Designing Hybrid Learning Environments and Processes: Interactive Communication Tools for Active Learning (PoliMI SpringerBriefs) 3030952738, 9783030952730

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN APPLIED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY · POLIMI SPRINGER BRIEFS

Andrea Manciaracina

Designing Hybrid Learning Environments and Processes Interactive Communication Tools for Active Learning

SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology

PoliMI SpringerBriefs Editorial Board Barbara Pernici, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy Stefano Della Torre, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy Bianca M. Colosimo, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy Tiziano Faravelli, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy Roberto Paolucci, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy Silvia Piardi, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy

More information about this subseries at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/11159 http://www.polimi.it

Andrea Manciaracina

Designing Hybrid Learning Environments and Processes Interactive Communication Tools for Active Learning

Andrea Manciaracina Dipartimento di Design Politecnico di Milano Milan, Italy

ISSN 2191-530X ISSN 2191-5318 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology ISSN 2282-2577 ISSN 2282-2585 (electronic) PoliMI SpringerBriefs ISBN 978-3-030-95273-0 ISBN 978-3-030-95274-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95274-7 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

Interactive Communication Tools for Active Learning Even before the current global pandemic shifted our working and learning environments towards the digital, a long process of transformation of pedagogical approaches and tools had begun in our academic institutions. Over the past 50 years, we were reshaping how we educate designers as well as other disciplines at the post-secondary level using new software, tools, experiential learning and grading models. This change was perhaps best heralded by Marshall McLuhan whose work in media literacy and communication in the early sixties began to describe how our context for learning was changing influenced as it was by what he called the global village we were living in and by the media landscape that students found themselves swimming in which was very different from their predominately literate previous generations. The techniques and processes for learning derived from the nineteenth century were beginning to look somewhat like a creaky platform near the end of the last century based as they were on reading, writing and discursive dialogue derived from the world of the word on the page. As students began to increasingly live in an immersive environment that included television, radio, internet and mobile phones that combined mobility between physical and digital environments, it was becoming clear that the city was indeed a classroom if not the whole world itself which had become so accessible. In this increasingly complex “phygital” world, professors and students responded by creating and/or demanding incremental innovations which resulted in subtle changes over time. From the introduction of video into the classroom to the expansion of active learning with authentic task projects in the city to the move from the library onto the internet, the locus of learning began to change as did its processes. And while the recognition that this process was evolving and leading to a new form of pedagogy was growing, most academic institutions were loathe to change practices or to make investments into significant changes from their current models. Isolated experiments in pilots were conducted timidly, software was introduced into the curriculum, but the approach was piece meal and reactionary where adopting new

v

vi

Foreword

approaches became a result of not being left behind rather than a process of imagining what was the best approach for teaching students and enhancing their capacity to learn. The pandemic changed all this dithering and suddenly every professor and school was forced to experiment and conduct trials for new learning modalities. While most institutions struggled to respond, those that dived in eventually found some success out of necessity which as always is the mother of invention. Ironically, as the pandemic has subsided and faculty and students returned to school, the real challenge of interactive learning methods, blended or hyflex learning as it is known, has pushed us all to understand the pressing need to re-imagine a twenty-first-century model for education. At this critical moment, the arrival of Andrea Manciaracina’s research and this book could not be more propitious. In his research, which I had the pleasure to observe progress over the last few years, one can begin to see the outline of a new way of looking at pedagogy, of constructing curriculum collaboratively and of delivering learning in a new format in physical classroom. All of this is aligned with an interesting and novel approach on how to orchestrate the new assets and participants in the learning process which has undergone testing and which I believe will be further refined in the future. Gone is the sage on the stage delivering an oration and gone is the over reliance on the text, and instead, what is provided is a clear and tested description of how the players and resources involved in education can interact in a new way to generate improved learning outcomes that deliver for the whole person and the whole environment. Andrea’s research and this book contain, in my view, a record of a clear and substantive experiment which is coordinated into a comprehensive piece of work which outlines a complete understanding of the issues currently facing educational institutions as they return to campus including: • a sound and thorough researching of the theories and issues around pedagogy and their relationship to technology; • a detailed look at the map of solutions and experiments over the last 50 years of academic practice; • a synthetic analysis and understanding of that research and the teasing out of a clear framework of the current state of the art in education and the construction of a viable applied project that could be prototyped, tested and implemented in any design department anywhere in the world; • a thorough process of review and evaluation of the experiment that was conducted outlining its benefits; • and finally, cogent and interesting threads of discussion arising out of the conclusion of the experience of studying, exploring, learning, analysing and then synthesising key recommendations coming out of the work that was undertaken. As we all return to a new hybrid educational reality, we will all be struggling to synthesise the best aspects that emerged from teaching in a new way in the pandemic. We will have to balance this what we know was effective in the past, while at the same time re-imagining the complex relationships that will exist in our learning institutions. Both students and faculty learned to use alternate resources, found more

Foreword

vii

productive ways of learning skills and found new ways to collaborate with each other using digital tools and new spaces for learning in the city that were never used or considered during the pandemic. The most significant part of this book, I would argue, is it foray into that new interactive learning world where setting, teachers, students, and resources interact in new ways. Thus, it is a must read for every academic institution struggling with issues of how to practically reframe technology in teaching using both digital and physical assets in a coordinated way. It is the first part of a road map for us all, as we navigate and build the new infrastructure of education over the next 30 years. Luigi Ferrara OAA, MRAIC, Hon. ACIDO, Senator WDO Toronto, Canada

Preface

Change in the field of education brings to mind a number of strategies with their related technologies, with the common goal to innovate or create new models of experience and commitment within educational institutions. Along with the impact of the contemporary digitalised society, focusing primarily on twenty-first-century skills, we can see significant investments by these institutions to create and implement environments in which technology is recognised as important. This book is part of the innovation path of Politecnico di Milano and wants to be a milestone in the creation of innovative learning environments’ research projects. It is the result of three years of experience and research that culminated to my doctoral degree in design at the Politecnico di Milano. Those three years led me to recognise a possible shift in innovative learning environments. They enabled me to create an engaging system for designing new ways to structure educational content using technologies. It goes without saying that the interactions between teacher and student today are empowered mainly by the use and adoption of digital technologies, allowing for innovative practices of user engagement with educational content. Present approaches range from interactivity to commitment and the different use of technologies, from technologies as environments to technologies as supports or facilitators. Initially, the research aimed to define a field of investigation related to physical and real learning spaces. With the arrival of the health emergency of COVID-19 in March 2020, the forced lockdown was seen as an opportunity to test teachers’ behaviour and attitude towards technologies in distance learning, and this book had then to take a new path from its initial one. The possibility to compare two different learning environments (on-site and online) has emerged and created thus the conditions to structure this book along two tracks (on-site and online). Some of the research carried out as part of my Ph.D., and described in this book, have dealt with ways of using technologies, in both the Italian and international educational context. In fact, the questioning was moved by an interest in understanding learner and teacher practice in the design and the technological implementation of innovative ix

x

Preface

learning environments through hybrid learning processes. As the research progressed, this was examined through the novel definition of a learning environment; the iterative development and evaluation of innovative learning spaces; the classification of technologies for innovative and active approaches; and the analysis of users’ attitudes, roles and interactions that were found within technological, physical and digital spaces. Furthermore, this research discusses the changing technological requirements of learning environments and their use in supporting teachers and students in active learning contexts. The relationship between pedagogy, space and technology is one of the topics thoroughly dealt with, as well as the role of technology, that can perform several crucial roles in the changing processes, including creating new possibilities to improve educational activities. Also, the research explores different topics, such as: • the significance of an innovative learning environment and which elements contribute to its characterisation; • the characteristics of a technological communication tool for an active learning activity; • the different technological tools available for learning activities with a focus on those (that are) related to hybrid learning processes in higher education; • the process of creating an innovative learning environment through a field research case study; • several case studies of innovative learning environments enriched with technological tools; • two different learning contexts, on-site and online. The focus of the research, therefore, moved from theory (analysis, conceptualisation and reflection) (through) to methodology (evaluation of the contexts, case studies, tools and approaches) and, finally, to experimentation (users’ needs, interactions and design processes) with a particular emphasis on creating co-design experiences and exchange among teachers, institutions representatives and experts. This research leads to the development of a method for reflecting and evaluating the technological communication tools in innovative learning environments that can enable the design of learning activities. This book, in fact, wants to be a help for all those teachers and educators who are faced with the challenges of having to design new ways of relating their own teaching to the new hybrid settings offered by digital technologies. It does so by using the discipline of design as a catalyst for activities and strategies aimed at building future learning environments. The tool I have designed and described in this book is intended for all these teachers and educators who want to redesign their way of doing the teaching, placing the activities and interactions in new contexts experienced during the months of the health emergency. However, this time, they will not be forced to make decisions due

Preface

xi

to restrictions or ministerial decrees but they will be able to imagine and experiment with new design approaches and new uses of technology. Milan, Italy

Andrea Manciaracina

Contents

1 Towards Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Politecnico di Milano and Innovative Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 COVID-19 Health Emergency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 Premises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.4 How to Read This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Research Statements and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Research Methodology: Research Type, Phases and Applied Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 3 4 5 5 8 9

2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Higher Education and the Need for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 The Learning Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Pedagogy, Space and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 PST Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Pedagogy: Active Learning and Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Space: New Spaces for New Learning Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Technology: Technology for Learning Environments/Educational Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 Educational Technologies’ Affordances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 11 13 20 22

3 Learning Environments and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Innovative Learning Environment Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 On Distance Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Field Research: Politecnico’s Innovative Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 The Central Role of the Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 New Policies in Innovative Hybrid Processes in Politecnico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Active Learning Environment Monitoring: Educafé . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41 41 50 56 59

24 25 32 34 36

61 61 xiii

xiv

Contents

3.4 Use of Technologies in a Stressful Context: The “Distance” Teaching of Politecnico di Milano During the COVID-19 Emergency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Technological Communication Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 On-site Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Online Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Critical Elements to Innovate Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 The Incompleteness of the PST Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 The Central Role of Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 New Opportunities Offered by Educational Technologies . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Education as a Hybrid Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 The Need for Guidelines to Design Future Educational Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs? . . . . . . 5.1 Scenarios: On-site and Online Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 The Six Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 A Tool for Conceptualising Technological Educational Set-ups . . . . 5.2.1 The Scenarios’ Set-ups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Performative Co-design Activities with Teachers Using the Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Teachers’ Set-ups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Autonomous Use of the Tool by Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Discussion of the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Research Contribution and Generalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Future Prospects for Designing Hybrid Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66 72 75 77 79 81 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 93 94 100 104 108 109 124 125 128 129 129 132 134 135

Chapter 1

Towards Innovation

Abstract International competition has led university institutions to reconsider their learning environments, converging towards technological innovation and experimentation with active learning approaches. The relationship between space, pedagogy and technology is at the heart of the research, with an important focus on the latter. As interpreted by the author, technology is the reference element that relates to all the contexts analysed. The distance teaching that became necessary due to the 2020’s pandemic led the research to reflect on hybrid learning contexts. In this chapter, some areas that are essential to restrict the context are highlighted. Then, the chapter describes the knowledge gap related to the lack of dialogue between a pedagogy-space-technology-centred approach and a teacherlearner-centred approach in designing innovative learning environments. Finally, follow the research’s hypotheses, questions, objectives and expected outcomes.

1.1 Introduction All around the world, higher education institutions are trying to increase their appeal to more students by doing things differently [1]. The competition is more intense than in the past due to the globalisation of the education market. Rankings, such as QS World University Ranking1 (www.topuniversities.com), Top World University Ranking2 (www.timeshighereducation.com) and Academic Ranking of World Universities3 (www.shanghairanking.com), are created to assess universities around the world and to give future students an idea of the quality of education and facilities within those universities. For example, QS World University Ranking offers a rating called QS Stars about universities’ “features”, such as their environment. QS Stars is 1

QS World University Rankings is an annual publication of university rankings by Quacquarelli Symonds (QS). 2 Times Higher Education World University Rankings is an annual publication of university rankings by Times Higher Education (THE) magazine. 3 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as Shanghai Ranking, is one of the annual publications of world university rankings. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Manciaracina, Designing Hybrid Learning Environments and Processes, PoliMI SpringerBriefs, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95274-7_1

1

2

1 Towards Innovation

an opt-in university rating system. Each institution covered by QS Stars is assessed through several core categories, relating to teaching, research, graduate employability, and internationalization. Specialist and advanced criteria are also considered, as well as a set of criteria relating to the learning environment provided. Learning environments have become a fundamental part of the puzzle that constitutes a university’s reputation. Learning environments are also the place in which universities can carry on experiments and projects to improve the didactic activities and so provide a better and more up-to-date learning experience. Technology can contribute to this aim, intervening at different levels of universities’ teaching and learning processes. Teaching and learning with technology became important to my research activity in 2001. At the time, I was writing my degree thesis entitled “Liber - learning system interaction based on eBook” for my dissertation at the Politecnico di Milano. Since then, my research has always been interwoven with technology issues, focusing on the design and management of technological tools for orientation; on teaching technological tools for graphic design in communication courses; and most recently on how technological tools can enhance the qualities of a learning environment. A few years after my thesis, Hanna [2] confirmed: Demand for learning across the globe is increasing as national economies become increasingly based on knowledge, and the pace of technological change continues to be accelerated. Rapid growing and increasingly youthful populations in many areas of the world are also fueling pressure on higher education institutions to respond in new and creative ways. [2]

In all the following years, increasing pressure from businesses, the general public, government institutions, and funding organisations for higher education settings have called into question the research being done by institutions of higher education in educating twenty-first-century learners [3]. Many authors have been declaring the necessity for a change in the design of learning environments and thoughtful use of technologies [4–7]. Institutions now recognise the strategic importance of ICT and have central policies in place to ensure there is a technical infrastructure available to support all aspects of the learner’s lifecycle, from recruitment through to assessment [8].

1.1.1 Politecnico di Milano and Innovative Teaching The subject of innovative teaching has always been at the heart of the Politecnico’s strategic action planning. Back in 1991, a reflection on technological innovation in learning was launched, which resulted in the “Libro Azzurro” [9]. This is a report outlining the characteristics of experimentation on innovation and the computerisation of didactics carried out both through experiences acquired individually and those supported by initiatives of the Politecnico. The following areas of intervention were identified: • applying computer tools to teaching;

1.1 Introduction

3

• investigating the potential of multimedia (personal computers, workstations, use of audio and video); • studying the use of tele-didactics in its two synchronous and asynchronous models. After almost 30 years and several experiments at different levels of learning, Politecnico di Milano has continued this reflection on innovation, with a threeyear programme, starting in 2017, to innovate different aspects of the didactic activity. Politecnico has aimed to innovate both curricular and extracurricular didactics with interventions at the infrastructural and process levels. The objective related to curricular teaching has been to increase the percentage of teaching using innovative approaches. Politecnico has therefore tried to increase the use of blended and flipped learning activities, the offer of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and the number of courses in the field of soft skills (integration between technology and humanities). The objective related to extracurricular didactics is to intercept students’ passions by also valuing those of the teachers. The Politecnico has decided to carry out several works regarding infrastructure. The first is the Educafé-METID (a new space for educational innovation) which is a “stage” for didactic experimentation for large/medium-small classes. The second is a series of innovative learning spaces. These are: • 2 flexible classrooms for the University (Leonardo Campus + Bovisa Campus). • 2 classrooms/school laboratories (Architecture Leonardo + Design Bovisa). • 2 classrooms/laboratories in the Engineering School (Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality—Leonardo + Bovisa).

1.1.2 COVID-19 Health Emergency The isolation imposed by the COVID-19 epidemic has forced all Italian universities to equip themselves very quickly with tools to continue their teaching activities. In a short time, all the educational institutions have tried to equip themselves with systems for distance learning. The choices made, with distinct differences from university to university, mostly saw the rectors opting for mixed solutions, allowing synchronous and asynchronous teaching, and the use, when possible, of specific platforms for e-learning [10]. Many teachers previously dedicated to teaching exclusively in classrooms, even if not necessarily with the traditional face-to-face lesson, found themselves catapulted in a few days in front of unexpected problems. All kinds of technical problems arose due to the lack of knowledge of the teaching staff of the digital world, the unavailability of an adequate internet connection in the home, and the lack of familiarity with the platforms available at the university. After the initial shock, methodological and pedagogical issues have gradually emerged.

4

1 Towards Innovation

Some have encountered difficulties interacting with students, while others have noticed greater participation in the virtual classroom, perhaps because of the use— well known to the student population—of chats and forums. Other specific problems arose for access to the texts adopted and for the organisation of appeals [10]. The Politecnico di Milano responded promptly to the emergency, indicating guidelines and tools for delivering online courses. Microsoft Teams has been the primary tool, used for the creation of virtual classes and starting all the courses of the second semester at a distance. Teams was supported by all the tools of the Microsoft Office 365 such as OneDrive (for file sharing and storage) and Forms (for quiz creation and assessment). As the emergency became a continuing reality, pushing away the hope of quickly returning to ‘normal’, the choice to record the lessons through Teams and publish them in Stream (Microsoft video repository) gave way to the first steps for asynchronous and blended learning. The data shows a significant increase in users and extensive use of applications, indicating overall system stability that supports the movement of large numbers of users within virtual and digital learning environments. Some numbers referring to the period between 19th April 2020 and 17th July 2020: • • • •

Office: 95,800 activations; Teams: 5.5 million messages with 68.984 active users; Forms: 38,500 replies; OneDrive: 103.5 million files.

1.1.3 Premises In this research, some premises have been established. The first is that the primary focus is the relationship between space, technology, pedagogy, and users. Technology is the central feature, and reflections made in the cultural and design fields are focused on it. Technology will be discussed in the following chapters in different forms, as the central focus on which all relationships and reflections concerning the concept of pedagogical and spatial innovation are interwoven. The second is that when talking about learning spaces, innovative physical, structural, and spatial attributes are all visible and present components. As established in the literature review, several authors [5, 11–16] state that for a learning environment to be considered innovative it must have flexible furnishings, with the presence of visual, acoustic and environmental comfort, adequate proportions, and diffuse energy sources. Confirmation of this is also found in the applied research project conducted by the Politecnico’s Department of Design [17–19], carried out as part of the plan for innovative teaching. The third is that having active learning as a leitmotif, when we reflect on pedagogy and the actions associated with it, the reflection on disciplinary areas was at first broader, with no particular attention on a specific disciplinary area. Then, it became gradually focused on the discipline of design, first with reflections on spaces related

1.1 Introduction

5

to design, then, on the specific users related to it, thus opening up to a wider context by the end.

1.1.4 How to Read This Book The structure of the book reflects the on-site and online dualism. As mentioned above, the research’s reference context was limited to physical learning environments, to places within universities. With the advent of the COVID health emergency, in addition to opening the context up to virtual learning environments, a reflection was also made on the structuring of research actions. Comparisons between the two different contexts have thus been made. In Chapter 3, for each research activity undertaken to investigate the on-site learning environments, there is a corresponding one to investigate the online learning environments.

1.2 Research Statements and Objectives Topics such as choosing, managing, and using technological tools and devices in the “learning stage” have become very relevant. They relate, from the point of view of institutions, to issues such as the creation of new and innovative learning environments; the connection between the different learning approaches offered by theorists and experts; and learning activities carried out by teachers and students. Moreover, within the current learning approaches, there is a noticeable change in the expectations of students as they become more self-aware and demanding. It is no longer plausible to imagine a single generic type of student who passively absorbs lectures and information. They, in different ways, have started to assume a more active role in the fruition, creation and exchange of knowledge. So, it has become even more essential for institutions to make changes in their approach, in order to become more focused on students’ needs. It is evident that the connections among teachers, students and higher education institutions nowadays are often enabled by the use and implementation of technological tools, triggering innovative learning practices through the adoption of innovative learning approaches. Here, approaches differ from enabling specific behaviours to the creation of collaboration together with the different use of technologies, from technologies as environments (virtual and immersive classrooms) to technologies as helpers or facilitators (hard and soft tools and devices). In addition, the changes in the use of technological communication tools in higher education and the way users take actions and have expectations are still sensitive subjects. This is evident when we look at how seriously organisations and institutions in the educational sector have been investigating this matter: OECD within its Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI)

6

1 Towards Innovation

has conducted research on innovative learning environments4 ; institutions like TU Delft,5 Politecnico di Milano,6 Twente University,7 Aalto University,8 and Bicocca university9 have created research labs and workgroups to improve their learning environments and experiment with new learning approaches. As a result, within the general educational and pedagogical field, design has been acknowledged as a significant discipline not only in designing solutions but also on a strategical level, creating proper processes and enabling innovation. This approach can be seen from the work of the research group “Innovative Learning Spaces Project” (Design Department of Politecnico di Milano). Their work is an example in which the design field has been connected to the field of pedagogy and technology, investigating the impact of technologies in creating new spaces, tools and experiences for new pedagogical approaches [17]. However, the impact of design of learning environments as a discipline is still lacking in the field of pedagogical innovation, in which design not only facilitates the creation of physical spaces or the digital development of technological tools, but also focus on the processes and practices that can be built with and within these elements. Beneath these initial reflections, necessities and research requirements, the research relies on the primary hypothesis that technological communication tools, in the role of activator of innovative learning environments, require new guidelines, instruments and rules (a set of tips to help decision-makers) to be effective in hybrid learning processes. These requirements will not affect the more intrinsic and common features of technological communication tools but will help users to choose appropriate tools inside an innovative learning environment, taking into consideration the specific requirements of hybrid learning processes. The research also aims to understand how a set of technological communication tools embedded in a learning environment could influence learning models to achieve active learning, user involvement, and knowledge creation through the combination of all these elements. 4

The Innovative Learning Environments (ILE) project has analysed how young people learn. It has studied which conditions and dynamics allow them to be able to learn better. http://www.oecd.org/ education/ceri/innovativelearningenvironments.htm. 5 Tu Delft opened the Teaching Lab in 2018, an experimentation and testing environment for all TU Delft teachers. A laboratory where teachers can experiment with new forms of education or tools, together with students and fellow teachers from all faculties. 6 Politecnico di Milano has commissioned the Metid, (a research consortium for didactic innovation) to create a highly technological space for didactic experimentation, the Educafé opened in 2019, to activate refresher courses on new learning theories for Politecnicos’ teachers. 7 In 2015, University of Twente created a technological learning space designed called “Classroom of the Future”. It is particularly suitable for stimulating active (group) learning through the combination of adequate spaces, comfort control and learning support technologies. 8 Aalto University Learning Environments research group is involved in research, design and development of New Media tools, as well as their use and application, in the field of learning. 9 University of Milan-Bicocca, as part of didactic innovation, created in 2018 more than 100 new advanced technological classrooms, all featured with advanced systems of smart projectors and lesson recording for instant video-sharing on learning platforms.

1.2 Research Statements and Objectives

7

From the literature that investigates the relationships between “pedagogy, space and technology”, the latter is considered to be obviously present in an innovative environment that aims to engage users in specific learning activities. The choice of the kind of technological communication tools is often guided by purely economic and budgetary factors, leaving aside the specificity of active learning or strategic design decisions. That knowledge gap can be found in the lack of a dialogue between a pedagogyspace-technology-centred approach and a teacher-learner-centred approach in designing innovative learning environments. Especially in those cases in which the learning approach is hybrid and involves different components of pedagogy, space, and technology. The second hypothesis is the affirmation of the central role of the physical space. The third hypothesis is the effectiveness of educational technologies, for the use aimed at serving and innovating the space and supporting the new learning theories. The fourth hypothesis regards the new role of physical learning space in new kinds of hybrid learning processes as a place for designed learning activities, a place for complex interactions between teachers and students mediated by technology. Thus, the need arises to create new relationships between pedagogy, space, technology space and users, a need that will be outlined by research questions. The research aims to answer the following questions: • What is an innovative learning environment? – How does a learning environment become an innovative learning environment? – How does the role of the users change in an innovative learning environment? – What is the relationship between pedagogy, space, and technology? And user? • What is a technological communication tool for active learning? – What is active learning? Is it effective? – Which characteristics should have a technological communication tool for an active learning approach? • How can a technological communication tool be used in relation to an active learning approach in a hybrid learning process? – How could a set of guidelines support the selection of the right technological communication tools? The primary goal of this research is to outline the accelerated and profound influence that emerging technologies are having on the way we design and evaluate educational activities and on how we understand and conceptualise learning processes and learning environments. This book wants to explore the role of technology in higher education learning environments, trying to connect it to the other two major actors in the educational processes: pedagogy and space. The study focuses on the evolving technological requirements of learning spaces and on the use of technological communication tools for learning that can support teacher and students in active learning activities. It defines the relationship between

8

1 Towards Innovation

pedagogy, space and technology [5, 6]. It investigates the role of technology that can perform several key functions in the change process, including opening up new opportunities that improve teaching and learning [20]. The study also explores the meaning of an innovative learning environment and which elements contribute to its definition. It defines the role and characteristics of a technological communication tool for an active learning activity. It describes the different technological communication tools available for learning activities with a focus on those that are related to hybrid learning processes in higher education. It analyses the process of creating an innovative learning environment through a field research case study. It discusses case studies of innovative learning environments enriched with technological tools. It compares different learning contexts, on-site and online, within the current COVID-19 emergency that has led institutions towards shift to distance learning. It aims to create a tool and a set of rules for evaluating the technological communication tools in innovative learning environments and designing learning activities involving users’ needs and interactions between technology and space through the creation of graphical spatial outputs.

1.3 Research Methodology: Research Type, Phases and Applied Methods The research, carried out over three years, is structured in different phases, to have a comprehensive and sufficient range of actions related to specific purposes. The research questions required a multi-methods approach [21] composed of a combination of different research methodologies. Multi-methods analysis requires the use of more than one data collection or research tool in a research study or a series of similar studies. Analysis of mixed methods is more descriptive than conventional methods because it involves the mixing of qualitative and quantitative data, processes, methodologies, and paradigms in a research study or collection of similar studies. These approaches to professional and academic study emphasise that the use of various data sources, processes, analysis methodologies, perspectives, viewpoints, and paradigms will enhance the monomethod research. Multi-methods research is based on the idea that using more than one method during the data collection or analysis phases of a study can be more useful than using a single method [22]. In the research phases, different methods were used, according to the kind of reflection needed. The following paragraphs briefly describe all the research actions undertaken in the doctoral research path.

References

9

References 1. Lillejord S, Børte K, Nesje K, Ruud E (2018) Learning and teaching with technology in higher education—a systematic review. Oslo 2. Hanna DE (2003) Organizational models in higher education, past and future. In: Moore MG, Anderson WG (eds) Handbook of distance education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp 67–78 3. Mehlenbacher B (2010) Instruction and technology. The MIT Press 4. Januszewski A (2001) Educational technology: the development of a concept. Libraries Unlimited Inc., Englewood, CO 5. Radcliffe D, Wilson H, Powell D, Tibbetts B (2009) Learning spaces in higher education: positive outcomes by design. In: Radcliffe D, Wilson H, Powell D, Tibbetts B (eds) Proceedings of the next generation learning spaces 2008 Colloquium University of Queensland, Brisbane. The Contributers, St Lucia, QLD 6. Oblinger DG, Oblinger JL (2005) Educating the Net Generation. Educause 7. Groff J (2013) Technology-rich innovative learning environments. OCED CERI Innov Learn Environ Proj 1–30 8. de Freitas S, Conole G (2010) The influence of pervasive and integrative tools on learners’ experiences and expectations of study. In: Sharpe R, Beetham H, De Freitas S (eds) Rethinking learning for a digital age. Routledge, New York, pp 15–30 9. Colorni A, Marescotti L (1991) Libro Azzurro. Milano 10. Fiorentino G, Salvatori E (2020) La didattica a distanza, dall’emergenza alle buone pratiche. Um Digit 8:165–182 11. Brown M (2005) Learning spaces. In: Oblinger DG, Oblinger JL (eds) Educating the Net Generation. Educause, pp 12.1–12.22 12. Oblinger D (2005) Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces. Educ Q 28:14–18 13. JISC (2006) Designing spaces for effective learning. Jisc 2009:1–36 14. Hod Y, Charles ES, Acosta A, et al (2016) Future learning spaces for learning communities: New directions and conceptual frameworks. 12th Int Conf Learn Sci 1063–1070 15. Wilson G, Randall M (2012) The implementation and evaluation of a new learning space: a pilot study. Res Learn Technol 20:14431 16. Osborne M (2013) Modern learning environments. Core Education 17. Collina L, Gerosa G, Manciaracina A, et al (2019) Designing innovative learning experiences. An experimental project to support education facilities. In: INTED2019 proceedings. pp 6620– 6629 18. Collina L, Gerosa G, Manciaracina A, et al (2019) New learning experiences. How the space planning and the technologies can be activators of innovative teaching methods. In: Häkkilä J, Pakanen M, Luiro E, et al (eds) Around the campfire—Resilience and intelligence. Cumulus conference proceedings Rovaniemi 2019. Rovaniemi, pp 391–403 19. Collina L, Gerosa G, Manciaracina A, et al (2019) University classroom prototypes for innovative learning. In: DRS LEARN DESIGN 2019. Ankara, pp 375–384 20. OECD (2010) Inspired by technology, driven by pedagogy. OECD 21. Muratovsky G (2016) Research for designers: A guide to methods and practice. Sage, London 22. Schutz PA, Nichols SL, Rodgers KA (2009) Using multiple methods approaches. In: Lapan SD, Quartaroli MT (eds) Research essentials—an introduction to designs and practices. JosseyBass, San Francisco, CA, pp 243–258

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Abstract The chapter offers space for reflection about the literature review in which the sources and critical authors will be identified and described. The factors that drive university institutions to innovate learning environments will also be investigated. The evolution of learning approaches will be described to define the most recent ones with a view to constructive and active learning. The chapter will define the close connection between three critical elements of educational innovation, namely pedagogy, space, and technology. These elements will be discussed from the “innovative attribute” point of view. It will then analyse them individually to define the innovative contexts. Finally, there will be an emphasis on the affordances of technologies to better define their role within a learning context.

