![can not install lec version 15 can not install lec version 15](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--vhDfr8Aa_w/WeMAQwaLkuI/AAAAAAAAAHM/iIeJJ5Y6tU4f98UoYskfM9UDNVQZyHCNwCLcBGAs/s1600/Visual%2BNovel%2BOffline%2BTranslator%2B2.png)
Because of these student–student interactions, active learning is frequently linked to peer instruction and cooperative learning.
![can not install lec version 15 can not install lec version 15](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/lec2-materials-160214191726/95/lec2-materials-2-638.jpg)
When implemented in the classroom to replace lecture, active learning typically involves both student–student and student–instructor interactions ( Andrews et al., 2011 ). The use of writing-to-learn ( Reynolds et al., 2012 ), drawing-to-learn ( Quillin and Thomas, 2015 ), and talking-to-learn ( Tanner, 2009 ) can all facilitate students’ construction of their own knowledge and can be used to promote active learning. One core feature of active learning in the classroom is a decrease in lecturing during which students passively listen and an increase in outcome-related activities in which students actively develop their own understanding ( Andrews et al., 2011 ). Active learning is based on constructivist theory-the idea that students must create their own knowledge in order for learning to persist ( Dori and Belcher, 2005 ). Incorporation of more active learning in instruction has become a major goal of efforts to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at the undergraduate level. As a consequence, we suggest that institutions can modify existing classrooms to enhance student engagement without incorporating expensive technology. We conclude that, while SCALE-UP–type classrooms may facilitate implementation of active learning, it is the active learning and not the SCALE-UP infrastructure that enhances student performance. However, measures of actual student performance showed no difference between the two sections. Results showed that students in both sections thought that SCALE-UP infrastructure would enhance performance. Instruction in both sections followed a flipped model that relied heavily on cooperative learning and was as identical as possible given the infrastructure differences between classrooms.
![can not install lec version 15 can not install lec version 15](https://vnrpg.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/vnr_02.jpg)
Using a quasi-experimental design, we compared student perceptions and performance between sections of a nonmajors biology course, one taught in a traditional lecture hall and one taught in a SCALE-UP–type classroom. However, few studies have carefully analyzed student outcomes when comparable active learning–based instruction takes place in a traditional lecture hall and a SCALE-UP–type classroom. Positive impacts when active learning replaces lecture are well documented, both in traditional lecture halls and SCALE-UP–type classrooms. SCALE-UP–type classrooms, originating with the Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-down Pedagogies project, are designed to facilitate active learning by maximizing opportunities for interactions between students and embedding technology in the classroom.