Future Learning

Spaces
Space, Technology and Pedagogy

A Case Study Series

Dr Sam Elkington, Teesside University and

Dr Brett Bligh, Lancaster University
Contents

Future learning spaces in higher education

Dr Sam Elkington 3

Why we need to talk about learning spaces

Dr Brett Bligh 5

1. The Learning Commons at Northampton

Chris Powis 18

2. Learning spaces development at Abertay University – creating a ‘sticky campus’

Dr Alastair Robertson 24

3. Working in partnership with students to design flexible and student-centred learning spaces:

Teesside University Library

Liz Jolly, Dr Anne Llewellyn and Richard Sober 32

4. Classrooms for flexible, adaptable approaches to curriculum delivery – responding to staff and

student feedback

Federica Oradini, Dr Gunter Saunders and Professor Peter Hartley 40

5. Evaluating the impact of furniture and decoration-based adjustments to flat teaching rooms on

student-staff-environment interactions

Charlotte Rowlands and Dr Clare Kell 52

6. A mobile first approach for studio and workshop in art and design practice and performing arts

Dr Neil Glen and Dr Jeffrey Boehm 60

Contributors 64
Future learning spaces in higher education
Dr Sam Elkington, Teesside University

An introduction
Learning can and does happen anywhere. Sometimes that learning occurs in classrooms (formal learning),
other times it results from face-to-face and virtual encounters and interactions between individuals away from
lecture halls and seminar rooms (social or informal learning). Space – whether physical or virtual, individual or
shared – can have an important impact on learning. It can bring people together; it can encourage exploration,
collaboration and discussion; it can also frame an unspoken message of exclusion, disconnectedness and
disengagement (Oblinger, 2006). Higher education institutions are growing increasingly aware of the power of
“built pedagogy” (Monahan, 2002) – the ability of spaces to shape and define how educators teach their
students – and with it an attitude underlining the orthodox view of higher education learning spaces that has
tended to treat space and learning as two related but separate domains of academic life.

Crucially, a significant amount of estates development is currently underway in UK universities. It comes at a

time of major change for educational technology and modes of learning and teaching that is challenging the
orthodox view of learning space. The changing educational requirements of increasingly diverse student
populations have prompted more tailored, student-centred approaches to designing ‘environments-for-learning’
on and off campus. New strategies for enabling learning and accommodating the multiple demands on today’s
students have necessitated a rethinking of the use, design and location of learning space. Increasingly,
approaches to learning are required to be flexible and networked, bringing together formal and informal
activities in a seamless environment that recognises that learning can take place any time, in either physical
and/or virtual spaces. From this contemporary perspective, space, learning and the effectiveness of the
university more widely are intimately connected.

Impressive new buildings and innovatively designed spaces, on their own, are no guarantee that improved
learning outcomes will be achieved. A sector-wide shift in emphasis from an ‘instruction paradigm’ to a ‘learning
paradigm’ has meant that higher education institutions must now think about what it means to be a learner in
these spaces (Kersch and Evans, 2015; Evans and Kersch, 2017). Relatedly, technology has brought unique
potential for learning in higher education. Whether by stimulating engagement through the use of interactive
systems and online tools, live-streaming international experts to augment in-class learning and teaching
activities, or building and sharing content with peers online, technology has changed our ideas about learning
space. What we know about how people learn has also changed our ideas about such spaces. It is increasingly
acknowledged that there is value in encouraging informal conversation with peers away from more formal
learning encounters; there is value in making regular use of hands-on, active learning, as well as making space
for reflection; there is value in being able to receive immediate support when needed and in being able to
integrate multiple activities when completing a learning project or task; and there is value in learning that occurs
in authentic settings, such as the laboratory, clinic space or trading floor. As we have come to understand more
about today’s learners, how people learn and the ready availability of technology, our notions of effective
learning spaces have changed.

Catalysed by this constructivist turn, digital technology and a holistic view of learning, contemporary learning
space design must take into account a broad spectrum of learning activities and environments necessary for
students to realise a richer educational experience. Higher education institutions are increasingly finding flexible
learning spaces and informal collaborative environments successfully promote student engagement in the
learning process. Here, the development of learning spaces supports innovative pedagogical approaches and
environments through the affordances of digital technology. However, despite the relationship between spaces
and learning receiving growing recognition as a fundamental aspect of the debate on contemporary
approaches to learning and teaching in higher education, and so ushering in a broader emphasis on learning
space design as ‘sites for learning’; our understanding of the complex interplay between spaces and learning
remains largely underdeveloped, lacking a clear evidence base.

This publication
To this end, the national Flexible Learning Symposium, hosted by Advance HE in York on 22 March 2018,
aimed to bring together cutting edge examples of effective and innovative efforts at learning space design and
spatial practices. More specifically, the one-day symposium sought to bring together both academic
researchers, senior leaders and estates personnel, presenting the opportunity for inter-professional and
collaborative discussion to better and more fully understand and evidence the relationship and interplay
between three established features of effective learning space design; namely, Space, Technology and
Pedagogy. It was framed by an article length account by the symposium’s keynote speaker Brett Bligh
(Lancaster University) in which a new, research-derived, vocabulary for future learning spaces was outlined.
This publication, in turn, captures and builds upon several of the case study examples presented at the March
symposium; and in doing so, attempts to occupy the territory between abstract theorising about space-related
issues and technical questions related to space, building design and academic practice. It is concerned with the
use of space in teaching and learning, and related space design issues; campus design, in so far as it relates to
learning; and organisational and managerial issues relating to space and learning. While the case studies
presented within this publication are designed to be accessible to staff working at all levels and across
functions in higher education institutions, it leaves the onus on you, the reader, to consider critically how space,
technology and pedagogy hang together and are used and developed within your own professional context so
as to realise learning environments that are truly future ready.

References
Evans, K. (2015). Rethinking the learning space at work and beyond: The achievement of agency
across the boundaries of work-related spaces and environments. International Review of Education,
volume 61, Issue 6: pp 835–851.

Evans K. (2017). Bounded Agency in Professional Lives. In M. Goller M and S. Paloniemi (Eds.)
Agency at Work. Professional and Practice-based Learning, volume. 20: pp 17-36.

Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible Space and Built Pedagogy: Emerging IT Embodiments. Inventio, Volume
4, Issue 1: pp. 1-19.

Oblinger, D.G. (Ed.) (2006) Learning Spaces. Washington, DC: Educause.

Why we need to talk about learning spaces
Dr Brett Bligh, Lancaster University

Introduction
The 2017 instalment of the US New Media Consortium’s annual Horizon Report: Higher Education edition
foregrounded the importance of a pivotal trend for technology adoption in the higher education sector:
Redesigning Learning Spaces (Adams Becker et al, 2017, p3). It is a novel focal point: it runs against the
grain of much everyday discussion about how technology influences human learning (and, indeed, broader
repercussions for living and working). Technology in higher education has often been posed in opposition to
space – seen as further undermining the importance of place with each passing year. The centrality of place-
bound lectures and seminars to the learner experience is, the story goes, being rapidly supplanted by the
“anytime, anywhere” provision of digitalised forms of higher education (cf Crook and Bligh, 2017). Even for
higher education institutions themselves, digital networks, it is suggested, underpin strategies for escaping
established place-bound identities, as universities seek to become global prestige brands – ‘located’ in
international flows of information and recruitment rather than in some physical territory (cf Tierney and Lanford,
2015).

Yet the Horizon report argues that Redesigning Learning Spaces is one of the six “key trends accelerating
higher education technology adoption” (Adams Becker et al, 2017, p3). If the report’s contributing panel of 78
education and technology experts in 22 countries is not badly mistaken, then a large sectoral trend with
considerable impact is being profoundly under-recognised and misunderstood. That misrecognition is the
starting point for the present piece of writing, whose topic concerns how researchers and other stakeholders
are currently talking about physical learning spaces – and how we might talk about them differently in future.

The present piece starts from two core convictions: about higher education space itself, and about knowledge
of that space. Those issues are closely linked, of course – and, to many, what is said will appear
uncontroversial. But each, in turn, has consequences for how we can, and should, talk about learning spaces –
consequences that are often overlooked.

My basic convictions about space itself are twofold: that it remains a fundamentally important mediator of
human learning, and that it is produced socially within institutions in contingent, contextualised ways.

Where institutions, educators and students take advantage of new technological developments, I suggest, their
doing so does not render physical space less important. Instead, certain varieties of longstanding space,
including some of the most taken-for-granted workhorses of higher education, are socially destabilised –
confidence in their continuing usefulness gets shaken to some extent. Meanwhile, proposals for new forms of
space emerge, with varying physical forms and representing varying stakeholder interests. Advocates of these
proposals seek to ensure they supplant more established designs by making claims about suitability for desired
st
practices and technological realities – and sometimes by wielding a discourse of ‘newness’ (“a 21 century
learning space!”). Some new forms of space are actually taken up within institutions, and/or by some given
teaching staff and students: those where key stakeholders have been adequately convinced by advocates’
claims and not sufficiently discouraged by the required outlay. Conversely, other space designs are explored in
sandpit settings, but for various reasons – justified or not – they do not get adopted more widely. In parallel,
there is increased recognition of the centrality of various forms of off-campus or non-institutional space –
including domestic and external workplace settings, cafés and moving vehicles. Those spaces also come to be
seen as ‘new’ learning spaces, notwithstanding that they may have had longstanding utility for particular
segments of the student population, such as distance students, part-time students, commuters and those on
professional placement.

One consequence is a heightened sense of contestation between myriad spatial forms, ‘old’ and ‘new’.
Whether closer examination of some ‘new’ space reveals it to be advantageous is, of course, uncertain. Some
are eventually evaluated as less successful than the spaces they supplanted – though such evaluation is itself
a contested institutional practice (Pearshouse et al, 2009). Nonetheless, changes in higher education space
continue, in an ongoing way, within institutions. Spaces have varying degrees of influence on practices and
experiences within institutions, and concurrently those practices and experiences have varying degrees of
influence on the development of the learning spaces there.

My convictions about knowledge and discussion of higher education space build on this recognition that space
production is, fundamentally, a human process. Space is institutional, social, contextual and historically
developing as well as physical and technological; and the people involved have different interests, expertise,
and authority. Such a complex reality provokes understandable uncertainty, frustration and anxiety, and key
stakeholders are constantly vigilant for knowledge that appears to transcend that social messiness. If some
researcher ‘proved’ that painting classroom walls in some shade of blue led to “15% better learning”, then such
knowledge would be attractive to many stakeholders – in part, because what to do with this hypothetical
knowledge would be very obvious (get painting!). Yet the search for absolute or universal knowledge about
learning spaces in higher education is likely to lead to, at best, partial and one-sided understanding.
Furthermore, in common with many other social domains of investigation, I suspect that much insightful
knowledge about learning spaces in higher education will not arrive packaged in that way. Instead, I suspect
that our understanding of learning spaces will necessarily be uncertain, relative, deeply contextualised and
represent different interests; and that it will need to account for persistent problems of a sociocultural nature.
For instance, where:

Stakeholders have different ideas about what some given space should do – about what is valued as
successful (cf Bligh and Pearshouse, 2011);

Accounts of the effectiveness of a particular space in practice are contested;

Attempts to transplant the design of a space, which has been judged to be effective in one place, to
another location fails to reap similar benefits; or

The knowledge and conviction of some stakeholders (including researchers!) is judged to be

incomprehensible by some other stakeholders – who therefore cannot make use of it.

In the remainder of this piece, I build on the notion that knowledge about learning spaces should be viewed as
valuable to the extent that it guides stakeholders’ thinking about the goals of particular spaces, leads to better
comprehension by stakeholders of the different interests and positions of others (acknowledging, though, that
comprehension is often rather different to consensus) and highlights the contextualised nature of how spaces
work. Most of all, it is valuable if it provides a common vocabulary for reflection, exploration, discussion and
debate. Those value judgements, of course, are closely linked – they are all fundamentally concerned with how
we talk about learning spaces.

Below, I suggest my own research-derived vocabulary – one that can, I suggest, help stakeholders to conduct
discussions and produce their own knowledge about learning spaces. Firstly, however, I set out a brief
overview of the current state of scholarly knowledge and discussion about learning spaces in higher education.

The research discussion about learning spaces

Let us commence the discussion of academic research about learning spaces by returning to the Horizon
report. Its advocacy of the Redesigning Learning Spaces theme is set out as follows:
“As universities engage with strategies that incorporate digital elements and accommodate more
active learning in the physical classroom, they are rearranging physical environments to promote
these pedagogical shifts. Educational settings are increasingly designed to support project-based
interactions with attention to greater mobility, flexibility, and multiple device usage. To improve
remote communication, institutions are upgrading wireless bandwidth and installing large displays
that allow for more natural collaboration on digital projects. Further, universities are exploring how
mixed reality technologies can blend 3D holographic content into physical spaces for simulations
like experiencing Mars by controlling rover vehicles, or to enable multifaceted interaction with
objects, such as the human body in anatomy labs, with detailed visuals. As higher education
continues to move away from traditional, lecture-based lessons toward more hands-on activities,
classrooms are starting to resemble real-world work and social environments that foster organic
interactions and cross-disciplinary problem-solving.” (Adams Becker et al, 2017, p9)

It is worth noticing that much of what is described – a lecturing-is-dead agenda and the accompanying
advocacy of project-based working, an emphasis on the mobility of learners and their use of multiple personal
devices, excitement about the possibilities for remote communication and educational simulations – is not, in
itself, so extraordinary. Such tropes have been a stock-in-trade of institutional educational technology
communities and staff development courses for a good while. In some ways the only thing that is new here is
the recognition of the spatial consequences. Yet the relations between technology and space in Horizon
narrative are quite unidirectional: changes in technology are seen as both preceding and driving changes in
space. Furthermore, in some instances, space seems described mainly as a container for technology, rather
than as mediating practice itself. Clearly, the intended audience for the Horizon reports (policymakers
interested in technology trends) will influence the narratives adopted. Yet the narrative here is hardly atypical:
reflecting, in my view, lack of confidence and conceptual maturity in discussing space. The consequence is that
prominent narratives seek legitimacy for learning spaces by invoking association with other, more prominently
recognised phenomena. In this case, developments in technology sectors are invoked, but other discourses
might equally draw on narratives about the popularity of part-time and distance education, the funding of higher
education systems and changes in recruitment and student aspirations within a globalising economy.

What we can detect, then, is that learning spaces is an underdeveloped research field by contrast with those
focusing on many of the other issues with which it necessarily interacts. Although there are sharp
disagreements about how the effects of technology on educational practice should be conceptualised – see the
report by Luckin et al (2012) for an extended discussion – there exists a substantial international and
interdisciplinary evidence base, and a wide range of journals and conferences, on the topic. The same cannot
be said for research on learning spaces.

