This document discusses distributed learning spaces in higher education, including physical, blended, and virtual spaces. It suggests that higher education is no longer defined by physical campuses alone, but by the entire student experience, whether attending face-to-face classes, online courses, or a blend of both. Learning now occurs through a variety of formal and informal spaces, on and off campus. The role of universities is to foster lifelong and life-wide learning through a diversity of learning environments and technologies.

1. Physical and Virtual
Learning Spaces in
Higher Education:
Concepts for the Modern
Learning Environment
Mike Keppell
Charles Sturt University, Australia
Kay Souter
La Trobe University, Australia
Matthew Riddle
La Trobe University, Australia

2. Senior Editorial Director: Kristin Klinger
Director of Book Publications: Julia Mosemann
Editorial Director: Lindsay Johnston
Acquisitions Editor: Erika Carter
Development Editor: Michael Killian
Production Editor: Sean Woznicki
Typesetters: Keith Glazewski, Natalie Pronio, Milan Vracarich, Jr.
Print Coordinator: Jamie Snavely
Cover Design: Nick Newcomer
Published in the United States of America by
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright © 2012 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Physical and virtual learning spaces in higher education: concepts for the modern learning environment / Mike Keppell, Kay
Souter, and Matthew Riddle, editors.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: “This book documents real-world experiences of innovators in higher education who have redesigned spaces for
learning and teaching, including physical, virtual, formal, informal, blended, flexible, and time sensitive factors”--Provided
by publisher.
ISBN 978-1-60960-114-0 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-60960-116-4 (ebook) 1. College environment. 2. Classroom
environment. 3. Virtual reality in higher education. 4. Blended learning. I. Keppell, Mike, 1961- II. Souter, Kay, 1952- III.
Riddle, Matthew, 1969-
LB2324.P47 2012
378.1’01--dc22
2011014040
British Cataloguing in Publication Data
A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

3. 1
Chapter 1
Distributed Learning Spaces:
Physical, Blended and Virtual Learning
Spaces in Higher Education
Mike Keppell
Charles Sturt University, Australia
Matthew Riddle
La Trobe University, Australia
ABSTRACT
This chapter examines distributed and personal learning spaces across the spectrum of physical,
blended and virtual learning spaces in the higher education context. We suggest that higher education
is no longer defined by tangible boundaries of a ‘physical campus’ but by the entire student experience,
whether that involves negotiating the physical corridors of the campus, attending face-to-face classes,
participating in fully online courses or a blend of both face-to-face and online courses. In addition the
student experience may also involve connecting to virtual environments from home, a local cafe, on the
train or participating in professional practice hundreds of kilometers from the physical campus. This
chapter attempts to account for the diverse range of spaces that are enriching the learning and teaching
experience for both academics and students and suggests the need to recognise the changing nature of
learning spaces in higher education.
INTRODUCTION attending face-to-face classes, participating in
fully online courses or a blend of both face-to-
Higher education institutions are no longer defined face and online courses. In addition to the formal
by the physical boundaries of their campus but by institutional physical and virtual spaces utilised
the entire student experience, whether that involves by staff and students, the informal physical and
negotiating the physical corridors of the campus, virtual spaces may now encompass a wider range
of distributed learning spaces. These distributed
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-114-0.ch001
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

4. Distributed Learning Spaces
learning spaces could involve a complex web of The growing acceptance of life-long and
on-campus experiences, connecting to virtual life-wide learning also have a major influence
environments from a variety of locations such as on distributed learning spaces. Lifelong learning
home, a local cafe, on the train or participating in encompasses both formal and informal learning,
professional practice hundreds of kilometers from self-motivated learning, self-funded learning and
the physical campus. Distributed learning spaces universal participation (Watson, 2003). There is
recognise that we are seeing a disintegration of growing acceptance and recognition of life-wide
the distinction between face-to-face learning and learning in informal settings. “The idea of life-
teaching and distance education. There is increased wide learning is proposed to highlight the fact that
recognition that learning does not just occur in at any point in time, for example while a learner
the formal university setting but increasingly at is engaged in Higher Education, an individual’s
work, home and within the community and that life contains many parallel and interconnected
the principles of lifelong learning are being em- journeys and experiences and that these individu-
braced by society. There is also a proliferation of ally and collectively contribute to the ongoing
approaches emerging including ‘flexible’, ‘open’, personal and potentially professional develop-
‘distance’ and ‘off-campus’ that assist the ubiquity ment of the person” (Jackson, 2010, p. 492). We
of learning in a wide range of contexts (Lea & can no longer assume that school leavers are the
Nicholl, 2002). major demographic group that universities need to
The blurring of face-to-face learning and teach- cater for as mature age students are increasingly
ing and online learning is a significant shift for both represented in higher education settings. We can
students and staff of universities. This disintegra- also not assume that all students will desire the
tion of the distinction and the growing acceptance campus experience for their learning and that
that learning occurs in different ‘places’ presents many students may choose flexible learning op-
both exciting and challenging opportunities for portunities to suit their life circumstances which
higher education. The recognition of blended and may mean that they do not physically visit the
flexible learning is significant for traditional face- university campus.
to-face institutions as well as distance education This chapter recognises the ubiquity of spaces
universities. For the purposes of this chapter the that are enriching the learning and teaching experi-
premise that flexible learning provides opportu- ence for both academics and students and suggests
nities to improve the student learning experience that we need to begin by exploring the pedagogical
through flexibility in time, pace, place (physical, interactions and considerations that are possible in
virtual, on-campus, off-campus), mode of study distributed learning spaces. This chapter will begin
(print-based, face-to-face, blended, online), with an examination of the role of the university,
teaching approach (collaborative, independent), the utopian university in relation to learning and
forms of assessment and staffing is accepted. It teaching, and the ecological university (Barnett,
may utilise a wide range of media, environments, 2011). Secondly we will examine the assumptions
learning spaces and technologies for learning and and principles underlying higher education. These
teaching. “Blended and flexible learning” is a assumptions and underlying principles form the
design approach that examines the relationships default basis for making decisions about learning
between flexible learning opportunities, in order and teaching in the higher education environ-
to optimise student engagement and equivalence ment. Thirdly, pedagogy needs to be examined
in learning outcomes regardless of mode of study to understand the nature of distributed learning
(Keppell, 2010). spaces. Fourthly, rather than lecture halls with
rowed seats being the predominant physical space
2

5. Distributed Learning Spaces
for learning and teaching in higher education, this other words universities seek to develop gradu-
chapter explores a diverse range of alternate learn- ates who will continue to develop intellectually,
ing spaces including: physical/virtual, formal/ professionally and socially beyond the bounds of
informal, blended, mobile, outdoor, academic, formal education. To achieve this goal we need to
personal and practice-based spaces and considers explicitly teach university students skills in life-
the importance of flexibility, adaptability and time long learning and life-wide learning in order for
in these settings. The chapter traverses physical, them to continue to learn once outside the bounds
blended and virtual spaces and examines the per- of the physical or virtual boundaries of the institu-
ceived and actual affordances of these learning tion. In addition, university curriculum, learning
spaces. Fifthly, a case study is presented outlining and teaching services need to be responsive to
a range of spaces utilised by students. It examines the diverse cultural, social and academic needs
the use of spaces from the student experience as of students in order to enable them to adapt to the
opposed to the technology or physical space per- demands of university education and to provide
spective. Gaining a clear understanding of where, them with cultural capital for life success. In es-
how, and why students use these technologies is sence we seek sustainability or as Barnett (2011)
more elusive and how students use space in their suggests, we seek the utopia of the ecological
everyday lives provides a fascinating insight into university.
the use of space by students (Riddle & Howell, Barnett (2011) suggests that the ecological
2008). Finally, the chapter will examine implica- university represents an orientation to sustain-
tions for the use of distributed learning spaces in ability, interconnectedness, wellbeing and care
higher education. for the university environment that encompasses
all aspects of its functioning including the envi-
ronment, social relations and knowledge. It is a
ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES IN networked university that values and fosters its
RELATION TO DISTRIBUTED networks and their interconnectedness and feels a
LEARNING SPACES responsibility to the wellbeing of these networks.
“Through its interest in promoting understanding
The role of universities has been traditionally through learning and inquiry, it seeks to contribute
focused on research, teaching and service to the what it can so as to advance the wellbeing of each
community. At the core of their values is that the aspect of the world upon which it might have an
needs of society are central to their activities. effect” (Barnett, 2011, p. 142). Instead of ‘having
A core value of universities is that they focus an impact’ on the world, ecological universities
on enhancing society and influencing students seek sustainability and more importantly self-
to become fully functioning members of their sustainability in multiple levels of interactions.
professional community. There would be little It adopts a ‘care for the world’ as opposed to an
disagreement with the notion that universities ‘impact on the world’ approach (Barnett, 2011).
should contribute to the well-being of society and The underlying principles for achieving the
strive to develop students who are both confident goal of the ecological university include at least
and forward-looking in their aptitude to continue five aspects: access and equity; equivalence of
to learn once working in their chosen profession. learning outcomes; student learning experience;
The major distinctive feature of a professional constructive alignment and discipline pedagogies.
is their ability to reflect on a daily basis on their Universities have ethical obligations to cater for
work and then action forward-looking thinking for students of all ages, geographical location and
the benefit of their own professional practice. In technological access. Distance education univer-
3

6. Distributed Learning Spaces
sities usually cater for all students by providing face-to-face learning and teaching in physical
options for face-to-face students, students in buildings is superior to other forms of learning
blended learning environments (combination and teaching.
of face-to-face and online interactions), online The concept of ‘constructive alignment’ (Biggs
environments and also students who require & Tang, 2007) is another principle that underpins
print-based resources due to their lack of internet learning and teaching in the ecological university.
access or technological proficiency. In other words It suggests that students construct meaning through
universities have an ethical obligation in relation their interactions in learning and teaching and that
to ‘access and equity’ in the provision of courses all aspects of the learning context should be aligned
(degrees) and subjects for all students. to achieving the desired learning outcomes. For
In addition to access and equity, university this reason the learning environment, curriculum,
education has an ethical obligation to have ‘equiva- degree, learning and teaching activities, assess-
lence of learning outcomes’ across the range of ment and learning outcomes should be designed
options mentioned previously. Universities are in conjunction with each other to guarantee the
now seeing a higher percentage of part-time stu- richness of the student experience.
dents juggling family, work and studies as well Another principle that will influence the use
students who may study by distance education of spaces in higher education is the discipline
using online technologies and who may seldom pedagogy unique to the specific profession. Shul-
visit the physical campus. This means that no two man (2005) refers to these unique approaches as
students may have exactly the same educational the ‘signature pedagogies’ of the professions. “A
experience, yet it is expected that students will ‘signature pedagogy’ is a mode of teaching that
graduate with comparable knowledge, skills, com- has become inextricably identified with prepar-
petence and attitudes in their chosen area. Instead ing people for a particular profession” (Shulman,
of examining sameness of the educational experi- 2005, p. 5). A ‘signature pedagogy’ has a number
ence (whatever that means) we need to focus on of unique characteristics. Firstly, it is an approach
‘equivalence of learning outcomes’. Learning and distinctive to the profession (e.g. clinical rounds
teaching in all these spaces (face-to-face, blended, in medicine). Secondly, the approach is pervasive
online, resource-based) needs to be underpinned in the curriculum and thirdly, the approach is per-
by optimal design practices to ensure equivalent vasive across institutions and therefore essential
learning outcomes for all students. in the education of the profession.
Another key principle that naturally flows from In addition to the principles above, contempo-
the previous principle is that the ‘contemporary rary learning and teaching needs to account for the
student experience traverses physical, blended and type of interactions that are occurring or could oc-
virtual learning spaces’. This includes students cur in subjects and degree programs. Information
studying at traditional face-to-face universities access (course and subject expectations) conveys/
as well as distance education universities that delivers information to the individual learner
should be naturally embracing distributed learning through the learning management system. This
spaces. ‘Place’ is becoming less important in the may include course design information as well
student experience and it may be that academics as the subject related requirements in relation to
will need to embrace this multiplicity of spaces subject information, learning outcomes, assess-
for learning and teaching. The recognition of dis- ment and a rationale for the use of online tools.
tributed learning spaces in higher education will Information access allows easy access by learn-
have enormous implications for all universities ers to information or resources and the ability to
and particularly those universities that believe review the content at anytime through the learning
4

7. Distributed Learning Spaces
management system. Interactive learning (learner- DISTRIBUTED LEARNING SPACES
to-content interactions) determines the blends that
are appropriate at subject level, taking into account Learning and teaching in higher education should
factors such as the learning space (on-campus, at occur in a range of learning spaces rather than
a distance, workplace learning, the level of learner the predominant physical learning space being
engagement with the resources within the learn- the lecture halls with rowed seats. These learning
ing management system environment, and other spaces should include: physical/virtual, formal/
connected environments such as eportfolio, Web informal, blended, mobile, outdoor, academic,
2.0 tools, online meeting spaces and so on). It in- personal and practice-based spaces and should
volves an individual interaction with the resources. consider flexibility, adaptability and time. This
These resources would be embedded within the section traverses physical, blended and virtual
online environment or may involve standalone spaces and examines the perceived and actual
CD-ROMs, DVDs which are delivered to distance affordances of these learning spaces.
education learners or utilised by learners in face- Throughout this chapter four key aspects will
to-face classes. Networked learning (learner-to- define our definition of learning spaces. Learning
learner, learner-to-teacher interactions) enhance spaces are:
communication between learners; and between
learners and teachers within the learning manage- • physical, blended or virtual learning envi-
ment system, and other connected environments ronments that enhance as opposed to con-
such as eportfolio, Web 2.0 tools, online meeting strain learning;
spaces and so on. Peer learning is central to this • physical, blended or virtual ‘areas’ that
approach where it is expected that there would be motivate a user to participate for learning
two-way dialogue/feedback between learners and/ benefits;
or two-way dialogue/feedback between learners • spaces where both teachers and students
and the teacher. Within the learning management optimize the perceived and actual affor-
system this may include: forums, chat, group dances of the space; and
tasks, reflective journals, blogs, online debates, • spaces that promote authentic learning
online presentations, virtual tutorials, wikis. interactions.
Student-generated content (learners-as-designers,
assessment-as-learning) emphasises the design, Physical Learning Spaces
development and presentation of products and
artefacts which may also be associated with the These spaces often have a preconceived function
formal assessment of the subject. These artefacts that is determined before they are designed for
may include student-generated: reports, concept learning and teaching. They are often determined
maps, reflective journals, digital stories, presen- by traditional conceptions of teaching and learning
tations, e-portfolios, group projects as well as that place a premium on the teacher as authority
photographs, video and audio artefacts and web and disseminator of knowledge and the student as
2.0 technologies. Individual, partner and group passive recipient of knowledge. Typical of these
developments may be utilised in this approach approaches are the use of lectures and tutorials
(Keppell, 2010). where students listen and write notes. Although
there is a place for lecturing in any learning and
teaching strategy and within any institution, the
focus tends to be on content as opposed to student
engagement and learning. A high proportion of
5

8. Distributed Learning Spaces
Figure 1. Distributed learning spaces that students and academics are increasingly traversing in higher
education
lecture halls within universities reinforce this tra- which are directly relevant for the future career
ditional approach to disseminating content which of the student. Informal physical learning spaces
is in opposition to the interactive formal learning include libraries and learning commons (see
spaces that encourage knowledge generation by Figure 2) that have been explicitly designed to
students. Innovative formal learning spaces that encourage students to engage in both independent
explicitly encourage peer-learning may adopt and peer-learning. Ideal informal spaces provide
problem-based learning or project-based learning sufficient flexibility so that students can design the
approaches. informal space to suit their own learning needs.
To enhance learning, universities have tradi- Chairs, tables, access to wi-fi and power points
tionally used physical learning spaces (lecture the- need to be considered to allow this adaptability.
atres, labs, tutorial rooms) to prepare students for In addition, different weeks of the semester may
their future careers and professions. To motivate require totally different spaces as students progress
learners and provide diverse teaching approaches, through stages of their learning. One learning
formal physical learning spaces need to be adapt- space may need to promote quiet, independent,
able and flexible for learning and teaching as self-reflective study for the individual student
opposed to being designed for one purpose. This while the same space on another day may need
allows both learners and teachers to use the space to allow group-based and peer learning. This is
to suit the learning activities as opposed to con- ideal when spaces enhance, motivate and promote
straining the learning and teaching opportunities authentic learning interactions. These aspects are
in the subject or course. Ideally, learning activities important for existing spaces as well as spaces
should focus on authentic learning interactions that are being designed or repurposed.
6

9. Distributed Learning Spaces
Souter, Riddle, Keppell, Sellers (2010) suggest light, wifi, private spaces, writing surfaces,
seven principles of learning space design which sofas, and so on.
support a constructivist approach to learning: and • Repurposing: the potential for multiple us-
support a learning environment that is student- age of a space.
centred, collaborative, and experiential. These
include: Virtual Learning Spaces
• Comfort: a space which creates a physical Many higher education universities use institu-
and mental sense of ease and well-being. tional virtual learning environments (e.g. Sakai,
• Aesthetics: pleasure which includes the Blackboard, Moodle) to complement the face-to-
recognition of symmetry, harmony, sim- face learning and teaching experience via blended
plicity and fitness for purpose. learning or to provide distance education using
• Flow: the state of mind felt by the learn- blended or totally online subjects and courses
er when totally involved in the learning (degree programs). Coates, James and Baldwin
experience. (2005) suggest a number of factors that have been
• Equity: consideration of the needs of cul- drivers behind the adoption of learning manage-
tural and physical differences. ment systems (LMS) within higher education
• Blending: a mixture of technological and settings. These include:
face-to-face pedagogical resources.
• Affordances: the “action possibilities” the • LMS suggest a means of increasing the ef-
learning environment provides the users, ficiency of teaching
including such things as kitchens, natural
Figure 2. A learning commons at a distance education university which allows students 24 hour access
7

