Effects of Learning Space Design
on CALL Pedagogy
Angelika Kraemer & Scott Schopieray
Michigan State University
CALICO, Am...
Overview
 Learning

space design research
 Research study
 Learning space design revisited
 Implications and recommend...
Learning Space Design Research
“use of the physical environment is
perhaps the least understood and the
most neglected”
- ...
21st Century Learning Spaces
 Demand

flexibility

 Have

a social component

 Have

embedded technology

 Are

inspir...
Issues with Classroom Space





Our classrooms are often stuck in industrial
revolution era designs
After elementary s...
Themes from Literature
Static Design

Flexible Design

Un-Wired

Wired

Teacher Centered

Learner Centered

Individual Wor...
CALL Learning Spaces
Redesigned learning studios coincide with:
Reformed curriculum
Changes in pedagogy
and
They seem to e...
Poll
Look at the following pictures. >
 Which classroom setup do you like and
why?
 Which classroom setup do you think
s...
Research Study
 Use

of instructional space
 Instructor and student perceptions
 Suggestions for redesigned spaces

CAL...
Context
Michigan State University
 No university-wide language requirement
 2-year requirement in Arts & Letters
 Stude...
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

...
Quantitative Results
 Classroom

setups
 Overall impression
 Comfort of room
 Ease of teaching/learning in room
 Tech...
Angelika
Angelika
Kraemer:
Kraemer:

Classroom Setups - General

Is this slide
Is this slide
necessary?
necessary?

All (N...
Classroom Setups - Study
OHP

3

Tech Podium

6

Smart Board

1

Lab in rows

1

9 rooms have individual seats in rows, ea...
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 o...
Qualitative Results
 Effects

of setup on teaching/learning
 Positive and negative aspects about
rooms
 Suggested chang...
Effects of Setup on Teaching/Learning






I think the way a classroom is structured affects the
methods I can use whe...
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
 T...
Negative Aspects about the Rooms

CALICO 2010

26
Negative Aspects about the Rooms
Instructors
 Temperature
 Noise
 Classroom Setup
 Technology – not
working

CALICO 20...
Suggested Changes

CALICO 2010

28
Suggested Changes
Instructors
 Room Setup
 Furniture
 Temperature

CALICO 2010

Students
 Furniture
 Room Setup
 Tec...
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
 Stu...
Limitations
 Small

sample size
 Lacking diversity of classrooms
 Lacking diversity of language courses

CALICO 2010

3...
Future Directions
 Continuation

of study including

 More

instructors and students
 Students of different subjects
 ...
Thank you
Angelika Kraemer

Scott Schopieray

Co-Curricular and
Outreach Coordinator

Director for Educational
Technology
...
CALICO 2010

39
CALICO 2010

40
Effects of Learning Space Design on CALL Pedagogy
Effects of Learning Space Design on CALL Pedagogy
Effects of Learning Space Design on CALL Pedagogy
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Effects of Learning Space Design on CALL Pedagogy

555 views

Published on

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

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
555
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

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

    1. 1. Effects of Learning Space Design on CALL Pedagogy Angelika Kraemer & Scott Schopieray Michigan State University CALICO, Amherst, June 10, 2010 CALICO 2010 1
    2. 2. Overview  Learning space design research  Research study  Learning space design revisited  Implications and recommendations CALICO 2010 2
    3. 3. 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
    4. 4. 21st Century Learning Spaces  Demand flexibility  Have a social component  Have embedded technology  Are inspirational Walls, Schopieray, Devoss, 2009 CALICO 2010 4
    5. 5. 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
    6. 6. Themes from Literature Static Design Flexible Design Un-Wired Wired Teacher Centered Learner Centered Individual Work Collaborative Work “Learning/Information Commons” CALICO 2010 6
    7. 7. 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
    8. 8. 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
    9. 9. Research Study  Use of instructional space  Instructor and student perceptions  Suggestions for redesigned spaces CALICO 2010 9
    10. 10. 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
    11. 11. Participants: Instructors (N = 8) CALICO 2010 11
    12. 12. Participants: Students (N = 48) CALICO 2010 12
    13. 13. 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
    14. 14. 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
    15. 15. 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
    16. 16. 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
    17. 17. CALICO 2010 17
    18. 18. Classroom Setups - Inst Favorite CALICO 2010 18
    19. 19. Classroom Setups - Ss Favorite CALICO 2010 19
    20. 20. Quantitative Results CALICO 2010 20
    21. 21. 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
    22. 22. 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
    23. 23. 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
    24. 24. Positive Aspects about the Rooms CALICO 2010 24
    25. 25. 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
    26. 26. Negative Aspects about the Rooms CALICO 2010 26
    27. 27. 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
    28. 28. Suggested Changes CALICO 2010 28
    29. 29. Suggested Changes Instructors  Room Setup  Furniture  Temperature CALICO 2010 Students  Furniture  Room Setup  Technology  Temperature 29
    30. 30. Comments on Pictures CALICO 2010 30
    31. 31. Additional Comments CALICO 2010 31
    32. 32. Learning Space Design Revisited CALICO 2010 32
    33. 33. 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
    34. 34. Limitations  Small sample size  Lacking diversity of classrooms  Lacking diversity of language courses CALICO 2010 34
    35. 35. Future Directions  Continuation of study including  More instructors and students  Students of different subjects  Examining changes in perceptions over time CALICO 2010 35
    36. 36. 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
    37. 37. CALICO 2010 39
    38. 38. CALICO 2010 40

    ×