Advertisement

Journal of Formative Design in Learning

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 99–109 | Cite as

Future Learning Spaces in Schools: Concepts and Designs from the Learning Sciences

  • Yotam HodEmail author
Article

Abstract

As institutions invest time and money into constructing or redesigning spaces to meet educational goals of the innovation age, it is prudent for designers to be guided by lessons learned from research. Based on a synthesis of four leading future learning spaces, a novel conceptualization is offered here to advance both scholarship and practice of future learning spaces. Specifically, this synthesis distinguishes between two types of spaces: content-flexible and content-specific. Content-flexible spaces are dedicated for instruction or open learning, while content-specific spaces are used as a stage for learning or as sources of content. In addition to this conceptualization, eight principles about the process of establishing future learning spaces and about specific features of their designs are provided based on interviews of lead designers of the four exemplars considered for this paper. The analysis of these principles shows that developmental principles are relatively fixed, while design principles have a wider range of diversity. These conclusions provide formative knowledge for designers of future learning spaces.

Keywords

Future learning spaces Educational technologies Innovation age Learning sciences 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the I-CORE Program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and the Israel Science Foundation grant [1716/12], as specifically the LINKS Research Center. Special thanks goes to the designers of the exemplary FLSs analyzed in this paper, who include Elizabeth Charles, Scott McDonald, Tom Moher, Michael Rook, Jim Slotta, Chris Whittaker, and Jianwei Zhang, as well as to the LINKS FLS partners: Dani Ben-Zvi, Ornit Sagy, Yael Kali, and Tamar Weiss.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Acosta, A., & Slotta, J. D. (2013). Evaluating knowledge community curricula in secondary science using model-based design research. Paper presented at the 17th annual knowledge building Summer Institute (pp. 1–11). Puebla: Knowledge Society Network.Google Scholar
  2. Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC/CoSN horizon report: 2016 K-12 edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  3. Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2016). Epistemic (meta)cognition: Ways of thinking about knowledge and knowing. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 409–424). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Beichner, R. J. (2014). History and evolution of active learning spaces. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 137, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: Advancing knowledge for a lifetime. NASSP Bulletin, 83(2), 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charles, E. S., & Whittaker, C. (2015). Active learning spaces: Blending technology and orchestration. In O. Lindwall, P. Hakkinen, T. Koschmann, T. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Exploring the Material Conditions of Learning: The CSCL Conference, volume I (pp. 225–226). Gothenburg: ISLS.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cress, U., & Moskaliuk, J., & Jeong, H. (Eds.). (2016). Mass collaboration and education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard.Google Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. USA: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  14. Edelson, D., & Reiser, B. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learning: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2016). Models of learning space: integrating research on space, place and learning in higher education. Review of Education, 4(2), 149–191.Google Scholar
  16. Fraser, K. (Ed.). (2014). The future of learning and teaching in next generation learning spaces. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  17. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hod, Y., & Sagy, O. (2017). Whose culture is it? Modeling the design of authentic learning environments and the cultures they mediate. In B. K. Smith, M. Borge, E. Mercier, & K. Y. Lim (Eds.), Making a difference: Prioritizing equity and access in CSCL, 12th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL), volume 1 (pp. 87–94). Philadelphia: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  19. Hod, Y., Charles, E., Bielaczyc, K., Kapur, M., Acosta, A., Ben-Zvi, D., Chen, M., Choi, K., Dugdale, M., Kali, Y., Lenton, K., McDonald, S. P., Moher, T., Quintana, R. M., Rook, M. M., Slotta, J. D., Tietjen, P., Weiss, P. T., Whittaker, C., & Zhang, J. (2016). Future learning spaces for learning communities: New directions and conceptual frameworks. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming Learning, Empowering Learners: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), volume 2 (pp. 1063–1070). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  20. Isaacson, W. (2011). The man in the machine. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Learning groups. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 441–461). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher (Education ed.). Austin: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  23. Kali, Y., Sagy, O., Kuflik, T., Mogilevsky, O., & Maayan-Fanar, E. (2015). Harnessing technology for promoting undergraduate art education: A novel model that streamlines learning between classroom, museum, and home. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 329–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lui, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2014). Immersive simulations for smart classrooms: Exploring evolutionary concepts in secondary science, Technology. Pedagogy and Education, 23(1), 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Moher, T., Uphoff, B., Bhatt, D., López Silva, B., & Malcolm, P. (2008). WallCology: Designing interaction affordances for learner engagement in authentic science inquiry. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 163–172). Italy: ACM.Google Scholar
