Advertisement

An examination of the mediating role of learning space design on the relation between instructor effectiveness and student engagement

  • Christopher L. Thomas
  • Gary M. Pavlechko
  • Jerrell C. Cassady
Original Paper

Abstract

Ball State University re-designed five classrooms—as part of an Interactive Learning Space (ILS) Initiative—to provide educators with learning spaces that could be used to implement and assess the effectiveness of student-centred instructional practices. The purpose of the current investigation was to explore how pedagogy implemented within ILSs influenced student outcomes. Participants responded to questionnaires assessing perceived instructor effectiveness, perceived influence of ILS design on educational practices, academic engagement, and initial impressions of the learning spaces. The relationship between instructor effectiveness and academic engagement was partially mediated by the influence that interactive learning spaces exerted on the types of activities implemented during course sessions. Additionally, we identified two ILSs that differentially influenced levels of academic engagement reported by learners. The characteristics of ILSs that facilitate the implementation of effective instructional practices and promote positive student outcomes are discussed.

Keywords

Academic engagement Interactive learning environment Learning space design Mediation analysis Multivariate analysis 

References

  1. Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). The research base for APA’s learner-centered psychological principles. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 25–60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beichner, R., Bernold, L., Burniston, E., Dail, P., Felder, R., Gastineau, J., et al. (1999). Case study of the physics component of an integrated curriculum. American Journal of Physics, 67(S1), S16–S24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R. J., et al. (2007). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 1(1), 2–39.Google Scholar
  4. Boys, J. (2010). Towards creative learning spaces: Re-thinking the architecture of post-compulsory education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2007). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. McGraw-Hill Education, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, C. D. (2011). Space matters: The impact of informal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 719–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, S. H. H., & Smith, R. A. (2008). Effectiveness of personal interaction in a learner-centered paradigm distance education class based on student satisfaction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman, M. P. (2006). American places: In search of the twenty-first century campus. Westport, CT: Praeger, Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, J. J. L. (2005). Relation of academic support from parents, teachers, and peers to Hong Kong adolescents’ academic achievement: The mediating role of academic engagement. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(2), 77–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chism, N. V. N. (2006). Challenging traditional assumptions and rethinking learning spaces. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), learning spaces (pp. 2.1–2.12). Washington, DC: Educase.Google Scholar
  11. Christophersen, T., & Konradt, U. (2011). Reliability, validity, and sensitivity of a single-time measure of online store usability. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dupeyrat, C., & Mariné, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck’s model with returning to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilovich, T. (2008). How we know what isn’t so. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ginns, P., & Barrie, S. (2004). Reliability of single-item ratings of quality in higher education: A replication. Psychological Reports, 95(3), 1023–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glass, G. V., & Smith, M. L. (1979). Meta-analysis of research on class size and achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(1), 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graetz, K. A., & Goliber, M. J. (2002). Designing collaborative learning places: Psychological foundations and new frontiers. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002(92), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hickey, D. T., Moore, A. L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 611–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hilpert, J. C., & Brem, S. K. (2013). Dissatisfaction and engagement as motivators of conceptual change in a naturalistic internet-based search about HPV. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11(30), 285–310.Google Scholar
  21. Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. A. (2001). Using a technology-enriched environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jamieson, P., Dane, J., & Lippman, P. (2005). Moving beyond the classroom: Accommodating the changing pedagogy of higher education. In Refereed forum proceedings of the Australian Association for Institutional Research (pp. 17–23).Google Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kilbourne, J. R., Scott-Webber, L., & Kapitula, L. R. (2017). An activity-permissible classroom: Impacts of an evidence-based design solution on student engagement and movement in an elementary school classroom. Children, Youth and Environments, 27(1), 112–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McClintock, R., & McClintock, J. (1968). Architecture and pedagogy. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 2(4), 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKeachie, W. J. (1990). Research on college teaching: The historical background. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitchell, G., White, B., White, M. B., Pospisil, M. R., Killey, S., Liu, C. J., et al. (2010). Retrofitting university learning spaces PP8-921 (Final report). Retrieved from http://staff.scm.uws.edu.au/~simeon/PP8-921%20QUT%20Mitchell%20Final%20Report%202010.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2017.
  28. Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to students’ cognition, motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nissim, Y., Weissblueth, E., Scott-Webber, L., & Amar, S. (2016). The effect of a stimulating learning environment on pre-service teachers’ motivation and 21st century skills. Journal of Education and Learning, 5, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oblinger, D. (2005). Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces. Educause Quarterly, 1, 7–12.Google Scholar
  31. Pavlechko, G. M., & Jacobi, K. L. (2014). Faculty development: Precursor to effective student engagement in the higher education learning space. In L. Scott-Webber, J. Branch, P. Bartholomew, & C. Nygaard (Eds.), An anthology of learning spaces in higher education (pp. 169–180). Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roediger, H. L., III, & Butler, A. C. (2011). Paradoxes of remembering and knowing. In N. Kapur, A. Pascual-Leone, & V. Ramachandran (Eds.), The paradoxical brain (pp. 151–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ryan, G., Toohey, S., & Hughes, C. (1996). The purpose, value and structure of the practicum in higher education: A literature review. Higher Education, 31(3), 355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salinas, M. F., & Garr, J. (2009). Effect of learner-centered education on the academic outcomes of minority groups. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(3), 226.Google Scholar
  36. Salter, D., Thomson, D. L., Fox, B., & Lam, J. (2013). Use and evaluation of a technology-rich experimental collaborative classroom. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(5), 805–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scott-Weber, L., Strickland, A., & Kapitula, L. R. (2013). Built environments impact behavior: Results of an active learning post-occupancy evaluation. Planning for Higher Education Journal, 42, 1–11.Google Scholar
  38. Temple, P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: An under-researched topic. London Review of Education, 6(3), 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Temple, P., & Fillippakou, O. (2007). Learning spaces for the 21st century. Higher Education Academy. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/learning_spaces_v3.pdf.
  40. Thomas, H. (2010). Learning spaces, learning environments and the dis ‘placement’ of learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 502–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wanous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E. (1996). Estimating the reliability of a single-item measure. Psychological Reports, 78, 631–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationThe University of Texas at TylerTylerUSA
  2. 2.Office of Educational ExcellenceBall State UniversityMuncieUSA
  3. 3.Department of Educational PsychologyBall State UniversityMuncieUSA

Personalised recommendations