2.1 Higher Education and the Need for Change The renovation or building of learning spaces is a significant theme in modern education around the world. Currently, billions of dollars are expended on higher education facilities alone [1, 2]. Moreover, in years, increasing pressure from businesses, the general public, government institutions and funding organisations have called into question the research being done by higher education in educating twenty-first-century learners. Universities are also facing global competition [3, 4]. These global influences include policy innovations and strategies, population trends, business dynamics, the information economy, higher education internationalisation, and long-term learning. It is also known that institutions of higher education must react to such external factots to survive. They are being forced to change, and the pressures placed on them have nothing to do with traditions and values. “Instead, the pressure is for reduced costs, for greater scale and scope, and for innovation through technology” [5]. On the other hand, the mission of universities must be not only to contribute the results of their research to society but also to cultivate in their students a broad knowledge and capacity for social engagement. This could be pursued through the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Manciaracina, Designing Hybrid Learning Environments and Processes, PoliMI SpringerBriefs, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95274-7_2

11

12

2 Literature Review

creation of innovative learning environments even if the relations between the design and use of space in higher education, and the production of teaching and learning, and of research, are not well comprehended [6]. Many authors have been stating the necessity for change in the design of learning environments and the thoughtful use of technologies [7–10]. The use of technologies is one of the components in designing productive and innovative learning environments since technologies have the potential to involve users while also supporting educational activities. Communication technologies have also increased options for higher education institutions, changing conventional modes of developing education. Educational technologies affect teaching and learning in higher education and “leaders and administrators are faced with the task of redefining the role of the academy in a world of constant change and hyper-connectivity” [11]. However, users must be engaged in the educational process. Communicating and connecting with peers and teachers through technologies is crucial to support the educational process, the creation of knowledge and the acquirement of skills. Users use technology to collaborate; thus, they are more prone to participate, and feel more comfortable, in a technology-driven environment [12]. Conole et al. [13] investigated how the availability of ICT influences university students’ learning patterns. They found evidence to support and validate the hypothesis that current students are immersed in a rich, technology-enhanced learning environment and select appropriate technologies for their own personal learning needs. Research into the science of learning has indicated that active learning is one of the most critical and essential components of the learning process [14]. Giving serious consideration to shifting the instructional paradigm towards more active student participation, universities and colleges have begun to invest in the redesign of learning spaces [15] and in choosing the most effective technologies. Many key factors are pushing technological tools as an essential element for a change to the educational system. They serve as pivotal element to be considered by educational stakeholders in balancing the growing relevance and implications of technology and technology-based educational institutions’ innovations [16, 17]. These key factors are: • technology can perform many important functions in the transition process, including providing new possibilities for improving educational activities, especially by adjusting individual learners’ needs; • citizens’ needs to acquire technological competencies; otherwise, they will be subject to an emerging digital divide in technologies that will affect their potential for successful activity and their capacities in the new knowledge economy; • technology is a vital part of access to higher-order skills, which, today, are often necessary for success.

2.1 Higher Education and the Need for Change

13

2.1.1 The Learning Experiences The twenty-first century is referred to as the Knowledge Age, a time in which knowledge has an essential social and economic value [18]. “Pouring a solid foundation of good pedagogical design before adding on the layer of technology can become a critical factor in the success rate of technology integration” [19]. The convergence of learning theory and technology is essential and timely in such a technology-driven environment. The theoretical analysis of learning theory and technologies discusses the significance of learning theory in the development of knowledge. Knowing the recent transition in learning and technology, and advances in twentieth-century learning theory offers a helpful structure and history to define emerging learning approaches related to digital technologies and online platforms. Learning theories that arose during the twentieth century with three main theoretical frameworks influencing research on learning are outlined below: • behaviorist learning theory; • cognitivist learning theory; • constructivist and social constructivist learning theory. Behaviorist Learning Theory Behaviorism was developed as an objective, tangible, measurable learning theory in the early twentieth century. Pavlov (1849–1936), Watson (1878–1958), Thorndike (1874–1949) and Skinner (1904–1990) were influential figures in the functional learning theory. Most of the theory’s methods concentrate on the application of perceived environmental stimuli and how people act or alter their conduct based on the stimulus’s response source. That way, learners are trained to respond to external stimuli in order to change observed behaviour. The theory of behaviour illustrates two forms of conditioning: classical and operant. In classical conditioning, the action is a response reflex for a stimulus; in operant conditioning, the behaviour is affected by reward or punishment. The behaviorist theory’s fundamental goal is that it should be consistent, systematic, and replicable in its actions, and relies on realistic goals for learning [18]. Teaching machines, programmed instruction, and computer-assisted instruction are considered to be the learning tools planned and based on behavioral learning theory [18]. Cognitivist Learning Theory Cognitivism appeared as a response to behaviorism. Cognitivist views of learning recognise that the human mind is essential in understanding the material it is presented with [20] and they were attempting, by the theoretical constructs of the human mind, to explain what behaviorists perceived as a dark box, as a central data machine, to understand the behaviour [18]. The growth in the learning theory of cognitivism was connected with the advancement of technology, particularly the invention of the computer. Ausubel, Piaget and Gagne [21] were its principal promoters. Cognitivism sees learning as analogous

14

2 Literature Review

to the information processing of a computer, where real-world information is interpreted as a form of input and transformed into a type of representation that can be treated, stored, and retrieved as an output. Computers became the cognitivists’ most important technological tool, and efforts were made to simulate the human mind with a computer to improve educational technology [18]. Constructivist Learning Theory and Social Constructivist Learning Theory Constructivists view learning as a product of intellectual development. Learning happens as a new insight is introduced and inserted into the existing context of the individual’s experience, comprehension, or know-how. We learn best when we actively construct our own understanding [21]. Jean Piaget (1896–1980) and Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky (1896–1934) were two leading thinkers related to constructivist approaches. The first was the principal thinker of “cognitive constructivism,” who emphasised human knowledge creation in the biological stages of development. The second promoted the focus on collective knowledge growth as “social constructivism”. The constructivist theory emerged in the 1970s during a time of change in the US and Europe, which recognised the role of the individual learner in the world’s context. The point was that people could not be programmed like robots to react to an opportunity in the same way as humans [18]. Harasim [18] also suggests that the constructivist theory of learning is not one single entity. It is a container that includes a variety of learning experiences. Educationalists adopted the constructivist approach including situated and active learning, cooperative learning, learning by doing, problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, personalised learning, the learning community, activity, and dialogical processes, discovery learning, anchored instruction, active participatory learning, cognitive apprenticeship, and scaffolded learning [18, 20–22]. Moves toward constructivism in higher education have been motivated by the introduction of universal connectivity through communication technologies. Given access to more extensive sources of information, contemporary theory indicates that collaborative learning is the most powerful way to promote teaching and learning in interactive environments. Social constructivism promotes, through active knowledge building, the social structure of human interaction instead of the individual setting and it focuses on the connection between the cognitive process of the individual and his or her social activities. In comparison to the personal development context, as suggested in cognitive constructivism, the essence of social constructivism is the social context of human development and learning [18]. Constructivist pedagogies concentrate on the learner or community of learners, whereas behaviorist and cognitivist theory-related pedagogies concentrate on the instructional planner or teacher rather than the learner in the learning organisation. The constructivist theory of learning focuses on the learner’s role in making sense and developing understanding and it has developed a variety of approaches to teaching, based on four main principles or values [18]:

2.1 Higher Education and the Need for Change

15

• active learning: in the most general sense, it means encouraging students to participate and act, such as conducting an actual experiment, rather than passive learning; • learning-by-doing: is the constructional approach versus the informational approach. It describes an educational approach that teaches pupils to do something rather than teaching them about something; • scaffolded learning: a more experienced peer helps the learner develop awareness until the learner no longer needs the support; • collaborative learning: the users participate and cooperate throughout the process to co-produce a finished object or outcome. Starting from the learning theories analysed above, many authors described different learning experiences for promoting greater effectiveness and efficiency in achieving the expected learning outcomes. The most relevant are: • • • • • •

Dale’s cone of experience [23]; Social learning [24]; Bloom’s taxonomy [25, 26]; Constructive alignment [27, 28]; Kolb’s learning cycle [29]; Networked learning [30, 31].

Dale’s Cone of Experience A model that integrates concepts related to the processes of instructional design and learning. During the 1960s, Edgar Dale theorised that learners retain more information by what they “do” as opposed to what is “seen,” “read,” or “observed”. Today this “learning by doing” has become recognised as “experiential learning” or “action learning.“ His work led to the creation of his cone of experience (Fig. 2.1). The least successful approach (at the top) includes learning from the knowledge conveyed by verbal expressions. At the edge, the most successful approaches include learning experiences, such as hands-on or field experience. The cone charts the mean retention rate for different teaching methods. The further an individual advances down the pole, the higher the learning and the greater the probability of retaining knowledge. “Learning by doing” reveals that techniques of “action-learning” result in the retention of up to 90%. Individuals learn better by using visual types of learning. Dale’s experience cone is a tool that helps instructors make decisions on resources and activities to plan learning exercises that draw on more real-life experiences. Social Learning Bandura’s theory of social learning underlines the value of studying and modelling others’ behaviours, attitudes, and emotional reactions [24]. The theory of social learning describes human behaviour in terms of continuous mutual interaction between cognitive, behavioural stimuli, and environment. The key processes underlying observational learning are: • awareness; • retention;

16

2 Literature Review

PEOPLE GENERALLY REMEMBER

PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO

10% of what they read

Read

20% of what they hear

Hear

Define Describe List Explain

View images 30% of what they see

Watch videos

50% of what they hear and see

Attend exhibits/sites

Demonstrate Apply Practice

Watch a demonstration Participate in hands-on workshop

70% of what they say and write

Design collaborative lessons Simulate or model a real experience

90% of what they do

Analyse Design Create Evaluate

Design/perform a presentation - do the real thing

Fig. 2.1 Dale’s cone of experience (edited from Dale [23])

• physical replication; • stimulus. Since it includes attention, memory, and motivation, both cognitive and behavioural constructs cover the theory of social learning. Bandura’s research is linked to Vygotsky, who also emphasises the central role of social learning. The principles of social learning include: • the highest degree of observational learning is accomplished by arranging and rehearsing the model behaviour and then by consciously enacting it; • people are more likely to follow a patterned behaviour when it results in outcomes they trust; • people are more likely to follow a model behaviour if the model is identical to the individual and has a position and a practical significance. Bloom’s Taxonomy In 1956 Benjamin Bloom et al. published a structure for categorising educational objectives: “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives” [25]. Familiarly known as Bloom’s taxonomy, educators have since used this framework in their teaching. The original taxonomy (Fig. 2.2) developed by Bloom and his collaborators had six main categories (p. 201): • knowledge “involves the recall of specifics and universals, the recall of methods and processes, or the recall of a pattern, structure, or setting”; • comprehension “refers to a type of understanding such that the individual knows what is being communicated and can make use of the material or idea being communicated without necessarily relating it to other material”;

2.1 Higher Education and the Need for Change

17

EVALUATION

CREATE

SYNTHESIS

EVALUATE

ANALYSIS

ANALYSE

APPLICATION

APPLY

COMPREHENSION

UNDERSTAND

KNOWLEDGE

REMEMBER

Fig. 2.2 Bloom’s taxonomy

• application indicates the “use of abstractions in particular and concrete situations”; • analysis embodies the “breakdown of a communication into its constituent elements such that the relative hierarchy of ideas is made clear and/or the relations between ideas expressed are made explicit”; • synthesis involves the “putting together of elements and parts to form a whole”; • evaluation engenders “judgments about the value of material and methods for given purposes”. The after-knowledge categories were described as “skills and abilities,” assuming that knowledge was the required precondition for putting such abilities into action. Years later, a group of researchers created a revised taxonomy (Fig. 2.2) [26]. They focused on a more dynamic conception of classification of educational actions, using verbs and gerunds to tag their categories and subcategories. These “action words” define the cognitive processes of knowledge: • remember (recognizing, recalling); • understand (interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, explaining); • apply (executing, implementing); • analyse (differentiating, organizing, attributing); • evaluate (checking, critiquing); • create (generating, planning, producing). Constructive Alignment “Constructive alignment is a design model for teaching in which what it is intended students should learn, and how they should express their learning, is clearly stated before teaching takes place. Teaching is then designed to engage students in learning activities that optimize their chances of achieving those outcomes, and assessment tasks are designed to enable clear judgments as to how well those outcomes have been attained” [32].

18

2 Literature Review

Constructive alignment is a theory used to establish teaching and learning exercises and assessment tasks that approach the intended learning outcomes (ILOs) that are not usually accomplished in conventional lectures, tutorial classes, and examinations. Constructive alignment was developed by Biggs [28, 32, 33] and matches with a constructivist interpretation of the subject. The two fundamental principles underpinning positive alignment are the learners’ role as creators of meaning and the role of teachers as makers of a correlation between the intended learning events and the learning outcomes. The framework of constructive alignment defines the following actions: • • • •

detect the intended learning outcomes; plan assessment tasks to check achievement of the learning outcomes; design learning activities to allow students to develop knowledge, and meaning; select the content essential to support the learning activities.

Kolb’s Learning Cycle The Kolb cycle, named after the US educator who developed it, is a model that defines experiential learning as a spiral process (Fig. 2.3). Specifically, following the four phases that make it up, an individual can, from experience, acquire, develop and improve skills and abilities that need to be tried and tested again, resulting in a new experience from which the cycle can begin again.

EXPERIENCE

CONCRETE EXPERIENCE

TRANSFORM

EXPERIENCE

GRASP

ACTIVE EXPERIMENTATION

ABSTRACT CONCEPTUALIZATION

Fig. 2.3 The experiential learning cycle (edited from Kolb [29])

REFLECTIVE OBSERVATION

2.1 Higher Education and the Need for Change

19

The steps identified by Kolb that make the experiential methodology effective and efficient are: • concrete experience: personally experience lived in a training workshop, emphasising emotional aspects, and intuition. • reflective observation: observe, reflect, and interpret the feelings and behaviours that emerged during the experience, focusing on understanding and depth of analysis. • abstract conceptualisation: produce and outline concepts and skills, extending them to external situations, both work and personal, emphasising logic, and generalisation. • active experimentation: verify the knowledge and skills acquired in new situations, focusing on change and evolution. This last phase becomes, in turn, a concrete experience that starts a new learning cycle. Connectivism The incorporation of computer- and web-based technology into the educational realm begins to push theory of learning into a digital age. Users derive their expertise from creating connections [31]. Learning is a process that takes place inside vague environments of changing core elements that are not entirely regulated by the person. Learning may exist outside ourselves; focuses on linking specific information sets; and the connections that allow us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowledge. Connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on bases that change rapidly. Users are continually acquiring new knowledge. It is vital to be able to draw distinctions between important and non-important details. Often essential is the willingness to recognise when new evidence shifts the environment based on decisions taken yesterday. Connectivism’s foundations: • • • • • •

education and knowledge rely on a variety of views; learning is the process of connecting dedicated nodes or sources of information; learning may be a function of non-human equipment; ability to know more is more important than what we now know; connections need to be established and preserved to promote continuous learning; the ability to see connections between disciplines, concepts and ideas is a key competency; • up-to-date knowledge is the goal of all connectivist learning activities; • decision-making is a learning activity [31].

20

2 Literature Review

2.2 Pedagogy, Space and Technology The connection between pedagogy, technology and learning spaces in educational innovation processes is the focus on which several studies and models are based [8, 34–38]. These models relate the constructive learning theories to educational technologies and active learning environments. Promoted by this constructivist shift, digital technologies and a rounded view of learning, contemporary design of learning environments must take into account a broad range of learning experiences and environments required for students to understand a richer educational experience. Higher education institutions are continually seeking versatile learning spaces and to effectively foster student’s participation in the learning process through informal collaborative environments. The creation of learning spaces here promotes creative pedagogical strategies and environments through digital technology affordances. The relationship between environments and learning is increasingly recognised as a fundamental aspect of the debate on contemporary approaches to learning and teaching in higher education. However, our understanding of the dynamic interplay between learning and learning environments remains mostly underdeveloped and lacking [39]. The term ‘learning environment’ has been predominantly associated with computer-based applications to enable and involve user feedback, intervention, and organisation. It was related primarily to computer-based tool, rather than to webbased environments. David Jonassen [40] summarised several characteristics to describe distinguishing constructivist learning environments: • • • • • • • •

provide multiple real-life representations to avoid oversimplification; represent the natural complexity of the reality; emphasise the creation of knowledge, rather than a replication of knowledge; highlight the authentic tasks in a concrete sense rather than intangible abstract instruction; provide learning environments such as real-world settings, or case-based learning rather than predetermined instruction sequences; encourage considerate reflection of experience; allow context and content-dependent construction of knowledge; support collaborative knowledge creation through social cooperation without encouraging competition for among users.

The learning environment is a place where there are several activities aimed at supporting learning, and where actors can draw on several resources when doing so. Some of the concepts also underline the constructionist approach to learning and the use of technology. There is a rising recognition of the need for further incorporation of social constructivist approaches to teaching, coupled with learning technology into higher education. Experts argue that with new educational technology and collective constructivist concepts, there is more significant opportunity for improving learning environments [41].

2.2 Pedagogy, Space and Technology

21

Triggered by this constructivist switch, digital technology, and a broad understanding of learning, contemporary design of learning spaces must consider a wide range of learning activities and environments needed for students to experience a richer learning experience. Schneckenberg, Ehlers and Adelsberger [42] describe five common features associated with innovation in higher education learning environments: • • • • •

learning is ubiquitous. It develops in several various contexts; learners progressively become learning’s organisers; learning is a lifelong process and is not solely related to educational institutions; learning is collaborative and happens in communities; learning is informal, and it takes place in different spaces.

“Good learning space design can support each institution’s mission of enabling student learning. In fact, the convergence of technology, pedagogy, and space can lead to exciting new models of campus interaction” [15]. While classrooms have conventionally been seen as unchangeable containers for knowledge transmission, today, space issues have reached the research of learning sciences to support the new demands on education and learning. Likewise, advances in instructional philosophy have led researchers and practitioners over the past several decades to establish coherent classroom designs that reflect the broad ideas of a modern theory of learning. There is an increasing need to adapt learning spaces to new theories of learning approaches [43], to the point that teaching places are changing to meet and embrace new theories learning [44]. The central node of this change is the relationship between space, pedagogy and technology [8, 9]. Educational institutions and universities make substantial technology investments established on what they think students require, want and have [9], and technology implementation and incorporation into university educational activities continue as a persistent problem [45]. While different technologies have been widely available and promoted for their potential to transform learning, this promise has not yet been fulfilled [46]. There are a variety of recursive and collaborative variables that affect teachers’ decisionmaking processes using technology. These include educational beliefs and the beliefs of teachers about the value and application of technologies and their own cultural and pedagogical contexts. Although universities are excited about creating new learning environments focused on students and enriched with technology, less focus is put on how teachers are encouraged to re-conceptualise their learning designs for these areas. Despite this limitation, however, work to support the adoption and integration of technology into higher education provides useful models and insights that can be considered in developing approaches to professional development for new learning spaces. Evolving communications and technology capabilities are not compatible with teacher-centred learning environments where the teacher is the primary source of knowledge, and the learner passively receives this information without much reflection or discourse.

22

2 Literature Review

Technological pressures on pedagogy are shifting educational attainment. While the teachers are often enthusiastic about using emerging technologies relevant to their research, the adoption of teaching–learning technologies requires changes in the design of learning experiences to involve the use of learning technology for students. Given developments in digital technology and current research on committed learning and social knowledge building, the educator’s position shifts from information delivery and testing to developing and assessing engaging learning experiences. The teacher becomes a learning designer who: • • • •

has expanded access to peers, external knowledge and global resources [47]; meets the need for customised learning experiences and outcomes [48]; uses innovative approaches to engage and participate in learning [11]; deploys interactive, technology-rich approaches to learning design [41].

2.2.1 PST Framework The PST framework [49] is the result of a Carrick Institute-funded Next Generation Learning Spaces (NGLS) research project, which was directed in the University of Queensland by David Radcliffe. It takes its steps from Oblinger’s research [15]. It is of great importance as a reference point for the development of an integrated plan for educational innovation, and it guides the design and operation of new learning spaces. The NGLS project created the PST framework by investigating the relationship between pedagogy, space and technology. It aims to enable educational institutions to develop and establish new teaching and learning environments with the objective of encouraging student engagement and learning outcomes. It is a question-driven inquiry method drawn from existing international literature and experience of creative teaching and learning spaces. It relates the three elements (pedagogy, space and technology) through a series of questions (who is involved, what theories, what typologies, what developments, what relationships, what evaluations, what effectiveness, what modalities) related to each of them. The questions are expressed in two categories: • conception and design; • implementation and operation. The Framework empowers a full spectrum of potential stakeholders to examine the pedagogical, technological and physical dimensions of teaching and learning spaces and their experiences objectively and holistically. The three elements become the levers for reflection around the concept of an innovative learning environment (Fig. 2.4). In this context, in order to make didactic innovation processes effective, the three pillars must intersect with each other: • new pedagogical approaches strengthen technologies;

2.2 Pedagogy, Space and Technology

23 INNOVATIVE ATTRIBUTES • ACTIVE LEARNING • COLLABORATIVE LEARNING • SOCIAL LEARNING • NETWORKED LEARNING • HYBRID LEARNING ...

LEARNING ACTIVITY

BY D

AG

LE AB

UR CO

EN

BY

ES

ED

EXTENDS EMBEDS

NC

RG

HA

EN

EN

SPACE

NT ME ON VIR EN

• FLEXIBLE • TECH ENRICHED • TEMPORAL FRUITED & SITUATED • CUSTOMIZABLE • CONDUCT & CONTROLLED ...

LA

G NIN AR LE INNOVATIVE ATTRIBUTES

EN

ES

PEDAGOGY

TECHNOLOGY

NG NI AR E L

S OL TO INNOVATIVE ATTRIBUTES • CUSTOMIZABLE • UBIQUITOUS • COLLABORATIVE • ON DEMAND • MOBILE ...

Fig. 2.4 PST framework (edited from Radcliffe et al. [8])

• technologies support pedagogical approaches and extend spaces; • the space integrates technologies, makes possible and supports new pedagogical approaches. Other authors have used the PST framework as a reference to research in different areas of learning environment evaluation. For instance, Wilson and Randall [50] focus their attention on how a technology-rich next-generation learning space is being used both by students and teachers. It was mentioned in Cleveland and Fisher’s article [34] that summarised a literature review of systems to evaluate a learning environment followed by other works in the same field [51]. It was also discussed in an article by Jenny Ng [52] in which she points out that it takes into account pedagogy, space and technology, and, for this reason, shows a more balanced perspective. It also shows that while the emphasis on technology is essential, it is also crucial to be certain that the technology is effective for the students in order to make learning more efficient [52]. The image below is representative of the PST framework with the attributes of innovation of each element [53]. This PST framework characterises the basic settings necessary for the elaboration of effective learning processes on which to act in order to promote active learning experiences: the combined use of new pedagogical approaches that see the teacher as a designer of active teaching activities; of technologies seen as catalysts for innovation; and of flexible, reconfigurable and technologically advanced spaces, creating the ecosystem where educational innovation finds opportunities and effective motivations for its development. It is also a valuable tool to reflect on the nature of innovative learning environments that can be used as a compass in environments’ design and development.

24

2 Literature Review

2.3 Pedagogy: Active Learning and Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) The constructivist learning theories have fundamental developments, suggesting that learning is better done when it is: • contextual: evaluation of the learners’ comprehension; • active: engaging students in learning activities using review, dialogue and feedback; • social: using peer-reviews, direct contact with experts, and team projects [54]. Active learning is defined as “instructional activities involving students in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing” [55]. In other words, active learning is a matter of acting and then learning by reflecting on those actions. Students retain knowledge when they are actively involved in their learning experience and when they are required to apply what they have learned [14]. Active learning is an approach that takes place within a tailored environment [56– 61]. We define an active learning environment as one in which students are engaged in the process of building, testing and refining their mental models [62]. It can only occur within a learning space equipped with the appropriate equipment and tools and must be promoted by different techniques [43]. The students cooperate and are protagonists within the educational experiences. The role of the teacher also changes in an active learning approach. The teacher becomes a director, a screenplay creator who has the job of motivating students to participate, implementing the most appropriate tools, developing lessons, and creating knowledge. The teacher’s job is to direct the students’ learning journey through: • organising events that will promote the understanding and use of established information to generate new knowledge or to achieve objectives; • track student processes and actions, and provide them detailed, prompt information on their learning; • assess the learning outcomes and learning processes of the students. Active learning has at its core the active role of the student and the teacher’s role of director and facilitator, and it is able to create better alliances among users [63]. In other words, “it is defined by a student-centred approach to learning and teaching, in which teachers are seen as facilitators of learning” [64]. Research into the science of learning has indicated that active learning is one of the most critical and essential components of the learning process [14]. Students learn more when participating actively in the learning environment than they would in a passive classroom environment. This observation is supported by extensive study, especially in university-level science courses and active learning is proving to be an effective approach with respect to the traditional one [65–69]. Therefore, even if active learning is a successful approach, it seems that different and more advanced ways are needed to engage students and encourage them to be

2.3 Pedagogy: Active Learning and Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL)

25

active. In active learning, the activities are organised to the extent that students come under intense pressure to contribute to these activities. They are no longer asked to choose whether or not they wish to participate. Besides, active learning frequently happens in the form of group activities, where the responsibility of each person becomes difficult to describe [70]. Matsushita, speaking about his observation made in 2013 of the TEAL classrooms in MIT, stated that “a TEAL classroom contains 13 round tables, each seating nine students, and the students use networked computers, clickers, multifaceted screens, whiteboards, and other tools as they engage in interactive, cooperative, active learning. But, TEAL is not accepted by all students” [70]. There is, then, a need to involve students and, according to Lomas and Oblinger [71], classrooms with ubiquitous access to technology bring additional capabilities and can engage students in learning, and technology can significantly enhance interactivity in the classroom.

2.4 Space: New Spaces for New Learning Approaches For decades, classrooms were the primary place to learn in higher education. They were by far the single most important place in which to learn [54]: the archetypical context of learning [72]. However, this narrow idea of the classroom is balanced by the wider definition of a learning environment, adapting to shifting educational practices. There is a widespread notion that the context within which learning takes place is a “learning environment” as a more extensive setting than a classroom. “Learning environment refers to the diverse physical locations, contexts, and cultures in which students learn. Since students may learn in a wide variety of settings, the term is often used as a more accurate or preferred alternative to classroom, which has more limited and traditional connotations. The term also encompasses the culture of a school or class as well as the ways in which teachers may organize an educational setting to facilitate learning—e.g., by conducting classes in relevant natural ecosystems, grouping desks in specific ways or utilizing audio, visual, and digital technologies” [73]. From a constructivist perspective, a learning environment can be defined as “a place where people can draw upon resources to make sense out of things and construct meaningful solutions to problems” [74]. According to Goodyear [75], the physical and digital setting in which students perform their work, including all the tools, documents and other devices, consists of a learning environment. It includes the sociocultural climate for these activities in addition to its physical and digital framework. We can differentiate between physical and digital settings, with resources, documents and objects that can be designed and intentionally designed in an educational sense and the socio-cultural setting where students carry out activities arising out of this deliberately planned and designed setting.

26

2 Literature Review

The literature includes several definitions of the idea of the learning environment. In some cases, the emphasis is on the role of ICT as an “innovative learning environment” [76] that should have the technical, social and educational tools required for learning. Many names were given to these new kinds of learning spaces, and the notion of a learning environment is usually presented with an attribute. In the following paragraphs, the most relevant are described. Next Generation Learning Spaces—NGLS The actual term “next generation learning space” appears to have come from Australia when the Next Generation Learning Spaces 2007 Colloquium was held by the University of Queensland in 2007. The term was then used in many different countries. Even if the term does not appear in literature until after the first decade of this century, a connection with the idea of evolving spaces for studying appeared in literature at the beginning of the century. Van Note Chism was one of the first researchers to connect learning principles with learning space design [35]. She argued that to facilitate connected and active learning in a social context, it is necessary to develop a range of spaces: • • • • • •

where small groups could meet to work on projects; for whole-class dialogue; where technology can be accessed easily; for displaying ideas and working documents; that can accommodate movement and noise; that include spillover spaces in corridors and lobbies [77].

The term was then used in the Next Generation Learning Spaces project at the Carrick Institute for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education and realised in 2006. The objective of the project was to develop a coherent and comprehensive framework for the design and realisation of new learning environments [8]. Next generation learning spaces encapsulate the affordances of both physical and virtual spaces [78]. NGLSs have most often been associated with physical spaces that are augmented with technology to enhance the learning opportunities for students [79]. “A dramatic, pedagogical shift has occurred in recent years in educational environments in higher education, supported largely using ubiquitous technologies. Increasingly, the emphasis is being placed on the design of new learning spaces, often referred to as “Next Generation Learning Spaces” (NGLS) and their impact on pedagogy. The traditional idea of “classroom” now incorporates the use of both physical and virtual space. The increasing availability of digital technologies has enabled teachers and students to access a wider range of communication and information that can now be incorporated into the formal learning process” [50] According to Fraser [35] while next generation learning spaces may vary, they typically: • enable new pedagogies, including technology-enabled pedagogies; • are intentionally designed to facilitate collaborative, connected and active learning;

2.4 Space: New Spaces for New Learning Approaches

27

• are technology-enabled and allow for students to use their own devices; • include formal and informal spaces, physical and electronic spaces; • have comfortable furniture that is configured easily and quickly to suit different pedagogies. Modern Learning Environments—MLE New learning spaces in which learning can take place physically, socially and pedagogically are called modern learning environments (MLE), and they evolve and adapt to the evolution and improvements in education practices. MLE supports learning styles that can accurately modernise the learning environment. MLE is implemented by a pedagogical approach and integrated with digital communications (with the use of digital technology) to facilitate the learner in researching sources of information [80]. Modern learning environments usually offer much more to students and teachers than a traditional learning environment [81]: • Flexibility: the capacity to achieve teamwork processes, to merge students, to divide them into small groups or to distribute them into a larger area and to put together various classes in similar learning areas. • Openness: MLEs typically have fewer walls and more glass, and often have the concept of common learning space that can be divided into several classes. • Access to tools (including technology): a wired and wireless technology mix often offers the students access to the flow of learning at the moment they need it. Spaces for Knowledge Generation Spaces for Knowledge Generation is an ALTC project conducted in collaboration with several universities and organisations [82]. The project was based on the theory that constructivist approaches to learning and research and analysis should make use of the technologies and methods that students prefer and thus arrange learning spaces to facilitate learner-generated learning types. SKG proposes a framework for designing future-oriented and medium-term sustainable learning environments for students. The SKG project has developed seven specific principles of space-design that promote a constructivist approach to learning: principles that endorse a studentcentred, interactive, and experiential learning environment. These principles are: • comfort: an atmosphere that provides a feeling of physical and mental support; • aesthetics: enjoyment that requires balance, equilibrium, functionality; • flow: the learner’s state of mind as he or she fully engages in the educational practice; • equity: recognition of the needs of variations in culture and physique; • blending: the match of technologies and pedagogical tools; • affordances: the learning environment offers ‘action possibilities’ for users; • repurpose: multiple use capability of the learning environment [82].

