Social Learning Spaces

This article was downloaded by: [University of Canterbury] On: 27 September 2013, At: 03:46 Publisher: Routledge Informa
Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Higher Education Research & Development

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20
Social learning spaces and student engagement

Kelly E. Matthews , Victoria Andrews & Peter Adams
a a a a
Faculty of Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Published online: 16 Mar 2011.
To cite this article: Kelly E. Matthews , Victoria Andrews & Peter Adams (2011) Social learning spaces 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 to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and 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 Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial 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/termsand-conditions
Higher Education Research & Development Vol. 30, No. 2, April 2011, 105120
Social learning spaces and student engagement

Kelly E. Matthews*, Victoria Andrews and Peter Adams
Faculty of Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia (Received 16 October 2009; final version received 28 June 2010 )
Taylor and Francis Ltd CHER_A_512629.sgm Higher 10.1080/07294360.2010.512629 0729-4360 Original Taylor 2011 0 2 30 Kelly k.matthews1@uq.edu.au 000002011 ElizabethMatthews & Education Article Francis (print)/1469-8366 Research &(online) Development
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 03:46 27 September 2013
Notable gains have been made in understanding the factors that influence the student experience in higher education, particularly in the area of student engagement. While tremendous effort has been focused on identifying educationally beneficial activities for students, we must also consider where these activities are occurring. In recent years there have been technological advances that have paved the way for blended learning environments, however, physical learning environments continue to dominate the functionality of many universities. The development of purpose-built informal social learning spaces as a strategy to enhance the student experience is becoming more prevalent, although empirical research in this area is lacking. This study explores the role of social learning spaces on the student experience using the student engagement framework within a qualitative research design. Informal interviews with 103 students were conducted within a social learning space. Findings reveal that social learning spaces can contribute to enhanced student engagement by fostering active learning, social interaction and belonging amongst tertiary students. The study also suggests that design is a contributing factor to students perceptions of social learning spaces. Keywords: first-year experience; higher education; learning spaces; student engagement; transition
Introduction Over the last several decades there has been a growing body of literature examining strategies to enhance the student experience in higher education. A positive student experience is frequently associated with reduced attrition and higher student learning outcomes. Although notable gains have been made in understanding the factors that influence student experience, there is still limited information on how physical learning 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 the first 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 behaviours towards learning (Krause, 2005; McInnis & James, 1995) and, therefore, helps to determine whether students will persist at an institution, in addition to the learning outcomes 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: k.matthews1@uq.edu.au
ISSN 0729-4360 print/ISSN 1469-8366 online 2011 HERDSA DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2010.512629 http://www.informaworld.com
106
K.E. Matthews et al.
psychological energy that students invest into their educational experience determines whether 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 an institutions academic and social systems, in which involvement plays a critical role. Chickering and Gamson (1987) proposed Seven Good Educational Principles in Undergraduate Education that have helped to guide universities in understanding what educational activities are most beneficial for students. The principles were as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Student-faculty feedback Cooperation among students Active learning Prompt feedback Time on task High expectations Respect for diversity of learning.
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) synthesised the research on student experience, which has become a primary resource for understanding how college affects students in the USA. In Australia, the first national study examining students first year experiences was conducted in 1994 and again in 2004 (Krause, Hartley, James, & McInnis, 2005). The findings revealed that students are reporting a more positive first year experience in 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 attrition found 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 interaction and slow academic process. These findings support an earlier study on student attrition conducted in the UK in the mid-1990s and research on student attrition in the USA and Australia (Kift, 2004; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008; McInnis & James, 1995; Nelson, Duncan, & Clarke, 2009; Tinto, 1993). It is clear that important gains have been made in this area of research but the literature on student experience remains segmented, especially with regard to student attrition and learning outcomes. The accumulation of this research highlights that the student experience is enhanced 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 time and effort students allocate to educationally purposeful activities that directly relate to academic success. Engagement not only reflects what students do but also examines the extent to which institutions actively involve students in good educational practices that 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, where the Australian Survey on Student Engagement (AUSSE) was developed. Higher education providers are investing in the NSSE/AUSSE survey because it can be easily
107
administered, data can be compared to evaluate institutional performance at a national level 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 SE does not account for all the factors relating to student experience, it does take a more holistic 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 to consider other aspects of the student experience, such as physical learning spaces on university campuses. Although it is important to find out what students are doing, it is also 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 environments 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 learning behaviours as different spatial designs determine those activities in which students can and cannot engage (Bennet, 2007). The impact of spaces becomes more prominent as pedagogical practices in higher education start to move away from the traditional, teacher-centred approach to a more flexible, student-centred approach. As students learning styles, aspirations and expectations evolve, it is clear that learning environments need to evolve with them. There is accumulating research on how to develop 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). Informal refers to student learning outside of designated class time. Given the nature of learning in higher education, students spend the majority of their time learning in informal settings. 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 medium through which the social and academic aspects of university life can coincide. Given what is known about student transition into university (Kift, 2004; Krause & Coates, 2008; Tinto, 1993), these spaces are especially important for first year students as an outlet to form social networks that stem from intellectual commonalities and shared knowledge (JISC, 2006). Social learning spaces provide a place for students to interact with 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 a vital component in the creation and development of knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). Learning is largely a social process, which is enriched when students are able to conceptualise and critically think about academic problems with others (Hunter, Laursen, & Seymour, 2007). Social learning spaces, therefore, help to facilitate student involvement in their learning through social experiences. However, there is limited empirical evidence on the role of informal SLS on the student experience. Although, Bennett (2007) emphasises the importance of designing SLS with the intention of enhancing the student experience, many have noted the
108
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 in Australian and US universities (Coates, 2005; Krause & Coates, 2008; Kuh, 2003) as engagement is positively correlated with student satisfaction, persistence and achievement in learning and personal development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Higher education providers in Australia are using this model to inform policy on student experience. Engagement in effective education practices is also being used as a performance indicator for quality assurance and has been used as a basis for the distribution of 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 study This paper reports on the second phase of a research project that is situated within a larger study investigating the impact of SLS on the student experience. The first phase of the study (Matthews et al., 2009) used quantitative methods to investigate how SLS impact on student experience using the SE framework. This study found that students who use informal SLS report significantly higher levels of engagement in comparison to those students who do not use such spaces. The main aim of this study was to expand upon the initial study and use the student voice to examine the impact of SLS on student experience. The study was guided by the following research questions: (1) How are students using SLS and how do these activities contribute to the student experience? (2) How effective is the SE model as a framework for evaluating SLS? Methods Qualitative methods, namely observations and interviews, were employed to gain a richer, 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 SLC impacts on their student experience. Using a qualitative paradigm is essential, as it illuminates the people behind the numbers and puts faces on the statistics to deepen understanding (Patton, 2002, p. 10). The first phase of this study examined the impact of multiple student spaces, but here 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 intensive university in Australia. It is important to note that although this space is primarily intended for science students, this level of restricted student usage is not actively enforced or heavily monitored. Hence, students from a variety of degree programs often 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
109
Appendix 1). The SLC is available to students daily from 6am to 9pm. Advancedlevel students staff the SLC, providing informal mentorship and tutoring each day during 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. Participants Individuals 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, 103 undergraduate students gave permission to be interviewed. Of these participants, 91 were 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 by groups of students. Within the groups, efforts were made to direct questions at everyone to allow each member an opportunity to offer input. Although not everyone in the groups provided the same level of verbal input, those who remained relatively quiet still responded to the questions when directly asked. Group members also contributed by displaying non-verbal gestures, namely head nodding, as well as yes responses when an individual member spoke. The students identified in Table 1 contributed verbally in the interviews and were included in the code analysis. Participants were assured that any information they provided would remain anonymous.
Table 1. Program Sci Biomed Marine Biotech Sci/Dual Profess Arts Eng Med Total Participant demographic data. Male 34 4 2 0 4 3 1 8 2 58 Female 31 3 1 1 2 4 0 1 2 45 1st year 20 4 2 0 0 1 1 2 4 34 2nd year 20 3 0 1 1 1 0 5 0 31 3rd year 25 0 1 0 2 5 0 2 0 35 4th year 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 Total 65 7 3 1 6 7 1 9 4 103
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.
110
Science Learning Centre student workers also participated in this study. Seven advanced-level students were employed to mentor and/or tutor students in the SLC and five (M = 1, F = 4) were available to participate in the study. Three of these students were enrolled in their second year and two were in their third year. The SLC student 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 Psychological Sciences graduate of the University of Queensland who had worked in the SLC the previous year as a student worker. Many students were familiar with the interviewers presence in the SLC. This researcher conducted interviews and observations as opposed to academic staff specifically to avoid influencing students behaviours and 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 done at random times and on random days of the week. Following the arrival of the researcher in the SLC, general observations were recorded for approximately 15 minutes. Observations were then taken of a specific group of students or an individual student present in the SLC for 10 minutes. Certain aspects of behaviour were noted, such as what he/she/they were doing, location, types of 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 that could 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 interviews ranged from 10 to 15 minutes. Student responses were recorded via note-taking during 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 inadvertently inhibiting responses (Patton, 2002). Following this, reflective notes were taken. Science Learning Centre student workers were also observed for 10 minutes followed by an interview. The interviews with SLC student workers took approximately 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 were audio-taped in order to keep a record of the conversation and provide direct quotes regarding the impact of the SLC on student engagement. Data analysis An elaborative coding technique outlined by Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) was used to categorise and analyse the observation and interview data. This technique is

