Comfort in active learning spaces – students’ perceptions and preferences

ABSTRACT

Evidence suggests that Active Learning (AL) and Active Learning Spaces (ALSs) have the potential to improve student learning outcomes. In this study, the student experiences of AL and ALSs in four classes in mathematics and statistics at a Norwegian university are examined through classroom observations, surveys, and interviews. The student interviews are analysed using constant comparative method, which resulted in one main category and three sub-categories presenting what the students perceived to be significant factors that impacted their learning experiences in the ALSs and how these factors affected their motivation to engage with the subject. The main category is called Engagement and Comfort, and the three sub-categories are called Students’ Varying Preferences, Student-student Communication, and Teachers’ Communication. Students’ motivation was looked at through an Approach-Avoidance Theory lens. Crucial to the student experiences was that some students felt deeply uncomfortable in the ALSs, which prevented them from engaging and benefitting from the ALSs. This research highlights how students’ comfort in the ALSs is essential to ensure their engagement and suggests many aspects that can support students’ comfort. Future research and professional development programmes built upon the reflections here can be used to support improved educational quality.

KEYWORDS:

• Active
• learning spaces
• active learning
• students’ perspectives
• students’ perceptions
• higher education

1. Introduction

Active learning (AL), particularly in Active Learning Spaces (ALSs), is recognised as having the potential to increase student learning outcomes (Freeman et al. 2014). It is acknowledged that ALSs introduce changes in the affordances and expectations for both teachers and students; see e.g. Baepler et al. (2016). While these changes are generally viewed positively, as they offer more and improved opportunities for active learning, it is also important to recognise that the affordances provided by ALSs may present risks and challenges to teaching and learning quality. Indeed, not all ways of doing AL and using ALSs are equally good. Changing the way to teach and the space to teach is inherently risky (Kvan and Fisher 2021).

One reported issue with AL is student resistance (Deslauriers et al. 2019). There are many suggested strategies to overcome student resistance, such as engaging students who are not active in dialogue, encouraging their engagement, and clarifying the expectations and purpose of activities (Aga 2023; Tharayil et al. 2018). The present research aims to understand better how students perceive their learning situations in ALSs. Examining such perceptions could guide professional development programmes in supporting teachers to effectively utilise these spaces and reduce the potential risks for educators transitioning to ALSs.

If ALSs are to be effectively used, it is desirable to learn more about students’ perceptions of the elements that influence their learning experience. While this paper is foremost about ALSs, and not AL, effective ALS use typically involves AL use, and as such understanding AL is also a part of this research. Better understanding of AL and ALSs could help mitigate potential pitfalls for educators transitioning into ALS environments.

This is the second paper of a research series examining teachers’ and students’ experiences with ALSs at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). The paper shares similarities in the methodology, theoretical framing, and literature review with the previous paper, which researched the challenges the teachers experienced as they transitioned to ALSs, how these challenges were handled, and how the challenges impacted the teachers’ motivation (Aga 2023). While the researcher interacted with the teachers before and during the classes, discussing AL and the ALSs, student data collection was restricted to one interview per student group and one survey per class.

This paper reports from a study of how STEM students in four mathematics classes at NTNU perceived and reacted to the introduction of AL designs in an ALS. These students were mainly new to AL and ALSs in the higher education setting. The four classes were two statistics, one calculus, and one numerical mathematics class. The data material used in this paper were classroom observations, student surveys, and semi-structured focus group interviews. A more detailed outline is given in sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.1, and the teacher-paper referred to earlier (Aga 2023).

It should be noted that the focus is on students’ perceptions about and reactions to the transition to AL and ALSs, not to investigate the effects of AL and ALSs on the students’ learning. Before addressing the research question, it is desirable to provide some background on AL and ALSs in the context of this study.

1.1. Active learning

Active Learning (AL) takes various forms, such as problem-based learning, flipped classroom, peer instruction, or simply asking students to problem-solve with peers or individually during class (Albanese and Dast 2013; Barell 2006; Prince 2004; Meyers and Jones 1993; Milman 2012). The term AL lacks a universally accepted definition as various authors have offered interpretations of it (Bonwell and Eison 1991; Cohn, Atlas, and Ladner 1994; King 1993; Prince 2004).

I here use a working understanding of AL as a teaching approach that allows students to participate actively in the learning process beyond listening, thinking, and notetaking. Thus, AL typically includes activities such as discussing or engaging with problem-solving, where students are collaboratively involved in higher-order thinking tasks such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bonwell and Eison 1991; Chickering and Gamson 1987). This definition has been used to highlight the elements in the classes that were specifically designed to engage the students, see Section 2.1.1. This contrast AL with passive ways of lecturing, where the teacher does not give the students opportunities to work on tasks during class. Furthermore, AL can also be contrasted against traditional lecturing as was done in Freeman et al. (2014). The working definition here is informed by Prince (2004, 223): ‘active learning is generally defined as any instructional method that engages students in the learning process. In short, active learning requires students to do meaningful learning activities about what they are doing’. This is also in agreement with Bonwell and Eison (1991, 19), who defined AL as ‘anything that involves students in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing.’

Alternative definitions are possible. However, this research series does not focus on defining AL or comparing AL to other teaching approaches but on learning more about the attitudes and reactions of students (and teachers) using ALSs. The current definition highlights that the teachers consciously changed their teaching designs towards more active approaches.

Over the past quarter century, there has been an increasing amount of evidence that AL outperforms conventional lecturing as a teaching method (Crouch and Mazur 2001; Deslauriers, Schelew, and Wieman 2011; Deslauriers and Wieman 2011; Fraser et al. 2014; Freeman et al. 2014; Michael 2006; Prince 2004 Springer, Stanne, and Donovan 1999). Most notable are the findings from Freeman et al. (2014), who conducted a meta-study across 225 studies to compare students’ performance under traditional lecturing versus AL in STEM undergraduate courses. It was found that students’ performance on examinations and concept inventories increased significantly and that the odds of failing were drastically reduced when using AL. Freeman and colleagues point out that the average failure rate was 21.8% under AL, but 33.8% for traditional lecturing, yet a small segment of the studies analysed had increased failure rates for the AL classes. Also, important to note is that AL had a greater effect in smaller classes.

In the Norwegian context, it has been pointed out that AL may make students feel socially obliged to work with tasks, yet if students show up to class unprepared, they may be in a challenging position (Fredriksen 2021).