28

2 Literature Review

Hybrid/Blended Learning Environment Hybrid/Blended learning is most widely perceived to be the fusion of two types of learning environments: traditional face-to-face, and computer-mediated and elearning. Technological progress has fostered the integration of these two typically distinct worlds and made the creation of hybrid learning environments feasible [83]. Nowadays, technologies are used every day by students and by many teachers; those that they have at home or carry with them in their pockets or bags are the most up to date. The proliferation of personal devices and mobile apps have amplified the complexity of contact between people with a digital context and physical learning environments. Moreover, this situation contributes to increasingly reducing the line between physical spaces and digital spaces leading to a new understanding of the interaction space that could be referred to as “hybrid” [84, 85]. Hybrid spaces are complex spaces created by the constant movement of users who are linked to the Internet on a continuous basis. This “always-on” status transforms our sense of space into contexts that are far from those in which we currently live. Here, the space of hybridity differs conceptually from what we call a mixed reality [86]. “The potential of hybrid learning spaces is considerable” [84]. Blended spaces are dynamic spaces created because of the continuous movement of users who are constantly connected to the Internet and to other users with portable devices, using the correct pedagogical approach. Some of the benefits of a blended learning system are the extension of the scope of opportunities and the potential to attract students. The online and on-site teaching offer a combination of methods so all students can take practical action. With practice, teachers can understand the right way to mix approaches for engaging a mix of students [87]. Virtual Learning Environment According to Oxford Online Resource Centre [88] a Virtual Learning Environment is “a system for delivering learning materials to students via the web”. They can be accessed both online and on-site, which means that students can learn everywhere and at any time. In this way, universities can educate not only conventional fulltime students but also those who cannot access the campus because of spatial or time constraints, such as those taking distance education courses, evening classes, or part-time students. Another popular definition is that provided by the Joint Information Systems Committee in the UK, that recommended in 2000 that the term “virtual learning environment” (VLE) refer to “the components in which learners and tutors participate in ‘online’ interactions of various kinds, including online learning” [89]. According to Oblinger “Space is no longer just physical; it incorporates the virtual” [15]. Education technologies can lead to greater physical and virtual collaboration between staff and students. In a mixed environment, when students are online and using VLE tools, they can interact practically in their studies even if they are off the campus. In this virtual setting, the institution’s presence is preserved, and “the virtual presence of the institution facilitates the maintenance of connections for

2.4 Space: New Spaces for New Learning Approaches

29

these students” and students will have ways to communicate and manage physical and virtual worlds. Future Learning Spaces As stated by Eberle et al. [90], the idea of future learning spaces intensifies a unexplored layer of research on educational technology. It responds to society’s challenges in the age of innovation, knowledge of human learning, and rapidly advancing networked digital technologies that affect the space–time relationship of education. According to Hod et al. [91], “FLSs are more than the sum of their parts (future, learning, and spaces)”. They suggest a structure based on the three components, creating a collection of operating criteria that can be used to decide when and to what degree a FLS can be treated in a specific context: • Future: the rapid use of emerging technology eliminates differences between “what is” and “what’s going to be” to a minimum. Therefore, it is appropriate for the term ‘future’ to focus on emerging or existing (but developing) technology. • Learning: FLSs were based on pedagogies focused on improvement in the way people construct knowledge and base it on different criteria. • Spaces: in learning spaces, several digital tools can be used to create a community so that students could create their own learning space. This is why it is easier to identify a specific context, tool, or learning environment as space while digital and physical realities become combined into a phenomenon [1]. Technology-Enriched Learning Environments According to Hannafin and Land [92], technology-enriched learning environments can arrange integrated learning subjects into concrete structures, either as a question to be addressed or as a goal to relate their functionality and practices. They deliver engaging and collaborative activities that allow users to tackle desires and needs in the area of learning, explore multiple layers of difficulty, and develop comprehension. They create a context for enriching thinking and learning and use technologies to enable versatile approaches. Steel and Andrews [45] state that the “common characteristics that define these innovative spaces are the use of technology to support learning and teaching activities and the requirement for flexibility and increasing adaptability”. The new learning facilities are designed and created to support active, social, collaborative, and independent learning. They offer teachers opportunities to reimagine instruction, learning activities, and encourage further participation of learners in the learning process. Physically speaking, the new learning spaces are generally visually attractive and are designed with the latest technology and for a variety of educational purposes. According to Wang and Kinuthia [93], a technology-enriched learning environment has the following characteristics: • • • •

using technology to motivate people; using technology to enrich learning resources; using technology to implement learning and instructional strategies; using technology to assess and evaluate learning goals [93].

30

2 Literature Review

A technology-enriched learning environment represents successful technological integration and gives users an active environment where the learning goals can be understood and accomplished. In a constructivist and active approach, technologyenriched learning environments are key to obtaining and providing up-to-date knowledge [74]. Technology-enriched learning environments can engage and inspire the users, who no longer focus on the specific knowledge of their instructor, but work within a community of learners who can participate in the process of pedagogical change that involves the practical application of new contents, new approaches and new values [94]. Innovative Learning Environments The idea of the learning environment as a phenomenon has entered educational reflections in close correlation with the growing use of ICT for educational purposes on the one hand, and the constructivist interpretation of information and learning on the other. The constructivist view stresses learning as an active process of building knowledge rather than acquiring or receiving it. In this view, therefore, instruction is a process of supporting construction rather than of passing on knowledge from teachers to students. ICT is seen as one of the means by which these learning environments can be created [95]. A successful innovative learning environment consists of a good equilibrium between discovery and individual exploration on the one hand, and organised tutoring and direction on the other hand, while being thoughtful to individual distinctions in skills, need, requirements and motivation among the learners. The OECD commissioned research reviews by leading scientists on different aspects of learning to integrate a similar understanding of learning into the creative learning environments (ILE) report and invited them to describe the implications of this analysis for improving learning environments [17]. The findings from these numerous studies were then condensed into seven “Learning Principles” (Table 2.1). The strength and significance of these principles of learning do not lie in each one taken individually since they are not a menu from which to “pick and choose” while disregarding the rest. In 2013 the seven learning principles were expanded, adding a further three fundamental fields of innovation (Table 2.2): the pedagogical core, learning leadership and partnerships [96]. Technology can contribute to all the various components, relationships, partnerships, and principles that make up the framework of the ILE “7 + 3”. Technology is everywhere and learning environments that do not exploit the power of digital technology cannot be imagined [97]. All kinds of learning environments described in the previous paragraphs have in common the central role of communication technology as a support for learning activities and collaboration among users to promote greater effectiveness and efficiency in achieving the expected learning outcomes. The “Net Generation” of students cares about the activity technology that enables, not the technology, per se. A whole generation of learners has grown up using computers and networked tools in tandem with

2.4 Space: New Spaces for New Learning Approaches

31

Table 2.1 7 ILE learning principles [17] ONE

The learning environment acknowledges students as its main protagonists, promotes their active participation and builds their understanding of their activity as learners

TWO

The learning environment is grounded in the social nature of learning and actively promotes successful cooperative learning

THREE

Educators pay close attention to students’ motivations and the central role of feelings in learning achievement

FOUR

The learning environment is responsive to students’ diversity, as well as their previous understandings

FIVE

The learning environment develops agendas that require strong work and challenge from everyone but not unnecessary overload

SIX

The learning environment acts with transparency of objectives and uses assessment methods coherent with these objectives

SEVEN

The learning environment supports ‘horizontal connection’ through knowledge, materials, community and the world

Table 2.2 +3 ILE learning principles [96] EIGHT

Innovate the pedagogical focus of the learning environment, either the fundamental elements or the dynamics linking them or combinations of both

NINE

Turn into “learning organisations” with strong learning leadership constantly updated by proofs of learning reached through various approaches and innovations

TEN

Be open to partnerships in ways that model directly the pedagogical heart and governance of learning

technological devices that are essential for Net Generation students [54], and consequently, they have a very close relationship with their devices. Net Gen students’ characteristics mesh very closely with the increasing mobility of technologies, their continuous availability, and their value as a communication tool. Net Gen students are social and team-focused, confident with multitasking, generally optimistic, and have a collaborative approach supported by the technological tools at their disposal [54]. The use of technology to improve student experiences will be critical to educational institutions. Technology is a tool - it represents the means, not the desired outcome. Students will use technology; in fact, they will expect experiences empowered through technology. However, before focusing on technology, a clear and unambiguous vision that provides the context for the technology must be articulated.

32

2 Literature Review

2.5 Technology: Technology for Learning Environments/Educational Technologies Some might realise that in all the OECD principles, discussed in the previous paragraph, there is really no reference to technology; it is not a prerequisite for deep learning. However, technology might only be a vehicle, but it is a strong one [98]. As a tool, technology not only serves as a catalyst for structural change in learning environment design, but it also impacts on micro-level learning and teaching through the development of different learning experiences. The content supplied via this vehicle is, therefore, immensely relevant. Often known as digital learning tools over the last few decades, information materials have experienced enormous progress. Nevertheless, we also need more research and benchmarking for these tools and their effects on learning [99]. They are at the intersection of technology and pedagogy and must be explored, created, and studied in a way to fully realise the potential of digital technology for the highly individualised cognitive learning practice. We can no longer continue to speak about learning technology only in general terms. We need to become more specific, exploring how various technologies and resources are making significant gains in critical areas that have demonstrated pedagogical challenges so far. We must try to understand how technology and technological tools can have a direct effect on the progression of learners. The attempt to define what is a technological tool for learning must start with the definition of educational technology. It is the study and process of promoting learning and enhancing performance by building, using and managing suitable technological processes and resources [100]. In the new active approaches, the learner is in control. Thus, educational technology seeks to promote learning rather than causing or controlling it; it can help establish an environment in which learning can occur more easily [100]. “Educational technology refers to the use of tools, technologies, processes, procedures, resources, and strategies to improve learning experiences in a variety of settings, such as formal learning, informal learning, non-formal learning, lifelong learning, learning on demand, workplace learning, and just-in-time learning. Educational technology approaches evolved from early uses of teaching tools and have rapidly expanded in recent years to include such devices and approaches as mobile technologies, virtual and augmented realities, simulations and immersive environments, collaborative learning, social networking, cloud computing, flipped classrooms, and more” [101]. In this paragraph, the focus will be primarily on computer-based technology learning. An essential characteristic, and a possible benefit if appropriately used, is that it enables the delivery of interactive instructional messages of words and images [102]. Computer-based technology also enables degrees of interactivity, computing capacity, graphical rendering and retrieval of information that would otherwise be impossible [103].

2.5 Technology: Technology for Learning Environments/Educational Technologies

33

Tools and users are not static. Technologies are continually developed and upgraded, but more importantly, users adapt and change their behaviour and the nature of the way in which they interact with tools over time, as they: • become proficient and confident in using the tools; • begin to appropriate and personalise the use; • see new ways in which the tool can replace previous patterns of behaviour [104]. Due to the interactive nature of technology and the potential of its information processing capacities, Jonassen [40] suggests that when students learn with technology, it turns into a cognitive tool. This concept is related to his earlier reflection on computers as “mindtools” [105] since “students cannot use these tools without thinking deeply about the content that they are learning, and second if they choose to use these tools to help them learn, the tools will facilitate the learning process … Cognitive tools are computationally based tools that complement and extend the mind”. Jacobsen et al. [47] state that “in the present literature review, studies demonstrate technology can increase connections, communications and interactions among learners for collaborating and creating”. Smart mobile devices have overloaded the market in recent years and have increasingly permeated educational institutions as preferred methods of learning technology for students. To the educator, the wide variety of emerging technology offers hundreds of resources to facilitate teaching and learning. But this overwhelming availability poses challenges for the educator in choosing the tools and learning how to use them in his/her teaching [98]. Nevertheless, research shows that educators are often uncertain about employing technology correctly, and their practice is more focused on common sense rather than logically guided by pedagogical theory [106]. The integration of technology into education, results in new approaches and new ways of learning. In combination, these up-to-date approaches involve new experiments with educational technologies. Technologies are claimed in the literature [107–109] to foster effective learning by setting conditions for: • increase students’ encouragement and promote cognitive growth; • contextualise learning by providing highly immersive tools that promote real-life experiences and formative feedback; • provide tools to enable students to explain what they have learned; • provide communication and collaboration tools to interact with the wider community; • provide tools to manage and assess individuals; • enable research by assembling, analysing and visualising data; • enable access to knowledge on the Internet outside educational institutions. The reasons provided by educational organisations and decision-makers for incorporating digital educational technologies into student learning fall into five categories [16, 98]: • encouraging learning to reach successful learning results;

34

• • • •

2 Literature Review

developing twenty-first century skills as part of students’ job readiness; guiding students to become responsible digital citizens; customising the learning experience; shortening the digital divide by boosting digital literacy.

“Educational technologies play an essential role in supporting the seamless integration between formal and informal, physical and virtual learning spaces” [110]. The World Wide Web has been the principal way in which most people access sources of information, through personal devices. Personal devices have acquired an increasing range of technological features, including an operating system that runs various applications. The costs of portable, personal and technological devices have fallen while the features have grown, to the point that their use surpasses that of desktops for most students [54]. This is so significant that a specific word, Bring Your Own Device (BYOD), has been coded for this practice [111]. The word suggests that nowadays, students and teachers use their personal devices more and more often to teach and learn, during classes, or to study alone or in a group. Also used are Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT), which means the same as BYOD, and Bring Your Own Browser (BYOB), which stresses the use of one’s own laptop to access cloud technology services. Later, the term BYOD was given priority, since it actually incorporates the other two [84]. In addition to being part of our everyday lives, BYOD’s definition originates in the mass proliferation of mobile apps, which amplifies the complexity of contact between people with electronic platforms and learning environments. Furthermore, creating BYOD learning environments is considerably more complex than developing learning for common technology enriched environments. There are some tasks which involve [112]: • personalisation or individualisation of education within the limits of the device used by the students; • localisation and maintenance of applications or devices for multiple platforms; • use of more specific instructions or other methods to avoid technical problems; • management of collaborative activities based on existing devices instead of learning preferences.

2.5.1 Educational Technologies’ Affordances Understanding the learning processes developed in the interrelation of cultural, educational, and technological systems requires various categories of analysis. One of them is affordance. This concept can be understood as the forms of use intended for an artefact by its designer or creator and contributed by those who use it. Affordance implies the materialisation that emerges from a relationship between the environment, the subject, and the artefact.

2.5 Technology: Technology for Learning Environments/Educational Technologies

35

The purpose of this reflection is to present an approach to the category of affordance and to identify its potential as a construct for understanding the relationship between the learning processes and educational technologies in contemporary educational settings. Knowing affordances is crucial for understanding the use of technology to develop cultural, educational, and knowledge innovation processes. Gibson [113, 114] was the one who coined the term “affordance” for the actionable properties between the environment and user. In an ecological sense, he described the term in relation to visual perception. He argued that in a setting, the affordances often lead to some course of action and affordances are interpreted by a person and are dependent on culture. He defines affordance as latent signals in environments, such as substances, surfaces, objects, and places that have possibilities of action and it ties in with the idea that social transformations, artefacts, and human contexts occur continuously and as an ecosystem. Norman [115] continued the reflection that Gibson started in 1977, calling it real affordance. Norman did not modify the initial definition. Instead, he presented the idea of “perceived” affordance, which describes the suggestions of an object, a user interface, or a device to the user about its functionality. Norman used the term affordance to relate users and technological and digital devices. He was interested in the levels of accessibility given by everyday objects. Gaver [116] has also defined an interpretation of affordance that he splits into three distinct categories: perceptible, false and hidden. Perceptible affordance is the condition in which the user perceives perceptive knowledge. On the contrary, if there is a condition in which the user perceives perceptive knowledge where there is none, it’s a false affordance. When a perceptive knowledge of an affordance does not exist, then we have a hidden affordance. Hartson [117], discussing his UAF (User Action Framework), used Norman’s definition as a starting point, and proposed a more explicit differentiation between each form of affordance, and that in his reflection become four: physical, cognitive, sensory and functional. Physical affordance is described as the possibility of a user to make an experience of the device. The knowledge that helps the actor through the physical experience is a cognitive affordance. The information the user receives before being processed at the cognitive level is sensory affordance, while the usefulness the physical affordance gives the actor is a functional affordance. Through the years, the definition of affordance has been viewed regarding the digital and technological context, and at the very least, has pushed designers, technological instructors, and educators to think about the information they provide to users by designing, choosing, and managing educational technologies. Conole and Dyke [118] have proposed a taxonomy of ICT affordances. Their intent was to explicate the affordances in order to allow users to be informed about the ways in which different technological tools can be used. They believed that a better comprehension of the nature and features of technological tools would lead to a more systematic application of the use of ICT for learning and teaching [118]. The taxonomy of ICT affordances proposed by Conole and Dyke is composed of ten elements:

36

2 Literature Review

• accessibility: the variety of technological tools currently existing provides relatively easy access to huge quantities of information through a variety of different mechanisms; • speed of change: immediate access to quickly evolving information or activities is a core aspect of emerging technology, allowing an unparalleled level of exposure to resources and current developments as they arise; • diversity: information technology offers a system through which people can be exposed to perceptions that are very different from their own and thus extend their experience outside their own communities; • communication and collaboration: technological innovations have increased the opportunities for new forms of dialogue and communication since technological tools provide the potential to create new types of online communities; • reflection: technology does have the ability to promote reflection and it provides novel possibilities for knowledge creations that can be addressed and exposed to the analytical scrutiny of much broader groups of users; • multi-modal and non-linear: technologies allow learners to pass from linear learning paths to more customised learning approaches and methods; • risk, fragility and uncertainty: the evolving and complex technologies are vulnerable to attacks, viruses, or malfunctions and increased use of technology by numerous users also leads to unexpected results; • Immediacy: the speed of data distribution via the web has resulted in a change in user expectations regarding reaction times to inquiries from other users, that has contributed to a profound intensification of working habits; • monopolisation: integration and differentiation between various systems are becoming increasingly relevant, leading to problems related to optimisation and globalisation and the specific requirements for information sharing; • surveillance: the intrusion of technological systems can be potentially harmful to users.

References 1. Ellis RA, Goodyear P (2016) Models of learning space: integrating research on space, place and learning in higher education. Rev Educ 4:149–191 2. Johnson L, Adams Becker S, Cummins M, et al (2016) Horizon report—2016 higher education edition. New Media Consortium, Austin, Texas 3. Hanna DE (2003) Organizational models in higher education, past and future. In: Moore MG, Anderson WG (eds) Handbook of distance education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp 67–78 4. Mehlenbacher B (2010) Instruction and technology. The MIT Press 5. Laurillard D (2002) Rethinking University teaching. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon 6. Temple P (2008) Learning spaces in higher education: an under-researched topic. London Rev Educ 6:229–241 7. Januszewski A (2001) Educational technology: the development of a concept. Libraries Unlimited Inc., Englewood, CO

References

37

8. Radcliffe D, Wilson H, Powell D, Tibbetts B (2009) Learning spaces in higher education: positive outcomes by design. In: Radcliffe D, Wilson H, Powell D, Tibbetts B (eds) Proceedings of the next generation learning spaces 2008 Colloquium University of Queensland, Brisbane. The Contributers, St Lucia, QLD 9. Oblinger DG, Oblinger JL (2005) Educating the Net Generation. Educause 10. Groff J (2013) Technology-rich innovative learning environments. OCED CERI Innov Learn Environ Proj 1–30 11. Siemens G, Tittenberger P (2009) Handbook of emerging technologies for learning 12. Smyth R (2011) Enhancing learner-learner interaction using video communications in higher education: implications from theorising about a new model. Br J Educ Technol 42:113–127 13. Conole G, de Laat M, Dillon T, Darby J (2008) ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: what’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Comput Educ 50:511–524 14. Moore AAH, Fowler SSBS, Watson CE (2007) Active learning and technology: designing change for faculty, students, and institutions. Educ Rev 42:42–44 15. Oblinger D (2005) Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces. Educ Q 28:14– 18 16. OECD (2010) Inspired by technology. OECD, Driven by Pedagogy 17. OECD (2010) The nature of learning—using research to inspire practice. OECD, Paris 18. Harasim L (2012) Learning theory and online technologies. Routledge, New York, NY 19. Ziegenfuss DH (2005) By instructional design: facilitating effective teaching and learning with technology. In: Thirunarayanan MO, Perez-Prado A (eds) Educational technology and science. University Press of America, Laham, MD, pp 19–45 20. Schunk DH (2012) Learning theories: an educational perspective, 6th edn. Pearson Education Inc., Boston, MA 21. Pritchard A (2009) Ways of learning, 2nd edn. Routledge, Oxon 22. Ally M (2008) Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In: Anderson T (ed) The theory and practice of online learning. AU Press, Edmonton, AB, pp 15–44 23. Dale E (1963) Audio-visual methods in teaching 24. Bandura A (1977) Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 25. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, et al (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: cognitive domain. Longmans, London 26. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman, New York 27. Biggs J (2003) Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Assess Eval High Educ 1–16 28. Biggs J (2003) Aligning teaching for constructing learning. High Educ Acad 29. Kolb DA (2015) Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development, 2nd edn. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ 30. Downes S (2010) New technology supporting informal learning. J Emerg Technol Web Intell 2:27–33 31. Siemens G (2005) Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. Int J Instr Technol Distance Learn 2:3–10 32. Biggs J (2014) Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Rev High Educ 1:5–22 33. Biggs J (1996) Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ 32:347–364 34. Cleveland B, Fisher K (2014) The evaluation of physical learning environments: a critical review of the literature. Learn Environ Res 17:1–28 35. Fraser K (2014) The future of learning and teaching in next generation learning spaces. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bradford 36. Sparrow J, Whitmer S (2014) Transforming the student experience through learning space design. In: International perspectives on higher education research. pp 299–315 37. Temple P (2014) The Physical University: contours of space and place in higher education. Routledge, Oxon

38

2 Literature Review

38. White B, Williams G, England R (2014) Diverse pictures of learning: The hidden work of shaping next generation learning spaces. In: International perspectives on higher education research. pp 23–46 39. Elkington S (Teesside University), Bligh B (Lancaster University) (2019) future learning spaces: spaces, technology and pedagogy. Heslington 40. Jonassen DH (1994) Technology as cognitive tools: learners as designers, instructional technology forum. Itech1 41. Garrison DR, Akyol Z (2009) Role of instructional technology in the transformation of higher education. J Comput High Educ 21:19–30 42. Schneckenberg D, Ehlers U, Adelsberger H (2011) Web 2.0 and competence-oriented design of learning-potentials and implications for higher education. Br J Educ Technol 42:747–762 43. Meyers C, Jones T (1993) Promoting active learning: strategies for the college classroom. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 44. Beckers R, van der Voordt T, Dewulf G (2015) A conceptual framework to identify spatial implications of new ways of learning in higher education. Facilities 33:2–19 45. Steel C, Andrews T (2012) Re-imagining teaching for technology-enriched learning spaces. In: Physical and virtual learning spaces in higher education. IGI Global, pp 242–265 46. Hedberg JG (2006) E-learning futures? Speculations for a time yet to come. Stud Contin Educ 28:171–183 47. Jacobsen M, Brown B, Lambert D (2013) Technology-enhanced learning environments in higher education: A review of the literature. Calgary 48. Johnson L, Browne D, Adams Becker S, et al (2013) NMC horizon project: 2013 higher education edition. The New Media Consortium, Austin, TX 49. Radcliffe D, Wilson H, Powell D, Tibbetts B (2008) Designing next generation places of learning: collaboration at the pedagogy-space-technology nexus. Univ Queensl 1–20 50. Wilson G, Randall M (2012) The implementation and evaluation of a new learning space: a pilot study. Res Learn Technol 20:14431 51. Imms W, Cleveland B (2016) Evaluating learning environments. SensePublishers, Rotterdam 52. Ng J (2015) Innovating with pedagogy-space-technology (PST) framework: the online moot court. Learn Communities Int J Learn Soc Context 18:52–65 53. Manciaracina AG (2019) Relation among pedagogy, space, technology and users. An implementation of Radcliffe’ s PST framework. In: Proceedings of EDULEARN19 conference. pp 3067–3073 54. Brown M (2005) Learning spaces. In: Oblinger DG, Oblinger JL (eds) Educating the Net Generation. Educause, pp 12.1–12.22 55. Bonwell CC, Eison JA (1991) Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom 56. Grabinger RS, Dunlap JC (1995) Rich environments for active learning: a definition. ALT-J 3:5–34 57. Grabinger S, Dunlap JC, Duffield JA (1997) Rich environments for active learning in action: Problem-based learning. ALT-J 5:5–17 58. Fisher K (2010) Technology-enabled active learning environments: an appraisal. Paris 59. Peberdy D (2014) Active learning spaces and technology: advances in higher and further education. Droitwichnet, Worcestershire 60. Ghilay Y, Ghilay R (2015) TBAL: Technology-based active learning in higher education. J Educ Learn 4:10–18 61. Beichner RJ (2014) History and evolution of active learning spaces. New Dir Teach Learn 2014:9–16 62. Michael JA, Modell HI (2003) Active learning in secondary and college science classrooms: a working model for helping the learner to learn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ 63. Baepler P, Walker JD (2014) Active learning classrooms and educational alliances: changing relationships to improve learning. New Dir Teach Learn 2014:27–40 64. Christersson CC, Staaf P (2019) Promoting active learning in universities thematic peer group report 65. Prince M (2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ 93:223–231

References

39

66. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M et al (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:8410–8415 67. Preville P (2018) Active learning: the perfect pedagogy for the digital classroom. An essential guide for the modern professor 68. Michael J (2006) Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Am J Physiol - Adv Physiol Educ 30:159–167 69. McCarthy JP, Anderson L (2000) Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innov High Educ 24:279–294 70. Matsushita K (2018) Deep active learning. Springer Singapore, Singapore 71. Lomas C, Oblinger DG (2006) Learning spaces—students practices and their impact on learning spaces. Learn Spaces 5(1–5):11 72. Zitter I, Hoeve A (2012) Hybrid learning environments: merging learning and work processes to facilitate knowledge integration and transitions. OECD Educ Work Pap 28 73. The glossary of Education Reform (2013) Learning environment. https://www.edglossary. org/learning-environment/. Accessed 31 May 2020 74. Wilson B (1996) What is a constructivist learning environment? In: Wilson B (ed) Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 75. Goodyear P (2001) Effective networked learning in higher education: notes and guidelines. Lancaster Cent Stud Adv Learn Technol 3: Networked Learning in Higher Education Project 76. Kirschner PA (2005) Learning in innovative learning environments. Comput Human Behav 21:547–554 77. Van Note Chism N (2002) A tale of two classrooms. New Dir Teach Learn 2002:5–12 78. Crisp GT (2014) Assessment in next generation learning spaces. In: International perspectives on higher education research. pp 85–100 79. Brooks DC (2012) Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning spaces on instructor and student behavior. J Learn Spaces 1 80. Maseleno A, Huda M, Mat Teh KS et al (2018) Understanding modern learning environment (MLE) in Big Data era. Int J Emerg Technol Learn 13:71 81. Osborne M (2013) Modern learning environments. Core Education 82. Souter K, Riddle M, Sellers W, Keppell M (2011) Spaces for knowledge generation: final report 83. Graham CR (2006) Blended learning systems: definition, current trends, and future directions. In: Graham CR, Bonk CJ (eds). Pfeiffer Publishing, San Francisco, CA, pp 3–21 84. Trentin G (2015) Orientating pedagogy towards hybrid spaces. Prog Educ 35 85. Trentin G (2016) Always-on education and hybrid learning spaces. Educ Technol 56:31–37 86. de Souza e Silva A (2006) From cyber to hybrid. Sp Cult 9:261–278 87. Dewey J (2014) Engaging learners blended course in a blended curse. In: Stein J, Graham CR (eds) Essentials for blended learning. Routledge, New York, NY, pp 51–65 88. Oxford Online Resource Centres (2020) Learn about virtual learning environment/course management System content. https://global.oup.com/uk/orc/learnvle/. Accessed 30 June 2020 89. Joint Information Systems Committee (2000) Circular 7/00: MLEs in further education: progress report 90. Eberle J, Hod Y, Fischer F (2019) Future learning spaces for learning communities: perspectives from the learning sciences. Br J Educ Technol 50:2071–2074 91. Hod Y, Aridor K, Ben-Zvi D et al (2019) Future learning spaces: exploring perspectives from LINKS research. In: Hoadley C, Kali Y, Baram-tsabari A, Schejter A (eds) Learning in a networked society. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 201–220 92. Hannafin MJ, Land SM (1997) The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instuctional Sci 25:167–202 93. Wang CX, Kinuthia W (2004) Defining technology enhanced learning environment for preservice teachers. SITE 2004--Society Inf Technol Teach Educ Int Conf 2724–2727 94. Trinidad S (2003) Working with technology-rich learning environments: strategies for success. In: Khine MS, Fisher D (eds) Technology-rich learning environments a future perspective. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore

40 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.

100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113.

114. 115. 116.

117. 118.

2 Literature Review Tovmassian LT (2004) Study on innovative learning environments in school education OECD (2013) Innovative learning environments. OECD Publishing OECD (2017) The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments. OECD Ng W (2015) New digital technology in education. Springer International Publishing, Cham Johannessen O (2009) In search of the sustainable knowledge base: multi-channel and multimethod. In: Scheuermann F, Pedró F (eds) Assessing the effects of ICT in education: indicators, criteria and benchmarks for international comparisons. European Union/OECD, Luxembourg, pp 13–20 Januszewski A, Molenda M (2008) Educational technology. Routledge, New York, NY Huang R, Spector JM, Yang J (2019) Introduction to educational technology. In: Educational technology: a primer for the 21st century. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp 3–31 Mayer RE (2009) Multimedia learning, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY Mayer RE (2010) Learning with technology. In: Dumont H, Istance D, Benavides F (eds) The nature of learning. OECD, pp 179–198 Conole G (2013) Designing for learning in an open world. Springer, New York, NY Jonassen DH, Carr C, Yueh H-P (1998) Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends 43:24–32 Conole G, Dyke M, Oliver M, Seale J (2004) Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design. Comput Educ 43:17–33 Cox M, Webb M, Abbott C, et al (2003) ICT and pedagogy: a review of the research literature. London UK Department of Education (2012) Using technology to improve teaching and learning in secondary schools Webb ME (2005) Affordances of ICT in science learning: implications for an integrated pedagogy. Int J Sci Educ 27:705–735 Leander KM, Phillips NC, Taylor KH (2010) The changing social spaces of learning: mapping new mobilities. Rev Res Educ 34:329–394 Alberta Education (2012) Bring your own device: a guide for schools. Edmonton, AB Walling DR (2014) Designing learning for tablet classrooms: innovations in instruction— using tablet technology for multisensory learning Gibson JJ (1977) The theory of affordances. In: Shaw R, Bransford J (eds) Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Toward an ecological psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 67–82 Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin Co, Boston, MA Norman D (1988) The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books, New York Gaver WW (1991) Technology affordances. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems reaching through technology—CHI ’91. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp 79–84 Hartson R (2003) Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behav Inf Technol 22:315–338 Conole G, Dyke M (2004) What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? Res Learn Technol 12:1–10

Chapter 3

Learning Environments and Technology

Abstract The chapter recounts all the research actions starting from the case studies (derived from the literature case studies and field case studies) of innovative learning environments. It then continues by framing the field research project conducted within the Design Department of the Politecnico di Milano and explaining its importance for this book. It continues by describing the quantitative and qualitative research activities conducted with users (students of the Politecnico di Milano and teachers of the School of Design). It goes on to define and outline in detail educational technologies, using frameworks and models. This is concluded by the proposal of 12 technologies with which to reflect on innovative learning environments that make use of hybrid learning processes.

3.1 Innovative Learning Environment Case Studies In this research, I use the expression “innovative learning environment” to embrace physical, technology-enhanced infrastructures and the educational system as mutually intertwined in innovating higher education learning and teaching beyond a traditional educational lecture approach. The case studies of on-site innovative learning environments are divided into two groups: • learning environments researched and analysed through literature; • learning environments visited and analysed through direct experience. The researched innovative learning environments were defined and chosen according to their relevance for the research. The visited innovative learning environments were defined and chosen according to three distinct levels of proximity: • innovative local learning environments within the Politecnico di Milano (Educafé, EDME); • innovative national learning environments (Bicocca technological classrooms);

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Manciaracina, Designing Hybrid Learning Environments and Processes, PoliMI SpringerBriefs, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95274-7_3

41

42

3 Learning Environments and Technology

• innovative international learning environments (Teaching Lab, Classroom of the Future, Sinco Lab). Opportunities and relationships, undertaken with national and international partners, supported these choices. To be able to make a comparison between these on-site case studies and innovative online learning environments, a review of the latter was carried out in the form of interviews. The interviews were conducted during the health emergency period, and covered the different approaches taken by educational institutions. Also, in this case, different levels of proximity were analysed compared to those of Politecnico di Milano, with the actions undertaken by two universities of equal and size (MIT and TONGJI). TEAL Classrooms—Literature Case Study MIT’s TEAL (Technology Enabled Active Learning) classroom was proposed by the Institute in 2000. The purpose of this project was to establish an interactive learning environment in which students could cooperate greatly, could operate handson, and could be supported by technologies. This topic was one of the American Physics Education Reform Research Projects (PER), which aims to study the teaching environment and curriculum materials that can help students understand Physics better. The TEAL classroom has 13 tables (Fig. 3.1). Each table can seat nine people and can accommodate a total of 117 students. The layout is in units of groups, with students in groups of 3 and a notebook computer in each group, with 13 cameras recording the activities of each table. There are multiple projection screens on the four walls to ensure that students sitting in any position can clearly see the projection display. In the middle of the projection screen is the electronic whiteboard. The teacher’s podium is in the middle of the classroom. This spatial layout helps teachers and teaching assistants move around in the classroom and communicate fully with each group of students. Fig. 3.1 Overhead plan of TEAL project classroom

3.1 Innovative Learning Environment Case Studies

43

TEAL teaching method uses three-dimensional and two-dimensional simulation animations, allowing students to understand and assimilate knowledge more intuitively through hands-on group experiments and computer presentation. Students can use the computer to design experiments in the classroom, make hands-on measurements and observations, and conveniently record data and perform calculations while conducting the experiment. Studies [1–4] have shown that before using the TEAL project classrooms, general courses were traditionally done via large-class teaching, the attendance rate is poor, and the student pass rate is also very low. The pass rate using the TEAL classrooms increased significantly. MIT’s TEAL research group conducted a comparative study [5] of 800 students and found that the experimental group understood the concept better than the control group. The new teaching method of visualisation and hands-on experiment was widely acclaimed, and the students on the course were willing to recommend it to other students. The classroom implementation of the TEAL project has been very successful, and the design combining classrooms and laboratories has effectively advanced students’ learning. The small group layout encourages collaborative communication between students, while the humanised, advanced equipment and technological resource design provide a strong background support for students to learn, which is very valuable. KALS Classrooms—Literature Case Study Following the University of Tokyo’s vision of an ideal liberal education [6], Komaba Active Learning Studio (KALS) is an innovative learning environment started in May 2007, and was inspired by MIT’s TEAL [7]. Through the reinforcement of the necessary facilities of the learning space and the integration of many cutting-edge information and communication technologies, the learning environment supports various types of active learning including discussions, group collaboration, presentations, etc. KALS classrooms pay particular attention to the immediate interaction between technological tools, teachers, and student. KALS covers an area of approximately 144 square metres and can accommodate approximately 40 people, including five conceptual areas including classroom space, waiting area, storage room, staff, and meeting room (Fig. 3.2). The principal teaching place is in the classroom space. Custom-designed tables and desks can be arranged and combined, creating group workstations, allowing flexible support of 2–6 people in collaborative learning. The classroom layout can easily be rearranged in a variety of combinations. KALS’ flexible table and chair design and supporting space make it easy to form various layouts, which significantly improves the space utilisation rate of the classroom and can support discussions, group activities, desktop experiments, and multimedia activities. At the same time, the classroom is equipped with a tablet computer for each student. The classroom is also equipped with an interactive electronic whiteboard and the student’s personal response system. Teachers can remotely control the tablet computer through the interactive electronic whiteboard, and students can respond to teachers’ questions promptly by pressing keys. Wireless projectors are installed on the four sides of the classroom space, which can project different images on four screens

44

3 Learning Environments and Technology

Fig. 3.2 KALS top view

Waiting Room

Meeting Room

Studio

Storage Room

Staff Room

at the same time. KALS emphasises that active learning and integration of hightech information and communication technologies, including tablet computers, can more effectively support students’ learning activities, so they can organise knowledge through more efficient methods and learn actively and autonomously [8]. The future generations’ classroom is an emerging field of development and research. Under the guidance of modern educational teaching concepts, the construction of classrooms in the future will increasingly reflect humanisation, adaptability, sustainability, safety, flexibility, openness, and continuous growth. Overall, the University of Tokyo’s KALS and MIT’s TEAL classrooms are currently very successful cases. Their designs are cleverly integrated with education concepts and space design concepts, integrating high-tech information technology, emphasising a high degree of interactivity, and the design provides a useful reference and inspiration for future planning and design research of the classroom. Technological Classroom—Bicocca University The University of Milano Bicocca serves approximately 34,000 students on two different campuses. In 2018 the university decided to upgrade its 140 classrooms technologically. The classrooms were equipped with more than 2500 devices, two thousands of them are connected to the data network. The group of classrooms composes an integrated learning space that is interconnected with the university services, and with the administration systems. All the services that store and distribute contents to the students are managed in a centralised control room. The core of the technological system is the connected podium (Fig. 3.3) that contains all the digital tools’ controls and allows the teacher to manage all the teaching activities. Video recordings of a lesson and uploading it on the LMS are simple operations the teacher can quickly perform. The teacher can then publish the video recordings on the LMS (Kaltura), making them available to all students. All videos are stored on the cloud, and they can simply be picked from there and put into the classes by the

3.1 Innovative Learning Environment Case Studies

45

Fig. 3.3 Bicocca interactive board and control touch screen

teachers. Teachers can also choose to use different devices in the classroom such as projectors, digital cameras, embedded whiteboards or traditional blackboards. They can use both slides and video projections and the document camera. They can write display materials from different video sources using the VIA Collaboration Hub system. Far from perceiving that the new technologies had challenging different teaching styles, teachers are developing their own imaginative new uses for the classroom technologies. They facilitate the students in becoming more active than they previously were [9]. SINCO Lab—Lapland University SINCO (Service Innovation Corner) is a service design prototyping environment at the Faculty of Art and Design in the University of Lapland, Finland (Fig. 3.4). The tools and devices used facilitate the concretisation of ideas, testing, and agile co-creation. As a space, the SINCO environment is a mixture of negotiation room, workshop, atelier, and studio. To make the space as multi-functional as possible, modifiable, adjustable, and movable furniture and structures is used. The technology used in service prototyping at SINCO includes interactive whiteboards, props and building blocks, a controlling-scene computer, rear projection displays, multi-colour spotlights and speakers, craft equipment and user interface devices [10]. With the help of existing audio-visual technology, it is possible to create various service settings in the laboratory. Technical equipment can replace missing service elements, such as service-scopes, user interfaces, processes and even people and technology-aided representations stimulate prototyping and allow users to understand situational factors, emotional aspects, and the viability of new service ideas. The technical equipment available at the single lab makes the immaterial element of service visible and allows users to experience these aspects and build new

46

3 Learning Environments and Technology

Fig. 3.4 SINCO lab

ideas. Space allows the users to embrace a collaborative, experimental and playful prototyping approach using technologies and flexible furniture [11]. ED-ME Lab—Politecnico di Milano The ED-ME (Environmental Design and Multisensory Experience) Interdepartmental Laboratory was established in 2017. It makes its research, technological, and instrumental expertise accessible to companies, associations and institutions. Collaborative approaches occur in the fields of research, teaching and services using various methods. A key feature of the EDME Lab, “in the interaction between physical and digital space, is the ability to return photographs of the physical space, objects and people in it, as well as making different types of content usable, digitising them and placing them in a mixed space” [12]. The ED-ME Laboratory offers a physical space in which to develop and experience digital, multimedia and multi-sensory worlds. It is a space where a relationship between virtual and physical objects, material objects, objects provided with sensors, etc. can potentially be created. Through the technologies available, we can visualise and create experiences that are not just visual, but also auditory, tactile, olfactory and synesthetic. The laboratory is equipped with a virtual theatre and an integrated system of sensors to detect users’ interaction; biosensors to detect users’ physiological parameters; multi-sensory interaction devices; two projectors; audio system; smart lights; and smart objects for recreational-educational activities. The central core of ED-ME Lab is the OPTOMA system. It creates an environment that immerses the learners into an augmented, or enhanced, reality (Fig. 3.5). Reallife scenarios can be experimented within a hybrid setting. Through the system, and the interaction between humans and technology, knowledge is built up in a social way,

3.1 Innovative Learning Environment Case Studies

47

Fig. 3.5 ED-ME immersive environment

so learning is a matter of engagement and social interaction that involves thinking, acting and communicating. Educafé—Politecnico di Milano Educafé is Politecnico di Milano’s learning space for evaluating approaches focused on the “active classroom” and incorporating technological tools resources and versatile furniture into the learning experience (Fig. 3.6). Educafé is also the key location for faculty development actions on teaching methods in which METID, the centre for teaching and learning innovation at Politecnico, assists teachers in the process of teaching innovation.

Fig. 3.6 Educafé

48

3 Learning Environments and Technology

Some characteristics of the space are walls painted with waterproof paint that allows for writing and erasing and the floor designed to be free of any element that might impede smooth movement inside the space. Educafé uses technology and flexible and moveable furniture. The present technologies are: • smart projectors, able to manage various sources through a wireless connection; • control room is a place to manage the projectors, and the recording and lighting systems in the rooms; • smart Kapps: physical whiteboard models that enable the digitalisation of signs traced with markers. They allow for the sharing of content on apps on teachers’ and students’ devices; • interactive smartboard displays allow the use of more applications and direct interaction with digital materials from external or web sourced devices; • cameras to record the class activities, either streamed and projected or archived to produce video content for subsequent online viewing for students. Educafé allows two primary classroom contexts to be simulated: a “collaborative” set for small-medium classrooms and a front-facing “technologically enhanced” set for large classrooms. The collaborative set aims to promote content creation and sharing, and to support the dynamic and interactive practices characteristic of an active classroom approach. It includes vertical surfaces fitted with interactive boards for rapid construction and multi-person sharing of material, and moveable furniture to reorganise the room easily and dynamically. The front-facing set is designed for integrated multi-source sharing, both analogue and digital, optimising the front-end teaching processes and promoting an evolution towards active class activities, rearranging the furniture to replicate a large classroom with fixed stations. Classroom of the Future—Twente University The Classroom of the Future is an innovative learning environment classroom created at Twente University in the Netherlands (Fig. 3.7). It is part of the Designlab, a multifunctional space in which research, education, collaborations and events take place involving researchers, teachers, students, governments, businesses and citizens. It was developed and produced to improve the use and promotion of new and successful pedagogical approaches in education. The Classroom of the Future is structured to enhance cooperation between project teams and project development. It incorporates an open environment for teaching and a variety of collaborative working spaces with digital technologies to promote multidisciplinary collaboration. Group spaces can be formed with the adjustable “walls” available inside the room. The Classroom of the Future tries to encourage a shift from the conventional lecture style with the teacher’s position shifting to that of mentor or facilitator. It is fitted with the following: • main space: can accommodate a total of 120 students. There is also the opportunity to use the video wall or multiple interactive screens;

3.1 Innovative Learning Environment Case Studies

49

Fig. 3.7 Classroom of the future

• group areas: for a maximum of six students. They can use both interactive LED screens and standard blackboards; • video wall: used for presenting in main space; • interactive screens: can be used either as regular computer screens or as a wireless presentation screen; • lighting: the lights in each area can be adjusted; • software and applications: The interactive screens are provided with software for wireless presentation. Teaching Lab—TU Delft The Teaching Lab in an experimentation and testing environment for all TU Delft teachers, where they can research with new forms of education or tools. They can try out new assignments, improved ways of lecturing or the implementation of a new educational concept, with professional (technical & didactical) support. The Teaching Lab offers innovative spaces, multi-purpose meeting rooms and comfortable workspaces. All rooms are flexible, and users can change the set-up to suit their preferences. Ground floor: • arena: an ample open space with a flexible set-up for meetings, workshops or presentations of ca. 50 people (Fig. 3.8); • forum: a large open space for a group of to 100 people. It can be used as a stage for events; • socrates: a small-sized meeting room with a flexible set-up for 15 people (max. 25 for a presentation); • individual workspaces; • two rooms: medium-sized workshop rooms for interactive sessions.

50

3 Learning Environments and Technology

Fig. 3.8 Teaching Lab arena

First floor: • two rooms: a room with a fully equipped recording studio and a small-sized meeting room for video conferencing; • living: an informal space for taking a break, reading books, and exchanging ideas. Second floor: • two rooms: a small meeting room and a medium-sized meeting/workshop room, both with a flexible layout. Table 3.1 represents the comparison of all the case studies, with a comparison of all the technological tools in use.

3.1.1 On Distance Learning Environments To better understand how other universities were reacting to the COVID-19 pandemic, the following questions (Table 3.2) were put to professors at international universities during the emergency. The universities were chosen among those with similar reputations and emergency conditions to those of the Politecnico di Milano. Politecnico, Tongji University and MIT were among the first educational institutions to react to the emergency context. Hence, professors at these universities were contacted, and asked to answer questions (by email) about their universities’ interventions, use of technologies, and the processes that had been put in place. This research method was chosen to obtain comparable data and because of the unforeseen

3.1 Innovative Learning Environment Case Studies

51

Table 3.1 Visited case studies comparison

Table 3.2 Questions posed to international professors Q1

What type of technologies are used for delivering distance learning? (e.g., in addition to remote collaboration software, smart-boards, high-definition cameras, tablets with nibs, etc. …?)

Q2

What kind of support/training/documentation has your university provided? Is there a section with documentation on your university website?

Q3

Has your university put in place different processes according to the type of courses? Has it introduced teaching forms according to the different contexts?

Q4

Have indications been given about active learning in remote virtual classes? If so, which ones?

Q5

Do you have any indications regarding the assessment or final exams, such as specific software or rules of conduct?

Q6

Does your university have feedback to the response of teachers and students?

situation. This activity aims to understand which, and how, technologies are used in distance learning in other higher education contexts. Politecnico di Milano The information regarding Politecnico was obtained from the documentation made available to professors and staff. During the health emergency, I was involved in various commissions to reflect and verify the possible solutions applicable to distance learning in an online learning environment. I had the opportunity to participate in different commissions (laboratories, exams, entrance tests), managing to acquire all the information regarding the methods and tools used. The daily communications sent out by the Rector of the Politecnico di Milano during the first weeks of lockdown were additional sources of information.

52

3 Learning Environments and Technology

Q1: The software selected by the university is Microsoft Teams. Professors are autonomously using additional software to make up for the shortcomings of Teams (e.g. brainstorming or collaborative design software). OneDrive is the cloud repository used, together with the Politecnico’s educational exchange platform (Beep). The university has distributed high-definition webcams to those who have requested them and has made classrooms available to be able to conduct remote lessons in the Politecnico (to havedequate equipment and satisfactory connection). Virtual classes have been created for each teaching course. Each class can have up to 250 users and is always available. The teacher can, therefore, decide to convene the students at any time they want to develop or manage the teaching time in a flexible way. Q2: The Politecnico instituted several training sessions managed by METID (centre for didactic innovation) explaining the use of the software and its applications for the different teaching contexts. Various documents have also been prepared to support the professors. The recordings of the training sessions and the documents were uploaded to specific folders that are located within the Beep system. Q3: At the beginning of the emergency, a commission was set up with the task of verifying and validating the tools necessary to guarantee the teaching planning. The frontal teaching started two weeks before the project teaching, given the lower level of complexity and interaction required. Next, the design courses started. The functionality of Teams has been verified, other training sessions have been instituted, and new documents have been created to guide the professors in the creation of collaborative rooms within the virtual classrooms. Q4: METID has created training moments for the management of an active class within a virtual class, providing tools and advice on how best to use active learning techniques. The teachers were given total freedom on how to best formulate their teaching activities. Q5: The Politecnico has set up a commission with the aim of formulating solutions for the delivery of exam tests. Four solutions have been identified, and all make use of the technological tools available: • • • •

sharing of papers or project books in specific cloud delivery folders; oral exams within the virtual classes; exams with multiple answers and smart proctoring systems; written exams with active visual control and sharing of the results.

Students, when registering for the exam session, will be asked to sign a code of honour for compliance with the rules.

3.1 Innovative Learning Environment Case Studies

53

Q6: A survey was administered to the professors of the School of Design to check their behaviour, their aptitude for using technologies, and their opinions about learning spaces. Università Milano Bicocca The questions were put to Fabio Reguzzoni, head of multimedia services. Fabio was managing the supply and installation of all the technological equipment involved in the renovation of the university classrooms. He was also responsible for managing the technological tools used in distance learning during the health emergency.

Q1: There was quite a lot of discussion in the first week of distance learning. We started the teaching activities in the second week. We started with an asynchronous approach by inviting the teachers to record the lessons in the empty classrooms, which were already equipped with shooting, recording, and uploading systems on a specific platform (Kaltura). Then we switched to synchronous teaching, training the technical staff to support the teachers. Cisco’s Webex was the tool used for synchronous lessons, and we introduced web-conference systems working with the systems in all the classrooms. Then, training was done to use the workrooms present in Webex, used for collaborative activities in small groups. Some teachers asked to use other software, but the university guaranteed assistance only for the prescribed tools. Q2: We have uploaded documentation in PDF format to the university website. Offline pages with more detailed information were then produced. The technical staff was trained to provide support to the lecturers and create a technical facility in the university’s classrooms. Aswell, dedicated telephone numbers have been activated, and a ticketing system has been set up for problems related to registration and the use of Webex. Finally, the university has created online sessions to demonstrate the use of software and technological tools in the classrooms. Q3: The lecturers of the degree courses in Education Science have created training webinars about distance learning and the management of lessons with large numbers of students. Q4: No, but in the recent past, before the health emergency, initiatives on educational innovation have been realised. Q5: Yes, different types of exams have been profiled. Training events have been realised on how to carry out control with proctoring systems.

54

3 Learning Environments and Technology

Q6: No, nothing has been formalised. We have informal feedback on the effectiveness of distance learning. The teachers who contacted us individually proved to be confident about the effectiveness of the distance learning exams and a general improvement in the quality of the results. Tongji University The questions were put to Francesca Valsecchi (FV) and Paola Trapani (PT). Francesca is Associate Professor at the College of Design and Innovation, and she teaches in design studio courses. Paola is Associate Professor of Design and Director of the Masters in Product/Service System Design at the College of Design and Innovation.

Q1 - FV: The software selected by the university are Zoom (for virtual classrooms) and Canvas (for online course materials). At the end of January, the university delivered a survey to ask teachers for their preferences and suggestions. The systems were installed and configured in a couple of weeks (with some problems corrected on the way I would say). With regard to technologies, everyone is still working from home with their own equipment, I don’t think there is any particular equipment in use. Q1 - PT: I use ZOOM and the class group on WeChat. The university advocated the use of Canvas (instead of WeChat), however, it was optional, so I kept to the minimum of innovation. I have no other devices at my disposal. I don’t know if other colleagues with design courses (Studio) have been equipped with such equipment. Q2 - FV: The university has prepared tutorials for both types of software, in text and video format, and has organised WeChat groups (the equivalent of WhatsApp) in groups of professors for tutorials and live troubleshooting. A platform has also been created, for internal use, to organise the booking of further Zoom rooms. Each course had a room assigned on the university site, but the professors can log on the platform and book other rooms for other hours of lessons, or revisions, or additional projects. The same people who organised the training are available for tech support, but in general, those who do the most direct troubleshooting are the people responsible for the learning centre of the individual schools, not at the university level. Q2 - PT: the first tutorials were in Chinese, then the English version for internationals was shot. It was a PPT file with wizards for navigating the interface and platform functionality. In the classroom, a student acts as an assistant, in case there are technical problems. He is also in charge of videotaping the session and distributing to the other students and me. Before the emergency started, sessions with technicians were organised, I did not participate due to commitments. But then I was able to do a technical test

3.1 Innovative Learning Environment Case Studies

55

before the beginning of the course assisted by an employee of the learning centre. Q3 - FV: No, the formula is the same for everyone Q3 - PT: The only difference is that the laboratory courses are about to have some part of online lectures and the practice postponed until we are all back on campus. Q4 - FV: The are some indications, but here the university is not “thematic”. There are all the disciplines, so the meaning of active learning is very different than in Italy, where universities are perhaps more focused on specific disciplines. I personally shared a document with personal research on flipped classroom and active learning software and some platforms, with my faculty colleagues. In general, however, I noticed that the approach is rather “conservative”, that is to choose the assigned platforms or even the usual social/communication platforms. I think it is because restructuring the online courses is basically a second job, and we haven’t really had time. Q4 - PT: I would say no, however, a lot of communication was too fast. Q5 - FV: Yes, but not useful for my course. We do practically only design exams, so we don’t have this problem. Q5 - PT: I would say that every teacher adopts what they are used to. I use antiplagiarism software, and I have my own evaluation tool, which I distributed to the students in lesson 1. Q6 - FV: Yes, it has been done, but since I only teach in the second part of the semester, I haven’t had a chance to access the survey about my classes yet. I think it will be available as soon as I finish the course. I think that a generic survey was delivered via canvas to discuss the smart classroom. Q6 - PT: It is expected, but the courses are still ongoing. MIT The questions were put to Simone Mora, a senior postdoctoral associate at MIT Senseable City Laboratory. Simone holds design studio courses.

Q1: Zoom, email and Stellar, MIT’s e-learning system. Q2: They ran a few webinars, which I did not attend, unfortunately. MIT created a specific website with documentation and support: https://teachr emote.mit.edu/ Q3: I only teach one course, which is rather practical because of field trips and hands-on workshops; but it does not require lab equipment.

56

3 Learning Environments and Technology

Q4: The class I teach is a workshop, so it’s active by nature. Most of the sessions consisted of students’ presentations or one-to-one coaching. Q5: The final exam is a project presentation and book chapter deliverable. The assessment procedures remained the same as presentations were given over Zoom. Q6: We do. However, I think no further questions have been introduced to assess the transition to virtual classes. The information gathered (Table 3.3) shows similar approaches in supporting professors and students, making available platforms and collaboration software, and creating tutorials and webinars. Politecnico instructed different supporting activities aimed at helping the professor to make a better transition to virtual environments, especially for those kinds of activities that require an intense interaction (design courses).

3.2 Field Research: Politecnico’s Innovative Classroom The purpose of the field research is to work on two levels: firstly, it aims to examine the relationship between pedagogy, space and technology, and how these elements can dialogue with each other, creating new opportunities in the learning space; secondly, it investigates how the user’s perspective is significant and helpful when engaging in and exploring these new teaching practices [13]. New spaces and new stimuli generated by technology representing the idea of affordance suggested by Gibson [14] and Norman [15] require visual tests to demonstrate how this reciprocal relationship between space and technology can be applied and how the user can become the operator and actor of these new dynamics of usage. First, the research aimed to demonstrate, develop, and interpret some emerging needs in learning environments. Then, it traced the development and evaluation of a process of prototyping. Prototypes are understood as a mechanism that provides the ability to check and validate the expected scenarios and can be a place for collecting positive factors. They can be producers of an environment that exposes perplexities and makes them more perceptible [16]. Unexpected changes occur regularly, and the environment, which has a physical connotation and character not always versatile in terms of temporality, must face these changes, thus offering opportunities to be framed and adjusted to the ever-new emerging needs. Politecnico di Milano has defined a general programme with these main objectives to address the new current needs by developing several prototypes of innovative learning environments, an extensive analysis of its spaces to understand the needs of all university users, and in all the involved disciplines, to prefigure new scenarios that can underpin the evolution of didactics and educational methods. For these objectives,

Teams

Webex

Zoom

Zoom

POLIMI

BICOCCA

MIT

TONGJI

Classroom software

Canvas

Stellar

Kaltura

Beep

Content platform

Table 3.3 Summary of interviews Support training documentation

Own equipment

Own equipment

Classroom already equipped and integration with web-conference systems

Tutorials WeChat groups Platform for virtual rooms booking Assistant in the virtual classroom

Webinars Platform: teachremote.mit.edu/

Training session Online support Documents

Classroom equipped Tutorials with pc and webcam Training session Webcam Online support Documents repository in Beep

Hardware technologies

Advice to make theoretical parts first

No indications have been given

Lesson started after one week

Laboratory course started 2 weeks after theorical courses

Learning activities processes

Teacher chooses the right tools for his/her didactic activity

Teacher chooses the right tools for his/her didactic activity

Educational innovation seminars before the emergency

Webinar on using active learning in virtual classroom

Active learning instructions

Yes, but no question to assess the transition to virtual classes

No, but some informal feedbacks

Yes, to professors at the School of Design

Survey on the distance activity

Teacher chooses Planned the right tools for the didactic activity

Teacher chooses the right tools for the didactic activity

Solutions of assessment using platform and proctoring software

Solutions of assessment using platform and proctoring software

Assessment instructions

3.2 Field Research: Politecnico’s Innovative Classroom 57

58

3 Learning Environments and Technology

a research team was entrusted with defining a set of needs and requirements for the overall organisation of innovative learning and teaching spaces [13]. Specific rules and a series of indispensable criteria have been established, aiming at defining clear guidelines, for the most diverse and complete definition of all the elements required: • flexibility: for environmental predisposition, space management and use of furniture; • temporal fruition: the space must be able to quickly be reconfigured with simple and intuitive furniture and systems; • customisation: students will feel interested in the spatial sense by incorporating an engaging approach to the environment; • motivation: learning spaces must be fostered by choosing aesthetic and environmental qualities that stimulate the students to respond effectively; • conduct: the learning space is a public environment and is frequently open to multiple users [17]. A grammar of directions (Fig. 3.9) was defined, to create a common basis for the spaces of the new disciplines and to verify the types of intervention to elevate the space to an innovative and flexible status. A scheme has been adopted to interweave the different spatial components with the possible degrees of intervention to allow the updating of the creation of a matrix with possible optimisation interventions for the peculiar activities of the four different disciplines. The built environment must be able to accommodate as flexibly as possible different forms of teaching and must, therefore, be ready to reshape itself when appropriate. Three clusters of physical and virtual components, with a noticeably distinctive influence provide all the required supporting components to allow for a successful teaching method. They were delineated to characterise the kinds of intervention required:

GRAMMAR RULES

BUILDING

FURNITURE

BASE LEVEL

• ACCESSIBILITY • LIGHTING • DARKENING • ACOUSTICS • ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT

• FURNITURE ACCORDING TO THE NORM • SOCKETS

• WIFI • PROJECTION • SOUND SYSTEM • WIRING

INTERMEDIATE LEVEL

• FLOATING FLOOR • ELECTRICAL SYSTEM • SOUND-ABSORBING PANELS

• MODULAR FURNITURE • WRITABLE WALLS • MOVABLE SOCKETS

• VIDEO SYSTEM • ADJUSTABLE SOUND SYSTEM • MULTI PROJECTION • SMART BOARD • CLOUD + WI-FI

ADVANCED LEVEL

• FLEXIBLE STORAGE SPACE • WALLS EQUIPPED FOR DISPLAY • MOVABLE WALLS

• TRANSFORMABLE FURNITURE • FOLDING FORNITURE • INDUCTION/WIRELESS SOCKETS

• IMMERSIVE CLASSROOM • DISTANCE COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY • CAMCORDERS • VIDEO MAPPING PROJECTON

Fig. 3.9 Grammar of Directions (GOD)

TECHNOLOGY

3.2 Field Research: Politecnico’s Innovative Classroom

59

• building: the space context consists of systems and surfaces to better support any classroom activity; • furniture: highly flexible furnishing elements to enable a quick arrangement of the layout following teaching needs; • technology: everything that includes the virtual attendance and technological tools to enhance the teaching experience.

3.2.1 The Central Role of the Space Several research activities were carried out to obtain data and multiple perspectives. A survey was administered to the four BSc Degree Course coordinators of the Politecnico di Milano’s School of Design: product design, communication design, interior design, fashion design [18]. The Degree Course coordinator is responsible for his/her own course plan to be presented to the course council and he/she must follow a planned educational goal with the help and supervision of the institutions of the school. Throughout the survey, the research team asked them to quantify the existence of specific situated activities, assigning a value from 0 to 10. The values were defined after reflecting on the teaching conducted in the laboratory courses in physical educational spaces. The parameters evaluated are shown in the Table 3.4. The assessment considers both their experience as teachers and their knowledge as research course coordinators, and therefore offers a wider view of the situation of the teaching operation conducted within the courses. In the following visual diagram Table 3.4 KTA, KPA and KDA activities KTA Knowledge Transfer Activities All teacher-led activities aimed at providing information and guidance to students and all activities in which students are involved in presenting their progress: • Frontal lessons • Case studies presentations: • Student presentations: • Seminars with guests • Blended learning

KPA Knowledge Production Activities All learner-led activities that aim to create new knowledge and outcomes in which different approaches of learning activities are used. These activities include all those related to the different teaching practices in which users are engaged during the design phases: • Brainstorming • Project development • Drawing • Prototype making • Revision with the teacher • Collaborative feedback sessions • Peer reviews

KDA Knowledge Dissemination Activities All activities that aim to display the results of teaching that are across evaluation activities and the display of results to the public: • Written exams • Public presentation • Prototype show • Layout show • Catwalks • Media-content show • Exhibit show • Extra events

3 Learning Environments and Technology COURSE INTERWEAVE KDA

Frontal lesson

Ca prese se study ntatio ns

ed Blend ing learn Exhibit show

Catwolk

dia Me how s

ith nw isio r Rev teache the

ars ts min es Se ith gu w

Pro to maktype ing

Prototypes show

La sh yout ow

Collabo feedba rative sessionck

g Drawin

pre S sen tud tat ent ion s

c bli Pu ation nt se pre

iew rev er Pe

de ve Pro lop je me ct nt

E ev xtra en t

COURSE INTERWEAVE KPA Brainstorming

COURSE INTERWEAVE KTA

Written exam

60

Fig. 3.10 Diagrams of all course interactions

(Fig. 3.10), the collected data is interpreted to compare the various approaches of the study courses. It shows the rating increase as we get closer to behaviour that reflects the user’s high contact with space, and we can note this dimension in each course of study. All the teaching and learning practices are influenced by the space’s dimensions and equipment present in the room. Some criteria suggest the need to promote user collaboration across spaces that can encourage all activities with the provision of suitable technical equipment and furniture. The comparison of ideas and the development of new knowledge are essential, enhancing the central position of the relationship between users, activities, and space. From the KTA diagram, we can understand that the study courses have a average level of satisfaction. However, we catch some peaks in specific activities that seem fundamental and suggest the complexity of the design discipline’s teaching practice. Such activities are the case studies’ presentation and students’ presentation. This indicates the arrangement of a learning space that mainly takes these practices into account while trusting on technologies that facilitates the transmission of information. In the KPA diagram, several indicators suggest the need to promote users’ collaboration through spaces that can enable all activities with the arrangement of appropriate furniture and technologies, where the comparison of concepts and the creation of new ideas is indispensable. Finally, in the KDA diagram, we observe that the classroom must display the full efficiency in terms of versatility and the capability to develop new ways of displaying materials on vertical and horizontal surfaces. The design of a space used by the distinctive degree courses can, therefore, lead to a cross-fertilisation that leads students and teachers through vertical flexibility, in which, during the same activity you can try-out different solutions according to the type of Knowledge Transfer Activities or horizontal flexibility, envisioning contamination between different approaches. The central role of space as a “box” for complex activities and interaction, central for experimenting creative learning activities, is also emphasised. A distinctive flexible space, that can be shaped and adjusted to emerging needs in terms of temporality and personalisation [18].

