Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Embedding engaged learning in high enrollment lecture-based classes

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Engaged learning opportunities have become powerful foundations upon which students build lifelong skills and organizational capacities. Research has empirically validated the long-term positive learning impacts of active and experiential learning opportunities for students. As such, institutional administrators and external stakeholders have encouraged and, in some cases, required that faculty use engaged teaching methods. At the same time, difficult economic circumstances continue to batter higher education, with class sizes increasing to improve efficiencies and reduce instructional costs. The confluence of those two trends has resulted in calls to integrate engaged learning opportunities in large higher education classes, engendering special challenges for educators. It is within this particular gap—practical guidance for transforming passive course designs to active ones—that our article contributes to the international higher education literature. We share our experiences implementing engaged learning practices into large university classes over a 4-year period, guided by an experiential learning theoretical framework. By analyzing text from our individual teaching journals and collaborative post-mortems, we are able to introduce an integrative model highlighting important contextual and logistical issues that must be considered: pre-class planning, in-class facilitation, assessments and feedback, training and renorming student expectations, and institutional context. We end the article with caveats and ethical considerations when introducing engaged learning into large classes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Throughout the article, we will generally use “engaged” teaching and learning as the umbrella term under which other descriptors such as experiential, relational, collaborative, and active learning techniques fall, following the standard language of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) research work.

  2. The term “lecturer” refers to the academic staff member primarily responsible for delivering the course and equates to an American professor. For the purpose of simplicity, we use the term professor throughout the article.

References

  • Allais, S. (2014). A critical perspective on large class teaching: the political economy of massification and the sociology of knowledge. High Educ, 67(6), 721–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitakis, J. (2014). Massification and the large lecture theatre: from panic to excitement. High Educ, 67(6), 735–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. (2015). Union attitudes among students. OBTS-L list post.

  • Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge: Harvard University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandiera, O., Larsinese, V., & Rasul, I. (2010). The impact of class size on the performance of university students VOX CEPR’s Policy Portal, (http://www.voxeu.org/article/impact-class-size-performance-university-students),

  • Benton, S. L., & Pallett, W. H. (2013). Class size matters. Inside Higher Ed, https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/01/29/essay-importance-class-size-higher-education.

  • Beyer, A. R. (2012). Educators against active learning. Evolution of Academia.

  • Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does (4th). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press & McGraw-Hill.

  • Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1979). A simple—but powerful—power simulation. EXCHANGE The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 4(3), 38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell, C. C. (n.d.). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. https://www.ydae.purdue.edu/lct/HBCU/documents/Active_Learning_Creating_Excitement_in_the_Classroom.pdf

  • Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom, ERIC report ED340272.

  • Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: lack of training, time, incentives, and tensions with professional identity? CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadaprof (2015). Reply to “More evidence that active learning trumps lecturing”. In M. Weimer (Ed.), Faculty Focus available at http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-professor-blog/more-evidence-that-active-learning-trumps-lecturing/.

  • Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). In American Association of Higher Education (Ed.), Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Denver: AAHE Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covill, A. E. (2011). College students’ perceptions of the traditional lecture method. Coll Stud J, 45(1), 92–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunliffe, A. L. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. J Manag Educ, 28(4), 407–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience & education. New York: Collier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, B., Vickers, K., Turtle, J., Cowan, S., & Tassone, A. (2015). Evaluating the use of Facebook to increase student engagement and understanding in lecture-based classes. High Educ, 69(2), 303–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exeter, D. J., Ameratunga, S., Ratima, M., Morton, S., Dickson, M., Hsu, D., et al. (2010). Student engagement in very large classes: the teachers’ perspective. Stud High Educ, 35(7), 761–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity: implications for institutional policy and decision making. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 26–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, A. R., & Masingila, J. O. (2014). Building capacity: challenges and opportunities in large class pedagogy (LCP) in sub-Saharan Africa. High Educ, 67(6), 797–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornaciari, C. J., & Kauanui, S. (2008). I want to design Ferraris, but I work at Ford: Or, how do I teach experientially in the era of assembly line classrooms. Paper presented at the OBTC Teaching Conference for Management Educators, Boston.

  • Fornaciari, C. J., & Lund Dean, K. (2005). Experiencing work design: beyond Hackman and Oldham. J Manag Educ, 29(4), 631–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornaciari, C. J., & Lund Dean, K. (2014). The twenty-first century syllabus: from pedagogy to andragogy. J Manag Educ, 38(5), 701–723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallup & Purdue University (2015). The Gallup-Purdue Index 2015 Report. Purdue University. http://www.gallup.com/services/185924/gallup-purdue-index-2015-report.aspx.

