Advertisement

Designing Innovative Learning Spaces in Higher Education at a Turning Point: Institutional Identities, Pervasive Smart Technologies and Organizational Learning

  • Chengzhi Peng
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 1)

Abstract

The provision of innovative learning spaces has become increasingly a critical mission to many higher education institutions around the world. This paper sets out testing an on-going research proposition that designing learning spaces in higher education is at a turning point, and it calls for a more open participatory system approach to better managing the tension arising from (a) the continuing trend of institutional quests for branding and re-branding distinctive visual identities to compete nationally and globally, (b) rising expectations of pervasive smart ICT provision, and (c) the need to sustain organizational learning from campus planning and design projects as the knowledge base for evaluating and envisioning innovative learning spaces. The paper reports and reflects on the findings from the design and deployment of a larger-scale Web-based 3D architectural and data visualization platform aimed at supporting collaborative modeling of present and future learning spaces in two real institutional contexts. A critical discussion of the prospect of the interactive 3D visualization platform for supporting organizational learning in designing innovative learning spaces is presented.

Keywords

Interactive 3D architectural and urban modeling Innovative learning spaces Organizational learning Context-sensitive data visualization Organizational system design Location sensing Web3D 

References

  1. 1.
    Greenaway, D., & Haynes, M. (2003). Funding higher education in the UK: the role of fees and loans. The Economic Journal, 113(485), 150–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barr, N., & Crawford, I. (2005). Financing higher education: answers from the UK. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dugdale, S. (2009). Space strategies for the new learning landscape. EDUCAUSE Review, 44(2), 51–63.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neary, M., Harrison, A., Crellin, G., Parekh, N., Saunders, G., Duggan, F., Williams, S., & Austin, S. (2010). Learning landscapes in higher education. centre for educational research and development, University of Lincoln, Lincoln.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leiws, M. (2010). The University of Sheffield library information commons: a case study. Journal of Library Administration, 50, 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glancey, J. (2010). University architecture shapes up for a revolution. The Guardian, Tuesday, 31 August 2010Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    JISC (2006). Designing spaces for effective learning: a guide to 21st century learning space design. Bristol: JISC. Retrieved from. May 25, 2012. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/learningspaces.pdf
  8. 8.
    JISC (2006). Technology-rich physical space design: An overview of JISC activities. Bristol: JISC. Retrieved from. May 25, 2012. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ media/documents/publications/bpelearnspacev1final.pdf
  9. 9.
    Poole, P., & Wheal, A. (Eds.) (2011). Learning, spaces and technology: Exploring the concept. Canterbury: Canterbury Christ Church University. Retrieved from. May 25, 2012 http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/iborrow/book/
  10. 10.
    Boys, J. (2011). Towards creative learning spaces: rethinking the architecture of post-compulsory education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alexander, C., Silverstein, M., Angel, S., Ishikawa, S., & Abrams, D. (1975). The oregon experiment. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischer, G. (2010). End-user development and meta-design: foundations for cultures of participation. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 22(1), 52–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fischer, G., McCall, R., Ostwald, J., Reeves, B., Shipman, F. (1994). Seeding, evolutionary growth and reseeding: supporting the incremental development of design environments, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: celebrating interdependence, pp. 292–298.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Ye, Y., Sutcliffe, A. G., & Mehandjiev, N. (2004). Meta-design: a manifesto for end-user development. Communications of the ACM, 47(9), 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sourin, A. (2004). Nanyang technological University virtual campus. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 24(6), 6–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sourin, A. (2005). From a small formula to cyberworlds, proceedings of international conference on computational science and applications, Singapore, May 9–12, 2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3482, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 983–992.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brown, A., Knight, M., & Winchester, M. (2005). Representation and delivery of city models, proceedings of the 10th international conference on computer aided architectural design research in Asia (pp. 344–352). New Delhi: University of New Delhi.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Armenakis, C., & Sohn, G. (2009). iCAMPUS: 3D modelling of York University campus. Baltimore, Maryland: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Annual Conference.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li-Chee-Ming, J., Gumerov, D., Ciobanu, T., & Armenakis, C. (2009). Generation of three dimensional photo-realistic models from LiDAR and image data, IEEE international Toronto conference—science and technology for Humanity, Ryerson University, Toronto.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Mass: Addison Wesley Longman Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1995). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice, FT Press, London.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim, D. H. (2004). The link between individual and organizational learning, How organizations learn: Managing the search for knowledge. In K. Starkey, S. Tempest, & A. McKinlay (eds.), 2nd edn, London: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: from experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension, Doubleday & Co.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Horstmann, C. S., & Cornell, G. (2008). Core java volume II: Advanced features (8th ed.). San Francisco: Sun Microsystems Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hunter, J., & Crawford, W. (2001). Java Servlet programming. Sebastopol, CA USA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brutzman, D., & Daly, L. (2007). X3D: Extensible 3D graphics for web authors. San Francisco: Morgan Kauffman.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harold, E. R., & Means, W. S. (2001). XML in a nutshell: A desktop quick reference. Sebastopol, CA USA: O’Reilly & Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hart, D., & Pinder, J. (2012). weCAMP external evaluation report. Retrieved from. May, 30 2012. http://www.wecamp.group.shef.ac.uk/weCAMP _ExternalEvaluationReport.pdf
  34. 34.
    Poole, P., Ellery, I., & Wheal, A. (2012). iBorrow final report, JISC Institutional innovation programme. Retrieved from. May, 25 2012. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/institutionalinnovation/iborrow.aspx
  35. 35.
    De Marco, M., Imperatori, B., & Isari, D. (2010). IS, organization and strategy: convergence or divergence? In A. D’Atri., M. De Marco., A. Maria Braccini., & F. Cabiddu (Eds.), Management of the interconnected world: ItAIS, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 275–282.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ardimento, P., Baldassarre, M. T., Cimitile, M., Mastelloni, G. (2010). Key performance indicators to relate knowledge governance with knowledge process, In A. D’Atri., & D. Saccà (Eds.), Information systems: people, organizations, institutions, and technologies. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 147–156.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Derix, C. (2009). In-between architecture computation. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 4(7), 565–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architecture, University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations