Effects of Learning Space Design on CALL Pedagogy
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Effects of Learning Space Design on CALL Pedagogy

on

  • 412 views

Angelika Kraemer & Scott Schopieray

Angelika Kraemer & Scott Schopieray
Michigan State University
CALICO, Amherst, June 10, 2010

Statistics

Views

Total Views
412
Views on SlideShare
411
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.spundge.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • among the many considerations we give to fostering student development, the ‘use of the physical environment is perhaps the least understood and the most neglected.’ <br />
  • Computer requirement, not necessarily a laptop <br /> More commonly taught languages have technology components (Quia textbooks) <br /> lower-levels are mostly technology-enhanced <br /> Many upper-level courses move toward hyrbid <br /> 354 classrooms total, 272 technology rooms, 29 instructional computer labs, 53 “non-tech” rooms that require portable equipment <br />
  • Female: 5, Male: 2 <br /> 4 Instructors, 2 Specialists <br /> AL891, FRN430, GRM435, JPN202/302, SPN202/310/330 <br />
  • AVERAGE AGE: 23 (graduate students: 25) <br /> Male: 15, Female: 30, NA: 3 <br /> Freshmen: 1, Sophomore: 4, Junior: 8, Senior: 22, Graduate: 13 <br /> AL891: 3, FRN430: 12, GRM435: 20, GRM460: 8, JPN202: 3, LLT307: 1, SPN825: 1 (From Illustration to Realism) <br /> Language Majors: 23, Language Minors: 19, Other: 6 <br /> Majors: FRN:5, GRM:16, JPN: 2 <br /> Minors: FRN:5, GRM:13, JPN:1 <br /> Other Majors: English:3, Marketing:2, Psychology:2, History:2, IR:2, supply chain, math, politics, criminal justics, astrophysics, ANP, engineering, nat sci, advertising, pre-law, IDS <br />
  • TESTED INSTRUMENTS in early Fall <br /> 5 Likert <br /> 10 short-answer <br /> 2 yes/no <br /> N=11 for interviews <br /> LOOKING FOR TRENDS <br />
  • 6-point Likert-scale <br />
  • Setups Ss have been exposed to <br /> Pods 6/17 are in TE <br /> large table is in AL (Scott) <br /> Tables in rows: out of the 9 lg ones, mainly FRN, SPN <br />
  • STUDENTS: <br /> 1 classroom with OHP (216WH - LLT307) <br /> 4 classrooms with podiums (207WH - JPN202; 107OHB - FRN430; 214WH - GRM430; 350OHB -SPN825) <br /> 1 classroom with smart board and Mac (120LH - AL891) <br /> 1 Mac lab in rows (141OHB - GRM460) <br /> TEACHERS (4 classrooms overlap with students: 107OHB, 120LH, 214WH, 350OHB): <br /> 2 classrooms with OHP (316WH - JPN202; 113WH - JPN302) <br /> 5 classrooms with podiums (107OHB - FRN430; 350OHB - SPN330; 208OHB - SPN202; 305EBH - SPN310; 214WH - GRM435) <br /> 1 classroom with smart board and Mac (120LH - AL891) <br /> NOTE: <br /> TEACHERS: 7 seats in rows, 1 large tables with chairs <br />
  • Clockwise: OHP only, tech podium, lab, SMARTboard <br />
  • Easy to adapt, good for group work, easy to walk around and give individual feedback <br />
  • Semi-circle: allows to see everybody, creates/good for discussion, keeps people engaged, easy to focus on instructor, not threatening <br /> Rows: own space, easy to spread out, flexibility to move, eliminates distractions <br /> Pods: easy to work with others, comfortable, more space <br /> Auditorium: comfortable seats, like a movie theater <br />
  • SAME RESTULTS FOR INSTRUCTORS AND Ss <br /> No significant results or differences <br /> Mostly slightly positive results with the EXCEPTION of 120 Linton (got highest ratings throughout): room designed with teaching in minds <br />
  • TEACHERS: (N=7) <br /> STUDENTS: (N=46) <br /> Out of YES: 10 negative, 9 neutral, 21 positive <br /> Comfort: furniture, temperature, natural light <br /> Semi-circle: good for discussions, seeing each other NOTE: rows are negative (no interaction, Ss in back don’t pay attention) <br /> Negative: size (distracting, hard to move around, desktop space not enough for books and laptops) <br />
  • Lacking classroom diversity: no tech carts <br /> Lacking language courses: only 1 SPN student (800-level) <br />

Effects of Learning Space Design on CALL Pedagogy Effects of Learning Space Design on CALL Pedagogy Presentation Transcript

  • Effects of Learning Space Design on CALL Pedagogy Angelika Kraemer & Scott Schopieray Michigan State University CALICO, Amherst, June 10, 2010 CALICO 2010 1
  • Overview  Learning space design research  Research study  Learning space design revisited  Implications and recommendations CALICO 2010 2
  • Learning Space Design Research “use of the physical environment is perhaps the least understood and the most neglected” - Banning and Canard (1986) CALICO 2010 3
  • 21st Century Learning Spaces  Demand flexibility  Have a social component  Have embedded technology  Are inspirational Walls, Schopieray, Devoss, 2009 CALICO 2010 4
  • Issues with Classroom Space    Our classrooms are often stuck in industrial revolution era designs After elementary school we often give the physical environment very little thought when considering student development Our spaces often communicate: What happens in a classroom is, and should be, abstracted from what is happening outside its walls CALICO 2010 5
  • Themes from Literature Static Design Flexible Design Un-Wired Wired Teacher Centered Learner Centered Individual Work Collaborative Work “Learning/Information Commons” CALICO 2010 6
  • CALL Learning Spaces Redesigned learning studios coincide with: Reformed curriculum Changes in pedagogy and They seem to empower students to collaborate and communicate in ways they had not previously done. Tom et al. (2008) CALICO 2010 7
  • Poll Look at the following pictures. >  Which classroom setup do you like and why?  Which classroom setup do you think students like and why? CALICO 2010 8
  • Research Study  Use of instructional space  Instructor and student perceptions  Suggestions for redesigned spaces CALICO 2010 9
  • Context Michigan State University  No university-wide language requirement  2-year requirement in Arts & Letters  Students are required to own a computer  Over 30 languages offered  Move toward hybrid language instruction  2 Mac language labs, 27 computer labs  84% of classrooms are technology-enhanced CALICO 2010 10
  • Participants: Instructors (N = 8) CALICO 2010 11
  • Participants: Students (N = 48) CALICO 2010 12
  • Instruments  Online surveys  Likert-scale questions  Short-answer questions  Demographic information  Open-ended interviews with students  Probes based on surveys  Comments on pictures CALICO 2010 13
  • Quantitative Results  Classroom setups  Overall impression  Comfort of room  Ease of teaching/learning in room  Technology provided  Furniture  Effects of setup on teaching/learning CALICO 2010 14
  • Angelika Angelika Kraemer: Kraemer: Classroom Setups - General Is this slide Is this slide necessary? necessary? All (N=167) Lg courses (N=96) Seats in rows 46 43 Seats in semi-circles 39 32 Tables in rows 30 9 Labs in rows 18 4 Pods 17 5 Labs in pods 11 1 Auditoriums 5 0 Large table 2 2 CALICO 2010 15
  • Classroom Setups - Study OHP 3 Tech Podium 6 Smart Board 1 Lab in rows 1 9 rooms have individual seats in rows, easy to modify 1 room has large tables with chairs, easy to modify CALICO 2010 16
  • CALICO 2010 17
  • Classroom Setups - Inst Favorite CALICO 2010 18
  • Classroom Setups - Ss Favorite CALICO 2010 19
  • Quantitative Results CALICO 2010 20
  • Effects of Setup on Teaching/Learning Instructors  Yes: 100% Students  Yes: 87%  to and interaction with Ss  View of teacher  Movability  Natural light  Technology   Access CALICO 2010       Positive: 53% Negative: 25% Neutral: 22% No: 7% Maybe: 6% Comfort Semi-circle Size 21
  • Qualitative Results  Effects of setup on teaching/learning  Positive and negative aspects about rooms  Suggested changes  Comments on pictures (interviews)  Additional comments CALICO 2010 22
  • Effects of Setup on Teaching/Learning    I think the way a classroom is structured affects the methods I can use when teaching. For instance, if I'm not able to easily move furniture I can be stuck teaching in only one style. The ease of technology use is also a factor, the technology can't be something that I have to spend a lot of time setting up. (T8) It's hard to have more than a notebook open on the surface of the desk/chair, and it's grating. Many times during class my concentration is broken by having to juggle stuff around so that I can write comfortably, or someone else has dropped their books, pens, pencils, etc. all over the floor. (S13) It should harbor co-operative, student centered learning, providing a multitude of opportunities for the instructor to easily give over control of the class to the students by have there not be a front of the room, always occupied by the instructor. (S38) CALICO 2010 23
  • Positive Aspects about the Rooms CALICO 2010 24
  • Positive Aspects about the Rooms Instructors  Room Setup – space to move, boards, windows  Ability to move Furniture  Technology CALICO 2010 Students  Windows/Natural Light  Writing Spaces – Blackboards/Whiteb oards  Ability to move furniture around  Technology 25
  • Negative Aspects about the Rooms CALICO 2010 26
  • Negative Aspects about the Rooms Instructors  Temperature  Noise  Classroom Setup  Technology – not working CALICO 2010 Students  Furniture – size, style, blocked vision  Way space is kept – dirty, small, unorganized  Technology – not working  Temperature 27
  • Suggested Changes CALICO 2010 28
  • Suggested Changes Instructors  Room Setup  Furniture  Temperature CALICO 2010 Students  Furniture  Room Setup  Technology  Temperature 29
  • Comments on Pictures CALICO 2010 30
  • Additional Comments CALICO 2010 31
  • Learning Space Design Revisited CALICO 2010 32
  • Implications and Recommendations  Instructors ABC  Students do not seem to have a preference for a specific space  Students are concerned with the teaching => Room design should impact pedagogy positively instead of trying to influence students CALICO 2010 33
  • Limitations  Small sample size  Lacking diversity of classrooms  Lacking diversity of language courses CALICO 2010 34
  • Future Directions  Continuation of study including  More instructors and students  Students of different subjects  Examining changes in perceptions over time CALICO 2010 35
  • Thank you Angelika Kraemer Scott Schopieray Co-Curricular and Outreach Coordinator Director for Educational Technology Center for Language Teaching Advancement College of Arts and Letters Michigan State University Michigan State University kraemera@msu.edu schopie1@msu.edu CALICO 2010 36
  • CALICO 2010 39
  • CALICO 2010 40