Angela Sparks
Cranfield University
August 2020
For many, learning and teaching at university is associated with large tiered lecture halls and attentive students taking copious notes. This is usually followed by small group learning to apply the taught material or to undertake projects. This lecture-based ‘transmission’ model is being challenged by institutions that are adopting ‘upside-down’ pedagogies – you might have heard of them as flipped learning, blended learning, active learning, peer learning, problem-based learning – or something else! This post will consider some of the research behind these ‘upside down’ pedagogies, with a focus on the SCALE-UP approach.
SCALE-UP is an acronym for ‘Student Centred Active Learning Environment with Upside-down Pedagogies’. It is a practice developed by Robert Beichner of North Carolina State University (NCSU), and as the name suggests, it encompasses several of the ‘upside down’ teaching practices. The emphasis in SCALE-UP classrooms is student-centred active learning. To facilitate this, space is designed for students to sit in small groups with open ‘thinking spaces,’ and tasks involve problem-solving and enquiry-based learning. The layout of a SCALE-UP classroom usually positions the instructor’s desk in the centre of the room and has round tables for each student group with laptop facilities and a whiteboard around the edge of the room. Screens for mirroring content are positioned on each wall. The students are given short, interactive tasks to complete while the instructor facilitates and coaches. In a white paper setting out the SCALE-UP method, Beichner argues that relationship-building is the most important aspect of a physical university, given that so much transmission-based instruction can be done online. This relational ethos should, therefore, be at the heart of any SCALE-UP implementation.
Over the past decade, SCALE-UP has been implemented in schools and colleges around the world, including at the University of Tokyo, the University of Minnesota, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, the University of Queensland, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Nottingham Trent University (NTU). In a case study, Foote (2014) documents the adaptations made to SCALE-UP from its original ‘home’ at NCSU to a version implemented at MIT and then Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) – in collaboration with MIT. Both ‘adopting’ institutions, MIT and SUTD, made modifications to SCALE-UP practice in their initial implementations to accommodate students’ learning culture which typically relied on the passive lecture-based model. Therefore, at both institutions, some lecture time was retained, with SCALE-UP practices being introduced into post-lecture classroom time.
In the UK, SCALE-UP is being used widely at NTU following a two-year collaborative project with Anglia Ruskin University and the University of Bradford evaluating active collaborative learning as part of the HEFCE Catalyst programme, ‘Addressing barriers to student success.’ NTU has installed 17 SCALE-UP classrooms and implemented SCALE-UP in 65% of existing courses. SCALE-UP or another appropriate form of collaborative learning is expected for any new courses. Kathy Charles, Interim Executive Dean of Learning and Teaching at NTU comments that NTU won the course and curriculum design category at the Guardian University Awards in 2019 for its SCALE-UP project, and reflects on the challenges of remote teaching: “we are adapting our internal SCALE-UP training sessions to work with academics to deliver an online version of SCALE-UP”. In terms of results, figures show that SCALE-UP has resulted in “reduced progression gaps, reduced attainment gaps, improvements in attainment and improvements in attendance.” (McNeil, J., Borg, M., Kerrigan, M., Waller, S., Richter, U., Berkson, R., Tweddell, S. and McCarter, R. 2019). For more detail on NTU’s implementation of SCALE-UP, see: NTU SCALE-UP webpage.
Examples of classroom design can be seen in fig 1. and fig 2. below.
The variations in implementation of SCALE-UP at different institutions make it difficult to measure success. However, it is accepted that forms of active learning have a greater impact on learning and retention than traditional models. Studies show that, where courses have been adapted to include some form of SCALE-UP, the attainment, retention and experience of learning were improved. Research by Hiroshi Ito and Nabuo Kawazoe found that research skills for innovation are “better nurtured through courses with active learning approaches” (Ito & Kawazeo, 2015 p. 83). The following examples highlight this, as well as the benefits of this approach for employability and innovation. A study by Ott et al. (2018) details the results of implementing discovery learning using a blend of SCALE-UP and Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) in an introductory chemistry course at the University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMBC). In this iteration, students worked in teams of four, each with a specific role. The roles are rotated weekly and sometimes within a session. Each team has a manager (who completes a contract and keeps the group on task), a researcher (who looks up information), a scribe (who writes on the team whiteboard) and a blogger (who updates the team’s discovery document). Each team completes set tasks and updates a discovery document that is deployed remotely (using MS Word) to each team’s PC. The instructor can monitor progress and release more documents as and when the teams are ready. The process is gamified using points, with each session being worth 20 points. Half account for the discovery documents (the team’s output) and half for conduct and participation. Points can be deducted for lateness and other rule infractions. Prior to the implementation of this form of teaching, the percentage of students achieving A-C grades was 60.4%. In the first year of its implementation, that percentage was 81.6%, and after four years it was 85%. The retention rates of students also rose, with 45.7% opting to continue the subject prior to implementation, and 55.8% after.
In the second example, a variation on SCALE-UP that used an authentic learning pedagogy was studied by Hancock et al (2010). This implementation aligned student work to community-based, real-world outcomes through a programme called Partners in Active Learning (PALS). PALS requires students to work with an organisation towards a shared goal. Three examples are given; the pilot which was internal and involved students holding an educational event, the second implementation was a collaboration with a local non-profit to address campus litter issues. The third iteration was with the same non-profit but involved a wider cross-section of students from different courses. The student feedback from the PALS modules was positive, with students reflecting on the skills they had gained in teamwork and planning, and suggesting that the active learning programme was more meaningful than their other classes because of its real-world implications. The researchers found that attainment was also improved – in Psychology, 85% of the PALS cohort met their course requirement compared to 70% of the non-PALS cohort; and in biology the difference was 95% for PALS and 84% for non-PALS.
For existing universities, any implementation of SCALE-UP will involve adjustment, and possibly even a complete redesign of courses to suit the collaborative, active classroom. This pedagogical approach is a consideration at the design stage of classrooms, due to the collaborative workspaces needed and the deliberate lack of ‘front’ or lecturing space. Courses that might ordinarily be part of the lecture-seminar-lab model would need to be adapted to fit group-based enquiry learning, so new tasks and active or ‘hands-on’ approaches to topics would need to be devised. Staff (and student) buy-in, especially where redesign of curricula is required to fit the new pedagogy, is therefore paramount. An institutional ‘champion’ might be necessary to drive the change and enthuse others. Cultural shifts in how students and academics engage with learning and teaching need to be carefully managed in order to maximise the learning experience and achieve results. One of the challenges of SCALE-UP is implementing active learning with large class sizes where it is difficult for the instructor to ‘coach.’ In order to combat this at MIT, undergraduate teaching assistants (TAs) were employed, enabling a version of peer-led learning and increasing personal attention for groups of students. At MK:U we have the opportunity to design courses and classrooms from scratch – the ideal opportunity perhaps, to engage in innovative and rewarding pedagogy. The various implementations of SCALE-UP detailed here are just a few of the successful uses and adaptations of this exciting and innovative pedagogy, which collectively demonstrate its possibilities for enhancing learning and the student experience.
Angela Sparks
Angela Sparks, Business Information Specialist at Cranfield University, contributes expertise to the Centre for Innovation in Learning and Education (CILE). The joint virtual centre aims to develop new knowledge in innovative education, business-engaged educational design and innovative delivery modes in undergraduate provision within UK Higher Education. Through joint research, the sharing of best practice and the design of innovative education pathways, Aston and Cranfield Universities are supporting the proposed development of a new model STEM-focused university in Milton Keynes.
This blog has been produced for the Centre for Innovation and Learning in Education, a Catalyst OfS funded project.
References
Beichner, R. (2007) ‘The SCALE-UP Project: A student-centered active learning environment for undergraduate programs.’ NAS Whitepaper. The National Academy of Science. Available at: https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_072628.pdf
Foote, K. T. (2014) ‘Factors underlying the adoption and adaption of a university physics reform over three generations of implementation.’ Electronic Journal of Science Education 18(3).
Hancock, T., Smith, S., Timpte, C., and Wunder, J. (2010) ‘PALs: Fostering student engagement and interactive learning.’ Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 14(4).
Ito, H., and Kawazoe, N. (2015) ‘Active learning for creating innovators: employability skills beyond industrial needs.’ International Journal of Higher Education 4(2) doi:10.5430/ijhe.v4n2p81
Nottingham Trent University (2020) SCALE-UP. Webpage. Available at: https://www.ntu.ac.uk/about-us/academic-development-and-quality/innovations-in-learning-and-teaching/scale-up
Ott, L. E., Carpenter, T. S., Hamilton, D. S., and LaCourse, W. R. (2018). ‘Discovery Learning: Development of a unique active learning environment for introductory chemistry.’ Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 18(4). doi: 10.14434/josotl.v18i4.23112.