Abstract
A growing diversity of classroom designs, broadly labeled as active learning classrooms, is a rising development across higher education institutions. Along with the construction of these new spaces, stakeholders have developed new vocabularies and concepts for articulating and identifying the impact of new classroom designs for teaching and learning. As new language evolves and ways of thinking about classroom space evolve along with new designs, there has yet to emerge an explicit conceptual framework of the nature of the learning spaces that holistically addresses the cultural, contextual, communicative, and interactional experiences of the faculty. The aim of the present study was to investigate spatial understandings of faculty members in the context of a professional development program in an attempt to identify the social construction of space in active learning classrooms. We conducted a content analysis of 25 reflective portfolios written between 2018 and 2020. Grounding on the Henri Lefebvre’s Spatial Triad (1991), we found that faculty members used three types of space as describing their spatial experiences in classrooms: (1) perceived space, (2) conceived space, and (3) experienced space. The results were discussed in terms of a cultivated space approach to support faculty in developing pedagogical agility across various learning environments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data sources (i.e. faculty portfolios and NVivo analysis files) are available to share upon reasonable request from <Merve.Basdogan@ttu.edu> .
References
Birdwell, T., & Uttamchandani, S. (2019). Learning to Teach in Space: Design Principles for Faculty Development in Active Learning Classrooms. Journal of Learning Spaces, 8(1), 19–27.
Basdogan, M. (2021, January 27). Indiana University’s collaborative theatre: Perspectives on innovation in classroom design. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2021/1/indiana-universitys-collaborative-theatre-perspectives-on-innovation-in-classroom-design
Basdogan, M., & Morrone, A. S. (2021). Coffeehouse as classroom: Examining a flexible and active learning space from the pedagogy-space-technology-user perspective. Journal of Learning Spaces, 10(3).
Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J., & Kobbacy, K. (2013). A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, 59, 678–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.09.016
Boys, J. (2011). Towards creative learning spaces: Rethinking the architecture of post-compulsory education. Routledge.
Brooks, D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 719–726. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01098.x
Carp, J. (2008). “Ground-truthing” representations of social space: Using Lefebvre’s conceptual triad. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X08324685
Cotner, S., Loper, J., Walker, J. D., & Brooks, D. C. (2013). “It’s not you, it’s the room”—Are the high-tech, active learning classrooms worth it? Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(6), 82–88.
Crownover, A., & Jones, J. R. (2018). A relational pedagogy: A call for teacher educators to rethink how teacher candidates are trained to combat bullying. Journal of Thought, 52(1–2), 17–28.
Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and education. The Educational Forum, 50(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728609335764
Dutton, J., & Rushton, K. (2022). Drama pedagogy: Subverting and remaking learning in the thirdspace. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 45(2), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44020-022-00010-6
Elden, S. (2004). Understanding Henri Lefebvre: Theory and the possible. Continuum. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472547798
Feireiss, L. (Ed.). (2013). Space matters: Exploring spatial theory and practice today. Birkhäuser. https://doi.org/10.1515/ambra.9783990435762
Ford, D. R. (2015). A pedagogy for space: Teaching, learning, and studying in the Baltimore Rebellion. Policy Futures in Education, 14(2), 176–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315608272
Francisco, S. (2006). MIT’s Steam Café. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 28–31). Educause. https://www.educause.edu/research-andpublications/books/learning-spaces/chapter27mitsteamcafc383c2a9
Garnham, W. A. (2023). Active learning in higher education. Taylor & Francis. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781000870947
Kern, R. (2018). Five principles of relational pedagogy: Integrating social, individual, and material dimensions of language use. Journal of Technology & Chinese Language Teaching, 9(2), 1–14.
Kidd, W. (2020). Agility, return and recovery: our new Covid context for schooling and teacher education?” [Blog post] https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/agility-return-and-recovery-our-new-covidcontext-for-schooling-and-teacher-education
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781
Lee, D., Morrone, A. S., & Siering, G. (2018). From swimming pool to collaborative learning studio: Pedagogy, space, and technology in a large active learning classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 95–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9550-1
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Blackwell.
Lefebvre, H. (2003). Space and the state. In N. Brenner, B. Jessop, M. Jones, & G. MacLeod (Eds.), State/space: A reader (pp. 84–100). Wiley-Blackwell.
Lim, F. V., O’Halloran, K. L., & Podlasov, A. (2012). Spatial pedagogy: Mapping meanings in the use of classroom space. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(2), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2012.676629
Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (2003). The seventh moment: Out of the past. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 611–640). Sage.
Manciaracina, A. G. (2019). Relation among pedagogy, space and technology and users: An implementation of Radcliffe’s PST framework. In EDULEARN19 Proceedings (pp. 3067–3073). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2019.0828
Meeks, H. (2006). North Carolina State University: Flyspace. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 28–31). Educause.
Radcliffe, D. (2008). A pedagogy-space-technology (PST) framework for designing and evaluating learning places. Paper presented at the Next Generation Learning Spaces conference, Brisbane, Australia.
Ryan, M. (2011). Spaces of possibility in pre-service teacher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32(6), 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2011.614745
Ryan, M., & Bourke, T. (2018). Spatialised metaphors of practice: How teacher educators engage with professional standards for teachers. Critical Studies in Education, 59(2), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2016.1185641
Stewart, S., Stratford, E., & te Riele, K. (2021). A trialectical approach to understanding ‘classroom readiness’ for teaching literacy. Studies in Continuing Education, 43(3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2021.1900096
Walet, L. A. (2014). Negotiating the production of space: the implementation of rewilding in North-East Portugal. Doctoral dissertation, Wageningen University. Retrieved on November 4, 2014 from http://edepot.wur.nl/305191).
Wilkerson, A., Donohue, A., & Davis, B. (2015). Designing for the active classroom, In Classroom design (pp. 59–64).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Tripp Harris (Learning Sciences, Indiana University) for his assistance in editing and proofreading.
Funding
None. No funding to declare.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the design and implementation of the research, to the analysis of the results and to the writing of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There is no financial interest or benefit that might arise from the direct applications of this research. The authors have no conflict of interest to report.
Ethical approval
The study was approved by Indiana University’s Human Subjects & Institutional Review Board (Protocol ID:11942).
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Basdogan, M., Birdwell, T. How to design ‘cultivated spaces’ in active learning classrooms: analysis of faculty reflections on learning space. Learning Environ Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-024-09496-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-024-09496-y