Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access May 2, 2022

Introduction to Active Learning Techniques

  • Christian Mercat EMAIL logo
From the journal Open Education Studies


This introduction presents Active Learning Methodology, surveying its history, main existing tools and supporting evidence, with an emphasis on mathematics and higher education, in particular engineering studies. This work is part of the DrIVE-Math project, developing innovative mathematical teaching strategies in engineering studies.


[1] Carla M.A. Pinto, Jorge Mendonça, and Susana Nicola (2021). Drive-math project: Case study from the polytechnic of porto. In Open Education Studies, accepted for publication.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Daniela Velichová, Jana Gabkova, and Peter Letavaj (2021). Drive-math project: Case study from the slovak technical university. In Open Education Studies, accepted for publication.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Wolfram Hardt, Ariane Heller, and Uranchimeg Tudevdagva (2021). Drive-math project: Case study from the technical university chemnitz. In Open Education Studies, accepted for publication.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Vikki Boliver (2011). Expansion, differentiation, and the persistence of social class inequalities in British higher education. High Educ, 61(3):229–242.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Raymond Nickerson (1994). The Teaching of Thinking and Problem Solving. In Thinking and Problem Solving, pages 409–449.10.1016/B978-0-08-057299-4.50019-0Search in Google Scholar

[6] Rui M. Lima, Pernille Hammar Andersson, and Elisabeth Saalman (2017). Active learning in engineering education: A (re)introduction. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1):1–4.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Michael Prince (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3):223– 231.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Mel Silberman (1996). Active Learning: 101 Strategies To Teach Any Subject. ERIC.Search in Google Scholar

[9] Persida Himmele and William Himmele (2017). Total participation techniques: Making every student an active learner. ASCD.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Charles C. Bonwell and James A. Eison (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. Number 1, 1991 in ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, Washington, DC.Search in Google Scholar

[11] S. Lord, M. Prince, C. Stefanou, J. Stolk, and John Chen (2012). The effect of different active learning environments on student outcomes related to lifelong learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28:606–620.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Jorge Mendonça, Susana Nicola, and Carla Pinto (2018). ACTIVE LEARNING: SELF-MOTIVATION IN MATH COURSES. In 12th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, pages 1870–1877, Valencia, Spain.10.21125/inted.2018.0332Search in Google Scholar

[13] Carla Pinto, Susana Nicola, Jorge Mendonça, and Daniela Velichová (2019). Best teaching practices in the first year of the pilot implementation of the project DrIVE-MATH. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 38(3):154–166.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Thomas A Angelo and K Patricia Cross (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: a guide for college teachers.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Anastasia Sofroniou and Konstantinos Poutos (2016). Investigating the effectiveness of group work in mathematics. Education Sciences, 6.10.3390/educsci6030030Search in Google Scholar

[16] P. Dawson and S. Dawson (2018). Sharing successes and hiding failures: ‘reporting bias’ in learning and teaching research. Studies in Higher Education, 43:1405 – 1416.Search in Google Scholar

[17] D. Allen, R. Donham, and S. Bernhardt (2011). Problem-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011:21–29.Search in Google Scholar

[18] C. Reading and Helen Doyle (2013). Teacher educators as learners: Enabling learning while developing innovative practice in ict-rich education. Australian Educational Computing, 27:109– 116.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Hulya Julie Yazici, Lisa A. Zidek, and Halcyon St. Hill (2020). A Study of Critical Thinking and Cross-Disciplinary Teamwork in Engineering Education. In Alice E. Smith, editor, Women in Industrial and Systems Engineering: Key Advances and Perspectives on Emerging Topics, Women in Engineering and Science, pages 185–196. Springer International Publishing, Cham.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Joni K. Adkins (2018). Active learning and formative assessment in a user-centered design course. Information Systems Education Journal, 16:34.Search in Google Scholar

[21] L. Allal (2020). Assessment and the co-regulation of learning in the classroom. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27:332 – 349.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Rodney Carr, Stuart R. Palmer, and P. Hagel (2015). Active learning: The importance of developing a comprehensive measure. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16:173 – 186.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Benjamin V. C. Collins (2019). Flipping the precalculus classroom. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 50(5):728–746.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Autar Kaw, Mary Besterfield-Sacre, and Renee M. Clark (2016). Comparing the effectiveness of blended, semi-flipped, and flipped formats in an engineering numerical methods course. Advances in Engineering Education, 5(3).Search in Google Scholar

[25] Joseph Petrillo (2016). On flipping first-semester calculus: A case study. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(4):573–582.Search in Google Scholar

[26] Héctor Turra, Valeria Carrasco, Ciro González, Vicente Sandoval, and Soledad Yáñez (2019). Flipped classroom experiences and their impact on engineering students’ attitudes towards university-level mathematics. Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(1):136–155.Search in Google Scholar

[27] D. Velichová and J. Gabková (2019). Eduscrum method in teaching mathematics for engineers. In Nagy B.V., Murphy M., Jarvinen H.-M., and Kalman A., editors, SEFI Annu. Conf.: Var. Delect.... Complex. New Norm., Proc., pages 1962–1971. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI).Search in Google Scholar

[28] J. Gabková and M. Omachelová (2020). Eduscrum in basic of statistical analysis course at FME STU in bratislava. In Conf. Appl. Math., APLIMAT Proc., pages 487–494. Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava.Search in Google Scholar

[29] J. Gabková (2020). Eduscrum – the innovative active learning and teaching method into basic mathematics II course. In Conf. Appl. Math., APLIMAT Proc., pages 479–486. Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava.Search in Google Scholar

[30] K. Ruhl, C. Hughes, and P. Schloss (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10:14 – 18.Search in Google Scholar

[31] T. Gok (2018). The evaluation of conceptual learning and epistemological beliefs on physics learning by think-pair-share. volume 4, pages 69–80.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Maria Kalamas Hedden, Roneisha Worthy, Edwin Akins, Vanessa Slinger-Friedman, and RC Paul (2017). Teaching sustainability using an active learning constructivist approach: Discipline-specific case studies in higher education. Sustainability, 9(8):1320.Search in Google Scholar

[33] Dwi Sulisworo (2012). Designing the online collaborative learning using the wikispaces. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 7(1):58–61.Search in Google Scholar

[34] JR Dhage, MS Patil, and AB Pawar (2017). Implementation and feedback analysis of jigsaw active learning method. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 30(3):192–199.Search in Google Scholar

[35] Raoul A Mulder, Jon M Pearce, and Chi Baik (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2):157–171.Search in Google Scholar

[36] Richard C Weisenberg (1997). Appropriate technology for the classroom–using” post-it notes” as an active learning tool. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(5):339.Search in Google Scholar

[37] Jaser Khalaf Mahasneh and Walid Thabet (2016). Developing a normative soft skills taxonomy for construction education. J Civil Eng Architect Res, 3:1468–86.Search in Google Scholar

[38] Andrea Atzeni, Cesare Cameroni, Shamal Faily, John Lyle, and Ivan Fléchais (2011). Here’s johnny: a methodology for developing attacker personas. In 2011 Sixth International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, pages 722–727. IEEE.10.1109/ARES.2011.115Search in Google Scholar

[39] Heinz-Juergen Boeddrich (2004). Ideas in the workplace: a new approach towards organizing the fuzzy front end of the innovation process. Creativity and innovation management, 13(4):274–285.Search in Google Scholar

[40] Vidzeme University of Applied Sciences and Sarma Cakula (2021). Active Learning Methods for Sustainable Education Development. In 14th International Scientific Conference “Rural Environment. Education. Personality. (REEP)”, pages 59–65.Search in Google Scholar

[41] Clever Ndebele and Cosmas Maphosa (2013). Promoting active learning in large class university teaching: Prospects and challenges. Journal of Social Sciences, 35(3):251–262.Search in Google Scholar

[42] Nienke Vos, Henny Van Der Meijden, and Eddie Denessen (2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers & Education, 56(1):127–137.Search in Google Scholar

[43] Ganapathy Natarajan PhD PEM (2020). Round table technical presentation format: Lessons learned and application to active learning pedagogies. In Proceedings of the International Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Management., pages 1–7. American Society for Engineering Management (ASEM).Search in Google Scholar

[44] Sri Lestari Handayani, Sarwi Sarwi, and Putut Marwoto (2016). The implementation of three-stage fishbowl decision to improve students conceptual understanding and learning activity. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan Dasar, 2(1):1–8.Search in Google Scholar

[45] Jeffrey A Greene, Victor M Deekens, Dana Z Copeland, and Seung Yu (2018). Capturing and modeling self-regulated learning using think-aloud protocols.10.4324/9781315697048-21Search in Google Scholar

[46] Omolola Eniola-Adefeso (2010). Bringing outreach into the engineering classroom–a mass and heat transfer course project. Chemical Engineering Education, 44(4):280–286.Search in Google Scholar

[47] Rizhaly B Maandig, Laila S Lomibao, and Charita A Luna (2017). Structured content reading instruction vs. direct instruction: Their implication on students’ achievement, reading comprehension and critical thinking in mathematics. American Journal of Educational Research, 5(5):574–578.Search in Google Scholar

[48] Bill Lucas and Janet Hanson (2016). Thinking like an engineer: Using engineering habits of mind and signature pedagogies to redesign engineering education.10.3991/ijep.v6i2.5366Search in Google Scholar

[49] Edward De Bono (2017). Six thinking hats. Penguin uk.Search in Google Scholar

[50] Ekaterina Lysenko and Liudmila Nazarova (2019). Developing technical thinking in engineering students. In 1st International Scientific Practical Conference” The Individual and Society in the Modern Geopolitical Environment”(ISMGE 2019), pages 430–435. Atlantis Press.10.2991/ismge-19.2019.82Search in Google Scholar

[51] Eric Forcael, Gonzalo Garcés, and Francisco Orozco (2021). Relationship between professional competencies required by engineering students according to abet and cdio and teaching-learning techniques. IEEE Transactions on Education.Search in Google Scholar

[52] Edward De Bono (2017). Teach your child how to think. Penguin UK.Search in Google Scholar

[53] Viktor Dörfler, Zoltán Baracskai, and Jolán Velencei (2010). Understanding creativity. Transactions on Advanced Research, 6(2):18–26.Search in Google Scholar

[54] Monica F Cox, Carlotta A Berry, and Karl A Smith (2009). Development of a leadership, policy, and change course for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate students. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 10(2).Search in Google Scholar

[55] Judit Mihalik (2019). Agile approach in higher education-a collaborative research project report. Opus et Educatio, 6(4).10.3311/ope.346Search in Google Scholar

[56] M. Bolger, M. Kobiela, P. Weinberg, and R. Lehrer (2010). Embodied experiences within an engineering curriculum. In Learn. Discip.: ICLS Conf. Proc. - Int. Conf. Learn. Sci., volume 1, pages 706–713, Chicago, IL.Search in Google Scholar

[57] Joseph D. Novak, D. Bob Gowin, and Jane Butler Kahle (1984). Learning How to Learn. Cambridge University Press, first edition.10.1017/CBO9781139173469Search in Google Scholar

[58] VLN Sastry, K Srinivasa Rao, Nekkanti Venkata Rao, Paul Clee, and G Reena Kumari (2016). Effective and active learning in classroom teaching through various methods. In 2016 IEEE 4th International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), pages 105–110. IEEE.10.1109/MITE.2016.030Search in Google Scholar

[59] David R Stead (2005). A review of the one-minute paper. Active learning in higher education, 6(2):118–131.Search in Google Scholar

[60] Rudyard Kipling (2019). Just So Stories: The Original 1902 Edition With Illustrations by Rudyard Kipling. Suzeteo Enterprises.Search in Google Scholar

[61] Credence Baker, James Gentry, and William Larmer (2016). A model for online support in classroom management: Perceptions of beginning teachers. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 6(1):22–37.Search in Google Scholar

