The Cube and the Poppy: Participatory approaches for designing technology-enhanced learning spacesDiogo Casanova & Paul MitchellKingston University London (Sep, 9th)

ALT Annual Conference 2015

• Jessop, Gubby & Smith (2012) compare the perceptions of students and academics and conclude that space may re-inscribe hierarchical, teacher-centred approaches.

• Brooks (2012) discusses the impact of different formal learning spaces on academics and students behaviour.

• Rossing, et al. (2012) present limitations of using tablets such as lack of ownership, distraction from the learning practice, usability, unreliable/unsuitable apps for learning.

Theoretical Background

• JISC (2006) presents a guide for the 21st century LS design proposing redesign solutions for teaching and vocational spaces, learning and resources centres and social spaces. o Flexible – to accommodate both current and evolving

pedagogies o Future-proofed – to enable space to be re-allocated and

reconfigured o Bold – to look beyond tried and tested technologies and

pedagogies o Creative – to energise and inspire learners and tutors o Supportive – to develop the potential of all learners o Enterprising – to make each space capable of supporting

different purposes

Theoretical Background

How different would a learning space be if we integrated its main stakeholders’ percep-

tions and creative ideas?

general overview of the research

Collecting data

Identifying key topics

Building prototypes around

these topics

(re)design

workshops

Re-design from

workshops

• The Cube• The poppy flower

Identifying 10 topics • Visualization• Integration of tangible user

interfaces• Increasing interaction with

the lecture• Collaborative work features• The room layout• The lecturer as a centrepiece• Students’ physical engagement• Personalised and confortable

seating• Ambience• Lack of flexibility

How technology fits inVisualization• Projector screens that challenge the normal display, according to their

size, format, number, position, resolution, etc.

Integration of tangible user interfaces• Tablets are a centrepiece. Both the lecture and students utilise it for

learning and for interacting with the session. • Customisation through students/staff university id. • Space for own devices (chargers and a space in the table) was given.

Increasing interaction with the lecture• There are different suggestions for interaction with the lecture, through

students tablets, tweetchat feeds, audience response system, microphone, cameras facing the students, etc.

Screenshots from the Cube

Screenshots from the Poppy Flower

each of the 4 screens can

project 1, 2 or 4 tablets

Scanner and digitiser

lamptablet or

smartphone dock station

Under each seating there is a writing pad,

headphones and a mouse all able to be connected wirelessly

The method use for (re) designing learning spaces was Participatory Design (PD) which is a set of practices aiming to include end-users as active participants in the design process (Schuler & Namioka 1993). Users become not only participants but also experts with a voice in the final product. The concept of PD matches new trends in HE in which learners construct their knowledge by dialogue, discussion and negotiation, thus through participation (Jessop et al. 2012) and engagement.

THE SANDPIT SESSIONSA decision was taken not to have more than four participants per design table. We wanted each participant’s voice to have an optimal space to be heard. We achieved the design of 6 prototypes with staff and 8 with students until now.

The (re)design workshops

* Adaptation from Frohlich et al, 2014

The (re)design workshops

Storytelling

Discussing

Keep, LoseChange Redesign

Presentation

Actor tells a story of how is teaching/learning in the

prototype

Participants discuss the

prototype in small groups

Participants identify what they would keep, lose or change in that learning

space

Using different layout from the prototype and additional 30 pictures

of technological solutions groups redesign what they would like

implemented

Par

ticip

ants

pre

sent

thei

r red

esig

n pr

otot

ype

poin

t out

to th

e m

ain

chan

ges

and

the

ratio

nale

und

er th

ese

chan

ges

tools used during each sandpit

preliminary resultsReflections and feedback: visualizationOne group of students praised the projector being placed higher-up, since this would allow everyone to have the same view. One group of academics suggested that the projector screen should have a cylindrical shape, as this would allow for a feeling of greater depth.

Reflections and feedback: Increasing interaction with the lectureThe existence of devices for interaction with the projector screen was praised. Other feature highlighted by groups of students was the integration of both social media stream and slide show, which would give a sense of interaction and dialogue between the teacher and the students.

preliminary resultsReflections and feedback: Integration of tangible user interfaces

Tablets and smartphones integration feature was well received. The flexible podium in the Poppy and the rotating screen in the Cube were praised (but academics shown concerns of how it would worked/stability of technology). Whilst academics suggested that students would prefer using their own devices to interact with the lecture, students, on the other hand, were enthusiastic about the idea of having institutional embedded tablets, although referring that these devices should have a degree of personalisation/customisation. Two of the student groups even said that they would lose the socket in every seat, since by having it, students could use it to recharge their own phones. During the Poppy redesign two groups suggested to have two environments one technology-enhanced and one without technology (writing pads)

The “Sofa”

The spheredome

Some conclusions• By providing meaningful topics for discussion both participants

were able to have an inform discussion around how they perceive the value of each topic and the degree to which the Cube and the Poppy were responding to these perceptions.

• This method enabled both stakeholders to be involved in an informal, fun and creative discussion.

• When designing academics are more conceptual whereas students are more functional.

Some conclusions• New layouts for spaces and innovative learning scenarios. There

seems to a preference for rounded shape rooms/projectors/tables oppose to straight shapes.

• Interesting findings on the value of tablets, how students want to visualize information and interact with the lecture (need for engagement), how learning spaces were perceived (rational for the value of a large and small space).

references• Brooks, D. C. (2014). Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning

spaces on instructor and student behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2), 1–13.• Frohlich, D. M., Lim, C. S. C., & Ahmed, A. (2014). Keep, lose, change: Prompts for the re-

design of product concepts in a focus group setting. CoDesign, 10(2), 80–95. doi:10.1080/15710882.2013.862280

• Jessop, T., Gubby, L., & Smith, A. (2012). Space frontiers for new pedagogies: a tale of constraints and possibilities. Studies in Higher Education, 37(2), 189–202. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.503270

• JISC - Joint Information Systems Committee. (2006). Designing Spaces for Effective Learning. Bristol. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/learningspaces.pdf

• Park, E., & Choi, B. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, 68(5), 749–771. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9742-0

• Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: The Future of Higher Education? Student Perceptions on Learning with Mobile Tablets. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1-26.

• Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. (D. Schuler & A. Namioka, Eds.). Oxon, UK: CRC Press.

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

• Yang, Z., Becerik-Gerber, B., & Mino, L. (2013). A study on student perceptions of higher education classrooms: Impact of classroom attributes on student satisfaction and performance. Building and Environment, 70, 171–188. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.030

Diogo Casanova – diogo.casanova@kingston.ac.ukhttp://twitter.com/diogocasanova

Thank you!