additionally, it offered theo-
retical and practical knowledge that implied an innovation in the train-
ing of future teachers.
Chapter 11 examines how the use of active learning techniques can
significantly improve the teaching learning process in Information
Systems courses, since the content is explored in a more interactive, par-
ticipative, and relaxed way. Although expositive classes are still broadly
used in Brazil, in this chapter the authors present some active learning
techniques as well as experiences of their application in Information
Systems K-12, undergraduate and graduate courses in Brazil. As a
result, the authors have noticed learning has been more effective and
students have been motivated by the use of these active learning techni-
ques. Although used in the context of Information System courses, the
techniques could be adapted to other scenarios.
Chapter 12 presents a case study from the field of Accounting. Even
though students increasingly demand the integration of the varied tech-
nologies and mobile devices in the learning environment, educational
systems of the public universities continue to be traditional. In this
chapter, a teaching innovation for first-year university students using
the Socrative app is presented. The authors of this chapter investigate
how the university can combine ICT with traditional methodologies of
learning, in order to increase student interest in the subject and awaken-
ing students’ passion and vocation for the accounting area.
Chapter 13 makes reference to a constant growth in digital portfolio
use in tertiary education in the recent years. Portfolios are used by edu-
cational institutions for assessment, as a showcase of both student and
institution work, and with an increasing trend also as a tool for higher
employability of graduates and support of lifelong learning. This chap-
ter introduces concepts of portfolio, digital portfolio, language portfo-
lio, autonomy, and self-assessment. It approaches both positivist and
constructivist paradigms of digital portfolio and presents examples of
ePortfolio implementation at the University of Pardubice, Czech
Republic. Selected examples of good practice with respect to autono-
mous learning, experiential learning, and international cooperation are
also given.
Chapter 14 can be described as a debate paper in which the author
reintroduces the anthropological and pedagogical insights of Dorothy
Lee and Paulo Freire in the ongoing debate on active learning and HE.
These insights refer in the case of Dorothy Lee, on “valuing the self” of
the student, and additionally on learning (values) from “remote
cultures,” and last but not least on the meaning of freedom and auton-
omy in the teaching/learning process. The author points a few selected
lessons and contributions from Freire: (1) the socio-cultural anchor of
freedom and autonomy, (2) the view of education as a tool for raising-
awareness, critical thinking, inspiration, hope, empowerment, cultural
action, and social transformation, and (3) the view on citizenship educa-
tion. The author discusses in this regard, the significant role assigned by
Dorothy Lee and Paulo Freire to the neglected notions of dialogue,
freedom, culture, self, autonomy, and structure. Lastly, the author
argues in favor of reincorporating the pedagogical insights of Dorothy
Lee and Paulo Freire in the curricula and structure of HE, and also
reminds those concerned with upholding democracy that these forma-
tive values and concepts were acknowledged in the early conception and
development of active learning.
Chapter 15 presents a new vision for HE based on lessons from
Education for the Environment and Sustainability. Environmental Edu-
cation (EE) and its descendant Education for Sustainability (EFS) or
Education for Sustainable Development, by definition, propose and
adopt active learning and experiential methods, as they seek to prepare
people that will work for a healthy environment and better societies.
And this is where the difference lies between EE/EFS and the generic
active learning approaches. EE or EFS are committed active learning
approaches; they have an explicit goal to work for social environmen-
tal change. The transition from learners to active learners is addressed
by active learning, which however assumes that active learners will also
become responsible and active citizens. EE and EFS have however dem-
onstrated that this is not an obvious development. After a discussion of
the main characteristics of EE/EFS, this chapter explores what facili-
tates the transition from active learners to active citizens, based on les-
sons from EE and EFS. Finally, it reflects on the implications of these
lessons for HE and a new vision for HE in contemporary societies and
a brief guide for educators and Higher Educational managers are
proposed. The authors propose the following typology of educational
purposes i.e. individual change, empowerment, integration, or social
transformation and corresponding instructional methods and tools.
Higher education institutions and instructors (or academics) should be
clear about the purpose of the educational praxis and instructors should
choose the pedagogical methods and tools that match the selected
purpose(s) in order to facilitate the transition from active learners to
active and responsible citizens.
Introduction 11
This book presents best practices for effective active learning and
teaching in HE. It includes case studies of active learning approaches
adopted at universities in different countries and continents and in dif-
ferent disciplines. It presents best cases of technology-driven learning
innovation, as well as insights on HE for sustainable societies. It is a
book that highlights the importance of collaborative knowledge sharing,
exploration, and creation, involving active engagement of both students
and instructor and even the local community all as actors of the
same play. It emphasizes an integrated pedagogical approach that uses
engaging and collaborative learning methods, problem solving, technol-
ogy-driven learning innovation, collaboration with the community, and
other teaching strategies, within the explicit context of a new civic ethic
(e.g., personal issues are social problems).
The insights gained in this book could be further enriched with more
studies on the effectiveness of different active learning methods. It
would be interesting to explore what active learning methods effectively
stimulate not only creative thinking but also lead to change in values
and behaviors. A systematic study of student performance in classes
where active learning is used, as well as a more thorough analysis of tea-
chers’ conceptions of effective teaching and an exploration of students’
attitudes on the effectiveness of learning methods also in terms of
behavioral change could provide further insights into how transfor-
mative learning can be achieved.
This edition is the first part of a sequence of books already planned.
The main goal of this series is to explore active learning pedagogy and
methods within the present social context and challenges, as well as the
“keys” that can make active learning empowering and transformative,
leading to more humane, caring, and sustainable societies.
The objective of this first book, Active Learning Strategies in Higher
Education: Teaching for Leadership, Innovation and Creativity, which
you currently hold in your hands, was to explore active learning prac-
tices internationally and introduce our Active Learning Philosophy. We
do believe that the variety of chapters and the adopted teaching and
learning strategies that have been communicated in the three sections of
the book summarize the main aspects of this philosophy: innovation
and integration; creativity and collaboration; and leadership and social
action. The understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of active
learning theory and the challenges of our times, and their integration
in HE practices can cultivate an exploratory, collaborative, empower-
ing, and transformative active learning philosophy that can lead to
sustainable societies. The role of technologies is also introduced without

entering into details.
The next book will concentrate on transformative learning. An indic-
ative title is From Active Learning to Transformative Learning: Moving
Beyond Boundaries and Disciplines. In this edition, the focus of our dis-
cussion will be on a detailed sophisticated methodological framework
for the design of transformative active learning programs, with a focus
on HE. The greatest challenge is related to the fragmented nature of
knowledge and organization in HE institutions. Contemporary social
and environmental challenges require integrated approaches and the liq-
uidation of boundaries between humans and the environment, me
and the “other,” disciplines, the university and the community. Our
unique value proposition is that Transformative Active Learning will be
one of the most significant enablers of this innovative, out-of-the-box,
technology-enabled education and thinking. For this reason, in the
chapters of this edited book, we will present best practices of
Transformative Learning; interdisciplinary multidisciplinary practices
in STEAM.
We do hope that our readers will value the individual contributions
in each chapter and will also be able to be carriers of our active learning
vision. In simple words, our effort will be successful if we find more
advocates for active and transformative learning and its adoption in
universities and colleges, so that HE:
• Promotes individual contributions and seeks for social humanistic

visions for the learning process.
• Acknowledges the value of each individual knowledge artifact but
recognizes and supports its integration with knowledge elements from
different disciplines.
• Promotes the development of personal values, skills, and competen-
cies but also connects it with a socially beneficial context for their
exploitations.
• Compensates group efforts in learning content interaction and
explorations and builds connections between universities and commu-
nities, different cultures, civilizations, and religions.
• Promotes creativity, imagination, and emotional depth of students
along with knowledge acquisition and development all as equally
important and complementary.
• Constructs a dialectic, not authoritarian, communication channel
between faculty and students.
Introduction 13
• Informs HE administration about the non-countable benefits of

active learning at institutional level.
• Promotes employability with advanced ethos and enhances personal-
ities of individuals.
• Cultivates a participatory culture in academia at all levels.
• Makes learning an intellectual process contributing to a vision for a
better world for all, designed for active citizens with increased
responsibility.
• Makes HE more relevant for a socially inclusive sustainable
development.
• Builds bridges between individuals, groups, institutions, and nations.
• Envisions a socially beneficial and effective use of resources in
Academia, Industry, and Society.
SECTION I
ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER
EDUCATION: A THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND
Chapter 1
Toward an Epistemology of Active

Learning in Higher Education and Its
Promise
Lorayne Robertson
Abstract
This chapter concerns itself primarily with questions of how stu-

dents in higher education studies can best acquire, apply, create,
and share knowledge. Over the past several decades, multiple forms
of active learning have been proposed in order to increase student
engagement and deepen their understanding. This chapter, accord-
ingly, examines the epistemological claims of the supporters and
detractors of active learning while simultaneously exploring the
nascence and development of some of the major understandings
which presently underpin an epistemology of active learning. While
the focus of earlier works may have been on changes that higher
education instructors should make to improve student understand-
ing of key STEM concepts, this chapter addresses changes in the
roles of both students and instructors as the co-creators of active
learning environments and learning communities. A particular
focus is given to the significance of metacognition as a critical skill
that enables students to assess their own learning and also critically
assess sources of information. The chapter includes a framework
which indicates trends toward high-impact active learning skills for
Active Learning Strategies in Higher Education: Teaching for Leadership,

Innovation, and Creativity, 17 44
Copyright r 2018 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISBN: 978-1-78714-488-0
18 Lorayne Robertson
students in STEM higher education and the research which theo-

rizes and supports these new instructional imperatives.
Keywords: Active learning; metacognition; authentic learning;

problem-based learning; project-based learning; authentic
assessment
Introduction
The Oxford online dictionary informs readers that epistemology is

derived from the Greek word “to know how to do.” An epistemology is
a theory of knowledge which is designed to explain the different ways in
which one can acquire knowledge or competence. A key epistemological
question for those teaching higher education might initially be, “How
do higher education students come to know something?” but in the
more complicated current era of Web 2.0, the Internet of Things, and
increasing expectations of higher education graduates from the world of
work, the question becomes “How do higher education students BEST
come to know something?” We could see this as an imperative, because
the future will be impacted by how students in higher education courses
across the globe gain competence in their chosen fields and disciplines.
The future will also be impacted by how today’s students apply their
knowledge in order to solve problems; how they communicate, reason,
argue, justify, and confirm or refute their assumptions and hypotheses;
and then how they draw conclusions, and mobilize and share their
knowledge.
As instructors in higher education, our teaching is grounded in our
conceptions (and our assumptions and theories) of how people learn.
We must, however, be ever mindful that, for most of our students, the
academy will not be their career destination. Our students will move
into the world of service and the world of work where they will need to
know how to function well. The world of work our students will inhabit
is continually changing and demanding new skills. This begs the
question of how our epistemological assumptions align with these new
global imperatives and changing contexts. Are we preparing our
students optimally for their career choices? How best can students in
higher education acquire the requisite knowledge, skills, and values to
function with dexterity in new global knowledge economies? These are
questions that move us beyond concerns of efficiency and effectiveness
Toward an Epistemology of Active Learning 19
to consider how higher learning can best model ways of coming to know
or ways of theorizing learning in order to build capacity in the next
generation of global knowledge workers.
When the epistemology is that of active learning, the questions about
knowledge become much more strategic and targeted. What under-
standings constitute the key aspects of an epistemology of active learn-
ing? Are there explanations that encompass the full grasp of active
learning and its potential in higher education? Where and how did this
theory originate? In which pedagogical paradigm(s) does active learning
claim its roots? What are the key elements that need to be uncovered
and understood in order to grasp the full scope of active learning’s
claims? In other words, beneath the surface, what are active learning’s
epistemological assumptions? These questions help us to understand the
origins of the active learning paradigm and the reasons why this shift in
approach is gaining acceptance and currency.
Next, we need to review the evidence-based claims made about active
learning, particularly those claims that have been made in the fields of
STEM and STEAM. What is the scope and breadth of active learning’s
claims about teaching and learning in STEM higher education? Who
has made these claims, and in what contexts are the claims made? We
also want to understand whether or not this is a passing phenomenon
or if the concept of active learning has been shown to have staying
power. How significant is active learning’s reach in higher education
today? What is the extent and capacity of active learning’s promise to
meet new imperatives to act and think globally? How responsible and
responsive is the theory of active learning toward solutions to long-
standing social and scientific problems, such as global warming? All of
these questions need to be explored in some depth to detail the scope of
an epistemology of active learning.
There are also practical questions to be considered, such as how an
epistemology of active learning can inform teaching, learning, and
assessment in higher education in the digital era. What are the actual-
ized (not theorized) forms of active learning in practice? What does
active learning look like across higher education disciplines and courses?
In which contexts or disciplines has active learning come to be under-
stood in more meaningful ways? If active learning is desirable, then how
does one acquire knowledge about active learning, gain competence,
and then evaluate active learning approaches in higher education disci-
plines? How do instructors and students make sense of active learning
experiences epistemologically and under what circumstances? How does
a theory of active learning apply when the courses are offered online in
a range of multi-synchronous settings?
Other considerations include an examination of the reasons why
active learning may not be adopted. What are the epistemological
assumptions of active learning’s detractors? Into which contexts or dis-
ciplines in higher education is an epistemology of active learning less
integrated and what are the sources of this reasoned skepticism? All of
these questions are designed to help to apply an epistemology of active
learning to the broader contexts within higher education practice.
Beyond the practical, there are even deeper questions to unravel
about active learning. An epistemology of active learning seeks to iden-
tify the claims that have been made about active learning and distin-
guish between evidence, beliefs, and opinions. On what basis do active
learning supporters claim its connection to deeper learning, for exam-
ple? Similarly, how have the connections between active learning and
student engagement been theorized or researched? An epistemology of
active learning should encourage readers to become engaged beyond
simply seeking information about active learning and how it is realized
in practice. If you, the reader, join in to the epistemological journey on
active learning in this chapter, you will come to better understand active
learning’s origins, the claims of its supporters (and detractors), and
working through the chapter, you should reach some reasoned conclu-
sions about active learning. This is the essence of the epistemological
journey of this chapter.
What Is Driving the Shift to Active Learning?
Active learning has been defined by Prince (2004) as any type of instruc-
tional method which engages students in their learning process and
requires meaningful (relevant, authentic) learning activities as well as
requiring students to think about what they are doing (metacognition).
This implies that students will eschew roles as passive recipients of
information, and instead contribute actively in classes. In defining the
active learning methods that are most relevant for engineering educa-
tion, Prince selects three: collaborative, co-operative, and problem-
based learning and concludes that empirical research supporting active
learning is “extensive” (p. 3). Within the context of engineering educa-
tion, he finds that instructors may demonstrate different levels of accep-
tance and understanding of active learning. While it is common for
engineering students to participate in active learning through tutorials
or assignments, how active learning can be realized in the lecture or

higher learning classroom still requires some explanation. Nonetheless,
Prince’s (2004) review of the research provides measured support for
active learning practices in higher education.
Active learning includes the engagement of the student at a new level
of awareness of their own learning, or metacognition, which is defined
by Flavell (1979) as a means of cognitive monitoring. He outlines the
elements of metacognition as follows: metacognitive knowledge (one’s
beliefs about one’s learning capacity); metacognitive experiences or
conscious recognition of understanding or misunderstanding; learning
goals; and the actions or learning strategies that help one learn. Flavell
recognizes that the students should be active participants in the moni-
toring of their own learning. He also theorizes that metacognition and
self-regulation can be taught and should include the scrutiny of infor-
mation which he describes as: a more conscious awareness of the source
of a message, the quality of its appeal, and the related consequences of
attending to inputs from different sources (Flavell, 1979). In essence,
Flavell was advocating an early form of critical literacy skills, now
more requisite than ever due to the proliferation of online information
sources.
It is not theory and research results alone which are driving a contin-
ual shift toward more active learning in higher education but also new
educational imperatives. One of these imperatives is a predicted skills
gap or the prediction that there will be insufficient talent to meet the
global demands for employment in the decades ahead. Olson (2015)
reports that the global market will experience a shortfall of 40 million
skilled college graduates, a shortage of 95 million workers in the
advanced economies, and a shortfall of 45 million secondary and voca-
tional school graduates in the developing world through the year 2020
and beyond. While Olson does not place the full responsibility for
addressing this shortage on education, he finds that many students who
pursue 4-year degrees without vocational training or education outside
of the STEM subjects will be “ill-equipped” for teamwork and knowl-
edge work (Olson, 2015).
A second type of skills gap is more of a perception gap, as reported
recently by Cukier (2016), who compares how students graduating from
one Canadian university rate their skills with how their employers rate
those same skills. The results indicate that the students did not have
accurate perceptions of their skills compared to the level of skills
expected by their employers. For example, while the students rated
themselves above 90% in communication proficiency, their employers
saw them as less than 50% proficient. Similar ratings were seen with
gaps related to how the students saw their ability to learn on the job (as
93% proficient) versus how employers rated their ability to learn on the
job (as 53% proficient). Employers also reported that less than 25% of
recently-hired graduates had the required proficiency in digital tools
and in ethics (Cukier, 2016). These findings underscore a need for
students to be able to gain an accurate assessment of their own goals,
skills, and ability to learn while they are in school. Prince (2004)
finds that in order for students to more accurately assess their inter-
personal skills related to what work requires, they need opportunities
to practice these skills in classrooms that employ active learning in
project or problem-based learning scenarios, and they need opportu-
nities to assess their own and their group’s collaborative skills using
metacognition.
Emergent awareness of these skills is leading instructors to reconsider
which learning aptitudes take priority in the 21st century. For example,
in an era where there are multiple perspectives on every issue, and multi-
ple claims of truth, how do students wrestle with moral and ethical
implications in a landscape with many disparate claims? One example is
the ethical and moral considerations behind releasing government infor-
mation in leaks that inform citizens but may weaken organizations.
Fuchs (2011) applies a Foucauldian discourse analysis to discuss how
counter-surveillance activities such as WikiLeaks invite the discussion
and interrogation of surveillance as a form of control, and how it can
be used also as a mechanism of emancipation. In an increasingly com-
plex world, students will need to learn how to consider and debate these
types of ethical complexities.
The world of work requires skills of communication and collabora-
tion. Early studies in the area of group learning were initiated by
D. Johnson, R. Johnson, Holubec, and Roy (1984) who describe this as
co-operative learning. They defined the concept of positive inter-
dependence, which is the perception that one group member does not
succeed unless the others in the group succeed through sharing
resources and mutual support (D. Johnson & R. Johnson, 2009). This
concept is echoed by others such as Steiner and Posch’s (2006) descrip-
tion of mutual self-responsible learning in sustainable development
studies.
A third imperative driving the need to shift the paradigm toward
more active forms of learning has been the (repeated) identification of
skills needed to work in the knowledge economy. Trilling and Fadel
(2009) report that the following skills will be required of graduates in

the 21st century:
1) Learning and innovation skills: critical thinking, problem solving,

communication, collaboration, creativity, and innovation.
2) Digital literacy skills: information literacy, media literacy, and infor-
mation and communication technologies (ICT) literacy.
3) Career and life skills: flexibility, adaptability, initiative, self-direction,
social and cross-cultural interaction, productivity, accountability,
leadership, and responsibility (p. xxvi).
Pellegrino (2006) reports similar findings about the needs of the future
workforce based on research conducted on behalf of an American eco-
nomic think tank. Not only will skills of “adaptive expertise” (p. 2) be
required of a skilled workforce, but this type of adaptive learning needs
to be modeled by the instructors who are preparing the workforce.
Pellegrino cites some shortcomings in the present education system
which he believes can be remedied through principles of learning. The
first principle is that education must become more personalized, recog-
nizing that individual learners approach new learning with pre-existing
beliefs and perceptions that they acquire through their life experiences.
Educators need to more closely understand what students know and
then help them to construct new learning. Pellegrino sees that the pres-
ent reliance on standardized assessments in the United States may not
be providing the kind of information instructors need to understand
students’ misconceptions.
Second, Pellegrino argues that students need assistance to organize
knowledge using models and conceptual frameworks to help with infor-
mation retrieval. This is at the heart of helping students develop deeper
understanding; they need to see relationships and patterns and recognize
cognitive dissonance in order to gain meaning from what they are learn-
ing. He forecasts that very powerful information technologies will be as
ubiquitous in education as they are in people’s out-of-school lives, and
that these new technologies will exponentially and fundamentally
change communication and education practices (Pellegrino, 2006).
In views which are reminiscent of Flavell (1979), Pellegrino’s third
principle encourages more metacognition. Students need opportunities
to verbalize their thinking and make it visible. Methods of inquiry can
be taught, including methods to help students activate their prior learn-
ing, and these inquiry methods should be taught across courses and
disciplines. These methods include problem and project-based learning
where students are challenged to think deeply about their knowledge

and then apply it. For this to happen, educators need to develop reper-
toires of diverse instructional approaches to support the development of
complex learning skills in students (Pellegrino, 2006).
Bransford, Vye, and Bateman (2002), in a landmark review of
decades of research on cognition, proposed the How People Learn
framework as a theoretical tool to guide the design of learning and to
analyze the quality of the learning experience. The framework has four
lenses, indicating that high-quality classrooms are learner-centered,
knowledge-centered, and assessment-centered, and take place within a
community of learners. Their work was key in acknowledging a collec-
tive community responsibility for learning outcomes (Bransford et al.,
2002).
According to Dede (2008), a shift in epistemology occurred with the
advent of Web 2.0, redefining higher education through the multiple
ways that Web 2.0 epistemologies contrast with more traditional, classi-
cal studies. For example, Wikipedia is redefining who is an expert by
constructing knowledge through the collaborations of anonymous
volunteers and the exchange of different viewpoints. Students now
require significant new skills to help them understand how to determine
an expert view on a subject (Dede, 2008). Technology has the potential
to assist with many new learning imperatives, including opening
education to online learning so that it is more accessible to more
people (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; Jacobsen & Lock, 2004;
Pellegrino, 2006).
Technology has continued to change rapidly even while many of the
present higher education instructors have been in their roles. This is
requiring continuous shifts in learning how to help students learn using
their digital skills. As Jacobsen and Lock (2014) state, “An important
job for all educators is to enable learners to author using the media of
their time” (italics added). Speaking in the context of teacher prepara-
tion programs, Jacobsen and Lock find that teachers in training need
to be able to respond to the emerging technologies that they will face as
their future students become more technologically adept. This advice
for preservice teachers can also apply to instructors in higher
education.
Another significant reality shift for higher education has been
referred to as the massification of higher education (Hornsby & Osman,
2014). This global trend is positioned as a benefit to society as it builds
health and security for the people of the world through education. As a
result of this trend, more students who might not have been able to
attend higher education in the past are now enrolling. In studying this
phenomenon, Hornsby and Osman remind us that in order for a much
more diverse group of students to be successful, shifts in multiple areas
are required; these include the design of the curriculum, the design of
the classroom environment, the instructional techniques, and the assess-
ment methods. All of these key aspects of higher education influence
student learning and engagement (Hornsby & Osman, 2014).
In summary, then, these examples of imperatives for education in the
21st century all point to a need to transform education to make certain
that schooling in general, and higher education in particular, becomes
more personalized and tailored to individual student learning. In order
for this to happen, instructors in higher education will, realistically,
need to build larger repertoires of teaching and learning approaches in
order to tailor education to adult learners. While this could imply that
the program and the instructor need to change the most, the reality is
that student roles must similarly transform. Students will need to build
skills of self-assessment, self-awareness, and metacognition in order to
understand how they learn best, and how they can work collaboratively
to prepare for work and for life. They need to become participants in
the design of their learning and co-creators of the learning communities
in their classrooms. The shift from teacher-centered learning to student-
centered learning has implications for everyone involved in the higher
education enterprise.
Changing Pedagogical Paradigms
One of the central contrasting paradigms which has been employed to

