Abstract
There has been considerable attention in the literature postulating the potential effects of contemporary, technology-enabled new generation learning spaces (NGLS) on both teaching and learning (Brooks, 2011, 2012). This has, in part, been driven by the pervasive and transformative potential of ubiquitous access to and use of digital technology in the classroom (Chan et al., 2006).
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Baguley, T. (2009). Standardized or simple effect size: What should be reported? British Journal of Psychology, 100, 603–617. doi:10.1348/000712608X377117
Bautista, G., & Borges, F. (2013). Smart classrooms: Innovation in formal learning spaces to transform learning experiences. Bulletin of the IEEE Technical Committeee on Learning Technology, 15(3), 18–21. Retrieved from http://lttf.ieee.org/
Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(2).
Beeson, P. M., & Robey, R. R. (2006). Evaluating single-subject treatment research: Lessons learned from the aphasia literature. Neuropsychology Review, 16(4), 161–169. doi:10.1007/s11065-006-9013-7
Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., O’Mara, J., & Loughlin, J. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes: Literature review. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development Retrieved from http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/publ/research/publ/blackmore_learning_spaces.pdf
Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers and Education, 50(2), 475–490. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.017
Bobrovitz, C. D., & Ottenbacher, K. J. (1998). Comparison of visual inspection and statistical analysis of single-subject data in rehabilitation research. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77(2), 94–102.
Bocconi, S., Kampylis, P. G., & Punie, Y. (2012). Innovating learning: Key elements for developing creative classrooms in Europe. Luxembourg, Europe: Joint Research Centre for the European Commission.
Brooks, D. C. (2012). Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning spaces on instructor and student behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2), 1–10. doi:http://z.umn.edu/jols
Buchanan, R. (2011). Paradox, promise and public pedagogy: Implications of the federal government’s digital education revolution. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 6. doi:10.14221/ajte.2011v36n2.6
Burke, C., & Grosvenor, I. (2008). School. London, England: Reaktion.
Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2014). Making the space for space: The effect of the classroom layout on teacher and student usage and perception of one-to-one technology. Paper presented at the Conference Proceedings of the Australian Computers in Education Conference 2014.
Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2014). Making the case for space: The effect of learning spaces on teaching and learning. Curriculum and Teaching, 29(1), 5–19. doi:10.7459/ct/29.1.02
Byiers, B. J., Reichle, J., & Symons, F. J. (2012). Single-subject experimental design for evidencebased practice. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(4), 397–414. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0036)
Casey, L. B., Meindl, J. N., Frame, K., Elswick, S., Hayes, J., & Wyatt, J. (2012). Current trends in education: How single-subject research can help middle and high school educators keep up with the zeitgeist. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(3), 109–116.
Chan, T.-W., Roschelle, J., His, S., Kinshuk, S., Sharples, M., Brown, T., … Norris, C. (2006). One-toone technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 3–29.
Chandler, W. L. (2009). “A” teacher space or a learner place? Reconsidering the classroom environment. International Journal of Learning, 16(9), 261–267. Retrieved from http://www.Learning-Journal.com
Clegg, S. (2005). Evidence-based practice in educational research: A critical realist critique of systematic review. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(3), 415–428. doi:10.1080/01425690500128932
Cleveland, B. W. (2009). Engaging spaces: An investigation into middle school educational opportunities provided by innovative built environments: A new approach to understanding the relationship between learning and space. International Journal of Learning, 16(5), 385–397. Retrieved from http://www.Learning-Journal.com
Cleveland, B. W. (2011). Engaging spaces: Innovative learning environments, pedagogies and student engagement in the middle years of school (Doctor of Philosophy). University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Erlbaum.
