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.