Content uploaded by Sehoya Cotner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sehoya Cotner on Nov 02, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
82
Journal of College Science Teaching
RESEARCH AND TEACHING
“It’s Not You, It’s the Room”—
Are the High-Tech, Active Learning
Classrooms Worth It?
By Sehoya Cotner, Jessica Loper, J. D. Walker, and D. Christopher Brooks
Several institutions have redesigned
traditional learning spaces to better
realize the potential of active,
experiential learning. We compare
student performance in traditional
and active learning classrooms
in a large, introductory biology
course using the same syllabus,
course goals, exams, and instructor.
Using ACT scores as predictive,
we found that students in the active
learning classroom outperformed
expectations, whereas those in the
traditional classroom did not. By
replicating initial work, our results
that new, technology-enhanced
learning environments positively
and independently affect student
learning. Our data suggest that
creating space for active learning
can improve student performance
in science courses. However, we
recognize that such a commitment
of resources is impractical for
many institutions, and we offer
recommendations for applying what
we have learned to more traditional
spaces.
Among active learning strat-
egies, team-based learning
(or cooperative learning)
has perhaps the longest
history and the richest evidentiary
basis (Michael, 2006; Prince, 2004;
Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999).
Ye t a rc h i te c tu r a ll y, tr a d it i on a l c la s s -
rooms with rows of students facing
a single focal point—the instructor
or a central screen or board—are not
necessarily conducive to peer interac-
tion (Milne, 2006; Oblinger, 2006).
In response to this perceived barrier
to the implementation of active learn-
ing strategies, a few institutions have
-
tire classrooms (e.g., North Carolina
State University’s SCALE-UP class-
rooms [Beichner et al., 2007] and the
TEAL project at MIT [Dori, 2007]).
These rooms are designed to encour-
age student interaction and facilitate
active or team-based collaborative
learning by including features such as
round tables, movable chairs, student
laptop connections for sharing work
on overhead projectors, and tableside
whiteboards.
Some work has been done to as-
sess the effectiveness of these rooms
in contributing to meaningful student
interactions and in increasing student
understanding of course material (Dori
& Belcher, 2005; Gaffney, Richards,
Kustusch, Ding, & Beichner, 2008).
At both North Carolina State Univer-
classrooms had lower failure rates
and increased levels of conceptual
understanding compared with students
taking the course in a traditional class-
room using a lecture-based approach.
However, the interpretation of these
early results is constrained because of
-
controls to make a case for the physical
space as opposed to the instructor (or
pedagogical approach) in contributing
to student gains.
After a pilot study of two active
learning classrooms (or ALCs), the
University of Minnesota constructed
the new Science Teaching and Student
Services (STSS) building with 10
ALCs (Whiteside, Brooks, & Walker,
2010). These classrooms, modeled in
part on North Carolina State Univer-
sity’s SCALE-UP classrooms, consist
of a centralized teaching station with
technological controls and from 3 to
14 nine-person round tables, each
of which has several laptop connec-
tions, a dedicated large overhead LCD
screen, whiteboard space, several
microphones, and visual access to
large projection screens (Figure 1).
Constructing these rooms required
commitment of scarce resources, ex-
penditures that are especially onerous
for a public institution facing budget
constraints and increased tuition
costs in a strapped economy. Was the
investment worth it?
83Vol. 42, No. 6, 2013
Learning gains in
active learning
classrooms
To determine whether
the investment has had
the desired effects, re-
searchers at the Univer-
sity of Minnesota have
engaged in a longitudi-
nal investigation of the
ALCs’ impact on how
instructors teach and
how students learn.
Early work on the
ALCs (Whiteside et al.,
2010) focused on student
and faculty attitudes,
expectations, and per-
ceptions of the rooms.