Condie, R., & Munro, R. (2007). The impact of ICT in schools – A landscape review. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1627/1/becta_2007_landscapeimpactreview_report.pdf
Coryn, C. L. S., Schröter, D. C., & Hanssen, C. E. (2009). Adding a time-series design element to the success case method to improve methodological rigor an application for nonprofit program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(1), 80–92. doi:10.1177/1098214008326557
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An examination of one-to-one computing in the middle school: Does increased access bring about increased student engagement? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4), 423–441.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
Fisher, K. D. (2004). Revoicing classrooms: A spatial manifesto. Forum, 46(1), 36–38.
Fisher, K. D. (2010). Technology-enabled active learning environments: An appraisal. CELE Exchange. Centre for Effective Learning Environments, 2010(6–10), 1–8.
Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers and Education, 50(3), 906–914. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2007). Breakthrough. Victoria, Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for likert-type scales. Paper presented at the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Hall-van den Elsen, C., & Palaskas, T. (2014). Transition to next generation learning spaces. In K. Fraser (Ed.), The future of learning and teaching in next generation learning spaces (Vol. 12, pp. 199–218). England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Harris, A. D., McGregor, J. C., Perencevich, E. N., Furuno, J. P., Zhu, J., Peterson, D. E., & Finkelstein, J. (2006). The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(1), 16–23. doi:10.1197/jamia.M1749
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1499–1509.
Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. Newcastle, England: Center for Learning and Teaching, School of Education, Communication and Language Science, University of Newcastle.
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213–225. doi:10.1080/17439880701511040
Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the education endowment foundation. Retrieved November 27, 2013, from http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/The_Impact_of_Digital_Technologies_on_Learning_%282012%29.pdf
Hildebrand, G. M. (1999). Contesting learning models. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education and New Zealand Association for Research in Education Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179.
Horner, R. H., Swaminathan, H. S., & George, S. K. (2012). Considerations for the systematic analysis and use of single-case research. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 269.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technologyintegrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277–302. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org
Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT – Replacement, amplification, and transformation – Framework. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 1616–1620). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Hur, J. W., & Oh, J. (2012). Learning, engagement, and technology: Middle school students’ three-year experience in pervasive technology environments in South Korea. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 295–312. doi:10.2190/EC.46.3.e
Jacklin, H. (2000). Locating pedagogy. Paper presented at the British Sociological Association Annual Conference, York, England.
Jenson, W. R., Clark, E., Kircher, J. C., & Kristjansson, S. D. (2007). Statistical reform: Evidence-based practice, meta-analyses, and single subject designs. Psychology in the Schools, 44(5), 483–493.
Jessop, T., Gubby, L., & Smith, A. (2012). Space frontiers for new pedagogies: A tale of constraints and possibilities. Studies in Higher Education, 37(2), 189–202. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.503270
Johnston, M. V., Ottenbacher, K. J., & Reichardt, C. S. (1995). Strong quasi-experimental designs for research on the effectiveness of rehabilitation. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 383–392.
Kinugasa, T., Cerin, E., & Hooper, S. (2004). Single-subject research designs and data analyses for assessing elite athletes’ conditioning. Sports Medicine, 34(15), 1035–1050.
Kromrey, J. D., & Foster-Johnson, L. (1996). Determining the efficacy of intervention: The use of effect sizes for data analysis in single-subject research. The Journal of Experimental Education, 65(1), 73–93.
Lin, J. M. C., Wang, P. Y., & Lin, I. (2012). Pedagogy* technology: A two-dimensional model for teachers’ ICT integration. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 97–108.
Lippman, P. C. (2010). Can the physical environment have an impact on the learning environment? CELE Exchange, Centre for Effective Learning Environments, 2010(11–14), 1–5.
Lippman, P. C. (2013). Designing collaborative spaces for schools: Part 1. The Journal, January. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2013/02/13/designing-collaborative-spaces-for-schools.aspx
Magee, C. M. (2009). A phenomenological, hermeneutic case study of two studio learning environments: Reggio Emilia pre-school atelier and MIT teal freshmen studio physics (Doctor of Education). The George Washington University, Washington, DC. Retrieved from EBSCOhost psyh database website: https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2009-99231-304&scope=site
Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 417–430.
