- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Beyond named methods: A typology of active learning based on classroom observation networks

Meagan Sundstrom1,*, Justin Gambrell2, Colin Green3, Adrienne L. Traxler4, and Eric Brewe1,†

  • *Contact author: sundstrommeagan@gmail.com
  • †Contact author: eb573@drexel.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010143 – Published 21 May, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ylsr-968q

Abstract

A growing number of introductory physics instructors are implementing active learning methods in their classrooms, and they are modifying these methods to fit their local instructional contexts. However, we lack a detailed framework for describing the range of what these instructor adaptations of active learning methods look like in practice. Existing studies apply structured protocols to classroom observations and report descriptive statistics (e.g., the fraction of class time spent on each activity), but this approach overlooks the complex nature of instruction. In this study, we apply network analysis techniques to classroom observations to define a typology of active learning that considers the temporal and interactional nature of instructional practices. We analyze video data from 30 instructors at 27 institutions who implemented one of the following named active learning methods in their introductory physics or astronomy courses: Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE), Peer Instruction, Tutorials, and Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-down Pedagogies (SCALE-UP). We first create one classroom observation network per instructor that captures temporal sequences of activities measured using the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS). We then calculate the cosine similarity between all pairs of observation networks, create a similarity network where each instructor’s classroom observation network is a node and the edges represent cosine similarity, and apply the Infomap clustering algorithm to the similarity network to identify types of active learning instruction. We find five types of instruction: clicker lecture, dialogic clicker lecture, dialogic lecture with short groupwork activities, short groupwork activities, and long groupwork activities. We find no significant relationship between these instruction types and the named active learning methods; instead, implementations of each of the four methods are spread across different instruction types. This result prompts a shift in the way we discuss and study active learning: the names of developed active learning methods may not actually reflect classroom instruction. We also find that student conceptual learning does not vary across the identified instruction types, suggesting that instructors may be flexible in the style in which they implement these methods without sacrificing effectiveness. We discuss the implications of these results for both research and the professional development of college physics instructors.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (92)

  1. Doug Lombardi, Thomas F. Shipley, Astronomy Team, Biology Team, Chemistry Team, Engineering Team, Geography Team, Geoscience Team, and Physics Team, The curious construct of active learning, Psychol. Sci. Publ. Interest 22, 8 (2021).
  2. Richard R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  3. Scott Freeman, Sarah L. Eddy, Miles McDonough, Michelle K. Smith, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hannah Jordt, and Mary Pat Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
  4. Elli J. Theobald, Mariah J. Hill, Elisa Tran, E. Nicole Arroyo Sweta Agrawal, Shawn Behling, Nyasha Chambwe, Dianne Laboy Cintrón, Jacob D. Cooper, Dunster Gideon et al., Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 6476 (2020).
  5. Joshua Von Korff, Benjamin Archibeque, K. Alison Gomez, Tyrel Heckendorf, Sarah B. McKagan, Eleanor C. Sayre, Edward W. Schenk, Chase Shepherd, and Lane Sorell, Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50 k-student study, Am. J. Phys. 84, 969 (2016).
  6. Eric Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
  7. Catherine H. Crouch, Jessica Watkins, Adam P. Fagen, and Eric Mazur, Peer Instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once, in Research-Based Reform of University Physics (2007), Vol. 1, pp. 40–95, 10.1119/RevPERv1.1.3.
  8. Eugenia Etkina and Alan Van Heuvelen, Investigative science learning environment–A science process approach to learning physics, in Research-Based Reform of University Physics (2007), Vol. 1, pp. 1–48, 10.1119/RevPERv1.1.1.
  9. Eugenia Etkina, Millikan award lecture: Students of physics—listeners, observers, or collaborative participants in physics scientific practices?, Am. J. Phys. 83, 669 (2015).
  10. Charles Henderson and Melissa H. Dancy, Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020102 (2007).
  11. Charles Henderson, Melissa Dancy, and Magdalena Niewiadomska-Bugaj, Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020104 (2012).
  12. Melissa H. Dancy and Charles Henderson, Experiences of new faculty implementing research-based instructional strategies, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 163 (2012).
  13. Yessi Affriyenni, Helen Georgiou, and Noah Finkelstein, Navigating the adoption of research-based instructional strategies within the complex nature of higher education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020124 (2025).
  14. Kathleen T. Foote, Xaver Neumeyer, Charles Henderson, Melissa H. Dancy, and Robert J. Beichner, Diffusion of research-based instructional strategies: The case of SCALE-UP, Int. J. STEM Educ. 1, 10 (2014).
  15. Charles Henderson and Melissa H. Dancy, Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the united states, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020107 (2009).
  16. Melissa Dancy, Charles Henderson, Naneh Apkarian, Estrella Johnson, Marilyne Stains, Jeffrey R. Raker, and Alexandra Lau, Physics instructors’ knowledge and use of active learning has increased over the last decade but most still lecture too much, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010119 (2024).
  17. Maura Borrego, Stephanie Cutler, Michael Prince, Charles Henderson, and Jeffrey E. Froyd, Fidelity of implementation of research-based instructional strategies (RBIS) in engineering science courses, J. Eng. Educ. 102, 394 (2013).
  18. Melissa Dancy, Charles Henderson, and Chandra Turpen, How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of peer instruction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010110 (2016).
  19. Erin Scanlon, Brian Zamarripa Roman, Elijah Ibadlit, and Jacquelyn J. Chini, A method for analyzing instructors’ purposeful modifications to research-based instructional strategies, Int. J. STEM Educ. 6, 12 (2019).
  20. Linda E. Strubbe, Adrian M. Madsen, Sarah B. McKagan, and Eleanor C. Sayre, Beyond teaching methods: Highlighting physics faculty’s strengths and agency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020105 (2020).
  21. Tessa M. Andrews, Michael J. Leonard, Clinton A. Colgrove, and Steven T. Kalinowski, Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 10, 394 (2011).
  22. Madhavi Vishnubhotla, Ahsan Chowdhury, Naneh Apkarian, Estrella Johnson, Melissa Dancy, Charles Henderson, Alexandra Claire Lau, Jeffrey R. Raker, and Marilyne Stains, “I use IBL in this course” may say more about an instructor’s beliefs than about their teaching, Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ. 10, 87 (2024).
  23. Diane Ebert-May, Terry L. Derting, Janet Hodder, Jennifer L. Momsen, Tammy M. Long, and Sarah E. Jardeleza, What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs, BioScience 61, 550 (2011).
  24. Chandra Turpen and Noah D. Finkelstein, Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020101 (2009).
  25. Michelle K. Smith, Erin L. Vinson, Jeremy A. Smith, Justin D. Lewin, and MacKenzie R. Stetzer, A campus-wide study of STEM courses: New perspectives on teaching practices and perceptions, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 13, 624 (2014).
  26. Anna K. Wood, Ross K. Galloway, Robyn Donnelly, and Judy Hardy, Characterizing interactive engagement activities in a flipped introductory physics class, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010140 (2016).
  27. Kelley Commeford, Eric Brewe, and Adrienne Traxler, Characterizing active learning environments in physics using network analysis and classroom observations, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020136 (2021).
  28. I. Bukola, M. Sundstrom, J. Gambrell, O. Ross, A. L. Traxler, and E. Brewe, Multi-institutional assessment of Peer Instruction implementation and impacts using the Framework for Interactive Learning in Lectures, presented at PER Conf. 2025, Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2025.pr.Bukola.
  29. Laura K. Weir, Megan K. Barker, Lisa M. McDonnell, Natalie G. Schimpf, Tamara M. Rodela, and Patricia M. Schulte, Small changes, big gains: A curriculum-wide study of teaching practices and student learning in undergraduate biology, PLoS One 14, e0220900 (2019).
  30. M. Sundstrom, J. Gambrell, C. Green, A. Traxler, and E. Brewe, Relative benefits of different active learning methods to conceptual physics learning, Nat. Phys. (2026), 10.1038/s41567-026-03307-2.
  31. Lacy M. Cleveland, Jeffrey T. Olimpo, and Sue Ellen DeChenne-Peters, Investigating the relationship between instructors’ use of active-learning strategies and students’ conceptual understanding and affective changes in introductory biology: A comparison of two active-learning environments, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 16, ar19 (2017).
  32. Georgianne L. Connell, Deborah A. Donovan, and Timothy G. Chambers, Increasing the use of student-centered pedagogies from moderate to high improves student learning and attitudes about biology, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15, ar3 (2016).
  33. Karen S. McNeal, Min Zhong, Nick A. Soltis, Lindsay Doukopoulos, Elijah T. Johnson, Stephanie Courtney, Akilah Alwan, and Mallory Porch, Biosensors show promise as a measure of student engagement in a large introductory biology course, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 19, ar50 (2020).
  34. Saira Anwar and Muhsin Menekse, A systematic review of observation protocols used in postsecondary STEM classrooms, Rev. Educ. 9, 81 (2021).
  35. Daiyo Sawada, Michael D. Piburn, Eugene Judson, Jeff Turley, Kathleen Falconer, Russell Benford, and Irene Bloom, Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol, School Sci. Math. 102, 245 (2002).
  36. Camille L. Wainwright, Lawrence Flick, and Patricia Morrell, The development of instruments for assessment of instructional practices in standards-based teaching, J. Math. Sci. 6, 21 (2003), https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/jmsce_vamsc/vol6/iss1/6.
  37. Alene H. Harris and Monica Farmer Cox, Developing an observation system to capture instructional differences in engineering classrooms, J. Eng. Educ. 92, 329 (2003).
  38. Anne L. Kern, Tamara J. Moore, and F. Caglin Akillioglu, Cooperative learning: Developing an observation instrument for student interactions, in Proceedings of the 37th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference–Global Engineering: Knowledge without Borders, Opportunities without Passports (IEEE, New York, 2007), pp. T1D–1.
  39. Matthew Tadashi Hora and Joseph J. Ferrare, Instructional systems of practice: A multidimensional analysis of math and science undergraduate course planning and classroom teaching, J. Learn. Sci. 22, 212 (2013).
  40. Matthew T. Hora, Toward a descriptive science of teaching: How the TDOP illuminates the multidimensional nature of active learning in postsecondary classrooms, Sci. Educ. 99, 783 (2015).
  41. Michelle K. Smith, Francis H. M. Jones, Sarah L. Gilbert, and Carl E. Wieman, The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 12, 618 (2013).
  42. Aditi Kothiyal, Rwitajit Majumdar, Sahana Murthy, and Sridhar Iyer, Effect of think-pair-share in a large CS1 class: 83% sustained engagement, in Proceedings of the 9th Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2013), pp. 137–144.
  43. Cynthia J. Finelli, Matthew DeMonbron, Prateek Shekhar, Maura Borrego, Charles Henderson, Michael Prince, and Cindy K. Waters, A classroom observation instrument to assess student response to active learning, in Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (IEEE, New York, 2014), pp. 1–4.
  44. Travis J. Lund, Matthew Pilarz, Jonathan B. Velasco, Devasmita Chakraverty, Kaitlyn Rosploch, Molly Undersander, and Marilyne Stains, The best of both worlds: Building on the COPUS and RTOP observation protocols to easily and reliably measure various levels of reformed instructional practice, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 14, ar18 (2015).
  45. Kameryn Denaro, Brian Sato, Ashley Harlow, Andrea Aebersold, and Mayank Verma, Comparison of cluster analysis methodologies for characterization of classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS) data, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 20, ar3 (2021).
