office of institutional assessment - purdue university - full.pdf · office of institutional...

OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT Purdue University

Influence of Learning Space and Physical Design on Students' Interactive Learning

2016-2017

For questions or comments, contact: Craig Zywicki

Assessment and Data Analyst Phone: 765-496-0418

E-Mail: [email protected]

Influence of Learning Space and Physical Design on Students' Interactive Learning 2

Executive Summary To prepare for future assessment of learning experiences in the Wilmeth Active Learning Center, a team of researchers from Purdue Libraries and the Office of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Effectiveness conducted a pilot study of recently renovated active learning spaces on the Purdue University campus. Through mixed-method data collection, the purpose of this study was to determine the ways in which the physical design of active learning spaces influences student learning.

For internal reporting, short briefings were created to report results, which generally demonstrate the perceived value of active learning experiences. These briefs are available at:

https://www.purdue.edu/oirae/inst_reports.html

Experiences with this pilot study suggest further assessment of students’ learning is highly circumstantial, including variable based on the features within a learning space. Thus, further studies, based on spaces within the Wilmeth Active Learning Center, abound with potential to develop knowledge specific to stakeholders at Purdue University, test theories, or develop new knowledge publishable or presentable in peer-reviewed forums.

Study Personnel Office of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Effectiveness:

Diane Beaudoin (PI), Director of Institutional Assessment, [email protected]

Craig Zywicki, Assessment & Data Analyst, [email protected]

Ada Uche, Assessment & Data Analyst, [email protected]

Purdue Libraries:

Michael Flierl, Assistant Professor, [email protected]

Tomalee Doan, Professor Emerita

Acknowledgements Thank you to the faculty and students who participated in this study. While we cannot identify you, we certainly appreciate your efforts and time sharing your perceptions.



Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................2

Study Personnel ..........................................................................................................................................................2

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................................2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................4

Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................................5

Definitions ..................................................................................................................................................................5

Brief Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................6

Survey Factors .........................................................................................................................................................7

Survey Scale Reliability ...........................................................................................................................................8

Results ........................................................................................................................................................................8

Students’ Perceptions of Active Learning and Preferred Ways to Learn................................................................9

Use of Technology within Active Learning Spaces ..................................................................................................9

Active Learning Space Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 11

Learning Outcomes & Expectations ..................................................................................................................... 14

Facilitation Strategies .......................................................................................................................................... 17

Students’ Perceived Impact of Learning Experiences within Cognitive Domains ............................................... 22

Students’ Perceived Impact of Learning Spaces on Principles of Good Practice ................................................. 23

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 24

Appendix 1. Instructors Interview Questions .......................................................................................................... 26

Appendix 2. Instructors’ Interview Coding Structure .............................................................................................. 28

Appendix 3. Students’ Survey Items in Qualtrics .................................................................................................... 30

Appendix 4. Students’ Survey Responses to a Definition of Active Learning .......................................................... 32


Introduction Active learning1 is a teaching and learning pedagogy based on student engagement and reflection. Purdue University dedicates extensive resources to design and renovate classroom spaces to accommodate and promote active learning experiences. Through mixed-method data collection, the purpose of this study was to determine how the features and characteristics of active learning spaces influence student learning.

This report summarizes data collected for a pilot study based on existing active learning spaces, building towards longitudinal studies of other active learning spaces at Purdue. To date, data were collected for the three academic periods summer 2016, fall 2016, and spring 2017.

Significant ongoing research seeks to explain the impact of student-centered learning approaches on various metrics of student success. At Purdue University, one research team including three units—Purdue Libraries, the Evaluation and Learning Research Center (ELRC), and the Office of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Effectiveness (OIRAE)—actively collaborate to complete a series of research studies about the impact of learning spaces at Purdue. To date, this series of studies includes the following:

1. Title: Effect of Space on Faculty Teaching (IRB: 1504015993).

Purpose: “To examine faculty perceptions of self-efficacy to use student-centered practices in active learning and traditional spaces, and test if self-efficacy predicts faculty perceptions of their self-efficacy for student-centered interactions, engaged behaviors of students, satisfaction with their teaching, and use of student-centered practices.”

PI: Loran Parker, ELRC

Progress: Complete.

Outcomes: o Manuscript submitted for review. o Poster presented at a conference.

2. Title: How Teaching And Learning in Active Learning Spaces Compares to Teaching And Learning in Traditional Classroom Spaces (IRB: 1505016055).

Purpose: “To develop in-depth understanding of innovative instructors’ perceptions of how classroom spaces impact active learning pedagogy.”

PI: Tomalee Doan

Progress: Analysis still in progress.

Outcomes: to be determined. 3. Title: Assessing Faculty Perceptions of Classroom Spaces (IRB: 1510016573).

Purpose: “To obtain and understand instructors’ perceptions of the effects space has on their teaching and students’ learning.”

PI: Tomalee Doan

Progress: Complete.

Outcomes: o Briefing: http://www.purdue.edu/oirae/documents/OIRAE_Briefings/Learning_Spaces_September_2016.pdf o Report: http://www.purdue.edu/oirae/documents/White_Papers/Report-LS_FGs-2016-09-29-Final.pdf o Peer-reviewed conference presentations and/or journal articles are possible.

4. Title: Influence of Learning Space and Physical Design on Students' Interactive Learning (IRB: 1602017231).

Purpose: “To determine the ways in which physical design of active learning spaces influences students’ interactive learning.” (Note: Of the four studies, this was the first specifically targeting AL spaces (not instructors.)

PI: Diane Beaudoin

Progress: Complete.

Outcomes: o See: https://www.purdue.edu/oirae/inst_reports.html o Peer-reviewed conference presentations and/or journal articles are possible.

1 Recommended reading: Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED336049

http://www.purdue.edu/oirae/documents/OIRAE_Briefings/Learning_Spaces_September_2016.pdf

http://www.purdue.edu/oirae/documents/White_Papers/Report-LS_FGs-2016-09-29-Final.pdf

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED336049


Purpose

Through mixed-method data collection, the purpose of this study is to determine the ways in which physical design of active learning spaces influences students’ interactive learning. Our primary research question was:

What are the ways in which students' active learning is influenced by physical design and learning space?

In the aforementioned series of studies about learning spaces at Purdue, this study was the first specifically designed to target active learning spaces as a unit of analysis.

Purdue University administration, faculty, and staff may look to this report for:

Content to use in development of resources for use by instructors, particularly resources specific to learning spaces or configurations of spaces.

Strategies to create for general references for instructors.

Data for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

Greater understanding of the relationship between student learning and learning spaces. Finally, this study design possesses the capacity to have breadth across courses, learning spaces, and time. For example, it may serve as a pilot project to contribute to innovative evaluation and research of spaces in the new Wilmeth Active Learning Center (the WALC)2.

Definitions For this study, a Learning Space is any physical space where learning occurs. Traditional Learning Spaces at Purdue University are classrooms designed for traditional lecture-based instruction to be the dominant instructional method used by the instructor. Most classrooms are designated as traditional learning spaces unless specifically designed with a different focus.

Active Learning Spaces are classrooms with specific features designed for facilitation of active learning. According to Prince3, the core aspects of Active Learning are “student activity and engagement in the learning process. Active learning is often contrasted to the traditional lecture where students passively receive information from the instructor” (p. 223). Purdue University4 describes active learning as a teaching and learning pedagogy focused on:

Collaboration between students and instructors.

Students and instructors being mutually responsible for knowledge and academic success.

Teaching and learning methodology characterized by students’ engagement in activities requiring greater responsibility for knowledge gains.

An enriched learning environment with close proximity between teaching and study space.

Two clarifications:

The spaces described by participants within this study predominantly include classrooms designated as teaching spaces by the university, but participants also considered other formal types of learning spaces (e.g., laboratories, library, instructor’s office, etc.) or informal spaces (e.g., residence, food court, outside, etc).

2 For more information about the WALC, see: https://www.lib.purdue.edu/walc/

3 Prince, M. (2004), Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93: 223–231. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.

4 Source: https://www.lib.purdue.edu/walc/

https://www.lib.purdue.edu/walc/

https://www.lib.purdue.edu/walc/


Learning is not space dependent. Learning may occur in any space, even if the space is not designated as a learning space by Purdue University.

Use of classroom within this report refers to any classroom, regardless of design or features. Use of “active learning space” or “active learning classroom” refers to spaces and classrooms possessing the specific features designed for facilitation of active learning.

Whereas a Teacher-Centered paradigm relies on lecturing for the transmission of knowledge from instructor to student, a Learner-Centered5 paradigm relies on student engagement and feedback to actively involve learners in their own learning.

Active Learning Strategies are specific facilitation methods used by an instructor to facilitate student-centered teaching practices. Among many possible strategies, common active learning strategies include: think-pair-share, group discussions, one-minute papers, or mini-lectures followed by an activity.

The use of Participant(s) within this report describes the perspectives of participants in the study. There are two groups of participants, differentiated as needed as “interviewed instructors” or “surveyed students.” The use of Instructor, Faculty or Student without any association to being a participant represents a general reference to the instructors or students.

They/Their is used within the report as gender-neutral pronouns, in place of “she/hers” and he/his.”

Brief Methodology The research team designed this study based on experiences gathering and analyzing data in preceding studies. While data gathered previously were driven to obtain perceptions of spaces, this study design relies on case studies of instructors using targeted locations, including STEW314 and STEW3206. All active learning spaces targeted within this study were renovated to accommodate facilitation of active learning.

While the STEW rooms are generally identical—with 100+ capacity and modern technology (including multiple projectors)--the primary physical difference between the spaces is student furniture. STEW314 contains tablet armchairs on wheels, as shown in Figure 1. STEW320 contains fixed tables with groups of eight wheeled chairs, as shown in Figure 2.7

Figure 1. STEW 314

5 For a comparison of teacher-centered and learner-centered paradigms, see chapter 1 in: Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

6 Two instructors participating in the study during summer 2016 used learning spaces other than STEW rooms, but to prevent reidentifying these participants, their rooms are not listed.

7 Figures taken from: https://www.purdue.edu/oirae/dashboards/learning-spaces.html

https://www.purdue.edu/oirae/dashboards/learning-spaces.html


Figure 2. STEW 320

Each STEW room design enables numerous facilitation methods, but the configurations for student furniture are based on the SCALE-UP8 model for redesigned classrooms. 38 instructors assigned to teach at least one course in a targeted learning space were invited to participate in the study. Twelve instructors voluntarily participated in semi-structured interviews conducted by a member of the research team. The protocol used for these interviews appears in Appendix 1. Interview recordings were transcribed and coding commenced soon thereafter. Research team members Michael Flierl, Ada Uche, and Craig Zywicki completed the analysis based on coding procedures described by Saldana9 using NVivo software. Concept coding was used to create and define the observed nodes and for the first coding iteration. Pattern coding was used for subsequent coding iterations. Appendix 2 contains the structure we used to code the data and reach consensus.

21 faculty supported surveying of their students to obtain students’ perspectives of these spaces. All registered students in these instructors’ sections using the targeted spaces were invited to participate in a Qualtrics survey (see Appendix 3). This includes 2175 unique students. (N=2363 by registration count. 181 students were enrolled in two or more courses.) Survey data were analyzed by Craig Zywicki using SPSS software.

We organized the results based on aggregations of responses and disassociated any personal identifiers within these aggregations. Out of respect for the confidentiality guaranteed to participants, only de-identified information appears within reporting. All research team members contributed throughout the process by suggesting study design content and analysis steps, questioning and clarifying interpretations, and/or providing additional background information.

Survey Factors

Items within the student survey were organized and presented to students within related prompts, but the extent to which individual items relate to others may be reduced using factor analysis; however, likely due to the count of survey responses, many items loaded strongly into more than one factor. To make the survey data more manageable, the following categories of items were used within the survey data analyses:

Technology (How it accommodates learning preferences and impact on learning)

Other Space Features, excluding technology (How it accommodates learning preferences and impact on learning)

Facilitation Strategies

Expectations

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education If the count of survey is used in the future, these categories may be reevaluated (and corrected) via factor analysis. Indexes for each category may be valuable at that time.

8 For more information about SCALE-UP, see: http://scaleup.ncsu.edu/FAQs.html

9 Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.

http://scaleup.ncsu.edu/FAQs.html


Survey Scale Reliability

Based on the pre-determined categories, Cronbach’s Alphas were calculated to determine the reliability of the scale within each category, and reported in Table 1. All alphas exceed the preferred value of 0.800, except for the category “Classroom Technology Accommodate Learning Preferences.”

Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha for Categories of Survey Items

Category N of

Items Cronbach’s

Alpha

Classroom Technology Accommodates Learning Preferences 3 0.711

Classroom Furniture Accommodates Learning Preferences 4 0.844

Classroom Technology Impact on Learning 3 0.800

Classroom Furniture Impact on Learning 4 0.886

Facilitation Strategies 15 0.808

Expectations 14 0.924 (within AL) 0.908 (within Traditional)

Bloom’s Taxonomy 6 0.938 (within AL) 0.923 (within Traditional)

Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education 7 0.903 (within AL) 0.907 (within Traditional)

Results Results from this study appear in separate briefings based on the subtitles:

Students’ Perceptions of Active Learning, and Preferred Ways to Learn

Use of Technology within Active Learning

How Learning Space Affects Learning Outcomes

Facilitation Strategies Used in Active Learning Spaces

Students’ Perceived Impact of Learning Experiences within Cognitive Domains

Students’ Perceived Impact of Learning Spaces on Principles of Good Practice

Support Needed for Effective Use of Active Learning Strategies

Scheduling Use of Active Learning Spaces

These briefings are available at:


We recommend stakeholders at Purdue skim the targeted briefings first; additional results reported here supplement what appears in the briefings.

Why should these results matter? Some ways to view this information include:

How does the voice of instructors inform university administrators who offer professional development for faculty or administer policies or practices?

How or why might individual instructors adapt their own practices?

What percent of students do we realistically: o Expect to have at least a positive perspective (as measured by survey items), regardless of students’

preferred learning modality(ies)? o Accept having a negative perspective? It is not reasonable to expect all students to have a positive experience, or at least not reasonable to expect all students to have a non-negative experience.



What is the meaning of comparisons of active and traditional spaces? Does the space matter more or less due to the instructors’ intended use of a learning space? Most study participants used STEW314 and STEW320, which are recently renovated, and everything is “new.” Within the survey items students were not asked to identify the specific traditional classrooms they used for comparison, nor identify the courses, instructor, and pedagogy they experienced in traditional spaces.

Students’ Perceptions of Active Learning and Preferred Ways to Learn

Refer to the briefing named “Students’ Perceptions of Active Learning, and Preferred Ways to Learn”

The first survey item asked students to respond to an open-ended prompt soliciting their input about a definition of active learning. A list of students’ complete responses appear in Appendix 4.

Use of Technology within Active Learning Spaces

Refer to the briefing named “Use of Technology within Active Learning Spaces”

Surveyed students’ were asked to identify how technology accommodates their preferred ways to learn, and then identify how technology impacts their learning and academic success. Table 2 shows basic descriptives for all responses to these survey items.

Table 2. How Technology Accommodates Learning Preferences and Impacts Academic Success

Very Neg

Somewhat Neg

Neither Neg or Pos

Somewhat Pos

Very Pos

Somewhat or Very Pos Overall

# % # % # % # % # % # % N Mn Md Technology used by my instructor

Accommodates Preferences

4 1.1% 10 2.7% 35 9.6% 133 36.3% 184 50.3% 317 86.6% 366 4.3 5.0

Impacts Learning & Success

6 1.7% 9 2.5% 48 13.3% 126 35.0% 171 47.5% 297 82.5% 360 4.2 4.0

Technology I use


2 0.6% 13 3.7% 66 19.0% 122 35.1% 145 41.7% 267 76.7% 348 4.1 4.0


2 0.6% 13 3.7% 73 20.9% 119 34.0% 143 40.9% 262 74.9% 350 4.1 4.0

Technology used by other students


2 0.6% 17 5.1% 112 33.6% 106 31.8% 96 28.8% 202 60.7% 333 3.8 4.0


2 0.6% 12 3.6% 136 41.0% 100 30.1% 82 24.7% 182 54.8% 332 3.7 4.0

Scale: 1=Very negative; 2=Somewhat negative; 3=Neither negative or positive; 4=Somewhat positive; 5=Very positive

For only surveyed students using the two STEW classrooms, there are six instances where the students with a higher level of a learning preference have a significant (p<.05), more favorable association with technology as they perceive it accommodates their learning preferences. These differences appear in Table 3.

Table 3. Associations Showing Whether Technology Accommodates Learning Preferences, by Preferred Learning Modality

Learning Modality

“Accommodating Preference” Survey Item

Rate of Students responding “Affirmative” to Survey Item Chi

Square Cramer’s

V Effect Size Weak Preference Strong Preference

Visual Technology used by my instructor

α 87.2%

Technology I use α 78.1%


α 63.0%

Aural Technology used by my instructor

82.4% 87.0% 0.820 .059

Technology I use 75.3% 77.9% 0.112 .027


Learning Modality

“Accommodating Preference” Survey Item


Square Cramer’s



54.4% 64.8% 2.235 .093 small

RW Technology used by my instructor

80.4% 90.0% 5.523 .136* small

Technology I use 74.5% 79.3% 0.801 .058


54.1% 68.2% 5.743 .144* small

Kinesthetic Technology used by my instructor

75.6% 87.2% 3.081 .108* small

Technology I use 60.5% 79.4% 5.767 .146** small


44.4% 64.4% 4.582 .133* small

For each survey item, the “affirmative” rate based on students who responded either “Positive” or “Very positive.” For the four learning modalities, “weak” includes students indicating a “no” or “low” preference,

and “strong” includes students indicating a “moderate” or “high” preference. α indicates subgroup size too small to report statistics.

Significance Levels: * indicates p<.05; ** indicates p<.01; *** indicates p<.001.

According to survey participants, there are two instances where the students with a higher level of a learning modality have a significant (p<.05), more favorable association with technology as they perceive it impacts their learning. These differences appear in Table 4.

Table 4. Associations Showing Whether Technology Impacts Learning, by Preferred Learning Modality

Learning Modality

“Impact on Learning” Survey Item

Rate of Students responding “Affirmative” to Survey Item

Chi Square Cramer’s


Visual Technology used by my instructor

α 83.2%

Technology I use α 76.0%


α 56.4%

Aural Technology used by my instructor

77.8% 83.5% 1.077 .066

Technology I use 76.5% 75.1% 0.011 .014


48.8% 58.2% 1.805 .084 small

RW Technology used by my instructor

77.4% 85.5% 3.087 .104 small

Technology I use 67.6% 81.7% 7.734 .162** small


48.1% 61.6% 5.037 .135* small

Kinesthetic Technology used by my instructor

73.2% 83.2% 1.795 .085 small

Technology I use 68.4% 76.4% .764 .060


51.4% 56.3% 0.153 .032





Across the Purdue campus, technology available differs broadly by learning space, but the technology is identical in STEW314 and STEW320. Thus, differences in students’ perceptions of technology between these STEW rooms most likely depend on the instructors’ or students’ use of the technology in that space.

Active Learning Space Characteristics

Refer to the briefing named “Facilitation Strategies Used in Active Learning Spaces”

Students’ were asked within the survey to identify how other characteristics of the space accommodate their preferred ways to learn, and then identify how these characteristics impact their learning and academic success. Table 5 shows basic descriptives for these survey items.

Table 5. How Learning Spaces Features Accommodate Learning Preferences and Impact Academic Success

Very Neg

Somwht Neg

Neither Neg

or Pos Smwht

Pos Very Pos

Smwht or Very

Pos Overall # % # % # % # % # % # % N Mn Md

Furniture Used by my Instructor


11 3.4% 13 4.0% 134 41.5% 83 25.7% 82 25.4% 165 51.1% 323 3.7 4.0


6 1.8% 12 3.7% 146 44.8% 87 26.7% 75 23.0% 162 49.7% 326 3.7 3.0

Furniture I use


7 2.1% 21 6.2% 96 28.2% 105 30.8% 112 32.8% 217 63.6% 341 3.9 4.0


8 2.3% 25 7.2% 104 29.8% 104 29.8% 108 30.9% 212 60.7% 349 3.8 4.0

Layout of furniture within the room


18 5.1% 38 10.7% 69 19.4% 114 32.1% 116 32.7% 230 64.8% 355 3.8 4.0


14 4.0% 34 9.7% 82 23.3% 117 33.2% 105 29.8% 222 63.1% 352 3.8 4.0

General classroom environment


12 3.3% 36 10.0% 44 12.3% 112 31.2% 155 43.2% 267 74.4% 359 4.0 4.0


10 2.8% 35 9.9% 64 18.0% 113 31.8% 133 37.5% 246 69.3% 355 3.9 4.0

Scale: 1=Very negative; 2=Somewhat negative; 3=Neither negative or positive; 4=Somewhat positive; 5=Very positive

There are four instances where the students’ strength of their learning modality have a significant (p<.05) association with a classroom characteristic as they perceive it accommodates their learning preferences, and this difference is more favorable to students with the higher preference.

Table 6. Associations Showing Whether Learning Space Features Accommodate Learning Preferences, by Preferred Learning Modality

Pref “Accommodating Preference”

Survey Item


Square Cramer’s


Visual Furniture the Instructor uses

α 54.0%

Furniture I use α 65.8%


α 66.6%


α 75.6%

Aural Furniture the Instructor uses

51.8% 53.7% 0.027 .017

Furniture I use 58.1% 67.5% 2.035 .088


Pref “Accommodating Preference”

Survey Item


Square Cramer’s



64.4% 66.4% 0.044 .019


74.2% 75.2% 0.003 .011

RW Furniture the Instructor uses

42.3% 61.5% **10.155 .191 medium

Furniture I use 55.1% 72.6% **9.794 .182 medium


60.0% 70.5% *3.507 .110 small


65.1% 82.7% ***12.584 .202 medium

Kinesthetic Furniture the Instructor uses

41.2% 54.7% 1.708 .136

Furniture I use 57.5% 66.1% 0.782 .060


61.0% 66.6% 0.279 .039


68.3% 75.9% 0.730 .058




Similarly, for students using the two STEW rooms only, there are three instances where the students’ strength of their learning modality have a significant (p<.05), more favorable association with a classroom characteristics as they perceive it impacts their learning.

Table 7. Associations Showing Whether Furniture Impacts Learning, by Preferred Learning Modality

Pref “Impact on Learning”

Survey Item


Square Cramer’s


Visual Furniture the Instructor uses

α 51.9%

Furniture I use α 62.0%


α 64.6%


α 70.9%

Aural Furniture the Instructor uses

44.4% 54.1% 1.836 .086

Furniture I use 55.7% 63.8% 1.469 .075


63.6% 63.7% 0.000 .001


69.0% 70.4% 0.014 .014

RW Furniture the Instructor uses

38.9% 61.2% ***13.781 .221 medium

Furniture I use 54.3% 67.2% *5.071 .132 small


59.2% 67.2% 1.910 .083


59.7% 78.1% ***12.165 .200 medium


Pref “Impact on Learning”

Survey Item


Square Cramer’s


Kinesthetic Furniture the Instructor uses

41.7% 52.8% 1.166 .072

Furniture I use 50.0% 63.3% 2.072 .090


56.1% 64.8% 0.825 .060


61.0% 71.3% 1.371 .176




Interestingly, from Table 6 and Table 7, significant differences only arise for students with the reading/writing preference, possibly implying students with a stronger preference for reading/writing activities have a greater level of adaptability to these classroom characteristics than their peers with no or low preference for reading/writing. If reading/writing academic skills are often used in individual out-of-class study—might these results also show students are more adaptable to the classroom furniture and environment if they are better prepared to be in class because of their outside-of-class habits?

Students’ furniture is very different between STEW rooms. Table 8 shows a breakdown of students’ perceptions by STEW classroom.

Table 8. By Room in STEW, How Rooms Characteristics Accommodate Learning Preferences and Impact Academic Success

STEW

Rm

Very Neg

Somwht Neg

Neither Neg

or Pos Smwht

Pos Very Pos

Smwht or Very

Pos Overall # % # % # % # % # % # % N Mn Md

Furniture the Instructor uses


314 4 2.8% 7 4.9% 42 29.4% 41 28.7% 49 34.3% 90 62.9% 143 3.9 4.0

320 7 4.5% 2 1.3% 78 50.0% 38 24.4% 31 19.9% 69 44.2% 156 3.5 3.0


314 4 2.8% 5 3.5% 47 33.3% 41 29.1% 44 31.2% 85 60.3% 141 3.8 4.0

320 2 1.2% 4 2.5% 84 52.5% 41 25.6% 29 18.1% 70 43.8% 160 3.6 3.0

Furniture I use


314 5 3.3% 10 6.6% 21 13.8% 52 34.2% 64 42.1% 116 76.3% 152 4.1 4.0

320 2 1.2% 6 3.6% 67 40.6% 45 27.3% 45 27.3% 90 54.5% 165 3.8 4.0


314 7 4.6% 8 5.3% 26 17.1% 49 32.2% 62 40.8% 111 73.0% 152 4.0 4.0

320 1 0.6% 10 5.8% 72 42.1% 45 26.3% 43 25.1% 88 51.5% 171 3.7 4.0



314 9 5.7% 18 11.4% 26 16.5% 46 29.1% 59 37.3% 105 66.5% 158 3.8 4.0

320 7 4.1% 18 10.6% 34 20.0% 58 34.1% 53 31.2% 111 65.3% 170 3.8 4.0


314 9 5.8% 16 10.3% 32 20.6% 48 31.0% 50 32.3% 98 63.2% 155 3.7 4.0

320 3 1.8% 17 10.0% 41 24.1% 60 35.3% 49 28.8% 109 64.1% 170 3.8 4.0



314 6 3.8% 16 10.1% 11 7.0% 52 32.9% 73 46.2% 125 79.1% 158 4.1 4.0

320 5 2.9% 19 11.0% 26 15.0% 52 30.1% 71 41.0% 123 71.1% 173 4.0 4.0


314 5 3.2% 13 8.4% 21 13.6% 53 34.4% 62 40.3% 115 74.7% 154 4.0 4.0

320 4 2.3% 20 11.6% 35 20.2% 52 30.1% 62 35.8% 114 65.9% 173 3.9 4.0 Scale: 1=Very negative; 2=Somewhat negative; 3=Neither negative or positive; 4=Somewhat positive; 5=Very positive

As shown in Table 9, survey participants using STEW314 (which contains movable tablet arm chairs) rated the furniture used by students significantly (at p<.05) more positive for both how it accommodates learning preferences and how it impacts learning and academic success. While considering the importance of these comparisons, consider:


Differences in courses, instructors, and students: These comparisons are based on independent samples, and differences between the samples could sway the results perceived as differences between the rooms.

Instructors’ expectations for students’ use of the furniture (e.g., arrangement within groups), and the fit of these (or any) classroom characteristics to their preferred facilitation methods.

Table 9. Associations Showing Whether Furniture Impacts Learning, by Preferred Learning Modality, Between STEW Rooms

Difference in Affirmative Rate,

Between STEW Spaces Chi Square Cramer’s V Effect Size

Furniture I use


21.8% ***15.536 .228 medium


21.5% ***14.923 .221 medium



1.2% 0.011 .012


-0.9% 0.003 .009



8.0% 2.414 .092 small


8.8% 2.588 .096 small

For each survey item, the “affirmative” rate based on students who responded either “Positive” or “Very positive.” Significance Levels: * indicates p<.05; ** indicates p<.01; *** indicates p<.001.

Learning Outcomes & Expectations

Refer to the briefing named “How Learning Space Affects Learning Outcomes”

Another set of survey items covers students’ level of agreement with a variety of statements predominantly addressing their expectations of instructors, or instructors’ expectations of students. The general prompt was, “Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements based on your experiences in the active learning classroom, compared to other courses facilitated primarily as a lecture,” but students had two responses for each item within the Qualtrics matrix format. For example:

STEW 314 Traditional Lecture

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly agree

I know the course outcomes/objectives

I am confident I will be achieve my academic goals

[Other items…]

This survey format is set up for comparisons by space type, as reported within Table 10. Since survey items were not reported in continuous values, the Wilcoxon non-parametric test was used to compare students’ paired perceived differences between active and traditional (e.g., primarily lecture) learning experiences. For nine items, the difference between active and traditional learning experiences was significant (p<.05) and the active learning experience had a higher rate of agreement than the traditional learning experience space for eight of the items. For one significant item, “The course is challenging,” a higher rate of students perceived traditional learning experiences to be more challenging than active learning.


Table 10. Course Expectations, by Type of Learning Experience

Survey Item

Descriptives by Space Comparison of Learning Experience

Learning Experience

Percent Agree or Str Agree N Mn Md

Rate Difference (AL-Trad) p

Effect Size


Active 76.2% 302 3.9 4.0 -5.0%

.034 Trad 81.2% 276 4.0 4.0


Active 72.9% 303 3.9 4.0 3.1%

**

.169 (small) Trad 69.8% 275 3.8 4.0

I am able to articulate course content in my own words

Active 73.0% 304 3.8 4.0 8.3%

*

.153 (small) Trad 64.7% 275 3.7 4.0

I am aware of what I know, and what I do not know, by the end of most classes

Active 69.6% 303 3.8 4.0 1.4%

.054 Trad 68.2% 274 3.8 4.0

I know how to prepare for class Active 71.4% 301 3.8 4.0 -1.7%

.015 Trad 73.2% 272 3.9 4.0

I am held accountable to be prepared for class

Active 80.1% 301 4.0 4.0 15.3%

***

.321 (medium) Trad 64.7% 275 3.7 4.0

I know how to review course content after class

Active 73.5% 302 3.8 4.0 0.6%

.044 Trad 72.9% 273 3.9 4.0

I know how to prepare for exams Active 62.6% 297 3.7 4.0 -4.5%

.007 Trad 67.2% 274 3.8 4.0

I know my instructor and/or TA

Active 73.1% 301 3.9 4.0 14.8%

***

.321 (medium) Trad 58.2% 273 3.5 4.0

I receive feedback from my instructor and/or TA

Active 66.0% 300 3.8 4.0 16.2%

***

.289 (small) Trad 49.8% 273 3.4 3.0

I receive feedback from other students

Active 56.5% 301 3.6 4.0 24.7%

***

.408 (medium) Trad 31.8% 274 3.0 3.0

I can adapt my preferred ways to learn to be successful

Active 70.4% 301 3.8 4.0 7.2%

**

.167 (small) Trad 63.2% 269 3.7 4.0

The course is challenging Active 53.8% 301 3.4 4.0 -11.1%

***

.260 (small) Trad 65.0% 274 3.8 4.0

I receive support to meet the challenges of the course

Active 66.9% 299 3.8 4.0 9.5% *** .247 (small)

Trad 57.4% 270 3.5 4.0

These survey items focus on characteristics that potentially contribute to expectations of academic success. By course design, some items may not be meaningful. (For example, “prepare for exams” is not meaningful if a course did not have exams. Students who indicated “no basis for opinion” are excluded from these analyses.) In general, instructors’ or students’ expectations will shift based on the context of a course, so the percent of agreement sought by any item may differ by context as well. When sorted by students’ level of agreement, the top three rates of agreement by type of learning experience were:

Rank Active Learning Experience Traditional Learning Experience

1 I am held accountable to be prepared for class (80.1%) I know the course outcomes/objectives (81.2%)

2 I know the course outcomes/objectives (76.2%) I know how to prepare for class (73.2%)

3 I know how to review course content after class (73.5%) I know how to review course content after class (72.9%)

Two items appear within the top three for both types of learning experiences; otherwise, might we correctly or incorrectly presume rankings like these show how differences between these categories of learning experiences contribute to instructors’ ability to set and fulfill expectations? In general, the issues to address relate to the rate of students who do not agree with each statement, since there are course facilitation strategies for instructors to use to successfully facilitate learning in active or traditional manners.

The range of differences in rates between students’ perspectives of active vs traditional learning experiences is ±0.6% to ±24.7%. Might the smaller differences within the range possibly demonstrate that students’ take their own responsibility to understand or meet these expectations regardless of desired learning experience? Might


the larger differences within the range demonstrate for which items a learning experience makes a greater impact on expectations?

The expectation to “adapt preferred ways to learn” within a learning experience may relate to the learning space or to students preferred learning modalities. Students’ responses to this item are parsed by the four preferred learning modalities within Table 11.

Table 11. Students’ Perceived Ability to Adapt Preferred Ways to Learn, by Preferred Learning Modality and Type of Space

Type of Learning

Experience Learning Modality

Level of Learning Modality

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree

Str Dis Dis or

Neutral

Agree or Str Agree Overall

# % # % # % # % # % % % N Mn Md

Act

ive

Lear

nin

g

Visual Weak α α α α α α α α α α α α α α α

Strong 10 3.4% 10 3.4% 65 22.2% 145 49.5% 63 21.5% 29.0% 71.0% 293 3.8 4.0

Aural Weak 4 5.0% 4 5.0% 16 20.0% 40 50.0% 16 20.0% 30.0% 70.0% 80 3.8 4.0

Strong 6 2.7% 8 3.6% 51 23.1% 107 48.4% 49 22.2% 29.4% 70.6% 221 3.8 4.0

RW Weak 6 4.8% 8 6.4% 31 24.8% 59 47.2% 21 16.8% 36.0% 64.0% 125 3.6 4.0

Strong 4 2.3% 4 2.3% 36 20.5% 88 50.0% 44 25.0% 25.0% 75.0% 176 3.9 4.0

Kinesthetic Weak 1 3.2% 2 6.5% 9 29.0% 12 38.7% 7 22.6% 38.7% 61.3% 31 3.7 4.0

Strong 9 3.3% 10 3.7% 58 21.5% 135 50.0% 58 21.5% 28.5% 71.5% 270 3.8 4.0

Trad

itio

nal

Lea

rnin

g

Visual Weak α α α α α α α α α α α α α α α

Strong 8 3.1% 15 5.7% 72 27.6% 122 46.7% 44 16.9% 36.4% 63.6% 261 3.7 4.0

Aural Weak 3 3.9% 7 9.2% 20 26.3% 36 47.4% 10 13.2% 39.5% 60.5% 76 3.6 4.0

Strong 6 3.1% 8 4.1% 55 28.5% 89 46.1% 35 18.1% 35.8% 64.2% 193 3.7 4.0

RW Weak 5 4.4% 8 7.0% 37 32.5% 46 40.4% 18 15.8% 43.9% 56.1% 114 3.6 4.0

Strong 4 2.6% 7 4.5% 38 24.5% 79 51.0% 27 17.4% 31.6% 68.4% 155 3.8 4.0

Kinesthetic Weak 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 17.2% 14 48.3% 10 34.5% 17.2% 82.8% 29 4.2 4.0

Strong 9 3.8% 15 6.2% 70 29.2% 111 46.2% 35 14.6% 39.2% 60.8% 240 3.6 4.0 For the four learning modalities, “weak” includes students indicating a “no” or “low” preference,



However, as reported within Table 12, students’ strength of a learning modality is only significantly associated with their ability to adapt for students with:

The reading/writing preference, in both active and traditional learning experiences. This suggests students with a moderate or high preference for reading and writing adapt regardless of the learning experience.

The kinesthetic preference, in the traditional learning experience only. This suggests students with a moderate or high preference for kinesthetic experiences have a more difficult time adapting their preferences in the traditional experiences.

In general, the importance of these results are not the differences by learning experience, but rather, the rates of students not able to adapt their preferences within a learning experience. (For example, the 39.2% with a kinesthetic preference who do not agree they can adapt to traditional learning experiences.) These results suggest:

Students do need to adapt their preferences to the facilitated activities occurring, regardless of learning experience.

Students may need to rely on a non-dominant learning modality to succeed in a learning experience. (For example, rely on aural learning strategies over kinesthetic strategies in the traditional learning experience.)

Instructors may need to help students identify how to adapt their preferences. (For example, help students learn how to improve listening and note taking skills specific to the course content.)


Table 12. Associations Between Students’ Ability to Adapt Learning Preferences, and The Strength of Each Learning Modality, by Type of Learning Experience

Type of Learning

Experience

Preferred Learning Modality

Rate of Students with “Agree or Strongly Agree” to “I can adapt my preferred ways to learn to be successful”

Chi Square

Cramer’s V

Effect Size

For Students with Weak Learning Preference

For Students with Strong Learning Preference

Active Learning

Visual α 71.0%

Aural 70.0% 70.6% 0.000 .006

RW 64.0% 75.0% *3.735 .119 small

Kinesthetic 61.3% 71.5% 0.941 .068

Traditional Visual 50.0% 63.6% 0.171 .048

Aural 60.5% 64.2% 0.185 .035

RW 56.1% 68.4% *3.726 .125 small

Kinesthetic 82.8% 60.8% *4.447 .141 small

α indicates subgroup size too small to report statistics. Significance Levels: * indicates p<.05; ** indicates p<.01; *** indicates p<.001.

Two expectations—the level of challenge, and level of support needed to meet the challenge—loosely come from Sanford’s theory of challenge and support10. As previously reported (see Table 10), traditional learning experiences are perceived to be more challenging than active learning experiences, yet more support is perceived to be received in active learning experiences. For active learning and traditional learning experiences respectively, Table 13 and Table 14 show there is a significant association between the challenge, and the support to meet the challenge, in both types of learning experiences.

Table 13. Association between Students’ Perceptions of Challenge and Support, in Active Learning Experiences

Support Chi

Square Cramer’s

V Effect Size

Str Dis, Dis or, Neutral Agree or Str Agree Cnt % Cnt %

Challenge Str Dis, Dis or, Neutral 61 20.5% 78 26.2% *** 12.467 .212 medium

Agree or Str Agree 38 12.8% 121 40.6%

Table 14. Associations between Students’ Perceptions of Challenge and Support, in Traditional Learning Experiences

Support Chi

Square Cramer’s

V Effect Size

Str Dis, Dis or, Neutral Agree or Str Agree Cnt % Cnt %

Challenge Str Dis, Dis or, Neutral 57 21.1% 38 14.1% ***17.082 .259 medium

Agree or Str Agree 58 21.5% 117 43.3%

Facilitation Strategies

Refer to the briefing named “Facilitation Strategies Used in Active Learning Spaces”

Surveyed students were asked to reflect on select facilitation strategies used in any course experience at Purdue, and identify the extent to which each strategy affects their academic success. The intent of this question set was not to obtain feedback specific to any space or course, but rather, to obtain perspective about in-class

10 For information about Sanford’s theory, see:

Sanford, N. (1962). The American college. New York: Wiley.

Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society: Social change and individual development. New York: Atherton.


strategies commonly used by faculty. Table 15 shows the descriptives from student’s perspectives of various facilitation strategies.

Table 15. Students Perceptions Regarding Facilitation Strategies

Perceived impact on Academic Success

Very Neg

Somwht Neg

Neither Neg

or Pos Smwht

Pos Very Pos

Smwht or Very

Pos Overall # % # % # % # % # % # % N Mn Md Working with a partner 1 0.3% 17 5.5% 29 9.4% 120 38.7% 143 46.1% 263 84.8% 310 4.2 4.0

Working in groups of 3-6 7 2.3% 27 8.8% 29 9.4% 130 42.3% 114 37.1% 244 79.5% 307 4.0 4.0

Working in groups of 7 or more 32 10.8% 115 39.0% 52 17.6% 68 23.1% 28 9.5% 96 32.5% 295 2.8 3.0

Lecture 5 1.6% 17 5.5% 41 13.3% 139 45.1% 106 34.4% 245 79.5% 308 4.1 4.0

Giving a presentation 14 4.6% 27 8.9% 70 23.1% 138 45.5% 54 17.8% 192 63.4% 303 3.6 4.0

Observing a peer students presentation

8 2.6% 20 6.6% 95 31.5% 130 43.0% 49 16.2% 179 59.3% 302 3.6 4.0

Whole class discussions facilitated by the instructor

2 0.7% 16 5.2% 56 18.3% 132 43.1% 100 32.7% 232 75.8% 306 4.0 4.0

Question/answer facilitated by the instructor

0 0.0% 10 3.3% 29 9.6% 143 47.2% 121 39.9% 264 87.1% 303 4.2 4.0

Using technology 3 1.0% 5 1.6% 41 13.3% 136 44.2% 123 39.9% 259 84.1% 308 4.2 4.0

Using textbooks or similar course reference materials

7 2.3% 21 6.8% 79 25.6% 128 41.6% 73 23.7% 201 65.3% 308 3.8 4.0

Receiving feedback from peer students

4 1.3% 12 3.9% 73 23.9% 145 47.5% 71 23.3% 216 70.8% 305 3.9 4.0

Giving feedback to peer students 5 1.7% 14 4.7% 99 33.0% 119 39.7% 63 21.0% 182 60.7% 300 3.7 4.0

Using real-life problems 1 0.3% 1 0.3% 19 6.4% 95 31.9% 182 61.1% 277 93.0% 298 4.5 5.0

Using critical thinking skills 0 0.0% 3 1.0% 18 6.0% 110 36.4% 171 56.6% 281 93.0% 302 4.5 5.0

Receiving study strategies 4 1.3% 4 1.3% 39 13.0% 104 34.7% 149 49.7% 253 84.3% 300 4.3 4.0 Scale: 1=Very negative; 2=Somewhat negative; 3=Neither negative or positive; 4=Somewhat positive; 5=Very positive

Rates of students who perceive strategies as somewhat positive or very positive vary across these methods from an overall high of 93.0% to a low of 32.5%. Table 16 shows these rates, plus the rates by learning preference for students with a stronger preference.

Table 16. Rate of Students’ Who Perceive Facilitation Strategies as Positive or Very Positive, by Overall and by Preferred Learning Modality

Overall Rates by Learning Modality Facilitation Strategy Rank Rate Visual Aural Reading/Writing Kinesthetic Using real-life problems 1 93.0% 94.1% 95.9% 93.1% 94.8%

Using critical thinking skills 1 93.0% 94.2% 95.1% 93.8% 95.2%

Question/answer facilitated by the instructor 3 87.1% 88.5% 89.2% 89.6% 88.6%

Working with a partner 4 84.8% 86.1% 87.8% 86.6% 86.7%

Receiving study strategies 5 84.3% 84.6% 85.5% 87.5% 85.2%

Using technology 6 84.1% 85.7% 85.0% 87.0% 85.5%

Working in groups of 3-6 7 79.5% 79.9% 82.7% 80.6% 81.5% Lecture 7 79.5% 80.7% 82.3% 83.8% 79.3% Whole class discussions facilitated by the instructor 9 75.8% 76.8% 77.9% 78.9% 76.6% Receiving feedback from peer students 10 70.8% 71.7% 74.9% 73.7% 72.3% Using textbooks or similar course reference materials 11 65.3% 66.7% 67.3% 74.6% 65.0% Giving a presentation 12 63.4% 64.4% 65.2% 72.1% 65.4% Giving feedback to peer students 13 60.7% 61.4% 65.3% 63.2% 61.3% Observing a peer students presentation 14 59.3% 60.2% 59.2% 66.9% 61.0% Working in groups of 7 or more 15 32.5% 32.6% 34.1% 34.1% 33.5%


Does the value of a facilitation strategy differ based on students’ perceived strength of a learning modality? As shown in Table 17, there are many instances where the surveyed students’ with a stronger preference for a learning modality have a significantly higher perceptions of the helpfulness of various facilitation strategies. In each case, this difference is more favorable to students with the stronger preference within a learning modality.

Table 17. Associations Between Students’ Level of Learning Preferences, and Strength of Facilitation Strategies, by Preferred Learning Modality

Learning Modality Survey Item


Chi Square

Cramer’s V

Effect Size

Weak Preference

Strong Preference

Visual Working with a partner 37.5% 86.1% **10.779 .215 medium

Working in groups of 3-6 62.5% 79.9% 0.580 .069

Working in groups of 7 or more 28.6% 32.6% 0.000 .013

Lecture 37.5% 80.7% *6.468 .170 small

Giving a presentation 25.0% 64.4% 3.651 .131 small

Observing a peer students presentation 25.0% 60.2% 2.673 .115 small


37.5% 76.8% *4.607 .147 small


37.5% 88.5% ***13.787 .244 medium

Using technology 25.0% 85.7% ***17.142 .264 medium


12.5% 66.7% **7.837 .181 small

Receiving feedback from peer students 37.5% 71.7% 2.913 .120 small

Giving feedback to peer students 28.6% 61.4% 1.870 .102 small

Using real-life problems 50.0% 94.1% ***16.906 .279 medium

Using critical thinking skills 50.0% 94.2% ***17.197 .279 medium

Receiving study strategies 71.4% 84.6% 0.180 .055

Aural Working with a partner 76.2% 87.8% *5.316 .141 small

Working in groups of 3-6 70.7% 82.7% *4.542 .131 small


Lecture 72.0% 82.3% 3.351 .113 small

Giving a presentation 58.2% 65.2% 0.935 .063

Observing a peer students presentation 59.5% 59.2% 0.000 .003


70.0% 77.9% 1.593 .081 small


81.2% 89.2% 2.675 .105 small

Using technology 81.5% 85.0% 0.326 .043


59.8% 67.3% 1.181 .070

Receiving feedback from peer students 59.0% 74.9% *6.366 .153 small

Giving feedback to peer students 47.4% 65.3% **7.001 .161 small

Using real-life problems 84.2% 95.9% **10.180 .200 small

Using critical thinking skills 87.2% 95.1% *4.439 .136 small

Receiving study strategies 81.0% 85.5% 0.586 .055

RW Working with a partner 82.4% 86.6% 0.716 .057

Working in groups of 3-6 78.0% 80.6% 0.162 .031


Lecture 73.6% 83.8% *4.148 .124 small

Giving a presentation 51.9% 72.1% ***12.196 .208 small

Observing a peer students presentation 48.8% 66.9% **9.186 .181 small


71.8% 78.9% 1.692 .082 small


Learning Modality Survey Item


Chi Square

Cramer’s V

Effect Size

Weak Preference

Strong Preference


83.8% 89.6% 1.705 .085 small

Using technology 80.2% 87.0% 2.155 .093 small


52.7% 74.6% ***14.981 .227 medium


Giving feedback to peer students 57.4% 63.2% 0.806 .059

Using real-life problems 92.8% 93.1% 0.000 .005

Using critical thinking skills 92.1% 93.8% 0.115 .033

Receiving study strategies 79.8% 87.5% 2.678 .104 small

Kinesthetic Working with a partner 68.8% 86.7% *5.854 .152 small

Working in groups of 3-6 62.5% 81.5% *5.206 .143 small


Lecture 81.2% 79.3% 0.000 .014

Giving a presentation 45.2% 65.4% *4.095 .128 small

Observing a peer students presentation 43.3% 61.0% 2.810 .108 small


68.8% 76.6% 0.591 .056


73.3% 88.6% *4.368 .137 small

Using technology 71.9% 85.5% 3.030 .114 small


67.7% 65.0% 0.011 .017


Giving feedback to peer students 54.8% 61.3% 0.257 .041

Using real-life problems 76.7% 94.8% ***10.885 .213 medium

Using critical thinking skills 74.2% 95.2% ***15.869 .251 medium

Receiving study strategies 76.7% 85.2% 0.908 .070 small For each survey item, the “affirmative” rate based on students who responded either “Positive” or “Very positive.”

For the four learning modalities, “weak” includes students indicating a “no” or “low” preference, and “strong” includes students indicating a “moderate” or “high” preference.


Table 18 contains the same results as Table 17, sorted by survey item. From this sort, it’s easier to see there are no facilitation strategies with significant differences for all four learning modalities, between students with weak and strong preferences for a modality. A prospective interpretation suggests varying facilitation strategies likely matters to groups of students, and also possibly matters to each student.

Table 18. Associations Between Students’ Level of Learning Preferences, and Strength of Facilitation Strategies, by Strategy

Survey Item


Chi Square

Cramer’s V

Effect Size

Learning Modality

Weak Preference

Strong Preference

Working with a partner Visual 37.5% 86.1% **10.779 .215 medium

Aural 76.2% 87.8% *5.316 .141 small

RW 82.4% 86.6% 0.716 .057


Working in groups of 3-6 Visual 62.5% 79.9% 0.580 .069

Aural 70.7% 82.7% *4.542 .131 small

RW 78.0% 80.6% 0.162 .031


Survey Item


Chi Square

Cramer’s V

Effect Size

Learning Modality

Weak Preference

Strong Preference


Working in groups of 7 or more Visual 28.6% 32.6% 0.000 .013

Aural 28.2% 34.1% 0.660 .055

RW 30.5% 34.1% 0.292 .039

Kinesthetic 25.0% 33.5% 0.585 .056

Lecture Visual 37.5% 80.7% *6.468 .170 small

Aural 72.0% 82.3% 3.351 .113 small

RW 73.6% 83.8% *4.148 .124 small

Kinesthetic 81.2% 79.3% 0.000 .014

Giving a presentation Visual 25.0% 64.4% 3.651 .131 small

Aural 58.2% 65.2% 0.935 .063

RW 51.9% 72.1% ***12.196 .208 small


Observing a peer students presentation Visual 25.0% 60.2% 2.673 .115 small

Aural 59.5% 59.2% 0.000 .003

RW 48.8% 66.9% **9.186 .181 small

Kinesthetic 43.3% 61.0% 2.810 .108 small


Visual 37.5% 76.8% *4.607 .147 small

Aural 70.0% 77.9% 1.593 .081 small

RW 71.8% 78.9% 1.692 .082 small

Kinesthetic 68.8% 76.6% 0.591 .056


Visual 37.5% 88.5% ***13.787 .244 medium

Aural 81.2% 89.2% 2.675 .105 small

RW 83.8% 89.6% 1.705 .085 small


Using technology Visual 25.0% 85.7% ***17.142 .264 medium

Aural 81.5% 85.0% 0.326 .043

RW 80.2% 87.0% 2.155 .093 small



Visual 12.5% 66.7% **7.837 .181 small

Aural 59.8% 67.3% 1.181 .070

RW 52.7% 74.6% ***14.981 .227 medium

Kinesthetic 67.7% 65.0% 0.011 .017

Receiving feedback from peer students Visual 37.5% 71.7% 2.913 .120 small

Aural 59.0% 74.9% *6.366 .153 small

RW 66.9% 73.7% 1.352 .074 small


Giving feedback to peer students Visual 28.6% 61.4% 1.870 .102 small

Aural 47.4% 65.3% **7.001 .161 small

RW 57.4% 63.2% 0.806 .059

Kinesthetic 54.8% 61.3% 0.257 .041

Using real-life problems Visual 50.0% 94.1% ***16.906 .279 medium

Aural 84.2% 95.9% **10.180 .200 small

RW 92.8% 93.1% 0.000 .005

Kinesthetic 76.7% 94.8% ***10.885 .213 medium

Using critical thinking skills Visual 50.0% 94.2% ***17.197 .279 medium

Aural 87.2% 95.1% *4.439 .136 small

RW 92.1% 93.8% 0.115 .033

Kinesthetic 74.2% 95.2% ***15.869 .251 medium

Receiving study strategies Visual 71.4% 84.6% 0.180 .055

Aural 81.0% 85.5% 0.586 .055


Survey Item


Chi Square

Cramer’s V

Effect Size

Learning Modality

Weak Preference

Strong Preference

RW 79.8% 87.5% 2.678 .104 small

Kinesthetic 76.7% 85.2% 0.908 .070 small For each survey item, the “affirmative” rate based on students who responded either “Positive” or “Very positive.”

For the four learning modalities, “weak” includes students indicating a “no” or “low” preference, and “strong” includes students indicating a “moderate” or “high” preference.


Students’ Perceived Impact of Learning Experiences within Cognitive Domains

Refer to the briefing named “Students’ Perceived Impact of Learning Experiences within Cognitive Domains”

Similar to the set of survey items about expectations, surveyed students were asked to identify their level of agreement with a set of items representing the orders within Bloom’s Taxonomy. For all six items, the difference between active and traditional learning experiences was significant (p<.05), with students’ rating the active learning experiences higher than the traditional learning experiences; however, as modeled within Figure 3, the rates students agree within only 16%, and these rates trend downwards as the level in Bloom’s Taxonomy increases.

Table 19. Bloom’s Taxonomy, by Type of Learning Experience

Bloom’s Cognitive Domain

Survey Item Representing the Cognitive Domain

Descriptives by Space Comparison of Spaces

Type of Learning

Experience


Percent Differenc

e (AL-Trad) p

Effect Size

Knowledge I can recall facts and basic concepts

Active 79.7% 300 4.0 4.0 2.6%

*

.138 (small) Trad 77.0% 270 3.9 4.0

Compre-hension

I can explain ideas or concepts

Active 76.1% 297 3.9 4.0 5.7%

***

.227 (small) Trad 70.4% 270 3.8 4.0

Application I can apply information to new situations

Active 77.2% 298 3.9 4.0 4.5%

***

.213 (small) Trad 72.7% 271 3.8 4.0

Analysis I can analyze connections among ideas

Active 77.6% 299 3.9 4.0 3.5%

***

.203 (small) Trad 74.1% 270 3.9 4.0

Synthesis I can create new or original work

Active 69.2% 299 3.8 4.0 7.9% *** .208 (small) Trad 61.3% 269 3.6 4.0

Evaluation I can evaluate and justify a decision

Active 77.5% 298 3.9 4.0 6.3%

***

.226 (small) Trad 71.2% 271 3.8 4.0

Scale: Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), Strongly agree (5). Significance Levels: * indicates p<.05; ** indicates p<.01; *** indicates p<.001.


