Newsletter #36 Are Students Really Engaged? Rethinking Learning Activities with ICAP

Written by Center for Teaching and Learning Wenzhou-Kean University | May 13, 2026 10:55:42 AM


 

Are Students Really Engaged? Rethinking Learning Activities with ICAP

In many classrooms, students may appear engaged: they are taking notes, highlighting readings, answering questions, or participating in group discussions. But are they truly constructing understanding? This question is central not only to student engagement but also to formative assessment: how can instructors make students’ thinking visible during the learning process?
The ICAP framework offers a practical lens for distinguishing different levels of cognitive engagement. Rather than focusing only on visible participation, it helps instructors ask what kind of thinking students are actually doing—and how learning activities can be designed to reveal and deepen that thinking.
 

What Is ICAP?

The ICAP framework, developed by cognitive scientist Michelene T. H. Chi and her research team, categorizes students’ cognitive engagement into four levels: Passive, Active, Constructive, and Interactive. Since its introduction, ICAP has become a widely recognized theoretical model for assessing cognitive engagement and has been extensively applied in instructional design, classroom research, and the learning sciences. The framework suggests that learning tends to become deeper as students move from receiving information to generating and co-constructing understanding.
 
Image from Yidan Prize Foundation
 
Passive(P): Students receive information, such as listening to a lecture or watching a video, with little visible cognitive output.
Active(A): Students manipulate existing information, such as highlighting, copying notes, or repeating key ideas.
Constructive(C): Students generate something beyond the original material, such as explaining in their own words, comparing ideas, or creating a concept map.
Interactive(I): Students build on one another’s ideas through dialogue, questioning, feedback, and revision.
 
Image from Darstellung nach Chi & Wylie (2014)
 

Why ICAP Matters

ICAP reminds us that the quality of engagement depends not only on the activity format, but on the cognitive output produced by students.
For example, a student who copies notes may look active, but the activity may remain at the Active level if the student is only reproducing existing information. In contrast, when a student explains a concept in their own words, compares examples, or generates a question, the activity moves toward the Constructive level. When students respond to one another, challenge assumptions, and revise their ideas through dialogue, learning can become Interactive. In this sense, ICAP shifts the focus from asking:
Are students participating?
to asking:
What kind of thinking does this activity require?
This makes ICAP a practical lens for instructional design. It helps instructors examine whether a learning activity simply keeps students busy or whether it helps them produce, refine, and deepen understanding.
 

ICAP in the AI Era

In the age of artificial intelligence, ICAP may become even more important. AI tools can make learning look efficient: students can quickly summarize an article, generate an outline, revise a paragraph, or produce an answer. However, faster completion does not necessarily mean deeper learning.
A student who simply copies an AI-generated summary may remain at the Active level—or even close to Passive if little thinking is involved. But if the student compares the AI response with course readings, identifies missing assumptions, revises the explanation in their own words, and justifies the changes, the activity can become Constructive. Similarly, AI-supported learning can become more Interactive when students use AI-generated perspectives as a starting point for peer discussion, critique, debate, and revision. The key question is therefore not simply whether students use AI, but whether AI use leads them to think more deeply.
 

Moving Learning Activities Up the ICAP Levels

To guide learners from superficial participation to deep learning, instructional design should progressively move learning activities toward higher levels of the ICAP framework:

Classroom Questioning

  • Active: Students repeat textbook definitions or recall information from slides.
  • Constructive: Students explain the concept in their own words or connect it to a new example.
  • Interactive: Students respond to peers’ explanations, ask follow-up questions, challenge assumptions, and revise their thinking.
Image from https://yidanprize.org/zh-cn

Note-Taking

  • Active: Students copy key points from slides or the board.
  • Constructive: Students reorganize ideas in their own words, create a concept map, or identify relationships between concepts.
  • Interactive: Students compare notes with peers, explain different interpretations, and collaboratively refine their understanding.

Exam Review

  • Active: Students review notes or memorize answers.
  • Constructive: Students organize concepts into mind maps, explain why an answer is correct, or identify common misconceptions.
  • Interactive: Students explain their reasoning to peers, respond to questions, and revise their explanations based on feedback.

AI-Supported Assignments

  • Active: Students ask AI to generate a summary or answer and submit it with little revision.
  • Constructive: Students evaluate the AI response, identify limitations, add course-based evidence, and rewrite it in their own words.
  • Interactive: Students use AI-generated responses as discussion materials, compare different viewpoints, critique assumptions, and co-develop improved answers with peers.

Questions for Course Design

When designing a learning activity, consider asking:
  • What are students producing beyond the original material?
  • Does the activity require explanation, comparison, questioning, or revision?
  • Are students only receiving or organizing information, or are they generating new understanding?
  • If AI is involved, does it replace students’ thinking or prompt deeper thinking?
  • How can peer interaction help students refine and improve their understanding?
Table 1: Examples of Learning Activities by Mode of Engagement
 
ICAP reminds us to look beyond visible participation and focus on the thinking behind the activity. When designing learning tasks, we can ask: Are students simply receiving or organizing information, or are they explaining, questioning, revising, and building new understanding? In the AI era, this question matters even more—not because AI makes learning impossible, but because it can make task completion look like learning.
 
 
References:
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active–constructive–interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014).
The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self–explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182.
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self–explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.
Menekse, M., Stump, G., Krause, S., & Chi, M. T. H. (2013). Differentiated overt learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 346–374.
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36(4), 321–350.

 

CTL Updates

Instructional Skills Workshop

We are pleased to announce the upcoming Instructional Skills Workshop (ISW) — a signature faculty development program designed to strengthen teaching practices through experiential learning.

🗓️ Upcoming Sessions

  • Session #26: May 16-17 & May 30-31.

Participants will explore core teaching and learning concepts, reflect on current practices, experiment with new instructional strategies, and engage in supportive environments.

We look forward to discussing this excellent opportunity to increase student engagement with interested faculty and staff of WKU. Please note that participation is limited to five individuals, and all four days of the workshop are required.

Scan the OR code to register >>

 
  
Author: Yan  (Tanya) Tang
Chief Editor: Yirui (Sandy) Jiang

 
View full post