This document discusses the potential benefits of active learning spaces (ALS) and flipped classroom models as alternatives to traditional lectures. It summarizes a study that examined the perspectives of students, academics, and higher education institutions on drivers, barriers and the future of ALS. The study found that while students and academics see potential benefits, current spaces often do not adequately support new pedagogies. Institutions face challenges regarding space and costs but many plan to create more ALS in the next five years as they recognize benefits like improved attendance and retention.

1. Towards Active Learning Spaces
and the Flipped Classroom Model
Colin Loughlin
@colinloughlin
Department of Technology Enhanced Learning

2. Abstract
It has been acknowledged that the traditional didactic lecture does not always provide the ideal learning and teaching
experience (Bligh, 1998). Over the last ten years, individuals and institutions have been exploring the pedagogical
possibilities of providing more active and engaging alternatives.
One model in particular has been influential in sparking change. The use of Active Learning Spaces (ALS) combined with
team-based learning (Fink, Michaelsen & Knight, 2004) has been successfully used in initiatives such as TEAL (Technology
Enhanced Active Learning) and SCALE-UP (Baepler, Brooks & Walker, 2014). This approach has proved popular in North
America, and has attracted growing interest in the UK. The key benefits demonstrated have been improvements in: class
attendance; retention rates; levels of conceptual understanding; pace of learning (Beichner, Saul, Abbott, et al., 2007).
This ongoing comparative study set out to establish the key drivers and barriers to the development of ALS and the future
landscape for classroom pedagogies that are being adopted within these innovative spaces. A mixed methodology has
been adopted to triangulate the needs, expectations and opinions of three key stakeholders: students, academics, and
policy makers. A series of focus group interviews were conducted with students and lecturers, and an online questionnaire
completed by senior managers representing a range of UK Higher Education Institutions.
The analysis of the results so far point to a burgeoning awareness amongst students and staff of the positive educational
impact of newer pedagogies such as the ‘flipped classroom’ and ‘inquiry based learning’, alongside an intensifying
impatience with the status quo. From the institutional perspective, aside from the financial implications, a formidable hurdle
is the pressure on physical space, and thus, room occupancy rates. ALS typically reduce room occupancy by 25-30%,
however previous studies have indicated attendance at lectures rarely exceed 60% of the cohort (Dobkin, Gil & Marion,
2007), and a recent evaluation of learning spaces at one HEI demonstrated a room utilization rate of just 27%.
There is now a clear rationale for the creation of teaching spaces that effectively support technology enhanced pedagogies
which attract, engage and retain students across the whole academic cycle. In this paper we will discuss the current results
of our study in relation to critical questions around ALS and the flipped classroom, and more broadly the strategic decisions
around estate management versus the demands and expectations of students and staff.

3. Traditional Didactic Lectures
21st Century Lecture Theatre
Look familiar?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/FOSDEM_2008_Mai
n_lecture_theatre.jpg/800px-FOSDEM_2008_Main_lecture_theatre.jpg
The 4th century BC
Ancient Epidaurus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_contemporary_amphitheatres

4. Introduction
Dissatisfaction with
the status quo from
students and
lecturers
Innovators
experimenting with
alternatives to the
large scale didactic
lecture
This study looked
at three
stakeholders:
 students,
 academics
 HEIs

5. Drivers for Change – convergence and opportunity
Active Learning Spaces
External
Pressure
•MOOCS
•Alternative
Providers
•Competition
Interactive
Pedagogies
•PAL
•TBL
•Social
Constructivism
KPIs
•Retention
•Failure Rates
•Attendance at
Lectures
• MEQs
Lecture
capture
& the
Flipped
classroom

6. What do we mean by active learning spaces?
http://web.mit.edu/edtech/casestudies/teal.html
• ‘instructional activities involving students in doing things and thinking about
what they are doing’ (Bonwell & Eison, 1991, p.iii).
• This notion of action and reflection on action is central to constructivist
pedagogic theory (Bruner, 1966; Vygotsky & Cole, 1981).
• The emphasis is on interactive and social constructivist methods which
encourage group activities and peer interaction.

7. Flipped Classroom model
Many active learning pedagogies are predicated on the
‘flipped classroom’ model.
This entails the provision of content before class:
• Video tutorials
• Learning Objects
• Reading
This pre-sessional activity primes students such that they
are ready to engage with classroom activities:
• that should be designed to challenge their
understanding
• to facilitate knowledge construction through
collaborative activities.
Many academic staff already engage with flipped
classroom pedagogies – what they are lacking are the
teaching spaces to maximise the opportunities that this
approach offers.

8. Our Study
Part 1
We conducted focus groups in one HEI for:
• Students (n=18)
• Staff (n=12)
The results were analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Part 2
We then surveyed 16 heads of department in a cross-section of UK HEIs to
establish institutional attitudes and approaches to ALS.

9. Student Perspective
Despite being shown examples of futuristic technology and encouraged to engage in ‘blue-sky’ thinking
the students struggled to conceptualise learning environments significantly different to the ones they are
familiar with. Their aspirations tended to be what they have now, just a little bit better. Their concerns
were largely pragmatic:
Comfort
Currently most students have a great deal to carry around with them including, chargers for: phones,
tablet PCs and laptops; books, bags to carry them in (often more than one) and coats. They would like
somewhere to store all these things so that they were free to move around and work in an uncluttered
environment.
Connectivity
This featured in two ways for every student in the group, firstly they wanted to be able to easily plug-in
chargers to recharge their smartphones, tablet PCs and laptops. Secondly they wanted consistent and
reliable wireless access across campus but specifically in classrooms.
Coherence
They wanted consistency on terms of classroom facilities and teaching methods, interestingly their
expectations went beyond that, to the provision of a more joined up and holistic approach across their
learning experience. So that each learning experience makes sense both in isolation, but also as part of a
coherent whole.

10. Staff Perspective
There were two distinct areas of discussion amongst the teaching staff, one was the pedagogy
underpinning how they wanted to teach and the second was the physical space in which they teach. Most
were using collaborative group work and social constructivism techniques. However, it did not take long
for a discussion on pedagogy to turn into an outpouring of frustration with existing facilities. Therefore, as
with the students, their main concerns were not highly aspirational:
Flexibility
Staff expressed a strong preference for flexibility in teaching spaces which would allow them to quickly
and easily rearrange desk and chairs to suit the planned teaching session. This echoes the literature which
suggest that there is a ‘clear preference for furniture that is easily moveable’ (Morrone, Ouimet, Siering,
et al., 2014).
Consistency
There was some overlap with the students criticism of connectivity, but equally important to them was
consistency across campus as they teach in many different rooms and can never be sure what equipment
will be in each lecture theatre or if it will work reliably.
Reliability
Issues of reliability mean that even well-equipped teaching spaces are underutilised because staff fear
technology failure and ‘looking stupid’ in front of their students. There is a perception amongst some staff
that technology failure is the rule rather than the exception.

11. The UK HEI Experience (n= 16)
69% Have less than 3 rooms they would classify as ALS.
25% Have more than 10 rooms they would classify as ALS.
All current ALS funded equally between:
– Project money
– Centrally funded new money
– Existing money
Of the small number who have evaluated the spaces the results
were positive, with the exception of one from estates.
86% anticipate creating more ALS during in the next five years

12. Barriers to change

13. Drivers for change

14. The slow revolution
86% will be creating ALS in the next five years yet only 28% mention it in their
strategy documents.
• ‘Slow progression due to competing priorities and space issues’
• ‘New builds often happen with more attention paid to the coffee bar than
teaching spaces - academics involved far too late in the process’
• ‘The technology needs to be as easy as turning on a light before full seamless
adoption can take place’
• ‘Key to delivering a 21st century education’

15. Conclusion
What students need is not ‘more’ but ‘different’ – John Hattie
• ALSs are still relatively low on the agenda for most cash strapped HEIs, and there are no examples
where ALSs have been implemented wholesale across an institution.
• A large proportion of academics are already engaging with the social constructivist pedagogies that
will reap the most rewards if/when ALSs become commonplace.
• Spaces must be easy to use and reliable - academics rarely teach in the same room all the time.
• Configurable quickly – shuffle time between lectures is only a few minutes.
• The proof of concept phase for active learning spaces is drawing to a successful conclusion with a
significant body of evidence in support of it.
However….
ALSs are not a ‘magical solution; they must be used well in order to bring about their good effects’
(Baepler, Brooks & Walker, 2014, p.38)

16. References
Baepler, P.M., Brooks, D.C. & Walker, J.D. (2014) Active learning spaces. San Francisco, CA, Josse-Bass.
Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York, W.H. Freeman.
Beichner, R.J. & Saul, J.M. (2003) Introduction to the SCALE-UP (student-centered activities for large enrollment
undergraduate programs) project. Proceedings of the International School of Physics ‘“Enrico Fermi,”’Varenna, Italy.
http://www. ncsu. edu/per/scaleup. html (accessed 7 June 2005).
Beichner, R.J., Saul, J.M., Abbott, D.S., Morse, J., et al. (2007) The student-centered activities for large enrollment
undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. Research-based reform of university physics. 1 (1), 2–39.
Bishop, J.L. & Verleger, M.A. (2013) The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In: ASEE National Conference
Proceedings, Atlanta, GA. 2013
Bligh, D.A. (1998) What’s the Use of Lectures?. Intellect books.
Bonwell, C.C. & Eison, J.A. (1991) Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC higher education
report 1, 1991. Washington, DC, School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology. 3 (2), 77–101.
Brooks, D.C. (2011) Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning: Impact of formal
learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. [Online] 42 (5), 719–726. Available
from: doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01098.x [Accessed: 27 May 2015].
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Cuban, L. (1982) Persistence of the Inevitable: The Teacher-Centered Classroom. Education and Urban Society. [Online]
15 (1), 26–41. Available from: doi:10.1177/0013124582015001003 [Accessed: 18 May 2015].
Dewey, J. (2012) Democracy and education:. an introduction to the philosophy of education. Emereo Publishing.
Dobkin, C., Gil, R. & Marion, J. (2007) Causes and consequences of skipping class in college. Jour, of Economic Education.
37 (3), 251–266.
Dori, Y.J. & Belcher, J. (2005) how does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding
of electromagnetism concepts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

17. References
Fink, L.D., Michaelsen, L.K. & Knight, A.B. (2004) Team-based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College
Teaching. Stylus.
Jarvis, M. (2005) The psychology of effective learning and teaching. Cheltenham, Nelson Thornes.
Johnston, J.S., Spalding, J., Spalding, R.P. & Ziffren, A. (1989) Those who can: undergraduate programs to prepare arts
and sciences majors for teaching. Washington, D.C, Association of American Colleges.
Jones, S.E. (2007) Reflections on the lecture: outmoded medium or instrument of inspiration? Journal of Further and Higher
Education. [Online] 31 (4), 397–406. Available from: doi:10.1080/03098770701656816 [Accessed: 20 December 2013].
Kolb, D.A. & Fry, R.E. (1974) Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. MIT Alfred P. Sloan School of Management.
Lewis, K.G. & Woodward, P.J. (1984) What Really Happens in Large University Classes?.
Mazur, E. (1997) Peer instruction: a user’s manual. Prentice Hall series in educational innovation. Upper Saddle River, N.J,
Prentice Hall.
Morrone, A.S., Ouimet, J.A., Siering, G. & Arthur, I.T. (2014) Coffeehouse as Classroom: Examination of a New Style of
Active Learning Environment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. [Online] 2014 (137), 41–51. Available from:
doi:10.1002/tl.20084.
Savery, J.R. (2006) Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-
based Learning. 1 (1), 3.
Smith, K.A., Sheppard, S.D., Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (2005) Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom-Based
Practices. Journal of Engineering Education. [Online] 94 (1), 87–101. Available from: doi:10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2005.tb00831.x [Accessed: 26 May 2015].
Vygotsky, L.S. & Cole, M. (1981) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Nachdr. Cambridge,
Mass., Harvard Univ. Press.
Wadsworth, B.J. (1996) Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development foundations of constructivism. 5. ed. White
Plains, NY, Longman Publishers USA.
Walker, R., Voce, J., Nicholls, J., Swift, E., et al. (2014) 2014 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning for higher
education in the UK. [Online]. p.174. Available from:
http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/~/media/groups/dsdg/Tel%202014%20Final%2018%20August.ashx.