Abstract
The discourse surrounding active learning in higher education (HE) highlights its potential to improve learning outcomes, foster student engagement, and promote active student positionality. However, several studies have underscored instances of student resistance and institutional impediments to active learning. Given the substantial variability in experiences and perceptions among teachers and students in HE, understanding and contrasting these viewpoints could help address such obstacles to its integration. This article presents the findings of a mixed methods study that examined the perspectives of HE teachers and students regarding active learning methods, their perceived effectiveness in augmenting motivation and facilitating learning, and the challenges associated with their implementation. The study sample comprised 57 teachers and 125 degree students from Law, Nursing, and Education disciplines in two Spanish universities. We administered two surveys, 12 semistructured interviews and organized a focus group session. Data analysis involved descriptive statistics, nonparametric tests for group comparison, and qualitative content analysis. The results indicate that teachers adopt active learning to optimize learning outcomes while acknowledging that student motivation is also essential. Teachers exhibited more enthusiasm for active learning compared to students, often overlooking students’ apprehensions regarding its implementation. Notably, HE institutions appeared to provide limited support for active learning initiatives, scarcely recognizing their potential benefits. These findings suggest that overcoming the magnetism of lectures in HE may require a more profound understanding of institutional and organizational barriers to active learning while refraining from solely attributing student resistance to individual student characteristics.
Plain language summary
Active learning in higher education has been extensively discussed as a means of enhancing learning outcomes, cultivating student engagement, and promoting student active participation. However, various studies show that students may resist to active learning methods and higher education institutions may give little support to teachers and students interested in active learning. Since their experiences with and perceptions of active learning may vary considerably, understanding these perspectives could help overcome obstacles to implementing active learning in higher education. This article presents the results of a study that compared students’ and teachers’ ideas about and experiences with active learning in higher education. The research compared the perspectives of teachers and degree students of Law, Nursing, and Education on active learning methods in two Catalan universities (Spain). Results show that teachers mainly use active learning methods to achieve better learning outcomes, although enhancing student motivation is also essential. The teachers seemed more enthusiastic about active learning than did the students while overlooking certain concerns about it raised by the students. Higher education institutions also appeared to lend little support to active learning and barely recognize its benefits. These results suggest that to effectively implement active learning in higher education a deeper understanding of institutional and organizational challenges is needed. It also seems that blaming the problems with active learning in higher education on supposed individual student characteristics may be a quite limited approach to the problem.
Introduction
Active learning in higher education (HE) has received considerable attention as a means of improving learning outcomes (Deslauriers et al., 2019), fostering student engagement, and advancing active student positionality (Masika & Jones, 2016) through activities and/or discussion in class that emphasize higher-order thinking and often involve group work (Freeman et al., 2014). Many studies have explored its application across various disciplines including pathology, engineering, economics, pharmacology, nursing, business, English, computing, and physics (e.g., Deslauriers et al., 2019; Everly, 2013; Grover et al., 2018; Joshi et al., 2016; Magana et al., 2018; Roach, 2014; Xie, 2022; Zhang et al., 2020). Despite its recognized benefits, active learning has faced criticism for its limitations and the performative demands placed on students. Several studies point out students’ resistance to active learning methods, their preference for lecture-based classes and the challenges in encouraging students to move away from passive learning roles (Magana et al., 2018; Masika & Jones, 2016; Richards & Richards, 2013; Rivkin & Gim, 2013). Moreover, some scholars have questioned the orthodoxy and performativity associated with active learning (Gourlay, 2017; MacFarlane & Tomlinson, 2017). According to them, more attention has been given to students’ behaviors and activities than students’ actual learning.
While research on active learning typically extols its successes and students’ endorsement, few studies have compared teachers’ and students’ understandings and perceptions of active learning. Exploring their perceptions of what occurs in an active learning environment could help identify differences in evaluations. Furthermore, gaining insights from students and teachers regarding the outcomes and challenges associated with active learning methods could provide valuable information for addressing their limitations and enhancing their effectiveness.
This study aimed to address the following questions. How do HE teachers and students define active learning methods and their relationship to student learning and motivation? What challenges and limitations do these methods present in the content of HE, as perceived by teachers and students? Our research sought to explore how HE teachers and students (1) understand active learning methods, (2) value active learning methods in motivating and promoting learning, and (3) perceive the limitations and challenges of active learning methods in HE.
Active Learning in Higher Education
Active Learning in Higher Education: Definitions and Critical Issues
Active learning is often compared with teacher-centered learning, typically characterized by lectures where students passively listen and take notes (Machemer & Crawford, 2007). The opposition between traditional and contemporary teaching methods is also traditional (Biesta, 2017) dating back over a century (Driessen et al., 2020) since the critique of teacher-centered learning is rooted in John Dewey’s advocacy for learning by doing and learning as an active process (Graham et al., 2007). Active learning shifts the focus from passive absorption of knowledge to active knowledge construction, encouraging students to build upon existing knowledge through problem solving, data collection, and critical thinking skills (Roberts, 2019).
