The Active Learning Post-Occupancy Evaluation (AL-POE) tool was used to measure the effects of Steelcase Education solutions on student engagement at the University of Lisbon-Institute of Education. Both students and instructors rated factors like collaboration, active involvement, and stimulation higher in active learning classrooms compared to traditional classrooms. While students and instructors saw positive impacts, the study notes that adopting active learning requires adjusting to new teaching and classroom management approaches. Density, training, and tool availability also impact effective use of new classroom spaces.

1. Active Learning Post-
Occupancy Evaluation
UNIVERSITY OF LISBON-
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

2. Tool and study
The Active Learning Post-Occupancy Evaluation (AL-POE) research tool
was developed by Steelcase Education (SE) researchers in an effort to
measure the effect of our solutions on student engagement in the
classroom.
The following is a presentation of the tool and results of its administration
from 21st of February to 24th of March 2017, at University of Lisbon-
Institute of Education, Portugal.

3. Table of contents
1
2
3
Participants
Overview of Post-Occupancy Evaluation Results
Results in context and consideration

4. 1. Participants

5. 1.1 Students

6. Demographics from Students
Type of environment Participants n=13*
*usable data
23.08%
38.46%
30.77%
23.08%
7.69%
0.00%
15.38%
n/a
Standard (as indicated in
question above)
node Chairs
LearnLab ("X" table layout)
media:scape (technology
enabled tables)
Verb
media:scape LearnLab ("X"
table layout with technology-
enabled tables)

7. Demographics from Students
Instruction effectiveness
*usable data
0.00% 6.67%
0.00%
20.00%
73.33%
Very Ineffective
Ineffective
Somewhat Ineffective
Neither Effective nor
Ineffective
Somewhat Effective
Effective
Very Effective
Participants n=15*

8. Demographics from Students POE
Type of instruction
*usable data
0.00% 0.00%
78.57%
21.43%
0.00%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Only lecture
Only lecture > student-to-
student work
Even mix of lecture and
student-to-student work
Only lecture < student-to-
student work
only student-to-student
work
Participants n=14*

9. Demographics from Students POE
Overall view of engagement
*usable data
0.00% 7.14%
78.57%
14.29%
Not at all
Slightly
Moderately
Very engaged
Extremely
Participants n=14*

10. 1.2 Instructors

11. Demographics from Instructors
Type of environment
*usable data
13.33%
40.00%
40.00%
6.67%
33.33%
0.00%
6.67%
n/a
Standard (as indicated in
question above)
node Chairs
LearnLab ("X" table layout)
media:scape (technology
enabled tables)
Verb
media:scape LearnLab ("X"
table layout with technology-
enabled tables)
Participants n=15*

12. Demographics from Instructors
Had Professional Development?
*usable data
Participants n=16*
Effectiveness of Professional Development
56.25%
43.75%
YES
NO
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Very Ineffective Ineffective
Somewhat Ineffective Neither Effective nor Ineffective
Somewhat Effective Effective
Very Effective

13. Demographics from Instructors
Type of instruction
*usable data
0.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Only lecture
Only lecture > student-to-
student work
Even mix of lecture and
student-to-student work
Only lecture < student-to-
student work
only student-to-student
work
Participants n=16*

14. Demographics from Instructors
*usable data
Overall view of engagement on student level
0.00%
6.25%
31.25%
50.00%
12.50%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Not at All engaged
Slightly engaged
Moderately engaged
Very engaged
Extremely engaged
Participants n=16*

15. 2. Overview POE Results

16. Overview Student-Instructor Practices
Student, n=13
Traditional ALC
Collaboration
Focus
Active involvement
Opportunity to engage
Multiple means
In-class feedback
Real-life scenarios
Ways of learning best
Physical movement
Stimulation
Comfortable to participate
Enriching experience
Traditional ALC
Instructor, n=15

17. Overview Student-Instructor Solutions POE
Collaboration
Focus
Active involvement
Opportunity to engage
Multiple means
In-class feedback
Real-life scenarios
Ways of learning best
Physical movement
Stimulation
Comfortable to participate
Enriching experience
Traditional ALC Traditional ALC
Instructor, n=15Student, n=12|11

18. Overview Post-Occupancy Evaluation Results
The results from this AL-POE study in 2017 at the Institute of Education- University of
Lisbon illustrate that the ALC has positive impacts on all factors solicited within the
evaluation.
Students appeared to be grading factors in a more extreme way than instructors.
Students are less tolerant than instructors on practices and solutions for traditional
classroom.
Instructors and students aggregate grading converged concerning the ALC, meaning
that students and instructors indicated ALC as having positive impacts AND quantified
these impacts with high uniformity.
Average rating for Practices
• Students: 2,52→ 4,02
• Instructors 3,09 → 4,04
Average rating for Solutions
• Students: 2,19 → 4,06
• Instructors 3,05 → 4,11
[in a 5 points scale]

19. The two graphs below illustrate the evolution on how Students allocated their grading
points to Traditional classrooms and ALC.
Switching from Traditional classroom to ALC empowered students with higher learning
experiences.
SolutionsPractices
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Traditional ALC
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Traditional ALC
Overview POE Results

20. Practices Solutions
The two graphs below illustrate the evolution on how Instructors allocated their
grading points for Traditional and ALC.
ALC enabled instructors to defined new and more adequate approaches to learning.
Both Students and Instructors were positively impacted by ALC.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Traditional ALC
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Traditional ALC
Overview POE Results

21. Student, n= 11 Instructor, n= 15
The two graphs below contrast the believes of Students and Instructors that the ALC
contributed to increase or achieve…
As mentioned before, student are more extreme in their grading. Both, instructors and
students believed that ALC had the least effect on achieving higher grade.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Engagement Higher grade Motivation Creative
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Engagement Higher grade Motivation Creative
Overview POE Results

22. Overall conclusion
1. The ALC has positive impacts on all factors solicited within the evaluation
(slide 16-17).
2. Students are more extreme on their way of grading. Instructors are more
diverse (slide 18).
3. The Traditional classroom aggregate grading shows the most disparity (slide
19-20).
4. Students and Instructors’ average rating for the ALC are convergent (slide 18-
20).
5. Comparison of the students and instructors’ believes reveal common trends
(slide 21). Both believe the ALC impacts best the Engagement while the least
is Higher Grade (slide 21).

23. 3. Results in context

24. In context
It is important to consider the eco-system when placing the results of this study in
context. The design of the space cannot be designed or evaluated in isolation from
the rest of the variables that will help its success. Space and technology
are tools that support the teaching and learning experience.
These new active environments and solutions are designed to support an active way
of teaching and learning, which for many is a complete shift from what they have
done in the past. The list below highlights three important considerations when
moving forward with a successful active learning.
SHIFT to NEW WAY OF LEARNING
DENSITY
TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS
NEW CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT ISSUES

25. In context
Active Learning Journey
Both teachers and students need to understand the new pedagogies that are being put in place
and why they are being implemented. This is a shift, with space being just one piece of the puzzle.
Time for adjustment and refinement must be given.
Ideal
An easy, fast and straight shift
Reality
A complex shift involving multiple variables

26. In context
Density
How does density
affect active
learning?

27. In context
Density
How does density
affect active
learning?

28. In context
Training and professional development
How does training
and professional
development
affect active
learning?

29. In context
Classroom issues
How do classroom
issues affect
active learning?
Tools
Availability of tools like markers/
erasers let the students take
advantage of other learning tools
and entire space.
Management
movement can be distracting,
new protocols and consideration

30. Study developed by:
Theo Daoudi
For further information:
http://www.steelcase.com/
http://ftelab.ie.ulisboa.pt/