Active Learning: The Engine of Engagement

Picture students logging into an online anatomy lecture on a Tuesday evening. Fifty participants appear as black squares on the screen, cameras off, names barely visible. The recorded lecture plays: a teaching fellow advances through PowerPoint slides, delivering well-organized content about the bones of the upper extremity. The information is accurate. The slides are clear. The professor is knowledgeable and articulate. Twenty minutes pass as students passively receive information they could have read in their textbooks.

Here's what you don't see

Behind those black squares, the reality is stark: three students are genuinely engaged with the material, taking notes and pausing to examine their own arms. Seven are multitasking, the lecture playing in the background while they respond to emails or scroll social media. Fifteen have the lecture playing but aren't really watching. The rest occupy a gray zone, absorbing fragments of information that will evaporate within hours.

Then comes the in-person intensive. Students have flown in from across the country, booked hotels, taken time away from work and family. They arrive ready for hands-on learning with real specimens. But the professor begins by spending the first 20 minutes of this precious face-to-face time repeating the same lecture students should have watched online. Why? Because experience shows that most students didn't engage with the pre-recorded content. They expect to be "fed" the information when they arrive.

This is the double failure: online content that fails to engage students, followed by in-person time wasted on redundant content delivery instead of the immersive, experiential learning that justifies the intensive's enormous time and financial commitment.

This scenario played out repeatedly in discovery-based biology labs at Harvard until one PhD student in organismic and evolutionary biology decided to try something radically different.

The Transformation: From Passive Reception to Active Teaching

Glenna Clifton (opens in a new tab), in her ABLConnect Prize Interview, identified the core problem: teaching fellows routinely spent the first 20 minutes of lab delivering information students could learn independently. This approach created a cascade of issues. Students didn't prepare because they expected to be "fed" the information. They disengaged during lengthy introductions, checking phones and computers. Valuable lab time was wasted on redundant content delivery. Most fundamentally, the approach didn't promote active learning.

Her solution was elegantly simple yet transformative: a jigsaw peer teaching structure that turned every student into both learner and teacher.

The Jigsaw Process:

*Phase 1: Divide and Specialize (20-25 minutes)*Split the class in half. Assign each half different material. For example, in an anatomy lab studying 50 bone structures, give 25 bones to each group. Students become "experts" on their assigned content using textbooks, lab materials, and responding to instructor questions. Each student knows they'll be responsible for teaching this material to peers, which dramatically changes their engagement and depth of processing.

*Phase 2: Reorganize and Teach (20-30 minutes)*Mix groups so each table has experts from both halves. Students teach each other their specialized content, alternating who teaches. The student who just spent 20 minutes becoming an expert on the scapula, clavicle, and humerus now teaches classmates who focused on radius, ulna, and carpal bones. Meanwhile, they learn from their peers' expertise.

Phase 3: Practice and ReviewReformed groups review all material together for the remainder of lab time, now with foundational knowledge of all structures built through peer teaching.

The Results Were Striking:

Academic benefits emerged immediately. Students achieved genuine expertise on at least half the material through the act of teaching. All students received introduction to complete content before detailed review. Preparation and engagement during lab time increased dramatically.

But equally important were the community benefits. The approach created a sense of shared responsibility and collaborative learning. Students stayed for the entire lab period instead of leaving early once the lecture ended. Bonds formed that extended beyond the classroom. The strategy proved particularly effective with adult learners at Harvard Extension School, who brought diverse professional backgrounds and appreciated the respect for their ability to teach as well as learn.

This single redesign transformed a passive, disengaging experience into an active, community-building learning opportunity. Same content. Same time allocation. Radically different outcomes.

This is the power of active learning. And it's not mysterious. It's not about better technology, flashier presentations, or more entertaining delivery. It's about designing experiences where students do the cognitive work of learning rather than watching someone else do it for them. It's backed by decades of rigorous research showing that active learning doesn't just improve engagement. It transforms educational outcomes across every metric that matters.

