Findings from the Steelcase Active Learning Classroom pilot
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•441 views
This document summarizes findings from a study on the use of active learning classrooms (ALCs) at UWM Steelcase Innovation Hub. Student surveys showed high levels of agreement that the ALCs provided a comfortable learning environment, appropriate space, and flexibility. Instructors reported that ALCs allowed for student-driven learning and enhanced engagement. Regression analysis found that interactivity and satisfaction predicted perceived learning, while active learning activities and instructor expectations predicted learning and satisfaction. Overall, both students and instructors responded positively to the use of ALCs.
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Findings from the Steelcase Active Learning Classroom pilot
Similar to Findings from the Steelcase Active Learning Classroom pilot (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Findings from the Steelcase Active Learning Classroom pilot
- 1. UWM Steelcase Innovation Hub and Active Learning Classroom Findings by UWM eLearning Research and Development 9.16.14 Tanya M. Joosten | tjoosten@uwm.edu | @tjoosten
- 2. Spring 2014 participants Instructor Unit Course Donna Pasternak Curriculum & Instruction Introduction to Children's and Young Adult Literature Dan M. Ionel Electrical Engineering EE575 Analysis of Electric Machine and Motor Drives Brian Schermer Architecture Architectural Programming John A Berges Biological Sciences BioSci 194: Biology-one equation at a time Mike Steele Curriculum and Instruction CURRINS 431 - Student Teaching (Mathematics) Casey O'Brien Women's Studies Foundations of Women's Studies Writing and Research Megan Haak Educational Policy & Community Studies Research Techniques for Community Organizers and Community Educators
- 3. Student reactions • Survey administered Spring 2014 • N=50 • Descriptive statistics – Agree (Strongly agree and agree) – Neutral (Neither agree/disagree) – Disagree (Disagree and strongly disagree)
- 4. 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
- 5. 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
- 6. 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
- 7. 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 and Performance
- 9. 76% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Instructor Activities Student Activities 76% 62% 68% 80% 70% 44% 64% 36% 58% Require/Create discussion Use Whiteboards Break into Groups Asking Questions of Students/Classmates Utilizing Online Discussion and Materials Percent Responding “Very Often” or “Always”
- 10. Multivariate results Outcomes: Learning and Satisfaction
- 11. Components Component # of Variables Variables Alpha Means Standard Dev. Learning 11 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
- 12. Interactivity Satisfaction F(2, 47) = 59.56, p<.001 Learning Approximately 71% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by interactivity and satisfaction (adjusted R2 = .705) Perceived Learning
- 13. Instructor Expectations Active Learning Activities F(2, 47) = 19.615, p<.001 Learning Approximately 43% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by interactivity and satisfaction (adjusted R2 = .432) Perceived Learning
- 14. Learning Active Learning Activities F(2, 47) = 58.57, p<.001 Satisfaction Approximately 70% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by interactivity and satisfaction (adjusted R2 = .701) Predicting Student Satisfaction
- 15. Outcome Variable Significant Predictor Variables F - Statistic Adj. R2 Learning Satisfaction (p< .001) + Interact (p=.021) F(2,47) = 59.56 0.705 Satisfaction Learning (p< .001) F(1, 48) = 103.41 0.676 Satisfaction Learning (p<.001) + ActLearn (p=.030) F(2,47) = 58.57 0.701 Learning Satisfaction (p<.001) + InstructExp (p<.001) + Interact (p=.004) F(3,46) = 56.27 0.772 Regressions with Active Learning Variables Predicting Learning, Satisfaction, & Interactivity Learning InstructExp (p<.001) + ActiveLearn (p=.011) F(2,47) = 19.615 0.432 Satisfaction ActiveLearn (p=.01) + InstructExp (p=.012) F(2,47) = 15.647 0.374 Interactivity ActiveLearn (p<.001) F(1,48) = 16.198 0.237
- 16. What did the instructors think?
- 17. Why Use ALC’s? • Allows for “student-driven” methods of learning • Enhances “student-centered” pedagogy • Represents “the future” for classroom learning
- 18. Typical to ALC Enhanced Pedagogy Flexibility of Learning Richer Engagement Comfortable Atmosphere Student Agency
- 19. Whiteboards
- 20. Whiteboards
- 21. Learning Technologies • Use the screens to visualize/share student projects • Enhance active listening • Enable richer classroom discussion
- 22. Furniture
- 23. Furniture • Moveable furniture allows for small group work • Different design (i.e., U-Shaped) Choices • Small table groups under each monitor “allowed for flexibility of students to change groups, work within groups and pairs, and confer with the instructor”
- 25. What about the students? • Students report: – Closer interpersonal relationships – Instructors are decentralized – More accountability placed on students – Comfortable atmosphere conductive to active learning – Perceived richer discussion
- 26. Conclusion • Positive outcome • Requires instructors to rethink pedagogy • Students excited about the unique learning space • Biggest suggestion for instructors: Experiment
- 27. Last Remarks “Overall it was extremely positive. [T]he space is thoughtfully laid out, we were well supported in thinking through innovative uses of the space, and it influenced by teaching in positive ways.” “The space by its nature compels you to think differently and more flexibly about how you use instructional resources and support discourse in the classroom.”
- 28. Fall 2014 participants Instructor Unit Amy Mangrich Art and Design, L&S Humanities John Berges Biological Sciences Shelleen Greene Art and Design Mike Steele Curriculum and Instruction Dylan Barth English Casey O'Brien Women’s Studies Dan M. Ionel Electrical Engineering Jude Rathburn Business
- 29. Questions? Please contact tjoosten@uwm.edu or el-RD@uwm.edu for more information. Thanks to the eL R&D team, Rachel Cusatis and Lindsey Harness for their analysis efforts.
Editor's Notes
- For Spring 2014, stepwise regression analyses were performed to test whether interactivity, satisfaction, and flexibility contribute significantly in predicting students’ self-reported learning outcomes. Course size and mode were entered first as control variables. After controlling for course size and mode, flexibility and interactivity entered in to the model and were significantly associated with learning, F(2, 144) = 328.60, p<.001. Approximately 82% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .818) in learning could be accounted for by flexibility and interactivity. For Fall 2013, Flexibility and Interactivity/Engagement entered in to the model and were significantly associated with learning, F(2, 79) = 154.1, p<.001. Approximately 79% of the variance in Learning is explained by Flexibility and Interactivity (adjusted R2 = .791). Both controls, discipline and content, as well as Satisfaction did not enter into our model.
- For Spring 2014, stepwise regression analyses were performed to test whether interactivity, satisfaction, and flexibility contribute significantly in predicting students’ self-reported learning outcomes. Course size and mode were entered first as control variables. After controlling for course size and mode, flexibility and interactivity entered in to the model and were significantly associated with learning, F(2, 144) = 328.60, p<.001. Approximately 82% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .818) in learning could be accounted for by flexibility and interactivity. For Fall 2013, Flexibility and Interactivity/Engagement entered in to the model and were significantly associated with learning, F(2, 79) = 154.1, p<.001. Approximately 79% of the variance in Learning is explained by Flexibility and Interactivity (adjusted R2 = .791). Both controls, discipline and content, as well as Satisfaction did not enter into our model.
- For Spring 2014, stepwise regression analyses were performed to test whether interactivity, satisfaction, and flexibility contribute significantly in predicting students’ self-reported learning outcomes. Course size and mode were entered first as control variables. After controlling for course size and mode, flexibility and interactivity entered in to the model and were significantly associated with learning, F(2, 144) = 328.60, p<.001. Approximately 82% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .818) in learning could be accounted for by flexibility and interactivity. For Fall 2013, Flexibility and Interactivity/Engagement entered in to the model and were significantly associated with learning, F(2, 79) = 154.1, p<.001. Approximately 79% of the variance in Learning is explained by Flexibility and Interactivity (adjusted R2 = .791). Both controls, discipline and content, as well as Satisfaction did not enter into our model.
- How was using the ALC different than using a “typical” classroom? -Room to move around/ Flexibility in class management and course structure (i.e., lecture-based, group activities, mixture) -Project screens allowed ease of viewing material no matter one’s location -Provided flexibility of learning. “The whiteboards allowed for drawing and other types of illustrations.” -Created an atmosphere focused on the student’s comfort increasing their likelihood of participation. How did the ALC Change how you taught from previous semesters? In the past, the humanities course had to be taught in a typical classroom and then an Enderis lab. The students and teacher were required to move between these two rooms in order to meet the learning objectives of the course. The ALC setting enabled enhanced flexibility and without having to switch spaces, disrupting the learning experience. “It allowed me to move towards deeper and richer analyses and discussions of mathematics teaching and learning. Conversations involved multiple sources of evidence, moved across communication contexts to include visual, gestural, and discursive components, and stayed grounded in evidence rather than drifting into opinion and evaluations (a common tack when discussing teaching). In a typical classroom, participation and discussion can be lacking but in the ALC students used the whiteboards at the beginning of the class to write down the questions. “I tried to sort the boards into categories of questions, which made me think on my feet…there is an honest to” seeing a teacher giving spontaneous, serious consideration to answers.
- 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
- 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
- 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” Center screen: “Used to review student projects. Most of the time, we relied on the smaller whiteboards and the larger white board” “Allowed almost everyone to view material easily – from D2L discussions, Google documents, and videos”
- Moveable furniture: “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. And- they needed space for the larger picturebooks many of them read.” “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” “Later in the semester, we rearranged the tables to form a horseshoe in order to focus more on the writing of the blackboard. I also found that remaining seated helped to facilitate discussion”
- Moveable furniture: “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. And- they needed space for the larger picturebooks many of them read.” “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” “Later in the semester, we rearranged the tables to form a horseshoe in order to focus more on the writing of the blackboard. I also found that remaining seated helped to facilitate discussion”
- “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” “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”
- Most instructors in the pilot report absolutely recommending the space to colleagues. One instructor stated, “Absolutely. The space by its nature compels you to think differently and more flexibly about how you use instructional resources and support discourse in the classroom.” The biggest suggestion professors in the pilot have for future instructors using the ALC is to “experiment.” As on stated, “Experiment and improvise while you are teaching in the space – look for opportunistic moments to use the resources in different ways than what you had anticipated” Another instructor stated, “Overall it was extremely positive. AirMedia issues aside, the space is thoughtfully laid out, we were well supported in thinking through innovative uses of the space, and it influenced by teaching in positive ways.”