Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 2336 2023-11-21 10:11:57 |
2 format correct Meta information modification 2336 2023-11-23 06:15:10 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Tirado-Olivares, S.; Cózar-Gutiérrez, R.; García-Olivares, R.; González-Calero, J.A. Active Learning and Formative Assessment on Pre-Service Teachers. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 21 June 2024).
Tirado-Olivares S, Cózar-Gutiérrez R, García-Olivares R, González-Calero JA. Active Learning and Formative Assessment on Pre-Service Teachers. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed June 21, 2024.
Tirado-Olivares, Sergio, Ramón Cózar-Gutiérrez, Rebeca García-Olivares, José Antonio González-Calero. "Active Learning and Formative Assessment on Pre-Service Teachers" Encyclopedia, (accessed June 21, 2024).
Tirado-Olivares, S., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., García-Olivares, R., & González-Calero, J.A. (2023, November 21). Active Learning and Formative Assessment on Pre-Service Teachers. In Encyclopedia.
Tirado-Olivares, Sergio, et al. "Active Learning and Formative Assessment on Pre-Service Teachers." Encyclopedia. Web. 21 November, 2023.
Active Learning and Formative Assessment on Pre-Service Teachers

Active learning environments mediated by technologies in which learners assume ownership of their learning and receive daily feedback are gaining in popularity. Nevertheless, variables such as pre-service teachers’ learning gains and their perception towards these educational approaches have been little studied in the field of social science teaching. Educational research should not only pay attention to the academic benefits of active methodologies, but also to the necessity of educating (future) teachers about these innovative approaches.

social science teaching pre-service teachers active learning learning analytics inquiry-based learning formative assessment

1. Introduction

The presence of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in society reveals the need to integrate digital technology within the educative field [1]. Its integration requires pedagogical and technical knowledge [2]. Therefore, teachers need to adapt their teaching methodologies [3], as the mere introduction of ICTs into schools does not assume innovation [4]. Therefore, the teachers’ role, the methodology employed, and the assessment methods must be modified. Thanks to ICTs, not only can new active methodologies be put into practice, but also new ways of formative evaluation can be implemented, too. Related to this, different authors (e.g., [5]) state that one of the technological trends with the best prospects for formative assessment in the short to medium term is learning analytics (hereafter LA).
However, the integration of technology to promote these active learning environments within the social sciences has hardly been investigated in the current literature [6]. Thus, it is important to provide evidence to teachers on the impact (if any) of integrating active learning environments mediated by technologies into the teaching–learning process of social science subjects such as history.

2. The Teaching of Social Sciences for the XXI Society

In social science lessons, the role of the teacher is traditionally to present the contents that students receive and usually must memorize [7][8]. The excessive use of textbooks as the main learning resource, and the passive role of students, led to a negative perception and disinterest towards learning [9]. Thus, different studies criticize the teaching methods usually employed to teach social science disciplines such as history [10]. This being said, although the majority of teachers do not like how social sciences subjects are taught in schools, teachers also blame students for their apathy [11].
For this reason, the demands of people's new society require a change in the educational perspective. Students not only have to acquire theoretical contents, but they also need to learn how to put them into practice in their daily life [12][13], as well as in the field of history [14]. Students must adopt an active role and be the centre of the teaching–learning process [15]. To achieve this, the teacher’s role must change from being the source of knowledge to being a facilitator of learning. Instead of giving direct instructions, teachers should enhance the development of complex skills, such as historical thinking, through encouraging students to think about questions related to the theoretical content presented [14][16][17]. Thus, through the active role that students acquire, they are able to build their own learning, being able to monitor their progress, and to develop their competence of learning to learn [7].
Moreover, many European countries have highlighted the development of digital competence and ICT skills as crucial components of teacher training [1][2]. In fact, international reports such as the EDUCAUSE Horizon report emphasize the current need for integrating technology, not sporadically, but as an essential instrument throughout their pedagogical practices. This includes both the implementation of active methodologies and the assessment of their students’ progress [18].
Therefore, the subject of inquiry is not only how social sciences are taught, but also the way students’ knowledge is assessed. Authors such as Gómez-Carrasco and Miralles-Martínez [8] emphasise that assessment should be integrated as a daily activity, highlighting the limitations of summative tests in assessing students’ learning process. Technological advancements have enabled the collection of extensive data regarding the ongoing teaching–learning process on a daily basis, thanks to the use of techniques such as LA [5][19][20]. According to these authors, the use of LA allows us to collect data directly linked to students’ academic achievement such as student scores in class activities, as well as to discover other types of variables (e.g., the time spent on an online course, number of interactions performed, or time spent solving a task) which, although they are not closely linked to academic achievement, allow the teacher to have a more complete picture of how the process of learning is developing. However, this information should be used with caution, since it should not be used as a means of over-controlling the process and the people involved in the project, but rather as a way of helping the teacher to know the daily progress of his or her students and to take measures to improve the teaching process.
Related to this, Long et al. [21] define LA as “the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimising learning and the environments in which it occurs” (p. 1). The integration of LA is particularly noteworthy in the training of pre-service teachers in the social sciences, where, due to the nature of its contents and the university context, characterized by a large number of students, manual data collection can be a hard, time-intensive endeavour [22][23][24]. In fact, international frameworks such as the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) emphasized the use of LA as one of the techniques for monitoring the teaching–learning process that teachers should acquire as part of their digital competence [25].
Nevertheless, this issue is still a challenge for the teaching community [1][2], and particularly in social science disciplines such as history [26]. The level of teacher training, and the complexities that teachers face when using ICT, place technology far from educative change and innovation [27][28]. As a consequence, traditional teaching based on lecturing, where the teacher is the main source of knowledge, prevails as a dominant methodology [29].

3. Student Ownership and Awareness of Their Learning Process through Active Methodologies and Technology

Among the active methodologies that provide an answer to teaching needs, inquiry-based learning (IBL), combined with technology, has been gaining popularity over recent years [30]. With this approach, students are active learners, responsible for constructing their own knowledge through the application of problem-solving skills [31]. IBL enables the development of student curiosity, exploration, and experiential learning. Research questions prompt and guide student exploration and investigation, in an individual or collaborative way with their classmates [32]. Moreover, the steps followed can be compared with historian method skills: formulation, question and problem identification, investigation, data collection and analysis, conclusion development, and the dissemination of results [33].
Thus, IBL may become an active methodology suitable for the development of history awareness, compared to the usual method employed [10]. In fact, there is currently an interest in training students to be competent in the era of post-truth, fake news, and conversational artificial intelligence in which social science knowledge will be important [14][34][35]. Therefore, active learning spaces must be created to enable students to think critically and reflectively, analyse and contrast information, and distinguish reliable technological sources. This can be achieved thanks to IBL.

IBL, LA, and SRS: Rethinking How to Train Pre-Service Teachers in Social Science Teaching

Despite the advantages described above, more research into how to prepare prospective teachers to implement IBL in the social science field is needed [36]. According to Kori et al. [37], the presence of technology within the teaching–learning process boosts inquiry learning as it can be harnessed by pre-service teachers to facilitate their solution-finding processes, awareness, and simultaneously afford lecturers—and educators in general—the capability to closely monitor and assess how the learning process is progressing [18][25]. Something that is aligned with the importance of integrating LA to foster both the students’ daily and personalised feedback and their formative assessment [5][19][38].
Among the different learning tools used to implement LA within the teaching–learning process, SRSs such as Kahoot! have become increasingly popular to collect data, as Li and Wong [39] conclude in their literature review. SRSs are useful to induce motivation and learning engagement in tertiary students [40]; develop more active, autonomous learners and increase awareness [41]; and to monitor on a daily basis what the students have learnt [22]. Hence, although initially LA appears to demand costly and unfamiliar tools for (prospective) teachers, this is not the actual scenario.
In the social sciences, teaching with ICT fosters the development of different skills such as autonomy, as well as collaboration among students and between teachers and students [26]. The study carried out by Tirado-Olivares et al. [6] with pre-service teachers studying for a Bachelor’s Degree in Primary Education in social sciences showed the influence and usefulness of active learning and LA for both improving students’ learning and predicting students’ academic achievement. Likewise, Miralles-Martínez et al. [42] observed that the introduction of ICT projects improved both curricular knowledge and competences such as critical thinking when looking for information.
However, although ICT seem to improve the teaching of social science content in the classroom, different authors stated that in most schools, the real implementation of ICT within the teaching–learning process is barely being achieved [27][28]. This is related to the unwillingness that the teaching staff show towards its use. Their lack of training leads firstly to deficiencies in ICT application, which are observed in learning processes, and secondly to scarce improvements in social science education [4].
Related to this, there are few studies that combine new technologies in social science disciplines such as history [43], and there is very little evidence related to how to integrate them into formative student assessment [22]. In fact, different literature reviews concerning the use of LA evidence the higher predominance of their use in scientific–technological fields with limited evidence in other areas [44][45][46].
Nonetheless, not only is it essential to determine whether there is an academic improvement, but it is also important to understand the perspectives of prospective teachers regarding these educational approaches, as they will be the ones responsible for implementing them in their future teaching practice.

4. Students and Teachers’ Perceptions Concerning Active Methodologies

With respect to students’ perception towards active methodologies, Moya et al. [47] claim that, by and large, students have a positive attitude, especially if they know the aim of the active methods. In this regard, Lumpkin et al. [48] reported in their mixed study that students appreciate participating in engaging activities, showing also that these activities have a positive impact on their learning. In addition, Chiu et al. [49], through the collection of more than 35,000 student surveys, found that students consider active environments as the best context to learn, since they believe that these are the best-designed environment, as well as being ideal to encourage innovation and skills such as creativity. This perception was independent of the learners’ academic performance.
However, there is not always a unanimous perception of these methodologies, and the scientific literature reflects this divergence. Although students seem to be more motivated and engaged when using active learning, educators argue that when they employ active methodologies, they are rated lower in the students’ end-of-course evaluations [50]. These authors developed a study with undergraduate students to analyse the practices that motivate or discourage students towards active learning. On the one hand, students who supported them stated different reasons. Firstly, they considered that active methodologies increased their learning and interest and also enhanced their creativity to think about the questions, and, moreover, they felt more motivated to better prepare their lessons. In addition, they developed a sense of community learning while negotiating the questions and preparing the answers, and they became more open-minded. Finally, they believed that it was challenging but effective, as it resulted in more functional learning compared to lecture-based teaching. On the other hand, students who showed resistance to active learning considered that it took away time from other learning experiences. They also felt confused about their purpose and unfamiliar with the practices required. Finally, from their point of view, extra effort was required. Therefore, they preferred teacher-centred instruction. Likewise, Welsh [51] stated that undergraduate students’ perceptions changed depending on the level: while fourth- and fifth-year students consider active learning as a waste of time, third-year students consider it useful to improve peer–peer interaction, as well as interactions with teachers and their understanding.
With respect to teachers, they are aware that their teaching style needs to change when implementing active methodologies; something that should be complemented by new evaluation processes [52]. These authors compared teachers’ and students’ perceptions concerning active methodologies. Using the same questionnaire, they concluded that teachers have a better vision than students concerning these methodologies, considering that classrooms have the necessary resources to apply them, while students think that they are designed for traditional lecture-based methodologies. Finally, teachers consider that they are improving in the use of active methodologies in the learning process. In the particular case of IBL, it is essential that teachers feel comfortable with their new role, especially when students work autonomously. In this regard, some studies underline that teachers tend to think that contents are learnt better when they employ a direct methodology approach (e.g., [53]). These results may explain why only 12% of teachers surveyed in the National Survey of Science and Technology let their students design their own inquiry [50].
Finally, to measure students’ perceptions of a teaching methodology, Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) ratings can be a source of knowledge. These surveys consist of items with a five-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, where students rate their perceptions of instructors and courses [54]. However, these types of SET ratings should be analysed carefully, as the information gathered can sometimes be biased [54]. Traditionally, it has been thought that students learned more from instructors that achieved high SET ratings. Hence, many teachers considered SET ratings as feedback about their teaching effectiveness [55]. Nevertheless, as stated by Uttl et al. [54], these measures can be influenced by different factors such as student interest and motivation, subject content, instructor gender, class size, class schedule, and class level. Hence, the results from the aforementioned studies suggest that there is no complete agreement concerning the eventual benefits and drawbacks of this methodology and its perception, which would lead to recommending more research in this regard.