10. Distributed Learning Spaces
• The attractiveness of LMS is associ- is often influenced by context, culture, instinct
ated with the promise of enriched student and mental models. When designers make use
learning of affordances the user knows what to do just
• Universities are driven by new student by looking. The concept of affordance has been
expectations widely discussed in relation to ICT (Boyle &
• Competitive pressure between institutions Cook, 2004; Conole & Dyke, 2004a, 2004b; Hill,
has been a driver behind the adoption of 2006; John & Sutherland, 2005; Oliver, 2005).
LMS A crucial aspect of the concept is that both the
• LMS are sometimes proposed as a key teacher and learner must understand how a space
means of responding to massive and in- can be utilised which means that it is necessary
creasing demands for greater access to to understand both the perceived and actual af-
higher education fordance of a space. For example, a student needs
• LMS are part of an important culture shift to recognise and understand the perceived affor-
taking place in teaching and learning in dance of a wiki (i.e. collaboration) and be able
higher education (p. 24-25). to use this affordance in the actual development
of a project that involves three students dispersed
Associated with this culture shift in teaching across different states and time zones of Australia.
and learning has been the important decisions Informal virtual learning spaces are becoming
that need to be made by institutions in choosing increasingly utilised in higher education. Face-
a LMS that best matches their ‘specific context’. book, Flickr, YouTube and Twitter allow users to
This is not a simple decision, as evidenced by the personalise and customize their own virtual spaces
calibre of personnel who need to be involved in and network and socialise with others. Madge,
the decision making process. “In incorporating Meek, Wellens and Hooley (2010) suggest that
online learning systems into university teaching “Web 2.0 applications are increasingly embedded
programmes, it is important to consider whether in the daily routines of everyday life, particularly
commercially available systems are adaptable to for young people in many places and a variety
the needs of diverse academic cultures and com- of different social settings” (p. 142). Universi-
munities” (Coates, James & Baldwin, 2005, p. ties are recognising the value of web 2.0 tools to
31). Debate still occurs as to whether an institution enhance the formal virtual learning environment
should adopt a proprietary LMS (with so-called and many are utlising both vendor supplied and
constraints) or an open source LMS (which may community-driven tools. Madge, Meek, Wellens
provide too much freedom). and Hooley (2010) research on the use of Facebook
Virtual learning spaces provide unique oppor- for streamlining the transition of new students
tunities that are unavailable in physical learning into university also found that “online and offline
spaces and can enrich the student experience. worlds are clearly coexisting, but used in differ-
These affordances or ‘action possibilities’ allow ent ways for developing and sustaining different
a richer range of learning interactions and may types of relationships. For example, face-to-face
include online discussion forums, blogs, wikis, friendships from home have been developed and
podcasts and diverse media-rich environments. sustained through continued online interactions,
The notion of space in this context is not bounded whilst newer online relationships have flourished
by physical walls but by virtual spaces that have at university and developed into face-to-face in-
different affordances. An affordance is a design depth relationships” (p. 145).
aspect of an object which suggests how an object
should be used (Norman, 1988). An affordance
8

11. Distributed Learning Spaces
Blended Learning Spaces In addition it offers an “integration of spaces” (p.
2) and allows flexibility in the time when learners
Blended learning involves the integration of both are involved in subjects or courses.
on-campus face-to-face learning and teaching and
on or off-campus virtual learning environments Mobile Learning Spaces
utilising the affordances of each environment to
enhance the student experience. A combination The use of mobile technology such as Smart-
of physical/virtual, formal/informal would be phones and iPods represents a promising area in
considered in these spaces to optimise the student which to explore the concept of space. Mobile
experience. “Blended and flexible learning” is a technologies will provide further flexibility to the
design approach that examines the relationships student experience in higher education and they
between flexible learning opportunities, in order will become increasingly important as students
to optimise student engagement and equivalence and academics traverse physical, blended and
in learning outcomes regardless of mode of study virtual learning environments. “With its strong
(Keppell, 2010). Gerbic and Stacey (2009) suggest emphasis on learning rather than teaching, mobile
that the introduction of blended learning is chal- learning challenges educators to try to understand
lenging as “the face-to-face setting is foundational learners’ needs, circumstances and abilities even
in all contexts, and has a historical and experiential better than before. This extends to understanding
legitimacy” (p. 302). They also suggest that “it is how learning takes place beyond the classroom,
far more difficult to create or develop the same in the course of daily routines, commuting and
kind of fidelity, comfort or social presence in travel, and in the intersection of education, life,
online spaces” (p. 302). work and leisure” (Kukulska-Hulme, 2010, p.181).
Other perspectives suggest that blended learn- The Horizon Report (2011) suggests that there
ing is “a design approach whereby both face-to- is a shift in the means that users are connecting
face and online learning are made better by the to the internet due to: “the growing number of
presence of each other” (Garrison & Vaughan, internet-capable mobile devices, increasingly flex-
2008, p. 52). Blended learning and teaching can ible web content, and continued development of
occur at four levels of granularity. These include: the networks that support connectivity.” It is also
activity-level blending, subject-level blending, suggested that 100% of university students utilise
course-level blending and institutional-level mobile phones and their portability and ubiquity
blending (Graham, 2006). A blended learning are powerful tools for learning and teaching.
design may also be enabling, enhancing or Their ability to be used as electronic book read-
transformative. Enabling blends would address ers, annotation tools, creation, composition, social
issues of access and equity to provide equitable networking, image, video and audio capture tools
opportunities in face-to-face, print-based, blended is becoming increasingly sophisticated (Horizon
and fully online learning environments. Enhanc- Report, 2011). In addition “learning when mobile
ing blends focus on incremental changes to the means that context becomes all-important, since
existing teaching and learning environment. even a simple change of location is an invitation
Transformative blends focus on a major redesign to revisit learning, in both a literal sense (to apply
of the teaching and learning environment (e.g. it, reflect on it, reinforce it, share it) and meta-
online, problem based learning). Littlejohn and phorical, to reconsider what constitutes learning
Pegler (2007) suggest that “blended e-learning or what makes it effective in a given situation”
offers the possibility of changing our attitudes … (Kukulska-Hulme, 2009, p. 159). Conversely,
as to where and when learning takes place” (p. 2). it is possible to argue that the context becomes
9

