Active Learning: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 13:59, 22 July 2026

Dr Peter Wyman explains that experiential trainings can effectively be a co-creation of the cultural change that strengthens a community.

Dr Peter Wyman explains that an experiential training can provide shared experience, learning from one another, and a sense of ownership - an understanding that the positive outcomes of the training have come from the group, and not from outside the group.

Active learning means participants doing and practising rather than sitting and receiving, and the corpus documents this as a deliberate design choice inside its flagship trial, though not as a separately tested variable. Wyman et al. (2020) describe the method plainly: "Wingman-Connect classes participated in group skill building using active learning: high-energy activities and drawing out personal examples occurred in 3 90- to 120 minute blocks over 3 consecutive days" (Interventions). The format was not incidental to the results; the authors credit it directly: "an innovation of Wingman-Connect was training in natural organizational units... Half of the training was dedicated to class skill building. This peer-to-peer approach differs from most current suicide prevention trainings" (Discussion).

This same logic, build skills through doing, not lecturing — appears independently in a different population and research group. McNeill et al. (2024), teaching evidence-based practice to graduate nursing students, "elected to use a multimodal pedagogical approach" built around a hands-on team project: students "went through all of the steps of evidence-based practice" by developing "a 'mock' evidence-based implementation project" rather than being taught the steps as a lecture series. The measured result was "a significant difference pre vs post course in the areas of EBP use... EBP Skill... and EBP Communication."

Two studies, two populations, one shared design choice, and both show positive outcomes. That pattern is worth taking seriously, but it should not be overstated. Neither study isolates active learning as an independent variable. Wingman-Connect was compared against a stress-management control with different content delivered differently, not against a lecture-based version of Wingman-Connect itself; the trial cannot separate "active format" from "this specific content" as the source of benefit. McNeill et al. used a single-arm pre-post design with no comparison group at all, so their gains could reflect the project structure, the content, maturation over the course, or some combination the design cannot distinguish.

What the corpus supports, honestly, is this: active, hands-on delivery is the format both research teams chose, and both reported good outcomes using it. What it does not support is a controlled demonstration that the active format, specifically, caused those outcomes rather than merely accompanying them. For a toolkit built on evidence discipline, that distinction matters: active learning here is a documented design pattern within successful programmes, not yet an independently tested mechanism in its own right.

Context: Active Learning in Schools

Implementing active learning in schools means training peer leaders through interactive, hands-on sessions rather than assigning them a curriculum to read. Wyman et al. (2010) describe "4 hours of interactive training for peer leaders and adult advisors... following 15 modules," followed by a messaging phase where students designed and delivered their own campaigns;"presentations, public service announcements, and video or text messages", rather than receiving a fixed script. This matters for the finding's implementation: peer leaders were not taught about protective norms in the abstract; they built and delivered the intervention themselves, matching the toolkit's own claim that active-learning outcomes should be "process focused, not outcome focused." As with the main finding, no comparison arm tested this interactive format against a lecture-based alternative, so schools should treat it as the documented design choice behind these results, not as a separately proven ingredient.

Context: Active Learning among Remote Workers in IT and Technology

No study in this corpus tests active learning as a network-health mechanism for distributed IT teams, and the closest available evidence points to why it would be harder to deliver remotely rather than how to deliver it. Herbsleb and Mockus (2003) found that colocated developers rely heavily on incidental, hands-on interaction, "the sheer amount of time each developer spent in informal communication", the kind of learning-by-doing-alongside-someone that active learning formalises deliberately. Distance removes this by default rather than replacing it: distant colleagues reported far less "teamness" and weaker awareness of each other's work. This suggests active learning for remote developer teams would need to be built deliberately, structured pairing exercises, synchronous hands-on sessions, shared problem-solving rather than solo assignments, rather than assumed to happen informally, as it does in person. No study has tested such a design for this population.

References

Herbsleb, J. D., & Mockus, A. (2003). An empirical study of speed and communication in globally distributed software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(6), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2003.1205177

McNeill, C., George, N., Stephens, U., & Walker, T. (2024). Teaching evidence-based practice to MSN, DNP and PhD students: Lessons learned. ABNFF Journal, 1(1), 53–60.