A sense of being a poor relation has long permeated the small literature on the topic. An influential review
article by Paul Temple (2008), for example, conveys the message even in its title – Learning spaces in higher
education: an under-researched topic. “The study of learning spaces in higher education,” says Temple in the
introduction to the piece, “has not historically attracted a great deal of attention from scholars or researchers;
the work of higher education has, implicitly, generally been considered as taking place independently of the
spaces in which it was located” (p229). Temple’s statement correctly implies that the paucity of research into
learning spaces is especially disappointing because research into higher education more generally is
burgeoning. Tight (2012), for example, reviews the wealth of higher education books and journals being
published: his conspectus reveals that the issues receiving most attention are teaching-learning, the student
experience, institutional management, academic work, system policy, quality and course design. Many of those
categories actually look like fairly promising sanctuaries for some discussion of higher education learning
spaces. Yet, alas, the issue is mentioned in passing on a single page across the 230 pages of text – something
of an indictment of the underlying material that Tight is summarising.

Such widespread scholarly indifference has not, of course, prevented estates managers from investing, or
students from changing preferences. As a consequence, there has been a pervading sense of double
inadequacy – that research on learning spaces receives scant attention by comparison to the enormous
institutional investment in the spaces themselves, as well as in relation to research on proximate topics.

The obvious objection here is that, in the decade since Temple published his article, there has been an
upwards trend in the scholarly investigation of learning spaces. However, I contend that the progress made has
been incremental rather than radical in nature. Let us consider three more recent review articles to illustrate
that point:

A report by Painter et al (2013), which examines evidence about space design;

A scoping study by Nordquist (2016), which focuses on relations between space and curriculum as
they play out specifically within the disciplinary education of the health professions; and

A conceptual review by Ellis and Goodyear (2016), which aims to unpick the myriad influences of
learning spaces on student learning activities.

Each of those review pieces highlights, in different ways, that research over the last decade has focused
extensively on unpicking whether learning space design makes any discernible difference to a variety of
stakeholder experiences and learning outcomes and reaching conclusions to the affirmative. A core point of
emphasis, then, is on legitimising learning spaces as a research topic – understandable, of course, given
widespread distrust about whether space is important at all.

For example, Painter et al (2013) highlight how their findings support notions that formal space redesign can
indeed influence the classroom practices of both teachers and students, and that the broader campus-level
experience does indeed influence student satisfaction and retention. Nordquist (2016) highlights accumulating
evidence from a range of studies that compare particular classroom designs on a bilateral, quasi-experimental
basis: among other things, Nordquist concludes that there are credible and positive results showing that new
classrooms designs can indeed promote various aspects of learning (such as dialogue). On the other hand,
there is certainly some hedging going on in these reports. For example, Nordquist counterpoints his positivity
about space influencing learner practices by suggesting that, if teachers’ behaviours are also to change, then
the evidence is that space redesign alone will not be sufficient: active institutional faculty development
strategies will also be required. What we have, therefore, is a narrative of legitimation that uses a sense of
“positivity with conditions attached” as its ground. In my view, however, it is precisely questions relating to how
learning spaces are effective under particular conditions that we need to explore.

Alongside those attempts at legitimation within the reports sit a range of particular gap spotting narratives.
While such narratives are, of course, commonplace in scholarly review articles, what is noteworthy here is that
many of the actual gaps being identified are framed as concerning research into particular space types. We
have more research into room types x, y, and z than into room types a, b, and c! One particularly systematic
variant of that narrative is offered by Ellis and Goodyear (2016), who position the studies they find along three
axes: based on distinctions between teacher-managed and more informal spaces; between spaces provided by
universities, by third parties and by students themselves; and between physical, virtual and hybrid spaces. Ellis
and Goodyear’s analysis highlights – among other things – that the literature focuses a heavy proportion of its
attention towards research on the configuration of formal learning spaces and, in a somewhat separate strand
of inquiry, towards student experiences in informal learning spaces (such as university libraries).

I do not wish to suggest, I should emphasise, that those full ranges – or the different kinds of spaces within
them – are not worthy of investigation. There are, in point of fact, some interesting observations to be made
even by interrogating the points of dissonance between the reviews. For example, Painter et al (2013) and Ellis
and Goodyear (2016) each highlight a considerable interest in student experiences in informal learning spaces,
whereas Nordquist (2016), with his more particular focus on education of health professionals, bemoans a
dearth of research on the same issue. My reading is that the discrepancy is itself interesting: it highlights how
perhaps too much of the research on student experiences in ‘informal’ spaces assumes that both the spaces
and the experiences therein are not disciplinary. In turn, that implies a discomforting critique of how learning
spaces scholarship routinely compartmentalises the issue of academic discipline when investigating learning in
higher education.

Yet, in light of my previously stated convictions about knowledge about learning spaces, my overarching
reaction to those gap spotting narratives should be obvious: even where individual space types seem well
covered by empirical investigation, that knowledge will only be useful if it takes into account the context of
sociocultural practice rather than being viewed as applicable to all instantiations of those space types in
universal terms. Indeed, from my perspective it would be more directly useful to map the research according to
the sociocultural practices and experiences that are being described – and to highlight the gaps in the literature
on that basis.

It should be noted that the three reviews do differ somewhat in the kind of knowledge about learning spaces
that they suggest are valuable. The narrative arc in the review by Painter et al (2013) is particularly interesting
in this regard. Early on in their report, the authors draw attention to how previous generations of learning
spaces researchers – they refer to efforts in 1950s-70s US – foundered on precisely this issue:

“Over the next 10 years, however, it became clear that psychology research paradigms were not
set up to respond to the specific questions posed by the architecture, design, and planning
professions and the kind of immediately applicable information these disciplines were seeking
was not forthcoming. Aside from standards generated in the field of ergonomics for sizing spaces
and furnishings to fit the human body, architects and designers did not receive the fact-based
data trove they had hoped for. As a result, the potential connections between these two realms of
knowledge were never solidified, and by the 1980s architects and designers had gone down their
own pathways.” (pp4-5)

It is interesting, however, to contrast those initial observations against Painter et al’s own recommendations for
the field, as presented at the end of their report. Those recommendations include creating “an agreed upon
taxonomy of learning space” (p 29), producing “measures of behavior” that meet “the benchmark of
reproducibility” (p29), and focusing more on “learning outcomes” (p30). Ultimately, it is difficult to escape the
conclusion that Painter et al’s suggestion for a future learning spaces research agenda – “rigorous, systematic,
reproducible, and longitudinal inquiries that will yield insight into what works and what does not” – largely fails to
escape universality of the “psychology research paradigms” of which they were earlier so disparaging.

To different extents, the reviews by Nordquist and by Ellis and Goodyear track a different path, with the latter
authors in particular drawing attention to a range of emerging “representations and models” of learning spaces.
“The purpose of doing this”, Ellis and Goodyear state, “is to help people working in the emerging field of
learning space research recognise commonalities and differences in what are sometimes quite implicit
conceptualisations of relations between space and learning” (p173). I, of course, concur with that position, but it
seems clear that many of the models that their review actually uncovers within the literature are ill-suited to
addressing those aspirations. Ellis and Goodyear themselves acknowledge the attendant problems:

“In addition to the dangers of relying on ‘everyday’ or unexamined concepts, fragmented conceptual
frameworks impede collective advances in this field – it is unnecessarily hard for researchers and practitioners
to see how new findings and insights build on what is already known if there is not some framework on which to
build commonality of understanding.” (p173).

At present, as Ellis and Goodyear highlight, the literature seems dominated by generalised representations
(with the words ‘space’ and ‘learning’ placed within concentric circles, or connected by arrows); by typologies of
learning spaces; and by process models that abstract away from the actual practices of teachers and students
(pp175-179). Ellis and Goodyear do present their own “activity-centred” models of how we might see space as
integral to human practice: sketching two models focused, respectively, on relations between activity, tasks,
tools, people and outcomes (p179), and between social situation, physical situation, goal-directed action,
embodied cognition, tasks and outcomes (p180). Yet Ellis and Goodyear go on to conclude their review by
arguing the following:
“The review presented in this paper has a number of implications for future research involving university
learning spaces. It suggests that studies of the connections between attributes of physical and/or virtual space,
on the one hand, and student learning outcomes, on the other, need to pay attention to mediating factors – with
close attention to what students actually do and the sense they make of what they do.” (p181)

It is here that I concur most strongly with Ellis and Goodyear. It is my position that conceptualising how space is
a “mediating factor” within the actual practices of higher education is a core aspiration, to which the scholarship
on learning spaces has yet to provide any kind of satisfactory answer. The vocabulary I outline in a subsequent
section of this piece is oriented towards precisely that issue of how space mediates practice.

A new vocabulary for discussion

In what follows, I have specifically attempted to create a vocabulary that is underpinned by research into
1
learning spaces. The reason for doing so is to support the possibility of boundary crossing between the
conversations about learning spaces going on institutions, and debates occurring in the scholarly literature.

The specific piece of research that I am building on is an earlier piece co-authored by myself (Bligh and Crook,
2017). In that piece, Charles Crook and I attempted to categorise and conceptualise the various ways in which
research papers published in educational research, technology enhanced learning and human-computer
interaction venues discussed space as a mediator of educational practice. It should be emphasised that the
vocabulary proposed here varies to a considerable degree from that earlier academic framework: it is inspired
by that previous work rather than identical to it. Whereas the earlier piece categorises research stances, some
of which carry distinctly normative views, the present piece is oriented towards encouraging stakeholders to
reflect on their experiences and explore future possibilities within their particular institutions. It should also be
emphasised that the proposed vocabulary deliberately bears very little relation to those specialised terms that
are used by estates, engineering or architectural professionals; or within institutions to produce legalistic
specifications for external tender documents or post-occupancy evaluation specifications.

Finally, it should be emphasised that the vocabulary presented below is not intended to be immediately intuitive
or obvious. Instead, the vocabulary is intended to support reflection, re-thinking and re-conceptualisation – as
stakeholders use it to explore their experiences and aspirations together.

The vocabulary I shall propose is based around six core concepts, wherein space is understood to be
transparent, enabling, stimulating, associative, cognitively integrated and socially integrated. Those concepts
are briefly represented on a poster, reproduced here, which I hope can be used to provide a friendly overview
when stakeholders come together to discuss institutional space production (Figure 1). Each of those concepts
opens up different possibilities for discussion and invites stakeholders to focus on a range of closely related
issues, for which a range of supporting terms are also provided. Those concepts are outlined in sequence in
the following six subsections, along with some reflection about the range of issues that stakeholders might wish
to discuss in each case.

1
Here, I shall not prescribe specific activities within which this vocabulary might be used, since the possibilities
are legion, although I have written about that topic before elsewhere (Bligh, 2014).
 2
Figure 1: A poster overview of the vocabulary for talking about learning spaces.

2
PDF available online: https://archive.org/details/WeNeedToTalkAboutLearningSpacesFigure
The transparent learning space
The transparent learning space goes unnoticed by those using it to undertake educational work; the needs of
the people working there have been predicted in advance and provided for in such a way that the space
recedes to the periphery of their attention. That mode of mediation is possible because the transparent learning
space is built upon well-considered standards. Some of those standards are derived from legal and
professional frameworks that stipulate minimum or ideal levels for room temperature, lighting (including natural
light), working space per person, and so on. Yet other standards are more noticeably local – such as where all
teaching rooms across an institution are provisioned with the same technological control system, to increase
the likelihood that people entering a given room will already be familiar with how to switch on the required
devices.

The transparent learning space invites several assumptions: that what people will want to do there is to some
extent predictable; that the task is to provide space that is adequate for the predicted purposes; that familiarity
with other spaces can be used to support a cumulative, disappearing effect of transparency; and that learning
does not depend on conscious interaction with aspects of the space. Any and all of these assumptions might
be debated by stakeholders with reference to particular spaces. Of course, the transparent learning space
might be a fragile construction. Whenever users must modify their learning practices because of available
resources or spatial configuration, feel uncomfortable or irritated by some aspect of their surrounding
environment, or indeed need to direct their attention to the space for any reason whatsoever, then the
transparency of the learning space has been compromised. The extent to which that compromise is justified –
or even desirable – is an important topic for discussion, especially in contexts where stakeholders are pushing
for innovation to occur. Historically, estates and IT personnel within the institution might have sought to produce
and maintain the transparency of learning spaces with little input from denizens; indeed, while space users
might be consulted at predetermined moments in estate lifecycles, the very notion of transparency might be
seen as mitigating against continual input from space users. One issue for discussion might concern the
desirability of ongoing feedback from denizens about particular spaces, and how those sources of feedback
might be integrated – so acknowledging both the localised experiences of denizens and the legitimate desire of
estates personnel to maintain standard specifications across some range of spaces. The inherent tension
within the concept of the transparent learning space concerns the extent to which educational practice is
supposed to be carried out without regard for space or in otherwise frictionless ways; that tension invites us to
consider what is supposed to be transparent and what is not.

The enabling learning space

The enabling learning space is a deliberately configured container that supports and resources a range of
desired educational practices. The physical layout of the space invites, or makes it easier, for people to operate
in particular ways; and, conversely, it may also work to discourage other forms of practice. That mode of
mediation is possible because the space has been conceived as supporting definite forms of practice and
thereby configured in exact ways; its form may radically diverge from other enabling learning spaces that aim to
support other practices. That sense of particularity, or exactness, pervades the design.

The enabling learning space works by allowing its denizens to move in particular ways, to comfortably inhabit
particular locations and postures, to access the particular resources they need to perform particular tasks
close-at-hand, and to see and hear particular elements across the room – including, perhaps, other people and
the resources they are using. The enabling learning space often offers flexibility, providing wheeled tables and
other movable resources that allow denizens to reconfigure the space upon entry and to shift between different
modes of practice at different moments within the same overall session. Yet the enabling learning space
remains deliberately configured – that flexibility is not usually understood as an unrestricted charter for
denizens to do anything they like, but rather as providing for convenient movement between different scenarios
that are themselves still particular. Indeed, the enabling learning space may often also be a constraining
learning space, one deliberately designed to exclude certain forms of action and reconfiguration. Where a room
has been configured to promote scenarios of small group working, for example, then practices of whole-class
lecturing might be deliberately constrained by the provision of restricted sight lines that encourage teachers to
rove between groups. Quite how and what a particular space enables and constrains, and the range of
scenarios anticipated by the flexibility of the design offered, are, therefore, issues that need to be considered as
mutually related within stakeholder discussion. The role of estates and IT personnel in orchestrating the
enabling learning space has generally been to anticipate the particular needs of denizens, while managing the
extent of possible change within the room in line with the spirit of its design. At a micro-level, doing so may be
achieved by enforcing room layout rules: such as insisting that rooms must be returned to their original layout
by close of session. Estates personnel may also have a preference for vocabulary of adaptability, which implies
a focus on the professional management of changes to room configuration over time, rather than flexibility,
which might be perceived negatively as unstructured, chaotic and permissive – allowing denizens to engage in
inappropriate behaviour. That distinction is certainly worthy of discussion, since it seems plausible for mutual
enlightenment to occur – including where denizens may come to see the value in those rhythmic, seasonal
changes implied by the concept of adaptability. The inherent tension within the enabling learning space,
therefore, concerns the particularity of the enabled practices and the degree of constraint and control that is to
be enforced upon denizens; a tension that is sometimes manifest through establishing definitions of adaptability
and flexibility for particular rooms (or room types) within institutions.

The stimulating learning space

The stimulating learning space is designed to provoke thinking and action through sensory experience and,
most typically, is permeated by a desire to prompt curiosity and reflection. The stimulating learning space works
by providing experiences organised around artefacts that are of interest to its denizens; and by contextualising
those artefacts in ways that emphasise their relevance to educational practices – and to the other artefacts in
the space – within overarching narratives. Denizens are being invited to explore the space and so to traverse
the narrative. That exploration might involve ambulatory movement, such as walking around a university
exhibition space or campus garden; but equally it might involve remaining in one location, perhaps seated and
enjoying a moment of quiet reflection while looking at an information display or piece of artwork. Moreover, the
exploration might be undertaken in a variety of social configurations, encompassing experiences ranging from
the relatively gregarious (exploring with others, discussing, arguing, laughing, shouting) to those that are
apparently solitary (exploring on one’s own, engrossed in quiet thoughts and dialogue with oneself). What
remains central is the provoking of sensory experience, most usually in the form of visual experiences but very
plausibly including experiences based around the other human senses as well. It might be possible, for
example, to provoke curiosity based on sensory experiences of touch or manipulation, or smell, or even by
depriving particular senses – as is achieved when rooms are darkened. The narrative of the space, the senses
that are to be stimulated as denizens explore, and the character of the sociality that ought to permeate the
experience – all of these should form interesting bases for stakeholder discussion.

Two points of tension for the stimulating learning space concern the extent to which the narrative organisation
is, firstly, prescriptive and, secondly, directly related to formal learning outcomes. In some cases, what is
provoked might be more ‘open-ended’ experiences in both senses; some versions of the stimulating learning
space may even manifest concerns oriented more towards affect and wellbeing than to cognitive knowledge
acquisition per se. The engineering space that ostentatiously ‘displays’ those aspects of its construction that
are relevant to the course being studied, the quiet garden where natural light and plant life help students to
relax in the quiet moments of a busy day – both are, equally, instantiations of the stimulating learning space.
Another point of tension concerns the extent to which denizens are empowered to alter or co-design the
stimulating learning space. The most obvious metaphor for the design and management of the stimulating
learning space and its artefacts by professional staff is curation, and exploring the meaning of that metaphor for
a particular space might serve to open up questions of who the curators are and what power is accorded them.
The associative learning space
The associative learning space is designed to evoke feelings and expectations at an intuitive level. The
associative learning space works by mimicking aspects of other spaces that its denizens will likely already be
familiar with: cafés, domestic settings, corporate boardrooms, industrial plant and museum galleries are among
the more prevalent choices. That mimicry may involve importing isolated elements of those other spaces, such
as furniture or wall colour schemes, or it may involve designing the whole associative learning space as a
pastiche. Initial discussions might focus on the kinds of spaces that denizens enjoy (or find productive); which
elements of those spaces are perceived most central to their experiences there; and the extent of the pastiche
that is possible and desirable within institutional space.

The underlying premise of the associative learning space is inspired by the commonly discussed distinction
between ‘space’ and ‘place’, where a place is a space with meaning. People form, the premise goes, deeply
meaningful relationships with particular places in their lives that may involve particular emotional states (such
as comfort, conviviality or contemplation) and particular expectations (such as how to act, who will be there and
what resources will be available). Those relationships, the premise continues, can be leveraged in other spaces
where the same emotional states and expectations are desirable. The second part of that premise, in particular,
is hotly contested by many human geographers, but that academic contestation has not prevented the
associative learning space – from rooms with beanbags to full-blown cafés – from becoming increasingly
prevalent in actual universities. All of those foundational issues might be frankly addressed in discussion,
wherever healthy scepticism is raised. Yet there are a range of persistent tensions for how the associative
learning space is manifest that will certainly need to be addressed, even if the broader premises are accepted
by those stakeholders involved in the discussions. One such tension is that evoking associations is hardly
something that can be achieved with precision; while another is that the associations being evoked are deeply
cultural and societal. The associative learning space may thus inadvertently serve to exclude, for example by
evoking confusion or unanticipated associations in people from disparate cultures and thereby disadvantaging
particular denizens; while even denizens from locally dominant cultures may find that unwanted associations
are evoked alongside those judged more desirable. The evocation of associations relies on denizens thinking in
metaphors that necessarily have multi-voiced and vague interpretations. How far to take the metaphor is,
therefore, a worthwhile issue to explore.

The cognitively integrated learning space

The cognitively integrated learning space is designed to be a part of the thinking and other actions in which
its denizens are engaged. The cognitively integrated learning space works by providing a range of artefacts –
examples include information displays, writing surfaces or equipment from some professional or industry setting
– arranged so that denizens can interact with them during their educational working. Those artefacts, it is
envisaged, will become an integrated part of denizens’ thinking. For some people the idea of the cognitively
integrated learning space will seem counterintuitive. We have become habituated to the idea that thinking, and
other human functions such as remembering, deliberating and decision-making, occur within the biological
organ known as the brain. Yet that is not how many learning scientists view the situation; instead, it is
suggested, thinking occurs within functional organs in which the mind is integrated with other parts of the body
(including the hands and eyes), with the external artefacts that are explored and manipulated, and indeed with
other people in team working situations. All of those components should be viewed as integral to, and
indispensable for, how we learn as human beings. Discussants should be encouraged to think through
particular examples of their working, especially where the general idea initially proves too difficult to grasp. We
sometimes use the common phrase working out to describe how we cognitively approach the problems that
confront us, which does carry some of the correct connotations. The cognitively integrated learning space aims
to directly support our efforts to do that working out and to communicate our thinking to others.

A range of interrelated tensions characterise the concept of the cognitively integrated learning space. One such
tension is manifest because some forms of working out require focused thinking and individual action, while
others require team working and the display of working to others. Those priorities might simply be in direct
tension for some spaces; but in other circumstances the core challenge is to support transitions between
moments of working alone, in sub-groups, and across the whole room in plenary discussion – and the
attendant transitions in how the associated tools and materials are seen as controlled by particular denizens. A
second tension occurs between the notion that the space’s artefacts are for manipulating and continually
modifying, and the notion that they might provide a constant anchor point whose strength lies in their
unchanging presence: once again this can often be productively viewed as the management of transitions
between moments, this time between active working and the subsequent ambient display of information as a
collective memory. A third tension arises where configurations of materials localised in particular spaces are
difficult to move or to replicate elsewhere: this tension highlights issues of issues of transfer, both for students,
who might rely – or have come to rely – on particular resources to undertake certain kinds of working out; and
for professional staff, for whom cognitively integrated learning spaces can come to be seen as resource-
intensive and associated with timetabling problems. Working out the kind of transitions that are required by
denizens, and the extent to which those transitions can be reasonably supported, will be a worthwhile moment
in stakeholder discussions.

The socially integrated learning space

The socially integrated learning space serves its denizens as a community. Denizens go there to meet with
other members of the community and to engage in routine practices: whether those are the routines preferred
by a denizen as an individual; or routines imposed by allotted responsibilities within the community, such as
maintaining the space itself or its equipment. The socially integrated learning space often has some sort of
history that is felt by its denizens as integral to their experience of the space. That history might be relatively
short-term and personal – a particular group might attend the space often, having originally met there for some
particular purpose and having enjoyed the experience. Understanding which spaces within an institution
become socially integrated in that way will be a useful issue for collective reflection. Yet, equally, the history of
a given space might be very longstanding – in some cases the space might have been used by succeeding
generations of students over decades or centuries. In those instances, the attendant issue for discussion might
be how to value, reinforce, or refine that longstanding social integration. In some cases, the history of the
socially integrated learning space might be clearly visible: denizens might display their own work around the
space, including on the walls; while, in other cases, the work of preceding generations of the community might
be given a visual prominence. Either way, the fact that the space serves as part of the heritage of the denizen
community might be consciously highlighted. To varying extents, the socially integrated learning space might
feel ostentatiously historical, in the sense of evoking a prior historical period in its aesthetic; threadbare,
evoking the shared camaraderie of students experiencing both intellectual discovery and financial thrift; and/or
disciplinary, serving a community of denizens with a shared intellectual or professional mission.

One dilemma associated with the socially integrated learning space often concerns the nature of the learning
that occurs there. The socially integrated learning space might be a bar or pub serving alcohol and offering
games facilities; somewhere denizens might specifically go to escape their formal learning obligations for
periods of time. Yet, nonetheless, their socialisation in that space forms an integral part of their overall
educational experience. The socially integrated learning space might be associated with a student society –
perhaps one focusing on media production, language learning, or sport – where denizens are more obviously
learning particular skills, but with potentially uncertain relationships between those skills and the formal
university credentials they are pursuing. Or, conversely, the socially integrated learning space might be very
readily associated with formal disciplinary identity: one example might be a studio of the kind that so often sits
at the heart of art and design disciplines. Understanding and valuing the diverse contributions that socially
integrated learning spaces make is, therefore, an important point for discussion. Another dilemma associated
with the socially integrated learning space concerns the issue of ownership. The socially integrated learning
space might be ‘delinked’, to some extent, from the centralised estates management oversight mechanisms
that cover most institutional space, and instead owned by some denizen community or academic department.
Such delinking sometimes brings with it the necessity of allocating responsibilities for the upkeep of the space,
which may fall to denizens themselves, and the obligation to service ongoing financial costs imposed via
institutional space-charging mechanisms. The latter may sometimes need to be met by academic departments
or student societies. The advantages and implications of ownership therefore constitute an important issue for
discussion and clarification – and, where the possibility exists, for negotiation between denizens and estates
management.

Concluding comments
As the introduction explains in more detail, the present document arises from a symposium: The Future of
Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Space, Technology and Pedagogy, hosted by the Higher Education
Academy (now Advance HE) in York, UK on the 22 March 2018. When I heard about the event, I was
immediately enthusiastic: learning spaces is an under-recognised field of enquiry. Yet, as the timetable
emerged and was finalised, I realised that the event had unusual potential. The symposium having attracted
both academic researchers and estates personnel, there was real potential for the kind of inter-professional and
collaborative discussion about the topic that I have long sought to nurture and support.

And I was not disappointed! As the group convened to discuss learning spaces together, there was none of the
negative stereotyping that occasionally dogs debates around the topic. At the start of the day, I presented (an
3
earlier version of) the above vocabulary and handed out (an earlier version of) the poster diagram , and was
pleased that the resulting discussion encompassed both professionals and scholars. Overall, the day
accommodated both scholarly and professional presentations, each of which provoked intelligent questions
from across the mixed audience. The presentations – some subset of which have been written up to form the
remainder of this document – drew out various aspects of how spaces mediate educational practices. Overall,
the symposium entirely reinforced my conviction that stakeholders of different stripes coming together to
discuss learning space production can be highly informative and useful. The symposium itself, along with the
document you are now reading, can serve as a useful indicator of why talking about learning spaces is
worthwhile. My main hope is that readers of this document are sufficiently stimulated to generate more such
conversation in the future!

References
Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., and Ananthanarayanan,
V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media
Consortium.

Bligh, B. (2014). Examining new processes for learning space design. In P. Temple (Ed.), The Physical
University: Contours of space and place in higher education (pp. 34-57). London: Routledge.

Bligh, B., and Crook, C. (2017). Learning spaces. In E. Duval, M. Sharples, and R. Sutherland (Eds.),
Technology Enhanced Learning: Research themes (pp. 69-87). Springer.

Bligh, B., and Pearshouse, I. (2011). Doing learning space evaluations. In A. Boddington, and J. Boys
(Eds.), Re-shaping Learning? A critical reader: the future of learning spaces in post-compulsory
learning (pp. 3-18). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Crook, C., and Bligh, B. (2016). Technology and the dis-placing of learning in educational futures.
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 11, 162-175.

3
PDF available online: https://archive.org/details/SpaceInfluencingEducationHEAEventDiagramMarch2018
Ellis, R. A., and Goodyear, P. (2016). Models of learning space: integrating research on space, place
and learning in higher education. Review of Education, 4(2), 149-191.

Nordquist, J. (2016). Alignment achieved? The learning landscape and curricula in health profession
education. Medical Education, 50(1), 61-68.

Painter, S., Fournier, J., Grape, C., Grummon, P., Morelli, J., Whitmer, S., and Cevetello, J. (2013).
Research on Learning Spaces Design: Present state, future directions. Ann Arbor, MI.: Society for
College and University Planning.

Pearshouse, I., Bligh, B., Brown, E., Lewthwaite, S., Graber, R., Hartnell-Young, E., and Sharples, M.
(2009). A Study of Effective Evaluation Models and Practices for Technology Supported Physical
Learning Spaces (JELS): Final report. Bristol: JISC.

Luckin, R., Bligh, B., Manches, A., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., and Noss, R. (2012). Decoding Learning:
The proof, promise and potential of digital education. London: NESTA.

Temple, P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: an under-researched topic. London Review of
Education, 6(3), 229-241.

Tierney, W. G., and Lanford, M. (2015). An investigation of the impact of international branch
campuses on organizational culture. Higher Education, 70(2), 283-298.

nd
Tight, M. (2012). Researching Higher Education (2 ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
 1. The Learning Commons at Northampton
Chris Powis, University of Northampton

Background
The University of Northampton moved from its existing campuses to a new, purpose-built town-centre campus
in September 2018. The move allows the university to reappraise the whole notion of a campus and to build
anew around learner needs and a pedagogic approach of active blended learning rather than replicate the
existing campus design which had grown, albeit organically, to mirror the university's organisational structure.
Although cooperation and collaboration across and between faculties and departments clearly did take place,
separate buildings also facilitated silos. This is perhaps best illustrated through the way ‘control’ of space
resided in individual areas, each with their own ideas and priorities for the use of that space. This led to a
proliferation of small scale ‘social learning’ spaces across the campus, many of which were never used. The
new 'Waterside' campus has no faculty buildings, no separate teaching blocks, no library or IT centre but at its
heart is the Learning Commons.

