View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

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

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Split-Site Course Design: A Pilot Study on Integrating Traditional and Active Learning Classrooms
Language: English
Authors: Michael P. A. Murphy (ORCID 0000-0002-9523-4402), Andrea Phillipson, Andrew Leger
Source: College Teaching. 2025 73(1):10-20.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, College Faculty, College Students, College Instruction, Lecture Method, Active Learning, Classroom Design, Learning Centers (Classroom), Space Utilization, Class Organization, Teaching Methods, Course Organization, Curriculum Design, Educational Environment, School Schedules
Geographic Terms: Canada
DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2023.2221018
ISSN: 8756-7555
1930-8299
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.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1455549
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFz7RJiec9Lcm9eOfjRIettAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCrfj4P588HmBy_DYAIBEICBmzMIEA1D4tk6a0gvJZxdGKyyfoyM9QZks9M2J4h8LvDS9Sz9xjCAc0ZAGY1qhXJannDKvJn0ONXryWpu4IFJbhdsEnzgfpBSssJYDNnbON4x7bDRDLgBQcL3xoge1kr4sKYOhHNZo3MENpQ5qxDkkcS1GO9YMeZc3H3lZT437HZNs7sBiuVrpOEAna0CPAQ0RUudavSJDLihMZCN
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181889006;cte01jan.25;2024Dec30.04:47;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181889006-1">Split-Site Course Design: A Pilot Study on Integrating Traditional and Active Learning Classrooms </title> <p>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.</p> <p>Keywords: Active learning; active learning classrooms; classroom design; course design; innovative learning spaces; learning environments; lectures; split-site</p> <hd id="AN0181889006-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Early evaluations of the purpose-built active learning classrooms (ALCs) at Queen's University revealed that lecturing was an uncomfortable experience for students and instructors alike. No matter how much instructors move around the room while speaking, they will always be at the backs of at least some students because there is no one, fixed direction in which all students are expected to face. Similarly, instructors always have their backs turned to at least some students, which makes lecturing equally uncomfortable for them. This discomfort will surely be unsurprising for those familiar with the literature on active learning classrooms, where the difficulty of lecturing in a room without a focal point is well-established (Petersen and Gorman [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref1">38</reflink>]; Chen et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref2">16</reflink>]; Phillipson, Riel, and Leger [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref3">39</reflink>]; Murphy [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref4">32</reflink>]). Indeed, during optional orientation sessions for instructors new to the active learning classrooms, educational developers stress that the active learning classrooms are not designed for lecturing, and encourage instructors to consider the kinds of activities students could do that would help them achieve the intended learning outcomes. Nonetheless, it is not entirely surprising that instructors—even those with the best of intentions—end up lecturing at some times in these spaces, despite the rooms being designed to promote small group learning.</p> <p>In short, despite the widespread recognition that the change in space requires a change in pedagogy to reach maximum benefits in terms of student interactivity (Brooks and Solheim [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref5">13</reflink>]; Sawers et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref6">42</reflink>]), lecturing endures—even in the ALCs. This suboptimal use of active learning classroom space is problematic for multiple reasons, of which two are particularly notable: 1) the overall quality of the lecture experience will be lower for students and instructors alike, and 2) this sub-optimal use of the ALC takes space that could have otherwise been allocated to interactive sessions for other courses.</p> <p>While educational development work can continue to support the further integration of active learning elements, a pragmatic approach to the lecturing-in-ALCs problem recognizes that lecturing is likely to continue in many course contexts. In the landmark <emph>What the Best College Teachers Do</emph>, Ken Bain reflects on the multiplicity of teaching methods implemented in what he termed critical learning environments:</p> <p>Some people can engage their students with good lectures, helping and encouraging them to learn on the highest level; others can do so with case studies, problem-based learning, powerful assignments, playing guide by the side, conducting discussions, or creating stimulating field work. Yet any of these methods can also fail miserably. (Bain [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>], 99)</p> <p>While even Bain recognizes that content-delivery and memorization-oriented lectures tend to produce surface learning outcomes rather than deep learning (2021, 24), there is a pragmatic lesson to be drawn for the management of active learning classroom contexts—if lecturing is to continue alongside active learning, we should foster the conditions for those lectures to be successful.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>] In simplest spatial terms, this means assigning active learning classrooms for active learning and lecture halls for lectures.</p> <p>This article discusses the results of a pilot study on what we call "split-site" course design. In this model, weekly course meetings were divided between traditional lecture halls[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>] and active learning classrooms so that students would spend part of their course time in one space and the rest of their time in the other.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref10">3</reflink>] Reflecting on preliminary data collected through the pilot study, we are encouraged that split-site course designs seem to be well-perceived by both students and instructors. This is not to say that the pilot study was entirely positive. Mismatches in student preferences, organizational issues, technological hiccups, and (continued) lecturing in the ALCs appeared; however, the split-site design appears to offer two unique benefits as compared to full-lecture or full-ALC courses. First, the split-site model permits an easier transition into the ALC, as students and instructors spend time both in the familiar lecture environment as well as the less-familiar ALC. Secondly, the split-site model offers a more utilitarian distribution of timetabling resources and may create a pathway to meet demand for limited ALC time constrained by the smaller number of innovative learning spaces on campus compared to traditional classroom environments. Considering the isolation noted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic—both in the context of emergency eLearning and social isolation more generally speaking—it would seem as though both of these benefits identified in the split-site model may be particularly beneficial as higher education institutions prioritize student interaction, engagement, and community-building in the post-pandemic pedagogy era (Murphy [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref11">33</reflink>]). While the data were collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, the lessons to be learned are even more relevant today given the widespread social isolation experienced during the pandemic and the potential for active learning to provide greater social interaction than listening to a lecture. The first section of the article reviews literature on lectures and active learning