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

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. Overview
 Learning
space design research
 Research study
 Learning space design revisited
 Implications and recommendations
CALICO 2010
2

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. 21st Century Learning Spaces
 Demand
flexibility
 Have
a social component
 Have
embedded technology
 Are
inspirational
Walls, Schopieray, Devoss, 2009
CALICO 2010
4

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. 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. 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. 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. Research Study
 Use
of instructional space
 Instructor and student perceptions
 Suggestions for redesigned spaces
CALICO 2010
9

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. Participants: Instructors (N = 8)
CALICO 2010
11

12. Participants: Students (N = 48)
CALICO 2010
12

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. 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. 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. 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. CALICO 2010
17

18. Classroom Setups - Inst Favorite
CALICO 2010
18

19. Classroom Setups - Ss Favorite
CALICO 2010
19

20. Quantitative Results
CALICO 2010
20

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. 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. 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. Positive Aspects about the Rooms
CALICO 2010
24

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. Negative Aspects about the Rooms
CALICO 2010
26

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. Suggested Changes
CALICO 2010
28

29. Suggested Changes
Instructors
 Room Setup
 Furniture
 Temperature
CALICO 2010
Students
 Furniture
 Room Setup
 Technology
 Temperature
29

30. Comments on Pictures
CALICO 2010
30

31. Additional Comments
CALICO 2010
31

32. Learning Space Design Revisited
CALICO 2010
32

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. Limitations
 Small
sample size
 Lacking diversity of classrooms
 Lacking diversity of language courses
CALICO 2010
34

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. 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

39. CALICO 2010
39

40. CALICO 2010
40