View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Designing an Active Learning Space

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Designing an Active Learning Space
Language: English
Authors: Dabae Lee, Jozenia T. Colorado-Resa (ORCID 0000-0002-6124-0839), Yeol Huh
Source: TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning. 2025 69(2):310-330.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Higher Education, Active Learning, Classroom Environment, Classroom Design, Classroom Research, Design Requirements, Educational Facilities Planning, Classrooms, Instructional Design
DOI: 10.1007/s11528-025-01038-4
ISSN: 8756-3894
1559-7075
Abstract: This developmental study explores the process and outcomes of creating an active learning classroom within a higher education setting. To support student success, institutions have increasingly redesigned their learning spaces to promote active learning. Early initiatives often aimed to facilitate collaborative learning and reduce reliance on traditional lectures. However, emerging research suggests that effective active learning environments should integrate both collaborative activities and instructor-led discussions. An instructional design and technology program at a small midwestern university was given the opportunity to completely redesign its learning space. Guided by the Pedagogy, Space, and Technology framework and existing research, the team conducted a systematic needs assessment, design, and development process. Design principles were formulated to address pedagogical, spatial, and technological considerations, ensuring the classroom supported a range of activities including lectures, small group work, and classwide discussions. Key design decisions and the resulting renovated space are detailed, highlighting the integration of centralized focal points for lectures and discussions alongside flexible workspace for group and individual activities. The study contributes to ongoing discussions on innovative learning spaces and offers practical guidance for educators seeking to enhance active learning environments.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1467586
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFDQNZMQdXwaIFHdrwOVpKSAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNlXH0oK6tYoL-zmRgIBEICBm-8UPVsRGsRYRUB5eso_Hne7R95QoVG_NjkZVnbMpcFG1v41i3CAO_tug5rnPCtqaFA7RR4AIlNELl7dNPPbFzBasyX1lYM6ndJcRkkBcmg0sak0HAdbMyCpF9u-DatlS8yhkGzG4ZriOUV8P-59QdIcALPqYtU5o0Lzi-IJb3Bo53Ft5CnMB5X0LWR0CQKYNVEzxyBgLChtAu4o
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184471417;ttr01mar.25;2025Apr16.05:57;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184471417-1">Designing an Active Learning Space </title> <p>This developmental study explores the process and outcomes of creating an active learning classroom within a higher education setting. To support student success, institutions have increasingly redesigned their learning spaces to promote active learning. Early initiatives often aimed to facilitate collaborative learning and reduce reliance on traditional lectures. However, emerging research suggests that effective active learning environments should integrate both collaborative activities and instructor-led discussions. An instructional design and technology program at a small midwestern university was given the opportunity to completely redesign its learning space. Guided by the Pedagogy, Space, and Technology framework and existing research, the team conducted a systematic needs assessment, design, and development process. Design principles were formulated to address pedagogical, spatial, and technological considerations, ensuring the classroom supported a range of activities including lectures, small group work, and classwide discussions. Key design decisions and the resulting renovated space are detailed, highlighting the integration of centralized focal points for lectures and discussions alongside flexible workspace for group and individual activities. The study contributes to ongoing discussions on innovative learning spaces and offers practical guidance for educators seeking to enhance active learning environments.</p> <p>Keywords: Active learning; Active learning spaces; Classrooms; Design; Pedagogy; Space; Technology framework; Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Active learning refers to any instructional methods other than lectures that engage students in the learning processes (Prince, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref1">17</reflink>]) and instructional activities involving students in doing things and thinking about what they are learning (Bonwell & Eison, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref2">8</reflink>]). Both researchers and practitioners who were interested in implementing active learning first focused on active learning pedagogies where students assumed more control and ownership of their learning processes, unlike teacher-centered learning. Collaborative learning, cooperative learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, peer or inquiry-based learning, and flipped learning are examples of so-called active learning pedagogies (Armbruster et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>An abundance of research studies have indicated the effectiveness of active learning in various contexts (Prince, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]). A wide variety of benefits associated with implementing active learning was examined including enhancing learner engagement, promoting critical thinking, enhancing learner motivation, promoting retention of learning content, promoting better communication and interaction between learners, and learner satisfaction and so on (Allsop et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]; Huda et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref6">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, instructors who had attempted active learning pedagogies experienced limitations and reported their struggles due to the design of the learning space being a traditional lecture hall type originally built to best support teacher-centered lecturing (Baepler et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>]). It lacked flexibility in spaces and furnishing, which made it difficult for instructors to facilitate interaction among students as they worked collaboratively or even between instructors and students as instructors played the role of mentor or guide for students' learning. Especially in higher education settings, with growing interest and shift in pedagogies such as active learning, a greater focus on the design and use of learning spaces has been witnessed, and so did the endeavor to explore and build the learning spaces to support above mentioned innovative pedagogies (Carlos et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</reflink>]; Talbert & Mor-Avi, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref9">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Recent studies on the development of active learning classrooms in higher education often emphasize active learning pedagogies and transforming traditional lecture spaces into environments for collaboration and group interaction. However, this approach frequently overlooks other critical aspects of learning space design and the comprehensive needs of stakeholders. In our study, we introduce a rigorous framework that integrates pedagogy, space, and technology. After a review of the literature, we detail the process we followed to create an active learning classroom that addresses the needs of all stakeholders. The discussion will present three design principles that can be used to design active learning classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-3">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184471417-4">Active Learning Classrooms</hd> <p>According to Brooks and McCormack ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>]), Active Learning Classrooms (ALCs) are student-centered, technology-rich learning environments designed on the principles of active pedagogical approaches. ALCs typically feature moveable furniture, large displays, projectors, and other tools that support active learning.</p> <p>The development of active learning spaces in higher education has generally evolved from science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses to multiple disciplines (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref11">15</reflink>]). These classes in large class format typically use a lecture teaching method with little interaction. This format is a result of past oral traditions of religious and cultural education when reading and writing skills were very rare. It wasn't until the early 1800s when laboratory work was introduced to supplement lectures, that active learning components started being explored. By the 1990s, a growing body of research on learning showed students in passive lecture settings did not learn as much as once believed (Beichner, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Early iterations of the active learning classrooms include the Studio Physics classroom at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in the mid-1990s, North Carolina State's SCALE-UP, MIT's TEAL, and the University of Minnesota's PAIR-UP projects (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref13">15</reflink>]; Valenti, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref14">22</reflink>]). Each model used a unique combination of active learning components around pedagogy, space, and technology, to explore potential improvements in learning.