classrooms. The second section outlines the research design of this pilot study, while the third presents findings and preliminary results. The conclusion discusses benefits observed in the split-site pilot study that support more widespread deployment of this strategy in other institutions with limited ALC facilities, and highlights directions for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0181889006-3">Integrating lectures with active learning (classrooms)</hd> <p>The split-site study contributes to the literature on active learning classrooms, as one of the practical challenges to the management of innovative learning spaces is the allocation of scarce availability across the many courses offered by a university in a given year. While the term "active learning classroom" was sometimes used in reference to any classroom where active learning happened to take place, the term more precisely describes learning spaces built with the purpose of fostering active learning activities, including group tables, whiteboard walls, collaborative computer platforms, or other techniques and technologies radically different from the traditional lecture theater. Some of the early active learning classrooms include the SCALE-UP (Beichner et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>]), TEAL (Breslow [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref13">10</reflink>]), and TILE (Van Horne et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref14">45</reflink>]) designs, and the proliferation of these purpose-built spaces rapidly led to the development of a scholarly literature analyzing the impact of active learning classrooms on student experience and performance (e.g., Brooks [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]; Rotgans and Schmidt [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref16">41</reflink>]; Walczak and Van Wylen [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref17">47</reflink>]; Park and Choi [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref18">36</reflink>]; Nicol et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref19">35</reflink>]; Bolden et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref20">9</reflink>]). Research continues to assess active learning classrooms, taking stock of the relative impact of different designs, uses of the space, and course-specific teaching techniques.</p> <p>A lingering problem for active learning classrooms has been the tendency of instructors to lecture in these spaces. Because these spaces are typically built without a central focal point, there is often no single place from which an instructor can easily lecture to the class, making long lectures uncomfortable (Baepler, Walker, and Driessen 2016, 54–55).[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref21">4</reflink>] Faculty report that the focal point problem exists even in high-tech active learning classrooms where multiple screens make a lecture slide deck easily visible (Lee, Morrone, and Siering [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref22">24</reflink>]), as student attention seems to more naturally attach to the group table (Walker, Brooks, and Baepler [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref23">48</reflink>]). In addition to ergonomic complaints, students tend to find less overall value in the active learning classrooms when faculty lecture frequently (Farrow and Wetzel [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref24">18</reflink>]). This may relate to the value proposition of the active learning classroom being obfuscated by the suboptimal use of the space.</p> <p>In addition to the literature on active learning classrooms and lecturing, this pilot study is also informed by the concept of alternative course designs that redirect lecture-related content to maximize interactive time in the course. Paul Baepler, JD Walker, and Michelle Driessen (2014) discuss the work to activate a large chemistry class by shifting content delivery to an online modality and holding flipped classroom sessions with one-third of the course at a time. Despite the total quantity of course time moving from three hours (all lecture) to two (one recorded lecture and one active learning session), the "blending and flipping" project resulted in equal or improved student performance, and afforded greater flexibility for a range of pedagogical approaches that would have been difficult to implement in the context of a large enrollment course (Baepler, Walker, and Driessen [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]). A recent study in the context of a blended and flipped nursing course found higher performance compared to a control group (Halasa et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref26">21</reflink>]), while the application to an introductory course in sociology found that while pre-/post-test scores increased by a greater margin in the experimental group, no statistically significant difference was found in overall performance (Luna and Winters [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref27">25</reflink>]). As a grade-oriented intervention, then, these preliminary studies indicate that the process of blending and flipping is at least as good as status-quo lecture courses, and in some cases more beneficial than lecture courses. The quantitative focus of this literature makes empirically-grounded qualitative justifications difficult at this stage (Armellini and Rodriguez [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>], 8), although the present article is sufficiently relevant to make a minor contribution to that gap.</p> <hd id="AN0181889006-4">Methodology</hd> <p>From the nine split-site design classes held at Queen's University during the pilot project, five instructors agreed to participate in the study, and we focused our investigation on their courses in computing, political studies, and nursing. These first-, third-, and fourth-year courses ranged in enrollment from 60 to 122. All courses had three contact hours per week, and the hours were divided between the two classrooms either in a 1:1 or a 2:1 ratio of traditional classroom to ALC (see Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1. Pilot Study Courses.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Discipline</td><td>Course level</td><td>Lecture hall/ALC split</td><td># students</td><td>Instructor rank</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Computing</td><td char=".">1<sup>st</sup> year</td><td>2 h/1 h</td><td char=".">105</td><td>continuing adjunct professor</td></tr><tr><td>Political Studies</td><td char=".">3<sup>rd</sup> year</td><td>1.5 h/1.5 h</td><td char=".">60</td><td>associate professor</td></tr><tr><td>Political Studies</td><td char=".">3<sup>rd</sup> year</td><td>1.5 h/1.5 h</td><td char=".">63</td><td>associate professor</td></tr><tr><td>Nursing</td><td char=".">3<sup>rd</sup> year</td><td>2 h/1 h</td><td char=".">81</td><td>assistant professor</td></tr><tr><td>Nursing</td><td char=".">4<sup>th</sup> year</td><td>1.5 h/1.5 h</td><td char=".">122</td><td>associate professor</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Split-Site Impacts on Engagement and Understanding.