While the benefits of active learning are well-documented in science education, there remains a need for evidence supporting the high-frequency and consistent implementation of diverse active learning methods within very large (400+ student) undergraduate STEM courses. This research study aimed to assess the implementation of active learning techniques in a large, 400+ student, higher education Human Physiology class. We specifically used three active learning techniques, discussions, problem-based learning, and kinesthetic approaches after reviewing the literature. Exam performance data was collected and analyzed using nonparametric univariate tests. All exam questions were mapped to Bloom’s Taxonomy, covering both comprehension and application-level content. Results revealed there were significant differences across all semester mean exam scores. Students scored highly on exams following kinesthetic modalities of learning, though all modalities showed above average (on a bell curve, 70%) performance. These findings suggest that kinesthetic-based active learning is a uniquely potent strategy for enhancing performance in large-enrollment Human Physiology courses.
AgaK. (2024). Comfort in active learning spaces–students’ perceptions and preferences. European Journal of Engineering Education, 49(4), 785–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2024.2341756
2.
AndradeC. (2021). The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposive samples. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 43(1), 86–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620977000
3.
AsgariM.MilesA. M.LisboaM. S.SarvaryM. A. (2021). COPUS, PORTAAL, or DART? Classroom observation tool comparison from the instructor user’s perspective. Frontiers in Education, 6(November), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.740344
4.
BernsteinD. A. (2018). Does active learning work? A good question, but not the right one. American Psychological Association, 4(4), 290–307.
5.
BrecklerJ.YuJ. (2011). Student responses to a hands-on kinesthetic lecture activity for learning about the oxygen carrying capacity of blood. Advances in Physiology Education, 35, 39–47.
6.
CampbellD.StanleyJ. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. In Handbook of research on teaching. Houghton Mifflin Company, 34–61.
7.
CattaneoK. H. (2017). Telling active learning pedagogies apart: From theory to practice. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6(2), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2017.7.237
8.
CavanaghA. J.AragonO. R.ChenX.CouchB. A.DurhamM. F.BobrownickiA.HanauerD. I.GrahamM. J. (2016). Student buy-in to active learning in a college science course. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(76), 1–9.
9.
ClevelandL.OlimpoJ.DeChenne-PetersS. (2017). Investigating the relationship between instructors’ use of active-learning strategies and students’ conceptual understanding and affective changes in introductory biology: A comparison of two active-learning environments. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 16(19), 1–20.
10.
ClintonV.KellyA. (2020). Student attitudes toward group discussions. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 154–164.
11.
CollinsK. M. T. (2010). Advanced sampling designs in mixed research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 353–377). Sage Publications.
12.
DerogatisA.McDanielJ.PearsonT. (2014). Teaching very large classes center for teaching and learning in theology and religion. Teaching Theology and Religion, 17(4), 352–368.
13.
DriessenE. P.KnightJ. K.SmithM. K.BallenC. J. (2020). Demystifying the meaning of active learning in postsecondary biology education. CBE Life Sciences Education, 19(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-04-0068
14.
Ebert-MayD.BrewerC.AllredS. (1997). Innovation in large lectures—teaching for active learning. BioScience, 47, 601–607.
15.
EhrenbergR. G.BrewerD. J.GamoranA.WillmsJ. D. (2001). Class Size and Student Achievement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.003
16.
EricksonM.MarksD.KarcherE. (2020). Characterizing student engagement with hands-on, problem-based, and lecture activities in an introductory college course. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 8(1), 138–153. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.10
17.
ErtmerP. A.NewbyT. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71.
18.
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 Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111(23), 8410–8415.
19.
HamdanA.DeraneyP. (2018). Teaching research skills to undergraduate students using an active learning approach: A proposed model for preparatory-year students in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(2), 184–194. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
20.
HsiehC.SmithJ. D.BohneM.KnudsonD. (2012). Factors related to students’ learning of biomechanics concepts. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41, 82–89.
21.
HyunJ.EdigerR.DonghunL. (2017). Students’ satisfaction on their learning process in active learning and traditional classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 108–118.
22.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T.SmithK. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity (Volumn 20). The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
23.
KnudsonD.WallaceB. (2021). Student perceptions of low-tech active learning and mastery of introductory biomechanics concepts. Sports Biomechanics, 20(4), 458–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2019.1570322
24.
KresslerB.KresslerJ. (2020). Diverse student perceptions of active learning in a large enrollment STEM course. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 20(1), 40–64. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v20i1.24688
25.
MachemerP. L.CrawfordP. (2007). Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 9–30.
26.
McConnellD. A.SteerD. N.OwensK. D. (2003). Assessment and active learning strategies for introductory geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-51.2.205
27.
MeadersC. L.TothE. S.LaneA. K.ShumanJ. K.CouchB. A.StainsM.StetzerM. R.VinsonE.SmithM. K. (2019). “What will I experience in my college STEM courses?” an investigation of student predictions about instructional practices in introductory courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0084
28.
MichaelJ. A. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works?Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167.
29.
MillerC. J.McNearJ.MetzM. J. (2013). A comparison of traditional and engaging lecture methods in a large, professional-level course. Advances in Physiology Education, 37, 347–355.
30.
PowellK. C.KalinaC. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241–250.
31.
SAS Institute Inc. (2020). SAS® 9.4 procedures guide: Statistical procedures (6th ed.).
32.
Spronken-SmithR.HarlandT. (2009). Learning to teach with problem-based learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(2), 138–153.
33.
ThamanR.DhillonS.SaggarS.GuptaM.KaurH. (2013). Promoting active learning in respiratory physiology positive student perception and improved outcomes. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy & Pharmacology, 3(1), 27–34.
34.
TheobaldE. J.HillM. J.TranE.AgrawalS.Nicole ArroyoE.BehlingS.ChambweN.CintrónD. L.CooperJ. D.DunsterG.GrummerJ. A.HennesseyK.HsiaoJ.IranonN.JonesL.JordtH.KellerM.LaceyM. E.LittlefieldC. E.LoweA.NewmanS.OkoloV.OlroydS.PeecookB.PickettS.SlagerD.Caviedes-SolisI.SanchakK.SundaravardanV.ValdebenitoC.WilliamsC.ZinsliK.FreemanS. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
35.
WalkerJ. D.CotnerS. H.BaeplerP. M.DeckerM. D. (2008). A delicate balance: Integrating active learning into a large lecture course. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7(4), 361–367. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-02-0004
36.
WeirL. K.BarkerM. K.McDonnellL. M.SchimpfN. G.RodelaT. M.SchulteP. M. (2019). Small changes, big gains: A curriculum-wide study of teaching practices and student learning in undergraduate biology. PLoS ONE, 14(8), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220900
37.
WilkeR. R. (2003). The effect of active learning on student characteristics in a human physiology course for nonmajors. Advances in Physiology Education, 27(4), 207–223.
38.
WinstoneN.MillwardL. (2012). Reframing perceptions of the lecture from challenges to opportunities: Embedding active learning and formative assessment into the teaching of large classes. Psychology Teaching Review, 18(2), 31–41.
39.
WolffM. S.WagnerM. J.PoznanskiS.SchillerJ. H.SantenS. A. (2015). Not another boring lecture: Engaging learners with active learning techniques. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 48(1), 85–93.
40.
YilmazK. (2008). Constructivism: Its theoretical underpinnings, variations, and implications for classroom instruction. Educational Horizons, 86, 161–171.
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.
