Advertisement

The affordances of innovative learning environments for deep learning: educators’ and architects’ perceptions

  • Fiona YoungEmail author
  • Benjamin Cleveland
  • Wesley Imms
Article

Abstract

Recent learning environments research conducted in Australasia reports positive correlations between innovative learning environments (ILEs) and students’ deep learning. Yet, understandings about how ILEs may support teachers’ professional practice and students’ learning activities are limited, with little research having been conducted into how different spatial affordances may—or may not—enhance opportunities for effective teaching and learning. This study investigated the affordance for learning perceptions of educators and architects with respect to the action possibilities for deep learning in both ILEs and more traditional classrooms. The study identified a taxonomy of affordances found to enhance opportunities for varied pedagogical approaches. In addition, differences were found between educators’ and architects’ perceptions of affordances for learning, revealing a need to better understand how both groups might learn to recognise and subsequently take advantage of action possibilities for deep learning.

Keywords

Affordances Action possibilities Innovative learning environments (ILEs) Deep learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects funding scheme LP150100022. We would like to acknowledge the support of the Innovative Learning Environments and Teachers Change (ILETC) ARC Linkage project and the Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN) at the University of Melbourne. We also thank Dr Kenn Fisher for his valuable input into this paper.

References

  1. Atmodiwirjo, P. (2014). Space affordances, adaptive responses and sensory integration by autistic children. International Journal of Design, 8(3), 35–47.Google Scholar
  2. Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Davies, F., & Barrett, L. (2015). Clever classrooms: Summary report of the HEAD project. Salford: University of Salford.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. B. (1970). Faculty patterns in study behaviour. Australian Journal of Psychology, 22(2), 161–174.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00040537008254570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(3), 266–279.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03013.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8(4), 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Research monograph. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  7. Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes (Vol. 22). Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.Google Scholar
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cleveland, B. (2011). Engaging spaces: innovative learning environments, pedagogies and student engagement in the middle years of school. PhD thesis, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  11. Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43–63.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2014.882376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Hattie, J. (2017). Surface, deep, and transfer? Considering the role of content literacy instructional strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(5), 567–575.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. (2018). Deep learning: engage the world, change the world. Thousand Oaks: California Corwin.Google Scholar
  15. Gaver, W. (1991). Techology affordances. In: CHI ‘91 proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 79–84).Google Scholar
  16. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  17. Halpin, D. (2007). Utopian spaces of “robust hope”: The architecture and nature of progressive learning environments. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 243–255.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660701447205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to environmental description. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5(3), 29–37.Google Scholar
  19. Hertzberger, H. (2008). Space and learning—Lessons in architecture 3. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Imms, W. (2016). Can altering teacher mindframes unlock the potential of innovative learning environments?. Parkville: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  21. Imms, W., Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2016). Evaluating learning environments: Snapshots of emerging issues, methods and knowledge. Advances in learning environments research. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Imms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Murphy, D. (2017). Type and use of innovative learning environments. In LEaRN (Ed.), Australasian schools ILETC survey 1. Parkville: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  23. Ingold, T. (2008). Bindings against boundaries: Entanglements of life in an open world [Periodical]. Environment & Planning A, 40, 1796–1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 261–279.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904773839879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim, Y. S., Jeong, J. Y., Kim, M. K., Lee, S. W., & Kim, M. (2011). Personal cognitive characteristics in affordance perception: Case study in a lobby. In S. Fukuda (Ed.), Emotional engineering: Service development (pp. 179–206). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim, Y. S., Kim, M. K., Lee, S. W., Lee, C. S., Lee, C. H., & Lim, J. S. (2007). Affordances in interior design: A case study of affordances in interior design of conference room using enhanced function and task interaction. In ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (Vol. 3, pp. 319–328).  https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2007-35864.
  27. Koutamanis, A. (2006). Buildings and affordances. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Design computing and cognition’06 (pp. 345–364). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindberg, A., & Lyytinen, K. (2013). Towards a theory of affordance ecologies. In F. de Vaujany & N. Mitev (Eds.), Materiality and space. Technology, work and globalization (pp. 41–61). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lomas, C., & Oblinger, D. (2006). Student practices and their impact on learning spaces. In: D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 501–505.511). Chicago: Educause.Google Scholar
  30. Mahat, M., Bradbeer, C., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2018). Innovative learning environments and teacher change: Defining key concepts. Melbourne: LEaRN, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  31. Maier, J., Fadel, G., & Battisto, D. (2009). An affordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice. Design Studies, 30(4), 393–414.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. Graphics Interface, 177, 1–8.Google Scholar
  34. Newton, C. (2009). Disciplinary dilemmas: Learning spaces as a discussion between designers and educators. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy in Education, 17(2), 7–27.Google Scholar
  35. Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. OECD. (2013). Innovative learning environments, educational research and innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2014.958035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tweed, C. (2001). Highlighting the affordances of designs. In B. de Vries, J. van Leeuwen, & H. Achten (Eds.), Computer aided architectural design futures 2001 (pp. 681–696). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN), Faculty of Architecture, Building and PlanningThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN), Melbourne Graduate School of EducationThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations