The aim of this study was to discover how an active learning classroom (ALC) influenced the teaching and learning of dental radiology with dental hygiene students through a mixed‐methods approach. A year‐long observation of a dental hygiene professor who was teaching two consecutive courses in an ALC was conducted in 2015–16. Nineteen classes were recorded and transcribed, and observational notes on classroom activities were taken. Towards the end of the academic year, the professor was interviewed with use of a 13‐question guide, and the students were surveyed with a 25‐question survey. Moreover, five‐year grades in the same two courses, including four‐year historical grades earned in the traditional classrooms (TCs) and one year from the ALC, were collected along with demographic and prior academic performance data. Thirty‐two of the 38 students responded to the survey, for a response rate of 84%. The results showed that 63% of the students preferred to take classes in the ALC rather than TC. They especially enjoyed the ALC's spaciousness, mobility, unobstructed views, and ease of information‐sharing and engagement in class. However, the ALC presented both the faculty and students with sensory and technique challenges. The analysis of students' grades suggested that GPA was one of the strongest predictors for both courses' final grades in the TCs but had weaker predicting significance in the ALC setting. Overall, the majority of students enjoyed taking classes in the ALC due to its physical charm and dynamic collaboration. Sensory and technique challenges coexisted with benefits.

Active learning space emerged at the turn of the twenty-first century. The active learning space design represents not only an overhaul of traditional classrooms’ physical appearances but also reflects a paradigm shift from teacher-centered learning to student-centered learning. Current available research mainly focused on student academic performance as well as student and faculty perceptions.  No research has been conducted to investigate interactions at the student level to find out what interactions are taking place in the active learning space and how they affect student learning. This study employed a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design inquiring into student learning in an active learning space first through student focus group discussions and then with an online student survey. The major themes emerged from the focus group discussions were utilized to develop the online survey. The purpose of this survey was to cross-validate qualitative outcomes and further seek answers to unanswered questions triggered by qualitative findings. The qualitative data indicated that the spatial equity in the active learning space put students in positive mindsets and induced active classroom participation. The interconnected screens made it easy for students to view class content and collaborate with peers. The group work conducted in the space fostered mutual learning, promoted learning accountability and improved peer relations. The quantitative survey data on group dynamics validated and reinforced qualitative findings. This paper will help educators better understand student behaviors in the active learning space and better design space-appropriate pedagogical strategies.

BackgroundA variety of methods are used for estimating pituitary tumour size in clinical practice and in research. Quantitative methods, such as maximum tumour dimension, and qualitative methods, such as Hardy and Knosp grades, are well established but do not give an accurate assessment of the tumour volume. We therefore sought to compare existing measures of pituitary tumours with more quantitative methods of tumour volume estimation.MethodMagnetic resonance imaging was reviewed for 99 consecutive patients with pituitary adenomas awaiting surgery between 2010 and 2013. Maximal tumour diameter, Hardy and Knosp grades were compared with tumour volume estimates by the ellipsoid equation, [], (i.e. ellipsoid volume) and slice-by-slice perimetry (i.e. perimeter volume).ResultsEllipsoid and perimeter methods of tumour volume estimation strongly correlated (R 2 = 0.99, p < 0.0001). However the correlation was less strong with increasing tumour size, with the ellipsoid method slightly underestimating. The mean differences were −0.11 (95 % CI, −0.35, 0.14), −0.74 (95 % CI, −2.2, 0.74) and −1.4 (95 % CI, −6.4, 3.7) for micro-tumours, macro-tumours and giant tumours respectively. Tumour volume correlated with maximal diameter, following a cubic distribution. Correlations of tumour volume with Hardy and Knosp grades was less strong.ConclusionsPerimeter and ellipsoid methods give a good estimation of tumour volume, whereas Knosp and Hardy grades may offer other clinically relevant information, such as cavernous sinus invasion or chiasmal compression. Thus the different methods of estimating tumour size are likely to have different clinical utilities.

No abstract