McCarter, S., & Woolner, P. (2011). How listening to student voice can enable teachers to reflect on and adjust their use of physical space. Educational and Child Psychology, 28(1), 20–32.
McGregor, J. (2004). Space, power and the classroom. Forum, 46(1), 13–18.
Miller-Cochran, S., & Gierdowski, D. (2013). Making peace with the rising costs of writing technologies: Flexible classroom design as a sustainable solution. Computers and Composition, 30(1), 50–60. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2012.12.002
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2012). Research design explained (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space and built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 1–19. Retrieved from http://www.torinmonahan.com/papers/Inventio.html
Mouza, C., & Lavigne, N. C. (2013). Introduction to emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective. In C. Mouza & N. C. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Springer.
Perone, M. (1999). Statistical inference in behavior analysis: Experimental control is better. The Behavior Analyst, 22, 109–116.
Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 525–556.
Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Prieto, L. P., Dlab, M. H., Gutiérrez, I., Abdulwahed, M., & Balid, W. (2011). Orchestrating technology enhanced learning: a literature review and a conceptual framework. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(6), 583–598.
Radcliffe, D., Wilson, H., Powell, D., & Tibbetts, B. (2008). Designing next generation places of learning: Collaboration at the pedagogy-space-technology nexus. Brisbane, Australia: The University of Queensland.
Rassafiani, M., & Sahaf, R. (2010). Single case experimental design: An overview. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 17(6), 285–289.
Reynard, R. (2009, April). Designing learning spaces for instruction, not control. Campus Technology. Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/04/29/designing-learning-spaces-for-instruction-not-control.aspx
Richards, C. (2006). Towards an integrated framework for designing effective ICT-supported learning environments: The challenge to better link technology and pedagogy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(2), 239–255. doi:10.1080/14759390600769771
Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (3rd ed.). Chichester & Hoboken, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rosen, Y., & Beck-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining digital content and a one-to-one laptop environment in teaching and learning: Lessons from the time to know program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 225.
Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present:
Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17–35.
Shadish, W. R., & Cook, T. D. (1999). Comment-design rules: More steps toward a complete theory of quasi-experimentation. Statistical Science, 14(3), 294–300. doi:10.2307/2676764
Swan, K., van’T Hooft, M., Kratcoski, A., & Schenker, J. (2007). Ubiquitous computing and changing pedagogical possibilities: Representations, conceptualizations and uses of knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 481–515.
Tamim, R. M., Lowerison, G., Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2011). A multi-year investigation of the relationship between pedagogy, computer use and course effectiveness in postsecondary education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(1), 1–14. doi:10.1007/s12528-010-9041-4
Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington, KY: CreateSpace.
Upitis, R. (2004). School architecture and complexity. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 1(1), 19–38. Retrieved from www.complexityandeducation.ca
Upitis, R. (2009). Complexity and design: How school architecture influences learning. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 3(2), 1–14.
Vickers, A. (2003). How many repeated measures in repeated measures designs? Statistical issues for comparative trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 3(1), 22.
West, S. G., & Thoemmes, F. (2010). Campbell’s and Rubin’s perspectives on causal inference. Psychological Methods, 15(1), 18–37. doi:10.1037/a0015917
Wilks, S. (2009). Observing the transformation of pedagogies and spaces. Critical and Creative Thinking, 17(2), 29–57.
Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84–96.
Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2004). Learning environments in information and communications technology classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(1), 97–123. doi:10.1080/14759390400200175
Zucker, A. A. (2007). A framework for studying 1:1 computing initiatives. In M. van’T Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 147–166). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Byers, T., Imms, W. (2016). Evaluating the Change in Space in a Technology-Enabled Primary Years Setting. In: Fisher, K. (eds) The Translational Design of Schools. Advances in Learning Environments Research. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-364-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-364-3_10
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-364-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)