Social Learning spaces

7/27/2019 Social Learning spaces

1/17

This article was downloaded by: [University of Canterbury]On: 27 September 2013, At: 03:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Higher Education Research &DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

Social learning spaces and studentengagementKelly E. Matthews a , Victoria Andrews a & Peter Adams a

a Faculty of Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, AustraliaPublished online: 16 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Kelly E. Matthews , Victoria Andrews & Peter Adams (2011) Social learningspaces and student engagement, Higher Education Research & Development, 30:2, 105-120, DOI:10.1080/07294360.2010.512629

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.512629

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.512629http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07294360.2010.512629http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20


2/17

Higher Education Research & Development Vol. 30, No. 2, April 2011, 105120

ISSN 0729-4360 print/ISSN 1469-8366 online 2011 HERDSADOI: 10.1080/07294360.2010.512629http://www.informaworld.com

Social learning spaces and student engagementKelly E. Matthews*, Victoria Andrews and Peter Adams

Faculty of Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, AustraliaTaylorandFrancisLtd CHER_A_512629.sgm( Received 16 October 2009; final version received 28 June 2010 )10.1080/07294360.2010.512629HigherEducationResearch&Development0729-4360 (print)/1469-8366 (online)Original Article2011Taylor&Francis3020000002011KellyE [email protected]

Notable gains have been made in understanding the factors that influence thestudent experience in higher education, particularly in the area of studentengagement. While tremendous effort has been focused on identifyingeducationally beneficial activities for students, we must also consider where theseactivities are occurring. In recent years there have been technological advancesthat have paved the way for blended learning environments, however, physicallearning environments continue to dominate the functionality of manyuniversities. The development of purpose-built informal social learning spaces asa strategy to enhance the student experience is becoming more prevalent, althoughempirical research in this area is lacking. This study explores the role of sociallearning spaces on the student experience using the student engagementframework within a qualitative research design. Informal interviews with 103students were conducted within a social learning space. Findings reveal that sociallearning spaces can contribute to enhanced student engagement by fostering activelearning, social interaction and belonging amongst tertiary students. The studyalso suggests that design is a contributing factor to students perceptions of social

learning spaces.Keywords: first-year experience; higher education; learning spaces; studentengagement; transition

IntroductionOver the last several decades there has been a growing body of literature examiningstrategies to enhance the student experience in higher education. A positive studentexperience is frequently associated with reduced attrition and higher student learningoutcomes. Although notable gains have been made in understanding the factors that

influence student experience, there is still limited information on how physical learn-ing spaces affect student engagement.Much of the literature on student experience arises from research examining the

underlying factors contributing to educational excellence and student attrition in thefirst year of university. Often referred to as the first year experience, the transition

period into university plays a critical role in forming students attitudes and behav-iours towards learning (Krause, 2005; McInnis & James, 1995) and, therefore, helpsto determine whether students will persist at an institution, in addition to the learningoutcomes that they will achieve (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Astin (1975, 1984)

presented a theory of student involvement arguing that the amount of physical and

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


3/17

106 K.E. Matthews et al.

psychological energy that students invest into their educational experience determineswhether they will achieve desired learning and developmental outcomes. Astin (1975)suggested that a lack of involvement is a major contributing factor for student attrition.Tintos (1975, 1993) theory of student departure states that successful transition, and,thereby, student persistence, is determined by a students ability to integrate into aninstitutions academic and social systems, in which involvement plays a critical role.Chickering and Gamson (1987) proposed Seven Good Educational Principles inUndergraduate Education that have helped to guide universities in understandingwhat educational activities are most beneficial for students. The principles were asfollows:

(1) Student-faculty feedback (2) Cooperation among students(3) Active learning(4) Prompt feedback (5) Time on task (6) High expectations(7) Respect for diversity of learning.

Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) synthesised the research on student experience, whichhas become a primary resource for understanding how college affects students in theUSA. In Australia, the first national study examining students first year experienceswas conducted in 1994 and again in 2004 (Krause, Hartley, James, & McInnis, 2005).The findings revealed that students are reporting a more positive first year experiencein comparison to their counterparts from ten years ago. However these changes were

relatively small and, overall, student engagement remained reportedly low. In the UK a national report published by Yorke and Longden (2008) examining student attritionfound that students discontinued their studies due to a lack of commitment and a lack of fit within courses, financial strain, poor teaching quality, limited student-staff inter-action and slow academic process. These findings support an earlier study on studentattrition conducted in the UK in the mid-1990s and research on student attrition in theUSA and Australia (Kift, 2004; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008; McInnis& James, 1995; Nelson, Duncan, & Clarke, 2009; Tinto, 1993). It is clear that impor-tant gains have been made in this area of research but the literature on student experi-ence remains segmented, especially with regard to student attrition and learning

outcomes.The accumulation of this research highlights that the student experience isenhanced when students participate in appropriate educational activities inside and outside the classroom. Based on the student experience literature, Kuh (2001a, 2001b,2003) developed the student engagement (SE) model to investigate how much timeand effort students allocate to educationally purposeful activities that directly relate toacademic success. Engagement not only reflects what students do but also examinesthe extent to which institutions actively involve students in good educational practicesthat contribute to high quality outcomes (Hu & Kuh, 2002; Pascarella & Terenzini,2005). Central to Kuhs concept of SE, the National Survey of Student Engagement(NSSE) was developed in the mid-1990s for colleges in the USA as a measure of SE.Recently, the NSSE has been adapted for other countries, including Australia, wherethe Australian Survey on Student Engagement (AUSSE) was developed. Higher education providers are investing in the NSSE/AUSSE survey because it can be easily

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


4/17

Higher Education Research & Development 107

administered, data can be compared to evaluate institutional performance at a nationallevel and results are immediately actionable. Nevertheless, caution should be applied when considering this data as it is not a direct measure of learning outcomes and

provides only one piece of evidence concerning educational excellence. Although SEdoes not account for all the factors relating to student experience, it does take a moreholistic approach by considering how students involve themselves in the academic,

personal and social aspects of university life (Krause & Coates, 2008).Data from the NSSE has led to the identification of activities designed to direct

students energies towards more effective educational activities but it has failed toconsider other aspects of the student experience, such as physical learning spaces onuniversity campuses. Although it is important to find out what students are doing, it isalso important to consider where they are doing it (Webb, Schaller, & Hunley, 2008).In recent years, there have been technological advances that have paved the way for

blended learning environments and distance education, but physical learning environ-ments continue to dominate the functionality of most universities. An institutions

physical environment has significant implications for the teaching and learning process as well as social practices (Jamieson, 2003; Montgomery, 2008; Oblinger,2005). Though controversial, it is thought that physical spaces influence student learn-ing behaviours as different spatial designs determine those activities in which studentscan and cannot engage (Bennet, 2007). The impact of spaces becomes more promi-nent as pedagogical practices in higher education start to move away from the tradi-tional, teacher-centred approach to a more flexible, student-centred approach. Asstudents learning styles, aspirations and expectations evolve, it is clear that learningenvironments need to evolve with them. There is accumulating research on how todevelop more interactive formal teaching spaces, where formal refers to learning

that occurs in the classroom (Joint Information Systems Committee [JISC], 2006;Montgomery, 2008; Oblinger, 2006; Radcliffe, Wilson, Powell, & Tibbetts, 2008;Williamson & Nodder, 2002).

This study instead focuses on informal social learning spaces (SLS). Informalrefers to student learning outside of designated class time. Given the nature of learningin higher education, students spend the majority of their time learning in informalsettings. Similar to the idea of the common room, SLS in this context are defined as

purpose-built, informal physical spaces. Social learning spaces act as a mediumthrough which the social and academic aspects of university life can coincide. Givenwhat is known about student transition into university (Kift, 2004; Krause & Coates,

2008; Tinto, 1993), these spaces are especially important for first year students as anoutlet to form social networks that stem from intellectual commonalities and shared knowledge (JISC, 2006). Social learning spaces provide a place for students to interactwith their peers as well as academic staff members outside class and take command over their own learning (Jamieson, 2003; Jamieson, Fisher, Gilding, Taylor, & Trevitt,2000; Oblinger, 2005). From a social constructivist viewpoint, this interaction is avital component in the creation and development of knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978).Learning is largely a social process, which is enriched when students are able toconceptualise and critically think about academic problems with others (Hunter,Laursen, & Seymour, 2007). Social learning spaces, therefore, help to facilitatestudent involvement in their learning through social experiences.

