Using a Variety of Interactive Learning Methods to Improve Learning Effectiveness: Insights from AI Models Based on Teaching Surveys


  • Zohar Barnett-Itzhaki Ruppin Research Group in Environmental and Social Sustainability. Ruppin Academic Center
  • Dizza Beimel Ruppin Academic Center
  • Arava Tsoury Ruppin Academic Center



active learning, interactive learning methods, student satisfaction, online learning


The last decade has brought far-reaching changes in higher education, leading institutions to shift some or all instruction online. This shift to distance learning has contributed to a more significant need for active learning: changing students from passive knowledge consumers into proactive knowledge producers using interactive teaching practices. The present study joins an emerging body of literature examining the relationship between active learning, the online environment, and students’ performance. In this study, we examined the effect of four interactive learning methods (combined with technology) on students’ overall assessments of the class, the clarity of the teaching, and the perceived effectiveness of online distance learning. The data source for the research is teaching evaluation surveys filled out by undergraduate and master’s students. In total, we analyzed ~30,000 surveys completed by ~4,800 students from 23 departments, covering 1,265 classes taught by 385 lecturers. We used both classic statistical and AI-based methods. Our findings suggest associations between high use of interactive learning methods and higher student evaluation scores, higher perceived effectiveness of distance learning, and clearer course teaching. A more interesting finding indicates that not only the extent of use, but also use of a variety of interactive learning methods significantly affects the perceived clarity of teaching and learning effectiveness. Based on the findings, we recommend that academic staff integrate a variety of interactive teaching methods, and especially short knowledge tests, in their courses (both online and frontal). Beyond these results, the prediction model we built can be used to examine what mix of different interactive learning methods might improve students’ evaluations of any given course.

Author Biographies

Zohar Barnett-Itzhaki, Ruppin Research Group in Environmental and Social Sustainability. Ruppin Academic Center

Senior lecturer, computer and information sciences, faculy of engineering

Dizza Beimel, Ruppin Academic Center

Senior lecturer,

Computer and information sciences, faculty of engineering

Arava Tsoury, Ruppin Academic Center


Information Systems
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration & Faculty of Engineering


Abdulrahaman, M. D., Faruk, N., Oloyede, A. A., Surajudeen-Bakinde, N. T., Olawoyin, L. A., Mejabi, O. V., ... and Azeez, A. L. 2020. “Multimedia tools in the teaching and learning processes: A systematic review”. Heliyon, 6(11), e05312.

Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., and Weiss, M. 2009. “Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology”. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203-213.

Balzotti, J. M., and McCool, L. B. 2016. “Using digital learning platforms to extend the flipped classroom”. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 68-80.

Bell, B. S., and Federman, J. E. 2013. “E-learning in postsecondary education”. The future of children, 165-185.‏

Bishop, J., and Verleger, M. A. 2013. “The flipped classroom: A survey of the research”. In 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 23-1200).

Boring, A., and Ottoboni, K. 2016. “Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness”. ScienceOpen Research.

Boud, D., Cohen, R., and Sampson, J. 1999. “Peer learning and assessment”. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413-426.

Cole, A. W., Lennon, L., and Weber, N. L. 2021. “Student perceptions of online active learning practices and online learning climate predict online course engagement”. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(5), 866-880.

Cook, B. R., and Babon, A. 2017. “Active learning through online quizzes: better learning and less (busy) work”. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 41(1), 24-38.

Dori, Y. J., and Belcher, J. 2005. “How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students' understanding of electromagnetism concepts?” The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279.

Edwards, S. 2015. “Active learning in the middle grades”. Middle School Journal, 46(5), 26-32.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. 2009. ”Active learning: An introduction”. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4), 1-5.

Farashahi, M., and Tajeddin, M. 2018. “Effectiveness of teaching methods in business education: A comparison study on the learning outcomes of lectures, case studies and simulations”. The International Journal of Management Education, 16(1), 131-142.‏

Fisher, R., Perényi, Á., and Birdthistle, N. 2021. “The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction”. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 97-113.

