2010
Evaluation of Experimental
Learning Spaces, University of
Leicester
Phil Wood
(School of Education)
Paul Warwick
(School of Education)
Derek Cox
(Academic Practice Unit)
10/26/2010
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
Contents
Page No
Executive Summary
3
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Higher education learning spaces in transition
3.0 Method
4.0 Results
4.1 Student and lecturer perception of the museum studies
learning studio
4.2 Student and lecturer perception of the general seminar
Room
4.3 Student and lecturer perception of the Geography
Seminar Room, School of Education
5.0 Discussion of findings
5.1 Deriving a theoretical framework
6.0 Conclusion
6
7
10
15
References
28
Appendix 1 – Selected results from baseline questionnaire
30
16
20
21
23
24
27
2
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
3
Executive Summary
This report summarises the findings from an evaluation of the development of three
experimental learning spaces within the University of Leicester. These learning spaces were
created in 2009 and represent a refurbishment of existing rooms. The main variable separating
the three rooms is the cost of their redesign and extent of modifications.
The three innovative learning spaces investigated were:
 the Museum Studies learning studio (including a raised floor, a large white-wall for
participants to write on, a number of state of the art ICT facilities such as Wi-Fi
connectivity, interactive whiteboard, and video conferencing, and new furniture
including collapsible tables and new chairs);
 a general seminar room (including a plasma screen linked to a multi-media computer
hub, a second set of ICT equipment with a digital projector, a glass whiteboard wall, and
tip-up tables);
 a School of Education seminar room (including tip-up tables, student whiteboards
placed around the walls, and ICT equipment linked to a digital projector and interactive
whiteboard).
The aim of this research project was focused on capturing a detailed picture of the lived
experience of students and teachers using these rooms, and their reflections on working in new
learning spaces. In total 54 postgraduate students and five members of staff were consulted
through an online questionnaire and interviews (one to one and small group).
These rooms were found to represent, to varying degrees, spaces that were both flexible and
adaptable. This flexibility was something that in general both staff and students responded
towards favourably and was observed by one lecturer to ultimately result in students becoming
more cohesive; acting more as a group rather than as a number of individuals. In terms of
equipment, there was a general preference towards small clustered table layouts that facilitate
collaborative learning approaches. All groups demonstrated a strong dislike for learning rooms
being configured with just chairs and no tables.
The postgraduate students consulted expressed a clear preference for active learning
approaches, particularly the use of discussion, problem solving and decision making learning
opportunities. Students were extremely positive about the design of these learning spaces
affording greater opportunity to adopt collaborative and active approaches towards learning.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
4
Most students showed a preference for having additional information and exercises provided
on a virtual learning environment to supplement their learning beyond sessions in these rooms.
This appears to suggest an expectation to expand study and learning beyond the spatial and
temporal limits of a formal physical learning space, and formal face-to-face learning sessions.
In different ways each of these three rooms has changed the way in which both students and
lecturers have used ICT. Positive comments were received with regard to the ICT potential of
the three rooms although lecturers in their varying degrees of use of ICT in their teaching
revealed the important need for adequate training in order to maximise use and to approach
the less familiar resources with confidence.
A number of students commented on the positive impact these experimental learning spaces
had upon their intrinsic motivation for learning, identifying positive elements to include the
sense of being prized and having their ‘voice’ valued, as well as physical aspects such as the
light, environmental and spacious feel of the room (particularly with regard to the museum
studies learning studio).
In some cases a key factor with regard to both the staff and students’ interaction with the
learning spaces seemed to be a personal sense of belonging and assumed ownership of the
physical space. Where this existed, students seemed to maximise their use of what the room
had to offer.
The students’ feedback provides an important insight into the complexity of their
understanding of what constitutes an educational space, commenting not only on
environmental and physical aspects, but also social and personal dimensions. This we would
argue requires a shift in the way university lecturers commonly think about the process of
learning and teaching, and their central place within it.
These provisionally positive findings for all three learning spaces make an important
contribution to the current debate with regard to the apt design and sustainable function of
new learning spaces in Higher Education and their impact upon student learning. This study has
encountered students and staff describing their new learning spaces as ‘brilliant, enjoyable, and
uplifting’ and ‘providing the opportunity to think differently’; this is something very much to be
commended.
From this study we propose an innovative model for the creation of future learning spaces at
the University. The DEEP learning spaces model both captures the key characteristics of a 21 st
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
5
century learning space and also highlights an apt design process. The DEEP learning spaces
model consists of 4 elements:




Dynamic – learning spaces that have the flexibility to change in both space and time. A
design process that is ongoing allowing for a flow of modification and personalisation.
Engaging – learning spaces that afford diverse and inclusive use being able to
accommodate a variety of pedagogical approaches and different learning styles. A
design process that takes into account flexible use and baseline environmental factors
such as light, temperature ICT and spaciousness. As such, learning spaces should allow
pedagogic design and use of learning resources that open the way for deeper student
learning.
Ecological – a learning space that gives attention to environmental aspects. A design
process that in its systems thinking approach gives attention to aspects such as
sustainable procurement and ecological architectural design
Participatory – a learning space that is continually negotiated by the lecturers and
students. A design process that is consultative allowing for a sense of ownership and a
tailoring to the needs of both staff and students.
Recent presentation of this model to an International educational conference has led to some
very positive interest and it is our aspiration that the University of Leicester will continue to find
fresh avenues for applying and refining the DEEP learning space model in order to continue to
offer an original and pioneering contribution in this field.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
6
1.0 Introduction
With the advent of an increasingly ‘fluid’ approach to learning in higher education, represented
by the development of advances such as e-learning and blended learning, the belief in the
predominance of a basic, teacher centred, transmissive classroom based learning experience is
no longer sustainable. There is also a developing interest in the link between learning theory
and learning environments (e.g. Oblinger, 2006) which is leading to a fundamental reevaluation of approaches to learning, and the physical environments in which such interactions
exist, especially within the English-speaking world. In addition, space is increasingly at a
premium in a massified and resource poor sector, with a need for more inventive and efficient
use of space. Similar concerns in the school sector have already led to a keen interest in the
study of learning environments (Jonassen & Land, 2000; Fisher & Khine, 2006), and a fusion of
the fields of physical learning space development (growing out of architecture, e.g. Dudek,
2000; Taylor, 2009), and active, constructivist learning (from educational and neurosciences
research, e.g. Jarvis, 2009; Cigman & Davis, 2009), coalescing in research into ‘learning spaces’.
As part of a growing interest in the role of learning spaces, a number of studies already exist
which consider the characteristics of the physical learning environment and their potential
impact upon student learning both at the higher education level (e.g. Van Note Chism &
Bickford, 2002) and at school level (e.g. Woolner, 2010) as well as considering innovative and
diverse designs for flexible learning contexts. This report aims to add to these debates by
evaluating the development of three different learning spaces which have all been created over
the past year here at the University of Leicester, U.K., and which are all refurbishments of
already existing learning spaces. The main variable which separates them is the level of
resources included during refitting, including addition of technology and new furniture,
resulting in different amounts of money being spent on each space in an attempt to update and
diversify their use. However, pedagogic aims have remained central in each case to the blend
and level of refitting.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
7
2.0 Higher education learning spaces in transition
Universities are currently experiencing radical and continued changes concerning beliefs about
learning, trends towards a more diverse student population, and greater workload pressure on
academics. However, the formal learning spaces of universities in which academics work have
essentially remained static over centuries. Jamieson (2003) reflects that;
‘This institutional architecture has provided an optimum environment for prevailing
teacher-centred practices - lecture supplemented by tutorial - concerned primarily
with the one-way delivery of information to students.' (p. 119)
Vredevoogd and Grummon (2009) argue that as a result of a growing interest in creating
learning spaces that encourage more collaborative and active approaches to learning within
American universities, there is a growing belief in the need for spaces which are both flexible
and adaptable. This growing interest has come from both changes in beliefs about learning
(Long and Ehrmann, 2005), but also as a result of changing student expectations. Similar beliefs
underpin major reviews within the UK and Australia. The Scottish Funding Council (2006) argues
for new learning environments developed within both new buildings, and through the
refurbishment of spaces which already exist. As with Vredevoogd and Grummon (2009), this
belief is based on both an increasing diversity of student populations and on changing beliefs
about learning processes and approaches. A number of ‘spatial types’ are proposed, giving
planned flexibility in relation to learning spaces. Examples range from group teaching/learning
spaces such as lecture rooms and classrooms where there is less of a focus on one point in the
room and where furniture can be stacked to allow greater mobility, to peer-to-peer and social
learning spaces, often informal in nature such as cyber-cafes and group rooms in libraries.
Technology is seen as central to the development of new learning spaces. Brown and Lippincott
(2003) suggest that the development of new approaches to teaching and learning linked to the
rapid increase in technology across society inevitably leads to the need for conscious planning
to integrate Information Communication Technology (ICT) within learning spaces. This includes
the near ubiquitous appearance of wireless networking which allows for mobile computing, and
an increasing movement towards students continuing their work outside of class in such social
spaces as libraries, cafes and halls of residence. Punie (2007) led a workshop of 20 experts on
the future of learning the role of ICT, and found that with the increasing use of a number of ICT
based technologies such as virtual learning environments, blogs, wikis and podcasting, future
learning spaces must take a number of different forms which not only exist as physical spaces
on campus but which extend to virtual learning spaces and other physical spaces, both personal
and social beyond the university campus. This suggests an increasingly complex definition and
understanding of the notion of a learning space, something which would require a shift in the
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
8
way that university lecturers think about the process of learning and teaching, and their place
within it, an issue which Punie (2007) highlights as being important;
‘ as boundaries between private, public, working and learning life become blurred,
learning spaces need to be flexible enough to incorporate these shifts. Flexibility in
learning styles and forms will depend on the teaching staff’s ability to incorporate
such requirements into the learning curriculum, hence the importance of teacher
training.' (p. 193)
With the increasing interest in providing new, innovative and flexible learning spaces within
higher education which take account of rapid developments in technology, and new ideas
about learning, there are a number of studies which set out factors deemed to be important in
designing useful and positive learning spaces (see table 2.1)
JISC 2006
Jamieson et al 2000
Oblinger 2006
-
- multiple use
- flexibility
- use of the vertical
- integration of
functions
- maximize teacher
and student control
- maximise alignment
of different curricula
activities
- maximise student
access, use and
ownership
- design around
people
- support multiple
types of activities
- enable connections
- accommodate ICT
- designed for
comfort, safety and
functionality
- reflecting
institutional values
flexible
future proofed
bold
creative
supportive
enterprising
Johnson and Lomas
(2005)
- building life-cycle
- understanding of
learning
- the changing nature
of technology
- Net Generation
Table 2.1 Examples of design principles for learning spaces
Whilst some differences exist between the design principles advocated by different studies,
there is a large degree of consistency in seeing flexibility, the inclusion of ICT, the ability to
enable a number of different approaches to learning, and students as active individuals, as core
design features. These central features are apparent in a number of experimental learning
spaces developed in a number of countries. Radcliffe et al (2009) have created a framework for
designing and evaluating learning spaces by highlighting the interplay between space,
technology and pedagogy. Based on this framework, they have produced a number of
questions which are used to aid in the generation of learning spaces, and once built, their
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
9
evaluation. Oblinger (2006) provides a number of case studies from universities across the USA
and beyond, to show innovative design principles in relation to learning spaces with an
emphasis on the integration of technology many of which emphasise informal and independent
small group learning. The Learning Landscapes project, based in the U.K., and led by the
University of Lincoln, is another project which has aimed to consider the development of
learning spaces across a number of universities in a holistic way, seeing the campus as an
integrated whole, and putting pedagogy at the core, driving design . As with Oblinger’s work, a
number of case studies and exemplars are presented to demonstrate the embodiment of these
principles in design.