</p> <p>At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Technology Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) project, researchers found using interactive and engagement pedagogies such as problem-solving sessions, visualizations, collaborative desktop experiments, and web assignments, significantly enhanced students' understanding of electromagnetism (Dori et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]). Research on the Studio Physics classroom at RPI found that implementing the studio space alone was not enough to see improvements in learning (Beichner, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to Rook et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref17">20</reflink>]), learning spaces promote specific types of teaching and learning. For example, traditional lecture classrooms that accommodate large numbers of students, do not work well for collaboration and group work. The "stationary seating in rows with limited desk space and no access to a whiteboard restricts the possibilities for how students interact with each other and with the content of the course" (Baepler et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>], p. 9). Both students and instructors find it difficult to navigate inflexible furniture as well as tools for teaching and learning when trying to collaborate in a traditional lecture classroom.</p> <p>In the post-pandemic world, students also express their preference for flexibility around furniture, space, and technology in the learning environment. These preferences include the mobility of the furniture, being able to rearrange and walk around in the space, and the accessibility of the technology (Misrahi, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>]). In addition, students expressed a preference for hands-on active learning. When designing learning spaces, it is important to take into account stakeholder preferences.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-5">The Pedagogy-Space-Technology Framework</hd> <p>The Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Framework (Radcliffe, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref20">18</reflink>]) can help stakeholders consider all three components when designing learning. The PST framework is an inquiry-driven process to help stakeholders use a balanced approach to consider 1) pedagogy-asking questions about types of learning and teaching that can occur, 2) space-aspects of the space that foster these learning and teaching modes, and 3) technology integration and effectiveness (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref21">15</reflink>]). Each of the three components influence each other and are interrelated. A scoping review of research on ALCs indicated common investigations around the influence of ALCs on pedagogy, the physical attributes of ALCs, and the use of technology (Bingen et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>A team of faculty used the PST Framework to understand how an instructional space can be designed to accommodate various instructional activities enhanced by technology.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-6">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184471417-7">Context</hd> <p>An instructional design and technology program at a small midwestern university was given the opportunity to completely redesign and renovate one of its learning spaces within the building of the College of Education. The space had been exclusively used by the faculty and students of the program, and had evolved from a traditional computer lab with hard-wired desktop computers, to a learning space with mobile laptop carts. With the transition away from hard-wired computers, instructors had begun to use the space for more interactive and collaborative activities. Space and technology, however, did not necessarily support active learning. In addition, classroom renovations at the institution had historically been designed without the expertise of classroom designers, instructor or student feedback, and technology specialists.</p> <p>The opportunity to renovate allowed a team of faculty to design a new Active Learning Classroom using the Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Framework (Radcliffe, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref23">18</reflink>]). Designing a learning space should involve a variety of stakeholders (Rook et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref24">20</reflink>]). Consulting an architect, classroom specialists, and technology specialists, while also seeking feedback from students and instructors, the faculty team designed an active learning classroom to accommodate the instructional activities identified by students and instructors.</p> <p>The space was primarily used as a classroom for undergraduate and graduate instructional technology courses within the College of Education at a regional university in the Midwest. Appendix 3 includes a list of these courses and their descriptions. The classroom had multiple spaces within the room. The main instructional space accommodated 28 seats with two interactive screens: one in the front of the room and the other in the side of the room. There was a kitchen, group lounge, 3D printing room, and an overflow room, which was a computer lab with two storage rooms. Figure 1 and Fig. 2 present a panorama view of the classroom and the room layout before the renovation.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 The classroom before renovation</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Room layout before renovation</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-8">Research Design</hd> <p>This development research study employed a convergent parallel mixed methods approach, where multiple quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods were used simultaneously (Clark & Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref25">12</reflink>]). The development research entails 1) consulting with experts and 2) conducting a needs assessment to understand the users' needs and find appropriate solutions to meet their needs (Richey & Klein, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref26">19</reflink>]). We conducted a needs assessment using a survey, interviews, and observations with the users and consulted with experts such as an architect, staff from the university's learning technology team, and technology and furniture vendors.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-9">Needs Assessment</hd> <p>Data for the needs assessment was collected based on the PST framework (Radcliffe, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]). We utilized multiple data collection methods including a survey, observation, and interviews. The instruments were designed to collect data on what classroom activities took place (Pedagogy), how the space was used (Space), and what technology was used (Technology).</p> <p>Table 1 summarizes data sources used for the needs assessment. The needs assessment results were used to formulate our design principles that served as the guidelines for the design of the space.</p> <p>Table 1 Data sources</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Course</p></th><th align="left"><p>Level</p></th><th align="left"><p>Semester</p></th><th align="left"><p>Survey (n)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Observation</p></th><th align="left"><p>Interviews</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>U3200</p></td><td align="left"><p>Undergraduate</p></td><td align="left"><p>F S</p></td><td align="left"><p>49</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>U3600</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F S</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>U3700</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F S</p></td><td align="left"><p>36</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>G7000*</p></td><td align="left"><p>Graduate</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/A</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>XX</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>G7100</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F S</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>G7200</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F S</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>G7900</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>S</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>G8200</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>S</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>G8900</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>F S</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>X</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p><bold>88**</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>6</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>3</bold></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>F</emph> Fall, <emph>S</emph> Spring. X denotes a data collection for the course. *G7000 was typically scheduled in the classroom except for the year; the observation took place in another classroom. **Some respondents took multiple courses in the classroom</p> <p> <emph>User Survey</emph>: A survey was distributed to the users including faculty, graduate assistants (GAs), and students who have used the classroom during the two semesters. Questions were asked about frequencies of and satisfaction with instructional activities that took place, various spaces, and technologies in the room on a five-point Likert-type scale. For frequency, the 5-point Likert-type scale assesses the frequency of performing instructional activities and use of spaces or technologies, ranging from <emph>Every class meeting</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref28">5</reflink>), <emph>Once every few class meetings</emph> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>), <emph>A few times during a semester</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>), <emph>Once a semester</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref31">2</reflink>), to <emph>Never used</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>). For satisfaction, the scale ranged from <emph>Very Dissatisfied</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>), <emph>Dissatisfied</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>), <emph>Neutral</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>), <emph>Satisfied</emph> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>), to <emph>Very Satisfied</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref37">5</reflink>). Appendix 1 presents the full survey instrument. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics such as averages, while qualitative data were analyzed through thematic coding.</p> <p> <emph>Observations</emph>: Six classroom observations were made. The data was used to triangulate the survey data and to observe classroom activities that could not be captured through the survey. After making two observations, an observation protocol and template were generated (see Appendix 2). Activities of the instructors and students, usage of the space by the instructors and students, and use of classroom technologies along with additional notes were documented. During the first two observations, it was discovered that the students mainly used their personal laptops, so the observation was focused on what and how the instructors used classroom technologies. The observation data was summarized by tallying frequencies of the activities and usage by and across the courses and noting interesting patterns. Means and standard deviations were calculated.</p> <p> <emph>Interviews</emph> were conducted with faculty members who taught in the classroom. Seven faculty members were usually assigned to teach in the classroom. Among them, three were involved in the renovation process, and another set of three members were interviewed. Because they were main users of the display technologies, they were asked about their current use of technologies (what devices they used, what content they presented, how they displayed the content) and what technology equipment or functions they would like to have.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-10">Expert Consultations</hd> <p> <emph>Space Design</emph>: We consulted with the lead architect, the learning technology team at the university, and the vendors for furniture and technology devices for classrooms. At the first meeting with the architect, he provided constraints and parameters of the renovation, including what structural changes should be made and what kind of changes we could make. In the following meetings and emails, we shared our design based on the needs assessment results, gathered feedback from the architect, and revised the design based on the feedback.</p> <p> <emph>Technology & Furniture:</emph> The learning technology team provided the latest learning technology trends and their experiences with technological features on campus. These helped us decide on what technology devices to explore and choose for the space. Finally, the vendors gave us more concrete ideas as to what furniture and technology options were available. We visited the websites of the products and the vendor's showrooms to further investigate the options and determine the fit of them to the renovated space.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-11">Results</hd> <p>This section provides combined results from the needs assessment conducted through a user survey, six observations, and three interviews as well as the expert consultations. A total of 88 users responded to the user survey. The respondents included 79 students out of 194 (response rate: 41%), four instructors out of seven (57%), and all five GAs(100%), yielding a 43% response rate. Some respondents were involved in multiple courses. Based on the data, we identified three design principles in alignment with the PST Framework.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-12">Data on Pedagogy—Classroom Activities</hd> <p>In terms of frequency, the survey and observation results exhibited congruent patterns, suggesting consistency between the data collected through survey responses and direct observation methods. Figure 3 presents the means of frequency of and satisfaction with performing the four instructional activities in the classroom from the survey. Table 2 summarizes the observation results of the frequency of classroom activities within a class session. The survey results indicated that all activities took place almost every session, and the observation data confirmed that those activities were performed at least once during a session. Both results indicated that lecture was the most frequently performed activity, followed by individual activities, entire class discussion, and small group activities. During the lecture, the instructors displayed presentations or played videos. During group or individual activities, the instructors floated around the classroom while monitoring student activities or working with the students.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Survey results of classroom activities</p> <p>Table 2 Observation results of frequency of classroom activities within a class session</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Category</p></th><th align="left"><p>Instructor activity</p></th><th align="left"><p>M</p></th><th align="left"><p>Student activity</p></th><th align="left"><p>M</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Lecture</p></td><td align="left"><p>Lecture while displaying presentation</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.5</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Lecture while whiteboarding</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Playing video</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.3</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Group/Individual</p></td><td align="left"><p>Working with small groups/individuals</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small group activities</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Activities</p></td><td align="left"><p>Floating and monitoring during group/individual activities</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>Individual activities</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Entire class discussion</p></td><td align="left"><p>Facilitating class-wide discussion</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.8</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>M</emph> Mean of frequencies across class sessions</p> <p>The survey results provided interesting insights. While the users were generally satisfied with the classroom, the users' satisfaction with the classroom while performing those activities was not as high as the frequencies, especially for lectures and entire class discussions. Satisfaction with individual and group activities was somewhat higher than the lecture and entire class discussion, but still lower than the frequencies. The comments from survey respondents, along with observational findings, offer insights into the underlying reasons.</p> <p>Regarding the lecture, some users commented that while having two boards to view is helpful (<emph>f</emph> = 6), they were in awkward positions that it was hard to focus without having a focal point (<emph>f</emph> = 3) and their functions were unreliable (<emph>f</emph> = 2). The stationary chairs and the seating arrangement made it difficult to adjust their view (<emph>f</emph> = 2), and some chairs faced away from the boards and the teacher (<emph>f</emph> = 2). During the observations, it was found that most students selected a board that was easier to turn to watch or a board that their instructor was close to when the instructor was speaking. Additionally, some instructors chose to stay at the spot between the two boards near the seating area when they did not need to point to the presented material. This was because the two boards were on two different walls and there was no obvious focal point.