Location,location,location: A comparison of student experience in a lecture hall to a small classroom using similar techniques

Abstract

This article focuses on students’ perceptions of small-group activities, discussion, and technology-based interactivity implemented in two different learning environments, namely, in a large, traditional lecture hall and in a smaller classroom. The Engaged Learning Index, developed by Schreiner and Louis, was used along with several items to determine student perceptions of the activities that they had been asked to undertake. This followed a faculty training program designed to help faculty to use discussion, technology, and small-group work to enhance student engagement. Students in a course in which faculty taught in a traditional lecture hall (in an auditorium) were compared with students who had content and material delivered within a small classroom. Data indicated more active engagement in courses hosted in small classrooms, with slightly higher ratings on meaningful processing and active participation, while students in the course run by faculty in the traditional lecture hall reported a deeper processing of material, more advanced learning, more focused attention, and a better understanding overall. An explanation of potential differences is provided.

Keywords

active learning Engaged Learning Index faculty training large-class teaching small-class teaching

Setting the stage

The importance of the physical space of the learning environment is gaining attention at many higher education institutions. The structural layout of the classroom is important in conveying goals and values to students and faculty. Classroom design has a direct impact on what the students actually do, interest of students in the learning process, and how teamwork is perceived (Niemeyer, 2003). Faculty and students often find classroom design out of their control (Veltri et al., 2006), leading to a lack of empowerment and motivation. The physical design of a classroom, as well as the technology available within it, can have a positive or negative effect on both student learning and evaluations of teaching (Lei, 2010). On many college campuses, the lecture hall is only one of many classroom designs, but remains the most common for courses with high enrollment.

The lecture hall is a staple of higher education institutions across the world. Universities are physically structured to provide the most economical means of presenting information for students to learn, whether it is in these lecture halls or the standard classroom on a university campus. The notion of the “sage on the stage” (King, 1993), preaching knowledge to all students who listen passively in such lecture halls, has long been the expectation of higher education. The lecture remains to be considered the most efficient and effective way to deliver content to college students (Lom, 2012). In these large lecture halls, students often become easily disengaged from the learning process and attention is quickly diverted away from the instructor (Karp and Yoels, 1976). The prominence of the lecture hall has been a testament to its efficiency in educating many students over the years. As the tide turns to exploring student engagement, motivation, and outcomes, the effectiveness of the lecture has been called into question.

A shifting tide?

Waves of research over the past two decades are providing evidence that effectiveness, or the ability of students to learn material and demonstrate mastery of concepts, and efficiency, reaching a large number of students in a small amount of time, may not be accomplished by the same means. The most traditional, cost-efficient approach may not be the most effective when it comes to student learning. In this sense, effectiveness may rely on an instructional approach that deviates substantially from the traditional lecture. The notion that lecture dominates in higher education continues to reign true through more than 25 years of literature suggesting student learning, thinking, and understanding are impacted through active engagement by students (e.g. Bonwell and Eison, 1991; Davis, 1993; Komarraju and Karau, 2008; Mazur, 1996). While the lecture serves the purpose of communicating important, complex information in an economical way, research in education indicates it should not function as the sole approach to instruction.

The often-cited phrase in this area of literature, “The one who does the work does the learning” (Doyle, 2011: 1), was alluded to almost 30 years ago when Chickering and Gamson (1987) presented pedagogy that promotes engagement by students, and even before then by researchers and scholars such as Dewey (1902), Piaget (1964), and Vygotsky (1934). The typical lecture hall does not emphasize student engagement as the researchers above intended. Even within a lecture, students who pursue deep learning, or the true understanding of theory and concepts (Marton and Saljo, 1976), are more likely to be engaged than the opposite surface learners or students who strive for fact memorization (Hockings et al., 2008). What can be done to promote engagement of all students, with the ultimate goal of those students developing a deep understanding of the content, has been a popular topic for researchers. Active engagement in the learning process, as has been supported by many, is the key to student success. As Lumpkin et al. (2015) summarize, there is a paradigmatic shift underway to an interactive, student-centered approach that involves activities and engagement by students to enhance the learning process. Therefore, effectiveness defined by students achieving mastery of measurable learning outcomes may be something substantially different than what is accomplished via typical lecture.