Clearly, not all AL designs can guarantee improved student performance. Indeed, as Michael (2006) suggests, there cannot be an experiment that proves AL always works better than more passive approaches. The design and implementation of AL are not free of challenges and problems, and strategies to overcome challenges, such as student resistance, have been addressed by Deslauriers et al. (2019) and Finelli et al. (2018). Such challenges can also be present in lecture-based classes but may be more prominent, or at least more visible, in AL classes.

Crouch and Mazur (2001) found that students’ reactions to peer instruction, a form of AL, were generally positive and that students’ mastery of both conceptual reasoning and quantitative problem-solving increased. Deslauriers, Schelew, and Wieman (2011) found increased student attendance, higher engagement, and more than twice the learning outcome measured by a specific set of topics and objectives when using AL instead of a traditional lecture, despite a highly rated and experienced instructor giving the traditional lecture. Michael (2006) points out evidence from multiple sources that AL works better than more passive approaches. Also, AL classes can boost positive traits in students, such as attitudes toward learning and motivation levels (Chen and Chiu 2016; Cohen et al. 2019; McKeachie and Svinicki 2013).

Teachers may also need time and practice to shift their pedagogical disposition towards AL, which has been reported as a challenge that teacher education programmes focus on (Aga 2023; Litster, MacDonald, and Shumway 2020). How to best implement AL is a growing topic in the literature (Bernstein 2018; Johnson et al. 2021), as it is unclear which AL methods give optimal learning outcomes and under what circumstances (Bernstein 2018).

1.2. Active learning spaces

As AL has been recognised as an effective teaching strategy, there is a growing number of reflections on how learning spaces can be designed to further support students’ benefits from AL (Finkelstein et al. 2016). Many universities have built and continue committing resources to develop learning spaces conducive to AL (Oblinger 2006). Such new learning spaces have many names, such as ‘Active Learning Classroom,’ ‘Next Generation Learning Space,’ ‘Technology Enhanced Active Learning classroom,’ and ‘Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-Down Pedagogies’ (SCALE-UP) (Baepler et al. 2016; Fraser et al. 2014). Such spaces are called Active Learning Spaces (ALSs) in this text.

In analogy with the broad definition of AL given by Bonwell and Eison (1991), ALSs are here understood to be spaces designed with the intent for students to learn actively. This understanding agrees with Stoltzfus and Libarkin (2016, p. 1), who explain that SCALE-UP-type classrooms are ‘designed to facilitate active learning by maximising opportunities for interactions between students and embedding technology in the classroom.’ It is also inspired by Bennett (2007), who highlights that learning spaces should be designed for the activities we want to happen in them. ALSs are typically equipped with group tables for small group discussions and technology that promotes collaboration (Baepler et al. 2016). An illustration of the ALSs used by the students in this research can be seen in Figure 1, and section 2.1.2 presents a further description of these spaces.

Figure 1. Illustrations of R2 (panels A and B) and SMIA (panels C and D), provided by Eggen Arkitekter AS.

Evidence suggests that when AL is performed in ALSs, students’ learning increases (Baepler et al. 2016; Brooks 2011; Brooks and Solheim 2014; Fraser et al. 2014; Taylor 2009). It is suggested that the positive impacts of these spaces are related to their design, facilitating improved student interaction (Brooks 2011). Moreover, it has been suggested that the expectations set by the ALSs have been argued to promote attitudes that support AL and contribute to a social environment that enhances students’ learning outcomes (Walker and Baepler 2018).

Evidence suggests that teachers with epistemic beliefs that align with AL tend to be more successful in ALSs (Aga 2023; Lasry, Charles, and Whittaker 2014). First-time users of ALSs have been observed to not modify their teaching methods, meaning that those accustomed to lecturing continued to do so regardless of the learning space (Carr and Fraser 2014). However, teachers who used AL in the ALSs were inspired to include even more AL elements, such as flipped classroom teaching (Van Horne et al. 2014).

There have been reported many benefits and some challenges in using the ALSs and AL (Cohen et al. 2019; Linton, Farmer, and Peterson 2014). Some challenges related to the use of ALSs that are connected to the students are student distractions (Petersen and Gorman 2014), students not appreciating or understanding the purpose of AL, students resisting engaging with AL (Finelli et al. 2018), and poor collaboration between students (Deslauriers et al. 2019). ALSs and AL also require a solid understanding of what AL is and a skilled implementation by the teachers (Andrews et al. 2020; Bernstein 2018).

1.3. Theory

The Approach-Avoidance Theory (AAT) is used in this thesis to highlight what the students perceived as necessary for a good learning experience in the ALS. While the data was initially collected without a specific theory in mind, it quickly became apparent that some theoretical framework was necessary to support the interpretation of the data. As reported in the results, initially the students to a very large degree presented varying and even contrasting opinions on what kind of design of the ALS classes they wanted. This meant that trying to design an ALS class based on these surface comments by the students, would be highly difficult as it would be impossible to satisfy all the students wishes simultaneously. Furthermore, some of the students wishes went against evidence-based suggestions, such as not wanting AL at all. Therefore, it was necessary with a framework that would support the analysis of finding elements in what the students said that would be common across all the students. Indeed, even early in the interviews it was striking how unwilling some students were to engage in the ALSs, and that this was an issue related to motivation. As such, a motivational theory to elucidated the students reasoning for engagement and other perspectives related to the ALSs was wanted.

Two other options that were strongly considered were, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Expectancy-Value Theory (EVT). Yet, it was judged that AAT was a better fit for examining conflicts in students’ motivation, namely further examining why some students did not engage in the ALSs, and if understanding this concept was also related to students varying preferences.

The AAT posits a framework for understanding conflicting motivational drives. According to this theory, an individual's inclination to approach or avoid specific stimuli, situations, or behaviours is determined by their perceived value and attractiveness (Carver 2006). In situations with attributes that can be perceived as positive and negative, a motivational conflict arises between the desires to approach and avoid the situation. The interplay between approach and avoidance motives gives rise to three motivational conflicts: approach-approach, avoidance-avoidance, and approach-avoidance. (i) Approach-approach conflicts are conflicts between two potential gratifications, such as a conflict between eating ice-cream or pizza, (ii) avoidance-avoidance conflicts are conflicts between two potential threats; and (iii) approach-avoidance conflicts are potential gratification and a threat of the same action (Corr and Krupić 2017; Kiknadze and Leary 2021).

A cognizance of AAT and opposing motivational factors is integral to understanding students’ perceptions of AL and ALSs. Especially (iii) approach-avoidance conflicts are relevant in this context as students reported that engaging in the ALSs was associated with both potential gratifications and threats. However, students may also choose not to participate due to other types of conflicts, such as approach-approach, if they are more motivated to approach other activities than engaging in the ALSs, for example daydreaming or scrolling on cellphones.

While the AAT provides valuable insights into understanding motivational conflicts, it tends to simplify complex human behaviours into binaries of approach or avoidance. Thus, the theory is not designed to detect nuanced factors that influence these decisions, such as processes that neither directly fall into the approach or avoidance category. In addition, it does not posit any advanced view of the cognitive process behind motivational factors. The theory is still useful for building a foundational view of motivation that can later be built upon and adapted to encompass the complexities of human behaviour more fully.

1.4. Research questions

As presented in sections 1.2 and 1.3, ample evidence suggests that AL and ALSs are highly beneficial for student learning outcomes (Baepler et al. 2016; Brooks and Solheim 2014; Freeman et al. 2014; Prince 2004). Nevertheless, students sometimes resist the use of AL (Deslauriers et al. 2019; Finelli et al. 2018). Moreover, while there is evidence on the benefit of AL and ALSs, there is less evidence on how to best use ALSs.

Therefore, examining what students perceive to be factors that significantly impact their learning experiences as they transition to the ALSs and how these factors impact their motivation and differ from the teachers’ perspectives can guide future initiatives to support improved student learning in the ALSs. The research question is:

What factors did students perceive necessary for a good ALS learning experience?

From the analysis it was revealed that what factors students perceived to be necessary to have a good ALS experience are reflected in three different ways: (i) the factors could impact the ALS experience directly, (ii) the factors could impact the ALS experience by influencing the students’ motivation, and (iii) the factors could impact the ALS experience indirectly by impacting other factors that were experienced as important. The term ‘ALS learning experience’ refers foremost to how students perceived the ALSs, and not AL. Yet, as the use of ALSs is deeply entangled with the use of AL, talking about ALS use also usually implies the use of AL. Furthermore, it should be noted that while most students were positive to AL and ALSs, as seen in Figure 3, many of the student quotes focus on ‘negative’ aspects – or rather, aspects of improvement. Highlighting such elements can induce reflections about how best to use ALSs, which in turn can support improved educational quality.

The students’ perceptions on what was necessary to have a good ALS experience also included reflections on motivation, such as how motivating it was to participate in group discussions, engage with tasks, and attend the class. To further highlight the concept of motivation, Approach-Avoidance theory (Carver 2006) is used; see Section 1.4.

Using the constant comparative method as a part of grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin 1998), one main category and three sub-categories answering the research question were identified. The structure of these categories is illustrated in Figure 2. The data included focus group interviews, surveys, and classroom observations (see Table 2).

Figure 2. Presents the categorisation of what students perceived as necessary to have a good ALS learning experience.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Research design

This study is part of a research series inspired by Interactive Action Research, IAR, (Postholm 2007). IAR is a subcategory of action research that typically focuses on researchers and practitioners (teachers) meeting in an equal relationship to support each other while researching and developing the field of practice. While students and teachers were participants in a transformative change, adapting to ALSs, only the teachers were directly involved in the study's change process (Aga 2023), the researcher only interacted with the students at the end of the semester to collect data. Most of the students were new to AL and ALSs but had no direct involvement in changing their classes as a part of the study.

The students were primarily Norwegian and had little or no previous experience with AL at the university level. Classroom observations were used indirectly to provide further talking points with the students and design the survey questions. The survey questions informed what to focus on for the critical data material, the semi-structured focus group interviews. The data from the semi-structured focus group interviews were analysed using the constant comparative method (Section 2.2). Four classes, two in statistics and two in mathematics, took part in the study (see Section 2.1.2).

2.1.1. The teachers and their teaching methods

To investigate the quality of AL and ALSs, the researcher engaged with mathematics teachers to establish a team to teach in the ALSs using AL (Aga 2023). Four teachers participated in the study, two of whom had experience using AL in the form of Student Response System (SRS) (Draper and Brown 2004; Nicol and Boyle 2003), however, none of them had any prior experience with ALSs. All the teachers started the research project with positive preconceptions of AL and ALSs; however, throughout the research project, not all the teachers felt that ALSs fitted them and their teaching preferences. For a more detailed description of the teachers, see Aga (2023).

All the teachers used SRS questions; one used mini-exercises and another used exercise sessions. The SRS questions were typically used for 2-3 questions every 45 min. Each SRS-question session lasted around 2-6 min. The teacher typically asked a question and gave the students time to talk, problem-solve, and answer, after which the teacher presented the solution. The mini-exercises consisted of 3-4 questions that the students got roughly 15 min to answer before the teacher reviewed the exercises. An exercise session lasted 2 × 45 min. The students worked on a lengthy task divided into smaller subtasks. The teacher delivered an introduction, then an explanation of the subtasks, and finally, a summary of the task at the end. The teacher was also available for questions during the session.

2.1.2. The students and the classes

The students had varied but little background in using ALSs and AL in higher education. Reports on cultural differences between Norway and the rest of the world differ (Henriksen and Murberg 2009; Hystad et al. 2010; Jian et al. 2010; Kolstad and Horpestad 2009), but most notably, Norway is described as having a similar culture as the rest of the Western world but with higher pressure on conformity (Avant and Knutsen 1993). For a more in-depth explanation of the employed teaching-learning designs, see Aga (2023).

There were 481 registered students across the four classes that took part in the study: one statistics class for engineering students, one statistics class for science students, a calculus class for engineering students, and a numerical mathematics class for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) master students. Teachers with experience with AL taught the statistics class for engineering students and the calculus class. The two other classes were taught by teachers who were not experienced in using AL (See Table 1).

Table 1. Overview of the different courses.

Course	Student Level	Student Type	Space	Teacher experience with AL
Statistics	Undergraduate	Engineering	R2	No
Calculus	Undergraduate	Science Students	R2	Yes
Numerical Mathematics	Graduate	STEM	SMIA	No
Statistics	Undergraduate	Engineering	R2	Yes

2.1.3. The active learning spaces

The participating teachers used two ALSs named R2 and SMIA (see Figure 1 for illustration). The bigger space, R2, was used by three of the teachers in the study, could fit 160 students, and was leveled. The smaller space, SMIA, was used by one of the teachers in the study, could fit 50 students, and was flat. Both spaces retain some division between the students and the teacher through a designated teacher area. The spaces also feature tables designed for small group interactions while keeping enough space for teachers to walk around the room among the students. Furthermore, both spaces feature educational technology such as Wi-Fi, a whiteboard for each student group, microphones, and a control panel for managing technology at the teacher's desk. Additionally, R2 has a shared digital screen for each student group, while SMIA has an Interactive Whiteboard for each group.