</p> <p>The entire class discussion revealed similar issues. Due to the stationery chairs and seating arrangement, it was hard to see everyone (<emph>f</emph> = 2) and view the boards (<emph>f</emph> = 2). A respondent mentioned it was distracting, and during the observation, some students did not seem engaged in the whole class discussion and hardly participated.</p> <p>For small and individual group activities, some respondents positively commented about the group tables that made collaboration easy (<emph>f</emph> = 11) and computers that were available to students to work with (<emph>f</emph> = 3). Also, a respondent mentioned that a connected room (Overflow room in Fig. 2) is convenient to use when they need to record in a quiet space. However, it was mentioned that the table setup made it difficult to turn around for the boards (<emph>f</emph> = 2), and more space was needed to spread out for activities or for instructors to walk around (<emph>f</emph> = 3). Some expressed a preference for having a table display (<emph>f</emph> = 1), access to plugging-in capabilities (<emph>f</emph> = 1), and round tables (<emph>f</emph> = 1). Observation data confirmed that some students tried to find quiet spaces for group or individual work and sat near the power poles to plug in their devices.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-13">Pedagogy Design Principle and Decisions</hd> <p>Drawing from the data, we developed the following pedagogical design principle.<emph>Principle #1: Active learning classrooms should be flexible and be able to accommodate four classroom activities: lecture, individual and small group activities, as well as entire class discussion and support seamless transition between activities.</emph></p> <p>The survey and observation data indicated that frequent classroom activities included lectures/presentations, individual activities, entire class discussions, and small group activities, with all activities taking place at least once during a class session. Accommodating the most frequent classroom activities allows the instructor to transition from one activity to another with minimal disruption within the class as well as over the duration of the course. Since the ALC will accommodate four types of classroom activities, it will support rather than marginalize the effectiveness of the activity.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-14">Data on Space</hd> <p>Similarly, with the classroom activities, the findings from both the survey and observations showed consistent patterns. Figure 4 presents the average frequency of use and satisfaction levels with the classroom spaces indicated in the survey. Table 3 provides a summary of the observation results regarding the frequency of use of classroom spaces during a class session. Mostly, respondents indicated a neutral level of satisfaction for all areas, but frequencies of the use of the spaces varied.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Survey results of frequency of use of and satisfaction with different spaces</p> <p>Table 3 Observation results of frequency of use of the spaces within the classroom</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>User</p></th><th align="left"><p>Space</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Instructor</p></td><td align="left"><p>Student seating area</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Instructor Between Screens/Station</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Instructor Station</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>In front of Interactive Whiteboard</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>In front of Interactive Panel</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Students</p></td><td align="left"><p>Student seating area</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Instructor Station</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.2</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In both survey and observation, the student seating area was the most frequently used by instructors and students. The frequency of the instructor station appeared low in the survey results because only instructors or presenting students used the space. However, the observation data revealed that the instructor station was used multiple times during a session, but frequencies were spread out to four spaces due to the absence of an obvious focal point. Some instructors chose one board over another, a space between the boards, or the instructor station. Additionally, the survey results indicated that the other spaces like the overflow room were rarely used, although it was observed a student using an overflow room.</p> <p>About the student seating area, 12 respondents negatively commented about the chairs that they are not comfortable or difficult to turn or move around and suggested swivel chairs (<emph>f</emph> = 2). There were mixed opinions about the tables. Some liked the tables that offered a large workspace (<emph>f</emph> = 3), but others saw areas of improvement such as a table with outlets (<emph>f</emph> = 1), whiteboard tables (<emph>f</emph> = 1), round table (<emph>f</emph> = 1), and a technology-enhanced table (<emph>f</emph> = 1).</p> <p>About the instructor station, most students mentioned that its location is good being in front and between both screens that is visible to all students (<emph>f</emph> = 6), but some instructors mentioned drawbacks by saying the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> I wish the instructor station was in the center of the front and not too high so that I could run the class while sitting in the front of class and maneuvering the technology at the instructor station.</item> <p></p> <item> I have to walk around the back of the computer to plug in my controller to control the slide presentation. That's inconvenient.</item> </ulist> <p>The other spaces were rarely used, and most respondents indicated that they never used the spaces in their comments. Among them, the Overflow Room was the most frequently used. Five students commented that the room is functional for group or individual work that requires a quiet space such as for recording for projects.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-15">Space Design Principle and Decisions</hd> <p>Grounded in the data, we established the design principle outlined below, focusing on space.<emph>Principle #2: There should be a centralized focal point to facilitate lectures and entire class discussions while being flexible to accommodate small group and individual activities with proper workspace.</emph></p> <p>The survey and observation data provided insights into the current challenges when conducting the instructional activities identified. For both the lecture and the entire class discussion, the screens on different walls created two separate focal points, exacerbated by stationary chairs and a stationary seating arrangement. Small and individual group activities were also hindered by the stationary chairs and seating arrangement. In addition, results identified the convenience of a quiet space for recording or other individual or group work, the need for more space for instructors to walk around in and spread out, and the preference for power outlets and a collaboration display in the tables.</p> <p>It was determined the new space would have a centralized focal point for lectures, demonstrations, and class discussions. This centralized focal point provides flexibility, allowing the instructor to stand in a consistent location close to the screens when lecturing, presenting, or demonstrating. In addition, chairs with wheels and the ability to turn or swivel toward the varying focal points were added. This eliminated the distraction created by needing to adjust stationary chairs to be able to view different screens and the instructor when different pedagogical activities, such as lectures or group discussions, were combined.</p> <p>The centralized focal point and chairs with wheels allowed flexibility, accommodating small and individual activities. In addition, it was determined to have semi-private, quiet space options for individual and group work. The spaces as well as provide a table configuration that supports small-group collaboration. While round tables were considered for their support for small group activities, the shape of the table would not be conducive to the centralized focal point. In consultation with furniture and technology experts, new rectangle-shaped tables were purchased for the ALC. Two rows of tables were placed so that the tables in the first row did not block the sightline of the students in the second row. This arrangement supported the centralized focal point for both the lecture, demonstration, and class discussion as well as allowing the instructor space to walk around during individual and group work (Fig. 6). These tables have monitors that could be pushed down into the table, removing the possibility of blocking the sightline of the students in the second row.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 Survey results of frequency of use of and satisfaction with classroom technologies</p> <p>The survey indicated the student seating area and instructor station were the most frequently used spaces in the old space. The overflow room, group lounge, 3D printing room, and kitchen were rarely used; however, students indicated the overflow room was useful for individual or group work. In consultation with the architect, it was decided to remove the group lounge and kitchen from the new learning space configuration; however, quiet space options were recreated in the new space to accommodate individual and group work. A room to house 3D printers and regular printers was also included. While used infrequently during class, this equipment was either used for class projects or served practical needs for occasional printing. The space to store and access this equipment was necessary. Figure 7 shows the new active learning space with design decisions.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 6 Comparison of space configuration</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-16">Data on Technology</hd> <p>Regarding classroom technologies, survey, observation, and interview data were collected. Figure 5 presents the average frequency of use and satisfaction levels with the classroom technologies. Table 4 provides a summary of the observation results regarding the frequency of use of classroom technologies. Table 5 summarizes interview results from the faculty in terms of current technology use and their technology wishlists. The survey results were diluted by the students who mostly use laptops in mobile carts and seldom use classroom technologies like the projector. According to the observation data of instructors' technology use, both screens (interactive projector and panel) were most frequently used, and the other technologies were used more often than not. During the interviews, faculty mostly indicated that they displayed slides, videos, software, websites, or web-based tools. They mostly used Mac for demoing software. Survey respondents indicated a neutral level of satisfaction for all technologies.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 7 Photo of new renovated space with design decisions</p> <p>Table 4 Observation results of frequency of use of classroom technologies</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Instructor's use of technology</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Both Screens</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Personal laptop (Mac) connected thunderbolt</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Instructor PC</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Personal laptop (PC)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>ActivPanel</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Whiteboard—Interactive Projector</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.5</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 5 Interview results with faculty on their current technology use and wishlist</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="6"><p>Current Use</p></th><th align="left"><p>Wishlist</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Computer</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Content</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Displays</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Display multiple materials</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Mac</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>PPT/Slides</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>One material</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Smartboarding on display</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Personal Mac</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Video</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Two materials</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Main materials to group displays</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>PC</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Software Demo</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Group work to main displays</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>iPad</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Websites/tools</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Rollable whiteboards</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Faster internet</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Swivel chairs</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Better audio</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>During the interviews, the Faculty shared specific recommendations. They sought the ability to 1) simultaneously display two or three materials, 2) reliably use the smartboard functionality without errors, and 3) seamlessly push main materials to group displays to support group work as well as group materials to the main displays to facilitate whole-class discussions.</p> <p>Additional recommendations included rollable whiteboards when the Internet fails, enhanced Internet connectivity for faster speeds, swivel chairs for students, and improved audio equipment, particularly crucial for the class's video viewing sessions where audio quality is important.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-17">Technology Design Principle and Decisions</hd> <p>Informed by the data, we identified the following principle to guide technology design.<emph>Principle #3</emph>: Technology should offer reliable and flexible usability for both instructors and students, facilitating seamless interaction among users - between instructors and students and among students.</p> <p>In consultation with technology vendors and support staff, it was decided to continue to provide mobile laptop carts, flexible display options with interactivity, the ability to use and display an instructor designated computer, as well as a Macintosh or Windows personal laptop, and the ability to display personal devices wirelessly.</p> <p>The room was equipped with three interactive displays. Each display had a touch screen, whiteboarding, and screen-sharing capabilities. Each display was hard-wired to the network to provide reliable wireless device sharing. The instructor station included a stationary desktop computer, with the ability to connect two additional laptops. The connecting cable was HDMI, so with an adaptor either Macintosh or Windows laptops were supported. In order to enable the level of flexibility for displaying content, a multi-switch device and touchscreen control panel were installed in the instructor station. The control panel improved the operation of the displays and the various display options. This included displaying one device on all three screens, one device displayed on one screen, another device on the other two screens (or a similar combination), or three devices displayed on individual screens. Any of the instructor device content could be pushed to the individual collaboration table monitors.</p> <p>The tables included power and USB ports for charging as well as a pushable monitor that could be used for sharing a student device when working in small groups. These monitors could facilitate small group activities by allowing student users to share a screen with their group members. Interestingly, although they were mobile with wheels, the inclusion of monitors and power in the tables required cabling through the floor, essentially immobilizing the tables. Rollable whiteboards were also included to support small group collaboration as well as serve as an option if the technology failed.</p> <p>A video camera was installed to allow lecture capture, as well as expand the learning space beyond the physical space when needed. A new combination of speaker and microphone devices was installed in the ceiling. These devices were placed in strategic places around the room to be able to pick up voices as they were speaking. In particular, one device was placed above the instructor station, another was placed in the space at the front of the room, to pick up anyone speaking near the displays, and four other devices were placed over the student seating area. As instructors and students spoke, the devices would amplify where voices were picked up. The combination of speaker and microphone prevented the need to have microphones passed around when speaking.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-18">Discussion</hd> <p>This section summarizes how the three design principles were integrated into the space design and explains the ways in which the space supports active learning classroom activities. Additionally, we discuss the broader implications of our findings and outline directions for future research, concluding with a summary of key insights.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-19">Pedagogy and Space Interaction</hd> <p>Using these principles, the space was transformed into a flexible learning environment designed to accommodate various instructional activities, including lectures (one-to-many communications), individual and group work, and class-wide discussions (many-to-many communications). As shown in Fig. 6, the previous layout featured two screens on different walls, which failed to create a centralized focal point. This issue was resolved by removing the unused areas like the kitchen, widening the front wall, and installing three interactive displays, providing a clear focal point that enhances lectures and discussions.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-20">Space and Pedagogy Interaction</hd> <p>Replacing the previous fixed furniture with flexible options, such as swivel chairs with wheels and tables featuring integrated pushable monitors, enables seamless reconfiguration to suit different activities. The furniture arrangement ensures unobstructed views of the front displays and presenting peers, further supporting class-wide engagement. Group tables with integrated monitors and newly -added quiet semi-private spaces with monitors and whiteboards enable effective collaboration in smaller groups and individual activities.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-21">Technology and Pedagogy Interaction</hd> <p>Advanced technological upgrades provided reliable and flexible use of technology, fostering seamless interaction among users. These upgrades included three interactive displays with touch-screen, group monitors, and screen-sharing capabilities, all managed through a multi-switch device and touch control panel, offering versatile content display options. Ceiling-mounted combination cameras, speakers, and microphones provide clear audio capture, facilitating lecture recording and supporting remote and hybrid learning models. These features significantly enhance the space's adaptability to diverse teaching and learning needs.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-22">Space in Use</hd> <p>Although the use of the space has not been formally investigated, we found that its design successfully supported flexible use. First, the space facilitated various instructional activities and smooth transitions, such as moving from a lecture to group work and then to a class-wide discussion, as intended. Second, it accommodated both face-to-face and hybrid learning, leveraging the camera and microphones. Third, the space supported diverse work styles during group activities. Students engaged in quiet, focused work in semi-private areas, collaborated around the group monitor, and used movable whiteboards or personal laptops, as shown in Fig. 8.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 8 Displays the various work styles supported by the active learning space</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-23">Implications</hd> <p>For institutions planning to create or renovate active learning spaces, these principles should guide their design decisions. Although active learning pedagogies typically include ones such as project-based learning, problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and discovery learning (Cattaneo, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref38">11</reflink>]), often, the instructional methods typically used for the lower levels of Bloom's Taxonomy (Bloom et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>]) such as lectures, presentation, and demonstration that make up these active learning pedagogies are overlooked, potentially resulting in spaces that do not serve their intended purpose. This study emphasizes that elements like lectures, individual and small group activities, and whole-class discussions should be considered in the design of these spaces. Furthermore, the aspects of space and technology should seamlessly support the pedagogical principle and each other.</p> <p>The second implication warns against the misconception that innovative technology and pedagogy are panaceas for all educational challenges. A common error in developing active learning spaces is the acquisition of the latest technology without considering how the space will be used or the needs of all stakeholders. For example, a prior project at the institution where this study was conducted involved purchasing advanced collaborative learning tables with insufficient power sources. Consequently, students, who frequently use personal devices like laptops and tablets, face difficulties, resulting in tables being pushed against walls near outlets and the unsafe use of extensive daisy-chained extension cables. Additionally, other spaces were equipped with an advanced interactive Promethean Board under an institutional contract, yet its main interactive features were underutilized by both instructors and students.</p> <p>The third implication stresses the importance of involving all stakeholders early from the planning stage and planning for continual adjustments and decision-making throughout the process. In this study, researchers adapted the PST framework for the study. For each element of the framework, you can identify multiple stakeholders such as instructors and students for <emph>Pedagogy</emph>, instructors, students, vendors, and even architects for <emph>Space</emph>, and instructors, students, university information technology services team, and vendors, etc. Moreover, even higher administrations and university budget offices could be stakeholders as well. Early engagement in the planning and needs assessment phases can help identify discrepancies and adjust plans to avoid wasting time, effort, and resources. For example, early consultations with architects revealed that the initial classroom layout was infeasible due to a non-removable safety wall, and investigations into underground wiring confirmed the feasibility of installing multiple floor outlets to support movable desks. Moreover, the team worked closely with vendors to customize desk production and select three main displays, ensuring that all decisions considered the voices and needs of stakeholders and existing conditions.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-24">Future Research</hd> <p>This study provides a foundation for creating flexible learning environments through the development and application of design principles emphasizing pedagogy, space, and technology. Building on these findings, future research can explore the following areas to deepen understanding and expand the impact of such environments.</p> <p>First, future studies should investigate the transferability and effectiveness of the proposed design principles in various educational contexts. This study was conducted in specific teaching situations at a regional university with classes of 15–30, teaching instructional technology. Applying these principles in other institutions, subject areas, and different class sizes and spaces could reveal unique challenges and opportunities, offering insights into how these principles can be adapted to meet the specific needs of different settings.</p> <p>Second, impact research is needed to evaluate the effects of flexible learning environments. Studies should examine how these environments influence instructors' teaching practices, such as their willingness to incorporate active learning strategies, integrate innovative teaching strategies over time, and ability to adapt to diverse instructional modes. Simultaneously, changes in teaching practices can bring positive student outcomes such as academic achievement and engagement.</p> <p>Third, with the increasing prevalence of hybrid and HyFlex learning models, further research should assess how well the redesigned space supports seamless interactions between in-person and remote participants. Key areas of focus include inclusivity, equity, and the effectiveness of technological tools in ensuring a cohesive learning experience for all students, regardless of their physical location. These future research directions can advance the understanding of flexible learning environments and optimize their design for various educational purposes and evolving instructional needs.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-25">Conclusion</hd> <p>The movement towards active learning in education represents a significant shift in how teaching and learning are conceptualized and executed. Its implications touch upon every aspect of the educational process, from the roles of instructors and learners to the physical and technological infrastructures that support learning including the redesign of learning spaces and the integration of technology introduced in this study. Since it requires substantial financial investments and a commitment to ongoing maintenance, the efforts need to be carefully planned and executed based on a solid framework, research findings, and the participation of appropriate stakeholders. As educational institutions continue to embrace active learning pedagogies, they must consider the holistic changes required to maximize the benefits of these approaches for learner engagement, achievement, and satisfaction.