By LIZETTE MUÑOZ ROJAS and SERA MATHEW

Many of us teach the way we were taught. A powerful lecture moment, in which an instructor captures our attention and illuminates a complex idea, can stay with us for a long time. These moments shape our sense of what “good” teaching looks like, and many of us carry that model into our classrooms.

Traditional lectures continue to play a useful role in teaching. They can orient students and establish shared context. However, when paired with active learning, they serve not as the endpoint of instruction, but as a starting point from which students can work toward deeper understanding. Research on teaching and learning shows that active learning can deepen student understanding and lead to more durable learning in ways that lectures alone often cannot. 

Yet the more frequently we encounter the term “active learning,” the clearer it becomes that it is used in a variety of ways. In some contexts, it refers to any activity that moves students beyond passive listening (Chi & Wylie, 2014). While this broad definition offers a useful starting point, it can also blur the distinction between surface-level participation and deeper cognitive engagement, the kind of engagement achieved through intentional instructional design.

In this piece, we invite instructors to move beyond using active learning as a label and instead approach it as a lens, one that can help us examine how our teaching practices shape students’ opportunities to learn.

From achievement gaps to opportunity gaps

Active learning is often promoted as a strategy to address disparities in student outcomes (Freeman et al., 2014; Theobald et al., 2020). Historically, these disparities have been framed as “achievement gaps,” measured through indicators such as grades, test scores, retention, and graduation rates. While these metrics are important, the framing itself can influence how we interpret the problem and, consequently, how we respond to it (Shukla et al., 2022).

Research on framing suggests that when we focus on achievement gaps, we are more likely to attribute differences in outcomes to students’ abilities, preparation or effort (Quinn, 2025). This perspective can unintentionally reinforce deficit-based explanations that place responsibility only on students rather than on the systems and structures within which learning takes place.

An alternative framing, referred to as the “opportunity gap,” shifts attention to the conditions that shape students’ access to meaningful learning experiences. This perspective invites us to acknowledge the learning opportunities students have had before entering our classrooms and how institutional practices may have created or constrained their prior experiences of engagement.

Related concepts, such as “educational debt” (Ladson-Billings, 2006) and “equity gaps” (McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004), similarly emphasize the cumulative and systemic nature of educational disparities. Thus, if the goal is to use active learning to address these disparities, then attention to these broader structural dynamics is essential.

The role of the instructor

There is no shortage of active learning strategies available to instructors. However, the effectiveness of these strategies depends on how and why they are used. When we treat active learning as a label, we may focus on what is visible: students talking, working in groups, or using technology. When we treat it as a lens, we begin to look more closely at what those activities make possible. We notice the student who is building confidence in sharing their ideas or while engaging with technology, the group navigating collaboration across different perspectives, or the learner connecting course concepts to their own experiences.

This shift in perspective also encourages instructors to examine the alignment between the intentions and the impact of their teaching. Practices that appear inclusive on the surface may not be experienced as inclusive by all students (Silver, 2024; Jack, 2024). Developing awareness of this gap and being willing to adjust our approaches is an essential part of equitable teaching (Addy et al., 2021, Hogan & Sathy, 2022; Artze-Vega et al., 2023). In this way, the instructor’s role extends beyond selecting activities in reaction to inherited achievement gaps to intentionally supporting the conditions for meaningful engagement and working to bridge opportunity gaps (Børte & Zeivots, 2026).

Designing meaningful engagement

Designing active learning through an opportunity gap framing focuses on changing learning conditions, not students. This directs attention beyond activity selection to how course design shapes engagement: who can participate, under what circumstances, and with what support. Rather than asking whether a class feels “active,” we might instead ask whether an activity meaningfully supports the knowledge, skills, or dispositions we want students to develop (Hodges, 2025). This alignment helps ensure that engagement is purposeful rather than performative.

The following guiding questions support reflective, equity-oriented design in active learning:

How often do students engage?

Research suggests that gaps in student outcomes narrow when a greater proportion of class time is dedicated to student-centered activities (what some scholars refer to as “high-intensity” active learning). This does not require abandoning lectures altogether (Martella et al., 2024). This points to an important course design implication: the more consistently students are given structured opportunities to engage, the greater the potential to reduce the disparities that an opportunity gap framing seeks to address. While not every course can sustain high proportions of active learning, instructors can move in this direction by integrating frequent, low-stakes activities such as think-pair-share, polling, or minute papers throughout a class session.

How is participation supported?

