CENTRE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
12 Jan 2014
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
AARHUS UNIVERSITET
Active Learning in Higher Education:
Concepts and research
Kim J. Herrmann, Msc., PhD
kh@clu.au.dk
pRÆSEN
TATION
CENTRE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
School of Business and Social Sciences
Aarhus University
Active Learning: Theory and Research
12 Jan 2014
What is active learning?
Cognitive activity (Biggs 2012, Mayer 2004)
vs. behavioral activity
Two major components (Entwistle 2009):
1. ”How much”: Organized effort
2. ”How”: learning strategies  deep and
surface approaches to learning
Learning strategies are not stable  can be
influenced by carefully designed learning
environments (e.g teaching methods or
assessment) (Eley 1992, Prosser & Trigwell
1999)
2
CENTRE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
School of Business and Social Sciences
Aarhus University
Active Learning: Theory and Research
12 Jan 2014
Biggs (2012:40)
3
CENTRE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
School of Business and Social Sciences
Aarhus University
Active Learning: Theory and Research
12 Jan 2014
Research on active learning strategies
› Overall, the empirical evidence supports
that deep approaches and organized effort
improves academic performance (Marton
& Säljö 2005, Enwistle 2009, Biggs &Tang
2011).
› Recent meta-analysis (Richardson et al.
2012)
› Y=academic performance (GPA)
› r+deep= 0.14*, N(k)=5,211(23)
› r+surface=-0.18*, N(k)=4,838(22)
› r+effort= 0.32*, N(k)=8,862(19)
4
CENTRE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
School of Business and Social Sciences
Aarhus University
Active Learning: Theory and Research
12 Jan 2014
Research on teaching for active learning
› Teachers’ focus: University teachers who
focus on the students learning activities
(rather than how best to cover the syllabus
themselves) are more likely to have
students applying deep approaches to
learning (Trigwell, Prosser & Waterhouse
1999)
› Interactive engagement: Positiv correlation
between degree of interactivity in lectures
(i.e. clickers) and degree of conceptual
understanding have been found (Hake
1999).
› Students’ perspective: Students have
different preferences for ”good” teaching
(Parpala et al. 2011) and they perceive the
context differently (Prosser & Trigwell 1999)
›  some sceptisism should be anticipated
(Kember et al. 2003, 2004)
5
CENTRE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
School of Business and Social Sciences
Aarhus University
Active Learning: Theory and Research
12 Jan 2014
Conclusion and implications
› Teaching requiring student activity is more
likely to promote deep approaches to
learning and organised effort ( academic
performance)
› However, no ‘one-size-fits-all’ (Hattie 2009)
and sometimes student-centred teaching
meets sceptisism (Baeten et al. 2012)
Teaching for active learning is more likely to
succeed when students find the activities
meaningful and worthwhile 
› Clear instructions
› Teaching methods <=> intend learning outcomes
(”læringsmål”)
› Teaching methods <=> assessment critieria (mode
of examination)
› Introduced early in the bachelor programme
› Active learning appreciated within the
department
6
CENTRE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
School of Business and Social Sciences
Aarhus University
Active Learning: Theory and Research
12 Jan 2014
References
› Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to
learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5, 243-260.
› Biggs, J. (2012). What the Student Does: Teaching for Enhanced Learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 31, 39-55.
› Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student does. (4 ed.) Open University Press.
› Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for Understanding at University: Deep Approaches and Distinctive Ways of Thinking (Universities Into the
21st Century). (1 ed.) Palgrave Macmillan.
› Entwistle, N. & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic
environments. Higher Education, 19, 169-194.
› Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for
introductory physics courses. Am.J.Phys., 66, 64-74.
› Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. (1 ed.) Routledge.
› Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. (1 ed.) (vols. 1) London and New York: Routledge.
› Kember, D., Jenkins, W., & Ng, K. C. (2003). Adult Students' Perceptions of Good Teaching as a Function of Their Conceptions of
Leanring--Part 1. Influencing the Development of Self-Determination. Studies in Continuing Education, 25, 239-251.
7
CENTRE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
School of Business and Social Sciences
Aarhus University
Active Learning: Theory and Research
12 Jan 2014
References
› Kember, D., Jenkins, W., & Ng, K. C. (2004). Adult Students' Perceptions of Good Teaching as a Function of Their Conceptions of
Learning--Part 2. Implications for the Evaluation of Teaching. Studies in Continuing Education, 26, 81-97.
› Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. (2005). The Experience of Learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
› Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976). On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I - Outcome and Process. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 46, 4-11.
› Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning: The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction.
Amercian Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
› Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Rytkönen, H. (2010). Students' conceptions of good teaching in three different disciplines.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 549-563.
› Prosser, M. T. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education. SRHE and Open
University Press.
› Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological Correlates of University Students' Academic Performance: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 138[2], 353-387.
› Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to
learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.
8