University of South Australia
LEARNING SPACES AND
PEDAGOGY RESEARCH:
FOUR CAMPUSES
RESEARCH REPORT 1
Dr Susanne Owen & Dr Stuart Dinmore
Academic Developers Learning and Teaching Unit
13
Introduction
During 2013-2014, research through the University of South Australia Learning and Teaching Unit is being
undertaken about the link between learning spaces and pedagogy in preparation for the opening of the
Jeffrey Smart Learning Centre and its early operations. The broad research question is: What are the links
between teaching and learning spaces, pedagogy and ‘flipped classroom’ approaches and how does this
impact on student engagement and learning outcomes?
There are three phases to the Learning Spaces and Pedagogy research. This initial report provides details
about phase one of the overall research and evaluation. This phase includes a literature review about
pedagogy and learning spaces and evaluations undertaken in education contexts at the global level, as
well as reporting about a student survey undertaken across the four metropolitan campuses of the
university, across disciplines and in various formal learning contexts. Examination of university documents
including a photo competition and reports about learning spaces and pedagogy have been part of the
process. Phase 2 highlights the prototype classroom at City West and student perceptions about this
technology-rich and collaborative learning space and its use in a variety of disciplines for formal class
experiences. A staff survey of GK3-28 users and trainees is also included, with the report due in late
December 2013. The third phase of the research and evaluation in 2014 is focused on the Jeffrey Smart
Learning Centre.
The aim of the current research phase was to gauge student perspectives about the pedagogy, facilities
and learning occurring across the four campuses and various disciplines and types of spaces.
Some key aspects of literature and in relation to the University of South Australia context are initially
provided to establish the broader background for this research.
Background Literature
Across all levels of schooling and tertiary education within a global context, traditional models are
increasingly being challenged as ineffective in meeting the needs of various groups in terms of preparing
students for future work, personal lives and citizenship. There is pressure on universities to make
pedagogical changes to support these increasingly broad needs. In terms of pedagogy, there are trends
away from passive teacher/lecturer centred transmission contexts and towards approaches which
facilitate deep learning while maximising student engagement. Various reports indicate the need for
educational facilities which are flexible and technology –rich, with the design supporting the development
of 21st century skills including creativity, problem solving, global understanding and social skills (OECD,
2011; Kuuskorpi & Gonzalez, 2011; Blackmore, Bateman, Loughlin, O’Mara & Aranda, 2010; Riddle &
Souter, 2012).
The links between the development of 21st century skills, pedagogy and learning within the programs of
study are evident in research. Australian student engagement research (AUSSE, 2011) has emphasised
the ongoing coursework focus on memory and lower order thinking skills. Sixty to sixty-six percent of
students at various phases of programs of study have indicated that this occurs ‘quite a bit’ or ‘very much’
and active learning is indicated by 38% of students. In terms of pedagogy, specific practices vary across
disciplines. In education studies, Australian students have indicated less than 15% of teaching time being
focused on lectures, also similarly for testing, with about 5% for laboratory work and student
presentations. About 25% of time was spent on small group work and similarly on teacher-led discussion
and shared teacher–student responses. This can be contrasted with health, engineering, business or
science in which 25-35% of time was spent on lectures and only 5-15% on small group discussion (AUSSE,
2011).
Learning Spaces and Pedagogy Research: 4 campuses report 13 Dec 2013 Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
1
Designing learning spaces to support more innovative pedagogy and active student involvement,
collaborative learning and technology has been the focus of other research (Salter, Thomson, Fox & Lam,
2013; Blackmore et al., 2010). Several studies have indicated updated learning spaces and impacts on
student learning in areas such as enhanced student-student and student–learner interaction and
cooperative learning and enhanced social interaction. Additionally, improved problem-solving skills,
increasingly positive student attitudes and topic interest are outcomes noted (Taylor, 2009; Jamieson,
Dane & Lippman, 2005; National Learning Infrastructure Initiative, 2004).
UniSA Background Context
The University of South Australia’s Horizon 2020 document of strategic directions also reflects focus areas
such as improving access and equity to education across the increasingly diverse student community,
while also integrating key support services for students. The document highlights the strategic focus on
creating the best teaching, learning, research and social spaces and facilities, while also contributing to
quality of the urban landscape and optimising building performance, operation and cost-effectiveness.