[62] Spencer Kagan and Mary McGroarty (1993). Principles of cooperative learning for language and content gains. Cooperative learning: A response to linguistic and cultural diversity, pages 47–66.Search in Google Scholar

[63] F Fanolong, Riki Bugis, Azwan Azwan, Hanapi Hanapi, and Nanik Handayani (2016). The students’ reading ability improvement through numbered head together (nht) technique. Jurnal Jupiter, 14(2):67–78.Search in Google Scholar

[64] John W Schuster and Ann K Griffen (1990). Using time delay with task analyses. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(4):49–53.Search in Google Scholar

[65] Shehzeen Alamir (2018). Exploring how secondary teachers promote critical thinking. Journal of Teaching and Education, 08(02):193–214Search in Google Scholar

[66] Ravi Ramanujam (2011). Active learning to promote critical thinking skills. Strathclyde University, Glasgow in Scotland, 1, 41.Search in Google Scholar

[67] Olivier Serrat (2017). The scamper technique. In Knowledge Solutions, pages 311–314. Springer.10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_33Search in Google Scholar

[68] Kimberly Bernadine Catton, Abril Galang, and Alexander T Bulk (2016). Disruption in large classes during active learning sessions. In 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.10.18260/p.26856Search in Google Scholar

[69] Jason Macleod, Harrison Hao Yang, and Yinghui Shi (2019). Systematic review of technology enabled active learning classrooms in higher education. In 2019 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), pages 175–179.10.1109/ISET.2019.00044Search in Google Scholar

[70] Jason T. Hilton (2016). A case study of the application of samr and tpack for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107:68 – 73.Search in Google Scholar

[71] Abeera P. Rehmat and Kendall Hartley (2020). Building engineering awareness: Problem based learning approach for STEM integration. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 14(1).10.14434/ijpbl.v14i1.28636Search in Google Scholar

[72] Bradley E Wiggins (2016). An overview and study on the use of games, simulations, and gamification in higher education. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 6(1):18–29.Search in Google Scholar

[73] Iwan Gurjanow and Matthias Ludwig (2017). Gamifiying math trails with the mathcitymap app: Impact of points and leader-board on intrinsic motivation. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT 13), pages 105–112.Search in Google Scholar

[74] Joan Benek-Rivera and Vinitia E. Mathews (2004). Active Learning with Jeopardy: Students Ask the Questions———. Journal of Management Education, 28(1):104–118.Search in Google Scholar

[75] Allyson Fiona Hadwin and Philip H. Winne (2012). Promoting Learning Skills in Undergraduate Students. In John R. Kirby and Michael J. Lawson, editors, Enhancing the Quality of Learning, pages 201–227. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Search in Google Scholar

[76] C. Chanialidis (2019). Enabling active learning in large classes through the use of Plickers.Search in Google Scholar

[77] José David Badia Valiente, Françoise Olmo Cazevieille, and José Manuel Navarro Jover (2016). On-line quizzes to evaluate comprehension and integration skills. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6(2):75.Search in Google Scholar

[78] Sherlock A. Licorish, Helen E. Owen, Ben Daniel, and Jade Li George (2018). Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1):9.Search in Google Scholar

[79] Brianna Donahoe, Derrian Rickard, Hunter Holden, Kerra Blackwell, and Nancy Caukin (2019). Using Edtech to Enhance Learning. International Journal of the Whole Child, 4(2):57–63.Search in Google Scholar

[80] M. Kobylanski (2019). Wims: Innovative pedagogy with 21 year old interactive exercise software. In International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching, Gilles Aldon, and Jana Trgalová, editors, Technology in Mathematics Teaching: Selected Papers of the 13th ICTMT Conference, pages 123– 144.Search in Google Scholar

[81] Robert Weinhandl, Zsolt Lavicza, Markus Hohenwarter, and Stefanie Schallert (2020). Enhancing Flipped Mathematics Education by Utilising GeoGebra. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 8(1):1.Search in Google Scholar

[82] Nabeel Al-Qirim (2011). Determinants of interactive white board success in teaching in higher education institutions. Computers & Education, 56(3):827–838.Search in Google Scholar

[83] Henrik Skaug Sætra (2021). Using Padlet to Enable Online Collaborative Mediation and Scaffolding in a Statistics Course. Education Sciences, 11(5):219.Search in Google Scholar

[84] Mary Caton-Rosser (2014). Discovering Interdisciplinary Uses of Online Technologies in Higher Education. SYSTEMICS, CYBERNETICS AND INFORMATICS, 12(3):17–21.Search in Google Scholar

[85] Celal Karaca and Mehmet Akif Ocak (2017). Effect of Flipped Learning on Cognitive Load: A Higher Education Research. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 2(1):20–27.Search in Google Scholar

[86] Joel Michael (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4):159–167.10.1152/advan.00053.2006Search in Google Scholar

[87] Cindy Cogswell, Scott Pauls, Adrienne Gauthier, and Erin De-Silva (2019). Agile and active: Sustaining pedagogical change in a large-enrollment calculus course. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education, 2(2):1–22.Search in Google Scholar

[88] Arlene Mae C. Valderama, Joel B. Mangaba, Roel C. Traballo, Paulino H (2018). Gatpandan, Mary Ann B. Taduyo, Daniel D. Dasig, Mengvi P. Gatpandan, Rudolph Val F. Guarin, and Albert A. Vinluan. Eflcacy of Learning Scaffolds and Learner-User Experience (UX) in the Zone of Proximal Development. In 2018 IEEE 10th International Conference on Humanoid, Nanotechnology, Information Technology,Communication and Control, Environment and Management (HNICEM), pages 1–8, Baguio City, Philippines, IEEE.Search in Google Scholar

[89] Lorayne Robertson (2018). Toward an Epistemology of Active Learning in Higher Education and Its Promise. In Anastasia Misseyanni, Miltiadis D. Lytras, Paraskevi Papadopoulou, and Christina Marouli, editors, Active Learning Strategies in Higher Education, pages 17–44. Emerald Publishing Limited.10.1108/978-1-78714-487-320181002Search in Google Scholar

[90] Dorothy Gabel and National Science Teachers Association, editors (1994). Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. Macmillan ; Maxwell Macmillan Canada ; Maxwell Macmillan International, New York : Toronto : New York.Search in Google Scholar

[91] S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23):8410–8415.Search in Google Scholar

[92] Margarita Limón, Lucia Mason, and Inc ebrary (2002). Reconsidering Conceptual Change Issues in Theory and Practice. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht; Boston.10.1007/0-306-47637-1Search in Google Scholar

[93] Martene L. Stanberry (2018). Active learning: A case study of student engagement in college calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(6):959–969.Search in Google Scholar

[94] Bethany Rittle-Johnson and Michael Schneider (2014). Developing Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge of Mathematics, volume 1. Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

[95] Mona Lisa Dahms, Claus Monrad Spliid, and Jens Fred-erik Dalsgaard Nielsen (2017). Teacher in a problem-based learning environment – jack of all trades? European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(6):1196–1219.10.1080/03043797.2016.1271973Search in Google Scholar

[96] Bettina Dahl (2018). What is the problem in problem-based learning in higher education mathematics. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(1):112–125.Search in Google Scholar

[97] Kate Roach, Emanuela Tilley, and John Mitchell (2018). How authentic does authentic learning have to be? Higher Education Pedagogies, 3(1):495–509.10.1080/23752696.2018.1462099Search in Google Scholar

[98] Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver, Ravit Golan Duncan, and Clark A. Chinn (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to kirschner, sweller, and clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2):99–107.Search in Google Scholar

[99] César Rodríguez González and José Fernández Batanero (2016). A review of Problem-Based Learning applied to Engineering. International Journal on Advances in Education Research, 3:1–6.Search in Google Scholar

[100] Fridolin Sze Thou Ting, Wai Hung Lam, and Ronnie Homi Shroff (2019). Active learning via problem-based collaborative games in a large mathematics university course in hong kong. Education Sciences, 9(3):172.Search in Google Scholar