12. Distributed Learning Spaces
immaterial when mobile technologies make any management and are more often than not devel-
place a learning space. oped as an after thought in campus design. As
such the thoroughfares and rest areas are under
Outdoor Learning Spaces valued (or not recognised) as important spaces
for learning and teaching.” Importantly, with the
The need to think ‘outside the box’ as to what pervasiveness of wifi and mobile devices, outdoor
constitutes a learning and teaching space will learning spaces can create a blended learning
become increasingly important particularly as experience that models distributed learning and
mobile learning will continue to grow in usage. provides learning opportunities which may not
Outdoor spaces represent one of the unexpected be possible within the boundaries of physical
‘places’ where rich learning may occur. Most classrooms.
university campuses focus time and energy on
the formal learning spaces of the buildings for Academic Spaces
learning and teaching with both students and staff
often gazing across manicured gardens and fields Barnett (2011) suggests that “today’s university
surrounding the buildings. It is somewhat ironic lives amid multiple time-spans, and time-speeds”
that few academics and students may consider (p. 74). He suggests that the arrival of constant
and utilise these open spaces as formal/informal email would be considered one of these multiple
learning spaces that provide unique opportunities time-spans, and other time spans might include
for learning in all disciplines. historians who focus on the past and researchers
Rafferty (2011) eloquently suggests that “these who may focus on the future of their research.
pathways, thoroughfares and occasional rest areas Academic developers may focus on 12 months of
are generally given a functional value in traffic workshops and seminars and distance education
Figure 3. A formal outdoor learning space at a distance education university
10

13. Distributed Learning Spaces
universities may need to be conscious of the 24/7 • Practical time/practical space is the work
existence of their students across the globe, each in diary time that is scheduled for individual
their own unique time-span. In other words there academics and the university calendar. It is
are a ‘plurality of durations’ and ‘time-spans’ for the predominant “visible felt time and vis-
individual academics who often work evenings ible space” (p. 78) in universities.
and weekends. Increasingly, academics need to • Virtual time/virtual space is the ‘hidden
focus on activities that do ‘double-time’, in order time’ and space that includes the papers
to manage multiple time-spans. These activities and books written at home, reading under-
fulfill more than one function, such as researching taken on the train to work or plane com-
one’s own teaching. Academics may also use their muting to other campuses, communication
‘multiple time-spans’ to ‘open spaces’ through via Skype and other such activities that go
collaborations across the country and globe with unseen. This ‘hidden time’ may impinge on
academics within other universities. the life/work balance of the academic if it
Barnett (2011) suggests that academics may is not managed by the individual academic.
be active in university spaces that may include: • Imagined time/imagined space is the time
spent thinking of possibilities which are
• Intellectual and discursive space which fo- ‘new spaces and timeframes’ (Barnett,
cus on the contribution to the wider public 2011).
sphere.
• Epistemological space which focuses on The academic who imagines possibilities, lives
the “space available for academics to pur- with uncertainty when they travel (physically or
sue their own research interests” (p. 76). virtually) as they are putting themselves forward
• Pedagogical and curricular space focuses into new spaces. International conference presen-
on the spaces available to trial new peda- tations, working in different cultural contexts all
gogical approaches and new curricular represent new spaces and a stretching of thoughts
initiatives. and perspectives. Universities need to encourage
• Ontological space which focuses on ‘aca- this entry into new spaces, new thoughts and new
demic being’ which is becoming increas- possibilities in order to continue thinking about
ingly multi-faceted beyond the research, what will work toward the goal of the ecological
teaching and community commitments. university.
Terms such as manager, mentor, facilitator
and curriculum designer suggest boundar- Personal Learning Spaces
ies which are changing. In fact “the widen-
ing of universities’ ontological spaces may Personal learning environments (PLE) integrate
bring both peril and liberation” (p. 77). formal and informal learning spaces but more
importantly they are customised by the individual
Increasingly due to the dispersed student popu- to suit their needs and allow them to create their
lation spread across the globe, timezones, physical own identities. They comprise all the tools we use
and virtual learning spaces, universities may be in our daily lives. Figure 4 is an attempt to map
seen as “intersecting time zones and space zones” the tools that are used for learning in the role of a
(Barnett, 2011, p. 78). Barnett (2011) combines university academic. A PLE recognises ongoing
time and space to create three formations. These learning and the need for tools to support life-long
include: and life-wide learning. “PLE are based on the idea
that learning will take place in different contexts
11

14. Distributed Learning Spaces
and situations and will not be provided by a single knowledge to trusted members of a personal
learning provider” (Attwell, 2007, p. 1). PLE are network. Some of the principles of connectivism
individually-constructed and customised and they include:
stand in stark contrast to learning management
systems which both enhance and constrain learn- • Learning requires a diversity of opinions;
ing due to their inherent structure, configuration • Learning is a network formation;
and imposed organisation. PLE may also foster • Knowledge rests in networks;
self-regulated learning “which refers to the ability • The capacity to know more is essential;
of the learner to prepare for his/her own learning, and
take the necessary steps to learn, manage/evaluate • The capacity to remain current is valued.
his/her learning and provide self-feedback and
judgement, all while maintaining a high level of Practice-Based Spaces
motivation (McLoughlin & Lee, 2009, p. 639).
PLE may also require new ways of learning Universities are increasingly educating learners
as knowledge has changed to networks and to participate in professional practice before en-
ecologies (Siemens, 2006). The implications of tering the workforce. Learners are immersed in
this change is that improved lines of communica- practicums or work-integrated learning activities
tion need to occur. “Connectivism is the assertion in schools, hospitals, practice environments etc.
that learning is primarily a network-forming These work-integrated activities are undertaken
process” (p. 15). It is a theory of learning in the in spaces often at a distance from the university
digital age that attempts to filter and offload campus, sometimes without direct supervision.
Figure 4. Personal learning spaces that may regularly be traversed
12

