This guide to teaching in CLAW (Collaborative Learning and Active Workspaces) 3 Active Learning Classrooms (ALCs) reviews the recent literature on the experience and impact of teaching and learning in ALCs. Suggestions for teaching strategies and activity ideas are included. Please contact dsitech@unt.edu for questions about UNT’s CLAW 3 classrooms. Instructional technology videos can be found on the UNT DSI Tech Youtube channel.
Broadly speaking, active learning is defined as doing and thinking about doing (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Students are actively engaged in the learning process and applying higher order thinking skills. Active learning is an important component of teaching in ALCs, but the room itself also contributes.
Active learning classrooms (ALCs) are intentionally designed for the purpose of active learning (Talbert & Mor-Avi, 2019). Group work is emphasized in the layout of UNT’s CLAW 3 classrooms. One way to think about group stations in CLAW 3 classrooms is as in-person version of “break out rooms” in virtual meetings. It has also been suggested that they remind instructors and students of the cozy feeling of sitting around a kitchen table (Copridge, 2021).
In addition to a projection screen and document camera for the instructor to display
information to the whole class, each group station has a screen and connection that
allow students to display information in their small groups. Instrumental in creating
a collaborative group experience, CLAW 3 rooms are designed with movable tables and
chairs. These tables are in groups of four or eight students, each with a wall display
(Figure 1).
Figure 1
CLAW 3 Room in Sage 230
There are three CLAW 3 classrooms on the UNT Denton campus (Table 1).
Table 1
UNT CLAW 3 Rooms
Room Location/Layout |
Room Capacity |
46 |
|
72 |
|
32 |
There are many reasons to teach in an ALC. The most compelling is the relationship between ALCs and active learning. Practicing active learning teaching strategies in an ACL encourages discussion, active participation, critical thinking, collaboration, community, fun, and a desire to attend class (Allsop et al., 2020; Clinton & Wilson, 2019; Holec & Marynowski, 2020; Lee, et al., 2019; Rezaei 2020; Stalph & Hill, 2019; Young et al., 2021). After a semester in an ACL, 93% of 434 students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that group activities in class help them learn (Stalp & Hill, 2019). In a survey of 916 students, 86% reported learning better in ALCs, 98% said that they encourage teamwork and cooperation, and 80% felt they had more time to ask questions (Rezaei, 2020).
ALCs also improve other aspects of the student learning experience. In a large-scale longitudinal study of 30,000 students over four years, students across all disciplines felt that course content was less difficult in ALCs (Chiu et al., 2022). However, other perceptions of learning in ALCs were found to fluctuate across different academic disciplines. Students in the sciences, technologies, arts, and humanities related significantly better experiences in course design, the encouragement of innovation and creativity, and the support of critical thinking. Business organization courses deviated from these findings. In other words, learning experiences were not perceived by students as positively in these areas in business organization courses. These findings indicate possible interactions between academic discipline and the impact of teaching in ALCs.
ALCs change the way that instructors and students engage. With the increased mobility of the instructor and a decreased emphasis on the front of the room, students perceive instructors to have a less authoritative role (Rezaei, 2020). Instructors’ role in the ALC is to circulate while facilitating group thinking and bringing examples to the whole class (Rands & Gansemer-Topf, 2017). This enhances student–teacher interaction and dialogue and, over time, can lead to improvement in learning and students’ sense of belonging (Rands & Gansemer-Topf, 2017). Nine instructors who taught in ALCs for a year reported that the grouped tables and movable chairs created a more intimate and “cozy” environment (Copridge, 2021). Additionally, a study comparing 372 students in ACLs and traditional classrooms found in improvement in self-confidence among female students (Mantooth, 2021).
Studies have found that ALCs can positively impact learning for introverts and students with anxiety. A two-year study of 266 students by Flanagan & Addy (2019) found that introvert, ambivert, and extrovert students performed equally in classes using a team-based and flipped learning approach, all reporting high levels of support.
At the beginning of the semester, ACLs can feel uncomfortable or anxiety-inducing to students since the focal point is not on the instructor as in traditional lecture halls. Students who are used to sitting in the back of the classroom may be disoriented at first to find that there is no back in an ALC. However, a study by Baepler (2021) found that the roundtable design helped reduce anxiety because it places the focus on the material. Students reported that once they got used to the roundtable format, it increased engagement and focus and reduced anxiety.
Recommendations from Baepler (2021) for teaching introverted students and students with anxiety in ALCs follow:
Teaching in an ALC can impact the way instructors teach. Findings indicate that ALCs lead to increased instructor presence and visibility, better feedback to students, and more authentic discussions between instructor and student (Copridge, 2021). In a survey of 53 instructors, 58% reported lecturing less in the ALC than traditional classrooms, and 39% said that ALCs help them get better feedback from students (Rezaei, 2020).
The first step toward adopting an active learning mindset is to schedule one of the CLAW 3 classrooms. However, the room alone will not guarantee that active learning will ensue. Gains in learning are made when instructors learn teaching methods that are effective in the ALC (Lee, et al., 2019). The literature encourages instructors to attend teaching and learning workshops to develop teaching methods and activities designed specifically for the ALC (Lee, et al., 2019). This literature review, along with DSI’s CLAW 3 Orientation is offered with that goal in mind.
Learning gains are made when the classroom, teaching style, and academic discipline align. When active learning strategies are used in lecture-style classrooms, for instance, students do not self-report the same high levels of engagement (Holec & Marynowski, 2020). Conversely, a study of computer science courses found that active learning and teaching improved academic performance, but the ALC was not found to be a contributing factor (Hao, et al., 2021). As mentioned earlier, business organization students in a study by Chiu et al. (2022) did not report as enjoyable an experience in ALCs as students in other academic disciplines. Therefore, teaching strategies, classroom, and subject will interact uniquely (Hao, et al., 2021).
Another reason why training is important is because teaching in an ACL requires some course redesign (Razaei, 2020). Instructors may be encouraged to know that redesign does not need to happen overnight. It can happen incrementally, making small changes each semester.
Razaei (2020) surveyed 53 instructors who taught in ALCs and found that while more than 70% had never observed another instructor teaching in an ALC, it could greatly improve their practice. Observing others teach allows instructors new to ALCs to see how the technology is used in addition to learning andragogical strategies. Instructors can also observe how others prepare students for learning in ALCs, including technology use and norms around group participation.
Another reason to prioritize learning active learning techniques in ACLs is because instructors tend to be less likely to innovate in ALCs when they feel uncomfortable with new technology or layouts. In a study by Murphy (2020), an instructor restructured the entire class to avoid using a piece of technology that they did not know how to use. Training that includes time to practice along with on-call support can help prevent use avoidance.
McCorkle (2021) suggests that the following can act as barriers to the implementation of active learning approaches in ALCs:
DSI CLEAR offers resources, training, and learning communities in addition to these recommendations from the literature to help instructors effectively use ALCs and active learning strategies.
This section reviews recent literature on engagement types, assignments, tools and features, and classroom management to help you prepare to teach effectively in ALCs.
When redesigning classes to teach in ALCs, it can be helpful to review the types of engagement that make up teaching and learning activities.
Metzger & Langley (2020) conducted 45 observations of 23 courses. In any one class meeting, 2-8 engagement types were used with an average of 4.9 per class. This held true regardless of course level and discipline. The complete list of engagement types from the Metzger & Langley (2020) study with examples is provided in Table 2.
Table 2
Classroom Engagement Types
Engagement type | Description | Activity examples |
Creating/Constructing |
Applying knowledge/skills to create a product |
Making a model of a virus; sewing a garment; painting a picture |
Designing/Planning |
Planning a process |
Designing an experiment, architectural structure, or prosthetic limb |
Discussing |
Dialoguing in-person or digitally with one or more people |
Think/pair/share; small group discussion about the meaning of a reading; practicing speaking in a language class |
Problem solving |
Using the process of inquiry to answer a question |
Combining reactants in a chemistry lab; searching for information online; conducting qualitative interviews; diagnosing medical issues |
Listening/Processing |
Receiving auditory information |
Listening to an instructor lecture on a topic or talk through a problem |
Observing |
Receiving visual information |
Watching an instructor solve a problem on the board; watching a video of children playing; observing a dance routine |
Performing/Presenting |
Applying knowledge and skills |
Music or dance performance; acting out a play; public speaking, performing a procedure |
Reading/Studying |
Receiving text-based information |
Reading a book, article, procedures, or peer writing |
Reflecting |
Intentional questioning of existing beliefs or assumptions |
Considering ethical beliefs in the context of a medical case; thinking about how one’s personality might influence group dynamics; writing or talking about how your background impacted your choice of college major |
Writing |
Analyzing, transcribing, or transforming information through writing |
Drawing a table on a whiteboard; writing out the solution to a math problem; writing a paper, essay, or report, taking lecture notes |
Note. Adapted from “The room itself is not enough: Student engagement in active learning classrooms” in College Teaching by K.J. Metzger, & D. Langley, 2020, 68(3) p. 150-160.
While creating/constructing and performing/presenting were never observed in the Metzger & Langley (2020) study, listening/processing, discussion, and problem solving made up almost 75% of all classroom time.
When deciding how to distribute engagement types over a class session, it might be helpful to keep in mind that due to the group-centered layout, ALCs encourage group interaction and discourage instructor-focused whole class discussion. A two-year study of 266 students by Flanagan & Addy (2019) found that students work collaboratively for more than 50% of classes. Similarly, in a study of 14 class sessions over four semesters, class time was spent as follows (Bent et al., 2020):
Therefore, activities that employ peer and small-group discussion and collaboration are likely to be successful in ALCs. In a survey of 916 students, 93% believed that frequent peer discussions helped them learn (Rezaei, 2020). That is not to say that whole class discussions do not have a place in the ALC. Students in Rezaei’s (2020) study said they missed whole class discussions. This can be remedied by following individual or group activities with whole class discussions to debrief activities together.
This section lists specific assignment strategies from the literature that instructors may be able to adapt for their own classes in an ALC.
ALCs are intentionally designed to support active learning. Becoming familiar with the features of ALCs can help optimize the teaching and learning experience (Murphy, 2020). This section will review literature about how to use the features of ALCs.
Technology is often a feature of the ALCs, and students expect it to be used (Stalp & Hill, 2019). However, what appears repeatedly in the literature is that classes should be designed with andragogy, or how adults best learn, at the forefront. Technology should be used to support teaching and learning, not the other way around (McCorkle, 2021; Murphy 2020; Razaei, 2020).
A study by Stalp & Hill (2019) found that students who started the semester uncomfortable with technology were not made more comfortable by simply being in the ALC. Comfort with technology stayed the same throughout the semester. Instructors can help improve the student experience in ALCs by directly addressing attitudes around the ACL and its technology.
A study by Fukuzawa and Cahn (2019) found that students found some technology in an ACL helpful and some a hindrance. For instance, most students found the overhead camera, roundtables, and whiteboards useful in an osteology course. However, more than half found the accompanying discussion boards unmotivating and not additive. Students in a study by Razaei (2020) reported not using the large TV at their station very often in their group work, but they did appreciate that the instructor’s screen could project on their group station screen.
The literature highlights the following uses of technology and space in ALCs:
ALCs can have a novelty effect that can improve learning in the short-term but wears off over the course of the semester (Razaei, 2020). Instructors can remedy this by connecting their teaching philosophy and approaches to the ALC environment, explaining the benefits of the room to students. Regardless, some students will find the ALC a positive learning experience and others may not. For instance, noise can be a distraction for students and instructors (Rezaei, 2020). Scheduling quiet work times can help balance the noise. Instructors can also remind students to lower their voices. Too many screens may also make it difficult for some students to focus (Murphy, 2020). A solution is to schedule screen-off times while students are focusing. Distraction from screens and noise are why students in smaller ALCs report more satisfaction than students in larger rooms (Rezaei, 2020).
The Murphy (2020) study found that instructors and students prefer low-tech learning such as group work and discussion. They recommend that new ALC instructors focus on utilizing the group tables and should not feel pressured to use all the technology. In fact, the goal of ALCs is communication and human connection, making it an ideal setting for providing students opportunities to practice interaction and soft skills that will make them successful in their future careers and endeavors (Lee et al., 2019; Stalph & Hill, 2019).
ACLs change instructor-student dynamics. In a traditional lecture classroom, the instructor is positioned as the provider of information at the front of the room. In ALCs instruction is dynamic in that it moves around the classroom, and the instructor is often at the middle or back of the class. Furthermore, students often facilitate their own group activities without direct, step-by-step instruction from the instructor. This can change some aspects of how instructors manage their classrooms. This section highlights considerations about classroom management in ALCs:
Ahlstrom, L., & Holmberg, C. (2021). A comparison of three interactive examination designs in active learning classrooms for nursing students. BMC Nursing, 20(59), 1-12.
Allsop, J. Young. S.J., Nelson, E.J., Piatt, J., & Knapp, D. (2020). Examining the benefits associated with implementing an active learning classroom among undergraduate students. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 32(3), 418-426.
Baepler, P. (2021). Student anxiety in active learning classrooms: Apprehensions and acceptance of formal learning environments. Journal of Learning Spaces, 10(2), 36-47.
Bent, T., Knapp, J.S., & Robinson, J.K. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of teaching assistants in active learning classrooms. Journal of Learning Spaces, 9(2), 103-118.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. George Washington University, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Chacon-Diaz, L.B. (2020). An explanatory case study of behaviors, interactions, and engagement in an introductory science active learning classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 55(1), 26-40.
Chih-Yuan Sun, J., & Wu, Y.T. (2016). Analysis of Learning achievement and teacher-student interactions in flipped and conventional classrooms. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(1), 79-99.
Chiu, P.H.P, Im, S.W.T., & Shek, C.H. (2022). Disciplinary variations in student perceptions of active learning classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3, 1-80.
Clinton, V., & Wilson, N. (2019). More than chalkboards: Classroom spaces and collaborative learning attitudes. Learning Environments Research, 22(3), 325-344.
Copridge, K. W., Uttamchandani, S., & Birdwell, T. (2021). Faculty reflections of pedagogical transformation in active learning classrooms. Innovative Higher Education, 46(2), 205-221.
Flanagan, K.M., & Addy, H. (2019). Introverts are not disadvantaged in group-based active learning classrooms. Journal of College Biology Teaching, 45(1), 33-41.
Fukuzawa, S., & Cahn, J. (2019). Technology in problem-based learning: helpful or hindrance? The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 36(1), 66-76.
Gibau, G.S, Kissel, F., & Labode, M. (2019). Starting with the space: Integrating learning spaces and technologies. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 8(1), 17-32.
Hao, Q., Barnes, B., & Jin, M. (2021). Quantifying the effects of active learning environments separating physical learning classrooms from pedagogical approaches. Learning Environments Research, 24(1), 109-122.
Holec, V., & Marynowski, R. (2020). Does it matter where you teach? Insights from a quasi-experimental study on student engagement in an active learning classroom. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 8(2), 140-64.
Kugler, A.J. Gogineni, H.P., & Garavalia, L.S. (2019). Learning outcomes and student preferences with flipped vs lecture/case teaching model in a block curriculum. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(8), 7044. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6900813/
Leary, M. Tylka, A., Corsi, V., & Bryner, R. 2021. The effect of first-year seminar classroom design on social integration and retention of STEM first-time, full-time college freshman. Education Research International. Retrieved from https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2021/4262905/
Lee, K., Dabelko-Schoeny, H., Roush, B., Craighead, S. & Bronson, D. (2019). Technology-enhanced active learning classrooms: New directions for social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 55(2), 294-305.
Mantooth, R., Usher, E.L., & Love, A.M.A. (2021). Changing classrooms bring new questions: environmental influences, self-efficacy, and academic achievement. Learning Environments Research, 24(3), 519-535.
McCorkle, S. (2021). Exploring faculty barriers in a new active learning classroom: A divide and conquer approach to support. Journal of Learning Spaces, 10(2), 14-23.
Metzger, K.J., & Langley, D. (2020). The room itself is not enough: Student engagement in active learning classrooms. College Teaching, 68(3), 150-160.
Murphy, M.P.A., & Groen, J.F. (2020). Student and instructor perceptions of a first year in active learning classrooms: Three lessons learned. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 8(13), 41-49.
Rands, M.L., & Gansemer-Topf, A.M. (2017). The room itself is active: How classroom design impacts student engagement. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(1) 26-33.
Rezaei, A. (2020). Groupwork in active learning classrooms: Recommendations for users. Journal of Learning Spaces 9(2), 1-21.
Stalp, M.C., & Hill, S.E. (2019). The expectations of adulting: Developing soft skills through active learning classrooms. Journal of Learning Spaces, 8(2), 25-40.
Talbert, R., & Mor-Avi, A. (2019). A space for learning: An analysis of research on active learning spaces. Heliyon, 5(12).
Wu, S.P.W., Van Veen, B., & Rau, M.A. (2020). How drawing prompts can increase cognitive engagement in an active learning engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(4), 723-742.
Young, B., Hynes, W., & Hynes M. (2021). Promoting engagement in active-learning classroom design. Journal of Learning Spaces 10, (3), 13-27.