Evidence for Active Learning

A large body of research demonstrates that active learning improves student achievement across disciplines and class sizes.

Retention and Understanding

Prince's review (2004) across engineering and higher education studies found consistent evidence that active learning enhances conceptual understanding, retention, and student attitudes. Lujan and DiCarlo (2006) likewise showed that students who actively contribute in lectures retain information longer than if they only listen or read.

Motivation and Engagement

Active learning has been linked to higher student motivation and ongoing engagement throughout the learning process. Machemer and Crawford (2007), studying courses across disciplines at a public university, found that students perceived active learning as motivating, though acceptance varied by field. Owens et al. (2017) reported that active learning activities not only improved content mastery but also strengthened students' motivation and interpersonal skills, helping them collaborate more effectively and engage more persistently in their learning. Hodges (2020) similarly describes how active strategies can ignite constructive behaviours and help students gradually develop the habits of expert learners.

Critical Thinking and Deeper Learning

Studies find that active participation in lectures and discussions improves critical thinking skills and student confidence with complex material (Smith et al., 2005; Cherney, 2008; Nelson & Crow, 2014). Justice et al. (2007), examining inquiry‑based learning in the social sciences and humanities, reported that opportunities for critical and reflective thinking helped students become more self‑directed learners who could weigh evidence, synthesize information, and communicate ideas more effectively.

Achievement and Equity

Freeman et al.'s meta‑analysis (2014) of 225 studies in STEM indicated that students in lecture‑only courses were 1.5 times more likely to fail; average exam scores improved by nearly half a letter grade in active classes. Deslauriers et al. (2019) observed that students in active learning classrooms learned more but sometimes felt they learned less, highlighting the need to help students recognize the value of active approaches. Theobald et al. (2020) found that active learning has an equity impact, disproportionately benefiting first‑generation, low‑income, and historically underrepresented students.

Cognitive Mechanisms

Chi and Wylie (2014) introduced the ICAP framework, which explains the cognitive basis of active learning. ICAP describes four modes of engagement and shows that learning is deepest when students engage at the constructive or interactive levels.

Passive: Listening without interaction
Active: Simple tasks like copying, highlighting, answering
Constructive: Generating new ideas, summarizing, explaining
Interactive: Dialogue, co-constructing understanding

Beyond STEM, traditions of active learning are deeply embedded in other disciplines:

Humanities and Social Sciences: Research in history and political science also confirms that active learning outperforms traditional lecture‑only approaches (McCarthy & Anderson, 2000). Angelo and Cross's Classroom Assessment Techniques (1988, now in its third edition as Angelo & Zakrajsek, 2024)—such as the Minute Paper and Muddiest Point—were originally developed in history, English, and sociology courses.
Professional Programs: Many professional fields have long traditions of active learning. Nursing and medicine have relied on problem‑based learning (PBL) to integrate theory with clinical reasoning. Law and business frequently use the case method to develop applied analysis and decision‑making. Other fields also embed active learning in discipline‑specific ways—for example, music uses studio critique and rehearsal‑based feedback, information studies emphasizes collaborative projects and knowledge‑building practices, and education programs employ microteaching and peer feedback to develop teaching skills. These approaches all share a focus on experiential learning, application, and reflection.
Cross-disciplinary syntheses: Barkley & Major (2018, 2022) emphasize that the "lecture versus active learning" debate is a false dichotomy; lectures can be highly effective when paired with active engagement. Zakrajsek & Nilson (2023) similarly note that short, interactive lectures remain a powerful teaching tool when integrated with active strategies.

Taken together, these findings confirm that active learning is not confined to any single field—it is a research-supported, cross-disciplinary approach that improves achievement, motivation, persistence, and equity in higher education.

Back to top

Engagement: The Double Helix Model

Active learning is central to student engagement. Barkley and Major (2022) describe engagement as a "double helix" made up of:

Thinking (cognitive engagement): Active learning strategies that require students to process, apply, and evaluate knowledge
Feeling (emotional engagement): Motivation, interest, and a sense of belonging

When instructors design for both strands, students are more likely to persist through challenges, sustain effort, and achieve deeper learning outcomes.

Double Helix Model of Student Engagement

Back to top

Myths and Realities

Active Learning Myths and Realities
Myths	Realities
Myth: You must abandon lectures to teach actively.	Reality: Lectures remain effective when designed as shorter, interactive segments. Research supports "interactive lecturing" as a powerful blend of content delivery and engagement (Barkley & Major, 2018; Zakrajsek & Nilson, 2023).
Myth: Active learning only works in STEM.	Reality: Active learning strategies are widely used in humanities, social sciences, and professional programs—from Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) (Angelo & Zakrajsek, 2024) to Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in health sciences (McMaster University, 2022) and case methods in law and business.
Myth: Students resist active learning because it is less effective.	Reality: Students may sometimes feel they learn less in active classrooms, but studies show they actually learn more (Deslauriers et al., 2019).

Back to top

Pause for Reflection

In your ALDF Workbook docx, reflect on the following questions:

Which of the research-based benefits of active learning resonates most strongly with your teaching context?
Why do you want to incorporate active learning in your teaching?
What benefits are you hoping your students—or you—will experience?

Back to top

Select the "Next" button in the bottom right to proceed to the next page.

University of Toronto, Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation