Assessing the Effect of Pedagogical Transition on Classroom Design for Tertiary Education: Perspectives of Teachers and Students

Abstract

Active learning has been increasingly important in tertiary education in recent years due to its powerfully favourable impact on students’ learning attitudes and efficacy. Indeed, the way that a classroom is set up has a direct impact on how well students learn and how well teachers teach. The continuous evaluation of students’ learning performance is essential for guiding future classroom renovations and creating a cutting-edge learning environment for both students and teachers. The aims of this paper were to provide a better understanding of the latest development trend of learning mode preference in tertiary education and to investigate any underlying similarities and differences in the perceptions between teachers and students. To support both teaching and learning, an empirical questionnaire survey was conducted among teachers and students in Hong Kong to assess the effectiveness of various active learning techniques and passive learning techniques adopted in tertiary education. Opinion-based data were collected on the perceived benefits and disadvantages of both learning techniques as well as the importance of various classroom design features. To determine the significance of the variations in opinions between teachers and students on the survey responses, descriptive statistical analyses using the mean score and Mann–Whitney U-test were carried out. The results of the Mann–Whitney U-test on the advantages of traditional learning showed that the following variables significantly varied: ‘direct information from the teacher’; ‘timesaving (group discussion may waste time)’ and ‘allow more time for Q&A’. These advantages were generally rated higher from the viewpoint of students rather than teachers. However, no significant difference was established concerning the limitations of traditional learning. The findings of this study can help teachers and instructors to understand how different teaching and learning methods affect students’ ability to learn effectively, which can ultimately help institutional policymakers to determine the necessary essential requirements for orchestrating classroom designs to create more conducive teaching and learning environments. The findings also aim to inform policymakers and educational institutions on the impact of pedagogical change on the fundamental design requirements for a flexible classroom environment supportive of students’ active learning, especially in tertiary education.

1. Introduction

The traditional classroom design has been the premiere environment for facilitating learning at the primary, secondary and tertiary education level. The traditional classroom design is structured such that it encourages a fixed seating configuration of students. Thus, students are positioned as listeners of the instructor. The notion of the ‘sage on the stage’ by [1] portrays the traditional classroom design and its learning approach. Teachers become the main source of knowledge, while students are passive absorbers of such knowledge at the preaching of their teachers [2]. Aside from listening to lectures, other participatory activities such as small group discussion, cooperative learning and peer questioning are discriminated against because of the traditional classroom design. Rather, information delivery is mostly one-way—from the instructor to the listeners—apart from the listeners asking the instructor questions. Essentially, this form of learning design expedites on information delivery and enables instructors to complete the delivery of their syllabus for the adequate assessment of learners. However, this form of design has been criticised as not effective for student engagement. It affects skills development concerning collaboration, interpersonal communication and confidence in public speaking. These are essential skills for the corporate world. Due to these lapses in the traditional classroom design and its learning approach, policymakers are drifting towards active classroom design and learning.

Contemporary pedagogy requires a transition to a better learning approach, and this is active learning. Active learning is a broad and commonly used term generally defined as “any instructional method that engages students in the learning process” [3] (p. 223). The theoretical basis of active learning is constructivism, which posits that people build knowledge by acting on the world around them and reflecting on their actions and experiences; that is, knowledge of an object is inseparable from the people or subject studying the object or processing the object. Active learning is, therefore, more learner-centred and requires more physical activities by the learner. Studies have recommended that instead of passively receiving and interpreting information, students should rather actively engage by acting on objects to gain knowledge of the objects (i.e., the active learning approach) [2,4,5,6,7,8]. The recommendations for active learning by both teachers and students have been buttressed by engagement with course content, the promotion of retention and mastery of content as some benefits of active learning to students [9]. For instance, group discussion helps students to acquire essential skills for their future careers; it enhances students’ communication skills [8].

Pedagogical strategies such as case studies, roleplaying, internships, simulation, team projects, peer tutoring and challenging discussions could be employed for active learning [4]. In addition, multimedia learning visuals can be used to promote active learning [5]. Moreover, casual group learning can be an effective strategy for active learning [6]. Although some of these active learning strategies could be conducted in the traditional classroom setting, effectively implementing the active learning strategies for their benefits requires a classroom that better promotes active learning. Active learning classroom designs have variant forms such as the student-centred Active Learning Environment, Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) and Space to Transform, Interact Learning, Engage (TILE) [10]. The commonality of all forms of active learning classroom design is that they feature tables with movable seating which facilitates group work such as small group discussion, cooperative learning and peer questioning [10]. The instructor mostly plays a facilitative role to enable learning and information sharing among learners. Consequently, this form of classroom design promotes effective interpersonal communication and collaboration, which are ‘skills and dispositions deemed necessary for a lifetime of learning’ [11].

Notwithstanding the essence of the active learning approach, switching from traditional learning to active learning has been a herculean task. The active learning technique and its design require more institutional resources and might not be cost-effective compared to the traditional learning technique and designs [9]. Some faculty and staff found this type of classroom disorienting and distracting [12]. Time wastage or inadequate class time for the incorporation of pedagogical practices, inadequate time for institutions and instructors to learn and effectively implement new strategies, disruptions in class, lack of class control by instructors and adequate comfort with traditional lectures are some of the reasons for the inertia in transitioning to active classroom design and its learning approach [4]; Ref. [4] also asserted that ‘student groups tend to be very static in their make-up (i.e., same students in each group)’ regarding active learning strategies. Consequently, it is difficult to change group composition to enhance collaborative learning. Furthermore, owing to the time-consuming nature of active learning techniques, most staff are sceptical about the completion of syllabus as scheduled, and other instructors complain of not being able to organise guest lectures. Specifically, students have also reported on some challenges of active learning techniques regarding cooperative learning (i.e., structured group activities), viz: free riding, being bullied or intimidated, the conformity effect, conflicts, challenges with the distribution of workload, problems with losing face among students and resentments [6].

