20 Chapter 1 23. Theobald EJ, Hill MJ, Tran E, Agrawal S, Arroyo EN, Behling S, et al. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117(12):6476–83. 24. Lim J, Ko H, Yang JW, Kim S, Lee S, Chun MS, et al. Active learning through discussion: ICAP framework for education in health professions. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):477. 25. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res. 2004;74(1):59–109. 26. Chipchase L, Davidson M, Blackstock F, Bye R, Colthier P, Krupp N, et al. Conceptualising and measuring student disengagement in higher education: a synthesis of the literature. Int J High Educ. 2017;6(2):31–42. 27. Heilporn G, Raynault A, Frenette É. Student engagement in a higher education course: a multidimensional scale for different course modalities. Soc Sci Humanit Open. 2024;9:100794. 28. Reschly AL, Christenson SL, editors. Handbook of research on student engagement. 2nd ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG; 2022. 29. Wong ZY, Liem GAD. Student engagement: current state of the construct, conceptual refinement, and future research directions. Educ Psychol Rev. 2022;34:107–38. 30. Chi MTH. Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Top Cogn Sci. 2009;1(1):73–105. 31. Chi MTH, Wylie R. The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educ Psychol. 2014;49(4):219–43. 32. Wiggins BL, Eddy SL, Grunspan DZ, Crowe AJ. The ICAP active learning framework predicts the learning gains observed in intensely active classroom experiences. AERA Open. 2017;3(2):1– 14. 33. Martella AM, Lovett MC, Ramsay L. Implementing active learning: a critical examination of sources of variation in active learning college science courses. JECT. 2021;32(1):67–96. 34. Zakrajsek T. Reframing the lecture versus active learning debate: suggestions for a new way forward. EHP. 2018;1(1):1–3. 35. Bernstein DA. Does active learning work? A good question, but not the right one. Scholarsh Teach Learn Psychol. 2018;4(4):290–307. 36. Martella AM, Martella RC, Yatcilla JK, Newson A, Shannon EN, Voorhis C. How rigorous is active learning research in stem education? An examination of key internal validity controls in intervention studies. Educ Psychol Rev. 2023 Nov 4;35(4):107. 37. Lee SS. Has medical education killed ‘silence’? Med Teach. 2017;39(4):444–5. 38. Frymier AB, Houser ML. The role of oral participation in student engagement. Commun Educ. 2016;65(1):83–104. 39. Sedova K, Navratilova J. Silent students and the patterns of their participation in classroom talk. J Learn Sci. 2020;29(4–5):681–716. 40. Schultz K. After the blackbird whistles: listening to silence in classrooms. Teach Coll Rec. 2010;112(11):2833–49. 41. Mayer RE. Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? Am Psychol. 2004;59(1):14–9. 42. Deslauriers L, McCarty LS, Miller K, Callaghan K, Kestin G. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116(39):19251–7. 43. Heiskanen H, Lonka K. Are epistemological beliefs and motivational strategies related to study engagement in higher education? Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;69:306–13. 44. Kilgour JM, Grundy L, Monrouxe LV. A rapid review of the factors affecting healthcare students’ satisfaction with small-group, active learning methods. Teach Learn Med. 2016;28(1):15–25.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw