You know it, you like it – student appreciation of active learning methods

ABSTRACT

Active learning methods increase student learning, despite potential ressentiment of students towards these methods, based on the lack of knowledge, experience, exposure, or cultural ressentiments regarding social interactions with people perceived as strangers, which hamper the success of these methods. We investigated the student appreciation of five active learning methods among students and PhD candidates at the University of Bergen, Norway. The results indicate that exposure may increase the appreciation for these methods and that Norwegian students show appreciation compared to Non-Norwegians. Group Work was the most experienced and appreciated method, whereas the Jigsaw Classroom was the only method less appreciated than the average. The appreciation differed based on the method and the faculty of the students and implies that students in discussion-based “soft” sciences have different methodological appreciation than students in fact-based “hard” sciences. We present recommendations for the choice of active learning methods at different faculties.

KEYWORDS:

• Student motivation
• Jigsaw
• Peer-peer feedback
• Flipped classroom
• Group work
• Active learning methods

Introduction

Initially, teaching at universities was mostly done in upfront lectures until the paradigm was challenged and new teaching concepts and methods were developed (Dewey, 1916; Freire, 2000; Montessori, 1964). Many of these more recently discussed methods revolve around the idea that the student is at the center of the learning process, following the paradigm of constructivist learning approaches (Steffe & Gale, 1995). These methods are hence named student-centered or active learning methods (Crumly, 2014; Vygotsky, 2012), and foster student learning by engaging them in their learning by thinking, discussing, investigating, creating, and applying knowledge. To achieve this, teachers employ different methods to foster active learning.

Active learning methods

These methods can have a relatively simple structure, such as Group Work or cooperative/ collaborative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1987), or Think-Pair-Share (Kaddoura, 2013), but they can also be more complex such as Peer Feedback or Peer Assessment (Nilson, 2003), Team Based Learning (TBL), which is related to Problem-Based Learning (Dolmans et al., 2001; Michaelsen & Knight, 2004), Flipped Classrooms (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018), or Jigsaw Classrooms (Aronson, 1978). Whereas the Flipped Classroom seems to support student learning by increasing the time the students spend on a given topic and encouraging them to apply knowledge, also individually (Kapur et al., 2022), the other active learning methods mentioned are built on the assumption that the students’ social exchange and interaction is paramount to learning, albeit in different ways, a conviction rooted in social constructivism (Vygotsky, 2012). While feedback plays a role as an important mediator of learning in all the methods that make use of social interaction, Peer Feedback explicitly builds on the idea that students’ feedback on other students’ work is as important to student learning as teachers’ feedback, building, among others, on students’ feedback literacy (Carless & Boud, 2018).

What all these methods share, however, is that employing them in higher education can improve student learning, especially in higher education (Deslauriers & Wieman, 2011; Fraser et al., 2014; Freeman et al., 2014; Hake, 1998). In addition, research has shown that these methods increase attendance, engagement, and the acquisition of an expert attitude in students (Adams et al., 2006; Brewe et al., 2009; Deslauriers et al., 2011; Prince, 2004; Watkins & Mazur, 2013).

Student appreciation and resistance

However, students rate courses with active learning methods lower and sometimes even resist active learning activities, thus creating a disparity with the research-based view that active learning methods increase student attitude and motivation to learn (Lobo, 2017; Owens et al., 2020). Reasons for this disapproval and resistance are, among others, that students dislike being forced to be active and interact with other students, resent towards the increase in learning responsibility, and the feeling that they follow the blind (Fagen et al., 2002; Felder & Brent, 1996; Machemer & Crawford, 2007; Vuorela & Nummenmaa, 2004). This lack of appreciation stems often from a misunderstanding or lack of information about the methods, the increased active participation and preparation time, and the expectations of the students based on prior learning experiences (Owens et al., 2020). In addition, physics students perceived that they learned less in classes taught actively, while they performed better in multiple-choice tests of learning than fellow students in passive lecture-based classes in the same tests (Deslauriers et al., 2019). This indicates that the metacognition of the students, this is their knowledge and awareness about how and what they learn (Flavell, 1979), is not strongly enough developed. This metacognition is important for student learning strategies, monitoring and control of learning, and the promotion of social metacognition during group work as detailed by Stanton and co-workers (Stanton et al., 2021), and therefore to understand and appreciate the benefits of active learning methods.