Active blended learning needs a more flexible and open approach to ownership of space if it is to prosper. It
“requires students to do meaningful learning activities, process new information and think about what they are
doing with it”. This can take place in a variety of ways, including online and physical spaces, but it is unlikely to
involve the traditional lecture model. Active Blended Learning emphasises active engagement with resources
and people rather than the passive transmission of knowledge in traditional large lecture theatres. In addition,
all staff will work in shared spaces and we have moved to paperless working and a bring your own device IT
policy for students.

Figure 1: The Waterside Learning Commons (example space)

The Waterside Learning Commons blurs the boundaries between formal teaching and learning spaces (Figure
1), academics and professional services, people and physical resources by not identifying any area as
belonging to one function or department. This will facilitate a more holistic/interdisciplinary approach which puts
learning at the core of campus design. The building brings together the three elements of the student learning
experience (people, resources and spaces) and integrates them across one building (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Example of integrated space

There are other buildings in the sector called Learning Commons but these are often IT rich, open learning
spaces without a significant staff or resource presence. There are Information Commons which often replicate,
and are usually managed by, the library which may integrate other central services but rarely contain formal
teaching spaces or academics. There are also many examples of student centres offering a staff presence and
learning spaces but not usually resources. Although radical, the Learning Commons has been informed by
innovative space use from buildings across the UK, Europe and North America, the growing literature around
user experience of space, particularly in libraries, 'sticky' campuses and research around our own students’
ideas about, and use of, space.

The development of the campus, and the Learning Commons in particular, has been informed by a changing
pedagogy, led by the work of the university’s Institute of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education and a
growing body of sector-wide research. This in turn has seen an incremental change in the use of learning
spaces across the old campuses over several years. Active Blended Learning would be the heart of our
learning and teaching strategy regardless of the move. Teaching had been taking place in open learning
spaces, especially in the library, for years and services like academic skills development, employability,
learning technology, cafes, exhibitions and university events had increasingly relocated to the library.
Boundaries were blurred, but the existing estate still encouraged a division between the faculty buildings, which
is where most teaching takes place and the academics can be found, and other buildings 'owned' by different
services which may or may not have been identified with learning.

This case study will concentrate on the development of the Learning Commons, the largest of the three
‘academic’ buildings and home to most of the managed open learning space on campus. It will explore the
ethos behind the design and how we have moved towards an innovative, adaptable, technology rich and
democratic approach to open learning spaces on the existing campuses to prepare staff and students for the
new model.

Approach
The development of the ethos and its application in the existing buildings as well as its influence on the design
of the new campus required input from a host of stakeholders. A steering group was established with a
membership representative of all users of the Learning Commons. This meant not only academics, library and
student services staff who would be based in the new building but also students and staff based elsewhere who
would use the Learning Commons to deliver services (for example the student finance team). Alongside this
the university disseminated information on the Learning Commons via face-to-face and social media channels
to as many people as possible. All users need to buy in to the integrated nature of space and services and this
group has been critical in fostering understanding, reviewing impact of pilots and disseminating information
across the university about the Learning Commons.

To move to a Learning Commons approach has required all staff to embrace a different ethos in the use of
space. This sees the whole campus as shared space with the facilitation of learning as its primary purpose.
When manifested as a building the Learning Commons is therefore:

Innovative in welcoming change, facilitating new approaches to teaching, learning, resources and
support and therefore proactive in combatting inertia;

Adaptable in that it is able to respond to change quickly in both its use of space (very little space is
fixed in any way) and services which respond to student needs (Figure 3 and Figure 4);

Technology rich and enabled with a robust infrastructure that supports IT solutions to facilitate learning
(Figure 5);

Democratic in the sense that all users of the building feel that they have a say in its development and
that management of the space and services is transparent and accountable.
 Figure 3: Example of ‘adaptable’ space on campus

Figure 4: Example of ‘adaptable’ space on campus

These guiding principles were agreed by all stakeholders early in the development process and together
facilitate a much more integrated approach by staff. The organisation will not change: there will still be faculties,
librarians etc managed through their existing structures. However, teams will have a greater capacity for
working together under a common ethos than is possible in separate buildings.
 Figure 5: An integrated ‘technology-rich’ environment

Outcomes
The impact of the change is yet to be fully felt. The Learning Commons at Waterside became operational in
September 2018. Each of the principles underpinning the Learning Commons have been successfully run on
the existing campuses but only Waterside will fully integrate them.

The design process for the Learning Commons was informed by a growing body of evidence in innovative use
of space across the existing campuses. This made it easier for stakeholders to articulate what they wanted
from the new spaces rather than, as has been the case in previous refurbishments, simply ask for more or less
of the same. Active Blended Learning did not start with the move and so successes and failures from practice
were learnt from and fed into the design process.

The creation of workstreams to oversee elements of the campus design brought together stakeholders from
across the university to develop aspects of the design. These led in turn to a board that looked to integrate
them into the overall planning. Senior management had provided a clear steer for the design, for example in
articulating its relationship with the town or in a policy of smart working for all staff. The university’s commitment
to Active Blended Learning also clearly influenced how the buildings developed. However, the development of
the Learning Commons also involved meetings and discussions with academic, professional and students both
individually and as part of stakeholder groups. Ideas and concerns from these meetings were considered by
the Learning Commons steering group which led the relevant workstream for that building. There was little
argument with the guiding principles and perhaps a surprising consensus on issues that might have been more
controversial such as the lack of fixed PCs in open areas.

There was, also perhaps surprisingly, very little difference in emphasis or priority from each constituency. A
completely clean sheet is an extremely rare situation and the lack of an overall owner of the Learning
Commons made discussions more open than might otherwise have been the case. The building was explicitly
neither a teaching block, a library, a student centre or a social space but all of these things and, as this was
clear from the start, an integrated approach was easier than it might have been if any of those elements was
being moved into an existing building.

The description of the building as ‘democratic’ has, again surprisingly, been controversial. This may be purely
semantic or perhaps signal a cynicism that representatives will not reflect their feelings, but 'consultative' has
been preferred by some teams. There will no doubt be consultative exercises with stakeholders in future but it
would not be practical to consult fully on everything and still be able to respond quickly to need. The Learning
Commons steering group has changed to a Waterside operational steering group with similar but expanded
membership to reflect, for example, use of the sports facilities. Membership is explicitly charged with gathering
and reflecting the views, concerns and ideas of their constituency. They will also be expected to input to user
experience (including staff), work both locally and globally and disseminate the results and actions decided by
the group. This should ease the conflict between what is meant by democratic and consultative.

The campus is built and we will now need to review how the buildings work in practice and especially whether
the Learning Commons ethos will offer the flexibility required for it to be successful as a campus. Building an
entire campus around the learners is a radical step but the groundwork done on the existing campuses should
ensure its success.

[All pictures licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this
license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866,
Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.]
 2. Learning spaces development at
Abertay University – creating a ‘sticky
campus’
Dr Alastair Robertson, Abertay University

Background
In redesigning learning spaces, it is really important to stress the need to align the learning environment(s) and
IT infrastructure with pedagogical practices. There is a significant body of academic literature on the positive
impact pedagogy can have in terms of promoting students’ deeper approaches to their learning and
engagement with their chosen subject area leading to enhanced knowledge, understanding, critical thinking,
problem solving and therefore attainment. Further, new technologies are opening up new ways of teaching and
supporting student learning. This case study highlights how Abertay University has adopted such an approach.

Abertay is a relatively small modern university (about 4,000 students) in the city centre of Dundee, Scotland.
The vast majority of our students are Scottish-domiciled followed by some EU and comparatively small
numbers of RUK/international fee-paying students. We have strong links with local partner colleges and about
a third of students enter with advanced standing into years two and three. As such, a significant number of
students are commuting on a daily basis to campus. Academic achievement and retention are key themes for a
modern university like Abertay with our particular student demographic.

In response to the changing context and through efforts to enhance the student experience, the university has
transformed its pedagogic approach since 2013, catalysed by our new Teaching and Learning Enhancement
Strategy. There are three strategic priorities: curriculum reform, incentivising student performance and raising
the status of teaching. The development and implementation of the strategy has been previously published by
the Higher Education Academy. Specific examples of changes introduced include moving from a 15 to 20 credit
module structure, introducing new compulsory interdisciplinary electives for stages one and two to broaden our
students’ breadth as well as depth of knowledge, moving to a grade point average (GPA)-based honours
classification system and electronic management of assessment (EMA). Since introducing these important
changes, there has been a rise in the proportion of students graduating with good degrees and our HESA
Employment Indicator has risen for the last four years such that this year we were placed seventh out of 18
Scottish higher education institutions. However, there are still challenges in terms of improving student
retention, particularly among students entering from local partner colleges, graduate level employment and
enhancing our students’ experience more generally.

Accordingly, in 2016 the university entered the second phase of teaching and learning strategy development:
learning spaces. Specifically, given the large number of commuting students, many of whom are first
generation HE and work part-time (up to 15 hours a week), we wanted to make our campus “stickier” and more
attractive for our students. “Sticky campus” is a very simple concept that originated in New Zealand after the
4
Christchurch earthquake in 2011 destroyed all social spaces for their students on and off campus. The sticky
campus aims to provide the students with the right kind of environment and learning opportunities that they will
want to come and stay. There is good evidence in the academic literature that commuting students are less
likely to complete their course, get a good degree and are less engaged in co-curricular aspects of student life

4
https://warrenandmahoney.com/articles/sticky-campus.
(e.g. clubs and societies) whereas students who feel part of their learning community and have a strong sense
of belonging and connectedness with their fellow students and with academic staff are more likely to complete
their studies, reach their potential and be successful in their chosen career (e.g. Tinto, 1975). These are key
themes for a modern university with our particular student demographic and where the majority of our students
come to university to improve their life chances.

Approach
As Director of Teaching and Learning Enhancement I was tasked by the university executive to lead this
initiative from a pedagogic perspective. Consistent with Abertay University’s approach for other academic
reforms outlined above, we went back to first principles in terms of what we were trying to achieve and
engaged extensively with identified key stakeholders. In this case:

Students

Student representatives

Academic staff

Academic managers

Academic leaders (Heads of School, Academic Curriculum Managers; in larger universities these might
be Deans and Associate Deans of learning and teaching respectively)

Heads of Professional Services particularly Estates, Information Services, Student Services, Registry
(timetables), Finance

University executive (Principal and Vice Principals).

Scoping included desk-based work, open-invitation workshops and consultation meetings to identify key areas
for development. In these sessions, colleagues were briefed on approaches adopted by other universities and
the notion of a ‘sticky campus’. They were then asked to identify what they felt was most important for the
university right then and that would have the greatest impact. This process was very important to gain local
ownership and buy-in which was vital for sustainable change although, in reality, the list of priorities drawn up
by participants was largely anticipated. Prioritisation was earmarked for new science laboratories, library
refurbishment and experimentation around new flexible general teaching spaces (Figure 1). The science
laboratories and the library were chosen because they were clearly in need of upgrading based on feedback
from students and staff and, in the case of developing new flexible general teaching spaces, the idea was to get
a better understanding of what might be rolled out on a large-scale basis after this initial experimentation
phase. In all cases we wanted to create ‘sand box’ environments that promoted active student learning and
engagement.
 Figure 1: Science lab

Figure 2: Collaborative learning suite

In September 2016, the university built a new digital classroom (the collaborative learning suite, see Figure 2),
new science laboratories in January 2017 and refurbished the university library in summer 2017. A further low-
tech, general and flexible classroom was fitted out in summer 2017. Accompanying estate development has
been a significant investment in staff support provided by the Teaching and Learning Enhancement (TLE)
team, supported by Information Services (IS), to ensure staff who teach in the new spaces are adequately
trained in the use of technologies available. The various staff development activities can be summarised as
follows:

Awareness raising: including promotion of the new facilities, posters, banners, running staff
developments sessions, seminars and running the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education
 Teaching (PGCHET) in the collaborative learning suite. The new facilities also feature prominently
during open days with the aim of encouraging students to apply to the university.

Improving knowledge and understanding: an initial two-day training session for the collaborative
learning suite has been supplemented by follow up drop-in sessions and online resources plus use of
the collaborative learning suite within the PGCHET. Additional training for the digital technologies
available in the new science laboratories was also provided. Encouraging the sharing of good practice
among staff in the use of the new spaces has also been recorded and internally disseminated.

Troubleshooting: classroom support, one to one, user guides.

A full report on the collaborative learning suite trial and the experiences of staff with their students has been
published within Creating the Digital Campus - active learning spaces and technology (Robertson, 2017).

Figure 3: Plans for library second floor development

 Figure 4: Bookable active learning booth

The ethos of this pedagogic approach has extended to our new library which now provides a range of formal
and informal learning spaces for individuals or groups (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Starting on the ground floor
there is a rich variety of social learning spaces including a café, laptop vending machine, some desktop
stations, a variety of styles of seating and desks as well as our student one-stop shop “Support Enquiry Zone”.
The first floor contains bookable rooms, group booths, individual desktop computers, an IT training classroom
5
and our creative design suite (inspired by the “Google war room” for project work, design thinking etc) as well
as laptop vending machines and lockers. Interactive, collaborative technologies feature prominently eg write-on
walls, Smart Kapp whiteboards and Kramer Via Connect that allows users to connect and collaborate using
their own devices (smart phones, tablets or laptops). Improving IT infrastructure is another key aspect of the
sticky campus including better wifi, more charging points for users’ devices and laptop vending facilities (see
Figure 5 and Figure 6).

5
https://www.thecoolist.com/google-ventures-best-way-foster-creativity-design-team-war-room/.
 Figure 5: Write-on wall

Figure 6: Bookable active learning room

Similarly, our science laboratories, as well as containing traditional equipment, have been fitted with Kramer Via
technology screens at the end of each bench to which users can connect their own devices for data analysis
and a camera that can record the instructor at the front eg performing a particular experimental technique.
Adjoining the science labs are personal lockers, a soft seating area and more Kramer Via stations to allow
collaboration outside of formal classes.
In all cases, the idea is to create more holistic, attractive and useful spaces so that students do not feel they
just need to come on campus for class then leave.