2.2. Data collection and analysis

2.2.1. Data collection

The teachers taught one class each for two semesters. The second semester was only partially observed and mostly taught online in spring 2020 at the beginning of the Covid-pandemic. Thus, most of the data collected and the four classes referred to are from autumn 2019. The researcher collected data on student perspectives through classroom observations, surveys, and focus group interviews (see Table 2).

• - Classroom observations: To ensure that the researcher and the students had a common understanding of how the classes worked, the researcher did 4-6 classroom observations per class. These observations also gave the researcher extra talking points during the interviews, helped the researcher ask meaningful questions, and created the questions for the survey.

• - Survey: Each class responded to an open-ended survey conducted before the interviews throughout the semester. The survey helped inform the researcher on the focus of the interviews. Where the information in the survey was vague, the researcher sought a clearer understanding of the topic in the interviews (see Table 4).

• - Semi-structured focus group interview: In total, 29 students were interviewed across 12 semi-structured focus group interviews across the four classes. The representation from each class was approximately equal. The interviews were typically set up to have 3-4 students, but some had fewer students. The interviews lasted as long as the students had something to share, approximately 2 h per group. The interviews are the primary data source used in this paper and gave insight into the students’ self-reported experiences and perceptions of their active classes. The researcher used a guide but encouraged the students to freely share their thoughts and emotions around AL and ALSs, probing when it was unclear what the students meant. The researcher facilitated the conversations to be safe and comfortable so the students could openly share their experiences and thoughts, both positive and negative, on ALSs.

Table 2. A summary of all the data material used in this study.

Data-source	Datatype	Group-size	Number of Times
Semi-Structured Focus Group Interview	Audio	The researcher + Group of mostly 3-4 students. Number of groups: 12 Number of students: 29	One interview per group of students – lasting roughly 2 h per group.
Survey	Written	Classes surveyed: 4 Total responses: 181	One survey per class
Classroom Observation	Notes	Researcher + Teacher and Class	4-6 times per class

2.2.2. Data analysis

A part of the survey was translated into statistics that presented an overview of the students’ preferences by showing how students responded to wanting more AL and if they were positive to ALS use, as shown in Figure 3. These statistics also highlight that the students were a heterogeneous group with different preferences, which is reflected in the variation in the students’ perceptions of what they perceived as significant factors that impacted their learning experience, see Section 3.2. While the questions were open-ended, only a minimal amount of interpretation was necessary to translate into the discrete version of this statistic. In total, there were 181 respondents to the survey.

Figure 3. Statistics on the student survey questions 3 and 6 (see table 4).

The data analysis and work with the categories were similar to that of grounded theory, and the constant comparative method was a key part of the analysis (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The constant comparative method, assisted by memo writing, was used to find underlying structures in the transcribed data material from the focus group interviews. These structures were turned into categories that addressed what the students perceived as significant factors that impacted their learning experiences in the ALSs. The classroom observation notes and the survey were mainly used to inform talking points for the focus group interviews. When the survey data inform a result, it will be explicitly mentioned. Otherwise, it can be assumed that the result is from the interviews. The categories that evolved from the data addressed the research question, as well as gave light to the need for using approach-avoidance theory to highlight the students’ motivation to give further insights into the students’ reflections. In addition, the categorisation of the different comfort types (Table 3) was something that emerged from the data and was then used to further highlight different aspects of the rest of the data.

Table 3. An overview of how three different elements of discomfort intersect with the three categories.

	Students’ Varying Preferences	Student-student Communication	Teachers’ Communication
Social Discomfort	Socially uncomfortable students saw little possibility of becoming more comfortable with active classes without teachers’ help. However, with teacher help, they saw it more likely that they could grow and become more socially comfortable.	The social discomfort related to student-student communication was often related to choosing seating and interacting with peers.	How the teachers behaved verbally and non-verbally influenced students’ social comfort in the class. It became easier to contact peers with good support from the teachers.
Learning Discomfort	Many students saw themselves as not ‘math-person’ and ‘not very social’ and were more interested in ‘surviving’ the course than learning mathematics.	Students often felt that it was intimidating to problem solve, share their perspectives, and ask for help from their peers. However, many students reported that their peers were more helpful than expected, but some experienced the opposite.	How the teachers behaved verbally and non-verbally influenced students’ learning comfort in the class. Classifying wrong answers as learning opportunities rather than wrong could help reduce students’ learning discomfort.
Physical Discomfort	Students reflected that poor physical comforts, such as poor acoustic quality in the lecture and poor seating positions, reduced overall comfort.

Through an iterative process of rereading and analysing, the constant comparative method guided the structuring of the data material. Each sentence was given a brief name that classified the topic. Non-pertinent elements of the text were removed. Text that was unclear whether it was relevant or not was temporarily given its colour and name to be reevaluated at later stages. The analysis was gradually built up from bottom to top through rereading and re-analysing the text to see how the text could be sorted and named differently. When all relevant text was line-by-line coded and appropriately named, the analysis continued to create focused codes by grouping lines of similar topics. The focused codes were named and given colour codes. Creating focused codes consisted of further rereading and re-analysing to continuously test and modify the focused codes. When the focused codes were sorted, and there was no need for further changes, the focused codes were, in turn, grouped into three sub-categories and one main category, see Section 3.

The perspectives introduced by the AAT elucidated students’ comments on engagement, meaning that it was easier to see connections between some students’ unwillingness to engage, to their discomfort, and the elements in the sub-categories. The perspective of the AAT did not change the data analysis process fundamentally but acted as a second lens for highlighting elements in the data.

Moreover, the distinction between physical, social, and learning comfort was identified only after the main category of Comfort and Engagement was identified. Thus, a second round of analysis was done where the comfort reported on in the sub-categories was highlighted further through this distinction of discomfort. This is further reflected in Table 3. The different comfort elements came from the student data and not from any existing framework. They have been added as the comfort aspect were deeply relevant to the finding in this paper, and that it was also very clear from the students that they experienced different types of comfort/discomfort.

3. Results

Analysis of the interviews with the students yielded a single dominant category as the most crucial factor for the students’ perceptions about what was necessary for a good ALS learning experience. The main category was identified and named Comfort and Engagement. This category had three sub-categories: Students’ Varying Preferences, Student-student communication, and Teachers’ Communication.

The main category and each sub-category are described below with respect to how the categories relate to the research question, with particular focus on what part of the category answers the research question (i) directly, (ii) by influencing the students’ motivation, or (iii) indirectly by influencing the other categories that influenced the students. The relation between the categories is shown in Figure 2.

