The literature on active learning indicates that active learning has a positive impact on student learning (see Freeman et al., 2014, and Theobald with 31 co-authors, 2020 :-). Unfortunately, most studies do not define active learning, and those that do tend to define it pedagogical; that is, what instructional strategies foster active learning, not what active human processes fosters (causes) learning.

For example: Nguyen et al. (2021) states, "In this review, we define active learning as classroom-based activities designed to engage students in their learning to answer questions, solving problems, discussing contact, or teaching others, individually or groups" (p. 2). Similarly, Freeman et al. (2014) states, "Active learning engages students in the process of learning through activities and/or discussion in class, as opposed to passively listening to an expert" (p. 8313).

These articles define "active learning" as the antithesis of lecture, using problem solving, peer instruction, and inquiry learning as active learning strategies. What is it about these active learning strategies that foster learning? It is this x-factor that key. Defining active learning as various strategies misses the point.

Krista Wojdak, from App State, and I are pursuing a better understanding of the current definitions of active learning, and then providing our on own definition based on cognitive, affective, and behavior processing. This approach has more in common with Lombardi et al. (2021) who post a construction-of-understanding ecosystem. Krista and I hope to submit our manuscript some time in the fall.

For years, I have been having students write 25-word summaries as a way to get students to focus on the meaning of readings. The anecdotal evidence from students is that the summaries, plus the feedback they receive, increase their learning from the articles. In an effort to attain more formal and organized evidence of the impact of the 25-word summaries on students, a graduate student and I embarked on a qualitative research study. We recently interviewed seven students from a last year's class that employed the 25-word summaries.

Summarizing, the identification of main ideas within a text and the subsequent generation of a shortened expression of those ideas without losing meaning (Chiu, 2015; Hariyadi, Corebima, & Zubaidagh, 2018), has been determined to have a positive impact on students' comprehension (Topcu & Arslan, 2017), retention (Nelson, Smith, & Dodd, 1992), and summarization skills (Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987). In addition, there is some evidence that the act of summarizing increases comprehension for macro-level information (main ideas), but not for micro-level information (details), and that summarization increases information application (Chiu, 2015).

The questions driving this study include, (a) how do students prepare to write their 25-word summaries (e.g., how they read and take notes in anticipation of writing a summary), (b) what process do students use to write their 25-word summaries, (c) what impact does previously received feedback have on the preparation and writing of subsequent 25-word summaries, and (d) how do students perceive the relationship between writing 25-word summaries and learning?

Data analysis is underway . . . Stay tuned!