  29. Moher, T., Slotta, J. D., Acosta, A., Cober, R. M., Dasgupta, C., Fong, C., Gnoli, A., Silva, A., Silva, B. L., Perritano, A., & Peppler, K. (2015). Knowledge construction in the instrumented classroom: Supporting student investigations of their physical learning environment. In O. Lindwall, P. Hakkinen, T. Koschmann, T. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Exploring the material conditions of learning: The CSCL conference, volume II (pp. 548–551). Gothenburg: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  30. Lead States, N. G. S. S. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. Oblinger, D., & Lippincott, J. K. (2006). Learning spaces. Boulder: Educause.Google Scholar
  32. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Peters, V. L., & Slotta, J. D. (2010). Scaffolding knowledge communities in the classroom: New opportunities in the web 2.0 era. In M. J. Jacobson & P. Reimann (Eds.), Designs for learning environments of the future: International perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 205–232). Secaucus: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Radinsky, J., Bouillion, L., Lento, E. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001). Mutual benefit partnership: A curricular design for authenticity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(4), 405–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reiser, B. J., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (Second ed., pp. 44–62). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rook, M. M., Choi, K., & McDonald, S. P. (2015). Learning theory expertise in the design of learning spaces: Who needs a seat at the table? Journal of Learning Spaces, 4(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  37. Rotello, C. (2013, September 15). The Education Issue (The All-Out, All-Ages Overhaul of School Is Happening Now). The New York Times Magazine. Google Scholar
  38. Roth, W. M., McGinn, M. K., Woszczyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 293–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Savin-Baden, M. (2007). Learning spaces: Creating opportunities for knowledge creation in academic life. UK: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  41. Sawyer, K. (Ed.) (2014a). Introduction: The new science of learning. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences: Second edition (pp. 1–20). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sawyer, K. (Ed.) (2014b). Conclusion: The future of learning: Grounding educational innovation in the learning sciences. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences: Second edition (pp. 726–746). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (Second ed., pp. 397–417). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schejter, A. M., & Tirosh, N. (2015). “seek the meek, seek the just”: Social media and social justice. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 796–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Slotta, J. D. (2010). Evolving the classrooms of the future: The interplay of pedagogy, technology and community. In K. Mäkitalo-Siegl, F. Kaplan, J. Zottmann, & F. Fischer (Eds.), Classroom of the future. Orchestrating collaborative spaces (pp. 215–242). Sense: Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  47. Slotta, J. D., Tissenbaum, M., & Lui, M. (2013). Orchestrating of complex inquiry: three roles for learning analytics in a smart classroom infrastructure. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 270–274). Italy: ACMGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, A., & Anderson, J. (2014). AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs. Washington, D. C.: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  49. Sutherland, R., & Fischer, F. (2014). Future learning spaces: Design, collaboration, knowledge, assessment, teachers, technology and the radical past. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Temple, P. (2007). Learning spaces for the 21st century: A review of the literature. York: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  51. Temple, P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: An under-researched topic. London Review of Education, 6(3), 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, H. M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. l78–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang, J., Chen, M.-H., Tao, D., Sun, Y., Lee, J., & Judson, D. (2015). Fostering sustained knowledge building through metadiscourse aided by the idea thread mapper. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Exploring the material conditions of learning: The CSCL conference, volume II. Gothenburg: ISLS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations