2.3 Integrating active learning online: challenges and solutions
With the mounting evidence of the effectiveness of active learning techniques, they are now used widely. This ubiquitous adoption has generated numerous success stories of implementation of active learning modalities, as well as information on potential challenges and how to overcome them. Below we list some common challenges when incorporating active learning and then provide some solutions for how to make implementation of these activities easier, more effective, and more inclusive in an online context. The content we provide is not an all-encompassing list (see Brownell and Tanner, 2012; Petersen et al, 2020), but along with the quick-reference active learning activities (Table 1 ) and web resources (Appendix A ) provided, should help instructors incorporate active learning into their online ecology and evolution classrooms.
Challenge 1: Depth vs Breadth. Active Learning often necessitates cutting course content in order to make space for active learning techniques (Roach, 2014). Even though there is strong evidence that exposing students to more topics on a shallower level does not increase learning; cutting material remains difficult (Petersen et al, 2020). Reasons for this difficulty include textbook design, discipline-specific norms, standardized exams, accreditation of programs, departmental norms, instructor priorities, and a host of other factors (Petersen et al, 2020).
Solution: Instead of just covering a list of topics and specific facts, Petersen and colleagues (Petersen et al, 2020) recommend focusing on core concepts and competencies and building the course content around mastery of those concepts; this practice aligns Vision and Change(AAAS 2011; 2015; 2018). Excellent tools exist to help biology faculty implement this framework in their courses, for example the BioCore Guide (Brownell et al, 2014; Cary and Branchaw, 2017) and the BioSkills Guide (Clemmons et al, 2020). Both Guides provide excellent recommendations to assist in course design focused on critical concepts and competencies. Reframing course structure from a set number of chapters to a more holistic understanding of biology and critical skills provides multiple opportunities to incorporate active and inclusive practices.
In addition to making changes within individual courses, implementation of curriculum-wide changes at the department level are also possible, discussed in depth by Branchaw et al (2020). However, of particular relevance to this discussion are two specific Measuring Achievement and Progression in Science (Bio-MAPS tools. First, the general biology (GenBio-MAPS) tool can be used at the introductory level (Couch et al, 2019). Second, the specifically targeted towards Ecology and Evolution EcoEvo-MAPS tool can be used at an upper division level (Summers et al, 2018).
Challenge 2: Where to get activities? Finding or creating active learning content can be overwhelming and/or intimidating for instructors.
Solution : We recommend that instructors examine the numerous resources that already exist before creating activities from scratch. We have compiled some of those resources in Appendix A . For example, the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science contains over 850 active learning assignments ready for free download. With a small membership fee, instructors also get access to answer keys and teaching notes for how to integrate that material into the classroom. Instructors are also encouraged to see previously published lists: ten tools for group case studies (Prud’homme-Généreux, 2016a) and twenty-one teaching strategies that can be implemented to increase equity and inclusion in the biology classroom (Tanner, 2013). If instructors want to create their own active learning content, it is okay to start small and to use published literature as a guide (Handelsman et al., 2007; Bean, 2011; Herreid et al, 2016; Burrow, 2018). One quick inclusivity technique that instructors can implement when choosing or creating their own content is to include diverse names and voices in story lines and characters used in assignments, and to avoid the use of specific cultural references or analogies as these can alienate students.
Challenge 3: Overwhelming Students. The bounty of active learning techniques and wide array of technological options creates the potential to overwhelm students and compromise the learning experience. Additionally, online tools require acceptance, familiarity and a capacity of instructors to guide students in the use of these tools (Sarvary and Gifford, 2016).
Solution: By intentionally choosing active learning activities and tools that support the learning outcomes of the course instructors can promote deep engagement and maximize effectiveness (Prince, 2004; Olimpo and Esparza, 2020). This approach uses the technology to enhance teaching instead of teaching to the technology and is further facilitated by conducting a cost-benefit analysis. For example, if a tool will only be used a few times during the course, is it worth investing the time, energy, and money to apply it?
Previous work on effective online instruction indicates the importance of course structure, clarity of course expectations and flexibility (Crews and Butterfield, 2014). Make the most of the LMS (Learning Management Software) tools that are already available and develop course pages that organize content by week and contain checklists and links for assignments, quizzes and other tasks. If multiple media are used (e.g., a publisher’s software site, a remote response system [e.g. Top Hat] and a collaboration platform [e.g., google docs)], integrate those into the course site and weekly pages as much as possible even if that simply means using an icon to depict the platform where work will take place. Additionally, as discussed above, investing class time for technology training and/or low stakes practice sessions to create familiarity pays off significantly.