Faculty members had
high expectations when
they began teaching in
the ALCs and strongly
positive attitudes toward
the spaces at the end of
the term; many noted
that their role changed
in the ALCs, shifting
to the role of a learning
coach or facilitator. Stu-
dents also had strongly
positive attitudes toward
the ALCs, particularly
regarding the rooms’ fa-
cilitation of teamwork
and collaboration with
their classmates and the
ability of ALCs to appeal
to a variety of learning
styles. Both faculty and
students noted the impor-
tance of the round-table
design in altering the
classroom dynamic in
important ways. How-
ever, some differences
emerged: Freshmen and
sophomores rated the
rooms more highly than
FIGURE 1
Top: Layout of traditional classroom (STSS 220). Bottom: Layout of active learning
classroom (STSS 330). More details available at http://www.classroom.umn.edu/.
84
Journal of College Science Teaching
research and teaching
did upperclassmen, and metropolitan
students perceived the rooms as more
useful than did students from rural
backgrounds.
Preliminary study
Following initial work on percep-
tions and attitudes, researchers
worked with a faculty member to
design a quasi-experimental study
in an effort to isolate the impact
of the room itself on student learn-
ing. The instructor taught the same
section of an introductory biology
course (Postsecondary Teaching
and Learning 1131), but in two dif-
ferent rooms—an ALC and a tradi-
tional classroom. The two sections
were taught at the same time of day,
yet on different days of the week.
Course materials, assignments, ex-
ams, and pedagogical approaches
were controlled across sections; the
only factor that varied systemati-
cally was the room itself. Research-
ers were unable to assign students
randomly to the treatment and ex-
perimental sections; however, stu-
dents were unaware of the room dif-
ferences during course registration,
allowing for post hoc demographic
equivalency to be established. The
only anomaly that emerged between
the sections was that students in the
traditional classroom had, on aver-
than did students in the ALC (22.54
vs. 20.52; p < .05). Given the pre-
dictive nature of ACT scores (e.g.,
ACT, 2007; Marsh, Vandehey, &
Diekhoff, 2008; Stumpf & Stanley,
2002), we expected students in the
traditional classroom to earn higher
grades than their peers in the ALC.
However, at the end of the term,
in class performance, on identical
metrics, between the two sections
-
gested that the ALCs positively af-
fected student learning.
Methods and data collection
In spring 2011, we sought to rep-
licate these initial results using a
similar quasi-experimental design
with a different course, different in-
structor, and groups of students that
were both larger and more represen-
tative of our general student popu-
lation than the students involved in
instructor worked with two groups
of students enrolled in an introduc-
tory biology course for nonscience
majors (Biology 1003). One group
met in a traditional classroom, the
other in an ALC. In addition to con-
trolling for instructor, every attempt
was made to keep course material
and designed activities the same
across the two sections. Laboratory
exercises were identical, as were
quizzes, homework assignments,
and all three major exams.
Biology 1003 is a large introduc-
tory class (N = 161 and 102 for the
traditional and active sections, respec-
tively). Survey data were collected via
surveys administered in class on the
last day of the term. The University
of Minnesota’s Institutional Review
Board approved the protocol, and
we obtained informed consent for
all subjects. Demographic and grade
TABLE 1
Students in the traditional classroom had signicantly higher ACT
scores (yet did not perform signicantly better in the course).
Traditional classroom ALC Dierence
Age 19.78
(0.18)
161
20.43
(0.32)
102
0.65
Sex (female = 1) 0.76
(0.03)
161
0.65
(0.05)
102
0.11
Caucasian 0.82
(0.03)
164
0.78
(0.04)
102
0.04
Year (senior = 4;
rst year = 1)
2.03
(0.08)
162
2.19
(0.11)
101
0.16
Metropolitan 0.75
(0.04)
107
0.66
(0.06)
74
0.09
ACT score 26.36
(0.31)
139
25.32
(0.37)
81
1.04*
Grade (% of total) 77.77
(0.69)
161
76.69
(0.84)
102
1.28
Note: Cell entries for each classroom are means, standard errors (in parentheses),
and the number of cases for two-group, mean-comparison tests. ALC = active
learning classroom.
*p < .05.
85Vol. 42, No. 6, 2013
data were supplied by the University
the instructor, respectively.
A project PI and a trained student
researcher collected observational
data on 50% of randomly selected
class periods for both sections. An
observer recorded the levels at which
students appeared to be “on task,” as
-
iors of the instructor (e.g., lecturing,
consulting individuals or groups, and
working problems with the document
scanner) and the students (e.g., con-
sulting in a group, asking questions,
and working on a group activity).
about their experiences and percep-
tions in their respective classrooms
on the last day of class. The design
was intentionally quasi-experimental
in that we used principles of experi-
mental design, but we were unable to
randomly assign subjects to control
and experimental groups. However,
we worked with the same instruc-
tor, same syllabus, and same test
items, and the sections were offered
back-to-back in the late morning on
the same days (Tuesdays and Thurs-
days); only the space was allowed
to vary systematically. Although the
random assignment of students into
sections that would have afforded a
fully experimental design was not
possible, the enrollment process (e.g.,
coupled with post hoc equivalency
tests, essentially approximates ran-
domization. We suspect dialogue
between the sections was minimal to
nonexistent: Students enrolled from
a variety of majors within a very
large university, lab sections were
the sections—although offered back-
the classroom building with only 15
minutes separating them.
FIGURE 2
Expected versus actual grades (BIOL 1003). Students in the ALC earned
signicantly higher nal grades than their ACT scores predicted (****p
< .0001).
All instruments used in this re-
search have been tested for scale reli-
ability and validity and are available
online at http://z.umn.edu/lsr.
Results
Like our earlier study, students in the
traditional classroom had, on aver-
and were thus expected to outperform
students in the ALC. And, like our
-
different across sections (Table 1).
Given what we know about the pre-
dictive capacity of the ACT scores
Using a point estimation regression
model, we expected students in the
ALC to earn approximately 6 per-
grades than their peers in the tradi-
tional classroom; instead, students in
the ALC earned half of a letter grade
more than expected (p < .0001; Fig-
ure 2). However, just as we observed
2011), the altered environment did
not undermine the ACT’s predictive
power. In both classrooms, the ACT
score served as a reliable predictor
of performance, predicting 20% and
23% of variation in student grades in
the traditional and ALC spaces, re-
spectively (Table 2, Model 1). Even
when we control for a host of demo-
graphic variables, ACT composite
scores continued to be the only sig-
with little explanatory improvement
over the initial model (Table 2, Mod-
els 2 and 3). Thus, the patterns of evi-
-
and independent impact on student
performance—are identical.
In the ALC, the same instructor,
teaching the same material, spent
86
Journal of College Science Teaching
research and teaching
more time consulting and leading
group activities and less time at the
podium (Figure 3). Furthermore, tet-
rachoric correlational analysis (rho)
-
tionships between ALCs and group
activities (p < .05) and consultation (p
< .01), and negative relationships with
location in the room (p < .05).
Several significant differences
emerged in student perceptions of the
learning spaces (Figure 4): Students
in the ALC reported a higher level of
engagement than did their peers in
the traditional classroom (p < .0001);
also, ALC students reported higher
activities (p
in the ALC perceived a higher align-
ment between the room and the course
(p < .01).
Discussion
the ALC outperformed their coun-
terparts in the traditional classroom,
everything else being equal (gender,
race, year in school, etc.). By replicat-
ing initial work, our results provide
technology-enhanced learning envi-
ronments positively and independent-
ly affect student learning.
We are doubly intrigued by the
fact that these effects were noted in
the courses of two very different, but
skilled and experienced, instructors—
one a faculty member using a hybrid
lecture problem-solving approach
in both classrooms and one a faculty
member using active-lecturing tech-
niques with both groups (the present
study).
How can a classroom positively
aect student learning?
Work on learning spaces encourages
us to reevaluate the role of a physi-
cal space in facilitating or hindering
the construction of knowledge (Whi-
-
ditional classrooms, especially those
with chairs bolted in place, empha-
size the instructor over the student
and make group formation seem awk-
ward and contrived. Round tables al-
low students “face time” with other
students, deemphasize the role of the
instructor, and permit groups to form
naturally. We tested these predictions
via a systematic analysis of student
and instructor behaviors, throughout
the course of a class session, in 15
randomly selected sessions during the
semester.
Our analysis of classroom behaviors
highlights some possible causes for the
spite of concerted effects to maintain
equivalency across the two sections,
the space itself appears to have ex-
acted behavioral differences in course
delivery. Student survey responses
reinforce this notion (Figure 4). We
acknowledge that positive student
perceptions of the impact of the room
are not the same as saying the room
actually has an impact. Regardless,
these data are consistent with the be-
havioral differences and performance
gains documented previously.
Was the investment worth it?
We believe that the investment in
ALCs at the University of Minnesota
was worth it. Documented increases
average gains of nearly 5 percentage
-
ments in the student academic ex-
perience that few educational inter-
ventions could aspire to. However,
whether these improvements warrant
TABLE 2
Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression of ACT score on course grade,
by section.
Traditional classroom ALC
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
ACT
composite
score
1.06***
(0.18)
0.97***
(0.19)
0.97***
(0.21)
1.25***
(0.25)
1.23***
(0.28)
1.06**
(0.35)
Age –0.08
(0.45)
–0.10
(0.45)
–0.03
(0.77)
–1.64
(1.28)
Sex 2.63
(1.62)
2.34
(1.98)
1.32
(1.89)
0.85
(2.36)
Caucasian 3.32
(2.06)
0.70
(2.53)
2.77
(2.33)
1.21
(2.85)
Year –1.23
(0.82)
–1.17
(0.92)
–0.80
(1.19)
0.75
(1.78)
Metro –2.61
(1.72)
–3.38
(2.26)
Constant 50.58***
(4.74)
51.75***
(10.97)
57.03***
(12.13)
44.93***
(6.31)
44.35*
(17.56)
81.32**
(27.45)
Adjusted R20.20 0.24 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.22
N139 139 97 81 81 58
Note: Cell entries are unstandardized OLS regression coecients with standard errors
in parentheses. ALC = active learning classroom.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
87Vol. 42, No. 6, 2013
the capital investment in ALCs is a
judgment each educational institution
must make for itself, drawing on local
priorities and resources.
Instructors may need to think seri-
ously and creatively about changing
the manner in which they deliver their
courses in spaces such as these—not
only for the sake of navigating the
challenges of teaching in a decentered
space, but also to take advantage of
the features of the room that allow us
learning. The classroom architecture is
bound to frustrate the efforts of faculty
who don’t yield to the rooms’ novel
“stage” from which to deliver a tradi-
tional lecture. Half of the students in
the class may be facing away from the
instructor at any given time. Teachers
who view silence as engagement will
need to adjust their perceptions, as
one goal of decentralized classrooms
is increased small-group interaction
and this activity can be noisy and dif-
the ALCs at our institution, there is
a learning curve with respect to the
technological capabilities of the rooms.
Considering these hurdles, a sub-
stantial commitment to the ALC is
required from instructional staff. As
evidence of this commitment, a va-
riety of institutional resources exist
at the University of Minnesota to aid
faculty in the transition to these novel
learning spaces. Resources range from
technology training courses, to month-
long workshops, to 18-month faculty
development programs—all designed
to support technology-enhanced learn-
ing. A faculty-development program
explicitly focused on ALCs would be
a welcome addition to this arsenal.
Given the resources expended in
making this transformation, faculty
should require evidence of the ALCs’
effectiveness. In addition to the exist-
ing work on student engagement via
active learning, the results described
herein document the positive impacts
of designing spaces for active learning.
Recognizing that such a commit-
ment of resources is impractical for
many institutions, we offer recom-
mendations for applying what we’ve
learned to more traditional spaces.
