Design of a Learning Space Management System for Open and Adaptable School Facilities

  • Ari TuhkalaEmail author
  • Hannakaisa Isomäki
  • Markus Hartikainen
  • Alexandra Cristea
  • Andrea Alessandrini
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 865)


In this design-based research project, a learning space management system was developed for the Valteri School Onerva in Central-Finland. The school represents a modern educational environment with open and adaptable learning spaces. The goal was to develop a software to support the stakeholders in organising flexible pedagogical activities and sharing pedagogical practices. To reach this goal, we utilised value-focused thinking as a requirements elicitation method, to identify the objectives that the stakeholders associate with the new environment. In the implementation phase, we organised participatory design workshops, to involve the stakeholders in decision-making, to ensure that the prototype development was proceeding according to their needs. As a result, we elaborate how we utilised value-focused thinking, what were the objectives that were identified, and how they were transformed into system requirements. Finally, we describe the first prototype of the learning space management system, which was developed using these requirements.


Classroom management Learning spaces Educational technology Special education Value-focused thinking Participatory design 



We would like to express our gratitude to the Valteri School Onerva’s personnel for participating in the research project. We also thank Kirsi Heinonen, M.Sc., for assisting in the data collection. This research has been funded by the Valteri School Onerva and the University of Jyvaskyla, Faculty of Information Technology, under the projects entitled ONSPACE and ONSPACE2. The research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.


  1. 1.
    Özen, A., Ergenekon, Y.: Activity-based intervention practices in special education. Educ. Sci.: Theor. Prac. 11, 359–362 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alessandrini, A., Cappelletti, A., Zancanaro, M.: Audio-augmented paper for therapy and educational intervention for children with autistic spectrum disorder. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 72, 422–430 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tuhkala, A., Isomäki, H., Hartikainen, M., Cristea, A., Alessandrini, A.: Identifying objectives for a learning space management system with value-focused thinking. In: Escudeiro, P., Costagliola, G., Zvacek, S., Uhomoibhi, J., McLaren, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU). SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications, Porto (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pacheco, C., Garcia, I.: A systematic literature review of stakeholder identification methods in requirements elicitation. J. Syst. Softw. 85, 2171–2181 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frauenberger, C., Good, J., Fitzpatrick, G., Iversen, O.S.: In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 74, 93–106 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keeney, R.L.: Value-Focused Thinking: a Path to Creative Decision Making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sanoff, H., Walden, R.: School environments. In: The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology, pp. 276–294 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kok, H.B., Mobach, M.P., Omta, O.S.: The added value of facility management in the educational environment. J. Facil. Manag. 9, 249–265 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumpulainen, K., Rajala, A.: Negotiating time-space contexts in students’ technology-mediated interaction during a collaborative learning activity. Int. J. Educ. Res. 84, 55–57 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Todhunter, B.J.: An examination of the views of key stakeholders on the development of learning spaces at a regional university. J. Facil. Manag. 13, 204–222 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Keppell, M., Riddle, M.: Distributed learning spaces: physical, blended and virtual learning spaces in higher education. In: Physical and Virtual Learning Spaces in Higher Education, pp. 1–20. IGI Global (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lievonen, M., Kinnunen, P.: Main features of an ideal learning space: a user-based description. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Architectural Research Symposium in Finland, p. 8 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumpulainen, K., Mikkola, A.: Researching learning across space and time in extended learning environments. In: PersPectives from Finland - Towards New Learning Environments, pp. 9–22. Juvenes Print - Suomen Yliopistopaino Oy (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuuskorpi, M.: Future physical learning environment. User oriented flexible and changeable teaching spaces. Dissertation, University of Turku (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nevari, J.: Oivaltamo: avautuva oppimistila. Ph.D. thesis, Lahti University of Applied Sciences (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barki, H., Hartwick, J.: Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitude. MIS Q. 18, 59–82 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    He, J., King, W.R.: The role of user participation in information systems development: implications from a meta-analysis. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 25, 301–331 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mahmood, A.M., Burn, J., Gemoets, L., Jacquez, C.: Variables affecting information technology end-user satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 52, 751–771 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harris, M.A., Weistroffer, H.R.: A new look at the relationship between user involvement in systems development and system success. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24, 739–756 (2009). Article 42Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abelein, U., Paech, B.: Understanding the influence of user participation and involvement on system success - a systematic mapping study. Empirical Softw. Eng. 20, 28–81 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGill, T., Klobas, J.: User developed application success: sources and effects of involvement. Behav. Inf. Technol. 27, 407–422 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iivari, J., Isomäki, H., Pekkola, S.: The user - the great unknown of systems development: reasons, forms, challenges, experiences and intellectual contributions of user involvement. Inf. Syst. J. 20, 109–117 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kujala, S.: User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behav. Inf. Technol. 22, 1–16 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spinuzzi, C.: The methodology of participatory design. Tech. Commun. 52, 163–174 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bjerknes, G., Bratteteig, T.: User participation and democracy: a discussion of Scandinavian research on system development. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 7, 73–98 (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ehn, P.: Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Ph.D. thesis, Umeå Universitat (1988)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Halskov, K., Hansen, N.B.: The diversity of participatory design research practice at PDC 2002–2012. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 74, 81–92 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Muller, M.J., Kuhn, S.: Participatory design. Commun. ACM 36, 24–28 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sanders, E.B.N., Brandt, E., Binder, T.: A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. In: Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, PDC 2010, p. 195. ACM Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sanoff, H.: Special issue on participatory design. Des. Stud. 28, 213–215 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Ståhlbrost, A.: Participatory design: one step back or two steps forward? In: Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design, vol. 2008, pp. 102–111 (2008)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Benton, L., Vasalou, A., Khaled, R., Johnson, H., Gooch, D.: Diversity for design. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 2014, pp. 3747–3756. ACM Press, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Frauenberger, C., Good, J., Keay-Bright, W.: Designing technology for children with special needs: bridging perspectives through participatory design. CoDesign 7, 1–28 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Guha, M.L., Druin, A., Fails, J.A.: Designing with and for children with special needs. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC 2008, p. 61. ACM Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Malinverni, L., MoraGuiard, J., Padillo, V., Mairena, M.a., Hervás, A., Pares, N.: Participatory design strategies to enhance the creative contribution of children with special needs. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC 2014, pp. 85–94. ACM Press, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Parnell, G.S., Hughes, D.W., Burk, R.C., Driscoll, P.J., Kucik, P.D., Morales, B.L., Nunn, L.R.: Invited review-survey of value-focused thinking: applications, research developments and areas for future research. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 20, 49–60 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Williams, R.M.: Change and stability in values and value systems: a sociological perspective. Underst. Hum. Values: Individ. Societal Values 1, 5–46 (1979)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Friedman, B.: Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3, 16–23 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schwartz, S.H.: Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25, 1–65 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Keeney, R.L.: Value-focused thinking: identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 92, 537–549 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Keeney, R.L.: Identifying, prioritizing, and using multiple objectives. EURO J. Decis. Process. 1, 45–67 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sheng, H., Nah, F., Siau, K.: Strategic implications of mobile technology: a case study using value-focused thinking. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 14, 269–290 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sheng, H., Siau, K., Nah, F.F.H.: Understanding the values of mobile technology in education. ACM SIGMIS Database 41, 25 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Corbin, J.M., Strauss, A.: Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol. 13, 3–21 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., Spiers, J.: Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 1, 13–22 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cockton, G.: Value-centred HCI. In: Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction - NordiCHI 2004, pp. 149–160. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cockton, G.: Designing worth is worth designing. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Changing Roles - NordiCHI 2006, Number October, pp. 165–174. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schwartz, S.H.: An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings Psychol. Culture 2, 1–20 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Isomursu, M., Ervasti, M., Kinnula, M., Isomursu, P.: Understanding human values in adopting new technology - a case study and methodological discussion. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 69, 183–200 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Iversen, O.S., Halskov, K., Leong, T.W.: Values-led participatory design. CoDesign 8, 87–103 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Isomäki, H.: The human modes of being in investigating user experience. In: Isomäki, H., Saariluoma, P. (eds.) Future Interaction Design II, pp. 191–207. Springer, London (2009). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ari Tuhkala
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hannakaisa Isomäki
    • 1
  • Markus Hartikainen
    • 1
  • Alexandra Cristea
    • 2
  • Andrea Alessandrini
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Information TechnologyUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  3. 3.Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design, University of DundeeDundeeScotland

Personalised recommendations