Fullan, M. 2001. The new meaning of educational change. Routledge.

Guan, N., Song, J., Li, D. 2018. “On the advantages of computer multimedia-aided English teaching”. Procedia Comput. Sci. 131, 727–732.

Haidet, P., Morgan, R. O., O'malley, K., Moran, B. J., and Richards, B. F. 2004. “A controlled trial of active versus passive learning strategies in a large group setting”. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 9(1), 15-27.

Hake, R. R. 1998. “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses”. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.

Ho, I. M. K., Cheong, K. Y., and Weldon, A. 2021. “Predicting student satisfaction of emergency remote learning in higher education during COVID-19 using machine learning techniques.” Plos One, 16(4), e0249423.

Holzer, J., Lüftenegger, M., Korlat, S., Pelikan, E., Salmela-Aro, K., Spiel, C., and Schober, B. 2021. “Higher education in times of COVID-19: University students' basic need satisfaction, self-regulated learning, and well-being”. Aera Open, 7, 23328584211003164.

Hyun, J., Ediger, R., and Lee, D. 2017. “Students' satisfaction on their learning process in active learning and traditional classrooms”. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 108-118.

Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., and Godoy, P. D. D. M. 2015. “Improvements from a flipped classroom may simply be the fruits of active learning”. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar5.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. 1991. Active learning:

Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, R. T., and Johnson, D. W. 2008. “Active learning: Cooperation in the classroom”. The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan, 47, 29-30.

Khan, A. A., and Madden, J. 2016. “Speed learning: Maximizing student learning and engagement in a limited amount of time”. International Journal of Modern Education & Computer Science, 8(7)

Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Laws, P. W. 1991. “Calculus-based physics without lectures”. Physics Today, 44(12), 24-31.

MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., and Hunt, A. N. 2015. “What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching”. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 291-303.

Mazur, E., and Hilborn, R. C. 1997. “Peer instruction: A user's manual”. Physics Today, 50(4), 68.

McDermott, L. C. 1991. “Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap”. American Journal of Physics, 59(4), 301-315.

Michaelsen, L. K., and Sweet, M. 2008. “The essential elements of team‐based learning”. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2008(116), 7-27.

Michel, N., Cater III, J. J., and Varela, O. 2009. “Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes”. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(4), 397-418.

Miller, J. S. 2004. “Problem-based learning in organizational behavior class: Solving students' real problems”. Journal of Management Education, 28, 578–590.

Milovanovic, M., Obradovic, J., & Milajic, A. 2013. “Application of interactive multimedia tools in teaching mathematics--examples of lessons from geometry”. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 12(1), 19-31.‏

Minhas, P. S., Ghosh, A., and Swanzy, L. 2012. “The effects of passive and active learning on student preference and performance in an undergraduate basic science course”. Anatomical Sciences Education, 5(4), 200-207.

Mou, T. Y. 2021. “Online learning in the time of the COVID-19 crisis: Implications for the self-regulated learning of university design students”. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14697874211051226.

Parrish, C. W., Guffey, S. K., & Williams, D. S. 2021. “The impact of team-based learning on students' perceptions of classroom community”. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14697874211035078.

Prince, M. 2004. “Does active learning work? A review of the research”. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.

Sahin, I. 2007. “Predicting student satisfaction in distance education and learning environments”. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 113-119.

Sengupta, S. 1998. “Peer evaluation: ‘I am not the teacher’”. ELT Journal, Volume 52, Issue 1, January 1998, Pages 19–28

Werdiningsih, T., Triyono, M. B., & Majid, N. W. A. 2019. “Interactive multimedia learning based on mobile learning for computer assembling subject using the principle of multimedia learning (Mayer)’. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 28(16), 711-719.‏






Section II