Table 2. Coding scheme based on the AUSSE scales. Initial coding constructs
111
Coding origins Engagement measures (AUSSE)
Outcome measures (AUSSE)
Academic challenge Active and collaborative learning Student-staff interaction Supportive campus environment Enriching educational experience General learning outcomes Departure intention Overall satisfaction Higher order thinking General developmental outcomes Average overall grade
based on deductive analysis in which pre-conceived constructs relating to the research framework were explored. In this case, the scales and constructs from the AUSSE were 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 the data. Additional coding units, which did not fit within the prescribed framework, were created based on an iterative process in association with the student voice. An analysis of the coding units was undertaken by two independent coders. Consensus on coding units and emerging themes was verified by the authors. Upon reviewing the observation and interviews it was apparent that not all of the initial 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 in the 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 environment that 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 get clarification around difficult concepts that students are sometimes better able to explain than lecturers and tutors. The following abstract from a second year student illustrates the type of comments that the users were making:
There is lots of group assignments in science good to know that there is someone you can go to answer your questions. (2nd year female student)
The social nature of the SLC further affects how students meet academic challenges in terms of preparation for class. Students talked about how they know not to engage in serious study in the SLC. This finding is supported by the observational and student worker data, indicating that this space is mostly used for social interaction with few recorded instances of students engaged in individual studying. Students consider that serious studying, described as memorising
112
concepts and cramming for exams, requires ones full concentration and, hence, socialising introduces unwanted distractions. On the other hand, students agree that individual-based coursework described as reviewing notes, class preparation and weekly assignments does not require their full attention and can occur in a social environment:
I think for people that want to actually seriously study they are better off to go to the library because it can get pretty loud and boisterous in here. Nonetheless, I do think a lot of people do prefer to study here because it gives them a chance to take a break from their 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 are not directly interacting with their peers. Moreover, students like that they have the option of taking a social break, asking for academic help from peers and/or SLC student workers or accessing the computer labs located down the hall while doing coursework 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 SLC and provide academic tutoring and mentoring. As the statement below illustrates, the majority of students as well as student workers did not want academic and administrative 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 you dont 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 student workers and feel that they benefit from this. Those who do not seek such help still appreciate that tutors and mentors are available if needed. Engaging with the versatility and social nature of the SLC has led students to develop a number of general learning outcomes. By acting as student teachers and participating in group discussions, students feel that they have gained a more indepth and critical understanding of course material and were better able to conceptualise and consolidate information learned across courses. As explained by a student worker:
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 this space, which they believed to be helpful to their learning. Students felt that this had directly contributed to better academic outcomes. However, students acknowledged that if they spent too much time socialising without participation in group learning activities, then accessing the SLC could lead to worse academic outcomes:
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 this is a good place to do that but if you are always skipping lectures to be with friends that is bad. (2nd year male student)
113
Belonging By providing a space to socialise and relax, students believed they were being given the opportunity to form friendships and establish extended social networks with others in their courses as well as peers across different year levels and science-based degree programs. Students and student workers described how they met their current friends in the SLC. This is illustrated in the example statements below:
I met Rob and those guys good to have the room to meet new people instead of being by yourself all of the time. (2nd year male student) All my friends are here, I can study here. It is like my home away from home. (3rd year female student)
Forming social networks is an essential aspect of creating a sense of belonging amongst students, who referred both explicitly and implicitly to how the SLC contributed to their sense of belonging. These included comments about having a space to develop social networks, participate in active and collaborative learning and access academic help. Users and student workers described the SLC as familiar, homelike, permanent, and the home-base at uni. Observational data showing that the majority of SLC users utilise this space daily supports such comments. Many students discussed the role of the SLC in their transition from high school to university, as illustrated by the following student:
You get a lot of people straight from school that come here reminds you of school, where you got somewhere to sit where all your friends know to come to . (2nd year male student)
Students recognised that science is a large, diverse degree program that is characterised by long hours on campus. However, students identified the SLC as an important element that brings them together. As one SLC student worker articulated a phenomenon that many students described or alluded to:
[The SLC] increased the feeling that there is a science community here, rather than you just come to uni and take science. It re-enforces the fact that science is about group work and community, not you by yourself, trying to struggle through it. (2nd year female student)
An SLC student worker also recognised the importance of having a place to socialise as opposed to a room dedicated solely to study and how this impacts on the student experience:
It is really important for students to have a sense of togetherness with like-minded people who are studying the same thing students are going to enjoy their time at uni more if they have that, rather than if it is always about studying all the time. Even though you can study in the SLC, I think it is mostly about being able to see your friends and feel that you are all in this together. (2nd year female student)
The upper level students who went through first year without the SLC provide unique insight into university life before and after having a social learning space. Before the SLC was developed, they felt that science students did not have a support network of friends at university, did not have a space to socialise and, consequently,
114
often went home when they had long breaks. Some students considered that this negatively affected their grades and they contemplated dropping out. Spatial design Students identified the physical features of the SLC that drew them to this space, such as the comfortable furniture, controlled temperature, open space, eating facilities, location and large tables. As one third year student illustrates, these features have helped 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 uni work in here, people bring their laptops in here, people bring their textbooks, the rooms in the back are used for group work. (3rd year female student)
Students recognised how the spatial design of the SLC contributed to their behaviours, both academic and social. They discussed the different zones of the room, the open areas where students are more likely to socialise and eat and the more closed areas with the booths and meeting rooms that cater to group work. These comments are 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 informal student areas. Students appreciated the many power points and reliable wireless connection. The design created a social centre for students where you can do what you 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 study in 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 that some 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 noise here, making the SLC uniquely different from other informal learning spaces on campus, 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, studying or 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 that students prefer the SLC is because they can make noise, talk, eat and socialise. One student described the SLC as the place to be noisy with another student commenting that having a space to make noise means that students can feel free to be themselves in a more unrestricted environment. Apart from the design attributes, students were surprisingly appreciative that they were 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 active teaching 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
115
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 promote the image of the university in order to attract potential students and place the university ahead of competing institutions. Discussion The study found that SLS can foster social interaction amongst students. Social learning spaces can provide students with an outlet to develop social networks with peers that can lead to greater engagement in active and collaborative learning and that facilitates the sharing of knowledge to meet academic challenges. While a direct correlation between SLS and positive academic outcomes cannot be claimed, nor was it the intention of this study to propose such a claim, it can be deduced that providing a space for students to engage in such educationally effective activities indirectly contributes to academic success. This conclusion is supported by social constructivist learning theories based on Vygotskys (1978) developmental and educational theories, postulating that the most significant learning takes place when individuals participate in social learning activities (Hunter et al., 2007; Kim, 2001). The study also revealed that SLS help to foster a sense of belonging and community amongst students in broad discipline based programs, suggesting a supportive campus environment and greater overall satisfaction. The SLC is a unique space where 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 education requires integration into an institutions academic as well as social environment, which is evidenced in the findings. In addition, a recent UK report on student attrition found that the social aspect of university life was becoming a more prevalent factor in student transition compared to a decade ago (Yorke & Longden, 2008). While spatial design was outside of the SE framework adopted from the AUSSE for this study, spatial design emerged from the student voice as an important factor in determining student preference over space as well as student learning behaviours. The extent