empower students to take more responsibility for their learning is the
conceptual model comparing teacher-centered to student-centered learn-
ing. Some of the original philosophical underpinnings and advocacy for
more student-centered learning originated with Freire’s (1970) explica-
tion and criticism of the “banking model” of education (p. 72). In the
banking model, students are positioned as passive receptacles to be filled
with knowledge; instead, students should be active in constructing
knowledge. This paradigm shift includes a critical stance toward a
one-size-fits-all type of education where a single source of messaging
(the lecture or the text) delivers the same message in the same way to all
students, and the students expect the instructor to prepare, organize,
and present the learning. How the message or the information was
delivered was the responsibility of the instructor; how the information
was received, retained, and reported was considered to be the responsi-

bility of the student. This model is presently under significant scrutiny
and revision.
Freire viewed the banking model as a form of oppression because it
placed the teacher in a position of power over the students and their
learning. In the banking model, the teacher’s knowledge was privileged
and there were privileges around voice the teacher was the speaker
and the students were listeners. Choices such as the sources of informa-
tion (textbook, lectures) and assignment modalities were also made for
the student by the teacher. In this mode of learning, Freire viewed the
students as objects in the learning process rather than the subjects of the
learning, or as persons (1970). While Freire’s theory may not have had
immediate uptake in STEM, discussions about the need for students to
engage more deeply in their learning in various STEM disciplines have
come to similar conclusions about the need for change (Biggs, 1999;
G. Catalano & K. Catalano, 1999; Wieman, 2007).
Biggs (1999), in writing about “What the student does,” focuses on the
ways that higher education instruction should change in four simple steps:
1. Ensuring that students see what the objectives are, what the learning
plan is, and how the objectives match the assessment tasks;
2. Working so that students are motivated by the course, program, or
instruction;
3. Making the classroom safe so that students feel free to focus on tasks
(without unscheduled tests, for example); and
4. Ensuring that students can work collaboratively and dialogue with
peers (Biggs, 1999). It is noteworthy that Biggs views the paradigm
shift as the responsibility of the instructor without acknowledging
that students need to change their roles, also. This overall approach
is changing.
Wieman (2007) outlines his concerns with student retention of knowl-

edge and understanding of concepts in physics courses. His work with
university physics students began initially in the United States, then
continued in Canada through several decades. Though he and collea-
gues prepared well and professionally for the traditional lecture format,
evidence of student learning outcomes and skills development were less
than optimal. He noticed first that students who experienced success
in the classroom were clueless about how to begin to solve research
projects, but, after a few years of research, were transformed as learners
(Wieman, 2007, p. 10). As a result, Wieman began to research and
amass evidence with respect to student learning in physics lectures, find-

ing that student retention of information after traditional (lecture)
instruction was 10% after 15 minutes. While the gain in conceptual
understanding from lectures was measured at 30%, he found, surpris-
ingly, that students regrettably gained more novice-like beliefs after a
year of physics instruction (rather than building expert beliefs). The
consistency of his findings led him to conclude that, “The traditional lec-
ture is simply not successful in helping most students achieve mastery of
fundamental concepts. Pedagogical approaches involving more interac-
tive engagement of students show consistently higher gains on the FCI
[Force Concepts Inventory] and similar tests” (Wieman, 2007, p. 11).
Using research that he initiated with his colleagues, Wieman began to
unravel the puzzle, looking to cognitive science on how people learn. He
found that expert professors have a mental structure to organize their
learning and know how to check new information with prior learning,
and science instructors need to encourage students to organize and apply
the information of the discipline in similar ways. People learn by adding
to their prior learning and making sense of the new information. In
order for this to happen, effective teaching needs to engage students in
thinking deeply about a topic at an appropriate level, and then monitoring
their understanding. Students, in turn, need to become engaged in this
process in order to be successful. This is, in essence, Wieman’s epistemo-
logical outlook on teaching and learning in physics (Wieman, 2007).
Without using the term constructivism, Wieman’s findings about phys-
ics instruction match the assumptions of constructivism; that students
build meaning through active engagement with the material and with
guidance to build on their prior learning at an appropriate and attain-
able level. Similarly, G. Catalano and K. Catalano (1999), in a discus-
sion about student-centered learning in engineering education, note that
the view of the instructor as the center of the learning process is outdated.
They identify the new roles for engineering instructors as follows:
Modeling the thinking and processing skills: this includes modeling

how to make sense of an issue or problem;
Knowing where students should be cognitively: strategies here include
employing the range of Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy to develop the out-
comes of the course, and sharing with students how higher-order
thinking is required for solving problems;
Developing questions to facilitate student growth: questions should
range from recall to more complex questions which require interpre-
tation and prediction;
Using visual tools to show connections: suggesting that instructors use

mind maps or graphic organizers to categorize learning or to show
relationships and connections;
Providing group-learning settings: encouraging students to solve
problems in groups;
Using mental models: employing analogies and metaphors as models
to frame learning and debates, and encouraging students to create
metaphors; and
Providing lower-risk mechanisms for student input: asking students to
explain their thinking using low-stakes mechanisms such as comment
sheets and informal quizzes (G. Catalano & K. Catalano, 1999).
Although many student-centered activities have been attempted and

documented in the 18 years since these suggestions were provided, dis-
cussions have not been clear about the changing roles of both the
instructors and the students. I would argue that it is not the role of
the instructor alone to determine students’ prior learning and cognitive
strengths. Students need to be aware of their own backgrounds and
experiences and come to class prepared to discuss their perceptions and
assumptions in order to build new understandings. While the instructors
can model mind maps and cognitive maps for students, the students
need to construct models and concept maps for themselves and for the
benefit of other learners. Students will also need to build their own skills
and capacity toward understanding how learning happens, including
their own learning. Added to that, they will need to know how to apply
their learning in authentic contexts that mimic or are situated in real-
world problems.
Jourdan, Haberland, and Deis (2004) argue that there is a clear shift
toward the student as the person most accountable for whether or not
learning happens in the digital era. They state,
Higher education is becoming what it has always surrepti-