15. Distributed Learning Spaces
The student within the practicum learns the culture excluding the hours between 10pm and 8am,
of the profession through this immersion and often prompting them with the following questions.
interacts at a distance from university academics.
The use of mobile devices and personal learning 1. What time is it?
environments has enormous potential for connect- 2. Where are you?
ing the student during their practicum. The use 3. Who are you with? (friends, colleagues,
of eportfolios also provides a mechanism for the family etc.)
student to provide reflections, complete formal 4. What are you doing?
assessments and use multiple forms of media to 5. What technologies or techniques are you us-
document, reflect and share their ongoing learn- ing? (including pen & paper or face-to-face
ing within the practice-based space with other communication)
students and academic staff. 6. How do you feel about it?
◦ Use the camera!
◦ Use the voice recorder if you like!
CASE STUDY: STUDENT ◦ Use the diary!
EXPERIENCE
These instructions encouraged the partici-
A Day In the Life of a Student pants to provide as rich and detailed an account
as possible of their experience. At the end of the
In September and October 2008, 19 students twenty-four hour period, the students were invited
from La Trobe University in Melbourne became to present their photos and discuss their ‘day’
co-researchers in an experiment about the use with each of the other students in the cohort. In
of technologies in their daily lives. After a short groups of five or six, they sat around a table and
briefing, they carried a kit designed to assist them a facilitator invited them to show the group their
to record one twenty-four hour period of their photographs using a computer and projector. As
student experience. The kit included, a short list each slide appeared, the student who had taken
of instructions, a paper diary, and a digital camera the photograph talked about where they were at
with voice recording capability. Each student also the time and what they were doing, as well as
carried a mobile phone. any technologies they happened to be using at
This project used the ‘day experience method’ the time. The slides showed lecture halls, tuto-
(Riddle & Arnold, 2007) and is based on a com- rial rooms, and library carrels, but most of them
bination of the ‘experience sampling method’ showed informal ‘places’ off campus including
(Hektner, Schmidt & Csikszentmihalyi, 2006), pizza shops, trams, swimming pools and cars, with
‘cultural probes’ (Gaver, Dunne, & Pacenti, 1999) many photos taken indoors at home.
and the ‘day reconstruction method’ (Kahneman,
Krueger, Schkade, Schwarz, & Stone, 2004). Fitting Everything Into the Day
The method was developed to examine student
perspectives of technologies in their daily lives, Freda is a 20-year old full time student who is
as part of the Learning Landscape Project (2008) studying tourism management. During the focus
at the University of Cambridge. group, Freda presented her photos which included
Four different groups of students participated a photo featuring her iPod while she was at the
over the university week. Each student was sent gym. The conversation turned to the topic of using
a text message between eight and ten times at ir- music players while doing other things, and to the
regular intervals over a twenty-four hour period, general topic of doing many things concurrently,
13

16. Distributed Learning Spaces
often involving technologies. When asked, Freda Harvey: …probably 80% of the time.
explained that it was quite normal for her to have
an iPod, an iPhone, a met ticket, and shopping
bags under her arms while she was trying to Harvey: It’s just, I’m on call literally, I’ll have
catch a bus, and even when using her computer orders that I have to fill and be all over Melbourne
she often used an iPod while chatting to friends doing deliveries… It’s pretty full on.
on Facebook. The other students agreed that this
was normal practice. Eddie suggested that listen-
ing to music on his laptop headphones assisted Facilitator: Are you studying full time?
him to concentrate, but Chanelle complained that
listening to music while doing other things could
also be a distraction. Harvey: Yes. From Monday to Wednesday I’m
Freda showed another slide with some books, here, and Thursday to Sunday I work … a 60 hour
and explained that she was studying at work while week, so it’s pretty full on!
“it’s pretty quiet and the bosses aren’t around”.
A discussion with the group about time manage-
ment followed and Freda pointed to a small red Laptops and Wifi
leather bound book on top of the pile. “That’s my
organiser, the red thing’s my organiser which I Eddie is 27, and is a full time business information
write in all the time to juggle commitments…”. management systems student at La Trobe in his
None of the other students had an organiser to second year of a masters degree. He lives nearby
manage hourly appointments, but some of the other the university, only four stops away on the tram.
students commented that they write down tasks Like all his friends, Eddie carries a mobile phone
or add reminders to their phones for important with him at all times. Eddie’s diary shows that
appointments. in the early afternoon he walked to the library to
Bernice, a 21-year old law and management do research for his assignments. At the time of
graduate diploma student, described being alone the first text prompt, Eddie was waiting outside
at home on her computer writing an essay while at the library and regretted his decision to leave his
the same time messaging a friend and organising laptop at home because the queues were so long
a limousine for her sister’s wedding. to get onto a library workstation. He sat outside
During the focus group discussion almost all of the library and was embarrassed to ask a friend
the group identified themselves as multi-taskers, to borrow his laptop to check his email.
with only one student, Harvey, seeing himself as During the focus group discussion, Eddie
more focused. A little later in the discussion, he explained that he had trouble accessing wifi on
explained why. campus during the semester. Alexandra, a 22-year
old international student suggested that the staff
Harvey: I run a pet wholesaling business, so I’m have told her that undergraduates cannot access
… on-call for 60 hours from Thursday morning the internet from outside the library, whilst post-
to Sunday night, so it’s just go, go, go! graduates could do so. Eddie confirmed that he
could use the internet sitting outside the library,
but Alexandra complained that she could not ac-
Facilitator: How much of that [time] will you be cess wifi even from inside the classrooms.
… unable to study?
14