Challenge 4: Whose voice is heard. The use of active-learning modalities does not guarantee equal participation by all students. Status in various groups can impact student willingness to speak up in class (see Table 1 in Kim and Sax, 2009), and active learning practices that ask students to volunteer answers may promote bias. For example, in discussions following group activities, men volunteer answers and are asked to respond to questions more often than women, and men report higher science self-efficacy than women (Aguillon et al, 2020). Moreover, students with non-binary gender identities may fear misgendering by instructors and peers and consequently limit their participation.
Solution: Instructors should clearly articulate norms and expectations for group discussions, or even ask students to co-create these expectations as a class. Instructors for synchronous classes can use “Random call” techniques where students know that they will be responsible for answering questions or presenting their group’s work. Consistent use of random call decreases student anxiety in class discussions (Dallimore et al, 2012), increases participation by women students (Eddy et al, 2014) and may improve the quality of overall student participation (Knight et al, 2016). Implementation of tools that allow students to ask questions without knowledge of their peers (e.g., chat boxes, www.incognea.to) or to present responses anonymously (e.g., Poll Everywhere, Kahoot, Socrative) can help increase diversity of participation and reduce student anxiety. To help increase use of correct gender pronouns, when using online systems that are not anonymous (e.g., Zoom), instructors can set the norm for adding pronouns after their display name. Instructors can also use gender-neutral pronouns throughout the course (e.g., they instead of he or she; humans or people instead of mankind; folks or folx instead of “guys”) as this practice can help reduce bias (Tavits and Perez, 2019). Finally, instructors should acknowledge their own (implicit) biases when calling on and responding to students, as these interactions are ways in which instructors can communicate (unintentional) messages about who belongs in STEM.
Challenge 5: Unbalanced preparation. Students enter our classrooms with diverse levels of preparation and with various misconceptions about the materials. These differences can pose challenges for group or collaborative projects if there is insufficient course support or infrastructure (Matsushita, 2018). When students enter a task without background knowledge, they focus on “externalization”, that is simply completing the task. However, solving problems, talking with others and writing are not evidence of deep learning unless they are coupled with “internalization” or absorption of knowledge independently and outside of class. The two must go together (Matsushita. 2018).
Solution : Using a flipped classroom model potentially addresses these concerns and is well-suited to (synchronous) online class meetings focused on problem solving and interaction (Nahar and Chowdhury, 2019). In the flipped classroom setting, students perform tasks independently outside of class and then engage in active learning and collaborative activities during class. Independent preparatory activities can include worksheets, instructor lectures via video, other supplemental videos, or readings designed to help students come to class able to expand their knowledge in deeper ways by engaging with peers (DeLozier and Rhodes, 2017). In-class assignments and activities should address common misconceptions students may bring to the class from their previous experiences or independent preparation (Prud’homme-Généreux, 2017). When coupled with instructor feedback and/or discussion of correct answers during the session, these activities can deepen learning and correct misconceptions (Kalinowski et al, 2010; Michaels, 2006). Flipped classroom approaches vary greatly; however, across numerous disciplines, the flipped approach has significant benefits (van Alten, 2019). Prud’homme-Genereux and colleagues provide helpful tips for instructors on how to choose or create videos for flipped classrooms (Prud’homme-Généreux et al, 2017) and how to have students produce video content (Prud’homme-Généreux, 2016b). Having students create short, video content for online learning can increase STEM self-efficacy (Campbell et al, 2020), and thus making student content part of the course can be beneficial.
Challenge 6: Group work . Active learning techniques often require group work or student collaborations, yet students tend to dislike working in groups (Taylor, 2011). In addition to student dissatisfaction, potential problems arise when not all students participate, or when groups do not know how to handle disagreement (Smith et al, 2009).
