From swimming pool to collaborative learning studio: Pedagogy, space, and technology in a large active learning classroom

Abstract

To promote student learning and bolster student success, higher education institutions are increasingly creating large active learning classrooms to replace traditional lecture halls. Although there have been many efforts to examine the effects of those classrooms on learning outcomes, there is paucity of research that can inform the design and implementation process. This study investigates how spatial and technological features of a large collaborative classroom support active learning based on the Pedagogy-Space-Technology framework. The findings from our study suggest short lecture and class-wide discussion are essential in framing learning content before group activities, and connecting group outputs to the learning content after group activities. Through interviews, surveys, and focus groups, we found that-while small group activities are generally well-supported in large active learning classroomsfacilitating short lecture and class-wide discussion is key to the success of active learning in large classrooms. Technology should be carefully laid out in the space to accommodate those activities. Specific design and implementation suggestions and implications are provided.

Full text

Running head: FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 1
From swimming pool to collaborative learning studio:
Pedagogy, space, and technology in a large active learning classroom
Dabae Lee
1
Emporia State University
Anastasia S. Morrone
2
Greg Siering
3
Indiana University
1
Dabae Lee is an assistant professor of Instructional Technology at Emporia State University. She teaches graduate
courses in instructional technology, program evaluation, and research methods. Her research interests include
personalized learning, student collaboration in learner-centered instructional methods, roles of technology in learner-
centered paradigm, active learning spaces, and research methods in Instructional Technology. She is the
corresponding author and can be reached at 812-391-2721 or via email at dablee@indiana.edu.
2
Anastasia S. Morrone is Professor of Educational Psychology in the IUPUI School of Education, Associate Vice
President for Learning Technologies in the Office of the Vice President for Information Technology at Indiana
University, and Dean of IT at IUPUI.
As Professor of Educational Psychology, Morrone teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in adolescent
development, psychology of teaching, and research methods. Her research interests center around instructional
practices that promote college student motivation and learning. As Associate Vice President, she provides leadership
in several important university-wide initiatives that are designed to create a rich learning environment that will help
promote the transformation of teaching and learning through the innovative use of technology. As Dean of IT
(IUPUI), Morrone works closely with the chancellor's office, the executive vice chancellor, faculty council
representatives, and other deans, providing leadership and direction on campus IT issues. She can be reached via
email at amorrone@iu.edu.
3
Greg directs the Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning at Indiana University Bloomington, a center that
offers integrated instructional consulting in classroom and online teaching, instructional technologies, service
learning, and writing across the curriculum. He can be reached via email at gsiering@indiana.edu
Note: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 2
From swimming pool to collaborative learning studio:
Active learning in a large classroom space
Creating a large active learning space involves efforts from people with different
expertise including classroom designers, architects, technology specialists, and instructional
consultants who are focused on a question: how can intentional space design and technology
enable a physical learning space to facilitate what was difficult or impossible in a traditional
lecture hall? Lecture halls have worked for the teacher-centric, lecture-intensive instructional
model. However, it is clear from the learning literature that students in passive lecture settings
often do not learn as much as hoped, and a growing body of research on active learning strongly
and consistently supports this claim (e.g., Beichner, 2014; Freeman et al., 2014).
Early initiatives such as North Carolina State University’s SCALE-UP, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology's (MIT's) TEAL, and the University of Minnesota’s PAIR-UP have
consistently shown positive student outcomes in comparative studies (Beichner et al., 2007;
Brooks, 2012; Dori & Belcher, 2005). Encouraged by positive outcomes, an increasing number
of higher education institutions have adopted a large active learning classroom model (Beichner
& Cevetello, 2013). This trend of redesigning learning spaces to better support active learning
approaches is predicted to continue, according the 2015 NMC Horizon Report (L. Johnson,
Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2015).
In response to similar curricular and instructional needs at a Midwestern university, a
large, technology-enhanced active learning space has been built as an alternative to a traditional
lecture hall. This space was originally a swimming pool and then later a map library, before
being renovated as a large active learning space, called Collaborative Learning Studio (CLS, see
Figure 1).

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 3
Figure 1. Swimming pool (left) to collaborative learning classroom (right)
This study investigates the instructional components and classroom activities that support
active learning, and how spatial and technological features of the CLS reflect design and
implementation processes based on the Pedagogy-Space-Technology framework (Radcliffe,
2008).
The PST Framework
The Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) framework has been developed for the design
and evaluation of active learning spaces in order to help stakeholders critically and holistically
consider the three aspects and their interactions (Radcliffe, 2008). The PST framework provides
an inquiry-driven process to ensure stakeholders take a balanced approach grounded in pedagogy
by asking questions related to types of learning and teaching in the space; space design,
furnishings, and effective utilization of the space; and technology integration and its
effectiveness. The three components are interrelated, as illustrated in Figure 2. Technology
extends space and enhances pedagogy. Space that embeds technology encourages certain
pedagogy. Pedagogy is enabled by space and enlarged by technology.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 4
Figure 2. The PST framework (adopted from Radcliffe, 2008, p.13)
Active learning spaces are intended to support collaborative, active, learner-centered
pedagogical approaches that are theoretically based on social constructivism–theories that
emphasize meaningful social interaction as key to knowledge construction (Dillenbourg, 1999;
Littleton & Häkkinen, 1999; Palincsar, 1998). Related learning approaches include cooperative
learning (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009), team-based learning (Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink,
2002), collaborative problem-based learning (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980; Hmelo-Silver, 2004;
Savery, 2006), and collaborative project-based learning (Bell, 2010; Blumenfeld et al., 1991).
The term active learning, as used in this article, refers to the wide range of instructional
approaches that actively engage learners in the learning process rather than having them
passively receive information from their instructors (Prince, 2004). In active learning, student
collaboration, cooperation, or discussion at the very minimum plays a central role in the learning
process–which is why the term collaborative learning is often used to refer to active learning
approaches (Prince, 2004).
From the perspective of classroom design, collaborative learning involves two types of
classroom activities: 1) small group or within group discussion, and 2) class-wide, cross-groups
discussion. That is, instructors not only engage students in small group discussion but also ask
students to share what they have learned with the entire class, provide feedback and encourage

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 5
other students to give feedback, or compare and contrast different groups’ processes and
outcomes. For this reason, design decisions regarding space configuration and technology
selection should be based on effectively and efficiently supporting these activities. Therefore, we
examine to what extent space configuration and hardware technologies in four widely known
enlarged active learning classroom models facilitate these two classroom activities.
Active Learning Classroom Models
In this section, we briefly review four widely known and actively researched active
learning classroom models that replaced traditional lecture halls: North Carolina State
University’s SCALE-UP, MIT’s TEAL, the University of Minnesota’s PAIR-UP, and the
University of Iowa’s TILE.
Although active learning has been around for a long time, the development of active
learning spaces in higher education has generally moved from science, technology, engineering,
and math (STEM) courses to multiple disciplines, and from very structured course redesigns to
broadly supporting multiple disciplines and instructional approaches. The most widely-adopted
and well-known active classroom model in higher education is SCALE-UP (Student-Centered
Active Learning Environment with Upside-down Pedagogies), developed at North Carolina State
University in the mid-1990’s (Beichner, 2014), which was originally focused on physics
instruction and later expanded to other disciplines. Adopted by more than 150 institutions
worldwide, the model reflects a flipped classroom pedagogy where students engage with the
learning material and take quizzes before coming to class, and perform hands-on collaborative
learning activities in class (Beichner, 2014; Beichner et al., 2007). SCALE-UP helps instructors
integrate experiments into courses in a studio-type physical learning space, where students can
carry out labs in small groups while being coached (Beichner et al., 2007).

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 6
In an effort to improve attendance and failure rates in first year physics classes at MIT,
the TEAL (Technology-Enhanced Active Learning) project team adopted the SCALE-UP model
for large introductory courses. TEAL combines mini lectures, simulations, and hands-on desktop
experiments in a collaborative learning format (MIT iCampus, n.d.). For desktop experiments,
data is linked to student laptops where it can be visualized and simulated (Dori et al., 2003).
Based on the SCALE-UP and TEAL models, the University of Minnesota’s PAIR-UP
(Pedagogy-rich; Assess learning impact; Integrate innovations; Revisit emerging technologies)
model takes an interdisciplinary approach to designing flexible classrooms that facilitate
collaborative student-centered learning approaches (Whiteside, Jorn, Duin, & Fitzgerald, 2009).
The PAIR-UP initiative’s active learning classrooms are designed with the expectation of
students bringing and using their own computing devices (Whiteside et al., 2009).
Built on the SCALE-UP model, the University of Iowa's TILE (Transform, Interact,
Learn, Engage) initiative is an effort to transform teaching practices through faculty engagement
in pedagogical changes to inquiry-guided learning, peer instruction, and in-class, team-based
learning (Florman, 2014; TILE: Transform, n.d.). The initiative takes a unique approach to
expansion, providing pedagogical training for faculty members who will be developing new
TILE courses and teaching them in the TILE classrooms (Florman, 2014; Van Horne, Murniati,
Gaffney, & Jesse, 2012). Table 1 summarizes spatial and technological features of the major
collaborative learning classrooms.
Table 1. Spatial and Technological Features of Large Collaborative Learning Classrooms
Learning model
Classroom activity
Space
Technology
SCALE-UP
Small group discussion
Seven-foot round
tables that seat
nine students
Three laptops per table
Ceiling-mounted projectors
Portable group white boards
Wall-mounted whiteboards

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 7
Previous Research and Knowledge Gaps
The majority of the research that has been conducted has focused on student learning
outcomes, engagement and perceptions of the learning spaces, and classroom activities.
Consistently, students taught in active learning spaces have outperformed peers taught in
Class-wide discussion
Instructor’s
station at the
center
Wireless microphone
Celling-mounted projectors
Document viewer
TEAL
Small group discussion
13 round tables
that seat nine
students
Three laptops per table
13 whiteboards
Eight screens on the wall
Class-wide discussion
Instructor’s
station at the
center
Instructor’s display
8 wall projectors/screens
Personal response
system
PAI R -UP
Small group discussion
Round tables that
seat nine students
Individual laptops
Wall-mounted display
technologies for students
Class-wide discussion
Instructor’s
station at the
center
Instructor’s display
Wireless microphones
Wall-mounted display
technologies for students
Signal lamp at tables
TILE
Small group discussion
Round tables that
seat nine students
Three laptops per table
Nine wall-mounted LED
monitors
Wall-mounted white boards
Class-wide discussion
Instructor’s
station at the
center
Instructor’s desktop,
display, whiteboard, and
wireless mouse
Nine wall-mounted LED
monitors

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 8
traditional lecture-hall settings and showed positive attitudes and engagement according to
student performance data (Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014; Beichner et al., 2007; Brooks,
2011; Dori & Belcher, 2005; Van Horne, Murniati, & Saichaie, 2012; Walker, Brooks, & Baepler,
2011; Whiteside, Brooks, & Walker, 2010).
Nevertheless, there is paucity of systematic research that informs design and development
of large active learning classrooms. More specifically, there is limited research on how and how
well spatial and technological features of those spaces support various classroom activities.
Previous research indicates that, although those spaces were designed to facilitate small group
activities, lecture and class-wide discussion were regularly performed. However, some
incompatibility issues with these two activities were reported (Brooks, 2012; Van Horne et al.,
2014; Walker et al., 2011). In this study, our research questions are: 1) what types of
instructional components or class activities support active learning (including what a typical
class day looks like in the CLS), and 2) how technology and space configuration of the CLS
supports each instructional component.
Methods
Context - Collaborative Learning Studio (CLS)
This study was conducted in fall 2013, when the CLS opened. Eleven undergraduate level
courses were taught by a total of 10 faculty members (one taught two courses during the fall
semester). Five faculty members personally requested the room through their departments, and
departments or the Registrar assigned the other five to the room. Because the CLS was created
out of the needs of the departments of anthropology and geography, priority scheduling was
given to them. After satisfying their requests, the Registrar filled additional open class times
based on other departments’ needs for technology as well as room size and characteristics.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 9
The courses taught in the CLS were 100 through 300 levels in disciplines including
anthropology, arts and sciences, geography, sociology, and public health. Most classes met twice
a week for 75 minutes, except one class which met once a week for three hours and another class
which met three times a week for 50 minutes. Student enrollments ranged from 26 to 86, with an
average of 50. Faculty scheduled to teach in the CLS received training on the technologies from
the campus teaching center. Instructors could also request one-on-one consultations about how to
design a course that incorporates active learning approaches and how to better utilize room
features to support those approaches.
The CLS is a large technology-enhanced active learning classroom space that was
designed to facilitate active learning approaches in large classes. The CLS, takes advantage of
state-of-the-art technologies to provide rich learning experiences for students in multiple
disciplines. While some early active learning classroom projects were focused on supporting
course redesigns in specific disciplines—namely physics for SCALE-UP and TEAL—the CLS
was meant to be a space that could support a variety of active learning approaches across a
variety of disciplines.
Figure 3 shows the layout of the CLS with technological features. The CLS has two
levels: lower and upper classroom. There are a total of 16 student tables (10 on the lower level
and six on the upper level) with 6 chairs, a desktop computer, and two microphones at each table.
The unique feature of this room is a 20-foot wide video wall in the front of the room in the lower
classroom area, which was added to better facilitate class-wide and cross-group discussion.
The 16 panels of the video wall can simultaneously display the 16 student monitors using
a gallery view. The video wall also accommodates the display of one large view or a quad view
of four sources either from student monitors, desktop computers, laptop, or the document camera

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 10
at the instructor’s main station. Instructors can use their display control panels to select what to
display, how to display (gallery view, quad view, or one large view), and where to display (the
video wall, two projector screens, or student monitors). There are two control panels: one
located on the lower classroom level near the instructor’s station and the other located on the
upper classroom area. Table 2 summarizes spatial and technological features of the CLS.
After the first semester of operation, the following technologies were added in fall 2014
in response to faculty’s feedback. At the student tables, document cameras, portable white
boards, and speakers were added. Instructor’s wireless microphone was provided to allow the
instructor to move freely in the CLS.
Figure 3. Instructor's locations in the CLS

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 11
Table 2. Spatial and Technological Features of the CLS
Classroom activities
Space
Technology
Small group discussion
16 U-shaped tables that seat 6
students
Each student table contains:
One desktop
One LED monitor
Connections for three laptops
One document camera
One portable whiteboard
Class-wide discussion
Instructor’s stations in the
front corner and the center
Video wall
Two control panels
Two wall-mounted projectors/screens
Speaker and two push-to-talk
microphones at student tables
Instructor’s desktop and controls
Instructor’s wireless microphone
Study Design
In order to capture qualitative and quantitative dimensions of what was happening in the
CLS, we chose to deploy and combine multiple forms of data collection in a convergent parallel
mixed methods design (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2007), validating findings through triangulating
data from multiple sources (B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). We collected data from faculty
and students who used the CLS in fall 2013 regarding their teaching and learning experiences.
Additionally, we conducted another survey in fall 2015 (fall 2015 survey) with faculty members
who taught in the CLS in the fall and spring semesters of the following academic year. The
purpose of this survey was to examine how often they used technologies that were added in fall
2014 as well as to ask additional questions about other technologies including the video wall.
Data Collection
In fall 2013, we collected data through: 1) one-on-one semi-structured interviews with
four faculty users of the CLS, 2) two focus group interviews with a total of 11 students, 3) online
faculty survey, 4) online student survey, and 5) nine syllabi for courses taught in the CLS.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 12
Additionally, we sent another survey to faculty. Interview questions and survey items were
developed to capture their uses and perceptions of the space and technology in classroom
activities. Learning or student performance data was not collected given the purpose of the study.
The authors and another researcher developed the questions together and went through several
iterations of revision of the items. Table 3 presents data sources, number of responses, and
representation of the courses taught in the CLS in fall 2013. In fall 2015 survey, 10 out of 19
faculty members responded after teaching in the CLS in the academic year of 2014-2015.
Table 3. Data Sources, Number of Responses, and Representation of the Fall 2013 Courses
Discipline
Level
Faculty
Interview
Faculty
Survey
Student
Focus
Group
Student
Survey
Syllabus
Anthropology
100
1
Anonymous**
1*
4
1
Anthropology
200
1
1
Arts and Sciences
100
1
Geography
100
1
1
Geography
200
1
3
1
Geography
200
1
1
Sociology
200
Sociology
300
1
Public Health
100
3
1
Public Health
200
6*
17
1
Public Health
300
1
15
1
Total
11
4
9
11
40
9
Note: * A student who was enrolled in two courses taught in the CLS was counted for both
courses. **Identifiers were not collected in the faculty survey.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 13
Faculty interviews
Interviews with faculty aimed to capture information about teaching experience, implicit
and explicit collaborative learning pedagogy, the use of the space and technology of the CLS for
collaborative learning, and expectations and concerns related to use of the CLS. Faculty one-on-
one interviews were semi structured. Questions include how they implement collaborative
learning in the space, what were the most successful and the least enjoyable teaching
experiences, how they perceive usefulness of the space and technologies, whether they have
concerns or reservations about using the space, and what improvements can be made. See
Appendix A for the full interview questions. Four faculty members were interviewed (3 women
and 1 man).
Faculty online survey
The faculty online survey aimed to capture information about overall teaching
experiences in the CLS. There were seven questions. Two were close-ended questions asking 1)
whether the room was personally requested and 2) how many semesters they taught in the CLS.
The remaining five questions were open-ended and asked what they do differently in the CLS,
how teaching experience in the CLS affected their pedagogy, changes in student attitudes or
behaviors, and what they liked and found challenging about the space. See Appendix B for the
full survey items. The anonymous online survey was distributed toward the end of the semester,
and nine faculty members responded out of 10.
Student focus groups
Focus groups aimed to capture overall student learning experiences in the CLS, their
attitudes toward collaborative learning, and perceptions of the space and technology in relation to
collaborative learning. Focus group interviews were semi structured. Questions include what a

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 14
typical day is like in the CLS, how the instructor uses the space and technology, how they
perceive effectiveness and value of collaborative learning, what are their likes and dislikes about
the space and technology. See Appendix C for the full focus group interview questions. Faculty
members were asked to distribute the invitation to their students. Eighty-four students
volunteered, and 11 from five different courses were randomly selected based on their
availability during the times when the CLS was open. Two focus group interviews took place
with five and six students each in the CLS (9 women and 2 men).
Student online survey
The student online survey also aimed to capture information about overall learning
experiences in the CLS. There were 8 questions. Five closed-ended questions include frequency
of technology use in the CLS (used every class meeting, occasionally used, rarely used, and
never used), appeal of the technological and spatial features of the CLS, and helpfulness of the
video wall and group activities in their learning (a great deal, somewhat helpful, and not at all
helpful). Three open-ended questions include which activities worked best in the CLS, which
activities worked least well in the CLS, and how the room helped or hindered learning. See
Appendix D for the full items. The faculty members were asked to distribute the survey link to
their students near the end of the semester. This survey was anonymous except for a course
identifier, and 40 students from five courses responded.
Syllabi
Nine faculty members provided course syllabi for the fall semester. The syllabi provided
a better understanding of course objectives, class structure and activities, course schedule, and
assessment structure.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 15
Fall 2015 faculty survey
The additional fall 2015 faculty survey aimed to capture frequency of usage of the added
technologies as well as specific uses of the video wall. The survey was comprised of 12
questions. We asked how often they used added technologies such as document cameras,
microphones, portable white boards, speakers, and instructor’s wireless microphone.
Additionally, we asked how often they used the push capability of the video wall and how
frequently each view of the video wall was used in displaying lecture materials, comparing
student work, monitoring student work, and displaying a combination of instructor and student
materials (used every class meeting, once every few class periods, a few times during the
semester, and never used). We also asked about their perception of video wall effectiveness for
class-wide discussion and monitoring student group work (very effective, somewhat effective,
somewhat ineffective, very ineffective) with an option of not used for the purpose. See Appendix
E for the full survey items. The survey was distributed to 19 faculty members who taught in the
CLS during the 2014-2015 academic year.
Data Analysis
The PST framework structured our analysis of qualitative and quantitative data.
Qualitative data included faculty interview data, student focus group data, syllabi, and responses
to open-ended questions in the three surveys. Quantitative data include responses to closed-
ended questions in the survey. Our analysis centered on the qualitative data, especially
recordings and transcriptions of the faculty interview and student focus group data. Then, we
analyzed the quantitative data using descriptive statistics and histograms. There were four phases
of data analysis: 1) initial review of each dataset and organization of the qualitative data based on
the PST framework, 2) identification of codes and coding the qualitative data, and 3) inter-rater

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 16
reliability check, and 4) combination of the results of analyzing the entire datasets (including the
quantitative data from the surveys) to support emerging themes.
1. Initial review and organization based on the PST framework
Initial review of the data included segmenting based on a central meaning of accounts,
annotating each segment with a summary of the central meaning, and organizing the segments
based on the PST framework. Segments refer to one or more phrases or sentences that contain
one central meaning of accounts., 201 segments were identified. From the PST framework, we
identified the following categories: 1) Pedagogy, 2) Space, 3) Technology, 4) Interaction between
Pedagogy and Space, 5) Interaction between Pedagogy and Technology, 6) Interaction between
Space and Technology, and 7) Interaction among the three.
2. Coding and reorganization
The second phase entailed identifying codes and coding the data based on the seven
categories. For each category, appropriate codes of the category were given. For example, if
Pedagogy-Space was selected for a segment, the researchers needed to select codes from
Pedagogy and Space. The coding scheme was progressively developed.
3. Inter-rater reliability check
Around 10% of the 201 segments, 21 segments of qualitative data were purposively
selected to check for inter-rater reliability. These segments were selected based on their
significance to the study as containing central themes of the study findings. See the segments in
Appendix F. There were two rounds of coding: 1) deciding among the seven categories based on
the PST framework, and 2) deciding on codes under each category of PST. For both rounds, each
of the three researchers coded the segments individually and the codes were combined and
compared.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 17
At the first round, out of 21 coded segments, the three researchers agreed on 11 segments,
two of them agreed on 8 segments, and none of us agreed on 2 segments. The researchers
discussed the disagreed segments until reaching consensus on all of them. As a result, a couple of
changes were made to the coding scheme during the process: 1) adding the group presentation
component to the code, class-wide discussion in Pedagogy, and 2) creating another code, lighting
to Space.
The researchers performed another round of coding based on the agreed PST categories.
This time, the researchers were supposed to decide on a set of codes for each category. For
example, if Pedagogy-Space was selected for a segment, the researchers needed to select codes
from Pedagogy and Space. So, one segment was given multiple codes. Out of total of 42 codes,
at least two of the researchers agreed on all. There were 28 codes that all three agreed on. The
researchers discussed until reaching consensus. As a result, one change was made to the coding
scheme: adding instructor-led reflection on group activities to the code, class-wide discussion in
Pedagogy.
Approximately 78% of the qualitative data was categorized based on the PST framework.
The data excluded contained introductions of the study purpose, the interviewer, and focus group
participants, the interviewer’s clarifying questions, and unrelated conversations. Of the 78%,
24% of the elements were categorized as Pedagogy – Technology, and 20% were categorized as
Pedagogy-Space. Table 4 shows all of the category percentages.
Table 4. Coding Matrix
Category
# of Segments
Percentage
Pedagogy
39
19%
Technology
12
6%
Space
17
8%

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 18
Pedagogy - Space
40
20%
Pedagogy-Technology
49
24%
Space-Technology
16
8%
Pedagogy - Space - Technology
29
14%
Total
202
100%
4. Combination of the data analysis results of the entire datasets
The final phase entailed combining the analysis results of the quantitative data into the
analysis results of the qualitative data, which helped us triangulate the data. Survey questions
related to each sub theme were incorporated in order to generate a rich story and valid claims.
The syllabi were analyzed based on course activities, assessment structure, and course schedule
to supplement the other data.
Final coding scheme
A coding scheme was developed and refined progressively during the data analysis, as a
new code needs to be added. All of the codes were straightforward as they refer to specific
objects. Table 5 presents the codes and corresponding definitions.
Table 5. Definitions of Codes
Category
Code
Definition
Pedagogy
Lecture
One way or interactive lecture by instructor
Group activity
Small group activities or discussion among students
Class-wide discussion
Class-wide, cross-group discussion led by instructor
or students, group presentation, and instructor-led
reflection on group activities performed
Individual activity
Individual instructional activity
Movie
Movie or other audio-visual presentation
Space
Spatial configuration
Arrangement of furniture and technologies
Student table
U-shaped student tables
Movable chair
Wheeled student chairs around tables
Main station
Instructor station in front right corner of CLS, with
desktop and a main display control panel
Center
Center of the room between the two levels, with
additional control panel

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 19
Lighting
Natural lighting from windows
Technology
Video wall
Video wall in front of CLS that can be viewed as one
large view, quad view, and 16 panel view
Main control panel
Panel in the main station for control of displays
Center control panel
Another control panel in the center of the CLS
Push capability
The capability to push instructor desktop to student
monitors or bring student desktop displays to the
video wall or other displays in the room
Displays
Video wall, two projector screens, and 16 student
monitors
Instructor desktop
Instructor’s desktop in the main station.
Instructor microphone
Wireless instructor microphone
Instructor document
camera
Instructor’s document camera in the main station
Student desktop
Student desktops on the student tables
Student monitor
Monitors connected to student desktops on the
student tables
Student microphone
Push-to-talk microphones on the student tables
Student document
camera
Document cameras on the student tables
Results
This results section is organized based on the PST framework. Our discussion starts from
pedagogy entailing instructional activities on a typical class day and continues how each
instructional activity is supported by technology and spatial configuration of the CLS.
Pedagogy: Instructional Activities
Four collaborative learning patterns were identified in the 10 courses the collected data
represent. Half of the courses had short lectures and group activities followed by class-wide
discussion across groups. The rest had lecture and group activities with or without using
computers. Table 6 summarizes the instructional flow and course structure in the CLS.
Table 6. Instructional Flow in the CLS
Instructional flow
# of Courses
Lecture – group activities – class-wide discussion
5
Lecture – group activities almost daily
3
Lecture – group activities once in a while
1

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 20
Group activities – class-wide discussion
1
Lecture
In most of the courses, even where collaborative learning was prevalent, lecture was an
essential instructional component. Instructors stated during the interviews that they used lecture
to communicate main ideas clearly before and after group activities, framed learning content for
students, and invited guest lecturers whose work was important for students to learn.
Group activities
Every course had group activities at varying frequencies. In the faculty survey, eight of
10 respondents shared that they incorporated more group activities into class than before. Group
activities varied among courses. One geography course used a textbook with computer-based
group activities that students completed at the end of each chapter. In another course, group
activities were structured based on a specialized geographic software program. In an
anthropology course, computers were used to collect and analyze data, find resources, and write
a group report. Non computer-based group activities included group discussion based on
discussion points or questions provided by instructors, paper-based group activities, and physical
group activities where students moved around. Some group activities were daily and others
lasted for several weeks.
Class-wide discussion
Class-wide discussions frequently began with a group presentation, followed by
instructor or student comments. By collecting outputs from each group and combining the
results, the class could compare one group’s output with another, or connect group activities to
the lecture through instructor or student comments. Class-wide discussion was an important
component of collaborative learning, where students could reflect on their own group activities

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 21
and connect their group work to the course content. Three students from two courses with no
such component stated they were unsure what they learned from group activities or how group
work related to course content.
Best and least ranked learning activities
Table 7 presents learning activities that worked best and least well in the CLS and the
reported rationale for the responses according to the student survey. A total of 29 students
responded to the corresponding survey questions, and 23 mentioned group activities as working
best, while 11 students reported lecture as working least well. For the best activities, all of the
comments related to technology in the room. On the other hand, the rationale for the activities
that worked least well was complicated by factors like pedagogy, space, and technology.
Table 7. Learning Activities that Worked Best and Least Well as Reported by Students
Pedagogy
Technological and Spatial Features
Learning activities
Worked best
Worked least well
Lecture
n=7
• Student monitors (4)
• Video wall (3)
n=11
• Too many screens (2)
• Distracting (2)
• Can’t see instructor (1)
Group activities
n=23
• Student desktops (9)
• Push capability (1)
n=1
• Being forced to do group
work (1)
Class-wide
discussion
n=5
• Push capability (3)
• Student microphone (1)
n=3
• Hard to hear and can’t tell
who was talking (1)
• Being able to interact with
everyone (1)
Individual work
n=0
n=5
• Hard for the instructor to
be on a personal level (1)
• Not a proper space for
individual work (1)
Note: N = number of students

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 22
Table 8 presents faculty reporting of effective room features and challenges to teaching in
the room. Nine faculty members responded, with most positive comments about effective room
features for group activities. Comments about challenges were mostly related to lecture.
Table 8. Effective Room Features and Challenges to Teaching Reported from the Faculty Survey
Learning activities
Effective room features
Challenges to teaching
Lecture
Multiple image capability (1)
Need a pointer technology (1)
Need a secondary instructor desktop in
the center of the room (1)
No place to see everyone (1)
Group activities
Student tables (6)
Student monitors (2)
Movable chairs (2)
Student desktop (1)
Need speakers at student tables (1)
Need technology that facilitates
students’ quick hand writing (1)
Class-wide
discussion
Push capability (2)
Student microphones (2)
Need technology that facilitates
sharing students’ handwritten notes (1)
Can’t spot students raising hands (1)
Note. (Number of faculty survey respondents).
Technology and Spatial Configurations for Lecture
Lecture was the activity that students and faculty reported as working least well. Of the
29 respondents, 23 chose lecture to be the least well supported activity, while seven chose lecture
to be the best supported one. All four faculty interviewees reported difficulty with lecturing in
the classroom. In the survey, one faculty member specifically mentioned that it was hard to do
lecture, and five others reported room incompatibility with lecture. In addition, two students in
the focus group said lecture-heavy classes might benefit more from being in a lecture hall.
Overall, the technology worked well for lecture, but there were some issues with the spatial
configuration of the room that made seeing and hearing lectures more difficult.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 23
Technology
The seven students who mentioned lecture as the best learning activity cited the various
display technologies in the CLS as a reason. The giant video wall enlarged lecture content for
student viewing, while the student monitors displayed the lecture material up close.
Video wall
According to the student survey, the video wall was used almost every class for
displaying lecture materials. The class means of the frequency question ranged from 3.7 to 4 with
4 being used every class. According to the fall 2015 faculty, all ten faculty respondents used one
large view every class, mentioning the video wall was particularly great for showing a Google
Earth tour, watching a movie, and close analysis of intricate work such as stitches in a textile. On
average, quad view was used once in a while. One instructor used quad view every class, while
three instructors used quad view once every few class periods. The 16-panel gallery view was
used much less frequently.
Some minor issues with the video wall included the laser pointer now showing on the video wall,
difficulty with diagramming, poor quality of projection on the video wall because of image
enlargement.
Nevertheless, one instructor mentioned that the capability to draw different materials and
display them made lecturing more effective, stating “I have used the multiple image capability to
show fresh plant material with the doc cam on the video wall, while a power point presentation is
on the student monitors.” Related to this, some faculty respondents (faculty survey, n=1; fall
2015 faculty survey n=3) noted they would utilize dual displays more than smaller views. One of
them specifically mentioned 16-panel view being too small, and a 2 x 4 configuration being more
optimal.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 24
Student monitors
The majority of faculty displayed lecture materials on student monitors. According to the
fall 2015 faculty survey, eight of 10 respondents did so every class and the other two once every
few class periods. Students expressed mixed feelings about it depending on which display they
preferred watching for the lecture material. Those preferred the video wall mentioned that having
too many student monitors in view was sometimes distracting during lecture especially when
students sat near the back of the CLS. On the other hand, some other students mentioned that it
was one of the best features of the room. A student who preferred watching presentations on the
student monitor, said “it’s definitely more vivid on the monitors themselves.” Also some students
suggested having dual displays to display lecture material and group work simultaneously on
their desktop monitors.
Wireless instructor microphone
A wireless microphone enabled the instructor to move freely in the room. Half of the
respondents used it every class, one a few times during the semester, and four never, according to
the fall 2015 faculty survey.
Spatial configuration
Spatial configuration was found to be not very compatible with lecturing. Because the
CLS was designed for small group activities, there was no central location for an instructor to
stand and lecture. In a lecture hall, the seats were gathered around the front of the room so
everyone faces the instructor. However, in the CLS, students gathered around group tables, and
the instructor walked around the tables. Consequently, there was no central place where the
instructor could see everyone and be the focal point of the classroom. Five instructors mentioned
this as a challenge. Two students reported another issue: Room technology was stationery and

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 25
instructors could not control it while moving around. In the end, the instructors ended up
lecturing from either 1) the front of the room where the main station and video wall were, or 2)
the center of the room in the upper level where the center control panel was located. The black
circles in Figure 3 show the locations. However, neither spot was perfectly compatible with
lecture.
The front
A major issue with the front as a lecture spot was sightline and distance from some
students. Obstructive monitors made it hard to capture students’ attention or spot raised hands.
With student monitors in the way to the front, students also found it difficult to concentrate on
the lecture (Student focus group, n=2), one saying “all the TVs having his Power Point up and it
is really distracting. I’m back there, so I see eight or nine”. In addition, four students also
mentioned it was hard to see their professors, who sometimes missed raised hands. Also, a
student sitting in the back could not see what the professor was pointing at in the video wall.
The center
The center of the room in the upper level served as another lecture spot. Using the center
control panel, the instructor could minimize the distance from students and have some level of
control over the display devices. However, two problems were identified. First, being away from
the main station with the instructor desktop and document camera posed a major challenge. The
instructors complained that they had to go to the main station in the front of the room to change
what was displayed or to show diagrams using the document camera. This disrupted the flow of
the class, and two students mentioned it made the situation awkward for both instructor and
students. To overcome this limitation, a teaching assistant at the main station controlled the
instructor desktop during lectures as verbally directed by the instructor. However a student

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 26
reported the verbal directions were distracting. Second, the instructors still had a problem of not
being able to see every student or be seen by every student despite of being in the center of the
room.
Technology and Spatial Configurations for Group Activities
Students and faculty rated group activities as working best in the room. Movable chairs
combined with student desktops and monitors in the U-shaped student tables facilitated group
activities – particularly computer-based group activities. Faculty interviewees appreciated the
positive team building experience, describing the room as “a classroom environment that
allowed for the teams to function as a unit interacting with other teams.”
Technology
Student desktop computers
Based on the student survey, desktop computers were the most frequently used
technology. Table 9 presents frequency of student computer use for group work. Forty students
from five courses reported using it every class or at least occasionally. Seventy-five percent
(n=30) of student survey respondents selected technology on the student tables as an appealing
room feature. Students and faculty found the desktops particularly useful for group activities
such as collaborative writing or analysis, or using domain-specific specialized software programs
(faculty interview, n=1; faculty survey, n=3; student survey, n=9). In implementing group
activities, two faculty interviewees commented that it was essential to have teaching assistants
help address technical issues and keep things moving. One mentioned needing a teaching
assistant for every four groups, and how peer instructors “serve a pivotal role there because
they’re safe in terms of asking questions…”

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 27
Table 9. Frequency of Use of Student Desktops for Group Work from the Student Survey
Discipline
Level
N
Mean
SD
Min
Max
Anthropology
100
4
3.8
0.5
3
4
Anthropology
200
1
3.0
n/a
3
3
Geology
200
3
3.7
0.6
3
4
Public Health
200
17
3.7
0.5
3
4
Public Health
300
15
3.7
0.5
3
4
Total
40
3.7
0.5
3
4
Note: 1: Never used, 2: Rarely used, 3: Occasionally used, 4: Used every class meeting
On the other hand, at times student desktops were not very helpful (faculty survey, n=2;
student focus group, n=1). A faculty interviewee mentioned potential distraction from face-to-
face interaction, and another mentioned incompatibility or inefficiency for group activities that
involved quick sketches. A student from a lecture-heavy course was disappointed at the instructor
underusing technology and not taking advantage of it for collaborative learning.
Video wall
Instructors preferred using the video wall to display one view followed by the quad view
which allows instructors to simultaneously show the work of up to four groups of students
according the fall 2015 faculty survey.
Half of the respondents said the video wall was somewhat yet not very effective for monitoring
group activities because: 1) some preferred visiting each group in person (n=5), 2) some were
not using computer-based group activities (n=3), 3) the 16 panel view was too small to see (n=1),
and 4) some did not want students to look at other groups’ answers (n=1).
Other technological needs
Other comments noted needing a teaching assistant to resolve technological issues
(faculty interview, n=1), technology to facilitate quick handwriting for math types or chemical
symbols (faculty survey, n=1), and speakers at student tables to analyze audio clips. To address

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 28
these needs, portable whiteboards and speakers were added to the student tables in fall 2014.
Based on fall 2015 survey responses, at least three faculty respondents used portable whiteboards
at least once every few class periods. This rate (3/10=30%) is higher than that for faculty from
the chemistry and mathematics departments (4/19=21%). Three respondents out of 10 used the
speakers at least once every few class periods (30%). This also exceeds use by the auditory
course (1/19=5%).
Spatial Configuration
Student tables
Students reported the most appealing feature of the room is group tables (n=33, 82.5%).
Students and faculty agreed that the tables made it easy to do group activities (focus group, n=6;
faculty interview, n=2; faculty survey n=6). A faculty member said:
The most important design element is the tables that break up a large class into many
smaller clusters. This personalizes the experience at an appropriate human scale and the
effect has been that students carry their engagement outside the classroom and talk to one
another about what they are learning.
Students also liked that the table provided plenty of workspace and room for everyone’s
textbooks, notebooks, and laptops (Student focus group, n=8) and that the U shape means
everyone is facing everyone else (Student focus group, n=2).
Other comments
Another appealing feature was comfortable movable chairs (Student survey, n=30, 75%;
Student focus group, n=1). Some students liked being able to swivel around and look at the
instructor (Student focus group, n=3). Two instructors liked movable chairs. However, one

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 29
student mentioned that there was not enough space for physical group activities where everyone
had to stand up and move around.
Technology and Spatial Configurations for Class-wide Discussion
Students and faculty had mixed feelings about how the room supported it. Most were
positive about technology such as the push capability and student microphones (Faculty
interview, n=3; Faculty survey, n=4; Student focus group, n=6; Student survey, n=4). However,
spatial configuration presented some issues with class-wide discussion (Faculty interview, n=3;
Faculty survey, n=1; Student focus group, n=5; Student survey, n=1).
Technology
Push capability and video wall
The most frequently mentioned technology for facilitating class-wide discussion was the
push capability. Seventy-three percent of student respondents chose it as an appealing feature
(n=29), and the five courses they represented used it occasionally as shown in Table 10. Three
instructors commented that push capability was most useful for class-wide discussion and that
multiple views of the video wall enabled them to see student work process and output in depth,
combining results or outputs from each group, and comparing group results side by side on the
video wall in the fall 2015 survey,. Six students noted that seeing the differences and similarities
among groups visually helped and facilitated their learning.
Table 10. Frequency of Use of Video Wall for Presenting Student Work
Discipline
Level
N
Mean
SD
Min
Max
Anthropology
100
4
3.5
0.6
3
4
Anthropology
200
1
3.0
n/a
3
3
Geology
200
3
3.3
0.6
3
4
Public Health
200
17
3.5
0.6
2
4
Public Health
300
14
3.1
0.5
2
4
Total
39
3.4
0.6
2
4

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 30
Note: 1: Never used, 2: Rarely used, 3: Occasionally used, 4: Used every class meeting
Eight out instructors thought the push capability was effective for comparing student
work for class-wide discussion. The respondents commented that it was an efficient way to
display student work (Fall 2015 survey, n=2); made it seamless to transition from one group to
another, maintaining the momentum of the discussion (n=1); and provided a way to check
student understanding, give immediate feedback, and build on the discussion (n=2).
The one view was most frequently used, the quad view nearly as frequently used, and the
16-panel view least used in comparing student work. Two respondents specifically mentioned the
16-panel view being too small to be legible from the back. A faculty interviewee preferred quad
view to 16-panel view because it was more readable during discussion. Two respondents
mentioned even the quad view was distracting, one preferring a dual view with 4 by 2
configuration of the video wall, which could make the displaying content larger than in the quad
view. Few instructors displayed a combination of instructor materials and student work. One
instructor wanted to simultaneously project student work and instructor material side by side.
Other technologies
Other technologies for facilitating class-wide discussion included student monitors,
student microphones, and document cameras in the student tables. About student monitors, some
students suggested having a split screen display or dual monitors to display their own group
work and the instructor’s input (Student focus group, n=2). Student microphones were used at
least a few times during the semester. Student document cameras were rarely used.
Spatial Configuration
Class-wide discussions shared the same incompatibility issues as lectures. There was no
centralized place where everyone could see the instructor, and where the instructor could have

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 31
full control over the technologies. As one faculty interviewee pointed out, “discussion was
disembodied because students could not see the person talking.” Some also said this was
annoying (Student focus group, n=5), and one of the three students who picked class-wide
discussion as working least well stated this as the reason. One student suggested having a
signaling lamp at each table to indicate where the speaker is.
Other Comments about Space and Technology
Students found spaciousness of the room and natural light from windows appealing
(Student survey, n=32, 80%; n=24, 60%, respectively). The large space made students feel
comfortable and relaxed, especially with heavy technology in the room (Student focus group,
n=4). However, students sitting in the corner felt disconnected and distracted (Student focus
group, n=3), which was alleviated by their instructor walking around to check on them (Student
focus group, n=1). Some students also said the abundant natural light from windows helped them
stay alert and made the class enjoyable (Student focus group, n=4). However, poor air circulation
meant the space heated up when many people were there and took a while to cool down (Faculty
interview n=2, Student focus group n=3).
Student Learning Experiences
Generally, students perceived the CLS to be helpful in their learning (Student survey,
n=25), but some students felt it hindered their learning (Student survey, n=7). Those who
perceived it to be helpful commented that discussing learning content with other students and
asking questions helped them learn better (Student survey, n=14; Student focus group, n=5).
They also liked that the video wall provided visual aids for their learning (Student survey, n=10),
especially when viewing other groups’ work side by side (Student survey, n=4). In addition,
some students said they enjoyed having a different classroom set up and instructional approaches

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 32
in the CLS (Student focus group, n=3). One said, “I think it’s a nice little getaway …because all
my other classes it’s just a big lecture auditorium or just a regular classroom, so this is really
different compared to anything else I’ve been in.”
Three major reasons students perceived the CLS hindering their learning follow. First, the
room was too large for them to connect with their instructor or students in different groups
(Student survey, n=7). These students came from classes with enrollment of 36 to 86. Second,
some students struggled to see how group activities pertained to learning content (Student focus
group, n=1) or did not have regular class-wide discussions for reflecting on or connecting group
activities to learning objectives (Student focus group, n=3). Third, students who were in lecture
only classes felt disappointed and thought it was waste of classroom resources (Student focus
group, n=2).
Students also liked when everyone contributed to group activities (Student focus group,
n=1), and when group activities did not extend outside the classroom (Student focus group, n=1).
They did not like group activities when everyone did not participate equally (Student focus
group, n=3). There were more students who liked to stay in the same group (Student focus group,
n=6) than those who preferred switching groups (Student focus group n=2). Those who liked to
stay noted the group process became more efficient as they got to know each other and built
closer relationships that extended outside the classroom. On the other hand, students who
preferred switching groups said they did not want to be stuck with people who did not
participate, or they wanted to make more friends or hear various perspectives.
Limitations
This study bears some limitations. First, most of the data are self-reported data. It is
possible that there was some discrepancy between what participants reported and what they

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 33
actually thought or did. Conducting direct observations of classes in session would have
alleviated this problem. Also, direct observations may have yielded richer data on how the CLS
was used and what instructional activities took place.
Second, although the faculty members were well represented, the students’ response rate
was low and several of the courses were not represented. Four courses out of 11 were not
represented, and two disciplines that were not represented were 1) arts and science and 2)
sociology. It should be noted that the findings do not represent students’ perspectives from the
courses in the disciplines.
Implications
The study provides a detailed qualitative description of how active learning was
implemented in large undergraduate classes, and how technology and space supported it based
on the PST framework. The findings of the study contribute to active classroom design and
implementation.
Most active learning classrooms are designed primarily to facilitate small group activities
and do not take lecture or class-wide discussion into consideration. However, a closer look at
typical class activities–and the essential roles lecture and discussion play–emphasizes the
importance of flexibility in classroom design. Most classes include some lecture to communicate
main ideas and structure learning content, as well as small group activities and class-wide
discussion to consolidate results and instructor feedback. The presence of these instructional
components aligns with previous research findings for other active learning classroom models
(Brooks, 2012; Van Horne et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2011). Our findings are consistent with
previous studies while also pointing out the challenges of class-wide discussion and lecture in
large active learning spaces.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 34
Overall, room technologies like the video wall and student desktops were perceived to be
useful for lecture and class-wide discussion. Students and instructors found it particularly helpful
to display multiple sources at a time on the video wall, although they thought an effective pointer
would add value. Faculty and students wanted a dual display for comparing two sources in larger
views on the video wall and student desktops.
The current space configuration posed some challenges for lecture and class-wide
discussion, mainly with respect to line of sight. Our research findings suggest that a centralized
station is essential to allowing an instructor to capture every student’s attention and provide
control and access to classroom displays including the document camera. A faculty member
suggested having movable desks or a space in the center of the room to let students face
instructors or guest lecturers, or provide some means for lowering student monitors to secure a
clearer view.
Also, mobile technologies would help free up instructors and allow them to engage class
in class-wide discussion from anywhere in the room. For example, a wireless mouse or keyboard
would provide more control over the instructor desktop as implemented in large TILE
classrooms (TILE: Transform, n.d.). A mobile application such as Doceri would support
increased instructor mobility during lecture or discussion by enabling desktop control and white
boarding at a distance.
To facilitate class-wide discussion, students had several suggestions such as having
personal or team response systems, setting up signaling lamps at student tables, and having split
or dual monitors. Personal or team response systems used in TEAL classrooms can
instantaneously collect and display students responses (MIT iCampus, n.d.). Signaling lamps at
student tables implemented in PAIR-UP’s ALC may help students locate the speaker, preventing

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 35
the discussion from being disembodied, or help instructors spot students who want to speak
(Office of Classroom Management of the University of Minnesota, n.d.). Having split monitors
or dual monitors lets students simultaneously view their own group work and instructor
materials, as shown at Michigan State University (Lee, Boatman, Jowett, & Guenther, 2014).
In addition, ongoing pedagogical and technological support is needed for successful
implementation that maximizes use of the space. Two instructors mentioned that one-on-one
consultation sessions at CITL were helpful. One suggested having online pedagogical resources
to consult instead of having to physically visit CITL during a busy semester. All faculty
interviewees unanimously agreed that having teaching assistants was critical in running large
classes with active learning approaches. Assistants can answer student questions, facilitate group
discussion, help with spotting students who raise their hands, and controlling technology in the
main instructor’s station.
All faculty interviewees indicated that it took some time for them to get used to in-room
technologies, and the one-hour training at the beginning of the semester was insufficient. They
wanted to have enough time to explore the technologies before and during the semester to figure
out how to implement new pedagogical approaches. They especially wanted to figure out how to
maximally utilize the video wall and push capabilities. Some students also mentioned that
instructor technological knowledge helped with running classes smoothly (Student focus group,
n=4). In addition, timely technical assistance and troubleshooting were important. According to
some students, if a technical issue was not fixed in time, instructors ended up doing something
else and losing momentum (Student focus group, n=2). Lastly, some faculty wanted more
concrete ideas of how in-room technologies and software applications can be effectively