Given the extensive literature on the vision for learning spaces and the design and pedagogic
principles which underlie them, there is very little evidence that changes in learning spaces
impact on learning outcomes. In a review covering the learning spaces literature in higher
education, Temple (2008) cites two studies which link learning spaces with performance. The
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (2005) state that there is an improved
student performance related to new learning spaces attributed to increased student
motivation, facilitation of inspiration among students, and the provision of key facilities critical
to course content. However, Temple argues that the empirical evidence for these claims is
uncertain. In addition, Thomas and Galambos (2004, cited in Temple 2008) state that students
give a low priority to spaces use, and that lecturer preparedness is far more important to
students with respect to quality of learning. Apart from the use of large-scale surveys, very little
of the literature appears to focus upon the detailed, lived experience of students and lecturers
and their reflections of working in new learning spaces. As a consequence, the opportunity
afforded the present researchers to evaluate three small, flexible learning spaces containing
different levels of innovative technology and material infrastructure was deemed to have a
clear utility in extending the depth, if not the breadth, of the critical evaluation of exemplars of
new learning spaces.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
10
3.0 Method
In the summer of 2009, we were commissioned by one of the pro-Vice Chancellor’s at
University of Leicester with responsibility for students to evaluate a new, innovative learning
space which had been designed for use from autumn 2009. This evaluation was rapidly
expanded to include two further teaching rooms which had undergone varying levels of
refurbishment to include innovative facilities to enable and engage with changing pedagogies.
Details of the three rooms are given below
Museum Studies Learning Studio (MSLS)
This learning space incorporates a number of innovative features, and is identified as an
experimental learning space within the university. There are a number of technological
inclusions, including WiFi connectivity, interactive whiteboard (controlled from a computer
console at one end of the room which also incorporates DVD and audio), repeater plasma
screens located around the room, a fixed camera for video conferencing facility, a suspended
floor which houses a number of electrical and connection points allowing students to use
laptops, and interact digitally through the plasma screens and the digital projector. These
facilities can be managed from a single portable control panel which allows users to switch
between, and share ideas and presentations between each other's computers.
The furniture has been chosen to allow tables to be collapsed thereby making the physical
space more flexible, and the room has plenty of natural light with a neutral, crisp white colour
scheme. The windows have blinds to allow control of direct light levels. Finally, one wall has
been painted with a special covering which allows it to be used as a large ‘white-wall’.
Due to the need for a suspended floor, and the level of technology used, this room was
expensive to refurbish, and is therefore identified as a ‘top end’ learning space.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
11
General seminar room
Located in a 10970s building, this learning space incorporates a smaller number of innovations
and refurbishments. When the room was fitted out in 2003/4, a suite of IT equipment (PC, data
projector, VCR, CD/DVD player) was installed at one end of the room, and the furniture set out
in rank format facing the data projection screen (see left-hand photo above). The upgrade of
the room for the work reported here entailed a second suite of IT equipment (installed at the
opposite end of the room), with a 52” plasma screen, rather than data projector. These
together allowed the teaching space to be turned through 90⁰, and the plasma screen can be
used as a repeater screen for the IT equipment installed at the other end of the room See righthand photo above), a glass ‘whiteboard wall’ (approx 3mx4m), and flip-top wheeled tables
(with a smaller work-top area than those originally installed), so that changing furniture layout
would be easier and quicker.
The room has restricted natural light and limited outside views due to the presence of high,
narrow windows.
Due to the smaller amount of technology in the room ti was not as expensive to refurbish as the
MSLS, and s therefore identified as a ‘middle range’ learning space.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
12
Geography Seminar Room, School of Education
Located in a 1900s building, this learning space incorporates a small number of innovative
features. Once again, there are a number of technological inclusions, including WiFi
connectivity, interactive whiteboard, and a portable trolley with 15 net-books, shared with an
adjacent seminar room. The interactive whiteboard is controlled from a computer console at
one end of the room which also incorporates DVD and audio.
As with the other two rooms, the furniture has been chosen to allow tables to be collapsed
thereby making the physical space more flexible. Natural light is good, and blinds over the
windows allow for the light level to be controlled. Finally, four small whiteboards are located
around the room to facilitate brainstorming and independent group work.
Due to the very low cost of refurbishing this room, it is identified as a ‘bottom end’ learning
space.
