Abstract:

In recent years higher education institutions have increasingly committed to student-oriented and constructivist teaching approaches (Armbruster et al., 2009; Prince, 2004; Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012). These approaches imply an active role for the student in their own learning process (Chan et al., 2015). Ghent University has also invested heavily in active learning with special attention to the concept of engagement as conceptualized by Reeve (2013).

The shift to active learning is supported by research that claims that this approach can lead to improved student attitudes (Armbruster et al., 2009; Preszler et al., 2007; Prince, 2004) and increased learning outcomes compared to more traditional teaching formats (Armbruster et al., 2009; Freeman et al., 2014; Prince, 2004; Udovic et al., 2002). These educational outcomes can be partially contributed to an increased focus on student engagement (Hartikainen et al., 2019), as there is considerable evidence that support the effectiveness of this component of active learning on a broad range of learning outcomes (Coates, 2005; Prince, 2004; Trowler, 2010).

However, a big portion of active learning research is focused on STEM-related courses (Armbruster et al., 2009; Freeman et al., 2014; Prince, 2004). More research in other academic teaching fields is thus necessary. Hartikainen and colleagues (2019) also established in their research review that many studies focus on a single active learning activity and are often just one case-study. Furthermore, most researchers primarily focus on the impact of active learning on student outcomes and less on other important variables such as motivation and engagement.

This study used a mixed method design to study the student impact of teacher redesign teams focusing on active learning interventions on motivation, engagement, satisfaction and results as well as their perceptions of the constructive alignment of the course. Quantitative data was gathered through pre-and posttests accompanying the teacher redesign teams. The pretest consisted of a questionnaire completed by 685 students, while 861 students completed the posttest-questionnaire. An independent t-test will be performed via SPSS (significance level <.05) to compare both cohorts of students. Semi-structured focus groups were organized with small groups of students to further strengthen and explain certain insights of the quantitative section. The analysis and the report of this study is expected to be ready September 2021.

Keywords:

Blended active learning, course redesign, higher education, engagement, motivation, satisfaction.