Summary

This case study explores the rationale and outcomes of introducing widening participation (WP) students to active learning within an ‘intensive’ or ‘block teaching’ (Davies, 2006) Summer School programme. This case study explores how active learning techniques, such as the flipped classroom and collaborative group work, were adapted and slowly built into intensive block teaching sessions to encourage student participation and engagement with active learning approaches. In designing and delivering the session discussed here, short lectures within a two-hour class were introduced to support interactive and inclusive collaborative learning. While the idea of alternating between lectures and active learning activities or dividing a class into ‘lecturettes’ is not new (Barkley and Major, 2018), these sessions were consciously aimed to support and develop student confidence and learner identity and were met with positive student feedback. Whilst this case study reflects the inclusion of these active learning approaches within a specific context, this account suggests how others can adapt these approaches to larger group teaching, and across varying levels.

Context

This case study is based on a WP summer school pre-entry course at a Russell Group University. The Summer School can form part of a conditional offer of entry into university following the successful completion of the four-week programme. It provides students with an opportunity to help prepare them for the transition to university life. At the time of delivery, students who were eligible for Summer School included those who lived in a Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation decile 1-4 (Scottish Government, 2020); were care experienced; were estranged from family and living without family support; were a carer; were seeking asylum or had refugee status; or were applying to university via college entry. Students could also take part in the Summer School if they had been invited to attend by the institution’s Disability Service. The course examined in this case study reflects one subject out of three concurrent courses that students complete within the month-long period.

What We Did

Overview

This active learning intervention integrated short mini-lectures and collaborative activities within the two-hour designated class period. The class introduced students to a broad theme with guided lecture content and group-work activities that encouraged students to reflect on the topics discussed and apply their newly gained knowledge to a series of problem-solving activities. The large topic of the history of housing was broken down into small ‘lecturettes’ that slowly revealed more information throughout the class. At regular intervals, students were asked to make a source selection based on the information they had learned, building up an evidenced-based argument as the class progressed. In the final section, groups reviewed each other’s arguments and assessed these based on the knowledge gained. Housing was chosen as a topic that most students had some basic familiarity with and one that built upon knowledge students had gained in previous sessions. The topic avoided the introduction of complicated theories or highly sensitive discussions that needed additional scaffolding and prior preparation. Students could then participate with the confidence of having some prior knowledge of the subject and develop their understanding throughout the session.

The class began with an overview of the session, including the two lecturers assembling students into groups of four to five participants. In this context, around 25 students were enrolled on the course, creating five groups around the room. Students were instructed to sit in their groups, taking notes during the lecture segments, and engaging in the group work when appropriate. Clear expectations for the class were communicated at the start, including a printed student guide, and students were reminded that no preparation had been required in advance. The activity sheet was also made available to students at least 24 hours in advance via the online Moodle platform, our virtual learning environment (VLE), supporting students’ understanding and preparedness for the unfamiliar format.

Why We Did It

Student-centred active learning approaches form a core part of our institution’s learning and teaching strategy. As a result, we felt that an important part of preparing students for transition to university life should include an introduction to active learning at undergraduate level. However, when discussing how we would incorporate some of the well-established active learning strategies and methods we were aware of the specific context of our cohort. Often categorised as a ‘non-traditional’ student, WP cohorts are often found to have a more complex and challenging transitionary experience (Murphy & Roopchard, 2003; Leese 2010; Young et al., 2009), with issues of confidence and constructions of learner identities highlighted as important areas to address (Keane, 2011; MacFarlane, 2017). Additionally, while many students are facing increasing time pressures and issues of time poverty, the non-traditional student often faces more acute issues with time (Roberts, 2011; Wladis et al., 2018, 2023). Therefore, while active learning is established as a method of empowering students in their learning (Sewagegn & Diale, 2019) we were aware that the learners in our classroom may have additional barriers to engaging in our active learning session.