However, there is limited empirical evidence on the role of informal SLS on thestudent experience. Although, Bennett (2007) emphasises the importance of designingSLS with the intention of enhancing the student experience, many have noted the

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


5/17


difficulties in evaluating such spaces, especially as one considers the number of factors that influence the educational experience (Radcliffe et al., 2008).

Conceptual framework The SE model is being increasingly used to explore the student experience inAustralian and US universities (Coates, 2005; Krause & Coates, 2008; Kuh, 2003) asengagement is positively correlated with student satisfaction, persistence and achieve-ment in learning and personal development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Higher education providers in Australia are using this model to inform policy on studentexperience. Engagement in effective education practices is also being used as a perfor-mance indicator for quality assurance and has been used as a basis for the distributionof federal funds to universities. Matthews, Adams and Gannaway (2009) proposed that the SE model can be used as a framework to evaluate SLS.

Purpose of studyThis paper reports on the second phase of a research project that is situated within alarger study investigating the impact of SLS on the student experience. The first phaseof the study (Matthews et al., 2009) used quantitative methods to investigate how SLSimpact on student experience using the SE framework. This study found that studentswho use informal SLS report significantly higher levels of engagement in comparisonto those students who do not use such spaces. The main aim of this study was toexpand upon the initial study and use the student voice to examine the impact of SLSon student experience. The study was guided by the following research questions:

(1) How are students using SLS and how do these activities contribute to thestudent experience?

(2) How effective is the SE model as a framework for evaluating SLS?

MethodsQualitative methods, namely observations and interviews, were employed to gain aricher, more in-depth understanding of the quantitative data found in the first phase of this study (Matthews et al., 2009). The quantitative analysis completed in the first

phase allowed the authors to understand the scope of the area. However, the main priority of this study is to capture students stories and accounts of how the SLCimpacts on their student experience. Using a qualitative paradigm is essential, as itilluminates the people behind the numbers and puts faces on the statistics todeepen understanding (Patton, 2002, p. 10).

The first phase of this study examined the impact of multiple student spaces, buthere the central focus is the Science Learning Centre (SLC). The SLC is an informal,social space for all undergraduate science students at a large, research intensiveuniversity in Australia. It is important to note that although this space is primarilyintended for science students, this level of restricted student usage is not activelyenforced or heavily monitored. Hence, students from a variety of degree programsoften use this space in conjunction with science students. The SLC opened in semester 1 of 2008 and offers a variety of comfortable furniture, wireless access, power points,whiteboards, meeting rooms with presentation capabilities and a small kitchenette (see

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


6/17


Appendix 1). The SLC is available to students daily from 6am to 9pm. Advanced-level students staff the SLC, providing informal mentorship and tutoring each dayduring peak teaching periods. The overarching goals of the SLC are:

to enhance the student experiences (learning and social), to develop an identifiable science space for students, to foster vertical and horizontal student interactions (that is, between and across

years of study), to increase positive, informal staff/student interactions, to build on social learning as a key to student success and to enable staff and students to be part of a Learning Community resulting in a

sense of belonging and identity.

This study was granted ethical clearance through the Universitys Behavioural and Social Science Ethical Review Committee.

ParticipantsIndividuals and groups of students present in the SLC were observed and approached to participate in an informal interview. Of the 112 students who were approached, 103undergraduate students gave permission to be interviewed. Of these participants, 91were in groups (23 groups in total) and a further 12 were interviewed as individuals.Fewer interviews occurred on an individual basis as the SLC is mainly populated bygroups of students. Within the groups, efforts were made to direct questions at every-one to allow each member an opportunity to offer input. Although not everyone in thegroups provided the same level of verbal input, those who remained relatively quietstill responded to the questions when directly asked. Group members also contributed

by displaying non-verbal gestures, namely head nodding, as well as yes responseswhen an individual member spoke. The students identified in Table 1 contributed verbally in the interviews and were included in the code analysis. Participants wereassured that any information they provided would remain anonymous.

Table 1. Participant demographic data.

Program Male Female 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year Total

Sci 34 31 20 20 25 0 65Biomed 4 3 4 3 0 0 7Marine 2 1 2 0 1 0 3Biotech 0 1 0 1 0 0 1Sci/Dual 4 2 0 1 2 3 6Profess 3 4 1 1 5 0 7Arts 1 0 1 0 0 0 1Eng 8 1 2 5 2 0 9Med 2 2 4 0 0 0 4Total 58 45 34 31 35 3 103

Note: Sci = Science; Biomed = Biomedical Science; Marine = Marine Science; Biotech = Biotechnology;Sci/Dual = Dual degree program with Science; Profess = Professional degrees (Pharmacy &Physiotherapy); Eng = Engineering; Med = Medicine.

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


7/17


Science Learning Centre student workers also participated in this study. Sevenadvanced-level students were employed to mentor and/or tutor students in the SLCand five ( M = 1, F = 4) were available to participate in the study. Three of thesestudents were enrolled in their second year and two were in their third year. The SLCstudent workers were provided with information about the research project and asked to sign a consent form as the interview was audio-taped.

Data gathering The observations and semi-structured interviews were carried out by a recent Psycho-logical Sciences graduate of the University of Queensland who had worked in the SLCthe previous year as a student worker. Many students were familiar with the inter-viewers presence in the SLC. This researcher conducted interviews and observationsas opposed to academic staff specifically to avoid influencing students behavioursand interview responses. Observations and semi-structured interviews were conducted three days a week over a period of three weeks in the middle of the first semester and took place during active teaching hours (9am4pm, MondayFriday). They were doneat random times and on random days of the week.

Following the arrival of the researcher in the SLC, general observations wererecorded for approximately 15 minutes. Observations were then taken of a specificgroup of students or an individual student present in the SLC for 10 minutes. Certainaspects of behaviour were noted, such as what he/she/they were doing, location, typesof staff-student interactions, mood, reactions to environment, group structure and interesting events involving the individual or group during that time. The student(s)were then approached to participate in an informal interview. The interviews were

guided by core questions (see Appendix 2). The interview questions were designed to be deductive and non-directive to elicit more open answers from interviewees thatcould later be used to inform the SE framework. By utilising a non-directive approach,

participants were able to guide the conversation more naturally and limit biased responses.

Probing questions were included to expand upon or clarify responses. The inter-views ranged from 10 to 15 minutes. Student responses were recorded via note-takingduring the interview and after the interview. The interviews were not audio-recorded as a primary goal of this research was to maintain a naturalistic feel and avoid inad-vertently inhibiting responses (Patton, 2002). Following this, reflective notes were

taken.Science Learning Centre student workers were also observed for 10 minutesfollowed by an interview. The interviews with SLC student workers took approxi-mately 15 minutes to complete and were followed by 10 minutes of reflective writing

by the researcher. The student workers were not the primary focus of this study,although they provided important supporting evidence concerning the nature of student engagement in the SLC. Hence, the interviews with student workers wereaudio-taped in order to keep a record of the conversation and provide direct quotesregarding the impact of the SLC on student engagement.

Data analysisAn elaborative coding technique outlined by Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) wasused to categorise and analyse the observation and interview data. This technique is

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


8/17


based on deductive analysis in which pre-conceived constructs relating to the researchframework were explored. In this case, the scales and constructs from the AUSSEwere used, aligning with the methodology of the initial study (Matthews et al., 2009),which are displayed in Table 2. The themes were then broken down into smaller coding units to categorise different patterns of ideas and observations found in thedata. Additional coding units, which did not fit within the prescribed framework, werecreated based on an iterative process in association with the student voice. An analysisof the coding units was undertaken by two independent coders. Consensus on codingunits and emerging themes was verified by the authors.

Upon reviewing the observation and interviews it was apparent that not all of theinitial AUSSE coding units were relevant to categorise the data and that not all

the data fitted within the AUSSE coding units. There was also substantial overlap inthe AUSSE coding constructs. However, three overarching themes emerged that

brought the AUSSE coding units and those that did not fit within this framework together. These were social learning, belonging and spatial design.

Results Social learning Students and student workers described the SLC as a laid-back, social environmentthat promotes active and collaborative learning. In the SLC, students view each other

as academic resources and seek each other out to discuss assignment ideas and getclarification around difficult concepts that students are sometimes better able toexplain than lecturers and tutors. The following abstract from a second year studentillustrates the type of comments that the users were making:

There is lots of group assignments in science good to know that there is someone youcan go to answer your questions. (2nd year female student)

The social nature of the SLC further affects how students meet academic chal-lenges in terms of preparation for class. Students talked about how they knownot to engage in serious study in the SLC. This finding is supported by theobservational and student worker data, indicating that this space is mostly used for social interaction with few recorded instances of students engaged in individualstudying. Students consider that serious studying, described as memorising

Table 2. Coding scheme based on the AUSSE scales.

Coding origins Initial coding constructs

Engagement measures (AUSSE) Academic challengeActive and collaborative learningStudent-staff interactionSupportive campus environmentEnriching educational experience

Outcome measures (AUSSE) General learning outcomesDeparture intentionOverall satisfactionHigher order thinkingGeneral developmental outcomesAverage overall grade

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


9/17


concepts and cramming for exams, requires ones full concentration and, hence,socialising introduces unwanted distractions. On the other hand, students agree thatindividual-based coursework described as reviewing notes, class preparation and weekly assignments does not require their full attention and can occur in a socialenvironment:

I think for people that want to actually seriously study they are better off to go to thelibrary because it can get pretty loud and boisterous in here. Nonetheless, I do think a lotof people do prefer to study here because it gives them a chance to take a break fromtheir study and talk to a friend and whatever else. (2nd year female student)

Doing coursework in the SLC still makes students feel social, even if students arenot directly interacting with their peers. Moreover, students like that they have theoption of taking a social break, asking for academic help from peers and/or SLCstudent workers or accessing the computer labs located down the hall while doingcoursework in the space. These comments align with observational data, which found that students often go into the SLC between individual coursework, socialising and seeking out academic help in relatively short periods of time.

Users identified a preference for having advanced-level students manage the SLCand provide academic tutoring and mentoring. As the statement below illustrates, themajority of students as well as student workers did not want academic and adminis-trative staff in the SLC as they felt that their presence would disrupt the informal,social dynamic of this space:

There is no administrative staff here and it is more open. You get the impression youdont have to be quiet or anything here, you can talk. (2nd year male student)

First year students often seek tutoring help or mentoring advice from the SLC studentworkers and feel that they benefit from this. Those who do not seek such help stillappreciate that tutors and mentors are available if needed.

Engaging with the versatility and social nature of the SLC has led students todevelop a number of general learning outcomes. By acting as student teachers and

participating in group discussions, students feel that they have gained a more in-depth and critical understanding of course material and were better able to conceptu-alise and consolidate information learned across courses. As explained by a studentworker:

When you have to explain something, you have to know it really well yourself. (2nd year female student)

Users found themselves problem solving, sharing and building upon ideas in thisspace, which they believed to be helpful to their learning. Students felt that thishad directly contributed to better academic outcomes. However, students acknowl-edged that if they spent too much time socialising without participation in grouplearning activities, then accessing the SLC could lead to worse academicoutcomes:

It could help or hinder. It could help by group study, which is the best way to study because if you dont know something, someone else will. That is a good thing and thisis a good place to do that but if you are always skipping lectures to be with friends thatis bad. (2nd year male student)

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


10/17


11/17


often went home when they had long breaks. Some students considered that this nega-tively affected their grades and they contemplated dropping out.

Spatial designStudents identified the physical features of the SLC that drew them to this space, suchas the comfortable furniture, controlled temperature, open space, eating facilities,location and large tables. As one third year student illustrates, these features havehelped to create a welcoming atmosphere in the SLC:

People use it to study, you see people bring food in here, you see people do their uniwork in here, people bring their laptops in here, people bring their textbooks, the roomsin the back are used for group work. (3rd year female student)

Students recognised how the spatial design of the SLC contributed to their behav-

iours, both academic and social. They discussed the different zones of the room, theopen areas where students are more likely to socialise and eat and the more closedareas with the booths and meeting rooms that cater to group work. These commentsare in agreement with the observational data, where this behaviour was recorded numerous times. They identified the comfortable furniture with padded seats and

padded chairs, with backs and big tables that are more inviting than other informalstudent areas. Students appreciated the many power points and reliable wirelessconnection. The design created a social centre for students where you can do whatyou want.

Another design attribute that students identified was noise. Students recognised that the SLC was designed to be a social space and with that inevitably comes noise,which they associated with interaction. However, the role of noise in facilitating studyin a learning centre seemed contradictory to some students. The noise levels resulted in difficulty to get anything done in terms of study, although students realised thatsome people prefer to study with noise and that they thrive on distraction. As such,many students were drawn to the SLC because you can create an element of noisehere, making the SLC uniquely different from other informal learning spaces oncampus, particularly the libraries:

When you just want to relax and take it easy, especially if they have a long day of lectures, you are more likely to come to the SLC because when you go to the library, it

is all quiet and so you cant just relax and have a bit of fun with your friends, studyingor not studying depending on your mood. (2nd year female student)

Generally, the ability to make noise in the SLC was viewed in a positive light.Comments from student workers and users suggested that one of the main reasons thatstudents prefer the SLC is because they can make noise, talk, eat and socialise. Onestudent described the SLC as the place to be noisy with another student commentingthat having a space to make noise means that students can feel free to be themselvesin a more unrestricted environment.

Apart from the design attributes, students were surprisingly appreciative that theywere provided with the basic necessity of space on campus. Students felt that they had to fight for available space in the libraries and other student areas during activeteaching hours and that a space was needed to accommodate for the large number of science students. Science students who are not typical users as well as students in

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


12/17


other disciplines occasionally come to the SLC because of the limited student-centred space on campus.

Interestingly, some students believed that the SLC was also developed to promotethe image of the university in order to attract potential students and place the univer-sity ahead of competing institutions.

DiscussionThe study found that SLS can foster social interaction amongst students. Social learn-ing spaces can provide students with an outlet to develop social networks with peersthat can lead to greater engagement in active and collaborative learning and that facil-itates the sharing of knowledge to meet academic challenges. While a direct correla-tion between SLS and positive academic outcomes cannot be claimed, nor was it theintention of this study to propose such a claim, it can be deduced that providing aspace for students to engage in such educationally effective activities indirectlycontributes to academic success. This conclusion is supported by social constructivistlearning theories based on Vygotskys (1978) developmental and educational theories,

postulating that the most significant learning takes place when individuals participatein social learning activities (Hunter et al., 2007; Kim, 2001).

The study also revealed that SLS help to foster a sense of belonging and commu-nity amongst students in broad discipline based programs, suggesting a supportivecampus environment and greater overall satisfaction. The SLC is a unique spacewhere students have opportunities to interact with their peers and form friendships

based on academic camaraderie. These findings support Astins (1984) and Tintos(1993) theories regarding student involvement and departure intention, respectively.

Tinto, in particular, considered that successful transition into higher educationrequires integration into an institutions academic as well as social environment,which is evidenced in the findings. In addition, a recent UK report on student attritionfound that the social aspect of university life was becoming a more prevalent factor instudent transition compared to a decade ago (Yorke & Longden, 2008).

While spatial design was outside of the SE framework adopted from the AUSSEfor this study, spatial design emerged from the student voice as an important factor indetermining student preference over space as well as student learning behaviours. Theextent to which students identified the spatial design as a key factor was not antici-

pated. Webb et al. (2008) found that students are more likely to use spaces that are

comfortable, facilitate interpersonal communication and are easily controlled. More-over, students preferred areas that promote the integration of basic human needs and desires, such as eating, drinking, and enjoyment, with learning activities (p. 419).Although there is a large amount of literature on how to effectively develop and design informal learning spaces, the findings produced by Webb et al. and the presentstudy provide some of the few pieces of empirical evidence demonstrating how spatialdesign influences the student experience.

After reviewing the findings, it is important to consider whether the SE model isan effective framework for evaluating SLS. The NSSE and AUSSE were developed to measure SE in a quantitative manner. The scales were designed to correlate witheach other but represent separate measures on the survey. However, when the SEframework is used for qualitative purposes to assess how SLS impact on the studentexperience, the scales overlap and the boundaries between scales become blurred and difficult to disentangle. By interviewing and observing users and SLC student

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


13/17


workers, we were able to obtain a wealth of rich, in-depth data that cannot be collected from a fixed answer survey such as the AUSSE. The findings in the current studydemonstrate that the SE constructs are interrelated and possibly should not be thoughtof as strictly distinct measures. By using the SE framework for a qualitative study, wehave gained significant insights into how SLS impact on the student experience.However, when using this framework in the future it is important to be aware of theextent to which these scales are interwoven.

ConclusionThis study offers an in-depth exploration of informal, physical social learning spaces.The use of an established framework, the SE model, which has been utilised acrossmultiple cohorts of students from a plethora of institutions across various countries,offers a level of validity and generalisation to the findings. In addition, the lack of empirical research into SLS offered little basis for building on existing work in thisarea. While the study is limited in that only one such space for a single disciplinecohort is examined, a single institution study seemed appropriate as a starting pointfor the application of an existing framework (SE) to a new context (evaluation of SLSin higher education). As a substantial body of literature for social learning spaces doesnot exist, this study adopted a broad approach in identifying an evidence-based meth-odological framework for examining how SLS impact on the SE. Future studies canapply this model to different institutional and disciplinary contexts and explore theimpact of SLS on students based on demographic data, including gender and age.

This study contributes empirical insight into an under-researched area. As tertiaryinstitutions focus more effort, attention and resources into improving the student expe-

rience, having evidence from which to make informed decisions on all aspects of thestudent experience will be desired. While research into the SE has focused on whatstudents do and how they engage, research into where students are engaging and howthis influences their engagement is needed.

AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to recognise the contribution of the Evaluation Unit in the Teaching and Educational Development Institute at the University of Queensland, particularly DeanneGannaway. We also thank m3 Architects, particularly Michael Christensen. Finally, theinsightful and constructive feedback of the reviewers was invaluable. This project was funded

through a strategic teaching and learning grants scheme at the University of Queensland.

ReferencesAstin, A.W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(3), 297308.Auerbach, C.F., & Silverstein, L.B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and

analysis. New York: New York University Press.Bennet, S. (2007). First questions for designing higher education learnng spaces. Journal of

Academic Librianship, 33(1), 1426.Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven prinicples of good practice in undergraduate

education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7), 37.Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance.

Quality in Higher Education, 11 (1), 2536.

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


14/17


Hu, S., & Kuh, G.D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activites: Theinfluences of students and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education,43(5), 555575.

Hunter, A.B., Laursen, S.L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of under-graduate research in students cognitive, personal and professional development. Science

Education, 91(1), 3674.Jamieson, P. (2003). Designing more effective on-campus teaching and learning spaces: A

role for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1),119133.

Jamieson, P., Fisher, K., Gilding, T., Taylor, P.G., & Trevitt, A.C.F. (2000). Place and spacein the design of new learning environments. Higher Education Research and Develop-ment, 19(2), 221236.

Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). (2006). Designing spaces for effective learning: A guide to 21st century learning space design. Bristol, UK: Joint Information SystemsCommittee.

Kift, S. (2004, July). Organising first year engagement and learning: Formal and informal curriculum intervention. Paper presented at the The Inaugural Pacific Rim First Year inHigher Education Conference: Dealing with Diversity, Melbourne, VIC.

Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism : Emerging perspectives in learning, teaching and techonology. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/SocialConstructivism.htm

Krause, K. (2005). Serious thoughts about dropping out in first year: Trends, patterns and implications for higher education. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Devel-opment, 2(3), 5568.

Krause, K., & Coates, H. (2008). Students engagement in first year university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 33(5), 493505.

Krause, K-L., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Retrieved June 5,2009, from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au

Kuh, G.D. (2001a). Asessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National

Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 1017.Kuh, G.D. (2001b). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

Kuh, G.D. (2003). What were learning from student engagement from the NSSE. Change,35(2), 2432.

Kuh, G.D., Cruce, T.M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R.M. (2008). Unmasking theeffects of student engagement on first year college grades and persistence. Journal of

Higher Education, 79(5), 540563.Matthews, K., Adams, P., & Gannaway, D. (2009, May). The impact of social learning spaces

on student engagement. Paper presented at the Pacific Rim First Year in Higher EducationConference, Townsville, QLD.

McInnis, C., & James, R. (1995). First year on campus: Diversity of the initial experience of

Australian undergraduates. Canberra: AGPS.Montgomery, T. (2008). Space matters: Experiences in managing static formal learningspaces. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 122138.

Nelson, K., Duncan, M., & Clarke, J. (2009). Student success: The identification and supportof first year university students at risk of attrition. Studies in Learning, Evaluation,

Innovation and Development, 6 (1), 115.Oblinger, D.G. (2005). Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces.

EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(1), 1418.Oblinger, D.G. (2006). Space as a change agent. In Oblinger, D.G. (Ed.), Learning spaces

(pp. 1.1.1.4). Retreived July 20, 2009, from EDUCAUSE http://www.educause.edu/LearningSpaces

Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2) . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Radcliffe, D., Wilson, H., Powell, D., & Tibbetts, B. (2008). Designing next generation

places of learning: Collaboration at the pedagogy-space-technology nexus. Retrieved

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


15/17


July 20, 2009, from http://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/webdav/site/carricksite/users/sitead-min/public/grants_pp_projectreport_nextgeneration_uq_jan09.pdf

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theorectical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89125.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Webb, K.M., Schaller, M.A., & Hunley, S.A. (2008). Measuring library space use and prefer-ences: Charting a path toward increased engagement. Libraries and the Academy, 8(4),407422.

Williamson, A., & Nodder, C. (2002). Extending the learning space: Dialogue and reflectionin the virtual coffee shop. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 32(2), 12.

Yorke, M., & Longden, B. (2008). The first year experience of higher education in the UK: Final report. York, UK: The Higher Education Academy.

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


16/17


Appendix 1. Plan of the Science Learning Centre

Appendix 2. Discussion guide Science Learning Centre Users

1. Introduction1a. Welcome and introduction of interviewer 1b. Objective

The objective of the informal interviews is to gather information for a research project

investigating students perceptions on how informal learning spaces impact on studentexperience.1c. Process

I will be taking notes during the interview so I can revisit and reflect on the information provided. We respect your right to privacy. Our Ethical Clearance ensures that any infor-mation that is obtained in connection with this study and that could be identified as relat-ing to you will remain confidential. If you decide to participate in the interview, you arefree to discontinue participation at any time without prejudice.

2. QuestionsStudent perceptions of SLC/role in student experience:

(1) Why do you (all) think UQ converted an old lecture theatre into a space like this?

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m


17/17


Interaction/cohort information:

(1) Who do you (all) think this space was designed for?

Use of space:

(1) How do you (all) think this space should be used?(2) How do you (all) use it?(3) How do you think using the SLC impacts on students academic performance?

Student voice:

(1) What is your favourite SLC story/memory?

D

wn

yUnv

y

C

n

uy

m

Social Learning spaces

Documents

Transcript of Social Learning spaces