European Journal of Engineering Education

Vol. 29, No. 4, December 2004, 521–531

Active learning in a Finnish engineering university course

DEBR A LARSON †  and ANN A-MAIJA AHONEN ‡

This paper is a case study on the use of active learning techniques in an upper-level
engineering course at the Helsinki University of Technology. The paper describes
how these techniques were introduced and successfully used within the Finnish
university classroom. The cultural subtext is explored and attention is given to
teaching techniques that are easily integrated into a standard lecture setting.
The results of this case study were determined by quantitative and qualitative
student data gathered via a structured self-assessment of learning. The qualitative
data in the form of written reflections provided rich insights into the efficacy of
the teaching techniques and the learning environment. Instructor observations
about class attendance, the activating power of group work and the impact of
classroom infrastructure are included in this paper.

1. Introduction
The typical Finnish university classroom reflects the Finnish cultural tendencies of
quiet reflection and shyness in public settings. The dominant teaching method is lec-
turing with a focus on information delivery. The corresponding student response is lis-
tening. Verbal exchanges are minimal.
Research shows that Finnish students do not engage in conversation to create and
test new ideas. Instead, they like to listen and contemplate ideas on their own
(Malinnen 2001). They exhibit strong monitoring behaviour (Kim and Bonk 2002).
In addition, Finnish students do not have the courage to interrupt a lecture to ask a
question, because they assume others have understood everything. They do not
want to be remembered as the student who did not understand (Alestalo et al.
2003). In contrast, the teacher sees both teaching and learning as private pursuits
that are managed individually. The teacher’s role is to deliver information via lectures.
The student’s role is to be quiet and to gain understanding alone (Repo-Kaarento and
Levander 2003). This is particularly true in content-heavy courses with a large number
of students (Nuutinen 1998).
Although these lecture-based behaviours are congruent to cultural norms and
traditions, they constrain student learning; the primary reason being that most individ-
uals are unable to listen effectively to any lecturer, no matter how skilled, for long
periods of time (Bonwell and Eison 1991). The research shows that 10 – 20 min into
a lecture, confusion and boredom set in and attention remains low for the duration

†
Laboratories of Wood Technology and Structural Engineering and Building Science,
Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. Box 5100, Fin-02015, HUT, Finland; and College
of Engineering and Technology, Box 15600, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
86011-1560, USA.
‡
Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. 8000 Fin-02015 HUT, Finland.

To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: debra.larson@nau.edu

European Journal of Engineering Education

ISSN 0304-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/03043790410001716266
522 D. Larson and A.-M. Ahonen

of the class (Verner and Dickinson 1967, Stuart and Rutherford 1978, Penner 1984).
Traditional lecturing is equated to passivity, which leads to learning ineffectiveness.
Modifications to the traditional lecture format, however, can lead to more effective
learning. These modifications often fall within the context of active learning—a
broadly used term that captures the notion of active involvement by students in learn-
ing as opposed to their passive exposure to learning through listening (Sorcinelli
1991). One strategy shown to be particularly effective and easy to implement is the
mini-lecture. Ten to 20-min-long mini-lectures are separated by short activity breaks
where students do a learning task together (Wankat and Oreovicz 2003). By doing
together—speaking, writing, calculating, analysing, creating, judging and question-
ing—students learn (Chickering and Gamson 1987). This doing, however, can invite
problems for Finns because it occurs in the public arena of the university classroom
and involves discussing incomplete ideas, presenting partially correct solutions and
working out answers together. These public behaviours run contrary to cultural
norms and classroom tradition.
Given these underpinnings, one might be tempted to conclude that classroom
activity will be difficult to achieve in the Finnish university classroom. This paper,
a case study of an upper-level engineering course at the Helsinki University of Tech-
nology (HUT) that utilized the mini-lecture format and other active techniques, shows
that it is indeed possible readily to engage Finnish students. Of particular interest to
the cultural subtext is that the instructor was an American and many of the teaching
techniques utilized some form of public, verbal discourse for the purpose of activation
and enhanced learning.

2. Course overview
The course, ‘Lightwood framing in the USA’, was offered to civil engineering and
forest products technology students who were either in their last year of their Master’s
degree studies or were starting their PhD work. The course was an elective course. It
started with 15 students and ended with 10. The first author, who was at HUT for a
6-month appointment as part of HUT’s visiting professor programme, taught this
three-credit course in English during the spring of 2003. It was designed to meet
the technical needs of both student groups while incorporating active learning tech-
niques. The course learning objectives are given in figure 1.

Figure 1. Course objectives for lightwood framing in the USA.

 Active learning 523

Figure 2. Retention as a function of teaching technique and time in class (Felder et al. 2000).

3. Teaching techniques
A variety of active learning techniques, ranging from long-term, out-of-class pro-
jects to short in-class activities, were utilized in lightwood framing. Pre-planned ques-
tioning, intended to activate critical thinking in all students, was a feature of every
class lecture; whereas other techniques, such as problem-solving or data analysis,
occurred when it was appropriate to the content. Except for the case study discussion
sessions, the in-class techniques did not require additional pre-class preparation by the
students.
A changed classroom environment incorporating active learning can come with
risks for both the instructor and students. Student fears about the consequences of par-
ticipation or instructor fears about the lack of participation dominate. These risks were
proactively addressed by making the teaching techniques and student learning explicit
features of lightwood framing. First, the modified lecture environment became a
course objective, which was eventually evaluated by the students. Second, in-class
time was taken to explain, ‘why active learning techniques’. Figure 2 was presented
to visualize the impact of the mini-lecture format on content retention (Felder et al.
2000).
The instructor, on the first day of class, also explained how the lecture environment
was going to be modified to incorporate active learning. Particular attention was given
to the technique of questioning. This was done for two reasons: (1) the instructor relied
heavily on this technique; and (2) the instructor wanted the students to know that
answering can be a positive learning experience. Like many students, the students
of lightwood framing were all too familiar with the misapplication of questioning.
A suggestion was offered that their negative experiences were the result of bad tech-
nique, which then led to a discussion on good questioning technique. Figure 3 outlines
the essential elements of good questioning (AEL 2003).

4. Evaluation method
The post-mortem report was an important student activity that was submitted by
each student in lieu of a traditional final exam. It formed the basis of the active learn-
ing evaluation that is discussed in the next section of this paper. The report included:
an evaluation of student learning over those topics not explicitly addressed by the case
study; a peer evaluation of group performance; a self-evaluation of learning; and an
overall evaluation of the course.
524 D. Larson and A.-M. Ahonen

Figure 3. A technique for good questioning using small, informal groups (AEL 2003).

The self-evaluation of learning was structured around a pre- and post-course survey
of knowledge and skills in the course themes of research, writing, active learning, small
group work and technical content. On the first day of class, the students completed the
non-graded survey by assessing how much they knew in each of the course themes.
These pre-course surveys were collected and kept by the instructor. On the last day
of class, the students repeated the survey. The instructor, however, did not collect the

Figure 4. A sample of possible skills inventory results from lightwood framing in the USA.
 Active learning 525

post-course surveys, but instead handed the pre-course surveys back to the students. The
students were then directed to compare their two surveys and to tabulate and document
their results within the post-mortem report. Figure 4 is a subset of this work; showing
example pre-course, post-course and change results. In addition, the students were
asked to provide an explanation of their numerical results and to identify class activities
that may have contributed to changes in skills, knowledge and understanding.

5. Course results
The post-mortem reports provided student-generated data and reflections about the
course, the active learning environment and the learning itself. Table 1 is a summary
of the change results, quantifying the difference between the pre- and post-course sur-
vey responses. A change of one equates to a self-reported gain in skill or knowledge of
one increment, e.g. moving from an assessment of low skill to medium skill. Table 1
also shows the ranking of course themes in accordance with the class averages. Of
particular interest to this paper was the active learning theme with a reported class
gain of six-tenths of an increment. The active learning sub-topic results are presented
in table 2.
Occasionally, a student realized a negative change as exemplified in figure 4 within
‘Identify timber removal trends’. This result is due to an overestimation of skills or
knowledge prior to the start of the class. In those few cases in lightwood framing
where a student had a negative change, it was always accompanied by an explanation
such as the following.
The main reason for this [negative change in writing] was my overestimation of skills in the
beginning of the course. Although the table shows negative effects, I think that my writing
skills did improve due to the course assignments.
The pre- and post-course surveys provided students with the unusual opportunity to
test the accuracy of their initial perceptions against what was learned. Negative scores
indicate an enhanced awareness of required skills or subject depth/breadth not under-
stood prior to the course. Awareness is intellectual growth. As such, a negative score
was interpreted as being equivalent to a positive change of the same magnitude. The
numerical results shown in table 1 include this negative equal positive interpretation.
In addition to the quantitative summaries, an ethnographic analysis of the written
responses was completed. The purpose was to derive insights into the efficacy of
active learning. All comments were transcribed verbatim and analysed for common

Average
Course themes change SD

1. Residential building construction 1.55 1.06

2. Forest resources of the USA 1.53 0.84
3. Designing by table and software 1.25 0.74
4. Research: sources and process 1.12 0.91
5. Structural behaviour under loads 1.00 1.04
6. Active learning: why, how, comfort 0.62 0.58
7. Specifying wood products 0.54 0.72
8. Small group work 0.51 0.71
9. Technical writing in English 0.38 0.58

Table 1. Student self-evaluation of learning in lightwood framing in the USA.

526 D. Larson and A.-M. Ahonen

Number of Average
Active learning questions responses change SD

Understand why active learning is better 9 0.67 0.50

Knowledge of active learning techniques 9 0.78 0.67
Comfort with participating in an active 9 0.22 0.44
learning classroom

Table 2. Student self-evaluation of active learning from lightwood framing in the USA.

issues. Of the nine post-mortem reports, there was a total of 47 active learning
responses, yielding an average of 5.2 issues per student. Table 3 lists the common
issues and the number of times a synonymous comment appeared, expressed as a per-
centage of the total number of comments. True to the tradition of ethnography, the
active learning insights are presented herein through the written student account.
Student names, however, are not provided. The comments were offered to the instruc-
tor with an agreement of confidentiality, which is maintained in this paper.
The active learning course theme, when contrasted with the other course themes of
table 1, showed only a moderate increase in students’ beliefs about their knowledge of
and comfort with active learning techniques. Furthermore, table 2 suggests that the
moderate increase was due to the ‘why’ and ‘how’ versus an increase in students’ com-
fort with participating. This participation result suggests that the students realized little
change in their comfort with classroom activity. The ethnographic analysis of table 3
helps to clarify this. As shown by issue 2, most of the students stated that they liked or
were comfortable with the active learning methods. One possible interpretation of the
quantitative and qualitative results is that students already liked or were comfortable
with in-class, active methods prior to taking lightwood framing.
It was clear that after a few weeks quite many of us were comfortable in the class and not
afraid to talk anymore.

Number of Number of
times mentioned times mentioned
Common issue (n) (%)

1. Active learning methods work effectively 8 17.0

to promote learning
2. I liked the active learning methods/I was 8 17.0
comfortable
3. The active learning classroom worked 8 17.0
better than traditional lecturing
4. Active learning methods activate/ 8 17.4
motivate students
5. The teaching methods were a cross- 6 12.8
cultural experience
6. The success of active learning techniques 4 8.5
depends upon teacher’s personality
7. I have knowledge of active learning 3 6.4
methods
8. Teacher must be prepared to use active 2 4.3
learning methods

Table 3. Active learning issues as identified by the students of lightwood framing in the USA.
 Active learning 527

Lectures were not as formal as we are used to, so it was comfortable to participate and time
flew fast. In lecture, I was able to observe the effectiveness of active learning techniques.
I did not have any changes at all in the active learning related issues. I am quite familiar
with the concept.
The students indicated an appreciation for the active learning methods due to effec-
tiveness, issue 1, or activation, issue 4. These two issues accounted for 34% of the
total comments provided. In addition, the students readily contrasted the active learn-
ing techniques to their experiences in traditional passive classrooms. Seventeen per
cent of the comments were comparative, as shown by issue 3.
During the course, I understood why active learning is better. It keeps you awake in class
and it gets your attention.
Active learning methods force students to think about important issues covered in lectures,
instead of just listening. Even though lectures were very early in the morning, students were
listening and participating in discussions. This doesn’t normally happen.
The risk of sleeping in the classroom was much lower than in normally lectured courses.
One student, however, went beyond the acknowledgement that active learning
methods activate. She reflected on why students are sometimes passive, even if the
teaching is not.
. . . I realized that active learning is truly more efficient, the learning results are better, but
the student has to do so much more than in a traditional lecture. In an early morning lecture
or at a time when you have something else in your mind, it is hard to concentrate on the
teaching. This class helped me realize that it is not always the teacher’s fault that the
students are sometimes passive.
As indicated by issues 5 and 6, the students related the use of active learning tech-
niques as either unique to the foreignness of the instructor or to the instructor’s
personality. In addition, two students noted that the use of active learning techniques
requires that the instructor attend to the business of teaching, planning activities before
coming to class.
This course was also a cultural course. The teaching method—active learning—was new to
me. He or she [the instructor] has to be outgoing and a spellbinder to get a hold of the audi-
ence. I don’t think most Finnish [professors] are like that. I believe the active learning
method requires much from the teacher.
I think it’s very important that active learning exercises are prepared well or otherwise
things don’t mange very well.

6. Instructor observations
In addition to the student-generated results presented above, the instructor made
observations related to active learning during the course. Two of the remarks, student
attendance and the physical classroom, deal with issues that are outside the direct con-
trol of the instructor, but impact the teaching and learning environment.
The teacher and student assumptions about class attendance played out in light-
wood framing. There is a tradition among the Finnish university students of irregular
class attendance. This behaviour is especially strong if course materials, like text-
books, are readily available and student performance is based upon an examination
relying solely on these materials. Successful performance in lightwood framing, how-
ever, was highly dependent upon regular attendance for two reasons.
528 D. Larson and A.-M. Ahonen

The first reason, of course, was that the instructor relied heavily on active learning
in the classroom. Learning via classroom activities cannot occur if the learner does not
attend class. The second reason, however, was a function of course content. This
specially designed course contained content from many different sources, using a var-
iety of industry standards, research papers, and government regulations and including
information unique to the instructor’s own experiences. As a consequence, there was
no printed material that focused directly on the course. Course content was delivered,
topic connections were made, context was provided, and tables, software and specifi-
cations were supplied during class.
Two of the initial 12 students dropped lightwood framing because they had simply
missed too many lectures. They did not gain the background knowledge necessary for
successful completion of the long-term projects. Both students thought this attendance
expectation was exceptional; an expectation that they were either unable or unwilling
to comply with. In addition, for those students who stayed with the class for its dur-
ation, there was a direct correlation between course performance and attendance.
Those students who missed the most lectures did the poorest.
The active learning approach taken in lightwood framing is best described as a
modified lecture environment supported by long-term projects. The primary tool
used to modify the environment was verbal discourse initiated through questioning.
Early on, the instructor observed that the students were more comfortable and
hence more willing to participate if the questions were posed to groups versus individ-
uals. The perceived risk posed by an incorrect answer became lower if this risk was
spread out amongst the group.
Group forming was achieved by simply making sure students were sitting close
enough to each other so they could discuss and perform calculations. Group work,
however, required one additional step by the instructor. After a question or task was
posed to groups of neighbouring students, the instructor moved around the room to
monitor and help. The small group format, in contrast to individual questioning,
had the benefit of perpetual activation. The classroom was energized through group
talk, which worked to activate and excite further not only the students, but also the
instructor.
The physical classroom layout proved to be an important factor in supporting or
limiting classroom activity. Luckily, lightwood framing was taught in a horizontally
flat classroom with moveable tables and chairs. The students were able spontaneously
to modify the seating arrangements at will in accordance with the needs of an activity.
Typical of the modern classroom, the lightwood framing classroom contained a
large and immovable table –cabinet combination in the front of the room where the
computer system and overhead projector resided. This table– cabinet combination
spanned nearly the entire width of the classroom. It functioned as an effective techno-
logy platform, but hindered the instructor’s ability to move about the room. Active
learning is facilitated by accessibility to the instructor, because it communicates a
willingness to work with the students. This, in turn, promotes verbal discourse and stu-
dent participation in classroom activities.
Another attribute of the modern classroom is the disappearance of chalkboards, a
feature that was also true for lightwood framing. Visual content and written words are
displayed via the overhead projector or through a computerized lecture system such as
Power Point. Overhead projector systems can be problematic to the active learning
environment, as exemplified by the experiences of the instructor and students. To con-
vey important, non-digitized information via writing, the instructor had to move into
 Active learning 529

and stay within the small physical zone of the overhead projector located behind the
technology platform. Physical movement and accessibility were severely constrained;
but even more importantly, the overhead system prohibited students from spon-
taneously communicating ideas, results and questions with each other via a visual for-
mat. The students of lightwood framing could not easily move to the front of the room
to access the projector. They could not easily share the projector with the instructor or
each other. A few tried, but without much success.

7. Concluding remarks
The quantitative data obtained from student reflections on learning and classroom
experiences moderately supported active learning. In terms of a positive change in
knowledge or skill, the students ranked active learning sixth out of the nine course
themes.
An ethnographic analysis of written comments provided additional insights about
the impact of active teaching and learning techniques. The students provided 47
comments that were grouped into eight common issues. Five of the issues focused
on either the students’ response to or understanding of active learning. All comments
within the five issues were positive. The students appreciated the modified lecture
environment: lecture time flew by, lectures were motivating because of integrated
activities, critical thinking occurred and lots of talking happened.
The authors were unable to resolve the difference between the moderate quanti-
tative and strong qualitative results. One interpretation, following the thought of the
student who reflected on why students are sometimes passive, is students do under-
stand the meaning of activating teaching methods and even like them; but, they
also understand how demanding the methods can be versus just listening. Students
must communicate and do things in the active classroom. As a result, they may favour
the passive teaching methods, which require little from the students during class, even
if they know it is not the best way to achieve deep learning.
The ethnographic analysis revealed cross-cultural beliefs about the use of active
teaching. The students suggested that these techniques were unique to the instructor’s
personality or her foreignness. In contrast, the students also understood that active
learning requires that the instructor attend to the business of teaching.
In many ways, the data and reflections presented here are preliminary. They
revealed eight initial hypotheses about active learning in a Finnish engineering uni-
versity classroom. This case study, however, included other factors that probably
impacted the results. These factors included: the class was taught in English; it
was taught by a non-Finnish women professor; it included non-graded assessment
strategies; student performance was based on long-term collaborative projects
versus a traditional examination; and the class was not compulsory—students
took the class because of interest versus obligation. In future studies, it would be
important to correct for these factors by following up with a validation survey
whereby the initial hypotheses could be presented to the students within the context
of these factors.
Despite this, the authors conclude that it is possible to incorporate successfully
active learning techniques such as verbal discourse into a Finnish engineering univer-
sity classroom. The reflections showed that the students were able to make the tran-
sition from a traditional passive classroom to a more active one within a few class
periods. We also believe that these teaching techniques are not unique to a particular
530 D. Larson and A.-M. Ahonen

culture or personality. They are unique, however, to the attention given by the teacher
to the learning. Teaching with active learning techniques expands the teacher’s focus
from what content is being covered to what content is being learned. Teaching with
active learning techniques like small group work can perpetuate activity. They ener-
gize both the students and instructor. We end this paper with the concluding remark
provided by a student of lightwood framing. It succinctly captures the paper’s over-
arching theme . . .
The teaching methods that were used worked, even for us Finns.

References
AEL , unknown, QUILT model: teacher behaviors to support effective classroom questioning,
Charleston, West Virginia, http://www.ael.org/rel/quilt/model.htm
ALESTALO , P., BELITZ , S., SOPANEN , M., TUHKURI , J. and VIRTANEN , S., 2003, Massakurssien
yhteiset ongelmat. In Yooppia Ikä Kaikki! YOOP2001 – kurssin oman opetuksen Kehittä-
mishankkeet, Teknillinen korkeakoulu (Helsinki: Opetuksen ja opiskelun tuki).
BONWELL , C. C. and EISON , J. A., 1991, Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. September, ED 340272, ERIC Clearinghouse
on Higher Education, Washington, DC, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
CHICKERING , A. W. and GAMSON , Z. F., 1987, Seven principles for good practice. AAHE Bulletin
39, March, ED 282491, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington, DC, George
Washington University, Washington, DC, pp. 3 – 7.
FELDER , R. M., STICE , J. and BRENT , R., 2000, Effective teaching: A workshop. American Society of
Civil Engineers. EXCEED, Seattle, WA, US, Oct 21 –22. Three-day workshop held annually
at American Society of Engineering Educators National Convention, http://www.ncsu.edu/
felder-public/NETI.html.
KIM , K. J. and BONK , C. J., 2002, Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration. Journal of
Computer-mediated Communication, 8, (1), http://www.cscusc.org/jcmc/vol8/issue1/
kjmandbank.html.
MALINNEN , S., 2001, Teacher effectiveness and online learning. In J. STEPHENSON (ed.), Teaching
and Learning Online (London, UK: Kogan Page).
NUUTINEN , A., 1998, Tiedeyhteisö ja oppija—uuden tiedon luojia ja kompetenssinsa ylittäjiä,
Oppimisen ja opettamisen luonteesta tiedeyhteisössä. In A. NUUTINEN and H. KUMPULA
(eds), Opetus ja oppiminen Tiedeyhteisössä (Jyväskylän yliopistopaino: Koulutuksen
tutkimuslaitos).
PENNER , W. G., 1984, Why Many College Teachers Cannot Lecture (Springfield, IL: Charles
C. Thomas).
REPO -KAARENTO , S. and LEVANDER , L., 2003, Oppimista edistävä vuorovaikutus. In S. LINDBLOM -
YLÄNNE and A. NEVGI (eds), Yliopisto-ja korkeakouluopettajan Käsikirja (Vantaa: WSOY).
SORCINELLI , M. D., 1991, Making the best use of the seven principles and the faculty and
institutional inventories. In A. W. CHICKERING and Z. F. GAMSON (eds), Applying the
Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, New directions for teaching
and learning, No. 47, Fall (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
STUART , J. and RUTHERFORD , R. J. D., 1978, Medical student concentration during lectures. Lancet,
2, 514– 516.
VERNER , C. and DICKINSON , G., 1967, The lecture: an analysis and review of research. Adult
Education, 17, 85 – 100.
WANKAT , P. and OREOVICZ , F., 2003, Breaking the 15-minute barrier. ASEE Prism, 12, (8), http://
www.prism-magazine.org/april03/teaching.cfm.

About the authors

Debra Larson (PhD, PE) is a Professor of Civil Engineering at Northern Arizona University in
Flagstaff, Arizona. During the spring of 2003 while on sabbatical from NAU, she worked at
Helsinki University of Technology in Finland as a Visiting Professor. She is actively involved
 Active learning 531

in teaching and learning in higher education, working with the American Society of Civil
Engineers through their ExCEEd programme, completing research in engineering design and
student learning, and developing curriculum. Dr Larson’s other professional interest is in the
engineered applications of wood, in particular small-diameter wood from forest restoration
and fuel reduction programmes.
Anna-Maija Ahonen (MEd) is a senior advisor at Helsinki University of Technology, Teaching
and Learning Development Unit. Anna-Maija Ahonen co-ordinates a 15-credit programme on
higher education pedagogies for HUT teachers and also works as an instructor in pedagogy. Her
special interest is with curriculum development and student guidance and counselling.