Similarly, UniSA’s Crossing the Horizon Strategic Action Plan 2013-2018 commits to enhanced educational
offerings, an outstanding student experience and also transformational infrastructure. The infrastructure
transformation is about positioning the university ‘as an inspiring place to work and study, providing
spaces that stimulate and foster creativity and innovation in all facets of our operation – spaces that
underpin happiness and health and support new models of learning’.
Various collaborative learning and high tech learning spaces are being created at the University of South
Australia. A prototype classroom in City West has been established in preparation for the 2014 opening of
the new eight storey Jeffrey Smart Learning Centre consisting of futures-oriented formal classrooms and
informal learning spaces and student support services. The GK3-28 prototype classroom has flexible
furniture and multiple screens and other technology-rich features which has been available during 2013
for training and formal class use.
This report outlines some research undertaken at the University of South Australia across the four
campuses and in various learning spaces and disciplines, regarding learning spaces and pedagogy.
Method
The learning spaces and pedagogy research involved a mixed methods approach including student surveys
and examination of university documentation and reports.
A survey was developed to gauge student perspectives about various learning spaces and pedagogy and
across disciplines for the four metropolitan campuses of the university. The survey involved four point
Likert scale and open response questions regarding the percentage of time students perceived had been
spent in their most recent formal classroom experience in regard to peer/groupwork/discussion activities,
as well as lecturer input, and time spent in reflection or in lecturer-student question sessions. There were
also survey questions about technology and facilities and also about levels of student engagement.
Ethics and formal university approval processes were undertaken. Student leader/intern researchers
approached other university students exiting from targeted classes from various types of learning spaces
and disciplines. Students were provided with written information about the survey. About three to five
volunteer students then manually undertook the three minute survey or completed it online using an Ipad
provided. The data, including manually completed surveys, was collated on Survey Monkey, with manual
analysis then occurring (including with student leader researcher involvement).
Learning Spaces and Pedagogy Research: 4 campuses report 13 Dec 2013 Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
2
University documentation examined included some brief reports about a photo competition and student
leader discussion about learning spaces and pedagogy and this information supplements other data
within the findings.
Findings
Student survey
Two hundred and sixty students from across the four campuses completed the survey, with about 25%
responses being from each campus. Surveys were completed in relation to lecture theatres (36%
responses), tutorials (37% responses), practical classes (17% responses), art studios (3%), science
laboratories (3%), and computer studies facilities (7%). Student responses related to classes which were
one to three hours in length, with lectures and tutorials being essentially one hour in length and
practicals/laboratories being 2-3 hours in length. Not all students answered every question.
Regarding broad discipline areas, about 37% of respondents were from the EASS, 18% from the Business
School, 23% from Health sciences, 17% from Information Technology/Engineering and the Environment,
and about 3% from UniSA College. A range of specific study programs was represented, including
physiotherapy, education, information technology, dance, engineering, computing, business, pharmacy,
tourism, architecture, photography, accounting, economics, marketing, law, sport, research, journalism,
and film studies.
Types of learning experiences
A significant question answered by students from targeted classes was about the degree of various types
of learning experiences which occurred in the class at the time of the survey. These types of learning
experiences include groupwork (discussion, activity, practical), reflection, lecture, student presentations,
lecturer-directed question and answer and practical (working alone).
As indicated in Figure 1, collated responses indicated that while lecturing for about half time or more was
noted by around 47% of students, group work was similarly cited by about 43% of students. Other types
of learning experiences occurring for about half of the formal classroom time were less evident. Lecturerdirected question and answer was cited by about 29% of respondents (as occurring for about half of the
lesson time or more), student presentations by about 24%, reflection and practical (working alone) for
about 22% of student respondents.
Learning Spaces and Pedagogy Research: 4 campuses report 13 Dec 2013 Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
3
% of
student
responses
Degree of occurrence indicated by students
N=226
Figure 1: Student responses about the degree of various types of learning experiences occurring in targeted classes
These results may also be compared for various aspects such as across the four campuses, by discipline
or examining various types of rooms (e.g lecture theatre, tutorial room, practical room).
