In education and corporate training, few debates are as heated as active versus passive learning. While research consistently shows active learning produces better outcomes, myths and misconceptions still shape how organizations design their training programs.
To understand what professionals really think, Engageli surveyed 115 participants across different ages and industries. We asked about six common beliefs around learning methods. What we found challenges some assumptions while confirming others, highlighting the gaps between perception and research that continue to influence educational decisions.
We surveyed 115 professionals from diverse backgrounds to capture real-world attitudes, rather than just academic perspectives. We used a four-point scale for each statement:
We deliberately avoided a neutral option to force participants to take a position, giving us clearer insights into their actual beliefs.
Each statement targeted a specific myth that commonly influences educational design decisions. These myths often become barriers to implementing more effective learning strategies, especially in organizations where budget and scalability concerns drive decisions.
One of our most striking findings was that an overwhelming 87% of respondents agree that active learning beats passive learning. This aligns with decades of educational research. The near-even split between "strongly agree" and "somewhat agree" shows that while most professionals see active learning's benefits, there's variation in how strongly they feel about it.
The 13% who disagreed represent an interesting minority. They might have experienced poorly run active learning sessions, work in contexts where passive learning has been effective, or simply prefer traditional lecture formats due to personal preferences or time constraints.
For organizations, this data is powerful. When 87% of professionals acknowledge active learning's superiority, it becomes hard to justify training programs that rely mainly on passive information consumption. Studies consistently show active learning can improve knowledge retention by 54% compared to traditional lectures, while also increasing engagement and reducing achievement gaps.
Here we see a fascinating split: 56% believe active learning requires in-person settings, while 44% disagree. This reflects one of the biggest debates in modern education: whether digital environments can truly match face-to-face active learning. The 56% who agreed likely draw from poor experiences with online courses, challenges maintaining engagement through screens, and missing the physical presence of in-person interactions.
This divide has major implications for educational technology providers and organizations designing learning strategies. The fact that a majority still believes in-person settings are necessary suggests there's substantial work to be done in demonstrating digital learning's potential.
This myth persists partly because many people's reference point for online learning remains traditional webinars or e-learning modules: formats that involve passive content consumption with minimal interaction. Modern online learning platforms offer much more sophisticated tools for creating truly interactive experiences online.
This produced our most evenly distributed responses, with a perfect tie between "somewhat agree" and "somewhat disagree". Combined with the 17% who strongly disagreed, a slight majority rejected the idea that active learning requires small, tightly facilitated groups. The even distribution reflects a fundamental tension in educational design: balancing personalized attention with scalable delivery.
From an organizational perspective, this divide has huge implications for training budgets and program design. If active learning truly required small groups with intensive facilitation, it would be prohibitively expensive for most organizations to implement at scale.
Technology plays a crucial role in debunking this myth. Digital platforms like Engageli can facilitate active learning for thousands simultaneously without sacrificing engagement. Well-designed experiences can include self-directed elements, peer facilitation, and AI-powered producers that reduce the burden on human facilitators while maintaining outcomes.
Another significant divide: 59% agree that online active learning cannot match in-person outcomes, while 41% disagree. This perception gap is particularly important because it directly addresses the bottom line for most educational initiatives: measurable learning outcomes and performance improvements.
What makes this perception particularly interesting is how it contrasts with emerging research. Meta-analyses of online versus in-person learning consistently show that well-designed online learning can achieve results equal to or better than traditional classroom instruction. The key qualifier is "well-designed" - the quality of instructional design and technology implementation plays a crucial role in determining success.
The measurement challenge also contributes to this myth. In-person learning outcomes are often easier to observe directly: facilitators can see engagement levels, participation patterns, and immediate comprehension indicators. Online learning requires different measurement approaches and may rely more on data analytics, assessment results, and longer-term performance indicators.
This statement generated our one of our highest agreement rates, with 66% believing virtual engagement tools can't replicate or scale live interaction. The strong skepticism represents both a challenge and opportunity for the educational technology industry. It suggests current virtual engagement tools may not be meeting user expectations or there's a significant gap between these tools' potential and how they're typically implemented.
While virtual tools may never perfectly replicate every aspect of in-person communication, they offer unique advantages: connecting people across geographic boundaries, detailed analytics on participation patterns, persistent records of interactions, and accessibility features for participants who might struggle in traditional physical environments. Plus, innovative platforms like Engageli are demonstrating that active learning can be scaled without compromising quality. Elements like small-group breakout tables, AI producers, and thoughtful session design can enhance interaction opportunities in large virtual gatherings.
This received our second-highest agreement rate, with 73% believing passive learning represents the most economical approach for large-scale training. This finding reveals a critical tension between educational effectiveness and perceived cost efficiency that influences many organizational learning decisions. It reflects a widespread assumption that active learning requires more resources, time, and infrastructure investment than passive alternatives. Even professionals who recognize active learning's superiority (as shown in Myth 1) may view it as a luxury that's difficult to justify at scale due to cost considerations.
However, this economic assumption deserves careful scrutiny. While passive learning may have lower upfront costs, it often carries hidden costs that become apparent over time. Poor retention means training must be repeated more frequently. Low engagement results in minimal behavior change and reduced return on investment. The lack of interaction makes it difficult to identify and address knowledge gaps before they impact performance.
Technology-enabled active learning can achieve significant economies of scale while maintaining engagement levels. Research shows that while active learning may require higher initial investments, improved outcomes often result in better return on investment over time.
Our survey reveals a fascinating paradox. While 87% of respondents recognize active learning's superiority, substantial majorities continue believing in limitations that would make active learning difficult to implement effectively at scale. This disconnect between recognizing value and believing in practical constraints helps explain why many organizations continue relying on passive learning despite acknowledging its suboptimal nature.
The path forward requires better technology, improved implementation practices, and more effective communication about modern active learning capabilities. The future of organizational learning doesn't lie in choosing between active and passive approaches, but in thoughtfully combining the best elements of each to create learning experiences that are simultaneously effective, scalable, and economically sustainable.
This research was conducted by Engageli to better understand professional perceptions of active learning methodologies and inform the development of more effective online learning experiences. For more information about Engageli's approach to virtual active learning, take a tour of our products.