3.2 Field Research: Politecnico’s Innovative Classroom

61

3.2.2 New Policies in Innovative Hybrid Processes in Politecnico Learning is no longer limited to classrooms; learning happens everywhere [19]. Rethinking learning environments means adjusting to new needs, tendencies and other factors that generate the university environment’s ways of being. In all levels of education this hybridisation of the learning system is emerging as a more performative innovation than the passive one [20]. Today, thanks to digital devices and the power of the internet, every university campus space can be turned into a learning environment, extending the very definition of education as an act that can happen anywhere and at any time [21]. In rethinking a new architecture of the physical environment, the importance that its virtual space counterpart acquires must be kept in mind. A new approach to the use of technology in a class design should also be encouraged to change the users’ interaction and perception of technology. Therefore, the field research ongoing at the Politecnico di Milano aims to be the first step in testing the various rates of integration between space and technology; analogue and digital devices; teaching via face-to-face and virtual communication to explore potential interactions; interpenetration; and the convergence between different approaches and teaching resources to achieve knowledge creation and consolidation. The results obtained through the different research activities carried out within the field research mentioned above illustrate how it is possible to imagine an evolution of the learning space in which analogical and digital, tangible and intangible dimensions improve the relationships between the different participants involved in the learning process [18].

3.3 Active Learning Environment Monitoring: Educafé The experimental part of this research was performed at the Politecnico di Milano and was organised in two phases. It was conducted inside Educafé, a space designed to test methodologies based on the “active classroom” and to combine material and digital contents and tools. Inside, there are technological tools and flexible furniture. The first phase consisted in monitoring the teaching activities conducted within the “Innovative Teaching Skills” course run by the Doctoral School of the Politecnico di Milano. The second phase consisted in conducting a students’ survey at the conclusion of the course [22]. Non-participant Observation User Attitude Toward Technologies in an Active Learning Environment and Innovative Learning Environments The monitoring of the course “Innovative Teaching Skills” was carried out in May 2019 for a total of 5 lessons. It intended to better comprehend the interactions in

62

3 Learning Environments and Technology

A

B Digital Smartboard Analogic Smartboard Projections

Fig. 3.11 Educafé configurations’ schemes

a actual case scenario where pedagogy, space and technology were being tested in active learning experimentations. The monitoring included recording the diverse uses of technology based on the active learning tasks performed and conducting a survey to collect students’ perspectives on communication technology tools for learning and to benchmark their use of a space intended for active learning. Throughout the monitoring, different communication technology tools were employed: 2 projections, 2 digital smartboards, 1 analogue smartboard and assessment web-application. The classroom was used in two different settings (Fig. 3.11). In the first setting (A), the classroom was set up to maximise the teacher’s performance through up-to-date frontal teaching. Active practices were fostered using multiple sources of sharing by teachers and students. In the second setting (B), the classroom was set up to promote sharing and knowledge creation through the active and collaborative activities. Users had the opportunity to re-arrange the space by simply relocating flexible furniture and to share content using existing communication technology tools. Students were challenged to use the different technological tools to perform learning activities in a way that was more active. In the teaching stages, the teacher used the different tools by involving the student with instant pools (Socrative) and multi-projection sources. In the active and collaborative stages, students used the technological tools to process and tackle problems set by the teacher. The general level of involvement was satisfactory. Students were generally comfortable in a technological setting. The option of relocating furniture was greatly appreciated. Monitoring revealed different purposes and uses of technologies. They were used to boost the effectiveness of face-to-face lessons, to work with students’ personal devices using evaluation platforms and to conduct active learning activities. There was a general acceptance of technologies even if there was some initial apprehension about their use. This behaviour could be reflected in the low use of technologies such as digital smartboards, and thus in a low confidence level, as confirmed by the survey data collected after monitoring.

3.3 Active Learning Environment Monitoring: Educafé

63

Fig. 3.12 Students’ self-assessment

Survey Data on the Use of Technologies in an Active Learning Environment Data were acquired during two weeks in June 2019. The population of 26 PhD students in Milan was selected as the sample [22, 23]. The survey was anonymous and submitted via a Google Form. A quick explanation of the purpose of the research study was given verbally. The same explanation was also provided at the beginning of the module. Among 26 students, 16 filled out the survey (response rate of 61.5%). Of this group, 48.2% were male and 51.8% female. The median age was 31.63 years. Among the 16 respondents, 87.5% were first-year doctoral students and 12.5% were second-year doctoral students. Students were requested to score their opinion on a list of assertions based on a five-point Likert scale. The questions covered their behaviour as users, and their opinion of the learning space and educational technologies. The initial data analysed (Fig. 3.12) revealed that the majority of the participants (68.8%) identified themselves as “early adaptive” and “innovative”. Therefore, students described themselves as being able to handle new technologies easily, experimenting with new functionalities and new possibilities. One aspect to underline is the extensive use of personal devices and web-based applications. This point is even more critical if we notice that the most used technological communication tool within Educafé was the Socrative platform (instant assessment and sharing) in comparison to projections and smartboards. Therefore, an urgent need seems to emerge: a more meaningful interaction between personal devices and situated devices, in order to broaden the potential that can be fulfilled by the innovative learning space for active learning approaches. Today, the most up-to-date and commonly used technologies are not those available in educational facilities (with the apparent exception of specific science/technology institutes), but rather those that students and many educators are using everyday (Fig. 3.13), that they have at home or carry in their pockets, bags [24]. However, technologies are not acknowledged to be as essential as other factors for student learning. Students were requested to assess some elements present in Educafé. Given values 4 and 5 on the Likert scale (4 = important and 5 = very important) as the most positive, the graph (Fig. 3.14) reveals that communication technology received 8 votes, climate/sound comfort 10 votes, flexible furniture 13 votes and interior

64

3 Learning Environments and Technology

Fig. 3.13 Daily use of the technological tools

Fig. 3.14 Space elements

design/space distribution 11 votes. This means that although the technologies are correctly handled, they are not really engaging the students. A consideration of their selection and use in an active learning approach should be done, and some issues should be addressed. Were these technological communication tools the appropriate ones? Were they used in the proper way? Is there a lack of trust in using tools that have not been used so much before? Moreover, for the respondents, there is no strong consensus on a real need for technological tools within a general learning experience. The votes were mainly equally distributed without a solid agreement on the concrete need for digital technologies. If we look at the different active learning activities performed in the course, we can see that students were impressed more by the type of activities than by the interaction with technological tools. There is therefore a need for a more participatory technological approach and greater integration between activities and technological tools (Fig. 3.15). Multiple projections are perceived as the least effective instruments used in Educafé (Fig. 3.16). They were given low to medium approval. This is probably due

3.3 Active Learning Environment Monitoring: Educafé

65

Fig. 3.15 Use of technological tools

Fig. 3.16 Type of situated technological tools

to their proximity to an overly traditional type of teaching. Smartboards received medium approval. If we keep in mind that only 1 respondent declared to use a digital smartboard for personal or didactic use, we can, therefore, realize how a technological communication tool of this nature does not obtain a particularly positive evaluation. The assessment platform is deemed to be the most successful technological communication tool with positive evaluations in about 94% of the respondents. We can thus understand that meaningful interaction (students use personal devices to answer the teacher’s questions) produces a more positive judgement on the real effectiveness of the tool in learning activities. It is widely acknowledged that almost any active or collaborative teaching approach produces better learning outcomes than traditional lectures [28]. It is implicit, in other words, that active learning is a beneficial scenario for students’ acquisition of knowledge compared to traditional lessons [29]. Ultimately, the survey validates the general satisfaction with a space designed to be flexible, technological and comfortable (Fig. 3.17). It also confirms that spaces with devices intended for

Fig. 3.17 Active learning space

66

3 Learning Environments and Technology

active learning activities motivate students and are more functional than traditional learning environments. Results Through this research activity, we can propose some reflections concerning the role of technological tools within an educational space and their choice related to the implementation of active learning activities. As Conole stated, technology has a central role in the design and development of new learning models, as there is a mismatch between the potential for exploiting technologies for learning and their effective use in practice. She also stated that technology is crucial in the way they plan and navigate their learning [25–27]. At the same time, the presence of technology alone is not enough to innovate learning environments. And it should not be assumed that innovation is synonymous with the transition to digital, as this could only be the reproduction of traditional methods and pedagogies in a different setting [28]. Technologies and design are often intended to assist the learning activity in the development of a student–teacher relationship or in the running of didactic issues such as assessments or outcomes. In an innovative complex learning environment, many factors work together to create active learning interactions. “There has been a co-evolution of tools and their use and a commensurate increasing impact of these tools in practice. How these tools are being appropriated is more than just a gradual shift towards new tools and progressively enhanced technological mediation, in fact, there are fundamental practical changes occurring as a result of tool-user co-evolution [29]”. Picking the right technological communication tools could be a solution. However, it seems that a set of rules and guidelines to assess, select, deploy and design a set of communication technology tools that can foster active learning approaches and successfully involve users is not yet in place.

3.4 Use of Technologies in a Stressful Context: The “Distance” Teaching of Politecnico di Milano During the COVID-19 Emergency Looking at the emergency caused by COVID-19 as an occasion to investigate teachers’ behaviour and attitudes towards technology in remote learning, this research action was performed at the Politecnico di Milano. It consisted of submitting a survey to the School of Design’s professors during the lockdown period. At that time, the teachers experimented with new forms of teaching activities delivered through a virtual-classroom digital platform. In this stressful context, they were asked to answer questions about the technologies and the learning environment (physical and digital) [23].

3.4 Use of Technologies in a Stressful …

67

Survey Data on Teachers’ Attitudes and Behaviours in Using Technologies in Ondistance Teaching The data were collected over 10 days in April 2020. The sample was selected from a population of 268 professors. Their answers were anonymous and delivered through a Google Form. A short presentation of the purpose of the research was provided at the beginning of the form. Among the 268 teachers, 142 completed the survey (53% response rate). From this group, 54.9% have been teachers for more than 15 years, 26.1% for 7–15 years and 19% for 1–6 years. The majority teach in the undergraduate course (43.7%) (Fig. 3.18). The questions regarded their attitude as users, their evaluation of educational space and educational technologies, their experience with technologies for distance education and their evaluation of student response to the teaching activities. The initial question also addressed their earlier conditions in a physical space (half of them used classrooms with drawing tables), trying to identify the type of teaching modules (57% drawing modules, 30% monographic modules, 13% instrumental modules), the level of satisfaction about technologies present in the traditional classroom, and the use of an active learning approach (71% of them were positive) in situated teaching activities (Fig. 3.19).

Fig. 3.18 Teachers’ details

Fig. 3.19 Teaching activity details

68

3 Learning Environments and Technology

Fig. 3.20 Teachers’ self-assessment

Subsequently, questions were posed about their approach to technology. The data analysed revealed that the majority (69.7%) identified themselves as “early adapters” and “innovators” (Fig. 3.20). Subsequently, questions were posed about their approach to technology. The data analysed revealed that the majority (69.7%) identified themselves as “early adapters” and “innovators”. Thus, professors described themselves as being able to handle new technologies easily, experimenting with new features and new possibilities. They were then questioned to compare their previous and current conditions from a technological point of view. They were overall satisfied with the technologies (64%) and used a broad range of tools (Fig. 3.21). When defining potential challenges during an emergency as a rapid transition from on-site teaching to online learning, 25.9% of the respondents stated that they did not face any issues. The most frequent problems faced by other respondents were the lack of an appropriate substitute for face-to-face interaction. In the “Other” group one can find issues such as difficulty in developing empathy; human qualities; and the absence of visual interaction. The data confirms their greatest preoccupation in that situation (14.4% for lack of communication). These are related to the shifts in assessment criteria and the reduced learning experience of the students. 14% had no concerns so far (Fig. 3.22).

Fig. 3.21 Technology: on-site assessment

3.4 Use of Technologies in a Stressful …

69

Fig. 3.22 Technology: online assessment

Fig. 3.23 Teachers’ perception of students’ adaptation

Their views on the students’ reactions were surveyed. Ninety-five percent stated that the students are at ease in the remote learning environment and that they were adjusting well (Fig. 3.23). The next set of questions focused on the teachers’ attitude in a new and personal teaching environment and their use of technology in remote learning. The hardware used was mostly personal devices (49%) and external webcams (32%), useful for managing different input and sources for the collaborative software supplied by the Politecnico (Microsoft Teams). It was also requested which software was used, in addition to Teams, to expand its functionalities. In general, cloud software (47%) such as Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive, instant assessing applications such as Socrative (20%), and collaborative software (10%) such as Mural and Miro were used. Under ‘other’ we can find Skype, Zoom and Webex (Fig. 3.24). The final set of questions aimed at defining the professors’ attitude towards a hybrid learning experience in which certain activities and technological tools were used to exchange context or find new scopes for them. Professors were invited to define which technologies, after the remote learning experience, they would move to a physical context. They answered generally with software (cloud and surveys) and with their personal devices (smartphones, webcams and tablets). 84% were positive about shifting the nature of some of their teaching activities from a physical to a virtual context (Fig. 3.25). The majority embraced distance learning/instrumental content/guest presence. Some responded that all their courses could be taught at a distance.

70

3 Learning Environments and Technology

Fig. 3.24 Technology: online use

Fig. 3.25 Technology and space: on-site vs online

The last question asked them to define the role of the space after the COVID-19 experience. They were asked to reflect on the possibility that space could become a place of high interactivity between users (interaction has been confirmed as one of the missing parts in the learning activities), a place specialised for certain teaching activities. 58.5% answered “no”, and 41.5% answered “yes” (Fig. 3.26). Those who answered “no” remarked that physical space is an essential component of teaching experience (supporting the Politecnico’s vision of space). It could be used not only for Fig. 3.26 Perception of space after online experience

3.4 Use of Technologies in a Stressful …

71

highly specialised tasks but also for close interactions with students (user interaction was indicated as one of the missing pieces in distant learning activities), reaffirming the key role of space. Those who said “yes” remarked that some aspects of learning activities such as design processes, codesign and collaborative activities, prototyping should be conducted in a physical space. Results Surveys provide interesting insights into the behaviours and opinions of users involved in an online learning environment and offer exciting suggestions about the possibility of different learning environments interacting with each other. The innovations of full remote learning within an online environment have been widely accepted, although there was some initial concern about its use. This means that if technological tools are properly deployed, there are no obstacles to their use. Through new relationships and ways of interacting, technology can be valorised and inserted into the environment, trigger collaborative and social dialogues, and contribute to new hybrid learning processes. In addition, the role of the teacher as director of the activities becomes indispensable for learning activities to achieve a good result. In situated learning, where collaborative activities and social communication are fostered through hands-on experience, technologies become closely linked to physical space. This is even more important in a digital environment where educators must be capable of designing learning activities that optimise the use of technology. There is therefore a demand for a more engaging technological approach and a stronger integration between activities and technological tools, and it is essential in the transition from traditional to hybrid learning. “Educational technologies can facilitate learning and improve performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources, and can help create an environment in which learning can take place more easily” [30]. Technologies can act as a bridge between the onsite and online environments. The experimentation carried out during the emergency period raised awareness among professors in the School of Design that the use of technology can augment learning activities. They are prepared to combine on-site and online approaches, even when it comes to activities with a high degree of interaction, such as co-design or project phase review activities. They are willing to enrich their teaching activities and eventually find new methods to update and innovate their learning experiences. The outcomes of the survey on online environments indicate that there will be a need and chance to create new hybrid processes and to change the characteristics and requisites of the physical space in the near future. It is possible to imagine, reflecting on the data, an advancement of teaching environments in which analogue and digital processes, tangible and intangible aspects, help to create the right conditions for enhancing the relationships between the different stakeholders of the learning process. There will be space to investigate new policies for new hybrid learning processes, discuss the creation of novel learning approaches and discuss the role of the designer in the design of new models of learning environments.

72

3 Learning Environments and Technology

3.5 Technological Communication Tools Computer-based technology has been used for many years in education. The first personal computers were introduced into classrooms in the early 1980s; the appearance of more user-friendly devices in the mid to late 1980s; and for many in the late 1990s, Internet access and the world wide web. Recently computers have pervaded almost every learning environment, at a high cost to education in terms of resources, time and space. Additionally, when it comes to technology-related change, it is not easy to distinguish the various aspects of this change. It is necessary to realize that in the phenomena of educational innovation linked to technology, there is a continuous hybridisation between different technical devices, languages, programmes and digital systems that produces new methods and solutions. Also, it has to be acknowledged that when one wants to deploy a new method in the educational realm, he/she does so by picking and choosing among the existing technologies those that are most consistent and suitable for his/her goals and purposes. This process of constant circulation of methods, devices and techniques from one technological cluster to another is what has been acknowledged as the key to technological innovation by various authors and, in this case, involves the set of technology-based systems within education. The classification of the twelve technological tools presented in this book results from all the reviews, observations, experiences and design actions carried out during the research activities [31]. The selection of technologies was performed based on those used in different learning environments, experiments and contexts. Table 3.5 defines technologies identified within each research activity carried out. At the top of the table, there are technologies that belong mainly to an “on-site” context and are easily accessible and usable in a physical environment. At the bottom of the table, there are technologies that belong mainly to an “online” context and that are easily accessible and usable in a virtual environment. In the middle, there are personal devices that are a sort of bridge between the two contexts. Mobile devices have now become sufficiently advanced technologically that they have been called thought-making machines [32] and the “Swiss Army knife” [33] of the twenty-first century with the strength lying in their portability, convenience and pervasiveness [34]. Next, an effort was undertaken to place the technologies within different mapping frameworks to assess them from different perspectives [31]. Four Cs Framework Jacobsen et al. [35] provided a four topic perspective centred on recent research on technology used in higher education and learning, as digital systems and the creation of new tools and processes continuously advance. The four categories: connect, communicate, collaborate and create can be combined to frame how emerging learning technologies are currently used in higher education. The framework can be of value for the preliminary classification of technologies in accordance with their level of influence in on-site and online learning environments within collaborative and active learning approaches. The identified technologies were

3.5 Technological Communication Tools

73

Table 3.5 Use of technologies found in research activities

placed in the framework following the 4C categories (Table 3.6). A technology can find a location in several categories depending on its mode of use. Technological Tool Map A map was developed (Fig. 3.27) to investigate the nature of technological tools from the perspective of pedagogy (personal vs. collaborative), space (on-site vs. online) and technology (soft tech vs. hard tech). It was inspired by the “tool landscape” Table 3.6 The 12 technologies positioned in the 4C framework

74

3 Learning Environments and Technology

Fig. 3.27 The technological tool map (revised version)

diagram established by Wenger et al. [36] which was considered through a threedimensional perspective (PST). The map originally used multiple polarities: participation vs reification, synchronous vs asynchronous, group vs individual. The diagram is an attempt to portray how a set of representative technologies accommodates these perspectives in a single map. This perspective provides a vocabulary for debating the function of tools in users’ activities and how these technologies continue to impact their learning process. The three polarities in the diagram represent different domains: • the horizontal axis represents the physical and digital rhythms through the positioning of hard-tech tools on the right and soft-tech tools on the left. It is a reflection of the attributes of the tools that appear to produce distinct uses in the learning environment because they involve different combinations of materiality and immateriality; • the vertical axis represents the extent to which devices interact with the space, with a transition between online and on-site. At the top, there are tools that promote engagement and the creation of knowledge in a physical environment, and at the

3.5 Technological Communication Tools

75

bottom, there are tools that support engagement and the creation of knowledge in a virtual environment; • the middle and outer circles delineate the polarity between collaborative and personal learning. The central circle concentrates on tools that foster cooperative engagement between users and within the space. The outer circle focuses on users, with tools to help control participation on a personal level. Tools are positioned on the diagrams in a way that gives an overview of the most typical use of a tool with reference to the three polarities. The place of a tool in the diagram should be considered both in terms of regions and boundaries. In other words, the position of a tool in one area is important, but its position is also relevant in other regions. For instance, virtual classroom software and assessment software are both in the area of soft tech/online interactions, but the former is towards collaborative activities, and the latter is more towards personal activity. Technology helps the individual-community relationship. Although a tool can be designed for communities, it is mainly used individually, particularly when one is alone. Technology also complicates the collaborative-personal polarity, which also opens up opportunities for extensive multi-membership by providing several incentives for cohesion. Still, technology can assist in managing these complexities as well.

3.5.1 On-site Technologies Technologies should provide a learning environment that enables seamless and meaningful interaction between users. It should be personalised and self-directed. It should provide instant access to large amounts of data and foster student–student interaction to promote peer-to-peer learning. It should pose questions to measure student comprehension and provide expert response when mistakes or misunderstandings are observed [37]. There is no doubt that this is an era full of innovations for those involved in education. Technology is all around us and the advancements of the last decade in usability and functionality have transformed the way we interact and seek knowledge. Educational institutions have been investing extensively. All the technologies we use in learning are similar to those that are most frequently used in society, but some of them are separate from our academic activities. Moreover, students bring their own technologies into the already complex mix. The experience of the last few years has told us how technologies are inextricably linked to the interchanges and connections between cultural and social realms. This should make us even more conscious of the influence of technological tools and opens new opportunities for enriching interactive learning environments and experiences. We need to describe how interactions between learners and technology evolve and how this affects their perceptions and learning experiences. Table 3.7 provides a presentation of on-site

76

3 Learning Environments and Technology

Table 3.7 On-site technologies Tool

Description

Advantages

Disadvantages

Applications

Digital Smartboard

Large interactive touchscreen connected to the web and equipped with different applications. Special pens are included to make writing in different colours quick and easy

Encourages collaboration Reduces formality in communication Allows direct interaction with data Usable as small projection Fosters interaction

Low number of users at the same time Constrained to electric current (not easily movable) Interaction dependent on installed software

Collaboration on group projects Brainstorming activities Class presentations Assignments

Analogic Smartboard

Large whiteboard connected to the web capable of digitising hand-written content and sharing it on the cloud

Encourages collaboration Usable as a normal whiteboard Allows quick sharing of information Reduces the psychological barrier

Low number of users at the same time Constrained to electric current (not easily movable) Limited interaction

Collaboration on group projects Brainstorming activities Quick notes from the lesson Assignments

Smart Projection Projection that allows wireless connections with mobile devices, home networks, and content

Allows all the users to share information with the class Flexible use

Sometimes problematic connection Subject to ambient light conditions

Projects presentations Frontal lesson Lesson construction with students Assessment

Videoconference System between System two or more participants at different sites by using computer networks to transmit audio and video data

Encourages distance collaboration Allows interaction among physically distant different subjects

Possible poor quality of the transmission depending on the network Interaction limited to a digital environment

Collaboration on group projects Lectures Project discussion Assignments

(continued)

technologies, underlining features such as advantages, disadvantages and educational applications.

3.5 Technological Communication Tools

77

Table 3.7 (continued) Tool

Description

Advantages

Disadvantages

Applications

Smart camera System

System that, following the users, records the activities, publishes the video online and creates recordings for asynchronous learning

Allows blended learning activities Creates repositories of learning contents Flexibility in the chosen content (user or activity) to be recorded

The set-ups are limited Possible poor quality of the transmission depending on the network

Lesson construction with students Lectures Theoretical lessons

Surface Digitaliser

Digital systems capable of transforming any wall into a touch surface through sensors and projection systems

Encourages collaboration Creates large interactive surfaces Reduces the psychological barrier

Low number of users at the same time need for complex hardware systems Limited interaction

Collaboration on group projects Immersive classroom activities Simulations Assignments Projects tests and demonstrations

Personal Device

Smartphone, tablet or laptop that easily allows connection to the web and interaction with other devices through applications

Easily transportable Ease in sharing information No psychological barriers Increases participation in lectures Multiple applications Supports searching

High possibility of distraction Too wide a variety of devices

Fast information research Collaborative activities Group project management Assignments Assessments

3.5.2 Online Technologies Conventionally, interactions, communication and connections have been shaped and defined primarily through face-to-face learning setting in traditional classroom spaces. They did not incorporate online and virtual environments or communities. Social networks, communication technologies and learning platforms today allow teachers and students to arrange themselves in virtual spaces and make dynamic interactions [35]. Online technologies enable learners to interact and communicate with online resources and with each other, to construct digital learning objects rather than paperbased ones. The additional advantage is that their learning can be shared with a broader community, thus expanding the possibilities for interaction.

78

3 Learning Environments and Technology

The web supports the user to use files and applications digitally, and in multiple locations. Web-based applications enable ubiquitous on-demand access to a set of online tools. This means that personal data can be saved on the web and retrieved from any device with Internet access. Accessing the ‘cloud’ implies that the user can use online applications without downloading and installing them on their computers, increasing the user’s capability to manipulate their resources, making changes or improvements when they feel the urge. Students can upload content to the cloud and later access them from their laptops or mobile devices, in class or at home. In situated learning contexts, they can gather pieces of information and upload them to their cloud space for later retrieval. Table 3.8 provides a presentation of online technologies, highlighting features such as advantages, disadvantages, and educational applications. Table 3.8 Online technologies Tool

Description

Advantages

Disadvantages

Applications

Student Response Software

Online software that allows teachers to create simple quizzes that students can take down quickly on laptops or their own smartphones

Provides instantaneous feedback Easy to use and access Checks the live progress of the classroom Engaged students in prompt activities Possible anonymous answers to avoid embarrassment

Analysing student data will take time Depending on the software, anonymous responses that can lead to incorrect data Need a personal device connected to internet

Polling and survey activities Lectures Theoretical lessons Flipped classroom activities Assessment

Collaborative Software

Online software that allows the collaboration through collaborative tools such as maps or workflows

Encourages collaboration Enables the easy creation of workgroup Easy translation of design processes Provides a channel for communications Supports organisation Fosters decision-making

Interaction limited to a digital environment Not suitable for large number of participants

Collaboration on group projects Project development and discussion Brainstorming activities

Cloud Software

Online software that allows the storing, sharing of files and their easy use into multiple devices

Easy to use and access Sometimes limited storage space in files dimension Limits access to specific folders

Possible slow transmission depending on the network Necessity for strict order

Collaboration on group projects Creation of knowledge repositories Assessment (continued)

References

79

Table 3.8 (continued) Tool

Description

Advantages

Disadvantages

Applications

Virtual Classroom Software

Online software that allows the creation of virtual environments for delivering courses and carrying out teaching activities

Supports distance education Easy to use and access Adapted for massive courses Accessible with personal devices Develops sense of learning spaces Facilitates feedback Fosters personalised learning

Limitation in translation of face-to-face learning activities Limitations in learning activities Possible poor quality of the transmission depending on the network

Distance learning Virtual environments for collaboration Collaboration on group projects Lectures Theoretical lessons Assessment

Assessment Software

Online software that allows the execution of assessments and exams in virtual environments

Easy creation of tests Adapted for massive courses Accessible with personal devices Provides transparency

Need of specific control of the students Possible problems in ending the assessment due to the network

On-distance learning Lectures Theoretical lessons Assessment

References 1. Chen V (2001) TEAL project a success; May expand next year. Tech 121:15 2. Dori YJ, Belcher J, Bessette M et al (2003) Technology for active learning. Mater Today 6:44–49 3. Dori YJ, Belcher J (2004) Improving students’ understanding of electromagnetism through visualizations—a large scale study. Natl Assoc Res Sci Teach Proc 4. Fisher K (2010) Technology-enabled active learning environments: an appraisal. Paris 5. Dori YJ, Belcher J (2005) How does technology-enabled active understanding of electromagnetism concepts? J Learn Sci 14:243–279 6. Komaba KALS. https://dalt.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/kals/en/ 7. Matsushita K (2018) Deep active learning. Springer Singapore, Singapore 8. Xie W, Chiang F (2013) Analysis of future classroom case study : KALS in the University of Tokyo and TEAL in MIT. China Inf Technol Educ 9. Bicocca Technological Classroom. https://sites.google.com/campus.unimib.it/progetto-aule/ home. Accessed 10 May 2021 10. Rontti S, Miettinen S, Kuure E, Lindström A (2012) A laboratory concept for service prototyping—service innovation corner (SINCO). ServDes Serv Des Innov Conf 8–10 Febr 2012, Helsinki 229–241 11. Rontti S (2017) The sinco lab concept: agile technology-aided experience prototyping toolkit. In: Miettinen S (ed) An introduction to industrial service design. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp 124–129 12. Palmieri S, Bisson M, Iannello A (2020) Environmental design multisensory experience. AGATHÓN – Int J Archit Art Des 202–209 13. Collina L, Gerosa G, Manciaracina A, et al (2019) Designing innovative learning experiences. An experimental project to support education facilities. In: INTED2019 proceedings. pp 6620– 6629 14. Gibson JJ (1977) The theory of Affordances. In: Shaw R, Bransford J (eds) Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Toward an ecological psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 67–82

80

3 Learning Environments and Technology

15. Norman D (1988) The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books, New York 16. Hillgren P-A, Seravalli A, Emilson A (2011) Prototyping and infrastructuring in design for social innovation. CoDesign 7:169–183 17. Collina L, Gerosa G, Manciaracina A, et al (2019) University classroom prototypes for innovative learning. In: DRS LEARN DESIGN 2019. Ankara, pp 375–384 18. Collina L, Gerosa G, Manciaracina A, et al (2019) New learning experiences. How the space planning and the technologies can be activators of innovative teaching methods. In: Häkkilä J, Pakanen M, Luiro E, et al (eds) Around the campfire—resilience and intelligence. Cumulus conference proceedings Rovaniemi 2019. Rovaniemi, pp 391–403 19. Jackson D (2015) Learning happens everywhere: how higher education can break down barriers through informed, flexible design. https://www.interiorsandsources.com/article-details/articl eid/18632/title/learning-happens-everywhere. Accessed 21 December 2018 20. Christensen CM, Horn MB, Staker H (2013) Is K-12 blended learning disruptive? 21. Oblinger DG, Oblinger JL (2005) Educating the Net Generation. Educause 22. Manciaracina AG (2019) Engaging students in active learning activities. The role of technological communication tools in an active learning environment. ICERI2019 Proc 1:5593–5599 23. Manciaracina AG (2021) New visions of hybrid learning environments. EDULEARN21 Proc 1:2739–2748 24. Trentin G (2016) Always-on education and hybrid learning spaces. Educ Technol 56:31–37 25. Conole G (2013) Designing for learning in an open world. Springer, New York, NY 26. Conole G (2004) E-learning: The hype and the reality. J Interact Media Educ 1–18 27. Conole G, de Laat M, Dillon T, Darby J (2008) ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: what’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Comput Educ 50:511–524 28. OECD (2017) The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments. OECD 29. de Freitas S, Conole G (2010) The influence of pervasive and integrative tools on learners’ experiences and expectations of study. In: Sharpe R, Beetham H, De Freitas S (eds) Rethinking learning for a digital age. Routledge, New York, pp 15–30 30. Januszewski A, Molenda M (2008) Educational technology. Routledge, New York, NY 31. Manciaracina AG (2021) Educational technologies for hybrid learning contexts: a grid of 12 technological communication tools. In: Proceedings of the 25th world multi-conference on systemics, cybernetics and informatics (WMSCI 2021) educational. pp 119–124 32. Houghton B (2013) Mobile digital literacy: analyzing the walking “thought makers.” http://dig iacademy.org/EDELCompEduc/Ch1/handheldOS.html. Accessed 22 May 2020 33. Low L, O’Connell M (2006) Learner-centric design of digital mobile learning. Proc OLT Conf 71–82 34. Ng W (2015) New digital technology in education. Springer International Publishing, Cham 35. Jacobsen M, Brown B, Lambert D (2013) Technology-enhanced learning environments in higher education: a review of the literature. Calgary 36. Wenger E, White N, Smith J (2009) Digital habitats: stewarding technology for communities. CPsquare, Portland, OR 37. Laurillard D (2002) Rethinking University teaching. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon

Chapter 4

Critical Elements to Innovate Learning Environments

Abstract This chapter proposes the key elements of research, useful for innovating a learning environment: the need for a fourth element in the PST framework, i.e., the user, to better connect the other three elements; the central role of space as a place of reference for the complex and specific interactions of the design discipline; the new opportunities offered by technologies, especially within the context of an emergency and enforced distance learning; the need for new forms of hybrid learning processes that can be built on the experience gained during health emergencies and create new forms of hybrid learning contexts; the need for tools and rules to systematise all the elements being considered (technological, spatial and pedagogical), and the needs of the actors involved (teachers and students).

4.1 The Incompleteness of the PST Framework As discussed previously, the PST framework is a question-driven inquiry method derived from existing literature and the experience of creative teaching and learning spaces internationally. It aims to enable educational institutions to develop and establish new teaching and learning environments with the objective of encouraging student engagement and learning outcomes [1]. The framework reflects on the creation of successful learning environments to facilitate participatory learning-centred experiences, on the systematic use of modern pedagogical strategies that see the teacher as a planner of active teaching practice, and on technologies seen as catalysts for innovations for reconfigurable and technological advanced spaces. A variety of human-centred design principles translate into the development of interactive learning spaces: • learning is social interaction, and space binds people to it [2]; • learning spaces need to build resources for socialisation while preserving privacy [2, 3]; • learning spaces need to promote constructive involvement, including space for listening, discussion, feedback, and the collective creation of information [4]; © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Manciaracina, Designing Hybrid Learning Environments and Processes, PoliMI SpringerBriefs, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95274-7_4

81

82

4 Critical Elements to Innovate Learning Environments

• learning space needs to include versatile design elements that enable it to adapt to a range of learning and teaching needs [2] embracing the opportunity to shift beyond text and include audio, video and visual contents [5]; • space has to assign power to users, giving them a voice as to how space looks [2]. The primary aim of a learning space that follows human-centred design approaches is to build a learning community. The learning environment acts as a bridge between the personal and social spaces in which identity is created, facilitating reflective and constructive learning through conversation and discussion [3]. In online environments, group development requires the same exposure to social knowledge and information. A community works only because its participants engage in a positive way that deepens their comprehension of each other and contributes to progress. Learners need to confront each other and challenge their own thinking [6] and they need to experience a sense of belonging to the learning community [5]. In designing a learning environment that fosters such a culture, designers need to ensure ways in which learners can learn from each other and encourage, interact and feel connected to each other and to the learning environment to promote deep and substantive learning. The presence of users, who are crucial and who have a key role in the design practices, seems to be missing in the PST framework. Effecting a user-centred system design implies to start with the user’s requirements. The focus on the type of interaction and the user is what should guide the design. User-centred design stresses that the goal of the system is to benefit the user, not to exploit a specific technology [7]. In a learning environment, users are both actors and directors, enablers and resisters, learners, and instructors. As a result of the discussion on the framework and the investigation on the future learning space of the Politecnico di Milano, users— important stakeholders in the educational activities—are absent in the PST framework. They should have a significant part in the framework and be as well related and intertwined with other elements and generate new design interactions. The users’ presence could lead to innovative instruments for further exploration of potential design achievements. Designing innovative learning environments is a challenging task in which several actors should be engaged, and several steps should be completed. This vision should be inspired by learning theory and the acknowledgement of the attributes of the learners and instructors who use these spaces [8]. The PST framework [9] should move from a three-element approach to a fourelement approach, emphasising the focal position of users in innovating learning environments. Here, I would like to introduce an upgrade of the PST framework that brings another player into the framework and establishes new connections and actions through the mediation of design. In Fig. 4.1, the user is positioned at the centre of the framework [10]. The purpose is to reaffirm the significance of users and their linking to other elements of a complex and innovative learning environment. The integration of the user introduces new interconnections and lays the foundation for further research activities.

NT NME IRO V EN

LEADS

ES BY

AG

LE D

UR

AB

CO

EN

EN

BY EX

EM

TE

BE

DS

FACILITATES

ND

S

TECHNOLOGY

EXPLOITS

G IN RN A LE

S OL TO

OR IGN F DES

DESIGN FOR

ENT IRONM ENV

ES

ED RG

S RM

FO

S AN

TR

C AN

SPACE EN VIR ON ME NT

LA

USER

R WE

PO

EM

H EN

INNOVATES

PEDAGOGY

S

LE AR NIN G

DESI GN FOR INN OV AT IVE L

LEARNING ACTIVITY

ING RN EA

G NIN AR E L

83

EN

INN OV AT IVE

4.2 The Central Role of Space

INNOVATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONM ENT

Fig. 4.1 PSTU framework, the evolution of PST framework

4.2 The Central Role of Space Since their inception, universities have been distinguished by the co-location of instructors and learners within a physical environment. However, recent trends about increasing technology utilisation in higher education have seen changes in this context. Digital technologies have allowed learners to increase the capacity for a variety of quality learning opportunities, with significant quantities of peer engagement, without ever needing to visit a physical campus. Still, while digital distance education continues to expand, sharing a physical space between students and lecturers has not diminished. Some disciplines require the use of specialised equipment or other tools that are quite difficult to perform entirely online. Equally, there is no way to underestimate the potential for spontaneous learning experiences and motivation arising from being physically in a situated learning environment. Different research results indicate the centrality of space and its flexibility and capacity to transform quickly [11–14]. It becomes essential when it meets specific requirements, such as the presence of technology aimed at supporting active learning approaches; the capacity to satisfy the need of quickly changing the classroom setup; and the efficiency in supporting interaction among users. It can also be clarified that learning activities, which have traditionally been carried out in an actual classroom, allow for crucial direct contact with students and, therefore, a certain degree of interaction. This contact is dramatically reduced when the teaching occurs at a

84

4 Critical Elements to Innovate Learning Environments

distance without introducing specific adjustments. In the research carried out with the teachers of the School of Design [11], two aspects emerge: • the importance of space for the implementation of processes and learning activities with specific interactions related to design and prototyping; • the lack of communication and interaction with students as a major concern for teachers. The complete and straightforward transfer of traditional lessons to streaming channels revealed significant interaction problems, for teachers and students, forced to “talk to the screen”. Teachers, however, experience difficulties and benefits by experimenting in the field and following their intuition. They wonder how it’s possible to establish a relationship of communication and attention with a person who is not physically present, what things to do and not do if there are technical limitations, guidelines, and so on. The transition from traditional to online teaching is certainly possible; however, if it is true that one instrument is the same as the other for basic needs, it is not the same for more sophisticated ones. Let’s consider replacing the face-to-face lesson. The tool used in distance learning has been designed more for business meetings than for online teaching. It’s more than fine as a replacement management tool during the emergency. However, with the need to go further, the necessity emerged for something explicitly designed for distance learning. However, there are unique aspects such as eye contact, whispering or involuntary gestures, which let the teacher know when they can proceed freely or when the last step has to be repeated. The empathic relationship established with the class or audience is fundamental, even by merely looking at some people several times and catching their interest. Teaching in a physical classroom can be compared to the emission of an acoustic but also psychological-relational wave. It starts from the speaker and goes towards the audience; from the audience, it returns towards the teacher/speaker, with a series of even very subtle indicators that denote interest, disinterest, perplexity and help the speaker in the development of the communication also verbally, beyond the defined programme and schedule. All this is very difficult in a virtual or remote situation: and it is more tiring, also because speaking in front of a screen, substantially inactive, cannot have the same duration as an oral lesson. Physical interaction in a physical space contributes to the creation of a collective spirit for the students and generating an interactive learning environment. In this regard, the reflections of Alberto Asor Rosa [15] about the COVID-19 emergency are undoubtedly emblematic, for whom the physical community is an indispensable coefficient of a functioning intellectual community. The risk of university distance learning was instead that of assuming all the most negative characteristics of active classroom teaching and taking it to its extreme consequences such as being unable to listen to the students’ point of view and co-construct knowledge with them as would be desirable in an academic course.

4.2 The Central Role of Space

85

At the same time, this experience will undoubtedly leave a significant “trace”. Among warnings and suggestions, the COVID-19 emergency has also offered relevant stimuli to be seized in the coming months, identifying the task of actively involving students and creating novel hybrid learning processes.

4.3 New Opportunities Offered by Educational Technologies Technology has not only enriched and complexified the learning environment; the classroom has relocated the notion of learning space beyond a defined place [16]. If technology was historically part of the teacher’s “toolkit”, today’s learners view technology as central to their learning-teaching relationships [17, 18]. Technological tools provide the ability to improve interactivity and engagement by allowing online communication, production and sharing of content. Web-based technologies offer places for communication, knowledge building and sharing to promote productive and collaborative learning [19]. They provide the means for developing a learning atmosphere in which learners can be innovative, analytical, productive, and become creators of their own experiences and identities guided by other participants. For this reason, it is assumed that these new communication technologies cause a paradigm shift in distance education. As well as their widespread use of distance education, they are also increasingly being used to support higher education teaching and learning in merging on-site and online learning environments. Moreover, technological tools can: • • • • • • • • • • •

foster development of student-led activities and customised learning paths; redefine who, for example, counts as a teacher; promoting diverse types of student grouping; improve content by new services and expanding available resources; create interactive and virtual learning spaces; reformulate tests and assessments that can be more comprehensive to promote individual differentiation; schedule various time modules, including lesson-time and homework; improve teachers’ networks and provide them with the tools required to develop the creative practice; allow greater cooperation between educators through the sharing of resources, practice and experience; facilitate formative evaluation and management of change; stimulate the creation of creative curricula by involving other stakeholders.

Inside the active pedagogical approach, technology can redefine learners (who would otherwise be completely unconnected); educators (remote tutors or teachers from another school or system); and content by opening inaccessible information or promoting skills of the twenty-first century. Learning facilities can be transformed

86

4 Critical Elements to Innovate Learning Environments

and digitalised; technology will redefine the very concept of “learning space” and interactive learning environments. Student-driven learning and inquiry, collaboration, personalisation, and versatility can all be enabled and improved with technology. Communication technology has essential tools for collaborations to grow, whether through parents’ channels to participate in the education of their children, or teachers to participate in professional communities, or through offering access to expert information found elsewhere. At the same time, the mere existence of technology alone is not sufficient for innovating learning environments. Innovation should not be assumed to be synonymous with digitalisation since it cannot only be a reproduction of traditional methods and pedagogies with a different format. According to Siemens and Tittenberger [20], the creation of teaching paths with the enrichment of technology can be discussed in three categories: • Augmented: use of technological tools to extend a physical space. Through a distance learning system, traditional courses may be augmented by online collaborative and virtual classroom software. The primary goal of augmenting physical spaces is to increase educational activities’ effectiveness by providing contact with external lecturers and experts, diverse points of views, and dialogue. • Blended: technological tools partly replace physical space-situated learning. Parts of the learning activities are on-site, and parts are online. Blended learning may involve an initial on-site learning phase, followed by an online phase, and concluding with an on-site learning phase. The online phase may be synchronous (real-time) or asynchronous (time delay). • Online: technological tools completely replace face-to-face physical space learning activities. Entirely online systems often use virtual classroom software to assist teachers in dealing with student assessment, interaction, and content delivery. While the online environment has several affordances, it also has several “lost affordances” compared to a physical environment. All the results mostly confirm the importance of educational technologies in a physical space. The classification of 12 technologies helped to understand in which way technological tools can be used in different learning contexts. Institutions now recognise the strategic importance of ICT and have central policies in place to ensure that there is a technical infrastructure available to support all aspects of the learner’s study, from recruitment through to assessment [21]. The analysis of the case studies confirms the resolve of institutions to create innovative environments to test and enrich their teaching activities and possibly find new ways to update and innovate the learning processes. Technological tools that can be used as personal technologies or in close synergy, personal devices are recognised as being most effective. Therefore, the need emerges for new relationships between the technologies present within the physical space and the personal technologies owned by users. Through these new relationships, technology can be enhanced and inserted into the space, triggering collaborative and social dynamics, and thus help to create new hybrid learning processes.

4.3 New Opportunities Offered by Educational Technologies

87

The pedagogical method applied by teachers influences the use of emerging technology. Teachers who use a more student-centred approach continue to use new technology more widely than those who follow a more conventional teacher-centred approach. A more student-centred approach also tends to suggest that new technologies are being used in more innovative ways. Such results have also been documented in previous studies, where researchers such as Tondeur et al. [22] observed that teachers with a higher constructivist teaching methodology are regular users of digital technology, whereas teachers with more conservative methods are lower-level users of digital technologies. It was also pointed out in the OECD study [23] that teachers’ assumptions on how research can be carried out have an effect on their teaching practices. As a result, teachers with strong constructivist views are more likely to use new technology more effectively.

4.4 Education as a Hybrid Process The proliferation and availability of digital tools and environments that use the connective and innovative potential of technology are radically reshaping what constitutes educational experience, where it happens, and what it means to deliver effective learning. The need to overcome traditional learning contexts, made acute by The COVID19 emergency, has become increasingly urgent. The experiments promptly activated by universities in the lockdown phase had to be rethought through a process of decontextualisation, first, and then re-contextualisation in the new scenarios, highlighting the limits of traditional methods and context in exhausting the complexity of the emergency and the processes of teaching and learning at a forced distance. This process primarily concerned teaching, followed by guidance and promotional services together with the curricular internship and training experiences. Facing the full lockdown phase and with the perspective of an online switch, universities have moved services and resources, transferring them to online platforms and activating resources that could not be previously carried out on-site. Thus, the expanded exposure to technology for students is questioning the status quo of education and is a direct challenge to what learning should look like in classrooms. Given this, universities must begin to expand the discourse around technology to include a debate on the development of digital learning spaces and hybrid learning processes. Such spaces will establish a more flexible environment for when and how learning will occur and will launch a conversation on what schools want to do rather than simply purchase technological tools. How these technologies support learning and communication should be a fundamental question acknowledged by all institutions. The research carried out provides exciting insights into the attitudes and opinions of users immersed in different learning environments and offer stimulating food for thought about the possibility of interacting with one another in different learning

88

4 Critical Elements to Innovate Learning Environments

environments. The students have proved to be quite at ease within the on-site environment, particularly valuing the possibility of moving furniture. Space flexibility increased the effectiveness of frontal lessons, the use of assessment tools to work with personal student apps, and the execution of constructive learning activities. On the other hand, although there was some initial apprehension about their use, the innovations of complete distance learning within an online environment were widely embraced by teachers. This means they are fully capable of engaging students when the technology is properly mastered. Overall, the most effective technological instruments are recognised as personal technologies or in close synergy with personal devices. So, the need for new relationships emerges between the technologies present within the physical space and the user-owned personal technologies. “Educational technology approaches evolved from early uses of teaching tools and have rapidly expanded in recent years to include such devices and approaches as mobile technologies, virtual and augmented realities, simulations and immersive environments, collaborative learning, social networking, cloud computing, flipped classrooms, and more” [24]. A reflection should be made on their choice and use in a hybrid learning environment, and questions should be asked. Were those technologies the right ones? Were they used properly? Is there a distrust in using tools that have not been used before? Conole et al. [25] pointed to a shift in the way students work, suggesting a complex interrelationship between individuals and instruments. The authors state in their conclusion that “technology is not simply seen as an “add on” for these students, it is central to how they organise and orientate their learning. The technologies provide them with a wide variety of alternatives for interaction and communication in relation to learning and flexibility of use which enables them to take control of their learning” [25]. The results obtained from the research actions linked with the COVID-19 emergency indicate that in the near future there will be the need to create new hybrid processes and to change the attributes and the requirements of the physical space: “Space is not a thing but a process” [26]. It is possible to think, reflecting on the applied research carried out, of an evolution of teaching environments in which analogical and digital, physical and intangible aspects will contribute to creating the right conditions for teachers to improve the relationships between the different actors involved in the learning process [11]. Today, the classroom has extended past four walls into what is known as “virtual space” allowing for learning to happen virtually anywhere and anytime [27]. Therefore, space should oversee specific activities that cannot transcend the physicality and spatiality of a face-to-face learning relationship. Space, therefore, becomes the pivotal element for implementing essential functions that enhance both the role of the teacher and the students’ activity. A technological learning environment is not sufficient by itself; it has to be adopted by learners in line with their ability, self-management and perspectives on technological learning environments [28].

ON-SITE ENVIRONMENT

89

CED NHAN YE G O OL

MOS TLY VI

L UA RT

TEC HN

4.4 Education as a Hybrid Process

HYBRID PROCESSES

ONLINE ENVIRONMENT

Fig. 4.2 Spectrum of hybrid learning process (edited from Graham et al. [31])

In this research, the concept of hybrid learning refers to learning that coexists in a physical space (on-site) and a virtual space (online) to combine and boost the positive advantages of both environments. Hybrid learning processes take place in both physical and virtual environments. Hybrid learning environments were first seen as online dimensions that allow synchronous and asynchronous interactive communication between teachers and students, while providing technological learning tools that students can access at any moment. This definition has recently been adapted so that it can now refer to a mix of face-to-face and distance interaction in which the ideas of time and virtual environment are implied. In comparison to traditional learning environments, the basic purpose of technological tools, especially those that are connected to the internet, is to offer new learning opportunities found in these hybrid environments [29]. The learning environment can become a hybrid context with variable degrees of technology involvement, bouncing from physical to digital spaces (Fig. 4.2). It is the place where a range of events take place to foster learning, and participants should depend on the use of a set of tools to accomplish this. The fluid transition cycle between the two environments, with the use of technology, is at the heart of why contemporary learning approaches allow us to continually reimagine learning, and why we need tools and rules, for diffuse reflection and systematic implementation [30]. These new learning experiences will eventually mesh active, on-site and online learning activities, but will not be prompted by emergencies. The space, which is a key part of the educational innovation process, will reassume its primary role of facilitating the sharing of educational experiences. The on-site environment will work in synergy with the online one, enabling educators to experiment with new teaching approaches.

4.5 The Need for Guidelines to Design Future Educational Formats The provision of appropriate tools to reflect on the use of digital technology in daily practice emerges as necessary in this research. Providing a tool means that teachers have better and quicker ways to think about everyday needs and learning contexts.

90

4 Critical Elements to Innovate Learning Environments

Therefore, tools to support instructional design are essential to address issues and possibilities afforded by technology. There are many reasons why teachers frequently find it hard to integrate new technology into daily practice. This challenge stems from their interpretations of a given technology, their conceptions, or misunderstanding of its potential uses for learning combined with the persistent absence of a feasible and realistic way to plan learning activities using the technology. This aspect results in several potential consequences, varying from the inability to use the technology; using it in unconventional or inefficient ways; or the complete or progressive replacement of the technology in favour of traditional and better-known technologies. This perspective stems from the observation that a number of technologies were mainly developed for recreational and professional purposes, and later adapted for educational uses [32]. For educators, this poses some challenges: • effort to learn through using the given technology; • the amount of learning assistance that may be needed; • updating of support. Teachers do not seem to receive enough support in addressing the main issue of their educational problems with technologies. They should be able to detect what is needed for their teaching tasks and provide it. Learning design would be more feasible if teachers were able to work according to a set of established guidelines that address technology tools and facilitate the capture and refinement of a specific pedagogical method and related learning experiences. In this context, the accent is on the teacher as a learning designer. The ability to build a more extensive learning environment that promotes innovative and exciting learning opportunities is a persuasive proposition. The integration of physical and digital learning spaces has the potential to create a new learning system, one that reflects on the needs of today and is structured to facilitate the creation of a learning culture through a wide variety of experiences and spaces [33]. Exploring the design of learning activities that use digital learning spaces requires careful consideration of issues that inform the process of creating, implementing, utilising, and reviewing these activities and these spaces. Teachers lack a didactic tool to assist them in designing new hybrid learning processes that integrate the new demands of physical learning spaces with the connectivity and ubiquity of technological tools. The awareness of the need for rules for the correct adoption of the educational technologies concerning the learning activities (after “on-site vs online” reflections) has emerged significantly in this research. The change in the learning paradigm, to utilise the peculiarities of new communications technology as a tool of creation, development, interaction, and design, is needed to use educational technology effectively. Users must be able to select the most appropriate technologies with respect to the type of learning clusters they implement. A technological learning environment is not effective by itself; it has to be adopted by learners in line with their ability, self-management and perspectives on technological learning environments [28].

4.5 The Need for Guidelines to Design Future Educational Formats

91

The need for the successful use of educational technologies leads to a shift in the learning model to leverage the innovation of modern communications systems as a resource for developing, producing, engaging, and planning learning activities through technologies.

References 1. Radcliffe D, Wilson H, Powell D, Tibbetts B (2009) Learning spaces in higher education: positive outcomes by design. In: Radcliffe D, Wilson H, Powell D, Tibbetts B (eds) Proceedings of the next generation learning spaces 2008 Colloquium University of Queensland, Brisbane. The Contributers, St Lucia, QLD 2. Gee L (2006) Human-centered design guidelines. In: Oblinger DG (ed) Learning spaces. Educause 3. Wheeler S (2009) Learning space mashups: combining Web 2.0 tools to create collaborative and reflective learning spaces. Futur Internet 1:3–13 4. Brown, M. and Long P (2006) Trends in learning space design. In: Oblinger DG (ed) Learning spaces. Educause 5. Lomas C, Oblinger DG (2006) Learning spaces—students practices and their impact on learning spaces. Learn spaces 5.1–5.11 6. Bickford DJ, Wright DJ (2006) Community: the hidden context for learning. In: Oblinger DG (ed) Learning spaces. Educause 7. Norman D, Draper SW (1986) User centerd system design. New perspectives on humancomputer interaction. Lawrence erlbaum associates, Hillsdale, NJ 8. Brown M (2005) Learning spaces. In: Oblinger DG, Oblinger JL (eds) Educating the Net Generation. Educause, pp 12.1–12.22 9. Radcliffe D, Wilson H, Powell D, Tibbetts B (2008) Designing next generation places of learning: collaboration at the pedagogy-space-technology nexus. Univ Queensl 1–20 10. Manciaracina AG (2019) Relation among pedagogy, space, technology and users. An implementation of Radcliffe’ s PST framework. In: Proceedings of EDULEARN19 conference. pp 3067–3073 11. Collina L, Gerosa G, Manciaracina A, et al (2019) New learning experiences. How the space planning and the technologies can be activators of innovative teaching methods. In: Häkkilä J, Pakanen M, Luiro E, et al (eds) Around the campfire—resilience and intelligence. Cumulus conference proceedings Rovaniemi 2019. Rovaniemi, pp 391–403 12. Collina L, Gerosa G, Manciaracina A, et al (2019) University classroom prototypes for innovative learning. In: DRS LEARN DESIGN 2019. Ankara, pp 375–384 13. Collina L, Gerosa G, Manciaracina A, et al (2019) Designing innovative learning experiences. An experimental project to support education facilities. In: INTED2019 proceedings. pp 6620– 6629 14. Collina L, Gerosa G, Manciaracina A, Vergani F (2019) Toward an innovative learning environment to support educational facilities. Spaces and services fostering interactions in the community of the campus. In: Education, design and practice—understanding skills in a complex world. AMPS, Architecture_MPS; Stevens Institute of Technology, New York, NJ, pp 110–118 15. Asor A (2020) Elogio della classe. La Repubb. 16. Johnson C, Lomas C (2005) Design of the learning space: learning and design principles. Educ Rev 40:16–28 17. Johnson LF, Levine AH (2008) Virtual worlds: inherently immersive, highly social learning spaces. Theory Pract 47:161–170 18. Li PP, Locke J, Nair P, Bunting A (2005) PEB exchange programme on educational building. Creating 21st century learning environments

92

4 Critical Elements to Innovate Learning Environments

19. Maloney E (2007) What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning by. Chron High Educ 53: 20. Siemens G, Tittenberger P (2009) Handbook of emerging technologies for learning. Image Rochester NY 65 21. de Freitas S, Conole G (2010) The Influence of pervasive and integrative tools on learners’ experiences and expectations of study. In: Sharpe R, Beetham H, De Freitas S (eds) Rethinking learning for a digital age. Routledge, New York, pp 15–30 22. Tondeur J, Hermans R, van Braak J, Valcke M (2008) Exploring the link between teachers’ educational belief profiles and different types of computer use in the classroom. Comput Human Behav 24:2541–2553 23. OECD (2015) Teaching beliefs and practice. Teach. Focus 13 24. Huang R, Spector JM, Yang J (2019) Introduction to educational technology. In: Educational technology: a primer for the 21st century. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp 3–31 25. Conole G, de Laat M, Dillon T, Darby J (2008) ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: what’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Comput Educ 50:511–524 26. Boys J (2009) Beyond the Beanbag? Towards new ways of thinking about learning spaces. Networks Mag 16–19 27. Trentin G (2015) Orientating pedagogy towards hybrid spaces. Prog Educ 35 28. Lowyck J (2014) Foreword. In: Spector JM, Merrill MD, Elen J, Bishop MJ (eds) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Springer, New York, NY, pp xiii–xv 29. Tovmassian LT (2004) Study on innovative learning environments in school education 30. Manciaracina A (2020) A tool for designing hybrid learning contexts in higher education. Interact Des Archit - IxD&A 137–155 31. Graham CR, Woodfield W, Harrison JB (2013) A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet High Educ 18:4–14 32. Laurillard D (2009) The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. Int J Comput Collab Learn 4:5–20 33. Hilton JT (2013) Digital critical dialogue: a process for implementing transformative discussion practices within online courses in higher education. MERLOT J Online Learn Teach 9:2013

Chapter 5

How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

Abstract The chapter presents a discussion of the research output. It explains the project activity carried out in the research path. It illustrates scenarios created to define learning environments characterised by the three key elements (pedagogy, space and technology). Then the author proposes and offers visualisations of a tool that transforms the scenarios into visions applicable to a learning context. The realisation of performative co-design activities and autonomous design activities carried out by selected teachers from the Politecnico di Milano help to discuss the tool. Its final purpose is to facilitate how users can choose the right technologies for their teaching activity. The last part of the chapter discusses a rule manual for tool use. It is composed of methodological (derived from research) and instrumental (derived from the experimentation of the instrument) information and built based on user experience.

5.1 Scenarios: On-site and Online Scenarios The organisation of hybrid learning processes requires extremely detailed planning. If we relate the design of new hybrid learning environments to a user-centred approach, tools such as the scenario definition can be of assistance in the planning. Defining scenarios means defining the users’ needs and foreseeing all possible variations. According to Kahn and Wiener [1], scenarios are “hypothetical sequences of events, built in the intent of attracting attention to casual process and points of decision”. Scenarios are particularly suitable for dealing simultaneously with events taken together, which integrate several aspects of a situation. Kahn and Wiener [1] argue that scenarios: • draw attention to the broader range of possibilities that need to be considered in future analysis; • dramatise and explain advantageously the possibilities to which they relate; • force the analyst to deal with details and dynamics;

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Manciaracina, Designing Hybrid Learning Environments and Processes, PoliMI SpringerBriefs, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95274-7_5

93

94

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

• help to illuminate the interaction of psychological, social, economic, cultural and political factors; • can illustrate principles, issues or questions that could be ignored if one insisted on taking examples only from real world; • can be used to imagine other potential results of any actual past and current incidents; • can be used as fictional “case history” to make up for the scarcity of real examples. However, if a scenario seems plausible, it must relate to some reasonable version of the present. Since plausibility in a scenario is a great virtue, it is important not to confine yourself to the most plausible, conventional, or likely situations and behaviour. [1]. According to Manzini and Jegou [2], the development of these future methodologies of thinking generated a broad typology of scenarios whose common denominators could be summed up in three main points: • hypothesis plurality: scenarios are intended as a set of hypothesis that combine the snapshot of the possible future evolvement of the current situation; • narrative forms: scenarios are simply “stories” detailing the steps taken by choices, behaviour, and modulations to suit the present situation in the future; • one of these two strategies: a forecasting or a backcasting strategy. The first begins with an overview of the past and current scenario to follow the key lines of potential and likely future changes. The second postulates a desired future scenario and explores its feasibility and conditions of execution with an emphasis on the present behaviour to be carried out [2]. Manzini and Jegou [3] describe “design-oriented scenario” (d.o.s.) as a specific approach in scenario thinking methodologies focusing on identified social actors in order to frame their future development and implement it into tangible activities. It is possible to identify, for the development of the research, different learning scenarios in which we envisage the comparison of different and complementary approaches that flow into different paths. For each path or scenario, it will be necessary to proceed with a learning output. On this basis, it will be necessary to build a tool composed of different elements that indicate and support all the actors’ needs, the didactic clusters, the technological clusters, and concepts of the envisioned space. The examples set up by the output will then allow us to proceed in the definition of the challenges of the project path.

5.1.1 The Six Scenarios The scenarios serve to create future and plausible contexts and they are a synthesis of the research path concerning the creation of contexts related to the three elements of the PST framework [4]. The scenarios use six identified polarities, always with the same framework:

5.1 Scenarios: On-site and Online Scenarios

95

• pedagogy—active learning: collaborative learning and personal learning; • space—innovative learning environment: multi-functional and mono-functional space; • technology—educational technology: shared technology and personal technology. Collaborative Learning and Personal Learning In collaborative and cooperative learning approaches, the students work together on an assignment or learning process, each participating in a precisely defined collaborative mission. Students work in pairs or in small groups to accomplish a specific learning goal with others instead of working alone [5]. Additionally, this approach establishes cooperative groups and allows learners to become active participants in the cooperative learning process. Also, collaborative learning has redefined the conventional relationship between student and teacher in the classroom, leading to a model that is not negative but beneficial. This approach creates a “collaborative learning environment” in which individuals will be actively involved. Johnson et al. [6] pointed out five critical elements in collaborative learning: • positive relationship clearly perceived: team members are obliged to rely on each other to achieve the objective. Members will feel they are connected to others in a way that ensures that all of them thrive together; • significant interaction: participants help each other to understand and to collaborate by describing, collecting and sharing information, and inspiring each other; • personal accountability and personal responsibility: all students are responsible for doing their job share and understanding all the learning content; • social skills: students are encouraged and assisted in developing and exercising skills in trust-building, teamwork, decision-making, communication, and conflict management; • self-evaluation of the group: team leaders set group goals, regularly assess what they do well as a team, and determine improvements they can make to work more efficiently. Personal Learning is an approach that initially integrates relationships among informal learning, learning styles, new approaches to assessment and technological, and cognitive tools. It is also inspired by the success of new ubiquitous and social technologies. It is a system that helps learners take control of and manage their learning. This system includes providing support for learners to: • set their own learning goals; • manage their learning, both content and process; • communicate with others in the process of learning. Personalisation means that teaching is tailored to the learning needs and the specific interests of the various learners. Personalised learning encourages students

96

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

to take greater responsibility for their education. Technology-customised learning platforms can personalise the learning experience based on online courses. Personalised learning environments (PLEs) increase students’ engagement and create an atmosphere in which they can manage their own education. PLEs, according to Henri et al. [7], are a collection of learning resources, programmes, and artifacts collected from multiple contexts to be adopted by users. Also, Van Harmelen [8], who provided a definition firmly rooted in a technological context, notes that PLEs seek to enable learners to develop digital environments for their activities so they can contribute to learner communities to work together on collaborative objectives. The distinction between collaborative learning and personal learning is that collaborative learning members are responsible not just for their learning progress but also for the success of all the other members. Personal learning is an approach focused on the user and his/her personal relation with the environment and that uses technologies. Personal learning creates the condition to enable learning processes set-up according to a personal pace and personal goals. Multi-functional Space and Mono-functional Space Multi-functional space is designed as an innovative learning environment, giving users the possibility and the freedom to decide how they want to learn through technologies. This adaptable learning environment suggested that the space between the classroom and the technologies would serve various learning purposes. A genuinely multi-functional space would meet users’ everyday needs while generating a sense of freedom by fully exploiting the environment. This type of space is interactive, in which students can interact and manipulate the pieces of information in different ways. An open and multi-functional space can be adapted to both students’ and teachers’ needs and provides space for individuals to work and interact in a way that better suits their individual needs. In a multi-functional space, the user has multiple technologies at his/her disposal. The technologies are disseminated in the space to create functional zones concerning the activities required by pedagogical approaches. The main characteristic of multifunctional spaces is, therefore, the ability to create technological micro-environments and to support users. While the definition of multi-functional space is more accessible and more easily found in the literature and case studies, the definition of mono-functional space is more complicated and needs more reflection. In the realisation of the scenarios, the mono-functional space does not assume a derogatory meaning; it does not act as a negative contrast to a multi-functional space. From the research actions undertaken, three interpretations emerge: • the first refers to a space in which there is only one type of technology that becomes hyper-specialised that allows the realisation of complex educational activities; • the second refers to a space that allows the complete realisation of a specific type of activity; • the third refers to a space that does not allow spatial expansions, allowing the inclusion of all the technologies necessary to carry out the required activities.

5.1 Scenarios: On-site and Online Scenarios

97

Shared Technology and Personal Technology The use of educational technology is a predominant theme in this research. The technological polarities involved in defining scenarios are the polarity of shared technologies and personal technologies’ polarity. The first group includes all those technologies that involve multiple users using them simultaneously. We can, for example, think of smartboards, surface digitisers, videoconferencing systems. The second group includes those technologies that are personal to the user, who makes use of them in a tailor-made way, in the times and ways (s)he considers appropriate. Examples of such technologies are, for example, smartphones and notebooks, but also tablets and writable e-paper. We have already discussed that the whole family of technologies that are part of the BYOD system are basically “bridge” technologies, i.e., technologies able to connect physical and digital learning environments, and therefore essential for the realisation of hybrid learning processes. Also, personal technology will make students feel more connected to their work by reaching the educational goals outside the classroom’s four walls. Personal technology allows students to learn at their own pace, helping to improve the time and quality of their learning experience in the classroom. Furthermore, because students are in school and have equal access to the services in the classroom, this can be a perfect compromise for all students. Finally, it should be noted that technological tools such as software or online platforms are transversal to the two polarities and are selectable according to their use (personal and shared). The combination of the six polarities generates six possible cases of learning contexts that relate to the different elements (pedagogy, space and technology). The six polarities are intersected by considering three at a time. Six contexts are thus generated, which are located in two types of environments (on-site and online). The six contexts give rise to six scenarios represented in Fig. 5.1.

5.1.1.1

On-site Scenarios

On-site scenarios include scenarios that are in a physical learning environment that is part of the spaces provided by the university. Immersive Technological Cave Collaborative Learning with Shared Technologies in a Mono-functional Space The learning space is aimed at only one type of activity. Space becomes a technological cave where users interact with the walls. The technologies are used to transform the walls into large interactive surfaces on which students can learn collaboratively. Hard technologies are closely linked to the unique function of the space and make it easier for students to use it correctly. We find: • complex projection systems that in synergy with specific sensors and software allow for interaction; • virtual areas for sharing ideas and brainstorming through collaborative applications.

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING with SHARED TECHONOLOGY in a MULTI-FUNCTIONAL SPACE

IMMERSIVE TECHNOLOGICAL CAVE

TECHNOLOGICAL ISLANDS

OWN TECHNOLOGY

TECHNOLOGICAL LEARNING VENDING MACHINE

PERSONAL LEARNING

TECHNOLOGICAL “SWISS ARMY KNIFE”

PERSONAL LEARNING with OWN TECHONOLOGY in a MONO-FUNCTIONAL SPACE

PERSONAL LEARNING with OWN TECHONOLOGY in a MULTI-FUNCTIONAL SPACE

IOS

AR

EN

SC

TECHNOLOGICAL LEARNING DASHBOARD

PERSONAL LEARNING with SHARED TECHONOLOGY in a MULTI-FUNCTIONAL SPACE

MONO-FUNCTIONAL SPACE

SHARED TECHONOLOGY MULTI-FUNCTIONAL SPACE

TECHNOLOGICAL BEEHIVE

IOS AR EN SC TE -SI ON

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING with SHARED TECHONOLOGY in a MONO-FUNCTIONAL SPACE

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

E LIN ON

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING with OWN TECHONOLOGY in a MONO-FUNCTIONAL SPACE

98

Fig. 5.1 Six scenarios for innovative learning contexts

Technological Learning Islands Collaborative Learning with Shared Technologies in a Multi-functional Space The learning spaces are made up of different areas with different functions. Each area is characterised by a different technological differential in which students can learn collaboratively. Technologies are closely linked to the uses of space and facilitate students in using the functions of space. We find: • areas intended for sharing ideas and brainstorming with digital smartboards; • informal study areas for collaboration in small workgroups; • large immersive surfaces for shared design activities and visualisation of design results; • intimate areas for the creation of remote collaboration with projections and sharing tools through the web. Technological Learning Vending Machine Personal Learning with Shared Technologies in a Multi-functional Space The learning spaces are made up of different areas with different functions. Each area is characterised by different technological tools, divided by the type of service, which students can use to learn in a personal way. The technologies, configured

5.1 Scenarios: On-site and Online Scenarios

99

as vending machines, are available to students and can be used at any time. Users choose the best technology based on the need of the moment among those available and make rapid and precise use. Space supports facilitating rapid flows in the use of technologies. We find: • specific areas by type of technological and learning need; • technology consumption areas; • technology interchange areas. Technological “Swiss Army Knife” Personal Learning with Own Technologies in a Multi-functional Space The learning spaces are made up of different areas with different functions. Each area is characterised by a different functional layout in which students can learn in a personal way. Technologies are personal and tied to personal way of learning. Users use the technology they deem best based on their experience and practice and make widespread and differentiated use. The same technological tool can take on different functions thanks to its flexibility, portability, and connectivity. Space supports the technology by facilitating the supply of energy and of support spaces, allowing for easy and comfortable use of technologies. We find: • • • •

areas for recharging and using technologies; informal study areas for individual learning; smart projection systems for the realisation of information sharing; individual workstations for assessment and individual study.

5.1.1.2

Online Scenarios

Online scenarios include scenarios that are located in a digital learning environment as part of the virtual spaces provided by web-based technologies. Technological Beehive Collaborative Learning with Own Technologies in a Mono-functional Space The learning space is personal and is aimed at supporting a specific activity. Space becomes a safe and comfortable place where the student can immerse him/herself in collaborative learning activities. Space is characterised by different technological tools, computers, smartphones, tablets, interactive displays, webcams, etc. Students can use them, through collaborative applications, to learn in a social and shared way. Technologies transform the space into many collaborative cells at a distance and allow students to communicate and collaborate through shared activities. We find: • work areas equipped with personal technologies; • collaborative applications for groups and cloud applications. Technological Learning Dashboard Personal Learning with Own Technologies in a Mono-functional Space The learning space is personal and is aimed at supporting a specific activity. Space becomes a safe and comfortable place where the student can immerse him/herself in

100

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

personal learning activities. Space is characterised by different technological tools, computers, smartphones, tablets, interactive displays, webcams, etc. Students can use them, through a knowledge consolidation application, to make the best use of their learning strategy. The technologies are arranged to transform the space into a technological dashboard where everything is under control, and everything can be easily used depending on the task. We find: • work areas equipped with personal technologies; • self-assessment and personal study applications.

5.2 A Tool for Conceptualising Technological Educational Set-ups This research aims to understand how users can initiate reflections on the use of technology within innovative learning environments to activate active learning approaches. One of the central elements of active learning is the new role of the teacher as a “conductor” of different activities. The teacher becomes the learning designer of his/her educational activities. From what the teacher does, learning design is concerned with designing, planning, organising, and supporting learning activities as part of a learning session or programme. Learning design focuses on specific learning activities (rather than subject matter) and how they can be modelled or described. Britain [9] and Fowler et al. [10] argue in favour of four defining features of the learning design: • • • •

learning is an active and constructive process that involves activities and actions; these activities may be systematically described in terms of sequences or flows; these sequence representations can be exchanged and reused; learning design focuses on the concept of a ‘learning unit,’ a limited concept involving a defined set of actors (or roles), activities, methods, and resources.

The teacher must have a toolbox with tools that allow him/her to plan and design the teaching activity. This activity becomes even more important when teachers are faced with teaching planning within a new context “dominated” by technology. The recent health emergency has generated new challenges and new possibilities for teachers concerning the creation of new teaching paths. The planning will soon be guided by the experience made in the months of forced distance learning and new ways of relating to technologies. Users will be able to carry out educational activities by taking the best of what they did before and the best of what has been done in the recent past, realising new hybrid learning processes. Physical (on-site) and digital (online) learning environments will exist synergistically and expand the boundaries of learning.

5.2 A Tool for Conceptualising Technological Educational Set-ups

101

Therefore, the teacher’s role becomes that of a manager of different learning environments and creator of relationships over time between teaching activities and technologies. To meet the research objectives and support future steps, I designed a co-design tool [11]. The tool involves different “non-designers” in various co-design activities throughout the design process [12]. By non-designers, Sanders et al. refer to potential users of the design context. A side advantage of this method is that co-designers will feel proud and take ownership of the process, enabling an implementation that is sustainable in the long term [12]. The tool was constructed by gathering and arranging all the research evidence with a clear and comprehensible approach. This organisation has resulted in an instructional design tool that is able to generate different but consistent and coherent design outcomes. The tool has diagrams, icons and graphic elements; it is a generative board that can give rise, through processes of application, contextualisation, adaptation and reflection, to a variety of distinctive outputs. The interdisciplinary nature of the codesign tool captures users’ knowledge and experiences and brings them to conceptualisation, while introducing a visual and communicative dimension that can assist design innovation. In the early stages of experimentation, the tool lays particular emphasis on participatory and co-design processes, involving users. In fact, through a human-centred and project-centred approach, it becomes: • an instructional design tool; • a spatial tool for concepts; • a visual tool to identify interactions between users and technologies within an innovative learning environment; • a specific tool to experiment with hybrid learning processes. Thus, the tool enables the teacher to reflect on several dimensions at the same time: • • • • •

the dimension of the user’s needs; the temporal dimension of the educational flow; the educational dimension of the activities; the technological dimension of the instruments; the spatial dimension of interactions.

The tool does not intend to design a learning environment spatially, but to explore the relationships between two environments and link them through technological tools. A considerable attempt was done to produce graphical results. The choice of representing the outcomes through visual and synthetic graphic representations successfully disseminated the key features and gave room for further reflection. This information exchange can contribute to determine the future steps for a thoughtful instructional design by all the players involved. The tool is formed by various elements, all interrelated and consequential. Technology Cards (Fig. 5.2)

102

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

Fig. 5.2 Technologies’ cards

The teacher receives twelve cards representing the selected technologies, defined through research activities. In the future, the cards can be increased without impacting on the use of the tool. The cards’ function is to describe the technologies briefly and to serve as a visual reminder for the various tasks. The cards are organised into two sets. – hard technologies (with a predominantly physical location in spaces); – soft technologies (with ubiquitous and mobile use). Teacher Data In this section of the tool, the teacher must insert his/her personal data and those relating to the course being designed. Activities Timeline (Fig. 5.3) The timeline is composed of two parts. In the first part, the teacher has to specify the time dimension of the teaching activities of a 4-h course. The timeline is split into 15-min blocks. It was chosen to use a 4-h timeline as an intermediate way between the 2-h and 8-h courses. In the second part, the teacher should initiate reflection on the use of technology by determining a technology volume (0–6) of previously occupied blocks in the timeline.

Fig. 5.3 Activities’ timeline elements

5.2 A Tool for Conceptualising Technological Educational Set-ups

103

Fig. 5.4 Users’ needs

This activity will be constantly redefined because it is the one most affected by the considerations activated by the subsequent activities. Users’ Needs (Fig. 5.4) The teacher must identify her own needs, envisage those of the students, and define the learning needs that develop over time. This helps to place the users at the centre of the design and to initiate reflection on how technologies can fulfil their needs. The identification of needs also allows for a first reflection on the interactions between users and technologies. Teaching Clusters (Fig. 5.5) The teacher must define teaching clusters based on his/her own experience in designing the course. The clusters are the manifestation of the activities inserted in the timeline. For example, a teaching activity of 2 h may be composed of different didactic clusters: a frontal lesson may be a lecture combined with assessment or Q&A or other additional clusters. Technological Clusters (Fig. 5.6) The teacher must choose the technologies (from the basket of proposed technologies) that will support the users’ needs and the teaching clusters defined above. The technologies that can be inserted are those shown on the cards provided to the teacher at the beginning of the activity. Spatial Set-up (Fig. 5.7)

Fig. 5.5 Teaching clusters

Fig. 5.6 Technological clusters

104

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

Fig. 5.7 Spatial set-up

The teacher must create a conceptual vision of the space, including users and technologies, to visually develop relationships and possibilities. The teacher has two graphic elements depicting the two learning environments discussed in this research. He/she must insert the symbolic icons, which represent the technologies and the users, in the two spaces. He/she must then create connections between the two environments to indicate the technologies involved in carrying out the activities connecting the physical and digital worlds. He/she must also insert the projection points. Through the graphic visualisation of the space, the teacher can check whether the amount of a chosen technology is sufficient, determine new relationships between physical or virtual learning environments, or determine the need for new teaching clusters and new technologies. Through this activity, the teacher thinks about hybrid learning processes. Through this graphical synthesis, the teacher can verify whether all users’ needs have been covered, whether the necessary technologies are in place and whether the teaching activities have been correctly estimated.

5.2.1 The Scenarios’ Set-ups A first step to verify the quality of the tool is to use the scenarios previously discussed to create the set-ups that will then serve as a reference for the teachers involved in the following experiments. The goal was to create, through the tool, six different set-ups (Figs. 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10) to test the tool’s ability to describe innovative environments and connections between the physical and digital environment. The testing path’s construction is organised in different phases and conceived as a process composed of consecutive steps of: • personal testing; • testing with a guided community of users; • testing with an autonomous community of users.

5.2 A Tool for Conceptualising Technological Educational Set-ups

Fig. 5.8 First and second set-ups

Fig. 5.9 Third and fourth set-ups

105

106

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

Fig. 5.10 Fifth and sixth set-ups

The First Set-up: Immersive Technological Cave It describes a simulation of design concepts. User needs refer to the request to share information on large areas, with direct interaction on the displayed information. The resulting space is characterised by a powerful technology, which allows students to best perform a given task. In this case, technology allows the users to dematerialise the space, transforming the walls into digital media. The innovative learning space of reference, in this case, is the ED-ME laboratory of Politecnico di Milano. The spatial concept foresees the use of digitisers of surfaces covering most vertical surfaces and software necessary for collaborative activities, active learning activities and document exchange. The Second Set-up: Technological Learning Island It describes a design studio consisting of an initial lecture, design review activities, and a final general discussion. The users’ needs refer to the request for sharing, collaboration, and interaction, also at a distance. The resulting space is a space full of varied, different, and complementary technologies that allow students to interact with their classmates in the classroom and with companions at a distance. The technologies permeate the learning environments creating hybrid learning dynamics. The innovative learning space of reference is the Educafé of Politecnico di Milano. It foresees the use of two projection points, digital and analogue smartboards, recording and videoconferencing systems, and the necessary software for collaborative activities, distance learning, active learning activities and document exchange.

5.2 A Tool for Conceptualising Technological Educational Set-ups

107

The Third Set-up: Technological Learning Vending Machine It describes an individual work with revision for delivery. The users’ needs refer to the use of digital repositories to exploit the technologies present in the space in a fast and punctual way. The students organise their learning in their own way and time and uses technologies in an individual and personal way. The resulting space is a space characterised by different technologies, which allow students to manage their workflow. In this case, technology allows us to diversify the space’s use, passing from a traditional lecture to a personal learning environment. The innovative learning space of reference, in this case, is the Classroom of the Future. It foresees the use of two projection points, the presence of digital smartboards, recording and videoconferencing systems, and the necessary software for collaborative activities, distance learning, active learning activities and document exchange. The Fourth Set-up Technological “Swiss Army Knife” It describes a lesson with a final exercise in the STEM area. User needs refer to the management of different active learning activities, interaction with the teacher, the possibility to view the lesson again, and personal problem-solving technologies. The students use their device to follow collaborative activities and perform activities individually. The resulting space is a space characterised by technologies to help the teacher in the activities and provide support to the students, even at a distance. In this case, the technology makes it possible to perform all phases of a lesson and exchange information in an agile way. The innovative learning space of reference is TEALC. The Fifth Set-up: The Technological Beehive It describes a digital environment lesson with external guest intervention. User needs refer to the sharing of different kinds of contents, advanced interaction, and the need to use different devices for the connection. The student and the teacher use their own devices to follow and manage distance learning activities. The resulting space is a digital space characterised by technologies that allow interaction and control of learning quality. In this case, the technology allows all the phases of a lesson to be performed and information exchanged with guests located in different contexts. The innovative learning space of reference is the one used for distance learning during the health emergency of COVID-19 where users are interconnected digitally. It involves the use of personal technologies and software necessary for collaborative, distance learning, active learning activities and document exchange. The Sixth Set-up: The Technological Learning Dashboard It describes a remote assessment with a test. User needs refer to user control, use of personal devices of various kinds, willingness to review and discuss the results. The students and the teacher use their own devices to set up and perform remote assessment activities. The resulting space is a digital space characterised by technologies that allow the management of testing, control, and subsequent discussion activities. In this case, the technology makes it possible to carry out all the phases of an assessment while still allowing regularity of the operations. The innovative reference learning space is the one used to carry out the remote examination tests digitally during the health emergency of COVID-19. It involves the use of personal technologies and software necessary for collaborative, distance learning, active learning activities, document exchange and invigilated assessment.

108

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

This first attempt to use the tool was positive because the set-ups generated, and returned through a graphical output, the ability to quickly have all the elements of discussion in the design of specific educational activities and their placement in different learning spaces. It was also possible to carry out an initial test on the use of the elements and their ease of use. The ease of use is essential, mainly if the tool is to be used entirely independently by the teacher.

5.3 Performative Co-design Activities with Teachers Using the Tool The next step, after the testing activity, is to test the tool with real teachers who will be involved in the next academic year’s activity. Therefore, it was decided to convert it into tools within a collaborative environment to facilitate the operation of performance co-design. The collaborative platform chosen was Miro. Miro is a web-based platform, composed of several elements, including a digital whiteboard. All the teachers involved were summoned to the platform, granting them all the privileges to access and modify the elements. The co-design activity, lasting about 75 min, was divided into 3 phases: • training; • realisation; • discussion. Training At this stage, the teacher received information about the general aims of the research and activity. The scenarios, discussed before, have been illustrated and contextualised within the research, emphasising the relationship between pedagogy, space and technology. Subsequently, the six scenarios’ set-ups were presented. Finally, the technologies identified and the tool’s elements were described in detail. Realisation At this stage, the co-design activity was carried out. The teachers, who were observed step by step, were then asked to design the structure of one of their courses, to be delivered in a post-pandemic context, enriched by distance learning and without restrictions. They provided all the required information to be inserted and to realise the spatial concept to relate to space, users, and technologies. Discussion In this final phase of the project activity, the teachers expressed their views on the instrument. They were asked: • for a subjective judgment on the quality of the tool; • about its effectiveness as an instrument for reflection on the relationship between pedagogy and technology;

5.3 Performative Co-design Activities with Teachers Using the Tool

109

• whether they were aware of which technologies they would have wanted or could have used before using the instrument.

5.3.1 Teachers’ Set-ups Several performative co-design activities have been carried out with the School of Design’s teachers to test the tool’s ability to facilitate users in the reflection and awareness of the use of technologies. The selected sample consists of teachers between 30 and 45 years old, young sufficiently to have a perspective of teaching projected into the future, but at the same time having appropriate experience to construct and design their own courses. They were chosen in a way to ensure both disciplinary diversity and diversity in the courses of study implicated (Table 5.1): Teacher’s Set-up 1: Giuseppe Amoruso (Fig. 5.11) Giuseppe teaches a course that is particularly appropriate for testing the tool. The Drawing Studio provides many manual activities that require the teacher’s supervision to verify the correct application of the method taught. Giuseppe uses an active approach and he communicates and shares the understanding, doing, practising of a method, and receiving feedback. He wants the students to create an essay and interact with them, trying to more effectively address the work that will be delivered. Finally, he needs to report what is wrong on the created sketches. We find technologies that allow the verification of students’ understanding with fast feedback, collaborative technologies for sharing and manipulating the works, and technologies for the realisation of immersive walls for virtualisation with pin-up sessions of the works. Table 5.1 Teachers involved in co-design activities Teacher

Course type

Degree course

Course title

Course subject

Giuseppe Amoruso

Design

Product Design

Drawing studio

Technical

Venanzio Arquilla

Design

Product Design

Meta-design studio

Technical

Stefano Crabu

Theoretical

Communication Design

Innovation culture and theories

Humanistic

Giovanni Conti

Theoretical

Fashion Design

History of fashion

Humanistic

Barbara Del Curto

Elective

All the degree courses

Materials and nanotechnology

Scientific

Silvia Ferraris

Design

Design & Engineering

Product development Technical design studio

Laura Galluzzo

Design

Interior Design course

Meta-design studio

Umberto Tolino

Elective

All the degree courses

Software and graphic Technical for the web

Technical

110

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

Fig. 5.11 Giuseppe Amoruso’s set-up

5.3 Performative Co-design Activities with Teachers Using the Tool

111

Giuseppe attributes different “technological volumes” for the different parts of the lesson described in the timeline of activities, with the lowest value for the methodology application activity (1); an average value for the lesson (3); and a high value for the review and discussion activity (4). Giuseppe proposes two spatial configurations. In the first, the space is equipped with two projection points, with technologies able to support students’ and guests’ interventions at a distance. In the second, the space allows the staging of the students’ work and a shared discussion of the activities’ results. In both spatial configurations, students and teacher are equipped with personal technologies to manipulate and share the works digitally. Giuseppe described the tool as incredibly useful for exploring the possibilities provided by technologies in the realisation of hybrid learning activities and processes. He agreed with the basic idea of creating environments with extensive technologies. In his opinion, very high-end technologies are suitable for very advanced learning processes. He points out that technologies must allow the creation of results that are available within a heterogeneous class. According to Giuseppe, too much technology distracts from the natural dynamics that have always been experienced in learning: “the theme is not to increase the technologies of experience but the quality of the experience through technologies”. Teacher’s Set-up 2: Venanzio Arquilla (Fig. 5.12) Venanzio teaches the Meta-design studio. This course includes many activities related to design processes teaching. Venanzio uses a real case study that involves external actors and the creation of an information repository to verify the quality of the learning activity. Venanzio, therefore, needs to clearly communicate the objectives and create the right climate within the class since the course involves a real company that proposes to solve real problems. He also expects students to look for a thoughtful atmosphere where they can interact effectively with teachers and colleagues. The technologies indicated by Venanzio are multiple and transversal and reflect the technological approach of the course and the teachers. Therefore, we find technologies that allow the creation of collaborative environments with sharing of files and information, technologies for the remote connection of guests and their interaction with students, and technologies for the realisation of research activities, their sharing and discussion. Venanzio identifies different “technological volumes” for the different parts of the lesson described in the timeline of activities, with the lowest value for external guest intervention (1); an average value (3) for the introduction and group creation; and the highest value for warm-up activity (5). Venanzio proposes two spatial configurations, both with a projection point. In the first, the space is infused with technologies able to support lectures both by teachers and external guests, and the possibility for students to interact efficiently with the speaker. In the second, the space allows the realisation of collaborative learning activities and digital design output creation activities. In both spatial configurations, students and teachers are equipped with personal technologies to interact with colleagues and to create content and information.

112

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

Fig. 5.12 Venanzio Arquilla’s set-up

5.3 Performative Co-design Activities with Teachers Using the Tool

113

Venanzio considered the tool useful for drawing up his own “wish list” on the technologies that could be used in hybrid learning activities and processes. He considered it necessary to share the output with colleagues in his course for verification and discussion. Teacher’s Set-up 3: Stefano Crabu (Fig. 5.13) Stefano deals with sociological disciplines and teaches a theoretical course of about 100 students. Stefano asks his students to read material before the classroom lesson and then activates flipped classroom activities. Stefano uses an active approach and requires students to be active and collaborative. His course is divided into recurrent parts: a frontal part of the lesson where he provides information and analytical tools and where students must discuss and collaborate. Therefore, he wants to share his lesson’s contents with a projection and hopes for a distributed system of collaboration with the students. He would also like students to be able to share their questions, even anonymously, and to facilitate discussion in the collaborative part of the lesson. However, he expects students to want to review the lesson later, thus activating asynchronous learning. He also thinks that students want more interaction in a virtual space outside the classroom. Such a large number of students does not often allow for comprehensive discussion of all topics. Stefano’s technologies are in close correlation with the active learning approach, the creation of peer discussions, and collaborative activities. Therefore, we find technologies that allow students to interact with each other, asking them questions about content with quick feedback, collaborative technologies for cluster creation, and mind maps. Stefano identifies “technological volumes” relatively homogeneous for the different parts of the lesson, with the average value both for the lesson (3) and for the discussion activity (4). Stefano proposes two spatial configurations, very similar to each other, but differing in purpose. In the first, the space is equipped with two projection points, with technologies able to support blended activity, students’, and remote guests’ interventions, and with technologies able to support an active approach with remote guests. In the second, the space focuses more on the opening activity’s collaborative aspect, allowing peer discussion on virtual platforms. In both spatial configurations, students and teachers are equipped with personal technologies to intervene in the discussion and generate content and information. Stefano considered the tool very useful for reflecting on technologies’ possibilities in the implementation of hybrid learning activities and processes. The tool activated a mental reflection space they had not yet activated. He considered it “an exercise to question the didactics made forcibly at a distance”. He stressed that the training activities on innovative teaching implemented by the Politecnico lack a design tool such as the tool used in the co-design activity. Finally, he said that the tool stimulated him to carry out an instructional design and reflection on technologies that he probably would not have carried out independently. Teacher’s Set-up 4: Giovanni Conti (Fig. 5.14) Giovanni teaches in a challenging course regarding the management of a project or collaborative activities, and therefore, he immediately became very interested in how technologies could help him in the future. He is in charge of a theoretical course

114

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

Fig. 5.13 Stefano Crabu’s set-up

5.3 Performative Co-design Activities with Teachers Using the Tool

Fig. 5.14 Giovanni Conti’s set-up

115

116

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

of Fashion History with about 180 students and he uses a constructivist approach. Giovanni was able to take advantage of forced distance learning and used technologies to manage the research and content creation activities of the students. He would like to reproduce the same dynamics in a physical space. Therefore, he wants to interact with projected contents and wants a virtual space to be always active in the dialogue with the students, even after the lesson. He wants to describe his theme and wants to ask and receive questions from students. Finally, he wants to understand the students’ point of view on the contents and their research output and have moments to discuss the lesson results. He expects the students to want to participate in the requested research and have feedback on their understanding, have contact with possible guests who come in even after the lesson, and to want to collaborate easily with their peers. The technologies indicated are useful technologies for the display and construction of information; the management of question-and-answer sessions; and the construction of collaborative research activities. The high number of students makes the management of traditional interaction complicated: he finds technological tools that allow students to intervene in the lessons through virtual space very interesting. He attributes medium–high “technological volumes” for the different parts of the lesson described in the timeline of activities, with the lowest value for the activity involving an external guest (3); a medium–high value for the lesson, research and scenic activities (4); and a high value for the question-and-answer activity linked to an active approach (5). Giovanni proposes two spatial configurations. In the first, the space is equipped with two projection points, with technologies able to support the teacher’s interaction with the information shown, the students’ feedback, and the management of active learning. In the second, the space allows discussion and collaborative activities, supporting students more constructively. In both space configurations, students and teachers are equipped with personal technologies to manipulate and share information and research activities. Giovanni considered the tool to be very useful for reflecting on the possibilities offered by technologies in the implementation of hybrid learning processes and activities, and he found a a great deal in the spatial configurations created, hoping to have these technological configurations in space. He considered the co-design activity very positive because it was stimulated by comparison and discussion. He reflected on how technologies could help him manage some teaching activities that are typically complicated in a classroom with large numbers. For example, he plans to transfer some parts of the discussion into a virtual mode, which often remain unfinished due to limited time and student numbers. Therefore, he stated that the tool would be able to be fully comprehensive in supporting the teacher in an autonomous instructional design activity. Teacher’s Set-up 5: Barbara Del Curto (Fig. 5.15) Barbara teaches a course that is particularly interested in trying to think about the possible hybridisation of learning processes. Barbara’s course includes many activities of visualisation and analysis of samples of materials, which then require the teacher’s supervision to verify their understanding and analysis. Barbara uses an

5.3 Performative Co-design Activities with Teachers Using the Tool

Fig. 5.15 Barbara Del Curto’s set-up

117

118

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

active approach to the information presented and uses external experts’ interventions for a specific focus on certain types of materials. Therefore, she wants to share the lesson beforehand so that students can download and follow it on their own devices; project and record the content; and interact with it when projected in the classroom. She also wants to see students’ faces to get realtime feedback on the students’ approach. She wants to put students in a position to answer her questions easily, and she wants to understand if the learning content has been correctly delivered. She expects students to want to easily view the lesson, contribute content, collaborate with their classmates (even from a distance) and share the content on multiple media. The technologies indicated by Barbara are closely correlated with the active learning approach and the creation of the lesson shared with the students. Therefore, we find technologies that allow the verification of students’ understanding with appropriate quick assessment activities, collaborative technologies for the sharing of information necessary for subsequent activities, technologies for the shared creation of information (diffused smartboards), and technologies for the remote management of students and external guests. Barbara attributes heterogeneous “technological volumes” (unbalanced upwards) for the different parts of the lesson described in the timeline of activities to indicate a high technological value attributed to the planned activities. The lowest value is assigned to the external guest (1), a high value (4) for the collaborative lesson activity; and a high value (5) for the lesson: a sign that for Barbara the moment of the frontal lesson is fundamental to adequately support subsequent learning processes. She proposes two spatial configurations. In the first, the space is equipped with four projection points, to maximise the visual transfer of information. There are also technologies able to support students’ and guests’ interventions at a distance and technologies for active learning management. In the second, the space allows for collaborative elaboration and shared discussion of the results of the activities. In both space configurations, students and teachers are equipped with personal technologies to create and share information, also through the shared technology in the physical space. Barbara considered it a useful tool for reflection on the integration of technologies in her teaching activities. By using the tool, she was able to see that it could also be of help to her for the design of other courses in which she is involved. She does not expect a highly structured output like the one she generated. She pointed out that she will have to pay more attention to the way technologies behave in the physical space and, in general, to their management. Teacher’s Set-up 6: Silvia Ferraris (Fig. 5.16) Silvia teaches a master’s degree course that has several engineering components and she uses an active approach to the contents of the lessons and considers the moments of discussion critical. Silvia hypothesises a division of the course into four parts: 1 part of the lesson (available online), two parts of the exercise and 1 part of the discussion. She, therefore, expresses the need to have quick feedback of the students’ attention and would like to have the same naturalness of interaction with both online and on-site students. She

5.3 Performative Co-design Activities with Teachers Using the Tool

Fig. 5.16 Silvia Ferraris’ set-up

119

120

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

would also like to have the ability to control both physical and digital outputs and she wants the students to feel like they are present. Finally, she would like to have maximum visibility of the outcomes of the students in the space and would like to enable them to visualise and evaluate the work of their colleagues by comparing it with their own. She expects students at a distance to want to know that they are “seen” even if they are not physically present; she expects them to look for an adequate collaborative space both to share tools and material; and finally, she expects them to want to precisely understand the criteria and motivations of evaluation through moments of discussion. The technologies indicated by Silvia are in close correlation with the active and collaborative learning approach, with the need for visual references and visual supports for interaction and discussion with users in the classroom and at a distance. We, therefore, find technologies that allow interaction between users with software for virtual classrooms, verification of students’ understanding with fast feedback, collaborative technologies for sharing and manipulation of information, and technologies for the realisation of immersive walls for the display of the results of the exercises with consequent evaluations and peer discussion. Silvia attributes homogeneous “technological volumes” for the different parts of the lesson described in the timeline of activities, attributing high technological presence. The exercise has the highest value (5); and lesson and discussion have a medium–high value (4). Silvia proposes three spatial configurations, one for each activity described in the timeline. In the first, the space is equipped with two projection points, with technologies able to support the students’ interventions at a distance. In the second, the space facilitates collaborative work and the revision of the design path. In the third, the space allows the staging of the students’ work and the shared discussion of the results of the activities. In all spatial configurations, students and teachers are equipped with personal technologies. Silvia judged the tool positively and considered it useful for reflecting on the possibilities offered by technologies in the creation of new learning contexts. Teacher’s Set-up 7: Laura Galluzzo (Fig. 5.17) Laura teaches the Meta-design studio. This course includes many activities related to teaching design processes. In this course, students are involved in individual and collective activities. Laura uses an active approach and intervenes directly on the students’ outcomes to indicate the elements to be prepared. She communicates and shares the understanding, doing and practising a method, receiving feedback, verifying, and validating a teaching objective’s achievement. Therefore, Laura wants to involve students in content-sharing activities and expects students to participate. She also wants a shared environment where she can receive students’ content, and at the same time, she wants students to be able to show her easily and effectively what they have produced. She also wants students who are far away from her to follow the review activities. Finally, she wants an immersive environment where she can test the students’ final projects. Laura’s technologies are closely related to the active learning approach, shared interaction, and collaborative content building. Therefore, we find technologies that allow the verification of

5.3 Performative Co-design Activities with Teachers Using the Tool

Fig. 5.17 Laura Galluzzo’s set-up

121

122

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

students’ understanding, collaborative technologies for sharing, and creating intermediate works, technologies for the creation of immersive spaces for testing design solutions. Laura attributes medium and high “technological volumes” for the different parts of the lesson described in the timeline of activities: the only lower value (2) for the external guest’s likely intervention. Review activities (both individual and group) have a medium–high value (4); group activities have a high value (5); and the lesson has a very high value (6). Laura proposes four spatial configurations linked to the four timeline activities. In the first, the space is equipped with two projection points, with technologies able to support students’ interventions, an active approach, and remote guests. In the second, the space allows the development of group projects also elaborated with shared technologies. In the third, the space supports technologies suitable for interaction with teachers. In the fourth, teachers and students interact with immersive technologies for testing projects. Students and teachers are equipped with personal technologies to interact with content and with their peers in all space configurations. Laura considered the tool very useful for reflecting on the redesign of her teaching activities in a hybrid context. She confirmed that such a tool could be useful for all teachers who want to carry out instructional design in a technological context. Teacher’s Set-up 8: Umberto Tolino (Fig. 5.18) Umberto teaches a course that has web technologies as its central theme. The codesign activity becomes particularly interesting to test the tool with a teacher who already has a high technological skill level. The course software and graphics for the web includes many activities related to graphic design with web-based software and applications. Umberto uses an active approach and makes numerous revisions to verify the design path. In the co-design activity, Umberto has decided to test the last day of the course, where the projects’ final presentations are made. He states that in this context, part of the lesson can be carried out remotely (presentation and discussion lesson), and part in actively (brief reviews of individual projects). Therefore, he needs to manage a design course with many students in the same classroom (about 70) and to stimulate conversation. He wants to interact with the presentations without necessarily interrupting them, he wants to have the maximum possible interaction with the students to get useful feedback from them, and he wants to give as many contributions to the project groups as possible. He expects students to want to interact during the lesson without interrupting it, present their project through slides and multimedia content (also interacting with classmates’ presentations) and better explain their ideas. The technologies indicated by Umberto are in close correlation with the online and on-site management of the course, with the execution of active learning activities and with the sharing of results. We therefore find technologies that allow the verification of students’ understanding with fast feedback, collaborative technologies for sharing and manipulation of the works, and technologies for the realisation of immersive walls for virtualisation with pin-up sessions of the works.

5.3 Performative Co-design Activities with Teachers Using the Tool

Fig. 5.18 Umberto Tolino’s set-up

123

124

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

Umberto attributes quite heterogeneous “technological volumes” for all the different parts of the lesson described in the timeline of activities, with the lowest value for the quick assessment activity (1), and the highest value (6) for the individual project review activity. With average evaluations (3, 4 and 5), we find the interactive and presentation activities in the middle. Umberto proposes three spatial configurations. In the first (lesson), the space is equipped with a projection point, with technologies capable of supporting students’ interventions in the classroom and at a distance. In the second (presentation), the space allows the staging of students’ work and the shared discussion of the results of the activities. In the third (review), the space supports individual students in interactions with teachers. In all spatial configurations, students and teachers are equipped with personal technologies to perform feedback and peer review activities. From a technology expert’s point of view, Umberto considered it a useful tool for reflecting on the possibilities offered by technologies for those users who are about to design their teaching in a new hybrid context.

5.4 Autonomous Use of the Tool by Users The performative co-design activity validated the tool’s potential to support teachers’ reflections on the use of technology and its interaction with users and teaching activities. The tool showed itself capable of helping teach design in hybrid contexts, and teachers were satisfied with the use of the tool and the level of graphic output created. The following step, after experimenting with the tool through the co-design activity, is to test it through an autonomous use. It is crucial, therefore, to comprehend the tool’s ability to assist teachers when they are using it and without the guidance of a design expert. A design activity, carried out independently by the users, was carried out. Rather than a detailed description of the activity and its outputs, there will be an analysis of the ability to design autonomously and of the moments of discussion of the results. For the realisation of the activity, two products have been prepared: • a brief manual in the form of a PDF presentation containing methodological information (with references to the active approach, hybrid teaching and the technologies selected and used in the tool) and information on the use of the tool (with information on the use and compilation of all the tool’s components); • the tool as a digital PPT format including the technological cards, the board and all the graphic elements. Therefore, some Politecnico teachers were involved, through a call addressed to the Schools of Design and Engineering. The activity consisted of 3 phases and was implemented at the beginning of September 2020: • Phase 1: meeting on a digital platform to introduce the activity where instructions and tips on the use of the tool were provided;

5.4 Autonomous Use of the Tool by Users

125

Table 5.2 Teachers involved in autonomous activities Teacher

Department

School

Course title

Lucia Chrometzka

Design

School of Design

Trend Forecasting and Strategic Innovation

Nicoletta Di Blas

Electronics, Information and Bioengineering

School of Industrial and Information Engineering

Communication & Argumentation

Mario Mariani

Energy

School of Industrial and Information Engineering

Nuclear Engineering

Barbara Mugnai

Design

School of Design

Basics of Patternmaking and Packaging

Matteo Rossini

Management, Economics, and Industrial Engineering

School of Civil, Environmental and Land Management Engineering

Operational Management

Alberto Salioni

Deng - Energy

School of Industrial and Information Engineering

Meta-design Studio

Alessandra Zanelli

Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering

School of Design

Technology Atelier

Martino Zinzone

Design

School of Design

Final Synthesis Studio

• Phase 2: carrying out the activity autonomously using the tool in PPT format. Teachers were asked to provide the graphic output on a cloud repository after three days; • Phase 3: meeting to discuss the activity on a digital platform where the graphic outputs were presented collectively. These were analysed and discussed to verify the teachers’ comprehension of the tool and their independence in using it. Eight teachers from the Polytechnic, listed in the Table 5.2, participated in the activity.

5.4.1 Discussion The development of the instrument required several stages: • creation of teaching scenarios: for the creation of possible solutions in which to carry out a first analytical test of the tool; • design of the elements of the tool: creation and systemisation of the parts that will be the object of the design;

126

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

• analytical test of the tool: first verification of the functions of the tool through six generated outputs (one for each scenario previously realised); • creation of a working environment for the performative test: research and identification of the suitable tool for remote co-design and creation of collaborative board with the insertion of design elements; • performative test: co-design with users to define personal outputs and verify tool functionality in heterogeneous contexts; • performative test results analysis: description and comparison of results for tool guidelines development; • autonomous test: use of the tool done independently by users under the guidance of brief instructions; • discussion of the results of the autonomous test: reflections on the use of the test. The results of the co-design and autonomous activity analysis confirmed have confirmed that the tool has proved to be valid: all the teachers involved in the codesign activity stated that the tool proved to be very useful in addressing the technological aspects of a teaching redesign. It can be noted that the tool has been tested for the creation of very different courses and has presented several striking design contexts. We can observe a variety of dimensions: • experience: courses in which physical and visual experimentation of individual elements is required; • teaching form (theoretical vs project): courses of different nature and therefore requiring different structuring of the activities; • population (high density vs low density): courses with a variable population with limitations or possibilities due to the number of students present; • skills: courses that involve the use of manual methods and tools to produce deliveries. The co-design activities brought to light interesting reflections on the creation of hybrid learning processes. We can consider: • the possibility to transfer some pieces of discussion asynchronously (on the works produced by the students) within the digital environments created by the software for virtual classes; • the possibility to manage different parts of a course in different environments (some online and some on-site); • the possibility to transform some parts of the physical space into immersive environments for simulation and testing of design concepts; • the possibility to use the tools of the virtual classroom even in the presence of physical space, especially in courses with a large number of students; • the possibility to transform onto the virtual presence all the interventions of external guests, thus increasing the possibility to invite experts from other countries; • the possibility to create recordings of the lessons in the physical space and make them immediately available on the web;

5.4 Autonomous Use of the Tool by Users

127

• the possibility to create collaborative environments, also involving students who are physically distant from the physical space where the collaborative activity takes place; • the possibility to multiply the information display points in the physical space through multiple projections and using personal devices as additional points of use. Interesting ideas emerged during the discussion session. Teachers praised the graphic nature of the tool and its linearity and simplicity of use, appreciating the cards as an element of systematisation, synthesis and visual reference of the technologies. One teacher described it as a heuristic tool which, due to its visual properties, enabled him to trigger new and unexpected reflections. Another, assessing its graphic and communicative qualities, suggested the possibility of using the tool also as a actual content of the planned course, which can be used as an element of presentation of the activities to the students; in fact, he stated that the visual output of the tool can be of great help also for the students, in figuring out how the flow of the lesson is structured and which technologies are involved for each specific activity so that they can come prepared both technologically and methodologically. Another food for thought is the teachers’ need to have ready-made examples to use as a resource during their design activity. Others mentioned that they had a look at the design outputs generated and uploaded to the cloud repository by their colleagues. This gave them immediate feedback on their design. Some teachers proposed the possibility of setting up a repository of didactic clusters from which teachers, using the tool, could get useful input for the construction of activities. This option was not considered during the creation of the tool because the design of the didactic activity is an exercise strongly related to the subjectivity, the experience and the approaches of every teacher. A supplementary observation refers to the great fragmentation of the users’ needs: some teachers commented that the availability of “pre-packaged” needs to reflect on would possibly have assisted them in shortening some reflection moments. They also pointed out that it would have been helpful to split the users’ needs from a pedagogical and technological perspective. One teacher pondered on the attributes of the space and its possible evolutions: “I have come to the conclusion that with such powerful means of interaction, perhaps four normal physical walls are no longer needed, but we could lecture in an open space, in a super-equipped lawn with mega interactive screens”. The teachers agreed that the instructions proposed in the first meeting were sufficient, appreciating the methodological information related to innovative pedagogical approaches and the schemes of comparison between traditional and innovative approaches. Another teacher praised the focus on users’ needs, leading him to propose reflections on his way of teaching that he would otherwise not have activated. He has decided to enrich the teaching activity of his courses, proposing in the future more collaborative activities that can be realised thanks to technology (due to the explicit expression of teaching clusters and technological clusters proposed by the tool).

128

5 How to Design Learning Using Technology and Users’ Needs?

We can therefore conclude that the activities performed proved the teachers’ capability to use the tool autonomously and also confirmed the tool’s ability to promote reflection and the development of relationships between pedagogy, space, technology and users.

References 1. Kahn H, Wiener AJ (1967) The year 2000: A framework for speculation on the next thirty-three years. Macmillan 2. Manzini E, Jégou F (2000) The construction of design orienting scenarios. Delft 3. Manzini E, Jégou F (1998) Scenarios for sustainble household. Milano 4. Radcliffe D, Wilson H, Powell D, Tibbetts B (2008) Designing next generation places of learning: collaboration at the pedagogy-space-technology nexus. Univ Queensl 1–20 5. Smith L, Macgregor JT (1992) What is collaborative learning? 6. Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Stanne MB, Garibaldi A (1990) Impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative groups. J Soc Psychol 130:507–516 7. Henri F, Charlier B, Limpens F (2008) Understanding PLE as an essential component of the learning process. In: Proceedings of EdMedia: world conference on educational media and technology 2008. Chesapeake, pp 3766–3770 8. van Harmelen M (2008) Design trajectories: four experiments in PLE implementation. Interact Learn Environ 16:35–46 9. Britain S (2004) A review of learning design: concept, specifications and tools 10. Fowler C, van Helvert J, Gardner M, Scott J (2007) The use of scenarios in designing and delivering e-learning systems. In: Beetham H, Sharpe R (eds) Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age, 1st edn. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon 11. Manciaracina A (2020) A tool for designing hybrid learning contexts in higher education. Interact Des Archit - IxD&A 137–155 12. Sanders EBN, Brandt E, Binder T (2010) A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. In: Proceedings of the 11th biennial participatory design conference on—PDC ’10. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, p 195

Chapter 6

Conclusions

Abstract The chapter concludes the book, wrapping up the final reflections, the research’s contributions, its limits and future works and suggestions. The research passed through different phases: theory, methodology and lastly experimentation. It contributes in many ways to the world of knowledge. It initially proposes a description of the connection between pedagogy, space, and technology with the insertion of the user as the fourth element. Then the research offers a conceptualisation of technologies for innovative learning environments. Consequently, it reflects deeply on the comparison between on-site and online learning environments with a focus on a stressful context. Finally, the research proposes and discusses a learning design tool to support teachers.

6.1 Discussion of the Research The first question addressed by the research regards the definition of an innovative learning environment and aims to categorise and define possible approaches useful in supporting the design actions. Research conducted on literature regarding different kinds of innovative learning environment highlighted that the definition shares common references with a technological presence that promotes modern and active learning approaches that can be defined as collaborative. The original drive was to define what constitutes a technological tool and its capacity to innovate a learning environment drawing on the existing literature on innovative learning environments and extending the field of research to existing physical cases. An innovative learning environment was conceptualised as a flexible space, highly influenced by the presence of technologies where learner and teacher activities and interactions were shaped as active, constructive, and collaborative approaches. This aspect was meaningful because it allowed investigating, at an early stage of the research, how the technological context of the space supports learning and teaching practice. The relationship between pedagogy, space and technology has been discussed at length to understand the interplay and the influence of the three elements on © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 A. Manciaracina, Designing Hybrid Learning Environments and Processes, PoliMI SpringerBriefs, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95274-7_6

129

130

6 Conclusions

an innovative learning environment. By putting the user at the centre, these three elements can relate to each other, characterising learning environments through the greater or lesser presence of materiality. These innovative learning environments, structure new roles for the teachers. They are asked to renew their teaching methods and set up devices consistent with proven knowledge and new training needs. Also, they are asked to change their teaching style to encourage reflection on practices and the identification of solutions related to contexts that optimise the variables. Digital technologies become a significant presence principally due to two characteristics: they propose a third space that creates a dialogue between presence and distance reinforcing aspects of both, i.e., creating a learning space–time in which, with personal time, the various subjects can reflect on practices and activate models to experiment new learning theories. The second question regards the definition of a technological tool, its use, and its characteristics in an active learning approach. Januszewski and Molenda’s definition [1] identifies educational technology as the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources. Therefore, it follows that the pedagogical approach and the quality of knowledge construction are essential factors in choosing a specific technology. It was necessary to analyse different physical contexts and test users’ attitudes in real learning contexts to understand how technologies behave in active learning environments. The empirical work observed how users used the affordances of technologies in practice, and how innovative approaches, informed by the physical and virtual context of the space, originated, and developed. Once the core elements were discussed and defined, the challenge was focused on supporting teachers to embed innovative technologies into new kinds of everyday learning activities. The research activities suggested the composition of a grid of 12 technologies to conceptualise innovative learning environments. They are useful technologies for the creation of widespread innovation in new hybrid learning contexts. The objective was not to select very few technologies with innovation but to propose several technologies capable of supporting the different needs of users in active environments, both in a material way (with technologies with a prevalent on-site nature) and in a virtual way (with technologies with a prevalent online nature). All the technologies identified can create active learning contexts and stimulate personal attention and participation, facilitate collaboration, and reduce the distance between peers. It is necessary to highlight the essential role of personal devices as real technological “Swiss Army” knives can act as a bridge, both between the physical and virtual worlds and between users and other technologies. Thus, teachers need rules for the management and choice of these technologies. The rules are also the answer to the third research question and are inferred from literature, from the analysis of cases and the surveys administrated to students and teachers. The COVID-19 emergency that has forced us to experiment with distance teaching methods has made teachers aware that they are ready to use technologies and that the construction of teaching can evolve towards the search for new interactions between the physical and digital worlds.

6.1 Discussion of the Research

131

The acceleration of digital practices and the changes in learning behaviours experienced in this period, require a broad reflection. This reflection should aim to understand how the relational dynamics between teacher and learners can change and how the established educational process can be reconsidered, combining the need for greater use of technologies with innovative use of spaces and learning methods. The dematerialisation of learning activities entails, without careful educational design, the denial of the learning environments. While face-to-face teaching can simplify the interaction among users, only a profound and innovative rethinking of learning processes (also in a hybrid form) can lead to new forms of innovative learning environments. The need to design interaction with students emerges essentially from research activities. To shape new ways of relating pedagogy, space, technology and users, teachers need tools to visualise the future. The discipline of design can contribute to shaping these visions. Through the use of visual tools, it has been confirmed that teachers can design and visualise the spatial structure of a course where technologies are functional to the activities and needs of users. The tool must reflect the need of the user’s central role in the interweaving of relationships between pedagogy, space, and technology. The design tool proposed in this book as an answer to the needs and challenges acknowledged during the research, can be seen as a meta-design tool used by teachers, alone or together with other actors, and preferably including designers. An original instructional design tool, based on the PST framework [2] was therefore proposed, together with a series of supports for the description and classification of the technologies. The tool’s development was iteratively refined through successive steps and tests and ongoing implementations. This was important because it improved the quality and application of the tool. Finally, teachers developed highly specialised graphic outputs (representative of interactions between users, activities and technologies) in the performative co-design experiments. The phases of research cooperated in numerous ways. The initial theoretical work, with its exploration of pedagogical approaches and learning environments supported by analysis of educational technologies, offered an opening point for the design process, and provided the researcher with a primary means of shaping interactions among the elements. Further support for reflection and user’s attitude analysis were then added. It must be noted that neither the design tool proposed in this research must be seen as a strict design direction nor the connected examples with their “outputs” as exhaustive in application possibilities. However, both should be considered guidelines and recommendations that could enable a new perspective in designing new spatial concepts of innovative learning environments. Even if the tool is consequentially structured and analytic, it is flexible enough to enable users’ creative thinking. It is a tool that should help users reflect on the possibilities offered by technology and to respond creatively to the design challenges that new educational contexts will pose in the future.

132

6 Conclusions

6.2 Research Contribution and Generalisation The research described in this book has been conducted from a design perspective, aimed at highlighting design’s role in linking learning activities and innovative learning environments with digital technologies and users’ needs. The research has been elaborated systematically with a rounded approach: starting from investigating the overall innovation in a learning environment and analysing the evolution of pedagogical approaches, directing technologies towards creating solutions to achieve future development of learning environments and learning processes. The main contributions of the research, based on the above premise, are: • a description of the connection between pedagogy, space and technology with the insertion of the user as the fourth element: by analysing the aim of innovative learning environments by making use of theoretical references it was possible to detect critical issues and challenges in the knowledge domain of the relation between these three elements. Such an attempt underlined the profound need for exchange among the fields of pedagogy, space and technology for future studies and works. In this interweaving of relationships, it is also essential to emphasise the new role of users. The teacher, indeed, goes beyond the role of knowledge provider to become the director and facilitator. Furthermore, whether physical or digital, learning spaces should be designed to encourage students’ learning experiences. The design of an innovative learning environment should begin with the analysis of users’ learning behaviours and needs. To do this requires focusing on the possibilities offered by technologies in supporting skills and habits that students need to learn, the kind of enrichment that they provide, and how they will demonstrate and make their affordance visible; • a conceptualisation of technologies for innovative learning environments with the creation of a grid of technologies for active approaches: the ubiquity of technology incorporated into intimate, professional, and social life, driven by global expansion networks, can potentially disrupt higher education. Academics and students explore opportunities for relevant resources around technology to integrate and extend knowledge, increasing learning benefits to promote linked learning groups in potentially disruptive learning spaces. Technologies provide new ways to extend and enhance learning and interaction by leveraging the ubiquitous existence of personal technology. The use of mobile personal devices has grown to such an extent over recent years that they have now overtaken the proliferation of personal computers in modern professional and social contexts [3]. They foster the interaction among teacher and students within and outside the physical space and through hybrid learning processes. In the classification of the technologies, I wanted to create a grid of twelve technological elements that can be easily inserted into a learning context and create widespread technology learning contexts. The technologies identified and described are all currently used in the learning environments analysed. Moreover, they are technologies widely tested by teachers, mainly because of the distance learning experienced in recent months. However, technology can only be used

6.2 Research Contribution and Generalisation

133

for practical improvement if the pedagogy is considered. Teachers need time and appreciation to understand the causes, intent, and how, for example, technology is implemented pedagogically to expand the learning environment; • a comparison between on-site learning and online learning environments with a focus on a stressful context: another contribution that I would like to underline is from a methodological point of view. The observations and analyses were brought into the discussion from different points of view: concerning users’ attitude in a technological and physical context and focusing on the response of users in a stressful and virtual context. The stressful context due to the COVID-19 health emergency was a vital test place to verify the ability of teachers and students to carry out distance learning processes in a virtual environment. Such dualistic elaboration enabled exploration of how one can see the different information that different contexts can produce. The research has been significantly influenced by the health emergency, leading to reflection on the possible intersections of different learning contexts. In my opinion, it is precisely this unusual situation that gives shape to an essential contribution of the research that has compared two different approaches in using technology and analysed the users’ behaviours, expectations, and criticalities. The comparison also had the merit of informing the outcome of the research and becoming a support element for designing. Once the health emergency is over, users will be able to re-design their teaching, aware of their technological capabilities. The two contexts will not be seen in opposition, but as two worlds that can intertwine and create the conditions to realise learning activities through the hybridisation of pedagogical approaches. Giovanni Biondi [4], president of INDIRE1 states that “after this emergency, the school will be able to take advantage of this experience: many teachers are experimenting that a different kind of teaching, with digital, can be done. That the network opens up many possibilities, useful to enhance learning and learning environments: as an added value, not as a substitute for presence”. • a learning design tool to support teachers to develop hybrid learning environments, activities, and processes [5]: the research offers the overall role of the designer in re-shaping learning environment experiences and the design of a tool to support the facilitating role of technologies between pedagogical approaches and users. Thus, more specifically, design, together with its strategic thinking skills, supports the construction of a basis for introducing debates to innovate existing forms of the learning environment from a user-centred perspective. The design tool, as a major output of the research, is a tool for educators to start thinking about designing new hybrid processes in which the physical and digital environment coexist together to form a learning environment [6]. Hence, it should be noted that the tool itself is not only an open gateway in innovating the current framework of the relationship between space and technology, 1

INDIRE, the National Institute for Documentation, Innovation and Educational Research, is the Italian Ministry of Education’s oldest research organization and it is the benchmark for educational research in Italy.

134

6 Conclusions

but also a path to comprehend the perspective of design in the field of pedagogy. Thus, the proposed tool harnesses design skills in responding to the needs of the innovative learning environment in the broader field of instructional design and technology by remodelling them as an interactive and innovative learning environment for users. In other words, the design tool is the principal contribution of this research to the design discipline as a tool supporting a design process. However, it can also be linked to the broader theoretical contribution of this research as being an attempt to bring together modern pedagogical approaches, learning environment studies, and educational technologies from a design perspective supporting user needs and interests and engaging experiences by creating moments of discussion and reflection among the actors of educational institutions. The research then contributes to focusing a fundamental challenge in educational technology, highlighting the critical role performed by teacher’s perceptions: how to choose, embed, and connect innovative technology and associated innovative learning approaches into the daily learning design activities undertaken by teachers.

6.3 Future Prospects for Designing Hybrid Learning Environments It must be underlined that the research has not addressed all matters related to the spatial design of an innovative learning environment, taking for granted the spatial requirement of an environment that wants to be innovative. This is a critical aspect treated in the applied research conducted by the research group of the Design Department of Politecnico di Milano [7]. Space is treated within the design tool as part of the graphic output, but its exploration does not go beyond that. Another aspect to point out is that the research, and in particular the design tool, considers only the web-based and digital experience, without testing a real experience that could be more complex and, of course, not wholly based on digital technology. This aspect was not tested and verified in the research. This statement does not mean that the experiences developed and described with the support of the design tool could not include non-digital activities, but only that the tool wasn’t specifically designed to primarily support them. The tool, in fact, could also exist, if requested and according to user needs, in a physical context with the material realisation of elements and a physical interaction within the design phases. The evaluation of the proposed design tool, made through two phases of testing and experimenting of which neither was able to thoroughly assess the tools with decision-makers and learning space managers. This aspect can be seen as a future step for the research, opening the test to a broader and greater number of users so that it could be assessed with a more abundant number of outputs developed through the tool. The aim of the instructional tool was, on the one side, to create a space of reflection for all the institutional stakeholders and, on the other side, to test the effects of such a tool and to possibly grow in content.

6.3 Future Prospects for Designing Hybrid Learning Environments

135

Since the system in which the tool exists is currently a system that is not yet widespread and disseminated, a future objective could be to extend the experimentation of the tool to schools of a different order and greater extent to verify its effectiveness, as well as in institutions with different learning methods and different structuring of the teaching activity. The tool has been tested in a collaborative design environment and was always tested by teachers under the supervision of the researcher. The platform used (Miro) requires a training phase for the creation of new objects and the manipulation of existing ones. Another future goal could be to create a web-based application, specifically designed to make the design and creation of outputs straightforward and simple. An additional future development, subordinate to the creation of a specific platform, could be to create a repository of outputs to gather a base of examples useful for the design activities of new users, and to create enough cases to be able to extract useful data for the design of infrastructure.

References 1. Januszewski A, Molenda M (2008) Educational technology. Routledge, New York, NY 2. Radcliffe D, Wilson H, Powell D, Tibbetts B (2008) Designing next generation places of learning: Collaboration at the pedagogy-space-technology nexus. Univ Queensl 1–20 3. Attewell J (2005) Mobile technologies and learning. London 4. Biondi G (2020) Scuola: dopo il Coronavirus niente sarà come prima. https://www.morningfu ture.com/it/article/2020/03/10/scuola-coronavirus-didattica-digitale-elearning/866/. Accessed 14 May 2020 5. Manciaracina A (2020) A tool for designing hybrid learning contexts in higher education. Interact Des Archit - IxD&A 137–155 6. Goodyear P (2001) Effective networked learning in higher education: notes and guidelines. Lancaster Cent Stud Adv Learn Technol 3: Networked Learning in Higher Education Project 7. Collina L, Gerosa G, Manciaracina A, et al (2019) Designing innovative learning experiences. An experimental project to support education facilities. In: INTED2019 proceedings. pp 6620–6629