Despite the popularity of active learning in HE, there remains ambiguity surrounding its definition. Recent systematic reviews have highlighted a lack of clear definitions of active learning in the literature on teaching practices in HE (Doolittle et al., 2023; Driessen et al., 2020). Active learning may be understood as not lecturing, student engagement, group work, constructivism, problem solving or individual formative assessments (Driessen et al., 2020). Doolittle et al. (2023) identified three prominent themes within active learning definitions: (1) grounded in student-centered constructivist theory, (2) promoting higher-order thinking and deep learning, and (3) involving activity, participation and engagement. For this research, we adopted the definition proposed by Freeman et al. (2014): “Active learning engages students in the process of learning through activities and/or discussion in class, as opposed to passively listening to an expert. It emphasizes higher-order thinking and often involves group work” (Freeman et al., 2014, pp. 8413–8414).
Active learning, often regarded as nearly orthodox in educational circles (Gourlay, 2015), is not impervious to scrutiny from diverse perspectives. Some studies recognize the shift from the banking model of education, the active construction of learning, the transfer of power from the teacher to the student, and the focus on learning, but criticize the blindness to what the students are learning, and the little importance given to the role of knowledge in HE (Ashwin, 2020; McKenna & Quinn, 2020). Certain studies criticize active learning methods that were intended to promote critical thinking (e.g., problem-based learning) but may inadvertently avoid challenging existing structures and limit students’ critical perspectives (Frambach & Martimianakis, 2017). From another critical standpoint, some scholars question the fundamentals of active learning, characterizing it as a Western, post-Enlightenment concept of the ideal student (Gourlay, 2015) and criticizing the performativity associated with active learning (Gourlay, 2017; MacFarlane & Tomlinson, 2017). This performativity would require students to attend and actively participate in designated activities to be recognized as active learners (MacFarlane & Tomlinson, 2017). This expectation may inadvertently pathologize behaviors deemed as passive and overlook aspects of learning that are not readily observable (Gourlay, 2017). Furthermore, critiques extend to philosophical underpinnings or the lack of empirical evidence supporting specific active learning methods. For example, Parton and Bailey (2008) question the core assumptions of traditional problem-based learning, centered on students seeking correct answers to teacher-posed questions, while MacFarlane and Tomlinson (2017) argue that many teachers promote specific active methods as a panacea for student engagement without sufficient evidence of their impact on learning outcomes. Finally, Remedios et al. (2008) raise the question of whether students opt to remain silent or are silenced by the sociocultural context itself. They suggest that the student silence in a dialogic classroom might not necessarily indicate passivity or a lack of learning, as the pressure to elicit verbal responses from students could potentially hinder the learning process itself (Remedios et al., 2008).
Active Learning from the Students’ and Teachers’ Perspectives
The paradigm shift from lecture-based classes to active learning is changing the roles, priorities and concerns of teachers and students. Teachers, once the primary source of knowledge, now with diminished authority, face a range of challenges. These challenges include the considerable amount of time demanded by active learning activities, relinquishing control of the classroom, addressing student insecurities and disengagement, fostering a sense of responsibility among students, and grappling with the evaluation of student participation, and effectiveness of these activities (García-Carpintero Blas et al., 2015; Machemer & Crawford, 2007; Sabah & Du, 2018). From the student perspective, active learning methods present their own unique challenges. Central elements of active learning, such as reflective writing, may generate positionalities and power relations that some students find challenging to navigate (Masika & Jones, 2016) and may make them feel exposed and vulnerable (Richards & Richards, 2013). Accustomed to passive lecture-style instruction, students may hesitate to take responsibility for their own learning (Richards & Richards, 2013). Some may view collaborative work with peers as merely an extension of traditional classroom practices, favoring memorization as a more effective approach (Machemer & Crawford, 2007). This perception may be reinforced by HE institutions that treat students as consumers (Richards & Richards, 2013) and prime students towards thinking that traditional learning methods are more effective (Rivkin & Gim, 2013).
