Active learning strategies in business and information & communication technology engineering higher education: A scoping review

Abstract Active learning (AL) has emerged as a pedagogical response to diverse educational challenges across multiple disciplines. This scoping review maps the terrain of AL implementation patterns, examining AL practices in Business Education, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Engineering, Mathematics, and Statistics from 2015 until the end of 2024 to identify: (1) educational challenges prompting AL implementation and adoption, (2) implemented practices, and (3) reported outcomes. After the screening process, 85 studies employing diverse AL methodologies across target disciplines were selected to extract data on challenges addressed, practices implemented and outcomes measured. Analysed AL practices addressed eleven challenge themes, with Engagement & Motivation (20%), Application & Real‐World Relevance (17%) and Pedagogical Innovation (14%) comprising over half of implementations. All eleven challenges were classified into three tiers by urgency and scope: performance crises (Tier 1), skill development gaps (Tier 2) and strategic pedagogical evolution (Tier 3). The implemented AL practices ranged from high‐structure strategies (e.g., flipped classrooms) through medium‐structure approaches (e.g., problem‐based learning) to low‐structure formats (e.g., inquiry‐based learning). These methods were typically integrated in combination rather than applied in isolation. Technology enhanced but did not define AL effectiveness. Outcome measurement extended beyond academic performance to encompass engagement, conceptual understanding and skill development, though some studies reported no significant performance differences. This scoping review concluded that AL represents a versatile, evidence‐based toolkit addressing context‐specific challenges rather than a universal solution. Context and implications Rationale for this study: Active learning has gained traction across disciplines as response to persistent pedagogical challenges, prompting a need to map how it is actually implemented in practice. This paper aims to map active learning implementation patterns in higher education across Business Education, ICT Engineering, Mathematics and Statistics from 2015 to 2024. Why the new findings matter: These findings matter because they move beyond generic advocacy for active learning toward a structured, evidence‐based framework that tells educators not just that active learning works, but which strategies address which specific challenges in which disciplinary contexts. It reduces guesswork in pedagogical decision‐making and enables a more targeted, need‐driven implementation. Implications for educational researchers and policy makers: The review's tiered classification of challenges and mapping of strategies to outcomes provides both researchers and policy makers with an actionable, evidence‐based framework that shifts the institutional conversation from whether to adopt active learning toward how to select, combine and evaluate the right strategies for specific disciplinary contexts and pedagogical needs.