Impact of Active Learning Strategies on Student Achievement in Physics Education
A Comprehensive Literature Review (2010–2026)
Keywords:
Physics EducationAbstract
This extensive literature review explores the influence of participatory learning techniques on student performance in physics education, integrating findings from peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2010 and 2026. The review is based on a systematic search across various academic databases, identifying 30 pertinent studies that utilized diverse research designs, including quasi-experimental frameworks, comparative analyses, and multi-institutional investigations. The findings consistently indicate that participatory learning methods yield better results compared to conventional lecture-based teaching across several facets of student achievement. Conceptual comprehension, assessed through validated tools such as the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) and Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM), demonstrates notable enhancement in participatory learning settings. Analytical reasoning abilities and performance on quantitative assessments also show improvement with active engagement, although these outcomes are heavily influenced by the fidelity of implementation and the proportion of class time dedicated to learner-centered activities. Among the various participatory learning models reviewed including Peer Instruction, inverted classrooms, Tutorials, SCALE-UP (Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-down Pedagogies), ISLE (Investigative Science Learning Environment), Problem-Based Learning (PBL), and technology-supported active learning SCALE-UP consistently achieved the highest conceptual gains in multi-institutional evaluations. The review further highlights encouraging evidence that participatory learning strategies can contribute to more equitable academic results, narrow achievement disparities, and encourage positive shifts in attitudes toward physics, especially when inclusive teaching practices are emphasized.
References
Karim, M., Maries, A., & Singh, C. (2020). Impact of flipped and active-engagement courses on student performance. Canadian Journal of Physics, 98(6), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1139/CJP-2017-0171
Dou, R., Brewe, E., Zwolak, J. P., Potvin, G., Williams, E. A., & Kramer, L. H. (2016). Beyond performance metrics: Examining a decrease in students' physics self-efficacy through a social networks lens. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020124. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020124
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783
Sarkingobir, Y., Bichi, A., & Abubakar, A. (2024). Problem-based learning in physics education. International Journal of Essential Competencies in Education, 3(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.36312/ijece.v3i1.1813
Mohammad, N., Sharma, S., & Kumar, R. (2023). Mind mapping and problem-solving skills in physics. Zenodo Repository. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8288447
McDaniel, M. A., Bugg, J. M., Liu, Z., & Brick, S. (2016). Conceptual versus quantitative problem-solving outcomes in physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020141. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020141
Kola, A. J. (2013). Interactive engagement strategies in physics classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 35(9), 1–15.
Gorman, M., Loverude, M., & Ambrose, B. (2018). The impact of class size on student learning in active learning environments. Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 2018, 152–155.
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
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip Your Classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Washington, DC: ISTE Press.
Beichner, R. J. (2008). The SCALE-UP project: A student-centered active learning environment. In Research-Based Reform of University Physics.
Redish, E. F. (2003). Teaching physics with the physics suite. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Novak, G. M., Patterson, E. T., Gavrin, A. D., & Christian, W. (1999). Just-in-time teaching: Blending active learning with web technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Laws, P. W. (1991). Workshop physics: Learning introductory physics by doing it. New York: Wiley.
Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3–5), 243–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-7196-9
Meltzer, D. E., & Thornton, R. K. (2012). Resource letter ALIP–1: Active-learning instruction in physics. American Journal of Physics, 80(6), 478–496. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3678299
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
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 247–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213518
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know and what we need to know. Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066001001
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dr Krishnakanth Ganesan K
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in the Graduate Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, Reports and Reviews (Grad. J. InteR3) by Vyom Hans Publications are published and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- CC-BY 4.0 International License.