The evaluation of these three learning spaces was undertaking between January and May, 2010
and included the use of surveys and interviews. A number of representative groups were
included in the evaluation sample, the composition of which is given in table 3.1.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
Museum Studies Learning
Studio
Students
- MA in International
Education (School of
Education), n = 25
- MA Applied Linguistics,
TESOL (School of Education),
n = 18
- MA in Museum Studies
(Department of Museum
studies), n = 70
Lecturers
- two lecturers from the
School of education, one each
from the programmes
identified above
- two lecturers from the
Department of Museum
Studies
General Seminar Room
13
Geography Seminar Room
Students
- PG Cert in Academic
Practice in Higher Education ,
all serving academics within
the university n = 18
Students
- PGCE geography trainee
teachers (School of
Education), n= 14
Lecturers
- one lecturer from the
Academic Practice Unit
Lecturers
- none, as lecturer is a
member of the evaluation
team
Table 3.1 Sample characteristics for the evaluation of the three learning spaces
Two main methods were used to gain information concerning the initial experiences and
perceptions of the users of the three learning spaces:
1) Questionnaire: an online questionnaire was created to gain baseline data from the
groups of students who used the learning spaces involved. This questionnaire was
completed early within the evaluation cycle, and focused on background preferences
and perceptions at a general level, rather than as an evaluation of the spaces
themselves, and was in the form of a series of statements with responses given at a
point along a five stage Likert scale. The questionnaire focused on a number of issues
relating to learning and learning environments. Personal preferences relating to learning
approaches were sought, such as lectures, simulations and problem solving as well as
attempting to understand the importance of different learning outcomes such as
passing exams, developing learning and understanding or feelings of being challenged. A
number of questions were asked concerning preferences relating to physical learning
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
14
environments, including the layout of desks, light levels, and the flexibility of furniture.
Finally a small number of questions were asked concerning students preferences in
relation to technology and learning including their use of Virtual learning environments
and Web 2.0 applications.
2) Interviews: interviews were carried out at a point when students and lecturers had had
opportunity to make sustained use of the learning spaces. For each room, all of the
lecturers identified in the sample, plus a small number of students (typically 2 to 4) were
interviewed. The lecturers were interviewed individually, and the students in small focus
groups, the interviews being recorded and later transcribed. The sample was such that
the lecturers interviewed had been responsible for teaching the groups of students
included within the sample so that perceptions concerning the rooms could be
compared. The lecturer interviews focused on reflecting on general experiences, the
impact of new facilities (in particular the inclusion of increased ICT provision), the
degree to which (if any) lecturers had altered their pedagogical approach, and further
alterations they felt would make the learning spaces better. The student focus groups
reflected on their general experiences, the degree to which they believeed their
learning had been impacted by the rooms, how the rooms compared to other learning
spaces they were familiar with and the further alterations they felt would make the
learning spaces better.
The two methods outlined above allowed for an assessment of the lived experience of those
using the new learning spaces and are the basis for the following analysis.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
15
4.0 Results
The baseline questionnaire regarding learning and learning environment preferences returned
a high proportion of responses from the two groups of students who had experienced learning
in the generic seminar room and the geography seminar room located in the School of
Education. However, the return rates for the two groups of students who had experienced
learning in the Museum Studies Learning Studio were much lower, and this has to be
remembered when considering the results gained. A representative sample of results from
selected questions are given in Appendix 1, and show several general patterns across all groups.
With regards to learning approaches there is clear evidence that the post-graduate students
prefer active learning approaches. For example, those identifying a like for lectures and notetaking show few students from only two programmes (MAIE and TESOL) strongly agreeing with
this statement, and in all cases only a minority of students signified this learning approach at
agree level or above. Particularly interesting is the PG cert Academic Practice in Higher
Education group which is made up of serving academic lecturers, where only 6.2% (one person)
agreed with this statement. However, approaches focusing on discussion, and problemsolving/decision-making were both far more popular with most groups, one exception being
that the Museum Studies students demonstrated the same spread of opinions concerning
problem-solving/decision-making as they had with lectures and note-taking. However, as with
the other groups they clearly preferred learning through discussion.
The preferences for learning approaches are reflected in those concerning the outcomes of the
courses followed. It is important to note that all of the groups present in the data set are postgraduates, but across all groups there was a strong belief that the most important outcome of a
course was the development of learning and understanding, together with a feeling that they
had been challenged. This strongly suggests that there is a link between preferences for active
learning and active outcomes.
