LEARNING
SPACES AND
PEDAGOGY
EVALUATION:
GK3-28
RESEARCH
REPORT 2
[Type the document subtitle]
Dr Susanne Owen & Dr Stuart Dinmore
Academic Developers Learning and Teaching Unit
University of South Australia
12/16/2013
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
1
Executive Summary
An evaluation occurred of the GK3-28 prototype classroom at City West involving a technology-rich flexible student
learning facility, with staff training aimed at supporting changed pedagogical approaches to support student
engagement and 21st century learning outcomes. This was the second phase in the learning spaces and pedagogy
project, with the first phase collecting baseline data for the four UniSA metropolitan campuses. The objective of the
GK3-28 evaluation was to examine the degree to which a prototype technology-rich, flexible learning space
classroom had supported staff training and pedagogical change, and to gain the perspectives of students about the
facilities, learning experiences and impacts on engagement and overall learning.
Evaluation methods included conducting three surveys. One survey focused on staff in regard to training attended
and another survey was about pedagogical approaches used in GK3-28, training needs and broader aspects of their
teaching in all facilities in terms of student interaction, various intellectual activities and graduate outcomes. A
student survey about their experiences in GK3-28 was also undertaken, in regard to types of learning experiences,
engagement, satisfaction with the learning space and facilities/IT contribution to their learning. Baseline data from
the first phase project was also examined.
Findings were that students and staff were very positive about GK3-28 in terms of learning experiences occurring,
training received and the facilities. More group work was highlighted by staff and students than seemed to be
occurring across the four campuses and various other facilities. However some additional training is required to use
the technology-rich flexible learning space facilities to full potential particularly in terms of groupwork and ‘flipped
classroom’ approaches and students achieving 21st century graduate outcomes.
Recommendation 1: Continue GK3-28 staff training programs and the development of support materials during
2014 to increase staff confidence in using technology-rich, flexible learning spaces and to support pedagogical
change, the overall positive student learning experience and achievement of a broader range of graduate outcomes.
Recommendation 2: Disseminate GK3-28 evaluation results widely across the university to highlight the potential
for more transformative pedagogical practices and for improving student engagement and overall learning arising
from technology-rich flexible learning spaces.
Recommendation 3: Continue to refine evaluation plans for the Jeffrey Smart Learning Centre in terms of gaining
staff and student perspectives and other data about pedagogical changes, training needs and the impacts on
students and their learning, with students actively involved in the curriculum design and also the evaluation
planning processes.
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
2
Background and Purpose
Context and influences
This report outlines the findings from an evaluation of a prototype flexible learning space/technology-rich classroom
at the University of South Australia City West, GK3-28.
The evaluation has involved gauging student and staff perspectives about the UniSA prototype classroom across
various disciplines. The focus has been pedagogical approaches used by lecturers and student views about links to
their learning, as well as surveying staff about their training experiences, pedagogical changes implemented and
future training needs. This is a second stage process, with the initial research being conducted across the four
metropolitan UniSA campuses and focused on students’ perspectives on learning spaces and pedagogy across
various disciplines and facilities. The four campuses initial research (Learning Spaces and Pedagogy Research: Four
Campuses Research Report 1) and the current prototype evaluation have occurred prior to the opening of the new
eight storey technology-rich facilities and integrated support services building, the Jeffrey Smart Learning Centre.
This facility is the subject of a 2014 research and evaluation process and various associated papers.
GK3-28 prototype classroom initiative
The University of South Australia’s Horizon 2020 strategic directions focus on improving access and equity to
education across the increasingly diverse local/national/international student community; integrating key support
services to retain and assist them during the academic years, and improving graduates’ readiness for work through
promoting innovative pedagogies and collaborative authentic and deeper student learning and engagement.
Similarly, UniSA’s Crossing the Horizon Strategic Action Plan 2013-2018 commits to enhanced educational offerings
and 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’.
The prototype K3-28 classroom in City West has been established in preparation for the 2014 opening of the new
eight storey Jeffrey Smart Learning Centre which features the infrastructure transformation involving provision of
more collaborative and technology-rich, flexible learning spaces. GK3-28 and the eight-storey Jeffrey Smart Building
(which also includes integrated support services on each floor level) includes flexible learning spaces consisting of
nine person tables or pods, (depending on chosen room setup). Each table has three desktop computers and large
touch screens for monitors (also catering for additional laptops and other mobile devices), with opportunity for up to
three students to work collaboratively at each pod. There are also large wall mounted touch screens available at
each pod, and each table contains a document camera, with whiteboards on walls next to each table. The flexible
layout and technology (including wifi) therefore facilitate active student-focused learning in groups, peer review
activities and research.