This variety was especially evident in the predominance of types of learning experiences across
disciplines. For example, as indicated in Figure 2, UniSA College and health sciences had the most
groupwork (including discussion/activities and practicals), with about 83% and 65% respectively of these
student respondents indicating this as occurring for about half time or more. Thirty-three percent and
about 25% of respondents respectively indicated that this happens for almost all of the classroom time
(above 70% of the time). While reflection was not generally cited as predominant in learning
experiences, it was equally noted for half or more of the classroom time for about 25%-32% for Business,
Health Sciences and ITEE students:
Learning Spaces and Pedagogy Research: 4 campuses report 13 Dec 2013 Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
4
% of student responses
Degree of response indicated by students by divisions for groupwork and traditional lecture
N=226
Figure 2: Student responses about the degree of group work and lecturing occurring in various divisions
Lecturing predominated (for about 84% of respondents for half time or more of lessons) for ITEE
students. However, for EASS students, only about 29% of relevant respondents indicated lecturing
occurring for half time or more (and for Health Sciences, 35% indicated lecturing as being predominant).
Considering other data about types of learning experiences, student presentations and lecturer-directed
question and answer were indicated as occurring for half time or more by 39% and 52% respectively of
Business student respondents. Reflection was not generally cited as specially predominant in learning
experiences, but it was equally indicated for half or more of the classroom time for about 25-32% for
Business, Health Sciences and ITEE students. Practical tasks (working alone) were most especially cited
for education students (with 27% indicating this occurs half time or more) and for UniSA College students
(33% indicating half time or more).
Among the few free responses made by students, there was a range of comments made. These include
positive comments such as: ’I had a group presentation so I was very engaged’ and ‘fun lecture’. There
were also some negative responses such as ‘no student interaction’.
Similarly in the survey questions in considering the various types of rooms, types of learning experiences
varied. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, group work occurred more in practical spaces (81% of respondents
Learning Spaces and Pedagogy Research: 4 campuses report 13 Dec 2013 Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
5
indicating this was for half the classroom time or more, 48% indicating it occurred at high/very high levels
of over 70% of the time); tutorial rooms and science laboratories (about 45-50% respondents indicating
for more than half time and 25-26% indicating high and very high use).
Additionally:
 lecturing was strongly related to lecture room spaces (about 89% medium to very high
responses; 70% high/very high);
 student presentations were especially linked to art areas (43% high/very high) and also tutorial
rooms (26% of respondents indicating about half time or more and 13% high/very high) but less
linked to lecture halls (19% medium to very high/9% high and very high), and computer rooms
(20% responses indicating for half time or more; 13% high /very high use);
 practicals (working alone) occurred especially in science laboratories (about 33% at high/very
high levels), art studios (100% for half time or more; 80% high/very high) and computer pools
(67% indicating half time or more; 47% at high/ very high levels).
Student engagement and learning outcomes
Regarding student engagement and learning space contributing to learning outcomes, Figure 3 captures
details. Eighty-eight percent of students indicated that this was important at the medium to very high
level and 82% of students experienced this (at medium to very high level) in the targeted classes across
various campuses, disciplines and types of facilities.
The importance of the learning space in contributing to learning was rated to be medium to very high in
importance by about 94% of students and this had occurred (at a medium to very high level) for about
90% of students across various campuses, divisions and types of facilities.
% of
student
responses
Degree of response indicated by students
N=226
Figure 3: Student responses regarding student engagement, learning spaces and learning
Learning Spaces and Pedagogy Research: 4 campuses report 13 Dec 2013 Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
6
Examining specifics, engagement varied depending on the type of experience. For example, when group
work occurred for 90-100% of class time, engagement at the high and very high level was indicated by 86%
of students. When traditional lecturing occurred for 90-100% of class time, engagement at the high/very
high level was 27%. For lecturer directed question and answer, the response was 50% high/very high.
Regarding engagement, there were variations across divisions, with around 80% of all disciplines indicating
medium to very high engagement. However Heath Science and EASS students were the most positive,
with about 48% and 42% respectively indicating high to very high levels of engagement. This can be
compared to 30% of Business students indicating high and very high engagement and 20% of ITEE
students.
Beyond the survey data, a student discussion group indicated that international students, many of whom
are clustered in particular divisions (such as Business and ITEE) or specific disciplines within divisions (such
as pharmacy in Health) may have various interpretations and cultural understandings about the word
‘engagement’, thereby impacting on these results (UniSA, 2013b).