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-26">Appendix 1. User survey</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184471417-27">VH122 Renovation</hd> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-28">Appendix 2. Observation template & protocol</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184471417-29">Observation Template</hd> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-30">Observation Protocol</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Activity</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Space</p></th><th align="left"><p>Technology</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Instructor</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Lecture while displaying</p></td><td align="left"><p>Listening to lecture while watching the presentation (describe which screen they watch: projectors or their own screen)</p></td><td align="left"><p>In front of Activpanel</p></td><td align="left"><p>Both Screens</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Lecture while whiteboarding</p></td><td align="left"><p>Working in small groups</p></td><td align="left"><p>In front of Whiteboard</p></td><td align="left"><p>ActivPanel</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Working with small groups/individuals</p></td><td align="left"><p>Working individually</p></td><td align="left"><p>Instructor Station</p></td><td align="left"><p>Whiteboard—Interactive Projector</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Facilitating class-wide discussion</p></td><td align="left"><p>Participating in class-wide discussion</p></td><td align="left"><p>Student seating area</p></td><td align="left"><p>Apple TV & Airplay</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Preparing for next</p></td><td align="left"><p>Watching video while watching screens (describe which screen)</p></td><td align="left"><p>In front of the instructor station (between the screens)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Instructor Mac</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Floating and monitoring</p></td><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group lounge</p></td><td align="left"><p>Instructor PC</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Playing video</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Kitchen</p></td><td align="left"><p>Audio system</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Starting class</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>3D Printing room</p></td><td align="left"><p>Personal laptop</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ending class</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Overflow room</p></td><td align="left"><p>Personal laptop (Mac) connected thunderbolt</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Storage (VH 122B or A)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Personal laptop connected via Apple TV or Airplay</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Outside/Atrium</p></td><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Instructor Between Screens/Station</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0184471417-31">Appendix 3. List of courses taught in active learning space</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184471417-32">Instructional Technology</hd> <p>This course will provide the student with a theoretical and practical understanding of instructional design and of the various applications of technology within the educational environment. It will help students develop fundamental technology integration skills using various technology applications, with an emphasis on acquiring creative and critical thinking skills and integration and application ideas for classroom use. Knowledge in fundamental computer terminology and the utilization of microcomputer hardware and input/output devices is achieved through hands-on activities.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-33">Advanced Instructional Technology</hd> <p>This course will help students develop fundamental technology integration skills by providing hands-on introduction to various technology devices and applications, with an emphasis on interdisciplinary uses of technologies in classroom teaching. Students will have an opportunity to develop lesson plans using technologies, discuss issues related to digital citizenship and become familiar with and integrate the standards to design and assess technology projects.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-34">Foundations of Instructional Design & Technology</hd> <p>This course is intended to provide students with a clear picture of the field of instructional design and technology, the trends and issues that have affected it in the past and present, and those trends and issues likely to affect it in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-35">Web Design</hd> <p>This course is an introductory level webpage design course. As you progress through the class, you will be introduced to the basic commands that will get you started in designing a webpage for instruction, training or corporate use. This course will provide you with theoretical and practical understanding of the various applications of website design and development. The course will help you to develop fundamental computer literacy skills using website application software, with an emphasis on acquiring problem solving and development through readings, discussions, and hands-on activities.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-36">Learning Theories for Instructional Design</hd> <p>This course prepares students to translate the theoretical basis of instructional design to the practice of designing and developing technology-based instruction/technology-rich instruction. It examines the application of foundational theories of instructional design (learning theories, and instructional theories) to the development of technology-based/technology-rich learning materials.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-37">Research in Instructional Design and Technology</hd> <p>This course explores research in the field. Students become familiar with the field's literature and develop proposals related to their own personal, potential future IDT projects.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-38">Instructional Design</hd> <p>This course presents a systematic method for the planning and development of instructional programs. In addition to examining the research supporting contemporary methods of instructional design, students will apply instructional design principles to the development of a text-based instructional program.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-39">Multimedia Design</hd> <p>This course presents a review of the systematic design of instruction as well as an overview of the use of multimedia instructional programs in education. The primary focus of the class is the application of instructional design principles to the development of a multimedia instructional program using a variety of presentation media.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-40">Designing and Developing Web-Based Instruction</hd> <p>Students in this course will design and develop an instructional product in digital format for delivery via the World Wide Web. The course will include a review of the literature specifically related to web-based design theory. Various models of distance education systems are identified and contrasted with an emphasis on web-based instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-41">Contemporary Issues in Distance Education</hd> <p>This course is a web-based course to teach and inform teachers and other professionals about distance education and the special needs/concerns of delivering instruction via a distance. This course is less about the mechanics of the technology; rather it is more about the research and ideology behind current, effective distance education. Issues such as addressing learner needs, fostering an interactive learning environment, creating dialogue between near and far site students, and dealing with technological difficulties will be researched, discussed and debated.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-42">Masters Project in Instructional Design & Technology</hd> <p>This course is designed to facilitate the completion of the capstone project. Completion of the project will require the student to demonstrate in an open forum the culminating Instructional Design project. The project will be conceptualized in consultation with the advisor, approved by the advisor, updated, and refined as the student completes class work during the course of study. The final project will form a coherent package integrating the student's instructional design and technology experiences and research related to anticipated or ongoing professional responsibilities.</p> <hd id="AN0184471417-43">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0184471417-44"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allsop J, Young SJ, Nelson EJ, Piatt J, Knapp D. Examining the benefits associated with implementing an active learning classroom among undergraduate students. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 2020; 32; 3: 418-426</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Armbruster P, Patel M, Johnson E, Weiss M. Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE–Life Sciences Education. 2009; 8; 3: 203-213. 10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref7" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baepler P, Walker JD, Driessen M. It's not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers and Education. 2014; 78: 227-236. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref18" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baepler, P, Walker, J. D, Brooks, D. C, Saichaie, K, & Peterson, C. I. (2016). A guide to teaching in the active learning classrooms: History, research, and practice.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref12" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Beichner RJ. History and evolution of active learning spaces. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 2014; 2014; 137: 9-16. 10.1002/tl.20081</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref22" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bingen HM, Aamlid HI, Hovland BM, Nes AA, Larsen MH, Skedsmo K, Petersen EK, Steindal SA. Use of active learning classrooms in Health Professional Education: A scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances. 2024; 6: 100167. 10.1016/j.ijnsa.2023.100167</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref39" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of educational objectives. 1964; Longmans, Green; 2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref2" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bonwell, C. C, & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASH#-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, Washington, D.C: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref10" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brooks, D. C, & McCormack, M. (2019). Higher Education's 2019 Trend Watch and To 10 Strategic Technologies. Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR, March 2019. Retrieved June 9, 2024, from https://<ulink href="http://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/higher-education-trend-watch-and-top-10-strategic-technologies/2020/introduction">www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/higher-education-trend-watch-and-top-10-strategic-technologies/2020/introduction</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlos, V, Reses, G, & Soares, S.C. (2023). Active learning spaces design and assessment: a qualitative systematic literature review. Interactive Learning Environments. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2163263</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cattaneo KH. Telling active learning pedagogies apart: From theory to practice. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research. 2017; 6; 2: 144-152. 10.7821/naer.2017.7.237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark VLP, Creswell JW. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2011; Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dori YJ, Belcher J, Bessette M, Danziger M, McKinney A, Hult E. Technology for active learning. Materials Today. 2003; 6; 12: 44-49. 10.1016/S1369-7021(03)01225-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huda SU, Ali TS, Nanji K, Cassum S. Perceptions of undergraduate nursing students regarding active learning strategies, and benefits of active learning. International Journal of Nursing Education. 2016; 8; 4: 193-199. 10.5958/0974-9357.2016.00151.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee D, Morrone AS, Siering G. From swimming pool to collaborative learning studio. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2018; 66; 1: 95-127. 10.1007/s11423-017-9550-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Misrahi, E. (2024). The post pandemic learner: how spatial dynamics & accessibility impact the learning experience. All Theses. 4248. Retrieved December 6, 2024, from https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/4248</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education. 2004; 93; 3: 223-231. 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radcliffe, D. (2009). A Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Framework for Designing and Evaluating Learning Places. Proceedings of the Next Generation Learning Spaces 2008 Colloquium (pp 11–16). Brisbane.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richey RC, Klein JD. Design and development research: Methods, strategies and issues. 2007; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rook, M. M, Choi, K, & McDonald, S. P. (2015). Learning theory expertise in the design of learning spaces: Who needs a seat at the table? Journal of Learning Spaces, 4(1), 17–29. Retrieved December 3, 2024, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1152583.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Talbert R, Mor-Avi A. A space for learning: An analysis of research on active learning spaces. Heliyon. 2019; 5; 12: 1-19. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valenti, M. (2015). Beyond active learning: transformation of the learning space. Educause Review, 50(4), 30–38. Retrieved May 24, 2024, from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/beyond-active-learning-transformation-of-the-learning-space</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Dabae Lee; Jozenia T. Colorado-Resa and Yeol Huh</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref38"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1467586
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Designing an Active Learning Space
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dabae+Lee%22">Dabae Lee</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jozenia+T%2E+Colorado-Resa%22">Jozenia T. Colorado-Resa</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6124-0839">0000-0002-6124-0839</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yeol+Huh%22">Yeol Huh</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22TechTrends%3A+Linking+Research+and+Practice+to+Improve+Learning%22"><i>TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning</i></searchLink>. 2025 69(2):310-330.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Design%22">Classroom Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Research%22">Classroom Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design+Requirements%22">Design Requirements</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Facilities+Planning%22">Educational Facilities Planning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classrooms%22">Classrooms</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Design%22">Instructional Design</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11528-025-01038-4
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 8756-3894<br />1559-7075
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This developmental study explores the process and outcomes of creating an active learning classroom within a higher education setting. To support student success, institutions have increasingly redesigned their learning spaces to promote active learning. Early initiatives often aimed to facilitate collaborative learning and reduce reliance on traditional lectures. However, emerging research suggests that effective active learning environments should integrate both collaborative activities and instructor-led discussions. An instructional design and technology program at a small midwestern university was given the opportunity to completely redesign its learning space. Guided by the Pedagogy, Space, and Technology framework and existing research, the team conducted a systematic needs assessment, design, and development process. Design principles were formulated to address pedagogical, spatial, and technological considerations, ensuring the classroom supported a range of activities including lectures, small group work, and classwide discussions. Key design decisions and the resulting renovated space are detailed, highlighting the integration of centralized focal points for lectures and discussions alongside flexible workspace for group and individual activities. The study contributes to ongoing discussions on innovative learning spaces and offers practical guidance for educators seeking to enhance active learning environments.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1467586
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1467586
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11528-025-01038-4
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 310
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Active Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design Requirements
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Facilities Planning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classrooms
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Design
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Designing an Active Learning Space
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dabae Lee
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jozenia T. Colorado-Resa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yeol Huh
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 8756-3894
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1559-7075
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 69
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning
              Type: main
ResultId 1