Figure 3. Rate of Students who Agree or Strongly Agree, by Learning Experience & Bloom’s Taxonomy

These survey items address each level within Bloom’s Taxonomy11. Levels in Bloom’s taxonomy may have different meanings for courses (e.g., introductory vs. upper-level) or class activities occurring prior to data collection (data collected in October, 2016). For example,

Course expectations as of the survey data may emphasis lower-order learning experiences.

If “synthesis” is removed from the trendline calculation, the trendline becomes less negative for both learning experiences, nearly flat for active learning experiences.

Hence, instructors might consider:

How should students’ rate their experience, within the framework of Bloom’s Taxonomy, based on my design of in-class activities and course assessments?

The value here for these items, which is difficult to measure in the survey without specific information from the instructor, is less of an emphasis on the differences between active and traditional learning experience. Rather how well did the instructor design the learning experience to fit the desired order(s) in the taxonomy?

Students’ Perceived Impact of Learning Spaces on Principles of Good Practice

Refer to the briefing named “Students’ Perceived Impact of Learning Spaces on Principles of Good Practice”

11 For the original source, see: In Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longmans, Green.

For a brief overview regarding Bloom’s Taxonomy applied to college teaching, see:

https://www.purdue.edu/cie/teachingtips/videos4.html

http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/effective-teaching-practices/revised-blooms-taxonomy

Also see:

Krathwohl, D. R. (December 07, 2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-18.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Evaluation Synthesis

Active Learning Traditional Linear (Active Learning) Linear (Traditional)

https://www.purdue.edu/cie/teachingtips/videos4.html

http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/effective-teaching-practices/revised-blooms-taxonomy


Similar to Bloom’s Taxonomy, surveyed students responded to a set of items covering Chickering and Gamson’s seven principles of good practice12. For six of the seven principles, the difference between AL and traditional learning experiences was significant (p<.05), with students’ rating the AL learning experience higher than traditional learning experiences.

Table 20. Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, by Type of Learning Experience

Survey Item

Descriptives by Space Comparison of Spaces

Type of Learning

Experience


Percent Difference (ALS-Trad) p

Effect Size

I understand the concepts of my course(s)

Active 77.7% 296 3.9 4.0 5.5%

**

.195 (small) Trad 72.2% 270 3.8 4.0

I am encouraged to have contact with my instructor

Active 73.2% 299 3.9 4.0 13.8%

***

.303 (medium) Trad 59.4% 271 3.6 4.0

I am encouraged to have contact with other students

Active 82.6% 298 4.2 4.0 30.3%

***

.545 (large) Trad 52.2% 272 3.4 4.0

I am encouraged to cooperate with other students

Active 85.9% 297 4.2 4.0 30.1%

***

.540 (large) Trad 55.7% 271 3.5 4.0

I receive prompt feedback Active 64.8% 298 3.8 4.0 14.6%

***

.287 (small) Trad 50.2% 271 3.4 4.0

Time is well-spent on related tasks

Active 64.1% 298 3.7 4.0 2.0%

.059 Trad 62.1% 272 3.7 4.0

Diverse ways of learning are respected

Active 72.2% 299 3.9 4.0 16.5% *** .321 (medium)

Trad 55.7% 271 3.5 4.0

Figure 4 visually shows the differences between learning environments, and across the principles.

Figure 4. Rate of Students who Agree or Strongly Agree, by Learning Experience & Principles of Good Practice

Conclusions

12 Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE bulletin, 3(7).

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

I understand theconcepts of my

course(s)

I am encouragedto have contact

with myinstructor

I am encouragedto have contact

with otherstudents

I am encouragedto cooperate

with otherstudents

I receive promptfeedback

Time is well-spent on related

tasks

Diverse ways oflearning arerespected

Active Learning Experience Traditional Learning Experience


Conclusions fitting each section of the results appear within the various briefings. In general, these results suggest further case study of learning spaces, bounded by room configuration13 at Purdue, possibly also bounded by instructor and/or curriculum. The opening of the Wilmeth Active Learning Center presents numerous opportunities to develop knowledge specific to stakeholders at Purdue University, test teaching or learning theories, or develop new knowledge publishable or presentable in peer-reviewed forums. Ultimately, any research on learning spaces at Purdue aids the development of teaching and learning at Purdue, and may be transferrable to other institutions.

13 For space types in the Wilmeth Active Learning Center, see: https://www.purdue.edu/registrar/documents/scheduling/WALC_Classroom_Models.pdf

https://www.purdue.edu/registrar/documents/scheduling/WALC_Classroom_Models.pdf


Appendix 1. Instructors Interview Questions 1. [Classroom] was renovated to be an active learning space.

a. When did you become aware [Classroom] is designed for active learning? b. How did/does [Classroom] being an active learning space affect your course planning? c. What do you know now about [Classroom] that you wish you knew before you started course planning?

2. [Based on a list of active learning spaces also used by the instructor] You also used [Classroom(s)] recently.

a. When did you become aware [Classroom(s)] is/are designed for active learning? b. How did/does this affect your course planning? c. What do you know now about [Classroom] that you wish you knew before you started course planning?

3. Regarding in-class facilitation strategies: a. What are your preferred strategies? b. How does [Classroom] enhance your preferred strategies? c. How does [Classroom] inhibit your preferred strategies? d. What strategies have you tried for the first time this semester, specifically because of [Classroom]

characteristics?

4. How have you successfully facilitated/organized the following in [Classroom]:

Engaged students as peer-to-peer partners?

Engaged students in groupwork (3 or more)? o What is your preference for number of students in groupwork?

Lectured?

Had students give presentations?

Used whole class discussions?

Used whole class question and answer activities?

Facilitated problem-solving to achieve outcomes?

Received student feedback during class?

Obtained peer assessment of work during class?

Developed students critical thinking skills?

Offered study tips or other strategies to succeed in your course?

Facilitated quizzes or exams?

5. Regarding use of [Classroom], how do you successfully use the following, and how do these distract students? a. Technology you use for teaching and/or student engagement? (Including hardware and applications) b. Technology you expect students to use? c. Student furniture? d. Furniture available to the instructor? e. Layout options for furniture? f. The environment? (ex: space to move around groups, arrangement options, noise, flexibility between

activities)

6. If you taught the same course in [Classroom] again, what would you change about any of the course activities listed in questions 4 and 5?

7. If you identify your course as a “flipped” or “hybrid”:

a. How do hold students accountable to be prepared for class? b. how does the work you expect students to complete outside of class affect what you do in-class?


8. Regarding student learning outcomes:

a. How does [Classroom] enhance or inhibit students’ ability to meet learning outcomes? b. How does [Classroom] help you to assess student learning outcomes?

9. Regarding student learning preferences:

a. What have you specifically heard students say about the impact of the room on their learning? (Consider pros and cons.)

b. What have you specifically observed about the impact of the room on students’ learning? (Consider pros and cons.)

10. Regarding your own professional development to teach:

a. How long have you been: o Teaching overall? o Used active learning strategies?

b. Were you an IMPACT FLC participant? c. What other development experiences besides IMPACT prepared you to teach and/or developed your

teaching philosophy? (Consider at Purdue, prior to coming to Purdue, in-person and virtual, etc) 11. How might your use of [Classroom] affect your course facilitation strategies in any room in the future?

12. What do you wish to do in class this semester that you cannot because of [Classroom] characteristics? 13. Why would you or would you not request using [Classroom] in a future academic period?


Appendix 2. Instructors’ Interview Coding Structure Parent Node Child Node Description

COURSE ATTRIBUTES

Characteristics Course enrollment, fit within curriculum/POS, etc.

General facilitation type, such as traditional, hybrid, flip, lab, etc.

Disciplinary Fit to expectations for gains in knowledge, or changes in behaviors, based on the discipline/profession.

Planning Strategies to create learning outcomes. (Outcomes = goals, objectives, etc.)

Mapping from outcomes to activities and assignments.

Adaptability during the course.

INSTRUCTOR Adaptability How/why the instructor adapts to the space, students, content, etc.

Self-Awareness Perceptions of self, skills, control, needs within space/course, etc.

Support Support needed, during class, or outside of class.

From whom (ex: graduate or undergraduate teaching assistants, college/unit administrative staff, campus services.)

Transferrable skills/experiences

Years of teaching; prior teaching experiences.

Professional Development (ex: IMPACT, formal, informal)

PEDAGOGY Assessment of Learning Philosophy of evaluating student learning.

Strategies used to assess learning.

Expectations of students

Expectations for students’ behavior.

How expectations are communicated.

How and why instructors hold students accountable. Feedback, Instructor to Student

How and why instructors provide feedback to students.

(Formative assessment.)

Expectations for use of the feedback; how feedback is used.

Feedback, Student to Instructor

Strategies used by instructors to receive feedback from students.

What feedback instructors receive.

How the instructor uses the feedback.

Feedback, Student to Student

Strategies used by instructors to facilitate peer-to-peer sharing of feedback.

What feedback students receive.

How students use the feedback; evidence of use.

Scaffolding Evidence of deeper learning.

Stacking/combining series of learning activities.

Strategies, Lecturing How and why instructors use lectures and presentations.

Strategies, Other Active Learning

How and why instructors use individual or online strategies, in and out of class.

Strategies, Peer Learning

Peer-to-peer engagement.

How and why instructors use 2-person partnerships, or groups or teams of 3 or more.

SPACE Characteristics Characteristics of a learning space: size, location, accessibility or travel time, etc.

(Not “physical features”)

Classroom Layout Arrangement of physical resources within a learning space.


Parent Node Child Node Description

Proximity to peer students and instructor; comfort within proximity.

Students’ access to resources within learning space.

Engagement How space aids or hinders students’ engagement.

Impact on People How and why the learning spaces affects instructors’ pedagogy and facilitation options.

How and why the learning space affects students’ learning potential.

Physical Resources Furniture, etc used by instructors or students.

How physical resources affect instructor-to-student engagement.

Scheduling Perceptions of room scheduling policies/practices.

Priorities for preferred learning spaces.

TECHNOLOGY Effect on Students How technology supports, enables, benefits students and learning.

How issues with technology detract, inhibit students and learning.

Hardware What tech hardware is needed.

What tech hardware is used. How and how frequently is it used.

Managing Issues What are the issues with and limitations of technology.

How instructors overcome issues and limitations.

Software What tech software/applications are needed.

What tech software/applications are used. How and how frequently are they used.


Appendix 3. Students’ Survey Items in Qualtrics The [CLASSROOM] classroom is an active learning space, which means [CLASSROOM] is designed for active learning. By definition "active learning" consists of learning methods based on greater engagement in activities designed to develop knowledge or skills. Briefly, what does this definition mean to you as a student at Purdue University? Rank your preferred ways to learn, based on the following:

VISUAL: a preference to see new information

AURAL: a preference to hear new information

READING/WRITING: a preference to obtain new information through reading or writing

KINESTHETIC: a preference to obtain new information through experience [Scale: No preference (1), Low preference (2), Moderate preference (3), High preference(4)] Identify the extent to which features of the [CLASSROOM] classroom accommodate your preferred ways to learn.

Technology used by my instructor

Technology I use


Furniture used by my instructor

Furniture I use


General classroom environment (space between students, noise, etc) [Scale: Very negative (1), Somewhat negative (2), Neither negative or positive (3), Somewhat positive (4), Very positive (5), No basis for opinion (99)] Identify the extent to which features of the [CLASSROOM] classroom impact your learning and academic success.

Technology used by my instructor

Technology I use


Furniture used by my instructor

Furniture I use


General classroom environment (space between students, noise, etc) [Scale: Very negative (1), Somewhat negative (2), Neither negative or positive (3), Somewhat positive (4), Very positive (5), No basis for opinion (99)] Considering any courses you completed at Purdue University, identify the extent to which the following in-class strategies affect your academic success.

Working with a partner

Working in groups of 3-6

Working in groups of 7 or more

Lecture

Giving a presentation

Observing a peer students' presentation



Using technology


Receiving feedback from peer students

Giving feedback to peer students

Using real-life problems

Using critical thinking skills

Receiving study strategies [Scale: Very harmful (1), Somewhat harmful (2), No effect (3), Somewhat helpful (4), Very helpful (5), No basis for opinion (99)]


Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements based on your experiences in [CLASSROOM] for [COURSE], compared to other courses facilitated primarily as a lecture.



I am able to articulate course content in my own words

I am aware of what I known, and what I do not know, by the end of most classes

I know how to prepare for class

I am held accountable to be prepared for class

I know how to review course content after class

I know how to prepare for exams

I know my instructor and/or TA

I receive feedback from my instructor and/or TA

I receive feedback from other students

I can adapt my preferred ways to learn to be successful

The course is challenging

I receive support to meet the challenges of the course

I can recall facts and basic concepts

I can explain ideas or concepts

I can apply information to new situations

I can analyze connections among ideas

I can evaluate and justify a decision

I can create new or original work

I understand the concepts of my course(s)

I am encouraged to have contact with my instructor

I am encouraged to have contact with other students

I am encouraged to cooperate with other students

I receive prompt feedback

Time is well-spent on related tasks

Diverse ways of learning are respected [Scale: Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), Strongly agree (5)]


Appendix 4. Students’ Survey Responses to a Definition of Active Learning (Sorted alphabetically. All responses verbatim, except when editing needed to preserve anonymity)

A combination of project-based work, permanent teams & ad-hoc groups, and experiential engagement.

A hands on type of learning where interaction is easy and effective for group work.

A more collaborative space or space conducive to learning in methods other than the plain lecture style.

A more open environment, and more engaging with the group you sit with.

A space in which to interact in small groups and learn

A way to increase my learning and study habits.

A workspace that allows students to learn and collaborate.

Active learning a more personal and in-depth type of learning that most students wish to achieve in order to fully absorb the information in their classes.

Active learning allows me to learn other individuals' perspectives on topics and makes me understand better and relate them to myself.

Active Learning Environment for me means there will be a lot of group work and group discussion going on during the class time.

Active learning for me means being able to actively engage in discussions and not have a strictly lecture-based discussion.

Active learning gets students involved and moving in the classroom

Active Learning involves a more open classroom tailored to discussion between students and the professor, between students and other students, and easy collaboration for course projects.

Active learning involves student participation and it is a continuous process

Active learning is a crucial element of learning for most students because that's how they learn the best. I appreciate active learning and find it beneficial.

Active learning is a deviation from the "traditional classroom setting" where students can interact with both the professor and each other.

Active learning is a great concept, but without a more concrete definition, I can't pass judgement on the implementation at Purdue.

Active learning is a way to gin knowledge by discussing with classmates and sharing ideas in order to get different perspectives.

Active learning is actively participating in class whether it be with peers or the professor.

Active learning is being engaged while the professor is speaking.

Active learning is doing something in the field of study, not a classroom. Learning in a classroom is not effective whether you are in a group or not.

Active learning is engaging students in all ways students prefer to learn such as visual, auditory, hands on, and etc.

Active learning is finding ways for each student to gain proper knowledge over courses.

Active learning is getting involved in class and not just listening to lecture.

Active learning is learning done in more of a group-project oriented way. Normally, active learning takes place in a flipped classroom without conventional desks or lectures.

Active learning is when the students can chose to be involved in a variety of different things through classes. For instance, instead of just a lecture every day, the students can decide if they want to partake in a survey, field trip, or video learning.

Active learning means being able to learn material for my courses by actively thinking about and understanding it. For me, the best ways to actively learn material for my classes is by doing an activity or being able to learn about it visually.

Active learning means being engaged in the classroom.

Active learning means being engaged in what goes on in the classroom, whether it be discussions, drawing on boards, or simply listening to presentations.

Active learning means being in a setting where skill or knowledge is applied, so that one is able to learn while doing.

Active learning means having the instructor teach but more in a discussion manner of why things are so the instructor understands the student's point of view.

Active learning means having the students engage in hands on activities alongside traditional learning methods.

Active learning means learning that actively involves the student to participate in the discussion by stimulating a variety of senses through experiences, activities, and team projects.


Active learning means learning through activities, visual diagrams, and interactive learning instead of lectures all the time

Active learning means learning with a hands on approach whether its teaching my fellow peers about a topic i am knowledgeable about or working together in groups so that we learn from each other

Active learning means more time working in groups in class instead of listening to a lecture.

Active learning means participating and asking questions. Listening while also interpreting the information presented.

Active learning means participating in a learning experience rather than sitting and listening to a professor talk at the students for an hour.

Active learning means that all students are engaged throughout the class so that everyone is learning all of the information.

Active learning means that I am listening to a teacher lecture on a subject and then being able to put what I learned into action.

Active learning means that the amount of information I get from a class is very dependent on the effort I place, unlike a lecture where the lecturer will teach the class regardless of my participation.

Active learning means to be more hands on and learn from being active.

Active learning means to me working with classmates and teaches in an environment set up for team work.

Active learning space means that the area is able to have multiple functions depending on the size of the group. There should be room for collaboration, discussion, and tools to assist in this (ex. white boards, projectors)

Active learning to me is a different style of learning that uses a different setting and teaching techniques

Active learning to me is group work and helping each other understand topics that we cannot understand on their own.

Active learning to me is hands on learning, and getting experience rather than just sitting in a lecture.

Active learning to me means being engaged in the activity in order to understand it better.

Active learning to me means group work, participating in activities during class periods. things that require students to be actively engaged.

Active learning to me means learning actively.

Active learning to me means learning online and watching lectures online can coming in and doing group activities.

Active learning to me means methods of learning that tend to lead to better retention and understanding of a topic.

Active learning to me means that everyone is participating and contributing to the lesson.

Active learning to me means that learning happens through lectures and then understood to a greater level and applied through discussions as a class and in groups.

Active learning to me means the ability to move around and provide for different scenarios based on the seating.

Active learning, to me, means that I'm learning in a deeper way than just taking in information and trying to remember it. I'm making connections with the materials I'm learning and forming a better understanding of said materials.

Active learning, to me, means that the classes are less lecture-based and are more discussion/participation-based.

Actively participating in a more hand on environment

Actually absorbing the material instead of regurgitating it

Allows for class participation and engagement. Easy access for class communication and small group break out sessions.

Apparently what it means is Self Learning, as in everyone reads the book and then comes to class to answer questions. Class time is used to quiz or discuss confusing parts of the text and not used for the actual teaching of material. (Nope, discussing wha we read does not present a cohesive teaching narrative. Stop saying it does.)

As a Purdue student, this means that my classes should be designed in a way that enhances my learning.

As a student at Purdue University, "active learning" means having the opportunity to learn in an environment where students and instructors are interacting with each other in a small-group or individual basis.

As a student at Purdue University, I perceive active learning as some form of nontraditional teaching technique used to actively stimulate a student's learning experience.

As a student, active learning means that one must participate in the lecture being taught in order to start understanding. Simply just by raising their hand and ask or answer a question.

As displayed in my [course in STEW], active learning means getting involved. It is a very hands on learning process, allowing me to both fail and succeed within the safe walls of my classroom. Following up with whatever obstacle that was placed in my way, has alowed me to review and obtain the information needed. I am doing very well in this class and I believe it is because of this setup.

As displayed in my math class, active learning means getting involved. It is a very hands on learning process, allowing me to both fail and succeed within the safe walls of my classroom. Following up with whatever obstacle that was


placed in my way, has alowed me to review and obtain the information needed. I am doing very well in this class and I believe it is because of this setup.

Available space enabling students to work with each other without the restrictions found in a normal classroom setting

Being a student at Purdue, active learning means engaging with the information first hand. Doing activities and conducting conversations covering the material we're exploring in class.

Being able to do hands-on activities. Not just sit and listen in a lecture

Being able to participate in class.

Being able to participate with others in order to interact as a team.

Being involved in learning

Being involved in the classroom and also doing activities with groups.

Being involved in your learning

Being more involved

Better communication better activity experience

By definition I would classify active learning as hands on and lots of engagement.

Classes that combine lecture with class discussion.

Collaborating with colleagues and group work

Constantly learning

Doing activities that teach new information or skills in a active involved way which i think helps retain the information.

Easier team communication, enough power outlets, enough desk room,

Easy capability to collaborate with others and easily view both displayed content and the instructor

Easy for group work

Engagement

engaging in new and different ways to teach students

Engaging students in the classroom

Flexibility in learning

For me, I think it signifies a dynamic environment where I am part of the discussion, not just listening. It means that I can participate, ask questions, challenge the material we are learning.

For me, this means practical examples and practice using methods that I would use in my career after college.

Giving back feedback to the instructor

Group work, project showcasing, collaborative assignments

Hands on experience

Hands on participation

Hands on problems.

having discussions instead of listening to a lecture

Having the ability to have a cohesive work environment and being able to change the layout of the classroom to fit different needs.

Here, people think active learning is working with others, whereas it could just be activities in general

Honestly, it means nothing to me. You teach, I learn. Whatever works best for you

I am able to sit at a circular table which fosters conversation between a small group.

I am not passively sitting in the seat and taking notes but engaging in activities that helps learning

I believe ANSC 181 did a good job of incorporating this in there class and I definitely learned a lot and enjoyed the class

I believe that active engagement in what I am learning is important, whether it be inside or outside of the classroom. This helps me put meaning behind what I am learning rather than just memorizing facts. I like that our classroom incorporates this activ learning process for us.

I believe that active learning includes student and teacher interactions throughout class time and that there are hands on activities during class time also.

I don't mind it, it is just disorganized because of how the desks aren't connected to anything.

