Quantifying the effects of active learning environments: separating physical learning classrooms from pedagogical approaches

Abstract

Prior findings on the effects of active learning environments were limited by both research design and data-analysis techniques, such as lack of controls over confounding factors and misuse of statistical modeling. We (1) investigated the effects of active learning environments on student achievement and motivation and (2) overcame the limitations of prior studies. Using a three-group design, the effects of physical learning environments and pedagogical approaches were successfully separated. Active learning environments were found to have little influence, whereas active learning and teaching were found to have a significantly-positive influence on student achievements. The findings contribute to understandings of active learning environments in higher education, and invite more debate about whether further investments in active learning classrooms are worthwhile.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers and Education,78, 227–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baldwin, D. (1996). Discovery learning in computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin,28(1), 222–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beck, L. L., & Chizhik, A. W. (2008). An experimental study of cooperative learning in CS1. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin,40(1), 205–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brooks, D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology,42(5), 719–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carter, A. S., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2011). A review of studio-based learning in computer science. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges,27(1), 105–111.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cotner, S., Loper, J., Walker, J. D., & Brooks, D. C. (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), 82–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics,69(9), 970–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dori, Y. J. (2007). Educational reform at MIT: Advancing and evaluating technology-based projects on-and off-campus. Journal of Science Education and Technology,16(4), 279–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences,14(2), 243–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology,100(3), 613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gaffney, J. D., Richards, E., Kustusch, M. B., Ding, L., & Beichner, R. J. (2008). Scaling up education reform. Journal of College Science Teaching,37(5), 48–53.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Greer, T., Hao, Q., Jing, M., & Barnes, B. (2019). On the effects of active learning environments in computing education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 267–272).

  14. Hakimzadeh, H., Adaikkalavan, R., & Batzinger, R. (2011). Successful implementation of an active learning laboratory in computer science. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services (pp. 83–86).

  15. Hao, Q., Barnes, B., Wright, E., & Branch, R. M. (2017). The influence of achievement goals on online help seeking of computer science students. British Journal of Educational Technology,48(6), 1273–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hao, Q., Barnes, B., Wright, E., & Kim, E. (2018). Effects of active learning environments and instructional methods in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 934–939).

  17. Horwitz, S., Rodger, S. H., Biggers, M., Binkley, D., Frantz, C. K., Gundermann, D., et al. (2009). Using peer-led team learning to increase participation and success of under-represented groups in introductory computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin,41(1), 163–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hu, H. H., & Shepherd, T. D. (2014). Teaching CS 1 with POGIL activities and roles. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 127–132).

  19. McConnell, J. J. (2005). Active and cooperative learning: Tips and tricks (part I). ACM SIGCSE Bulletin,37(2), 27–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Oliver-Hoyo, M. T., Allen, D., Hunt, W. F., Hutson, J., & Pitts, A. (2004). Effects of an active learning environment: Teaching innovations at a research I institution. Journal of Chemical Education,81(3), 441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Park, E. L., & Choi, B. K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education,68(5), 749–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Porter, L., Bailey Lee, C., & Simon, B. (2013, March). Halving fail rates using peer instruction: A study of four computer science courses. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 177–182).

  23. Porter, L., Bailey Lee, C., Simon, B., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 45–52).

  24. Shell, D. F., & Soh, L. K. (2013). Profiles of motivated self-regulation in college computer science courses: Differences in major versus required non-major courses. Journal of Science Education and Technology,22(6), 899–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Simon, B., Kohanfars, M., Lee, J., Tamayo, K., & Cutts, Q. (2010). Experience report: Peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 341–345).

  26. Timmerman, B., & Lingard, R. (2003). Assessment of active learning with upper division computer science students. In Proceedings of 2003 Frontiers in Education (FIE 2003).

  27. Whiteside, A., Brooks, D. C., & Walker, J. D. (2010). Making the case for space: Three years of empirical research on learning environments. Educause Quarterly,33(3), 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ziegel, E. R. (1995). Tie series analysis, forecasting, and control. Technometrics, 37(2), 238–242.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qiang Hao.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Survey

Appendix: Survey

Section I Attitude towards taking computer science courses

1.:

I like programming

13.:

I like computer science

12.:

I am looking forward to taking more Computer Science courses

Confidence

17.:

I am confident in my technical knowledge

11.:

I am confident in my programming skills

10.:

I am confident in my capability of learning new technical skills

Section II Achievement goal questionnaire-revised

Mastery-approach goal

16.:

My aim is to completely master the material presented in this class

18.:

I am striving to do well compared with other students

9.:

My goal is to learn as much as possible

Master-avoidance goal

2.:

My aim is to perform well relative to other students

7.:

My aim is to avoid learning less than I possibly could

8.:

My goal is to avoid performing poorly compared with others

Performance-approach goal

3.:

I am striving to understand the content as thoroughly as possible

14.:

My goal is to perform better than the other students

4.:

My goal is to avoid learning less than it is possible to learn

Performance-avoidance goal

5.:

I am striving to avoid performing worse than others

15.:

My aim is to avoid doing worse than other students

6.:

I am striving to avoid an incomplete understanding of the course material

Likert responses: SA, A, N, D, SD

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hao, Q., Barnes, B. & Jing, M. Quantifying the effects of active learning environments: separating physical learning classrooms from pedagogical approaches. Learning Environ Res (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09320-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Active learning environments
  • Computing education
  • Higher education
  • Physical environments