Research on student perceptions of active learning is limited, contradictory, and conducted across various classroom settings (Machemer & Crawford, 2007). Some studies confirm the students’ ambivalence towards it, and conflicting results from studies in different courses are not rare. For example, Magana et al. (2018) found that engineering students favored lecture-only classes, viewing active learning as futile. Conversely, Everly (2013) reports that most nursing students surveyed preferred active learning, considering it more conducive to learning than traditional lectures alone. Similarly, Cavanagh (2011) observed that students valued cooperative learning and active engagement in lectures, as it enhanced comprehension and sustained interest during the sessions. In contrast, Rivkin and Gim (2013) note that students preferred traditional lectures to active learning, seeing them as better exam preparation. Dissatisfaction with active learning may also arise from the demands of preparatory tasks, leading students to feel overwhelmed and ill-prepared to analyze texts independently despite the potential benefits of fostering higher-order thinking skills (Rivkin & Gim, 2013). Although students may acknowledge the benefits of active learning and the acquisition of academic skills through this approach (see Gasmi & Al Nadabi, 2023; Song et al., 2022), they may still favor a passive consumerist model of HE (Lobo, 2017).
Students’ ambivalence toward active learning may also be linked to the complexities of peer interaction. Hillyard et al. (2010) found that students generally view group work positively, albeit with some reservations, particularly regarding the perceived preparedness of their peers (Hillyard et al., 2010). While some students may be highly motivated by peer teaching and learning, others may prefer a passive role, allowing their peers to take the lead (Grover et al., 2018). Variability in student engagement with group work is inevitable, with some actively participating while others merely “coast” through the process (Stevens, 2015).
Teachers’ decisions regarding active learning are not straightforward. The research by Scager et al. (2017) on the dilemmas they encounter illustrates that they struggle with weighing the consequences of diverse instructional modalities and their potential drawbacks. Teachers cited concerns not only about students’ academic progress but also their well-being, the cultivation of positive teacher-student dynamics, and the establishment of an environment characterized by psychological safety, ensuring that students feel comfortable expressing themselves without fear of negative repercussions for their self-image or status. Moreover, teachers must navigate the imperative to accommodate all students’ needs, recognizing that what benefits one student might hinder another’s learning journey (Scager et al., 2017).
Finally, lecture-based classes may be perceived as inherently less motivating than active learning sessions by both teachers and students, as they require students to passively absorb information. Many academics view playful approaches as incongruent with the scholarly nature of HE (Whitton & Langan, 2019) but they may feel compelled to adhere to these approaches due to concerns about unfavorable student evaluations within the consumerist model (McCulloch, 2009). This paradigm prioritizes a passive student role and undermines efforts to engage students in learning (Robinson, 2012), prioritizing short-term outcomes at the expense of deep learning (McCulloch, 2009). Consequently, active learning approaches could be implemented to mainly entertain students as HE consumers or to promote learning beyond memorizing facts and concepts explained by the teacher.
Methods
Research Design
A mixed methods design was chosen to quantify the opinions and perceptions of teachers and students regarding the implementation of active learning methods in HE (quantitative), and to explore the perceptions and experiences of students and teachers with active learning methods (qualitative). The use of mixed methods is a well-established research practice across numerous disciplines (Watkins & Gioia, 2015), but debates regarding the compatibility of paradigms associated with qualitative and quantitative research methods persist (Liu, 2022). In the present study, a complementarity stance was adopted so that both approaches explored the overlapping but different aspects of the same phenomenon (Liu, 2022). By combining two surveys, 12 teacher interviews, and a student focus group, the researchers were able to achieve a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the subject matter. This approach allowed them to draw upon both the data and participant perspectives (Creswell, 2014; Hesse-Biber, 2010). The study followed an interpretivist paradigm as it sought diverse perspectives of active learning from teachers and students without aiming to explain or generalize the findings (McChesney & Aldridge, 2019).
Data Collection
The quantitative method comprised two ad hoc surveys, one for teachers and another for students, each consisting of three sections of questions: (1) socio-demographic data, (2) closed multiple-choice items, and (3) open-ended questions. The first section collected demographic data, including age, gender, university, and degree, along with role-specific data such as years of teaching experience, previous training in active learning (teachers), and years of study and current work status (students). The second section consisted of 14 common items addressing the potential benefits and constraints of active learning methods. Additionally, this section featured three teacher-specific items concerning work overload implications with these methods and student evaluations of these methods. A student-specific item centered on their work overload with active learning methods. All items were rated on a scale from (1) “Strongly disagree” to (7) “Strongly agree.” The third section comprised open-ended questions exploring: (1) teachers’ reasons for employing active learning methods, (2) students’ limitations regarding active learning, and (3) other obstacles to active learning approaches. The open-ended questions for student-focused questions aimed to ascertain: (1) how active learning affected their work and (2) the obstacles posed by students to active learning methods.
The qualitative methods involved semi-structured interviews with teachers and a student focus group. Teacher interviews aimed to explore their experiences with active methods (Brinkmann, 2020) in two segments: (1) defining active learning approaches, exploring their rationale for this choice and its relevance to learning techniques and (2) addressing student acceptance/resistance, institutional barriers and recognition regarding the use of active learning methods. All interviews were conducted via videoconference due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
Lastly, a focus group was conducted via videoconference with students from both universities to collect information from the interaction between the participants (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Students were asked about their experiences with active learning methods, focusing on (1) their understanding and assessment of these methods, (2) the impact of active learning on their learning outcomes, and (3) the challenges and barriers associated with active learning.
Participants
Participants consisted of teachers and students from Nursing, Law, and Education degree programs which encompass subjects such as Pedagogy and Social Education (Table 1). Nursing education in HE focuses on professional competency acquisition (Estrada-Masllorens, et al., 2016), while legal education aims to furnish future legal professionals with the requisite knowledge and skills to navigate the intricate legal and legislative frameworks. However, contemporary Law curricula prioritize technical proficiency over the development of critical thinking abilities (Gascón Cuenca, 2022). Notably, all Education degree programs incorporate active learning instruction.
Survey Participants.
The surveys were distributed through the mailing lists of the respective faculties, ensuring anonymity and confidentiality with no collection of identifying data. The first section of each survey outlined the research objectives and sought informed consent from participants. Involvement in the study was voluntary, and no financial or academic incentives were offered.
Participants’ teaching experience was almost equal, averaging 15 years (23≤; 22>), predominately full-time faculty (n = 31). Students were evenly distributed across the first four academic years of their studies (25.42% first year, 25.42% second year, 28.81% third year, and 18.64% fourth year), with 51.7% (n = 61) balancing work commitments with studies.
Twelve teachers were interviewed, with six from each university and four from each degree program. These participants, all full-time lecturers with more than 5 years of teaching experience, were recognized by their peers for actively implementing active learning methods. Notably, the majority were women (n = 9).
The focus group comprised 7 students from both participant universities, with 5 from Education degree programs and 2 from Law. Participants were chosen based on their active involvement in class discussions, with the majority being women (n = 6).
The study adhered to international guidelines for human research, ensuring principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, confidentiality, and anonymity. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Professional Institute for Development of the University of Barcelona.
Data Analysis
Quantitative analysis of agreement ratings for the survey items was conducted using SPSS software (version 25). Descriptive statistics (frequency, mean, standard deviation) were computed, alongside nonparametric tests for group comparison (Mann–Whitney U, Kruskal–Wallis K, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test; Hollander et al., 2014).
Responses to the open-ended questions underwent qualitative content analysis using an inductive approach. This systematic and adaptable technique involves condensing, classifying, and reducing textual fragments into manageable content categories using explicit coding rules and focusing on selected aspects of meaning (Schreier, 2014). Invalid responses, deemed unclear or irrelevant, were excluded from the analysis after careful review. Valid responses underwent classification involving three distinct phases: (1) open coding, (2) category creation, and (3) abstraction (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). The final categorization of responses to each open-ended question was consistently data-driven, with the coding frame providing a valid description of the material (Schreier, 2014). Since participants were free to provide multiple valid responses, each fragment was individually coded and tallied as separate answers unless they shared identical codes or were separated by a response with a different code. For instance, if a participant gave three responses to a single open-ended question, where the first and third shared a common code, they were counted as two distinct answers if the second response bore a different code.
The qualitative content analysis of both the semistructured interviews and the focus groups followed a mixed inductive-deductive approach. Responses and comments about the study questions were classified into (1) definitions of active learning methods, (2) definitions of learning (for students only), (3) reasons for using these learning methods (for teachers only), (4) the relationship between active learning methods and student learning and motivation, and (5) challenges and constraints associated with active learning in HE. All authors participated in the coding of the qualitative data and inter-coder agreement was reached. Since all authors used active learning methods in their classes, critical reflection was needed to minimize our own biases in the data analysis.
Finally, contrasting the results of the distinct analyses facilitated the complementarity of both data and informants. The qualitative data analysis extracted from the semistructured interviews and focus group enriched the quantitative data by providing deeper insights.
Results
What Are Active Learning Methods?
During the interviews, teachers highlighted different aspects of active learning methods. Most of the responses (7) underscored the students’ activity and participation: “it’s a methodology that activates the student’s attitude and behavior in his/her learning process” (T7); “it’s working with methods that make the students participate” (T8). Many responses (5) pointed out the shift in the teacher’s role from knowledge conveyor to facilitator or mentor, guiding the learning process. One teacher noted, “The teacher shifts from instructor to mediator, guide, in the learning process” (T5). Some teachers (4) emphasized the student-centered nature of these methods, with one mentioning that “the student becomes the main protagonist of his or her learning” (T11), while three teachers mentioned shared student responsibility and decision-making.
In the focus group, students defined active learning methods as pedagogical strategies that activate their interests and participation. However, there was deliberation regarding whether traditional lectures fell under active learning strategies. One student remarked, “We shouldn’t think that everything that’s new must be done differently; lectures are still completely valid.” In response to another student’s viewpoint that lectures might not be considered active due to passive listening, the former argued that despite their unidirectional nature, lectures could still engage students and pique interest.
How Do Teachers and Students Value Active Learning Methods in HE?
Both students and teachers rated their agreement on active learning methods (ALMs) using a scale from 1 to 7 across the same set of 14 items. The Mann–Whitney U test revealed statistically significant discrepancies in four items (Table 2).
Comparison of Ratings by Teachers and Students.
p < .05.
The analysis revealed that teachers were significantly more optimistic than the students regarding the positive impacts and the student engagement facilitated by ALMs in face-to-face classes. Furthermore, teachers were more aligned with the notion of ALMs enhancing teachers’ dedication to monitoring student learning progress and acknowledged the challenges posed by larger groups using ALMs in face-to-face classes compared to students. In the remaining 10 items where no significant differences were observed (p > .05), teachers consistently held more favorable perceptions of ALMs than students.
Certain closed items were exclusive to each group. While teachers generally agreed with students’ positive assessment of ALMs (M = 6.45, SD = 0.73), the students’ endorsement of ALMs was slightly lower than that of teachers (M = 5.79, SD = 1.49). Notably, teachers agreed more with their own work overload caused by ALMs (M = 5.8, SD = 1.39) than the students did with theirs (M = 3.48, SD = 1.63).
The Relation Between Learning and Active Learning Methods for Teachers and Students
The interviews provided insights into the teachers’ perceptions of the relationship between ALMs and learning. All teachers acknowledged the potential for ALMs to elicit transformations in student learning, offering diverse perspectives on this relationship. Half of the teachers affirmed that ALMs foster a distinct form of learning characterized by enhanced depth, critical thinking, meaningfulness, creativity, and lasting impact, moving beyond rote memorization. One teacher illustrated this by stating, “In an Emergency Room, you have seconds to make a decision, and such decisions don’t work with memoristic learning; they work with skills, knowing why and when you do it” (T1). Some teachers (5) stressed the necessity to develop professional competencies and a professional approach, while others (4) viewed this form of learning as intrinsically tied to future professional endeavors. Explaining how ALMs helped student learning, four teachers elucidated the motivational impetus catalyzed by them, with three noting that within active learning contexts, “learning was inevitable.” However, four teachers expressed reservations regarding the learning effectiveness of ALMs in facilitating outcomes. Among them, three underscored the primacy of foundational knowledge irrespective of methods, while one queried the effectiveness of active learning in promoting knowledge acquisition, given its emphasis on non-memorization.
When reflecting on the contributions of ALMs to their learning, students in the focus group delved into their perceptions of the learning process. Most of the examples and definitions of learning highlighted its applicability to other contexts and its connection with previous learnings. Rather than relying on rote memorization, students emphasized the acquisition of practical skills that could be applied to new situations or concepts and effectively communicated in their own words. This capability made them feel valued and useful. In addition, students clearly distinguished between mere understanding and genuine internalization of concepts. They stressed the importance of practical application, where theoretical constructs prove their real-world utility. Furthermore, they acknowledged the personalized nature of learning, recognizing the impact of emotions and personal relevance in shaping learning outcomes. As one student said, “If it makes me think, if I take it to bed, if I’m on the subway thinking about it, I think this is my benchmark.” In the context of ALMs, practical scenarios provided insights into the causal relationship between methods and learning outcomes, problem-solving, case analysis, and idea discussion, all associated with their definitions of learning. Furthermore, ALMs were recognized for their ability to create classroom environments that mirror real-life situations and prepare students for future professional engagements. As one student noted, “You learn more with ALMs because (…) they require you to participate in them. And participating means you must think; if you think, you are reorganizing your knowledge.” Overall, students emphasized their active role in the learning process and highlighted the value of collaborative interactions with peers, which one student underscores thus, “Active learning improves your learning (…) because you do it, you create it, and you do it in groups, and it’s all the more enriching.”
Teachers’ Perception of the Limitations and Obstacles to Active Learning Methods
In the survey, teachers responded to two open-ended questions on the potential challenges associated with ALMs. The first question focused on students’ limitations with ALMs, while the second addressed other obstacles faced by teachers. Teachers’ valid responses (n = 39) to the first question chiefly highlighted students’ passivity (38.46%) and their resistance to taking on the workload associated with ALMs (25.64%). For instance, one teacher noted, “Some students show little interest, preferring to take a final test, and that is it.” Other responses mentioned challenges with group work (10.26%) and a lack of active learning culture (10.26%), with one teacher noting, “They aren’t always accustomed to these methods and don’t grasp them.” Only one response mentioned potential mislearning due to ALMs, while 5 responses (12.82%) stated that students did not hinder the implementation of ALMs. Regarding other obstacles to ALMs, teachers provided 41 valid responses encompassing various issues. Their responses primarily highlighted structural challenges such as inadequate physical spaces (19.51%), limited interaction in online classes (19.51%), and disproportionately large groups (14.63%). Some responses attributed obstacles to students’ lack of active learning culture (14.63%) and passivity (7.32%). A few answers (12.19%) mentioned deficiencies in teacher training, support, and coordination with other teachers, while two (4.88%) did not identify any hindrances to ALMs.
