In recent decades, political, practical, and scholarly interest in teaching methods that aim to activate students has grown significantly. These methods are commonly referred to as active learning (AL). This doctoral dissertation explores AL within the context of engineering higher education (EHE).

AL is a complex concept. It has been used to refer to two distinct aspects: learning (including psychological and social constructs) or teaching (including instructional pedagogies, strategies, and design principles) (Drew & Mackie, 2011; Lombardi et al., 2021). Scholarly discussions on AL as teaching in HE have primarily focused on three viewpoints. First, definitions of AL as teaching emphasize its distinction from lectures and its role in promoting students’ participation (Doolittle et al., 2023; Prince, 2004). Second, AL is theoretically linked mainly to constructivism (Driessen, 2020; Prince, 2004) although humanist ideals are also evident (Misseyanni et al., 2018). These perspectives have inspired student-centered teaching principles often associated with AL (Doolittle et al., 2023). Third, there is significant interest in the outcomes of AL—both its effectiveness in achieving intended learning outcomes (Pasquinelli, 2011) and its role in fostering graduate attributes valued by employers and society (Drew & Mackie, 2011). Consequently, encouraging students to be active in learning is now almost universally accepted (Dall’Alba & Bengtsen, 2019). However, there is no shared understanding of how AL should be defined (Drew & Mackie, 2011; Watters, 2014), and many scholars do not define AL at all (Doolittle et al., 2023; Driessen et al.; 2020). Therefore, further research is needed on the conceptualization of AL.

In addition to conceptual issues, the widespread adoption of AL has practical implications for students. Although previous research has shown promising evidence of AL’s effectiveness in supporting desired learning outcomes (e.g., Freeman et al., 2014), not all studies have found positive results (e.g., Kapur et al., 2022). Additionally, many findings suggest that AL is not always a pleasant experience for students, but can enhance anxiety (Cooper et al., 2018), resistance (Shekhar et al., 2020) or feelings of incompetence (Chen et al., 2023; Shekhar et al., 2020). Additionally, group work in AL introduces several emotional and social difficulties, such as social loafing and interpersonal conflicts (Borrego et al., 2013). Consequently, understanding how students experience AL as a learning process is of great importance. This dissertation shifts the focus from students’ learning outcomes to their learning processes. Student experiences of these processes are investigated through two theoretical lenses: Control value theory (CVT) of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2023) and basisc psychological need theory (BPNT) from self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017). CVT emphasizes students’ appraisals of control and value as antecedents of emotions that influence performance and achievement (Pekrun et al., 2023). BPNT identifies three psychological needs, autonomy, competence, and relatedness, that drive more autonomous forms of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Exploring students’ experiences of AL through these theories provides insights into how AL shapes learning processes, particularly through perceived control and autonomy and competence satisfaction.

The research has two main aims. First, it seeks to provide an overview of the state of AL research in EHE. The second aim is to develop a deeper understanding of how AL shapes students’ learning processes. The research questions are:

1. How is active learning defined and rationalized in engineering higher education research?

2. How is active learning experienced by students with respect to emotions and motivation?

This dissertation comprises three studies. Study I is a critical review that investigates the conceptualization and rationalization of AL in EHE research (RQ1). Critical review enabled an extensive search of the literature and a critical evaluation of its quality (Grant & Booth, 2009). The review was conducted using a systematic search that aimed at a representative search strategy (Paré et al., 2015), matching the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021). The search was conducted in May 2018 as a database search in the university library’s search portal. The portal included hundreds of databases, such as Scopus, ERIC, Web of Science, and Academic Search Premier. Two keywords, active learning and engineering, were used. The search focused on peer-reviewed journal articles published from 2000 to 2018 and resulted in 347 articles. The abstracts were read, and articles were chosen for thorough learning if they (1) were written in English, (2) were based on empirical research, (3) were implemented in the context of EHE, and (4) reported research on the effects of an AL activity on student learning outcomes. Finally, the search resulted in 66 original empirical studies that were analyzed with a qualitative content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). The second RQ was addressed through two qualitative studies (Studies II and III) that provided insights into students’ emotions and motivation in AL. Altogether, 42 semi-structured engineering student interviews were conducted. Study II, drawing on 26 interviews conducted in two courses in Spring 2018, examined how engineering students perceived the emotional impact of AL in their studies so far. Study III was based on 16 interviews conducted in Spring 2020 after three engineering mathematics courses that were implemented either with flipped learning (FL) (n = 9) or lecture-based principles (n = 7). This study investigated how students experience their active and responsible role in AL and its influence on emotions and perceived competence development. In Studies II and III, the interview recordings were first transcribed verbatim (by an external company) and then analyzed with the principles and steps of thematic analysis introduced by Braun and Clarke (2006).

According to Study I, definitions of AL were often absent or inconsistent in the reviewed studies. The used definitions portrayed AL as teaching methods designed to enhance students’ behavioral, cognitive, or social activity. The rationales for AL were rarely grounded in learning theories; most were based on assumptions or recommendations. The findings of the reviewed articles associated AL with mostly positive learning outcomes, although these claims were often methodologically limited. Studies II and III showed that students’ emotions and motivation were strongly shaped by how they experienced their active and responsible role in AL. Students’ experiences of success and sharing the experience with peers benefited student emotions, whereas an active role in front of peers, facing difficulties in individual work, or encountering collaboration challenges often triggered negative emotions. Opportunities for choice in FL supported competence development by allowing students to study in preferred ways and helping them manage their study-life balance. However, excessive responsibility for learning posed challenges for perceived competence development and evoked negative emotions. This research contributes to research and practice of AL. First, it provides a clearer definition and theoretical positioning of AL to support future research. Second, it highlights the need to study AL from the viewpoint of learning processes and not solely by focusing on outcomes. Third, the findings inform HE teachers’ pedagogical decisions by providing them with a practical, theoretical, and methodological understanding of AL. Finally, the dissertation offers strategies for supporting students’ emotions and motivation in AL. This dissertation challenges the taken-for-granted status of AL, which has shaped the research and practice of AL. The findings call for a recognition of the premises of AL, as well as greater attention to the learning processes within it. Consequently, AL could be studied and implemented in a more rigorous and well-grounded manner.

Dall’Alba, G., & Bengtsen, S. (2019). Re-imagining active learning: Delving into darkness. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(14), 1477–1489. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1561367 Doolittle, P., Wojdak, K., & Walters, A. (2023). Defining active learning: A restricted systematic review. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 11. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.25 Drew, V., & Mackie, L. (2011). Extending the constructs of active learning: Implications for teachers’ pedagogy and practice. The Curriculum Journal, 22(4), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2011.627204 Driessen, E. P., Knight, J. K., Smith, M. K., & Ballen, C. J. (2020). Demystifying the meaning of active learning in postsecondary biology education. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 19(4), ar52. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-04-0068 Kapur, M., Hattie, J., Grossman, I., & Sinha, T. (2022). Fail, flip, fix, and feed – Rethinking flipped learning: A review of meta-analyses and a subsequent meta-analysis. Frontiers in Education, 7, 956416. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.956416 Lombardi, D., Shipley, T. F., Astronomy Team, Biology Team, Chemistry Team, Engineering Team, Geography Team, Geoscience Team, & Physics Team. (2021). The curious construct of active learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(1), 8–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620973974 Pasquinelli, E. (2011). Knowledge- and evidence-based education: Reasons, trends, and contents. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(4), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2011.01128.x Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9 Pekrun, R., Marsh, H. W., Elliot, A. J., Stockinger, K., Perry, R. P., Vogl, E., Goetz, T., van Tilburg, W. A. P., Lüdtke, O., & Vispoel, W. P. (2023). A three-dimensional taxonomy of achievement emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(1), 145–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000448 Prince, M. J. (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 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. Shekhar, P., Borrego, M., DeMonbrun, M., Finelli, C., Crockett, C., & Nguyen, K. (2020). Negative student response to active learning in STEM classrooms: A systematic review of underlying reasons. Journal of College Science Teaching, 49(6), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/0047231x.2020.12290664