Active learning improves student learning, but it is not clear what instructors should do to engage students in active learning. The ICAP theory provides a framework that defines and differentiates four different ways that students can engage-with-instruction in active learning, based on two concrete criteria.

The first part of this talk will describe the four “modes” that characterize the ways that students physically interact-with-instruction, and the outputs they produce in the context of each mode of interaction-with-instruction. Based on the cognitive processes underlying each mode of engagement, ICAP postulates the hypothesis that Interactive engagement, demonstrated by co-generative collaborative behaviors, is superior for learning than Constructive engagement, indicated by generative behaviors. Both kinds of engagement far exceed the benefits of Active or Passive engagement, marked by manipulative and attentive behaviors, respectively. 

The second part of this talk will show three sets of findings, selected from numerous studies in the literature, supporting ICAP’s predictions that the Interactive mode of engaging is superior to the Constructive mode, which in turn is superior to the Active mode, followed by the Passive mode.

The third part of this talk will show how ICAP can be applied to improve instruction. That is, ICAP can be used as guiding principles to dictate how to design learning activities and lesson plans can be “upgraded,” that is, modify instructional activities from the lower ICAP modes to the higher ICAP modes, focusing explicitly on improving activities in the Active mode to the Constructive mode.  Several examples will be given, such as: (1) how to upgrade the ICAP mode of questions; (2) how to use verbs to design activities; (3) how to upgrade the integration of technology usage; (4) how to improve lectures.

The final part of this talk will discuss several caveats for clarifications and concerns. One caveat concerns collaborative learning, that it is not always superior to individuals learning generatively. Moreover, instructors have limited ability to monitor students’ co-generative collaboration in real time. A second caveat concerns compliance, that is, students may not produce generative behaviors or talks even if they are prompted to do so. A third caveat is whether feedback is needed. A fourth caveat is the use of deeper assessment questions in order to detect the advantage of engaging in higher modes. A fifth caveat concerns the strict categorization of activities into a specific mode. A sixth caveat clarifies that ICAP predicts learning differences between modes, not within a mode.

Ten to fifteen minutes will be devoted to answering questions from the audience.