[101] Robyn Gillies (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3):39–54.Search in Google Scholar

[102] Anuradha A. Gokhale (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1).10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2Search in Google Scholar

[103] D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson (2013). The impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning environments on achievement. In J. Hattie and E. Anderman, editors, International Handbook of Student Achievement, pages 372–374. Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

[104] Wilbert James McKeachie, Marilla D. Svinicki, and Barbara K. Hofer (2006). McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers. College Teaching Series. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 12th ed edition.Search in Google Scholar

[105] Laura Tubino, Andrew Cain, Jean-Guy Schneider, Dhananjay Thiruvady, and Niroshinie Fernando (2020). Authentic individual assessment for team-based software engineering projects. In 2020 IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-SEET), pages 71–81.Search in Google Scholar

[106] Saroj Bala Gaur and Tripti Gupta (2013). Is group assessment a bane or boon in higher education? A students–teacher perspective. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 6(3):141–148.Search in Google Scholar

[107] Elizabeth Pfaff and Patricia Huddleston (2003). Does It Matter if I Hate Teamwork? What Impacts Student Attitudes toward Teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1):37–45.Search in Google Scholar

[108] Irem Sanal (2018). A review on student-centred higher education in civil engineering: Evaluation of student perceptions. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 28(2):205–217.Search in Google Scholar

[109] John Mason (2009). From Assenting to Asserting. In Ole Skovsmose, Paola Valero, and Ole Ravn Christensen, editors, University Science and Mathematics Education in Transition, pages 17–40. Springer US, Boston, MA.10.1007/978-0-387-09829-6_2Search in Google Scholar

[110] Guy Brousseau, Bernard Sarrazy, and Jarmila Novotná (2020). Didactic Contract in Mathematics Education. In Stephen Lerman, editor, Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education, pages 197–202. Springer International Publishing, Cham.10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_46Search in Google Scholar

[111] Yves Chevallard and Marianna Bosch (2020). Didactic Transposition in Mathematics Education. In Stephen Lerman, editor, Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education, pages 214–218. Springer International Publishing, Cham.10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_48Search in Google Scholar

[112] D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson (2019). Cooperative learning: The foundation for active learning. In Sílvio Manuel Brito, editor, Active Learning - Beyond the Future. IntechOpen.10.5772/intechopen.81086Search in Google Scholar

[113] Heather Witten. Flipped learning network. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[114] AutoMultipleChoice. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[115] Classkick. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[116] Coda | A new doc for teams. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[117] Coggle. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[118] Doceval. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[119] Dotmocracy – dot voting tips and resources. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[120] Edpuzzle. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[121] Educreations. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[122] eduScrum homepage. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[123] Etherpad. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[124] Google jamboard. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[125] GroupMap. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[126] iSpring. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[127] Kahoot! | learning games | make learning awesome! Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[128] Kialo edu. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[129] Mentimeter. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[130] MindManager. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[131] MindMeister: Online Mind Mapping and Brainstorming. MeisterLabs. in Google Scholar

[132] MindMup. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[133] Miro. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[134] MURAL is a digital workspace for visual collaboration. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[135] Nearpod. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[136] OpenBoard. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[137] Padlet. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[138] PlayPosit | Interactive Video Platform. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[139] Plickers. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[140] Poll everywhere. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[141] Prezi. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[142] QCMCam. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[143] Quizizz. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[144] Six thinking hats – de bono group.Search in Google Scholar

[145] Slido - audience interaction made easy. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[146] Socrative. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[147] Spiral, the Social Learning Network Ltd. https://spiral.acSearch in Google Scholar

[148] VotAR. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[149] Wooclap, an interactive platform that makes learning awesome. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

[150] Ziteboard. Last accessed 15 February 2021.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2021-04-14
Accepted: 2021-11-22
Published Online: 2022-05-02

© 2022 Christian Mercat, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 8.2.2023 from
Scroll Up Arrow