Outcomes
As stated above, the main driver for Abertay University’s estate development is to enhance our students’
experience, to support retention and to help students maximise their potential. The notion of a “sticky campus”
is particularly helpful given our students’ demographic and the high number of commuting students. This article
has focused on three priority areas, by way of illustrating our approach which is still in development.

In terms of the collaborative learning suite, its primary focus is teaching students. However, the room has also
proved beneficial for wider uses eg staff development sessions, grant writing workshops and hosting interactive
sessions with externally located participants. Students are allowed access to the room when it is not in use and
it is now a regular occurrence to see self-organised groups of students working collaboratively in the room on
various projects, which is very encouraging to see and good evidence that our campus is becoming stickier!
The varied (academic) subject matter occasionally found on the write-on walls is further evidence of the range
of disciplines using the room. In reality, the collaborative learning suite is probably ‘over-specced’ for general
usage and that is why we will go for a simpler design for our future general teaching spaces. However, we wish
to retain the principles of creating modern flexible learning environments that can be used in a variety of
pedagogic modes including didactic delivery.

The library refurbishment has taken place over two phases during summer 2017 and 2018 with the most
innovative new space development being part of the first phase. It is fair to say that it has been a significant
success – the increased activity in the library is noticeable and this is borne out in the statistics. In 2017/18
there was a 20% increase in the number of students using the library, 23% more loans and student satisfaction
increased correspondingly (responses to NSS question 19 – “The library resources supported my learning well”
– increased from 85% to 88% in just one year).

The new science laboratories are a significant improvement in terms of both core science facilities and also the
addition of digital technologies that are enriching the student learning experience. The most common usages of
the new technologies are demonstrating scientific technique / skills / experiments by the instructor at the front of
the lab to all classes via the new camera system projecting on to the various screens distributed at the ends of
each bench, real time. Going forward then, the university is at an exciting stage of development. Valuable
lessons have been learned through these new, experimental learning spaces. The plan now is to reform our
teaching estate on a wholescale basis as part of our next strategic plan (2020-25) that is currently being
consulted upon. Current challenges include enhancing space use, optimising timetabling and the overall profile
of spaces within our estate. In terms of the last point, it is a turbulent time for universities in the short term, not
least because of Brexit. This is a particular issue for Scottish universities where EU students’ fees are currently
paid by the Scottish government. Abertay University has about 17% EU students and it is anticipated that if
they were charged fees post-Brexit, it would probably negatively affect student numbers with potential
consequences for the profile of spaces required. However, regardless of the estate profile we are committed to
creating a campus that is welcoming, engaging, attractive, flexible and, of course, very sticky.
References
Saunders, G., Oradini, F. and Hartley, P. (2018). When pedagogy collides with Physical Reality: The
(re)design of teaching rooms. Educational Developments, Issue 19.1, March 2018: pp. 16-20.

Robertson, A.D. (2016). Developing a new whole institutional approach to Teaching and Learning
Enhancement, Higher Education Academy Publication, UK.

Thomas, L. and Jones, R. (2017). “Student engagement in the context of commuter students”, The
rd
Student Engagement Partnership (TSEP). [accessed October 3 2018].

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research, Review
of Educational Research volume. 45: pp.89-125.

Robertson, A.D. Active Learning Design at Abertay University. In D. Pederby (Ed.) Creating the Digital
Campus: Active Learning Spaces and Technology (2017) e-book.
 3. Working in partnership with students to
design flexible and student-centred
learning spaces: Teesside University
Library
Liz Jolly, Formerly of Teesside University. Now Chief Librarian, British Library
Dr Anne Llewellyn, Teesside University
Richard Sober, Teesside University

Background
This case study explores an action research project to design and deliver refurbished learning spaces in the
library at Teesside University, exploring the importance of learning space design for student engagement and
learning. Students have increased choices about where and when they work and will therefore choose to work
in spaces that they like. A study by Beckers et al (2016) into the learning space choices of higher education
students found that students mainly conduct individual learning activities at home because of the opportunity to
control their personal environment regarding concentration and comfort and to combine learning with other
activities, such as listening to music. For learning with others they mainly used learning spaces in open areas,
corridors, hallways, atria and lounges.

The design of learning spaces is increasingly being recognised as an important factor that motivates students
and engages them in their learning and development (Hyun Cha and Wan Kim, 2015). It is therefore important
to work in partnership with students in the design of institutional learning spaces, making them attractive places
to work.

In 2012 the university executive team at Teesside University mandated a programme of library refurbishment,
reflecting the vision of the Director of Library and Information Services to develop the library as a space for
diverse student learning needs, moving away from traditional service-led drivers for space design (Bennett,
2005 and 2015; Lippincott, 2006). The Director of Library and Information Services led the project, which
involved wide and diverse representation of all key stakeholders, including students, staff with academic roles
and staff from estates. Radcliffe’s (2008) model of learning, which integrates space, pedagogy and technology,
underpinned the design.

The project was established to create effective spaces for learning rather than traditional model of library as a
repository for resources. The library was not seen as an effective space for learning as it lacked natural light,
had cramped learning spaces and the design led to a poor student experience, with multiple points of contact
for enquiries.
 Figure 1: Front of the library, showing no natural light at the corners of the building

Figure 2: Spaces in the library pre-refurbishment

The project also involved partnership working with external architectural and design partners and key
stakeholders within the university, reflecting the context of this project within the strategic vision of university
policies to enhance the holistic student experience.

A phased programme of refurbishment was initiated, starting with the ground floor in 2012 and culminating in
the completed refurbishment of floors two and three in September 2017. This was to minimise the disruption to
student learning as well as working within budgetary constraints. The ground floor phase was seen as a proof
of concept to demonstrate the effectiveness of a student-centred approach to design and to evaluate the use of
this space before further investment was agreed.
 Figure 3: The refurbished entrance, demonstrating the single point of
contact to manage student enquiries more effectively

The aim of the refurbishment was to develop the library as an on-campus space at the heart of the campus,
which is a focus for learning, research, academic collaboration and contemplation. The concept of the library as
st
a space for 21 century learning that drives and enhances the student experience was based on three core
themes: a technology-rich environment; flexible layouts to accommodate different ways of working (Rex, 2014);
and ambient and visually impressive spaces that motivate and enhance learning. Traditional learning spaces
have become less relevant as pedagogies have changed (Dugdale, 2009). To reflect this, the refurbished
library now provides a range of spaces for heutagogical (student constructed learning) and paragogical learning
(peer learning) as well as quiet and silent spaces for individual learning.

Approach
Action research was used as a methodological approach to design and evaluate the first, second and third floor
refurbished spaces. Action research is a cyclical process of collaborative inquiry that provides a framework that
emphasises both actions in practice and researches those actions. As such, it is often used within educational
practice to explore pedagogical changes. The use of action research enabled multiple perspectives to be
incorporated within the cycles of action and research activity to inform the iterative process of phased design.

Within this project, there were two action phases and two research phases:
 Figure 4: Diagrammatic representation of action research process

Throughout the action research phases we worked in partnership with students, involving them in a number of
ways in the design and evaluation phases of the project in order to create student-centred learning spaces.
Representatives from the student body sat on the project board throughout the duration of the refurbishment
and evaluation. In the first action phase to design the first floor, student researchers were used to capture the
student body’s views about what constitutes a good learning space. In interviews with student participants, the
student researchers used photographs to stimulate discussion about the use of spaces for learning. This
informed the design of the first floor of the library.

In the second action phase, students were involved through design focus groups and as core members of the
project team. We also worked in partnership with students in the evaluation of the learning spaces during both
research phases of the action research project.

Mixed methods analysis was used to explore how the spaces are used, using both quantitative and qualitative
methods, broadly based on the JELS conceptual framework for evaluating learning space design (Pearshouse
et al, 2009). In the first research phase, first impressions data was collected by students and library staff and
showed an overwhelmingly positive view of the refurbishment. Quantitative data was obtained through
headcount data and observations and qualitative data was obtained through a small sample of students
completing reflective narratives about how they used the spaces for learning over a one week period.

In the second evaluation phase, we duplicated the mixed methods analysis, using first impressions data,
headcount data to establish usage patterns and a student-led research project, conducting focus groups with
samples of students, in order to capture a wider view of how the spaces were used for different types of
learning.

Outcomes
The feedback on the refurbished space has been very positive. The space has enabled students to learn
effectively and flexibly and reimagine the way that they use spaces for learning. The findings are presented to
reflect the three core themes that underpinned the design.
Technology-rich environment
The overwhelming majority of participant students agreed that the newly refurbished library spaces are an
st
outstanding place for 21 century learning. The library is not only a visually impressive space but also a flexible
learning space. 96.5% of the participants stated that the new library is a more advanced, technology-enabled
environment, yet at the same time student friendly.

“One main feature that I have noticed since the refurbishments is that there are so many plugs
available which allow you to charge all your devices nearby.”

Figure 5: Collaborative working area

Flexible layouts to accommodate different ways of working

The refurbishment of floor one achieved its aim of providing collaborative learning spaces and the design
promoted shared learning opportunities. The flexibility of the furniture in this area particularly facilitated this,
allowing students to customise spaces for different ways of working. However, students also reported more
limited spaces for individual and private learning and this was an important factor that was taken into account in
the next stages of design. Following the completion of all the refurbishment, we found that all learning areas
were used throughout the whole 24-hour period, leading us to the conclusion that the different types of space
from collaborative to silent and contemplative provided the range of spaces to address different learning needs.

Some students clearly preferred the silent and quiet spaces for individual study. However, contrary to Beckers
et al’s (2016) finding that learning is effective where there are distinct areas for private and collaborative study,
we found that the flexible layout and furnishings facilitated personalisation and ownership of the space, with
students creating their own private space to accommodate their learning needs and preferences within the
different learning environments.

“I was very pleased with how productive I was today and felt very comfortable working in the small
space I made for myself. I used one of the individual workspaces by the front window. I like how it
was separated from the rest of the library in the corner and would not be disturbed by any other
noises around me or by other people walking around the library.”
 Figure 6: Quiet working area, demonstrating different types of furniture to enable student choice

Figure 7: Silent working area

Visually impressive spaces that motivate and enhance learning

From this evaluation, we concluded that the visual elements of the space were very important and the vibrant
colours and furnishings inspired creativity and motivation to work in keeping with Arora’s 2013 study of student
engagement with learning spaces.

“I feel the bold colour choices for the furniture promote creative work as they provide a relaxed
environment.”
 Figure 8: Vibrant colours and furnishings creating a space that motivates learning

Students also commented on the playful nature of some of the spaces and how this facilitated more informal
ways of working. The introduction of more natural light has also been commented on very positively, with both
the observations and narratives demonstrating the popularity of the spaces near the windows, which provide a
more ambient working atmosphere.

“I like being able to look up from my work and have a view of the outside…”

We also found that the nature of the space could transform the way that people learn. This was clearly
demonstrated by one participant in the first research phase, who transformed from wanting to work individually
to appreciating the value of working collaboratively. Within a one-week period, instead of seeing the library as
noisy and busy, he started to see it as warm and social. This transformation was such that he completely
changed the way that he learned.

In addition to the product model, the process of user participation from all key users and stakeholders has been
adopted across a number of campus masterplan projects, from quite small refurbishments and the creation of
informal learning spaces to the development of major new buildings and service design. There is no one
panacea for learning and study spaces but the model for a variety of spaces that suit individual learner
requirements or facilitate different types of assignment have certainly increased use of the library environment.
The encouragement to further customise spaces not only aids the spatial flexibility but also helps to develop a
sense of learner ownership.

References

Arora, B. (2013). Why well-designed learning spaces pay educational dividends. Times Higher
Education, Issue 29 August, 2013.

Beckers, R., van der Voordt, T. and Dewulf, G. (2016). Learning space preferences of higher education
students, Building and Environment, 104: pp. 243-252.
Bennett, S. (2015). Putting learning into library planning. portal: Libraries and the Academy, volume
15, Issue 2: p. 215.

Bennett, S. (2005). Righting the balance. In K. Smith (Ed.) Library as Place: Rethinking Roles,
Rethinking Space. Washington DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.

Dugdale, S. (2009). Space strategies for the new learning landscape. Educause Review. 44(2).

Hyun Cha, S. and Wan Kim, T. (2015). What matters for student’s use of physical library space. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41: 274–279

Lippincott, J. (2006). Linking the information commons to learning. In D.G. Oblinger (Ed.) Learning
Spaces. Lousiville: EDUCAUSE.

Pearshouse, I., Bligh, B., Brown, E., Lewthwaite, S., Graber, R. Hartnell-Young, E and Sharples, M.
(2009) "A Study of Effective Evaluation Models and Practices for

Technology Supported Physical Learning Spaces (JELS) Final Report. JISC. Available at:
http://oro.open.ac.uk/29996/2/B0DAC2BE.pdf (Last accessed 2nd July 2018)

Radcliffe, D. (2008) A Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Framework. In D. Radcliffe, H. Wilson, D.

Powell and B. Tibbetts (2008). Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Positive Outcomes by Design.
Proceedings of the Next Generation Learning Spaces 2008 Colloquium. University of Queensland,
Brisbane.

Rourke, A. and Coleman, K. (Eds.) (2011). Pedagogy Leads Technology. Online Learning and
Teaching in Higher Education: New Technologies, New Pedagogies. Illinois, Common Ground
Publishing.

Scott-Webber, L., Strickland, A and Kapitula, L. (2013). Built Environments Impact Behaviors:
Results of an Active Learning Post-Occupancy Evaluation, Planning for Higher Education Journal,
volume 42, Issue 1.
 4. Classrooms for flexible, adaptable
approaches to curriculum delivery –
responding to staff and student
feedback
Federica Oradini, University of Westminster
Dr Gunter Saunders, University of Westminster
Professor Peter Hartley, Edge Hill University

Background
The Learning Futures programme
As part of a broader plan for transformation in learning and teaching across the institution, the University of
Westminster has worked over the last four years to refurbish and update a significant number of its standard
classroom spaces. Starting in the summer of 2014 and based on feedback from students and academic staff,
the plan was for a five-year programme to address mainly general teaching rooms with a typical capacity of 30
to 40 students, though some rooms had capacities of up to 100 and one lecture theatre was also included in
the programme. All rooms can be booked for teaching sessions in most subject areas and do not contain any
specialised or subject-specific technologies.

At the time of writing (October 2018), a total of 92 rooms have been completed. The investment to date has
been in excess of £12m. A further 20 to 40 rooms are expected to be addressed as part of the programme in
the 2018/19 academic year. This broad approach is an important feature of the Westminster initiative – rather
than focus on ‘flagship teaching spaces’, as some other institutions have done, the university wanted to
refurbish as many standard classrooms as practicable to enable new forms of curriculum delivery as cost-
effectively as possible.