During the interviews, teachers discussed the students’ responses to ALMs and the institutional support for these methods. The comments on students’ reactions to ALMs varied greatly. At one extreme, two teachers noted a notable absence of student resistance to ALMs. One teacher, attributing this phenomenon to students’ exposure to such methods during secondary education, stated, “We should focus more on the new methods used in schools; it’s a shame that our students, who were doing problem-based learning [at school] (…) then they arrive at university (…) and then don’t [use these methods]” (T11). Furthermore, four teachers expressed optimism regarding students’ adaptability to ALMs while acknowledging the potential for initial resistance that could be overcome with time, avoiding task overload and elucidating the purpose and benefits of ALMs to students. In this respect, one teacher emphasized, “You must help them until they finally understand why (…) you have to ask [them] for trust” (T1). Conversely, three teachers observed some student resistance characterized by ignoring tasks and passive classroom behavior. Finally, at the other end of the spectrum three teachers described all students as exceptionally passive and opposed to additional work, participating in class, or sharing with their peers. “I believe this stiff resistance is mainly due to a lack of participatory culture, lack of solidarity, lack of companionship” (T9). Among the three teachers who discussed students’ prior schooling experience, two viewed the transition toward ALMs in secondary schools as beneficial preparation for university, whereas one attributed students’ initial resistance to ALMs to entrenched traditional teaching methods.
Furthermore, dissatisfaction was expressed concerning universities’ support and recognition of ALMs. Most teachers (9) lamented the lack of institutional flexibility, unfavorable conditions, and inadequate recognition of active learning practices. Several teachers expressed concerns about the lack of institutional flexibility regarding group sizes, infrastructure (e.g., classrooms with fixed chairs and tables) and curricula. Some teachers qualified the lack of institutional recognition for active learning. Four of them drew attention to the broader issue of undervaluing the act of teaching itself, as illustrated by one teacher’s statement: “I believe that teaching is undervalued. So, if it remains undervalued, how will active learning be recognized?” (T8). Two teachers suggested that institutional recognition could follow after teachers have invested significant effort and enthusiasm in active learning, with one of them adding that collective projects could garner more institutional support. “I am honestly telling you like it is, there is little institutional support. To implement active learning, you need a lot of enthusiasm from the teacher or team. Once the institution recognizes the benefits, it will intervene” (T6). Additionally, another participant noted the challenges of implementing active learning when not all team members share a similar perspective.
Students’ Perceptions of the Limitations and Obstacles to Active Learning Methods
Two survey questions probed students’ perspectives on the potential challenges of ALMs. As respondents were allowed to provide multiple answers, their feedback encompassed both positive and negative aspects of ALMs. The first question sought to ascertain whether ALMs facilitated student learning, while the second inquired about the perceived obstacles to ALMs. Of the 150 valid responses to the first question, 95 (63.33%) viewed ALMs positively, while 55 (36.67%) criticized or complained about them.
Most of the positive assessments of ALMs (42.11%) cited improvements in students’ learning, such as “enhancing problem-solving skills,”“helping learners grasp information better,” and “improving understanding.” Additionally, a considerable portion of respondents (27.37%) highlighted the motivational benefits of ALMs, including comments: “The class is more enjoyable,” or “[it] makes students work more engaged and productive.” Some responses conveyed positive sentiments about ALMs without giving a reason (10.53%). In comparison, others lauded the inclusive and student-centered nature of active learning (9.47%), emphasized the interactive dynamics among peers and between students and teachers (7.37%), or extolled the organizational benefits afforded by active learning (3.2%).
In contrast, negative appraisals (n = 55) predominantly consisted of complaints and criticisms of ALMs. Most expressed concerns about workload (34.55%) and issues related to participation, organization, and management (27.27%). For example, respondents note, “They can involve a good deal of extra work” and “the problem occurs in the group meetings.” Several respondents questioned the suitability of ALMs for online classes (12.73%), while others mentioned the difficulties of fairly evaluating students when using ALMs (7.27%). In this context, comments included “It’s difficult to assess the individual contribution of each participant.” Additionally, three responses (5.45%) offered criticism of ALMs without specifying a reason. Many responses highlighted unique concerns, including feelings of stress and anxiety (2), boredom (2), and perceptions of limited learning outcomes (1). Grievances focused on inadequate tools provided by teachers (1) and insufficient coordination across courses (1).
The 125 valid responses to the open-ended question concerning students’ obstacles to ALMs revealed a range of personal, interpersonal, and institutional challenges. Foremost among these were concerns regarding workload burdens attributable to ALMs (20%), students’ apathy or reluctance to engage (17.6%), and difficulties in participating in online classes (16%), with one response stating: “It’s tough to participate when you don’t feel like it, especially if you feel forced to.” Personal barriers, such as anxiety and apprehension about personal exposure (9.6%) and perceived deficits in participatory culture (8%), were expressed as: “shame, ridicule, failure… lack of trust,”“the lack of knowledge about these methods.” Moreover, some responses noted deficiencies in students’ communication and organization skills (7.2%) as well as in teachers’ (6.4%). A few responses (4.8%) raised concerns about class size, with complaints about the marginal weight assigned to ALMs in the final grade. Notably, 9.6% of the responses failed to recognize any obstacles to ALMs.
The discussion regarding the issues and challenges of ALMs for students encompassed various considerations. Primarily, there was a consensus among students regarding many students’ aversion to these methods, suggesting the need for an adaptation period due to the novelty of active learning for many. Despite acknowledging the learning and overall satisfaction derived from ALMs, concerns were voiced that their widespread integration across courses has led to an increased workload. In describing the demands imposed by necessitating preparatory tasks (e.g., reading texts), coupled with the expectation of active class participation, students lamented a general lack of engagement, noting that only a select few demonstrate consistent involvement: “in the end, it is always the same people who take part and share their opinions, the ones that take their university learning seriously.” Finally, students expressed empathy with teachers, suggesting that the demands of additional preparatory work and requisite research imposed by ALMs may outweigh the benefits conferred upon teachers.
Discussion
The understanding of active learning methods by both teachers and students underscored the crucial role of student activities, participation, and motivation, consistent with the third theme identified by Doolittle et al. (2023). This emphasis on student engagement and motivation prompts whether traditional lectures can be considered active learning experiences if students exhibit sufficient motivation to participate by posing and answering questions. The answer hinges on our conceptualization of learning and the necessary activity level for an approach to genuinely qualify as “active.” Specifically, do students learn more in these active learning classes, or do they merely constitute another form of performance (Gourlay, 2017)?
Benefits in learning stood out as the primary rationale for the teachers’ adoption of active learning methods. Most of the teachers saw active learning as the only way of achieving some specific learning outcomes, even though a few worried about the lack of memoristic learning. Similarly, students acknowledged the learning advantages of active learning methods, how they created authentic learning opportunities (e.g., problem solving) and surpassed traditional lecture-based learning. However, some teachers viewed active learning methods merely as tools to engage students who will still need the memorization-focused learning of lectures. Interestingly, even students who acknowledge the benefits of active learning may still prefer lectures. Their resistance to fully embracing active methods cannot be solely attributed to their assessment of learning opportunities. This point is further supported below.
Both teachers and students acknowledged the motivational benefits of active learning, especially in courses perceived as inherently dull. While students linked motivation with learning, teachers might overestimate their students’ approval of active learning while underestimating the challenges these methods pose. Teachers often displayed confidence in the effectiveness of active learning methods and student satisfaction, seldom expressing doubts or dilemmas about their implementation (Scager et al., 2017). In contrast, students candidly acknowledged the stress induced by these methods—the fear and vulnerability associated with exposing themselves, as well as the anxiety provoked by specific learning activities (Remedios et al., 2008; Richards & Richards, 2013). Some teachers may need to embrace change and innovation to sustain motivation, but assumptions that active learning is inherently more appealing than traditional lectures for students might not always hold true. Research on active learning methods often overlooks teachers’ own motivation needs. Our findings suggest that certain teachers struggle to adapt these methods to their students’ diverse needs and circumstances, balancing their own motivational needs with those of their students. Overconfidence with active learning methods may inadvertently lead some teachers to overlook potential challenges and stressors students face.
The experience of students with active learning was diverse, involving collaborative group work that both reinforced the benefits of peer learning and underscored challenges related to equitable participation in group tasks (Grover et al., 2018; Stevens, 2015). While these challenges are acknowledged, some teachers tend to attribute them solely to individual student factors (e.g., passivity), overlooking broader systemic issues. It is crucial to recognize that HE students should have the autonomy to organize their group work, while teachers play a vital role in fostering cooperative skills among them.