tiously been through the ages: the internal metamorphism
by the learners themselves, brought about by their own
agency through a number of educational resources, includ-
ing interaction with faculty, content of the educational
process, and the institutional environment…Students are
in a sense the producers of their own education and are
ultimately responsible for their own development and out-
comes. (p. 24)
Trilling and Fadel (2009), however, theorize that the shift toward less
teacher-centered learning and more student-centered learning alone will
be insufficient for the complex learning of the decades ahead. Students
will need some direct instruction but they should not rely on this; stu-
dents need to learn how to exchange knowledge. Students will develop
sources for their learning outside the academy because learning outside-
of-school is becoming part of everyday life in a global, digital commu-
nity. While some teacher-directed skills will be needed in the decades
ahead, the scale will tip toward focusing education to build on what
students already know, and what they need to learn. Future learning
will be more personalized, student-centered, and targeted (Trilling &
Fadel, 2009).
To build on this conclusion, I would argue that in order for student
learning to become more personalized and targeted, students will need
to build skills of self-awareness and learner capacity; come to see
themselves as the designers of their learning contexts and learning envir-
onments; build their understanding of the concept that meaning is nego-
tiated and constructed; and participate actively to build the capacity of
the learning communities who will support them in meeting their learn-
ing goals.
Designed Instruction or Situated Cognition?
It has been argued for some time that a higher education instructor’s
perspective on how to design effective instruction should be based
on learning theory, and a deep understanding of that theory must
be undertaken in order to design instruction effectively (Bednar,
Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1992). According to Bednar et al., teach-
ing and learning theories emerge from and reflect different epistemologi-
cal assumptions which collectively form the basis for the theory. The
field of instructional design, for example, which has informed under-
standings of teaching in higher education, initially relied heavily on
behaviorist learning theory and cognitive science. This can be seen
through elements of instructional design, such as the focus on effective
sequencing of behavioral learning outcomes and the search for efficient
designs of the learning environments. According to Bednar and her col-
leagues, the reliance on mapping knowledge or outcomes and measuring
them objectively falls under the school of thought called “objectivism”
(p. 20). One does not have to look far to see elements of objectivism
reflected today in course and program maps and structured and
sequenced learning outcomes. The missing element in designing a course

for students in their absence is the student. Instructors need to seek
ways to encourage students to set their own learning goals and measure
progress within the context of the overall learning objectives of the
course or program.
Bednar et al. offer a comparison between instruction based on the
objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm. In a constructivist
approach, learning is an active process of developing meaning based on
experience. The constructivist view is that knowledge is learned best
within contexts, such as a real-life (authentic) contexts rather than
learning facts in isolation. Students see learning as more relevant if they
can see its connection to other problems and other knowledge, which
in turn builds complexity. This building of relevance, authenticity,
and complexity is referred to as situated cognition (Bednar et al., 1992;
Lave & Wenger, 1998; Lombardi, 2007). Authenticity can be built into
course design through means such as problem-based learning (Barrows &
Tamblyn, 1980; Savin-Baden, 2007) and case studies (Gottschlich, 2000;
Zuelke & Willerman, 1995) and discussion case studies (Gill, 2011), for
example.
In a very similar vein, Lombardi (2007) describes the types of tasks
or problems that constitute more authentic types of learning and defines
design elements that need to be present, regardless of the subject matter:
Learning tasks should have real-world relevance and mimic real pro-
blems of practice;
Tasks are often complex, interdisciplinary, and not well-defined;
Problems are open to multiple approaches and theoretical perspec-
tives; and
Learning should be complex, requiring reflection, metacognition,
and continuous assessment and feedback (Lombardi, 2007).
Savin-Baden (2007) identifies the same elements in problem-based

learning (PBL), and here the responsibility is on the students to under-
take a series of steps to clarify definitions, define the problem, generate
solutions, and report their findings. The role of the instructor in PBL
becomes more of a facilitator who not only can help students to focus,
but also provides lectures or tutorials as required. She emphasizes, how-
ever, that PBL is an approach which is characterized by flexibility as it
can be implemented in various ways (Savin-Baden, 2007).
Other aspects of constructivist learning theory in the literature pro-
mote situating the learning within the proximal range of the student’s
experience and knowledge. Vygotsky (1978) refers to this as the zone

of proximal development (ZPD) or the difference between what the
student can do unaided versus with support. In other words, the degree
of complexity of the problem to be solved should be within the student’s
reach or within their reach with support (Bednar et al., 1992; Vygotsky,
1978). The role of the teacher changes in a constructivist environment
to become more of a coach who models the process of learning, and
someone who can also organize and monitor learning. Dewey, who
argued that science learning should focus on both knowledge and
process, said that teachers should help students learn methods of science
inquiry from a young age, and develop these methods throughout
schooling (Dewey, 1910).
Students should be encouraged to see that there are multiple perspec-
tives; that problems are seen differently from different vantage points;
and that they need to grasp and integrate these alternate views. This
process is enhanced through the use of collaborative work groups. In
addition, students who construct knowledge for themselves or within
their peer group need to understand the processes of thinking, learning,
inquiry, and collaboration. The development of these processes should
be enhanced through reflection and metacognition.
Research Claims about Active Learning
In this section, selected evidence-based studies related to STEM fields

and active learning show that active learning has been researched in
STEM classrooms, and the evidence points generally in one direction:
there are small but measurable gains shown in multiple studies (Haak,
HilleRisLambers, Pitre, & Freeman, 2011; Koohang, Paliszkiewicz,
Goluchowski, & Nord, 2016; Smith et al., 2009; Smith, Wood, Krauter, &
Knight, 2011; Walker, Cotner, Baepler, & Decker, 2008).
Smith et al. (2009) sought evidence about whether peer discussion
improved student performance on in-class concept questions in under-
graduate biology lectures. Students responded to biology questions
using clickers, but had consistently more correct responses when work-
ing in groups. Smith et al. investigated whether students were just lean-
ing on the students most likely to have the right answer or if there were
gains made from discussing the responses in groups and examining the
clicker histogram. They found that peer discussion can be helpful for
developing group understanding of biology concepts even when no one
in the group knows the correct answer (Smith et al., 2009). Later studies
found that students in the novice and middle range learning groups
benefited most from peer discussion plus instructor explanation (Smith
et al., 2011) which harkens back to earlier discussions in this chapter
about key elements of PBL.
Haak and colleagues claim that the introduction of active learning
and culturally responsive teaching have had a “profound effect” on the
achievement gap in biology courses (2011, p. 1214). They tackled the
issue of the performance and retention of undergraduate biology stu-
dents from diverse backgrounds in their research and found that a very
structured course design combined with active learning reduces the
achievement gap. In their case, the active learning in the undergraduate
biology class consisted of weekly practice with data analysis, problem-
solving, and other higher-order cognitive skills (Haak et al., 2011).
Koohang and colleagues (2016) set out to determine whether or not
the stages of guiding learners to become active learners, initiating
knowledge construction, and building student ownership of the learning
would lead to greater student engagement with the learning material
in information technology classes. They found that this was the
case: grounding student learning in real-world experiences and using
higher-order thinking skills increased student engagement. Similarly,
G. Catalano and K. Catalano (1999) found that when they compared
the performance of students in student-centered vs. teacher-centered
courses in thermodynamics, the students from the student-centered clas-
ses showed better progress on standardized tests.
Walker and colleagues (2008), in teaching an introductory Biology
class, encountered some of the issues that others have documented
with large-class sizes, such as low attendance, low and uneven student
engagement, lack of student preparedness, and poor student learning
outcomes. As a group, the instructors decided to focus on key under-
standings rather than “covering” the entire curriculum (p. 362). They
broke the class of 500 students into two groups, but changed key ele-
ments of the instruction in order to integrate active learning (Table 1).
Walker et al.’s analysis of the distribution of the final grades revealed
that students who were lowest in the grade distribution appeared to
benefit most from the active learning (Group B in Table 1). What was
more surprising was that, in the traditional section, 11 of 240 students
had a final grade below 40%; in the active learning section, just one stu-
dent had a low grade and this student had dropped the course. Students
in the traditional section showed higher confidence at the end of the first
term, but there were no significant differences in confidence at the end
of the full term. Interestingly, the student evaluations for the instructors
Table 1. Different Class Structure for Two Introductory Biology