Preceding the work on classrooms, the university initiated its Learning Futures (LF) programme, established to
review both the structure and delivery of the curriculum. The LF programme had significant senior staff input
and an appreciable budget that permitted the establishment of a dedicated project office and administrative
team. A primary driver for LF was concern over NSS outcomes which consistently gave below-sector average
scores for learning and teaching at Westminster. The NSS data was generally confirmed through other student
feedback mechanisms internal to the university. In addition, at this time, the university executive had identified
a number of significant risks and drivers for change going forward to 2020: likely future changes to funding,
increased competition, raised student expectations and the demands for employability skills. Improving learning
spaces was seen as one major way of responding to these challenges.

New Learning and Teaching Strategy and review of infrastructure

Learning Futures at Westminster had many goals at its outset, including reviewing curriculum structure,
assessment approaches, the role of the student in the learning process and academic support for students. To
underpin these goals a new Learning and Teaching Strategy (LTS) was developed through one strand of the
LF programme. This strategy emphasised, more strongly than previously, the desire for a curriculum delivery
approach generally characterised through its ability to stimulate active student learning. The new LTS also
stressed the need for student partnership, inclusion of authentic learning opportunities to support employability
and an increased use of technology, with a view to making blended learning the norm. To support the changes
signaled by the new LTS, a parallel strand of the LF programme undertook a review of infrastructure for
learning and teaching. Though the review covered many areas of activity within the university that could impact
on learning and teaching, perhaps not surprisingly academic staff focus groups consistently raised the issue of
classrooms. This was always linked to discussion of ways to promote active learning, one of the key tenets of
the new LTS.

Analysis of the comments made by significant numbers of academic staff (~150) showed clearly that they felt
inhibited by the physical spaces they taught in. They identified a range of issues that made it difficult for them to
contemplate more flexible forms of in-class curriculum delivery. Many of the problems cited were quite basic
such as lighting, availability of sufficient whiteboard space and room blackout capability. Classroom furniture
was also frequently raised as requiring attention. Most classrooms at this point had very standard single tables
and chairs typically arranged in rows. Often these tables were heavy and therefore difficult to move, which
made it hard to easily change the layout in the room. Audio-visual (AV) and information technology (IT) facilities
were also identified as key to the set of lecturer’s ‘tools’ within a modern classroom. The ease of use of the AV
and IT was seen as critical in determining the extent to which they were exploited. Current AV/IT configurations
were not considered to encourage nor enable student engagement. The standard equipment before
refurbishment was a lectern with a computer linked to a data projector, displaying to a single screen at the front
of the space. This setup was tending to drive a lecturer-centric model of operating within the classroom
environment.

The conclusions, derived from the infrastructure review about the way that academics would ideally like to
teach within classrooms, aligned well both with the stated direction set by the LF programme and the published
literature in relation to best practice in learning and teaching. In addition, with the strong emphasis on
increasing exploitation of technology enhanced learning (TEL) in the new LTS, much debate during the review
focused on the limited transformational impact of TEL to date at the university. This was generally attributed to
the state of classrooms alongside other significant issues including lack of time to integrate TEL into the
curriculum and digital capability. Such barriers have been reported on by others as issues in the effective
implementation of TEL (eg Oblinger, 2006). It is a fact that much of the literature about teaching excellence (eg
Arum et al, 2016) seems to assume that lecturers can readily employ the most effective pedagogy if they wish.
There is little or no mention of physical constraints on innovation in teaching practice whereas the experience of
teaching staff at Westminster tells the opposite story – without significant change to the physical infrastructure,
innovation in teaching will be hampered if not eliminated!

The place of technology enhanced and active learning

The general view of academic staff at Westminster in relation to the exploitation of TEL echoes the published
literature. There are many case studies of the successful exploitation of online tools and systems to enhance
learning and teaching in universities (eg Sharpe et al, 2006; Porter et al, 2014). However, despite this
established potential for positive change, most UK universities are still trying to make sense of the place of TEL
within overall learning and teaching strategies (Kirkwood and Price, 2014). This, in the main, is due to the
continuing and understandable centrality of the physical classroom in curriculum delivery in most traditional
campus-based universities (Fisher, 2016; Graham, 2012; Hakkinen and Hamalainen, 2012; Oradini and
Saunders, 2016; Temple, 2007). Not only is the physical classroom a central feature but a particular design of
that classroom is dominant and tends to encourage/reinforce particular styles of teaching.

The literature and feedback from the NSS survey, and now the TEF, places growing emphasis on increasing
the use of various forms of active learning such as the flipped classroom (Saunders and Klemming, 2003),
team-based learning (Michaelsen et al, 2014) and problem-based learning (Tritz, 2015). Further pressure for
such a shift is derived from the needs of the workplace. Employers are increasingly seeking creative,
collaborative and dynamic employees. Classes that engage in more active learning have the potential to enable
students to acquire exactly the kind of skills that employers are demanding of today's graduates. All of this also
drives the need to have more adaptable physical spaces that are suited to a range of teaching and learning
approaches (Mukerjee, 2014; Valenti, 2015).

Within the general debate in relation to TEL, there has been a particular focus on mobile learning in relation to
classroom-based teaching, both at Westminster and more widely (Bishop and Verleger, 2013). We know that
students use their mobile devices frequently while at university and would like to exploit them in learning
(Beetham and White, 2013). Equally, we know that many academic staff are suspicious of these devices and
often see them as distractions or only useful for surface learning (Garrison and Vaughan, 2012; Greener, 2010;
Hanson, 2009; Outram, 2004). It remains quite common in UK classrooms for students to be told to switch off
mobile devices rather than for them to be exploited as part of a curriculum delivery and engagement strategy.
Given this reluctance on the part of some staff, it is perhaps not surprising that the most recent Jisc Digital
Experience Insights Survey found that “only 41% of students in HE and FE agreed that their course prepares
them for the digital workplace” (Jisc, 2018).

Developing new classroom spaces

Reacting to internal debate around the Learning Futures programme, identifying external pressures from a
range of stakeholders for change, and recognising important trends in the published literature and concerns
about increased competition, the university senior executive decided to support the five-year programme of
classroom change. The goal was to build a range of flexible, adaptable spaces that could support a variety of
learning and teaching approaches and would facilitate the integration of TEL into face to face delivery. Key in
gaining financial approval for such a significant multi-year commitment was the proactive support of a number
of senior executive level champions, backed up by the extensive review undertaken.

Approach
Framework for teaching room development
The refurbishment of the teaching space has aimed to enable staff to use the most appropriate pedagogy for
their subject area and student needs by providing both a suitable working environment and appropriate and
reliable technology which is effectively integrated into that environment. This approach is based on the notion of
three interdependent factors: pedagogy, technology and space design – what we christened the ‘pedagogic
triangle’, as summarised in Diagram 1. The institution’s role is to provide both the appropriate space and
technology which enable tutors to implement whatever pedagogic approach is most appropriate for their
subject area and students. In an ideal world, the three factors will work in harmony to support student learning.

Diagram 1: The pedagogic triangle

This model is deceptively simple as each of the three components requires detailed investigation and analysis,
and there will be significant variations in requirements depending on factors such as discipline area, teaching
staff experience and expertise etc. The need to consider a broad range of organisational factors is reflected in
the framework we developed to identify potential barriers and issues (see Diagram 2).
 Diagram 2: An overall framework for teaching room development

This framework suggests several layers of complexity between strategic decisions on teaching
accommodation, the details of the new physical room designs and intended outcomes such as improved
student engagement. For example, the diagram suggests that effective room design may affect student
engagement but you cannot guarantee that teaching staff will adapt their approach to take advantage of new
facilities unless they have the necessary skills and confidence to do so. This issue has been recognised in
other institutions where the impact of new ‘flexible space’ has been limited by staff operating in the ‘same old
ways’.

Particularly important factors in the Westminster experience were:

The sustained financial commitment;

Extensive consultations with staff and students to develop the overall design brief;

Development of a range of detailed room specifications to reflect different subject requirements and
potential teaching approaches;

Follow-up studies to determine whether the new room designs did deliver the intended outcomes;

Staff development to support the programme.

A couple of important decisions were taken early in the programme which have profoundly influenced the
development. These were, to standardise AV/IT as much as possible and to develop a range of ‘room types’
distinguished largely by the nature of the furniture within the room.
Standardising AV and IT within classrooms
It was considered key to the support and ultimate exploitation of technology that provision of AV and IT within
the classrooms should be standardised as far as possible. This AV/IT standard does have some variations
related mainly to type and number of display screens to enable flexibility (see Table 1 below). Standardisation
means that teaching staff can rely on a predictable set of equipment and operations in every room and also
makes maintenance and troubleshooting much easier from a technical viewpoint.

Type AV/IT features

1 One data projector displaying to a designated main wall
One data projector displaying to a designated main wall but with
2
additional independent displays on other wall(s)
3 Smart display board to main wall
Smart display board to main wall with additional independent smart
4
board displays on other wall(s)

Table 1: Summary of different display configurations found within new classrooms at Westminster
(excluding the active learning classroom type, see Figure 5, where there is a screen per table in
addition to a main room display screen)

The AV/IT specification placed particular emphasis on the quality and reliability of wifi to ensure that staff did
not experience qualms about network capability. This helps avoid issues of staff lacking the self-confidence to
make best use of the facilities, which has been shown to impede development elsewhere (eg Greener and
Wakefield, 2015). The specification also enabled particular functions such as ‘mirroring’ (where the image on
any device in the room can be sent to the main projection screen) and the use of software which could
encourage interaction in the classroom (such as Poll Everywhere and Padlet). Other smaller interventions had
a surprisingly significant impact, such as providing hand-held presenters that enabled staff to walk around the
room and still control on-screen presentations.

Room types
A decision was also made to produce several ‘room types’ as there was no consensus on one design which
could satisfy everyone’s requests. As described above, AV/IT was standardised across rooms with variation
mainly related to number and type of display screen – this created scope for technology supported group work.
Room types are then further differentiated in terms of furniture type and layout. Different furniture (eg the
plectrum tables illustrated below) and variable layouts allow staff to organise student groups in different ways.
Usage has been monitored so that the mix of redeveloped rooms could be altered year on year to reflect
demand. For more details on the design variations, see Saunders et al (2017b). The initial development offered
five room types – more recently a sixth variant has been added with an even stronger emphasis on ‘active
learning’. The sixth type of room is based on the ‘active learning classroom’ as typified by the TEAL programme
(see, for example, Park and Choi 2014). Such rooms, by their very nature, encourage mainly group-based
collaborative approaches to learning.

The types of room developed at Westminster (excluding the active learning classroom type) are summarised in
Figure 1 below. Images of the range of classroom types are shown in Figure 4. In Figure 5 the active learning
classroom is seen with a before and after image of the room concerned.
Figure 1: Summary of classroom types developed at Westminster
 Figure 2: Images of classroom types at Westminster. Clockwise: standard tables and chairs (note in
some classes these will be double tables where the top can be flipped upright and the table wheeled to
the side of the classroom); informal sofas; tablet chairs on wheels; plectrum tables.

Figure 3: A before and after picture showing on the left a very standard classroom typical of the
general classroom estate prior to the refurbishment programme. On the right is the same classroom
developed as an active learning classroom.

Staff development and engagement

Alongside work on the physical spaces, a new programme of staff development in mobile learning linked to
classroom activity has been put in place. With this new approach staff can take a short course through either
distance mode, blended fashion or a face to face workshop to become familiar with some basic mobile learning
approaches. They are then encouraged to earn a Westminster Digital Badge by reflecting on how what they
have learned could impact on their own teaching. During the first ‘run’ of the short course on mobile learning in
2016/17, 62 academic staff completed the course and were awarded a digital badge for doing so.

A key contribution to the overall development was the ‘classroom exhibition’ that was held at the end of year
one of the programme. This drop-in event enabled both staff and students to examine (and express their
opinions on) the furniture, room layouts and technology the university was considering. Equipment suppliers
provided samples/examples in the hope of an eventual sale. The exhibition proved very popular and ran for a
six-week period. Staffed by student helpers it attracted over 300 staff and student visitors. Comments that
visitors made on cards as they moved around the ‘showroom’ were collated by the student helpers and used to
inform decisions on some furniture types going forward. For example, group plectrum tables at the exhibition
received such positive feedback that a number of classrooms refurbished in the months following the exhibition
were fitted with such tables. Subsequently, in January 2018, a Jisc-sponsored roadshow was held to highlight
specifically a particular type of active learning classroom design. This again attracted great interest with many
staff, students and external visitors attending workshops or drop-in sessions during the month that the show
was featured (see Figure 6 below).

Figure 5: Attendees at an active learning classroom workshop offered

as part of the roadshow held at Westminster in January 2018

Evaluation approach
Once new classrooms went ‘live’ during the first year of this programme in 2014/15, the project team used
questionnaires and focus group meetings to assess how students and staff thought the look, feel and ‘reliability’
of rooms compared with old classrooms. The questionnaires were typically online and links to them were sent
by email to those we knew had been timetabled in the spaces. We also used student helpers to speak with
individuals (normally staff) and small groups (normally students) at the end of either morning or afternoon
sessions. Finally, we also convened a number of staff and student focus groups during which we would discuss
outcomes from analysis of the questionnaire returns and look to gather further views on themes emerging from
analysis of the questionnaire data. Further into the programme we shifted our focus from views and comments
mainly on the ‘fabric’ of the spaces to whether or not staff or students thought that the spaces were
fundamentally changing learning and teaching approaches and experiences.

Outcomes
The views of staff and students on the changes in technology and furniture, together with other more basic
needs (lighting, acoustics, for example) has been assessed through regular feedback from users of the new
classrooms (see section above). This gathering of user feedback has been continuous, as might be expected
but, as the university has sought to settle on a smaller set of core classroom designs, the focus of evaluation
has more recently been on the impact of the new rooms on what academic staff and students actually ‘do’ in
them.

The initial feedback in this respect indicates some significant impact from both staff and student perspectives.
Over 50% of academic staff providing a view have stated that the new spaces help them to exploit teaching
approaches that they would not have tried or would have found difficult to implement in older classrooms. Over
80% of students agree that there is greater student engagement and activity in the new spaces.

Academic staff cite the changes to basics (acoustics, lighting, furniture) as key in enhancing how they can
operate within a space. However, there is still room for further development. While most academic staff see the
potential of the modern technology in the new spaces, a significant majority remain reluctant to exploit it fully,
citing lack of confidence and support as the main reasons for this. While academic staff generally agree that
AV/IT support is good for non-urgent issues, they are less impressed by the responses they obtain when trying
something ‘live’ in class that goes beyond the basics that they are familiar with (ie using the data projector to
display on a main screen alongside white or glass boards and possibly the visualiser). This is understandable,
given the embarrassment that can be caused by trying some new technology-based approach that lets you
down, for whatever reason, in front of a ‘live’ student audience. The university is currently seeking to address
this through re-configuring AV/IT support to enable a more active in-class presence when appropriate. In part
this may become possible through improving automatic monitoring of the systems and tools within a classroom
to ensure better reliability, thus freeing up more support staff time for in-class activities. In addition, and perhaps
most importantly, the university is embarking on a major project to raise up the digital capability and resilience
of staff at the university.

In addition to the technology, the classroom furniture has generated a great deal of debate. While certain
furniture arrangements (eg chairs on wheels, group plectrum tables) can support better student-centred
approaches, without effective timetabling it can be very difficult to ensure that particular classes get the facilities
that most suit their type and pattern of in-class work. At present the timetabling approach is very much one of
fitting class sizes to space capacity. Little is possible at the present time in terms of taking into account the
nature and type of teaching approach that an individual teacher favours. Equally, little can be done easily at
present to enable a class to experience different spaces with different learning possibilities within a single
timetabled slot. The university is currently reviewing its timetabling approach – the aim is to make better use of
the timetabling technology it has to ensure the ‘right learning activity’ can be in the ‘right space’ at the ‘right
time’.

Next steps
Westminster is continuing into the final year of its current programme, this time focusing on the creation of more
active learning group spaces such as that shown in Figure 5. It is also turning its attention on lecture theatres
and has already developed one standard lecture theatre into a more active learning space (see Figure 7
below).
 Figure 6: Before and after picture of 100 seat lecture theatre

Implications and transferability

The experience at Westminster does suggest a number of key factors that we believe are relevant to any and
every institution which is planning either major refurbishment of existing teaching spaces or new build
(Saunders et al, 2018) This can be expressed more simply as a series of questions. Does your institution have:

Strategic and implementation plans for teaching room development

(based on pedagogy and not just on ‘capacity’ and ‘efficiency)?

Senior management champions?

Pedagogic models to support specific designs?

‘Sandpit’ area for experimentation?

Evaluation and feedback mechanisms?

Staff development to support adopters?

References
Arum, R., Roksa, J., and Cook, A. (2016). Improving Quality in American Higher Education: Learning
outcomes and assessment for the 21st Century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Beetham, H., and White, D. (2013). Students’ expectations and experiences of the digital
environment. Retrieved on October 3, 2018 from: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/blog/students-
experiences-and-expectations-of-the-digital-environment-23-jun-2014

Bishop, J. L., and Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In
proceedings ASEE National Conference (pp. 1-18), Atlanta, GA.

Fisher, T. (2016). Do we need classrooms anymore? Planning for Higher Education, 44(3), 9-18.
Garrison, D. R. and Vaughan, N. D., (2012). Institutional change and leadership associated with
blended learning innovation: Two case studies, The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 24–28.

Graham, C. (2012). Transforming spaces and identities: The contributions of professional staff to
learning spaces in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(4),
437-452.

Greener, S. (2010). Staff who say no to technology enhanced learning. In proceedings of the 5th
International Conference on E-Learning (pp. 134-139), Penang, Malaysia.

Greener, S. and Wakefield, C. (2015). Developing confidence in the use of digital tools in teaching. The
Electronic Journal of e-learning. Volume, 13, Issues 4: pp. 260-267.

Kirkwood, A., and Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education:
What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning Media and Technology,
volume 39, Issue 1: pp. 6-36.

Hakkinen, P. and Hamalainen, R. (2012). Shared and personal learning spaces: Challenges for
pedagogical design. The Internet and Higher Education, volume 15, issue 4: pp. 231-236.

Hanson, J. (2009). Displaced but not replaced: The impact of e-learning on academic identities in
higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, volume 14, issue 5: pp. 553-564.

Jisc (2018) Jisc Digital Experience Insights Survey. Briefing paper available at
http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6970/1/Digital_experience_insights_survey_2018_at_a_glance.pdf
Full report available at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/student-digital-experience-tracker

Michaelsen, L. K., Davidson, N., and Major, C. H. (2014). Team-based learning practices and
principles in comparison with cooperative learning and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence
in College Teaching, volume 25, issue 3: pp. 57-84.

Mukerjee, S. (2014). Agility: A crucial capability for universities in times of disruptive change and
innovation. Australian Universities' Review, volume 56, issue 1: pp. 56-60.

Oblinger, D. (2006). Learning spaces. Washington, DC: Educause. Retrieved from October 3, 2018
from https://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/learning-spaces

Oradini, F., and Saunders, G. (2016). New teaching practices, innovative classrooms, mobile learning:
SMART teaching in proceedings of OEB Shaping the future of learning the 22nd global, cross sector
conference on technology, supported learning and training, Berlin, Germany.

Oradini, F. and Saunders, G. (2017). Facilitating Blended Leaning Through a Basic Re-design of the
Physical Classroom. In: Space to Blended Learning: Principles, Challenges and Impact on Student
Performance, (pp. 41-72) Nova Science Publishers.

Outram, S. (2004). 53 interesting ways in which colleagues resist change. Retrieved from October 3,
2017 from http://www.seda.ac.uk/past-issues/5.2
Park, E.L. and Choi, B.K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: traditional versus active
learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, volume 68, issue 5: pp. 749–771.

Porter, W.W, Graham, C.R., Spring, K.A. and Welch, R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education:
Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers and Education, volume 75: pp. 185-195.

Saunders, G., and Klemming, F. (2003). Integrating technology into a traditional learning
environment: Reasons for and risks of success. Active learning in higher education, volume 4, issue
1: pp. 74-86.

Saunders, G., Oradini, F. and M. Clements (2017a) SMART teaching in new and old classrooms.
IAFOR Journal of Education, volume 5, issue 1: pp. 82 – 107.

Saunders, G., Oradini, F. and Hartley, P. (2017b). When pedagogy collides with physical reality: the
(re)design of teaching rooms to enable teaching excellence. Workshop delivered to SEDA Spring
Conference. Slides available at: https://www.slideshare.net/profpeter/re-design-of-teaching-rooms-to-
enable-teaching-excellence

Saunders, G., Oradini, F. and Hartley, P. (2018). When pedagogy collides with physical reality: the
(re)design of teaching rooms to enable teaching excellence. Educational Developments, volume 19.1:
pp. 16-20.

Sharpe, R., Benfield, B., Roberts, G. and Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended
e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice. Retrieved on October 3rd, 2017 from:
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/sharpe_benfield_roberts_francis_0.pdf

Temple, P. (2007) Learning spaces for the 21st century: A review of the literature. Higher Education
Academy. Retrieved on October 3, 2018 from:
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/learning_spaces_v3.pdf

Tritz, R. S. (2015). New technologies, pedagogies, and curriculum: A practical perspective, why IT
matters in higher education, Retrieved on October 3 16, 2018 from:
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/8/new-technologies-pedagogies-and-curriculum-a-practical-
perspective

Valenti, M. (2015). Beyond active learning: Transformation of the learning space. Educause Review,
volume 50, issue 4: pp. 31-38.
 5. Evaluating the impact of furniture and
decoration-based adjustments to flat
teaching rooms on student-staff-
environment interactions
Charlotte Rowlands, University of South Wales
Dr Clare Kell, University of South Wales

Background
The University of South Wales’ vision is “to be the university of choice in Wales and beyond for students,
organisations and communities who value vocationally focused education and applied research, which provides
solutions to the problems that affect society and the economy”. The Student Experience Plan (SEP, 2016), our
Education Strategy, sets out seven strands of interconnected activity that, through focused critical engagement,
will enable the vision into practice. Transformative Learning Spaces (TLS) is one of these strands.

In recognition of the university vision, the TLS strand is charged, in part, to “develop models for classrooms that
allow for digitally rich simulation-based activity and that are conducive to team working and dialogue” (SEP,
2016 p14). During the academic year 2016/2017 the TLS steering group began a ‘Big Conversation’ around
classroom spaces involving students, staff from academic and support roles, and external space consultants.
We also visited other higher education institutions, undertook quick and messy student polls and, as we began
to focus down on pilotable change plans, convened a mini-conference where staff and students could get up
close to our year one data and vote on a change plan. The outcome of these activities was agreement that
team working and dialogue were challenging to enable in traditional flat-floor classrooms with front-facing tables
and chairs in rows. Resource to change furniture in two different size classrooms was agreed and a research
project scoped to answer the broad question: what happens when furniture and decoration-based adjustments
are made to flat-floor teaching rooms? The intention was to use the study outcomes to inform ongoing
University of South Wales (USW) district curriculum work and the development and implementation of an
enabling set of USW Estates Principles.

Supported by a USW-funded graduate intern (Charlotte Rowlands), we undertook a two-phase, year-long pilot
evaluation study during 2017/2018. To ensure that the university maximised the learning from the project, we
developed a two-tier governance structure: a project research group (drawn from interested support and
academic staff across the university) who monitored and informed our daily project work and data anlaysis, and
a steering group, including student voice representation, who oversaw the whole project and its connections
with other SEP strands.

This case study describes the furniture interventions that were tested during the year, sets out our innovative
approach to evaluation and, through an overview of the findings and observations, suggests some
recommendations that might be transferrable from our context to others.
Approach
The focus of the study
The year-long project was designed in two phases. Phase 1 (September 2017-January 2018) involved the
close observation of student: staff: environment interactions in two rooms that had been newly refurbished with
a range of flexible furniture (see Table 1). Having established what impact bespoke furniture had on learning
interactions, and assuming that these changes impacted positively on team working and dialogue, phase 2
sought to see if similar interactions could be enabled with existing furniture being arranged in different ways eg
in islands or herringbone formations etc.

Phase 1 rooms
Classroom 1: Capacity 40 (reduced from previous Classroom 2: Capacity 30 (reduced from previous
60) 32)

Phase 2 rooms
Classroom 3: Capacity 48 Classroom 4: Capacity 48

6
Figure 1: The layout of the phase 1 and phase 2 classrooms

6
Note: Phase 1 furniture included: wheeled, double-sided whiteboards, wall-mounted magnetic glass boards, wheeled
chairs and tables. Classroom 1 also included one accessible table, high ‘coffee shop’ style seating, a plectrum table and
fixed sofa. Phase 1 classrooms were located along a corridor that was also refurbished with sofas, high tables and break out
areas.
Evaluation approach
Both phases of the project adopted an ethnomethodologically informed ethnographic approach (Garfinkel,
1968) to explore the overarching research question by making visible – and then using this visual data to try
and understand – stakeholders’ experiences of teaching and learning with specific focus on student: teacher:
environment interactions (Gubrium and Holstein, 2000). In essence, the project drew on education sociology
ideas that non-verbal and spatial interactions are sites of power, learnt and perpetuated through the social
construction of everyday practice (Goffman, 1972). By focusing intensively on human and spatial interactions
we hoped to make visible what it is like ‘being’ a learner/educator in the different spaces to understand the
possible interplay between space and peer-enabled learning.

Following a stringent ethical approval process, we used multiple methods of data collection including:

Contact time visual ethnographic field notes (Kell, 2014) to make visible the proxemics (use of physical
and environment space in teaching: learning: learning interactions), kinesics (the use of nonverbal
communication) and footfall/hotspot movement maps;

Informal observations of space (social and classroom) usage during non-contact time hours;

Student voice captured through anonymous post-it note activities, informal interviews, and focus-
groups; and

Observed teaching staff reflective video blogs recorded each week for the six to eight weeks they and
their same student groups were using the spaces.

Ethnographic field notes were processed as thick descriptions, and analysed iteratively with cycles of data
collection until saturation was reached and we felt we had an understanding of ‘what is going on here’
(Gubrium and Holstein, 2000). Table 1 summarises the data forms collected over the seven months of
intensive data collection.

Observed Number of Number of Completed staff Student focus Ad hoc out-of-hours

hours: observed students: observed staff: vlogs: groups: room ‘walk pasts’:

60 349 12 10 3 40

Table 1: Summary of data collected during both phases of the project

Outcomes
As illustrated in Table 2, the study generated a wealth of data. This case study concentrates on the main
research focus: an evaluation of what happened to student: staff: environmental interactions in the various
teaching rooms. In this section we outline the key findings responding to our research question and broader
emerging observations, before identifying some key recommendations and next step proposals.

a. Staff: student: environment interactions: making them visible.

Table 2 records the average interactions observed in each study location. Based on frequency data alone,
Table 3 suggests that very different frequencies of all three forms of interaction (student: student, student: staff,
and movement around the room) took place in classrooms 1 and 2 (though note, that these are average
frequencies: there was a distinct step-change growth over the four months of the observation.)
 Student: student Student: teacher Footfall / pathways

Classroom 1 ✔✔✔✔✔ ✔✔✔✔ ✔✔✔✔✔

Classroom 2 ✔✔✔ ✔✔ ✔✔

Classroom 3 (herringbone
✔ ✔ ✔
setup)

Classroom 4 (islands setup) ✔ ✔✔ ✔

Classroom 3
Neighbours Not past first row. To door and back.
(‘normal’ layout)

Classroom 4
✔ ✔✔ ✔
(‘normal’ layout)

Table 2: Summary of average observed interactions. The number of ticks indicates observed
frequency

An initially challenging observation during phase 2 was the frequency with which classrooms 3 and 4 were
returned to their front-facing format overnight. However, this provided a fantastic opportunity to observe
teachers and students in the same room in different setups. Table 3 suggests that room layout had a major
impact on all forms of interaction in classroom 3, with Classroom 4 enabling more interaction irrespective of the
table layout. A consistent observation was the greater staff: student interaction enabled by the ‘island’ format
over the ‘herringbone’ lay out.

But what type of interactions were going on? Were the same sorts of interactions making up the frequency
count?

Figure 1 makes visible the forms of interaction observed in Classrooms 1 and 2. These in-time sketches aim to
capture the location, body posture and broad activity of participants caught in the line of observation. There is
no intention to be artistic or anatomically accurate but rather to capture, in the moment, the key features of the
view. As reported elsewhere (Kell, 2014), professional vision (Goodwin, 1994) is a critical skill to enable data
capture but, acting as a human video-recorder, the aim is to capture honestly what is seen with data processing
and analysis occurring distinctly separately to data collection. Where black boxes appear on the images, these
have been added later to conceal teacher identity.