Participating teachers grappled with a perceived lack of institutional recognition, highlighting various logistical challenges. These included a shortage of suitable physical spaces, large class sizes, and institutional rigidity, all hindering the flexible adoption of active learning methods (Rivkin & Gim, 2013). In addition, some teachers lamented the undervaluation of teaching within HE institutions, which often prioritize scientific research over pedagogy. Despite acknowledging the burdensome nature of their workloads, teachers encountered institutional indifference or, at best, tentative recognition following significant efforts to prepare and implement active learning classes.
In addition to institutional barriers, teachers cited students’ passivity and resistance toward the additional workload associated with active learning methods, a sentiment partially echoed by students themselves. Despite recognizing the motivational and learning benefits of these learning methods, some students deemed them unworthy of the accompanying overload (Gasmi & Al Nadabi, 2023). Consequently, large-group lectures persist as a cost-effective teaching method favored by both HE institutions (Roberts, 2019) and students alike. For students, the magnetism of lectures may lie in their dull yet stress-free nature, allowing for passive engagement through listening, studying, and test-taking. To counteract this preference, many teachers sought to elucidate the steps and benefits of proposed activities, urging students to place their confidence in their effectiveness. This practice can potentially change students’ perceptions of active learning, but it is closely linked to the teachers’ assessment of students’ learning culture, which can be a contentious issue. While students and teachers seemed to acknowledge the lack of active learning or participatory culture among students (Gasmi & Al Nadabi, 2023), active learning methods have been employed in schools and HE for some time. Nonetheless, lectures may persist as the default teaching method in HE, highlighting the importance of clarifying, justifying, and garnering acceptance of active learning methods by HE institutions, teachers, and students. Further research is warranted to explore whether explaining the goals and necessity of certain active learning methods can effectively diminish the allure of lectures and alleviate students’ resistance to active learning.
Limitations and Conclusions
The present study has three limitations. Firstly, the sample sizes in the two surveys and the student focus group were restricted. A larger number of survey participants would have facilitated more generalizable results, while a greater number of students in the focus group could have enriched the findings with additional details and nuances. Secondly, a lack of participant balance was evident, with a disproportionate number of students compared to teachers responding to the survey, and vice versa for the qualitative component of the research. Finally, a lack of diversity among participants, particularly across academic disciplines, presents a limitation. Including teachers and students from other degree programs, such as engineering, social studies, or arts, could provide alternative viewpoints and insights on active learning, an aspect further studies should address.
This study offers four conclusions. Firstly, teachers appear to show more enthusiasm for active learning methods than their students, yet this may inadvertently blind them to certain student concerns and ambivalence. When teachers interpret resistance to active learning as mere passivity or individualism, critical changes, such as improved coordination among teachers employing these learning methods or targeted support for students learning to collaborate, may remain elusive. To foster effective active learning, teachers and innovative teaching groups must move beyond isolated classroom modifications and actively engage with their students, addressing issues related to cooperative work and shared responsibilities. Secondly, the use of active learning methods in HE is associated with motivational issues, but some students may feel threatened by methods that include participating in debates or sharing ideas and experiences with peers. Rather than assuming universal appeal, successful implementation of these methods requires a nuanced understanding of individual student reactions. Accommodating diverse perspectives ensures that what engages teachers and the majority of students does not jeopardize the wellbeing and learning of a minority. Thirdly, traditional lecture-based teaching followed by a test continues to be the primary teaching mode in HE, attracting students for its alleged effectiveness, simplicity and less unexpected additional workload. However, for certain teachers and students, lectures are insufficient or even hindering in facilitating effective learning or preparing students for future professional endeavors. Therefore, discussion and comparisons of teaching methods in HE must challenge the notion of learning (Padilla-Petry & Vadeboncoeur, 2020), dispelling the fallacy of equating results between active learning instruction and lecture-based instruction. Lastly, innovative teaching practices appear to receive scant institutional recognition within an academic context prioritizing scientific research. The use of active learning methods seems to remain at the discretion of individual teachers, without explicit endorsement or discussion of necessary conditions by HE institutions. Conventional classroom layouts designed for lectures pose logistical challenges for active learning, constraining teachers’ choices. Institutional recognition of teaching in HE should begin by acknowledging the plurality of teaching methods and the dedication of some teachers to active learning and improving their way of teaching. Recognizing the rights of these teachers entails allowing them to depart from lecture-based instruction and addressing physical and logistical constraints to facilitate alternative teaching approaches.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article presents partial results of the research project “Active methods in hybrid classes: fostering student engagement in higher education in times of pandemics” funded by the “Convocatòria d’Ajuts a la Recerca en Docència Universitària de l’Institut de Desenvolupament Professional de la Universitat de Barcelona REDICE-20” (REDICE20-2780). The publication of this article was also funded by the “Ajuts per donar suport a l’activitat científica dels grups de recerca de Catalunya” (Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitarirs i de Recerca—SGR-Cat 2021-00667).
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.