Classes.
Group A: Traditional Group B: Active

Lecture Extremely shortened mini-lectures
Unannounced quizzes Quizzes
Wide variety of structured, ungraded, group
activities
A few graded homework assignments
Multiple choice exams Multiple choice exams
Source: Developed from Walker et al. (2008).
were “significantly and substantially higher” (p. 364) in the traditional

than the active section, which was confirmed in the qualitative data.
Students did not warm up to the change in focus from the teacher-
centered classroom environment to the student-centered one. This
occurred despite the fact that the instructors and TA team were the
same for both courses. This finding hints that students can resist active
learning and may need time and support to make the change from more
passive learning. The overall assessment of the students from the quali-
tative (focus group) findings was an expressed desire for blending the
traditional and active learning formats. In reflecting on the outcomes
from this experiment, the Biology instructors had to wrestle with
“uncoverage,” meaning that, in the active learning class, they were not
able to cover all of the content. They found that some of the content
could be covered outside of class as assigned readings. They also found
that attendance was significantly improved in the active section, reflect-
ing more accountability for attendance in active learning than in the
traditional lecture class. As professors they see a gradual evolution from
the whole class lecture to the inclusion of more engaging practices
(Walker et al., 2008).
Wieman (2007) investigates instruction in physics classes in higher
education and suggests the following strategies for STEM instructors:
Attend to the cognitive load for students using images and explicit
organization;
Address beliefs such as why a topic is worth learning and its real-
world relevance;
Consistently monitor student thinking and homework and provide

regular feedback. Make assessments as authentic as possible. Create
rigorous means to measure the actual outcomes of higher education
instruction;
Use technology for simulations and to provide opportunities for stu-
dents to see the lecture material and ask questions online in advance
of class to build engagement;
Organize the learning for the lecture around 7 10 key concepts.
Use personal-response systems such as clickers to capture students’
understandings (and misconceptions) in a somewhat anonymous
way. Use small consensus groups to focus on and discuss responses
and come to new understandings (Wieman, 2007).
The topic of the lecture (and the form that it should take) continues
to be center stage in discussions about higher education, and this crosses
disciplines. One possible framework for reconsidering the lecture is to
continue to develop the field of large-class pedagogy, which includes
taking a critical look at the benefits and constraints of the large-class
lecture. It must be acknowledged that, while there is still great interest
in what people have to say (consider, for instance, the uptake on TED
talks), there has always been the possibility of a gap between a broad-
cast of interesting information and how it is processed by the individual
learners. As Summerlee (2013) points out, while the lecture is effective
for broadcasting information, research indicates that students are
challenged to maintain their interest through an hour-long lecture and
that lectures promote more superficial levels of learning. He also argues
that there are increasing numbers of students in universities who have
difficulties processing information and therefore will require more per-
sonalized instruction because of this. While these are sufficient reasons
to reconsider how the lecture needs to be reshaped for the present gener-
ation of students, there is resistance to changing the model of the lecture
because it is the forum that academics use to share their ideas and their
research. Summerlee notes that, although the evidence of the ineffi-
ciency of the large-class lecture has been present since the 1980s, there
has been insufficient recognition of this and a lack of change in the
academy. He concludes that the weight of the evidence connecting lec-
tures to effective learning means that universities should rethink their
approaches to teaching and learning (Summerlee, 2013).
There is also support for more interdisciplinary STEM activities such
as sustainable development (e.g., R. Lozano, Lukman, F. Lozano,
Huisingh, & Lambrechts, 2013; Steiner & Posch, 2006). For example,
Williams (2011) in New Zealand finds that there are positive possibilities
from STEM integration, including:
Energizing the learning environment with real-world relevance,

Igniting learners’ desire to explore and investigate,
Seeing learners develop confidence and self-direction,
Building a pathway to technological literacy,
Encouraging students to think with flexibility and confidence, and
Reducing the dropout rate (p. 31).
Steiner and Posch (2006) argue that approaches such as transdisci-

plinary case studies in sustainable development require teachers to
abandon their roles as the information providers and students to aban-
don their roles as consumers of information. What emerges instead is a
new learning paradigm focused on “ecological, economic and social
development” (p. 878) where each of these three concepts have equal
importance. This transdisciplinary learning paradigm is so complex that
it cannot be approached by traditional class instruction where knowl-
edge is segmented by discipline. Instead, because of the challenges of
the topic and the significance of the conclusions, there is a mutual
search for sustainable solutions to the world’s problems. The learning is
not focused on gaining factual knowledge but on building capacity to
solve complex, authentic problems through planning, decision-making,
and project management skills. A key sustainable development skill is
self-regulated learning: students are more active than their instructors in
seeking information and applying critical thinking in what Steiner and
Posch (2006) describe as “mutual self-responsible learning” (p. 881).
Unlike PBL where the students work to solve problems, in sustainable
development, all of the participants (teacher/researchers, students, and
practitioners) seek to build their capacity to solve complex and ill-
defined problems.
Boy (2013) reminds us that we are only beginning to understand how
the shift from manufacturing to information technologies is changing
how we work, learn, and live. He argues eloquently that education sys-
tems need to be investigated and updated. The Internet now allows
knowledge beyond memory as we can access information literally at the
touch of a button (or a voice command). He argues for understanding
over knowing because the age of the Internet has introduced more com-
plex systems, requiring students to think more critically about the avail-
able information. Students, now more than ever, need to be concerned
with who is sending the information and if it is supported by respected
institutions. Students also need to understand core concepts of their dis-

ciplines and consider how to apply them in real life.
Boy also posits that students need opportunities to embrace and
work in the complexity which is the reality of today’s existence. Today’s
issues for scientists, such as sustainable energy, are complex and will
require global responses. Students need to know how to be social and
how to communicate and they must work creatively and collaboratively
to share knowledge in ways that target information differently to differ-
ent audiences. He finds also that the Internet has had a democratizing
effect on education, allowing knowledge to be more accessible to
increasing populations (Boy, 2013, p. 7).
To assist in demonstrating how these multiple, different imperatives
and suggestions have emerged for improving learning in STEM subjects
through active learning approaches, a framework of sample studies and
recommendations was created. While this synthesis cannot claim to be
definitive, it does provide indications of some of the trends present in
STEM higher education today (Table 2).
Reaching Reasoned Conclusions about Active Learning
There has been a steady march over the past several decades toward the
democratization of education. Whether or not higher education classes
are conducted online, partially online, or in physically co-located set-
tings, instructors must still come to terms with the reality that students
have unlimited access to multiple, sometimes competing, sources of
information on the Internet. This, alone, does not render the lecture-
mode as such obsolete, but it should encourage instructors to question
whether or not their role is to select the most important information
from a chapter or readings, and talk about it at sufficient length that
students will study the topic further.
Access to information does not necessarily equate with the ability to
organize and critically analyze information sources so that the knowl-
edge can be applied in other contexts or communicated creatively by
students using digital tools. Students are shifting from their role as con-
sumers of information to becoming collaborative learners and the pro-
ducers of new media. In order for this to happen, students need to
construct their own understandings of knowledge so that they become,
in essence, knowledge workers. If we want students to be constructors
of knowledge and creative communicators, then education has to change
to model these approaches through active learning, self-regulation, and
Table 2. Active Learning Framework: Key Elements of a STEM Active

