Split-Site Course Design: A Pilot Study on Integrating Traditional and Active Learning Classrooms

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed the spread of purpose-built active learning classrooms throughout the higher education sector. While these innovative learning spaces are well-suited for a variety of active learning strategies, their lack of a single focal point means they are inconvenient spaces for lecturing. While educational developers often encourage instructors to implement active learning strategies in these classrooms, lectures persist. This article reports the results of a pilot study where course meetings were split between two sites each week: some of the course time took place in a lecture hall and some of the course time took place in an active learning classroom. We suggest that this split-site design offers at least two promising indicators, from the perspectives of both students and instructors: 1) an easier transition compared to a full-active learning classroom course; and 2) availability of active learning classroom time to a larger number of courses. Responding to existing literature on the relationship between lecturing and active learning (classrooms), this article presents the results of student surveys and instructor interviews, and outlines future directions for research in split-site course design.

Keywords:

• Active learning
• active learning classrooms
• classroom design
• course design
• innovative learning spaces
• learning environments
• lectures
• split-site

Notes

1 We might also recall Noel Entwhistle’s argument that claims of one way of teaching as best “cannot be substantiated. The effectiveness of teaching inevitably depends on its purpose and a host of interacting influences. Making use of just one general approach could never suit all topics, all subjects, all students, and for all purposes” (Entwhistle, 2010, 16).

2 As noted in the methodology section, the course enrollment varied from medium- to large-enrollment within the context of this institution. One reviewer highlighted that at other institutions, lecture hall sometimes has a different technical meaning. We have retained the use of “lecture hall” as it was deployed in our data collection.

3 The specific ratios of the split-site design varied from course to course. Specific figures are provided in the methodology section.

4 Baepler et al. (2016) do note that “micro-lectures” can be useful if content-delivery is absolutely necessary.

5 Days have been inserted for clarity. It is worth noting that some courses may meet in different rooms on different days of the week outside this specific split-site arrangement.

6 Instructors will have to balance content-delivery aspects (whether through a lecture block or assigned readings) with active learning elements. Given the potential for improved retention through active learning sessions, it is important to note that this is less about cutting material from a course than exploring different mechanisms for content delivery and deeper learning.

7 We thank reviewer 2 for providing this language of clear/explicit differentiation.

8 Petersen and Gorman (2014) similarly advocate for incremental integration.

9 We thank Reviewer 1 for highlighting the important contribution that these future research avenues offer.

Additional information

Funding

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.