  1. Gudmundsdottir, G.B.; Gassó, H.H.; Rubio, J.C.C.; Hatlevik, O.E. Student Teachers’ Responsible Use of ICT: Examining Two Samples in Spain and Norway. Comput. Educ. 2020, 152, 103877.
  2. Palacios-Rodríguez, A.; Cabero-Almenara, J.; Barroso-Osuna, J. Competencia Digital Docente Según #DigCompEdu. Aportes Desde La Investigación; Universidad de Sevilla: Sevilla, Spain, 2023.
  3. Marín-Suelves, D.; Vidal-Esteve, M.I.; Peirats-Chacón, J.; López-Marí, M. Gamificación En La Evaluación Del Aprendizaje: Valoración Del Uso de Kahoot! In Innovative Strategies for Higher Education in Spain; Adaya Press: Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2018; pp. 8–17.
  4. Monteagudo-Fernández, J.; Rodríguez-Pérez, R.A.; Escribano-Miralles, A.; Rodríguez-García, A.M. Perceptions of Secondary Education Students on the Teaching of History, through the Use of ICT and Digital Resources. Rev. Electron. Interuniv. De Form. Del Profr. 2020, 23, 67–79.
  5. Stanja, J.; Gritz, W.; Krugel, J.; Hoppe, A.; Dannemann, S. Formative Assessment Strategies for Students’ Conceptions—The Potential of Learning Analytics. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2023, 54, 58–75.
  6. Tirado-Olivares, S.; Cózar-Gutiérrez, R.; López-Fernández, C.; González-Calero, J.A. Training Future Primary Teachers in Historical Thinking through Error-Based Learning and Learning Analytics. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 44.
  7. López-Fernández, C.; Tirado-Olivares, S.; Mínguez-Pardo, R.; Cózar-Gutiérrez, R. Putting Critical Thinking at the Center of History Lessons in Primary Education through Error- and Historical Thinking-Based Instruction. Think. Ski. Creat. 2023, 49, 101316.
  8. Gómez-Carrasco, C.J.; Miralles-Martínez, P. Los Espejos de Clío. Usos y Abusos de La Historia En El Ámbito Escolar; Silex: Madrid, Spain, 2017.
  9. Liceras, Á.; Romero, G. Didáctica de Las Ciencias Sociales. Fundamentos, Contextos y Propuestas; Pirámide: Madrid, Spain, 2016.
  10. Gómez-Carrasco, C.J.; Chaparro Sainz, Á.; Felices de la Fuente, M. del M.; Cózar-Gutiérrez, R. Estrategias Metodológicas y Uso de Recursos Digitales Para La Enseñanza de La Historia. Análisis de Recuerdos y Opiniones Del Profesorado En Formación Inicial. Aula Abierta 2020, 49, 65–74.
  11. Barton, K.; Levstik, L. Teaching History for the Common Good; Lawrence Erlbau: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2004.
  12. Salam, M.; Awang Iskandar, D.N.; Ibrahim, D.H.A.; Farooq, M.S. Service Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2019, 20, 573–593.
  13. Wurdinger, S.; Allison, P. Faculty Perceptions and Use of Experiential Learning in Higher Education. J. E-Learn. Knowl. Soc. 2017, 13, 15–26.
  14. Gómez-Carrasco, C.J.; López-Facal, R. Introduction. Re-Imagining the Teaching of European History from Historical Thinking and Civic Engagement. In Re-Imagining the Teaching of European History; Gómez-Carrasco, C.J., Ed.; Taylor and Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2023; pp. 16–26.
  15. Muntaner, J.J.; Pinya, C.; Mut, B. El Impacto de Las Metodologías Activas En Los Resultados Académicos. Profr. Rev. De Currículum Y Form. Del Profr. 2020, 24, 96–114.
  16. Seixas, P.; Morton, T. The Big Six Historical Thinking Concepts; Nelson Education Ltd.: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2013.
  17. VanSledright, B.A. Assessing Historical Thinking and Understanding. Innovative Designs for New Standards; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
  18. Pelletier, K.; McCormack, M.; Reeves, J.; Robert, J.; Arbino, N.; Maha Al-Freih, W.; Dickson-Deane, C.; Guevara, C.; Koster, L.; Sánchez-Mendiola, M.; et al. 2022 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report, Teaching and Learning Edition; EDUCAUSE: San Antonio, TX, USA, 2022.
  19. Gašević, D.; Greiff, S.; Shaffer, D.W. Towards Strengthening Links between Learning Analytics and Assessment: Challenges and Potentials of a Promising New Bond. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022, 134, 107304.
  20. Sudakova, N.E.; Savina, T.N.; Masalimova, A.R.; Mikhaylovsky, M.N.; Karandeeva, L.G.; Zhdanov, S.P. Online Formative Assessment in Higher Education: Bibliometric Analysis. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 209.
  21. Long, P.; Siemens, G.; Conole, G.; Gašević, D. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge; Association for Computing Machinery: New York City, NY, USA, 2011.
  22. Tirado-Olivares, S.; Cózar-Gutiérrez, R.; García-Olivares, R.; González-Calero, J.A. Active Learning in History Teaching in Higher Education: The Effect of Inquiry-Based Learning and a Student Response System-Based Formative Assessment in Teacher Training. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 37, 61–76.
  23. Pardo, A.; Jovanovic, J.; Dawson, S.; Gašević, D.; Mirriahi, N. Using Learning Analytics to Scale the Provision of Personalised Feedback. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 128–138.
  24. Hima Sagarika, R.; Kandakatla, R.; Gulhane, A.; Hima, R. Role of Learning Analytics to Evaluate Formative Assessments: Using a Data Driven Approach to Inform Changes in Teaching Practices. J. Eng. Educ. Transform. 2021, 34, 550–556.
  25. Redecker, C. European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2017.
  26. Miralles-Martínez, P.; Gómez-Carrasco, C.J.; Monteagudo Fernández, J. Percepciones Sobre El Uso de Recursos TIC y «MASS-MEDIA» Para La Enseñanza de La Historia. Un Estudio Comparativo En Futuros Docentes de España-Inglaterra. Educ. XX1 2019, 22, 187–211.
  27. Colomer Rubio, J.C.; Sáiz Serrano, J.; Bel Martínez, J.C. Competencia Digital En Futuros Docentes de Ciencias Sociales En Educación Primaria: Análisis Desde El Modelo TPACK. Educ. Siglo XXI 2018, 36, 107.
  28. Ramírez-García, A.; González-Fernández, N. Media Competence of Teachers and Students of Compulsory Education in Spain. Comunicar 2016, 24, 49–57.
  29. Khalaf, B.K.; Zin, Z.B.M. Traditional and Inquiry-Based Learning Pedagogy: A Systematic Critical Review. Int. J. Instr. 2018, 11, 545–564.
  30. Kousloglou, M.; Petridou, E.; Molohidis, A.; Hatzikraniotis, E. Assessing Students’ Awareness of 4Cs Skills after Mobile-Technology-Supported Inquiry-Based Learning. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6725.
  31. Pedaste, M.; Mäeots, M.; Siiman, L.A.; de Jong, T.; van Riesen, S.A.N.; Kamp, E.T.; Manoli, C.C.; Zacharia, Z.C.; Tsourlidaki, E. Phases of Inquiry-Based Learning: Definitions and the Inquiry Cycle. Educ. Res. Rev. 2015, 14, 47–61.
  32. Blessinger, P.; Carfora, J.M. Innovative Approaches in Teaching and Learning: An Introduction to Inquiry-Based Learning for the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences. In Inquiry-Based Learning for the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators (Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Vol. 2); Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2014; pp. 3–25.
  33. Gómez-Carrasco, C.J.; Miralles-Martínez, P. Las Competencias Históricas En Educación Obligatoria: Evaluación, Estrategias Basadas En La Indagación, y Argumentación de Los Estudiantes. J. New Approaches Educ. Res. 2016, 5, 130–136.
  34. Chinn, C.A.; Barzilai, S.; Duncan, R.G. Education for a “Post-Truth” World: New Directions for Research and Practice. Educ. Res. 2020, 50, 51–60.
  35. Tirado-Olivares, S.; Navío-Inglés, M.; O’Connor-Jiménez, P.; Cózar-Gutiérrez, R. From Human to Machine: Investigating the Effectiveness of the Conversational AI ChatGPT in Historical Thinking. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 803.
  36. Voet, M.; De Wever, B. Preparing Pre-Service History Teachers for Organizing Inquiry-Based Learning: The Effects of an Introductory Training Program. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2017, 63, 206–217.
  37. Kori, K.; Mäeots, M.; Pedaste, M. Guided Reflection to Support Quality of Reflection and Inquiry in Web-Based Learning. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 112, 242–251.
  38. Rodríguez-Martínez, J.A.; González-Calero, J.A.; del Olmo-Muñoz, J.; Arnau, D.; Tirado-Olivares, S. Building Personalised Homework from a Learning Analytics Based Formative Assessment: Effect on Fifth-Grade Students’ Understanding of Fractions. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2023, 54, 76–97.
  39. Li, K.C.; Wong, B.T.M. The Use of Student Response Systems with Learning Analytics: A Review of Case Studies (2008–2017). Int. J. Mob. Learn. Organ. 2020, 14, 63–79.
  40. Wang, A.I.; Zhu, M.; Sætre, R. The Effect of Digitizing and Gamifying Quizzing in Classrooms. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2016, 53, 1689–1699.
  41. Carrasco-Hernández, A.J.; Lozano-Reina, G.; Lucas-Pérez, M.E.; Madrid-Garre, M.F.; Sánchez-Marín, G. Developing New Learning Tools in the Classroom: The Kahoot Experience. J. Manag. Bus. Educ. 2020, 3, 214–235.
  42. Miralles-Martínez, P.; Gómez-Carrasco, C.J.; Arias Ferrer, L. La Enseñanza de Las Ciencias Sociales y El Tratamiento de La Información. Una Experiencia Con El Uso de Webquests En La Formación Del Profesorado de Educación Primaria. RUSC Univ. Knowl. Soc. J. 2013, 10, 344–357.
  43. Gómez-Carrasco, C.J.; Miralles-Martínez, P.; López-Facal, R. Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in History and Geography; Peter Lang, International Academic Publishers: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1–409.
  44. Knobbout, J.; Van Der Stappen, E. Where Is the Learning in Learning Analytics? A Systematic Literature Review on the Operationalization of Learning-Related Constructs in the Evaluation of Learning Analytics Interventions. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2020, 13, 631–645.
  45. Li, K.C.; Wong, B.T.M. Trends of Learning Analytics in STE(A)M Education: A Review of Case Studies. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 2020, 17, 323–335.
  46. Tirado-Olivares, S.; Bueno-Baquero, A.; López-Fernández, C.; Mínguez-Pardo, R.; Cózar-Gutiérrez, R. Revisión de La Literatura Sobre El Uso de Learning Analytics En El Rendimiento Académico de Estudiantes de Pregrado: Impresiones Iniciales. In Educar para Transformar: Innovación Pedagógica, Calidad y TIC en Contextos Formativos; Cobos-Sanchiz, D., López-Meneses, E., Martín-Padilla, A.H., Molina-García, L., Jaén-Martínez, A., Eds.; Dykinson: Madrid, Spain, 2023; pp. 2511–2521. ISBN 978-84-1122-469-7.
  47. Moya, E.C.; Cara, C. Active Methodologies in Physical Education: Perception and Opinion of Students on the Pedagogical Model Used by Their Teachers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1438.
  48. Lumpkin, A.; Achen, R.M.; Dodd, R.K. Student Perceptions of Active Learning. Coll. Stud. J. 2015, 49, 121–133.
  49. Chiu, P.H.P.; Cheng, S.H. Effects of Active Learning Classrooms on Student Learning: A Two-Year Empirical Investigation on Student Perceptions and Academic Performance. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2017, 36, 269–279.
  50. Owens, D.C.; Sadler, T.D.; Barlow, A.T.; Smith-Walters, C. Student Motivation from and Resistance to Active Learning Rooted in Essential Science Practices. Res. Sci. Educ. 2020, 50, 253–277.
  51. Welsh, A.J. Exploring Undergraduates’ Perceptions of the Use of Active Learning Techniques in Science Lectures. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2012, 42, 80–87.
  52. Crisol-Moya, E.; Romero-López, M.A.; Caurcel-Cara, M.J. Active Methodologies in Higher Education: Perception and Opinion as Evaluated by Professors and Their Students in the Teaching-Learning Process. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1703.
  53. Ramnarain, U.D. Teachers’ Perceptions of Inquiry-Based Learning in Urban, Suburban, Township and Rural High Schools: The Context-Specificity of Science Curriculum Implementation in South Africa. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2014, 38, 65–75.
  54. Uttl, B.; White, C.A.; Gonzalez, D.W. Meta-Analysis of Faculty’s Teaching Effectiveness: Student Evaluation of Teaching Ratings and Student Learning Are Not Related. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2017, 54, 22–42.
  55. Balam, E.M.; Shannon, D.M. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Student Ratings of College Teaching: A Comparison of Faculty and Their Students. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2010, 2, 209–221.
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to : , , ,
View Times: 121
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 23 Nov 2023
Video Production Service