The lack of appreciation can be overcome by clear instructions and information about course goals and teaching methods before and during the course (Owens et al., 2020). This is shown in students who have experienced active learning methods, and who developed a higher appreciation for these methods, especially in STEM and health subjects (Duran et al., 2022; Freeman et al., 2014; Julià & Antolí, 2019; Leksuwankun et al., 2022). In spite of these challenges, active learning methods have been applied successfully in a variety of disciplines (Graffam, 2007; Kozanitis & Nenciovici, 2022; Perry et al., 1996).

The effect of exposure on student appreciation

Despite the efforts to increase student motivation in active learning and the growing evidence that students learn to appreciate active learning, courses using active learning methods might still be evaluated less positively than courses using other approaches. Therefore, we here investigate the student perspectives of active learning courses at the University of Bergen (UiB; Norway). We follow the hypothesis that students who have been exposed to different active learning techniques, namely Group Work, Peer Review, Jigsaw, Flipped Classrooms, and TBL prefer these methods over lectures. Therefore, we raise the research question: How do students value active learning methods depending on the level of study and their faculty? This information can be useful for teachers who are trying to identify which methods to use or to start with to accustom students to active learning and circumvent potential motivational problems.

The effect of personal situation on student appreciation

Some of the motivational problems with active learning methods might be due to the cultural background of the students. In countries with primary and secondary education that includes active learning methods, such as Norway (Klepaker et al., 2007), students might be more prepared and might have learned to appreciate active learning methods when starting a tertiary education at a university. On the other hand, meeting other students might be especially important for international students. Some research has found that this group of students particularly appreciates active learning methods since these can help them facilitate social interactions and increase their social networks (Marrone et al., 2018). Differences between Norwegian and non-Norwegian students were witnessed during a course at the Department of Biological Science at the University of Bergen (UiB) in Norway by the first author, which was confirmed by other instructors at this university. Therefore, we also raise the open research question: Are there differences between Norwegian and Non-Norwegian students regarding this appreciation?

Materials and methods

Survey

The student appreciation as well as the use of active learning methods was investigated using a survey containing four initial questions informing on cultural background, faculty, level, and experience of the students, and five specific questions about active learning methods Group Work, Peer Feedback, Jigsaw Classroom, Flipped Classroom, and TBL (Table 1; Supplemental material). These methods were chosen based on the usage at UiB (Enberg et al., 2019; Nilsen, 2018) and based on the personal preference for these methods by the first author who has used them in his teaching. In addition, the questionnaire included the open-ended question: “Why do you appreciate these methods more or less than a lecture (one sentence)?” (Supplemental material). The survey was sent to all students and PhD candidates of the UiB using the Skjemaker application (https://it.app.uib.no/Skjemaker), a UiB survey tool. In order to reach all students at UiB, we have sent a message on the landing page of UiB’s learning management system Mitt UiB that has to be used regularly by every student at UiB. The run time for the survey was from 22 February to 15 March 2023. After closing the survey, all contributions answering “No” in question 4 and all duplicate or non-student/ PhD candidate entries were removed before the analyses.

Table 1. Initial and specific questions of the Survey.

Initial questions

Please choose if you are Norwegian or Non-Norwegian Please provide your faculty Please provide your study level Have you been exposed to modern teaching techniques, such as Team Based Learning, Flipped Classroom, Jigsaw Classrooms, Group Work, or Peer Feedback?

Specific questions

Have you been in a class where Group work was used? How did you evaluate it? Why do you appreciate this methods more or less than a lecture (one sentence)?

(2) Have you been in a class where Peer-Feedback was used? How did you evaluate it? Why do you appreciate this methods more or less than a lecture (one sentence)?

(3) Have you been in a class where Jigsaw Classroom was used? How did you evaluate it? Why do you appreciate this methods more or less than a lecture (one sentence)?

(4) Have you been in a class where Flipped Classroom was used? How did you evaluate it? Why do you appreciate this methods more or less than a lecture (one sentence)?

(5) Have you been in a class where Team Based Learning was used? How did you evaluate it? Why do you appreciate this methods more or less than a lecture (one sentence)?

Analyses

The analysis followed a concurrent mixed-methods design, the triangulation approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2005), where we first analyzed the quantitative and the qualitative data independently from each other. Findings from both sources were integrated with regard to the research questions and informed interpretation of each data set. For the quantitative analyses, the question scores were averaged and compared to the maximum score of 5 per active learning method. The analyses, incl. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) statistics, was performed using R in Rstudio with the packages “vegan”, “tidyverse”, “ggplot2”, “AICcmodavg” and “patchwork” (Kassambara, 2020; Lin Pedersen, 2020; Mazerolle, 2020; Oksanen et al., 2020; Wickham et al., 2019). MUSEUM was excluded from the statistical analyses because only a single answer was given for this factor. For the qualitative analyses, the given answers were initially grouped into positive, negative, and neutral answers. Using qualitative content analysis with inductive code generation (Mayring, 2000), 16 codes were generated, of which two codes were used for not usable and other topics, including unclear answers or rarely mentioned topics, and were excluded for further analyses. The other codes were grouped into five themes. The first theme is Methods, containing all answers that broadly regarded the method from a technical point of view or stated that the method was somewhat equal to lectures. Secondly, Learning included answers regarding the learning outcome, the workload or time requirements, and the practical application of the learned theory. Under Resistance, we included all answers regarding forced interactions, increased learning responsibility, opinions about students not being as qualified as teachers, lazy professors/staff, and personal preferences for lectures or individual learning. Motivation included all answers regarding student motivation, engagement, or fun, while Interactions included all answers regarding positive (e.g., discussion or social interactions) and negative (e.g., unprepared peers) interactions between the students, but also the teachers. These themes were applied to all answers separated by active learning methods, counted, and their frequency was used as a relative indicator of positive, negative, and neutral answers per method.

Results

The survey was sent to all 20,173 students and approx. a total of 1500 PhD candidates (number based on the last census in 2022) at the UiB were answered by N = 1064 persons. Approximately 4.9% of the target population responded to the survey, although 200 invalid entries had to be deleted during quality control, resulting in 864 valid surveys. The relatively low contribution of students is a result of the difficulties at UiB in addressing all students. All communication has to go through the student administration and is reduced to a minimum, which prevented us from reminder emails, which would have increased the contribution. Therefore, we conducted the study with as many students as possible under these circumstances.

The majority of the answers (631 or 73.3%; Figure 1) were given by people identifying as Norwegians, which slightly underrepresents the 88.3% of Norwegian students at UiB. Regarding the educational level, the Master level (summed under M.Sc.) was more prominent with 466 answers, then the Bachelor level (summed under B.Sc.) with 398 answers (Figure 1), although the numbers of B.Sc. and M.Sc. (incl. PhD candidates) students are nearly identical UiB. The factor faculty was based on the faculties at the UiB (Faculty of Fine Art, Music and Design = ART; Faculty of Humanities = HUMAN; Faculty of Law = LAW; Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences = MATNAT; Faculty of Medicine = MED; Faculty of Psychology = PSYCHO; Faculty of Social Sciences = SOCIAL; University Museum of Bergen = MUSEUM; and other or not identifiable faculties = OTHER), and was dominated by MATNAT and SOCIAL, followed by HUMAN, MED, PSYCHO, LAW, and ART (Figure 1; Table 2). Only one answer was affiliated with the University Museum of Bergen, while 48 answers were not determined, affiliated with non-faculty institutes, or were not identifiable based on the given information (Figure 1). While HUMAN and LAW were underrepresented in the survey, MATNAT and ART were overrepresented. Regarding both the study level and the faculty, the answers of HUMAN and PSYCHO students did not represent the share of these students at UiB, with B.Sc. over and M.Sc. underrepresented for HUMAN and vice versa for PSYCHO (Table 2). In addition, B.Sc. students in LAW were underrepresented in the answers (Table 2). Regarding study level, faculty, and cultural background, Norwegian B.Sc. students were overrepresented in HUMAN but underrepresented in LAW, PSYCHO, and ART whereas Non-Norwegian B.Sc. were overrepresented in HUMAN (Table 2). On M.Sc. level, Norwegian students were underrepresented in HUMAN and MED, while Non-Norwegian students were overrepresented in HUMAN, MATNAT, MED, and PSYCHO. However, most of these representations were within a range of fluctuations that can be expected for these kinds of data.

Figure 1. Distribution of the answers based on the national identification, the study level, and the affiliation by faculty (ART = Faculty of Fine Art, Music and Design; HUMAN = Faculty of Humanities; LAW = Faculty of Law; MATNAT = Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences; MED = Faculty of Medicine; PSYCHO = Faculty of Psychology; SOCIAL = Faculty of Social Sciences; MUSEUM = University Museum of Bergen; and OTHER = Other or not identifiable faculties).

Table 2. Total and relative abundance of students in comparison to answers given by students affiliated to the different faculties, cultural background, and study level (PhD candidates are included in the M.Sc.) at UiB.

Faculty	Level	Cultural background	Students	% of students at UiB	Answers	% of answers
SOCIAL	B.Sc.	Norwegian	2604	12.0	108	12.5
	B.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	430	2.0	14	1.6
	M.Sc.	Norwegian	1076	5.3	48	5.6
	M.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	83	0.6	16	1.9
	M.Sc.	NA	-	-	1	0.1
HUMAN	B.Sc.	Norwegian	197	0.9	58	6.7
	B.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	153	0.7	15	1.7
	M.Sc.	Norwegian	2072	9.7	28	3.2
	M.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	13	0.1	21	2.4
MATNAT	B.Sc.	Norwegian	1967	9.1	91	10.5
	B.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	183	0.8	16	1.9
	M.Sc.	Norwegian	1481	7.7	71	8.2
	M.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	144	1.9	37	4.3
	M.Sc.	NA	-	-	1	0.1
MED	B.Sc.	Norwegian	311	1.4	13	1.5
	B.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	93	0.4	8	0.9
	M.Sc.	Norwegian	1899	10.6	61	7.1
	M.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	142	1.5	38	4.4
	M.Sc.	NA	-	-	1	0.1
LAW	B.Sc.	Norwegian	1088	5.0	8	0.9
	B.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	92	0.4	8	0.9
	M.Sc.	Norwegian	968	4.9	32	3.7
	M.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	52	0.4	3	0.3
PSYCHO	B.Sc.	Norwegian	2938	13.5	26	3.0
	B.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	237	1.1	6	0.7
	M.Sc.	Norwegian	968	4.9	51	5.9
	M.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	111	0.8	17	2.0
ART	B.Sc.	Norwegian	425	2.0	8	0.9
	B.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	109	0.5	4	0.5
	M.Sc.	Norwegian	249	1.3	4	0.5
	M.Sc.	Non-Norwegian	83	0.4	2	0.2
MUSEUM	-	-	-	-	1	0.1
OTHER	-	-	-	-	48	5.6

General appreciation of the different active learning methods

Among the five active learning methods addressed in the survey, Group Work and Peer Feedback have been experienced by a majority of participants (820 and 553 answers; Figure 2). Group Work was appreciated slightly more than standard lectures, resulting in an overall average score of M = 3.40 ± 1.00, while Peer Feedback was appreciated relatively similar than lectures resulting in an overall average score of M = 3.14 ± 1.07 (Figure 2; Table 3). Of the 864 valid answers, 404 stated that they had experienced TBL in classes and regarded it with the highest overall score of M = 3.50 ± 1.05 for all active learning methods (Figure 2; Table 3). Less frequent experiences were Flipped and Jigsaw Classrooms (307 and 176 answers; Figure 2). Flipped Classroom lessons were still regarded better than standard lectures with an overall score of M = 3.36 ± 1.09, whereas Jigsaw Classrooms were appreciated slightly less than standard lectures with an overall score of M = 2.92 ± 1.03 (Table 3).

Figure 2. General overview of experience and appreciation of the five investigated active learning methods for all respondents.

Table 3. Average appreciation values per question and per investigated factor (MUSEUM was excluded).

Mean values	Group Work	Peer Feedback	Jigsaw Classroom	Flipped Classroom	Team Based Learning
Total (n = 864)	3.40 ± 1.01	3.14 ± 1.07	2.92 ± 1.03	3.36 ± 1.09	3.50 ± 1.05
Mean by Nationality
Norwegian (n = 631)	3.40 ± 0.96	3.02 ± 1.02	2.89 ± 0.99	3.36 ± 1.07	3.47 ± 1.02
Non-Norwegian (n = 230)	3.41 ± 1.12	3.42 ± 1.14	2.99 ± 1.11	3.35 ± 1.14	3.56 ± 1.11
Mean by Level
B. Sc. (n = 398)	3.34 ± 0.98	3.10 ± 1.03	2.87 ± 0.97	3.40 ± 1.03	3.50 ± 1.01
M. Sc. (n = 466)	3.46 ± 1.02	3.16 ± 1.09	2.97 ± 1.09	3.33 ± 1.13	3.50 ± 1.08
Mean by Faculty
Arts (n = 18)	3.33 ± 1.03	3.79 ± 1.05	3.30 ± 1.16	3.50 ± 1.00	3.54 ± 1.33
Humanities (n = 122)	3.15 ± 1.06	2.95 ± 1.06	3.13 ± 0.95	3.17 ± 0.98	3.02 ± 1.06
Laws (n = 51)	3.52 ± 0.86	3.76 ± 0.89	3.00 ± 0.82	3.68 ± 0.90	3.61 ± 0.88
MatNat (n = 216)	3.47 ± 0.97	3.13 ± 1.10	2.77 ± 1.00	3.36 ± 1.25	3.69 ± 1.04
Medicine (n = 121)	3.39 ± 1.01	2.94 ± 1.02	2.70 ± 1.33	3.14 ± 1.15	3.59 ± 0.99
Psychology (n = 100)	3.65 ± 1.10	3.31 ± 1.11	3.06 ± 1.27	3.59 ± 1.21	3.57 ± 1.21
Social Science (n = 187)	3.40 ± 0.94	3.17 ± 1.03	2.77 ± 0.75	3.38 ± 0.90	3.50 ±0.91
Others (n = 48)	3.42 ± 1.12	3.09 ± 0.96	2.98 ± 1.03	3.45 ± 0.93	3.45 ± 1.07

Linking factors to appreciation

The survey was then subdivided based on the factors Nationality, Level, and Faculty. Using Norwegian and Non-Norwegian as classification, Group Work and Flipped Classroom were appreciated similarly by both student groups, whereas Jigsaw Classroom and TBL were appreciated less by Norwegians with M = 2.98 ± 0.99 and M = 3.47 ± 1.02 (n = 631), as compared to M = 2.99 ± 1.11 and M = 3.56 ± 1.11 for Non-Norwegians (n = 230; Table 3). Peer Feedback achieved significantly lower scores with Norwegians (n = 631; M = 3.02 ± 1.01) than with Non-Norwegians (n = 230; M = 3.42 ± 1.14; p = 3.08 × 10⁻⁵; two-way ANOVA with factors Nationality, Level, and Faculty; Table 2; Figure 3). Based on the educational level, the methods were more appreciated by M.Sc. students, the only exception being Flipped Classroom (Table 2). Overall, TBL and Group Work scored highest with M.Sc. students and TBL and Flipped Classroom with B.Sc. students, while Jigsaw Classroom scored lowest in both groups (Table 2). Using both Nationality and Level, no statistical differences were found. Divided by faculty, Peer Feedback was appreciated more by members of LAW than by members of all other faculties, except for ART (Table 2). Similarly, Team-Based Learning was significantly more appreciated by MATNAT and MED students with scores of M = 3.69 ± 1.04 and M = 3.59 ± 0.99 (n = 216 and 121), as compared to HUMAN students (Table 2). While all active learning methods scored low with HUMAN students in comparison to other faculties, the lowest appreciations were found by MED, MATNAT, and PSYCHO students for the Jigsaw Classroom (Table 2).

Figure 3. Significantly different appreciation of Norwegians and Non-Norwegians for Peer Feedback based on a two-way ANOVA.

Qualitative analyses

Using short optional sentences, we tried to gain a deeper understanding of the students’ appreciation of the active learning methods. By and large, the open-ended answers reflected the scores for the individual active learning methods. Most answers reflected positively on methods such as Group Work (65.8% positive) and TBL (63.6%), whereas less answers were positive for Flipped Classroom (55.3%) and Peer review (48.1%). Jigsaw Classrooms was only commented on positively in 34.2% of the answers.

Based on the content analyses, two groups of active learning methods were found based on the chosen five themes. Group Work and TBL were appreciated mostly because of their precondition for interactions (29.0% and 36.7%) and less because of motivation or learning (Table 4). As one student stated for Group Work: “Discussions with other students can give a different perspective than yours and therefore a broader understanding of the topic” and another for Team Based Learning: “Again, I learn best from discussing topics with other students and appreciate learning the different view points other might have”.

Table 4. Results of the qualitative content analyses of the attitude of the respondents showing the answers given by theme in % separated by a previous definition of the answer as positive (+), negative (-), or neutral (0).

	Group Work [%]			Peer Feedback [%]			Jigsaw Classroom [%]			Flipped Classroom [%]			TBL [%]
Theme	+	-	0	+	-	0	+	-	0	+	-	0	+	-	0
Methods	6.3	1.6	3.4	3.8	5.3	1.9	1.3	4.0	1.3	4.7	7.0	1.2	4.0	1.9	0.3
Learning	14.9	3.6	0.3	26.8	7.2	0.4	22.8	8.1	0.7	42.8	13.6	0.4	18.8	6.8	0.0
Resistance	0.4	8.0	0.3	2.5	11.5	1.5	0.7	14.8	0.0	2.3	5.4	0.0	1.2	3.7	0.0
Motivation	20.0	0.9	0.1	5.5	0.0	0.0	10.1	0.7	0.0	11.7	0.4	0.0	13.0	0.6	0.0
Interaction	29.0	10.7	0.7	14.2	17.2	2.1	14.8	18.1	2.7	7.4	2.7	0.4	36.7	9.3	3.7

On the other hand, for Peer Feedback, Jigsaw-, and Flipped Classrooms the learning outcomes were more often mentioned as positive (26.8%, 22.8%, and 42.8%, respectively) than motivation and interactions (Table 4). Here, students stated “I appreciate the method since it is a great way to optimize the learning through feedback from the students” for Peer Feedback; “A relatively efficient method to learn about many topics and to become an expert in one” for Jigsaw Classrooms, and “Time management is better. I can spend time learning the basics at home or alone, and the time with others can be spent working through tougher problems” as well as “I learn to put the materials from lecture into practice and I like to get feedback, to reflect my understanding” for Flipped Classroom. All of the statements cited before indicate appreciation for the learning outcome. In addition, students specifically mentioned the advantages of time management and the application of theory to practical problems for the Flipped Classroom.

Split between Norwegians and Non-Norwegians, the main difference in answers regarding Flipped Classrooms was that non-Norwegians (20.6%) had a higher appreciation for Interactions than Norwegians (12.0%) who also gave more negative answers (18.7% vs. 13.5%).

On the contrary, Interactions and Resistance were the most mentioned negative factors for Group Work (10.7% and 8.0%), Peer Feedback (17.2% and 11.5%), Jigsaw Classroom (18.1% and 14.8%), and TBL (9.3% and 6.8%). Students pointed out that “Few people actually put an effort to do a good job, so there is always one or 2 people who work and everyone takes the credit” (Group Work), “Peers usually don’t take it seriously to give feedback, they are afraid of conflict, and do not know the subject as well as the lecturers” and “It felt more like work, so the T.A.s [Technical Assistants; the authors] did not need to do it” (Peer Feedback). Others mentioned that “I prefer getting the information directly from the professor as the most reliable source, and I am afraid I lose some important information because you rely on students prioritizing of the information.” (Jigsaw Classroom), or “Forced interaction and team dynamics are never taken into consideration” (Team Based Learning). These quotes indicate that negative connotations mostly stem from the feeling that teachers are lazy, but also that they should be doing the teaching instead of the students themselves, since the (other) students are seen as unreliable and might not want to participate in the learning activities, thereby reducing the learning outcome. This learning outcome and Methods were most pronounced for the Flipped Classroom (13.6% and 7.0%; Table 4), specifically when more time was needed for the method, as exemplified in the following student statement: “This depends on whether you can do the reading before class or after class. If you can only do it after class you might miss important insights during class and it is less preferable, if you can read material before class as preparation then the class would be better in achieving deeper understanding”, and statements regarding potential problems with the introduction of the method: “Not organized well, so we didn’t know what to do”.

Neutral answers never exceeded 5% of all answers and were mostly focused on Methods and Interactions for all active learning methods (Table 4), an example being: “How valuable this is depending on the people you group with” (Team Based Learning).

Discussion

Answers to the research questions

Following the research question about potential differences between native, Norwegian students, and non-Norwegian students regarding the appreciation of active learning methods, we investigated the data of Norwegians and non-Norwegians separately. While Group Work and Flipped Classroom resulted in similar appreciation scores, these scores were lower with Norwegians for Jigsaw Classrooms and TBL as compared to Non-Norwegians. This implies that the Norwegian students in this sample less preferred social interactions, especially when these interactions were with strangers or forced upon them. While these preferences might be attenuated in group situations, they might be aggravated in one-on-one situations, such as Peer Feedback. The qualitative analyses support this finding for Peer Feedback, where Norwegians responded with less positive and more negative answers than non-Norwegians. Norwegian students could, by and large, have a lower appreciation of teaching methods that require social interaction, of those that are built on the assumption that peers’ views are as relevant for student learning as experts’ (teachers’) views. The students themselves, however, based their appreciation less on the actual interaction with other students, but rather on feelings that their peers or group members were not putting the same effort into the task and therefore the results were often dependent on the partner/group. This was also mentioned often for the other methods, thus constituting a major theme of the criticism and a new theme for the analyses of active learning methods. Other research has found that students perceive forced activity including interactions or the feeling that active learning would mean to follow the blind as the main reasons for their resistance (Fagen et al., 2002; Felder & Brent, 1996). The perceived unfairness of the partners or group might have just been more pronounced than with the non-Norwegian students.

In addition, the social aspect of active learning methods, such as meeting new people and making friends, might be more important for foreign students with a limited social environment, as compared to local students (Marrone et al., 2018). This reason might have been aggravated further in recent years by the global COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting social restrictions. Interestingly, only very few students mentioned specifically getting to know their classmates as an advantage of active learning methods, although Interactions were a major theme for all methods in the qualitative data. Although not specifically mentioned, the interaction theme could be hidden within answers regarding the motivation and engagement of the students, another main theme of this study. Together with the practical use of the learned theory (mostly TBL and Flipped Classroom), the unfairness in group work, despite the appreciation of the interactions, and the engagement and motivation were found to be the major themes in the qualitative analyses. Other themes like the misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the method, expectation on earlier experience, and the perception of learning less were mentioned only a few times or not stated very clearly. Only sometimes were themes found in other research, such as higher learning responsibility and preparation time mentioned negatively (Owens et al., 2020); students in our sample mentioned some of these aspects even as benefits of the methods since they offer the students more freedom to decide what and when to learn.

The distribution of answers between the B.Sc. and M.Sc. levels was relatively similar, thus indicating that active learning methods are used already at both levels and that students get exposed to these methods early on. An early exposure may lead to a familiarization with active learning methods and consequently to higher acceptance and appreciation rates. This might reflect the generally high appreciation of the different active learning methods, which all scored close to or above the average of M = 3.0, with a slightly higher appreciation by M.Sc. level students that could be explained by their longer exposure (Table 3). This appreciation is furthermore reflected in the open-ended answers given in the survey, which were more positive towards the teaching methods that were supposedly experienced more often, Group Work and Team Based Learning. In a similar vein, we found more negative comments towards the less used Jigsaw and Flipped Classrooms. Peer Feedback seems to be an exception to this interpretation since students have both high exposure to this method and offered many negative comments on it. This might result from the stronger dependency of the method on the preparation and participation of the paired students. In a one-on-one situation, an unprepared person cannot easily be compensated by others, as it might be the case in group settings with other active learning methods. This would lead to a failure of the method which was, accordingly, often criticized in the answers for Peer Feedback, but not only for this method. The higher usage of Group Work and Peer Feedback as compared to the other methods might also be a result of teachers’ knowledge about different active teaching methods. Group Work and Peer Feedback are supposedly well known to most university faculty, as they have been used in one or another form during school education already. Hence, these methods are more familiar to the teachers, which may lead to higher usage of these methods, as teachers were shown to appreciate active learning methods in a healthy environment (Leksuwankun et al., 2022). In addition, the amount of work needed to implement some more complex teaching methods and the complexity of the method itself might explain the higher use of the simpler methods, as well as their appreciation by students. While Group Work and Peer Feedback can be implemented relatively easily, Jigsaw and Flipped Classrooms as well as TBL require more preparation. For the students, easy implementation also reduces the feeling of not understanding the method correctly and might foster cooperation. Interestingly, TBL as the most preparation intensive method was used more often than Jigsaw and Flipped Classrooms and more appreciated by the students.

In general, the students’ appreciation for active learning methods was higher than the theoretical average, confirming the idea that students appreciate active learning methods over lectures and refuting studies claiming that active learning methods are less appreciated by students (Fagen et al., 2002; Felder & Brent, 1996; Owens et al., 2020; Vuorela & Nummenmaa, 2004). Students’ appreciation varied based on faculty affiliation and the different active learning methods. The highest average appreciation was found in ART and LAW students, specifically for Peer Feedback. Appreciation of this method was also significantly higher for LAW than students at most other faculties, as well as significantly higher for ART compared to MED students. This finding could be explained by the fact that the LAW and ART subjects might be interactive and communication intensive. Hence, discussions and direct feedback could be more appreciated than in the more fact-focused natural and medical sciences. Students in these disciplines appreciated TBL most, a method based on individual testing and more applied or problem-oriented group work. This finding is also supported by the finding of high appreciation scores for PSYCHO students who appreciated Group Work, Flipped Classroom, and TBL most. It seems possible that this is due to the fact that this faculty combines more communication intense soft approaches (e.g., psychotherapy) with more fact-focused research approaches (e.g., brain research).

