The purpose of this study was to develop a valid, reliable, and brief measure of active learning in college classrooms that is cheap and easy to complete and yields results that faculty can easily use to inform their development as instructors. Initial construct and face validity was achieved by modifying existing instruments and creating a draft of a brief measure of active learning for external expert review. Following the suggested revisions, the engaging classroom observation was then piloted and revised as necessary. Reliability was tested and measures of internal consistency and interrater reliability were acceptable. A principal component analysis showed two components that were moderately correlated, which indicated the potential they could be combined. An Exploratory Factor Analysis confirmed the instrument is measuring one factor, which we propose as active learning. This study is significant because it offers a brief instrument based on students’ perceptions that can be used formatively by faculty.
BettiA.BiderbostP.García DomonteA. (2022). Can active learning techniques simultaneously develop students’ hard and soft skills? Evidence from an international relations class. PLoS One, 17(4), e0265408.
2.
BirdwellT.HarrisT. (2022). Active learning classroom observation tool: Improving classroom teaching and supporting instructional change through reflection. Journal of Learning Spaces, 11(1), 108–121.
3.
BirdwellT.RomanT. A.HammersmithL.JerolimovD. (2016). Active learning classroom observation tool: A practical tool for classroom observation and instructor reflection in active learning classrooms. Journal on Centers for Teaching and Learning, 8, 28–50.
4.
BonwellC. C.EisonJ. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. George Washington University.
5.
BowmanN. A.LogelC.LaCosseJ.JarrattL.CanningE. A.EmersonK. T. U.MurphyM.C. (2022). Gender representation and academic achievement among STEM-interested students in college STEM courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59, 1876–1900. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21778
6.
CappanolaA. L.JohnsonE. I. (2022). On being the first: The role of family in the experiences of first-generation college students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 37(1), 29–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558420979144
7.
CarlessD. (2022). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787420945845
8.
DeslauriersL.McCartyL. S.MillerK.CallaghanK.KestinG. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences of the US A, 116(39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
9.
du RocherA. R. (2020). Active learning strategies and academic self-efficacy relate to both attentional control and attitudes towards plagiarism. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21(3), 203–216.
10.
EddyS. L.ConverseM.WenderothM. P. (2015). Evidence-based teaching practices for active learning in large science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14, 1–16.
11.
FreemanS.EddyS. L.McDonoughM.SmithM. K.OkoroaforN.JordtH.WenderothM. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences of the USA, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
12.
HaoY. (2016). Exploring undergraduates’ perspectives and flipped learning readiness in their flipped classrooms. Computers in Human Behavior, 59(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.032
13.
HartikainenS.RintalaH.PyvläsL.NokelainenP. (2019). The concept of active learning and the measurement of learning outcomes: A review of research in engineering higher education. Education Sciences, 9(4), 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040276
14.
HoraM. (2015). Toward a descriptive science of teaching: How the TDOP illuminates the multidimensional nature of active learning in postsecondary classrooms. Science Education, 99(5), 783–818.
15.
HoraM.FerrareJ. (2014). The teaching dimensions observation protocol (TDOP) 2.0. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
16.
McCarthyJ. P.AndersonL. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative Higher Education, 24(4), 279–294.
17.
MillerD.DeshlerJ.McEldowneyT.StewardJ.FullerE.PascalM.MichalukL. (2021). Supporting student success and persistence in STEM with active learning approaches in emerging scholars classrooms. Frontiers in Education, 6, 667918.https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.667918
18.
MishraS. (2020). Social networks, social capital, social support and academic success in higher education: A systematic review with a special focus on ‘underrepresented’ students. Educational Research Review, 29, 100307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100307
19.
NarayanR.RodriguezC.AraujoJ.ShaqlaihA.MossG. (2013). Constructivism—constructivist learning theory. In IrbyB.BrownG. H.Lara-AiecioR.JacksonS. A. (Eds.), The Handbook of educational theories (pp. 169–183). Information Age Publishing.
20.
OwensD. C.SadlerT. D.BarlowA. T.Smith-Walters. (2017). Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Research in Science Education, 50, 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1
21.
PhillipsD. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-–12.
22.
PrinceM. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
23.
Rincon-FloresE. G.Santos-GuevaraB. N. (2021). Gamification during COVID-19: Promoting active learning and motivation in higher education. Australasian Journal of Edicational Technology, 37(5), 43–60.
24.
Rossi.I. V.Dinorá de LimaJ.BrunaS.NunesM. A. F.RamirezG. E.RamirezM. I. (2021). Active learning tools improve the learning outcomes, scientific attitude, an critical thinking in higher education: Experiences in an online course during the COVID-19 pandemic. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 49, 888–903.
25.
StainsM.HarshmanJ.BarkerM. K.ChasteenS. V.ColeR.DeChenne-PetersS. E.EaganM. K.Jr.EssonJ. M.KnightJ. K.LaskiF. A.Levis-FitzgeraldM.LeeC. J.LoS. M.McDonnellL. M.McKayT. A.MichelottiN.MusgroveA.PalmerM. S.PlankK. M.. . . YoungA. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359, 1468–1470. https://doi:10.1126/science.aap8892
TheobaldE. J.HillM. J.AgrawalS.ArroyoE. N.BehlingS.ChambweN.CintrónD. L.CooperJ. D.DunsterG.GrummerJ. A.HennesseyK.HsiaoJ.IranonN.JonesL.II.JordtH.KellerM.LaceyM. E.LittlefieldC. E.LoweA.NewmanS.. . .FreemanS. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences of the US A, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.19169031
28.
WaitkusJ. (2006). Active learning in humanities courses: Helping students to think critically. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 3(1), 57–62.
29.
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2010) Welcome to TDOP. http://tdop.wceruw.org/(accessed 31 May 2022).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
