Characterizing adopters of named active learning methods in physics: An interview study
Abstract
Active learning has been shown to be more beneficial for student learning than lecturing. Consequently, researchers have developed named active learning strategies for use in physics instruction. To increase adoption and support implementation of these named methods, it is important to understand the backgrounds and experiences of instructors who use them. In this study, we interviewed 20 introductory physics and astronomy instructors who use one of Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-Down Pedagogies (SCALE-UP), Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE), Tutorials in Introductory Physics and Astronomy, or Peer Instruction to gain insight into their teaching experiences, professional development, pathways to learning about their method, and supports for and difficulties in implementation. We find for our sample that all implementers are involved with the discipline-based education research community, but there is variation in the extent of engagement. While instructors identify a variety of supports for their implementation, such as from the broader education community and departmental administration, the difficulties they experience are representative of both long-standing issues associated with active learning adoption (e.g., timing constraints) and new issues related to emergent technologies (e.g., Artificial Intelligence). Finally, we uncover differences in implementers across the four named methods, particularly related to their training for the method and the supports they received for implementation. Together, these findings underscore the importance of supporting multiple dissemination avenues for named active learning methods, point to a possible need for more training opportunities for SCALE-UP and ISLE in particular, and identify nascent issues in the contemporary active learning classroom that future work may further characterize and address.
Related
- GWTC-5.0: Methods for Identifying and Characterizing Gravitational-wave Transients
- Searches for new particle physics by methods of classical and neutrino astronomy
- Characterizing Privacy Risks of Quantum Machine Learning with Emergent Quantum-Native Access
- A Practical Introduction to VQE: Methods, Challenges, and Applications in Physics and Chemistry
- A Framework for Characterizing Learning Contributions Across the Initial Achievement Spectrum
BibTeX
@misc{bukola2026characterizing,
title = {{Characterizing adopters of named active learning methods in physics: An interview study}},
author = {Ibukunoluwa Bukola and Eric Brewe and Adrienne L. Traxler and Meagan Sundstrom},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2610.14311},
eprint = {2610.14311},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.14311},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Characterizing adopters of named active learning methods in physics: An interview study
AU - Ibukunoluwa Bukola
AU - Eric Brewe
AU - Adrienne L. Traxler
AU - Meagan Sundstrom
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/09
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2610.14311
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.14311
AB - Active learning has been shown to be more beneficial for student learning than lecturing. Consequently, researchers have developed named active learning strategies for use in physics instruction. To increase adoption and support implementation of these named methods, it is important to understand the backgrounds and experiences of instructors who use them. In this study, we interviewed 20 introductory physics and astronomy instructors who use one of Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-Down Pedagogies (SCALE-UP), Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE), Tutorials in Introductory Physics and Astronomy, or Peer Instruction to gain insight into their teaching experiences, professional development, pathways to learning about their method, and supports for and difficulties in implementation. We find for our sample that all implementers are involved with the discipline-based education research community, but there is variation in the extent of engagement. While instructors identify a variety of supports for their implementation, such as from the broader education community and departmental administration, the difficulties they experience are representative of both long-standing issues associated with active learning adoption (e.g., timing constraints) and new issues related to emergent technologies (e.g., Artificial Intelligence). Finally, we uncover differences in implementers across the four named methods, particularly related to their training for the method and the supports they received for implementation. Together, these findings underscore the importance of supporting multiple dissemination avenues for named active learning methods, point to a possible need for more training opportunities for SCALE-UP and ISLE in particular, and identify nascent issues in the contemporary active learning classroom that future work may further characterize and address.
ER -