Active learning research overwhelmingly shows that interactive, student-centered instruction significantly improves academic performance and engagement compared to traditional lectures. Key findings indicate it boosts STEM exam scores, reduces failure rates by 1.5 times, and enhances student well-being.

Here are some articles and studies for your perusal:

Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics

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

This landmark meta-analysis of 225 studies found that active learning consistently leads to better outcomes than traditional lecturing in undergraduate STEM courses. Students in active learning settings earned higher exam scores, showed stronger conceptual understanding, and were less likely to fail. The benefits appeared across STEM disciplines and class sizes, with especially strong results in smaller classes. Overall, the findings offer compelling evidence that active learning is an effective, research-supported approach that helps more students succeed.

Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research - (Alternative Link to the Study)

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

This study points to strong support for active learning as an effective and research-informed approach in engineering education. From brief in-class activities to collaborative learning environments, these methods can improve learning, strengthen engagement, and foster positive student attitudes. While no single strategy solves every challenge, the findings encourage faculty to move beyond traditional assumptions and make use of proven practices that help students thrive.

Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom

Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116

This article addresses the long-standing question of why students and faculty remain resistant to active learning. Comparing passive lectures with active learning using a randomized experimental approach and identical course materials, we find that students in the active classroom learn more, but they feel like they learn less. We show that this negative correlation is partly due to the increased cognitive effort required during active learning. Faculty who adopt active learning are encouraged to intervene and address this misperception, and we describe a successful example of such an intervention.

Student Motivation from and Resistance to Active Learning Rooted in Essential Science Practices

Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., Barlow, A. T., & Smith-Walters, C. (2017). Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1

This study explores both the benefits of active learning and the reasons students sometimes resist it. In an introductory biology lab, an innovative active-learning approach led to meaningful short- and longer-term learning gains while also increasing student interest, creativity, and motivation. Students described a more engaging and collaborative learning environment, even as some found the approach unfamiliar and demanding. Overall, the study offers encouraging evidence that well-designed active learning can deepen learning while also helping instructors better understand and address student resistance