Wyman, P. A., Brown, C. H., LoMurray, M., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Petrova, M., Yu, Q., Walsh, E., Tu, X., & Wang, W. (2010). An outcome evaluation of the Sources of Strength suicide prevention program delivered by adolescent peer leaders in high schools. American Journal of Public Health, 100(9), 1653–1661. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.190025

Wyman, P. A., Pisani, A. R., Brown, C. H., Yates, B., Morgan-DeVelder, L., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Gibbons, R. D., Caine, E. D., Petrova, M., Neal-Walden, T., Linkh, D. J., Matteson, A., Simonson, J., & Pflanz, S. E. (2020). Effect of the Wingman-Connect upstream suicide prevention program for Air Force personnel in training: A cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 3(11), e2022532. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22532

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-=== Summary: ===
-Active Learning engages students directly in the learning process and encourages participation through activities such as discussions, problem-solving, games, and hands-on projects. Instead of passively receiving information, students actively work on tasks, often collaboratively, which helps deepen their understanding and retention of the material, promotes critical thinking, application of knowledge, and engagement. In the context of Social Network Health approaches, the relational components of Active Learning activities can be emphasized to build a more comfortable environment for relationship building and ultimately, at later stages, for personal sharing.
-=== Notes and References: ===
+[[File:Co-Created-Training.mp4|thumb|Dr Peter Wyman explains that experiential trainings can effectively be a co-creation of the cultural change that strengthens a community.]]
-Active learning probably goes back to the 50s - we should have no problem adding plenty of research references to this section.
+[[File:Co-Creation.mp4|thumb|Dr Peter Wyman explains that an experiential training can provide shared experience, learning from one another, and a sense of ownership - an understanding that the positive outcomes of the training have come from the group, and not from outside the group.]]
+Active learning means participants doing and practising rather than sitting and receiving, and the corpus documents this as a deliberate design choice inside its flagship trial, though not as a separately tested variable. Wyman et al. (2020) describe the method plainly: "Wingman-Connect classes participated in group skill building using active learning: high-energy activities and drawing out personal examples occurred in 3 90- to 120 minute blocks over 3 consecutive days" (Interventions). The format was not incidental to the results; the authors credit it directly: "an innovation of Wingman-Connect was training in natural organizational units... Half of the training was dedicated to class skill building. This peer-to-peer approach differs from most current suicide prevention trainings" (Discussion).
-'''2014 meta-analysis on the effectiveness of active learning, published in ''PNAS,'''''
+This same logic, build skills through doing, not lecturing — appears independently in a different population and research group. McNeill et al. (2024), teaching evidence-based practice to graduate nursing students, "elected to use a multimodal pedagogical approach" built around a hands-on team project: students "went through all of the steps of evidence-based practice" by developing "a 'mock' evidence-based implementation project" rather than being taught the steps as a lecture series. The measured result was "a significant difference pre vs post course in the areas of EBP use... EBP Skill... and EBP Communication."
-'''And the follow on paper in 2020'''
+Two studies, two populations, one shared design choice, and both show positive outcomes. That pattern is worth taking seriously, but it should not be overstated. Neither study isolates active learning as an independent variable. Wingman-Connect was compared against a stress-management control with different content delivered differently, not against a lecture-based version of Wingman-Connect itself; the trial cannot separate "active format" from "this specific content" as the source of benefit. McNeill et al. used a single-arm pre-post design with no comparison group at all, so their gains could reflect the project structure, the content, maturation over the course, or some combination the design cannot distinguish.
-'''AND'''
+What the corpus supports, honestly, is this: active, hands-on delivery is the format both research teams chose, and both reported good outcomes using it. What it does not support is a controlled demonstration that the active format, specifically, caused those outcomes rather than merely accompanying them. For a toolkit built on evidence discipline, that distinction matters: active learning here is a documented design pattern within successful programmes, not yet an independently tested mechanism in its own right.
-'''Article: ‘It’s Not About the Evidence Anymore’'''
+=== '''Context: Active Learning in Schools''' ===
+Implementing active learning in schools means training peer leaders through interactive, hands-on sessions rather than assigning them a curriculum to read. Wyman et al. (2010) describe "4 hours of interactive training for peer leaders and adult advisors... following 15 modules," followed by a messaging phase where students designed and delivered their own campaigns;"presentations, public service announcements, and video or text messages", rather than receiving a fixed script. This matters for the finding's implementation: peer leaders were not taught about protective norms in the abstract; they built and delivered the intervention themselves, matching the toolkit's own claim that active-learning outcomes should be "process focused, not outcome focused." As with the main finding, no comparison arm tested this interactive format against a lecture-based alternative, so schools should treat it as the documented design choice behind these results, not as a separately proven ingredient.