Active learning often asks students to collaborate, discuss ideas, and co-construct knowledge. These are complex skills that benefit from explicit guidance. This goes beyond scaffolding the activity or assignment itself. Structuring group work by clarifying roles, setting expectations, and modeling effective communication among team members can help students engage more productively and foster a sense of belonging (Zumbrunn et al., 2014). Providing clear instructions and a purpose for each activity also reduces ambiguity and supports broader participation (Wilton et al., 2019).

How is growth communicated?

Students’ willingness to engage is shaped not only by the activities we design but also by the messages we convey about their abilities and goes beyond the students’ individual embracing of a growth-mindset. Communicating a belief in students’ capacity to learn, through feedback, opportunities for revision, and transparent expectations, can foster a sense of belonging and motivation (Muensk et al., 2020). Importantly, these messages are most effective when they are aligned with consistent instructional practices, rather than offered as standalone encouragement.

Active learning as a lens to build opportunity

Active learning holds meaningful promise but realizing that promise requires more than adopting new “active” instructional techniques. It calls for a shift in how we understand its goals, not simply to increase student activity, but to expand access to learning opportunities through intentional design.

By situating our instructional choices within an opportunity-gap framing, we can better attend to the conditions that shape students’ engagement and success. This approach does not require abandoning lectures or redesigning entire courses. Instead, it invites incremental, deliberate changes that more closely align our teaching practices with our goals and with the diverse needs of our students.

At its best, active learning can create spaces where students not only acquire knowledge but also develop confidence, agency, and a sense of belonging. By moving beyond labels and engaging more intentionally with our practices, we can use active learning to expand opportunities shaping how students see themselves as learners and collaborators.

Lizette Muñoz Rojas is a senior teaching consultant in the University Center for Teaching and Learning and the program manager for the Graduate Student Teaching Initiative. Sera Mathew is director of inclusive and equitable teaching at the University Center for Teaching and Learning.

REFERENCES

Addy, T. M., Dube, D., Mitchell, K. A., SoRelle, M. E., Longmire-Avital, B., & Felten, P. (2021). What inclusive instructors do: Principles and practices for excellence in college teaching. Stylus Publishing.

Artze-Vega, I., Darby, F., Dewsbury, B., & Imad, M. (2023). The Norton guide to equity-minded teaching. W.W. Norton and Company.

Børte, K., & Zeivots, S. (2026). Active Learning in Higher Education: Inheriting Pasts and Emerging Futures. Active Learning in Higher Education, 0(0), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874261426575

Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49, 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823

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/doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111  

Hodges, L. (2025). Teaching undergraduate sciences: A guide to overcoming obstacles to student learning (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Hogan, K. A., & Sathy, V. (2022). Inclusive teaching: Strategies for promoting equity in the college classroom. West Virginia University Press.

Jack, A. A. (2024). Class dismissed: When colleges ignore inequality and students pay the price. Princeton University Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x035007003

Martella, A. M., Schneider, D. W., O'Day, G. M., & Karpicke, J. D. (2024). Investigating the intensity and integration of active learning and lecture. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 13(3), 354-369. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000160

McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J. J. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing principals to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 601-632. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04268839

Muenks, K., Canning, E. A., LaCosse, J., Green, D. J., Zirkel, S., Garcia, J. A., & Murphy, M. C. (2020). Does my professor think my ability can change? Students' perceptions of their STEM professors' mindset beliefs predict their psychological vulnerability, engagement, and performance in class. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 149(11), 2119-2144. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000763

Quinn, D. M. (2025). Experimental effects of “Opportunity Gap” and “Achievement Gap” frames. Sociology of Education, 98(3), 203-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407251321372

Shukla, S. Y., Theobald, E. J., Abraham, J. K., & Price, R. M. (2022). Reframing educational outcomes: Moving beyond achievement gaps. CBE Life Sciences Education, 21(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-05-0130

Silver, B. R. (2024). Degrees of risk: Navigating insecurity and inequality in public higher education. The University of Chicago Press.

Wilton, M., Gonzalez-Niño, E., McPartlan, P., Terner, Z., Christoffersen, R. E., & Rothman, J. H. (2019). Improving academic performance, belonging, and retention through increasing the structure of an introductory biology course. CBE Life Sciences Education, 18(4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0155

Zumbrunn, S., McKim, C., Buhs, E., & Hawley, L. R. (2014). Support, belonging, motivation, and engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study. Instructional Science, 42(5), 661-684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9310-0