17. Distributed Learning Spaces
Studying in Comfort such as the car, on the tram, at a friend’s place,
or pursuing a hobby.
Chanelle complained that when students do take
laptops outside, they can’t use them for very long Adapting Learning Space Designs
because the battery dies. She also mentioned that
there are no power points available on the campus A number of challenges arise from the data col-
to accommodate students outside of the library. lected in this study. In particular, student expecta-
While examining a photo of a study area outside tions of their study environment may be ‘out of
the library, Eddie suggested that ‘when the library step’ with university provision, and students are
closes, many students move outside to finish off dissatisfied with some particular aspects of private
their work, but because of the lack of power they study spaces. They often lack suitable places to
can only study for a short while’. The students work on their assignments, which demand inde-
also discussed how well the university meets pendent, focused research as well as collaborative
their needs in terms of private study. The students study. Because students are dividing their time
expressed frustration about finding a comfortable between work, study, home and social commit-
place to study on the campus. ments, they often find it difficult to juggle these
commitments.
Chanelle: There’s just no … place for large A subsequent project has now been initiated at
numbers [of students] to sit. The university is not La Trobe University under the banner of Faculty
providing for the number of people that actually Based Learning Commons, which is addressing
attend [the campus]. Because it is so far ‘out’ I some of these student concerns. The project in-
guess it benefits people who live … locally … volves the development of several ‘eddie spaces’
but people that have … to travel … far … they’re
going to spend the whole day here. If they leave Table 1. Frequencies of the responses to the ques-
the library they lose their spot in the library and tion “Where are you?”
there’s nowhere else to go.
Location Responses
Bank 1
Where are You? Cafe 6
Car 13
The ‘day experience method’ is useful for a con- Car park 1
sideration of the theme of space, as it provides Computer lab 2
a snapshot of where students are spending their Friend’s residence 8
time during a typical day (Howell, 2008; Riddle Home 66
& Howell, 2008). Table 1 illustrates the number of Lecture 11
times students mentioned their location in diaries Library 25
or voice recordings. The most prominent location
Public transport 6
for studying was home (66). The second most
Recreation venue 8
prominent location was the library (25), followed
Shopping 4
by the car (13) tutorial (12) and lecture (11). One
Tutorial 12
other notable aspect of this data is that the students
University 5
in this study spent a significant amount of time
Walking 2
in places outside home, work or their university,
Workplace 10
15

18. Distributed Learning Spaces
around the Melbourne campus, and includes IMPLICATIONS
provision of group and individual study spaces in
corridors and building overpasses. A centerpiece There are a number of implications that should
of this development is the design of a new student be considered in relation to distributed learning
hub (Figure 5). This hub includes an indoor space spaces.
with a combination of fixed banquette seating to
form café style booths with power hubs, alongside Adaptability of Learning Spaces
flip top tables and lightweight durable seating that
can be easily reconfigured for group or private Flexible learning and teaching spaces should
study. The space will include a kitchen area for allow adaptability over time for different uses.
tea and coffee, powered lockers, and card entry for For example distance education universities may
extended hours thereby enabling students to use require spaces to be used for students who are both
the space in comfort over the course of an entire physically present and students who never visit the
day. The design calls for wifi zones to extend to campus but participate via videoconferencing in
an outdoor seating area which will also include group learning activities. Balancing the experience
comfortable powered work areas. In this way the of students who traverse face-to-face, blended
‘day in the life of a student study’ has influenced and virtual learning spaces will be increasingly
the design of distributed spaces across the campus. important in the future.
Figure 5. Concept drawing for a faculty based learning commons including indoor and outdoor spaces
with wifi zones, powered booths, and flexible furniture. Image authored by Baldasso Cortese Architects.
16

19. Distributed Learning Spaces
Ubiquity of Spaces of week and week of semester. Students may
utilise space dependent on their other constraints
It is essential that we recognise the diversified of work and family and timing of classes and
nature of learning and teaching spaces. Homes, travel. Distance education students may budget
cars, buses, hotels, cafes become mobile spaces only certain days to study on-campus or virtually.
where the student may undertake learning. Study- For example, the early stages of a subject may
ing while travelling to work via train or bus may encourage students to discuss content with other
represent the learning space for some students. peers, while group assessment tasks will also
The need for careful thought about how students require students to work in teams and use space
will interact with universities will need to be for discussion and negotiation. When exams are
considered in the future. nearing, students may revert to quiet individual
spaces for self-study as opposed to peer learning.
Study Time and Space
Decision-Making
In addition to the notion of physical/virtual and
formal/informal, the concept of time also needs Decision makers who determine physical and vir-
to be considered. Students’ use of space during a tual infrastructure for higher education institutions
semester will be influenced by time of day, day need to be cognizant of the emergence of distrib-
Figure 6. Multi-dimensional and integrated nature of distributed learning spaces
17

20. Distributed Learning Spaces
uted learning spaces in order to plan and cater for interrelationship of course/degree strategy and
future students. Adaptability of spaces will be the planning. It also includes the interrelationship of
key aspect required of both physical and virtual subject interactions with learning spaces, peda-
spaces. The acceptance of blending face-to-face gogy, digital proficiency and the affordances of
and virtual learning environments across degree the learning management system. Academics
programs will also be an essential component of need to consider the interrelationship of all these
the learning landscape. In addition, the need to dimensions when conceptualising their teaching as
provide students with a wider range of options to all of these factors will influence the learning and
suit their idiosyncratic circumstances will also be teaching nexus. Learning spaces are an essential
a necessity. Senior managers in higher education aspect of the learning and teaching landscape and
will need to recognise space from the student and their design will become increasingly important
academic perspectives when decisions are made as learners choose to learn in ‘places’ that best
about space in higher education institutions. These suit their needs and lifestyle.
decisions will require careful evaluation of major
trends occurring in the learning and teaching envi-
ronment in order to design spaces that are useful, REFERENCES
beneficial and sustainable. To assist this process
the underlying principles of higher education need Attwell, G. (2007). The personal learning en-
to always underpin decision-making in relation vironment: The future of elearning? Elearning
to choosing, designing and constructing the types papers, 2(1), 1-7.
of spaces that universities utilise for educational Barnett, R. (2011). Being a university. New York,
interactions in order to evolve into an ecological NY: Routledge.
university.
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for qual-
ity learning at University (3rd ed.). Maidenhead,
CONCLUSION UK: Open University Press/McGraw Hill.
Boyle, T., & Cook, J. (2004). Understanding and
This chapter has discussed the importance of space
using technological affordances: A commentary
in higher education as a lens to examine learning
on Conole and Dyke. ALT-J, 12(3), 295–299.
and teaching, and to add to the conversation that
doi:10.1080/0968776042000259591
we need to rethink the campus as the ‘workplace
of learning’. The personal learning spaces that Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A
learners occupy are diverse and unprecedented critical examination of the effects of Learning
in higher education and it is time that we begin Management Systems on university teaching and
changing our thinking about the ‘place’ of learning. learning. Tertiary Education and Management,
We need to let go of the tradition of universities 11, 19–36. doi:10.1080/13583883.2005.9967137
as being a ‘singular place’ where learning and
Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). Understanding
teaching occur. It is also time for us to embrace
and using technological affordances: A response
distributed learning spaces.
to Boyle and Cook. ALT-J, 12(3), 301–308.
In order to embrace distributed learning spaces
doi:10.1080/0968776042000259609
more fully we also need to recognise the complex-
ity and multi-dimensional nature of learning and
teaching (see Figure 6). The multi-dimensional
nature of learning and teaching is a complex
18