Concerning both classroom designs—the traditional classroom design and the active learning classroom design—the question that persists is which one is better? Symmetrically, both classroom designs and teaching techniques benefit students, albeit under different conditions. Therefore, active learning techniques could be implemented in a traditional classroom based on the classroom’s capabilities. Yet, although many institutions are transitioning from traditional classroom designs to active learning classroom designs, not many studies exist on assessing both towards achieving an optimal design for realising the benefits of the two designs. In view of the recent pedagogical development, the College of Professional and Continuing Education (CPCE) of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University seeks to carry out a study entitled “Design criteria of flexible classroom design for traditional and active learning” after the refurbishment of learning spaces, involving upgrading, updating, and creating modern and innovative classroom and associated facilities. The purpose of the remodelling work is to enhance the current learning and teaching settings for both students and teachers in order to satisfy the evolving and growing demands of learning. Therefore, this study seeks to achieve two main objectives: (i) to assess the advantages and disadvantages of both classroom designs from the views of teachers and students towards devising appropriate design criteria for effective classrooms; and (ii) to assess similarities and differences from the views of teachers and students on design criteria towards informing decision making on classroom design. This type of research is crucial for generating initiatives that will improve and support upcoming classroom space designs [12,13].

2. Literature Review

The architecture of the classroom reflects the educational philosophy and ideology, and the learning environment affects students’ study attitudes [2,14]. Given how quickly current technology is developing, there has been a substantial shift in pedagogical practices in recent years. The increasing accessibility of interactive learning platforms, the abundance of high-quality content online, and the simplicity of connecting mobile devices to the internet are some of the factors driving the pedagogical revolution [15,16]. In the workplace, the capacity to use interpersonal skills and good communication skills is essential, and these skills can be strengthened through education. Consequently, the teaching approach has been shifting away from the traditional teacher-centred teaching style towards a more active form with students’ engagement and interaction in group discussions, especially in tertiary education [6,7,8,17,18].

The conventional learning environment, which is set up in a constant lecture-style configuration, restricts how students learn and how they consider what they are learning [12]. The arrangement of traditional classrooms, which are often big and have a screen or blackboard in the front, makes it simple for teachers to convey information. Most of the time, students pay close attention to the monitor so they may learn from the teacher and take notes. Throughout an entire lecture, there are few interactions between instructors and students, as well as few student-to-student discussions. The classroom’s monotonous design causes boredom and creates distance between students and teachers [14]. The set furniture layout makes it physically difficult to have a group discussion or other interactions, which reduces the opportunity for the free flow of ideas. Due to the traditional teaching method’s single delivery of knowledge and information, there is a higher likelihood that cognitive laziness will occur. Students’ ability to learn is impacted by this, necessitating an active learning strategy.

According to [17,19], active learning is a method of instruction that emphasises critical thinking and involves students doing things while also thinking about what they are doing. The focus of active learning is on the use of contemporary technology, which makes it possible to teach some challenging ideas using dynamic and spatial picture technology. There are many technologies that help teachers to deliver knowledge in different ways [5]. A teacher can explore various tools and videos from modern technology and combine them with the class’s main idea to explain a complex concept in a way that is more visually stimulating and encourages active learning. Examples of modern technology include smartphones, computers and virtual reality. With beneficial devices, teachers can also provide more learning opportunities. Active learning allows instructors to share information in a more imaginative manner by adopting modern technology to enhance the quality of education. A requirement for design in an active learning classroom is the flawless control of battery power and many wireless devices. The teaching and learning methods have been affected by the rapid development of communication technologies. For instance, a mobile phone has evolved into a minicomputer that allows users to quickly access various applications or communication platforms. This makes interactive classroom activities easier to carry out [20]. For instance, Kahoot! is a well-liked and widely used online learning platform that is practical for classes to improve student engagement, vitality, interaction and metacognition in tertiary education classrooms [21]. The development of this kind of online platform is based on the widely used user-centred and behavioural design methodologies. The usage of Kahoot! to collect student responses is evidently appreciated and well-received by them. Instructors and lecturers have the option to modify their subject in many disciplines based on students’ understanding and expertise on brief tests since it provides real-time responses and feedback [22]. In addition, these platforms permit anonymous participation, which increases student involvement [4,8]. Access to the platforms needed to complete interactive activities is simple for classes with modern technology. In addition to mobile technology, flexible furniture is a key success factor for active learning pedagogies [12,14,23,24].

The design of a learning space, which includes both technical support and classroom amenities, is a key element in achieving the benefits of active learning [2,4,25]. At the same time, teachers must collaborate when utilising the resources offered to implement active learning effectively and enhance students’ knowledge construction. The classroom design had a significant positive impact on students’ ability to solve problems, as well as on fostering conceptual understanding and better learning attitudes, according to a project at North Carolina State University which implemented studio-based, collaborative learning to large classes [26]. Good desk and chair placement in the classroom can increase student participation and provide them with more opportunities to give feedback during class. Round tables, for instance, might encourage interactions between teachers and students as groups of pupils work cooperatively on engaging projects. Additionally, a pleasant learning environment with acceptable air quality and adequate lighting from natural daylight is crucial for students’ achievement in their academic studies [14,27]. Students are more inclined to spend time in class when they feel at ease [23,24], which increases learning progress and learning motivation.

Additional educational tools that complement the active classroom include social media, online courses, online learning platforms and virtual reality [28,29]. In some institutions, the flipped classroom is adopted, through which, course contents are shifted to online materials that students are expected to learn on their own, while the students spend in-class time with their instructors on activities to analyse, apply and consolidate the content learned online [27]. This approach promotes better interaction between students and their instructor, facilitates challenging discussion among students and ensures peer tutoring which could enhance interpersonal communication [30]. Although active learning is mostly conducted via a face-to-face classroom environment, it is worth noting that it could also be carried out via online tools, viz: Zoom, MS Teams, Skype and Google Meet. Through these tools, screen sharing for individual or group presentations, online discussion boards and Zoom breakout rooms and peer feedback assignment can be conducted to promote interactions among students and between the instructor and students [4]. These online tools became very essential during the global COVID-19 pandemic era; although face-to-face meetings were discouraged, active learning was ensured through online tools.

The advancement of educational technologies has brought about a new style of instruction and learning that has tremendously influenced educational institutions such as universities and colleges to adopt pedagogical reform. The modification of the classroom layout has evolved into a crucial step in obtaining success for active learning because of the pedagogical change. New teaching approaches cannot be used in traditional classrooms because they are made to merely provide knowledge to pupils. In accordance with the current development, teachers will use various types of technology to provide instructional materials, films and other new tools to students. As a result, new classrooms typically need additional space for equipment, and both students and teachers need to have easy access to it. Additionally, the active classroom method encourages students to participate more actively in debates, exchanges and reactions with teachers and their fellow students. To support and assist students in using the new technology for learning and evaluation, the teacher may also circulate the room. Flexible and accessible classroom design is therefore of utmost importance to accommodate the high demand for interactions between students and teachers. The new pedagogical change is thought to benefit from layout design features such as wider aisles and furniture features such as movable seats and tables, which influence built pedagogy [12,23,24,31,32].

Built pedagogy denotes the space’s capacity to support the teaching and learning approach. The authors of [33] advocated that a well-designed classroom is one of the most important things to help and support active and cooperative learning because it gives students a good place to learn for both educational and social reasons and makes the most of the space. The focus should be on (i) functionality (adaptability and flexibility), (ii) comfortability, (iii) user-friendliness and (iv) aesthetics when designing an active learning environment [34,35]. Classrooms should be arranged and designed (i) to cooperate with technology, services and contents in a physical manner, which can encourage students to work and collaborate with others; (ii) to be set up with varieties of technologies; (iii) to facilitate group collaborative work in different group sizes; and (iv) to enhance adaptability and flexibility and support a multi-functional learning environment [36,37].

Comparison between Traditional Learning and Active Learning

Traditional Learning, Its Advantages and Disadvantages and How It Affects Learning Space Design

Traditional teaching refers to the teacher-centred teaching approach that places a focus on providing students with information in a one-way manner (Table 1). For the design of a traditional classroom, a teacher stand is usually placed in the front and long tables for students face the front stand, which forms an authoritative position which means that teachers can monitor and ensure their students’ seats remain stationary and arranged in rows [38]. As pupils take a passive role in absorbing knowledge and information, this setup is discovered to be more ideal for the memorisation of facts and coursework with a theoretical focus. The opportunity for practise may be limited with traditional learning methods. Because students may easily learn from what professors have prepared and from book information, programmes that use a traditional teaching methodology tend to have fewer practical skills. Additionally, the one-way knowledge transmission function discourages conversation between students and between teachers. However, including a discussion component in a class offers numerous advantages. Interpersonal skills, often known as soft skills, are vital in the workplace and include listening, communication, cross-cultural connection and team problem-solving skills, among other things [39]. The insufficient development of these talents is a drawback of adopting traditional learning. Student discussion opportunities are limited in traditional teaching methods.

According to [40], the term “active learning approach” refers to “pedagogies of engagement” that promote greater levels of knowledge transfer, comprehension and application. With the use of group discussions, roleplaying, case study instruction, problem-based learning and other techniques, the active learning approach strives to actively engage students [11]. The active learning strategy is a simulation approach with four distinguishing features: (i) an exploration for understanding and meaning, (ii) attention towards student responsibility, (iii) an understanding of knowledge and skills and (iv) a strategy to the curriculum which goes beyond graduation to a far-reaching social and career setting. While the teacher’s direction is still crucial in the active learning approach, a higher level of student accountability can be attained through active learning.

It is thought that active participation in class has a substantial impact on students’ academic progress. Students are thoroughly involved in active learning activities rather than superficial learning, which helps students effectively transfer and apply knowledge since those activities promote higher-level thinking skills [10]. By spiritually encouraging students to communicate opinions from personal viewpoints through team interactive activities, the learning experience of the students can be improved [41]. By stimulating psychological and cognitive processes, active learning strategies encourage critical thinking [42]. A person who applies intellectual standards and criteria to their cognition regularly and systematically is said to be engaging in critical thinking [43]. Critical thinking is a process that aids in decision making and is becoming more and more important in society. Using an active learning technique could boost students’ competitiveness. However, helping students acquire their own knowledge through their own experiences rather than providing them with extensive materials and in-depth understanding is tertiary education’s main problem. For active learning to be successfully implemented, intensive training and resources are key factors. In addition, there will be a few difficulties when applying active learning (refer to Table 1). Some examples are whether or not an educational institution is clear about its commitment to the deployment of learning systems; whether or not assessment procedures should be changed or updated; whether or not there are enough faculties, resources and support services to implement an active learning approach; and whether or not students and professors who are used to a passive traditional learning mode will be willing to change [9,44].

Table 1. Design criteria for both traditional (passive) learning and active learning.

Mode of Learning	Category of Variable Under Consideration	Sources/References
Traditional Learning	Benefits of Traditional Learning
	Direct information from teacher	[11,38]
	Timesaving (group discussion may waste time)	[11,12]
	Allows more time for Q&A	[11,12]
	Teaching conducted in an orderly manner	[11,12]
	Understanding of the subject matter	[11,12]
	Limitations of Traditional Learning
	No collaborative learning atmosphere with other students	[10,40]
	Difficult to concentrate for long durations	[10,33]
	Less chance to allow students to express their ideas	[10,33]
Active Learning	Benefits of Active Learning
	Direct information from teacher	[40]
	Timesaving	[10,40]
	Allows more time for Q&A	[10,40]
	Teaching carried out in an orderly manner	[10,40]
	Understanding of the subject matter	[33,43]
	Students learn collaborative skills	[33,40]
	Enables student engagement	[10,40]
	Promotes student interaction	[10,40]
	Students learn to think independently	[10,40]
	Students can learn from others	[33,40]
	Promotes learning motivation	[33,40]
	Limitations of Active Learning
	Difficult to control class order	[12,44]
	Discussion is not focused	[12,44]
	Time-consuming	[12,44]
	Students prefer to work alone	[12,44]
Designing of Classroom for Effective Teaching for Both Active and Traditional (Passive) Learning
Designing of Classroom	Underlying Classroom Design Criteria	Sources/References
Classroom Facilities	Types of facilities required in classroom
	IT/AV provisions	[12,38,45]
	Large monitors for presentation	[12,38]
	Internet access	[32,38,45,46]
	Swirl chairs (for lecture theatres only)	[12,31,46,47]
	Modular tables and movable chairs (for tutorial rooms only)	[12,14,24,47,48]
Design Criteria	Criteria of classroom design to facilitate learning
	Adjustable lighting	[14,23,24,27,49]
	Adjustable temperature	[23,24,50,51]
	Comfortable chairs	[12,31,32,52]
	Vibrant colours	[14,23,24,25,27,53]

Table 1. Design criteria for both traditional (passive) learning and active learning.

Mode of Learning	Category of Variable Under Consideration	Sources/References
Traditional Learning	Benefits of Traditional Learning
	Direct information from teacher	[11,38]
	Timesaving (group discussion may waste time)	[11,12]
	Allows more time for Q&A	[11,12]
	Teaching conducted in an orderly manner	[11,12]
	Understanding of the subject matter	[11,12]
	Limitations of Traditional Learning
	No collaborative learning atmosphere with other students	[10,40]
	Difficult to concentrate for long durations	[10,33]
	Less chance to allow students to express their ideas	[10,33]
Active Learning	Benefits of Active Learning
	Direct information from teacher	[40]
	Timesaving	[10,40]
	Allows more time for Q&A	[10,40]
	Teaching carried out in an orderly manner	[10,40]
	Understanding of the subject matter	[33,43]
	Students learn collaborative skills	[33,40]
	Enables student engagement	[10,40]
	Promotes student interaction	[10,40]
	Students learn to think independently	[10,40]
	Students can learn from others	[33,40]
	Promotes learning motivation	[33,40]
	Limitations of Active Learning
	Difficult to control class order	[12,44]
	Discussion is not focused	[12,44]
	Time-consuming	[12,44]
	Students prefer to work alone	[12,44]
Designing of Classroom for Effective Teaching for Both Active and Traditional (Passive) Learning
Designing of Classroom	Underlying Classroom Design Criteria	Sources/References
Classroom Facilities	Types of facilities required in classroom
	IT/AV provisions	[12,38,45]
	Large monitors for presentation	[12,38]
	Internet access	[32,38,45,46]
	Swirl chairs (for lecture theatres only)	[12,31,46,47]
	Modular tables and movable chairs (for tutorial rooms only)	[12,14,24,47,48]
Design Criteria	Criteria of classroom design to facilitate learning
	Adjustable lighting	[14,23,24,27,49]
	Adjustable temperature	[23,24,50,51]
	Comfortable chairs	[12,31,32,52]
	Vibrant colours	[14,23,24,25,27,53]

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Recruitment of Target Respondents

The target respondents of this study were students and teachers at the School of Professional Education and Executive Development (SPEED) of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU). Views of the target respondents were solicited through a questionnaire survey. A total of 60 teachers and 157 students participated in the questionnaire survey.

3.2. Development of the Survey Tool

A questionnaire was formulated based on the findings from a desktop study and a comprehensive literature review. In addition, face-to-face interviews with teachers and students in the form of focus group meetings were arranged with some students and teachers as a way of pilot testing the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of seven main sections. Section one entailed questions on ‘reasons for traditional learning’; section two on ‘limitations of traditional learning’; section three on ‘reasons for active learning’; section four on ‘benefits of active learning’; section five on ‘limitations of active learning’; section six on ‘types of facilities required in classroom’; and section seven on ‘criteria of classroom design to facilitate learning’.

3.3. Data Collection

The questionnaire survey was conducted in December 2019 on the design and performance relating to the conventional use of learning spaces for teachers and students in conducting traditional and active learning. Respondents were CPCE teachers and full-time and part-time students majoring in Surveying and Building Engineering and Management from the Division of Science, Engineering and Health Studies in School of Professional Education and Executive Development of PolyU. The viewpoints on the advantages and drawbacks of employing traditional and active learning, as well as the kinds of facilities needed in classrooms and the crucial factors to consider when designing classrooms to assist learning, were examined. An essential component of the study was the questionnaire survey, which considered the opinions of teachers and students on the learning environment. A total of 60 and 157 valid questionnaires were collected from teachers and students, respectively. Their opinions on preferences between traditional learning and active learning and key design criteria for active learning spaces were rated using a 5-point Likert rating scale (i.e., 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = moderately agree; 4 = disagree; and 5 = strongly disagree). A total of 60 and 157 valid questionnaires were collected from teachers and students, respectively. Demographic information was not collected from any of the categories of respondents.

3.4. Data Analysis

The statistical software program Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was utilised to analyse the returned questionnaires. The internal consistencies of the various scales in the questionnaire were assessed through reliability analysis. The Cronbach’s Alpha values were determined for the various scales. A Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.755 was calculated for the five variables to measure the benefits of traditional learning. Concerning the three variables that formed the scale for measuring the limitations of traditional learning, a Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.791 was established. On the benefits of active learning, a Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.806 was established for 11 items, while an Alpha value of 0.749 was determined from four items to measure the limitations of active learning. Five items (refer to Table 1) were deployed as a scale for assessing classroom facilities. These items yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.781. On criteria of classroom design to facilitate learning, four items (refer to Table 1) were utilised to measure this scale, of which, an Alpha value of 0.797 was obtained. A Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.70, as stated by [54], is considered to be satisfactory. Therefore, the Cronbach’s alpha values of the various scales, which were all above 0.70, gave indications that the scales were internally consistent and the items within each scale were well correlated to one another [55].

Descriptive statistical analyses through mean scores and standard deviations were conducted to rank the various variables. For two variables with the same mean scores, their rankings were determined based on their standard deviations. In that case, the variable with the lower standard deviation was ranked higher. However, if their mean scores and standard deviations were the same, then such variables were ranked equally. For a comparative analysis of the perspectives of students and teachers regarding the variables, the Mann–Whitney U-test was conducted. Through this analysis, symmetries and asymmetries or disparities [56,57] on the rankings of the underlying variables on traditional learning, active learning, classroom facilities and design criteria were determined, as shown in

Table 2. Summary of the mean scores and Mann–Whitney U-test for each item on the survey questionnaire.

Mode of Teaching	Characteristics of Teaching Modes	Teachers			Students			Mann–Whitney U Test
		Mean	Standard Deviation	Rank	Mean	Standard Deviation	Rank	U Statistics	Z-Value	Sig.
Traditional Learning	Benefits of Traditional Learning
	Direct information from teacher	4.05	0.89	1	4.45	0.61	1	3434.500	−3.390	0.001 **
	Timesaving (group discussion may waste time)	3.25	1.10	4	3.78	0.98	5	3395.500	−3.258	0.001 **
	Allows more time for Q&A	3.23	0.98	5	3.80	0.96	4	3131.500	−3.942	0.000 **
	Teaching conducted in an orderly manner	4.00	0.84	2	4.12	0.79	2	4319.000	−0.964	0.335
	Understanding of the subject matter	3.78	0.85	3	4.02	0.78	3	3967.500	−1.880	0.060
	Limitations of Traditional Learning
	No collaborative learning atmosphere with other students	3.63	1.07	3	3.64	1.00	2	4671.500	−0.022	0.983
	Difficult to concentrate for long durations	3.77	0.95	1	3.79	1.05	1	4544.000	−0.347	0.729
	Less chance to allow students to express their ideas	3.68	0.97	2	3.38	1.07	3	4001.500	−1.737	0.082
Active Learning	Benefits of Active Learning
	Direct information from teacher	3.18	1.02	9	3.77	0.96	9	3176.000	−3.830	0.000 **
	Timesaving	2.67	0.90	11	3.40	1.06	11	2908.500	−4.466	0.000 **
	Allows more time for Q&A	3.93	0.78	7	3.83	0.98	8	4602.000	−0.202	0.840
	Teaching carried out in an orderly manner	2.94	0.94	10	3.50	1.08	10	3273.500	−3.380	0.001 **
	Understanding of the subject matter	3.82	0.81	8	3.96	0.82	7	4099.500	−1.555	0.120
	Students learn collaborative skills	4.13	0.65	4	4.19	0.76	1	4320.000	−0.990	0.322
	Enables student engagement	4.45	0.65	1	4.13	0.71	3	3510.000	−3.155	0.002 **
	Promotes student interaction	4.37	0.61	2	4.17	0.83	2	4165.000	−1.405	0.160
	Students learn to think independently	4.07	0.75	5	4.01	0.81	5	4397.500	−0.343	0.731
	Students can learn from others	4.14	0.63	3	4.07	0.84	4	4488.000	−0.098	0.922
	Promotes learning motivation	4.05	0.72	6	4.00	0.86	6	4673.500	−0.017	0.986
	Limitations of Active Learning
	Difficult to control class order	3.47	0.92	3	3.53	1.07	1	4334.000	−0.693	0.488
	Discussion is not focused	3.51	0.92	2	3.44	1.12	3	4429.500	−0.440	0.660
	Time-consuming	3.64	1.06	1	3.51	1.04	2	4239.500	−0.927	0.354
	Students prefer to work alone	3.27	0.96	4	3.34	1.09	4	4402.500	−0.509	0.611

Note: Test of statistical significance: ** p-value < 0.01.

. Statistical significances were ascertained at p-value < 0.01 and p-values < 0.05.

4. Results of Data Analysis

The results of the data are shown in Table 2 and

Table 3. Results on designing of classrooms for effective teaching and learning.

Designing of Classroom	Design Categories	Teachers			Students			Mann–Whitney U Test
		Mean	Standard Deviation	Rank	Mean	Standard Deviation	Rank	U Statistics	Z-Value	Sig.
Classroom Facilities	Types of facilities required in classroom
	IT/AV provisions	4.24	0.63	2	4.24	0.65	2	4551.500	−0.139	0.889
	Large monitors for presentation	3.92	0.88	4	4.07	0.87	3	4104.500	−1.303	0.192
	Internet access	4.41	0.77	1	4.33	0.69	1	4192.000	−1.117	0.264
	Swirl chairs (for lecture theatres only)	3.41	0.87	5	3.74	0.95	5	3614.000	−2.556	0.011 *
	Modular table and movable chairs (for tutorial rooms only)	3.93	0.83	3	4.04	0.82	4	4258.500	−0.920	0.357
Design Criteria	Criteria of Classroom Design to Facilitate Learning
	Adjustable lighting	3.39	0.96	3	4.07	0.71	3	2640.500	−5.105	0.000 **
	Adjustable temperature	3.61	0.97	2	4.20	0.73	1	2873.500	−4.526	0.000 **
	Comfortable chair	3.73	0.85	1	4.20	0.80	2	3046.500	−4.098	0.000 **
	Vibrant colours	3.24	0.80	4	3.70	0.91	4	3129.000	−3.826	0.000 **

Note: Test of statistical significance: ** p-value < 0.01; * p-value < 0.05.

. Table 3 shows a comparison between the views of teachers and students on the benefits of traditional learning and its limitations on one hand and the benefits and limitations of active learning on the other hand. Similarly, Table 3 is a comparison of the perspectives of teachers and students concerning: (1) classroom facilities; and (2) design criteria for an effective and efficient learning environment in a classroom.

5. Discussion of Survey Results

5.1. Traditional Learning—Results on Benefits

Rankings on the benefits of traditional learning from the perspectives of teachers and students are shown in Table 3. From the perspective of teachers, ‘direct information from teachers’ ranks first, with a mean score of 4.05, followed ‘teaching conducted in an orderly manner’ (mean score of 4.00); ‘understanding of the subject matter’ (mean score of 3.78); ‘timesaving (group discussion may waste time) with a mean score of 3.25; and ‘allow more time for Q&A’ (mean score of 3.24). From the perspective of students, ‘direct information from teachers’ ranks highest, with a mean score of 4.45, followed by ‘teaching conducted in an orderly manner’ with a mean score of 4.12; then, ‘understanding of the subject matter’ with a mean score of 4.02; ‘allow more time for Q&A’ with a mean score of 3.80; and ‘timesaving (group discussion may waste time) with a mean score of 3.78. The comparative analysis of the results from the perspectives of instructors and students using the Mann–Whitney U-test revealed no significant differences between ‘teaching conducted in an orderly manner’ and ‘understanding of the subject matter’ with regard to the traditional learning method (refer to Table 2). However, there were significant differences regarding ‘direct information from the teacher’ (p-value < 0.01) and ‘time savings (group discussion may squander time)’ (p-value < 0.01) and ‘allow more time for Q&A’ (p-value < 0.01) from the perspective of both teachers and pupils, with students placing a higher value on these benefits.