Figure 1 captures four forms of interaction: staff sitting and working with students at their tables (see Figure 1a);
students interacting freely with each other on focused activities, using and moving within the space and using,
and often sharing, electronic devices (Figure 1b); students standing / sitting around and annotating the mobile
whiteboards (Figure 1c); and students moving furniture to suit activity needs, to enable free but purposeful
walking between groups and activity stations (Figure 1d).
Figure 1a: Teachers working with learners. Figure 1b: Student mobility in the classroom.

Figure 1c: Students working together on a Figure 1d: The movement of tables and ensuing footfall.
visualisation activity.

Figure 1: Four samples of visual ethnographic field notes

Figure 2 illustrates interactions observed in classrooms 3 and 4 when in standard format. Typically, staff were
observed leading sessions from the front / lectern with direct communication limited to the front few rows and
student: student interaction typically confined to immediate neighbours.
 Figure 2: Interactions and movement in a ‘standard’ classroom layout

b. What is going on here? What do stakeholders say was taking place?

i. Making learning visible

A consistent feature of staff vlogs and student voice input to phase 1 was their reporting of a new feature of the
learning experience: the ability to use a range of writing surfaces to make visible the thought processes
associated with assigned class tasks. A lecturer commented: “students are really developing their critical
thinking skills here. I can actually see it – and they can see it too”. While a student noted that: “I can see what
the others are writing and thinking and I can see if I’ve got the same.”

These reports, noted many times across subjects and year groups, suggest that learning spaces that enable
team working and dialogue, and the ‘making visible’ of the outputs of these activities, can have powerful
learning to learn impact on students and provide learning touchpoints for staff. In practice the magnetic glass
wall boards were used with flipchart covering the glass due to challenges with the board pen visibility. The
double-sided wheeled whiteboards were a unanimous success being used to make both staff and student
learning visible.

ii. Planning for learning: shared ownership of learning / teaching spaces

As noted earlier, staff and student interaction did not alter immediately the furniture / layout was changed. In all
cases students were observed to demonstrate, and reported, a sense of uncertainty when being invited to
move furniture to suit the needs of the class activity.

During preliminary observations students and lecturers were observed using the classroom in a traditional
manner. Even with flexible furniture arranged in islands, students sat facing the whiteboard and lecturers would
stand and teach at the front of the classroom. As observations continued, students and lecturers began to feel
more comfortable in the classroom and being observed. Lecturers, in their vlogs, reflected on their increasing
confidence to deliberately plan learning activities that harnessed the potential of the rooms. By week three, field
notes evidence staff and student willingness to move around and change the room setup in order to work in
small groups. Specifically, the data evidences a shift in learning orientation with teaching taking place in non-
front-facing interactions.

This reorientation of the classroom and the enabling of students to own their teaching spaces was picked up by
students who noted that: “I know I’m allowed to get up and move stuff around if I find it easier to work.”

In addition, the data records students increasingly using the flexible furniture rooms during non-contact time
(both during in-day sessions and for off-timetable revision). When interviewed, students said: “We’ve been here
all day, we come here because we’re allowed in and it’s easy to work here.”

iii. Change over time: a mutual learning journey

Both staff and students recognised the journey they had been on to maximise the potential of the rooms. As the
study progressed, staff were observed using the breakout areas and accompanying small rooms within their
contact sessions, for example to offer different spaces for small group activities and problem preparation etc
and students staying in the breakout rooms to complete work after the lecture had finished. Staff suggested that
power and accountability had been transferred to students who were taking responsibility for their own learning
and environment choices in which this learning took place and that, having seen first-hand the impact of
environment use on learning, they now consider explicitly how classrooms’ potential can be harnessed /
challenges minimised as they plan their lessons – and this happens across their whole teaching provision.
Similarly, students report feeling much more confident as learners and in their ability to share ideas with their
peers. Several students hoped that the lessons learnt would be picked up by other staff using traditional
spaces.

Recommendations and next steps

This study has generated a weatlh of data that shines new light on interactions in flat-floor teaching spaces.
The findings have informed the development of new estate principles, space design requirements in future
course reviews and, because of the extensive and positive feedback from staff and students about the portable
whiteboards, a step-change in our basic classroom design. Through the estates principles the classification of
classrooms is being altered so that many are now designated small group work rooms, permanently set up in
islands or herringbone formations, and more flexible furniture is being purchased as the cycle of refurbishment
progresses.

The findings have also highlighted the need for staff and student educational development regarding learning
spaces: both pedagogical and space confidence. The challenges of growing the learning from this project to
enable team working and dialogue in traditional classrooms cannot be overestimated. A newly created TLS
special interest group sparked a lot of interest at its launch and will be used to showcase space use practices
and identify future study foci. First steps include focusing on the use of technology in learning and the use of
non-contact time / social learning spaces.

References
Garfinkel, H. (1968). The origins of the term 'ethnomethodology'. Proceedings of the Purdue
Symposium on Ethnomethodology. Lafayette, IN. Institute for the Study of Social Change.

Goffman, E. (1972). Relations in Public: microstudies of public order. Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, volume 96, issue 3: pp. 606-633.

Gubrium, J. and Holstein, J. (2000). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.)
Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.

Kell, C. (2014). Making practice education visible: challenging assumptions about the patient’s place in
placement environments. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, volume21: pp. 359-366.
 6. A mobile first approach for studio and
workshop in art and design practice and
performing arts

Dr Neil Glen, Bath Spa University

Dr Jeff Boehm, Bath Spa University

Background
The New Media Consortium Horizon Project (acquired by Educause in February 2018) identifies and describes
emerging technologies likely to have an impact on learning, teaching and creative inquiry in education. The
2017 report observed that “as universities engage with strategies that incorporate digital elements and
accommodate more active learning in the physical classroom, they are rearranging physical environments to
promote these pedagogical shifts. Educational settings are increasingly designed to support project-based
interactions with attention to greater mobility, flexibility, and multiple device usage."

An 18-month experimental innovation project by Bath Spa University, funded in 2017 through a Hefce Catalyst
award, explored student engagement by enabling students to co-create and share their learning experience in
real time, using a variety of mobile digital capture devices and mobile, wireless displays. Driven through a
research framework based on Activity Theory (Engeström, 2015), the project examined incorporating mobile
devices into learning spaces to enhance student engagement.

Performance and art and design practice are typically dependent on the replication of an environment reflective
of professional practice, from specialist workshops/studios to stage/presentation. In these spaces, the
integration of technology to enhance learning and teaching is often marginalised, at odds with the physicality of
the subject material and the learning environment. Open spaces with mirrors for dancing and acting, the
physicality of materials such as paint and clay, a plethora of chairs and music stands and studio walls covered
with drawings can all inhibit the use of technology. Learning and teaching in such spaces is predominantly
practice based and is dependent upon the context, the learners and the tutor. In the performing arts, dancers,
actors and musicians use spaces in different ways, but learning generally takes place in a large space such as
a stage, rehearsal room or dance studio. Teaching is usually instructor led and involves the critique of both
technical execution and artistic expression. Art and design learning takes place in the studio environment
where the curriculum forges skills through practice, theory, dialogue and critique. These may not be seen as
typical learning spaces, appearing unstructured in comparison to the classroom, but as Susan Orr states, "the
studio helps structure what can and does take place when students learn, and it has been a central part of
organised learning in visual arts for more than a century". Additionally, students in the arts may not operate well
in a traditional learning framework. Ewing (2009) suggests that, "The twenty first century art student is a
browser, inter-actor, co-author, producer and nomad just like every active cultural participant in an information
or knowledge economy. They have grown up in a performative future where active participation is learning."

A report by Gensler Consultants (USA), Reimagining Learning (2015), identifies key ways in which learning
takes place, specifically: “Acquire, Collaborate, Reflect, Experience, Master, and Convey”. Successful learning
spaces need to be adaptable to support this diversity and have the flexibility to enable multiple modes of
delivery and engagement. Our research explored the use of mobile devices wirelessly connected to displays to
support these aspects.
 Figure 1: Infographic from Gensler (2015, p4) Reimagining Learning

Approach
7
Brad Ferren, CEO of Applied Minds LLC, stated “technology is stuff that doesn’t work yet.”' , Placing any new
technology into a learning space is almost bound to fail since the space was probably not designed to take
advantage of the behaviour enabled by the technology, and the users of the space, both staff and students,
may not feel empowered to make changes. Negotiating spaces not designed for the inclusion of technology
forced us to create alternative solutions. By using mobile technologies, we were able to overcome many space
limitations.

Three key elements of Activity Theory framed our research:

Research activities are chosen based upon a need to develop new approaches to a task or situation
from historical understanding;

The researcher and the participants work together to achieve a workable solution to a problem;

Unlike research with a scientific construct, the activity in question can change during the research as
approaches are adjusted; the relationships are fluid.

The research was conducted in six spaces: a dance studio, a large open room for acting, a ceramics workshop,
an etching lithography workshop, a metal workshop and a science lab. Each learning space provided different

7
Brad Ferren, quoted by Douglas Adams, How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Internet. Available at:
http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/19990901-00-a.html (Accessed: 29/06/18).
technological challenges, including working around immovable furniture/equipment, poor wifi reception and
other IT issues. The activities varied from dancing and acting to workshop-based learning through making.

The activities were captured on video using mobile technologies and then viewed on large screens in the
classroom. Demonstration sessions in the art and design workshops were streamed real-time to the screens so
that students who could not see through the crowded class could view the activity on the screen. Performing
arts students reviewed and commented upon their performances using a critique modelled by the lecturers in
class. Afterwards the videos were uploaded to our virtual learning environment for further use by the students.
During all sessions a student employed as co-researcher helped to facilitate emergent ideas.

At the end of class sessions, the researchers, staff and students would discuss the effectiveness of the
technologies and how they might be better used. The ideas generated from those discussions were then put to
use in the next session.

Outcomes
Using mobile technologies enabled the visual arts students to engage more fully during the demonstrations and
then to have access to the demonstrations afterwards. Dance students used mobile devices with a sports
coaching app to record and analyse their performances and facilitate discussions about how to improve their
presentation and structure of their performance.

As the instructors became more comfortable with the technology, they were able to find new ways to use them.
The ceramics lecturer used a mobile phone for close up shots of clay working techniques relayed to a large
screen brought into the workshop for the session.

Acting students were divided into small groups and their comedy sketches filmed using mobile devices as they
performed to the class. After the performances, students gathered around the screen and participated in a
lecturer-led critique of one of the performances. The videos were uploaded to the virtual learning environment
where the groups could then access and critique their own performances. This formative assessment prepared
the students for a summative assessment that would be based upon their self-critiques.

By using Activity Theory as a framework, the researchers were able to work alongside the participants, thereby
facilitating an ongoing dialogue between students and staff. This approach enabled participants to try new
ideas and refine the use of new and existing tools, renegotiating the relationship with technology and content
delivery. The freedom of the framework allowed us to assume failure is acceptable and provided permission to
ask 'what if we try X?'. Also, identifying the researcher as an ‘enabler’ gave the participants the freedom to try
ideas and build confidence in trying new approaches. This process of discovery delivered unexpected yet
positive outcomes for students and staff. Moving forward, we are continuing to work with some of the tutors to
create a system for using the technologies so that they are not dependent on the help of the researcher.
 Figure 2: Ceramics workshop. iPhone (lower left) live streaming to screen (centre)

Figure 1: © (2015) Reimagining Learning: Defining Strategies for Engagement. Available at:
http://www.gensleron.com/cities/2015/7/6/reimagining-learning-defining-strategies-for-engagement.html
(Accessed: 29/06/2018).

Figure 2: © Neil Glen (2018); Bath School of Art and Design, Bath Spa University.

References
Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., and Ananthanarayanan,
V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition (p. 9). Austin, Texas: The New Media
Consortium.

Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental

nd
research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2 edition.

Ewing, L. (2009). 'Remixing the Hive', in B. Buckley and J. Conomos (Ed.) Rethinking the
Contemporary Art School: The Artist the PhD and the Academy. Halifax NS: Press of the Nova Scotia
College of Art and Design.

Gensler (2015). Reimagining Learning: Defining Strategies for Engagement. Available at:
http://www.gensleron.com/cities/2015/7/6/reimagining-learning-defining-strategies-for-engagement.html
(Accessed: 29/06/2018).

Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2018). Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education. Oxon: Routledge.
Contributors

Dr Sam Elkington
Teesside University
Email: s.elkington@tees.ac.uk

Dr Brett Blight
Lancaster University
Email: b.bligh@lancaster.ac.uk
Profile: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/educational-research/about-
us/people/brett-bligh

Chris Powis
University of Northampton
Email: chris.powis@northampton.ac.uk
Profile: https://www.northampton.ac.uk/directories/people/chris-powis/

Dr Alastair Robertson
Abertay University
Email: a516178@abertay.ac.uk
Profile: https://rke.abertay.ac.uk/en/persons/alastair-robertson-2
Liz Jolly
Chief Librarian of the British Library
Email: liz.jolly@bl.uk

Dr Anne Llewellyn
Teesside University
Email: a.llewellyn@tees.ac.uk

Richard Sober
Teesside University
Email: r.sober@tees.ac.uk
Profile: https://research.tees.ac.uk/en/persons/richard-sober

Federica Oradini
University of Westminster
Email: f.oradini@westminster.ac.uk
Dr Gunter Saunders
University of Westminster
Email: G.Saunders@westminster.ac.uk

Professor Peter Hartley

Edgehill University
Email: profpeter1@me.com

Charlotte Rowlands
Formerly of University of South Wales

Dr Clare Kell
University of South Wales
Email: clare.kell@southwales.ac.uk
Profile: http://staff.southwales.ac.uk/users/9489-ckell
Dr Neil Glen
Bath Spa University
Email: n.glen@bathspa.ac.uk
Profile: https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/our-people/neil-glen/

Dr Jeffrey Boehm
Bath Spa University
Email: j.boehm@bathspa.ac.uk
Profile: https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/our-people/jeff-boehm/
+44 (0) 3300 416201
enquiries@advance-he.ac.uk
www.advance-he.ac.uk
@AdvanceHE

© 2019 Advance HE. All rights reserved.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of Advance
HE. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any storage and retrieval system
without the written permission of the copyright owner. Such permission will normally be granted for non-
commercial, educational purposes provided that due acknowledgement is given.
To request copies of this report in large print or in a different format,
please contact the Marketing and Communications Team at Advance HE:
+44 (0) 3300 416201 or publications@advance-he.ac.uk

Advance HE is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales no. 04931031.
Registered as a charity in England and Wales no. 1101607. Registered as a charity in Scotland
no. SC043946. Advance HE words and logo should not be used without our permission. VAT
registered no. GB 152 1219 50.