to which students identified the spatial design as a key factor was not anticipated. Webb et al. (2008) found that students are more likely to use spaces that are comfortable, facilitate interpersonal communication and are easily controlled. Moreover, 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 present study provide some of the few pieces of empirical evidence demonstrating how spatial design influences the student experience. After reviewing the findings, it is important to consider whether the SE model is an effective framework for evaluating SLS. The NSSE and AUSSE were developed to measure SE in a quantitative manner. The scales were designed to correlate with each other but represent separate measures on the survey. However, when the SE framework is used for qualitative purposes to assess how SLS impact on the student experience, the scales overlap and the boundaries between scales become blurred and difficult to disentangle. By interviewing and observing users and SLC student
116
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 study demonstrate that the SE constructs are interrelated and possibly should not be thought of as strictly distinct measures. By using the SE framework for a qualitative study, we have 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 the extent to which these scales are interwoven. Conclusion This 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 across multiple 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 this area. While the study is limited in that only one such space for a single discipline cohort is examined, a single institution study seemed appropriate as a starting point for the application of an existing framework (SE) to a new context (evaluation of SLS in higher education). As a substantial body of literature for social learning spaces does not exist, this study adopted a broad approach in identifying an evidence-based methodological framework for examining how SLS impact on the SE. Future studies can apply this model to different institutional and disciplinary contexts and explore the impact of SLS on students based on demographic data, including gender and age. This study contributes empirical insight into an under-researched area. As tertiary institutions focus more effort, attention and resources into improving the student experience, having evidence from which to make informed decisions on all aspects of the student experience will be desired. While research into the SE has focused on what students do and how they engage, research into where students are engaging and how this influences their engagement is needed. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to recognise the contribution of the Evaluation Unit in the Teaching and Educational Development Institute at the University of Queensland, particularly Deanne Gannaway. We also thank m3 Architects, particularly Michael Christensen. Finally, the insightful 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.
References
Astin, 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.
117
Hu, S., & Kuh, G.D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activites: The influences 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 undergraduate 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 space in the design of new learning environments. Higher Education Research and Development, 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 Systems Committee. 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 in Higher 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/Social Constructivism.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 Development, 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 the effects 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 Education Conference, 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 learning spaces. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 122138. Nelson, K., Duncan, M., & Clarke, J. (2009). Student success: The identification and support of 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
118
July 20, 2009, from http://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/webdav/site/carricksite/users/siteadmin/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 preferences: Charting a path toward increased engagement. Libraries and the Academy, 8(4), 407422. Williamson, A., & Nodder, C. (2002). Extending the learning space: Dialogue and reflection in 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.
119
Appendix 1. Plan of the Science Learning Centre
Appendix 2. Discussion guide Science Learning Centre Users 1. Introduction

1a. 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 student experience. 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 information that is obtained in connection with this study and that could be identified as relating to you will remain confidential. If you decide to participate in the interview, you are free to discontinue participation at any time without prejudice.
2. Questions
Student perceptions of SLC/role in student experience: (1) Why do you (all) think UQ converted an old lecture theatre into a space like this?
120
Interaction/cohort information: (1) Who do you (all) think this space was designed for?
Use of space: (1) (2) (3) How do you (all) think this space should be used? How do you (all) use it? How do you think using the SLC impacts on students academic performance?
Student voice: (1) What is your favourite SLC story/memory?

Social Learning Spaces

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Social Learning Spaces

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This article was downloaded by: [University of Canterbury] On: 27 September 2013, At: 03:46 Publisher: Routledge Informa

Higher Education Research & Development