Smart
Classroom Project: University Sub-Committee
Proposals for Collaborative/Active Learning Space
Design
2015
Learning ‘about’ things does not
enable students to acquire the abilities and understanding they will need for
the twenty-first century. We need new pedagogies of engagement that will turn
out the kinds of resourceful, engaged workers and citizens (Edgerton, 2001)
Committee
members as you are aware, the current space has remained relatively unchanged
for many years; while there has been a considerable advancement in information
access and other types of mobile computing etc. These changes can bring a
potential wealth of new resources for both teachers and learners.
Accordingly, this space must evolve to leverage the wealth of opportunity these
changes can bring.
Therefore, this committee should support this
proposal for the new POD of Knowledge Learning Space design, that will lead to
a student-centered classroom, that supports active, collaborative teaching and
learning. This will also facilitate increased faculty-student interaction, as
students and educators can expand their level of knowledge and skills with
access to new resources and improved collaboration on projects.
Finally,
the following proposal report will detail how this design will establish a
relationship between the new design and engaging teaching / learning
strategies; how principles of Universal Design are incorporated into the new
space, and how the space models a future focus learning space.
The New Space as a Change Agent:
The
power of built pedagogy today is a key function of teaching and learning:
especially in the case of a university, where my learning space exists. There
should be greater informality in the learning process, which encourages the
learner to take greater responsibility for their learning. They build their
knowledge and understanding by exploration, collaboration and discussion with
fellow learner and teachers. Moreover, according to Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) they want
an active and participatory learning environment, which exists in today’s
generational learner.
Furthermore,
they want learning spaces that maintain their highly social bonds which have
evolved from just face-to-face, but technological socialization (i.e.
Facebook). The modern learner is also constrained by time (work and social
commitments). These difference forces impact the learner’s attention.
Therefore, the learning space needs to change to bring learners and teachers
together, to promote educational growth, rather than constraint learning.
Also, the new
space design can facilitate the creation of an authentic setting that allows
the learner to make a connection between the university and the broader
community (Herrington and Oliver, 2000). Moreover, it demonstrates that the
learning institution is aware of the engagement practices that the learner has
with their own communities. This is essential as described in the first
assignment; tertiary learners from native Australian had poor completion rates.
Therefore, the design of the new space incorporates some cultural linkage, and
the authentic experience supports collaborative construction of knowledge.
Thereby, helping both the native student and other students to create social
bonds in learning and foster greater cultural understanding.
The Psychology Benefits of the New Space:
Learning takes place in a physical environment. The learner is motivated by their sensors of hearing, touch and sight. Yet, in the current space they are surrounded by dark colored walls, objects blocking their line of sight and cannot engage with the sounds of the nearby forest. Therefore, these physical characteristics can impact the learner’s fragile emotional and psychological state, and impact educational success (Graetz, 2006).
But, the new
design creates a positive emotional response and attachment to the learning
space. The new design does not squeeze learners together, as in a tightly
controlled lecturer hall. More importantly, the new space understands that
educational activities involves human relationships, which is the key to
welfare, achievement and mastery of learning (Graetz, 2006). And that a
collaborative learning style is both needed and wanted by future learners. They want a space
to learn and relax: a classroom needs to have flexible meeting places (Wicaksono, 2013). Also, the mini-pod design tables give each group control
of their own physical environment. So they can construct an environment that
emotionally benefits their mind.
Finally,
there are psychological effects based on the size of the room (spatial) and
number of students. According to Gislason (2009) a higher social density leads
to lower student achievement. The current space (with fixed tables), allows
around 10 group areas. But there should be only between three to five groups Gislason (2009). Also, the group spaces
should be at least 1.5 to 2 metres apart: which they are not. This creates personal space violation, and impacts negatively the
learner’s psychological state, and learning ability. The new space has overcome
these issues and meets the social density requirements of only between 3 to 5
groups (4 in the new design), and clear space between groups, which also is a
key universal design principle, to allow free movement of diverse bodies.
Therefore it is essential that the
university develop this new learning spaces that is both comfortable physically and psychologically.
This will promote a sense of well-being, keep learners focused and limit
distractions. Environments which are uninviting or intimidating will discourage the
learner, and sadden the depth of learning that can take place. The new space
discussed in the following section is designed to overcome these detrimental
issues.
******
References:
Edgerton, R. (2001). Education
White Paper. Retrieved from http://www.pewunder-gradforum.org/wp1.html
Gislason, N. (2009), ‘Mapping
school design: A qualitative study of the relations among facilities design,
curriculum delivery, and school climate’, Journal of Environmental Education,
40(4), pp. 17-33.
Graetz, K.A. (2006), The Psychology of Learning Environments. Educause,
6, pp.1–14.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design
framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 48(3), pp.23-48.
Oblinger, D. & Oblinger, J. (2005). Educating the Net
Generation. Colorado, USA : Eduause.
Wicaksono, S. R. (2013). Implementation of Collaborative Learning
in Higher Education Environment. Journal of Education and Learning. 7(4),
pp.219-222.
No comments:
Post a Comment