68 10 Design Features of an Active Learning Classroom

10 Design Features of an Active Learning Classroom

Active learning is “an approach to instruction in which students engage [with] the material they study through reading, writing, talking, listening, and reflecting” (University of Minnesota, 2013). The recent emphasis in education towards student-centered learning demands, it could be argued, a change in classroom design. A research study conducted at the University of Minnesota found students in a classroom designed for active learning “outperformed their counterparts in the traditional classroom, everything else being equal (gender, race, year in school, etc.)” with “average gains of nearly 5 percentage points” (Cotner, Loper, Walker, & Brooks, 2013, p. 86). The physical design of traditional classrooms is not optimized to support the type of interactions that would facilitate active learning. For our purposes, we define traditional classrooms as rows of seats, facing forward toward a podium; we would posit that this type of classroom is designed for lecture, which tends to be a more passive or “instructionist” mode of teaching, rather than an active mode of teaching. Active learning requires “a new classroom paradigm where technology and the physical space are integrated to support pedagogy and create a more active and engaging experience for instructors and students” (Steelcase Inc., 2011, p. 8).

 

This document outlines 10 common design features of an active learning classroom. This is not an all-encompassing list of features; we simply describe some of the common features that may be present in an active learning classroom.

Design Feature #1: Round Tables

Some have argued that furniture has the power to define a learning space (Seddign, Hosseini, Abedini, & Lou, 2011). In a traditional classroom, desks facing the front of the classroom could discourage interaction among peers. In active learning classrooms, round tables create an environment that encourages interactivity and collaboration among learners (Lomas & Oblinger, 2006; Whiteside & Fitzgerald, 2009; Whiteside, Brooks, & Walker, 2010). The implied learning model in a traditional classroom is that all learning will happen between the instructor and the student. The implied learning model in an active learning classroom with round tables is that much of the learning will happen when students engage with one another and work together.

Design Feature #2: Flexibility

Active learning classrooms are unique in that you can adapt the classroom to the learning, rather than adapting the learning to the classroom. Research has found that “providing furniture that people can rearrange and tools they can manipulate gives them the feeling that they have permission to claim ownership” (Gee, 2006, p. 10.10) which translates into a “a sense of ownership in the learning process” (Lopez & Gee, 2006, p. 19.6). Movable tables and chairs allow spaces to be reconfigured and converted in order to support different types of teaching and learning activities (Brown & Long, 2006; Bickford & Wright, 2006; Gee, 2006; Lomas & Oblinger, 2006; Lopez & Gee, 2006; Oblinger; 2006; Reynolds & Weldon, 2006; Rivero, 2013; Siddall, 2006; Steelcase Inc, 2010; Steelcase Inc, 2013; Van Note Chism, 2006). For example, wheeled tables and chairs can quickly be moved and reconfigured to support individual, paired, or group learning activities.

Design Feature #3: Aesthetics

In most environments, “human beings yearn for color, natural and task appropriate lighting, and interesting rooms shapes” (Van Note Chism, 2006, p. 2.6).  Lighting and sensory stimulation—visual, tactile, auditory, and kinesthetic—help to create an atmosphere conducive to learning (Van Note Chism, 2006; Gee 2006). According to Gee, “Textures, colors, and shapes can reinforce association and retention” (Gee, 2006, p. 10.6) and “can provide sensory stimulation that influences the experience and thus learning” (Gee, 2006, 10.3). Graetz stated that “Environments that produce positive emotional states can be expected to facilitate learning” (2006, p. 62).   

Design Feature #4: A Comfortable Environment

In combination with aesthetics, physical comfort is essential to learning in a classroom. Learning environments that are physically uncomfortable can distract students and interfere with learning (Graetz, 2006; Van Note Chism, 2006). Research has determined that factors such as poor air circulation, uncomfortable temperatures, loud noises, and crowded classrooms distract students from their learning (Graetz, 2006). Open, comfortable learning spaces can help to promote academic engagement among students (Hunley & Schaller, 2006; Whiteside & Fitzgerald, 2009). Active learning classrooms provide adequate space for the technologies, books, and other materials students may need to utilize (Rivero, 2013). Active learning classrooms provide sufficient space for moving both furniture and people as the learning activities in the classroom change.

Design Feature #5: Learner-Focused

According to Oblinger, “A room with rows of tablet armchairs facing an instructor’s desk in front of chalkboards conveys the pedagogical approach ‘I talk or demonstrate; you listen or observe’ (2006a, p. 2.2). Without a set ‘front’ in an active learning classroom, the focus shifts away from experts and teaching (Oblinger, 2006b; Van Note Chism, 2006). Lori Gee stated that “Without a set orientation, the room’s occupants can move and group furnishings, technology, and activity in multiple ways and in many places within a space. Lecture and presentation areas need not be restricted to the front of the room” (2006, p. 10.10). Rather than sending the message that lecture is the only way students learn, an active learning classroom acknowledges and supports students in many different types of learning.

Design Feature #6: Whiteboards

Whiteboards in active learning classrooms provide students with a space to share ideas and increase collaboration with other students. (Biechner, 2006; Dugdale & Kainz, 2006; Gilbert, 2006; Lopez & Gee, 2006; Meeks, 2006; Whiteside & Fitzgerald, 2009). Whiteboards may encourage informal learning among students (Lopez & Gee, 2006). In active learning classrooms, “whiteboards act as public thinking spaces. Students can see what others are doing and engage each other in discussion” (Biechner, 2006, p. 29.2).