More generally, the average appreciation was lowest for HUMAN, even significantly so for Team Based Learning, as compared to MATNAT and MED students, who appreciated this method most. Surprisingly, the Jigsaw Classroom was more appreciated by participants from HUMAN and ART than by any other faculty. This method was generally the least appreciated and the only method that scored less than the theoretical average, specifically in MATNAT, MED, and SOCIAL. This implies that the Jigsaw Classroom might be good for sharing opinions and discussions but might not be suited for the teaching of hard topics in the sciences. As one person from MATNAT stated: “Usually [it] ends up with people doing the absolute bare minimum since you’re not given much time to read up on your topic, and since there usually aren’t any authorities on the topics present in each group during the presentations, jigsaw groups usually end up with people sharing partially wrong or very basic information already known by the group. Students are also skeptical of each other’s understanding of their task and end up reading up on the topics that have been presented to them by the ‘experts’ in their group anyway, so it’s usually not productive”. Summing up, the students’ appreciations of active learning methods seem to depend on several factors, that include the specific nature of the method, the students’ disciplinary backgrounds as well as their personal background (e.g., Norwegian vs. non-Norwegian).

Methodological limitations

The current results should be interpreted with caution, considering some methodological limitations. First, the study was only conducted at the University of Bergen in Norway. Although UiB is considered a larger university with a broad diversity of disciplines and study programs, it cannot be excluded that the same study at another (Norwegian) university would yield different results. Despite the quality control, participation by non-students or old students remaining in the system, as well as university employees at various levels cannot be excluded. However, the sample sizes both for analyses with the whole sample and with sub samples seemed to fulfil basic requirements for statistical analyses. Second, the sample is likely to be self-selected. Although the sample characteristics roughly equalled the characteristics of all students studying at UiB at that time, we cannot exclude that the convenience sampling method preferred the students with a higher interest in teaching and learning-related topics, thereby reducing the generalisability of the current results. Third, the selected active learning methods might not represent the true prevalence of active learning methods at UiB. While we based the selection on previously reported results (Enberg et al., 2019; Nilsen, 2018), we cannot exclude the possibilities that the responding students did not know the methods, did not under the names used here, or that other active learning methods were more prevalent, and hence, relevant to the students’ perspectives.

Practical implications

The current study of student appreciation of active learning methods at UiB gave answers to both research questions, both about the relation between exposure and appreciation and about potential differences between students from Norway vs. Non-Norwegians. Student appreciation of active learning methods depends on their faculty affiliation, as well as the method used in teaching, and is likely a result of the exposure to different methods and the correlated appreciation of these. Based on these differences, some recommendations can be made to improve teaching and to implement active learning methods in classes. For a course or teacher who is typically using lectures as the main method, we recommend the implementation of Group Work first, as this is most known to and most appreciated by students, as shown. Therefore, this method can be used to accustom students to active learning methods as such, which can lay a foundation for further intensification of active learning methods in the future. The low complexity and the general knowledge of Group Work among students can reduce their resistance towards these methods and increase their appreciation. In a second step, we recommend the use of Team-Based Learning for teachers in all faculties except for HUMAN. In LAW, PSYCHO, and ART, Team-Based Learning could be supplemented with the Flipped Classroom, which is also the most appreciated method by students in HUMAN. These methods are based on group work so that students’ resistance might be reduced when adding more complexity to a method they already know and appreciate. Based on our findings, we recommend introducing Jigsaw Classroom last, given its low appreciation scores. The Jigsaw Classroom is also the method with the highest complexity that needs both a lot of interaction, and trust as well as high levels of competence among group members. Therefore, it is recommended to introduce this method after students have been accustomed to methods of lower complexity. With these recommendations, we sincerely hope to encourage teachers to use active learning methods and overcome potential ressentiments from the teachers' side, such as higher workload and the fear of negative course evaluations, together with correlated negative impacts on teaching portfolios or their motivation to teach.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all teachers of the UiB university pedagogy team for their efforts and their insights during the courses. ST would also like to thank Hansi Kürsch for the inspiration. In addition, the authors thank all participants of the survey for their time and effort.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.