What Is Active Learning?

Active learning refers to instructional approaches that engage students in the learning process, requiring them to do meaningful activities and think about what they're doing (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Unlike passive reception of information, active learning involves students in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing.

This definition, simple as it sounds, represents a fundamental shift in educational philosophy. It moves students from being recipients of knowledge to being constructors of understanding. It transforms the classroom from a broadcasting station into a workshop, a laboratory, a community of inquiry.

Handelsman, Miller, and Pfund (2007) describe active learning as creating opportunities for students to construct their own knowledge rather than passively receiving it. In their seminal work Scientific Teaching, they emphasize that active learning isn't just one technique but a comprehensive approach that includes "strategies that engage students to reflect on new ideas and the uses of new knowledge" (p. 18).

The research supporting active learning is overwhelming. A meta-analysis by Freeman et al. (2014) examined 225 studies and found that students in traditional lecture courses were 1.5 times more likely to fail compared to students in courses with active learning. Furthermore, examination scores improved by about 6% in active learning sections. These aren't marginal gains. These are transformational differences that can change the trajectory of students' academic careers.

Active Learning as the Heart of Engagement

Within the CORE framework, Engagement stands as the pillar that brings all other elements to life. You can deliver content that is Concise, Organized, and Relevant, but without Engagement, students remain spectators rather than participants in their own education.

Active learning serves as the primary mechanism through which engagement occurs. When students actively work with material, several crucial processes happen simultaneously:

Cognitive Engagement: Students must mentally process information, make connections, and construct understanding. This deep processing creates stronger neural pathways than passive reception ever could.

Behavioral Engagement: Physical involvement with tasks increases attention and reduces mind-wandering. Even simple acts like writing, discussing, or manipulating objects keep students present and focused.

Emotional Engagement: When students successfully work through challenges, they experience the satisfaction of achievement. This positive emotional association with learning creates motivation for continued engagement.

Prince (2004) reviewed evidence supporting various active learning strategies and found consistent patterns: "There is broad but uneven support for the core elements of active, collaborative, cooperative and problem-based learning" (p. 1). The variance in outcomes, he notes, depends largely on implementation quality, but the fundamental principle holds across contexts.

The Science Behind Active Learning

To understand why active learning works so powerfully, we need to examine what happens in the brain during different types of learning experiences.

Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive load theory, developed by Sweller (1988), explains that our working memory has limited capacity. When we simply listen to lectures, we're attempting to process new information with minimal support for organizing and integrating it with existing knowledge. This creates high cognitive load with minimal learning benefit.

Active learning strategies reduce extrinsic cognitive load (the load imposed by how information is presented) while increasing germane cognitive load (the load associated with processing and integrating information). By engaging students in activities that require them to organize, connect, and apply information, we help them manage cognitive demands more effectively.

Constructivist Learning Theory

Constructivism posits that learners actively construct knowledge rather than passively receiving it (Piaget, 1954; Vygotsky, 1978). Active learning operationalizes constructivist principles by creating opportunities for students to build their own understanding through experience, reflection, and social interaction.

As Handelsman et al. (2007) emphasize, "Students come to our classrooms with ideas about how the world works, and they use these ideas to interpret what we teach them" (p. 30). Active learning creates opportunities to surface these preconceptions, test them against evidence, and reconstruct understanding when necessary.

Social Learning Theory

Vygotsky's (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal Development highlights that learners can accomplish more with guidance and collaboration than they can alone. Active learning strategies that incorporate peer interaction leverage this principle, allowing students to scaffold each other's learning while developing communication and collaboration skills.

Chi and Wylie (2014) conducted a meta-analysis distinguishing between different levels of active engagement: active (manipulating or discussing material), constructive (generating new ideas or explanations), and interactive (engaging in dialogue with others). They found that interactive and constructive activities produced the strongest learning gains, suggesting that the most powerful active learning involves both generation of ideas and social exchange.

Active Learning Strategies: A Practical Taxonomy

Active learning encompasses a wide range of specific techniques, each suitable for different learning objectives, class sizes, and content areas. Here's a taxonomy organized by implementation scope:

Brief In-Class Activities (2-10 minutes)

Think-Pair-Share: Students individually consider a question, discuss with a partner, then share with the class. This simple technique increases participation dramatically while giving all students processing time (Lyman, 1987).

One-Minute Papers: At the end of class, students write brief responses to prompts like "What was the most important thing you learned today?" or "What remains unclear?" This provides immediate feedback to both students and instructors (Angelo & Cross, 1993).

Polling/Clickers: Students respond to multiple-choice questions, creating immediate data about class understanding. The power comes not from the technology but from the discussion that follows when students defend their answers (Crouch & Mazur, 2001).

Quick Writes: Students spend 2-3 minutes writing everything they know about a topic before instruction begins. This activates prior knowledge and provides a baseline for learning.

Moderate Activities (10-30 minutes)

Case Studies: Students analyze real-world scenarios that illustrate course concepts. Effective cases are complex enough to require critical thinking but focused enough to be manageable (Herreid, 2007).

Problem-Based Learning: Students work in groups to solve authentic problems, developing both content knowledge and problem-solving skills. The instructor serves as a facilitator rather than primary information source (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).

Jigsaw Discussions: Each student becomes an expert on one aspect of material, then teaches others. This creates both individual accountability and positive interdependence (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997). Glenna Clifton's implementation in Harvard anatomy labs exemplifies this technique's power: dividing 50 bone structures between two groups, then mixing groups so students teach their expertise to peers. The approach transforms students from passive recipients to active teachers, dramatically increasing engagement and creating community bonds that extend beyond the classroom.

Gallery Walks: Groups create posters or visual representations of concepts, then circulate to view and critique each other's work. This combines creation, analysis, and peer learning.

Extended Activities (Full Class or Beyond)

Simulations and Role-Plays: Students enact scenarios that require application of course concepts in realistic contexts. These create memorable experiences that enhance retention and transfer (Chernikova et al., 2020).

Debates: Students research and argue positions, developing critical thinking and argumentation skills while deepening content understanding.

Project-Based Learning: Students work on extended projects that require sustained inquiry, integration of multiple concepts, and creation of authentic products (Krajcik & Shin, 2014).

Peer Teaching: Students prepare and deliver instruction to classmates, solidifying their own understanding while developing communication skills.

Implementing Active Learning: Practical Considerations

Starting Small

If you're new to active learning or feeling overwhelmed by the options, start with one simple technique. Replace just 10 minutes of lecture with a Think-Pair-Share. After students feel comfortable with that structure, add a One-Minute Paper at the end of class. Build gradually rather than attempting wholesale transformation overnight.

Handelsman et al. (2007) emphasize the importance of iteration: "Good teaching is not achieved overnight. It requires experimentation, reflection, and a willingness to try new approaches" (p. 8). Grant yourself permission to experiment and learn alongside your students.

Backward Design

Begin with clear learning objectives. What should students be able to do by the end of this lesson? Then design active learning experiences that directly support those objectives. The alignment between objectives, activities, and assessment is crucial (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

For example, if your objective is "Students will be able to analyze the causes of the American Civil War," don't just lecture about causes. Instead, give students primary source documents and have them work in groups to identify and categorize causes, then compare their analyses with historical interpretations.

Creating Psychological Safety

Active learning requires students to take risks, make mistakes, and expose their thinking. This only happens in psychologically safe environments where students trust that errors are learning opportunities rather than sources of shame.

