education strategies articles

• Our Mission

Teaching Strategies That Support Students’ Individuality

When teachers make a point of recognizing the diversity of their students, they can help all students make deeper connections to what they’re learning.

Your students this year will come from many different backgrounds and hold different learning expectations. Because they bring a wealth of knowledge and experience into the classroom, a very effective approach to teaching is one that will consider and take advantage of their various cultures, backgrounds, skills, and languages. I’d like to share some teaching strategies that are responsive to students’ cultures and individuality—methods that you might find helpful for students in middle and high school.

Setting Up Your Classroom

Do the posters on the walls reflect a diverse community of learners? Will your students see themselves reflected in the books you’ve selected for your classroom library? Plan to use tools and resources that reflect diversity across backgrounds and appeal to a wide variety of cultures. Some students may come from homes with a strong oral tradition and show engagement and interest in the class activities by speaking up in class.

Others may have trouble sitting still and being quiet; they may benefit from a designated area in the classroom where they can move around during lessons and incorporate movement into their studies. Plan to set up different learning stations that support different learning methods, and rotate students between tasks. One station might include watching a video, another might require students to read an article, and a third might involve creating a piece of artwork or constructing a puzzle.

Allow for free and flexible time whenever possible, so that students can use class time to their advantage. When possible, allow students to work in the way they prefer that day: Some might want to work independently and quietly while others listen to audiobooks or watch a video; and some students might opt for group activities, like playing a game that has learning objectives or collaborating to complete an assignment.

Getting to Know Your Students

Ask students what they valued and appreciated in past classes. Ask them one-on-one questions about their hobbies and extracurricular activities, or conduct a class-wide survey where students fill out an interest-based questionnaire. Incorporate your findings into your lesson plans; for example, if several of your students are soccer fans, you might include soccer references in word problems for math class.

Ask a lot of questions, but also be mindful that one student should not be seen as the representative of an entire cultural group—it’s important that you see your students as individuals because they may not identify with their cultural background.

It’s not a bad idea to visit Harvard University’s Project Implicit to check yourself for implicit biases you may have about certain cultural groups and then work to counter them in your classroom.

Planning Engaging Lessons

We are wired to understand and pass on stories to one another; stories activate parts of the brain in a way that allows for a deep sense of emotional engagement with the lesson. So, whenever possible, plan to turn learning into a narrative and use storytelling whenever possible, especially when dealing with math and science. Word problems in math may be a little less abstract for students than just dealing with numbers, and this can make it easier for students to grasp concepts that may be difficult for them.

Some students may come from homes with a strong oral tradition, and storytelling in science may be helpful for them, and for all of your students. For example, you could explain world weather events by showing students examples of unusual weather events. Storytelling easily extends into other subject areas like social sciences and history. By telling stories about past events or present social conditions, you’ll make the subject material easier to grasp.

Try making learning a game—some of your students may enjoy gaming, and this will help them feel comfortable in the classroom. Set up incentives for completing a task successfully, such as stickers or badges; write an instruction manual for an assignment with a rubric; and track the class’s progress on a chart that is competitive in nature.

In most lesson plans, you can use problem-solving-based strategies. For example, you could discuss the logistical challenges of hosting a festival, or present your students with a sociological or anthropological issue that needs to be addressed, like the degradation of the environment in an area populated by people. Allow students to pitch ideas for projects, and then set up objectives for the lessons and let them use their imaginations to formulate ideas for lesson plans and activities that allow them to showcase their talents.

Whatever strategy you use, it’s important to engage all students, including English language learners, who might be reluctant to raise their hands. Every student should feel they have a place in your classroom community. 

Leveraging Collaboration

Break your class into collaborative learning groups, and encourage students to work together to solve problems and complete tasks that you assign to them; this allows them to develop in-depth collaborative relationships over time, retain information better, and gain a better understanding of diversity as something that extends beyond just ethnicity and cultural background.

Additionally, remember your partners who aren’t in the classroom—the parents and guardians. They are important in children’s education. Make sure to communicate the course material you will be covering in each unit by sending letters home with your students that explain the topics you’ll be discussing and what is expected of each student in terms of homework. Make sure that your students’ parents and guardians know that you are available to answer their questions. Keep in mind that some of them may not be able to communicate clearly with you, especially if they are learning English themselves.

Incorporating culturally responsive teaching practices help make learning relevant for a diverse group of students and increase cultural understanding in the classroom among various groups. Try some of the previously mentioned strategies and see which ones work for you. Any of them can help increase your students’ feelings of belonging and lead them to realize that they have a stake in their education.

Classroom Q&A

With larry ferlazzo.

In this EdWeek blog, an experiment in knowledge-gathering, Ferlazzo will address readers’ questions on classroom management, ELL instruction, lesson planning, and other issues facing teachers. Send your questions to [email protected]. Read more from this blog.

4 Instructional Strategies Teachers Can Count On

• Share article

Today’s post is the latest in a series sharing effective instructional strategies that can be used across content areas.

‘The Spacing Effect’

Neven Holland is a Ph.D. student at the UCLA School of Education and Information Studies, a contributing writer for Edutopia , and has served as a tenured elementary teacher at Treadwell Elementary in the Memphis-Shelby County schools in Tennessee. He is also a 2022 Tennessee state finalist for the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching:

Instructional strategies that improve student outcomes are the heartbeat of any classroom. Knowing when and when not to use specific strategies is part of the craft and precision of teaching. As a mathematics teacher, I have tried the same and different strategies depending on the students in my care each year to maximize their potential to engage with the practices for mathematical standards .

One strategy that stands out is the spacing effect, which applies across multiple content areas and grades. There is a temptation among school leaders, district leaders, education consultants, and other stakeholders to put tremendous amounts of pressure on educators to elevate student achievement and knowledge in a short amount of time.

Understanding spacing has been a hallmark of helping my students remember and understand the content. With spacing, researchers define this as “studying information across two or more sessions that are separated (i.e., spaced apart or distributed) in time.” They found that students remember more and are likely prepared for their final assessment when information is strategically revisited throughout the school year. The Edutopia article “Why Students Forget—and What You Can Do About It” was helpful with additional strategies to support student retention of knowledge.

I can help my students retain and grasp information with proficiency before they enter the next grade. I saw that students could understand more challenging concepts like multidigit division or how to break down multistep word problems when they had multiple opportunities to practice the content and see how it related to other standards and concepts.

Apart from just preparing for an end-of-year assessment, students can take in the content when they do not feel pressure to master something in a couple of days or within a week. Sometimes, educators must ask themselves how many things they have mastered in a few days. I suspect most people will find very few things in their arsenal that they can perform with 100 percent proficiency and accuracy. But we expect that students will somehow be able to do this.

Suppose students struggle to integrate and evaluate literacy content in diverse media and formats, the differences between force and motion, or the American Revolution. Mastery, then, is a marathon, not a sprint. Some students will understand it immediately, but others may need more productive struggle and more opportunities to review the content over the semester, quarter, or year. Just because we taught it in October within our instructional unit, students likely still need a refresher in February, for example, on how this connects to the bigger picture concerning the state standards. Students naturally forget like adults, and relying on the fact that we have already taught it is not enough.

Spacing can also be cleverly executed if a curriculum links prior lessons to the current one, where students can see relationships between the more significant ideas and see how lessons build on each other in complexity. As researchers on the spacing effect found, many curricula do not offer this opportunity for spacing with an embedded review for each lesson, so teachers may need to supplement from previous lessons where they find time during morning meetings, warm-up activities, Do Nows, academic support periods, small groups, or during review days or weeks.

Spacing is one instructional strategy that left me less worried and stressed if students were not grasping the content immediately. Understanding that I may need to space out and revisit some standards periodically gave me hope that genuine, deeper learning is not a microwave process.

‘Speed Dating’

For 16 years, Diana Laufenberg taught grades 7-12 students social studies in Wisconsin, Kansas, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. In 2013, she partnered with Chris Lehmann to start Inquiry Schools , a nonprofit working to create and support student-centered learning environments that are inquiry-driven, project-based, and utilize modern technology. She currently serves as the executive director and lead teacher for Inquiry Schools:

I love the function of speed learning (speed dating knockoff) for a number of reasons. It is incredibly simple, fast, and requires all students to actively participate. Tips for setting up speed dating:

• It is best to use this strategy when students have something unique to share. This could be the first day of a research project where they are all spitballing ideas for research, it could be mid-project when they are needing feedback. Perhaps each student was required to review a unique current event, and they would share their takeaways or each student identified a particular moment in the text that was evidence of x or that resonated with them or they use it to discuss the solution to a unique math problem, or, or, or. The most important piece is that each student has something unique to share.
• I often lined up desks or had students sit across from each other at tables. The best situation is a classroom configuration of seats that allows for relatively easy movement.
• Only one side of the desks or tables is in motion and always in the same direction. One trick is to encourage students to sit next to their friends (not across from), which will then set them up not to actually talk to said friends during the activity.
• Create a graphic organizer or something that can collect some takeaways for the students. If this is used for project feedback, students could use the rubric to give specific suggestions and feedback for each person.
• Set a timer. Do not just wing it here. Keeping a nice pace and regular movement is important. I would often have students chat for no more than five minutes (often less) and then shift.
• Set a limit. Students will do this with a decent amount of intention for about 4-5 switches, then (at least my students) started to lose interest.

I love this as a strategy because it forces each student to engage in 1:1 conversation with a range of classmates. There is nowhere to hide in this activity, but it isn’t “public” so the potential for students to participate is high. I wouldn’t recommend doing this more than once a month (or so) as it can feel overly formulaic if used too frequently.

Keisha Rembert is a lifelong learner, equity advocate, and award-winning educator. She is the author of The Antiracist English Language Arts Classroom , a doctoral student, and an assistant professor/DEI coordinator for teacher preparation at National Louis University. Prior to entering teacher education, Keisha spent more than 15 years teaching middle school English and U.S. history:

Every lesson, every part of my lessons are tied to visuals. In a highly visual world, I am constantly leveraging and fortifying students’ visual thinking and literacy. I realize that being able to process and understand images is something this generation of students has been doing since birth. While not an easy skill, it is one that is second nature for them, so I am using this skill to connect visuals in all their forms—pictures, art, media, etc.—to concepts as referents and scaffolds for the learning to come. In our classroom, visuals become the frame through which we explore learning.

I have witnessed the transformative impact of visual imagery across various subjects. When teaching writing, visuals serve as powerful prompts, inspiring students’ imagination and helping them generate ideas. In my history class, visuals bring historical events to life, enabling students to empathize with the past and make connections to the present. When paired with complex literary texts, visuals provide contextual cues and enhance comprehension for students who may struggle with language or comprehension difficulties.

Integrating visual imagery and thinking into my lessons makes the content more relatable, accessible, and enjoyable for students. I also find it naturally acts as a bridge for technology integration and for students to bring other texts and connections into the lessons.

Some of my favorite visual-literacy strategies are:

• Sketch to write
• Beauty and Truth
• Visual Thinking Strategy
• OPTIC strategy

In a world of where YouTube is the second largest search, NFT’s (non-fungible tokens) hold more value than homes, and AI can generate images and tell stories in a matter of seconds, visual thinking cannot be ancillary to learning—it is integral to it. I find that visual-thinking and -literacy strategies lead to more active engagement; innovative, critical, and collaborative thinking; enhance inquiry and communication skills; and enable students to make connections among concepts and the complex visual landscape they encounter daily. Visual thinking not only enhances the learning experience in the classroom but also equips students with vital skills for the future.

Arts Integration

Kelly Mancini Becker, Ed.D., is an educator, researcher, and performing artist, currently teaching preservice teachers at the University of Vermont how to integrate the arts into classroom instruction. She is the author of Learning Through Movement in the K-6 Classroom: Integrating Theater and Dance Across the Curriculum :

In a 6 th grade science class, students enter the room and are greeted with a statement on the board: “Do you know that the water you drink today could be the same water that dinosaurs drank 65 million years ago? How might this be?” Then students are tasked with exploring how this could be possible through a creative process. Students are put into groups of five or six, given a visual model of the water cycle with a basic definition of each stage, and provided time and space to create a movement piece that models this process. Students get right to work! Students are fully engaged using their bodies to show, for example, rain and discussing the various ways they can show precipitation. One group is discussing evaporation and after reviewing the definition, decides that they need someone to act as the sun in their model.

In all cases, students are active, discussing ideas, and using scientific terminology as they work through the challenge. After about 10 minutes, students are invited to present their work. As they do, the rest of the students act as observers and are asked to identify what they are seeing, responding to prompts such as: “How does this group show precipitation?” or “What did this group add to their model that was different from the previous group?” As each performance is discussed, it is a chance to repeat terminology, clarify meaning, and engage students in meaningful dialogue about the subject area. This acts to reinforce ideas, acknowledge and celebrate student work, and improve long-term retention. At the end of this process, the initial question is revisited, and students are invited to share their thoughts on how water today could be the same as in prehistoric times.

This is an example of an arts-integrated lesson, a type of instructional strategy that utilizes the arts as a vehicle for learning. It is the best instructional strategy that I use in my classroom and can be applied to any content area. The Kennedy Center, a leader in the field, defines arts integration as “an approach to teaching in which students construct and demonstrate understanding through an art form. Students engage in a creative process which connects an art form and another subject area and meets evolving objectives in both” (kennedy-center.org) . Other examples of arts-integrated lessons are creating a song based on the moon cycle, a pioneer musical about Westward Expansion, photo journals about the elements of a story, or a math dance that explores shapes through movement. Why do I think it’s the best instructional strategy?

Because it is:

• Student-centered: Students get to approach the creative process or challenge in their own way, often focusing on the part of the content that most interests them.
• Engaging : Students are on their feet and fully active in the learning process, doing and creating rather than listening and consuming information.
• Fun : Students get to collaborate with their peers and perform.
• Inclusive: It provides an opportunity for all students to succeed, allowing for varied students to shine because a nontraditional method is being utilized, and students get to bring their whole selves to the learning process.
• Increases retention : Students are using a multimodal approach, which is known to improve long-term retention.
• Improves learning : It makes complex concepts more tangible or understandable, and students have to grapple with concepts not just consume information.
• Allows for movement: Using theater and dance gives students a chance to move their bodies, which is good for their bodies, minds, and well-being.
• Results in deeper learning: Students are making things that are real world and relevant, which requires creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.

If you do not have a lot of experience working with the arts, it may seem daunting to integrate them into lessons. However, once you gain a few key concepts and skills in this practice (i.e., using gestures, creating movement pieces based on key ideas of a subject area, or having students create scripts based on their learning about any given content), you can adapt it to any content area or lesson. The Kennedy Center has lots of resources on their education site.

Thanks to Neven, Diana, Keisha, and Kelly for contributing to today’s post.

Guests answered this question:

What is the best instructional strategy that you have used that can be applied across multiple content areas?

In Part One , Abeer Ramadan-Shinnawi, Donna L. Shrum, Kanako Suwa, and Cindy Garcia shared their answers.

Consider contributing a question to be answered in a future post. You can send one to me at [email protected] . When you send it in, let me know if I can use your real name if it’s selected or if you’d prefer remaining anonymous and have a pseudonym in mind.

You can also contact me on Twitter at @Larryferlazzo .

Just a reminder; you can subscribe and receive updates from this blog via email . And if you missed any of the highlights from the first 12 years of this blog, you can see a categorized list here .

The opinions expressed in Classroom Q&A With Larry Ferlazzo are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

• Open access
• Published: 15 March 2021

Instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning: a systematic literature review

• Kevin A. Nguyen 1 ,
• Maura Borrego 2 ,
• Cynthia J. Finelli   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9148-1492 3 ,
• Matt DeMonbrun 4 ,
• Caroline Crockett 3 ,
• Sneha Tharayil 2 ,
• Prateek Shekhar 5 ,
• Cynthia Waters 6 &
• Robyn Rosenberg 7  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  8 , Article number:  9 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

24k Accesses

38 Citations

15 Altmetric

Metrics details

Despite the evidence supporting the effectiveness of active learning in undergraduate STEM courses, the adoption of active learning has been slow. One barrier to adoption is instructors’ concerns about students’ affective and behavioral responses to active learning, especially student resistance. Numerous education researchers have documented their use of active learning in STEM classrooms. However, there is no research yet that systematically analyzes these studies for strategies to aid implementation of active learning and address students’ affective and behavioral responses. In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review and identify 29 journal articles and conference papers that researched active learning, affective and behavioral student responses, and recommended at least one strategy for implementing active learning. In this paper, we ask: (1) What are the characteristics of studies that examine affective and behavioral outcomes of active learning and provide instructor strategies? (2) What instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning do the authors of these studies provide?

In our review, we noted that most active learning activities involved in-class problem solving within a traditional lecture-based course ( N = 21). We found mostly positive affective and behavioral outcomes for students’ self-reports of learning, participation in the activities, and course satisfaction ( N = 23). From our analysis of the 29 studies, we identified eight strategies to aid implementation of active learning based on three categories. Explanation strategies included providing students with clarifications and reasons for using active learning. Facilitation strategies entailed working with students and ensuring that the activity functions as intended. Planning strategies involved working outside of the class to improve the active learning experience.

To increase the adoption of active learning and address students’ responses to active learning, this study provides strategies to support instructors. The eight strategies are listed with evidence from numerous studies within our review on affective and behavioral responses to active learning. Future work should examine instructor strategies and their connection with other affective outcomes, such as identity, interests, and emotions.

Introduction

Prior reviews have established the effectiveness of active learning in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses (e.g., Freeman et al., 2014 ; Lund & Stains, 2015 ; Theobald et al., 2020 ). In this review, we define active learning as classroom-based activities designed to engage students in their learning through answering questions, solving problems, discussing content, or teaching others, individually or in groups (Prince & Felder, 2007 ; Smith, Sheppard, Johnson, & Johnson, 2005 ), and this definition is inclusive of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS, e.g., Dancy, Henderson, & Turpen, 2016 ) and evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs, e.g., Stains & Vickrey, 2017 ). Past studies show that students perceive active learning as benefitting their learning (Machemer & Crawford, 2007 ; Patrick, Howell, & Wischusen, 2016 ) and increasing their self-efficacy (Stump, Husman, & Corby, 2014 ). Furthermore, the use of active learning in STEM fields has been linked to improvements in student retention and learning, particularly among students from some underrepresented groups (Chi & Wylie, 2014 ; Freeman et al., 2014 ; Prince, 2004 ).

Despite the overwhelming evidence in support of active learning (e.g., Freeman et al., 2014 ), prior research has found that traditional teaching methods such as lecturing are still the dominant mode of instruction in undergraduate STEM courses, and low adoption rates of active learning in undergraduate STEM courses remain a problem (Hora & Ferrare, 2013 ; Stains et al., 2018 ). There are several reasons for these low adoption rates. Some instructors feel unconvinced that the effort required to implement active learning is worthwhile, and as many as 75% of instructors who have attempted specific types of active learning abandon the practice altogether (Froyd, Borrego, Cutler, Henderson, & Prince, 2013 ).

When asked directly about the barriers to adopting active learning, instructors cite a common set of concerns including the lack of preparation or class time (Finelli, Daly, & Richardson, 2014 ; Froyd et al., 2013 ; Henderson & Dancy, 2007 ). Among these concerns, student resistance to active learning is a potential explanation for the low rates of instructor persistence with active learning, and this negative response to active learning has gained increased attention from the academic community (e.g., Owens et al., 2020 ). Of course, students can exhibit both positive and negative responses to active learning (Carlson & Winquist, 2011 ; Henderson, Khan, & Dancy, 2018 ; Oakley, Hanna, Kuzmyn, & Felder, 2007 ), but due to the barrier student resistance can present to instructors, we focus here on negative student responses. Student resistance to active learning may manifest, for example, as lack of student participation and engagement with in-class activities, declining attendance, or poor course evaluations and enrollments (Tolman, Kremling, & Tagg, 2016 ; Winkler & Rybnikova, 2019 ).

We define student resistance to active learning (SRAL) as a negative affective or behavioral student response to active learning (DeMonbrun et al., 2017 ; Weimer, 2002 ; Winkler & Rybnikova, 2019 ). The affective domain, as it relates to active learning, encompasses not only student satisfaction and perceptions of learning but also motivation-related constructs such as value, self-efficacy, and belonging. The behavioral domain relates to participation, putting forth a good effort, and attending class. The affective and behavioral domains differ from much of the prior research on active learning that centers measuring cognitive gains in student learning, and systematic reviews are readily available on this topic (e.g., Freeman et al., 2014 ; Theobald et al., 2020 ). Schmidt, Rosenberg, and Beymer ( 2018 ) explain the relationship between affective, cognitive, and behavioral domains, asserting all three types of engagement are necessary for science learning, and conclude that “students are unlikely to exert a high degree of behavioral engagement during science learning tasks if they do not also engage deeply with the content affectively and cognitively” (p. 35). Thus, SRAL and negative affective and behavioral student response is a critical but underexplored component of STEM learning.

Recent research on student affective and behavioral responses to active learning has uncovered mechanisms of student resistance. Deslauriers, McCarty, Miller, Callaghan, and Kestin’s ( 2019 ) interviews of physics students revealed that the additional effort required by the novel format of an interactive lecture was the primary source of student resistance. Owens et al. ( 2020 ) identified a similar source of student resistance, which was to their carefully designed biology active learning intervention. Students were concerned about the additional effort required and the unfamiliar student-centered format. Deslauriers et al. ( 2019 ) and Owens et al. ( 2020 ) go a step further in citing self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982 ), mindset (Dweck & Leggett, 1988 ), and student engagement (Kuh, 2005 ) literature to explain student resistance. Similarly, Shekhar et al.’s ( 2020 ) review framed negative student responses to active learning in terms of expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000 ); students reacted negatively when they did not find active learning useful or worth the time and effort, or when they did not feel competent enough to complete the activities. Shekhar et al. ( 2020 ) also applied expectancy violation theory from physics education research (Gaffney, Gaffney, & Beichner, 2010 ) to explain how students’ initial expectations of a traditional course produced discomfort during active learning activities. To address both theories of student resistance, Shekhar et al. ( 2020 ) suggested that instructors provide scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1978 ) and support for self-directed learning activities. So, while framing the research as SRAL is relatively new, ideas about working with students to actively engage them in their learning are not. Prior literature on active learning in STEM undergraduate settings includes clues and evidence about strategies instructors can employ to reduce SRAL, even if they are not necessarily framed by the authors as such.

Recent interest in student affective and behavioral responses to active learning, including SRAL, is a relatively new development. But, given the discipline-based educational research (DBER) knowledge base around RBIS and EBIP adoption, we need not to reinvent the wheel. In this paper, we conduct a system review. Systematic reviews are designed to methodically gather and synthesize results from multiple studies to provide a clear overview of a topic, presenting what is known and what is not known (Borrego, Foster, & Froyd, 2014 ). Such clarity informs decisions when designing or funding future research, interventions, and programs. Relevant studies for this paper are scattered across STEM disciplines and in DBER and general education venues, which include journals and conference proceedings. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches have been used to understand student affective and behavioral responses to active learning. Thus, a systematic review is appropriate for this topic given the long history of research on the development of RBIS, EBIPs, and active learning in STEM education; the distribution of primary studies across fields and formats; and the different methods taken to evaluate students’ affective and behavioral responses.

Specifically, we conducted a systematic review to address two interrelated research questions. (1) What are the characteristics of studies that examine affective and behavioral outcomes of active learning and provide instructor strategies ? (2) What instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning do the authors of these studies provide ? These two questions are linked by our goal of sharing instructor strategies that can either reduce SRAL or encourage positive student affective and behavioral responses. Therefore, the instructor strategies in this review are only from studies that present empirical data of affective and behavioral student response to active learning. The strategies we identify in this review will not be surprising to highly experienced teaching and learning practitioners or researchers. However, this review does provide an important link between these strategies and student resistance, which remains one of the most feared barriers to instructor adoption of RBIS, EBIPs, and other forms of active learning.

Conceptual framework: instructor strategies to reduce resistance

Recent research has identified specific instructor strategies that correlate with reduced SRAL and positive student response in undergraduate STEM education (Finelli et al., 2018 ; Nguyen et al., 2017 ; Tharayil et al., 2018 ). For example, Deslauriers et al. ( 2019 ) suggested that physics students perceive the additional effort required by active learning to be evidence of less effective learning. To address this, the authors included a 20-min lecture about active learning in a subsequent course offering. By the end of that course, 65% of students reported increased enthusiasm for active learning, and 75% said the lecture intervention positively impacted their attitudes toward active learning. Explaining how active learning activities contribute to student learning is just one of many strategies instructors can employ to reduce SRAL (Tharayil et al., 2018 ).

DeMonbrun et al. ( 2017 ) provided a conceptual framework for differentiating instructor strategies which includes not only an explanation type of instructor strategies (e.g., Deslauriers et al., 2019 ; Tharayil et al., 2018 ) but also a facilitation type of instructor strategies. Explanation strategies involve describing the purpose (such as how the activity relates to students’ learning) and expectations of the activity to students. Typically, instructors use explanation strategies before the in-class activity has begun. Facilitation strategies include promoting engagement and keeping the activity running smoothly once the activity has already begun, and some specific strategies include walking around the classroom or directly encouraging students. We use the existing categories of explanation and facilitation as a conceptual framework to guide our analysis and systematic review.

As a conceptual framework, explanation and facilitation strategies describe ways to aid the implementation of RBIS, EBIP, and other types of active learning. In fact, the work on these types of instructor strategies is related to higher education faculty development, implementation, and institutional change research perspectives (e.g., Borrego, Cutler, Prince, Henderson, & Froyd, 2013 ; Henderson, Beach, & Finkelstein, 2011 ; Kezar, Gehrke, & Elrod, 2015 ). As such, the specific types of strategies reviewed here are geared to assist instructors in moving toward more student-centered teaching methods by addressing their concerns of student resistance.

SRAL is a particular negative form of affective or behavioral student response (DeMonbrun et al., 2017 ; Weimer, 2002 ; Winkler & Rybnikova, 2019 ). Affective and behavioral student responses are conceptualized at the reactionary level (Kirkpatrick, 1976 ) of outcomes, which consists of how students feel (affective) and how they conduct themselves within the course (behavioral). Although affective and behavioral student responses to active learning are less frequently reported than cognitive outcomes, prior research suggests a few conceptual constructs within these outcomes.

Affective outcomes consist of any students’ feelings, preferences, and satisfaction with the course. Affective outcomes also include students’ self-reports of whether they thought they learned more (or less) during active learning instruction. Some relevant affective outcomes include students’ perceived value or utility of active learning (Shekhar et al., 2020 ; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000 ), their positivity toward or enjoyment of the activities (DeMonbrun et al., 2017 ; Finelli et al., 2018 ), and their self-efficacy or confidence with doing the in-class activity (Bandura, 1982 ).

In contrast, students’ behavioral responses to active learning consist of their actions and practices during active learning. This includes students’ attendance in the class, their participation , engagement, and effort with the activity, and students’ distraction or off-task behavior (e.g., checking their phones, leaving to use the restroom) during the activity (DeMonbrun et al., 2017 ; Finelli et al., 2018 ; Winkler & Rybnikova, 2019 ).

We conceptualize negative or low scores in either affective or behavioral student outcomes as an indicator of SRAL (DeMonbrun et al., 2017 ; Nguyen et al., 2017 ). For example, a low score in reported course satisfaction would be an example of SRAL. This paper aims to synthesize instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning from studies that either address SRAL and its negative or low scores or relate instructor strategies to positive or high scores. Therefore, we also conceptualize positive student affective and behavioral outcomes as the absence of SRAL. For easy categorization of this review then, we summarize studies’ affective and behavioral outcomes on active learning to either being positive , mostly positive , mixed/neutral , mostly negative , or negative .

We conducted a systematic literature review (Borrego et al., 2014 ; Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2017 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ) to identify primary research studies that describe active learning interventions in undergraduate STEM courses, recommend one or more strategies to aid implementation of active learning, and report student response outcomes to active learning.

A systematic review was warranted due to the popularity of active learning and the publication of numerous papers on the topic. Multiple STEM disciplines and research audiences have published journal articles and conference papers on the topic of active learning in the undergraduate STEM classroom. However, it was not immediately clear which studies addressed active learning, affective and behavioral student responses, and strategies to aid implementation of active learning. We used the systematic review process to efficiently gather results of multiple types of studies and create a clear overview of our topic.

Definitions

For clarity, we define several terms in this review. Researchers refer to us, the authors of this manuscript. Authors and instructors wrote the primary studies we reviewed, and we refer to these primary studies as “studies” consistently throughout. We use the term activity or activities to refer to the specific in-class active learning tasks assigned to students. Strategies refer to the instructor strategies used to aid implementation of active learning and address student resistance to active learning (SRAL). Student response includes affective and behavioral responses and outcomes related to active learning. SRAL is an acronym for student resistance to active learning, defined here as a negative affective or behavioral student response. Categories or category refer to a grouping of strategies to aid implementation of active learning, such as explanation or facilitation. Excerpts are quotes from studies, and these excerpts are used as codes and examples of specific strategies.

Study timeline, data collection, and sample selection

From 2015 to 2016, we worked with a research librarian to locate relevant studies and conduct a keyword search within six databases: two multidisciplinary databases (Web of Science and Academic Search Complete), two major engineering and technology indexes (Compendex and Inspec), and two popular education databases (Education Source and Education Resource Information Center). We created an inclusion criteria that listed both search strings and study requirements:

Studies must include an in-class active learning intervention. This does not include laboratory classes. The corresponding search string was:

“active learning” or “peer-to-peer” or “small group work” or “problem based learning” or “problem-based learning” or “problem-oriented learning” or “project-based learning” or “project based learning” or “peer instruction” or “inquiry learning” or “cooperative learning” or “collaborative learning” or “student response system” or “personal response system” or “just-in-time teaching” or “just in time teaching” or clickers

Studies must include empirical evidence addressing student response to the active learning intervention. The corresponding search string was:

“affective outcome” or “affective response” or “class evaluation” or “course evaluation” or “student attitudes” or “student behaviors” or “student evaluation” or “student feedback” or “student perception” or “student resistance” or “student response”

Studies must describe a STEM course, as defined by the topic of the course, rather than by the department of the course or the major of the students enrolled (e.g., a business class for mathematics majors would not be included, but a mathematics class for business majors would).

Studies must be conducted in undergraduate courses and must not include K-12, vocational, or graduate education.

Studies must be in English and published between 1990 and 2015 as journal articles or conference papers.

In addition to searching the six databases, we emailed solicitations to U.S. National Science Foundation Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (NSF IUSE) grantees. Between the database searches and email solicitation, we identified 2364 studies after removing duplicates. Most studies were from the database search, as we received just 92 studies from email solicitation (Fig. 1 ).

PRISMA screening overview styled after Liberati et al. ( 2009 ) and Passow and Passow ( 2017 )

Next, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for screening studies with our inclusion criteria (Borrego et al., 2014 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ). From 2016 to 2018, a team of seven researchers conducted two rounds of review in Refworks: the first round with only titles and abstracts and the second round with the entire full-text. In both rounds, two researchers independently decided whether each study should be retained based on our inclusion criteria listed above. At the abstract review stage, if there was a disagreement between independent coders, we decided to pass the study on to the full text screening round. We screened a total of 2364 abstracts, and only 746 studies passed the first round of title and abstract verification (see PRISMA flow chart on Fig. 1 ). If there was still a disagreement between independent coders at the full text screening round, then the seven researchers met and discussed the study, clarified the inclusion criteria as needed to resolve potential future disagreements, and when necessary, took a majority vote (4 out of the 7 researchers) on the inclusion of the study. Due to the high number of coders, it was unusual to reach full consensus with all 7 coders, so a majority vote was used to finalize the inclusion of certain studies. We resolved these disagreements on a rolling basis, and depending on the round (abstract or full text), we disagreed about 10–15% of the time on the inclusion of a study. In both the first and second round of screening, studies were often excluded because they did not gather novel empirical data or evidence (inclusion criteria #2) or were not in an undergraduate STEM course (inclusion criteria #3 and #4). Only 412 studies met all our final inclusion criteria.

Coding procedure

From 2017 to 2018, a team of five researchers then coded these 412 studies for detailed information. To quickly gather information about all 412 studies and to answer the first part of our research question (What are the characteristics of studies that examine affective and behavioral outcomes of active learning and provide instructor strategies?), we developed an online coding form using Google Forms and Google Sheets. The five researchers piloted and refined the coding form over three rounds of pair coding, and 19 studies were used to test and revise early versions of the coding form. The final coding form (Borrego et al., 2018 ) used a mix of multiple choice and free response items regarding study characteristics (bibliographic information, type of publication, location of study), course characteristics (discipline, course level, number of students sampled, and type of active learning), methodology (main type of evidence collected, sample size, and analysis methods), study findings (types of student responses and outcomes), and strategy reported (if the study explicitly mentioned using strategies to implementation of active learning).

In the end, only 29 studies explicitly described strategies to aid implementation of active learning (Fig. 1 ), and we used these 29 studies as the dataset for this study. The main difference between these 29 studies and the other 383 studies was that these 29 studies explicitly described the ways authors implemented active learning in their courses to address SRAL or positive student outcomes. Although some readers who are experienced active learning instructors or educational researchers may view pedagogies and strategies as integrated, we found that most papers described active learning methods in terms of student tasks, while advice on strategies, if included, tended to appear separately. We chose to not over interpret passing mentions of how active learning was implemented as strategies recommended by the authors.

Analysis procedure for coding strategies

To answer our second research question (What instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning do the authors of these studies provide?), we closely reviewed the 29 studies to analyze the strategies in more detail. We used Boyatzis’s ( 1998 ) thematic analysis technique to compile all mentions of instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning and categorize these excerpts into certain strategies. This technique uses both deductive and inductive coding processes (Creswell & Creswell, 2017 ; Jesiek, Mazzurco, Buswell, & Thompson, 2018 ).

In 2018, three researchers reread the 29 studies, marking excerpts related to strategies independently. We found a total of 126 excerpts. The number of excerpts within each study ranged from 1 to 14 excerpts ( M = 4, SD = 3). We then took all the excerpts and pasted each into its own row in a Google Sheet. We examined the entire spreadsheet as a team and grouped similar excerpts together using a deductive coding process. We used the explanation and facilitation conceptual framework (DeMonbrun et al., 2017 ) and placed each excerpt into either category. We also assigned a specific strategy (i.e., describing the purpose of the activity, or encouraging students) from the framework for each excerpt.

However, there were multiple excerpts that did not easily match either category; we set these aside for the inductive coding process. We then reviewed all excerpts without a category and suggested the creation of a new third category, called planning . We based this new category on the idea that the existing explanation and facilitation conceptual framework did not capture strategies that occurred outside of the classroom. We discuss the specific strategies within the planning category in the Results. With a new category in hand, we created a preliminary codebook consisting of explanation, facilitation, and planning categories, and their respective specific strategies.

We then passed the spreadsheet and preliminary codebook to another researcher who had not previously seen the excerpts. The second researcher looked through all the excerpts and assigned categories and strategies, without being able to see the suggestions of the initial three researchers. The second researcher also created their own new strategies and codes, especially when a specific strategy was not presented in the preliminary codebook. All of their new strategies and codes were created within the planning category. The second researcher agreed on assigned categories and implementation strategies for 71% of the total excerpts. A researcher from the initial strategies coding met with the second researcher and discussed all disagreements. The high number of disagreements, 29%, arose from the specific strategies within the new third category, planning. Since the second researcher created new planning strategies, by default these assigned codes would be a disagreement. The two researchers resolved the disagreements by finalizing a codebook with the now full and combined list of planning strategies and the previous explanation and facilitation strategies. Finally, they started the last round of coding, and they coded the excerpts with the final codebook. This time, they worked together in the same coding sessions. Any disagreements were immediately resolved through discussion and updating of final strategy codes. In the end, all 126 excerpts were coded and kept.

Characteristics of the primary studies

To answer our first research question (What are the characteristics of studies that examine affective and behavioral outcomes of active learning and provide instructor strategies?), we report the results from our coding and systematic review process. We discuss characteristics of studies within our dataset below and in Table 1 .

Type of publication and research audience

Of the 29 studies, 11 studies were published in conference proceedings, while the remaining 18 studies were journal articles. Examples of journals included the European Journal of Engineering Education , Journal of College Science Teaching , and PRIMUS (Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies).

In terms of research audiences and perspectives, both US and international views were represented. Eighteen studies were from North America, two were from Australia, three were from Asia, and six were from Europe. For more details about the type of research publications, full bibliographic information for all 29 studies is included in the Appendix.

Types of courses sampled

Studies sampled different types of undergraduate STEM courses. In terms of course year, most studies sampled first-year courses (13 studies). All four course years were represented (4 second-year, 3 third-year, 2 fourth-year, 7 not reported). In regards to course discipline or major, all major STEM education disciplines were represented. Fourteen studies were conducted in engineering courses, and most major engineering subdisciplines were represented, such as electrical and computer engineering (4 studies), mechanical engineering (3 studies), general engineering courses (3 studies), chemical engineering (2 studies), and civil engineering (1 study). Thirteen studies were conducted in science courses (3 physics/astronomy, 7 biology, 3 chemistry), and 2 studies were conducted in mathematics or statistics courses.

For teaching methods, most studies sampled traditional courses that were primarily lecture-based but included some in-class activities. The most common activity was giving class time for students to do problem solving (PS) (21 studies). Students were instructed to either do problem solving in groups (16 studies) or individually (5 studies) and sometimes both in the same course. Project or problem-based learning (PBL) was the second most frequently reported activity with 8 studies, and the implementation of this teaching method ranged from end of term final projects to an entire project or problem-based course. The third most common activity was using clickers (4 studies) or having class discussions (4 studies).

Research design, methods, and outcomes

The 29 studies used quantitative (10 studies), qualitative (6 studies), or mixed methods (13 studies) research designs. Most studies contained self-made instructor surveys (IS) as their main source of evidence (20 studies). In contrast, only 2 studies used survey instruments with evidence of validity (IEV). Other forms of data collection included using institutions’ end of course evaluations (EOC) (10 studies), observations (5 studies), and interviews (4 studies).

Studies reported a variety of different measures for researching students’ affective and behavioral responses to active learning. The most common measure was students’ self-reports of learning (an affective outcome); twenty-one studies measured whether students thought they learned more or less due to the active learning intervention. Other common measures included whether students participated in the activities (16 studies, participation), whether they enjoyed the activities (15 studies, enjoyment), and if students were satisfied with the overall course experience (13 studies, course satisfaction). Most studies included more than one measure. Some studies also measured course attendance (4 studies) and students’ self-efficacy with the activities and relevant STEM disciplines (4 studies).

We found that the 23 of the 29 studies reported positive or mostly positive outcomes for their students’ affective and behavioral responses to active learning. Only 5 studies reported mixed/neutral study outcomes, and only one study reported negative student response to active learning. We discuss the implications of this lack of negative study outcomes and reports of SRAL in our dataset in the “Discussion” section.

To answer our second research question (What instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning do the authors of these studies provide?), we provide descriptions, categories, and excerpts of specific strategies found within our systematic literature review.

Explanation strategies

Explanation strategies provide students with clarifications and reasons for using active learning (DeMonbrun et al., 2017 ). Within the explanation category, we identified two specific strategies: establish expectations and explain the purpose .

Establish expectations

Establishing expectations means setting the tone and routine for active learning at both the course and in-class activity level. Instructors can discuss expectations at the beginning of the semester, at the start of a class session, or right before the activity.

For establishing expectations at the beginning of the semester, studies provide specific ways to ensure students became familiar with active learning as early as possible. This included “introduc[ing] collaborative learning at the beginning of the academic term” (Herkert , 1997 , p. 450) and making sure that “project instructions and the data were posted fairly early in the semester, and the students were made aware that the project was an important part of their assessment” (Krishnan & Nalim, 2009 , p. 5).

McClanahan and McClanahan ( 2002 ) described the importance of explaining how the course will use active learning and purposely using the syllabus to do this:

Set the stage. Create the expectation that students will actively participate in this class. One way to accomplish that is to include a statement in your syllabus about your teaching strategies. For example: I will be using a variety of teaching strategies in this class. Some of these activities may require that you interact with me or other students in class. I hope you will find these methods interesting and engaging and that they enable you to be more successful in this course . In the syllabus, describe the specific learning activities you plan to conduct. These descriptions let the students know what to expect from you as well as what you expect from them (emphasis added, p. 93).

Early on, students see that the course is interactive, and they also see the activities required to be successful in the course.

These studies and excerpts demonstrate the importance of explaining to students how in-class activities relate to course expectations. Instructors using active learning should start the semester with clear expectations for how students should engage with activities.

Explain the purpose

Explaining the purpose includes offering students reasons why certain activities are being used and convincing them of the importance of participating.

One way that studies explained the purpose of the activities was by leveraging and showing assessment data on active learning. For example, Lenz ( 2015 ) dedicated class time to show current students comments from previous students:

I spend the first few weeks reminding them of the research and of the payoff that they will garner and being a very enthusiastic supporter of the [active learning teaching] method. I show them comments I have received from previous classes and I spend a lot of time selling the method (p. 294).

Providing current students comments from previous semesters may help students see the value of active learning. Lake ( 2001 ) also used data from prior course offerings to show students “the positive academic performance results seen in the previous use of active learning” on the first day of class (p. 899).

However, sharing the effectiveness of the activities does not have to be constrained to the beginning of the course. Autin et al. ( 2013 ) used mid-semester test data and comparisons to sell the continued use of active learning to their students. They said to students:

Based on your reflections, I can see that many of you are not comfortable with the format of this class. Many of you said that you would learn better from a traditional lecture. However, this class, as a whole, performed better on the test than my other [lecture] section did. Something seems to be working here (p. 946).

Showing students’ comparisons between active learning and traditional lecture classes is a powerful way to explain how active learning is a benefit to students.

Explaining the purpose of the activities by sharing course data with students appears to be a useful strategy, as it tells students why active learning is being used and convinces students that active learning is making a difference.

Facilitation strategies

Facilitation strategies ensure the continued engagement in the class activities once they have begun, and many of the specific strategies within this category involve working directly with students. We identified two strategies within the facilitation category: approach students and encourage students .

Approach students

Approaching students means engaging with students during the activity. This includes physical proximity and monitoring students, walking around the classroom, and providing students with additional feedback, clarifications, or questions about the activity.

Several studies described how instructors circulated around the classroom to check on the progress of students during an activity. Lenz ( 2015 ) stated this plainly in her study, “While the students work on these problems I walk around the room, listening to their discussions” (p. 284). Armbruster et al. ( 2009 ) described this strategy and noted positive student engagement, “During each group-work exercise the instructor would move throughout the classroom to monitor group progress, and it was rare to find a group that was not seriously engaged in the exercise” (p. 209). Haseeb ( 2011 ) combined moving around the room and approaching students with questions, and they stated, “The instructor moves around from one discussion group to another and listens to their discussions, ask[ing] provoking questions” (p. 276). Certain group-based activities worked better with this strategy, as McClanahan and McClanahan ( 2002 ) explained:

Breaking the class into smaller working groups frees the professor to walk around and interact with students more personally. He or she can respond to student questions, ask additional questions, or chat informally with students about the class (p. 94).

Approaching students not only helps facilitate the activity, but it provides a chance for the instructor to work with students more closely and receive feedback. Instructors walking around the classroom ensure that both the students and instructor continue to engage and participate with the activity.

Encourage students

Encouraging students includes creating a supportive classroom environment, motivating students to do the activity, building respect and rapport with students, demonstrating care, and having a positive demeanor toward students’ success.

Ramsier et al. ( 2003 ) provided a detailed explanation of the importance of building a supportive classroom environment:

Most of this success lies in the process of negotiation and the building of mutual respect within the class, and requires motivation, energy and enthusiasm on behalf of the instructor… Negotiation is the key to making all of this work, and building a sense of community and shared ownership. Learning students’ names is a challenge but a necessary part of our approach. Listening to student needs and wants with regard to test and homework due dates…projects and activities, etc. goes a long way to build the type of relationships within the class that we need in order to maintain and encourage performance (pp. 16–18).

Here, the authors described a few specific strategies for supporting a positive demeanor, such as learning students’ names and listening to student needs and wants, which helped maintain student performance in an active learning classroom.

Other ways to build a supportive classroom environment were for instructors to appear more approachable. For example, Bullard and Felder ( 2007 ) worked to “give the students a sense of their instructors as somewhat normal and approachable human beings and to help them start to develop a sense of community” (p. 5). As instructors and students become more comfortable working with each other, instructors can work toward easing “frustration and strong emotion among students and step by step develop the students’ acceptance [of active learning]” (Harun, Yusof, Jamaludin, & Hassan, 2012 , p. 234). In all, encouraging students and creating a supportive environment appear to be useful strategies to aid implementation of active learning.

Planning strategies

The planning category encompasses strategies that occur outside of class time, distinguishing it from the explanation and facilitation categories. Four strategies fall into this category: design appropriate activities , create group policies , align the course , and review student feedback .

Design appropriate activities

Many studies took into consideration the design of appropriate or suitable activities for their courses. This meant making sure the activity was suitable in terms of time, difficulty, and constraints of the course. Activities were designed to strike a balance between being too difficult and too simple, to be engaging, and to provide opportunities for students to participate.

Li et al. ( 2009 ) explained the importance of outside-of-class planning and considering appropriate projects: “The selection of the projects takes place in pre-course planning. The subjects for projects should be significant and manageable” (p. 491). Haseeb ( 2011 ) further emphasized a balance in design by discussing problems (within problem-based learning) between two parameters, “the problem is deliberately designed to be open-ended and vague in terms of technical details” (p. 275). Armbruster et al. ( 2009 ) expanded on the idea of balanced activities by connecting it to group-work and positive outcomes, and they stated, “The group exercises that elicited the most animated student participation were those that were sufficiently challenging that very few students could solve the problem individually, but at least 50% or more of the groups could solve the problem by working as a team” (p. 209).

Instructors should consider the design of activities outside of class time. Activities should be appropriately challenging but achievable for students, so that students remain engaged and participate with the activity during class time.

Create group policies

Creating group policies means considering rules when using group activities. This strategy is unique in that it directly addresses a specific subset of activities, group work. These policies included setting team sizes and assigning specific roles to group members.

Studies outlined a few specific approaches for assigning groups. For example, Ramsier et al. ( 2003 ) recommended frequently changing and randomizing groups: “When students enter the room on these days they sit in randomized groups of 3 to 4 students. Randomization helps to build a learning community atmosphere and eliminates cliques” (p. 4). Another strategy in combination with frequent changing of groups was to not allow students to select their own groups. Lehtovuori et al. ( 2013 ) used this to avoid problems of freeriding and group dysfunction:

For example, group division is an issue to be aware of...An easy and safe solution is to draw lots to assign the groups and to change them often. This way nobody needs to suffer from a dysfunctional group for too long. Popular practice that students self-organize into groups is not the best solution from the point of view of learning and teaching. Sometimes friendly relationships can complicate fair division of responsibility and work load in the group (p. 9).

Here, Lehtovuori et al. ( 2013 ) considered different types of group policies and concluded that frequently changing groups worked best for students. Kovac ( 1999 ) also described changing groups but assigned specific roles to individuals:

Students were divided into groups of four and assigned specific roles: manager, spokesperson, recorder, and strategy analyst. The roles were rotated from week to week. To alleviate complaints from students that they were "stuck in a bad group for the entire semester," the groups were changed after each of the two in-class exams (p. 121).

The use of four specific group roles is a potential group policy, and Kovac ( 1999 ) continued the trend of changing group members often.

Overall, these studies describe the importance of thinking about ways to implement group-based activities before enacting them during class, and they suggest that groups should be reconstituted frequently. Instructors using group activities should consider whether to use specific group member policies before implementing the activity in the classroom.

Align the course

Aligning the course emphasizes the importance of purposely connecting multiple parts of the course together. This strategy involves planning to ensure students are graded on their participation with the activities as well as considering the timing of the activities with respect to other aspects of the course.

Li et al. ( 2009 ) described aligning classroom tasks by discussing the importance of timing, and they wrote, “The coordination between the class lectures and the project phases is very important. If the project is assigned near the directly related lectures, students can instantiate class concepts almost immediately in the project and can apply the project experience in class” (p. 491).

Krishnan and Nalim ( 2009 ) aligned class activities with grades to motivate students and encourage participation: “The project was a component of the course counting for typically 10-15% of the total points for the course grade. Since the students were told about the project and that it carried a significant portion of their grade, they took the project seriously” (p. 4). McClanahan and McClanahan ( 2002 ) expanded on the idea of using grades to emphasize the importance of active learning to students:

Develop a grading policy that supports active learning. Active learning experiences that are important enough to do are important enough to be included as part of a student's grade…The class syllabus should describe your grading policy for active learning experiences and how those grades factor into the student's final grade. Clarify with the students that these points are not extra credit. These activities, just like exams, will be counted when grades are determined (p. 93).

Here, they suggest a clear grading policy that includes how activities will be assessed as part of students’ final grades.

de Justo and Delgado ( 2014 ) connected grading and assessment to learning and further suggested that reliance on exams may negatively impact student engagement:

Particular attention should be given to alignment between the course learning outcomes and assessment tasks. The tendency among faculty members to rely primarily on written examinations for assessment purposes should be overcome, because it may negatively affect students’ engagement in the course activities (p. 8).

Instructors should consider their overall assessment strategies, as overreliance on written exams could mean that students engage less with the activities.

When planning to use active learning, instructors should consider how activities are aligned with course content and students’ grades. Instructors should decide before active learning implementation whether class participation and engagement will be reflected in student grades and in the course syllabus.

Review student feedback

Reviewing student feedback includes both soliciting feedback about the activity and using that feedback to improve the course. This strategy can be an iterative process that occurs over several course offerings.

Many studies utilized student feedback to continuously revise and improve the course. For example, Metzger ( 2015 ) commented that “gathering and reviewing feedback from students can inform revisions of course design, implementation, and assessment strategies” (p. 8). Rockland et al. ( 2013 ) further described changing and improving the course in response to student feedback, “As a result of these discussions, the author made three changes to the course. This is the process of continuous improvement within a course” (p. 6).

Herkert ( 1997 ) also demonstrated the use of student feedback for improving the course over time: “Indeed, the [collaborative] learning techniques described herein have only gradually evolved over the past decade through a process of trial and error, supported by discussion with colleagues in various academic fields and helpful feedback from my students” (p. 459).

In addition to incorporating student feedback, McClanahan and McClanahan ( 2002 ) commented on how student feedback builds a stronger partnership with students, “Using student feedback to make improvements in the learning experience reinforces the notion that your class is a partnership and that you value your students’ ideas as a means to strengthen that partnership and create more successful learning” (p. 94). Making students aware that the instructor is soliciting and using feedback can help encourage and build rapport with students.

Instructors should review student feedback for continual and iterative course improvement. Much of the student feedback review occurs outside of class time, and it appears useful for instructors to solicit student feedback to guide changes to the course and build student rapport.

Summary of strategies

We list the appearance of strategies within studies in Table 1 in short-hand form. No study included all eight strategies. Studies that included the most strategies were Bullard and Felder’s ( 2007 ) (7 strategies), Armbruster et al.’s ( 2009 ) (5 strategies), and Lenz’s ( 2015 ) (5 strategies). However, these three studies were exemplars, as most studies included only one or two strategies.

Table 2 presents a summary list of specific strategies, their categories, and descriptions. We also note the number of unique studies ( N ) and excerpts ( n ) that included the specific strategies. In total, there were eight specific strategies within three categories. Most strategies fell under the planning category ( N = 26), with align the course being the most reported strategy ( N = 14). Approaching students ( N = 13) and reviewing student feedback ( N = 11) were the second and third most common strategies, respectively. Overall, we present eight strategies to aid implementation of active learning.

Characteristics of the active learning studies

To address our first research question (What are the characteristics of studies that examine affective and behavioral outcomes of active learning and provide instructor strategies?), we discuss the different ways studies reported research on active learning.

Limitations and gaps within the final sample

First, we must discuss the gaps within our final sample of 29 studies. We excluded numerous active learning studies ( N = 383) that did not discuss or reflect upon the efficacy of their strategies to aid implementation of active learning. We also began this systematic literature review in 2015 and did not finish our coding and analysis of 2364 abstracts and 746 full-texts until 2018. We acknowledge that there have been multiple studies published on active learning since 2015. Acknowledging these limitations, we discuss our results and analysis in the context of the 29 studies in our dataset, which were published from 1990 to 2015.

Our final sample included only 2 studies that sampled mathematics and statistics courses. In addition, there was also a lack of studies outside of first-year courses. Much of the active learning research literature introduces interventions in first-year (cornerstone) or fourth-year (capstone) courses, but we found within our dataset a tendency to oversample first-year courses. However, all four course-years were represented, as well as all major STEM disciplines, with the most common STEM disciplines being engineering (14 studies) and biology (7 studies).

Thirteen studies implemented course-based active learning interventions, such as project-based learning (8 studies), inquiry-based learning (3 studies), or a flipped classroom (2 studies). Only one study, Lenz ( 2015 ), used a previously published active learning intervention, which was Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). Other examples of published active learning programs include the Student-Centered Active Learning Environment for Upside-down Pedagogies (SCALE-UP, Gaffney et al., 2010 ) and Chemistry, Life, the Universe, and Everything (CLUE, Cooper & Klymkowsky, 2013 ), but these were not included in our sample of 29 studies.

In contrast, most of the active learning interventions involved adding in-class problem solving (either with individual students or groups of students) to a traditional lecture course (21 studies). For some instructors attempting to adopt active learning, using this smaller active learning intervention (in-class problem solving) may be a good starting point.

Despite the variety of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method research designs, most studies used either self-made instructor surveys (20 studies) or their institution’s course evaluations (10 studies). The variation between so many different versions of instructor surveys and course evaluations made it difficult to compare data or attempt a quantitative meta-analysis. Further, only 2 studies used instruments with evidence of validity. However, that trend may change as there are more examples of instruments with evidence of validity, such as the Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP, DeMonbrun et al., 2017 ), the Biology Interest Questionnaire (BIQ, Knekta, Rowland, Corwin, & Eddy, 2020 ), and the Pedagogical Expectancy Violation Assessment (PEVA, Gaffney et al., 2010 ).

We were also concerned about the use of institutional course evaluations (10 studies) as evidence of students’ satisfaction and affective responses to active learning. Course evaluations capture more than just students’ responses to active learning, as the scores are biased toward the instructors’ gender (Mitchell & Martin, 2018 ) and race (Daniel, 2019 ), and they are strongly correlated with students’ expected grade in the class (Nguyen et al., 2017 ). Despite these limitations, we kept course evaluations in our keyword search and inclusion criteria, because they relate to instructors concerns about student resistance to active learning, and these scores continue to be used for important instructor reappointment, tenure, and promotion decisions (DeMonbrun et al., 2017 ).

In addition to students’ satisfaction, there were other measures related to students’ affective and behavioral responses to active learning. The most common measure was students’ self-reports of whether they thought they learned more or less (21 studies). Other important affective outcomes included enjoyment (13 studies) and self-efficacy (4 students). The most common behavioral measure was students’ participation (16 studies). However, missing from this sample were other affective outcomes, such as students’ identities, beliefs, emotions, values, and buy-in.

Positive outcomes for using active learning

Twenty-three of the 29 studies reported positive or mostly positive outcomes for their active learning intervention. At the start of this paper, we acknowledged that much of the existing research suggested the widespread positive benefits of using active learning in undergraduate STEM courses. However, much of these positive benefits related to active learning were centered on students’ cognitive learning outcomes (e.g., Theobald et al., 2020 ) and not students’ affective and behavioral responses to active learning. Here, we show positive affective and behavioral outcomes in terms of students’ self-reports of learning, enjoyment, self-efficacy, attendance, participation, and course satisfaction.

Due to the lack of mixed/neutral or negative affective outcomes, it is important to acknowledge potential publication bias within our dataset. Authors may be hesitant to report negative outcomes to active learning interventions. It could also be the case that negative or non-significant outcomes are not easily published in undergraduate STEM education venues. These factors could help explain the lack of mixed/neutral or negative study outcomes in our dataset.

Strategies to aid implementation of active learning

We aimed to answer the question: what instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning do the authors of these studies provide? We addressed this question by providing instructors and readers a summary of actionable strategies they can take back to their own classrooms. Here, we discuss the range of strategies found within our systematic literature review.

Supporting instructors with actionable strategies

We identified eight specific strategies across three major categories: explanation, facilitation, and planning. Each strategy appeared in at least seven studies (Table 2 ), and each strategy was written to be actionable and practical.

Strategies in the explanation category emphasized the importance of establishing expectations and explaining the purpose of active learning to students. The facilitation category focused on approaching and encouraging students once activities were underway. Strategies in the planning category highlight the importance of working outside of class time to thoughtfully design appropriate activities , create policies for group work , align various components of the course , and review student feedback to iteratively improve the course.

However, as we note in the “Introduction” section, these strategies are not entirely new, and the strategies will not be surprising to experienced researchers and educators. Even still, there has yet to be a systematic review that compiles these instructor strategies in relation to students’ affective and behavioral responses to active learning. For example, the “explain the purpose” strategy is similar to the productive framing (e.g., Hutchison & Hammer, 2010 ) of the activity for students. “Design appropriate activities” and “align various components of the course” relate to Vygotsky’s ( 1978 ) theories of scaffolding for students (Shekhar et al., 2020 ). “Review student feedback” and “approaching students” relate to ideas on formative assessment (e.g., Pellegrino, DiBello, & Brophy, 2014 ) or revising the course materials in relation to students’ ongoing needs.

We also acknowledge that we do not have an exhaustive list of specific strategies to aid implementation of active learning. More work needs to be done measuring and observing these strategies in-action and testing the use of these strategies against certain outcomes. Some of this work of measuring instructor strategies has already begun (e.g., DeMonbrun et al., 2017 ; Finelli et al., 2018 ; Tharayil et al., 2018 ), but further testing and analysis would benefit the active learning community. We hope that our framework of explanation, facilitation, and planning strategies provide a guide for instructors adopting active learning. Since these strategies are compiled from the undergraduate STEM education literature and research on affective and behavioral responses to active learning, instructors have compelling reason to use these strategies to aid implementation of active learning.

One way to consider using these strategies is to consider the various aspects of instruction and their sequence. That is, planning strategies would be most applicable during the phase of work that occurs prior to classroom instruction, the explanation strategies would be more useful when introducing students to active learning activities, while facilitation strategies would be best enacted while students are already working and engaged in the assigned activities. Of course, these strategies may also be used in conjunction with each other and are not strictly limited to these phases. For example, one plausible approach could be using the planning strategies of design and alignment as areas of emphasis during explanation . Overall, we hope that this framework of strategies supports instructors’ adoption and sustained use of active learning.

Creation of the planning category

At the start of this paper, we presented a conceptual framework for strategies consisting of only explanation and facilitation categories (DeMonbrun et al., 2017 ). One of the major contributions of this paper is the addition of a third category, which we call the planning category, to the existing conceptual framework. The planning strategies were common throughout the systematic literature review, and many studies emphasized the need to consider how much time and effort is needed when adding active learning to the course. Although students may not see this preparation, and we did not see this type of strategy initially, explicitly adding the planning category acknowledges the work instructors do outside of the classroom.

The planning strategies also highlight the need for instructors to not only think about implementing active learning before they enter the class, but to revise their implementation after the class is over. Instructors should refine their use of active learning through feedback, reflection, and practice over multiple course offerings. We hope this persistence can lead to long-term adoption of active learning.

Despite our review ending in 2015, most of STEM instruction remains didactic (Laursen, 2019 ; Stains et al., 2018 ), and there has not been a long-term sustained adoption of active learning. In a push to increase the adoption of active learning within undergraduate STEM courses, we hope this study provided support and actionable strategies for instructors who are considering active learning but are concerned about student resistance to active learning.

We identified eight specific strategies to aid implementation of active learning based on three categories. The three categories of strategies were explanation, facilitation, and planning. In this review, we created the third category, planning, and we suggested that this category should be considered first when implementing active learning in the course. Instructors should then focus on explaining and facilitating their activity in the classroom. The eight specific strategies provided here can be incorporated into faculty professional development programs and readily adopted by instructors wanting to implement active learning in their STEM courses.

There remains important future work in active learning research, and we noted these gaps within our review. It would be useful to specifically review and measure instructor strategies in-action and compare its use against other affective outcomes, such as identity, interest, and emotions.

There has yet to be a study that compiles and synthesizes strategies reported from multiple active learning studies, and we hope that this paper filled this important gap. The strategies identified in this review can help instructors persist beyond awkward initial implementations, avoid some problems altogether, and most importantly address student resistance to active learning. Further, the planning strategies emphasize that the use of active learning can be improved over time, which may help instructors have more realistic expectations for the first or second time they implement a new activity. There are many benefits to introducing active learning in the classroom, and we hope that these benefits are shared among more STEM instructors and students.

Availability of data and materials

Journal articles and conference proceedings which make up this review can be found through reverse citation lookup. See the Appendix for the references of all primary studies within this systematic review. We used the following databases to find studies within the review: Web of Science, Academic Search Complete, Compendex, Inspec, Education Source, and Education Resource Information Center. More details and keyword search strings are provided in the “Methods” section.

Abbreviations

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

Student resistance to active learning

Instrument with evidence of validity

Instructor surveys

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Problem solving

Problem or project-based learning

End of course evaluations

Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sciences Education , 8 (3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Autin, M., Bateiha, S., & Marchionda, H. (2013). Power through struggle in introductory statistics. PRIMUS , 23 (10), 935–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2013.820810 .

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist , 37 (2), 122 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122 .

Berkling, K., & Zundel, A. (2015). Change Management: Overcoming the Challenges of Introducing Self-Driven Learning. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 5 (4), 38–46. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/207352/ .

Bilston, L. (1999). Lessons from a problem-based learning class in first year engineering statics . Paper presented at the 2nd Asia-Pacific Forum on Engineering and Technology Education, Clayton, Victoria.

Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Prince, M., Henderson, C., & Froyd, J. E. (2013). Fidelity of implementation of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS) in engineering science courses. Journal of Engineering Education , 102 (3), 394–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20020 .

Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2014). Systematic literature reviews in engineering education and other developing interdisciplinary fields. Journal of Engineering Education , 103 (1), 45–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20038 .

Borrego, M., Nguyen, K., Crockett, C., DeMonbrun, M., Shekhar, P., Tharayil, S., … Waters, C. (2018). Systematic literature review of students’ affective responses to active learning: Overview of results . San Jose: Paper presented at the 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8659306 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development . Sage Publications Inc.

Breckler, J., & Yu, J. R. (2011). Student responses to a hands-on kinesthetic lecture activity for learning about the oxygen carrying capacity of blood. Advances in Physiology Education, 35 (1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00090.2010 .

Bullard, L., & Felder, R. (2007). A student-centered approach to the stoichiometry course . Honolulu: Paper presented at the 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition https://peer.asee.org/1543 .

Carlson, K. A., & Winquist, J. R. (2011). Evaluating an active learning approach to teaching introductory statistics: A classroom workbook approach. Journal of Statistics Education , 19 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2011.11889596 .

Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist , 49 (4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823 .

Christensen, T. (2005). Changing the learning environment in large general education astronomy classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35 (3), 34.

Cooper, M., & Klymkowsky, M. (2013). Chemistry, life, the universe, and everything: A new approach to general chemistry, and a model for curriculum reform. Journal of Chemical Education , 90 (9), 1116–1122. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300456y .

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Sage Publishing Inc.

Dancy, M., Henderson, C., & Turpen, C. (2016). How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of peer instruction. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010110 .

Daniel, B. J. (2019). Teaching while black: Racial dynamics, evaluations, and the role of white females in the Canadian academy in carrying the racism torch. Race Ethnicity and Education , 22 (1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1468745 .

de Justo, E., & Delgado, A. (2014). Change to competence-based education in structural engineering. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice , 141 (3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000215 .

DeMonbrun, R. M., Finelli, C., Prince, M., Borrego, M., Shekhar, P., Henderson, C., & Waters, C. (2017). Creating an instrument to measure student response to instructional practices. Journal of Engineering Education , 106 (2), 273–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20162 .

Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 116 (39), 19251–19257. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116 .

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review , 95 (2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 .

Finelli, C., Nguyen, K., Henderson, C., Borrego, M., Shekhar, P., Prince, M., … Waters, C. (2018). Reducing student resistance to active learning: Strategies for instructors. Journal of College Science Teaching , 47 (5), 80–91 https://www.nsta.org/journal-college-science-teaching/journal-college-science-teaching-mayjune-2018/research-and-1 .

Google Scholar  

Finelli, C. J., Daly, S. R., & Richardson, K. M. (2014). Bridging the research-to-practice gap: Designing an institutional change plan using local evidence. Journal of Engineering Education , 103 (2), 331–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20042 .

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111 (23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 .

Froyd, J. E., Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Henderson, C., & Prince, M. J. (2013). Estimates of use of research-based instructional strategies in core electrical or computer engineering courses. IEEE Transactions on Education , 56 (4), 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2013.2244602 .

Gaffney, J. D., Gaffney, A. L. H., & Beichner, R. J. (2010). Do they see it coming? Using expectancy violation to gauge the success of pedagogical reforms. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research , 6 (1), 010102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.010102 .

Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews . Sage Publishing Inc.

Harun, N. F., Yusof, K. M., Jamaludin, M. Z., & Hassan, S. A. H. S. (2012). Motivation in problem-based learning implementation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 56 , 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.650 .

Haseeb, A. (2011). Implementation of micro-level problem based learning in a course on electronic materialas. Journal of Materials Education , 33 (5-6), 273–282 http://eprints.um.edu.my/id/eprint/5501 .

Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48 (8), 952–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439 .

Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research , 3 (2). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020102 .

Henderson, C., Khan, R., & Dancy, M. (2018). Will my student evaluations decrease if I adopt an active learning instructional strategy? American Journal of Physics , 86 (12), 934–942. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5065907 .

Herkert, J. R. (1997). Collaborative learning in engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics , 3 (4), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0047-x .

Hodgson, Y., Benson, R., & Brack, C. (2013). Using action research to improve student engagement in a peer-assisted learning programme. Educational Action Research, 21 (3), 359-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.813399 .

Hora, M. T., & Ferrare, J. J. (2013). Instructional systems of practice: A multi-dimensional analysis of math and science undergraduate course planning and classroom teaching. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 22 (2), 212–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2012.729767 .

Hutchison, P., & Hammer, D. (2010). Attending to student epistemological framing in a science classroom. Science Education , 94 (3), 506–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20373 .

Jaeger, B., & Bilen, S. (2006). The one-minute engineer: Getting design class out of the starting blocks . Paper presented at the 2006 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, IL. https://peer.asee.org/524 .

Jesiek, B. K., Mazzurco, A., Buswell, N. T., & Thompson, J. D. (2018). Boundary spanning and engineering: A qualitative systematic review. Journal of Engineering Education , 107 (3), 318–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20219 .

Kezar, A., Gehrke, S., & Elrod, S. (2015). Implicit theories of change as a barrier to change on college campuses: An examination of STEM reform. The Review of Higher Education , 38 (4), 479–506. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2015.0026 .

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1976). Evaluation of training. In R. L. Craig (Ed.), Training and development handbook: A guide to human resource development . McGraw Hill.

Knekta, E., Rowland, A. A., Corwin, L. A., & Eddy, S. (2020). Measuring university students’ interest in biology: Evaluation of an instrument targeting Hidi and Renninger’s individual interest. International Journal of STEM Education , 7 , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00217-4 .

Kovac, J. (1999). Student active learning methods in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education , 76 (1), 120. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p120 .

Krishnan, S., & Nalim, M. R. (2009). Project based learning in introductory thermodynamics . Austin: Paper presented at the 2009 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition https://peer.asee.org/5615 .

Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student engagement in the first year of college. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, J. N, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college , (pp. 86–107). Jossey-Bass.

Laatsch, L., Britton, L., Keating, S., Kirchner, P., Lehman, D., Madsen-Myers, K., Milson, L., Otto, C., & Spence, L. (2005). Cooperative learning effects on teamwork attitudes in clinical laboratory science students. American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.29074/ascls.18.3.150 .

Lake, D. A. (2001). Student performance and perceptions of a lecture-based course compared with the same course utilizing group discussion. Physical Therapy , 81 (3), 896–902. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/81.3.896 .

Laursen, S. (2019). Levers for change: An assessment of progress on changing STEM instruction American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.aaas.org/resources/levers-change-assessment-progress-changing-stem-instruction .

Lehtovuori, A., Honkala, M., Kettunen, H., & Leppävirta, J. (2013). Interactive engagement methods in teaching electrical engineering basic courses. In Paper presented at the IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON) . Germany: Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1109/EduCon.2013.6530089 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lenz, L. (2015). Active learning in a math for liberal arts classroom. PRIMUS , 25 (3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2014.971474 .

Li, J., Zhao, Y., & Shi, L. (2009). Interactive teaching methods in information security course . Paper presented at the International Conference on Scalable Computing and Communications; The Eighth International Conference on Embedded Computing. https://doi.org/10.1109/EmbeddedCom-ScalCom.2009.94 .

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., … Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemology , 62 (10), e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 .

Lund, T. J., & Stains, M. (2015). The importance of context: An exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty. International Journal of STEM Education , 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0026-8 .

Machemer, P. L., & Crawford, P. (2007). Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education , 8 (1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787407074008 .

Maib, J., Hall, R., Collier, H., & Thomas, M. (2006). A multi-method evaluation of the implementation of a student response system . Paper presented at the 12th Americas’ Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Acapulco, Mexico. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2006/27 .

McClanahan, E. B., & McClanahan, L. L. (2002). Active learning in a non-majors biology class: Lessons learned. College Teaching , 50 (3), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550209595884 .

McLoone, S., & Brennan, C. (2015). On the use and evaluation of a smart device student response system in an undergraduate mathematics classroom. AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 7(3). http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/243 .

Metzger, K. J. (2015). Collaborative teaching practices in undergraduate active learning classrooms: A report of faculty team teaching models and student reflections from two biology courses. Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching , 41 (1), 3–9 http://www.acube.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2015_1.pdf .

Mitchell, K. M., & Martin, J. (2018). Gender bias in student evaluations. PS: Political Science & Politics , 51 (3), 648–652. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909651800001X .

Nguyen, K., Husman, J., Borrego, M., Shekhar, P., Prince, M., DeMonbrun, R. M., … Waters, C. (2017). Students’ expectations, types of instruction, and instructor strategies predicting student response to active learning. International Journal of Engineering Education , 33 (1(A)), 2–18 http://www.ijee.ie/latestissues/Vol33-1A/02_ijee3363ns.pdf .

Oakley, B. A., Hanna, D. M., Kuzmyn, Z., & Felder, R. M. (2007). Best practices involving teamwork in the classroom: Results from a survey of 6435 engineering student respondents. IEEE Transactions on Education , 50 (3), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2007.901982 .

Oliveira, P. C., & Oliveira, C. G. (2014). Integrator element as a promoter of active learning in engineering teaching. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39 (2), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2013.854318 .

Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., Barlow, A. T., & Smith-Walters, C. (2020). Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Research in Science Education , 50 (1), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1 .

Parker Siburt, C. J., Bissell, A. N., & Macphail, R. A. (2011). Developing Metacognitive and Problem-Solving Skills through Problem Manipulation. Journal of Chemical Education, 88 (11), 1489–1495. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100891s .

Passow, H. J., & Passow, C. H. (2017). What competencies should undergraduate engineering programs emphasize? A systematic review. Journal of Engineering Education , 106 (3), 475–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20171 .

Patrick, L. E., Howell, L. A., & Wischusen, W. (2016). Perceptions of active learning between faculty and undergraduates: Differing views among departments. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research , 17 (3), 55 https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/2121/1776 .

Pellegrino, J., DiBello, L., & Brophy, S. (2014). The science and design of assessment in engineering education. In A. Johri, & B. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of engineering education research , (pp. 571–598). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.036 .

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide . Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887 .

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education , 93 , 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x .

Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching , 36 (5), 14–20.

Ramsier, R. D., Broadway, F. S., Cheung, H. M., Evans, E. A., & Qammar, H. K. (2003). University physics: A hybrid approach . Nashville: Paper presented at the 2003 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition https://peer.asee.org/11934 .

Regev, G., Gause, D. C., & Wegmann, A. (2008). Requirements engineering education in the 21st century, an experiential learning approach . 2008 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, Catalunya. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2008.28 .

Rockland, R., Hirsch, L., Burr-Alexander, L., Carpinelli, J. D., & Kimmel, H. S. (2013). Learning outside the classroom—Flipping an undergraduate circuits analysis course . Atlanta: Paper presented at the 2013 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition https://peer.asee.org/19868 .

Schmidt, J. A., Rosenberg, J. M., & Beymer, P. N. (2018). A person-in-context approach to student engagement in science: Examining learning activities and choice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 55 (1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21409 .

Shekhar, P., Borrego, M., DeMonbrun, M., Finelli, C., Crockett, C., & Nguyen, K. (2020). Negative student response to active learning in STEM classrooms: A systematic review of underlying reasons. Journal of College Science Teaching , 49 (6) https://www.nsta.org/journal-college-science-teaching/journal-college-science-teaching-julyaugust-2020/negative-student .

Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education , 94 (1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00831.x .

Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M., Chasteen, S., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S., … Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in north American universities. Science , 359 (6383), 1468–1470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892 .

Stains, M., & Vickrey, T. (2017). Fidelity of implementation: An overlooked yet critical construct to establish effectiveness of evidence-based instructional practices. CBE Life Sciences Education , 16 (1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0113 .

Stump, G. S., Husman, J., & Corby, M. (2014). Engineering students' intelligence beliefs and learning. Journal of Engineering Education , 103 (3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20051 .

Tharayil, S., Borrego, M., Prince, M., Nguyen, K. A., Shekhar, P., Finelli, C. J., & Waters, C. (2018). Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning. International Journal of STEM Education , 5 (1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0102-y .

Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., … Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117 (12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117 .

Tolman, A., Kremling, J., & Tagg, J. (2016). Why students resist learning: A practical model for understanding and helping students . Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Harvard University Press.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice . Wiley.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 25 (1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015 .

Winkler, I., & Rybnikova, I. (2019). Student resistance in the classroom—Functional-instrumentalist, critical-emancipatory and critical-functional conceptualisations. Higher Education Quarterly , 73 (4), 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12219 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank our collaborators, Charles Henderson and Michael Prince, for their early contributions to this project, including screening hundreds of abstracts and full papers. Thank you to Adam Papendieck and Katherine Doerr for their feedback on early versions of this manuscript. Finally, thank you to the anonymous reviewers at the International Journal of STEM Education for your constructive feedback.

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation through grant #1744407. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hutchins School of Liberal Studies, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA, USA

Kevin A. Nguyen

Departments of Curriculum & Instruction and Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

Maura Borrego & Sneha Tharayil

Departments of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science and Education, University of Michigan, 4413 EECS Building, 1301 Beal Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

Cynthia J. Finelli & Caroline Crockett

Enrollment Management Research Group, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA

Matt DeMonbrun

School of Applied Engineering and Technology, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA

Prateek Shekhar

Advanced Manufacturing and Materials, Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, Potomac, MD, USA

Cynthia Waters

Cabot Science Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

Robyn Rosenberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the design and execution of this paper. KN, MB, and CW created the original vision for the paper. RR solicited, downloaded, and catalogued all studies for review. All authors contributed in reviewing and screening hundreds of studies. KN then led the initial analysis and creation of strategy codes. CF reviewed and finalized the analysis. All authors drafted, reviewed, and finalized sections of the paper. KN, MB, MD, and CC led the final review of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cynthia J. Finelli .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Nguyen, K.A., Borrego, M., Finelli, C.J. et al. Instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning: a systematic literature review. IJ STEM Ed 8 , 9 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00270-7

Download citation

Received : 19 June 2020

Accepted : 18 January 2021

Published : 15 March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00270-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Active learning
• Systematic review
• Instructor strategies; student response

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Image credit: Claire Scully

New advances in technology are upending education, from the recent debut of new artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots like ChatGPT to the growing accessibility of virtual-reality tools that expand the boundaries of the classroom. For educators, at the heart of it all is the hope that every learner gets an equal chance to develop the skills they need to succeed. But that promise is not without its pitfalls.

