ABSTRACTThe purpose of this action research was to identify participant experiences and needs of faculty when teaching in the active learning classrooms at a public regional southeastern
Introduction
Brooks (2017) identified higher education’s top 10 strategic technologies and predicted that the current experimentation with active learning classrooms would become the standard by 2022 An active learning classroom is a space that enables students to get to know each other, engage in dialogue, collaborate on group projects, and publicly present or teach their work, with interactions spanning collaborative and cooperative learning (Connolly & Lampe, 2016; Friel et al., 2009) As institutions adopt these spaces, many are documenting faculty participation, student perceptions, the installed technology features, and recommendations for future steps as they analyze the active learning classroom experience (Florman, 2014; Fournier et al., 2014).
Since 2003, North Carolina State University has pursued a project exploring innovative classroom designs that depart from traditional lecture formats, aiming to boost student problem-solving, learning attitudes, and course success rates (Alexander et al., 2008; Beichner & Saul, 2003; Park & Choi, 2014) A growing body of research has tested the effectiveness of active learning activities and the collaborative technologies that accompany active learning pedagogy (Carr et al., 2015; Waltz et al., 2014) For instance, studies have shown that students in active learning environments are more engaged, demonstrate stronger problem-solving skills, and achieve higher levels of course success.
2 enthusiastic when having more ability to participate in hands-on activities (Exeter et al.,
By 2010, researchers noted that instructors felt less motivation and spontaneity in conventional lecture settings compared with active-learning classes (Langley & Guzey, 2014; Obenland et al., 2012; Scott & Scott, 2016) In addition, studies highlighted strategies such as problem-based learning, educational games, and interactive case studies as ways instructors implemented active learning pedagogy (Auerbach & Schussler, 2016; Waltz et al., 2014).
Active learning classrooms differ from traditional lecture classrooms in terms of both technology and furniture They are frequently designed in-the-round and may feature televisions at each table station, with students facing one another rather than always facing the instructor This configuration supports collaborative work and student-centered learning, reflecting a shift toward active learning principles that emphasize interaction, discussion, and peer engagement.
Based on 2013 findings, it is not surprising to see recommendations for faculty support through dedicated staff and scheduled workshops (Dahlstrom, 2015; Florman, 2014) The justification for these recommendations stems from faculty needs to adapt to evolving scholarly practices, engage in ongoing professional development, manage increasing demands, and enhance teaching and research outcomes Providing targeted support and structured development opportunities helps faculty navigate these challenges and aligns institutional priorities with sustaining high-quality scholarship.
“help faculty adapt their courses to this new environment” before and during the semester when they are in the new environment (Fournier et al., 2014; Painter et al., 2013, p 12)
Literature calling for support before and during courses scheduled in active learning classrooms highlights a conflict with the current training and scheduling processes in higher education’s academic affairs This mismatch poses barriers to implementing active learning effectively, because faculty development and classroom assignments are not aligned with instructional needs For example, at some institutions faculty members are not required to meet criteria that would prioritize them for teaching in specific classrooms, limiting strategic use of active learning spaces (Fournier et al.).
Adopting contemporary classroom designs that support active learning often requires faculty development training to master the pedagogy and demonstrate proficiency with the installed technologies This process can generate tension among academic departments wary of changing classroom design and instructional approaches Additionally, reservation policies for which courses occupy which rooms introduce another constraint for the classroom scheduling administrator, complicating the assignment of classrooms to courses.
Research by Painter et al (2013) and Torres-Ovalle et al (2014) highlights challenges and opportunities associated with active learning in higher education These findings indicate that universities implementing active learning classrooms should assess the impact on faculty instructional development and teaching practices within those classrooms.
This action research was conducted at a small regional public institution in the southeastern United States during the 2017–2018 academic year The college serves about 6,000 students annually and employs 245 full‑time plus 222 part‑time faculty members It is recognized as one of the most diverse southern regional public institutions, with roughly 20% fewer White students than its flagship public university (College Factual, 2018) The student body is 54% female and 34% male Faculty demographics show 57% White faculty and 7.8% African American.