Learning spaces and facilities
Considering learning spaces specifics, Figure 4 provides details. City West students were the most positive,
with 100% of City West students indicating medium to very high satisfaction with learning spaces and 62%
citing high to very high satisfaction. These responses may be compared with generally quite positive
responses across all campuses. Considering City East/Mawson Lakes/Magill locations, students indicated
86%, 85%. 90% learning space satisfaction respectively at the medium to very high satisfaction (and 47%,
45%, 40% at the high/very high levels).
% of
student responses
Degree of response indicated by students in various campuses
Figure 4: Degree of overall satisfaction with the learning space in various campuses
Beyond the survey responses, it is interesting to note which formal classrooms and various informal
spaces, both external and internal, were the favoured learning spaces for students in a photo competition
(UniSA, 2013a). Various café areas, specific computer rooms, outdoor garden areas with wifi and gallery
spaces and library study rooms were indicated in various campuses for informal study, alone or with
Learning Spaces and Pedagogy Research: 4 campuses report 13 Dec 2013 Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
7
others. Tutorial rooms and some specific lecture rooms were also highlighted, although to a lesser degree.
Aspects such as computers, wifi, availability of food and drinks, room layout for supporting discussion and
general atmospherics were cited as reasons for favouring these locations.
In relation to other aspects of the survey, there were various aspects in the physical/IT facilities which
students rated as contributing to learning for the surveyed classes (at the medium to very high level).
These included room set-up (93% student responses), IT (computers, wireless) (77%), IT (AV, projectors,
screens) (89%), and wireless (86%). Figure 5 provides details.
% of
student
responses
Degree of response indicated by students
N=226
Figure 5: Importance of specific facilities and IT aspects
Considering specifics and variations across campuses (Figure 6), 53-65% of students at all campuses rated
room set up at the high/very high level in terms of supporting teaching activities in the surveyed
classroom, with only 5-10% low/very low ratings received across the four metropolitan campuses
surveyed. IT computer/wireless contributing to teaching activities was cited at the high/very high level for
39-41% of students across the four campuses (although City West and Mawson also recorded 17% very
low ratings, perhaps indicating variations across various types of learning spaces).
Learning Spaces and Pedagogy Research: 4 campuses report 13 Dec 2013 Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
8
% of
student
responses
Degree of response indicated by students at various campuses for specific aspects
Figure 6: Degree of response at various campuses for room set-up and IT (computers/wireless)
Figure 7 provides details about student responses regarding AV (projectors and screens) and also Wireless
(EDUROAM) and the perceived contribution to learning. For AV (projectors and screens), all campuses
were rated in the 52-64% high/very high category (although with 19% low/very low rating at City West and
17% at Mawson Lakes). Wireless (EDUROAM) was 45-56% high/very high across all campuses (but with 815% low/very low rating for all campuses apart from City East).
Learning Spaces and Pedagogy Research: 4 campuses report 13 Dec 2013 Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
9
% of
student
responses
Degree of response indicated by students at various campuses for specific aspects
Figure 7: Degree of response at various campuses for IT and EDUROAM
A variety of additional individualised student comments were made about the facilities in the targeted
classrooms. Positive comments were made about some rooms in regard to the comfort of seating, printing
quality, architecture studio set-up and availability of technology and overall space. One student
commented positively on a computer pool for class use and internet with the following response: ‘The
computer pool is a good space for this class. The Internet facilitates learning. It was fast and efficient
enough that I could easily watch videos for the class activity’.
There were also some negative comments made about particular locations in regard to unnecessary
airconditioning, noise from nearby rooms, equipment issues (eg ‘need for more equipment/projects,
equipment and paint supplies, boards/surfaces/easels’), and technology and set up time, as well as nonfunctioning whiteboard pens.
Discussion
Overall the research shows that, considering the wider international directions and University of South
Australia’s context in focusing on active student learning and more innovative pedagogies, there are a
variety of types of learning activities occurring across the four metropolitan campuses. The degree of
more active approaches varies with the division and type of learning space. There also seems to be a
correlation between engagement and the type of learning experience, with a significant focus on group
work seemingly indicating higher levels of engagement for students. When traditional lecturing
predominates scheduled class time, engagement at the high/very high level is significantly lower.