The cost of student engagement

Much of the early work has focused on satisfaction of students and faculty within flexible, user-controlled classrooms (Whiteside et al., 2010). Researchers more recently are turning attention to the academic impact of such classrooms as there is a significant financial commitment to providing such spaces. In many cases, room redesign was successful in contributing to meaningful engagement among students while enhancing student acquisition of knowledge (Dori and Belcher, 2005; Gaffney et al., 2008). Furthermore, students have been shown to out-perform expectations when their course is offered in an active learning classroom compared with the more traditional options (Cotner et al., 2013). To this point, research seems to support provision of flexible, user-controlled classrooms as a means of promoting student engagement and interactivity.

Success with strategies such as discussion and group-based activities has been demonstrated in classrooms ranging from 15 to 50 students (Baepler et al., 2013), as well as with large-capacity active learning spaces that promote flexibility and student-centered activities (Cotner et al., 2013). The existing architecture of the lecture hall poses a strict limitation when faculty incorporate student teamwork and discussion into their classes. Essentially, the sole focal point of the room to which all seating is oriented, as is the case in a lecture hall, is not conducive to interaction between students (Oblinger, 2006). How techniques including group-based activities and discussion can be implemented or scaled-up to meet the demands of a large class with the physical space limitations of a lecture hall have yet to be widely disseminated.

To adapt physical classroom structure to teaching approach, several institutions have redesigned traditional classroom spaces (i.e. typically with capacities of 15–50 students) to better facilitate active engagement among students, faculty, and the material (Cotner et al., 2013). While there may be no “ideal” classroom design to meet the needs of faculty and students, several key characteristics are shared among the most effective learning spaces (Lei, 2010), which promote control over lighting, furniture arrangement, and technology on behalf of faculty and students. This flexibility is considered critical to engagement among students, faculty, and content, though often assessed independently from activities that take place during class time. This is of interest to many institutions that may not have the resources or commitment to redesign an entire lecture hall, but have faculty determined to enhance their instructional capabilities.

Enhanced instructional capabilities

As aforementioned, decades of research indicate deep, meaningful engagement of students with content is a means to enhance the learning process. Not only is this a result of student or setting differences; students’ conceptual understanding can be increased through a more collaborative approach to pedagogy, that is, by introducing argumentation and critical analysis and forcing students to engage actively with material (Osborn, 2010). Whether students engage of their own volition or resulting from pedagogy is anticipated to have the same result. The research supports this, explaining students exposed to pedagogy that promotes student active engagement achieve outcomes at levels similar to or better than those in a traditional lecture classroom, as well as reporting more favorable student perceptions of active engagement (Baepler et al., 2014). There is also substantial evidence of the effectiveness of team-based and collaborative learning strategies (e.g. Michael, 2006) that promote student mastery of concepts. Furthermore, evidence suggests active forms of learning can promote not only content skills but also self-directed and general learning skills that can be applied to other domains (Warburton and Volet, 2012). Ultimately, the activities facilitated by their faculty have promoted students’ understanding and learning outside the course in which they were immersed.

Such pedagogical changes to more active approaches have been shown to impact students not just academically, but students are placing value in the change. Literature continues to support that students enjoy participating in engaging learning activities and that their perceptions of the learning environment improve when they are actively engaged (e.g. Baepler et al., 2014; Lumpkin et al., 2015). Active and collaborative learning activities, say Zepke and Leach (2010), “have benefits for engagement and warrant the investment of teacher time and institutional resources” (p. 171). Changing the way students interact with each other, the content, and faculty is seen as a desirable way to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge, and that change is favorable to many students.

The intersection of activities and the learning environment

Although study after study suggests active engagement by way of small-group collaborative work and discussion is more appealing to students, and it may be beneficial, the widespread use of the lecture hall remains unchallenged. Doyle (2008) concluded that the most important thing that can be done by faculty to optimize student learning is to create physical spaces that allow learners to engage in activities such as discussions and collaborative group work. Since students learn best when they engage actively in the learning process (Davis, 1993), institutions are striving to create spaces that promote student collaboration and engaging activities. Higher education is caught between transference from lecture-based, teacher-centered instruction toward a more actively engaging, learner-centered approach (Mansson, 2013), often without corresponding infrastructure changes. Ultimately, what happens in the classroom, whether in a large lecture hall or in a small classroom, needs to be underpinned by this more learner-centered approach to teaching. However, classroom space remains scarce as economic pressures require higher education institutions to graduate more students and budgets become more taxed, leading to the continued use of a large lecture hall.