Build safety through:

• Explicitly framing mistakes as valuable for learning
• Responding to incorrect answers with curiosity rather than judgment
• Ensuring all students participate, not just volunteers
• Starting with low-stakes activities before high-stakes ones
• Modeling your own learning process, including mistakes and corrections

Managing Logistics

Active learning requires planning beyond traditional lecture preparation:

Time Management: Active learning often takes more class time than covering the same material through lecture. This is a feature, not a bug. The deeper processing justifies the time investment. Consider flipping your classroom, moving basic content delivery to pre-class reading or videos, reserving class time for active engagement.

Group Formation: Random grouping works well for short activities and promotes interaction across social groups. Strategic grouping based on skills or background makes sense for extended projects. Avoid letting students self-select groups for academic work as this reinforces existing social patterns and can exclude some students.

Physical Space: Moveable furniture facilitates active learning. If you're stuck with fixed seating, students can still turn to nearby classmates for pair work. Request room changes if possible, or advocate for classroom redesign.

Large Classes: Active learning works in large lectures, though it requires adaptation. Polling systems work at any scale. Think-Pair-Share requires no special equipment. Even classes of 300 can incorporate active learning effectively.

Addressing Student Resistance

Some students resist active learning, particularly if they've succeeded with passive note-taking in the past. Common complaints include:

• "I learn better from lectures"
• "Group work means some people don't contribute"
• "This feels like busy work"
• "I'm paying for you to teach, not for me to teach myself"

Address resistance proactively:

Explain the Why: Share research on active learning with students. Describe how these activities support their learning objectives. Transparency about pedagogical choices builds buy-in (Winkelmes et al., 2016).

Make It Count: Ensure activities genuinely support learning objectives and aren't just filler. Students can smell busy work from a mile away.

Build Accountability: Structure group work so individual contributions are visible and assessed. Use peer evaluation when appropriate.

Start Early: Introduce active learning on day one so it becomes the class norm rather than a jarring disruption.

The Harvard ABLConnect Resource (opens in a new tab): Your Active Learning Laboratory

One of the most valuable resources for educators exploring active learning is Harvard's ABLConnect database (https://ablconnect.harvard.edu/ (opens in a new tab)). This searchable collection contains interactive lesson plans and assignments designed for and used in college and university classrooms.

What Makes ABLConnect Valuable

Unlike generic activity repositories, ABLConnect provides:

Discipline-Specific Examples: Activities are organized by subject area, allowing you to find approaches that have worked in contexts similar to yours. Whether you teach biology, history, mathematics, or literature, you'll find relevant examples. The jigsaw peer teaching approach featured at the beginning of this article came directly from ABLConnect, developed by Glenna Clifton for anatomy labs at Harvard. This isn't theoretical pedagogy. These are battle-tested strategies from real classrooms.

Multiple Search Filters: Search by activity type (discussion, problem-solving, simulation, etc.) and learning goal (critical thinking, teamwork, content mastery, etc.). This helps you find activities that match your specific objectives.

Real-World Testing: These aren't theoretical activities. They've been implemented in actual classrooms, refined based on experience, and shared by educators who've worked through implementation challenges.

Evidence Base: The site includes a section on research evidence supporting interactive classrooms, helping you understand not just how to implement active learning but why it works.

Using ABLConnect Effectively

When exploring ABLConnect, follow this process:

1. Start with Your Learning Objectives: What do you want students to be able to do? Use this to guide your search rather than browsing randomly.
2. Find Similar Contexts: Look for activities used in similar class sizes, course levels, and disciplines. While activities often transfer across contexts, starting with similar situations reduces adaptation work.
3. Adapt, Don't Adopt: Use examples as inspiration and starting points rather than scripts to follow exactly. The best active learning emerges when you adapt techniques to your specific content, students, and teaching style.
4. Experiment and Iterate: Try an activity, reflect on what worked and what didn't, refine for next time. Document your process so you can build on experience.
5. Contribute Back: Once you've developed and tested activities, consider sharing them with the community. Education advances when we learn from each other.