American faculty members 30.6% of the faculty population were labeled “Ethnicity unknown.” 57% of faculty members identified as female while 43% identified as male
In late 2014, the university’s Vice-Chancellor of Information Technology and Data Services and the Director of Learning Technologies secured a Title III Federal Grant to fund active learning classrooms aimed at boosting student retention and engagement Through Spring 2019, the Title III Steering Committee—which I joined during the 2015–2016 academic year—collected grant-mandated data to assess student and faculty perceptions of these active learning spaces Analysis of surveys and focus groups showed that students in active learning classrooms built stronger rapport with their instructors, and that the combination of collaborative group work and multiple displays of course content helped them pay more attention in class We also have evidence of faculty publishing and presenting on their active learning classroom experiences at academic conferences, underscoring faculty enthusiasm for the project (Connolly & Lampe, 2016).
My role in completing grant tasks began in February 2015, serving as the instructional designer responsible for scheduling and designing active learning classrooms funded by Title III I also led the selection and training of faculty to ensure they understood active learning pedagogy and the technology features installed in the new classrooms Through relationships I built with project stakeholders, informal discussions about the research problem emerged regarding after-grant classroom operations When the dissertation process began, no formal post-grant procedures had been established for the active learning initiative.
In June 2018, the Director of Learning Technologies, who serves as chair of the Title III Federal Grant Steering Committee, announced the formation of the Physical Learning Environments Assessment Team (PLEAT) to discuss the needs of five classrooms based on classroom analysis and faculty perceptions, guiding improvements in the physical learning environments.
In the Summer of 2016, three academic departments outside the Title III Steering Committee requested capital funding and technology funding through separate processes to construct active learning classrooms, without consultation or training from staff in the Department of Learning Technologies or other Title III Steering Committee members Because these funding avenues were exclusive, the requests for active learning classrooms were denied, as the project required integrating furniture and technology into a single, coherent plan so the funding committees would clearly understand what needed to be installed.
Funding streams intended to enhance classroom activities intersected with scheduling policies for Title III active learning classrooms, sometimes creating initial conflicts in course scheduling When the first active learning classroom was built, the Department of Learning Technologies secured permission to restrict any course scheduling in Title III–funded rooms to classes led by faculty who had completed the active learning faculty development program Despite these safeguards, occasional miscommunication resulted in an unapproved course taught by an untrained faculty member being scheduled in an active learning classroom by the Registrar during a time slot reserved for an approved course taught by a trained faculty member.
6 was scheduled by the Department of Learning Technologies to be taught in that classroom
There was no formal, permanent process at the public regional southeastern university to train faculty in active learning pedagogies for use in active learning classrooms after the Title III Federal Grant ended Previously, the grant steering committee possessed temporary authority to design the classrooms, require faculty training, and schedule courses in these spaces, while seeking input from participating faculty; now there is a need for PLEAT to establish a lasting process that incorporates faculty feedback and prepares faculty to apply active learning strategies effectively At the time of the study, there was no explicit definition of what an active learning classroom entailed It was anticipated that once the final grant cycle concluded, the Registrar would regain full scheduling control and prioritize space over faculty training, rather than ensuring instructors are adequately prepared Following the research, the Office of Academic Affairs directed the instructional designer overseeing active learning classroom activities that any active learning classrooms not filled by active learning-trained faculty should be addressed to maintain appropriate use.
7 members will be filled by courses that may or may not have faculty who are trained in active learning pedagogy
The purpose of this action research was to identify participant experiences and needs of faculty when teaching in the active learning classrooms at a public regional southeastern university
1 What are the experiences of faculty members who have taught in the active learning classrooms?
2 What are the experiences of students who have taken a course in the active learning classrooms?
3 What are the faculty development, classroom technology, and technical support needs of faculty members who have taught in the active learning classrooms?