How the classroom setting and in-class activities intersect to promote engagement is of interest to all stakeholders. Combining the prominence of lecture halls with the potential for active engagement to expand student learning, applying techniques that promote engagement into larger classrooms, is an area of interest. There is no shortage of techniques or tools available that can be implemented in large-enrollment classes (e.g. Allen and Tanner, 2005; Mestre et al., 1997; Prosser and Trigwell, 2013); many techniques that apply for smaller classes can be adapted to large ones. However, few have implemented activities at a large scale and studied them with rigor. For example, Smith and Cardaciotto (2011), working with a large psychology course, found active learning activities were successful in promoting content retention and engagement with the course material, but not greater enjoyment in the course. The current trend of implementing techniques that promote student engagement begs the questions of how students perceive these activities as a function of setting: Is it the learning environment or the techniques employed within them?

There is a need for further research on student perceptions of activities that include technology components, discussion, and small-group work. There is also a need to determine whether student perceptions differ as a function of classroom type, that is, whether experiences of students in a lecture hall are different from those who had similar activities in a small classroom. Ultimately, the intention is to shed light on the interaction between setting and pedagogical approach. The research questions are these: How do students perceive the expectation of being actively engaged in their classes? Are there any discernible differences between students who had undertaken these activities in a lecture hall compared to those who had done so in a small classroom on their understanding of concepts or knowledge acquisition? Do students evaluate the implementation of active learning techniques in terms of meaningful processing, focused attention, and active participation differently if they are in a large lecture hall compared with a smaller classroom?

Method

Design

This research employed a causal-comparative, descriptive design. To address the research questions, this investigation took on a mixed-methods approach, supplementing quantitative survey data with qualitative information provided by the participating students.

Participants

A total of 16 faculty were selected to participate in the training program. Faculty represented a variety of subject areas, including theater arts, natural sciences (e.g. anthropology, biology, cognitive science, math, and physics), social sciences (e.g. psychology and sociology), health sciences (e.g. dentistry and nursing), engineering, and law. The training took place during a series of five workshops held throughout July and August 2015, prior to their semester of teaching (either Fall 2015 or Spring 2016). The faculty received training on backward design, the incorporation of audience response systems (e.g. clickers) and techniques such as discussions and small-group activities, which are discussed in more detail below. Assessment of student learning and student-centered pedagogical practices was also discussed. The workshop prepared faculty to apply these concepts and to re-conceptualize their course to establish a fresh approach to the way they teach. The focus of the training was to reconsider conventional pedagogical practices in a way to make them more active for and engaging to students while providing them with skills they could apply to their courses to make instruction, student engagement, and assessment more meaningful to the course objectives.

To promote active engagement among students, content, and faculty, the workshop provided training on development of several activities: small-group work, discussions, and audience response systems. Skills on facilitating discussion, including generating strong prompts and promoting student preparation and participation in full-class discussion, were also components of the workshop. Another section focused on developing and assessing small-group projects, including practice-based and presentation-based activities. These practice-based projects included problem-solving activities similar to homework problems, where students could work together and discuss; presentation-based activities involved division of responsibilities to conduct background research and presentation of findings. Faculty were also trained on how to use audience response systems such as clickers and other applications that students use to participate within class, as well as sharing activity ideas that allow students to discuss concepts and solutions with each other. Throughout the workshop, faculty were able to develop activities specific to their course and were provided feedback through facilitators and their peers.

Classroom observations took place periodically throughout the semester, with each faculty member being observed on at least three occasions. The purpose of the observation was to ensure at least some active teaching methods were implemented and that the workshop techniques were applied with fidelity. Following each observation, the researchers met with the faculty to provide feedback on student engagement and discuss methods that could be applied in the future. Students working in small groups on shared projects and whole-class discussion were observed frequently, while in the auditorium, the active component was achieved through use of electronic devices such as clickers and more brief periods of student discussion. The extent to which students in the lecture hall perceived peer-to-peer sharing and electronic responses was observed.

Students of the 16 faculty training recipients serve as the participants in the investigation. Students were asked to provide consent at the beginning of the semester and near the end were asked to complete a battery of questionnaires addressing their perceptions of the course, active learning and engagement throughout the course, and overall impressions of course delivery. A summary of the demographic breakdown of students and the measures administered is provided below.

One of the faculty participants sought to incorporate the strategies of discussion, clickers, and small-group activities into a large course taught in a traditional lecture hall, with fixed, tiered seating. The auditorium course on introductory physics consisted of over 300 students from a variety of majors, ranging from engineering to pre-medicine, which are predominant fields of study for students at this institution. Since the faculty were all provided identical training on active learning techniques, the focal independent variable for the analyses was classroom type. The remaining faculty were provided smaller classrooms with flexible furniture, appropriately accommodating class sizes from 15 to 48 students. The number of students in the large, lecture hall-based course was similar to the total of all other courses taught in the smaller classrooms, leading for a reasonable comparison to be made based on group size.

Measures

The Engaged Learning Index (ELI; Schreiner and Louis, 2006) is a 10-item instrument assessing the domains of Meaningful Processing (5 items), Focused Attention (3 items), and Active Participation (2 items). Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with behavioral indicators of active learning using a 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 6 (“Strongly Agree”) scale. Scores for each sub-domain were calculated by reverse-coding the negatively worded items summing the responses to the component items, so higher scores reflect more of the trait; scores range from 5 to 30 on the Meaningful Processing scale, with higher scores suggesting more meaningful processing was reported by the student. The same interpretation is true for the Focused Attention (3–18 range) and Active Participation (2–12 range) sub-domains. Research using the ELI found moderate to strong estimates of internal consistency within each of the sub-domains. Coefficient alpha (Schreiner and Louis, 2011) was strongest for the Meaningful Processing (α = 0.84), followed by Focused Attention (α = 0.82) and then Active Participation (α = 0.73). This could be influenced by the number of items constituting each scale; however, the estimates are representative of sound internal consistency. This scale was included because it provides information on various sub-domains of engaged learning and aligns well with the purposes of the research.

The student battery also included evaluative questions of the course and faculty. These queried satisfaction with the classroom, faculty, and instructional delivery to provide programmatic information for administrators and for faculty self-evaluation. In addition, students were prompted to provide open-ended feedback relative to their likes and dislikes about the course, their perceptions of effectiveness, and their feelings as students given the expectation of engagement and learning. These items were included in hopes of establishing student perceptions of the classroom and pedagogical change.

Finally, demographic data were collected to best describe the student sample. Academic information such as anticipated grade and class status were collected, along with gender, age, and international student status. These were included as independent variables to allow for comparison among groups when applicable. The entire battery was administered by the research team during class time and took between 10 and 15 minutes for students to complete. Upon data entry and removal of invalid submissions, the total sample consisted of 309 students. Most of the instruments were complete or nearly complete, with minimal missing data (226, 73.1%). The 26.9% that were incomplete were identified as such after missing multiple items within at least one of the instruments in the battery. Where applicable, the sample size presented fluctuates based on the sections of the battery that were completed by respondents (i.e. data are reported for all students with completed sections).

Based on the 309 students who completed the battery, 162 (52.4%) students identified taking their course in the auditorium, with the rest (47.6%) taking their courses in the small classrooms. Most students were early undergraduate students (69% freshmen and 15% sophomores), followed by juniors (9.3%) and seniors (1.8%) leaving only 4.4% of the sample consisting of graduate students. The sample most frequently identified as male (58.9%), speaking English as their native language (84.3%), and were non-international students (87.6%). The age as reported by most respondents ranged from 18 to 28 years, with a mean of 18.94 years (standard deviation (SD) = 1.80). The breakdown and frequencies of the demographics are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic breakdown of student survey respondents (N = 226).

	n	%
Classroom
Active learning room	147	47.6
Auditorium	162	52.4
Current year
Freshman (first year)	156	69.0
Sophomore (second year)	34	15.0
Junior (third year)	21	9.3
Senior (fourth year)	4	1.8
Graduate student	10	4.4
Gender
Male	132	58.9
Female	88	39.3
Are you an international student?
International student	28	12.4
Non-international student	198	87.6
Is English your primary language?
Yes	182	84.3
No	34	15.7
What is your current grade in this class?
A	81	40.1
B	97	48.0
C	19	9.4
D	1	0.5
F	2	1.0

Percentages may not add to 100 based on missing data.

Differences between room types were computed using the Mann–Whitney U nonparametric test based on the rank-order nature of the dependent variables in the analyses.

Results

Classroom observations confirmed the implementation of techniques that include whole-class discussion, small-group discussion and problem-solving, and audience response systems within both settings. Throughout the observations, all three techniques were seen at least once with each participating faculty member; however, implementation of some activities was more frequent than others, and this differed as a function of the faculty member. Within the small classrooms, several faculty preferred to devote more time to small-group problem-solving activities, while others chose discussion as the primary vehicle for student engagement. In the lecture hall, small-group work on problems that included discussions followed by providing a response using a clicker was by far the most common technique. This was a combination of approaches that was used multiple times per class period.