I don't want to talk to the other students in this course, they're idiots. This [course is] for stupid people

I don't want to talk to the other students in this course, they're idiots. This is a math for stupid people

I feel like this just means being engaged with what you are learning whether that is physically or verbally.

I feel that active learning has helped me in my learning at Purdue University. I got to learn new information in a different way than I ever have before.

I feel that the definition of active learning to me is much different. I think that it should be more about actually learning. All we do is sit with a few other people and try and get problems done that a lot of times don't even relate to the material we re doing.


I hope active learning can be applied more to Purdue classrooms. Lectures are not always the most engaging forms of learning and there can be an increase in feedback from these type of classrooms.

I think "active learning" means professors show the given assignment on the board, and the students are responsible to solve the problems.

I think it means being immersed in a learning environment that allows you to partake in meaningful learning 100% of the time.

I think it means learning not by other people drilling notes into your brain but by discovering this, discussing ideas and exchanging perspectives.

I think this definition is a look into the future and what Purdue can accomplish in the years to come. A goal of any college is to build their students for a better tomorrow and by developing knowledge and skills in this way I believe they are on a track o success.

I think this means learning by application, rather than being told how to do something the teacher engages us by working problems out in lectures.

I would say this means a space that learning will take place at an active level. This means that students learn in th classroom and are introduced to new information.

If I was told a class was in an Active Learning space, I'm going to guess that there is no "front" of the classroom. There are screens everywhere and students can move freely and congregate. The lecturer should be walking around the class and engaging eveyone instead of preaching at the front.

im not sure

I'm not sure about much more "active" the learning is in this classroom, but I like it nonetheless.

In class activities and exercises that help us fully understand or practice a known concept.

Instead of listening to someone talk at me, I will be filling out worksheets or doing something like that during the discussion

Interact in unconventional ways.

Interacting easily with other students and the professor.

interacting with students during class, not just being talked at

Interaction and discussion. Hands-on experiences and participation from everyone

Interactive, involved learning when compared to root-memorization and strict lecture based classes.

Is to be part of the learning community and to be actively participating in it.

It means being able to easily form study groups and entails more interdisciplinary learning.

It means being easily able to collaborate with others to work and think.

It means classes involve more than simply a lecture. There are usually more class activities which aid the student's understanding of the material.

It means classes utilize both lectures and in class activities to learn material.

It means contributing to the learning experience by engaging in conversation, debate, or group work.

It means I can experience diversified studying environment and absorb rich educational methods. As a result, our students can get all-round development: creativity, teamwork ability and independent ability.

It means I will be made to finsh activities and find answers on my own rather than be lectured to.

It means it is an open discussion class not just be traditional style.

it means learning by working with other students and faculty in an environment that promotes collaboration

It means learning through discussion with peerss

It means letting the students work together to figure problems out, to learn as they work together on problems, instead of traditional lecture style learning.

It means lots of group work patterned with technology/whiteboards.

It means my education is focused more on hands-on and interaction than listening to a lecturer.

It means not just looking at power point slides and reading off of them and copying it down. It means having speakers talk about what is on those slides and how it is applicable or not to us.

It means not sitting and taking notes but participating and speaking as well as doing activities.

It means teachers are going to try to 'engage us' and waste our time instead of teaching

It means that I can interact with students to a greater level and learn more as a result.

It means that in a classroom setting I can receive direct help with a problem if I ask about it.

It means that in the classroom the professor and students should be able to interact a little bit to increase the learning of the students.

It means that it creates a learning environment where students can work in groups and engage easier with the professor.


it means that lecture is more than just someone talking to you where you get to learn and communicate with your peers

It means that professors are trying to get students more actively engaged in their own learning and education, which better enriches their knowledge and makes the class more fun.

It means that students won't be sitting in class only taking notes. They will also be applying what they are learning in class.

It means that teaching is not just lecture based passive learning but can include interactive activities, hands-on training etc

It means that the classroom will be set up for easy mobility and access to students around you. It also means students will be able to get comfortable in the seats and the environment.

It means that there will be activities or other connections to the class material rather than just a lecture.

It means that we get more interactive learning and a little more hands on and interesting then just sitting there and being lectured to

It means that we get to learn by ways we wouldn't usually learn in a typical classroom.

It means that we will be able to use different skills in order to learn.

It means that you incorporate the environment and various activities to learn the information.

It means that you're achieving a greater education by getting hands on learning.

It means that, as a Purdue student, I am greatly encouraged to participate in active learning.

It means that's it's more than just taking notes and exams. I am getting to simulate and engage with others to give my learning meaning.

It means we get more student to professor interaction during class instead of just being lectured.

It means we get to work/talk/discusses with other classmates. It means that it is not only the teacher talking but we get to learn form each other and talk about what we learned. We get to do more hands-on activities.

It means working in a collaborative space with people to gain new information and skills.

It means working on things in class and getting immediate help instead of just listening to a lecture.

It would mean actually performing certain processes in the classroom setting while a teacher is there to monitor and aid you as necessary.

Just a more involved classroom experience. Does't only consist of listening to lectures and taking notes.

Learning based on student participation and working in teams; learning concepts as we work on relevant projects.

Learning by more than just having a teacher lecture to you while you take notes.

Learning how to study effectively

Learning in a classroom with lots of participation and varied activities.

Learning new material in some way other than the classic lecture.

Learning through participation

Learning using activities to facilitate student participation

Less lecturing and more interaction

Let's students learn about occupations in their field

More engagement in the classroom with practice and understanding. Allowance of outside learning and more help inside the classroom.

More movement and flexibility

more student interaction with peers

New methods to teach material that is otherwise not very engaging

Not being lectured to and doing activities.

Not traditional seating. Your more engaged and involved throughout the lecture.

Only that this classroom is fancier than a normal classroom

Participating in class, an open space, and everyone contributing ideas

Participating in hands on or applied experiences to enhance learning.

practical applications, real exercises, multiple paths to success

Students are actively engaged and participating in the classroom.

study in groups

Taking learning outside of the textbooks, by having students and professors interacting in dialogue and activities to expand on the information presented through the course.

That the learning portion of my class is done by my self and then the checking and understanding are done in the class room.

That there the room allows the professor to lead in a direction and the class finishes the thought or idea on their own.


That you have a work space and can work with others as a team, and to discuss all your answers

The classroom is indeed a place for learning about new things. The best way to fully experience gaining new insights and knowledge is through active learning. Active learning helps in a way that you are learning from people who are going through the same earning process. It is much better to engage in an active learning community than that of a lecture style class.

The definition means to me that learning is diversified in order to have a greater/more beneficial outcome.

The room probably has a bunch of small tables and extra projectors. Maybe some whiteboards too.

These rooms facilitate learning better and have better ways to get students engaged.

This definition generally means that the class will likely be more interactive and include team work and discussions opposed to a typical lecture class.

This definition means a lot because active learning creates opportunities to retain knowledge and course material.

This definition means a lot to me because I think Purdue needs more of this learning.

This definition means participating in class and volunteering to answer questions, speak to other students and your professors, complete work, etc.

This definition means that an active listening environment provides space for collaboration and communication between peers and professors.

This definition means that both students and instructors are engaged to further enhance knowledge and skills. To mean this means the space is used to further my education through interaction.

This definition means that everyone has different learning styles so we should diversify how we teach.

This definition means that group work is involved in the class.

This definition means that I am involved when I am trying to learn something to gain a better understanding of what it is I am learning.

This definition means to me as a student that in every class I am constantly and actively learning new information. I believe that "active learning" is beneficial for when students get out into the work force.

this definition means to me that the room is set up to allow students to work in groups, hold discussions, and utilize technology. Various forms of technology are available so multiple different examples can be provided, and concepts can be further explaied

This definition means working better with peers in order to accomplish an activity.

This definition seems to be very accurate and is what I would interpret an active learning space to be like.

This is interacting with other students and partaking in activities that are hard to do in other classrooms. Grouping up for discussion becomes very easy.

This meaning having the students participate in class.

This means a lot of group work and combined efforts to learn what is needed for the class.

This means doing hands on activities and applying my knowledge.

This means more ways to interact with other students in the classroom and move around to get a different perspective.

This means more work for the students and less work for the professors.

This means students have more opportunity to work together.

This means that I am encouraged to participate actively in my education. It also means that i must be self driven in my academic pursuits. It is learning through multiple facets.

This means that I am in an environment in which I can proactively practice what I have been learning and get ideas from my fellow students on how I can go about working out problems faster and thinking through tough steps.

This means that I get to help other students learn, and other students get to help me learn. This isn't just something to do on the side though, it's something that's encouraged and required in class.

This means that my professors will be able to be more interactive with me and personal rather than providing only a general help to all students. This allows the professors to address my individual learning.

This means that Purdue is doing its best to create an environment where we can learn the most.

This means that teachers and people here aren't talking at us as students they work with us to help us better ourselves.

This means that the information will be better instilled in our minds and for our future careers.

This means we can get up during class.

This to me means that the classroom is meant for engaging team exercises instead of just listening to a lecturer.

Thumbs up

To have activities like discussions, group work and use of beneficial technology to aid understanding.

To me active learning means actually being involved in your own learning. Not just going to class and sitting there not paying attention, but actually answering questions and writing notes.

To me it means learning by doing


To me it means that students are learning more about the material outside of class and then discussing the material with the people in your group. The only negative I have found is if no one know how to answer a question.

TO me this just means not merely sitting and listening to a lecture, but getting to do different activities.

To me this means professors engaging with students. I believe for the most part, Purdue has a very active learning environment.

To me, active learning means having hands on experiences that will engage me in the course and the material we are covering.

To me, active learning means I am answering less conceptual questions and have already been exposed to basic concepts; I am now practicing answering questions using the methods I have already been exposed to, honing in on technique, and answering applicaton questions.

To me, active learning means learning in an environment that not only allows, but encourages creativity, collaboration, and interaction.

To me, active learning's definition means that I will be participating more in class and doing activities rather than passively listening to a lecture.

To me, it means pushing me to do something I'm not comfortable doing

To me, this means I learn from peers and then teach to my peers. I don't see the benefit of us being graded on teaching things when we haven't necessarily been taught the material by an instructor.

To me, this means that the goal is to maximize learning potential through use of classroom space at Purdue.

To me, this means that there are hands on activities.

Using class notes, video materials, examples from real life for teaching

we have more chance to talk with other people and interact with others.

When students are able to learn through actively participating in the classroom either through discussion, or group activities, etc.

Whenever I hear active learning classroom, I think of classrooms that are typically more group-based and involve more technology than "old-school" classrooms.

Where students are encouraged to acquire knowledge by themselves even without instructor.

Working collaboratively with otherstudents

Working in teams, having projects due that go beyond traditional homework, having discussions with professors

Working on problems while receiving oversight.

Working with other students in groups to understand material instead of being lectured to all the time.

You learn by doing. You're replicating on what the teacher is doing.

office of institutional assessment - purdue university - full.pdf · office of institutional...

Documents