Group Work in Active Learning Classrooms (PDF)

Journal of Learning Spaces Volume 9, Number 2. 2020 ISSN 21586195 Groupwork in Active Learning Classrooms: Recommendations for Users...

Journal of Learning Spaces Volume 9, Number 2. 2020 ISSN 21586195 Groupwork in Active Learning Classrooms: Recommendations for Users Ali Rezaei California State University, Long Beach This is a report of the third phase of a research study on students’ groupwork. The two earlier phases of the research focused on the assessment and outcome of students’ groupwork in general, but at this phase the focus is on Active Learning Classrooms (ALCs). At this phase the author surveyed faculty and students about the effectiveness of various features of ALCs in facilitating students’ learning. Nine hundred and sixteen students and 53 faculty who were teaching and learning in these rooms responded to the two surveys. The surveys assessed how active learning classrooms may facilitate students’ collaboration, what features of these classrooms are more helpful, and whether there is a difference between faculty and students in terms of effectiveness of these classrooms’ features. The results showed that both students and faculty strongly believe in the usefulness of these environments, while there are some differences in terms of student and faculty perspectives towards these rooms. Considering the results of all three phases of this research, a list of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of groupwork and ALCs is offered at the end. Introduction rooms is usually at the center of the class giving all students equal distance to the instructor. Earlier studies have investigated several factors known to Building an ALC is extremely costly and the major influence students’ success, including socioeconomic question for many universities across the nation is whether background, internal motivation, and the influence of these rooms are indeed beneficial for faculty and students different teaching styles. Often overlooked or and if the value added justifies the cost of these classrooms. underemphasized is the role of classroom design (Scott‐ Regarding the fact that ALCs are quite new in the field of Webber et al., 2014). Recently, educators have noticed that educational technology, not many research studies have classroom spaces convey an image of educational been done on their effectiveness. There is little research philosophy about teaching and learning (Park & Choi, 2014; examining which elements of Active Learning Classrooms Mui et al., 2019). They have observed the existence of a (ALCs) are important for maximizing their utility. More ‘golden zone’ and a ‘shadow zone’ in the traditional research needs to be conducted for different subject matters, classroom, which discriminate students’ learning class sizes, and level of instructor experience (Nicol et al., experiences depending on seating positions. Therefore, 2017). Most of the studies in the past have been limited in universities have started re‐designing their traditional their scope and studied only one room or one teacher and classrooms to better accommodate group work and group one subject matter. In the present study, however, a variety discussion. of ALCs used by different disciplinary instructors were Unlike the rigid structure of traditional classroom, ALCs investigated. The goal of this study is to investigate how are flexible, spacious, student‐centered, and contain large, ALCs may facilitate students’ collaboration, what features of round, or rectangular tables that seat about six to nine these classrooms are more helpful, and whether there is a students. Tables’ surfaces are writable like whiteboards and difference between faculty and students’ perception in terms each table is equipped with a computer and a large screen of effectiveness of these classrooms. It is proposed that TV monitor and all table computers and monitors are teaching in an environment that enhances and facilitates connected to a network operated by the instructor. Students group discussion, such as ALCs, is helpful in improving the or the instructor can share their screen with the whole class quality and the amount of collaboration among students. through a projector and an extra‐large screen visible to all students (Brooks, 2012). The instructor’s station in these Literature Review For centuries, the most common teaching strategy used in Ali Rezaei is a Professor, California State University, Long Beach. classrooms has been lectures. However, lectures are usually a one‐way communication and lack many of the components 1  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS of active learning, such as critical thinking, self‐pacing, and seating present challenges in doing so (Petersen & Gorman, the encouragement of dialogue and group discussion 2014). (Rezaei, 2017). On the other hand, designing and teaching When a student or a teacher enters an ALC for the first large introductory courses is a challenging task. Particularly, time, he or she gets a clear message that this class will not be faculty struggle with teaching courses where students are “business as usual” and realize that they are supposed to be expected to actively and intellectually engage in learning, involved in group discussions or group works (Cotner et al., develop attitudes toward the topic, improve their writing 2013; Birdwell & Uttamchandani, 2019). ALCs provide and research skills, and become lifelong learners (Langley different affordances for behavior and communication than and Guzey, 2014). There are many research studies do traditional classrooms, and they are much more effective supporting the idea that collaborative methods are helpful when used for their designed purpose than when used in this regard no matter what course is taught (Bennett, 2015; otherwise (Scoville, 2018). Such an environment induces Rezaei and Katz, 2003; Rezaei, 2017). behavior on an unconscious level. How persons behave in Numerous research studies have demonstrated that small‐ built spaces depends on their interactions with the group learning creates situations in which schoolwork is affordances and limitations of the space in which they perceived not as a task or chore but as an opportunity to operate (Lefebvre, 1991). interact on issues of personal importance (Ahern & In summary, the positive effects of group work is well Durrington, 1995). The importance of collaborative learning documented in the literature. However, it is not clear why is rooted in its potential for meaningful learning and social group work does not work all the time and what features of interaction. Various theorists from Vygotsky (1986) and the ALCs may facilitate or hinder student group work, and what situated learning theorists such as Lave and Wenger (1991) teachers and students can do to make these rooms more to the current social constructivist theorists (Jong et al., 2014), effective. This study attempts to answer these questions. have stressed the importance of social interaction in learning. These theorists propose that learning occurs in a Methodology social or inter‐psychological context prior to it becoming This research was conducted in California State internalized or individualized within an intra‐psychological University, Long Beach. This is the largest California State category (Vygotsky, 1986). Students working in groups University with a population of more than 39,000 enrolled experience increased social support, report higher students. It is also known as one of the most diversified satisfaction with their learning, and learn better than higher education institutions in the country. There are 10 students working as individuals (Johnson et al., 2007). ALCs on this campus ranging from the capacity of 35 to 70 Considering the value of teamwork in modern societies, students. Each room contains 5‐8 writable surface tables recently, higher education institutions are paying more with 6‐8 seats that include a PC computer, flat‐panel large attention to the development of studentsʹ communicative display and personal device cable connections at each table, abilities and critical thinking. Collaborative learning is now as well as a centralized teaching station with a master control considered a key teaching strategy to use to develop panel, a PC desktop, a document camera, a DVD/Blu‐ray teamwork skills. Group work is beneficial for both students player, and projector with surround sound speaker system. and instructors. For students, group work motivates them, About 100 faculty are assigned to teach in these rooms every provides a peer instruction opportunity, gives them a chance semester and about 4000 students are taught by those to look at the problem from multiple perspectives, and helps faculty. them to become more creative. For teachers, group work is an opportunity to give students more complex and more Instruments authentic assignments. Collaborative learning procedures have also been shown to enhance student satisfaction with Two surveys were designed for this study: one for faculty the learning and classroom experience (Rezaei, 2017). and the other one for students. The questions were designed The traditional lecture halls that accommodates hundreds based on the results of the earlier study on this campus in of students might not work well for collaboration and group which students and faculty expressed their opinions about work. The “stationary seating in rows with limited desk effective strategies in group work. The faculty survey space and no access to a whiteboard restricts the possibilities included 25 Likert type questions plus 9 open‐ended for how students interact with each other and with the questions and some demographic questions. A similar content of the course” (Baepler et al., 2016, p. 9). It is possible survey was designed for students. The student survey to have student‐student and student‐instructor interactions included 31 Likert type questions plus 3 open‐ended in these classrooms, but the physical constraints of the questions and some demographic questions. The surveys were posted online, and the links were sent to 100 faculty. Faculty were asked to complete their own survey and then Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 2  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS send their students the link to the students’ survey. ALCs facilitate critical thinking among students through Therefore, the instructors had the option not to send the link group discussions. to their students. In comparison with traditional classrooms, faculty In the faculty survey, faculty were asked about the lectured less (58%) and integrated technology more and, percentage of their assignments that require group work and particularly, they used more of the flipped classroom the main group activities which they give their students. strategy and assigned group projects more often. Most They were also asked several questions about the situations faculty (79%) reported that, in comparison with other or conditions where group works are more effective and the classrooms, they believed ALCs give them a better chance to features of the rooms that work or do not work for them. receive feedback from students. Most instructors (81%) Finally, they were asked about the benefits and the preferred to bring their own laptops rather than using the limitations of group work assignments. available instructor PC because they needed software or Students were asked how much they participate in group apps not available on the provided PCs. Many faculty (85%) work and how useful they find those group work were satisfied with the arrangement of tables and seats in experiences. They were also asked which technologies, or their room. which features of the ALCs are more useful for them, the size One of the complaints about ALCs reflected in the of the groups, the selection and diversity of group members literature is the amount of noise and distraction due to as well as the issues and challenges they encountered. students’ noise during discussions and disputes. However, Finally, there were questions about the number of lectures the survey results indicate that 87% of faculty did not they receive and how effectively their teachers use the room consider the noise as too much of a distraction although and its features. sometimes they have to remind students to lower their voices. Participants In response to an open‐ended question about how faculty assess the effectiveness of students’ group discussion, most While 916 students (73% female, 27% male) responded to faculty reported that they use qualitative/observational the survey, only 771 students completed the survey to the approaches by walking around the room or sitting briefly in end. Most students were from the College of Education small groups to check if students are on the right track. An (37%) and College of Liberal Arts (25%), and the average age interesting finding of the faculty survey was that almost half of participants was 24 with a wide range of 17 to 65. Most of the participant faculty (53%) have not asked their students students (79%) were taking undergraduate courses, and 21% if they like to be in ALCs. It is important to know that over were taking graduate courses in disciplines such as: half of faculty (56%) reported that the same amount of anthropology, Asian studies, biology, chemistry, collaboration and group discussions conducted in an ALC educational psychology, curriculum and instruction, cannot be achieved with reasonably equivalent effectiveness educational technology, forensic pathology, history, in a traditional classroom set‐up. journalism, nursing, sociology, Spanish, and physics. For the In response to a question about the most useful features of faculty survey, 53 faculty responded to the survey (69% ALCs, faculty ranked the writable table surface as their female, 31% male), but only 47 faculty completed the survey number one choice followed by the large monitors at each to the end. The average number of years of teaching for this table, being able to share a tableʹs work with the entire class, sample was 14.4 years. and being able to connect a personal device and share it with Results the class. The location of the teacher station was the least favorite feature. However, 96% of instructors would like to Faculty Survey continue teaching in an ALC. While 98% of faculty at the study’s campus are trained The most important finding of the faculty survey is that before they use ALCs, a majority (71%) reported that they 95% of faculty thought that ALCs foster student‐to‐faculty did not get a chance to observe another ALC instructor in interactions that are beneficial to learning outcomes. action. On the positive side, most faculty (61%) reported that Similarly, 98% agreed that the ALC fosters positive student‐ they had read research findings on the effective strategies in to‐student interactions. using ALCs before they started using it. Finally, most faculty More than 91% reported that they have made a lot of (59%) reported that they explained and reviewed with their changes in their teaching strategies after they switched to students how the ALC environment might benefit them, and ALC rooms, and those changes have happened gradually. 47% explained to their students how their teaching Indeed, most faculty (80%) believed that students are more philosophy and strategies fit this type of environment. visible in this environment. Moreover, 89% agreed that the Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 3  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS Student Survey setting prohibited those types of students from becoming The most important finding was that 86% of students free riders and unengaged during teamwork because they believed that they learn better in an ALC environment in have to work face‐to‐face. More surprisingly, while 81% of comparison with their traditional classrooms. Similarly, 93% students felt that they needed a personal laptop to use in reported that frequent discussions among students help these rooms, 74% of students report that they are not their learning, and 98% believed that ALCs encourage required to bring their laptop to the room. This percentage teamwork and cooperation among students. Not is even higher (80%) in larger rooms. surprisingly, 90% of students felt that they have more social Finally, the results showed that some students (43%) presence in ALCs, and 74% felt that teachers play a less believed that the instructors did not explain to their students authoritative role and more of a learning facilitator role in why they chose an ALC for their instruction, and 47% these rooms. In comparison with other classrooms, most students believed that their instructor did not prepare students (80%) believe ALCs gave them more opportunities students for learning in this type of environment. to ask questions and that they spent less time on listening to lectures and more time on group discussion. Furthermore, Discussion 69% found the ALC environment to be more inspirational. Overall, the results of this study are in harmony with the Despite a common belief among educators indicating the literature on group work and are aligned with the need for being tech‐savvy in these rooms, the results showed expectations of the university administrators who spent that a majority of students (72%) believed that they do not considerable amounts of money on building these rooms. need to be tech‐savvy in order to use these rooms. Most Some of the aforementioned numbers and percentages students (85%) believed the size of tables were appropriate, regarding the benefits of ALC environments, however, are and 68% believed that 5‐6 students per table is the optimum much higher than what was expected and are quite number for better group work. However, students in smaller promising. ALCs were generally more satisfied than students in larger The importance of this research is that the benefits of ALCs rooms who felt they are more often distracted, and they did have never been well documented using a comprehensive not like the central location of the teacher. survey in such a large scale and quantifiable manner. Most An interesting feature of ALCs is that students can connect of earlier studies have been anecdotal or qualitative their own laptop or device to the class network to share their evaluation of the ALCs or, at most, used a small survey with screen with their small group using a large screen TV at each a few answers from a single teacher or a small sample of table or using the class projector. However, students students. Furthermore, in this study we used open‐ended reported that they do not use this feature very often. In questions, in addition to the Likert type questions, in order response to a question about how students use the room to collect participants’ reflection as well as their more often, most students reported that they use the room recommendations for effective use of ALCs. to work in small groups on an in‐class learning activity. An interesting finding was the comparison between According to participating students, the most useful faculty and students’ perspectives about the most and least feature of ALC rooms is the feature with which instructors useful features of ALCs. For example, while the majority of can project their material on the large screen (number one students liked the teacher’s location in the center of the room choice) followed by the feature with which students can rather than in front, many faculty did not like their location form small groups around a table, the large TV monitors to in the center. Also, while faculty assumed the writeable table display teachers’ presentation on each table’s screen, the surfaces were useful, students did not find them useful. This teacher location in the center of class rather than in front of might be due to the fact that most students in this study have class, and the ability to share their laptop’s screen with the majors in colleges of education and liberal arts rather than in whole group. Surprisingly, the writable tables’ surface was mathematics, science, or engineering. Another contrast the least favorite feature among students while this feature between students and faculty was about preparation of is faculty’s favorite feature. students to use ALC environments. Most faculty (59%) One of the worries about ALCs, as reflected in the reported that they explained or reviewed with their students literature of group learning, was that students gradually how the ALC environment might benefit them. However, as become dependent on other group members (Rezaei, 2018). shown in the results section, a considerable percentage of The results of this survey showed that the majority of students (43%), believed that the instructors did not explain students (65%) do not think these rooms make them more to their students why they chose ALC room for their dependable on other students. Another concern was that instruction, and 47% of students believed that their there are always a few students who do not do their part in instructor did not prepare students for learning in this type the teamwork. Again, most students (58%) believe the ALC of environment. While, in this study students are not Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 4  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS mapped to their faculty, it looks that some faculty might Implications have simply assumed that students were ready and knew how to use ALCs effectively. Overall, the variance among Considering the results of this study, and regarding the faculty regarding the benefits of ALC environments was findings of similar studies in the literature, the following higher in comparison with the variance among students. recommendations might be useful for faculty and students This means faculty had a wider range of expectations in who plan to use ALCs in the future. comparison with students. The above findings, along with faculty’s comments and Class‐Wide Discussions reflections, revealed that the ALC environment has changed Most faculty and students in this study reported that they the dynamics of teaching and learning. An earlier study had often have been involved in small group discussions. One shown that it is not the size or space of the classroom that downside, however, as reported by some students in this makes the difference in students’ learning (Maquivar & study, is that these students miss being able to hear from the Sundararajan, 2017). In this study, no significant difference instructor or interact with the entire class. Therefore, as Lee, was found between large ALCs and smaller ones, therefore, Morrone, and Siering (2018) suggested, a class‐wide it is the room configuration and the way the room is used discussion before or after small group discussion is key to that makes the difference. the success of active learning in large classrooms. For This study shows that students find the ALCs to be more example, after a short lecture by the instructor or after a inspirational especially in regard to active class presentation of group work for the entire class, students participation. This research and associated earlier research comment or ask questions about whatever is presented. (Rezaei, 2017), as well as other similar research studies (Park However, as recommended by experienced faculty in this & Choi, 2014) show that, unlike traditional classrooms in study, instructors need to set and communicate the rules which usually only high achievers or high GPA students before class starts or early in the semester. They need to participated in group discussions, in ALC environments articulate their role as a teacher and students’ roles as well almost all students participated and reported that they as their policies for unacceptable behavior. It also helps to enjoyed participating in class discussions and small group teach students how to ask proper questions. work. By creating a classroom environment where there are no back rows or front rows, it would seem that students Centralized Teacher Station become more interested, motivated, and involved in the learning experience. All ALCs reviewed in this study have the teacher station The other important finding of this study focuses on the at the center of the room rather than in front of the room. physical seating area. While entering an ALC with multiple This configuration is believed to better democratize the projectors and large screen TV monitors at each table might classroom space and facilitate student engagement. Some look a little overwhelming at the first glance, the results faculty mentioned that they feel more comfortable with not indicate that students and faculty see a value in sitting close being the authority figure in the classroom. Therefore, the to their own screen rather than all looking at a single centralized teacher station is useful in allowing the projector. Furthermore, the ability to present each group’s instructor to capture every student’s attention and provide ideas at the same time using multiple screens aids in control and access to classroom displays, including the comparing different ideas during class discussions. document camera. Providing students with wheeled chairs also facilitated However, among all features of ALCs the central location group work and discussion. Some students who had used of the teacher’s station was the least favorite feature for regular chairs at their tables in non‐ALCs reported that it faculty participating in this study. Sometimes the instructors makes a big difference to be able to turn around or move the needed to talk to the whole class, demonstrate something to table using wheeled chairs. all students, or participate in a class‐wide discussion. A major limitation of this study was the lack of linkage Furthermore, for some faculty, it was difficult to switch from between student survey and faculty survey. Following our being the center of attention in front of a classroom to a IRB recommendation, we could not link students to their location where one is among the students. instructors because if we did the faculty would be Unfortunately, the teacher’s station in all ALCs in this identifiable. As a result, in some cases what students report study and in most ALCs around the world are not movable. about their professors and how they use ALCs did not Some faculty reported that this puts them in an awkward quietly match with what their instructor said. Also, this situation, particularly, where some students are sitting at the limitation did not allow the author to measure the impact of tables behind the instructor. Lee et al. (2018) suggested using specific teaching strategies on students’ satisfaction. a movable desk. Another solution is to use a remote‐ controlled mouse or what is known as laser Clickers. This Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 5  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS allows instructors to move around as they are talking, the time limits and how they can setup time for outside class demonstrating, or participating in a class‐wide discussion. or follow‐up meetings, and, more importantly, why they are being taught in an ALC. Teaching Assistants or Group Facilitators Dealing with Distraction In the first two phases of this study, the researcher had a chance to use a teaching assistant (recently known as While in this study most faculty did not complain about learning assistants) in one of the classes. He found that distraction due to the noise, some students, particularly in student groups in that course performed significantly higher the larger rooms, complained about it. Also, many students than students in his other courses. In the present study, and some faculty complained about other types of many teachers suggested using teaching assistants, distraction. Both instructors and students who participated particularly in large classes. As Komulainen et al. (2015) in this study complained about students who do not engage suggested, assistants have an important role in making sure in group work enough and were instead occupied with that all groups are able to proceed with their tasks and that private things on their personal laptops or talking about the groups do not get stuck and lose valuable time. things not related to their task. Others complained about Assistants can also answer student questions and facilitate distraction due to multiple screens in the room. group discussions. Where no teaching assistant is available, A couple of solutions are suggested in the literature to teachers may assign one of the students as the group reduce distraction. For example, Peterson and Gorman facilitator. (2014) recommended moving toward those students who are engaged in distracted or distracting behavior, or simply Instructor and Student Preparation standing near the student engaged in the undesired behavior. Another solution that has worked well in classes is ALCs present challenges for instructors who are used to to let students know that their contribution to group work teaching in more traditional classroom set‐ups and for will be assessed by their peer group, their group facilitator, students who are used to learning in those environments or the instructor. Imposing time limits, assigning teacher (Petersen & Gorman, 2014). Instructors complained that assistants or facilitators, and asking random students to most trainings in ALCs are limited to technology features report a summary of group discussion are among the and troubleshooting rather than on interactive and/or strategies that teachers can use to make sure students stay student‐centered teaching strategies. on track. More than 70% of the faculty had never observed another instructor using an ALC. Therefore, it is critical to increase Adjusting Teaching Methods the training time and, if possible, provide an opportunity to observe these rooms in practice as part of their preparation. The results of this study indicate that ALCs are used Sitting in an ALC during a real class session provides the mainly for lectures or group discussions. They are rarely instructor with a concrete experience for deciding how to used to produce something collaboratively. Magana (2017) interact with students and how to use the room. If this is not recommended three stages of integrating technology in the possible, at least one can watch some best practice videos. classroom: translational, transformational, and However, as Peterson and Gorman (2014) recommended, transcendent. In the translational stage, teachers and faculty need to redesign their courses incrementally. Because students use technology as opposed to analog tools to of many changes in instructor roles, which can be substantial perform their tasks. In the transformational stage, both the for most instructors who previously only lectured, they task itself and the students engaged in the task are suggested that instructors modify their courses in stages. substantially changed by the use of technology with the goal Students also need to be prepared. According to students to make or produce something collaboratively. The results of in this study, about 50% of faculty did not prepare students the data in this study show that few teachers reached this for ALCs. Students need to know how to use available stage. In the third stage, teachers go beyond the normal features. For example, they need to know what kind of range of specific outcomes or products. At the transcendent marker they can use, which surfaces or walls they can write stage, they push hard against the edges of what is currently on, how to connect their PC to the TV monitor at their table, known or possible. It is suggested that teachers and how to use the wireless speakers when they want to talk. incrementally move to this stage in which students are seen They also need to know what the instructor’s expectations as autonomous creative thinkers or entrepreneurs. and policies regarding group participation are, what are the While this open structure classroom might be difficult for best ways to start and to conclude a discussion, how their undergraduate courses, it may work well for graduate contribution to group discussion will be evaluated, what are courses. In undergraduate courses, there is more focus on Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 6  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS content but in graduate courses, most focus is on the process found that it took numerous years, a certain level of and critical thinking. As Rotgans and Henk (2011) instructor experience, and changes to the curriculum before suggested, ALCs are an appropriate context for investigating benefits were evident. situational interests because in these classrooms, students Therefore, it may be more important to have a pedagogy‐ are often provided with opportunities to formulate their driven approach such as the aforementioned Magana’s own learning goals and pursue them. Another (2017) approach to integrating technology in the classroom recommendation is to use the Flipped Classroom strategy in rather than a technology‐driven approach. Technology itself which students are required to read the textbooks or other may play a role in fostering a student’s motivation to engage readings at home prior to class, use the class time to discuss in the material, but it may also hinder engagement, their learnings, ask questions, or do something or make depending upon individual differences. Nicol et al. (2017) something based on what they have read. ALCs provide the asserted that while active learning is important for higher optimum environment, for students to discuss what they levels of learning, classrooms that provide a lot of visual and had studied before class. intellectual distractions might not be a better means by which to engage students. Ask for Early Feedback Consider All Types of Learners and All Levels of As explained earlier, group work success depends on several factors that vary in different situations. Something Learning that works for large classrooms might not work well in small One complaint reported mostly by students in this study classrooms. Some tasks are divergent, and others are was “too much discussion” or “too much group work.” convergent; some students are team players while some are While the main idea of creating ALCs is to facilitate group independent learners. Therefore, it is recommended to ask work and group discussions, as reported by some students for early feedback to know the course’s students and their in this study, not all course objectives merits group work or preferences as soon as possible. This way teachers would group discussion. The researcher’s own course evaluations know what changes would benefit student learning. It is also also indicate some students are interested in working or suggested that teachers share the results with students and reading independently or prefer to learn first‐hand from the try to accommodate student requests or explain why instructor rather than listen to other students’ opinions. accommodations are not made (Petersen & Gorman, 2014). Other students are resistant to approaches that ask them to take more responsibility for their learning (Petersen & Low Tech Vs High Tech Classrooms Gorman, 2014). As discussed earlier, it is not the size of ALCs that make a It is also possible that the novelty of an ALC can have difference in learning (Maquivar & Sundararajan, 2017). short‐term impact on student attitudes, which may wane in There is also research showing that it is not the technology cases of overuse (Perks et al., 2016). Therefore, differences that makes the difference either. According to Nicol et al. between students who have been exposed to many courses (2017), although numerous high‐technology classrooms are taught in ALCs versus students who have not been exposed being established, it has not been determined whether to these rooms should be considered by the instructors. students achieve higher grades in those types of However, it should be noted that at least in one study, the environments than in low‐technology classroom authors found no difference in the first‐time or repeated environments that employ active learning techniques. On student‐users’ experience in ALCs (Mui et al., 2019). Another the other hand, England et al. (2017) reported that all of their thing to consider is that since students in ALCs are mostly five ALCs’ courses that they investigated had caused student engaged in student‐student interaction and students in the anxiety due to excessive use of technology. In this study, all class may be facing away from the instructor at any given ALCs had the same level of technology equipment. time, faculty‐student interaction might be under‐ However, many faculty mentioned that they can engage emphasized, therefore, instructors need to address the students at an equal level in a low tech environment as well. whole class sometimes to allow students hear from the Nicol et al. (2017) found no significant effects for the high‐ instructor and perhaps ask their questions. technology ALCs versus low‐technology ALCs. In their Horton (2011) categorized students’ class activities into study, the instructors noted various problems with three groups: absorb, do, and connect activities. He believes equipment, student non‐participation, difficulty with using that while absorb activities are not inherently interesting for the technology, and some problematic group dynamics typical students, they are quite useful, particularly for highly preventing the emergence of the high‐technology motivated learners. Given that, some research has classroom’s full potential. Similarly, Rogers et al. (2015) demonstrated that active learning has an influence on higher level learning (based on Bloom’s taxonomy), but possibly Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 7  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS not lower level learning, it is possible that some important active learning classrooms. Journal of Learning Spaces, 8(1), learning activities such as reading, physical demonstrations, 19‐27. dramas, or ponder activities might be underemphasized in ALCs, if there are no absorb activities. Brooks, D. C. (2012). Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning spaces on instructor and Conclusion student behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2), 1–10. To conclude, ALCs are very new in our colleges and campuses. Teachers, students, and administrators are England, B. J., Brigati, J. R., & Schussler, E. E. (2017). learning as the number of rooms and the number of users Student anxiety in introductory biology classrooms: grow. This study leaves no doubt that ALCs are quite useful Perceptions about active learning and persistence in the in most aspects of learning outcomes and teamwork skills. major. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0182506. The question is how we can improve their effectiveness and reduce the cost of designing them. While the need for Fredrick, L. D., & Hummel, J. H. (2004). Reviewing the training was reflected in this article, the need for further outcomes and principles of effective instruction. In DJ research is also there. For example, in response to our open Moran and RW Malott (Eds.), Evidence based educational questions some students and faculty raised important methods (pp. 9–21). Elsevier Academic Press. questions and concerns. However, since those questions were not included in the Likert type surveys, we are not sure Groccia, J. E. , & Miller, J. E. (1996). Collegiality in the how prevalent those concerns are. Future studies may focus classroom: The use of peer learning assistants in on some of the suggestions provided in this article to check cooperative learning in introductory biology. Innovative their validity. For example, the novelty factor is a serious Higher Education, 21(2), 87‐100. concern that needs to be examined in the future. Comparison Horton, W. K. (2011). E‐learning by design. Pfeiffer. of different ALC sizes, levels of technology, teaching styles, tasks, and group configurations would also be helpful in the Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2007). The future. state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and Acknowledgements professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15–29. The author would like to thank CSULBʹs Academic Technology Services, particularly Francine Vasilomanolakis Jong, B., Lai, C., Hsia, Y., Lin, T., & Liao, Y. (2014). An and Stafford Cox for their significant contribution in design exploration of the potential education value of Facebook. and delivery of the surveys used in this study. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 201–211. Komulainen, T. M., Lindstrøm, C., & Sandtro, T. (2015, June). Work in Progress: Development and use of an active References learning classroom for a course on dynamic systems [Paper Presentation]. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Ahern, T., & Durrington, V. (1995). Effects of anonymity Seattle, Washington. and group saliency on participation and interaction in a computer‐mediated small‐group discussion. Journal of Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (Donald Research on Computing in Education, 28, 133‐147. Nicholson‐Smith, trans.). Blackwell. Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., Brooks, D. C., Saichaie, K., & Lammers, W. J., & Murphy, J. J. (2002). A profile of teaching Peterson, C. I. (2016). A guide to teaching in the active techniques in the university classroom: A descriptive learning classrooms: History, research, and practice. profile of a US public university. Active Learning in Higher Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Education, 3, 54–67. Bennett, T. (2015). Group Work for the Good; Unpacking Langley, D., & Guzey, S. S. (2014). Conducting an the Research behind One Popular Classroom Strategy. introductory biology course in an active learning American Educator, 1, 32‐43. classroom: A case study of an experienced faculty member. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 137, Birdwell, T. & Uttamchandani, S. (2019). Learning to teach 71–76. in space: Design principles for faculty development in Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 8  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate Petersen, C. I. & Gorman, K. S. (2014). Strategies to address peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. common challenges when teaching in an active learning classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 137, Lee, D., Morrone, A. S., & Siering, G. (2018). From 63‐70. Swimming Pool to Collaborative Learning Studio: Pedagogy, Space, and Technology in a Large Active Rezaei, A. R. (2018). Effective Groupwork Strategies: Learning Classroom. Educational Technology Research and Faculty and Students’ Perspectives. Journal of Education Development, 66(1), 95‐127. and Learning, 7(5), 1‐10. Magaña, S. (2017). Disruptive classroom technologies: A Rezaei, A. R. (2017). Features of successful group work in framework for innovation in education. Crowin. online and physical courses. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 17(3), 1‐19. Maquivar, M. G., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Effect of an active learning classroom on critical thinking Rezaei, A. R. & Katz, L., (2003). An integrative approach to dispositions, motivation to go to class, social community, Collaborative Electronic Learning. Journal of Computers in and learning skills in an animal sciences course. Journal of Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(1), 67‐83. Animal Science, 95(4), 355‐356. Rotgans, J. I., & Henk, G. S. (2011). Situational interest and Mui, M. L. S., Caprio, G. A. C., & Ong, C. M. (2019). academic achievement in the active‐learning classroom. Evaluation of engagement in learning within active Learning and Instruction 21(1), 58‐67. learning classrooms: Does novelty make a difference? Journal of Learning Spaces, 8(2), 1‐11. Scott‐Webber, L., Strickland, A., & Kapitula, L. R. (2014). How classroom design affects student engagement. Nicol, A. A., Owens, S. M., Le Coze, S. S., MacIntyre, A., & Steelcase. Retrieved from, Eastwood, C. (2017). Comparison of high‐technology https://www.steelcase.com/content/uploads/2015/03/Post active learning and low‐technology active learning ‐Occupancy‐Whitepaper_FINAL.pdf classrooms. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 253–265. Scoville, C. (2018). Multimodalities multiplied: Teaching comics in an active learning classroom. Pedagogy 18(3), Park, E. L., & Choi, B. K. (2014). Transformation of 540‐546. classroom spaces: Traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education 68(5),749–71. Vygotsky, L. (1986) Mind in society. Harvard University Press. Perks, T., Orr, D., & Al‐Omari, E. (2016). Classroom re‐ design to facilitate student learning: A case study of changes to a university classroom. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 16(1), 53–68. Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 9 Journal of Learning Spaces Volume 9, Number 2. 2020 ISSN 21586195 Appendix 1 ALC Faculty Survey Consent form: Dear faculty, You are being asked to participate in this research study because you have been identified as a CSULB faculty that previously or currently uses the Active Learning Classrooms (ALC) on campus. The goal of this study is to find out what features of these classrooms are useful and what features are not used by faculty and students and what are missing in these classes. We would also like to learn what type practices work better in this type of environment. Please read the following consent form and decide if you agree to continue the survey or you want to stop the survey. Please note this survey is anonymous. Potential Benefits to Subjects and/or to Society The results of this research will help us to design more effective learning environments in Active Learning Classrooms (ALCs). Potential Risks and Discomforts Risk #1: Loss of confidentiality. This risk is minimal because the researcher doesnʹt have access to the email list. Only ALC staff will have the list and they will send the link to the faculty who use the ALC rooms. Risk #2: Coercion. This risk is also minimal since the survey results will be accessible only by the Principal Investigator and he will not access to your email