findings from the steelcase active learning classroom pilot
DESCRIPTION
Preliminary findings from Spring 2014 data collection for the UWM Steelcase Innovation Hub.TRANSCRIPT
UWM Steelcase Innovation Hub and Active Learning Classroom
Findings by UWM eLearning Research and Development
9.16.14
Tanya M. Joosten | [email protected] | @tjoosten
Spring 2014 participantsInstructor Unit Course
Donna Pasternak Curriculum & InstructionIntroduction to Children's and Young Adult Literature
Dan M. Ionel Electrical EngineeringEE575 Analysis of Electric Machine and Motor Drives
Brian Schermer Architecture Architectural Programming
John A Berges Biological SciencesBioSci 194: Biology-one equation at a time
Mike Steele Curriculum and InstructionCURRINS 431 - Student Teaching (Mathematics)
Casey O'Brien Women's Studies
Foundations of Women's Studies Writing and Research
Megan HaakEducational Policy & Community Studies
Research Techniques for Community Organizers and Community Educators
Student reactions
• Survey administered Spring 2014• N=50• Descriptive statistics
– Agree (Strongly agree and agree)– Neutral (Neither agree/disagree)– Disagree (Disagree and strongly disagree)
Agree Neutral Disagree
Recommend Instructor Continue Use
76 16 8
Comfortable Learning Environment 84 12 4
Appropriate Space for this course 84 14 2
5152535455565758595
Satisfaction
Agree Neutral Disagree
Movability 86 12 2
Adaptability for different Activi-ties
78 16 6
Facilitate multiple Learning Types 71.4 24.5 4.1
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Flexibility
Agree Neutral Disagree
Easy Collaboration 89.8 4.1 6.1
Interact more w/Instructor 72 24 4
Effective Communication w/Classmates 90 4 6
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Interactivity
Agree Neutral Disagree
Understand Course Concepts 60 32 8
Beneficial to Learning 66 30 4
Better Grades on Assignments 46.9 46.9 8.2
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
Learning and Performance
Active learning behaviors
Student Activities
Instructor Activities
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
76%
62%
68%
80%
70%
76%
44%
64%
36%
58%
Require/Create discussionUse WhiteboardsBreak into GroupsAsking Questions of Students/ClassmatesUtilizing Online Discussion and Materials
Percent Responding “Very Often” or “Al-ways”
Multivariate results
Outcomes: Learning and Satisfaction
ComponentsComponent # of Variables Variables Alpha Means Standard Dev.
Learning 11
L1, L2, L3, L5, P1, P2, F2, F3, F4, F7, S5 0.957 40.19 8.39
Satisfaction 7S1, S2, S3, O1, O2, O4, O5 0.926 28.01 5.25
Interactivity 10
I1, I2, I4, I6, I7, I9, I10, I11, I13, I15 0.945 38.03 7.25
Student Interaction w/ ALC Media (not just digital) 5Q6_16 - Q6_20 0.794 15.45 3.92Self-Reported Active Learning 8
Q6_2 - Q6_7, Q6_9, Q6_10 0.929 28.88 6.4
Self-Reported Group/Peer Active Learning 4
Q6_8, Q6_11, Q6_12, Q23_6 0.828 15.06 2.89
Perceived Learning
Interactivity
Satisfaction
Learning
F(2, 47) = 59.56, p<.001
Approximately 71% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by interactivity and satisfaction(adjusted R2 = .705)
Perceived Learning
Instructor Expectations
Active Learning Activities
Learning
F(2, 47) = 19.615, p<.001
Approximately 43% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by interactivity and satisfaction(adjusted R2 = .432)
Predicting Student Satisfaction
Learning
Active Learning Activities
Satisfaction
F(2, 47) = 58.57, p<.001
Approximately 70% of the variance in perceived learning accounted for by interactivity and satisfaction(adjusted R2 = .701)
Outcome Variable Significant Predictor Variables F - Statistic Adj. R2
Learning Satisfaction (p< .001) + Interact (p=.021) F(2,47) = 59.56 0.705
Satisfaction Learning (p< .001) F(1, 48) = 103.41 0.676
Satisfaction Learning (p<.001) + ActLearn (p=.030) F(2,47) = 58.57 0.701
LearningSatisfaction (p<.001) + InstructExp (p<.001) + Interact (p=.004) F(3,46) = 56.27 0.772
Regressions with Active Learning Variables Predicting Learning, Satisfaction, & Interactivity
Learning InstructExp (p<.001) + ActiveLearn (p=.011) F(2,47) = 19.615 0.432
Satisfaction ActiveLearn (p=.01) + InstructExp (p=.012) F(2,47) = 15.647 0.374
Interactivity ActiveLearn (p<.001) F(1,48) = 16.198 0.237
What did the instructors think?
Why Use ALC’s?
• Allows for “student-driven” methods of learning• Enhances “student-centered” pedagogy• Represents “the future” for classroom learning
Various learning technologies and space allow for different learning styles to include visual, gestural, and discursive components
Typical to ALC
Enhanced Pedagogy
Flexibility of Learning
Richer Engagement
Comfortable Atmosphere
Student Agency
Whiteboards
Whiteboards
Learning Technologies
• Use the screens to visualize/share student projects
• Enhance active listening
• Enable richer classroom discussion
Furniture
Furniture
• Moveable furniture allows for small group work
• Different design (i.e., U-Shaped) Choices• Small table groups under each monitor
“allowed for flexibility of students to change groups, work within groups and pairs, and confer with the instructor”
What about the students?
• Students report:– Closer interpersonal relationships– Instructors are decentralized– More accountability placed on students– Comfortable atmosphere conductive to active
learning– Perceived richer discussion
Conclusion
• Positive outcome• Requires instructors to rethink pedagogy• Students excited about the unique learning
space• Biggest suggestion for instructors: Experiment
Last Remarks
“Overall it was extremely positive. [T]he space is thoughtfully laid out, we were well supported in thinking through innovative uses of the space, and it influenced by teaching in positive ways.”
“The space by its nature compels you to think differently and more flexibly about how you use instructional resources and support discourse in the classroom.”
Fall 2014 participantsInstructor Unit
Amy MangrichArt and Design, L&S Humanities
John Berges Biological Sciences
Shelleen Greene Art and Design
Mike Steele Curriculum and Instruction
Dylan Barth English
Casey O'Brien Women’s Studies
Dan M. Ionel Electrical Engineering
Jude Rathburn Business
Questions?
Please contact [email protected] or [email protected] for more information.
Thanks to the eL R&D team, Rachel Cusatis and Lindsey Harness for their analysis efforts.