Active University Teaching and Engaged Student Learning: A Mixed Methods Approach
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to examine how learning space design and implementation of an active learning pedagogy based on the 5E Instructional Model influence university faculty’s teaching practices and students’ engagement. Faculty Fellows were recruited from a public, medium-sized university in the United States to teach courses, typically taught in a traditional classroom setting, in a new Active Learning Center (ALC) classroom. The classroom was funded by a Steelcase® Education Active Learning Center Grant that provided innovative and dynamic classroom furnishings and technology that allowed mobility and flexibility for both instructors and students. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently in this study. The quantitative analysis results indicated that the ALC learning experience significantly improved students’ class participation and cognitive attentiveness, but had no effect on improving their meaningful processing of new information. The qualitative analysis results, while providing new insights into the quantitative findings, revealed the faculty fellows’ changes and weaknesses in teaching practices and the mechanism of the ALC in supporting active learning. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
References
Adedokun, O., Parker, L., Henke, J., & Burgess, W. (2017). Student Perceptions of a 21st Century Learning Space. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(1). Retrieved from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/1339
Baepler, P., & Walker, J.D. (2014). Active learning classrooms and educational alliances: Changing relationships to improve learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014 (137), 27-1640. doi: 10.1002/tl.20083
Basye, D., Grant, P., Hausman, S., & Johnston, T. (2015). Get active: Reimagining learning spaces for student success. Eugene, OR and Arlington, VA: International Society for Technology in Education.
Beichner, R. J. (2014). History and evolution of active learning spaces. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014 (137), 9-16. doi: 10.1002/tl.20081
Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The influence of active learning on the college student departure process: Toward a revision of Tinto’s theory. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 569-590. doi. 10.2307/2649260
Brooks, D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5). 719-726. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2010.01098.x
Brooks, D. C. (2012). Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning spaces on instructor and student behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2). Retrieved from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/285/282
Brooks, D. C., & Solheim, C.A. (2014). Pedagogy matters, too: The impact of adapting teaching approaches to formal learning environments on student learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014 (137), 53-61. doi: 10.1002/tl.20085
Brooks, D. C., Walker, J.D., & Baepler, P. (2014). Editors’ notes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014 (137), 1-7. doi: 10.1002/tl.20080
Bruner, J. (1966). The process of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications. Science and Children, 51(8), 10-13. doi:10.2505/4/sc14_051_08_10
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 2–7. doi:10.1016/0307-4412(89)90094-0
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Daly, C. J. (2011). Faculty learning communities: Addressing the professional development needs of faculty and the learning needs of students. Currents in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 3-16.
Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: method, applications and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13, 313–321.
Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
Falance, T. (2001). Constructivism. In K. L. Medsker & K. M. Holdsworth (Eds.), Models and strategies for training design (pp. 213-233). Silver Spring, MD: International Society for Performance.
Falk, B. (2009). Teaching the way children learn. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Folkins, J. W., Friberg, J. C., & Cesarini, P. A. (2015). University classroom design principles to facilitate learning: The instructor as advocate. Planning for Higher Education Journal, 3(2), 45-62.
Harris, M., & Cullen, R. (2008). Learner-centered leadership: An agenda for action. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 21-28. doi: 10.1007/s10755-007-9059-3
Hodder, I. (1994) The Interpretation of Documents and Material Culture. In: N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 393-402). London: Sage.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 77-88. 10.1177/1049732305276687
Jessop, T., Gubby, L., & Smith, A. (2012). Space frontiers for new pedagogies: A tale of constraints and possibilities. Studies in Higher Education, 37(2), 189-202. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.503270
Keengwe, J. (2015). Handbook of research on educational technology and active learning. Hershey PA: IGI Global.
Kolis, M., Krusack, E., Stombaugh, A., Stow, R., & Brenner, G.H. (2011). Designing learning lessons for the university classroom. Currents in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 34-42.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lumpkin, A., Achen, R. M., & Dodd, R. K., (2015). Student perceptions of active learning. College Student Journal, 49(1), 121-133.
McArthur, J. (2015). Matching Instructors and Spaces of Learning: The impact of classroom space on behavioral, affective and cognitive learning. Journal of Learning Spaces, 4(1). Retrieved from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/766
Michael, J. (2007). Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. College Teaching, 55 (2), 42-47. doi:10.3200/ctch.55.2.42-47
Miller, C. J., & Metz, M. J. (2014). A comparison of professional-level faculty and student perceptions of active learning: Its current use, effectiveness, and barriers. Advanced Physical Education, 38, 246-252. doi:10.1152/advan.00014.2014
Montgomery, T. (2008). Space matters: Experiences of managing static formal learning spaces. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 122–38. doi: 10.1177/1469787408090839
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (n.d). 5Es overview: The 5E instructional model. Retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/nasaeclips/5eteachingmodels/
O’Leary, M. (2014). Classroom observations: A guide to the effective observation of teaching and learning. London: Routledge.
Park, E. L., & Choi, B. K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active learning classroom in college. Higher Education, 68, 749-771. doi: 10.1007/s10734-0149742-0
Parsons, C. (2016). Space and consequences: The influence of the roundtable classroom design on student dialogue. Journal of Learning Spaces, 5(2). Retrieved from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/1241
Pavlechko, G. M., & Jacobi, K. L. (2014). Faculty development: Precursor to effective student engagement in the higher education learning space. In L. Scott-Webber, J. Branch, P. Bartholomew, & C. Nygaard (Eds), Learning space design in higher education (pp. 169190). Faringdon, Oxfordshire; Libri Publishing.
Peterson, C. I., & Gorman, K. S. (2014). Strategies to address common challenges when teaching in an active learning classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014 (137), 63-70. doi: 10.1002/tl.20086
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. New York: Grossman.
Rands, M., & Gansemer-Topf, A. (2017). “The room itself is active:” How classroom design impacts student engagement. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(1). Retrieved from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/1286
Sandelowski, M. (1995) Qualitative analysis: what it is and how to begin? Research in Nursing & Health, 18, 371–375.
Sawers, K., Wicks, D., Mvududu, N., Seeley, L., & Copeland, R. (2016). What Drives Student Engagement: Is it Learning Space, Instructor Behavior or Teaching Philosophy?. Journal of Learning Spaces, 5(2). Retrieved from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/1247
Schreiner, L., & Louis, M. (2006, November). Measuring engaged learning in college students: Beyond the borders of NSSE. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Anaheim, CA.
Sickel, A. J., Witzig, S. B., Vanmali, B. H., & Abell, S. K. (2013). The nature of discourse throughout 5E lessons in a large enrollment college biology course. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 637-665. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9281-6
Steelcase. (2016). Our innovation legacy began when we received our first patent in 1914. Retrieved from https://www.steelcase.com/corporate-information/
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Sullivan, M. (2015). Maker, tinker, hacker? Active learning spaces in K/12 libraries. Library Media Connection, 33(5).
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-184. doi: 10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1
Tanner, K. D. (2010). Order matters: Using the 5E Instructional Model to align teaching with how people learn. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9, 159-164. doi:10.1187/cbe.10-060082
Williams, N. (2010). Embracing student potential: Creating space for intrinsic motivation in community college developmental reading classes. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 25(2), 35-43. doi:10.9707/2168-149X.1075