Solution: Communication and collaboration are critical competencies identified by Vision and Change (Clemmons et al, 2020). Additionally, diverse groups tend to produce more creative and better answers (see Freeman and Huang, 2015; Jang, 2017; Dutcher and Rodet, 2018). Transparent teaching strategies (see Section 1.3.1) that present data on the effectiveness of group collaboration can increase student buy-in to group work (and active learning in general). Group work facilitates learning (Michael, 2006; Taylor, 2011) and enables students to practice the collaborative, problem-solving skills needed in potential future careers. For example, many biology students are pre-med or pre-health and teamwork and collaborative skills are critical for these fields. Showing students data or articles related to collaboration in medicine (Lerner et al, 2009; Ranjan et al, 2015) will help them understand the importance of group work.
Giving students strategies for group management and leadership and tools for how to professionally discuss material can aid in group performance and make group work more enjoyable for participants. Students should also have a clear understanding of their role and responsibilities in the group. Group Work and Roles Guide and/or a Group Contract can facilitate this process (Woodley et al, 2017; link to document:http://bit.ly/CGWO2017). To help prevent groups just rushing to get the points, the focus should be on application of material and the process of learning; however, the use of points for correctness of answers can be beneficial for high-risk students (Freeman et al., 2007). Regardless of how points associated with active learning are used, instructors should also provide students with detailed information on grading criteria and assessments of group performance (Livingstone and Lynch, 2002; Moog et al, 2006; Smith et al, 2009).
Groups can be student chosen, instructor chosen, or randomly selected, and can be short- or long-term arrangements. Several studies suggest that group formation practices impact the learning experience (Adams et al, 2002; Chapman et al, 2006; Smith et al, 2009; Matta et al, 2010; Micari et al, 2016; Freeman et al, 2017; Lacey et al., 2020). If instructors are concerned about group composition, it can be helpful to assign groups. Ensuring that less-prepared and more-prepared students are working together, say, by asking all students to initially self-sort in order of past experience with the topic and then counting off, all students benefit and the less-prepared students benefit the most (Micari et al, 2016). However, it is important not to shame students for lack of prior knowledge; if the in-person sorting cannot be arranged in such a way that the question on which they are sorted is non-threatening, it may be best to use a confidential survey and use that information to create groups.
Many applications and digital tools are available to help coordinate online group work. Options such as Google Hangouts, Blackboard Groups, Google Docs, Slack and Zoom breakout rooms provide options for online group interaction. Before using a method, though, instructors should check with their university on approved electronic and information resources for their campus (for example, at one author institution certain tools, e.g., Piazza, are not permitted).
Challenge 7: Student buy-in . At first, students may be hesitant or critical of the new learning techniques. Since the active classroom shifts responsibility from the professor to the students (hooks, 1994; Silverthorn, 2006), students have to do more work. Students cannot passively sit and take notes or just listen; they must engage and interact with the material. This may be scary for students since this shift can push them out of their comfort zone and make them feel vulnerable in the classroom (hooks, 1994).
Solution: Instructors can help students feel more confident and comfortable by making the classroom experience inclusive (see Section 1.3) and by being clear and explicit in their rationale and expectations for in-class activities (Silverthorn, 2006; Tharayil et al, 2018). They can also increase student buy-in by using various techniques (Cavanagh et al, 2016). Here we provide an activity (Supplemental File 1 ) to introduce students to group work and increase buy-in to active learning. This activity was used in class by one of the authors. We encourage instructors to use and modify this activity as needed for use in their classroom.
Challenge 8: Impact on course evaluations . In addition to push-back in the classroom, instructors may see more negative feedback on their course evaluations. When students were randomly assigned to an active or passive learning environment, those in the active environment learned more (determined by assessment) but reported lower perception of learning and had less overall rating of the course (Deslauriers et al, 2019).
Solution : Student evaluations of teaching (SET) should be interpreted with caution because they reflect student perception of learning and not necessarily actual learning (Deslauriers et al, 2019). These findings are important for any faculty member whose reappointment, merit, or promotion is based on SETs, but are particularly relevant for women faculty and faculty from minoritized groups. SETs are already biased against both groups, with students rating women (MacNell et al, 2015; Mitchell and Martin, 2018) and minoritized faculty (Wallace et al, 2019; Chavez and Mitchell, 2020) lower than (white) men. Instructors who use active learning, especially women faculty or faculty of color, should be proactive and explicitly mention these points in their yearly performance reviews. Department heads responsible for preparing annual evaluations of effectiveness should also take this information, and information about other aspects of racial and gender bias relevant to impacts of COVID-19 (Malisch et al, 2020), into account.