Building Thinking Classroom approach improves academic performance and perseverance

Over the past few semesters, a team of researchers at the University of Iceland have been working to apply the ‘Building Thinking Classrooms’ approach in the course Mathematical Analysis I at the School of Engineering and Natural Sciences, with the aim of improving the performance of students who had previously failed the course. The methods have proven effective and have now been adopted in other courses across the University.

Building a Thinking Classroom involves shifting teaching practices from a traditional, teacher-centred approach to a student-centred model, in which students are active participants in their own learning. Instead of passively receiving information and taking notes in lectures, students collaborate in small groups and apply critical and creative thinking in their work.

The Building Thinking Classrooms approach was originally developed for mathematics teaching in primary and secondary schools by Peter Liljedahl, professor of mathematics education at Simon Fraser University in Canada, in collaboration with school teachers. The research team, which also includes researchers from other institutions, is now exploring how Building Thinking Classrooms practices can be applied in demanding higher education courses. “We are investigating whether and how it is possible to disrupt the traditional university lecture format in order to deepen students’ understanding in STEM fields – science, technology, engineering and mathematics,” says Bjarnheiður Kristinsdóttir, lecturer at the School of Education’s Faculty of Subject Teacher Education.

The main aim of the study is to explore whether this approach can improve academic performance and perseverance, particularly in mixed-ability groups. “Instead of requiring students who failed Mathematical Analysis I to wait until the following fall and retake the same course, we designed a new course called Boot Camp for Mathematical Analysis I using the Building Thinking Classrooms approach, which we trialled in spring 2025,” she says.

Traditional lectures were ineffective

The study is rooted in a growing demand for active teaching methods in STEM subjects, with the aim of improving student performance and reducing dropout rates. Research has shown that although university students often believe they learn better in lectures, they actually achieve better academic results when active learning methods are used.

“This mismatch between perception and performance is what made us interested in systematically testing the Thinking Classroom approach at the university level. Ingólfur Gíslason, assistant professor in mathematical education at the School of Education, and I had read about Peter Liljedahl’s research on Building Thinking Classrooms and had experimented with its practices in upper secondary school teaching. Ingólfur began introducing pre-service teachers to these methods in 2016 and worked with Flötur – the Icelandic Association of Mathematics Teachers – to bring Liljedahl to Iceland in the summer of 2019.

Anna Helga Jónsdóttir and Sigrún Helga Lund, professors of statistics at the School of Engineering and Natural Sciences, pioneered the basic methods of the Building Thinking Classrooms approach in statistics and probability theory tutorials after attending a presentation by Ingólfur, but the approach has never been applied to a whole course before.

When 115 students failed Mathematical Analysis I in fall 2024, an opportunity presented itself to go beyond the basic elements of the Building Thinking Classrooms approach and offer a novel intervention in spring 2025. “Rather than repeating the traditional lectures, which had not been effective for these students, we decided to use Building Thinking Classroom practices to improve their perseverance and understanding. We were directly motivated by the need to find ways to support students struggling with their undergraduate studies,” says Bjarnheiður.

Interests lie at the intersection of mathematics and pedagogy

Bjarnheiður is passionate about this subject, with her main research interests lying at the intersection of mathematics and pedagogy, particularly active teaching methods, task design and how digital technology can be used to support mathematics learning.

“I enjoy exploring different ways of working with complex learning content to make it accessible to students, so they are able to gain an in-depth understanding. In order to achieve this, the instructor usually needs to step out of the spotlight and into more of a guiding role. As with Building Thinking Classrooms, most of these practices focus on encouraging collaboration and dialogue in the classroom, thereby improving the learning environment itself, both in terms of conditions for learning and the relationships between the students,” says Bjarnheiður, who has previously taken part in developing innovative mathematics teaching materials for compulsory, upper secondary and university levels.

Students engaged from the start of each class

The team collected both quantitative and qualitative data, including attendance records, assignments designed for students to check their understanding of each week’s topic, exam results and a questionnaire sent to participants at the end of the course. Students attended two 90-minute workshops per week for 11 consecutive weeks and were required to attend at least 80% of classes to be eligible to sit the exam. The final exam was prepared by the instructors who taught Mathematical Analysis I in autumn 2024, and students needed to pass the exam in order to pass the course.

“The teaching methods used can be broadly described as follows: in each class, students were divided into groups of three in a visibly random manner to ensure that everyone learnt to work with everyone else. Each group had one marker and worked standing at a whiteboard or a whiteboard sheet attached to the wall. This meant that students had to work together and their reasoning and calculations were clearly visible to both instructors and fellow students,” explains Bjarnheiður.

Instructors ordered tasks by challenge level in preparation for each class. The first task was introduced at the beginning of class to engage students immediately. Further tasks were given as soon as the previous task was completed, and the level of difficulty was adapted to each group. The aim was for all students to achieve a basic understanding of the day’s topic and for everyone to get to work on problems that were neither boring (too easy) nor frustrating (too challenging). Instructors made a point of not answering questions such as “Did I get this right?”, instead asking the students in return: “How can you convince me it’s right?” in order to boost their autonomy.

“If students needed more challenging tasks or were stuck on an exercise and close to giving up, instructors provided extension tasks or offered hints to keep them progressing. Instructors also summarised what students had learned, and at the end of each class students were given tasks designed for them to check whether the group work had translated into their personal understanding and skills. These tasks were interactive (using the mathematics software GeoGebra) and designed so that students received immediate feedback, enabling them to assess their own progress and get suggestions for further study,” she says.

Collaboration made the project possible

Bjarnheiður translated Liljedahl’s book Building Thinking Classrooms into Icelandic, which was published by the University of Iceland Press. She also trained other instructors to use the methods, designed the Boot Camp for Mathematical Analysis I course, developed the interactive tasks, and prepared the questionnaire sent to students at the end of the course. But many other people were also involved in the study, including a large team of UI researchers and other contributors.

The aforementioned Anna Helga Jónsdóttir and Benedikt Steinar Magnússon, chair of the Teaching Committee at the School of Engineering and Natural Sciences and associate professor in mathematics, helped initiate the project and have been involved in collecting and analysing statistical data related to the students’ academic performance.

The School of Engineering and Natural Sciences awarded a grant to make the project a reality. SamSTEM, a collaborative project between the University of Iceland, Reykjavík University and the University of Akureyri, funded a professional development course for teachers on Building Thinking Classroom practices. UI Real Estate and the Office of the Pro-Rector also contributed by adapting classrooms and installing whiteboards to improve the teaching facilities.

“Helgi Sigurðsson, adjunct lecturer in physics at the University of Warsaw and former adjunct at UI, worked with me to prepare the sequences of tasks and we taught the course together. Finally, we should not forget the study participants, as 86 of the 115 students who failed Mathematical Analysis I in autumn 2024 and were invited to participate, took part in the course,” says Bjarnheiður.

The course had a high pass-rate

The results from the spring 2025 course are now available and are extremely positive. Of the 82 students who sat the final examination, 59 passed. This corresponds to a pass rate of around 69%, which is very good given that the cohort consisted of students who had previously failed the same subject. Only 32 students responded to the questionnaire, but their responses indicated a high level of satisfaction.

“Most respondents agreed that the course had motivated them to practice solving tasks and that the workshops were useful. They noted in particular that these methods helped them get to know one another, which is a key factor in reducing isolation and preventing dropout. Students also mentioned that the approach prompted them to think in new ways and that access to instructors was much better than in traditional classes. Most of them said they would like to have similar workshops in other mathematics courses,” says Bjarnheiður.

It seems likely that the Building Thinking Classrooms approach will continue to spread, as a large number of instructors from various subjects attended a professional development course in summer 2025 and expressed interest in adopting the methods immediately. In autumn 2025, the approach was implemented in lectures and tutorials in 10 courses, with good results.

Teaching methods that enhance communication skills and perseverance

The study may have significant value for both the education system and society as a whole, particularly in light of the need to increase the number of graduates in STEM fields. In recent years, the Icelandic labour market has had a lower proportion of STEM graduates than many other countries.

“By demonstrating that it is possible to turn things around for failing students and support those who have encountered setbacks, the study promotes equality in education and helps prevent valuable knowledge and experience from being lost when people who might otherwise have dropped out are retained,” says Bjarnheiður.

The study confirms that Liljedahl’s theories on Building Thinking Classrooms practices can certainly be applied in a higher education context. It also provides practical data showing how entrenched lecture-based methods can be transformed. This is important since research has shown lectures to be less effective than approaches that encourage active student participation.

On a broader societal level, this shift in teaching practices may mean that graduates are better equipped to tackle complex challenges in the future, where teamwork, communication skills and perseverance are key. “By turning the classroom into a space that prioritises collaboration and creative thinking, we can have a far-reaching impact on workplace culture and the social skills of future generations. Publication of Liljedahl’s book and the continued offering of courses for instructors will ensure that this knowledge benefits the entire educational community,” Bjarnheiður concludes.