Wider background literature context
In considering approaches to evaluating the GK3-28 prototype classroom, a range of reports about evaluating
learning spaces and pedagogical change for 21 st century learning were examined. Various reports from other
contexts indicate the need for educational facilities designed for new pedagogical approaches for 21st century skill
building (OECD, 2011; Kuuskorpi & Gonzalez, 2011; Blackmore, Bateman, Loughlin, O’Mara, & Aranda, 2010; Riddle &
Souter, 2012). Pedagogical trends are away from passive teacher/lecturer-centred transmission contexts. Flexible,
technology-rich spaces designed to encourage authenticity, deep learning and maximising student ownership and
engagement are emphasised. Therefore the notion of a ‘flipped classroom’ is a focus, with this pedagogical
approach meaning that ‘students gain first exposure to new material outside of class, usually via reading or lecture
videos, and then use class time to do the harder work of assimilating that knowledge, perhaps through problemsolving, discussion, or debates’ (Brame, 2012).
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
3
An Australian report (Blackmore et al., 2010) includes a literature review regarding learning spaces. The report and
associated literature review considers various stages from design phases to implementation/transition, to
consolidation and also to sustainability and re-evaluation. Design features outlined in the reports and evaluation
literature include comfort; aesthetics; flow, and equity; also blending (wireless internet and sufficient power for
mobile devices for groups); affordances and furnishings for various use types and group size; and repurposing for
different activities during a day/week (Riddle & Souter, 2012; Lippman, 2010; Kuuskorpi & Gonzalez, 2011).
An Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) project report (Mitchell, White, Pospsil, Killey, Liu & Matthew,
2010) examined the various phases of design, implementation and evaluation. The report links learning space
design principles with educational principles. Educational learning principles are focused on learning being about
making and maintaining connections. Derived learning space principles consider ease of student access to relevant
resources and learning materials and supporting student and academic interactions.
Consistent with the notion of active and collegial learning, as well as supporting reflective learning, Fisher (2005) and
Kuurskorpi & Gonzalez (2011) outline the need for designing a variety of components in learning spaces appropriate
to various learning needs. These include individual settings for reflective learning such as pods; group settings and
interactive areas with moveable furniture for collaborative learning; activity-rich settings which are technologicallyenhanced and which contain a range of services and other resources.
Considering the implementation/transition [or post-occupancy phase as Fisher (2006) terms it], various researchers
(Blackmore et al., 2010; Fisher, 2006) stress the importance of obtaining user perspectives about learning spaces
design. Similarly, the previously-indicated ALTC (2010) report endorses collecting user data including through using
door counts and stakeholder satisfaction surveys for indicating improvements needed, accessing data about
technology usage also highlighting the role of student rovers in research and improving the quality of learning
opportunities in informal learning situations. The OECD report (2011) noted the importance of involving various
user groups in evaluation and feedback, with results then being used to influence the building cycle, funding and
design improvements, and with these aspects providing a sense of belonging and ownership.
In regard to more holistic, technology-rich and specialist-built higher education facilities and pedagogy, a Scottish
Funding Council (2006) report included a literature review outlining details of research using various methods and
stakeholder involvement representing a range of perspectives. Higher education manager interviews, case studies
and teaching and learning student services surveys about teaching methods and other significant trends were used
in the various pieces of research reported on. Findings outlined regarding changing educational outcomes focus
areas and pedagogy showed increased use of multimedia (61% significant increase, plus 31% slight increase);
citizenship skills focus (26% and 38%); and problem solving (20% and 54%). Similarly, a Hong Kong study (Salter,
Thomson, Fox & Lam, 2013) involving observations in a prototype technology-rich learning space in one university
(following staff training), noted significant pedagogical changes including less teacher input (16%) and more
groupwork (48%), also more student presentations in groups (23%). Student surveys confirmed that there were
pedagogical changes, with students highlighting more collaborative and active learning occurring and the flexible
learning space and technology supporting these approaches.
Some of these evaluation aspects and approaches were considered in regard to the GK3-28 evaluation and in
examining the impact of the prototype, technology-rich, flexible learning space classroom to support staff training
and pedagogical change while also evaluating impacts on students.
Program objectives and key questions
The objective of the GK3-28 room evaluation at City West was to examine the degree to which a prototype
technology-rich, flexible learning space classroom had supported staff training and pedagogical change, and to gain
the perspectives of students about the facilities, learning experiences and impacts on engagement and overall
learning.
