Search results

This chapter will explore how the places of learning might look in next generation learning spaces where learners traverse physical and virtual spaces using personalised learning strategies. It will examine how learning spaces may represent ubiquitous spaces in which the learner undertakes some form of study or learning. Although there has been extensive examination of the design of spaces for knowledge generation (Keppell & Riddle, 2012, 2013; Souter, Riddle, Sellers, & Keppell, 2011) there has been little attention given to how learners customise and personalise their own physical and virtual learning spaces as they traverse their learning journey. Seven principles of learning space design will be adapted for use by the personalised learner. Personalised learning strategies encompass a range of knowledge, skills and attitudes that empower the learner to take charge of their learning within next generation learning spaces. Personalised learning consists of six broad concepts: digital citizenship, seamless learning, learner engagement, learning-oriented assessment, lifelong and life-wide learning and desire paths. Teachers will need to assist learners to design their own personalised learning spaces throughout formal education to encourage learners to be autonomous learners throughout their lifetime. In order to assist learners in developing personalised learning strategies we need to teach them about learning space literacies. We can’t assume learners have the knowledge, skills and attitudes to be able to identify and effectively utilise appropriate learning spaces that optimises engagement.

Technology provision and Next Generation Learning Spaces (NGLS) should respond to the active learning needs of twenty-first century learners and privilege multiple ‘pictures of learning’ and associated knowledge work. In this sense it is important for NGLS to be pedagogically agnostic – agile enough to cater for a range of pedagogical approaches within the one physical space. In this chapter, the democratising and potentially disruptive power of new digital technologies to facilitate the privileging of these multiple pictures of learning is explored, recognising the significant rise in student ownership and academic use of mobile technologies. With their escalating ubiquity and their facilitation of active knowledge work, research around considerations for the implementation of mobile digital technologies is canvassed, highlighting a range of issues to be considered. This is part of the ‘hidden work’ of technology implementation. Without this hidden work, the potential of NGLS in facilitating and privileging active learning and multiple pictures of learning is diminished and the potential for reinforcing already powerful and potentially exclusionary modes of knowledge work increases. Finally to assist in articulating the hidden work of digitally enabled NGLS, a model is proposed to help understand how ease of use and confidence impacts on student and academic knowledge work.

The idea of active learning classrooms (ALCs) in post-secondary institutions across North America is not a new one and it continues to gain prominence (Davis, 2018; Ellern & Buchanan, 2018; Park & Choi, 2014). Research shows that these dynamic classrooms increased student comprehension of key concepts, problem-solving ability, improved attitude toward learning, and overall learning gains (Cotner, Loper, Walker, & Brooks, 2013; Park & Choi, 2014). Not surprisingly then, there has been a growing number of academic libraries which see the potential benefits and have incorporated ALCs, or elements of such, into their spaces (Ellern & Buchanan, 2018; Karasic, 2016; Soderdahl, 2011).

This chapter presents a case study on the 2017 redesign of a Canadian academic library, the Albert D. Cohen Management Library at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada. Once considered a “study hall,” the renovated business library has been transformed into a modern student learning space. The library is outfitted with a modular ALC equipped to accommodate the varied learning needs of the twenty-first-century students at the Asper School of Business. The author provides a detailed first-hand account of the ALC planning process, key partnerships, challenges, and post-launch reaction.

This chapter focuses on learning space design for students’ technology-rich lifestyles, in particular the evolution and future of learning spaces in the United States. JISC design principles – bold, supportive, future proof, creative, and enterprising – frame discussion in the chapter’s first section, “Planning for the learning spaces of tomorrow.” The section begins with pioneering work in the field and follows with recent learning spaces (both classrooms and informal learning environments) that seek new and innovative ways for students to collaborate. Examples clearly point to students’ need for continual access to flexible, tech-rich spaces that support their work and study habits.

The chapter’s second section, “The future of learning spaces: On-demand apps and Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT),” is a case study focused on software virtualization’s influence on learning space design at Indiana University. The section brings in examples from the University of South Florida and the University of Iowa, asserting that physical and virtual learning spaces must be designed to come together seamlessly, echoing students’ on-the-go lifestyles and constant connectedness. Ultimately, the section makes a bold contention about the evolution of learning spaces: Any space can become a tech-rich learning environment, if students have access to virtualized software.

Throughout, the chapter touches on compelling questions about meeting the learning needs of digital natives: How do we challenge traditional educational paradigms? Can we flip the classroom to further the potential of all learners? What is the role of collaboration in learning? Which models will energize and inspire learners and instructors of the future?

Systematic efforts to study students' use of informal learning spaces are crucial for determining how, when and why students use such spaces. This case study provides an example of an effort to evaluate an informal learning space on the basis of students' usage of the space and the features within the space.