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 36
integrated into classrooms (Faculty interview, n=1; Faculty fall 2015 survey, n=1). Table 11
summarizes feedback.
Table 11. Design Suggestions and Implementation Implications
Design Suggestions
Implementation Implications
Flexible spatial configurations for lecture &
class-wide discussion
• Centralized instructor’s station in a
half circle configuration
• Movable desks & a center space to
gather around
• Monitors that can retract into tables
• Mobile technologies that free up
instructors and enable whiteboarding
Video wall
• Dual display
• Pointer technology
Student tables
• Signaling lamps
• Dual monitors
Ongoing pedagogical & technological support
• Online pedagogical resources and
ideas
• How to implement the ideas using the
technologies
• Time to explore the technologies
Teaching assistants
• Spotting students raising hands
• Consulting with small groups
• Controlling instructor’s desktop, etc.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 37
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Ian Arthur for his assistance in conducting the student focus groups
and some of the faculty interviews and Sarah Engel for her helpful comments on an earlier
version of this manuscript.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 38
References
Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It's not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and
efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227-236.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006
Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical
education. New York: Springer.
Beichner, R. J. (2014). History and evolution of active learning spaces. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 9-16. doi:10.1002/tl.20081
Beichner, R. J., & Cevetello, J. (2013). 7 things you should know about collaborative learning
spaces. Educause Learning Initiative(January 2013). Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/7-things-you-should-know-about-
collaborative-learning-spaces
Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R. J., . . . Risley, J. S.
(2007). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs
(SCALE-UP) project. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 1(1), 2-39.
Retrieved from http://www.percentral.com/PER/per_reviews/media/volume1/SCALE-
UP-2007.pdf
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. Clearing House,
83(2), 39-43. doi:10.1080/00098650903505415
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991).
Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning.
Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398.
Brooks, D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 719-726. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2010.01098.x
Brooks, D. C. (2012). Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning spaces
on instructor and student behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2), 1-10. Retrieved
from http://www.partnershipsjournal.org/index.php/jls/article/viewArticle/285
Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.),
Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford:
Elsevier.
Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect
undergraduate students' understanding of electromagnetism concepts? Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_3
Dori, Y. J., Belcher, J., Bessette, M., Danziger, M., McKinney, A., & Hult, E. (2003). Technology
for active learning. Materials Today, 6(12), 44-49. Retrieved from
http://web.mit.edu/edtech/casestudies/pdf/teal2.pdf
Florman, J. C. (2014). TILE at Iowa: Adoption and adaptation. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 2014(137), 77-84. doi:10.1002/tl.20088
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth,
M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and
mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 39
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?
Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
Johnson, B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose
time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social
interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-
379. doi:doi: 10.3102/0013189X09339057
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). The NMC horizon report:
2015 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Lee, Y., Boatman, E., Jowett, S., & Guenther, B. (2014). REAL: The technology-enabled,
engaged, and active learning classroom. International Journal of Designs for Learning,
5(1), 57-67. Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/article/view/4020
Littleton, K., & Häkkinen, P. (1999). Learning together: Understanding the processes of
computer based collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning:
Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 20-30). Oxford: Elsevier.
Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2002). Team-based learning: A transformative
use of small groups. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
MIT iCampus. (n.d.). TEAL - Technology Enhanced Active Learning. Retrieved from
http://icampus.mit.edu/projects/teal/
Office of Classroom Managemnet of the University of Minnesota. (n.d.). Active learning
classrooms (ALC). Retrieved from
http://www.classroom.umn.edu/projects/ALCOverview.html
Palincsar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review
of Psychology, 49(1), 345-375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 223-231. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Radcliffe, D. (2008). A pedagogy-space-technology (PST) framework for designing and
evaluating learning places. Paper presented at the Next Generation Learning Spaces,
Brisbane, Austrailia.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinction.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.
TILE: Transform, I., Learn, Engage. (n.d.). TILE Technology. Retrieved from
http://tile.uiowa.edu/technology
Van Horne, S., Murniati, C., Gaffney, J. D., & Jesse, M. (2012). Promoting active learning in
technology-infused TILE classrooms at the University of Iowa. Journal of Learning
Spaces, 1(2). http://libjournal.uncg.edu/index.php/jls/article/viewArticle/344 Retrieved
from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/index.php/jls/article/viewArticle/344
Van Horne, S., Murniati, C., & Saichaie, K. (2012). Assessing teaching and learning in
technology-infused TILE classrooms at the University of Iowa. Educause Learning
Initiative. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/SEI1202.pdf
Van Horne, S., Murniati, C. T., Saichaie, K., Jesse, M., Florman, J. C., & Ingram, B. F. (2014).
Using qualitative research to assess teaching and learning in technology-infused TILE
classrooms. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 17-26.
doi:10.1002/tl.20082

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 40
Walker, J., Brooks, D. C., & Baepler, P. (2011). Pedagogy and space: Empirical research on new
learning environments. Educause Quarterly, 34(4). Retrieved from http://z.umn.edu/eq1
Whiteside, A. L., Brooks, D. C., & Walker, J. (2010). Making the case for space: Three years of
empirical research on learning environments. Educause Quarterly, 33(3), 11. Retrieved
from http://z.umn.edu/22m
Whiteside, A. L., Jorn, L., Duin, A. H., & Fitzgerald, S. (2009). Using the PAIR-up model to
evaluate active learning spaces. Educause Online Review. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/using-pair-model-evaluate-active-learning-spaces

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 41
Appendix A. Faculty Interview Questions
Semi-structured interview aimed at capturing instructor insights related to beginning of semester
themes following a semester of teaching in the CLS.
Possible questions and follow-ups
We would like to hear about your experiences teaching in the CSL this semester.
1. For the class you were teaching, what do you feel worked particularly well in (or about) the
room? OR Are there some success stories you can share with us about your teaching in the CSL
this semester?
a. What, specifically, about the room do you feel may have enhanced teaching and
learning?
b. Is there anything about the space that you think may have interfered with, or detracted
from, teaching and learning?
2. What kinds of problems did you run into over the course of the semester?
a. Were these problems able to be addressed/resolved to your satisfaction?
3. What were your impressions of student experiences in the space?
4. What kind of impacts do you think the space may have had on student learning?
a. Were there noticeable differences between different types of learners?
5. Did you make any unanticipated changes in your approach to teaching this course, as a result of
being in this space? OR How did teaching this course in the CSL compare with teaching the
course in other spaces?
a. What was different?
b. What stayed the same?
6. What kinds of courses do you think are best suited to this space? AND/OR Are there courses that
you think would not work well in the CSL?
7. What would make this space better? OR What ideas or wishes do you have for improving the
CSL?
8. If you could return to the beginning of the semester and be able to teach this course over again,
knowing what you now know about working in this space—would you do anything differently,
and if so, why?
9. How has your experience in this space impacted your beliefs about teaching and learning?
a. How has this experience influenced your plans/approaches to teaching in more traditional
spaces?
10. How would you characterize the support/training you received for working in the CSL?
a. What was helpful? OR What was most helpful?
b. What could you have used more help with? OR What could you have used more support
with/for?
11. What advice would you give to instructors preparing to teach in a space like this?

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 42
Appendix B. Faculty Online Survey
Please focus your responses on your experiences teaching in the Collaborative Learning Studio.
1. Did you personally request to teach in this classroom?
Ye s
No
2. Including this semester, how many semesters have you taught in this classroom?
1 semester
2 semesters
3 semesters
4 semesters
5 semesters
6+ semesters
3. What are you doing differently in this classroom that you haven’t done (or couldn’t do) in
other rooms?
4. If you have changed any aspects of your teaching because of your experiences in this
classroom, which, if any, of those changes have you taken back to other classroom settings?
5. Have you noticed any changes in student attitudes or behavior that you think might be
attributable to this classroom or how you’ve changed your class because of the space? What are
those changes, and how do you think the classroom directly or indirectly led to them?
6. We built this classroom in part to test out new classroom design elements. What elements of
this classroom would you most like to see carried forward into new classroom designs? Why?
7. Please share any challenges to teaching in this classroom that you think we should keep in
mind as we consider renovating other classrooms.
Thank you for your valuable input. Once we compile the results of this survey, we might have
more questions that would be best addressed by a focus group toward the end of the semester.
We hope that you will consider joining that in-depth conversation, should you receive an
invitation later this spring.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 43
Appendix C. Student Focus Group Questions
Focus group will be aimed at capturing student attitudes and impressions regarding both the
aesthetics and actual pedagogical practices in the CLS. It will also attempt to capture implicit
/idiographic theories of learning and attitudes toward collaborative pedagogy and technology use in the
classroom.
Possible questions and follow-ups
We are interested in learning about the experiences of students in the new CLS space
1. Could you please describe what a “typical” day in your class is like? OR How does your
instructor use the CLS?
a. What other learning activities have you’ve participated in/experienced in the CLS?
i. What are those activities like for you?
1. How helpful/effective would you say they are?
2. What do you like and/or dislike about the space?
a. Can you recall what your first impressions of the room were?
i. What stood out to you about the room?
b. What do you think works particularly well in the room?
c. What isn’t working in the room? OR What would make the room better?
3. What differences do you notice between the CLS and the other spaces you attend classes in?
a. How might the differences you notice be impacting your learning?
b. Are there differences in how attentive or distracted you are? If so, what do think might
be responsible for those differences?
4. Are there classes you are taking that would not work in a space like the CLS? What are they, and
why do you think they wouldn’t work in there?
5. What experiences have you had previously with collaborative learning approaches?
a. What were those experiences like? OR How did you feel about those experiences?
b. Do you feel like collaborative approaches make a difference for your own learning?
i. In what way? OR Why or why not?
6. How do you learn best? OR Thinking back over all the experiences you’ve had as a student, tell
me about the class (or classes) that you feel you learned the most in.
7. How do you feel about the use of technology in classrooms?
a. What experiences have you had with different learning technologies?
b. What do you see as pros and cons of using technology in the classrooms?
c. What difference, if any, has technology use made for your learning?
d. What have been the most helpful/least helpful applications of classroom technology that
you’ve experienced?

