View
269
Download
2
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Findings from the UWM Active Learning Classroom study of our Steelcase Innovation Hub and ALC.
Citation preview
Exploring the Impact of
Active Learning Spaces on
Teaching and Learning
Tanya JoostenUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukeetjoosten@uwm.edu@tjoostenslideshare.net/tjoosten
Was the active learning
classroom effective?
CC Flickr Katherine.a
•Electrical Engineering
•Architecture
•Curriculum & Instruction
•Business
Professions
•Women’s Studies
•English
•Art and Design
•Art and Design, Film
Humanities and Arts
•CommunicationSocial Sciences
•BiologyNatural Sciences
Agree Neutral Disagree
Easy Collaboration 89.8 4.1 6.1
Interact more w/Instructor 72 24 4
Effective Communicationw/Classmates
90 4 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Interactivity
Agree Neutral Disagree
Understand CourseConcepts
60 32 8
Beneficial to Learning 66 30 4
Better Grades onAssignments
46.9 46.9 8.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Learning
Agree Neutral Disagree
Recommend InstructorContinue Use
76 16 8
Comfortable LearningEnvironment
84 12 4
Appropriate Space for thiscourse
84 14 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Satisfaction
Agree Neutral Disagree
Movability 86 12 2
Adaptability for differentActivities
78 16 6
Facilitate multiple LearningTypes
71.4 24.5 4.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Flexibility
Perceived learning
Satisfaction
Interactivity
Learning
F(2, 47) = 59.56, p<.001
Approximately 71% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by interactivity and flexibility(adjusted R2 = .705)
Perceived learning
Satisfaction
Interactivity
Instructor Expectation
Learning
F(2, 46) = 56.72, p<.001
Approximately 77% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by interactivity and flexibility(adjusted R2 = .772)
Instructor Expectations
Active Learning Activities
Learning
F(2, 47) = 19.615, p<.001
Approximately 43% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by instructor expectations and active learning activities(adjusted R2 = .432)
Perceived learning
Instructor Expectations
Active Learning Activities
Satisfaction
F(2, 47) = 15.647, p<.001
Approximately 37% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by instructor expectations and active learning activities(adjusted R2 = .374)
Perceived Satisfaction
How did we measure?
CC Flickr yggg
MySurveys.wikispaces.com
Components
Component # of Variables Variables Alpha Means Standard Dev.
Learning 11
L1, L2, L3, L5, P1, P2, F2, F3, F4, F7, S5 0.957 40.19 8.39
Satisfaction 7
S1, S2, S3, O1, O2, O4, O5 0.926 28.01 5.25
Interactivity 10
I1, I2, I4, I6, I7, I9, I10, I11, I13, I15 0.945 38.03 7.25
Student Interaction w/ ALC Media (not just digital) 5
Q6_16 -Q6_20 0.794 15.45 3.92
Self-Reported Active Learning 8
Q6_2 - Q6_7, Q6_9, Q6_10 0.929 28.88 6.4
Self-Reported Group/Peer Active Learning 4
Q6_8, Q6_11, Q6_12, Q23_6 0.828 15.06 2.89
How was the
classroom designed?
No front and center
Active learning space
How does space design
support new learning?
approaches
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Student Activities
Instructor Activities
76%
62%
68%
80%
70%
76%
44%
64%
36%
58%Require/Creatediscussion
Use Whiteboards
Break into Groups
Asking Questions ofStudents/Classmates
Utilizing OnlineDiscussion andMaterials
Active learning behaviors
Predicting student satisfaction
Learning
Active Learning Activities
Satisfaction
F(2, 47) = 58.57, p<.001
Approximately 70% of the variance in perceived Satisfaction accounted for by learning and active learning(adjusted R2 = .701)
How does ALC impact faculty
development?
Recommended