Evaluation of Experimental Learning Spaces, University of Leicester

1. 
   Introduction 6
   
2. 
   Higher education learning spaces in transition 7
   
3. 
   Method 10
   
4. 
   Results 15
   
   1. 
      Student and lecturer perception of the museum studies
      

2. 
   Student and lecturer perception of the general seminar
   

3. 
   Student and lecturer perception of the Geography
   

5. 
   Discussion of findings 23
   

6. 
   Conclusion 27
   

This report summarises the findings from an evaluation of the development of three experimental learning spaces within the University of Leicester. These learning spaces were created in 2009 and represent a refurbishment of existing rooms. The main variable separating the three rooms is the cost of their redesign and extent of modifications.

• 
  the Museum Studies learning studio (including a raised floor, a large white-wall for participants to write on, a number of state of the art ICT facilities such as Wi-Fi connectivity, interactive whiteboard, and video conferencing, and new furniture including collapsible tables and new chairs);
  
• 
  a general seminar room (including a plasma screen linked to a multi-media computer hub, a second set of ICT equipment with a digital projector, a glass whiteboard wall, and tip-up tables);
  
• 
  a School of Education seminar room (including tip-up tables, student whiteboards placed around the walls, and ICT equipment linked to a digital projector and interactive whiteboard).
  

The aim of this research project was focused on capturing a detailed picture of the lived experience of students and teachers using these rooms, and their reflections on working in new learning spaces. In total 54 postgraduate students and five members of staff were consulted through an online questionnaire and interviews (one to one and small group).

• 
  Dynamic – learning spaces that have the flexibility to change in both space and time. A design process that is ongoing allowing for a flow of modification and personalisation.
  
• 
  Engaging – learning spaces that afford diverse and inclusive use being able to accommodate a variety of pedagogical approaches and different learning styles. A design process that takes into account flexible use and baseline environmental factors such as light, temperature ICT and spaciousness. As such, learning spaces should allow pedagogic design and use of learning resources that open the way for deeper student learning.
  
• 
  Ecological – a learning space that gives attention to environmental aspects. A design process that in its systems thinking approach gives attention to aspects such as sustainable procurement and ecological architectural design
  
• 
  Participatory – a learning space that is continually negotiated by the lecturers and students. A design process that is consultative allowing for a sense of ownership and a tailoring to the needs of both staff and students.
  

Recent presentation of this model to an International educational conference has led to some very positive interest and it is our aspiration that the University of Leicester will continue to find fresh avenues for applying and refining the DEEP learning space model in order to continue to offer an original and pioneering contribution in this field.

With the advent of an increasingly ‘fluid’ approach to learning in higher education, represented by the development of advances such as e-learning and blended learning, the belief in the predominance of a basic, teacher centred, transmissive classroom based learning experience is no longer sustainable. There is also a developing interest in the link between learning theory and learning environments (e.g. Oblinger, 2006) which is leading to a fundamental re-evaluation of approaches to learning, and the physical environments in which such interactions exist, especially within the English-speaking world. In addition, space is increasingly at a premium in a massified and resource poor sector, with a need for more inventive and efficient use of space. Similar concerns in the school sector have already led to a keen interest in the study of learning environments (Jonassen & Land, 2000; Fisher & Khine, 2006), and a fusion of the fields of physical learning space development (growing out of architecture, e.g. Dudek, 2000; Taylor, 2009), and active, constructivist learning (from educational and neurosciences research, e.g. Jarvis, 2009; Cigman & Davis, 2009), coalescing in research into ‘learning spaces’.

As part of a growing interest in the role of learning spaces, a number of studies already exist which consider the characteristics of the physical learning environment and their potential impact upon student learning both at the higher education level (e.g. Van Note Chism & Bickford, 2002) and at school level (e.g. Woolner, 2010) as well as considering innovative and diverse designs for flexible learning contexts. This report aims to add to these debates by evaluating the development of three different learning spaces which have all been created over the past year here at the University of Leicester, U.K., and which are all refurbishments of already existing learning spaces. The main variable which separates them is the level of resources included during refitting, including addition of technology and new furniture, resulting in different amounts of money being spent on each space in an attempt to update and diversify their use. However, pedagogic aims have remained central in each case to the blend and level of refitting.

2.0 Higher education learning spaces in transition

Universities are currently experiencing radical and continued changes concerning beliefs about learning, trends towards a more diverse student population, and greater workload pressure on academics. However, the formal learning spaces of universities in which academics work have essentially remained static over centuries. Jamieson (2003) reflects that;

‘This institutional architecture has provided an optimum environment for prevailing teacher-centred practices - lecture supplemented by tutorial - concerned primarily with the one-way delivery of information to students.' (p. 119)

Vredevoogd and Grummon (2009) argue that as a result of a growing interest in creating learning spaces that encourage more collaborative and active approaches to learning within American universities, there is a growing belief in the need for spaces which are both flexible and adaptable. This growing interest has come from both changes in beliefs about learning (Long and Ehrmann, 2005), but also as a result of changing student expectations. Similar beliefs underpin major reviews within the UK and Australia. The Scottish Funding Council (2006) argues for new learning environments developed within both new buildings, and through the refurbishment of spaces which already exist. As with Vredevoogd and Grummon (2009), this belief is based on both an increasing diversity of student populations and on changing beliefs about learning processes and approaches. A number of ‘spatial types’ are proposed, giving planned flexibility in relation to learning spaces. Examples range from group teaching/learning spaces such as lecture rooms and classrooms where there is less of a focus on one point in the room and where furniture can be stacked to allow greater mobility, to peer-to-peer and social learning spaces, often informal in nature such as cyber-cafes and group rooms in libraries.

Technology is seen as central to the development of new learning spaces. Brown and Lippincott (2003) suggest that the development of new approaches to teaching and learning linked to the rapid increase in technology across society inevitably leads to the need for conscious planning to integrate Information Communication Technology (ICT) within learning spaces. This includes the near ubiquitous appearance of wireless networking which allows for mobile computing, and an increasing movement towards students continuing their work outside of class in such social spaces as libraries, cafes and halls of residence. Punie (2007) led a workshop of 20 experts on the future of learning the role of ICT, and found that with the increasing use of a number of ICT based technologies such as virtual learning environments, blogs, wikis and podcasting, future learning spaces must take a number of different forms which not only exist as physical spaces on campus but which extend to virtual learning spaces and other physical spaces, both personal and social beyond the university campus. This suggests an increasingly complex definition and understanding of the notion of a learning space, something which would require a shift in the way that university lecturers think about the process of learning and teaching, and their place within it, an issue which Punie (2007) highlights as being important;

‘ as boundaries between private, public, working and learning life become blurred, learning spaces need to be flexible enough to incorporate these shifts. Flexibility in learning styles and forms will depend on the teaching staff’s ability to incorporate such requirements into the learning curriculum, hence the importance of teacher training.' (p. 193)

With the increasing interest in providing new, innovative and flexible learning spaces within higher education which take account of rapid developments in technology, and new ideas about learning, there are a number of studies which set out factors deemed to be important in designing useful and positive learning spaces (see table 2.1)

JISC 2006	Jamieson et al 2000	Oblinger 2006	Johnson and Lomas (2005)
flexible future proofed bold creative supportive enterprising	multiple use flexibility use of the vertical integration of functions maximize teacher and student control maximise alignment of different curricula activities maximise student access, use and ownership	design around people support multiple types of activities enable connections accommodate ICT designed for comfort, safety and functionality reflecting institutional values	building life-cycle understanding of learning the changing nature of technology Net Generation

Table 2.1 Examples of design principles for learning spaces

Whilst some differences exist between the design principles advocated by different studies, there is a large degree of consistency in seeing flexibility, the inclusion of ICT, the ability to enable a number of different approaches to learning, and students as active individuals, as core design features. These central features are apparent in a number of experimental learning spaces developed in a number of countries. Radcliffe et al (2009) have created a framework for designing and evaluating learning spaces by highlighting the interplay between space, technology and pedagogy. Based on this framework, they have produced a number of questions which are used to aid in the generation of learning spaces, and once built, their evaluation. Oblinger (2006) provides a number of case studies from universities across the USA and beyond, to show innovative design principles in relation to learning spaces with an emphasis on the integration of technology many of which emphasise informal and independent small group learning. The Learning Landscapes project, based in the U.K., and led by the University of Lincoln, is another project which has aimed to consider the development of learning spaces across a number of universities in a holistic way, seeing the campus as an integrated whole, and putting pedagogy at the core, driving design . As with Oblinger’s work, a number of case studies and exemplars are presented to demonstrate the embodiment of these principles in design.

Given the extensive literature on the vision for learning spaces and the design and pedagogic principles which underlie them, there is very little evidence that changes in learning spaces impact on learning outcomes. In a review covering the learning spaces literature in higher education, Temple (2008) cites two studies which link learning spaces with performance. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (2005) state that there is an improved student performance related to new learning spaces attributed to increased student motivation, facilitation of inspiration among students, and the provision of key facilities critical to course content. However, Temple argues that the empirical evidence for these claims is uncertain. In addition, Thomas and Galambos (2004, cited in Temple 2008) state that students give a low priority to spaces use, and that lecturer preparedness is far more important to students with respect to quality of learning. Apart from the use of large-scale surveys, very little of the literature appears to focus upon the detailed, lived experience of students and lecturers and their reflections of working in new learning spaces. As a consequence, the opportunity afforded the present researchers to evaluate three small, flexible learning spaces containing different levels of innovative technology and material infrastructure was deemed to have a clear utility in extending the depth, if not the breadth, of the critical evaluation of exemplars of new learning spaces.

3.0 Method

In the summer of 2009, we were commissioned by one of the pro-Vice Chancellor’s at University of Leicester with responsibility for students to evaluate a new, innovative learning space which had been designed for use from autumn 2009. This evaluation was rapidly expanded to include two further teaching rooms which had undergone varying levels of refurbishment to include innovative facilities to enable and engage with changing pedagogies. Details of the three rooms are given below

Museum Studies Learning Studio (MSLS) This learning space incorporates a number of innovative features, and is identified as an experimental learning space within the university. There are a number of technological inclusions, including WiFi connectivity, interactive whiteboard (controlled from a computer console at one end of the room which also incorporates DVD and audio), repeater plasma screens located around the room, a fixed camera for video conferencing facility, a suspended floor which houses a number of electrical and connection points allowing students to use laptops, and interact digitally through the plasma screens and the digital projector. These facilities can be managed from a single portable control panel which allows users to switch between, and share ideas and presentations between each other's computers. The furniture has been chosen to allow tables to be collapsed thereby making the physical space more flexible, and the room has plenty of natural light with a neutral, crisp white colour scheme. The windows have blinds to allow control of direct light levels. Finally, one wall has been painted with a special covering which allows it to be used as a large ‘white-wall’. Due to the need for a suspended floor, and the level of technology used, this room was expensive to refurbish, and is therefore identified as a ‘top end’ learning space.