•  
  •  

Home > CIIMA > Vol. 17 (2019) > Iss. 1

 

Communications of the IIMA

Article Title

IMPACT OF ACTIVE LEARNING SPACE DESIGN FEATURES ON STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES: A SURVEY AND A CONTENT ANALYSIS

Abstract

Active learning and active learning space design have become more and more important in American education at all levels from kindergarten to university (Beichner, 2014; Brooks, 2011; Gormley et. al., 2016; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Oblinger, 2005; Park & Choi, 2014; Zimmermann, et. al., 2018). There have been many studies on various aspects of active learning space design, such as active learning spaces with technology tools (Cardullo, Wilson & Zygouris-Coe, 2018; Chiu, 2016; Resta, & Laferrière, 2007), e-learning (Chu, et. al., 2011; Stromie & Baudier, 2017; Xu & Wan, 2006), and student learning outcomes (Cole, Johnson & Eickholt, 2017; Blackmore, et. at., 2011; Dusenbury & Olson, 2019). There are also studies on the impact of space design features on teaching and learning (Bligh & Crook, 2017; Brown & Long, 2006; Chism & Bickford, 2002; Rands & Gansemer-Topf, 2017). In order to have a better understanding of active learning and active learning space design, this study conducts a survey on a group of students that have taken classes in newly designed and implemented active classrooms, and conduct a content analysis on the data collected from the survey, focusing on the impact of active learning space design features on student learning outcomes.

This paper aims to answer the following research questions:

1. What are the most important features of the active space design that made the most impact on students’ learning outcomes?

2. What are the least important features of the active space design that made little impact on students’ learning outcomes?

3. What are the most important connections between active learning space design and student learning outcomes?

4. What features of the active space design are closely related to information technologies and could impact student learning outcomes? The significance of this paper is two-fold: It would not only provide answers to the research questions that reveal the actual features of active learning spaces design that impact student learning outcomes, but also provide a content analysis for a better understanding of the most important connections between active learning space design and student learning outcomes.

References:

• Beichner, R. J. (2014). History and evolution of active learning spaces. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 9-16.

• Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O'Mara, J., & Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, East Melbourne, Australia.

• Bligh, B., & Crook, C. (2017). Learning spaces. In Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 69-87). Springer, Cham.

• Brooks, D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 719-726.

• Brown, M., & Long, P. (2006). Trends in learning space design. In D. Oblinger, (Ed.), Learning Spaces. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from https://www.educause.edu/research-and- publications/books/learning-spaces/chapter-9-trends-learning-space- design.

• Cardullo, V. M., Wilson, N. S., & Zygouris-Coe, V. I. (2018). Enhanced student engagement through active learning and emerging technologies. In Student Engagement and Participation: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 399-417). IGI Global.

• Chism, N., & Bickford, D. (Eds.). (2002). The importance of physical space in creating supportive learning environments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92, 91-97.

• Chiu, P. H. P. (2016). A technology-enriched active learning space for a new gateway education programme in Hong Kong: a platform for nurturing student innovations. Journal of Learning Spaces, 5(1).

• Chu, W., Zinkevich, M., Li, L., Thomas, A., & Tseng, B. (2011, August). Unbiased online active learning in data streams. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 195-203). ACM.

• Cole, Q., Johnson, M., & Eickholt, J. (2017, September). Creating Economy Active Learning Classrooms for IT Students. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (pp. 77-82). ACM.

• Dusenbury, M., & Olson, M. (2019). The Impact of Flipped Learning on Student Academic Performance and Perceptions. The Collegiate Aviation Review International, 37(1).

• Gormley, C., Glynn, M., Brown, M., & Doyle, J. (2016, October). Mobile learning spaces for a mobile generation: redesigning the classroom. In ECEL 2016-Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on e-Learning (pp. 239-248). Academic Conferences and publishing limited.

• Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning & education, 4(2), 193-212. 3/2/2020 Submission 19 https://easychair.org/conferences/submission_view?a=20135701;submission=4448148 3/3

• Oblinger, D. (2005). Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces. Educause quarterly, 28(1), 14-18.

• Park, E. L., & Choi, B. K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, 68(5), 749-771.

• Rands, M. L., & Gansemer-Topf, A. M. (2017). The room itself is active: How classroom design impacts student engagement. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(1), 26.

• Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65-83.

• Scott-Webber, L., Strickland, A., & Kapitula, L. R. (2013). Built environments impact behaviors: Results of an active learning post- occupancy evaluation. Planning for Higher Education, 42(1), 28.

• Stromie, T., & Baudier, J. G. (2017). Assessing Student Learning in Hybrid Courses. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2017(149), 37-45.

• Xu, X., & Wan, J. (2006, September). Towards a p2p-based active e- learning space. In International Conference on Collaboration and Technology (pp. 262-269). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

• Zimmermann, P. A., Stallings, L., Pierce, R. L., & Largent, D. (2018). Classroom Interaction Redefined: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Moving beyond Traditional Classroom Spaces to Promote Student Engagement. Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(1), 45-61.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS