Active learning and the development of 21st century skills in online STEM education – a large scale survey
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i1.3533Keywords:
Active learning, 21st-century skills, STEM-education, Remote teaching and learningAbstract
While the benefits of active learning to student experiences are well documented, less is known about active learning in online education, especially with regard to the development of 21st century skills. Here we address this gap in the context of online Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) higher education. 744 undergraduate students participated in a survey during the Spring 2020 term. The survey asked about learning design, perceived development of 21st-century skills, and overall satisfaction with the course. We extracted the relationship between various properties of course design (such as frequency of groupwork) and the self-reported development of key 21st-century skills. Results corroborated earlier findings, showing that these skills can be grouped into three sets: communication and collaboration skills, domain-general skills, and STEM-specific skills. We further found that designs for active learning explain students’ development of 21st century skills. In particular, it was individual work, group work, long-term work, and synchronous work that explain variance in students' reports of skill development. Moreover, supporting students in the development of their 21st-century skills was associated with greater overall satisfaction with the course. Our findings suggest that activities in the higher levels of the Interactive, Constructive, Active, and Passive framework (ICAP; Chi et al., 2018) are associated with greater learning of key 21st-century skills and increase students’ overall satisfaction. We discuss implications for design and institutional support.References
Ananiadou, K. and M. Claro (2009), “21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/218525261154
Ballen, C. J., Wieman, C., Salehi, S., Searle, J. B., & Zamudio, K. R. (2017). Enhancing Diversity in Undergraduate Science: Self-Efficacy Drives Performance Gains with Active Learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(4), ar56. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0344
Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Lillejord, S. (2020). Barriers to student active learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1839746
Buitrago-Flórez, F., Danies, G., Restrepo, S., & Hernández, C. (2021). Fostering 21st Century Competences through Computational Thinking and Active Learning: A Mixed Method Study. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 737-754.
Chi, M. T. H., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., Levy, R., Li, N., McEldoon, K. L., Stump, G. S., Wylie, R., Xu, D., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement Into Practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1777–1832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2015). Active learning approaches to integrating technology into a middle school science curriculum based on 21st century skills. In Emerging technologies for STEAM education (pp. 17-37). Springer, Cham
Cinque, M. (2017). MOOCs and Soft Skills: a comparison of different courses on Creativity. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(3).
Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn, 20(2010), 51–76.
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the Design and Delivery of Instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. NY: Macmillan Library Reference USA.
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
Hadi Mogavi, R., Zhao, Y., Ul Haq, E., Hui, P., & Ma, X. (2021, June). Student Barriers to Active Learning in Synchronous Online Classes: Characterization, Reflections, and Suggestions. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 101-115).
Hattie, J. (2010). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement (Reprinted). Routledge.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Jang, H. (2016). Identifying 21st Century STEM Competencies Using Workplace Data. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9593-1
Kennedy T.J., Sundberg C.W. (2020) 21st Century Skills. In: Akpan B., Kennedy T.J. (eds) Science Education in Theory and Practice. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_32
Koedinger, K. R., Kim, J., Jia, J. Z., McLaughlin, E. A., & Bier, N. L. (2015, March). Learning is not a spectator sport: Doing is better than watching for learning from a MOOC. In Proceedings of the second (2015) ACM conference on learning@ scale (pp. 111-120).
Lavi, R., Tal, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2021). Perceptions of STEM alumni and students on developing 21st century skills through methods of teaching and learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 101002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101002
Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate Research Experiences Support Science Career Decisions and Active Learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(4), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039
Novak-Pintarič, Z., & Kravanja, Z. (2020). The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020 on the Quality of STEM Higher Education. Chemical engineering transactions, (81), 1316-1320.
Palou, E., Husted, S., Chávez-Torrejón, G., Apud, Z. R., Gazca, L., Cuba, J. V. G., ... & López-Malo, A. (2015). Critical support systems to enhance the development and assessment of 21st century expertise in engineering students. In Emerging Technologies for STEAM Education (pp. 217-243). Springer, Cham.
Polat, H., & Kayaduman, H. (2022). An Emerging Trend in Online Instruction: E-Flipped Classroom. In G. Durak, & S. Çankaya (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Managing and Designing Online Courses in Synchronous and Asynchronous Environments (pp. 159-177). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-8701-0.ch008
Stöhr, C., Demazière, C., & Adawi, T. (2020). The polarizing effect of the online flipped classroom. Computers and Education, 147(December 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103789
Soffer, T., & Cohen, A. (2019). Students’ engagement characteristics predict success and completion of online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12340
Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., ... & Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476-6483.
Thompson, Bruce. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. American Psychological Association, Washington D
Usher, M., Barak, M., & Haick, H. (2021). Online vs. on-campus higher education: Exploring innovation in students' self-reports and students' learning products. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 100965.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ilana Ram, Rinat Rosenberg-Kima, Daniel R. Lewin, Abigail Barzilai, Olga Chuntonov, Ido Roll

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions