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 44
Appendix D. Student Online Survey
This survey asks about your experience in the Collaborative Learning Studio (SB015) this
semester. We appreciate your honest and thoughtful responses to these questions.
1. Please select the class that you are enrolled in that meets in SB 015:
GEOG-G237, MW, 9:30-10:45 AM
GEOG-G110, MWF, 1:25-2:15 PM
ANTH-P240, W, 5:45-8:45 PM
ANTH-E101, TR, 4:00-5:15 PM
GEOG-G208, TR, 9:30-10:45 AM
SOC-S201, TR, 11:15 AM-12:30 PM
SOC-S346, MW, 11:15 AM-12:30 PM
COLL-C105, MW, 2:30-3:45 PM
SPH-H351, M, 4:40-7:10 PM
SPH-B150, TR, 2:30-3:45 PM
SPH-H220, TR, 1:00-2:15 PM
2. What types of learning activities worked best in this classroom?
3. What types of learning activities worked least well in this classroom?
4. Please rate the extent to which the following technology was used in the classroom.
Used Every Class
Meeting
Occasionally
Used
Rarely Used
Never Used
Video wall for
display of student
work
Video wall for
display of student
work Used Every
Class Meeting
Video wall for
display of student
work Occasionally
Used
Video wall for
display of student
work Rarely Used
Video wall for
display of student
work Never Used
Video wall for
display of lecture
material
Video wall for
display of lecture
material Used
Every Class
Meeting
Video wall for
display of lecture
material
Occasionally Used
Video wall for
display of lecture
material Rarely
Used
Video wall for
display of lecture
material Never
Used
Computer and
monitor at
student tables for
group work
Computer and
monitor at student
tables for group
work Used Every
Class Meeting
Computer and
monitor at student
tables for group
work Occasionally
Used
Computer and
monitor at student
tables for group
work Rarely Used
Computer and
monitor at student
tables for group
work Never Used
Push to talk
microphones on
student tables for
Push to talk
microphones on
student tables for
whole class
Push to talk
microphones on
student tables for
whole class
Push to talk
microphones on
student tables for
whole class
Push to talk
microphones on
student tables for
whole class

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 45
Used Every Class
Meeting
Occasionally
Used
Rarely Used
Never Used
whole class
discussion
discussion Used
Every Class
Meeting
discussion
Occasionally Used
discussion Rarely
Used
discussion Never
Used
5. To what extent did group activities help your learning in the classroom?
A great deal
Somewhat
Not at all
This question is not applicable because we did not do group activities during class.
6. To what extent did the display of student work on the video wall help your learning?
A great deal
Somewhat
Not at all
This question is not applicable because student work was not displayed on the video wall.
7. How do you feel that the room helped or hindered your learning?
8. Please indicate which of the following is appealing to you about this classroom. (Select all
that apply.)
Multiple images displayed on video wall simultaneously
Tables that support group work
Technology on the student tables
Comfortable chairs
Natural lighting
Spaciousness of the room
Attractiveness of the classroom
Other (please specify)
9. Additional comments

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 46
Appendix E. Fall 2015 Faculty Survey
Thank you for agreeing to participate in our study. We are trying to learn more about how
instructors use the various technologies in the CLS. Your responses will help us improve training
for this room and determine what kinds of technologies should be considered for future room
designs. Please base your responses on your most recent teaching experience in the CLS.
Video Wall Please indicate how often you use the video wall for the following
purposes:
1. Displaying learning/lecture materials
Used every class
meeting
Once every few
class periods
A few times
during the
semester
Never used
One large view
m
m
m
m
Quad view
m
m
m
m
16 panel gallery
view
m
m
m
m
2. Displaying or comparing student work while the class is engaging in class-wide
discussion
Used every class
meeting
Once every few
class periods
A few times
during the
semester
Never used
One large view
m
m
m
m
Quad view
m
m
m
m
16 panel gallery
view
m
m
m
m

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 47
3. Monitoring student group work while students are engaging in group discussion
Used every class
meeting
Once every few
class periods
A few times
during the
semester
Never used
One large view
m
m
m
m
Quad view
m
m
m
m
16 panel gallery
view
m
m
m
m
4. Displaying a combination of instructor materials and student materials at the same time
Used every class
meeting
Once every few
class periods
A few times
during the
semester
Never used
One large view
(one by one)
m
m
m
m
Quad view
m
m
m
m
16 panel gallery
view
m
m
m
m
5. How effective do you think the Video Wall is for comparing student work for class-
wide discussion?
m Not used for the purpose
m Very effective
m Somewhat effective
m Somewhat ineffective
m Very ineffective
6. Please explain the reason for your answer above. If not used, please explain why you
did not use if for comparing student work for class-wide discussion.

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 48
7. How effective do you think the Video Wall is for monitoring student group work
during group discussion?
m Not used for the purpose
m Very effective
m Somewhat effective
m Somewhat ineffective
m Very ineffective
8. Please explain the reason for your answer above. If not used, please explain why you
did not use it for monitoring student group work during group discussion?
9. Please share what you think is your most useful or unique use of the video wall.
Other technologies in SB015
10. How often do you push learning/lecture materials to the monitors at all student tables
for the following activities?
Used every class
meeting
Once every few
class periods
A few times
during the
semester
Never used
For lecturing
m
m
m
m
For group
discussion
m
m
m
m
For class-wide
discussion
m
m
m
m

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 49
11. How often do you push student work to the monitors at all student tables for the
following activities?
Used every class
meeting
Once every few
class periods
A few times
during the
semester
Never used
For lecturing
m
m
m
m
For group
discussion
m
m
m
m
For class-wide
discussion
m
m
m
m
12. How often do you use the following technologies in SB015?
Used every class
meeting
Once every few
class periods
A few times
during the
semester
Never used
Document
cameras at student
tables
m
m
m
m
Microphones at
student tables
m
m
m
m
Portable white
boards at student
tables
m
m
m
m
Speakers at
student tables
m
m
m
m
Instructor's
wireless
microphone
m
m
m
m

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 50
Appendix F. Selected Segments for Inter-coder Reliability Check
Source
Data
Category
FI
“…the fact that they have the chance to work in class to bring things
together has mitigated the tension that I felt in other courses, where I've had
to say: okay, you're going to have to do some of this outside of class.
Because they don’t have to schedule, find a common time to do some of the
integration because I provide significant opportunities in class for that to
happen around the tables. And I think it also means that it's harder for people
to shirk. Unless they don’t come to class, they're going to be sitting at the
tables and they have to be working.”
PS
“I needed a classroom environment that allowed for the teams to function as
a unit interacting with other teams”
PS
These tables seem to be conducive for people to really work together
PS
There is no spot where everyone can see you (the instructor) well because of
sightline issues (in the context of discussing doing a lecture)
PS
It is difficult to spot students raising hands during lecture even when using
only the lower level
PS
“..the ability to get a small group of students clustered around a single station
where they can collaboratively talk and work through some of the
technology issues and think about the principles – both in terms of, like,
problem solving on the technical side, but also thinking about the conceptual
ideas behind what we’re doing in class – works really well for what I’m
trying to do.”
PST
After small group activities it is hard to transition away from the technology
and capture students’ attention because of how the room is set up, with the
monitors in the way to the front of the room.
PST
Discussion is disembodied because students can’t see the person talking,
although they can hear it through using the mics
PST
Because of stationery instructor’s control panel and desktop in a large space
where I move around, it is difficult or cumbersome to control technology
PST
I don't lecture much but I do need to frame things for people.”
PT
Technology sometime distracts students from face-to-face interaction with
each other to exchange ideas, experiences, and perceptions. I asked them to
turn off thier monitors off for those times
PT
SFG
“You are like all in your own little group and you just do things as a group,
and when your group is done then you leave.”
P
all the TVs have his PowerPoint up and it is really distracting. Like, I’m
back there, so I see eight or nine screens that I could look at.”
PST

FROM SWIMMING POOL TO COLLABORATIVE LEARNING STUDIO 51
a. “sometimes she’ll have us create a document with pictures or something
like that, and then sometimes she’ll post them all on there so we can see
what’s on all the monitors, which is kind of cool.”
PT
She (the instructor) used Google Doc for group work and displayed it on the
monitors.
PT
I prefer watching presentation on the student monitor to on the video wall.
I’d say it’s definitely more vivid on the monitors themselves.
PT
“We haven’t done it a lot, but we’ve done it once where she was like, “Do
three pictures you think of when you think of complimentary alternative
medicine,” or something like that, so that everyone would find three pictures
and then you’d put it up. And it was cool to see the similarities between
groups,”
PT
It took a while to get used to the push-to-talk microphone when talking to
the class
PT
(The large spaces makes the student feel) "not confined, comfortable, and
relaxed"
S
Being far away in the corner of the room make them feel disconnected and
distracted
S
Abundant natural light helps students to stay alert and makes classes more
enjoyable
S
Note: FI: Faculty Interviews. SFG: Student Focus Group