21. Distributed Learning Spaces
Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the Jackson, N. J. (2010). From a curriculum that
affordances of information and communica- integrates work to a curriculum that integrates
tion technologies? ALT-J, 12(2), 113–124. life: Changing a university’s conceptions of cur-
doi:10.1080/0968776042000216183 riculum. Higher Education Research & Develop-
ment, 29(5), 491–505. doi:10.1080/07294360.20
Garrison, R., & Vaughan, H. (2008). Blended
10.502218
learning in higher education: Framework,
principles and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: John, P., & Sutherland, R. (2005). Affordance,
Jossey-Bass. opportunity and the pedagogical implications
of ICT. Educational Review, 57(4), 405–413.
Gaver, W., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). De-
doi:10.1080/00131910500278256
sign: Cultural probes. Interaction, 6(1), 21–29.
doi:10.1145/291224.291235 Johnson, L., Smith, R., Levine, A., & Haywood,
K. (2010). The 2010 horizon report: Australia–
Gerbic, P., & Stacey, E. (2009). Conclusion. In
New Zealand edition. Austin, TX: The New Media
Stacey, E., & Gerbic, P. (Eds.), Effective blended
Consortium.
learning practices: Evidence-based perspectives
in ICT-facilitated education (pp. 298–311). Her- Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., &
shey, PA/New York, NY: Information Science Ref- Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 horizon report.
erence. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-296-1.ch016 Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Graham, C. (2006). Blended learning systems. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A.,
Definitions, current trends and future directions. Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey meth-
In Bonk, C., & Graham, C. (Eds.), The handbook od for characterizing daily life experience: The
of blended learning: Global perspectives, local day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702),
designs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons. 1776–1780. doi:10.1126/science.1103572
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmi- Keppell, M. J. (2010). Blended and flexible learn-
halyi, M. (2006). Experience sampling method: ing standards. Charles Sturt University.
Measuring the quality of everyday life. London,
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2010). Mobile learning as a
UK: Sage.
catalyst for change. Open Learning: The Journal
Hill, J. (2006). Flexible learning environments: of Open and Distance Learning, 25(3), 181–185.
Leveraging the affordances of flexible delivery and doi:10.1080/02680513.2010.511945
flexible learning. Innovative Higher Education,
Lea, M. R., & Nicoll, K. (2002). Distributed learn-
31, 187–197. doi:10.1007/s10755-006-9016-6
ing: Social and cultural approaches to practice.
Howell, C. (2008). Space. Project Report. Learn- New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
ing Landscape Project, University of Cambridge.
Learning Landscape Project Team. (2008). The
Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://www.caret.
Cambridge pathfinder journey: The experience of
cam.ac.uk/blogs/llp/wp-content/uploads/llp_pub-
the learning landscape project. Retrieved March
lic_t1report_l3_space_final_v06.pdf
15, 2011, from http://www.caret.cam.ac.uk/blogs/
llp/wp-content/uploads/llp_pathfinder_jour-
ney_v03.pdf
19

22. Distributed Learning Spaces
Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing Riddle, M., & Arnold, M. (2007). The day ex-
for blended e-learning. London, UK: Routledge. perience method: A resource kit. Retrieved July
29, 2008, from http://www.matthewriddle.com/
Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T.
papers/Day_Experience_Resource_Kit.pdf
(2009). Facebook, social integration and informal
learning at university: It is more for socialising and Riddle, M., & Howell, C. (2008). You are here:
talking to friends about work than for actually do- Students map their own ICT landscapes. In R.
ing work. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), Atkinson & C. McBeath (Eds.), Hello! Where
141–155. doi:10.1080/17439880902923606 are you in the landscape of educational technol-
ogy? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008 (pp.
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2009). Person-
802-808). Retrieved March 29, 2011, from http://
alised learning spaces and self-regulated learning:
www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/
Global examples of effective pedagogy. In R.
procs/riddle.pdf.
Atkinson & C. McBeath, Same places, different
space. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009 (pp. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies
639-645). Retrieved March 29, 2011, from http:// in the professions. Daedalus, (June): 52–59.
www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/ doi:10.1162/0011526054622015
procs/mcloughlin.pdf
Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge. Lulu.
Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday com.
things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Souter, K. Riddle, M., Keppell, M. J., & Sellers,
Oliver, M. (2005). The problem with affor- W. (2010). Spaces for knowledge generation.
dance. E-learning, 2(4), 402–413. doi:10.2304/ Retrieved March 29, 2011, from http://www.
elea.2005.2.4.402 skgproject.com/
Rafferty, J. (2011). Design of outdoor and environ- Watson, L. (2003). Lifelong learning in Australia
mentally integrated learning spaces. In Keppell, (3/13). Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of
M. J., Riddle, M., & Souter, K. (Eds.), Physical Australia.
and virtual learning spaces in higher education:
Concepts for the modern learning environment.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
20