Students were asked to provide input on how much active engagement they experienced in the course. Using a 0 (“No active engagement”) to 4 (“All or mostly active engagement”) scale, students reported varying levels of active engagement, though activities were observed in each course throughout the data collection period. When comparing room types, students in the smaller classrooms consistently reported more active engagement. Most students reported moderate (38.8%, n = 57) or “Lots of active engagement” (33.3%, n = 49), with several indicating most or all active learning (20.4%, n = 30). “Little active engagement” was selected by only 10 respondents (6.8%), and only one student (0.7%) indicated no active engagement took place at all.

Students in the auditorium disagreed on the level of active engagement in the course: “No active engagement” was reported by 4.3% of students (n = 7) and “All or mostly active engagement” was reported by 2.5% of students (n = 4). The largest group reported “Little active engagement” (45.3%, n = 73), followed by “Moderate active engagement” (35.4%, n = 57) and finally “Lots of active engagement” (12.4%, n = 20). To assist students with discrimination, the item even described “active engagement” and provided examples of the activities that were the focus of the workshop; however, students in the same classroom were still in disagreement. The cross-tabulation of active engagement with classroom is provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

Cross-tabulation of classroom with amount of active engagement reported by students.

	Room type		Total
	Small classroom	Auditorium	Engagement
No active engagement	1 (0.70%)	7 (4.30%)	8 (2.60%)
Little active engagement	10 (6.80%)	73 (45.30%)	83 (26.90%)
Moderate active engagement	57 (38.80%)	57 (35.40%)	114 (37.00%)
Lots of active engagement	49 (33.30%)	20 (12.40%)	69 (22.40%)
All or mostly active engagement	30 (20.40%)	4 (2.50%)	34 (11.00%)
Total room type	147	161	308

Percentages reported represent proportion within room type.

The level of perceived active engagement was significantly different between the groups, with greater active engagement reported in the smaller classrooms (M_rank = 200.50, n = 147) than in the auditorium (M_rank = 112.50, n = 161; Mann–Whitney U = 5071.00, p < 0.001). This is particularly interesting as multiple techniques or strategies were noted during each of the auditorium-based class observations. Even though the items contained descriptions of active learning, including the techniques that were the focus of the workshop, students may have been mis-remembering or working from a more liberal definition of active engagement.

Regardless of engagement, students were equally likely to recommend the course be taught in a similar fashion again next year (Mann–Whitney U = 11,081.50, p > 0.05), with the smaller classroom mean rank (149.38, n = 147) close to the auditorium mean rank (158.24, n = 160). It was expected that students with positive experiences in either setting would recommend the course be taught the same way again, while students who did not have a good experience would recommend something different. The mean value for the small classroom (M = 2.73) was slightly below that of the auditorium (M = 2.90), which is closer to the “Recommend” value of three on the rating scale. Ultimately, incorporating active strategies into the lecture-based course may or may not have led students to recommend this method for next year since they did not perceive as much active engagement within the course. This could very well be housed in the expectations of students who enroll in a large introductory physics course.

The next set of items assessed student perceptions of active engagement as it makes the course valuable to them in terms of time spent during class, affects their learning, and increases their enthusiasm for the course. Overall, active engagement was reportedly more valuable to students in the small classrooms (n = 146, M_rank = 169.21) compared with students in the auditorium (n = 158, M_rank = 137.06) with a Mann–Whitney U of 9094.00 (p < 0.01). There were no differences between room types in whether or not active engagement positively affected their learning (Mann–Whitney U = 10,182.00, p > 0.05) or increased their enthusiasm for the course (Mann–Whitney U = 10,380.50, p > 0.05). Although the classroom type, or potentially the content, impacted the amount of active engagement perceived by students, students in both groups said it positively affected their learning and increased their enthusiasm for the course.

The next section of the questionnaire addressed academic content and knowledge acquisition throughout the semester. This is distinct from satisfaction as the active learning approach is believed to promote a deeper understanding of the content through engaging with it in ways that differ from traditional lecture. The items in this section ask respondents the extent to which they agree that the methods in the course (1) resulted in a deeper processing of material; (2) caused students to think about the material at a higher, more academically advanced level; and (3) resulted in a better understanding of the material. The mean values, mean ranks, and results of the Mann–Whitney U tests are provided in Table 3.

Table 3.

Classroom differences in academic skill building as rated by students.

Item	Classroom	n	Mean	Mean rank	Mann–Whitney U
The methods used in this course resulted in a deeper processing of the material	Small classroom	146	4.26	143.54	10,226.00*
	Auditorium	161	4.60	163.48	10,226.00*
The methods used in this course caused me to think about the material at a higher, more academically advanced level	Small classroom	128	4.39	139.38	9585.00
	Auditorium	161	4.60	149.47	9585.00
The methods used in this course resulted in a better understanding of the material in general	Small classroom	146	4.32	145.66	10,535.00
	Auditorium	161	4.61	161.57	10,535.00

Mean values are calculated using the 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 6 (“Strongly Agree”) scale.

p < 0.05.

The only significant difference between groups was found for the item pertaining to a deeper processing of the material as a result of the instructional methods (Mann–Whitney U = 10,226.00, p < 0.05). Interestingly, the course in the auditorium obtained a higher mean and higher mean rank than the courses from the smaller classroom, which could be attributed to the disciplinary materials being delivered. Although this difference is significant, the mean values are consistently within the range between 4.2 and 4.7, suggesting at least some agreement with the statements from both classrooms.

The final 10 items comprised the ELI (Schreiner and Louis, 2006). ELI total scores, as well as each of the three subscales of Meaningful Processing, Focused Attention, and Active Participation, were compared between settings. There were 141 complete ELI scales for students from the smaller classrooms and 161 completed by students in the auditorium. Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates are provided in Table 4.

Table 4.

Descriptive statistics on the Engaged Learning Index (ELI) (Schreiner and Louis, 2006) items.

ELI subscale	Classroom	n	Mean	SD	t	α
Meaningful Processing	Small classroom	141	20.47	5.28	0.96	0.840
Meaningful Processing	Auditorium	161	19.91	4.85	0.96	0.840
Focused Attention	Small classroom	141	11.29	1.95	−0.79	0.555
Focused Attention	Auditorium	161	11.48	2.08	−0.79	0.555
Active Participation	Small classroom	141	8.48	2.03	7.92**	0.654
Active Participation	Auditorium	161	6.44	2.40	7.92**	0.654
ELI total score	Small classroom	141	40.26	7.79	2.79*	0.624
ELI total score	Auditorium	161	37.84	7.24	2.79*	0.624

SD: standard deviation.

p < 0.01; ^**p < 0.001.

Internal consistency ranged from moderate to strong for each of the subscales. Focused Attention, consisting of three items, had the lowest reliability estimate (α = 0.555), and Meaningful Processing had the highest reliability estimate (α = 0.840), likely due to the larger number of items (i.e. five) it contained. Active Participation (α = 0.654) provided a moderate estimate of internal consistency, similar to that of the whole scale (α = 0.624). Overall, these values are slightly lower than those presented by Schreiner and Louis (2011), but fall within the acceptable range.

Students reported similar scores on the Meaningful Processing (t = 0.96, df = 300, p > 0.05) and Focused Attention (t = −0.79, df = 300, p > 0.05) subscales. Significant differences were identified between the small classrooms and the auditorium on the Active Participation subscale (t = 7.92, df = 300, p < 0.001). It should be noted here that Active Participation only consists of two items, relative to the other subscales consisting of five and three items, respectively. Students from the small classroom reported significantly more active participation compared with students in the auditorium, which supplements the data presented earlier. The differences on the Active Participation subscale provided enough distinction between the groups to precipitate a difference on the ELI total score (t = 2.79, df = 300, p < 0.01).

Discussion and conclusion

The goal of this study was to shed further light on techniques such as discussion and group-based activities to faculty that could promote engagement in the classroom. The major distinction between settings was that students in the smaller classrooms reported more active engagement, while students in the large lecture hall reported a deeper processing of the material. The main conclusion that can be drawn based on this finding is that learning is different in different environments.

Exploring differences and similarities between the classrooms, several conclusions can be made. It should be noted that the purpose of the training received by all faculty as part of this exploration was on pedagogical change and the ability to utilize resources inside and outside of the classroom to facilitate active learning, such as learning activities, the space, and technologies. Even with limitations provided by the auditorium setting, the faculty member was able to incorporate some techniques from the workshop that had promoted this approach to learning, including small-group discussions, clicker questions, and group-based assignments. Furthermore, students in both settings were satisfied with pedagogical delivery. Ultimately, students in the course delivered in a lecture hall were satisfied with the methods used, although they perceived less active engagement than students in the smaller classrooms, and indicated that the methods used in the course resulted in deeper processing and better understanding of the material to a greater extent than did students in the smaller classrooms.

While the active engagement made the course more valuable in terms of class time use to students in the smaller classrooms, there were no indications the perceived active engagement significantly impacted student learning differently between the rooms or students’ enthusiasm for the course. Contrary to the expectation, data indicate student learning and motivation were stronger in the lecture hall, where students’ active engagement was reported to have occurred less frequently. Within the smaller classrooms, students were able to identify the benefit of faculty adopting engagement-promoting strategies into their courses. Furthermore, there were no substantial differences in processing of the material or focused attention of students. The main difference between the two settings was the amount of active engagement that took place, which was reported more frequently in the smaller, flexible classrooms.

The benefits of the smaller classrooms were made more apparent. Notably, the flexible, smaller spaces promoted small-group interaction, movement, and collaboration that were not as frequent in the auditorium. Based on those spatial benefits, students in the smaller classrooms spent more time interacting with peers, in discussions with groups of various sizes, and in student-led activities. This could also be due to the number of students being vastly different between the auditorium and the smaller classrooms, where small-group activities could be better facilitated. Students in the auditorium spent more time doing independent work and listening to lecture, which could be expected.

Although the research was able to identify some discrepancies between instructional settings, some limitations are acknowledged. First, a few students from each setting failed to identify any active learning. Further investigation should focus on defining active engagement for students and triangulating these data with faculty input. Second, the auditorium hosted a foundational course in a particular discipline. Students overall may have found the course to require them to think more about the material and process it differently than the other subjects, regardless of techniques being implemented. There is difficulty in promoting small-group work during class time based on the physical limitations of the space. Ultimately, the nature of interaction among students may have changed slightly as a result of faculty training, resulting in different products of that engagement. Whereas students in the active learning classrooms were able to do more full-class discussion, students in the auditorium were expected to engage with each other and the faculty differently. The research was conducted using volunteer faculty from a limited number of disciplines representing a single university. Course content, if controlled, may impact the expectations and actual engagement of students. How active learning and auditorium spaces are managed is likely to vary greatly across institutions. Courses with multiple, concurrent sections in different settings could be assessed to help control for content discrepancies. Additional and specific student data such as major and course expectations could be obtained and matched with survey data in de-identified research, rather than the anonymous data collection used here. Finally, accurate ratings of frequency of active learning taking place in the class would validate student ratings of perceived active learning, normalizing how active engagement could be measured rather than relying on student interpretations.

Future research should seek a more direct comparison of classroom settings using similar disciplines and, if possible, course content. Similarly, conclusions could be strengthened with a larger, more diverse sample that includes multiple institutions, balanced with a standard approach to the faculty development and training aspect. To address student opinions that no active learning took place in their course, a more detailed description of possible active learning techniques and strategies that were implemented within their courses—that is, examples from the class the student is in—should be used on the instrument. Finally, future research could employ a multi-method research design that best triangulates the student self-report with observational data and feedback from faculty as well.

Pedagogy that includes techniques such as discussion and group-based activities in large classes and spaces are met with challenges on many levels. Ultimately, some students continue to prefer a more traditional, lecture-based type of instruction over a more active and engagement-focused approach. This exploration identified some key issues in building active engagement into larger classrooms, such as student expectations of engagement, while identifying some success in student achievement of learning objectives. There are still many courses in excess of 300 students that could benefit from an active, more engaging instructional delivery method. Students in smaller courses find the pedagogical changes to be more interactive and often more appealing compared with traditional instructional methods; however, there continues to be a need to determine how best to scale up active learning techniques to meet the needs of larger lecture-based courses.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Edward C Bolden III, the Educational Research and Assessment Specialist, supports faculty in considering new approaches to teaching that incorporate technology and assessment of student learning. His research interests include educational technology and student achievement, teaching and learning science, and research in online pedagogy. Address: University Technology, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44106, USA. [email: Edward.Bolden@case.edu]

Tina M Oestreich, Senior Director of Teaching and Learning Technologies, provides strategic leadership and direction at Case Western Reserve University for the effective use of technology to support and advance teaching, learning, scholarship and service in face-to-face, blended, and online learning environments. Her academic background is in the teaching of second languages and culture, as well as in instructional technology and design. Address: University Technology, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44106, USA. [email: Tina.Oestreich@case.edu]

Michael J Kenney is an Assistant Professor of Chemistry. He dabbles in technology but teaches science. His interests focus on finding new ways to express difficult concepts for a broad audience. He is very interested in applications of technology that are not intuitive but that illustrate concepts in new and novel ways. Address: Cuyahoga Community College, Cleveland, OH, USA. [email: Michael.Kenney@tri-c.edu]

Brian T Yuhnke Jr, Director of Program Management and Design Initiatives, works with organizations to improve postsecondary success through the implementation of digital learning tools and pedagogy. As an instructor, he facilitates students’ learning about new pedagogical approaches and media technologies. Address: The New Media Consortium, Austin, TX, USA. [email: brian@nmc.org]

References

Allen

Tanner

(2005) Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: Seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education 4(4): 262–8.

Baepler

Brooks

Cotner

et al . (2013) Empowering student learning in the active learning classroom. Presentation given at the Academy of Distinguished Teachers conference,University of Minnesota–Twin Cities, Minneapolis MN, 4 October.

Baepler

Walker

Driessen

(2014) It’s not about seat time: Blending flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education 78(9): 227–36.

Bonwell

Eison

(1991) Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC higher education reports no. 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Chickering

Gamson

(1987) Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education & Accreditation Bulletin 39(1): 3–7.

Cotner

Loper

Walker

et al . (2013) “It’s not you, it’s the room”—Are the high-tech, active learning classrooms worth it? Journal of College Science Teaching 42(6): 82–8.

Davis

(1993) Tools for Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dewey

(1902) The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dori

Belcher

(2005) How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? Journal of the Learning Sciences 14(2): 243–79.

10.

Doyle

(2008) Helping Students Learn in a Learner-Centered Environment: A Guide to Facilitating Learning in Higher Education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

11.

Doyle

(2011) Learner-centered Teaching: Putting the Research on Learning into Practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

12.

Gaffney

JDH

Richards

Kustusch

et al . (2008) Scaling up educational reform. Journal of College Science Teaching 37(1): 48–53.

13.

Hockings

Cooke

Yamashita

et al . (2008) Switched off? A study of disengagement among computing students at two universities. Research Papers in Education 23(2): 191–201.

14.

Karp

Yoels

(1976) The college classroom: Some observations on the meanings of student participation. Sociology and Social Research 60(4): 421–39.

15.

King

(1993) From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching 41(1): 30–5.

16.

Komarraju

Karau

(2008) Relationships between the perceived value of instructional techniques and academic motivation. Journal of Instructional Psychology 35(1): 70–82.

17.

Lei

(2010) Classroom physical design influencing student learning and evaluations of college instructors: A review of the literature. Education 131(1): 128–34.

18.

Lom

(2012) Classroom activities: Simple strategies to incorporate student-centered activities within undergraduate science lectures. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education 11(1): A64–71.

19.

Lumpkin

Achen

Dodd

(2015) Student perceptions of active learning. College Student Journal 49(1): 121–33.

20.

Mansson

(2013) Assessing student learning in intercultural communication: Implementation of three classroom assessment techniques. College Student Journal 47(2): 343–51.

21.

Marton

Saljo

(1976) On qualitative differences in learning: I–Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46(1): 4–11.

22.

Mazur

(1996) Science lectures: A relic of the past? Physics World 9(1): 13–4.

23.

Mestre

Gerace

Dufresne

et al . (1997) Promoting active learning in large classes using a classroom communication system. AIP Conference Proceedings 399: 1019. Available at: http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.53119

24.

Michael

(2006) Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education 30(4): 159–67.

25.

Niemeyer

(2003) Hard Facts on Smart Classroom Design. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.

26.

Oblinger

(ed.) (2006) Learning Spaces. Washington, DC: Educause.

27.

Osborn

(2010) Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science 328(5977): 463–6.

28.

Piaget

(1964) Development and learning. In: Ripple

Rockcastle

(eds) Piaget rediscovered A report on the conference of cognitive studies and curriculum development. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, pp. 7–20.

29.

Prosser

Trigwell

(2013) Qualitative variation in approaches to university teaching and learning in large first-year classes. Higher Education 67(6): 783–95.

30.

Schreiner

Louis

(2006) Measuring engaged learning in college students: Beyond the borders of NSSE. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the association for study of higher education, Anaheim, CA, 2–4 November.

31.

Schreiner

Louis

(2011) The engaged learning index: Implications for faculty development. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 22(1): 5–28.

32.

Smith

Cardaciotto

(2011) Is active learning like broccoli? Student perceptions of active learning in large lecture classes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 11(1): 53–61.

33.

Veltri

Banning

Davis

(2006) The community college classroom environment: Student perceptions. College Student Journal 40(3): 517–27.

34.

Vygotsky

(1934) Thinking and Speech. New York: Plenum.

35.

Warburton

Volet

(2012) Enhanced self-directed learning through a content quiz group learning assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education 14(1): 9–22.

36.

Whiteside

Brooks

Walker

(2010) Making the case for space: Three years of empirical research on learning environments. Educause Quarterly, vol. 33. Available at: http://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/9/making-the-case-for-space-three-years-of-empirical-research-on-learning-environments

37.

Zepke

Leach

(2010) Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education 11(3): 167–77.