“Technology is a game-changer for education – it offers the prospect of universal access to high-quality learning experiences, and it creates fundamentally new ways of teaching,” said Dan Schwartz, dean of Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE), who is also a professor of educational technology at the GSE and faculty director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning . “But there are a lot of ways we teach that aren’t great, and a big fear with AI in particular is that we just get more efficient at teaching badly. This is a moment to pay attention, to do things differently.”

For K-12 schools, this year also marks the end of the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding program, which has provided pandemic recovery funds that many districts used to invest in educational software and systems. With these funds running out in September 2024, schools are trying to determine their best use of technology as they face the prospect of diminishing resources.

Here, Schwartz and other Stanford education scholars weigh in on some of the technology trends taking center stage in the classroom this year.

AI in the classroom

In 2023, the big story in technology and education was generative AI, following the introduction of ChatGPT and other chatbots that produce text seemingly written by a human in response to a question or prompt. Educators immediately worried that students would use the chatbot to cheat by trying to pass its writing off as their own. As schools move to adopt policies around students’ use of the tool, many are also beginning to explore potential opportunities – for example, to generate reading assignments or coach students during the writing process.

AI can also help automate tasks like grading and lesson planning, freeing teachers to do the human work that drew them into the profession in the first place, said Victor Lee, an associate professor at the GSE and faculty lead for the AI + Education initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “I’m heartened to see some movement toward creating AI tools that make teachers’ lives better – not to replace them, but to give them the time to do the work that only teachers are able to do,” he said. “I hope to see more on that front.”

He also emphasized the need to teach students now to begin questioning and critiquing the development and use of AI. “AI is not going away,” said Lee, who is also director of CRAFT (Classroom-Ready Resources about AI for Teaching), which provides free resources to help teach AI literacy to high school students across subject areas. “We need to teach students how to understand and think critically about this technology.”

Immersive environments

The use of immersive technologies like augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality is also expected to surge in the classroom, especially as new high-profile devices integrating these realities hit the marketplace in 2024.

The educational possibilities now go beyond putting on a headset and experiencing life in a distant location. With new technologies, students can create their own local interactive 360-degree scenarios, using just a cell phone or inexpensive camera and simple online tools.

“This is an area that’s really going to explode over the next couple of years,” said Kristen Pilner Blair, director of research for the Digital Learning initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, which runs a program exploring the use of virtual field trips to promote learning. “Students can learn about the effects of climate change, say, by virtually experiencing the impact on a particular environment. But they can also become creators, documenting and sharing immersive media that shows the effects where they live.”

Integrating AI into virtual simulations could also soon take the experience to another level, Schwartz said. “If your VR experience brings me to a redwood tree, you could have a window pop up that allows me to ask questions about the tree, and AI can deliver the answers.”

Gamification

Another trend expected to intensify this year is the gamification of learning activities, often featuring dynamic videos with interactive elements to engage and hold students’ attention.

“Gamification is a good motivator, because one key aspect is reward, which is very powerful,” said Schwartz. The downside? Rewards are specific to the activity at hand, which may not extend to learning more generally. “If I get rewarded for doing math in a space-age video game, it doesn’t mean I’m going to be motivated to do math anywhere else.”

Gamification sometimes tries to make “chocolate-covered broccoli,” Schwartz said, by adding art and rewards to make speeded response tasks involving single-answer, factual questions more fun. He hopes to see more creative play patterns that give students points for rethinking an approach or adapting their strategy, rather than only rewarding them for quickly producing a correct response.

Data-gathering and analysis

The growing use of technology in schools is producing massive amounts of data on students’ activities in the classroom and online. “We’re now able to capture moment-to-moment data, every keystroke a kid makes,” said Schwartz – data that can reveal areas of struggle and different learning opportunities, from solving a math problem to approaching a writing assignment.

But outside of research settings, he said, that type of granular data – now owned by tech companies – is more likely used to refine the design of the software than to provide teachers with actionable information.

The promise of personalized learning is being able to generate content aligned with students’ interests and skill levels, and making lessons more accessible for multilingual learners and students with disabilities. Realizing that promise requires that educators can make sense of the data that’s being collected, said Schwartz – and while advances in AI are making it easier to identify patterns and findings, the data also needs to be in a system and form educators can access and analyze for decision-making. Developing a usable infrastructure for that data, Schwartz said, is an important next step.

With the accumulation of student data comes privacy concerns: How is the data being collected? Are there regulations or guidelines around its use in decision-making? What steps are being taken to prevent unauthorized access? In 2023 K-12 schools experienced a rise in cyberattacks, underscoring the need to implement strong systems to safeguard student data.

Technology is “requiring people to check their assumptions about education,” said Schwartz, noting that AI in particular is very efficient at replicating biases and automating the way things have been done in the past, including poor models of instruction. “But it’s also opening up new possibilities for students producing material, and for being able to identify children who are not average so we can customize toward them. It’s an opportunity to think of entirely new ways of teaching – this is the path I hope to see.”

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

This article is part of the research topic.

Research on Teaching Strategies and Skills in Different Educational Stages

Shaping Future-Ready Graduates with Mindset Shifts: Studying the Impact of Integrating Critical and Design Thinking in Design Innovation Education Provisionally Accepted

• 1 Singapore Institute of Technology, Singapore

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

In an era marked by rapid change and complex global challenges, Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are tasked with preparing students to navigate and address these evolving demands. This paper explores the critical role of Higher Education (HE) in equipping students with the necessary skills and mindsets to tackle real-world problems through innovative solutions. Integrating critical thinking and design thinking within a Design Innovation module is central to this exploration. The study is undergirded by a conceptual framework that blends critical, design, and futures thinking, focusing exclusively in this paper on applying critical thinking (CT) and design thinking (DT). The research investigates two primary questions: (1) How do students' DT and CT mindsets change after participation in a Design Innovation module? (2) Is CT a prerequisite for developing DT? This study aims to illuminate the shifts in students' mindsets from before to after the completion of the module, highlighting the importance of developing key dispositions for ethical and socially responsible problem-solving. Results show a statistically significant increase in CT and DT disposition scores from pre-to post-test, suggesting a shift to more positive CT and DT mindsets after going through the Design Innovation module. In addition, a significant moderation effect of pre-test CT mindset on the relationship between pre-test and post-test DT mindset scores was observed, implying that CT was a prerequisite for DT. The findings offer insights into the module's effectiveness in fostering future-ready graduates' thinking capabilities on innovating for real-world challenges and highlight the need for our future-ready students to achieve critical competence and creative confidence. Finally, we conclude the paper with recommendations for educators to integrate CT skill development intentionally and in tandem with DT skill development for a balanced approach to developing critical competence and creative confidence in interdisciplinary courses.

Keywords: Critical Thinking, design thinking, Design innovation, 21st-century skills and dispositions, interdisciplinary learning A. Tolerance for -Being comfortable with Ambiguity -Uncertainty

Received: 19 Dec 2023; Accepted: 15 May 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Patel, Puah and Kok. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Dr. Nadya S. Patel, Singapore Institute of Technology, Singapore, Singapore

People also looked at

Former far-right GOPer: Billionaires using school board races to sow distrust in public education

Republican school board member says it’s part of their strategy to build support for vouchers, by jeremy schwartz.

This article originally appeared on ProPublica .

When Courtney Gore ran for a seat on her local school board in 2021, she warned about a movement to indoctrinate children with “leftist” ideology. After 2 1/2 years on the board, Gore said she believes a much different scheme is unfolding: an effort by wealthy conservative donors to undermine public education in Texas and install a voucher system in which public money flows to private and religious schools.

Gore points to West Texas billionaires Tim Dunn and brothers Farris and Dan Wilks, who have contributed to various political action committees that have poured millions into legislative candidates who have promoted vouchers. The men also fund or serve on the boards of a host of public policy and advocacy organizations that have led the fight for vouchers in Texas.

In recent years, the largesse from Dunn and the Wilks brothers has reached local communities across Texas, including Granbury, near Fort Worth, where fights over library books, curriculum and vouchers have dominated the community conversation.

Gore said that she believes school board candidates are being recruited, at times without their full knowledge, in an effort “to cause as much disruption and chaos as possible” and weaken community faith in local school districts.

In 2021, two local men — former state representative Mike Lang and political consultant Nate Criswell — asked Gore to run for school board. At the time, the three were co-hosts of a web-based talk show that targeted local officials they believed were insufficiently conservative and were straying from GOP platform positions. They took frequent aim at the Granbury school district, which they alleged was allowing explicit sexual content into school libraries and teaching divisive ideas about race.

Gore broke from the group shortly after taking office in January 2022, when she concluded that the materials she had warned about on the campaign trail were not present in Granbury schools. She claims the men and other leaders of the far-right faction in Hood County, home to Granbury, dismissed her findings. They continued to pummel the district over books and curriculum, supported school board candidates who sought to remove a growing number of titles from library shelves, and worked to derail three bond elections that would have funded new and renovated buildings for the overcrowded district.

That’s when Gore said she began to piece together connections that hadn’t been previously apparent to her.

Lang, a Republican who represented Hood County in the state Legislature for four years, received more than $600,000 in campaign contributions — more than half his total — from direct donations from or PACs funded by the Wilks brothers and Dunn. On the campaign trail, Lang supported providing public money for private schools and, in 2017, voted against a House measure that prohibited funding for school vouchers. He did not respond to requests for comment.

In addition, in January 2022, Criswell’s political consulting company received $3,000 from Defend Texas Liberty , one of the PACs funded by the Wilks family and Dunn. The PAC donated another $3,000 to Criswell this year when he unsuccessfully ran for Hood County commissioner.

Criswell declined to answer specific questions but said he has closed his consulting firm, Criswell Strategies, and has “stepped away from the local political scene, aside from occasionally sharing posts on social media.”

According to her campaign finance reports, Gore did not receive any money from the men. But another school board candidate, her then-ally Melanie Graft, received a $100 in-kind contribution from Defend Texas Liberty for advertising expenses. Graft did not respond to written questions or requests for comment.

“I was knee-deep in it,” Gore said about the local connections to the billionaires. “I guess I was just too naive. I should have known better.”

Neither Dunn nor a representative of the Wilks family responded to questions. Dunn recently penned an opinion piece in the Midland Reporter-Telegram arguing that he was not the leader of the statewide push for vouchers and has never made public statements on the topic.

Nearly two decades ago, however, Dunn argued in favor of a voucher-like program, saying that the Texas Public Policy Foundation , a conservative think tank on whose board he has served for more than 20 years, supported such an idea “as long-time advocates of eliminating the government monopoly in public education.” In March, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who is among the state’s fiercest advocates for directing public education funds to private schools, credited the organization’s longtime advocacy with bringing the state to the “threshold” of a voucher-like program.

Dunn is also the founder of Midland Classical Academy , a private school that offers its approximately 600 K-12 students a “Classical Education from a Biblical Worldview,” according to its website . The school believes in interpreting the Bible in its literal sense, which it takes to mean that marriage can only be between a man and a woman and that there are only two genders.

Zachary Maxwell, Lang’s former chief of staff who later worked for Empower Texans, a pro-voucher public policy organization whose associated PAC was largely funded by Dunn and the Wilks brothers , would not speak about his time there, citing a nondisclosure agreement he signed when he left the organization.

Maxwell, however, said he has become disenchanted by Dunn and the Wilks family’s efforts to exert control over the state’s politics. He said Hood County hard-liners, some of whom have close ties to PACs funded by Dunn and the Wilks brothers, were trying to use Gore and Graft to drive a wedge between rural residents and their school district in an effort to build support for vouchers. The women’s presence on the school board enhanced the legitimacy of the group’s claims about pornography in libraries and Marxist indoctrination, Maxwell said.

“It’s all about destroying the trust with the citizens to the point where they would tolerate something like doing away with public schools,” he said in an interview.

Over the past two years, Abbott has teamed up with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, embarking on a tour of Texas towns to promote vouchers. Following the narrow defeat of voucher legislation in November in the Texas House of Representatives, the Republican governor campaigned to unseat lawmakers in his party who opposed such legislation. He successfully ousted five of them.

One of the Republicans who lost in the primary was Glenn Rogers, whose rural district sits just north of Hood County and whom Abbott endorsed in 2020. This time around, Abbott gave $200,000 in campaign support to Rogers’ pro-voucher opponent. Dunn and the WiIlks brothers donated another $100,000.

Rogers, who represented Hood County until 2021, when lawmakers changed the boundaries of his district, said he believes privatizing public education is at the core of Dunn and the Wilks brothers’ political efforts in Hood County and across the state.

“Whether it’s at the school board level or it’s what’s happening in the Texas Legislature right now, that’s their end goal,” he said.

Related Topics ------------------------------------------

Related articles.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

UK universities report drop in international students amid visa doubts

Creative UK and Universities UK urge government to reject plans to abolish or restrict graduate visa route

Universities are reporting a steep drop in international students applying to come to the UK, amid warnings that further restrictions on student visas would torpedo a vital flow of talent for Britain’s creative industries.

University and industry leaders fear that the graduate visa entitlement, which allows international graduates to work in the UK for up to three years, could be axed or curtailed, depending on the findings of a report by the migration advisory committee (MAC) due to be delivered to the government on Tuesday.

Creative UK, which represents the creative industries, says removing the ability for international students to stay and work in the UK after graduation would be a powerful disincentive to study here, damaging a sector worth £108bn a year.

Restrictions on international students imposed earlier this year may already have caused a decline in students applying from overseas, and uncertainty over the fate of the graduate visa appears to have set off a further fall, according to a survey of UK universities.

The poll of 75 institutions by the British Universities’ International Liaison Association found that nine out of 10 had fewer international applications for the next academic year, and there had been a 27% fall in total applications for taught postgraduate courses compared with last year.

A joint letter by Creative UK and Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, urges the government to reject plans to abolish or restrict the graduate visa route, arguing that international graduates are integral to the creative industries, which are now more significant than the UK’s aerospace, life sciences and automotive industries combined.

“Following further increases to visa fees and salary thresholds, the graduate visa represents one of the few routes left which enables talented graduates to remain in the UK and contribute to our growing creative industries,” the letter states. “Whether it’s a young Jimmy Choo developing his craft at Cordwainers or world-renowned DJ Peggy Gou , who studied at London College of Fashion, the role our universities play in attracting the best creative talent from around the world goes to show the soft-power influence of our institutions.”

Sally Mapstone, the vice-chancellor of St Andrews University and president of Universities UK, told Sky News on Sunday: “International students are incredibly important to UK culture. They contribute a huge amount to universities, to the economy, to skills and jobs and we think it would be a tragedy – calamitous not just for institutions but actually for the UK as a whole – if the government took what would actually be quite unnecessary further action to restrict the number of international students.”

The British Academy has told the MAC that removing the graduate visa would “stifle the vibrancy of the UK’s academic and research landscape”, with a continuing fall in international student numbers threatening the financial sustainability of universities, triggering course closures and staff redundancies.

Fears for the future of the visa have grown since March when the home secretary, James Cleverly, commissioned the MAC “to ensure the graduate route is not being abused. In particular, that some of the demand for study visas is not being driven more by a desire for immigration.”

Last week Robert Jenrick, a former immigration minister, published a report with the Centre for Policy Studies thinktank that called for the graduate visa to be abolished, claiming it “allowed people to come and work in the gig economy and on very low wages”.

A government spokesperson said: “We are fully focused on striking the right balance between acting decisively to tackle net migration and attracting the brightest students to our universities, recognising the significant contribution they make to the UK.”

• International students
• Higher education
• Immigration and asylum
• University funding
• Higher education policy
• Universities

Most viewed

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Educ

Strategies for teaching evidence-based practice in nursing education: a thematic literature review

May-elin t. horntvedt.

1 Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, the Department of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, P.O. Box 235, N-3603 Kongsberg, Norway

Anita Nordsteien

2 Department of Research and Internationalisation, University of South-Eastern Norway, P.O. Box 235, N-3603 Kongsberg, Norway

Torbjørg Fermann

Elisabeth severinsson.

3 Centre for Women’s, Family and Child Health, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, P.O. Box 235, N-3603 Kongsberg, Norway

Associated Data

Not applicable. All studies included in this review can be sourced online.

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is imperative for ensuring patient safety. Although teaching strategies to enhance EBP knowledge and skills are recommended, recent research indicates that nurses may not be well prepared to apply EBP. A three-level hierarchy for teaching and learning evidence-based medicine is suggested, including the requirement for interactive clinical activities in EBP teaching strategies. This literature review identifies the teaching strategies for EBP knowledge and skills currently used in undergraduate nursing education. We also describe students’ and educators’ experiences with learning outcomes and barriers.

We conducted literature searches using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC and Academic Search Premier. Six qualitative studies and one mixed-method study met the inclusion criteria and were critically evaluated based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Using Braun and Clarke’s six phases, the seven studies were deductively and thematically analysed to discover themes.

Four teaching strategy themes were identified, including subthemes within each theme: i.e., interactive teaching strategies; interactive and clinical integrated teaching strategies; learning outcomes; and barriers. Although four studies included a vague focus on teaching EBP principles, they all included research utilisation and interactive teaching strategies. Reported learning outcomes included enhanced analytical and critical skills and using research to ensure patient safety. Barriers included challenging collaborations, limited awareness of EBP principles and poor information literacy skills.

Four of the seven analysed studies included a vague focus on the use of EBP teaching strategies. Interactive teaching strategies are used, but primary strategies focus on searching for and critically appraising research for practice-based application. Although this review included a relatively small sample of literature, the findings indicate a need for more qualitative research investigating interactive and clinically integrated teaching strategies towards further enhancing EBP undergraduate nursing students’ knowledge and skills.

Evidence-based practice (EBP) in health care has become imperative for patient safety. EBP involves a conscious use and application of various knowledge sources, including the use of published research in conjunction with clinical expertise and patient values and preferences [ 1 ]. The process of EBP includes that health-care personnel formulate structured queries, and then conduct searches of databases from which they acquire trustworthy and reliable evidence. Further, they must then critically appraise the research for its reliability, validity and applicability to a clinical context [ 2 , 3 ].

Interactive methods including interactive lectures, small group work, journal clubs, reading quizzes, clinical nurse presentations, workshops and problem-based learning are needed in teaching EBP [ 2 , 3 ]. An interactive approach involves an interaction amongst the participants [ 3 ]. Effective learning reflects the quality of teaching. Learning though a constructivist approach refers to the creation of an environment in which the learner is an active participant who gains experience and engages in reflection, leading to problem-based, transformative learning [ 4 ].To engage the next generation of nurses and enhance their EBP knowledge and skills, a variety of teaching strategies have been recommended [ 5 – 7 ].

Khan and Coomarasamy [ 3 ] have described a three-level hierarchy of evidence-based medicine (EBM) teaching and learning methods. The first level is interactive clinical activities. The second level is classroom didactics using clinical and interactive activities. Finally, although less preferred for teaching EBP, the third level is classroom didactic or stand-alone teaching [ 3 ]. According to Fineout-Overholt et al. [ 2 ], it is important to keep teaching strategies simple and integration of EBP must be a natural part of the academic culture.

Research supports the first level in this hierarchy when teaching EBP; i.e., an interactive style is often preferred because this method facilitates student learning [ 8 – 10 ]. Johnson et al. [ 11 ] found that new learning methods and blended approaches to teaching EBP impact students’ attitudes towards research. In addition, Crookes et al. [ 12 ] identified different meaningful and engaging teaching strategies that have been adopted by nurse educators, such as online teaching, gaming and simulation techniques. However, these authors also concluded that nursing education needs to include more active lecture styles to strengthen the link between course content and clinical practice [ 12 ]. Ryan [ 10 ] introduced teaching strategies as extrinsic factors and found that teaching EBP and research methods may be more relevant if taught in a clinical context rather than using traditional didactic methods.

A mixed-methods meta-synthesis examining awareness and adoption of EBP stated that EBP skills for registered nurses and Bachelor of Science in Nursing (RN-to-BSN) students are influenced by exposure to partnerships and contextual teaching and learning, as well as clinical practice experience [ 13 ]. Teaching and learning strategies have included clinical practicum projects, lectures, small group work, post-clinical conferences, online modules and simulations [ 13 ]. EBP teachers who collaborate with their students, and nurses in clinical practice also influence students’ integration of EBP [ 2 ].

To ensure nursing students’ enhanced EBP knowledge, it is also essential to build partnerships with librarians who teach information literacy, which involves searching for relevant research in databases and evaluating and using that information in relation to course requirements and assignments [ 2 , 14 ]. Reported barriers to the adoption of EBP include difficulties with searching databases and evaluating research, feeling isolated from knowledgeable colleagues and the perception that there are minimal benefits from EBP. Countering these barriers, Phillips and Cullen [ 13 ] found that a variety of teaching and learning strategies may empower students’ implementation of EBP in clinical practice.

Emerson and Records’ [ 15 ] overview of scholarship and its role in nursing education includes a description of catalysts that enhance EBP in nursing and the knowledge necessary for EBP teaching. They state that scholarly teaching is an academic expectation; however, it does not appear to advance either the education or the discipline beyond the individual level. Indeed, nurses face challenges to EBP from their inability to locate and critically evaluate information [ 16 – 19 ].

The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) framework specifies expected learning outcomes for candidates with a Bachelor’s degree, including skills in finding, evaluating, referring and applying scientific information [ 20 ]. Likewise, the Code of Ethics of the International Council of Nurses stresses that nurses must be aware of and implement research results into their clinical practice [ 21 ]. Despite these guidelines, it appears that teaching EBP in nursing education varies among nurse educators and universities, and that clinical preceptors may have insufficient knowledge needed to support students [ 2 , 10 , 19 ]. Recent research indicates that nurses may not be well prepared to use EBP in their clinical practice [ 22 , 23 ].

There is a dearth of literature regarding the effect of teaching and learning strategies on implementing EBP in nursing education [ 10 , 13 , 23 , 24 ] and it is currently unclear whether implementation of EBP training leads to improved nursing practice [ 13 ].

In this literature review, we aimed to identify strategies for teaching EBP in undergraduate nursing education. The review questions were: “What teaching strategies are used to enhance knowledge and skills in EBP in undergraduate nursing education and what are the learning outcomes and barriers?”

Identification of studies

We conducted literature searches using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier and ERIC. The PICo framework for qualitative research was used to develop the review questions, plan the search and define the inclusion criteria. The population or participants assessed were nursing students, nursing education and nursing programmes. The phenomenon of interest was teaching and the specific context was EBP education. These concepts were transformed into the actual subject headings and text used in the search strategy in Medline (Table  1 ), which represents how the concepts were truncated and combined using Boolean and proximity operators in all database searches. The search criteria included qualitative studies published in English from 2006 through 2017. This range was chosen based on an initial search in PubMed PubReMiner indicating that most research on EBP training in nursing education was published since 2006, when EBP gained a foothold in nursing education. We examined the references cited in the retrieved studies, as well as studies in Google Scholar that cited the retrieved studies.

Example of the search strategy in Medline

The inclusion criteria were: 1) original, qualitative research focused on EBP teaching strategies in undergraduate nursing education, i.e., we focused on qualitative research to gain a deeper insight into teacher and student experiences with these strategies; 2) peer-reviewed, original research; 3) studies on educators, student participation, or both; and 4) studies evaluated as moderate or high quality according to the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) [ 25 ]. The exclusion criteria were: reviews, quantitative studies, theoretical studies and contributions that were not original research articles. Articles related to teaching strategies directed at health-care personnel, master programmes or postgraduate nursing education were also excluded.

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) [ 26 ] flowchart in the retrieval and selection process (Fig.  1 ) to identify 972 records from an initial database search and an additional 35 by manually searching those studies’ bibliographies. After duplicates were eliminated, we screened the abstracts of 724 articles. Of these, 708 articles did not meet our inclusion criteria, thus we obtained 16 full-text articles for further analysis. Each of the four authors examined all 16 articles, of which nine were excluded because of their low quality, focus on clinical intervention, or lack of focus on undergraduate nursing education. The final seven articles were included in the review.

PRISMA flowchart of the screening and the assessment process

Critical appraisal

All four authors independently appraised the seven final articles for their methodological quality using CASP (Table  2 ), with moderate and high methodological quality defined as meeting 6–8 and 9–10 of the CASP checklist criteria, respectively. We discussed disagreements until consensus was reached.

Quality assessment based on the CASP Qualitative Research Checklist

CASP criteria for qualitative studies: 1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?; 2. Was a qualitative methodology appropriate?; 3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?; 4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?; 5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?; 6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered?; 7 Have ethical issues been considered?; 8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?; 9. Is there a clear statement of the findings?; 10. How valuable is the research? ( Y Yes, N No, U Unclear)

A thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes based on the six phases described by Braun and Clarke [ 27 ], whose deductive approach refers to themes identified top down; in other words, we coded themes based on our specific review question. Although Braun and Clarke [ 27 ] recommend using narrative text, the included qualitative studies and mixed-methods study provided text-based data. In the first phase, all four authors familiarised themselves with the research by reading and rereading the data from each study. In the second phase, the first author carried out a systematic, manual coding of features that led to initial codes, before searching for themes in the third phase. Phase four involved reviewing the themes for correlation with the codes and identification of subthemes. After defining the themes in phase five, the findings were evaluated for relevance to the research question. The authors met several times to discuss the analysis process and to reach consensus on the labelling.

A summary of the studies and their findings are presented in Table  3 . The seven studies were conducted in Norway, the United Kingdom (UK), Sweden, Australia and Finland [ 28 – 33 ]. Qualitative data were also gathered from one mixed-methods study [ 34 ] conducted in the UK which, although using mixed methods, reported qualitative findings from students’ graffiti board comments and a focus group interview regarding lectures.

Studies included in this review

The four themes (and subthemes within each theme) were: 1) Interactive teaching strategies (Research utilisation, Information literacy and Assignments as learning activities); 2) Interactive and clinically integrated teaching strategies (Teaching EBP principles and Clinical integration and collaborations); 3) Learning outcomes (Enhancing analytical skills and Changing attitudes toward utilising research); and 4) Barriers (Information literacy skills and knowledge and Challenging collaboration).

Interactive teaching strategies

An improved understanding of the differences between quantitative and qualitative methods was highlighted as an important aspect of preparation for nursing practice [ 29 – 32 , 34 ]. Interactive strategies to teach the research process, critical appraisal and development of information literacy skills were also emphasised. Interactive learning activities such as problem-based learning, sharing information, flipped classroom and virtual simulation, workshops, group work and seminars with discussions were identified [ 30 , 33 , 34 ]. In some studies, oral presentations of students’ research findings in a clinical setting were highlighted as an important part of the teaching and learning strategy [ 28 , 32 , 34 ].

Research utilisation

Traditional teaching methods preparing students to use research were aimed at improving critical thinking skills, critically evaluating various literature sources and developing information literacy skills [ 30 – 32 , 34 ].

Group work was also identified as a teaching strategy for establishing research utilisation [ 28 , 30 , 34 ]. In the mixed-methods study [ 30 ], several workshops and monthly sessions were conducted to improve research competence among both lecturers and students.

Experiential learning was often supplemented by collaborative group learning, such as partnerships for learning course content [ 34 ]. The authors presented experiential teaching approaches as a motivational tool for improving research learning. The students used student-centred approaches and completed small group research studies. Assignments included carrying out a literature review, developing a proposal, facing a mock ethics committee, and collecting and analysing data. This student work was supported by pertinent lectures, including via ‘Blackboard’, a virtual learning platform. Finally, students presented their methodologic and analytic approaches on the virtual learning platform [ 34 ].

Information literacy

Teaching information literacy and interdisciplinary collaboration, especially with librarians, was emphasised as an important part of students’ learning how to find and use research [ 29 – 31 , 33 – 35 ]. In contrast, collaboration with librarians was not mentioned in Mattila and Eriksson’s [ 32 ] study.

Friberg and Lyckhage’s [ 30 ] study emphasised the significance of research utility and disseminating research results. Cader et al. [ 29 ] revealed differences in students’ knowledge of computer and information literacy skills. In one study, differences appear to have been influenced by the role of the library in supporting nursing students, curriculum content and emphasis, and interaction with lecturers and peers [ 33 ]. Nurse educators indicated a need for staff development and a progressive approach to the curriculum to ensure students’ understanding of IL and its links to learning [ 33 ].

An environment supportive of the learning process promoted change and development. Collaboration with and facilitation and guidance by academic and library staff was considered essential for a successful process and outcome [ 29 , 33 ]. It was also clear from these studies that nursing students need greater support to access, use and evaluate information fully [ 29 , 32 , 33 ].

Assignments as learning activities

Course assignments were included as a part of the learning process in all evaluated studies, which included activities preparing students to use research or enhance their EBP knowledge and skills. Assignments that were integrated into clinical practice were particularly emphasised in the studies that focused on teaching EBP principles [ 28 , 29 , 31 ].

An assignment focusing on analysis of health needs was undertaken to help student nurses gain an understanding of the relevance of EBP [ 29 ]. Nursing students were found to require further development of their critical appraisal skills and further improvement of the guidance from both academics and librarians was needed [ 29 ].

Friberg and Lyckhage [ 30 ] emphasised essay writing as a learning tool and used different literature-based research methods to meet this goal.

Interactive and clinically integrated teaching strategies

The thematic analysis identified interactive and clinically integrated teaching strategies. Interactive clinical strategies included assignments based on collaboration with health-care personnel in clinical practice. Learning activities with oral presentations of the findings from the students’ studies delivered in their clinical work settings were also mentioned [ 28 , 32 ].

Teaching EBP principles

A focus on teaching the six EBP steps was evident in the studies by André et al. [ 28 ], Cader et al. [ 29 ] and Malik et al. [ 31 ]. Research utilisation was emphasised in these reports. There was a vague focus on EBP principles in three of the studies [ 30 , 32 , 33 ] and integrated teaching activities to teach clinical strategies were described in four of the studies [ 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 ].

Clinical integration and collaboration

In the study by Malik et al. [ 31 ], students participated in clinical projects and analysed data with researchers. Clinical experts were also engaged in the lectures.

Cader et al. [ 29 ] emphasised the benefit of students carrying out analyses of health needs through collaboration within the clinical practice context. To this end, nursing students conducted ‘mini’ research projects including an analysis of the health needs of a particular patient group with a common problem or diagnosis. Although the nursing students found the assignment challenging and time consuming, they also considered it meaningful because accessing information about health needs made the evidence relevant.

Mattila and Eriksson [ 32 ] outlined a learning assignment conducted during a six-week clinical practice period in which students chose topics aimed at utilising research and enhancing their competence in the clinical practice context. The clinical instructor approved a selected research article that was applicable to clinical practice and the nursing students orally presented their findings to fellow students and staff at their clinical practice placement.

A Norwegian pilot study by André et al. [ 28 ] focused on participation and cooperation in clinical research projects, which nursing students specified was a motivation for learning EBP. These students strongly appreciated working with experienced nurses on their clinical projects.

Learning outcomes

Students expressed that writing assignments helped them understand the research process. Based on the nursing students’ reports, they were motivated by being able to choose topics that were of interest to them [ 29 , 32 , 34 ]. Learning outcomes from teaching strategies were presented in most of the studies we evaluated, and it was from these outcomes that the Enhancing analytical skills and Increased awareness of using research subthemes were identified.

Enhancing analytical skills

Nursing students reported learning enhanced analytical and critical thinking skills, and some of the findings were outcomes of specific assignments and teaching strategies [ 28 – 30 , 34 ]. Students experienced learning outcomes and thus acknowledged the importance of research utilisation to their future clinical practice. It was emphasised in the reports that these students considered their key roles to be research consumers rather than producers [ 28 – 30 , 32 , 34 ]. Students also developed a greater awareness of the core role of nursing and that use of research is imperative in the nursing profession.

Based on the assignments they were given, the students in these studies reported learning outcomes such as understanding how to apply relevant evidence to everyday clinical practice. In this way, they learned to link research to health needs [ 28 – 30 ]. Mattila and Eriksson [ 32 ] reported that nursing students gained greater insight into their future profession. That academic presentations and discussions inspired them to search for research was considered ‘meaningful’.

Although nursing students considered themselves prepared to use research, Friberg and Lyckhage [ 30 ] emphasised that students are insufficiently skilled to assess research critically. This perspective is consistent with the findings by Cader et al. [ 29 ] that there is a need for further support for developing students’ critical evaluation skills.

Some students emphasised the importance of bringing together clinical practice, their own practical experiences and the research context. They experienced EBP as a platform to facilitate the development of their curiosity and critical reflection within clinical practice [ 28 ].

Changing attitudes toward utilising research

Nursing students reported research awareness as a learning outcome associated with information gathering and improved information literacy skills [ 29 , 30 ]. Despite completing acourse, students in one study stated that they had neither a comprehensive understanding of the information literacy concept nor improved skills [ 33 ]. Computer and information literacy skills apparently vary among both lecturers and students [ 33 , 35 ]. However, in several of the studies, increased awareness and understanding of research appeared to be an important learning outcome of information literacy teaching strategies for nursing students [ 29 , 30 , 32 , 34 ].

Generating an awareness of how to critically evaluate research evidence rather than producing research is necessary for implementing EBP. To obtain this awareness, it is crucial to find creative ways of guiding undergraduate nursing students to find and critically appraise research reports [ 30 ]. These studies emphasised nursing students’ increased awareness that implementing nursing research in clinical practice is a prerequisite to providing safer patient care [ 28 – 30 , 32 ].

Barriers to acquiring EBP and research utilisation skills were divided into two subthemes: i.e., information literacy skills and knowledge, and Challenging collaborations.

Information literacy skills and knowledge

Discontinuity of information literacy content throughout the curriculum seems to constitute a barrier to searching for and finding research [ 33 ]. In addition, some academics reported their own limited awareness of EBP teaching strategies [ 31 ].

Nursing students reported finding it challenging to find and interpret research. They were dependent on assistance from librarians and lecturers [ 32 , 33 ]. The need for more interdisciplinary support to teach information literacy skills was also emphasised in several studies [ 29 , 32 , 33 , 35 ]. When integrating EBP, it was challenging for academic nurses to implement innovative teaching strategies because they lacked knowledge, had a large workload or had insufficient time and resources to study new strategies [ 31 ].

Challenging collaboration

In one study, group work was interpreted as a barrier to learning EBP [ 34 ], which demonstrated that dysfunctional group dynamics can negatively affect the learning process. In contrast, in the same study, some students reported positive teamwork experiences that were motivating and enhanced their learning process [ 34 ]. In the study by Malik et al. [ 31 ], the academic educators reported that their students loved workshops on searching databases. Some nursing students reported that their clinical practice status made it difficult to gather the information required for their assignments [ 29 ].

The findings from this initial review demonstrate that various interactive teaching strategies have been emphasised to enhance knowledge and utilise research. However, despite being recommended strategies [ 3 , 14 , 36 ], factors such as teaching strategies that include clinical activities to develop EBP knowledge and skills seem to be given a lower priority. This review identified that self-reports and evaluations show that nursing students report development of critical thinking skills as a learning outcome of various teaching strategies [ 28 – 30 , 34 ], which is consistent with earlier studies [ 16 – 18 ]. In contrast, barriers to enhancing students’ EBP knowledge and skills included a weak understanding of information literacy and difficulties finding and interpreting research.

All analysed studies herein reported at least some use of interactive teaching strategies. Patient safety and quality of care in Western society require that future nurses have EBP knowledge, which means that they must use available research as well as patients’ preferences and their own clinical expertise in decision-making processes [ 14 , 36 ]. We identified studies that emphasised teaching strategies specifically aimed at finding research, critical appraisal and research utilisation through interactive methods [ 30 , 32 , 33 ]. However, it may be challenging for future nurses to obtain sound EBP knowledge if teaching strategies are mainly focused on research utilisation. A commission of health-care professionals and academic leaders presented their vision and common strategy toward strengthening global health-care systems, which argued that cross-professional collaboration in education is a powerful instrument for improving health-care outcomes [ 37 ]. Guiding principles, such as the code of ethics, the EHEA framework for expected learning outcomes [ 20 , 21 ] and health legislation emphasise wider use of the best research evidence in nursing practice, which may explain why teaching strategies are primarily directed at research utilisation. Information literacy skills are important to EBP; however, studies show that nurses and nursing students lack these skills [ 17 , 18 , 38 – 40 ].

Clinically integrated teaching strategies

In the present review, three studies [ 28 , 29 , 32 ] focused on clinically integrated teaching strategies in particular. The relationships between the clinical practice context and health needs analysis [ 29 ] were emphasised in a six-week clinical practice assignment, using oral presentation as a learning activity [ 32 ] and participation in clinical research projects [ 28 ].

Ryan [ 10 ] identified that learning EBP would have greater relevance for students if teaching strategies took place in a clinical setting. According to Llasus et al. [ 38 ], knowledge translation from education to clinical practice is challenging. These authors argue that if nursing students are expected to be able to implement EBP in clinical practice, they must have both EBP knowledge and EBP ‘readiness’, which requires strengthening their confidence in EBP.

Phillips and Cullen [ 13 ] observed that development of EBP skills for RN-to-BSN students was influenced by exposure to educational partnerships, contextual teaching and learning, and clinical practice experience. However, the findings from a Norwegian study in physiotherapy students reported a lack of both EBP culture and role models in their clinical practice [ 41 ].

A systematic review showed that EBP knowledge in medicine is increasing, irrespective of whether or not it is provided at undergraduate or postgraduate levels. Indeed, learning outcomes appear more effective if the teaching strategies are connected to clinical practice [ 42 ]. This notion was emphasised in the core clinical evaluation criteria developed in the Delphi Study by Bostwick and Linden [ 43 ]. In contrast, Ilic and Maloney [ 44 ] found no difference in learning outcomes. Despite the variety of teaching strategies across the studies we reviewed, they cumulatively show good evidence that any form of teaching EBM increases knowledge.

The findings from this review demonstrate that collaboration through clinical practice and patient care appears to be a relatively low priority. Patients’ preferences are not explicitly considered, despite an increased focus on seeing the patient as a collaborative partner in the EBP paradigm, ethical guidelines and legislation on education and health [ 2 , 3 , 20 , 21 ]. This is also contrary to recommendations about the factors that influence EBP skills, such as contextual teaching and learning and practical experience opportunities [ 13 ].

Becoming more analytical

It is worth mentioning that the nursing students in some of the studies included in this review increased their analytical skills because of EBP teaching strategies [ 28 – 30 , 34 ], regardless of whether the teaching focused exclusively on interactive or targeted both interactive and clinical strategies. However, research has shown that nursing students have inadequate knowledge to make them capable of judging, reflecting on and critically assessing research [ 10 ]. Becoming more analytical and changing attitudes towards utilising research in clinical situations may be essential for nurses in their future careers and could contribute to increased patient safety. These skills may lead to nurses with a higher level of analytical skills and clinical judgment, who have a greater ability to reflect and reason.

Course assignments as a teaching and learning strategy

According to the review findings, a variety of course assignments promote EBP knowledge and skills. Choosing topics of interest to students motivates them to develop EBP knowledge [ 29 , 32 , 34 ]. Several studies argue that assignments are essential for self-directed, continuous learning [ 18 , 38 – 40 ].

Methodological limitations

There are some limitations to this review. We used a relatively small sample of articles and excluded non-English language studies, which may have caused us to overlook some studies on enhancing EBP skills and knowledge in nursing education. However, to ensure a systematic search process, the literature search was performed by AN, an academic librarian. In addition, our use of several databases likely decreased the possibility of selection bias. The six qualitative studies included in this study were homogeneous in terms of their qualitative research design and meeting our inclusion criteria. Qualitative data from the mixed-methods study that addressed our research question was also included. Variations such as cultural diversity and differences in participant perspectives may also have affected the analyses in these studies. Despite these limitations, we met our goal of examining teaching strategies, learning outcomes and barriers in undergraduate nursing education, from the perspectives of both educators and students.

Conclusions

Insufficient attention has been paid to the use of EBP principles in nursing education. The teaching strategies identified in the represented studies show that interactive teaching strategies are used alongside traditional lectures to enhance research utilisation skills in nursing education. However, collaboration with clinical practice to enhance EBP knowledge was only vaguely addressed in most of these studies. In conclusion, there is a need to improve educators’ consciousness of and competences in teaching EBP principles, which involves using interactive and clinical integrated teaching strategies. Only seven studies met criteria for inclusion in this review, indicating that further targeted qualitative research is needed.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge The University of South-Eastern Norway, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences for supporting this research.

The University of South-Eastern Norway, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences supported this research.

Availability of data and materials

Abbreviations, authors’ contributions.

METH was the lead author who planned and implemented the study in close collaboration with AN, TF and ES. AN predominantly carried out the literature research. All authors collaborated on analyses. ES provided substantial support for the study as an expert in qualitative research. METH drafted the manuscript. All authors provided critical comments on the manuscript and have approved the final version.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

May-Elin T. Horntvedt, Phone: +4731009113, Email: [email protected] .

Anita Nordsteien, Email: [email protected] .

Torbjørg Fermann, Email: [email protected] .

Elisabeth Severinsson, Email: [email protected] .

We couldn’t find any results matching your search.

Please try using other words for your search or explore other sections of the website for relevant information.

We’re sorry, we are currently experiencing some issues, please try again later.

Our team is working diligently to resolve the issue. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

News & Insights

Validea John Neff Strategy Daily Upgrade Report - 5/15/2024

May 15, 2024 — 06:39 am EDT

Written by John Reese for Validea  ->

The following are today's upgrades for Validea's Low PE Investor model based on the published strategy of John Neff . This strategy looks for firms with persistent earnings growth that trade at a discount relative to their earnings growth and dividend yield.

STONECO LTD ( STNE ) is a large-cap value stock in the Software & Programming industry. The rating according to our strategy based on John Neff changed from 42% to 81% based on the firm’s underlying fundamentals and the stock’s valuation. A score of 80% or above typically indicates that the strategy has some interest in the stock and a score above 90% typically indicates strong interest.

Company Description: StoneCo Ltd. is a provider of financial technology and software solutions. The Company has designed its cloud-based technology platform, namely the Stone Business Model, for its clients to connect, get paid and grow their businesses. The Company's segments include financial services and software. In financial services, it offers payments, digital banking and credit solutions, focused mainly on micro, small and medium businesses (MSMBs). In software, it offers point of sale (POS) and enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions for different retail and service verticals, customer relationship management (CRM), engagement tools, e-commerce and Omnichannel solutions, among others. It also provides digital product enhancements to help its merchants improve their consumers' experience, such as its split-payment processing, multi-payment processing, recurring payments for subscriptions, and one-click buy functionality. It provides its clients with store, life and health insurance solutions.

The following table summarizes whether the stock meets each of this strategy's tests. Not all criteria in the below table receive equal weighting or are independent, but the table provides a brief overview of the strong and weak points of the security in the context of the strategy's criteria.

Detailed Analysis of STONECO LTD

STNE Guru Analysis

STNE Fundamental Analysis

John Neff Portfolio

About John Neff : While known as the manager with whom many top managers entrusted their own money, Neff was far from the smooth-talking, high-profile Wall Streeter you might expect. He was mild-mannered and low-key, and the same might be said of the Windsor Fund that he managed for more than three decades. In fact, Neff himself described the fund as "relatively prosaic, dull, [and] conservative." There was nothing dull about his results, however. From 1964 to 1995, Neff guided Windsor to a 13.7 percent average annual return, easily outpacing the S&P 500's 10.6 percent return during that time. That 3.1 percentage point difference is huge over time -- a $10,000 investment in Windsor (with dividends reinvested) at the start of Neff's tenure would have ended up as more than $564,000 by the time he retired, more than twice what the same investment in the S&P would have yielded (about $233,000). Considering the length of his tenure, that track record may be the best ever for a manager of such a large fund.

About Validea : Validea is an investment research service that follows the published strategies of investment legends. Validea offers both stock analysis and model portfolios based on gurus who have outperformed the market over the long-term, including Warren Buffett, Benjamin Graham, Peter Lynch and Martin Zweig. For more information about Validea, click here

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

Stocks mentioned

More related articles.

This data feed is not available at this time.

Sign up for the TradeTalks newsletter to receive your weekly dose of trading news, trends and education. Delivered Wednesdays.

To add symbols:

• Type a symbol or company name. When the symbol you want to add appears, add it to My Quotes by selecting it and pressing Enter/Return.
• Copy and paste multiple symbols separated by spaces.

These symbols will be available throughout the site during your session.

Your symbols have been updated

Edit watchlist.

• Type a symbol or company name. When the symbol you want to add appears, add it to Watchlist by selecting it and pressing Enter/Return.

Opt in to Smart Portfolio

Smart Portfolio is supported by our partner TipRanks. By connecting my portfolio to TipRanks Smart Portfolio I agree to their Terms of Use .