address. Furthermore, you are not asked to input your names or IDs and your participation is quite voluntary. You may end your participation at any time. You may also refrain from answering any specific question that makes you uncomfortable and still remain in the study. Payment for Participation There is no direct payment for this study. Confidentiality You will not be asked to provide any information that might be used to determine your identity. If the study is published, there will not be any identifying information that can be linked to your email address and e‐mail correspondence will not be connected to any of your responses. Participation and Withdrawal You can choose whether or not to be in this study. If you volunteer to participate, you may withdraw at any time without any consequences of any kind. Participation or non‐participation will not affect any personal consideration or the rights you usually expect. You may also refuse to answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which in the opinion of the researcher warrant doing so. Identification of the Investigators This research study conducted by Dr. Ali Rezaei a professor of education at CSULB in cooperation with ATS/Classroom Support Services. Dr. Rezaei has been teaching for more than 25 years and his area of research is educational assessment. You may contact ASEC’s office at 562‐985‐7947 for more information about him. Rights of Research Subjects You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue without penalty. You are not waving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, CSU Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower, Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840. Telephone (562) 985‐8147 or email to ORSP‐[email protected]. I understand the procedures and conditions of my participation described above. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. 10  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS o Agree (1) o Disagree (2) Your College? ▼ Choose your college‐‐‐‐‐ (29)... College of Continuing and Professional Education (37) Your Department? ▼ Select Your Department‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ (39)... Others (21) Your gender? o Male (1) o Female (2) Number of years teaching experience? 1 7 13 18 24 30 Use slider to choose. () Select the room that you are currently teaching in and doing this survey for it. o AS‐235 (1) o AS‐244 (2) o CBA‐217 (3) o CBA‐218 (4) o EED‐040 (5) o EED‐041 (6) o LA2‐101 (7) o LA2‐200 (8) o LA3‐106 (9) o LA3‐204 (10) Course name and number? (e.g., ETEC 444) 1. Did you make considerable amount of change in your teaching strategies when you switched to ALC rooms? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, to some extent (3) o Not really (2) o Not at all (1) If yes, what changes did you make? Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 11  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS 2. In comparison with other classrooms, do you believe ALC rooms give you a better chance to receive feedback from students on if they are learning or not? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, to some extent (3) o Not really (2) o Not at all (1) 3. In comparison with other classrooms, how longer/shorter are your lectures in ALCs? o I don’t lecture anymore (1) o My lectures’ length has decreased significantly (2) o My lectures’ length has not changed significantly (3) o Indeed, my lectures’ length has increased (4) 4. Have you ever used your own laptop/iPad (instead of the available desktop) to share your screen with your students? o Yes (1) o Yes (2) If yes, explain why you needed to use your own laptop. 5. Are you satisfied with the arrangement of tables and seats in this room? o Not at all (1) o Not really (2) o Yes, to some extent (3) o Yes, very much (4) 6. Do you have any comments, concerns or suggestions about the size of the room and table arrangements? 7. Do you feel that sometimes there are too much noise and distractions in the room ? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, most of the time (3) o No, only sometimes, (2) o Not at all (1) If yes, how do you manage noise and distractions when all students are talking and discussing? 8. How do you assess your students’ learning due to their discussions? How do you know the discussions are helping? You may simply say ʺI donʹt assess the effectiveness of discussionsʺ. Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 12  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS 9. Do you have a time limit for group discussions? o Yes, always (4) o Yes, most of the time (3) o Not really (2) o Not at all (1) 10. How do you check if students are on task during group discussion tasks? Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 13  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS Appendix 2 ALC Student Survey Consent form: Please read the following consent form and decide if you agree to continue the survey or you want to stop the survey. Please note this survey is anonymous. You are being asked to participate in this research study because you have been identified as a [faculty/student] at CSULB that previously or currently uses the Active Learning Classrooms (ALC) on campus. The goal of this study is to find out what features of these classrooms are useful and what features are not used by faculty and students and what are missing in these classes. Potential Benefits to Subjects and/or to Society. The results of this research will help us to design more effective learning environments in Active Learning Classrooms (ALCs). Potential Risks and Discomforts. Risk #1: Loss of confidentiality. This risk is minimal because the principle investigator doesnʹt have access to the email list. Only ALC staff will have the list and they will send the link to the faculty who use the ALC rooms and faculty will send the link to their students. Risk #2: Coercion. This risk is also minimal since your instructor will not have access to the surveys and the survey results will be accessible only by the principle Investigator. Furthermore, you are not asked to input their name or ID and will not be forced to answer and participation is voluntary. Payment for Participation There is no direct payment for this study. Confidentiality You will not be asked to provide any information that might be used to determine your identity. If the study is published, there will not be any identifying information that can be linked to your email address and e‐mail correspondence will not be connected to any of your responses. Participation and Withdrawal You can choose whether or not to be in this study. If you volunteer to participate, you may withdraw at any time without any consequences of any kind. Participation or non‐participation will not affect any personal consideration or the rights you usually expect. You may also refuse to answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which in the opinion of the researcher warrant doing so. Identification of the Investigators This research study conducted by Dr. Ali Rezaei a professor of education at CSULB in cooperation with ATS/Classroom Support Services. He has been teaching for more than 25 years and his area of research is educational assessment. You may contact ASEC’s office at 562‐985‐7947 for more information about him. Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 14  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS Rights of Research Subjects You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue without penalty. You are not waving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, CSU Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower, Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840. Telephone (562) 985‐8147 or email to ORSP‐[email protected]. I understand the procedures and conditions of my participation described above. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. o Agree (1) o Disagree (2) Your College? ▼ Choose your college‐‐‐‐‐ Your Department? ▼ Select Your Department‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Your age? 15 28 41 54 67 80 Your gender? o Male (1) o Female (2) Select the room(s) you are currently using (choose only one specific class even if you are using multiple rooms this semester). o AS‐235 (1) o AS‐244 (2) o CBA‐217 (3) o CBA‐218 (4) o EED‐040 (5) o EED‐041 (6) o LA2‐101 (7) o LA2‐200 (8) o LA3‐106 (9) Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 15  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS o LA3‐204 (10) Course name and number? (e. g., ETEC 444) How often did the following activities occur in your course? Not often Very often The work of an individual student was displayed or projected so that the whole class could see it. () The work of a group of students was displayed or projected to the whole class. () An in‐class learning activity required students to use the internet to conduct research or located information. () An in‐class activity required students in the group to use a personal laptop or device. () An in‐class learning activity required students to explain course ideas or concepts to other students. () Students worked in small groups on an in‐class learning activity () 1. Do you think you learn better in an Active Learning Classroom (ALC) environment rather than the traditional classroom? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, most of the time (3) o No, only sometimes (2) Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 16  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS o No, I don’t think so (1) 2. What is the main feature that makes ALC more useful than a regular classroom? A. Students can form small groups around a table (1) B. We have the large TV monitors for each table (7) C. The teacher is in the center of class rather than in front of class (8) D. The tables’ surface are writable (9) E. We can share our laptop’s screen with the whole group (10) F. The instructor can project his material on the large screen (11) G. None of the above, I don’t agree that ALC rooms are more useful (12) 3. Do you get more distracted in ALC than regular classrooms? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, most of the time (3) o No, only sometimes (2) o No, I don’t think so (1) 4. Does frequent discussions among students help your learning? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, most of the time (3) o No, only sometimes (2) o No, I don’t think so (1) 5. Do you need to be technology‐savvy as a student in ALC rooms? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, most of the time (3) o No, only sometimes (2) o No, I don’t think so (1) 6. What do you think about the size of tables in these rooms? The size is o Just fine (1) o A little large (2) o A little small (3) o Too large (4) o Too small (5) Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 17  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS 7. How many students per table is most desirable? 4 6 7 9 10 12 8. Have you ever used your own laptop to share your screen with the other students? o Yes, many times (4) o Yes, sometimes (3) o Only once (2) o No, never (1) 9. If yes, explain what did you share and why did you share? 10. Do you ever use the writable surface tables in this room? o Yes, all the time (4) o Yes, most of the time (3) o No, I donʹt think so (2) o Absolutely no (1) 11. Do you believe that ALC rooms encourage teamwork and cooperation among students? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, I think so (3) o No, I donʹt think so (2) o Absolutely no (1) 12. Do you feel that you have more social presence in ALC rooms? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, I think so (3) o No, I donʹt think so (2) o Absolutely no (1) 13. Does ALC environment compel you to attend class more often and miss classes less? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, I think so (3) o No, I donʹt think so (2) o Absolutely no (1) 14. Do you believe that ALC rooms makes you become more a dependent learner (dependent to other group members)? Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 18  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, I think so (3) o No, I donʹt think so (2) o Absolutely no (1) 15. Does the ALC environment make your teacher to play a less authoritative role and more a facilitator role? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, I think so (3) o No, I donʹt think so (2) o Absolutely no (1) 16. Did your instructor explain why he/she is using this type of classroom for his/her course? o Not at all (4) o Not really (3) o Yes, to some extent (2) o Yes, very much (1) 17. Did your instructor prepared you for learning in this type of environment? o Not at all (4) o Nit really (3) o Yes, to some extent (2) o Yes, very much (1) 18. If yes, how? 19. Does the instructor move around the room and sit with small groups to make sure they are quite engaged? o Yes, all the time (4) o Yes, most of the times (3) o No, only a few times (2) o No, never (1) 20. In comparison with other classrooms do you believe ALC rooms give you more opportunities to ask your questions from your teachers? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, I think so (3) o No, I donʹt think so (2) o Absolutely no (1) 21. Is most of your time in class spent on listening to lecture, discussion and collaboration, or individual tasks? o Listening to lecture (1) Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 19  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS o Discussion and collaboration (4) o Individual tasks (5) 22. Do you stay with the same group for the whole semester? o Yes, always (4) o Yes, most of the time (3) o No, only sometimes (2) o No, we change groups all the time. (1) 23. Do you find the ALC environment to be more inspirational? o Not at all (1) o No, just a little (2) o Yes, to some extent (3) o Yes, very much (4) 24. Does the center location of the instructor station make the instructor more accessible? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, to some extent (3) o No, I don’t think so (2) o Not at all (1) 25. There is no back row or back seats in ALC rooms. Is this a good thing? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, to some extent (3) o No, I don’t think so (2) o Not at all (1) 26. Usually, there are a few students who donʹt do their part in a teamwork. Do you believe this ALC setting stops those free riders and unengaged students? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, to some extent (3) o No, I don’t think so (2) o Not at all (1) 27. In your opinion, what kind of courses are more appropriate for this ALC environment? 28. In your opinion, does it make sense to design much larger ALC rooms that fit many more students? Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 20  GROUP WORK IN ACTIVE LEARNING CLASSROOMS o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, to some extent (3) o No, I don’t think so (2) o Not at all (1) 29. Do you prefer Huddle Boards (portable white boards) or you prefer these writable surface tables? o Huddle Boards (1) o Writable Surface Tables (4) 30. Are you required to bring your own laptops to class? o Yes, all the time (4) o Yes, most of the times (3) o No, only a few times (2) o No, never (1) 31. Do you like the idea that students should bring their own laptops to class? o Yes, absolutely (4) o Yes, to some extent (3) o No, I don’t think so (2) o Not at all (1) Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 2020. 21