-'''''By  Beckie Supiano'''''
+=== '''Context: Active Learning among Remote Workers in IT and Technology''' ===
+No study in this corpus tests active learning as a network-health mechanism for distributed IT teams, and the closest available evidence points to why it would be harder to deliver remotely rather than how to deliver it. Herbsleb and Mockus (2003) found that colocated developers rely heavily on incidental, hands-on interaction, "the sheer amount of time each developer spent in informal communication", the kind of learning-by-doing-alongside-someone that active learning formalises deliberately. Distance removes this by default rather than replacing it: distant colleagues reported far less "teamness" and weaker awareness of each other's work. This suggests active learning for remote developer teams would need to be built deliberately, structured pairing exercises, synchronous hands-on sessions, shared problem-solving rather than solo assignments, rather than assumed to happen informally, as it does in person. No study has tested such a design for this population.
-JUNE 22, 2022
+=== '''References''' ===
+Herbsleb, J. D., & Mockus, A. (2003). An empirical study of speed and communication in globally distributed software development. ''IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29''(6), 481–494. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2003.1205177</nowiki>
-JEANETTE TAKASHIMA FOR THE U. OF WASHINGTON DEPT. OF BIOLOGY
+McNeill, C., George, N., Stephens, U., & Walker, T. (2024). Teaching evidence-based practice to MSN, DNP and PhD students: Lessons learned. ''ABNFF Journal, 1''(1), 53–60.
-Scott Freeman, emeritus lecturer in biology at the University of Washington
+Wyman, P. A., Brown, C. H., LoMurray, M., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Petrova, M., Yu, Q., Walsh, E., Tu, X., & Wang, W. (2010). An outcome evaluation of the Sources of Strength suicide prevention program delivered by adolescent peer leaders in high schools. ''American Journal of Public Health, 100''(9), 1653–1661. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.190025</nowiki>
-" '''if you do a little bit of active learning, you don’t see any of these performance differences change. But if you do a lot, they start to shrink, often dramatically."  They also, interestingly, intimate that when a sense of belonging develops that is an inflection point in the learning process where learning starts to really accellerate in an active learning environment (huh!).'''
+Wyman, P. A., Pisani, A. R., Brown, C. H., Yates, B., Morgan-DeVelder, L., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Gibbons, R. D., Caine, E. D., Petrova, M., Neal-Walden, T., Linkh, D. J., Matteson, A., Simonson, J., & Pflanz, S. E. (2020). Effect of the Wingman-Connect upstream suicide prevention program for Air Force personnel in training: A cluster randomized clinical trial. ''JAMA Network Open, 3''(11), e2022532. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22532</nowiki>
-"'''In the big picture, I hope we can get beyond the idea that distance learning, or somehow packaging learning, is going to be a solution. We’re still human beings. Relationships matter."'''
-'''JAMA Open Network, October, 2020'''
-'''Active Learning and Transfer of Training to Life'''
-* Drawing out ‘real-world’ strengths from participants as a primary method to teach Kinship, Purpose, Guidance, & Balance.
-* High energy activities maintain interest, motivation, and a shared positive emotion.
-* ‘Real-world’ exercises inside and outside of training reinforce the application of skills in groups and in individual activities of daily life.
-=== Autogenerated stuff from ChatGPT to help search for older refs: ===
-O.k. I was probably wrong about the 50s.  I asked ChatGPT to find some older references and here is what it said:
-Active learning principles have deep roots in educational theory, with early proponents such as John Dewey, Maria Montessori, and Jean Piaget contributing significantly to its development.
-# '''Engagement and Deep Processing''': John Dewey, in his works like "Democracy and Education" (1916), emphasized that learning is an active process where students interact with their environment. He argued that genuine knowledge comes from active engagement and doing, rather than passive absorption of information (Wisconsin Pressbooks).
-# '''Immediate Feedback and Collaboration''': Maria Montessori's educational approach, which she developed in the early 20th century, also emphasized active learning. She advocated for mixed-age classrooms, student autonomy, and hands-on learning environments, believing that education is a natural process acquired through interaction with the environment (Wisconsin Pressbooks).
-# '''Practical Application''': Jean Piaget's theories on cognitive development highlighted the importance of experiential learning, where students construct knowledge through active manipulation and exploration of their environment. His constructivist approach laid the groundwork for many active learning strategies used today (Wisconsin Pressbooks) (Wikipedia).
-# '''Metacognition''': Active learning is deeply tied to constructivist principles, which stress the importance of students' active role in constructing their own understanding and knowledge through experiences and reflection. Lev Vygotsky's work on social constructivism further supported this by emphasizing collaborative learning and the social context of learning (National University).
-These foundational ideas have evolved and been supported by extensive research over the years, reinforcing the effectiveness of active learning in promoting deeper understanding, better retention, and higher student engagement (Vanderbilt University) (Center for Teaching & Learning).