  • Heaslip, G., Donovan, P., & Cullen, J. G. (2014). Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Act Learn High Educ, 15(1), 11–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heppner, F. (2007). Teaching the large college class: a guidebook for instructors with multitudes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockings, C. (2009). Reaching the students that student-centred learning cannot reach. Br Educ Res J, 35(1), 83–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornsby, D. J., & Osman, R. (2014). Massification in higher education: large classes and student learning. High Educ, 67(6), 711–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter-Jones, P. (2012). The continuum of learning disengagement: Ethnographic insights into experiential learning in marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 34(1), 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxam, M. (2005). Learning in lectures: do ‘interactive windows’ help? Act Learn High Educ, 6(1), 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keogh, K., Sterling, L., & Venables, A. (2007). A scalable and portable structure for conducting successful year-long undergraduate software team projects. J Inf Technol Educ, 6, 515–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding a, while hoping for B. Acad Manag J, 18(4), 769–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol, 41(2), 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of Learning & Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology (Vol. 5, the SAGE CommText series). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund Dean, K., & Forray, J. M. (2016). ‘Malevolent, callous, or selfish?’ experiential teaching and the ethics of student deception. J Manag Educ, 40(2), 115–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund Dean, K., & Jolly, J. P. (2012). Student identity, disengagement, and learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), 228–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maringe, F., & Sing, N. (2014). Teaching large classes in an increasingly internationalising higher education environment: pedagogical, quality and equity issues. High Educ, 67(6), 761–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattson, K. (2005). Why 'active learning' can be perilous to the profession. Academe, 91(1), 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGraw-Hill Manager’s Hot Seat (n.d.). http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0073312126/information_center_view0/index.html.

  • Meltzer, D. E., & Manivannan, K. (2002). Transforming the lecture-hall environment: the fully interactive physics lecture. Am J Phys, 70(6), 639–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messineo, M., Gaither, G., Ritchie, K., & Bott, J. (2007). Inexperienced versus experienced students’ expectations for active learning in large classes. Coll Teach, 55(3), 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miner, R. (1992). Reflections on teaching a large class. J Manag Educ, 16(3), 290–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2010). Teaching large classes at college and university. Teach High Educ, 15(2), 175–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of Colleges and Employers (2015). Class of 2015 Student Survey. http://www.naceweb.org/surveys/student.aspx.

  • National Survey of Student Engagement (2014). NSSE Annual Results 2014: Bringing the Institution into Focus. Indiana University, http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/annual_results.cfm

  • Obenland, C. A., Munson, A. H., & Hutchinson, J. S. (2012). Silent students’ participation in a large active learning science classroom. J Coll Sci Teach, 42(2), 90–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). CA Sage: Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, T. O. (2004). So you’re thinking of trying problem-based learning?: three critical success factors for implementation. J Manag Educ, 28(5), 630–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiming, R. C. (n.d.). Impact of class size on teaching and learning. Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. Minnesota State University Mankato. https://www.mnsu.edu/cetl/teachingresources/articles/classsize.html#performance.

  • Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M. M., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educ Psychol, 42(2), 91–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, S. B., & Tanner, K. D. (2013, Winter). “What if students revolt?”—considering student resistance: origins, options, and opportunities for investigation. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 586–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severiens, S., Meeuwisse, M., & Born, M. (2015). Student experience and academic success: comparing a student-centred and and lecture-based course programme. High Educ, 70(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: classroom-based practices. J Eng Educ, 94(1), 87–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symonds, M. R. E. (2014). Lecturing and other face-to-face teaching—too much or too little? An assessment based on student feedback and fail rates. HIgher Education Research & Development, 33(6), 1221–1231.

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Survey of Student Engagement (2014). NSSE Annual Results 2014. Indiana University. http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/annual_results.cfm

  • Weimer, M. (2009). Objections to active learning. Faculty Focus. http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/learning-styles/objections-to-active-learning/.

  • Weimer, M. (2013). Learner centered teaching: five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wharton, R., & Parry, L. (2003). The good, the bad, and the ugly: using experiential learning in the classroom. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(3), 56–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarnall, L., & Fusco, J. (2014). Applying the brakes: how practical classroom decisions affect the adoption of inquiry instruction. J Coll Sci Teach, 43(6), 52–61.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathy Lund Dean.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lund Dean, K., Wright, S. Embedding engaged learning in high enrollment lecture-based classes. High Educ 74, 651–668 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0070-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0070-4

Keywords

Navigation