Figures 3 and 4 suggest that the ben-
on small-group interaction (e.g., the
round, nine-person tables). Namely,
any efforts to decentralize the room,
with an overt focus on group dialogue,
are likely to increase the individual
student’s sense of accountability and
lead to the learning gains that result
from peer interaction. Decentralization
can be accomplished several ways,
from something as simple as movable
chairs, to small tables with white-
boards for impromptu problem-solving
or presentation, to full-blown ALCs as
documented previously. When a stu-
time, he or she gets a clear message
that this class will not be “business
that this message, and the gains we
associate with ALCs, can be achieved
in numerous ways by inspired faculty
seeking the best for their students. n
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the generous
Information Technology at the University
of Minnesota. We thank the Biology
Program for additional support, and of
course we are forever indebted to our
students.
FIGURE 3
Interval frequency of observed classroom activity and instructor
behavior (BIOL 1003): traditional vs. ALC. Data are percentages of
5-minute intervals in which the activity or behavior was observed.
Given that more than one activity or behavior was possible in any given
interval, totals do not sum to 100%. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
88
Journal of College Science Teaching
research and teaching
References
ACT. (2007). The ACT technical manual.
Iowa City, IA: Author.
Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D.
S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D. L.,
Allain, R. J., . . . Risley, J. S. (2007).
Student-centered activities for large
enrollment undergraduate programs
(SCALE-UP) project. In E. F. Redish
& P. J. Cooney (Eds.), Research-
based reform of university physics
(pp. 2–42). College Park, MD:
American Association of Physics
Teachers.
Brooks, D. C. (2011). Space matters:
The impact of formal learning
environments on student learning.
British Journal of Educational
Te ch no l og y, 4 2 , 719–726.
Dori, Y. J. (2007). Educational reform
at MIT: Advancing and evaluating
technology-based projects on- and
off-campus. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 16,
279–281.
Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How
does technology-enabled active
learning affect undergraduate
students’ understanding of
electromagnetism concepts? The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14,
243–279.
Gaffney, J. D. H., Richards, E., Kustusch,
M. B., Ding, L., & Beichner, R.
J. (2008). Scaling up educational
reform. Journal of College Science
Te ac hi n g 3 7, 48–53.
Marsh, C. M., Vandehey, M. A.,
& Diekhoff, G. M. (2008). The
predictive power of an introductory
class in determining academic
success. The Journal of General
FIGURE 4
Student perceptions of classroom impact (BIOL 1003), traditional vs.
ALC. Students in the ALC agreed signicantly more than their peers
in the traditional classroom that the room engaged them in the
learning process, was exible with regards to classroom activities and
approaches to learning, and was an appropriate space in which to hold
the course. **p < .01. ***p < .001. ****p <.0001.
Education, 57, 244–255.
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence
that active learning works? Advances
in Physiology Education, 30, 159–
167.
Milne, A. J. (2006). Designing blended
learning space to the student
experience. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.),
Learning spaces (pp. 11.1–11.5).
Washington, DC: Educause.
Oblinger, D. G. (Ed.). (2006). Learning
spaces. Washington, DC: Educause.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning
work? A review of the research.
Journal of Engineering Education,
93, 223–231.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan,
S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group
learning on undergraduates in science,
mathematics, engineering, and
technology: A meta-analysis. Review
of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.
Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. C. (2002).
Group data on high school grade
point averages and scores on
academic aptitude tests as predictors
of institutional graduation rates.
Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 62, 1042–1052.
Whiteside, A., Brooks, D. C., & Walker,
J. D. (2010). Making the case for
space: Three years of empirical
research on learning environments.
Educause Quarterly, 33. Ava ila bl e
at http://www.educause.edu/ero/
article/making-case-space-three-
years-empirical-research-learning-
environments
Sehoya Cotner (harri054@umn.edu) is
an associate professor in the Biology Pro-
gram at the University of Minnesota in
Minneapolis. Jessica Loper is an instruc-
tor in the Detroit Public Schools in De-
troit, Michigan. J. D. Walker is a research
fellow and D. Christopher Brooks is a
research fellow, both in the Oce of In-
formation Technology at the University
of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