Literature Review
1 What are the experiences of faculty members who have taught in the active learning classrooms?
2 What are the experiences of students who have taken a course in the active learning classrooms?
The article explores the needs of faculty development, classroom technology, and technical support for instructors who have taught in active learning classrooms To ground the discussion in current research, I searched databases available through the Thomas Cooper Library website at the University of South Carolina, including Academic Search Complete and the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) I applied search limiters to ensure full-text access, that the sources were peer-reviewed scholarly journals, and that the research was recent, limiting results to articles published from 2010 onward.
2020 Any articles or books that were cited before 2010 are considered to come from authors that have created a foundation for the topic or concept being referenced
In my search inquiries, I used Boolean operators to combine keywords The initial search included 'higher education' and 'active learning' to ensure the database would not list irrelevant research from primary and secondary educational settings When results were insufficient, I excluded 'higher education' to allow active learning research related to the selected sub-topic keywords to appear Subsequent searches included the keyword 'faculty development'.
“training”, “classroom*,” and “scheduling” in combination with “higher education” and
An asterisk after the term 'classroom' signaled inclusion of related topics, including various classroom designs, characteristics, and classification studies In expanding the literature search on student perceptions of active learning classrooms and pedagogy, we used 'student perceptions' and 'student attitudes' together with other keyword combinations to ensure a comprehensive collection of journal articles.
During my research, I saved relevant articles as PDFs to upload into Mendeley Desktop Reference Manager, which allows me to organize sources in folders and tag them with metadata keywords tied to my study In addition to articles from library databases, I referenced books by David Christopher Brooks to establish a foundation for active learning and by Robert Birnbaum to ground an understanding of how organizational culture influences decisions in higher education Faculty members also recommended other non-database resources to guide my dissertation.
Figure 2.1 Mendeley Desktop Manager allowing for storage of scholarly articles
Considering the research questions and keywords for the literature search, this review is organized around three guiding sections: active learning classrooms in higher education; impacting instruction through faculty development for active learning classrooms; and student experiences and behaviors in active learning classrooms The first section examines how active learning classrooms in higher education enhance student engagement and learning outcomes, the second evaluates faculty development initiatives aimed at transforming instruction to support active learning, and the third analyzes student experiences and behaviors in active learning classrooms, including participation patterns, collaboration, and perceived barriers Together, these sections provide a concise, SEO-friendly synthesis of implementation, pedagogy, and learner experience in active learning classrooms in higher education.
Active Learning Classrooms in Higher Education
Research in higher education has identified active learning classrooms as spaces designed to move beyond traditional lectures by engaging students in discussion, problem solving, and collaborative inquiry, thus active learning in higher education refers to instructional approaches that require students to actively think and participate rather than passively receive information This concept is grounded in constructivist theory, which holds that learners construct knowledge through social interaction, inquiry, and authentic tasks, shaping classroom practices that emphasize collaboration, reflection, and visible learning outcomes Typical active learning classroom characteristics and features include flexible, reconfigurable furniture; technology-enabled collaboration; clearly defined roles for instructors as facilitators; frequent opportunities for peer instruction, think-pair-share, and inquiry-based activities; and transparent assessment that provides timely feedback Institutions pursue active learning classrooms to improve student engagement, deepen understanding, enhance retention and achievement, and prepare students for complex real-world problem solving Assessing these classrooms involves examining learning gains, engagement and collaboration metrics, instructional fidelity, scalability, and sustainability of reforms Implementing active learning classrooms presents challenges such as upfront costs and space constraints, faculty development and ongoing support needs, change management barriers, and ensuring equitable access across departments and disciplines.
Definition of Active Learning in Higher Education
Active learning is a general pedagogical approach that also identifies concrete activities, described as a pedagogy that engages learners to be self-motivated, to solve real-time problems, and to learn in formal and informal authentic settings when interacting with others This perspective is supported by Bachen et al (2014), Burd et al (2015), Coorey (2016), and Dall’Alba & Bengtsen (2019), who emphasize learner engagement, collaboration, and authentic contexts as central to effective learning.
Hunter (2015) argues that when peers work together to solve course problems, it demonstrates students’ ability to implement active learning in the classroom Although many active‑learning activities are collaborative, such activities can also include hands‑on, independent tasks such as searching for knowledge using appropriate sources or producing presentations (Niemi, 2002).