The results of the ranking suggested that students favour the advantages of traditional learning because they can communicate directly with their teachers about information access [6]. This could entail enquiries by students for clarity on issues that they are not clear on. Ambiguity on issues among students could lead to misinformation among them due to information distortion. The results of the data analysis from the perspective of students also indicated that another benefit of the traditional learning is ‘it ensures that teaching is conducted orderly’ [12]. The results (Table 3) imply that teachers also prefer traditional learning. With traditional learning, the instructor has a relatively high level of control over the students. The instructor controls who talks, when to talk and how to talk during teaching. Consequently, traditional learning eliminates the ‘fear of teachers not able to cover examination syllabus as well as provide comprehensive curriculum coverage’ [11]. Indeed, for subjects that students are not familiar with, group discussion could result in different opinions or perceptions, which could lead to confusion due to distortion. Therefore, it is appropriate that the traditional learning approach should be employed for teaching topics that are first introduced to students so that subsequent teaching on the introduced topics can take other forms. Moreover, the traditional learning approach allows more time for questions and answers since instructors can control the class for the timely delivery of the syllabus.

5.2. Traditional Learning—Results on Limitations

Table 2 provides the ranking results of the limitations of the traditional learning model. From the perspective of teachers, ‘difficult to concentrate for long duration’ ranks highest, with a mean score of 3.77, followed by ‘less chance to allow students to express their ideas’, with a mean score of 3.68, and ‘no collaborative learning atmosphere with other students’ ranked least, with a mean score of 3.63. According to students, ‘difficult to concentrate for long duration’ comes in at the top of the list with a mean score of 3.79, followed by ‘no collaborative learning atmosphere with other students’ and ‘less chance to allow students to express their ideas’. There was no statistically significant difference between teachers’ and students’ perspectives on the drawbacks of traditional learning, according to a mean comparison study using the Mann–Whitney U-test. From both perspectives, ‘difficult to concentrate for long duration’ was ranked the highest. Moreover, given that they received ratings of 3.50 or higher, the teachers concurred on all of the drawbacks of traditional learning. However, students expressed a low level of agreement (<3.50) on one of the limitations, ‘less chance to allow student to express their ideas’.

In the traditional learning environment, students play a passive role as listeners [2,14]. This could lead to fatigue for long teaching periods. Therefore, instructors could introduce short breaks for such long teaching periods to prevent boredom. Another strategy could entail active student participation through ‘test taking’ at the end of every teaching period. Moreover, students could participate actively in the traditional classroom setting if the instructor ensures that every student contributes by talking or asking questions. This could partly make them active and ensure long concentration for long teaching periods. It is worth noting that the strategies to prevent boredom could be employed together or used separately for every teaching period. This should be done by taking into consideration the culture of students. For instance, in most Asian countries, students are more passive compared to students in most European countries [14]. Thus, students from the former are likely not to ask questions. In such a case, another technique such as short breaks could be more effective in preventing ‘loss of concentration due to long teaching time’. The relatively low mean score (<3.50) on the limitation ‘less chance to allow student to express their ideas’ is not surprising since the average Asian students are passive [14]. Therefore, they perceive ‘less chance to allow student to express their ideas’ as a relatively small challenge in traditional learning since most of the students are reserved and do not express their ideas in class. Similarly [14] (p. 770) stated that “The average Asian students’ learning behaviour is considerably different from that of Western students due to their cultural, historical, and religious differences. For example, it is considered rude for students in Korea, Japan, and China to ask questions, a function of educational practices with roots in Confucian doctrine.”

5.3. Active Learning—Results on Benefits

Regarding the benefits of active learning from the perspective of teachers, the highest ranked benefits are as follows, along with their respective mean scores: ‘enables student engagement’ (4.45), ‘promotes student interaction’ (4.37),’ students can learn from others’ (4.14),’students learn to think independently’ (4.07) and ‘promotes learning motivation’ (4.05). However, the least ranked benefits were ‘timesaving’ (2.67), ‘teaching carried out in an orderly manner’ (2.94), ‘direct information from teacher’ (3.18), ‘understanding of the subject matter’ (3.82) and ‘allows more time for Q&A’ (3.93). Students ranked the following benefits as the most important: ‘students learn collaborative skills’ (4.19), ‘promotes student interaction’ (4.17), ‘enables student engagement’ (4.13),’students can learn from others’ (4.07), ‘students learn to think independently’ (4.01) and ‘promotes learning motivation’ (4.00). Nonetheless, the least ranked benefits included ‘timesaving’ (3.40), ‘teaching carried out in an orderly manner’ (3.50), ‘direct information from teacher’ (3.77), ‘allows more time for Q&A’ (3.83) and ‘understanding of the subject matter’ (3.96). The Mann–Whitney U-test revealed significant differences between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of ‘direct information from teachers’ (p-value < 0.01), ‘time savings,’ (p-value < 0.01) and ‘organized teaching’ (p-value < 0.01). These had comparatively low mean scores, and the mean scores from the teachers’ perspective indicated that teachers disagreed more on aspects such as the benefits of active learning [4,12]. In addition, there was a significant difference (p-value < 0.01) in ‘enables student engagement’, which was ranked higher by teachers. Nonetheless, with high mean scores (4.00), benefits such as ‘students learn collaborative skills’, ‘promotes student interaction’, ‘students learn to think independently’,’ students can learn from others’ and ‘promotes learning motivation’ were identified as benefits of active learning by both teachers and students without significant differences.