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>% Strongly agree</td><td>% Agree</td><td>% Neither agree nor disagree</td><td>% Disagree</td><td>% Strongly disagree</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Having classes in two different classrooms aided my engagement with the course</td><td char=".">39</td><td char=".">30</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">3</td></tr><tr><td>Having classes in two different classrooms aided my understanding of course content</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">33</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Following the example of prior evaluative studies of ALC-related pilot studies, the study brought together both student and instructor feedback (e.g., Rands and Gansemer-Topf [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref29">40</reflink>]; Benoit [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref30">8</reflink>]; Murphy and Groen [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref31">34</reflink>]). Placing a high value on student experiences of this dual room approach, we invited students from all five classes to participate in an online survey at the end of term. With 102 students completing the survey out of a possible 431 participants, we had a 23.7% response rate. Respondents answered Likert scale-style and open-ended questions that captured their perceptions about a number of issues. The five course instructors had all been the instructor of record of a course before, with one having taught for one year prior to this study, and the rest having taught extensively for more than a decade. Two had taught a course entirely in an ALC in the year prior. Of the three who had never taught in an ALC before, two had previously arranged to teach in non-lecture style classrooms that simulated some of the features of an ALC. All professors were invested in engaging their students beyond a standard lecture. We held semi-structured interviews with instructors that allowed the flexibility to explore interesting lines of inquiry. All data collection efforts were undertaken by the Centre for Teaching and Learning, rather than course instructors directly surveying students. This means that our study avoids the well-documented "dual role" ethical issue that may take place when instructors recruit their own students to participate in a SoTL research project, potentially leading to real or perceived coercion or pressure to participate (see MacLean and Poole [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref32">26</reflink>]; Yeo and Woolmer [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref33">49</reflink>]; Innocente, Baker, and Goodwin De Faria [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref34">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181889006-5">Results and discussion</hd> <p>We discuss the results from collected survey and interview data in the sub-sections below. Student and instructor feedback sections are separated for the purposes of clarity, although substantive connections between groups are noted.</p> <hd id="AN0181889006-6">Student feedback</hd> <p>As noted above, student feedback was solicited through anonymous surveys, and encompassed both quantitative and qualitative feedback. While feedback was generally more positive than negative, students highlighted both strengths of and concerns with the split-site model that will be discussed throughout this section.</p> <p>In response to quantitative feedback questions, students reported strong levels of agreement that the split-site model improved their engagement and understanding of course content. Between these two questions, however, it is interesting to note that student engagement saw stronger opinions—both positive and negative–than the question on course understanding. 11% more students strongly agree that the split-site design aided their engagement as compared to their understanding, and a small but notable 3% more disagree. While the former could be taken as a positive sign of student interactivity, the latter may signal continued mismatch between the active learning classroom and student perceptions around lecturing-as-learning. We see further evidence of this in the site comparison questions, where a small group of students state a preference for entirely-lecture hall courses, despite the majority of students expressing their belief that the ALC is more effective as a single-site classroom (see Tables 2 and 3).</p> <p>Table 3. Single-Site Comparisons.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>% More effective</td><td>% Just as effective</td><td>% Less effective</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>If this course had been taught entirely in the ALC, it would have been</td><td char=".">24</td><td char=".">30</td><td char=".">46</td></tr><tr><td>If this course had been taught entirely in the lecture hall, it would have been</td><td char="."> 8</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">60</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The data collection also included a large qualitative set of written responses, which offer further insight into student perceptions of the split-site course model. In line with the quantitative responses, student perceptions were strongly positive, but mixed. Negative feedback highlighted specific issues with lecturing in active learning classes, difficulty remembering which classroom to attend on Monday and which to attend on Wednesday,[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref35">5</reflink>] technological tools not working as expected, and individual preferences for lectures over active learning. Some students shared that—while they saw value in the room for other types of courses—they felt that their course did not fit well with the active learning classroom. While this perception may relate to course design, it may also reflect the level of participation in a given class, which connects to student preferences in the following illustrative quotation:</p> <p>I prefer a lecture style and these rooms are only successful if everyone participates, shows up and has done readings...Of course students can learn from others, but there should be an equal share of the work, not one student relaying information. It has to be a discussion for it to be successful in my opinion.</p> <p>Another student shared a similar opinion, stating that sometimes "students would run out of things to talk about...and the result was that class time was not used very effectively." These design-related issues speak to an important aspect of student-centred models of learning, because students determine the quality of their own experience to a larger extent than they do in instructor-centred models. Incentivizing the completion of reading is an evergreen challenge in higher education (Carney, Gabriele, and Ballard [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref36">14</reflink>]; Mulvey [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref37">31</reflink>]; Pecorari et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref38">37</reflink>]; St Clair-Thompson, Graham, and Marsham [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref39">43</reflink>]), and it is important to recognize that the social pressure of interaction and class discussion will not always solve the reading-completion problem.</p> <p>In the next theme found in student comments, we can identify a pattern expected from the literature on active learning classrooms: namely, lecturing in the active learning classroom creates a negative experience of the space. This emerges first in commentary about the physical and ergonomic aspects of the space. Students shared a number of comments relating to physical discomfort in the active learning classroom: "Having a lecture in the [active learning] classroom is very uncomfortable because of having to twist in the chair in order to look at the lecturing professor." At times, students directly contrasted the discomfort of turning away to see a lecturing professor behind their backs with the relative ease of active learning strategies at the group tables:</p> <p>I found it more difficult to stay focused on lectures about theory in the active learning classroom compared to the traditional style classroom. However, the active learning classroom helped me better engage with my classmates when we were doing group work.</p> <p>It should come as no surprise that rooms explicitly designed for non-lecture activities present ergonomic challenges for students during a lecture. But student feedback on lecturing and active learning actually reflected not only on ergonomic factors, but also pedagogical factors.</p> <p>Student comments on lecturing in active learning classrooms provided interesting insights into student expectations about this new learning space, and about what counts as learning. To the first point, one student commented that because of lecturing in the active learning classroom, "the course did not make use of enough of the features of the interactive classroom to make it worthwhile"—while also sharing that "there is potential for the usage of this environment." Just as instructors have expressed a sentiment that entering into an active learning classroom imparts a feeling that something different will take place (Murphy [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref40">32</reflink>]), some students similarly have expectations for new experiences and may be disappointed to find that lecturing occurs. On the other hand, we might recall that some students share that they prefer to listen to a lecture rather than to do work in the classroom, meaning that their preferences may not align directly with active learning strategies. One student's response to lecturing in the active learning classroom indicates a potential explanation for this mismatch, by equating listening to <emph>learning</emph>. This student shared that the active learning classroom</p> <p>...does not promote active listening, does not promote learning, as you are not able to see the prof, it does not engage students in that regard, however does benefit group work.</p> <p>Crucially, by equating listening and learning, the student indicates their understanding of learning as a process by which the student listens to a lecturer. Therefore, a space that facilitates lecturing will conform to this student's expectations of what learning is. The active learning classroom does not meet this student's assumptions of learning, because they do not associate group work with learning. While a single comment is not necessarily generalizable, it is important to reflect on what this student's comment might reveal about common educational expectations. While some research has indicated that even students who prefer lecturing demonstrate improved performance in active learning classrooms (Bain [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>], 221), being transparent about the potential metacognitive benefit sought from increased student interactivity remains an important consideration so that students can identify the value in active learning classrooms. It is also notable that this students' comment represents an important methodological consideration. For instance, fewer students in our study felt the course design aided understanding compared to engagement, but when we ask students for their assessment of their learning, assumptions about the value of lecturing compared to group interaction may influence responses.</p> <p>Negative comments about the split-site model suggest that some students may not perceive what they do in active learning classrooms as learning, and that sometimes the ALC is not used optimally, either because students arrive unprepared or because instructors may revert to lecturing in these spaces. On the other side of that same coin, positive comments reinforce a correlation between the benefits of this model and student expectations (and understanding) of purposeful instructor choices about teaching and learning activities well suited to the learning space. For instance, students positively reported more interaction in the active learning classrooms, but also less pressure, perhaps because these spaces lend themselves to discussion and comments shared in a small group rather than with the entire class.</p> <p>Beyond simple desire for interaction, three students specifically suggested that rebalancing to have more interactive time in the active learning classroom would open up more time to work on applying concepts, and others commented on the positive aspect of breaking up course time into different spaces. One student in particular highlighted the benefit of splitting time between the different room designs because active learning classroom activities reinforced content covered in the lecture hall:</p> <p>The hands on [element] was crucial to me understanding the course. If it was just [a] lecture I would have dropped it as it would have been nearly impossible for me to learn properly and complete the course.</p> <p>When the split-site model was most effective at meeting student needs, the lecture hall hosted the lecture elements, and the time in the active learning classroom was devoted to active learning.</p> <p>Student comments spoke directly to how they perceived the integration of the two sites working in their learning experience. Students recognized that holding the course in two different spaces facilitated different kinds of learning experiences coming together into a single course. One representative comment of this group of sentiments is: "Learning the theory in a lecture style class, then going and doing a practical activity using that information was a really effective way to learn." Students shared this opinion across courses in our sample, indicating that more than one course used a theory/application strategy to guide split-site lesson planning. One student called this a "see-and-do method" to receive and then apply course concepts, while others referenced their appreciation for applying lecture concepts to the "real world." Some students shared their impression that their learning improved through this split-site design, powerfully expressed by a student who was re-taking the course:</p> <p>I really appreciated having separate spaces to learn and to practice content. This was actually my second time taking the course (I failed [the course] during Fall 2015), and this setup really made the difference for me this time around. I felt like [the] main ideas and their relevance were communicated much more clearly.</p> <p>Insights into how space facilitates deeper approaches to learning are particularly valuable for courses with historically high DFW (D-grades, failures, and withdrawal) rates, such as introductory computer science (Bennedsen and Caspersen [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>A common thread through positive student reviews of the split-site model speaks to the value of carefully designed lesson planning to optimize the use of distinct learning spaces, and the benefit of students developing clear expectations about their varied roles in each space. More than just a physical separation of the class time into two different rooms, some students also noted a pedagogical shift from one learning space to another. As demonstrated in Table 4, many students felt a clear separation between the sites, which helped to set expectations for each course meeting:</p> <p>Table 4. Student Perceptions on Split-Site Design.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>% Strongly agree</td><td>% Agree</td><td>% Neither agree nor disagree</td><td>% Disagree</td><td>% Strongly disagree</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>There was a clear difference in the activities we did in the [active learning] classroom and the lecture hall</td><td char=".">52</td><td char=".">42</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr><td>It was clear to me why we did particular activities in each of the classrooms</td><td char=".">47</td><td char=".">45</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">1</td></tr><tr><td>The overall design of the course (with some lecturing and some other activities) suited the course content well</td><td char=".">39</td><td char=".">43</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>It was very clear what the objective was for the day in the two classrooms. In lecture, I was able to sit, listen, and take notes, whereas in [the active learning classroom] I could engage and worry less about note taking.</p> <p>Oftentimes, clear student perceptions of distinct pedagogical approaches matched to the classroom spaces accompanied more positive overall assessments of the split-site model, although further research is needed to test this hypothesis statistically. Although students overwhelmingly agreed or strongly agreed that there was a clear difference in the activities between each learning space, and that they understood why they were doing particular activities in each of the classrooms (see table 4), comments such as this reveal that creating explicit opportunities for metacognitive reflection about varied approaches to learning can only aid students in adopting learning strategies suitable for each space.</p> <p>Overall, student feedback spoke highly of the arrangement, with clear site-specific differentiation appearing in positive comments. This is an optimistic indicator for the pilot project, as student perception feedback identified strengths when the pilot model was followed. When students commented on areas for improvement, these often involved a clearer alignment of teaching strategies with classroom spaces. The continuing preference of some students for entirely lecture-based courses does suggest that the split-site model will not be universally preferred, although it is unclear the extent to which these comments reflect a preference for lecture halls due to unfulfilled expectations about the use of particular spaces and the meanings of learning more generally. Continued rollout of the split-site model will open up new opportunities to understand students' perceptions of the relationships between classroom spaces, teaching techniques, and learning.</p> <hd id="AN0181889006-7">Instructor feedback</hd> <p>Instructor feedback was gathered through a series of semi-structured interviews with five participant faculty. Like their students, these instructors found value in lectures, and recognized that the active learning classroom is not ideal for this instructional strategy. By splitting their time each week between the two learning environments, the strengths of each classroom design could be leveraged. For these participants, the split-site model allowed them to address problems that can accompany an exclusive active learning classroom schedule, and it meshed well with their general teaching approaches and philosophies.</p> <p>For one instructor, the motivation to participate in the split-site model was the search for a more balanced use of course time for active learning versus lecturing, following some negative student feedback on a full-ALC course in a previous term. That earlier course had been designed as a fully interactive model; however, the end result encountered a mismatch with student expectations. "Because there was no foundational lecture," interviewee 2 commented, "the students felt that there wasn't a core." The opportunity to participate in the split-site pilot was appealing to this instructor because it allowed for the re-integration of the spine of the course, where the lecture could be used to set up simulations and discussions in the active learning classroom. This structure also permitted the instructor—perhaps ironically—to relay content relating to the effectiveness of active learning to students in an opening lecture. In addition to the lecture supporting active learning activities through content delivery, then, there is also a metacognitive opportunity for students to recognize the value that integrating lecture and active learning elements could provide for their ability to apply course content.</p> <p>Interviewee 3 similarly appreciated the opportunity to lecture in an appropriate space, despite originally requesting a full schedule in the active learning classroom and ending up with a split-site arrangement due to timetabling limitations.</p> <p>I asked for the active learning class for the full three lectures. And I guess scheduling-wise they couldn't do that, so they gave me one. And actually, when they did that, I said, "That's actually perfect. That's the perfect way to do this." And in hindsight, now, I'm really glad I wasn't in there for three lectures, because I wouldn't have been able to lecture, and I need to lecture. There are things we need to do together as a class.</p> <p>Like the students, interviewee 3 perceived the limitations of the active learning classroom for didactic purposes. The split-site model permitted the instructor to blend content-delivery lecturing with the hands-on strengths of active learning in a way that the instructor felt was appropriate to the course. Interestingly, even with two classes a week scheduled in a lecture hall, interviewee 3 felt stretched for time, sharing examples of lecturing occasionally in the active learning classroom sessions to catch up. A perpetual issue with active learning is that it is time-consuming, and instructors are often concerned that they will not be able to "cover" enough content. Indeed, interviewee 3 reflected that if the class had taken place entirely in an active-learning classroom, "I would have to structure it way [differently], so that they were learning on their own" in preparation for the course meetings. Concerns about content coverage have frequently served as barriers to implementing active learning into content-heavy courses (Michael and Modell [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref43">30</reflink>]; Michael [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref44">29</reflink>]), and the balance of lecture and active learning in the split-site model may ease instructor worries about ability to cover content. However, both instructors and educational developers supporting them should remain vigilant of "lecture creep" into the ALC sessions. As "bending and flipping" models have shown (Baepler, Walker, and Driessen [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref45">2</reflink>]), guiding students to complete the content-delivery aspects of course content in preparation for the active learning sessions can help ensure that the same material is covered.[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref46">6</reflink>] While some content that may have been delivered directly by the instructor in a fully lecture-based course will instead be read in assigned texts or viewed in prerecorded videos and then worked through during active learning sessions, this is not as much a matter of lowering the volume of content covered in a course as reallocating across multiple delivery mechanisms.</p> <p>One particularly interesting finding from this preliminary study was the way in which the split-site model might spur instructors to rethink course readings and out-of-class time, which interviewee 4 integrated in a novel way. Instead of a full-lecture model where students would read ahead of class and then receive a content-delivery lecture clarifying or connecting key elements, interviewee 4 had an early-week lecture that required no preparatory reading for the students, followed by an out-of-class assignment that included reading assigned texts, and wrapping up with group discussion work in the active learning classroom later in the week. This course design provided multimodal engagement with course material throughout the weeks of the semester. The lectures provided students with a foundational introduction to complex theoretical constructs, potentially preventing their frustration and confusion when they subsequently encountered dense academic texts. Manarin ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref47">27</reflink>]) suggests that students who experience self-efficacy and clarity about their task are more likely to read deeply and critically, which is a common prerequisite for full participation in the active learning environment. When we consider the student above who was annoyed with classmates' lack of preparation for group discussions, this kind of purposeful course design around a split-site model could help address such specific issues.</p> <p>Echoing student perceptions, instructors were unhappy with the experience of lecturing in the active learning classrooms, and they acknowledged the benefits of practicing unique activities in the different sites. While students complained about not being able to see the instructor, instructors were unhappy with lecturing to students' backs (or having their backs to students). Instructors reflected on their lecturing in the active learning classroom as "reverting to my old bad habits" (interviewee 2), despite the awkward feeling of having your back to students (interviewees 3, 4). Instructors instead valued the group-based design of the room for observing discussions (interviewee 4), tracking attendance (interviewee 1), and building community (interviewee 5). While issues inevitably arose while teaching in the two spaces, the instructors shared a generally positive outlook on the split-site design.</p> <hd id="AN0181889006-8">Conclusion and future directions</hd> <p>This pilot study on split-site course design presents a promising model for integrating lecture-based and active learning pedagogies by splitting course time between active learning classrooms and lecture halls. By ensuring a congruence between space and pedagogy, split-site design meets the needs of instructors and students who continue to express a desire for learning through lecture. However, unlike a traditional full-lecture course, the split-site model facilitates the application-focused opportunity for active learning. As with any active learning classroom model, the success of a split-site design depends on instructors shifting to active pedagogy (rather than lecturing in the active learning classroom) and students' willingness to participate in their learning. While students and instructors alike perceived that the two spaces aligned with different kinds of pedagogical approaches, it remains unclear the extent to which this clear differentiation between the spaces should be presented as an explicit distinction on the part of the instructor.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref48">7</reflink>] While some instructors share evidence of the benefits to be gained from time in an active learning classrooms with their students at the beginning of the term, others did not; indeed, this practice remains an open debate in the active learning classroom research community (Murphy 2020). By way of conclusion, we reflect on two unique benefits of the split-site model that emerged through reflection on our pilot study, and we sketch out future directions for research on the split-site model. While the results are preliminary, reflection on observed trends in light of the established and extensive literatures relating to active learning classrooms indicates that the split-site model is a promising tool meriting further attention in a variety of institutional contexts.</p> <p>The split-site model offers unique benefits in terms of an easier transition into active learning, relieving the scarcity of active learning classrooms, and promoting high-engagement teaching practices in post-pandemic university. Because the split-site course design model keeps one foot in the familiar lecture space while stepping into the active learning classroom, the pedagogical barrier to entry is lowered for instructors new to active learning and active learning classrooms. Just as course design may consider the <emph>zone of proximal development</emph> (Vygotsky [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref49">46</reflink>]) for students, the same holds for the pedagogical development of instructors, who may build confidence and capacity through the measured addition of active learning elements to their courses.[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref50">8</reflink>] It is also worth considering that the approach of the split-site model may benefit students as well, by opening opportunities for reinforcement and application of concepts without a wholesale shift to unfamiliar active learning environments. While the literature on active learning demonstrates performance benefits, gradual implementation of active learning through a split-site adaptation may encounter less student resistance than a shift to fully-active formats (Tharayil et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref51">44</reflink>]). A second benefit is that the same number of active learning classrooms can hold more split-site courses than active learning classroom-only courses. This pragmatic consideration permits the utilitarian distribution of scarce resources over a larger population of students. Institutions whose active learning classroom capacity lags instructor interest will be able to accommodate many more courses given the same number of rooms. This may become particularly impactful if capital project budgets experience significant pressure in light of a post-pandemic recession.</p> <p>While the results of the pilot study are encouraging, there are many opportunities for further research in the area of split-site course design. Larger courses remain a particular area of challenge where split-site design may follow in the footsteps of prior success related to blending and flipping (Baepler, Walker, and Driessen [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>]) or lecture-and-lab models familiar to introductory science courses. Comparative studies of split-site versus single-site lecture or active learning classroom courses may offer rich opportunities for comparing relational and interactional aspects (e.g., Chen [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref53">15</reflink>]; McCollum et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref54">28</reflink>]), including paying special attention to the extent to which statistically and/or qualitatively significant improvements in student experience, student performance, and DFW rates.[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref55">9</reflink>] The integration of online components remains a major question for the post-pandemic academy, including the use of online tools to promote active learning and rapport building (e.g., Glazier [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref56">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref57">20</reflink>]; Heffernan, Murphy, and Yearwood [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref58">22</reflink>]). And finally, the comparative testing of alternative time allocations between lecture and active learning may uncover a 'sweet spot' in the lecture-to-active learning classroom ratio. As the literature on active learning classroom continues to develop, we hope that the split-site course design model can contribute to expanding access, improving student and instructor experience, and fostering community in a post-pandemic university.</p> <ref id="AN0181889006-9"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref8" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> 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, [17], 16).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref9" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref10" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> The specific ratios of the split-site design varied from course to course. Specific figures are provided in the methodology section.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref7" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baepler et al. ([3]) do note that "micro-lectures" can be useful if content-delivery is absolutely necessary.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref35" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref12" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref42" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> We thank reviewer 2 for providing this language of clear/explicit differentiation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref30" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Petersen and Gorman ([38]) similarly advocate for incremental integration.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref20" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> We thank Reviewer 1 for highlighting the important contribution that these future research avenues offer.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0181889006-10"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Armellini, A., and B. C. P. Rodriguez. 2021. " Active Blended Learning: Definition, Literature Review, and a Framework for Implementation." In Cases on Active Blended Learning in Higher Education, 1 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baepler, P., J. D. Walker, and M. Driessen. 2014. " It's Not about Seat Time: Blending, Flipping, and Efficiency in Active Learning Classrooms." Computers & Education 78 : 227 – 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baepler, P., J. D. Walker, D. C. Brooks, K. Saichaie, and C. I. Petersen. 2016. A Guide to Teaching in the Active Learning Classroom: History, Research, and Practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bain, K. 2004. What the Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bain, K. 2021. Super Courses: The Future of Teaching and Learning. Princeton : Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beichner, R. J., J. M. Saul, D. S. Abbott, J. J. Morse, D. Deardorff, R. J. Allain, S. W. Bonham, M. H. Dancy, and J. S Risley. 2007. The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. Research-Based Reform of University Physics 1 (2): 2 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bennedsen, J., and M. E. Caspersen. 2019. " Failure Rates in Introductory Programming: 12 Years Later." ACM Inroads 10 (2): 30 – 36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3324888</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benoit, A. 2017. " Monitoring Implementation of Active Learning Classrooms at Lethbridge College, 2014-2015." Journal of Learning Spaces 6 (1): 14 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bolden, Edward C., Tina M. Oestreich, Michael J. Kenney, and Brian T. Yuhnke. 2019. " Location, Location, Location: A Comparison of Student Experience in a Lecture Hall to a Small Classroom Using Similar Techniques." Active Learning in Higher Education 20 (2): 139 – 152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417742018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breslow, L. 2010. " Wrestling with Pedagogical Change: The TEAL Initiative at MIT." Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 42 (5): 23 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2010.503173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brooks, D. C. 2011. " Space Matters: The Impact of Formal Learning Environments on Student Learning." British Journal of Educational Technology 42 (5): 719 – 726. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01098.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brooks, D. C., and C. A. Solheim. 2014. " Pedagogy Matters, Too: The Impact of Adapting Teaching Approaches to Formal Learning Environments on Student Learning." New Directions for Teaching and Learning 137 : 53 – 61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carney, A. G., S. W. Fry, R. V. Gabriele, and M. Ballard. 2008. " Reeling in the Big Fish: Changing Pedagogy to Encourage the Completion of Reading Assignments." College Teaching 56 (4): 195 – 200. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.56.4.195-200</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, V. 2015. " From Distraction to Contribution: A Preliminary Study on How Peers Outside the Group Can Contribute to Students' Learning." Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 6 (3): 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, V., A. Leger, and A. Riel. 2016. " Standing to Preach, Moving to Teach: What TAs Learned from Teaching in Flexible and Less-Flexible Spaces." Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching 9 : 187 – 198. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v9i0.4439</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Entwhistle, N. 2010. " Taking Stock: An Overview of Key Research Findings." In Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, edited by J. C. Hughes & J. Mighty, 15 – 57. Kingston : Queen's School of Policy Studies/McGill-Queen's University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farrow, C. B., and E. Wetzel. 2021. " An Active Learning Classroom in Construction Management Education: Student Perceptions of Engagement and Learning." International Journal of Construction Education and Research 17 (4): 299 – 317. https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2020.1757536</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glazier, R. A. 2016. " Building Rapport to Improve Retention and Success in Online Classes." Journal of Political Science Education 12 (4): 437 – 456. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2016.1155994</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glazier, R. A. 2021. Connecting in the Online Classroom: Building Rapport between Teachers and Students. Baltimore : JHU Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halasa, Suhaila, Nimer Abusalim, Mohammad Rayyan, Rose E. Constantino, Omayah Nassar, Huda Amre, Moayad Sharab, and Insirah Qadri. 2020. " Comparing Student Achievement in Traditional Learning with a Combination of Blended and Flipped Learning." Nursing Open 7 (4): 1129 – 1138. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.492</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heffernan, A., M. P. A. Murphy, and D. Yearwood. 2022. " Can Active Learning Be Asynchronous? Implementing Online Peer Review Assignments in Undergraduate Political Science and International Relations Courses." European Political Science 21 (4): 537 – 549. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-022-00386-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Innocente, N., J. Baker, and C. Goodwin De Faria. 2022. " Vulnerability and Student Perceptions of the Ethics of SoTL." In Ethics and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 111 – 128. Cham : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, D., A. S. Morrone, and G. Siering. 2018. " From Swimming Pool to Collaborative Learning Studio: Pedagogy, Space, and Technology in a Large Active Learning Classroom." Educational Technology Research and Development 66 (1): 95 – 127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9550-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luna, Y. M., and S. A. Winters. 2017. " Why Did You Blend my Learning?" a Comparison of Student Success in Lecture and Blended Learning Introduction to Sociology Courses." Teaching Sociology 45 (2): 116 – 130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X16685373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacLean, M., and G. Poole. 2010. " An Introduction to Ethical Considerations for Novices to Research in Teaching and Learning in Canada." Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 1 (2): 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manarin, K. 2019. " Why Read? " Higher Education Research & Development 38 (1): 11 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1527296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCollum, B. M., C. L. Fleming, K. M. Plotnikoff, and D. N. Skagen. 2017. " Relationships in the Flipped Classroom." Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 8 (3): N 3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michael, J. 2007. " Faculty Perceptions about Barriers to Active Learning." College Teaching 55 (2): 42 – 47. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.55.2.42-47</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michael, J. A., and H. I. Modell. 2003. Active Learning in Secondary and College Science Classrooms: A Working Model of Helping the Learner to Learn. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mulvey, M. E. 2008. " Under-Prepared students-A Continuing Challenge for Higher Education." Research and Teaching in Developmental Education 24 (2): 77 – 87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, M. P. A. 2020a. " Should we Prepare Students for Active Learning Classrooms? An Unresolved Question and Two Provocations." International Journal for Academic Development 25 (3): 273 – 284. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1668397</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, M. P. A. 2020b. " COVID-19 and Emergency eLearning: Consequences of the Securitization of Higher Education for Post-Pandemic Pedagogy." Contemporary Security Policy 41 (3): 492 – 505. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1761749</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, M. P. A., and J. Groen 2020. " Student and Instructor Perceptions of a First Year in Active Learning Classrooms: Three Lessons Learned." Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching 13 : 41 – 49. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v13i0.5998</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicol, A. A., S. M. Owens, S. S. Le Coze, A. MacIntyre, and C. Eastwood. 2018. " Comparison of High-Technology Active Learning and Low-Technology Active Learning Classrooms." Active Learning in Higher Education 19 (3): 253 – 265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731176</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, E. L., and B. K. Choi. 2014. " Transformation of Classroom Spaces: Traditional versus Active Learning Classroom in Colleges." Higher Education 68 (5): 749 – 771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9742-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pecorari, Diane, Philip Shaw, Aileen Irvine, Hans Malmström, and Špela Mežek. 2012. " Reading in Tertiary Education: Undergraduate Student Practices and Attitudes." Quality in Higher Education 18 (2): 235 – 256. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2012.706464</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petersen, C. I., and K. S. Gorman. 2014. " Strategies to Address Common Challenges When Teaching in an Active Learning Classroom." New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2014 (137): 63 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20086</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillipson, A., A. Riel, and A. B. Leger. 2018. " Between Knowing and Learning: New Instructors' Experiences in Active Learning Classrooms." Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 9 (1): 1 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rands, M. L., and A. Gansemer-Topf. 2017. " The Room Itself Is Active: How Classroom Design Impacts Student Engagement." Journal of Learning Spaces 6 (1): 1 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rotgans, J. I., and H. G. Schmidt. 2011. " Situational Interest and Academic Achievement in the Active-Learning Classroom." Learning and Instruction 21 (1): 58 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.11.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sawers, K. M., D. Wicks, N. Mvududu, L. Seeley, and R. Copeland. 2016. " What Drives Student Engagement: Is It Learning Space, Instructor Behavior or Teaching Philosophy? " Journal of Learning Spaces 5 (2): 1 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> St Clair-Thompson, H., A. Graham, and S. Marsham. 2018. " Exploring the Reading Practices of Undergraduate Students." Education Inquiry 9 (3): 284 – 298. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2017.1380487</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tharayil, S., M. Borrego, M. Prince, K. A. Nguyen, P. Shekhar, C. J. Finelli, and C. Waters. 2018. " Strategies to Mitigate Student Resistance to Active Learning." International Journal of STEM Education 5 (1): 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0102-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Horne, S., C. Murniati, J. D. Gaffney, and M. Jesse. 2012. " Promoting Active Learning in Technology-Infused TILE Classrooms at the University of Iowa." Journal of Learning Spaces 1 (2): 1 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walczak, M. M., and D. G. Van Wylen. 2013. " Tiered Classrooms at St. Olaf College: Faculty and Student Perceptions of Three Different Designs." Journal of Learning Spaces 2 (2): 1 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, J. D., D. C. Brooks, and P. Baepler. 2011. " Pedagogy and Space: Empirical Research on New Learning Environments." Educause Quarterly 34 (4): 1 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeo, M., and C. Woolmer. 2022. " Wrestling the Monster: Novice SoTL Researchers, Ethics, and the Dual Role." In Ethics and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 29 – 42. Cham : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Michael P. A. Murphy; Andrea Phillipson and Andrew Leger</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref58"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1455549
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Split-Site Course Design: A Pilot Study on Integrating Traditional and Active Learning Classrooms
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+P%2E+A%2E+Murphy%22">Michael P. A. Murphy</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9523-4402">0000-0002-9523-4402</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrea+Phillipson%22">Andrea Phillipson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrew+Leger%22">Andrew Leger</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22College+Teaching%22"><i>College Teaching</i></searchLink>. 2025 73(1):10-20.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Instruction%22">College Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lecture+Method%22">Lecture Method</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Design%22">Classroom Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Centers+%28Classroom%29%22">Learning Centers (Classroom)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Space+Utilization%22">Space Utilization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Class+Organization%22">Class Organization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Course+Organization%22">Course Organization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Design%22">Curriculum Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Schedules%22">School Schedules</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/87567555.2023.2221018
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 8756-7555<br />1930-8299
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1455549
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1455549
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/87567555.2023.2221018
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 10
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Lecture Method
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Active Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Centers (Classroom)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Space Utilization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Class Organization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Course Organization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Schedules
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Split-Site Course Design: A Pilot Study on Integrating Traditional and Active Learning Classrooms
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michael P. A. Murphy
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andrea Phillipson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andrew Leger
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 8756-7555
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1930-8299
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 73
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: College Teaching
              Type: main
ResultId 1