3.1. Engagement and comfort

The data revealed that engagement and comfort were individually important, and as such these aspects could have been two separate categories. However, the data elevated even more how deeply intertwined and influential these two categories were to each other. The novelty of the finding here is that to a surprisingly large degree, it appears that students’ engagement in the ALSs, are dependent on their comfort. Furthermore, it also appears here that the entanglement of engagement and comfort related to the other sub-categories such as students’ preferences, how students communicated with each other, and what they deemed good and necessary behaviour by their teachers,

The main category summarises how it was consistent in all the sub-categories that the students perceived engagement and comfort as necessary to have a good learning experience in the ALS. The students’ comfort was reported to be related to students’ engagement. One student expressed: ‘Someone I knew. She doesn’t want to collaborate with someone she doesn’t know because then she’s not comfortable.’ If there is no collaboration there is little sense in using an ALSs, therefore it is important to address such attitudes in order to benefit more from the ALSs.

Overall, students reported wanting to learn and do well in their courses and that their engagement with the course was necessary for good learning outcomes. The AL and the ALSs were perceived to make it easier and more expected for the students to engage with the subject, each other, and the teachers. However, many of the students felt that interacting with peers and teachers about the subject matter was associated with elements of discomfort that they wanted to avoid. Indeed, a conflict existed between wanting to engage and learn and avoiding the discomfort associated with interacting in the class.

The severity of the discomfort the students experienced varied. For many students, the discomfort they experienced meant they were resistant to engaging in their classes, even if it resulted in a learning loss. One student said: ‘Many people who I know are very uncomfortable in such a situation (AL in the ALSs). They don’t dare to ask questions because they are afraid of how they will be perceived or are worried about what others might think … I know several who don’t want to show up. Because there are so many people to deal with. They are shy and would rather just stay at home.’

Thus, AL and ALSs contained elements that made the classes for the students both better and worse. It was better in the sense that AL afforded more opportunities to learn through interaction with peers and tasks in class, but it was also worse for some as it became more uncomfortable to come to and participate in the classes.

The students reported various forms of discomfort, some of which impeded them from engaging in the ALS classes. The discomfort they reported experiencing in the ALSs where through the analysis revealed to emerges in three different ways: social discomfort, learning discomfort, and physical discomfort. The data revealed very clearly that the students experience of comfort and discomfort were related to their engagement and learning experience. Moreover, it was revealed that the students experienced different variations of discomfort. The students’ expressions of the type of discomfort they experienced encouraged further partition of the discomfort term, which have here been partitioned into social discomfort, learning discomfort, and physical discomfort. Social discomfort is here defined as discomfort originating from a social situation, such as difficulty connecting or talking with one’s peers or having social anxiety.

Learning discomfort is the discomfort the students experience explicitly related to the learning activities, such as their fear of being considered unintelligent when asking a question about a task. The learning discomfort the students reported experiencing was often socially situated, as they were embarrassed to admit to their peers and teachers that they found a topic challenging or that they found themselves behind the other students or the curriculum. Physical comfort was related to the students’ physical well-being, such as lousy seating positions, noise, or poor air quality. Poor physical comfort made it harder for students to focus and stay on task. Social and learning comfort were crucial elements that students reflected upon in all three categories, while physical comfort was not discussed extensively but was recognised as necessary for a successful learning session, see Table 3. Yet, in general the students saw both upsides and downsides of the use of the ALSs, one student highlighted that: ‘SMIA (one of the ALSs) does not work well for teaching using the blackboard. The room works great for working together in groups, and it is nice with group blackboards and digital screens by each group table for collaboration.’

3.2. Students’ varying preferences

This category highlights that the students had a lot of varying, and even contrasting, opinions on what a good ALS learning experience looked like. While this appeared to present a significant challenge early in the analysis, as it appeared that it would be near impossible to make any suggestions to teachers how to use the ALSs, that would not simultaneously follow the suggestions of some students, while going against the suggestions of other students. It became increasingly clear that the students’ preferences were often shaped by the students’ wish to avoid discomfort, as further explored throughout the sub-category. While the quotes in this paper mostly highlights how students reflected on ALS use as challenging or how it could be improved upon; most students were happy with the use of ALSs (Figure 3), and there were many student quotes such as: ‘It was great to work on tasks with other students’ and ‘I learnt more using AL and ALSs, and would like to see more of this.’

The survey data revealed that most of the students who were pessimistic about using ALSs were also skeptical about using more AL. Most students who found AL or ALSs positive found it engaging, fun, and beneficial to their learning. Students who were unsure about wanting more AL either reported that they were fine with the current amount of AL or that it depended on the use and setting of the AL and ALSs.

The survey and the interview data revealed that the students that were negative to either ALSs or more AL often reported finding that the spaces were poorly designed with uncomfortable seating positions and that sitting on group tables during lecturing segments could be distracting, reinforcing the physical comfort aspect of the main category. The students also reflected that engaging in learning activities could be tiresome and socially uncomfortable.

While the students were mostly positive towards AL and ALSs, as seen in Figure 3, the reflections here are centered around aspects and students’ reflections where the students reflected on how these spaces and related factors could be improved in order to support improved education.

3.2.1. Activity preferences

The students’ preferences for activities were particularly diverse and often contrasted with each other. For example, students expressed that they wanted the following:

• - Less AL, while others wanted more (see Figure 3).

• - More manageable tasks, while others wanted more complicated tasks.

• - It was easier to come prepared to the classes, while others wanted it not to be expected of them to come prepared.

• - To sit with friends, while others preferred to sit with strangers (see Section 3.3).

Beyond the specific preferences, some students wanted less engagement, interaction, or other active elements. Important to note is that the students who reported wanting less of these elements also reported that they were uncomfortable with them as they provoked a sense of social or learning discomfort. The students who reported wanting more of the same elements typically reported that they were comfortable with them or even enjoyed participating in these activities.

3.2.2. Personality differences

This section further explores how the students reflected that they had varying preferences as different people with different personalities. Students who reflected that they influenced their own success typically appeared more motivated to engage in the ALSs. Indeed, students’ motivation to engage in the ALSs appeared to correlate with students’ perceived control over their learning outcomes. While students at times reported directly on their own motivation, there were also some elements of analysis of students’ motivation. For example, students’ statements, such as: ‘I rarely came to class, and when I did, I was not very active,’ was interpreted as a poorly motivated student. However, statements such as ‘I think it is meaningful to participate, but it was strongly uncomfortable for me, so I rarely did’ were interpreted to be motivated (approach) to be engaged, but with a strong avoidance towards engagement.

Students with low motivation to engage often reflected that it was hopeless for them to benefit from these classes, students with middling motivation to engage often reflected that it was up to the teachers to support them to benefit from these spaces, and students with high motivation to engage often felt that they had a direct impact on their own learning outcomes in ALSs. The students’ outlooks on the influence they asserted on their learning outcomes in the ALSs depended on their skills, personality, and past experiences. The more the students felt their skills, personalities, and past experiences corresponded with the ALS classes, the higher students’ motivation was to engage with the course, i.e. they had a high approach and low avoidance of engagement.

Many of the students felt they lacked the skills they needed to succeed in this new setting. For example, one student felt they lacked the skills to contact people, which impeded their view of AL: ‘I am not some kind of world champion in contacting people. So, I did not like the active learning so much.’ Other skills were understanding and using the new technology in the space, interacting and collaborating with their peers, engaging efficiently with new types of tasks, and understanding this new environment's intent and possible benefits. Without these skills, the students struggled to appreciate the full benefit of the new learning environment. While most of the students felt it was possible to learn these skills on their own, they appreciated that the teacher explicitly and frequently stated the purpose and the expectation for the student behaviour for them to know what to focus on to develop new skills to master the new learning environment, see Section 3.4.

Some students reported that AL did not fit their personalities. One student identified with not being a math person, which impeded their enjoyment of the course: ‘I do not like the course very much because I am not really a math person.’ Students who were shy, introverted, or socially anxious reported liking AL less than extroverted, socially comfortable, and bold students. Typically, students who self-reported that their personality did not match with AL chose behaviour associated with poor learning outcomes in these spaces, such as not engaging and interacting with their group. While these students were at least partially aware that their behaviour patterns were not conducive to optimal learning outcomes, they reflected that their behaviour would not improve unless the teacher gave clear instructions and encouragement, see Section 3.4. Without such teacher instruction, the students reported that their discomfort from engaging with the group was too high and the perceived benefit too low.

Some students had negative past experiences or perceptions of AL. These students hesitated to engage in the active elements and were less motivated than others. Some students with negative past experiences reflected that AL and ALSs classes were not for them or something they could benefit from. However, students with neutral or positive past experiences and perceptions of AL felt they benefited much more.

Overall, the students had more polarised opinions on the benefits of AL and ALSs than conventional lectures. Some students reported that AL and ALSs are the best style for them, while others reported them to be the worst.

3.3. Student-student communication

The second category is Student-student communication, which concerns how groups of students work and interact. Particularly, good student communication was felt necessary because it made the learning environment comfortable so that the students became more willing to engage by interacting with each other. For example, a student who expressed not feeling included in the group said, ‘I just sat there and did nothing because I felt that the others knew each other well even though one should sit with those they didn’t know. It was bad both socially and academically.’

3.3.1. Group dynamics

Common elements of the well-functioning groups were that students felt comfortable with their peers, i.e. they had low social and learning discomfort in this setting, so they dared ask questions and be themselves. Students reported appreciating their peers’ enthusiasm, warmth, and social- and curricular- initiative, as such qualities made them feel included and comfortable and inspired them to work together on the activities. In contrast, students who felt uncomfortable with their group reported that it was challenging to ask questions, as they were afraid to be considered stupid, annoying, or ignored when asking questions.

Some students were initially okay with asking questions to their peers but experienced that they got answers that were hard to understand and, in turn, were either silent or pretended that they understood the topic instead of revealing that they still struggled with it. To reveal that they did not fully understand something was uncomfortable as they feared being perceived as stupid and being looked down on by their peers and teachers. However, many students reported that while it was scary at first to engage in activities with the group, many of their peers were more inclusive, helpful, and engaged than they first expected. These positive experiences made the learning activities more fun and beneficial.

While many students reported that their groups were well-functioning for all members, others did not. Students with well-functioning groups reported that group tables were a big reason to prefer being in the ALSs and that working with the group made them appreciate and benefit from AL more. Whom the students sat with impacted the group's success; some preferred a group of peers that contributed with diverse perspectives and knowledge. While others liked collaborating with peers from similar backgrounds, making it easier to speak the ‘same language.’ One student reflected: ‘I felt that the biggest challenge was to collaborate with people that didn’t know the same as you. But even then, sometimes it can be a positive experience too.’ Although diversity was often appreciated, when the gap between students’ knowledge became too big, it was challenging to work with each other and benefit from the interactions.

3.3.2. Group selection

Students’ ideas on groups were wildly different regarding how they viewed the benefit of sitting with friends and self-chosen groups. Students’ perspectives on the benefit of sitting with friends can generally be divided into the following groups:

• - Some students reflected that groups should be self-chosen so they could sit with their friends, which felt safe and comfortable and led to better learning outcomes. While the friend groups at times would work to distract their peers, they often pushed each other to work harder. These students typically felt that ALSs made the AL classes more enjoyable and increased their learning outcomes.

• - Other students admitted that they preferred sitting with friends, but mostly because it was more fun and comfortable. They did not see it as beneficial to the learning as it was often distracting. These students typically enjoyed being in the ALSs, but how it impacted their learning was unclear.

• - However, other students reported that self-chosen groups led to groups of friend cliques, making it difficult for ‘outsiders’ to feel welcome and included. One student reflected: ‘I would like to see new groups every week. You risk getting a bad group, but for me, it is better than the alternative, where I sat a lot alone.’

Indeed, some students reported being anxious when choosing a seat, as they felt they did not belong anywhere. Such anxieties often led these students to avoid active classes altogether or report minimal learning outcomes from active classes as they interact very little or not at all with their peers. However, these students did not necessarily dislike the learning activities directly, just the social uncomfortableness related to them. These students typically felt that the ALSs made the AL classes less enjoyable and reduced their learning outcomes.

3.4. Teachers’ communication

The third and last category identified was Teachers’ Communication. This category presents the students’ reflections on the importance of teachers communicating the purpose and expected behaviour during the active segments. The students reflected that teachers needed to try to entice them to engage and that verbal and non-verbal communication mattered. The student body mainly had similar opinions on what constituted good teacher communication.

3.4.1. Clarification of expectations

The students often reflected that the learning quality would improve if the teachers communicated their expectations for the students in the ALS classes more clearly. The students were often anxious about how to act in the ALSs. One student reflected, ‘It was the first time we had such a space for such a class. So, it could have been nice with a small pedagogical walkthrough at the start to instruct us on how to use it. I imagine that if I had understood everything from the start it would have been much better … .’. Indeed, the students felt that the new learning environments demanded different skills and behaviours to succeed than they were used to in their other classes. Moreover, the students wanted their teachers to play a bigger part in supporting them to gain and become comfortable in having and using these skills. It is important to inform teachers using ALSs about students’ desire to be instructed in how to use these ALSs, and that what may seem obvious from the teachers point of view, that they want the students to engage in the ALSs, may not be equally obvious to students that are not used to AL and ALSs. Mastering and figuring out what this new behaviour looked like without proper clarification of expectations from the teachers was stressful for the students, and the students risked misunderstanding the purpose of the AL and ALSs. Good clarification of expectations from the teachers was reported to reduce harmful elements, i.e. reduce avoidance aspects, such as students’ uncertainty and discomfort, and increase students’ engagement.

Students also reported benefiting from teachers frequently reminding them of the wanted behaviour. Knowing more about expected behaviour in the class could reduce social discomfort, and being encouraged to interact and ask questions could reduce learning discomfort. Such reminders felt like a positive push when used in a friendly way. Indeed, a story that reflects this was that in one of the ALSs, a teacher requested the students to use the blackboard. At first, the students hesitantly complied. Yet, at the halfway break, the students reported that using the blackboard was an exciting and beneficial learning experience. However, when the students returned from the break and continued with the same tasks, they did not persist in using the blackboard, as the teacher did not explicitly ask for the students to do so.

3.4.2. Mirroring teacher behavior

Teachers’ non-verbal communication was essential to make the students want to interact and engage with the subject, like the teachers acting welcoming, walking around the learning space, and radiating interest in the subject. Indeed, it was hard for the students to believe that a course would be interesting and valuable to them if the teacher appeared disinterested in the subject. The students reflected that teachers who were welcoming and engaged inspired similar behaviour. Thus, the students mirrored the teacher's behaviour, for better or worse. The students notably reported liking it when teachers were inclusive right from the beginning, illustrated by a quote from one student: ‘Berit (teacher) was fabulous, immediately when you entered the room she comes over and starts talking with you and gives you a handshake, and asks how you are doing. She makes everyone feel welcome, and you want to ask her questions later.’ However, students reflected that such behaviour needed to feel natural to the teacher to have a positive impact. While, it is usually regarded highly to have a warm and welcoming teacher regardless of space, it appeared to be additionally important in the ALS context, as the students needed additional support to overcome additional challenges that came with adapting to new teaching pedagogies and spaces.

3.4.3. Organised classes

As many students reported that the novelty of the active classes added stress, which could create discomfort, they reported that reducing any stressors in such classes was essential. They felt that while having a disorganised class was always stressful and negative, it was especially harmful to the active classes, and the stress came on top of the AL stress and had a compound effect. Thus, clear and concise communication and planning were perceived even more critical in the active classes.

3.5. Relationship between categories

As seen throughout the text, the relationships between the categories go beyond what is illustrated in Figure 2, as most of the categories impacted the other categories. For example, the main category is seen through physical comfort, social comfort, and learning comfort, which relates to the three sub-categories further described in Table 3.

The main category also related to teachers’ communication in that teachers being warm and welcoming and clarifying expectations well were reported to make the groups likely to interact more, the students more likely to think of AL as something that benefits them, and being more engaged from increased social and learning comfort. In addition, good student-student communication was reported to reduce discomfort and increase engagement, and comfortable and engaged students made it more likely that the groups would be perceived as well-functioning.

Indeed, all the categories have a dialectical relationship where positive outcomes of one category could create positive outcomes in another and thus create a positive feedback loop. However, bad outcomes of one category are also likely to have a negative impact on the outcomes of the other categories. Students did not report on comfort and engagement, varying students’ preferences, and teachers’ communication to influence improving teachers’ communication; however, teachers reported that engaged students positively impacted their relationship with students and their effort in transitioning to developing their teaching strategies (Aga 2023).

4. Discussion

An important step in advancing teaching and learning in higher education is through advancing the knowledge of how students perceive teaching and learning with AL in the ALSs. This research was conducted exclusively in mathematical courses at a Norwegian university. In mathematical courses and at the university, there is a need for more research on the topic.

Previous findings support that elements from all categories can strongly impact the students’ learning experiences, such as comfort and engagement (Kariippanon et al. 2018; Russell and Topham 2012), group dynamics (Forsyth 2018), and teacher communication (Khan et al., 2017). The results from section 3.2, students’ varying preferences, also produce evidence that variation in the student population is part of what makes it challenging to teach with AL in ALSs.

The novelty in this research goes beyond each individually mentioned element but is rather how the students reported on how comfort impacted their learning experience and motivation. Indeed, worth highlighting is:

How frequently and strongly students’ perceptions of their learning experiences were connected to their comfort.

The researcher expected the students to reflect more extensively on the mathematical, didactical, and spatial aspects of being in the ALSs. Instead, the students often returned to how they enjoyed being in the ALSs because they easily entered group work or detested it as they found the activities or setting uncomfortable.

Indeed, consistent among the students who disliked the AL and ALS experience was how they constantly felt to be on trial in these environments. This feeling reduced their likelihood of engagement, and if they were to engage, they did so with reduced cognitive resources (Cooper, Downing, and Brownell 2018). Building trust across the classroom, among peers, teachers, and students is one of many ingredients to reduce this feeling of trepidation for the students, i.e. that ‘failing’ can have severe and long-lasting negative consequences.

These results may be biased, either due to the students, the researcher, the teachers, or due to culture or other factors. Regardless, it is of interest to investigate further the impact students’ comfort has on their learning experience, particularly in ALSs.

How often comfort seemed to be an underlying aspect that impacted the students’ perceptions of what, on a surface level, seemed to be quite different concerns.

Indeed, the students’ perceptions of what was necessary to benefit from the ALSs varied significantly; however, an underlying element in many of these preferences was that they were related to their students’ discomfort. For example, students who wanted less AL were mainly concerned with the discomfort engaging in these activities caused and not primarily concerned about whether a teaching strategy or the space would benefit their learning outcomes.

How the categories had independent importance but were also interconnected.

The students reported that success with the elements in one category made it more likely that the elements in the other categories supported an excellent learning experience. However, while good Teacher Communication could further reduce students’ discomfort, each category also had independent value, in that good teacher communication was vital even if it did not reduce students’ discomfort.

Teachers often observe students resisting AL (Andrews et al. 2020; Deslauriers et al. 2019; Finelli et al. 2018). Andrews et al. (2020, 143) summarise the literature findings for students to resist engagement with AL as ‘ … may require more effort, may require students to attempt a task they do not feel efficacious at or see value in or may be outside of students’ assumptions about teaching and learning.’ These findings align with the findings in this paper; for example, ‘may be outside of students’ assumptions about teaching and learning’ is addressed in section 3.4.1, Clarification of Expectation. The excerpt: ‘may require students to attempt a task they do not feel efficacious at or see value in’ aligns with reflections related to learning discomfort. Novel to this paper is how students’ resistance to AL and ALSs can often be due to discomfort and that a large amount of this discomfort is socially situated.

Indeed, it has been pointed out, in the Norwegian context, that activities such as teaching others ought to take place when the students doing the teaching want to do so (Rensaa and Fredriksen 2022). Moreover, the evidence here shows that wanting to participate in AL activities is often related to the student’s comfort.

As previously stated, a key component in the students’ reflections was how they viewed discomfort. Students’ comfort has been identified as appearing in three different ways: physical-, social-, and learning comfort. There do exist many alternatives to structuring such elements. Alternative choices exist for the word comfort, such as stress or limited cognitive capacity or resources (Beilock 2008).

Some examples of elements that can reduce physical comfort and thereby reduce students learning outcomes are thermal discomfort (Amasuomo and Amasuomo 2016), acoustic comfort (Montiel et al. 2019), and seating quality (Kariippanon et al. 2018). While there is a lot to be said about physical discomfort and its impact on students learning experiences this was not at the centre of the students’ reflections of using the ALSs but is briefly presented here to recognise the potential impact it has on their learning experience, as well as the need for further research on the topic.

Social discomfort, such as social anxiety, can negatively impact student learning outcomes and well-being (Russell and Topham 2012), and anxiety can impair cognitive processing and lead people to perform below their ability (Maloney, Sattizahn, and Beilock 2014; Wood, Mathews, and Dalgleish 2001). There were many students that felt like not coming to the ALSs simply because they felt it was socially uncomfortable to find a group to work with, and that most other students than them had a regular friend group to sit with, while they had not.

Learning discomfort can be viewed as a part of social discomfort, as it is often experienced in a social setting. However, learning discomfort, such as math anxiety, can partly be unrelated to social settings (Furner and Gonzalez-DeHass 2011). Regardless, it becomes essential to recognise that students’ discomfort plays a vital part in their learning experience, as a better understanding of students’ challenges can be used to better support the students. Whether learning discomfort should be its own category, or a sub-category of social discomfort is an open question. Yet, it is presented here as two separate categories. For some students learning discomfort appeared to simply be an aspect of what was socially uncomfortable, but for other students it was a clearer distinction between the two categories. For example, some students experienced fear of not being socially included in the group (social discomfort), while others had more fears towards talking mathematics with their peers (learning discomfort).

Superficially looking at the students’ many contrasting preferences, especially those reported on for activities in section 3.2.1, it appears that accommodating all their preferences simultaneously is not possible. Yet, through the lens of AAT, it appears that more important than the actual activity was how the activities made the students feel. Thus, if one can change how the students feel about the activities, one can possibly get fewer contrasting student preferences. More specifically, in this context, students could get a more homogenous, engaged, and joyous experience of the AL and ALSs if the activities were designed and presented in a way that were conducive to making the students feel comfortable.

In addition, the students who were uncomfortable with engagement, interaction, or other active elements often had preferences that contrasted strongly with their teachers’ ideas of teaching design and belief in what is beneficial for the students (Aga 2023). As the students’ beliefs, in this case, contrast with evidence-based teaching strategies, it seems reasonable that measures to make students comfortable and appreciate AL and ALSs would benefit students’ learning outcomes.

There was no way to group students that suited all preferences for good student-student communication. However, other studies have found that groups do not necessarily function immediately, and instructors’ support is central to improving group dynamics (Baepler et al., 2016, p 134). Some suggest emphasising the importance of teamwork, expectations, and providing preliminary instruction at early stages to the students (Davis 2009; Oakley et al. 2004). Such teacher instruction and expectations clarification align with the findings here as they will likely reduce students’ social and learning discomfort.

In the results from section 3.2.2, it was striking how many students felt that they had no influence or that only the teachers could influence their learning experience in the ALSs. It has been proven that students’ attitudes can impact their learning outcomes (Darnon et al., 2009), and further research looking into students’ attitudes towards learning, AL, ALSs, and how to improve these attitudes is recommended.

Improved facilitation and explanation of AL by teachers can enhance students’ attitudes toward AL and engagement in ALSs classes (Nguyen et al., 2021; Tharayil et al. 2018). The teachers’ perceptions were also studied in Aga (2023), while the teachers also reflected on the students’ engagement, they reflected less on the impact of students’ comfort. Improving teachers’ understanding of students’ perceptions regarding the use of AL and ALSs will likely increase the effectiveness of existing strategies used to engage students in the ALSs, such as strategies explored in (Aga 2023; Finelli et al. 2018; Tharayil et al. 2018).

Professional development programmes for teachers should also highlight the students’ perspectives by informing educators about students’ common beliefs and encourage strong teacher-student connections. Such professional development could be informed by the student reflections here and is likely vital for consistently enhancing the effectiveness of AL and ALSs.

5. Conclusion

For many university students, active classes in ALSs are a new learning environment that demands new skills to master. If these spaces are not adequately introduced, the students will likely experience discomfort that can negatively impact their engagement in the ALSs, thereby reducing the potential learning outcomes. However, for these spaces to be adequately introduced to the students, the teachers must develop new skills to create a comfortable environment for the students in the ALSs. Yet, for teachers to develop these skills and to transition to the ALSs, they too need support (Aga 2023).

Declaration of interest statement

There is no potential interest of conflict to report.

Ethical declarations

Norsk Senter for forskningsdata (NSD; Norwegian Center for Research Data) has approved the research. The approval number is 722635.

The data storage has been approved by Datalagringsdirektivet (the Data Retention Directive).

Acknowledgments

Thank you so much to everybody who participated in the study and helped the research along the way. Thank you to the students who answered the surveys and participated in the focus-group interviews. Your elaboration on how the ALSs impacted you is greatly appreciated and will hopefully be used to improve teaching and learning for future generations. Thank you to the teachers who gave their time to participate in this extensive study, transitioned to the ALSs, and allowed me to interview and survey their students. Thank you to my supervisors for your support and advice in writing this paper. This work was funded through the initiative TettPÅ at NTNU.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet [grant number:].

Notes on contributors

Kristian Aga

Kristian Aga is a Ph.D. candidate in didactics of mathematics at NTNU, with a keen interest in teaching mathematics. He is researching the use and value of active learning and active learning spaces in mathematics courses for teachers, students, and from a theoretical perspective. He also has an interdisciplinary master's in mathematics and physics that looked deeper into modeling neuroscientific data.