Similarly, [10] asserted that active learning is superior to traditional learning concerning attributes such as engagement, enrichment and confidence among students. These attributes build self-esteem, improve students’ satisfaction (expectation) as well as motivate students to learn. Furthermore, active learning promotes interactions among students, as evinced by its high ranking (refer to Table 3). This could partly be attributed to flexible seating in the classroom space to accommodate engagement strategies (i.e., small group discussion, cooperative learning and peer questioning) for active learning [12]. These strategies promote the optimal working level among students and ensure holistic learning for better understanding and adequate knowledge transfers.

5.4. Active Learning—Results on Limitations

Regarding the limitations of active learning from the perspective of teachers, the rankings in descending order were as follows: ‘time-consuming’ (3.64), ‘discussion is not focused’ (3.51), ‘difficult to control class order’ (3.47) and ‘students prefer to work alone’ (3.27). From the students’ perspective, the limitations were as follows, in descending order: ‘difficult to control class order’ (3.53), ‘time-consuming’ (3.51), ‘discussion is not focused’ (3.44), and ‘students prefer to work alone’ (3.34). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of teachers and students. Yet, ‘time consuming’ came out as a significant limitation of active learning from both perspectives (refer to Table 2). Typical of the active learning classroom is that ‘it allows students to move freely around the room to help them understand a concept at a deeper level through body and mind engagement’ [12] (p. 30). Notwithstanding the inveterate positive feedback on such engagement, some staff found the active learning strategy to be distracting. In addition, mobile chairs, which provide affordance for interpersonal communication, could also be disorienting. Such movement among students for mind and body engagement, interpersonal communications and collaboration by students are time-consuming activities [4].

Compared to the traditional learning approach, staff require more time, effort, and resources to implement most of the active learning strategies. Consequently, the fear that staff may not be able to cover their examination syllabus and provide a thorough curriculum coverage are among the most prevailing concerns [11]. Additionally, since the traditional learning approach has been the premiere, the familiarity of students and staff to that approach has culminated into conditioning and inertia to change to new approaches such as active learning. This problem could be exacerbated among students who are introverts and may not like to be exposed to group discussions or presentations. Introverts mostly prefer to study alone and can process and manage information in quiet and lone states [4]. Nonetheless, motivating and educating students on the benefits of active learning to their careers could eliminate some of these obstacles to active learning [8]. Essential in that regard is the goal expectancy theory or the expectancy-value theory of motivation—which implies that the expected value of a task is a major motivation for a person to engage in the task. Instructors need to motivate and educate students on the benefits of active learning before implementing some of its strategies.

5.5. Classroom Facilities for Traditional Learning and Active Learning

Classrooms should also be equipped with facilities including modern technologies for supporting computer activities, enhancing group work in different sizes and allowing flexibility and supporting multiple uses of the learning spaces [16,28,29,30]. The following facilities were ranked by teachers according to their opinion (refer to Table 3): internet access (4.41), IT/AV provision (4.24), modular table and movable chairs (3.93), large monitors for presentations (3.92) and swirl chairs (for lecture theatres only) (3.41). From the perspective of students (Table 3), the rankings in descending order were as follows: internet access (4.33), IT/AV provisions (4.24), large monitors for presentation (4.07). modular table and movable chairs (for tutorial rooms only) (4.04) and swirl chairs (for lecture theatres only) (3.74). Thus, the mean scores from both the teacher and student views revealed agreement on most of the classroom facilities, as no significant difference was seen from either perspective. However, there was a significant difference (p-value < 0.05) on ‘swirl chairs (for lecture theatres only)’, of which the mean score of students (3.74) ranked higher than the mean score of teachers (3.41). This could imply that students prefer ‘swirl chairs’ to facilitate flexibility concerning turning or movement. This could enable students to turn their seat direction without getting up from their seats. Nonetheless, teachers may deem such flexibility in movement as distracting, hence its low rating from the perspective of teachers [12]. The highest ranking of ‘internet access’ among other design criteria is not surprising in the case of Hong Kong students. Due to the passive nature of the average Asian student in general, students mostly prefer internet access for accessing information on issues they do not understand instead of asking many questions in the class for clarity [14].

5.6. Classroom Design Criteria for Learning

An adaptable classroom’s design highlights the high levels of practicality and user-friendliness that the space can accommodate for various teaching styles, including lectures and classes for various levels of discussion. Classrooms should be designed to facilitate collaboration among students and to enable teachers to move easily about the classroom for engaging with students individually or close to the pupils. On design criteria to facilitate learning from the perspective of teachers, ‘comfortable chair’ with a mean score of 3.74 was ranked highest, followed by ‘adjustable temperature’ (mean score of 3.61), and then, ‘adjustable lighting’ with a mean score of 3.39 and ‘vibrant colours’ (mean scores of 3.24). Thus, teachers considered ergonometric designs with regard to furniture design for the comfort of students as the most important. From the perspective of students, the rankings in descending order were as follows: ‘adjustable temperature’ (4.20), followed by ‘comfortable chairs’ (4.20), and then, ‘adjustable lighting’ (4.07) and ‘vibrant colours’ (3.70). A comparative assessment from both perspectives of teachers and students revealed significant differences on all the design criteria which were all ranked higher by the students. Particularly, although ‘adjustable lighting’ and ‘vibrant colours’ were ranked relatively low (i.e., <3.50) from the perspective of teachers, such variables were ranked relatively high (i.e., >3.50) from the perspective of students. The importance of these variables to learning has been emphasised in the extant literature. Colour influences the excitement and vibrancy of a classroom. It has an impact on both emotions and physiology which can cause mood changes and consequently influence students’ academic performance [53]. Colour could influence the brain mood, brain activity and academic performance of students. As concluded in [53] (p. 141), ‘strong, especially red colours and patterns put the brain into a more excited state, sometimes to such an extent as to cause a paradoxical slowing of the heart rate. Introvert persons and those in a bad mood became more affected, which caused severe changes in their performance’. The perceived colour of an object is dependent on the incident light. Thus, light is among the environmental parameters required for the physical comfort of students [23]. A lack of adequate lighting causes headache and harms vision or sight [24]. A design for the homeostatic or thermal comfort of buildings was highly ranked by both teachers and students, which could be attributed to changing climatic conditions which contributes to high temperatures.

6. Conclusions

The pedagogical approach to learning and teaching in tertiary education has undergone a significant transformation because of the quick growth of information and communications technologies. The pedagogy has been shifting from the traditional teacher-centred teaching mode to a more active mode. However, studies are limited on the concurrent assessment of the views of teachers and students on both teaching modes as well as an evaluation on facilities and designs to improve teaching and learning. Therefore, in this study, a simultaneous assessment was conducted on the benefits and limitations of the traditional teaching mode and active teaching mode. In addition, an assessment of classroom facilities and design criteria was conducted to solicit the views of teachers and students thereof. A descriptive statistical analysis through mean scores was conducted. Comparative assessments of the views of both teachers and students were conducted through the Mann–Whitney U-test to assess possible significant differences.

The Mann–Whitney U-test on the benefits of traditional learning revealed significant differences (p-value < 0.01) on ‘direct information from teacher’; ‘timesaving (group discussion may waste time)’; and ‘allow more time for Q&A’. From the perspective of students, these benefits were scored higher than from the standpoint of teachers, which revealed that students have a greater preference for the traditional learning approach than instructors do. However, no significant differences regarding the limitations of traditional learning were identified. Regarding the benefits of active learning, benefits such as ‘promotes student interactions’, ‘students learn to think independently’, ‘students learn from others’ and ‘promotes learning motivation’ had high mean scores with no significant difference between teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Nonetheless, there were significant differences on ‘direct information from teacher’; ‘timesaving’; ‘teaching carried out in an orderly manner’, the mean scores of which from students were higher. There was also a significant difference on ‘enables student engagement’, which was ranked higher by teachers. No significant difference was observed among the limitations of active learning. The relatively low mean scores from the perspective of teachers on some benefits of active learning could be an indication of some negative attitudes of teachers towards active learning. Some instructors consider active learning to be disorienting, distracting and more time- and resource-consuming.

The preference of students in Hong Kong for traditional learning could reflect the culture of average Asian students’ learning behaviour. The average students are more passive; they may not speak up and prefer to listen rather than contributing to class or asking questions. For instance, it is considered impolite for one to ask question. This practice has its roots in Confucian doctrine. Notwithstanding the benefits of traditional learning, it does not ensure adequate development regarding interpersonal communication, collaborative skills and teamwork skills among students. Considering the importance of active learning practices, it is important for teachers to promote active learning practices such as classroom discussion and student engagement during lectures.

For the average students that are passive and prefer to listen rather than contributing to class discussion, such students need to be motivated and educated on the benefits of classroom discussion. The expectancy-value theory of motivation could be relevant for motivating students thereof. Per this theory, the expected values of active learning are major motivations for students to embrace active learning techniques (i.e., classroom discussions). Extrinsic motivation (i.e., the essence of active learning to their career development) and intrinsic motivation (i.e., fun and fulfilment) are utility-value interventions that teachers could deploy to motivate their students to embrace some active learning techniques (i.e., speaking up in class and participating in group discussion). Issues on free riding and social loafing among students in either face-to-face or online learning could be mitigated through the assessment of an individual’s contribution to group assignments. High resource requirement (i.e., time-consuming) and inertia or reluctance to adopt new learning techniques could demotivate teachers from adopting essential active learning techniques. Therefore, the assessment of the professional development of lecturers regarding teaching should entail the adoption of current and effectively active learning techniques in lectures. Such an assessment should form part of the criteria for the promotion of lecturers. In addition, institutions could an establish award system for instructors that continually upgrade their lecturing style to promote effective teamwork, classroom discussion and group discussion among students. Moreover, training programs should be offered to instructors on various active learning strategies and how such strategies could be integrated into the traditional classroom/learning approach. It is worth noting that neither of the two learning techniques—traditional and active learning—are paragons of a student’s learning success. Both have their own inherent merits and demerits and should, therefore, be deployed to complement each other in real-life courses of tertiary education.

On classroom facilities to promote learning, there was a significant difference in ‘swirl chairs (for lecture theatres only)’, which was ranked higher by students. Concerning design criteria for classrooms, there were significant differences in ‘adjustable lighting’; ‘adjustable temperature’; ‘comfortable chair’; ‘vibrant colours’. These design criteria were all ranked higher by students. The findings of the study could have both practical and theoretical implications. The findings could enable policymakers of education institutions to effectively strike a balance on teaching modes for the benefit of teachers and students. In addition, the findings could enable policymakers to efficiently allocate resources for classroom facilities and classroom design to improve learning outcomes. On classroom facilities, policymakers should ensure IT/AV provisions, large monitors for presentation, internet access and modular tables and movable chairs. However, swirl chairs for lecture theatres should be provided with caution, as a relatively low mean score from the perspective of teachers implies that swirl chairs could be distracting. Concerning classroom designs, policymakers should focus on the three main design principles, namely, naturalness, individualisation and simulation [23]. On naturalness, shading controls, orientation and size of windows should be given careful attention during classroom design to regulate the amount of light and to prevent glare in classrooms. In addition, electrical light, adequate cross-ventilation and air conditioning systems could be employed to control light and temperature in classrooms to improve students’ learning. Regarding individualisation, ergonomic and pleasant classroom chairs could be provided. These chairs could reduce physical fatigue among students who attend lengthy lectures while seated. On simulation, the emotion and physiology of students could be influenced positively through a moderate and effective use of good colours in classroom design. Colour could influence brain activity, which could ultimately impact students’ moods for learning.

This study has some main limitations. Firstly, the comparison between the two learning approaches was based solely on a questionnaire survey. Secondly, an important factor, which was not considered in this study, is the role of the teacher’s personality. The personality of a teacher could influence students’ learning success and their perception of the learning environment. Based on these perceived limitations, the following recommendations are put forward for future studies. Future studies could deploy some qualitative techniques (e.g., personal interviews or focus group meetings) and other research methods (e.g., case study investigations) to compare the two selected teaching and learning techniques. In addition, exploratory studies on the role of the teacher’s personality could make important contributions to student’s learning effectiveness and success. Furthermore, future studies could assess the impact of classroom facilities and design criteria on learning outcomes and the engagement of students. Finally, an empirical study that models the impact of active learning and traditional learning in classrooms on the teaching outcomes of teachers is worth exploring in future.