This current report regarding the GK3-28 prototype room is captured within the broader research key question
related to baseline data collection across the four metropolitan campuses and the future Jeffrey Smart future
building: 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?
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
4
Evaluation design
The current evaluation focuses on more immediate outcomes from the GK3-28 prototype room in terms of student
and staff survey responses to training, pedagogical change and student learning experiences. Consistent with the
wider background literature previously outlined, the evaluation focus has been on user perspectives in relation to
the prototype facility and evaluation results will inform the Jeffrey Smart Learning Centre and future actions.
Method
Three surveys were used to gauge student and staff perspectives about GK3-28 as a prototype formal classroom to
support student learning and lecturer pedagogical change.
The student survey was developed to gauge student perspectives about this collaborative technology-rich learning
space and the pedagogy used in various disciplines based at the City West Campus which are teaching in this facility.
The survey involved four point Likert scale and open response questions regarding the percentage of time students
believed had been spent in their most recent formal classroom experience in regard to peer/groupwork/ discussion
activities. Additionally, lecturer input, time spent in student presentations and individual work, the effectiveness of
the facility and technologies used, and level of engagement were the focus
Ethics and formal university approval processes were undertaken. Students from targeted classes were provided
with written information about the survey. Student volunteers were then invited to manually complete the three
minute survey.
Regarding the staff focus, in terms of satisfaction with training received, pedagogical changes implemented, broader
approaches to teaching and future training, there were two surveys. One survey occurred immediately after various
two hour staff training sessions held in GK3-28 and sought an overall satisfaction rating about the workshop (using 5
point Likert scale of ‘very satisfied’ to ‘very unsatisfied’). Additionally, there were free response questions about an
aspect of the session which was particularly enjoyable, an area for improvement and any other comments. The
other staff survey at a later time involved an email which was forwarded to those academics who had participated in
the two hour training for GK3-28 or who had used the room for their formal classes, with a link provided to the
survey. The survey involved four point Likert scale and open response questions. Questions were asked about
confidence for future use of high-tech flexible spaces, benefits and improvements, pedagogical changes in using
space, support needed for future pedagogical upskilling and support provided by this facility for students in
developing graduate outcomes such as communication skills, problemsolving etc.
The data for each survey was collated using Survey Monkey, followed by analysis.
For the purposes of the evaluation, consideration occurred of the GK3-28 results within the context of Research
Report 1 findings (UniSA December 2013) and baseline data regarding learning spaces and pedagogy across the four
metropolitan campuses of the University of South Australia, including across various divisions and learning spaces.
Evaluation Findings
Regarding the degree to which GK3-28 as a flexible learning, technology-rich space has impacted on pedagogical
change and student learning, the findings are outlined in regard to the student survey and the staff surveys.
Regarding the student survey, findings are provided under the following headings: Student survey: general; Student
survey: predominant types of learning experiences in GK3-28; Student survey: student engagement and learning
space satisfaction; Student survey: student engagement and learning space satisfaction; Student survey: Physical/IT
facilities contributing to learning; Student survey: Links between types of learning experiences, engagement and
learning space and Physical/IT satisfaction; Student survey: access to devices and home internet.
Regarding the impact of training the report heading Staff survey following GK3-28 training provides findings of that
survey. Regarding pedagogical change and further training needs, the findings in relation to the Follow-up Staff
Survey regarding GK3-28 training needs, room use and pedagogy are reported under the following headings:
General; Pedagogy; Benefits of GK3-28 facilities; Benefits and improvements needed re GK3-28; Further training
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
5
requirements needed; Usual lecturer activities with students; Usual intellectual activities included in teaching and
links to graduate outcomes.
Student survey: General
One hundred and forty-one students completed the survey regarding GK3-28, with 99.2% being from the City West
campus where the prototype classroom is located. Ninety-eight percent of responses were from students enrolled in
business programs of study, with class sessions being 2-3 hours in length. Survey respondents were from various
business classes including professional development in marketing, management control systems, creative and
accountable marketing and managing decision making.
Student survey: Predominant types of learning experiences in GK3-28
A significant question for students was about the various types of learning experiences [groupwork, reflection,
lecture, student presentations, lecturer-directed question and answer and practical (working alone)] occurring in
GK3-28, particularly in the class at the time of the survey.
As shown in Figure 1, collated responses indicated that groupwork (discussion/activities/practical) was the
predominant experience for about half-time or more during the class and this was noted by around 60% of students
who responded to the survey in regard to various business classes. Lecturing and lecturer-directed question and
answer were part of the formal classroom experience (for half of the lesson time or more) but to a lesser extent,
with each of these types of experiences (occurring half time or more) being cited respectively by about 24% and 31%
of respondents. Student presentations were cited as occurring (for about half the time or more) by about 29% of
students, reflection (27%) and practical (working alone) (25%).
% of respondents
Degree of time spent on activities
n=136
Figure 1: Students indicating degree of various types of learning experiences occurring in GK3-28
There were variations about the degree of various types of learning experiences happening across specific classes
using GK3-28. Table 1 indicates comparative results for the four different business studies subject cohorts (in which
there were larger numbers of students completing the survey, usually 30-50). Given the design of GK3-28 with table
pods, and computer and wall screens designed for collaborative learning, groupwork is a particular interest. As
indicated, Subject 4 was identified by about 82% of students as having groupwork for half the time or more.
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
6
However, as may be expected given the room design, lecturing for that same subject was only indicated as being
predominant (for at least half time) by about 21% of students. However, subject 3 still had considerable lecturing
(73%) with only 27% of students indicating that groupwork was being used as a predominant pedagogical approach.
Table 1: GK3-28 comparative subjects and degree students perceive learning experiences occurring for half time
or more
Groupwork
Reflection
Traditional lecture
Student presentation
Lecturer directed
question & answer
Practical (working alone)
Subject 1 (n=31)
%
40
Subject 2 (n=36)
%
58
Subject 3 (n=11)
%
27
Subject 4 (n=45)
%
82
8
25
12
19
34
13
50
36
25
73
27
30
37
21
27
37
17
19
25
25
In considering the impact of GK3-28 in changing pedagogies to more 21st century oriented approaches, results of
the prototype facilities and examining the baseline data from Research Report 1 (UniSA December 2013) across all
campuses, divisions and learning spaces was of interest. Groupwork in Research Report 1 was noted as occurring
(for half time of more) by about 43% of students and lecturing was noted by 47% of students (across all 4
metropolitan campuses, physical spaces and divisions). This can be compared with GK3-28 results in which group
work was cited as occurring for half time or more by 60% of students and lecturing by 24% of students. Considering
business student responses specifically (City West campus key cohort as cited in Research Report 1), groupwork was
highlighted by 32% of students across all City West facilities (compared to 60% of business students for groupwork
in GK3-28). It is interesting to note that traditional lecturing was generally noted as occurring half time or more by
56% of business students but by only 24% of students for GK3-28, thereby indicating some changing pedagogical
practices occurring in GK3-28.
Thus, reflecting other previously-identified studies (Scottish Funding Council, 2006; OECD, 2011; Kuuskorpi &
Gonzalez, 2011; Blackmore, Bateman, Loughlin, O’Mara, & Aranda, 2010; Riddle & Souter, 2012), there are some
indications from student perspectives that GK3-28 as a technology-rich, flexible space, has resulted in lecturers
using pedagogical approaches which have been linked to deeper learning and 21 st century skill-building and
outcomes.
Student survey: student engagement and learning space satisfaction
Considering student engagement and learning space satisfaction, Figure 2 collates responses from all GK3-28
student surveys. Ninety-five percent of students indicated that engagement was occurring at the medium to very
high level (and 59% high/very high level) and about 90% of students felt this was important (at medium to very high
level). Satisfaction with the learning space was rated as occurring at the medium to very high level by 95% of
students (and 75% at the high/very high level).
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
7
% of respondents
Degree of student response
N=136
Figure 2: Class engagement and learning space satisfaction and importance
Examining Research Report 1 (UniSA December 2013) and the baseline data across the four metropolitan campuses it
is interesting to note across all divisions and learning spaces, 39% of students had high-very high engagement and 48%
had high to very high satisfaction with the learning space (compared with 59% high/very high engagement and 75%
high/very high learning spaces satisfaction for GK3-28).
Student survey: Physical/IT facilities and contribution to learning
Figure 3 provides details about various aspects in the physical/IT facilities which students across all the targeted
classes rated as contributing to learning (at the medium to very high level). Responses were:
 room set-up: 95% medium to very high (80% high/very high);
 IT (computers/wireless): 98% medium to very high (79% high/very high) (Note: some students indicated not
applicable responses for this aspect);
 IT (AV, projectors/screens): 98% medium to very high (87% high/very high), and
 wireless (EDUROAM): 95% medium to very high (74% high/very high) (Note: some students indicated not
applicable responses for this aspect).
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
8
% of respondents
Degree of student response
n=129
Figure 3: Room set up and IT links to learning
A variety of additional individualised student comments were made about the facilities in GK3-28 including regarding
collaboration potential.