More specifically, activities include discussion, project-based work, group work, and cooperative learning (Dilmac, 2016; Nordquist & Laing, 2015) For example, Dilmac
(2016) noticed an increase in teacher candidates’ perceptions of museums after asking student groups to work together and experiment while exploring museums Coorey
Peer learning is identified as the most effective active learning method in university courses, where students teach one another to reinforce understanding of course content (2016) In practice, instructors become facilitators who circulate the room, consulting with different student groups to support their learning (Cotner et al., 2013; Painter et al., 2013) For instance, Nordquist and Laing (2015) reported that roughly 40% of studied activities involved team-based projects completed by student teams rather than individuals Emphasizing teamwork can also reduce instructor lecturing time, a view supported by Kyu, highlighting the efficiency of collaborative learning in higher education.
Mi, Khera, and Getman (2014) suggest instructors should see themselves as facilitators
18 and not lecturers that may result in encouraging students to be more prepared for class
By doing so, the active learning methods may result in a more independent impact on student performance (Cotner et al., 2013)
Connecting Active Learning with Constructivism
Active learning in higher education is closely aligned with constructivist theory, defined as learning experiences that enable collaboration, communication, interaction, and knowledge construction that help learners make meaning of the covered content Effective active-learning measures challenge students by requiring them to connect concepts to their own experiences, promoting deeper understanding Constructivist learning may also appear as student-led teaching that aids comprehension and engagement This educational philosophy contrasts with positivist objectivism, which treats knowledge as separate from the learner, and with other pedagogical approaches, emphasizing inquiry, reflection, and co-creation of knowledge.
Behaviorism where the same intervention is implemented until there is a change in behavior (Driscoll, 2005)
Outside of the general definition, this learning theory can be classified in the categories of cognitive, social, and radical constructivism (Asamoah & Oheneba-Sakyi,
2017) Piaget describes cognitive constructivism as knowledge being constructed in every person’s brain while Vygotsky believed through social constructivism that knowledge
Knowledge emerges from collaboration within social contexts Radical constructivism, as described by von Glasersfeld, argues that knowledge cannot be constructed apart from a broad societal consensus This view highlights how learning and understanding are shaped through social interaction and shared meaning, a position supported by Applefield et al (2001) and Krahenbuhl (2016).
Within a constructivist framework, Hartle, Baviskar, and Smith (2012) outline four criteria to guide educators in assessing activities: (1) learners elicit prior knowledge, (2) learners experience cognitive dissonance that reveals misconceptions and prompts comparison, (3) learners can apply new knowledge with feedback, and (4) there is an opportunity for metacognition where learners reflect on their learning In addition to these criteria, researchers such as Driscoll (2005) and Krahenbuhl have identified further characteristics of constructivist learning, including providing students with the opportunity to construct their own knowledge.
Active learning centers on social interaction—among students and with the instructor—as the means to construct knowledge (Cotterill, 2013; Krahenbuhl, 2016) This perspective supports activities such as in-class discussions, project-based work, group work, cooperative learning, and peer learning, which are commonly associated with active learning pedagogy (Dilmac, 2016; Nordquist & Laing, 2015).
Active Learning Classroom Characteristics and Features
The emergence of networked information technology has expanded opportunities for diverse instructional strategies, including active learning (Brown & Gachago, 2013; Nordquist & Laing, 2015) Faculty members have seen measurable improvements in group-based learning when leveraging networked information technology, underscoring the value of educational technology in collaborative settings This growing awareness calls for intentional design and identification of learning spaces, whether they are collaborative project meeting spaces or public learning environments.
20 interaction workspaces In higher education classrooms, intentionally designing active learning classrooms have been focused around a framework of space characteristics, specified technology integration, and pedagogy (Harrop & Turpin, 2013; Pates &
Sumner, 2016) Designing classrooms through this framework can lead to such classrooms being more authentic, informal, relaxed, and studious (Dall’Alba & Bengtsen,
Implementing this framework hinges on the specific features that define active learning classrooms within the active learning pedagogy These spaces are often characterized by round, movable tables with up to nine chairs per table, arranged so that students face one another and can readily interact, collaborate, and engage in discussions throughout class.
Method
1 What are the experiences of faculty members who have taught in the active learning classrooms?
2 What are the experiences of students who have taken a course in the active learning classrooms?
3 What are the faculty development, classroom technology, and technical support needs of faculty members who have taught in the active learning classrooms?
Action research, as defined by Mertler (2017), is research conducted by practitioners to generate findings with immediate and direct application In education, it represents a stance of inquiry that enables educators to improve teaching practices and student outcomes (Green & Johnson, 2010) Consequently, this approach blends inquiry with practical application and calls for learning and collaboration from multiple stakeholders who are interested in understanding the research questions posed by researchers (Kinash, 2006; Mertler, 2017) By involving these stakeholders in the research process, researchers and participants may need to employ different approaches based on the goals, questions, and contexts of the study.
36 data collection, recommendations, and conclusions to solve a problem Therefore, action research is designed to be cyclical so that progress can be made to solve a research problem (Manfra & Bullock, 2014)
Using action research, this study investigates how local faculty members implemented active learning strategies, exploring their classroom experiences in active learning environments and identifying the supports they need to integrate these approaches more effectively into instruction, while also examining students’ responses to these implementations The findings highlight the key implementation challenges and opportunities within active learning classrooms and point to directions for future research cycles, offering contextualized solutions that help institutional administrators plan more effective use of these spaces and provide targeted faculty training to apply active learning strategies appropriately.
Action research is not intended to generalize findings to similar contexts; while its applied nature limits broad generalization, sharing results with stakeholders creates a direct link to the educational problems identified at the proposed research site (MacIntosh & O’Gorman, 2012) In this study, faculty participants will benefit from a holistic understanding of their experiences and needs that may be difficult to uncover in less formal settings Additionally, employing a scholarly approach to data collection can reduce the risk of future interdepartmental projects stalling due to poor organization and limited resources.
An explanatory sequential mixed methods design, identified as best suited to answer the research questions (Creswell, 2013), guided this two-phase study: first, a quantitative survey aligned with the intentional research questions was distributed to potential participants to complete (Appendices A and C), and then a follow-up qualitative phase was conducted to help explain the quantitative responses (Morgan, 2014) For this proposal, I implemented a semi-structured focus group protocol to further illuminate survey results regarding participants’ experiences and needs when teaching in active learning classrooms and employing active learning strategies (Appendices B and D).
Explanatory sequential mixed methods involve adjusting focus group questions in response to survey results, a practice that aligns with prior research which begins with a survey to gauge faculty and student attitudes toward active learning classrooms and to gather feedback for future classroom designs (Bachen et al., 2014; Fournier et al., 2014) For instance, Fournier, Hornby, and Richards (2014) deployed a survey to examine how instructors were using active learning classrooms and then used a focus group protocol to describe how instructional behaviors evolved as a result.
Setting the stage for the university’s initial emphasis on increasing active learning implementation among faculty on campus, this discussion begins at the end of the Fall 2014 semester It outlines the early priority of expanding active learning across courses and centers on the development and use of active learning classrooms as a core element of the initiative In this section, we examine the key aspects of that effort, including classroom design, faculty adoption of active learning strategies, and the milestones reached during this initial phase.
38 built at the university and (2) faculty development programming to train faculty participants for the active learning classrooms
Active Learning Classrooms Built at the University
Before the Spring semester of 2015, the first active learning classroom was built in the Administration Building, intentionally located on the first floor to ensure prompt support from either the Department of Learning Technologies or Information Technology and Data Services if there were issues with the new furniture or technology After the initial classroom, one to two additional active learning classrooms were constructed across the campus each summer, continuing until grant funds were exhausted By the time the dissertation proposal was prepared, nine active learning classrooms had been completed.
Constructing active learning classrooms during the summer months eases project management for Information Technology and Data Services staff because there are fewer classes to coordinate, making implementation smoother Active learning classrooms are defined by two main components: furniture and technology, each with typical characteristics that foster collaboration and hands-on learning In terms of furniture, these spaces feature flexible seating, modular tables, movable whiteboards or screens, and reconfigurable layouts that support small-group work and dynamic discussions On the technology side, they are equipped with interactive displays or smart boards, wireless presentation capabilities, collaborative software, and reliable network access to enable real-time sharing and feedback A representative example of a typical classroom will illustrate how the furniture and technology come together to enable active learning experiences.
Most of the furniture used in the active learning classrooms was purchased from a local furniture supply company During the classroom design process, consultants and interior designers inspected the rooms to estimate potential furniture fittings After analyzing the space and its availability for refitting for active learning, an email was sent to the Director of Learning to coordinate the next steps.
Technologies with a computer rendition of what the classroom could look like with the
39 furniture suggested or requested Much of the furniture that was used for classrooms were made by a different furniture supplier that had a partnership with the purchasing furniture supply company
Active learning classrooms at the university share a largely consistent furniture setup with some notable variations Every space features movable chairs with storage for backpacks underneath and the ability to swivel to face the ongoing instruction, while tables designed for four to six students support collaborative work depending on room size In some rooms, fully movable tables let users flip the tabletop to reconfigure the space for different activities; in others, fixed tables from a specific supplier provide built-in video ports and power outlets for student devices, along with adjustable height to match the chosen seating These tables are typically positioned near wall-mounted whiteboards or freestanding whiteboards on shelves to support instruction and group work.
In addition to seating and tables, a range of supplemental storage units was purchased to organize technology and other resources needed to support active learning pedagogy For classrooms without fixed podiums, a tall storage rack was placed in the corner to house matrix switching equipment and the various displays and media devices In classrooms with fixed podiums, the same devices and displays were stored underneath the podium.
40 podium The podiums also had a computer monitor to show what was being displayed with a digital touchscreen attached
To support group-based learning, active learning classrooms were equipped with multiple 50-inch televisions placed at the end of each table These displays allow connections from devices via standard video and audio cables A matrix switch routes any connected device to the appropriate displays, and can be linked to a touch-screen panel to manage input selection as well as power and volume In addition to the television displays, some classrooms used short-throw projectors or interactive televisions capable of drawing on a digital whiteboard and displaying a connected computer.
An active learning classroom example shows how carefully selected furniture and technology are positioned to support flexible instruction, with placement choices after installation evaluated across redesigned spaces Library 238 (LIBR 238) is the second classroom completed in Summer 2015, illustrating movable chairs and tables that adapt to active learning strategies The room also features abundant whiteboarding surfaces for group work, note-taking, and answering discussion questions, while each station includes a digital display so students can connect their devices and share their screens with the group.
Figure 3.1 LIBR 238 active learning classroom that demonstrates electronic whiteboards, moveable chairs and tables, and additional whiteboard surfaces
In Spring 2015, the Director of Learning Technologies required the first cohort to participate in a one-day active learning faculty workshop to prepare for the new active learning classroom The training introduced active learning strategies and helped faculty envision how the classroom would function Because the classroom was not completed in time for the workshop, participants faced challenges in fully preparing for teaching in that space With the first classroom slated for use in the next faculty development program, the initial training allowed instructors to implement active learning techniques using furniture and technology similar to what would be installed in future rooms As construction progressed, subsequent trainings were conducted in an active learning classroom, with additional classrooms being prepared for the Fall semester.
Semester were never constructed in time for faculty members who were going to teach in the newly constructed classrooms
Following the Spring 2015 selection of the second cohort of faculty for the active learning initiative, the program designed a longer, week-long summer faculty development workshop to better prepare participants to implement active learning strategies The extension was driven by the Steering Committee’s intentional assignment of a staff member to lead training preparation and by faculty feedback requesting more training to adapt to the new classroom experience The workshop includes a required reading discussion on modern educational practices, a technology challenge that lets faculty test their effectiveness with classroom technology, and dedicated time for lesson plan development, with participants submitting five active-learning lesson plans for the library.