Connecting Active Learning to the Complete CORE Framework

Active learning doesn't exist in isolation. It works best when integrated with all CORE framework elements:

Concise

Active learning actually supports conciseness by helping students process less information more deeply. Rather than covering 20 concepts superficially through lecture, you might engage students with 10 concepts actively, achieving deeper understanding and better retention.

As Handelsman et al. (2007) note, "Covering less material more thoroughly produces better long-term learning than rushing through extensive content" (p. 12).

Organized

Active learning requires careful organization. Clear instructions, appropriate scaffolding, and logical sequencing ensure activities enhance rather than hinder learning. The organization isn't just in how you present content but in how you structure experiences.

Relevant

Active learning creates relevance by connecting abstract concepts to concrete applications. When students solve real problems, analyze authentic cases, or create genuine products, they experience firsthand why the material matters. This experiential relevance is more powerful than any explanation of importance could be.

Engaging

This is where it all comes together. Active learning transforms engagement from something you try to create through enthusiasm or entertainment into something inherent in the learning process itself. When students actively work with material, engagement becomes a natural byproduct rather than an elusive goal.

The Evidence Is Clear

The research consensus on active learning is remarkable. Study after study, across disciplines and contexts, reaches the same conclusion: active learning produces better outcomes than passive reception.

Consider these findings:

STEM Education: Freeman et al.'s (2014) meta-analysis found that in STEM courses, active learning reduced failure rates by 55% and increased exam scores by 6%. These gains were consistent across class size, course level, and specific discipline.

Retention: Students in active learning courses are more likely to remain in their majors and continue in STEM fields (Watkins & Mazur, 2013). This has profound implications for diversifying scientific fields and ensuring talented students don't abandon promising careers due to poor instruction.

Long-Term Learning: Karpicke and Blunt (2011) found that active recall and practice testing produced superior long-term retention compared to passive restudying, even though students often felt that restudying was more effective.

Diverse Student Populations: Active learning particularly benefits students from underrepresented groups. Haak et al. (2011) found that active learning reduced the achievement gap between underrepresented minority students and other students, while improving performance for all students.

Transfer: Students in active learning environments show better ability to apply knowledge to new contexts, the ultimate goal of education (Mayer, 2004).

Prince (2004) summarizes the state of research: "While the results vary in strength, this core of studies provides sufficient evidence to warrant adoption of these methods" (p. 7).

Common Myths and Misconceptions

Myth 1: "Active learning means no lecture ever"

Reality: Effective teaching often combines brief lectures with active learning. Mini-lectures (10-15 minutes) followed by application activities can be highly effective. The key is using lecture strategically rather than as the default for entire class periods.

Myth 2: "Active learning is just edutainment"

Reality: Rigorous active learning is cognitively demanding. Students work harder in well-designed active learning environments than they do passively listening to lectures. The difference is that their effort translates into deeper learning.

Myth 3: "Active learning only works for small classes"

Reality: While some activities are easier to implement in small groups, active learning can be scaled to any size. Think-Pair-Share, polling, and peer instruction work in auditoriums of 500 students.

Myth 4: "I don't have time to cover everything if I use active learning"

Reality: Coverage is a comforting illusion. Just because you said something doesn't mean students learned it. Active learning might reduce the number of topics you address, but it dramatically increases the depth of learning for the topics you do address. Quality trumps quantity.

Myth 5: "Students prefer lectures because that's what they're used to"

Reality: Initial resistance often gives way to appreciation once students experience the benefits. Deslauriers et al. (2019) found that students initially rated traditional lectures more favorably than active learning, even though their actual learning was significantly lower. Student preference isn't a reliable indicator of pedagogical effectiveness.

Moving Forward: Your Action Plan

Transforming your teaching doesn't require abandoning everything you're doing. It requires strategic additions and modifications that align with evidence-based practice.

This Week

Choose one class session. Replace just 10 minutes of lecture with one simple active learning technique. Try a Think-Pair-Share or One-Minute Paper. Reflect on what happened. What engaged students? What felt awkward? What would you do differently next time?

This Month

Visit ABLConnect. Search for activities related to your content area and learning objectives. Adapt one activity for your context. Implement it. Gather feedback from students about what helped their learning.

This Semester

Redesign one unit using backward design principles. Start with clear learning objectives. Design active learning experiences that directly address those objectives. Assess whether students achieve the objectives. Iterate based on results.

Long Term

Build a repertoire of active learning strategies you're comfortable with. Develop the skill to select the right technique for the right learning objective. Join or create a community of practice with colleagues interested in evidence-based teaching. Teaching, like learning, is enhanced through active engagement and social exchange.

Conclusion: The Choice Before Us

We stand at an interesting moment in higher education. We have overwhelming evidence about what works. We have tools, resources, and support systems to help us implement evidence-based practices. We have platforms like ABLConnect that reduce the barrier to entry by providing tested examples and clear guidance.

The question isn't whether active learning works. The evidence on that is unequivocal. The question is whether we'll have the courage and commitment to align our practices with what we know.

Every time you stand before a class, you make choices. You choose how to use that precious time when you have students' attention. You choose whether to make learning something that happens to students or something they actively do. You choose whether engagement will be a hopeful add-on or the fundamental foundation of your pedagogy.

The CORE framework reminds us that engagement isn't separate from good instructional design. It's the culmination of it. When we deliver content that is Concise, Organized, and Relevant, we create the conditions for engagement. When we add Active Learning, we transform those conditions into reality.

Your students come to you capable of far more than passive reception. They can think critically, solve complex problems, create new ideas, and construct deep understanding. But they can only do these things if we create opportunities for them to practice.

Active learning is that opportunity. It's not a trend or a fad. It's the application of decades of research about how humans learn. It's the bridge between the content we teach and the understanding students need.

The classroom of the future isn't filled with better technology or flashier presentations. It's filled with students actively engaged in the work of learning, supported by educators who understand that their role isn't to be the sage on the stage but the designer of powerful learning experiences.

That classroom can be yours. The research is clear. The resources are available. The choice is yours.

References

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in the classroom (2nd ed.). Longman.

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). George Washington University.

Chernikova, O., Heitzmann, N., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Seidel, T., & Fischer, F. (2020). Simulation-based learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 499-541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544 (opens in a new tab)

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 (opens in a new tab)

Clifton, G. (n.d.). Jigsaw teaching activity in anatomy. ABLConnect: Active Learning in Higher Education. Harvard University, Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning. https://ablconnect.harvard.edu/ (opens in a new tab)

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249 (opens in a new tab)

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 (opens in a new tab)

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 (opens in a new tab)

Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213-1216. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204820 (opens in a new tab)

Handelsman, J., Miller, S., & Pfund, C. (2007). Scientific teaching. W. H. Freeman and Company.

Herreid, C. F. (2007). Start with a story: The case study method of teaching college science. NSTA Press.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3 (opens in a new tab)

Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772-775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327 (opens in a new tab)

Krajcik, J. S., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 275-297). Cambridge University Press.

Lyman, F. (1987). Think-pair-share: An expanding teaching technique. MAA-CIE Cooperative News, 1(1), 1-2.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14 (opens in a new tab)

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x (opens in a new tab)

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 (opens in a new tab)

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

Watkins, J., & Mazur, E. (2013). Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 36-41.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Winkelmes, M. A., Bernacki, M., Butler, J., Zochowski, M., Golanics, J., & Weavil, K. H. (2016). A teaching intervention that increases underserved college students' success. Peer Review, 18(1/2), 31-36.

For additional active learning resources and evidence-based teaching strategies, visit:

• Harvard ABLConnect: https://ablconnect.harvard.edu/ (opens in a new tab)