‘The collaborative room facilitates group learning in a comfortable environment’.
‘This room is the best, the new facilities encourage me to learn and motivate me. Way better than usual
tutorial rooms with carpet a desk and a whiteboard. Interesting designs visually appearing, clean, I love it’.
‘room is modern and unique facilities. Enjoyable learning experiences’.
‘enjoyed interactive environment and versatility of display monitors..live video, internet, powerpoint‘.
There were also some negative comments made about layout of GK3-28 such as several remarks about an
obstructing pillar and computer screens and infrastructure.
 ‘The pillar in the room blocks the view of the lecturer podium for some students’.
 ‘..need more laptop connectivity’.
 ‘…screens on tables take up too much space and we haven't used them to date’.
Student survey: Links between types of learning experiences, engagement and learning space and Physical/IT
satisfaction
Table 2 captures student survey responses and the links between some types of learning experiences for various
subjects, engagement, learning space satisfaction and various physical space/IT aspects and links to learning.
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
9
Table 2: Student survey re types of learning experiences, engagement and facilities in GK3-28
Subj 1
Subj 2
Subj 3
Subj 4
Overall
% indicating more
than half
time for
group work
% indicating more
than half time for
lecturing
% High- very
high
engagement
% High-very high
Satisfact’n with
learning
space
% High –very
high
re room
setup
% High to
very
high re computers/
wireless
% High-very
high re
projectors/
screens
% High- very high
re wireless
(EDUROAM)
40
58
27
82
60
25
13
73
21
24
61
64
36
67
59
67
85
73
73
75
55
88
82
76
80
64
88
82
81
79
89
91
73
81
87
64
91
91
71
74
(95%
med –
v high)
(95%
medv high)
(95%
medv high)
(97%
medv high)
(97%
medv high)
(85%
med –
v high)
Table 2 indicates engagement varying depending on the type of learning experience occurring. For example, for
business students from across four subjects, for those undertaking significant amounts of groupwork for about half
time or more, engagement at the high or very high level was greatest.
Considering Research Report 1 (UniSA December 2013) and City West students (generally business) high/very high
responses for engagement (43%) and also learning spaces satisfaction (62%), it is again interesting to note these
GK3-28 business student overall responses of 59% high/very high engagement and 75% for learning spaces. With
both of these aspects gaining greater engagement and learning spaces responses, there does seem to be indication
of some impacts from the GK3-28 facility and staff using more student-oriented pedagogical approaches.
Examining some specific business courses and GK3-28, Figure 4a-4b results provide further details in regard to
Subjects 3 and 4.
Figure 4a shows that for Subject 4, there are 82% of students indicating groupwork predominance at half time or
more (and 53% of students indicating that this occurs for 70% or more of the classroom time). Additionally, 98% of
students indicate medium to very high engagement (and 67% of students responded that engagement is high to
very high).
% of
respondents
Degree of response
N=45
Figure 4a: Subject 4: Type of learning experiences and level of engagement
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
10
This may be compared with Subject 3 as shown in Figure 4b:
% of
respondents
Degree of student response
N=11
Figure 4b: Subject 3: Type of learning experiences and level of engagement
Figure 4b shows Subject 3 with only 27% indicating significant groupwork (at half time or more) and 36% of students
indicating engagement at the high (but not very high) levels. For Subject 3, lecturing predominated for half time or
more as indicated by 73% of student respondents. It should be noted however that there were only 11 survey
respondents for Subject 3.
Student
survey:
access
to
devices
and
home
internet
The final questions were about access to devices and internet. About 96% have a device, 87.5% bring their device to
university (and 4% do not have one). Additionally, about 97% indicated they have internet at home.
Student survey response summary comment
Regarding GK3-28 and the impacts on student engagement, facilities and overall learning satisfaction, the survey
results and consideration of the baseline data from across the four campuses do seem to indicate that there has
been a positive impact from the technology-rich flexible learning space facilities, with staff making changes to
pedagogical practices. Additionally, students responded positively about impacts of the facilities and approaches
used and impact on their learning.
Staff surveys
Staff survey following GK3-28 training
Considering GK3-28 and the impact on staff, the survey following GK3-28 training indicated a high level of
satisfaction, with 70.6% of staff respondents being very satisfied and 29.4% being satisfied with the training
provided. Key aspects rated as enjoyable were the hands-on approach; new software introduced (eg Padlet, Weebly,
Glogster, e-portfolio); possible practical applications; using technology to improve student engagement in learning;
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
11
exploration of the futures-oriented facility with colleagues, and discussion about learning styles and four teaching
modes. An example response is:
Really enjoyed learning about new tools eg Padlet and how it can be used to engage users. I also liked the
discussion about the different learning styles and incorporating the 4 teaching modes, important to start
changing our thinking.
Many respondents indicated that there were no areas for improvement in regard to the training session although
there were also a few suggestions. Several individuals indicated they would have appreciated more time on the
technical aspects of the equipment such as using the control panel to switch from the lecturer to student screens or a
handout/online resource to enable follow-up on these aspects. Individuals indicated there were some minor
technology problems which occurred in the training session. One respondent suggested that it would have been
useful to have prior information and to enable attendees to work on a relevant course activity. General comments
from the respondents were highly positive about the presenter’s approach (eg ‘excellent session - need to ensure that
you prepare and incorporate learning styles in conjunction with the technology’). Many indicated their appreciation
about being supported to learn about the classroom facilities of the future.
The need for ongoing collegial learning about these facilities is indicated in one comment:
As these rooms become more the accepted mode it would be good to see informal regular gatherings
where academics/prof staff involved in training can regularly get together to share how they are utilising
the new tech and have adapted their teaching styles to fit rooms facilitating engagement - basically
sharing and encouraging others.
However another staff respondent (currently also studying) responded that:
As a student my favourite form of teaching is the didactic method. I'm not convinced that didactic is bad
and active is good. I understand different people have different ways of learning but I think nothing beats
a spontaneous interpersonal exchange of ideas between a lecturer & student. I feel that the more we get
students to look at screens the more we're inviting them to disengage from what we're saying.
Follow –up staff survey regarding GK3-28 training needs, room use and pedagogy
General
Twenty-four staff undertook the follow-up staff survey, 90% of whom had attended a GK3-28 training session. Sixtyfive percent of respondents were from the business school, 15% from EASS and 20% from UniSA College. Forty-five
percent had not used the room following formal training, 5% used GK3-28 once, 20% used the room 2-5 times, 10%
used it 6-10 times, 15% used it 11-15 times and 5% used it more than 15 times. Staff varied in their confidence in
using the prototype room, with replies indicating ‘not at all confident’ (10%), ‘somewhat confident’ (35%), ‘neutral’
(5%), ‘confident’ (30%) and ‘highly confident’ (20%).
Pedagogy
In terms of pedagogical change following training, 16% indicated no change, 32% indicated some pedagogical
change, and 26% cited significant pedagogical change. Pedagogical changes made included more group based
learning and problem solving, less on plan restructuring, greater use of digital technology to deliver small group
discussion, and utilising more active learning. Comments reflecting some of the pedagogical changes are as follows:
 ‘I am now experimenting with using group-based learning and problem centred learning’
 ‘I have designed largely collaborative classes which the students enjoy a lot better’.
 ’Used it mainly for group discussion/input in tutorials. Got greater input from students using written
format‘
 ‘The facilities and technology have allowed for more group work and student led discussion. I find the
technology and layout of the rooms inspires students to be much more involved’
 ‘using digital tech. to deliver small group discussions’
 ‘closer collaboration around the table’
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
12

‘More active learning designed for small groups at tables’.
Regarding specifics of the degree of types of learning activities generally used by respondents in GK3-28, these are
captured in Figure 5 as follows:
% of
respondents
Degree of response at various levels
N=20
Figure 5: Staff survey about degree that types of learning activities were occurring in GK3-28
While only twelve respondents had actually taught in GK3-28, Figure 5 does seem to indicate that lecturing, testing
and assessment and teacher-led discussion are little used for half time or more. There is a reasonable focus on
small group activities and discussion groups occurring as the key pedagogical approaches.
Benefits and improvements needed re GK3-28 facilities
Benefits of the room were described as ‘Using new technology’ ;‘Opportunities for students to work in groups’, ‘The
iPad which controls the workstations’, ‘Collaborative input’, ‘good table structures’, ‘touch screens’, ‘good lighting
and facilities/ comfort/air con’’. Other benefits were cited by individuals as ‘encouraging students to interact with
each other’, ‘The fact students can work around computers and easily show their work’, ‘responses captured and
shared’, ‘drop down screens’, ‘newer computers (touch etc) ‘, ‘blended learning facilities’ and ‘link of table and big
screen’.
Regarding changes suggested, respondents especially commented about one of the key pillars in the room: ‘ Not
have column in middle of room that obscures view for some groups - really spoils GK 3-28. Big Whiteboard at front in
centre. This is a big limitation for me’.
