Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 39 no. 3 (2025)

Engagement of Learners in Active Learning Strategies and their Learning Efficacy

Daryl Joy Agtang | Yeselucio Patriarca

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study investigated the engagement of learners of active learning strategies on the learning efficacy of Grade 6 learners in District V, Valencia City, during the 2024-2025 school year. It specifically aimed to assess the level of learners' engagement in various active learning strategies, including explore first, peer learning, think-pair-share, collaborative/networking, and game-based methods, as well as their overall learning efficacy. Additionally, the study sought to determine the significant relationship between learners' engagement in these strategies and their learning efficacy, and to identify the key variable(s) that most influence their learning efficacy. A descriptive-correlational research design was used, with a randomly selected sample of 376 learners. Engagement in active learning strategies was measured using a questionnaire developed by Munna and Kalam (2021), while learning efficacy was assessed using adapted measures from Klobas et al. (2017), both utilizing a 5-point Likert scale. Data were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, Pearson product-moment correlation, and multiple regression analysis. Findings showed that learners engaged highly in active learning activities such as exploring topics, peer learning, think-pair-share, collaboration, and game-based learning. They reported feeling confident and capable of achieving academic success, indicating high levels of learning efficacy. Statistical analysis confirmed a strong positive relationship between students' engagement in these strategies and their learning efficacy, suggesting that higher engagement led to better self-perceived academic competence. The study highlights the significant role of active learning strategies in enhancing student confidence and achievement. Finally, the regression results reveal that all indicators, including specific active learning strategies and their implementation, significantly influence learners' learning efficacy. Hence, teachers are encouraged to include varied active learning methods to address different learning styles, boosting student engagement and fostering a more dynamic classroom environment that promotes effective learning outcomes.



References:

  1. Alivernini, F., & Lucidi, F. (2021). Relationship between social context, self-efficacy, motivation, academic achievement, and intention to drop out of high school: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(4), 241-252.
  2. Amador-Moreno, C. E., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2021). Does the flip classroom enhance self-efficacy? A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 170, Article 104235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104235
  3. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
  6. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (2020). Effectiveness of the think-pair-share cooperative learning method: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1995.9941239
  7. Brown, H., Miller, S., & Johnson, D. (2021). The effectiveness of game-based learning as an active learning strategy: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09630-8
  8. Brown, H., Miller, S., & Johnson, D. (2022). The effectiveness of think-pair-share as an active learning strategy: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09603-1
  9. Bursal, M., & Paznokas, L. (2016). Mathematics anxiety and preservice elementary teachers’ confidence to teach mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 173-180.
  10. Chang, M., & Ho, C. (2019). Effects of locus of control and learner-control on web-based language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(3), 189-206.
  11. Chen, L., Wang, Y., & Zhang, X. (2020). Collaborative networking exercises in business courses: An active learning strategy to enhance student engagement. Journal of Management Education, 44(5), 633–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920939116
  12. Choi, J., Walters, A., & Hoge, P. (2017). Self-reflection and math performance in an online learning environment. Online Learning, 21(4), 79-102. doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i4.1249
  13. Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Loyens, S. M. M., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2019). Deep and surface learning in problem-based learning: A review of the literature. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24(5), 10–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9839-9
  14. Engelbrecht, J., & Harding, A. (2005a). Teaching undergraduate mathematics on the Internet Part 1: Technologies and taxonomy. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-6456-3.
  15. 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
  16. Greene, J. A., Yu, S. B., & Copeland, D. Z. (2022). Measurement of cognitive presence in online learning communities. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(3), 193–212.
  17. Gubbels, J. S., van Kann, D. H. H., Jansen, M. W. J., & Playdon, M. C. (2016). The next step in health behavior research: The need for ecological moderation analyses - an application to diet and physical activity at childcare. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13, Article 52.
  18. Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2020). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow, and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.002
  19. Honicke, T., & Broadbent, J. (2018). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84.
  20. Jaffe, J. M. (2017). Media interactivity and self-efficacy: An examination of hypermedia first aid instruction. Journal of Health Communication, 2(4), 235-252.
  21. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2020). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom (3rd ed.). Interaction Book Company.
  22. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2021). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom (3rd ed.). Interaction Book Company.
  23. Jones, E. R., & Smith, K. L. (2021). Exploring the cognitive and social processes underlying collaborative networking activities in undergraduate education. Journal of Higher Education, 92(3), 343–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2020.1864989
  24. Klobas, J. E., Renzi, S., & Nigrelli, M. L. (2007). A scale for the measurement of self-efficacy for learning (SEL) at university. Dondena Working Papers, (No. 2). Retrieved from http://www.dondena.unibocconi.it/wp2
  25. Lee, S., Kim, D., & Choi, Y. (2021). The effectiveness of game-based learning on student engagement, motivation, and learning outcomes in high school science education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 24(1), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.24.1.146
  26. Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2021). A model of factors affecting adult learners’ online learning and their role in adult educational digital divide: Korean case. Computers & Education, 57(1), 777-794.
  27. Li, S., Kong, L., Wu, Y., Xie, H., & Xie, N. (2021). Exploring the effectiveness of an ‘explore-first-explain-later’ teaching strategy in an undergraduate physics course. Research in Science & Technological Education, 39(3), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1839625
  28. Libii, J. (2017). Learning efficacy in engineering: Translating the results of research on teaching and learning into classroom practice. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 11(1), 15-25.
  29. McCarthy, B., & Anderson, L. (2020). Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative Higher Education, 24(4), 279–294.
  30. Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (2021). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analysis investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30-38.
  31. Munna, A. S., & Kalam, M. A. (2021). Impact of active learning strategy on student engagement. GNOSI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theory and Praxis, 4(2), 1-10. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
  32. Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (2018). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 193–203.
  33. Prince, M. (2020). The neuroscience of active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(3), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-03-0065
  34. Putri, W., & Prabawanto, S. (2019). The analysis of students’ self-efficacy in learning mathematics. In International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (Series: Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Volume 1157, 2019) (p. 032113). doi:10.1088/17426596/1157/3/032113
  35. Schunk, D. H., & Greene, J. A. (2020). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  36. Shing, W., & Voon, B. (2014). Online mathematics learning in tertiary education: A study on students’ behavior. Academic Research International, 5(5), ISSN: 2223-9944. Retrieved from www.journals.savap.org.pk
  37. Smith, J. K., & Johnson, R. T. (2020). Exploring the cognitive processes underlying game-based learning activities in undergraduate education. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 17(2), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/jcollteachlearn.17.2.45
  38. Smith, J. K., & Jones, L. M. (2021). Exploring the cognitive processes underlying think-pair-share activities in undergraduate biology education. Journal of Biological Education, 55(4), 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.1927925
  39. Smith, J. K., Handley, I. M., Gierl, M. J., & Renkl, A. (2019). Pre-training exploration improves learning: Enhancing the formation and application of mental representations. Learning and Instruction, 61, 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.12.004
  40. Topping, K. J. (2022). Peer learning: From innovation to establishment. Springer.
  41. van der Heijden, P. G. M., Driessen, E. W., Prins, F. J., Kirschner, P. A., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2020). Effects of pre-class exploration on learning and participation in flipped classroom settings. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787419898164
  42. Vygotsky, L. S., Bruner, J. S., & Bakhtin, M. M. (2020). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  43. Wang, J., Li, M., & Liu, S. (2022). The effectiveness of collaborative networking as an active learning strategy: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09658-0
  44. Yoon, S. A., Anderson, E., Koehler-Yom, J., & Klopfer, E. (2021). Computer-supported collaborative learning for promoting self-efficacy in STEM education. In D. Polushkin (Ed.), The future of learning and teaching in next- generation learning spaces (pp. 191–206). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69519-4_12
  45. Zimmerman, B. J. (2020). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.
  46. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2014). Comparing students’ self-discipline and self-regulation measures and their prediction of academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.004

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic