Abstract
With more and more technology equipped in classroom to facilitate teaching and learning, Technology Rich Classroom (TRC) gradually became a hot topic for educational researchers, practitioners, and policy makers, especially when it was looked as one important learning space or learning environment. However, some predicaments had emerged in current multimedia classrooms, which resulted in lower learner experience for the new generation. In this chapter, we first investigated the development and definition of user experience and based on that we defined learner experience in TRC as learners’ perceptions and responses that resulted from physical environment changes. Then we proposed the five elements of learner experience: value, usability, adaptability, desirability, comfortability. Finally, considering the connotation and extension of the five elements for learner experience, as well as the factors associated with the equipping and furnishing classroom, we brought forward a framework for analyzing learner experience. We also identified the indicators for evaluating learner experience in TRC by deeply investigating the changing factors of classroom and the five elements of learner experience.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Alben, L. (1996). Quality of experience: Defining the criteria for effective interaction design. Interactions, 3(3), 11–15.
Arhippainen, L., & Tähti, M. (2003). Empirical evaluation of user experience in two adaptive mobile application prototypes. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM 2003), Norrköping, Sweden.
Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The Split-Attention Principle in multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia learning (pp. 135–158). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Beichner, R., Saul, J., Abbott, D., Morse, J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R., et al. (2007). Student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. In E. Redish & P. Cooney (Eds.), Research-based reform of university physics (pp. 1–42). College Park: American Association of Physics Teachers.
Brooks, D. C. (2012). Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning spaces on instructor and student behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2).
Brown, M. (2005). Learning spaces. Educating the net generation, 12–1. Washington: Educause.
Norman, D., Miller J., & Henderson, A. (1995). What you see, some of what’s in the future, and how we go about doing it: HI at Apple Computer. Proceedings of CHI 1995, Denver, Colorado.
Dori, Y., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 243–279.
Filardo, M., & Vincent, J. (2010). Research on the impact of school facilities on students and teachers: A summary of studies published since 2000. Educational Facility Planner, 44(2), 25–27.
Fisher, K. (2010). Technology-enabled active learning environments: An appraisal (No. 2010/7). Paris: OECD Publishing.
Guo, F. (2012, September 18). More than usability: The four elements of user experience [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/04/more-than-usability-the-four-elements-of-user-experience-part-i.php.
Hill, F. (2008). Patterns for small learning communities at the elementary level: The “L” shaped classroom. Retrieved from http://www.schoolfacilities.com/uploads/files/85.pdf.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Huang, R., Hu, Y., Yang, J., & Xiao, G. (2012a). The functions of smart classroom in smart learning age. Open Education Research, 18(2), 22–27.
Huang, R., Yang, J., & Hu, Y. (2012b). From digitalized environment to smart environment: The reform and trends of learning environment. Open Education Research, 18(1), 12–24.
Hunley, S., & Schaller, M. (2009). Assessment: The key to creating spaces that promote learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 44, 26–35.
ISO FDIS 9241-210 (2009). Ergonomics of human system interaction—Part 210: Human-centered design for interactive systems (formerly known as 13407). International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Jithin Dev.
Jamieson, P. (2007). Rethinking the university classroom: Designing ‘places’ for learning. Paper presented at the Next Generation Learning Space Conference.
Jorn, L., Whiteside, A., & Duin, A. (2009). PAIR-up. EDUCAUSE Review, 44, 12–15.
Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick, P., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard support young children’s collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5 (4) 359–383.
Perkins, J. (2009, September 18). Enabling 21st century learning spaces [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://jperk30.edublogs.org/2009/11/07/enabling-21st-century-learning-spaces/.
Lavigne, N. C., & Mouza, C. (2013). Epilogue: Designing and integrating emerging technologies for learning, collaboration, reflection, and creativity. In Emerging technologies for the classroom (pp. 269–288). New York: Springer.
Lippincott, J. (2009). Learning spaces: Involving faculty to improve pedagogy. EDUCAUSE Review, 44, 16–25.
Lippman, P. C. (2002, October). Understanding activity settings in relationship to the design of learning environments. CAE Quarterly Newsletter. AIA Committee on Architecture for Education.
Lippman, P. C. (2003, September). Advancing concepts about activity settings within learning environments. CAE Quarterly Newsletter. AIA Committee on Architecture for Education.
Lomas, C., & Oblinger, D. (2006). Student practices and their impact on learning spaces. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 5.1–5.11). Washington: Educause.
Milne, A. J. (2006). Designing blended learning space to the student experience. Learning spaces, 11–1.
Mitchell, W. (2003). 21st Century learning environments. Presentation at a workshop on new learning environments at Queensland University of Technology in conjunction with K. Fisher.
Montgomery, T. (2008). Space matters: Experiences of managing static formal learning spaces. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9, 122–138.
Mouza, C., & Lavigne, N. (2013). Introduction to emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective. In Emerging technologies for the classroom (pp. 1–12). New York: Springer.
Oblinger, D. G. (2006). ‘Space as a change agent’. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces (pp. 1.1–1.4). Washington: Educause.
OECD. (2006). 21st Century Learning Environments. Retrieved from http://mphs.wikispaces.com/file/view/21st+Century+Learning+Environments+-+OECD.pdf.
Morville, P. (2004, September 28). User experience design [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000029.php.
Radcliffe, D., Wilson, H., Powell, D., & Tibbetts, B. (2008). Designing next generation places of learning: Collaboration at the pedagogy-space-technology nexus. The University of Queensland.
Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57–66.
Rubinoff, R. (2004, September 28). How to quantify the user experience [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.sitepoint.com/quantify-user-experience/.
Shinde, S., Shinde, D., & Pune, I. (2012, November). Evaluation of Canadian academic libraries’ mobile sites. In NILIS Symposium 2012 (p. 59).
Clabaugh, S. (2004). Classroom design manual: Guidelines for designing, constructing, and renovating instructional spaces at the University of Maryland. Retrieved from http://www.it.umd.edu/tc/UM_Classroom_Design.pdf.
Udin, A., & Rajuddin, M. R. (2008, November 25–27). Physical environment in school setting: Conceptual reviews. In Seminar Penyelidikan Pendidikan Pasca Ijazah 2008, 25–27 November 2008, University Teknologi Malaysia.
Vahey, P., Knudsen, J., Rafanan, K., & Lara-Meloy, T. (2013). Curricular activity systems supporting the use of dynamic representations to foster students’ deep understanding of mathematics. In Emerging technologies for the classroom (pp. 15–30). New York: Springer.
White, T. (2013). Networked technologies for fostering novel forms of student interaction in high school mathematics classrooms. In Emerging technologies for the classroom (pp. 81–92). New York: Springer.
Wikipedia. (2013, October 8). User experience. [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_experience.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Huang, R., Hu, Y., Yang, J. (2015). Improving Learner Experience in the Technology Rich Classrooms. In: Kinshuk, ., Huang, R. (eds) Ubiquitous Learning Environments and Technologies. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44659-1_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44659-1_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-44658-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-44659-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)