Other changes suggested were:
 ‘A main screen at the front of the room possibly? ‘
 ‘Lower level lighting or not as much Webcam on instructor monitor for virtual classroom interaction ‘
 ‘Have two plug in's per table so up to 5 can have computers (two plugged in and the three already there)’.
 ‘Possibly moving the teacher's desk/lectern closer to the students tables. Students at the far tables are
harder to include’
 ‘ensure that the wall mount screens are above the sitting head height of sitting students. Availability of a
colour printer within the space. Resolution of wall mounted screen is indicated so when you plug in your
laptop, you can change to the correct resolution for the screen’
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
13

‘Instruction poster next to each table/screen’
The three best features of GK3-28 were generally highlighted in terms of:
 technology (eg ‘new technology’, ‘touch screens’ access to computers / internet ‘, ‘The iPad which controls
the workstations’, ‘can see screens from anywhere in the room ‘,’The audio set up - multiple microphones
means the staff member and student can both be interracting in front of the class ‘)
 group work opportunities and improved learning (eg ‘Opportunities for students to work in groups’, ‘small
group pods’, ‘collaborative input ‘, ‘ability for all to contribute to a page/screen simultaneously and to view
others' contributions’,’The fact students can work around computers and easily show their work’ ,
‘encouraging students to interact with each other ‘, ‘responses captured and shared’ , ‘blended learning
facilities’, ‘open learning and non teacher focussed opportunities for delivery’)
 flexible furniture and overall facilities (‘Separate tables for students ‘,’good lighting and facilities/
comfort/air con’ , ‘suitable chairs’, ‘link of table and big screen’ , ‘I would make sure that it is more of an
open space. GK3-28 has some blind spots because of pillars which are not great’)
 student positive responses (‘student reaction to and enthusiasm for tools ‘).
Further training requirements needed
Further training requirements suggestions by respondents included a general run-through of the technology,
technical instructions on how to enable what is on a group's LCD screen to be shown on the other groups' LCD
screen and one-on-one practical hands-on training for the technology. Additional training suggestions were
academic developer support for pedagogical change, using the ePortfolio to create a session and to convert current
sessions into more interactive ones. Specific comments made which reflect these aspects were:


‘plenty. Can't get the system to do the things it's capable of eg swapping screen views, I can only use 10%
of it's capacity’
‘Possibly looking at some broadly applicable pedagogical practices/activities in order to get the best out of
the room’.
General comments were:
I find it difficult to get GK3-28 as a teaching space now as it always seems to be booked. In some ways it is
annoying to give students a taste and then not be able to continue with the experience.
Usual lecturer activities with students
Broader questions were also asked of lecturers about the usual activities of students within all of their classes and
across various learning spaces and the extent to which these happened rarely, sometimes, frequently or very
frequently. Figure 6 captures the staff responses regarding interactions with students such as asking questions or
contributing to class/online discussion, seeking advice, working hard to master difficult concepts, and encouraging
students to prepare drafts. Other interactions surveyed included opportunity for students to work with others in
class on a group assignment, working with others out of class on a group assignment, participating in a community
based project, using an online learning system, using email or online forum, discussing grades, talking about career
plans or receiving prompt feedback.
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
14
% of
respondents
Degree of inter actions occurring
N=20
Figure 6: Lecturer use generally of various interactions with students
Of particular interest is that 70-75% of lecturers were indicating students frequently or very frequently engaged in
activities such as asking questions or contributing to class/online discussion, seeking advice, making a class or online
discussion, using email or online forum to communicate with lecturers, discussing grades, and receiving prompt
feedback. It was also interesting to note that providing opportunity for students to work in groups in class time was
only cited as occurring frequently or very frequently for about 35% of the lecturers (although about 50% of them
cited group work occurring outside of class time). Only 20% were indicating drafts being encouraged (frequently or
very frequently) and only 5% indicated that students were participating in community based project activities.
Usual intellectual activities included in teaching and links to graduate outcomes
Another general question asked of lecturers was about the extent to which their teaching emphasised various
intellectual activities (rarely, sometimes, frequently, very frequently). Responses are captured in Figure 7:
(rarely-1, sometimes-2, frequently-3, very frequently-4)
Average score of responses
Type of intellectual activity
N=20
Figure 7: Lecturer use generally of various intellectual activities
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
15
Figure 7 indicates that average responses (considering rarely=1, sometimes=2, frequently-=3, very frequently=4)
were as follows: memorizing facts (2.05), analyzing basic elements of an idea (2.8), synthesizing and organizing ideas
(2.84), making judgments (3.2), and analyzing theories or concepts (3.05). Making judgements and analysing
theories were indicated as occurring frequently.
Another general question asked of lecturers was about the extent to which students had opportunities through
formal and informal (independent use of the technology-rich, flexible learning space to achieve graduate outcomes
and the extent (not at all, to some degree, to great extent). Figure 8 represents their responses in regard to Writing
clearly and effectively; Speaking clearly and effectively; Thinking critically and analytically; Using computing and
information technology; Working effectively with others; Learning effectively on their own; Understand themselves;
Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds; Solving complex, real world problems; Developing a
personal code of values and ethics; Contributing to the welfare of their community; Securing relevant work after
graduation, and Becoming divergent thinkers and being creative and innovative.
not at all-1, to some degree-2, to a great extent-3
Average score
of responses
Various graduate outcome aspects
N=20
Figure 8: Lecturer responses about opportunities for students through technology-rich learning spaces to achieve graduate
outcomes
Averaged survey data indicated graduate outcomes responses of using computers (2.55), solving complex real world
problems (2.3), thinking critically (2.15), acquiring a broad general education and job related skills (2.3), working
effectively with others (2.35), learning effectively on their own (2.2) and becoming divergent thinkers and being
creative and innovative (2.4) were the most significant aspects lecturers focused on in classes in general.
Staff survey response summary comment
Regarding staff perspectives about GK3-28 and the relatively small sample, and considering the evaluation
objectives of gauging the degree to which training has supported staff in pedagogical change, there did seem to be
indications of positive response. GK3-28 training has been positively received by most users and to be impacting on
classroom pedagogy, although there are further training needs identified by individuals. Many of the lecturers also
seem to be activity engaged frequently or very frequently in the various contexts in which their formal classes are
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
16
taught in providing opportunities for students to achieve wider learning outcomes. However activities associated
with the ‘flipped classroom’ such as using classroom time to work in groups or providing feedback on drafts were
not occurring to the same degree.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Considering the evaluation focus and the GK3-28 prototype classroom and its role in supporting staff training and
pedagogical change subsequently leading to increased student engagement, facilities satisfaction and overall
learning satisfaction, this small-scale evaluation does seem to have provided indicators that this has been achieved
to some extent from both staff and student perspectives. Relevant to other literature previously introduced (Salter
et al., 2013), and to the University of South Australia phase one four campuses learning spaces and pedagogy
research (UniSA, December 2013), GK3-28 does seem to generally indicate a reduced focus on lecturer input and
greater focus on group work, although not necessarily consistently across all academic users. Student engagement
and satisfaction with the space seem to be high, especially when academics are using the facility for more
collaborative student work. More work is needed to support all lecturers using these spaces in changing pedagogical
approaches and maximising the potential of these facilities, including involving students in co-designing processes.
Recommendation 1: Continue GK3-28 staff training programs and the development of support materials during
2014 to increase staff confidence in using technology-rich, flexible learning spaces and to support pedagogical
change, the overall positive student learning experience and achievement of a broader range of graduate outcomes.
Recommendation 2: Disseminate GK3-28 evaluation results widely across the university to highlight the potential
for more transformative pedagogical practices and for improving student engagement and overall learning arising
from technology-rich flexible learning spaces.
Recommendation 3: Continue to refine evaluation plans for the Jeffrey Smart Learning Centre in terms of gaining
staff and student perspectives and other data about pedagogical changes, training needs and the impacts on
students and their learning, with students actively involved in the curriculum design and also the evaluation
planning processes.
References
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
Brame, C. (2012). Flipping the Classroom. Retrieved on 15 November, 2013 from http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/teaching-guides/teachingactivities/flipping-the-classroom/
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
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.
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
17
Mitchell, G., White, B., Pospsil, R., Killey, S., Liu, C. & Matthews, G. (2010). Retrofitting university learning spaces – final report. ALTC, Strawberrry
Hills,
NSW.
Retrieved
on
2
July,
2013
from
http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/retrofittingunispaces/resources/content/REP_Evaluations%20_Review_Retrofitting.pdf
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
University of South Australia. (2010). Horizon 2020. Adelaide: University of South Australia.
University of South Australia. (2013). Crossing the Horizon: our Strategic Action Plan 2013-2018. Adelaide: University of South Australia.
University of South Australia. (December 2013). Learning Spaces and Pedagogy Research: Four Campuses Research Report 1. Unpublished
document.
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.
Learning Spaces & Pedagogy Research: GK3-28 Research Report 2 (16 Dec 2013)
Dr S Owen/Dr S Dinmore
Page
18