Learning environments preferred by university students: a shift toward informal and flexible learning environments
Tóm tắt
Universities are facing new challenges that pose various demands for developing learning environments. These challenges are related to different pedagogical approaches, the use of information and communications technology (ICT), the diversification of student populations, and new expectations related to working life. This study focused on university students’ perceptions of preferred learning environments and their thoughts about the best learning environments for the higher-education level. The main data consisted of answers to open questions from 230 students. Additionally, a questionnaire was used to gain an overall picture of students’ experiences in the current learning environment. Five main themes emerged: characteristics of the campus; available resources; flexibility of learning opportunities; pedagogy; and implementation of ICT in education. Further, two larger perspectives were highlighted. One was the need for informal learning environments (where students can study alone or with peers or just hang out). The second perspective pertains to the flexibility of learning, demonstrating the need for learning environments that allow participation without the need to come to the campus for face-to-face meetings. The need for resources (particularly ICT and the support and availability of teaching personnel) was also highlighted. The study provides important perspectives for developing appropriate learning environments for higher education.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Ahrio, L. (2012). Modernin yliopisto-opiskelun toimintakertomus. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murphy, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., et al. (2019). NMC Horizon report: 2018 higher education edition. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Al-Samarraie, H., & Saeed, N. (2018). A systematic review of cloud computing tools for collaborative learning: Opportunities and challenges to the blended-learning environment. Computers & Education, 124, 77–91.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 27(6), 12–26.
Becker, S., Brown, M., Dahlstrom, E., Davis, A., DePaul, K., Diaz, V., et al. (2018). NMC Horizon report: 2018 higher (education ed.). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Beckers, R., Van der Voordt, T., & Dewulf, G. (2015). A conceptual framework to identify spatial implications of new ways of learning in higher education. Facilities, 33(1/2), 2–19.
Beckers, R., Van der Voordt, T., & Dewulf, G. (2016). Learning space preferences of higher education students. Building and Environment, 104, 243–252.
Carr, N., & Fraser, K. (2014). Factors that shape pedagogical practices in next generation learning spaces. In K. Fraser (Ed.), The future of learning and teaching in next generation learning spaces (Vol. 12). Bingley, UK: International Perspectives on Higher Education Research, Emerald.
Casanova, D., Di Napoli, R., & Leijon, M. (2018). Which space? Whose space? An experience in involving students and teachers in space design. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(4), 488–503.
Chatzidiakou, L., Mumovic, D., & Summerfield, A. J. (2012). What do we know about indoor air quality in school classrooms? A critical review of the literature. Intelligent Buildings International, 4(4), 228–259.
Cheng, G., Guan, Y., & Chau, J. (2016). An empirical study towards understanding user acceptance of bring your own device (BYOD) in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 1–17.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fisher, K., & Newton, C. (2014). Transforming the twenty-first-century campus to enhance the net-generation student learning experience: Using evidence-based design to determine what works and why in virtual/physical teaching spaces. Higher Education Research and Development, 33(5), 903–920.
González-Martínez, J. A., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Gómez-Sánchez, E., & Cano-Parra, R. (2015). Cloud computing and education: A state-of-the-art survey. Computers & Education, 80, 132–151.
Harasim, L. (1996). Online education. In T. Harrison & T. Stephe (Eds.), Computer networking and scholarly communication in the twenty-first-century university (pp. 203–214). New York: State University of New York Press.
Harris, M., & Cullen, R. (2008). Learner-centered leadership: An agenda for action. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 21–28.
Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1999). The potential for collaborative problem solving in design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), 1–36.
Hirsto, L. (2013). Palautepohjainen opetuksen kehittäminen ja laatu. In J. Hakala & K. Kiviniemi (Eds.), Vuorovaikutuksen jännitteitä ja oppimisen säröjä. Aikuispedagogiikan haasteiden äärellä (pp. 147-162). Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/48383/978-951-39-5376-8.pdf?sequence=1.
Hirsto, L., & Löytönen, T. (2011). Kehittämisen kolmas tila? –Yliopisto-opetus kehittämisen kohteena [A third space for development? Developing university teaching]. Aikuiskasvatus, 31(4), 255–266.
Hung, W., Jonassen, D. H., & Liu, R. (2008). Problem-based learning. In J. M. Spector, J. G. Merriënboer, M. D. Merrill, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 485–506). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Ahonen, A., Näykki, P., & Valtonen, T. (2017). Preparing teacher-students for twenty-first-century learning practices (PREP 21): A framework for enhancing collaborative problem-solving and strategic learning skills. Teachers and Teaching, 23(1), 25–41.
Jamieson, P. (2009). The serious matter of informal learning: From the development of learning spaces to a broader understanding of the entire campus as a learning space. Planning for Higher Education, 37(2), 18–26.
Jessop, T., Gubby, L., & Smith, A. (2012). Space frontiers for new pedagogies: A tale of constraints and possibilities. Studies in Higher Education, 37(8), 189–202.
Johnson, L., Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon report: 2014 higher (education ed.). Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(2), 6–28.
Kärnä, S., Julin, P., & Nenonen, S. (2013). User satisfaction on a university campus by students and staff. Intelligent Buildings International, 5(2), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2013.778810.
Manninen, J., Burman, A., Koivunen, A., Kuittinen, E., Luukannel, S., Passi, S., et al. (2007). Environments supporting learning: Introduction to learning-environment-thinking. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.
McCune, V., & Entwistle, N. (2011). Cultivating the disposition to understand in 21st century university education. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 303–310.
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135.
Morieson, L., Murray, G., Wilson, R., Clarke, B., & Lucas, K. (2018). Belonging in space: Informal learning spaces and student experience. Journal of Learning Spaces, 7(2), 12–22.
Olakanmi, E. E. (2017). The effects of a flipped classroom model of instruction on students’ performance and attitudes towards chemistry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(1), 127–137.
Ossiannilsson, E. (2018). Promoting active and meaningful learning for digital learners. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of research on mobile technology, constructivism, and meaningful learning (pp. 294–315). Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
Radcliffe, D. (2008). A pedagogy-space-technology (PST) framework for designing and evaluating learning places. In D. Radcliffe, W. Wilson, D. Powell, & B. Tibbetts (Eds.), Learning spaces in higher education: Positive outcomes by design (Proceeding of the next generation learning spaces 2008 colloquium; pp. 11–16). St Lucia, Queensland: The University of Queensland.
Scannell, L., Hodgson, M., Moreno Villarreal, J. G., & Gifford, R. (2016). The role of acoustics in the perceived suitability of, and well-being in, informal learning spaces. Environment and Behavior, 48(6), 769–795.
Sointu, E. T., Valtonen, T., Hirsto, L., Kankaanpää, J., Saarelainen, M., Mäkitalo, K., et al. (2019). Teachers as users of ICT from the student perspective in higher education flipped classroom classes. Seminar.net, 15(1), 1–15.
Valtonen, T., Hacklin, S., Dillon, P., Vesisenaho, M., Kukkonen, J., & Hietanen, A. (2012). Perspectives on personal learning environments held by vocational students. Computers & Education, 58(2), 732–739.
Van Note Chism, N. (2002). A tale of two classrooms. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92, 5–12.
Vercellotti, M. L. (2018). Do interactive learning spaces increase student achievement? A comparison of classroom context. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 197–210.
Voogt, J., & Pareja Roblin, N. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321.
Whiteside, A., Brooks, D. C., & Walker, J. D. (2010). Making the case for space: Three years of empirical research on learning environments. Educause Quarterly, 33(3), 11.