Learning Epistemology.
Active Learning Elements Key Instructional Imperatives

Student-centered focus Students as active learners (Freire, 1970;
Wieman, 2007)
Personalized education (Freire, 1970;
Hornsby & Osman, 2014; Pellegrino, 2006;
Summerlee, 2013)
Student voice (Freire, 1970)
Students are producers of their education
(Jourdan et al., 2004)
Build new learning on the prior learning of
the individual (Chickering & Kuh, 2005;
Wieman, 2007)
Student ownership of the
learning (Bransford et al., 2002; Chickering
& Kuh, 2005; Koohang et al., 2016; Steiner
& Posch, 2006)
Safety in learning (Biggs, 1999; G. Catalano
& K. Catalano, 1999)
Construction of meaning through active
engagement (Wieman, 2007)
People learn by creating their own
understanding (Wieman, 2007)
Authentic (messy, Higher-order thinking skills (Bloom, 1956;
complex) tasks G. Catalano & K. Catalano, 1999)
Meaningful, relevant learning (Prince, 2004)
Authentic tasks (Koohang et al., 2016;
Wieman, 2007)
Build relevance, authenticity, and complexity
into work in classrooms (situated cognition)
(e.g., Bednar et al., 1992; Koohang et al.,
2016; Lave & Wenger, 1998; Lombardi,
2007)
Problems should have real-world relevance
and require sustained investigation
(Lombardi, 2007)
Table 2. (Continued )

Innovation skills/Career Ability to learn on the job (Cukier, 2016)
focus Adaptive expertise (Pellegrino, 2006)
Flexibility, adaptability, initiative, self-
direction (Trilling & Fadel, 2009)
Work skills, e.g., productivity (Trilling &
Fadel, 2009)
More diverse Employ more diverse instructional
instructional approaches approaches, larger repertoire (Chickering &
Kuh, 2005; Pellegrino, 2006)
Uncover students’ misconceptions in order
to build on them (Pellegrino, 2006; Wieman,
2007)
Increase retention by moving from the
lecture to more engaged types of learning
(Wieman, 2007)
Case studies (Gottschlich, 2000; Zuelke &
Willerman, 1995)
Culturally responsive teaching (Haak et al.,
2011)
Clickers or personal-response systems and
consensus groups to discuss the responses
(Smith et al., 2009, 2011; Wieman, 2007)
Discussion case studies (Gill, 2011)
Model how to organize learning (G.
Catalano & K. Catalano, 1999; Pellegrino,
2006)
Model the use of technology applications
that students employ in their out-of-school
online learning (Jacobsen & Lock, 2004;
Voogt, Erstad, Dede, & Mishra, 2013)
Organize the lecture around 7 10 key
concepts (Wieman, 2007)
Problem-based learning (Barrows &
Tamblyn, 1980; Pellegrino, 2006; Prince,
2004; Savin-Baden, 2007)

Problem and project-based learning activities
(Haak et al., 2011; Lombardi, 2007;
Pellegrino, 2006; Prince, 2004)
Transdisciplinary case studies (sustainable
development) (Lozano et al., 2013; Steiner &
Posch, 2006; Williams, 2011)
Uncoverage: some content covered out of
class (Walker et al., 2008)
Communication skills/ Communication skills (Prince, 2004)
ICT skills Digital literacy skills (Pellegrino, 2006;
Trilling & Fadel, 2009)
Social and cross-cultural skills (Trilling &
Fadel, 2009)
Situated learning; communities of practice
(Lave & Wenger, 1998)
Collaboration with peers (Biggs, 1999)
Teamwork and knowledge work for the
global digital era (Olson, 2015)
Concept mapping, Students need assistance and models to
models organize learning: find patterns, build
models of learning and conceptual
frameworks to help them with knowledge
retrieval (G. Catalano & K. Catalano,
1999; Pellegrino, 2006; Wieman, 2007)
Digital literacy skills: Students need to learn how to approach
information literacy, cognitive dissonance (Pellegrino, 2006)
media literacy, ITC Instructors should scaffold the task
literacy (Koohang et al., 2016)
Students should encounter multiple
perspectives and a variety of resources in
order to discern the relevant information
(Bednar et al., 1992; Lombardi, 2007)
Learn how to determine an expert view
(Dede, 2008)

Conscious awareness of the sources of
messages, their quality, and consequences of
attending to them (Flavell, 1979)
Use technology to support communication
and learning (Dede, 2008; Garrison et al.,
2001; Jacobsen & Lock, 2004; Lombardi,
2007; Pellegrino, 2006)
ITC literacy (Cukier, 2016; Trilling & Fadel,
2009)
Complexity Conscious awareness of sources of
information and consequences of attending
to each (Flavell, 1979)
Ethical complexity (Fuchs, 2011)
Help students gain the skills of inquiry
learning (Lombardi, 2007; Pellegrino, 2006)
Encourage higher-order thinking (Bloom,
1956; G. Catalano & K. Catalano, 1999;
Koohang et al., 2016).
Problems should be complex, require
sustained investigation and collaboration
(Lombardi, 2007)
Collaborative learning, Encourage collaborative and co-operative
co-operative learning, learning opportunities for productive
positive interdependence group work (Bednar et al., 1992; Biggs,
1999; G. Catalano & K. Catalano, 1999)
Positive interdependence (D. Johnson &
R. Johnson, 2009; Johnson et al., 1984).
Mutual, self-responsible learning (Steiner &
Posch, 2006)
Metacognition/ Metacognition includes knowledge of one’s
Monitoring own learning capacity and how one (self) learns,
reflections on past learning, conscious
awareness of understanding or lack of,
setting learning goals (Flavell, 1979)

Clarity around learning objectives (Biggs,
1999; Bransford et al., 2002)
Build skills of metacognition (Bednar et al.,
1992; Bransford et al., 2002; Lombardi,
2007; Pellegrino, 2006; Prince, 2004)
Make thinking visible (Pellegrino, 2006)
Develop metacognitive skills through peer
collaboration (Wieman, 2007)
Students need to know how learning
happens, including their own learning
(Trilling & Fadel, 2009)
Realistic self-assessment (Cukier, 2016)
Self-regulated learning, mutual
self-responsible learning (Steiner & Posch,
2006)
Alignment between Ensure transparency and alignment among
learning and assessment the learning objectives, learning plan, and
assessments (Biggs, 1999)
Critical forms of assessment including peer
assessment and self-assessment (Wiggins &
McTighe, 2005)
Continuous, personalized Assessment should be continuous through
feedback, assessment to carefully designed homework, grading
inform instruction policies, and feedback (Lombardi, 2007;
Wieman, 2007)
Assessment should inform the teachers
about student learning so that they can give
better feedback to teachers (Pellegrino, 2006)
Monitor student attainment of key concepts
(Wieman, 2007)
Provide prompt, detailed, and personalized
feedback (Chickering & Kuh, 2005)
metacognition. Both instructors and students need to embrace these new

realities. As more students enroll in higher education, instructors will
become more responsive to increasing student diversity. Students will
also need to be more responsive to diverse perspectives and acknowledge
that there may be more than one right answer.
In reviewing the present trend toward what she terms as “consumer-
ism” in higher education, Regan (2012) wrestles with the functional and
moral roles of instructors and students. She concludes that the role of
the instructors is to use their abilities to facilitate optimal learning. In
turn, the role of the students should be to do their best to learn (Regan,
2012). To this I would add that, in order to preserve what is best in
humanity and meet the needs of future generations, today’s students
need to embrace the complex nature of problem-solving and decision-
making and view higher education as an opportunity to learn how to
learn. Active learning engages them in this process.
References
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to

medical education. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into
practice: How do we link. Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A con-
versation, 17 34.
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher
Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57 75.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain
(pp. 20 24). New York, NY: McKay.
Boy, G. A. (2013). From STEM to STEAM: Toward a human-centred education,
creativity & learning thinking. Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on
Cognitive Ergonomics (p. 3). ACM.
Bransford, J., Vye, N., & Bateman, H. (2002). Creating high-quality learning envir-
onments: Guidelines from research on how people learn. In The Knowledge
Economy and Postsecondary Education: Report of a Workshop (pp. 159 198).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Catalano, G. D., & Catalano, K. (1999). Transformation: From teacher-centered to
student-centered engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(1),
59 64.
Chickering, A. W., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Promoting student success: Creating condi-
tions so every student can learn (Occasional Paper No. 3). Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
Cukier, W. (2016). Bridging the skills gap. Retrieved from http://www.hrpatoday.
ca/article/bridging-the-skills-gap.html
Dede, C. (2008). A seismic shift in epistemology. EDUCAUSE review, 43(3), 80.
Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31(787),

121 127. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1634781
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive-developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder & Herder.
Fuchs, C. (2011). WikiLeaks: Power 2.0? Surveillance 2.0? Criticism 2.0? Alternative
media 2.0? A political-economic analysis. Global Media Journal: Australian
Edition, 5(1), 1 17.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive
presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of
distance education, 15(1), 7 23.
Gill, T. G. (2011). What is a discussion case? Retrieved from http://mumacasere-
view.org/what-is-a-discussion-case
Gottschlich, M. (2000). Writing basics: Elements of the case study. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 100(11), 1293 1295.
Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased struc-
ture and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology.
Science, 332(6034), 1213 1216.
Hornsby, D. J., & Osman, R. (2014). Massification in higher education: Large clas-
ses and student learning. Higher Education, 67(6), 711 719.
Jacobsen, D. M., & Lock, J. V. (2004). Technology and teacher education for
a knowledge era: Mentoring for student futures, not our past. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 75.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Holubec, E., & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of learning.
Cooperation in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story:
Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher,
38(5), 365 379.
Jourdan Jr, L. F., Haberland, C., & Deis, M. H. (2004). Quality in higher educa-
tion: The student’s role. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 8(2), 17.
Koohang, A., Paliszkiewicz, J., Goluchowski, J., & Nord, J. H. (2016). Active learn-
ing for knowledge construction in e-learning: A replication study. The Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 56(3), 238 243.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998, 2008). Communities of practice. Retrieved from
http://www.valenciacollege.edu/communities
Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview.
Educause Learning Initiative, 1(2007), 1 12.
Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F. J., Huisingh, D., & Lambrechts, W. (2013).
Declarations for sustainability in higher education: Becoming better leaders,
through addressing the university system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48,
10 19.
Olson, M. P. (2015). A multilateral approach to bridging the global skills gap.
Retrieved from http://www.cornellhrreview.org/a-multilateral-approach-to-
bridging-the-global-skills-gap/
Pellegrino, J. W. (2006). Rethinking and redesigning curriculum, instruction and

assessment: What contemporary research and theory suggests. National Center of
Education and the Economy for the new commission on the skills of the
American workforce. NCEE. Retrieved from http://www.skillscommission.org/
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of
engineering education, 93(3), 223 231.
Regan, J.-A. (2012). The role obligations of students and lecturers in higher educa-
tion. Journal of Philosophy Education, 46, 14 24. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2011.
00834.x
Savin-Baden, M. (2007). A practical guide to problem-based learning online.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild,
N., … Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on
in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122 124.
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K., & Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining peer
discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class
concept questions. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 55 63.
Steiner, G., & Posch, A. (2006). Higher education for sustainability by means of
transdisciplinary case studies: An innovative approach for solving complex, real-
world problems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9), 877 890.
Summerlee, A. (2013). Lectures: Do we need them at all? In D. J. Hornsby,
R. Osman, & J. De Matos-Ala, Large-class pedagogy: Interdisciplinary perspec-
tives for quality higher education (pp. 21 31). Stellenbosch, South Africa:
African Sun Media.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times.
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and
schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403 413. Retrieved from http://ai2-s2-pdfs.
s3.amazonaws.com/5113/5f0cd1fad2cfe00b26c531ccfd8bbc4a1280.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Mind and soci-
ety (pp. 79 91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, J. D., Cotner, S. H., Baepler, P. M., & Decker, M. D. (2008). A delicate
balance: Integrating active learning into a large lecture course. CBE-Life
Sciences Education, 7(4), 361 367.
Wieman, C. (2007). Why not try a scientific approach to science education? Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(5), 9 15.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology
Education: An International Journal, 16(1).
Zuelke, D. C., & Willerman, M. (1995). The case study approach to teaching in
education administration and supervision preparation programs. Education,
115(4), 604 612.

Active Learning Concepts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Active Learning Concepts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACTIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES

United Kingdom North America Japan India Malaysia China

First edition 2018

Copyright r 2018 Emerald Publishing Limited

Reprints and permissions service

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

ISBN: 978-1-78714-488-0 (Print)

Certificate Number 1985

About the Authors ix

SECTION I: ACTIVE LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION:

Chapter 1 Toward an Epistemology of Active Learning

Chapter 2 Designing for Active Learning:

SECTION II: ACTIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES IN HIGHER

Chapter 3 Active Learning Stories in Higher Education:

Chapter 4 Concepts and Communication in the

Chapter 5 Active Learning Strategies: Stories and Lessons

Chapter 6 Online Learning as the Catalyst for More

Chapter 7 Active, Cooperative Learning in Online

Chapter 8 Engaging the Nonart History Student: A Tale of Five

Chapter 9 Preservice Teachers and Active Learning in

Chapter 10 Intercultural Talent Management Model

Chapter 11 Active Learning in Practice: Techniques and

Chapter 12 Using Socrative App for Accounting Students in

Chapter 13 Enhancing Learner Autonomy and Active

SECTION III: A VISION FOR HUMANITY THROUGH

Chapter 14 The Pedagogical Legacy of Dorothy Lee and

Chapter 15 A New Vision for Higher Education: Lessons from

Cristina Alcaide-Muñoz is a PhD Student in the Business Administration

Her research focuses on ICT integration on Educational Innovation

Business of Madrid, both in Spain. She has worked as a Manager at

issues, while she has worked for years in non-governmental organiza-

Canadian Association for Distance Education, Association for Media

Information and Knowledge Society. She has served as Academic

Peter J. Shaw is Associate Professor at the University of Southampton,

Undoubtedly, higher education is in an era of transition. The quest for

institutions, and nations contribute to a global transformation in bal-

terms, our society will always be in lack of responsive actions to address

We are grateful to the great scholars and academics who contributed to

Anastasia Misseyanni, Miltiadis D. Lytras,

In the 21st century knowledge society, higher education (HE) is

Active Learning Strategies in Higher Education: Teaching for Leadership,

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines; the

increase learning and promote student engagement. A chapter on how

As stated above, the target audience of this book are educators

Chapter 3 discusses the active learning strategies used in STEM disci-

Chapter 5 focuses on field-based education for environmental studies

to continue, to maintain, or to improve the quality of student learning

on different methodologies of interpreting an image from a Pompeiian

promoted the detection of individual traits of students and contributed

sustainable societies. The role of technologies is also introduced without

• Promotes individual contributions and seeks for social humanistic

• Informs HE administration about the non-countable benefits of

Toward an Epistemology of Active

This chapter concerns itself primarily with questions of how stu-

Active Learning Strategies in Higher Education: Teaching for Leadership,

students in STEM higher education and the research which theo-

Keywords: Active learning; metacognition; authentic learning;

The Oxford online dictionary informs readers that epistemology is

What Is Driving the Shift to Active Learning?

or assignments, how active learning can be realized in the lecture or

(2009) report that the following skills will be required of graduates in

1) Learning and innovation skills: critical thinking, problem solving,

where students are challenged to think deeply about their knowledge