  46. Tong Wan, Ashley A. Geraets, Constance M. Doty, Erin K. H. Saitta, and Jacquelyn J. Chini, Characterizing science graduate teaching assistants’ instructional practices in reformed laboratories and tutorials, Int. J. STEM Educ. 7, 30 (2020).
  47. Corbin M. Campbell, Alberto F. Cabrera, Jessica Ostrow Michel, and Shikha Patel, From comprehensive to singular: A latent class analysis of college teaching practices, Res. High. Educ. 58, 581 (2017).
  48. M. Stains et al., Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities, Science 359, 1468 (2018).
  49. Kelley Commeford, Eric Brewe, and Adrienne Traxler, Characterizing active learning environments in physics using latent profile analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010113 (2022).
  50. Timothy J. Weston, Sandra L. Laursen, and Charles N. Hayward, Measures of success: Characterizing teaching and teaching change with segmented and holistic observation data, Int. J. STEM Educ. 10, 24 (2023).
  51. Robert M. Erdmann and Marilyne Stains, Classroom as genome: Using the tools of genomics and bioinformatics to illuminate classroom observation data, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, es1 (2019).
  52. Matthew T. Hora and Joseph J. Ferrare, Remeasuring postsecondary teaching: How singular categories of instruction obscure the multiple dimensions of classroom practice, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 43, 36 (2014).
  53. Jesper Bruun, Linda Udby, and Pia Jensen Ray, Network analyses of student interactions with online textbook problems, Eur. J. Phys. 46, 025704 (2025).
  54. Meagan Sundstrom, Comparing Active Learning Methods (2025), https://github.com/msundstrom33/ComparingActiveLearningMethods.
  55. Lillian C. McDermott, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
  56. J. P. Adams, E. E. Prather, and T. F. Slater, Lecture-Tutorials for Introductory Astronomy (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005).
  57. Robert J. Beichner, Jeffery M. Saul, David S. Abbott, Jeanne J. Morse, Duane Deardorff, Rhett J. Allain, Scott W. Bonham, Melissa H. Dancy, and John S. Risley, The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project, in Research-Based Reform of University Physics (2007), Vol. 1, pp. 2–39, 10.1119/RevPERv1.1.4.
  58. Eric Brewe, Modeling theory applied: Modeling instruction in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 76, 1155 (2008).
  59. Patricia Heller, Ronald Keith, and Scott Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping, Am. J. Phys. 60, 627 (1992).
  60. Patricia Heller and Mark Hollabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys. 60, 637 (1992).
  61. David Hestenes, Malcolm Wells, and Gregg Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  62. Susan Ramlo, Validity and reliability of the force and motion conceptual evaluation, Am. J. Phys. 76, 882 (2008).
  63. David Hestenes and Malcolm Wells, A mechanics baseline test, Phys. Teach. 30, 159 (1992).
  64. Jayson Nissen, Robin Donatello, and Ben Van Dusen, Missing data and bias in physics education research: A case for using multiple imputation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020106 (2019).
  65. J. Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch, The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biometrics 33, 159 (1977).
  66. Robert P. Dalka and Justyna P. Zwolak, Network analysis of graduate program support structures through experiences of various demographic groups, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020106 (2024).
  67. G. P. Lepage Ryan Tapping and N. Holmes, Visualizing patterns in CSEM responses to assess student conceptual understanding, presented at PER Conf. 2018, Washington, DC, pp. 419–422, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Tapping.
  68. Gerd Kortemeyer, Extending item response theory to online homework, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010118 (2014).
  69. Tor Ole B. Odden, Alessandro Marin, and Marcos D. Caballero, Thematic analysis of 18 years of physics education research conference proceedings using natural language processing, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010142 (2020).
  70. Mattia Tantardini, Francesca Ieva, Lucia Tajoli, and Carlo Piccardi, Comparing methods for comparing networks, Sci. Rep. 9, 17557 (2019).
  71. Laura Steinert and H. Ulrich Hoppe, A comparative analysis of network-based similarity measures for scientific paper recommendations, in Proceedings of the 3rd European Network Intelligence Conference (ENIC), 2016 (IEEE, New York, 2016), pp. 17–24.
  72. Cole Walsh, Daniyar Kushaliev, and Natasha G. Holmes, Connecting the dots: Student social networks in introductory physics labs, presented at PER Conf. 2020, pp. 557–562, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Walsh.
  73. Meagan Sundstrom, David G. Wu, Cole Walsh, Ashley B. Heim, and N. G. Holmes, Examining the effects of lab instruction and gender composition on intergroup interaction networks in introductory physics labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010102 (2022).
  74. Nicholas J. Foti, James M. Hughes, and Daniel N. Rockmore, Nonparametric sparsification of complex multiscale networks, PLoS One 6, e16431 (2011).
  75. Martin Rosvall and Carl T. Bergstrom, Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 1118 (2008).
  76. Jesper Bruun and Ian G. Bearden, Time development in the early history of social networks: Link stabilization, group dynamics, and segregation, PLoS One 9, e112775 (2014).
  77. Sonsoles López-Pernas, Santtu Tikka, and Mohammed Saqr, Mining patterns and clusters with transition network analysis: A heterogeneity approach, in Advanced Learning Analytics Methods: AI, Precision and Complexity (Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland, 2025).
  78. Brock Murdoch and Paul W. Guy, Active learning in small and large classes, Account. Educ. 11, 271 (2002).
  79. Jessica Gurevitch and Larry V. Hedges, Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses, Ecology 80, 1142 (1999).
  80. Jacob Cohen, Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer, Psychol. Bull. 112, 155 (1992).
  81. Herbert M. Turner III and M. Bernard Robert, Calculating and synthesizing effect sizes, Contemp. Issues Commun. Sci. Disord. 33, 42 (2006).
  82. Rachel E. Scherr and Andrew Elby, Enabling informed adaptation of reformed instructional materials, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 46 (2007).
  83. George Kinnear, Steph Smith, Ross Anderson, Thomas Gant, Jill R. D. MacKay, Pamela Docherty, Susan Rhind, and Ross Galloway, Developing the FILL+ tool to reliably classify classroom practices using lecture recordings, J. STEM Educ. Res. 4, 194 (2021).
  84. Karen Cummings, Jeffrey Marx, Ronald Thornton, and Dennis Kuhl, Evaluating innovation in studio physics, Am. J. Phys. 67, S38 (1999).
  85. Cedric Linder, Jesper Bruun, Arvid Pohl, and Burkhard Priemer, Relationship between semiotic representations and student performance in the context of refraction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010103 (2024).
  86. M. E. J. Newman Aaron Clauset and Cristopher Moore, Finding community structure in very large networks, Phys. Rev. E 70, 066111 (2004).
  87. Laura McCullough and David Meltzer, Differences in male/female response patterns on alternative-format versions of the Force Concept Inventory, presented in PER Conf. 2001, Rochester, New York, 10.1119/perc.2001.pr.013.
  88. Jing Han, Kathleen Koenig, Lili Cui, Joseph Fritchman, Dan Li, Wanyi Sun, Zhao Fu, and Lei Bao, Experimental validation of the half-length Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020122 (2016).
  89. Chandralekha Singh and David Rosengrant, Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts, Am. J. Phys. 71, 607 (2003).
  90. Lin Ding, Designing an energy assessment to evaluate student understanding of energy topics, Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University, 2007.
  91. Erin M. Bardar, Edward E. Prather, Kenneth Brecher, and Timothy F. Slater, Development and validation of the light and spectroscopy concept inventory, Astron. Educ. Rev. 5, 103 (2007).
  92. Stephanie J. Slater, The development and validation of the test of astronomy standards (TOAST), J. Astron. Earth Sci. Educ. 1, 1 (2014).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010143– Published 21 May, 2026
  • Received 1 October 2025
  • Accepted 13 April 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation