Learning is not a spectator sport… they must be part of an experience.. Talk, write … they must make what they learn part of themselves (Chickering and Gamson, 1987)
Classroom design
influences levels of interaction, engagement and teaching style. Yet, the
current space provided limited flexibility and deliver of content or student
collaboration and participation. Studies have shown that collaborative learning
and teaching classrooms, improve students’: knowledge acquisition, retention,
accuracy, creativity in problem solving, and higher-level reasoning attributes (Deasy & Miller, 2006).
Moreover, information
delivered by traditional lecture teaching methods only achieved 5% material
retention: compared to 50% for collaborative learning spaces where students
became active participants, and received additional learning help from fellow
group learners (National Training Laboratories, 2005).
One must learn by doing the thing, for though you
think you know it, you have no certainty until you try.. (Sophocles, cited in Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005).
The new design facilitates this structural change in teaching and deliver. More importantly,
the lecturer / tutor can focus less on what they are doing, but more what the
learner is doing or achieving. Learner involvement and motivation become the
concerns of the lecturer, not just the teaching resources or techniques (Falchikov,
2013).
Furthermore, the
classroom design should help to develop learner skills for both life and work,
essential in their post-schooling days. A learners ability to develop
self-directed learning and collaborative problem solving techniques, are
essential in today’s competitive environment. More importantly, the new space
and teaching approach, brings beneficial psychological developments for the
individual; the cooperative learner is more likely to have greater self-esteem
and improved social skills (Johnson et al, 2005). Also, these new learning
groups construct social norming. Therefore, there is a reduction in classroom
misbehaviors or a want to seek other distractions (i.e. Facebooking). These
smaller groups in the new space keep members in check, as it is now a community
learning concern, not just an individual achievement.
The new space also can
improve both the informal and formal routes of communication between the
student and the lecturer / tutor. As the teacher can now move more freely
around the room, they can more easily connect with students: to question or
assist struggling learners (Deasy & Miller, 2006). There is a more personal
connection. Furthermore, students that feel there is a greater connection or
interaction with their lecturers are more likely to develop greater satisfaction
with the university as a whole. Thereby, the university is building a long term
bond with the student and the community.
References:
Chickering, A. W. and E. F. Gamson. (1987) “Seven Principles for Good
Practice in Undergraduate Education,” American Association of Higher
Education, Bulletin 39(7): pp. 3-7
Deasy, D. & Miller, H. (2006). Radical Flexibility and the
Learning Report. London: UK, EMCC.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S.
(2005). Beyond edutainment: Exploring the educational potential of computer
games. London: UK, Lulu Books.
Falchikov, N. (2013). Improving assessment through student
involvement: Practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further
education. New York: USA. Routledge.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Sheppard, S.D. & Smith, K.A.
(2005) Pedagogies of Engagement:
Classroom-Based
Practices. Journal of Engineering Education. 1(9): pp. 87-101
National Training Laboratories Institute for Applied Behavioral
Sciences. (2005). The Learning Triangle: Retention Rates from Different Ways
of Learning. Maine: USA, NTA Pub
No comments:
Post a Comment