Active Learning Classroom Findings
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•455 views
Findings from the UWM Active Learning Classroom study of our Steelcase Innovation Hub and ALC.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Active Learning Classroom Findings
Similar to Active Learning Classroom Findings (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Active Learning Classroom Findings
- 1. Tanya Joosten University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee tjoosten@uwm.edu @tjoosten slideshare.net/tjoosten Exploring the Impact of Active Learning Spaces on Teaching and Learning
- 2. Was the active learning classroom effective? CC Flickr Katherine.a
- 3. • Electrical Engineering •Architecture •Curriculum & Instruction •Business Professions •Women’s Studies •English •Art and Design •Art and Design, Film Humanities and Arts •Communication Social Sciences • Biology Natural Sciences
- 4. Agree Neutral Disagree 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Easy Collaboration 89.8 4.1 6.1 Interact more w/Instructor 72 24 4 Effective Communication w/Classmates 90 4 6 0 Interactivity
- 5. Agree Neutral Disagree 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Understand Course Concepts 60 32 8 Beneficial to Learning 66 30 4 Better Grades on Assignments 46.9 46.9 8.2 0 Learning
- 6. Agree Neutral Disagree 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Recommend Instructor Continue Use 76 16 8 Comfortable Learning Environment 84 12 4 Appropriate Space for this course 84 14 2 0 Satisfaction
- 7. Agree Neutral Disagree 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Movability 86 12 2 Adaptability for different Activities 78 16 6 Facilitate multiple Learning Types 71.4 24.5 4.1 0 Flexibility
- 8. Satisfaction Interactivity F(2, 47) = 59.56, p<.001 Perceived learning Learning Approximately 71% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by interactivity and flexibility (adjusted R2 = .705)
- 9. Satisfaction Interactivity Instructor Expectation F(2, 46) = 56.72, p<.001 Perceived learning Learning Approximately 77% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by interactivity and flexibility (adjusted R2 = .772)
- 10. Instructor Expectations Active Learning Activities F(2, 47) = 19.615, p<.001 Learning Approximately 43% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by instructor expectations and active learning activities (adjusted R2 = .432) Perceived learning
- 11. Instructor Expectations Active Learning Activities F(2, 47) = 15.647, p<.001 Satisfaction Approximately 37% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by instructor expectations and active learning activities (adjusted R2 = .374) Perceived Satisfaction
- 12. How did we measure? CC Flickr yggg
- 14. Component # of Variables Variables Alpha Means Standard Dev. Learning 11 Components L1, L2, L3, L5, P1, P2, F2, F3, F4, F7, S5 0.957 40.19 8.39 Satisfaction 7 S1, S2, S3, O1, O2, O4, O5 0.926 28.01 5.25 Interactivity 10 I1, I2, I4, I6, I7, I9, I10, I11, I13, I15 0.945 38.03 7.25 Student Interaction w/ ALC Media (not just digital) 5 Q6_16 - Q6_20 0.794 15.45 3.92 Self-Reported Active Learning 8 Q6_2 - Q6_7, Q6_9, Q6_10 0.929 28.88 6.4 Self-Reported Group/Peer Active Learning 4 Q6_8, Q6_11, Q6_12, Q23_6 0.828 15.06 2.89
- 15. How was the classroom designed?
- 17. No front and center
- 19. 0% 62% 76% 68% 76% 20% 40% 60% 80% Instructor Activities Student Activities How does space design support new learning? 80% 70% 44% 64% 36% 58% Require/Create discussion Use Whiteboards Break into Groups Asking Questions of Students/Classmates Utilizing Online Discussion and Materials
- 23. Learning Active Learning Activities F(2, 47) = 58.57, p<.001 Satisfaction Approximately 70% of the variance in perceived Satisfaction accounted for by learning and active learning (adjusted R2 = .701) Predicting student satisfaction
- 24. How does ALC impact faculty development?
- 26. tjoosten@uwm.edu @tjoosten slideshare.net/tjoosten Questions?
Editor's Notes
- 2nd semester of the pilot, started in Spring 2014 Spurred by the move to redevelop classrooms on campus and build new classrooms with little evidence beyond architects recommendations Also, was highlighted in the campus’ digital future planning as a top priority, digitalfuture.uwm.edu.
- Survey administered Spring 2014 N=50 Descriptive statistics Agree (Strongly agree and agree) Neutral (Neither agree/disagree) Disagree (Disagree and strongly disagree) Faculty Comment “students were generally more comfortable, more engaged and produced thoughtful, rich responses to assignments both in class and out of class…ALC facilitated deeper engagement and stronger performance” Students’ Comments • “There was a lot more class discussion. I wasn't afraid to participate. We could move around to our benefit. It didn't feel intimidating like a lecture. We had access to useful resources. INTERNET!!” • “It allowed for better communication between peers. I typically would not have interacted as much with certain classmates. This classroom allowed for more of that to happen.” • “The main difference is the encouragement of discussion between students during class”
- “It made me pay attention more in class because you weren’t just staring at a teacher the whole time” “Keeps me from daydreaming. Keeps me involved, so it probably helped reinforce what we read to prepare for class, versus a lecture.” “I think I absorbed a lot more information and was easier to pay attention because it was comfortable and spacious. I have a problem with claustrophobia and anxiety so when a group of 20 so me students are crammed into a little classroom, it makes it very hard for me to focus and learn.” “The Active Learning Classroom kept me more engaged than a normal classroom with the increased use of technology.” “I actually paid attention! I felt i got a lot more out of it. We were able to use resources not just listen to a lecture” “Helped with listening” “I could use my time more efficiently improving what I do inside the classroom.”
- Students’ comments: • “Overall it was very different but very positive” • “I love the room” • “It was the best class experience I’ve ever had.” • “It was a good experience, hope to do it in another class.” • “This is a really good way for learning that gives us more space to learn and discuss” • “Everything was great and cool. I had a great time studying at this Active Learning Classroom.” • “I really liked it and would like to see more courses taught in this format.” • “Would use again.”
- Students’ comments: • “Easy to move around and interact with other classmates” • “Great, more activities with other students for solving problems”
- In examining learning, our findings indicated several potential predictors, some of which were very interesting. In predicting learning, flexibility and interactivity entered in to the model and were significantly associated with learning, F(2, 47) = 59.56, p<.001. Approximately 70% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .705) in learning could be accounted for by interactivity and perceived flexibility. In predicting learning, an increase in perceived satisfaction, instructor expectation, and interactivity significantly increases a student’s learning, F(3, 46) = 56.27, p<.001. Approximately 77% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .772) in students’ perceived learning is accounted for by satisfaction, instructor expectation, and interactivity. This is an increase of 7.3% in explanatory power from the nested model.
- In predicting learning, an increase in active learning and instructor expectation significantly increases a student’s self-perceived learning, F(2, 47) = 19.62, p<.001. Approximately 43% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .432) in students’ perceived learning is accounted for by active learning and instructor expectation. Grade and Retention A series of t-tests, ANOVAs, and Chi-square tests were run to investigate the relationship between the Active Learning Classroom environment and student grades and retention. First, a t-tests comparing numerical grades for each of the six courses offered in the Active Learning Classroom. Results showed students in ART 150 received significantly lower grades than the other five courses. Second, one independent sample t-test and two Chi-square tests were used to investigate the research inquiry whether or not the use of the Active Learning Classroom environment significantly improved numerical grades, student success, and student retention, respectively. To answer this question, the student grades, retention rates, and success rates were dichotomized to represent the six courses offered in the ALC, which were then compared to data from the sister courses that represent the exact same courses taught in a different semester that did not take place in an ALC. A t-test comparing numeric grades between students attending courses in traditional classroom settings to ones who attended courses in the ALC environment illustrated no significant differences (F = 2.381; p=.125). Descriptive statistics demonstrate similar average grades, M = 3.702; SD = .5421 for traditional classrooms and M = 3.646; SD = .6675 for ALC. Both Chi-square tests determined whether or not there were significant differences in success and retention between students who took the traditionally set courses and the ALC students. Neither success, nor retention demonstrate significant differences across classroom environments.
- We wanted a classroom that could “feel” like a traditional classroom, if it needed to – in order to help instructor transition to an active learning pedagogy or to assimilate to a new way of teaching. Most of the traditional classrooms at UWM look something like this… At a minimum, our ALC could mimmick a traditional classroom, HOWEVER…
- Student-centered! No front and center As you saw before, there could be the perception of front and center, yet… No fixed podium in the front No front projector screen No fixed console “Decentralizing my position in the room was helpful in this regard. Additionally students reported feeling more comfortable in the space and more willing to talk – this is particularly impressive as these student teachers were working full 8-hour days in classrooms before coming to class” 1 fixed whiteboard (green) There were 3 displays (red) With air medias Faculty were completely untethered Still could facilitate lecture and large discussion pedagogies, which was the comfort of some, but could also allow for others types of active learning “Allowed almost everyone to view material easily – from D2L discussions, Google documents, and videos” Other comments on displays… Various Learning Technologies The learning technologies helped “stay grounded in evidence rather than drifting into opinion and evaluation” The coolest thing we did was scan a picturebook into the Flipbook website and then all read it together as it projected on the screens- that was a very powerful tool because we only had one copy of the book in the library and to model the type of reading activity that we learned that day, it was necessary for everyone to see the book together – instead of using the analog version of this approach where the instructor reads each page aloud and then walks around the room to share the pictures – hoping that everyone remembered what was read.” “AirMedia capabilities afforded some teachers the opportunities to tell a stronger, richer story in those 5 minutes, through displaying their lesson plan, task, and student work in ways that were easily accessible to all” “Discussions of narrative and video cases- analyses were posted via Google Forms through D2L, then group responses were shared out via AIrMedia to allow rather than being shared out verbally and having me make a summary char at the front of the room” “Analyses of student work could be accomplished rather than through copied packets, through the use of PDFS linked on D2L, discussed on individual devices in small groups and discuss with the student work displayed on the large monitors to a whole group”
- Facilitate small group work, proven pedagogical practice Again, you can see faculty member is unthethered and can sit anywhere “The ALC provided appropriate spaces for us to break into groups and do this work without being overwhelmed/distracted by the discussions of other groups” This is the verb furniture we felt would give a room a bit more structure and familiarity than the node (movable single chairs) “Tables allowed for the students to have space for their reading and research materials in addition to space for their laptops, tables, or smart phones while they worked together.” There has been decades of research in the social sciences that if you alter the nonverbal, the objectics or environmentics than it will impact the way people interact.
- Percent Responding “Very Often” or “Always” Instructors were given an orientation to the space There was a dialogue with pre-scripted prompts to drive a discussion on how to use the space, in particular for active learning pedagogies Faculty developers were in attendance to share their own experiences using active learning pedagogies in the classroom However, there was not a formal faculty development program on how to teach in a f2f classroom or an ALC classroom. We took a more grounded approach due to the history of folks teaching in f2f classrooms. It is a touchy paradigm to touch and say, hey, we are going to teach you how to teach in a f2f classroom. We had folks that were C&I folks to Engineering and Architects….lots of diversity in teaching approaches Even though there was not…there was a transforming and move to active learning for those It was difficult for some. There also was a natural move to blended or flipped instruction for some.
- Just a couple other notes on digital displays and whiteboards… Instructors used whiteboards to facilitate active learning. Although instructors loved them, students were less enthused. They were a great tool to help instructors start “doing” active learning. Whiteboards: “The small whiteboards turned out to be the ‘key’ technology. I keep thinking how similar this is to the slate boards in a 19th century, one-room school house. Having students write out their questions beforehand helped to shape the class agenda” How used: Students wrote down questions about the course material before the class began on their own whiteboards this helped them “engage and get into the swing of things.” Also, it “helped to form the agenda for the class discussion. I make the assumption that asking questions opens cognitive pathways ot larning. Asking students to write their questions on the whiteboards was very effective at ensuring participation.” “allowed for small group work to be shared without using flip boards, etc. Additionally the whiteboards allowed for drawing and other types of illustrations” “Rather than solving a mathematical task and summarizing or reproducing those responses again for a whole-class discussion, could be used both to do initial work and to immediately display and discuss their work.” Effective Practices: Require students to write down initial questions on the individual project boards at the beginning of class Use individual project boards to share ideas with one another Outcomes: Assists students in visually comprehending the material Enhances active listening and critical thinking Requires student accountability
- Others used the whiteboard at times as a front of the classroom space. “Later in the semester, we rearranged the tables to form a horseshoe in order to focus more on the writing [on] the whiteboard. “I also found that remaining seated helped to facilitate discussion” “Used to review student projects. Most of the time, we relied on the smaller whiteboards and the larger white board”
- More of a move towards active learning, Still focuses around the display, instructor “displaced,” but active peer engagement and use of whiteboards.
- A second set of regressions added all three control variables, accounting for the amount of perceived active learning and use of ALC materials. In predicting satisfaction, perceived learning and active learning entered and were significantly and positively associated with satisfaction, F(2, 47) = 58.57, p<.001. Approximately 70% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .701) in satisfaction can be accounted for by perceived learning and active learning. This is an increase of 2.5% in explanatory power from the nested model. three active learning components (ALC Media, Active Learning, Group/Peer For Student Activities, Students reported significantly higher Satisfaction AND Learning when the following activities were performed more in ALC: Students come to class with assignments and readings completed (blended) Students generate questions from readings and lecture When students help explain ideas of concepts to other students Conduct web or internet research in-class Students solve problems in ALC For Instructor Activities, Students reported significantly higher Satisfaction AND Learning when the following activities were performed more in ALC: The instructor provides a demonstration The instructor breaks the class into groups The instructor stages a debate in class The instructor requires students to solve real-world problems The instructor requires students to analyze scenarios or case studies Require students to conduct internet research or locate information online The instructor grades students on group work Not significant The instructor lectures in class, shows website or videos in class The instructor or the student uses whiteboards Have students interact in large groups
- Faculty development program now delivered in the classroom ALC compliments existing design of the faculty development program, since it already focused on active learning First hand experience of blended/flipped instruction through blended and flipped faculty development
- Students’ answers indicate hope for improved ALC spaces on campus. Improved technology, a better space on campus, and effective teaching practices are all cited as the most important factors to be considered going forth with ALC spaces. Students indicate an expectation that the ALC space and technology used in their classroom, particularly if it is unconventional technology, is user-friendly and with minimal complications if they are expected to participate within the pilot. Also, students are perceptive in understanding that how an instructor uses the space is going to have a significant impact on the learning outcome. Instructor responses also indicate a need for in-depth professional development workshops for those considering, not considering, and using ALC spaces. Instructors need to give special consideration and attention to how their traditional class needs to be adapted to fit the ALC space. Given that the ALC is a radically different space than the traditional classroom and calls upon different pedagogies than that typically seen in classrooms, it is important instructors revamp their courses to merge the theory of ALC with the practical application of it.