Abstract
This chapter addresses the topic of aligning physical learning spaces with contemporary curricula in medicine and health professions education on university campuses. It is argued that the design of physical learning spaces is more important than ever at a time of an increased use of virtual learning approaches and a rapidly changing health landscape. The section discusses how to develop an educational building program of new learning spaces and how to repurpose existing spaces. A conceptual framework is based on the four scales—the networked learning landscape model—which was developed to assess existing learning spaces , analyze them in relation to emerging curricula and to design new learning spaces. The networked learning landscape model also enabled the dynamic integration of differing scales, something all to often overlooked in the development of new or repurposed existing learning spaces. The Karolinska Institutet case study provides insights into how educational leaders can take charge of developing physical learning spaces based on the educational theory. It also provides insights into how to work with faculty prior to, during and after a building project; indeed, how to—ultimately—give contemporary curricula an aligned physical expression to improve student learning based on current evidence and theories in education. The overall aim of this chapter is to present a case study which offers a practice-based, research-informed approach of how to ensure that the physical infrastructure of educational organizations supports high-quality learning. Karolinska Institutet and the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden, are used as a case study on how to develop a building program for repurposing existing, and producing new, physical teaching and learning spaces. This case study is offered as an example of how to develop a process involving academics in lead roles in the teaching and learning space development program in order to better inform the educational purpose of a learning space project and its outcome s (Ellis and Fisher in Adapting to change in university learning space: Informing and being informed by feedback from senior university leaders, 2014). The emphasis is on how the approach and process were developed rather than the actual design and spatial solutions, which will make this case relevant for other sectors outside medical and health professions education. The case study presented here is based on the Future Learning Environment Project between 2009 and 2016. Over an 7-year period, the Future Learning Environment project at Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital has been a whole-of-institution endeavor, aimed at providing the best possible learning environment for students, teachers and leaders to meet Karolinska Institutet’s and the Karolinska University Hospital’s aspirations, visions and missions (Karolinska Institutet, 2017a, b). The case study illustrates the use of research outcomes from a variety of sources and sectors in a translational sense for the practice of designing and realizing learning spaces (Ellis and Fisher, in Place -based spaces for networked learning. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 241–255, 2017).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Thirdspace is a concept developed by the American Geographer Edward Soja in his book Thirdspace, journeys to Los Angeles and other Real and Imagined places. Thirdspace is radically different way of looking at, interpreting and acting to change the embracing spatiality of human life (Soja, 1996, p. 29). It is the third aspect in a new way of thinking about space and spatiality. Thirdspace is based on the work of a number of social scientist, most notably Henri Lefebvre. Lefebvre introduces thirdspace in slightly different form and under a different name: ‘Spaces of representation and can also be seen as ‘lived space’. It is not the name however that matters, it is the idea. Thirdspace is the space we give meaning to. A rapidly, continually changing space in which we live. It is the experience of living. In Fisher (2007). The New Learning Environment: The Campus as Thirdspace. Conference of Australian University Directors of Information Technology. C. A. U. D. I. T. Melbourne, CAUDIT.
References
Ambrose, S., Bridges, B., Dipietro, M., Lovett, M., & Norman, N. (2010). How learning works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Augé, M. (1995). Non-places: An introduction to supermodernity. London, UK: Verso.
Blyth, A., & Worthington, J. (2010). Managing the brief for better design. London, UK: Routledge.
Ellis, R. A., & Fisher, K. (2014). Adapting to change in university learning space: Informing and being informed by feedback from senior university leaders. Higher Education Research and Development (HERDAS). Cairns.
Ellis, R. A., & Fisher, K. (2017). Translating translational research on space design from the health sector to higher education: Lessons learnt and challenges revealed. In L. Carvalho, P. Goodyear, & M. de Laat (Eds.), Place-based spaces for networked learning (pp. 241–255). New York, NY: Routledge.
Fisher, K., & Newton, C. (2014). Transforming the twenty-first-century campus to enhance the net-generation student learning experience: Using evidence-based design to determine what works and why in virtual/physical teaching spaces. Higher Education Research & Development Journal, 20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.890566.
Frenk, J., Chen, L., Bhutta, Z. A., Cohen, J., Crisp, N., & Evans, T., et al. (2010). Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. The Lancet, 376(9756), 1923–1958.
Gehl, J., & Svarre, B. (2013). How to study public life. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gibson, E. J., & Pick, A. D. (2000). Perceptual learning and development: An ecological approach to perceptual learning and development. Oxford: UK, Oxford University Press.
Gieryn, T. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 463–496.
Hall, E. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Karolinska Instututet. (2017a). http://ki.se/en/about/future-learning-environments. Accessed 9 March 2017.
Karolinska Instututet. (2017b). http://ki.se/sites/default/files/future_learning_environments_final.pdf Accessed 29 May 2017.
Jamieson, P., Fisher, K., Gilding, P., Taylor, P., & Trevitt, C. (2000). Place and space in the design of new learning environments. Higher Education Research and Development (HERDSA), 19(2), 14.
Kitto, S., Nordquist, J., Pelle, J., Grant, R., & Reeves, S. (2013). The disconnections between space, place and learning in interprofessional education: An overview of key issues. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(2), 5–9.
Kearns, R. A., & Joseph, A. E. (1993). Space in its place: Developing the link in medical geography. Social Science and Medicine, 1982(37), 711–717.
LEARN. (2017). www.learnetwork.edu.au. Accessed 10 March 2017.
Nordquist, J., Kitto, S., & Reeves, S. (2013). “Living museums”: Is it time to reconsider the learning landscape for professional and interprofessional education? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(2), 2–4.
Nordquist, J., & Laing, A. (2014). Spaces for learning: A neglected area in curriculum change and strategic educational leadership. Medical Teacher, 36(7), 555–556.
Nordquist, J., & Laing, A. (2015a). Designing spaces for the networked learning landscape. Medical Teacher, 37(4), 337–343.
Nordquist, J., & Laing, A. (2015b). Designing spaces for the networked learning landscape: Design of learning spaces. Medical Teacher, 37, 337–343.
Nordquist, J., Sundberg. K., & Laing, A. (2016). Aligning physical learning spaces with the curriculum. AMEE Guide 107 in Medical Education Management Series. Published in Medical Teacher, 38(8).
Nordquist, J. (2016a). Introduction to learning spaces. In I. Taylor (Ed.), Future campus: Design qualities of university buildings. London, UK: RIBA.
Nordquist, J. (2016b). Alignment achieved? The learning landscape and curricula in health professions education. Medical Education, 50, 61–68.
Nordquist, J., & Watter, M. (2017). Participatory design beyond borders. European Journal of Education, 52 (in press).
Poland, B., Lehoux, P., Holmes, D., & Andrew, G. (2005). How place matters: Unpacking technology and power in health and social care. Health and Social Care in the Community, 13, 170–180.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Singer, J., & Woolner, P. (2015). Exchanging ideas for the ever-changing school. In P. Woolner (Ed.), School design together (pp. 184–208). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Smith, L. J., Hart, W., & Nordquist J. (2017). The future of medical education. In G. Meyer & K. Walsh (Eds.), Oxford handbook of medical education. Oxford, UK: University Press (in press).
Sörö, T., & Laing, A. (2016). Future learning environments. Resource document. The Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. http://ki.se/sites/default/files/future_learning_environments_final.pdf.
Walker, D., & Soltis, J. (1997). Curriculum and aims. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nordquist, J., Fisher, K. (2018). The Missing Link: Aligning Blended Curricula with Physical Learning Spaces in Health Interprofessional Education. In: Ellis, R., Goodyear, P. (eds) Spaces of Teaching and Learning. Understanding Teaching-Learning Practice. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7155-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7155-3_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-7154-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-7155-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)