When taking this into account, we chose to adapt two well-established strategies in order to make the introduction, and transition, to active learning accessible and inclusive. In initially seeking to adopt the flipped classroom (Tucker, 2012), we recognised that our students may not have the time to engage in online study resources independently, especially given the intensive nature of the programme described above. Importantly, we were also aware of the common issues around the flipped classroom relating to digital equity (Rahman et al., 2021) and did not want to make assumptions about students access to the required technology or quiet space to engage in work outside of the classroom. Students may have felt underprepared and unable to self-direct their learning in completing the pre-class work, particularly if they had come from an educational setting where rote or passive learning was customary. By delivering the short ‘preparatory’ lectures in class, we could ensure students’ engagement with the material while also being available to answer their questions and support their understanding of the topic. Another reason we chose to include in-class lectures, somewhat going against the traditional flipped classroom model, was to encourage participation and to alleviate any concerns around alienation or discomfort for those who may not have been able to dedicate time to learning activities outside of the timetabled sessions.

To maintain the focus on the engaging group activities, it was important to keep the lectures short. In doing so, we emphasised that the importance of the session was the students’ engagement with the material and their learning as a group. Again, because of this emphasis on group work and collaborative learning, we wanted to introduce this slowly and build students up to this level of interactivity. In designing the activity, we also included the option for students to contribute to the task via the source selection, allowing students to adapt their role based on their confidence with group work and leadership. Importantly, the teaching team also spent some time discussing the topic that we would use to introduce this method of learning and teaching. As lecturers on an intensive four-week course, we were aware that we were introducing students to a lot of content in a short amount of time. We chose a subject (housing) that was relatable to our students and one that was respectful and inclusive of their prior knowledge and experience, which supported our scaffolding of a session that required more in-depth and intense student engagement (Cattaneo, 2017).

Outcomes

On delivering the session, increased student engagement was noticeable. Throughout the lecture, students were attentive and took notes, spurred by the explanation that the content was directly related to their upcoming group activity. During the group work, students were talkative and enthusiastic, talking among their groups and communicating their ideas and solutions to the proposed task. Student-staff engagement was also positively impacted, with groups keen to share their thoughts and ask questions of the staff. In student feedback at the end of the course, this session was also highlighted as a class that students enjoyed and one that helped them learn more about their own learning style. Students commented that the session emphasised the importance of conversation and collaboration in their learning.

As lecturers on the course, the session outlined above was one that we returned to as a session that we enjoyed and that we felt had encouraged student participation. As a team, we noted that after this session student engagement with the course had shifted and students were more likely to speak out in class and appeared more open to participate in group work in future sessions. The structure of the class and the importance of being concise and deliberate in the shorter allotted lecture time, also challenged us as lecturers, leading to an enjoyable shift in our approach to the familiar lecture format.

After the initial success, this model has been integrated into other sessions delivered throughout the Summer School programme and at varying levels of the subject’s undergraduate programme. As a sustainable model, all class material can be reused, shared, and delivered to new cohorts of students. Whilst the initial creation of the material can be time-consuming, the class has been repeated and replicated at different levels of study with appropriate short tasks. Indeed, after the success of this approach at Summer School, we have adapted this activity for classes with students in their final years of undergraduate study. In doing so, the segments were reduced in number (four) and duration (10 minutes) to fit within the 50-minute class more common at this level.

Adopting and Adapting Our Approach

The approach outlined above lends itself to adoption and adaptation in a variety of different educational contexts. In adopting the approach, the emphasis should remain on the inclusive and accessible design of the ‘flipped classroom’ that seeks to alleviate some of the common challenges of this activity. By integrating short lectures into the student-centred learning activity, the emphasis is still on the student interaction and group work activities, but these are scaffolded in a way that supports cohorts to overcome barriers to their participation, particularly low confidence, time constraints, and accessibility concerns. When adapting the approach, the key element is topic choice. As above, the session was based around a topic that was somewhat familiar to the students, and one that had been clearly contextualised and foregrounded in previous classes. In this way, a case study, theory application, or a research design focus would support varied disciplinary approaches.

For larger classes, the activity can easily be scaled up to incorporate more groups of students. To accommodate this, the source selection could be hosted on shared documents or uploaded to a VLE; this would also alleviate logistical issues around managing large numbers of paper handouts (should longer, text-based sources be used, upload to a VLE would also support accessibility). Within a lecture setting in a larger space, a timer function could be used to keep students on task, which would also allow for time management elements of the session to be emphasised for more advanced cohorts. While the case above was built around the ability for staff-student interaction on a smaller-scale, larger class check-ins after each segment could be facilitated by comments submitted to a web-based poling tool or online noticeboard (such as Mentimeter or Padlet), allowing for a single staff member to oversee multiple groups’ progress across the activities.

Conclusion

To conclude, in seeking an inclusive and accessible way to introduce WP students to active learning within a higher education setting, we have developed a sustainable intervention that is now firmly embedded within our Summer School programme, with several sessions adopting this approach over the month-long course. Moreover, we have also taken this design and incorporated it into classes run throughout the undergraduate programme, supporting a programmatic approach to active learning for all. As the class is designed to support students with lower confidence and less experience of active learning, we have also recommended that this approach be used for our international and diverse postgraduate cohorts who often experience a learning shock when encountering new teaching strategies (Huang, 2012), much like the WP cohort discussed above.

Key takeaways

Overall, we would summarise the key ideas and takeaways of our approach:

1. Incorporating short lectures into group work activities can support, rather than detract from, student engagement with active learning approaches.
2. When introducing active learning approaches, topic choice is important to support confidence building.
3. Taking a flexible approach to active learning methods can enhance staff and student experience in the long-term.

References

Barkley, E. F., & Major ,C. H.. (2018). Interactive Lecturing: A Handbook for College Faculty, John Wiley & Sons, 2018. 

Cattaneo, K. H. (2017). Telling Active Learning Pedagogies Apart: From theory to practice. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6(2), 144-152.
https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2017.7.237

Davies, W. M. (2006). Intensive teaching formats: A review. Issues in Educational Research, 16(1), 1–20. http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/davies.html

Huang, Y. (2012). Transitioning Challenges Faced by Chinese Graduate Students. Adult Learning 23(3), 138–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159512452861

Keane, E. (2011). Dependence-Deconstruction: Widening Participation and Traditional-Entry Students Transitioning from School to Higher Education in Ireland. Teaching in Higher Education 16(6), 707–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.570437

Leese, M. (2010). Bridging the gap: supporting student transitions into higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(2), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098771003695494

MacFarlane, K. (2018). Higher education learner identity for successful student transitions. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(6), 1201-1215. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1477742

Murphy, H., & Roopchad, N. (2003). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-esteem in Traditional and Mature Students at a Post-1992 University in the North-east of England. Educational Studies, 29(2–3), 243–259. https://doi:10.1080/03055690303278

Rahman, S. F. A., Yunus, M. M., Hashim, H., Farhani, S., & Ali, M. (2021). The common hurdles of flipped learning approach. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(6), 717-728. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i6/10026

Roberts, S. (2011). Traditional Practice for Non-traditional Students? Examining the Role of Pedagogy in Higher Education Retention. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 35(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2010.540320

Scottish Government (2020). Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2020. https://www.gov.scot/collections/scottish-index-of-multiple-deprivation-2020/

Sewagegn, A., & Diale, B. (2019). Empowering Learners Using Active Learning in Higher Education Institutions. In Brito, S., M. (Ed.), Active Learning – Beyond the Future. Intechopen. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80838

Tucker, B. (2012). The Flipped Classroom: Online instruction at home frees class time for learning. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.

Wladis, C., Hachey, A. C., & Conway, K. (2018). No Time for College? An Investigation of Time Poverty and Parenthood. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(6), 807–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1442983

Wladis, C., Hachey, A. C., & Conway, K. (2022). Time Poverty: A Hidden Factor Connecting Online Enrolment and College Outcomes? The Journal of Higher Education, 94(5), 609–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2022.2138385

Young, E., Thompson, R., Sharp, J., & Bosmans, D. (2019). Emotional transitions? Exploring the student experience of entering higher education in a widening-participation HE-in-FE setting. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(10), 1349–1363. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1688264

About the authors

Vanessa Cook and Felicity Cawley are lecturers at the University of Glasgow, based in Economic and Social History in the School of Social and Political Sciences.

Corresponding Author: Vanessa Cook, vanessa.cook@glasgow.ac.uk