Design Feature #7: Reliable Network Connections

Reliable network connections are critical for active learning classrooms. Classrooms must have networks in place that can handle the heavy demands of active learning (Bickford & Wright, 2006; Lippencott, 2006; Lomas & Oblinger, 2006). Wired connections are typically offered for peak wireless usage times when the networks are saturated (Lippencott, 2006; Lomas & Oblinger, 2006).

Design Feature #8: Power

Active learning can incorporate many different types of technologies and devices. One feature that most of them have in common is their need for power. Active learning classrooms accommodate learners with pervasive power outlets. (Gee, 2006; Lomas & Oblinger, 2006; Rivero, 2013; Van Note Chism, 2006; Whiteside & Fitzgerald, 2009)

Design Feature #9: Technology

Students utilize a large variety of technology resources for learning. Seamless technology integration and availability of technology resources in active learning classrooms increase learner engagement (Beeland, 2002; Gee, 2006; Hunley & Schaller, 2006; Lopez & Gee, 2006; Milne, 2006; Rivero, 2013; Steelcase Inc., 2011; Van Note Chism, 2006). Projection systems and shared screens allow students to share ideas easily with their group or the entire class (Whiteside & Fitzgerald, 2009). The incorporation of mobile technologies—devices that many students are already utilizing—can increase a learner’s sense of individuality and ownership in their learning (Brill & Park, 2008), as well as contributing to the flexible and multifunctional nature of the active learning classroom (Bickford & Wright, 2006; Brown & Long, 2006).

Design Feature #10: Transparency

In active learning classrooms, students and instructors have fewer physical obstacles between one another and increased opportunities for interaction. Because the instructor and other students can see what others are engaged in, transparency increases students’ accountability. (Gee, 2006; Hunley & Schaller, 2006; Lomas & Oblinger, 2006). A visual connection with peers and seeing “others engaged in learning can energize learners” (Gee, 2006, p. 10.5).

 

References

 

Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J., & Kobbacy, K. (2013). A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, 59, 678-689. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132312002582

Beeland Jr., W.D. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help? Retrieved fromhttp://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/ beeland_am.pdf. 

Beichner, R. (2006). SCALE-UP: North Carolina State University. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

Bickford, D. J. & Wright, D. J. (2006). Community: The hidden context for learning. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

Brown, M. & Long, P. (2006). Trends in learning space design. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

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. Retrieved from http://www.oit.umn.edu/prod/groups/oit/@pub/@oit/@web/@evaluationresearch/documents/article/oit_article_448344.pdf 

Dugdale, S. & Kainz, C.  (2006). The USITE/Creerar Computing Cluster and Cybercafe: University of Chicago. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

Gee, Lori. (2006). Human-centered design guidelines. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

Gilbert, D.  (2006). Wallenberg Hall: Stanford University. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces

Graetz, K. A. (2006). The psychology of learning environments. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

Hunley, S. & Schaller, M. (2006). Assessing learning spaces. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

Lippencott, J. K. (2006). Linking the information commons to learning. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

Lomas, C. & Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Student practices and their impact on learning spaces. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

Lopez, H. & Gee, L. (2006). Learning studios project: Estrella Mountain Community College. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

Meeks, H. (2006). Flyspace. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

Milne, A. J. (2006). Designing blended learning space to the student experience. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

Oblinger, D. G. (2006a). Learning how to see. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

Oblinger, D. G. (2006b). Space as a change agent. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces 

Rivero, V. (2013). Smart space: Why our learning environments must be re-invented. EdTech Digest. Retrieved from http://edtechdigest.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/smart-spaces/ 

Reynolds, N. & Weldon, D. A. (2006). Science center: Hamilton College. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces

Seddigh, M., Hosseini, S., Abedini, M., & Lou, B. (2011). Investigating the main concerns in design of a learning space (with particular reference to college and university spaces). International Journal Of Academic Research, 3(2), 474-477.

Siddall, S. (2006). MIX lab: Denison University. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces

Steelcase Inc. (2010). node: Keeping pace with active learning.  360. Retrieved from http://www.steelcase.com/en/products/category/educational/seating/node/documents/node_u-m_case_study.pdf

Steelcase Inc. (2011). Active learning spaces: Insights, applications, &  solutions. Steelcase Education Solutions. Retrieved from http://www.steelcase.com/en/products/Category/Educational/Documents/ses_active_learning_spaces_interactive.final.pdf 

University of Minnesota. (2013). What is active learning? Retrieved from http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/tutorials/active/what/index.html

Van Note Chism, N. (2006). Challenging traditional assumptions and rethinking learning spaces. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://educause.edu/learningspaces

Whiteside, A. & Fitzgerald, S. (2009). Designing spaces for active learning. Implications, 7(1), 1-6. Retrieved from www.informedesign.org/_news/jan_v07r-pr.2.pdf‎.

 

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Maverick Learning and Educational Applied Research Nexus Copyright © 2021 by Minnesota State University, Mankato is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book