Use of heatmap camera technology and a semi-structured interview with a supervisor of an informal learning space supported the mixed-methods evaluation of the space.

Findings from both the heatmap outputs and semi-structured interview suggested that students' use of the informal learning space is limited due to the location of the space on campus and circumstances surrounding students' day-to-day schedules and needs.

Findings from both the heatmap outputs and semi-structured interview suggested that students' use of the informal learning space is limited due to the location of the space on campus and circumstances surrounding students' day-to-day schedules and needs. These findings are actively contributing to the authors’ institution’s efforts surrounding planning, funding and design of other informal learning spaces on campus.

While most research on instructors' and students' use of space has taken place in formal classrooms, some higher education scholars have explored ways in which college and university students use informal spaces around their campuses (e.g. Harrop and Turpin, 2013; Ramu et al., 2022). Given the extensive time students spend on their campuses outside of formal class meetings (Deepwell and Malik, 2008), higher education institutions must take measures to better understand how their students use informal learning spaces to allocate resources toward the optimization of such spaces. This mixed-methods case study advances the emerging global discussion on how, when and why students use informal learning spaces.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a framework to guide learning and teaching practice in next generation learning spaces. The framework is informed by both learning and teaching theory and the current context of the sector. The framework provides guidance to those who teach in next generation learning spaces and is illustrated with examples of effective pedagogic practices that use the affordances of spaces while avoiding their limitations. The chapter discusses the tension between next generation learning space design and use. Design is influenced by drivers ranging from a need to accommodate ever-larger student numbers and responding to digital technologies and other developments in educational media, to providing for new approaches to learning. Use is determined by understandings of the teaching task, which can range from presentation by a teacher through to students working individually or in groups to generate meaningful knowledge, useful skills and professional values. In this chapter we identify drivers underpinning the creation and design of next generation learning spaces in universities today and associated expectations of the ways in which the spaces will be used. We reflect on understandings of sound pedagogic practice and work through to implications for learning and teaching in NGLS. In some cases advocated pedagogic practice asks teaching staff to make the most of spaces designed to allow students to engage constructively in their learning. In other cases it involves teaching constructively in spite of the design of the space.

This chapter takes an implementation case study approach to inform project planners, senior academics, and academic developers about the design and implementation of a professional development (PD) program that prepared 700 faculty in an Australian university to reimagine their teaching practice. The catalyst for this transformation was the move from traditional classrooms to next generation learning spaces (NGLS) in the newly constructed and purpose-built environment of RMIT University’s Swanston Academic Building (SAB). The study identifies the challenges and change management issues faced by the project team, faculty, and other stakeholders.

Default teaching styles for many tertiary teachers can replicate the “best” and “worst” practices from their own student experience. As actors in their own classrooms tertiary teachers autonomously create learning environments that they consider appropriate to communicate the content, context, and culture of their particular discipline. The design and implementation of the PD and transition plan took into account the needs and perceptions of staff from each discipline area, the affordances of the new learning spaces, and their associated technologies.

This chapter contributes to a growing body of knowledge about the experience of academic and teaching staff during transition from traditional to NGLS, providing a description of the process undertaken in one university, the outcomes achieved, and the lessons learnt.

This chapter focuses on the challenges and the possibilities that exist for College and University leadership, academic planners, instructional technologists, campus planners, architects, and others involved in building the transformative student experience that has been the underpinning of education since the Raphael’s School of Athens. Students need to engaged in the learning and have meaningful interactions with the faculty and classmates.

Economic and societal influences during the first decade of the 21st century have illuminated the demand for access to education through emerging technologies in both physical and virtual spaces. These new opportunities have not developed without painstaking disruptions to conventional models for academic and campus planning. The disruptions have led to opportunities to pilot new modalities for curriculum development that blend both online and on ground learning. Parallel opportunities exist for piloting learning spaces that support blended learning.

Academics and campus planners alike have realized that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to planning effective formal and informal learning spaces. What is clear is moving the student experience from one that is transactional to transformational requires adhering to grounded best practices in teaching, learning, and campus planning, establishing a team of informed and engaged stakeholders, and developing empathy and authenticity in the planning process for both the spaces and the pedagogies.

This chapter will consider the spatial implications in disrupting hierarchies and shifting identities in the undergraduate environment and explore the extent to which space can act as an agent of change in this process. Drawing on research and empirical evidence, the chapter explores the link between the re-design of learning and the design of the physical space. As this chapter will illustrate, when the active learner is centrally positioned in the learning spaces of the future, space can support relational and dialogic learning experiences and promote learner agency and reflexive learner engagement in a way that has the potential to become a platform for transformative educational change. As educational spaces are re-conceptualised, recognising a fundamental shift has taken place in how, when and where we learn, it can be argued that space is acting as an ‘agent of change’ facilitating change in pedagogic practice, relationships and methods.