Findings from the Steelcase Active Learning Classroom pilot

UWM Steelcase Innovation Hub and Active Learning Classroom

Findings by UWM eLearning Research and Development

9.16.14

Tanya M. Joosten | [email protected] | @tjoosten

mailto:[email protected]

Spring 2014 participantsInstructor Unit Course

Donna Pasternak Curriculum & InstructionIntroduction to Children's and Young Adult Literature

Dan M. Ionel Electrical EngineeringEE575 Analysis of Electric Machine and Motor Drives

Brian Schermer Architecture Architectural Programming

John A Berges Biological SciencesBioSci 194: Biology-one equation at a time

Mike Steele Curriculum and InstructionCURRINS 431 - Student Teaching (Mathematics)

Casey O'Brien Women's Studies

Foundations of Women's Studies Writing and Research

Megan HaakEducational Policy & Community Studies

Research Techniques for Community Organizers and Community Educators

Student reactions

• Survey administered Spring 2014• N=50• Descriptive statistics

– Agree (Strongly agree and agree)– Neutral (Neither agree/disagree)– Disagree (Disagree and strongly disagree)

Agree Neutral Disagree

Recommend Instructor Continue Use

76 16 8

Comfortable Learning Environment 84 12 4

Appropriate Space for this course 84 14 2

5152535455565758595

Satisfaction


Movability 86 12 2

Adaptability for different Activi-ties

78 16 6

Facilitate multiple Learning Types 71.4 24.5 4.1

5

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

Flexibility


Easy Collaboration 89.8 4.1 6.1

Interact more w/Instructor 72 24 4

Effective Communication w/Classmates 90 4 6

5

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

Interactivity


Understand Course Concepts 60 32 8

Beneficial to Learning 66 30 4

Better Grades on Assignments 46.9 46.9 8.2

5

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

Learning and Performance

Active learning behaviors

Student Activities

Instructor Activities

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

76%

62%

68%

80%

70%

76%

44%

64%

36%

58%

Require/Create discussionUse WhiteboardsBreak into GroupsAsking Questions of Students/ClassmatesUtilizing Online Discussion and Materials

Percent Responding “Very Often” or “Al-ways”

Multivariate results

Outcomes: Learning and Satisfaction

ComponentsComponent # 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 7S1, 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) 5Q6_16 - Q6_20 0.794 15.45 3.92Self-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

Perceived Learning

Interactivity

Satisfaction

Learning

F(2, 47) = 59.56, p<.001

Approximately 71% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by interactivity and satisfaction(adjusted R2 = .705)

Perceived Learning

Instructor Expectations

Active Learning Activities

Learning

F(2, 47) = 19.615, p<.001


Predicting Student Satisfaction

Learning

Active Learning Activities

Satisfaction

F(2, 47) = 58.57, p<.001


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

LearningSatisfaction (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

What did the instructors think?

Why Use ALC’s?

• Allows for “student-driven” methods of learning• Enhances “student-centered” pedagogy• Represents “the future” for classroom learning

Various learning technologies and space allow for different learning styles to include visual, gestural, and discursive components

Typical to ALC

Enhanced Pedagogy

Flexibility of Learning

Richer Engagement

Comfortable Atmosphere

Student Agency

Whiteboards

Whiteboards

Learning Technologies

• Use the screens to visualize/share student projects

• Enhance active listening

• Enable richer classroom discussion

Furniture

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”

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

Conclusion

• Positive outcome• Requires instructors to rethink pedagogy• Students excited about the unique learning

space• Biggest suggestion for instructors: Experiment

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.”

Fall 2014 participantsInstructor Unit

Amy MangrichArt 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

Questions?

Please contact [email protected] or [email protected] for more information.

Thanks to the eL R&D team, Rachel Cusatis and Lindsey Harness for their analysis efforts.