The research also indicates that in terms of engagement, there are considering variations across divisions
with EASS and Health Sciences students indicating the most high to very high levels of engagement and
Learning Spaces and Pedagogy Research: 4 campuses report 13 Dec 2013 Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
10
with Business and ITEE students indicating on a less frequent basis that their engagement is occurring at
the highest levels.
Generally speaking there was high satisfaction with room set up and facilities such as screens and wireless
across all campuses and types of rooms.
This report provides some initial survey data and reports and additional work is underway considering
other available Course Experience data, with reports forthcoming.
References
Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE). (2011). Research briefing. Uniting teachers and learners: Critical insights into the importance
of staff student interactions in Australian university education. Australian Council for Educational Research.
Australian Learning and Teaching Council. (ALTC). (2010). Evaluating university learning spaces. A literature review of recent approaches.
Retrieved
on
2
July,
2013
from
http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/retrofittingunispaces/resources/content/REP_Evaluations%20_Review_Retrofitting.pdf.
Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J. & Aranda, G. (2010). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student
outcomes. Literature review paper No. 22. Retrieved on 9 June, 2013 from http://www.deakin.edu.au/arts-ed/efi/pubs/deecd-reportsblackmore-learning-spaces.pdf
Fisher, K. (2005). Research into identifying effective learning environments: Evaluating quality in educational facilities, OECD/PEB. Retrieved on 7
June, 2013 from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/7/37905387.pdf
Jamieson, P., Dane, J. & Lippman, C. (2005). Moving beyond the classroom: Accommodting the chaging pedagogy of higher education.
proceedings of the Forum of the Australasian Association for Institutional Research
Kuuskorpi, M. and Gonzalez, N.C. (2011) “The future of the physical learning environment”. CELE Exchange, Centre for Effective Learning
Environments. OECD Publishing: Paris.
Lippman, P.C. (2010). “Can the physical learning environment have an impact on the learning environment?” CELE Exchange: Centre for Effective
Learning Environments. OECD Publishing: Paris.
Mitchell, G., White, B., Pospsil, R., Killey, S., Liu, C. & Matthews, G. (2010). Retrofitting university learning spaces – final report. ALTC, Strawberry
Hills,
NSW.
Retrieved
on
2
July,
2013
from
http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/retrofittingunispaces/resources/content/REP_Evaluations%20_Review_Retrofitting.pdf
National Learning Infrastructure Initiative. 2004. Leading the Transition from Classrooms to Learning Spaces. An NLII White Paper. Proceedings of
2004 Fall Focus Session, Learning Space Designed for the 21st Century, Sept. 9–10, 2004, Cambridge, Mass. Available at
http://www.educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666&ID=NL10447
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2011) Designing for education: Compendium of exemplary educational facilities 2011
CELE guide to innovative spaces/buildings. OECD Publishing: Paris.
Riddle, M. & Souter, K. (2012). “Designing informal learning spaces using student perspectives”. Retrieved on 31 July, 2013 from
http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ojs/index.php/jls/article/viewArticle/282/278.
Salter, D., Thomson, D., Fox, B. & Lam, J. (2013). “Use and evaluation of a technology-rich experimental collaborative classroom”. Higher
Education Research and Development. 32 (5): 805-819.
Scottish Funding Council. (2006). Spaces for learning: a review of learning spaces in further and higher education. Retrieved on 18 July, 2013 from
http://www.sfc.ac.uk/web/FILES/learningfiles/Spaces_for_Learning_report.pdf
Taylor, S.S. (2009). Effects of studio space on teaching and learning: Preliminary findings from two case studies. Innovative Higher Education,
33(4), 217–228.
University of South Australia. (2013). Crossing the Horizon: our Strategic Action Plan 2013-2018. Adelaide: University of South Australia.
University of South Australia. (2013a). UniSA Learning spaces creative photo competition report. Unpublished document.
University of South Australia. (2013b). UniSA Learning spaces and pedagogy research report December 2013: Student researcher contribution.
Unpublished document.
University of South Australia. (2010). Horizon 2020. Adelaide: University of South Australia.
Learning Spaces and Pedagogy Research: 4 campuses report 13 Dec 2013 Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
11