In relation to preferences concerning the physical layout of learning environments, there is
again a general trend towards preferences for table layouts which facilitate active learning
approaches. Most student groups show a stronger preference for rooms where tables are
sorted into groups of 4-6 seats, with the possible exception of the Museum Studies students
where an almost equally strong preference is shown for desks being located in rows facing in a
single direction. All groups demonstrated a strong dislike for the notion of having a room with
chairs but no tables, instead all students in all groups agreeing that they liked rooms where
furniture could be moved around to allow different activities.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
16
Finally, most students across the groups show a preference for having information and
exercises provided on a virtual learning environment to supplement their learning beyond
lessons. This appears to suggest an expectation to expand study and learning beyond the spatial
and temporal limits of a formal physical learning space, and formal face-to-face learning
sessions.
All of these baseline results are strongly indicative of a range of post-graduate student groups
who prefer, and indeed have an expectation of, active learning environments and experiences,
and as a consequence show preferences for physical learning environments which will support
such approaches. Having gained an initial understanding of these students’ perceptions,
interviews were then used to gain a deeper understanding of the initial experiences of both
students and lecturers within the three refurbished learning spaces.
4.1 Student and lecturer perceptions of the Museum Atudies learning studio
The interviews carried out with academic staff who have taught within the MSLS raised a
number of consistent issues were highlighted by the interviewees. All agreed about the positive
impact that the physical characteristics of the refurbished space had both upon themselves and
students. For example
‘It is a smart room, it’s got comfortable chairs and good tables in it, it's got a lot of
light…. it's a lovely size for a group of about 18 to 25 probably, absolutely ideal. I felt
my students enjoyed being there, I think they were aware of its newness, you know,
attractiveness and I think it was uplifting.'
(TESOL lecturer, School of Education)
This affective element in the impact of the refurbished room was commented on by a lecturer
from the MA International Education course, who commented;
‘I do think spaces have that sort of impact [affective], both positively and negatively
and my feeling is always going up into the room ‘Oh I'm going to work in that room’
and the realisation that I might not be working in that room has left me on occasion
totally depressed…… it's also something about familiarity because I've actually been
in there quite a lot and it's a nice big light space and that is good.’
Technology is also seen as a big element of the room, and this is where some of the views of
the lecturers begin to diverge. For those who are confident about their use of technology it is
clear that the room affords a great deal of opportunity. One Museum Studies lecturer (who also
played a major role in developing the specification for the learning space) was responsible for
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
17
teaching a media-orientated unit in the room with five students, and is very pleased with the
high level of interactivity that the learning space allows. This includes a near ubiquitous use of
WiFi for learning activities with laptops allowing minute by minute use of the Internet to
support discussion. The same lecturer has also used video conferencing as a way of augmenting
learning opportunities for students. As such, this lecturer feels that within this particular course
the atmosphere has almost been one of a professional meeting rather than a teaching session.
Two lecturers from education-based courses were both willing to use some of the basic
technology within the room, particularly the digital projector and computer for use with
PowerPoint, and also the use of audio for specific work on language dialects. However in both
cases, the lecturers felt conscious that they were using only a small amount of the technology
available, although neither suggested that this made them particularly uncomfortable.
However, one of the lecturers felt that there might be an implicit redirection in pedagogies
through the enforced absence of certain, more traditional facilities, for example
‘I notice that there wasn't a flip chart, which didn't exist there at the very beginning.
It was as if there was a diktat from upon high saying whatever you do don't bring in
anything all-fashioned into this room and we were funnily enough told that an OHP
[overhead projector] would never find its way into the room.'
These feelings led both lecturers and students to suggest some form of training to help them
understand the use and utility of the various technological elements of the room so that they
could feel more confident in their use. This is obviously one aim for the Museum Studies
lecturer who helped design the room, who commented;
‘ I wanted it to be kind of this flexible white room and you just don't notice the
technology is there….. I want the room to be seamless, I want the room to be a bit
dull, I want the room to just seem like a white room and I think the more the
technology can disappear and the easier it is to use for colleagues the better.’
One feature of the room that does appear to have been very well received is the large whitewall. Both Museum Studies lecturers are explicit about the central importance of this element
of the room in helping to generate a creative and interactive environment, to the extent that
one of the lecturers suggested that;
‘…even if there wasn't WiFi, even if there weren't boxes in the floor, even if there
wasn't a movable tablet, even if there wasn't a video camera and a digitiser and so
on and so on, just having a wall that is 15 foot long and 8 foot high that you can
write on is brilliant.’
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
18
Whilst one of the education lecturers has made use of the wall, both education lecturers had
felt uncertain about writing on the it, concerned that they might not be using the correct pens.
This had acted as a barrier to pursuing greater use of this resource.
All lecturers identified the MSLS as being extremely positive for pursuing and developing group
work, to the extent that for much of the work by Museum Studies students this appears to have
been the main pedagogical approach. Also, it was agreed that the various elements of the new
room sent an important message to the students who were using it;
‘ it's a pleasant environment, it says the university cares about the experience you
are about to have. It's about light and it's about temperature and it's about
furnishings and then it's about I think tools, you know learning technology.’
(Museum Studies lecturer)
Therefore, the overall experiences of the lecturers who have used the MSLS have been positive,
whilst also suggesting particular issues such as training needs to be addressed. The students
reflected these perceptions closely. Students from the MA in International Education
highlighted the high level of technological inclusion, the very spacious nature of the room, and
were very appreciative of the active learning approaches which the room appeared to afford.
One example of this was the capture of ideas in group discussion using the interactive
whiteboard. This allowed students to be involved in the discussion, and to think about and
consider the issues of interest, rather than needing to take notes, a very different experience
for some. As one student commented;
‘In my country it is very traditional classrooms without a TV, without the interactive
whiteboard. What you can do is write down the notes because you are afraid that it
is gone, but you can't be thinking, because the teacher is talking all the time.
Because you just want to keep notes and the teachers may be teaching to quickly or
too slow whatever. I think it is different, very different for me.’
These sentiments were also reiterated by the MA Applied Linguistics TESOL group, who also
highlighted the nature and extensive degree of technology, and who also commented upon the
quality of the furniture and the brightness of the room. Individuals in both groups commented
positively about the trees and vegetation which grew directly outside of the room and which
could be easily seen from inside. Finally, both of these groups commented on the utility of the
plasma screens which in the case of the education sessions had been used as repeaters for the
main PowerPoint presentations shown through the digital projector. In both cases, the
repeated information was seen as invaluable given that for the majority of students English is a
second language and having a screen close by made reading information far easier.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
19
The Museum Studies students again reiterated many of the ideas and sentiments expressed
above. However, an important additional component of their reflections was the use of the
MSLS outside of formal learning sessions. All of the students had experience of working on
group projects which needed to be developed outside of lectures. Over a period of time, groups
met informally and often connected their own laptops directly to a plasma screen to help with
group discussion. There was a clear sense of ownership voiced by the students who came to
prefer using this space to others available in the university, for example the library. As one
Museum Studies student commented;
‘I think it has definitely been helpful for the group project, because half the time in
the library the screens don't work and if it's a busy exam period its fall and you do
have to do the group work one way or another, and my group had for instance two
people who commuted every day so it's really helpful if there is a central space
where you can come and work together.'
The Museum Studies students also used the MSLS as a base for some exercises during formal
teaching sessions. In these cases students worked in groups and used the room as a central
point whilst moving out across the department to collect information and develop solutions to
problems. This shows the use of the learning space as flexible and complex and shows how
some elements of learning are framed as clearly extending beyond the bounds of this single
room.
The above perceptions of students together with responses from lecturers, suggests an
unintended, but perhaps important issue when designing new learning spaces. The MSLS is a
generic learning space within the university, meaning that it is not ‘owned’ by any particular
department. However, because of its physical location within the Museum Studies Department
there is some evidence of assumed ownership, especially by students, which may mean that
the learning dynamic is different for groups from this department when compared to others
who have to enter a social space which they identify as belonging to ‘the other’. It is interesting
that one Museum Studies student commented when asked if they felt that with the room being
where it was it was more their space that;
‘Yes, because it's in our department, and other departments don't come here so we
use it when we are here, especially after they allowed us to book it outside of class
time.'
The interviews concerning the MSLS show that all concerned have generally found the room to
be an extremely positive learning space with ample opportunity to aline learning activities with
expressed student preferences, supported by a wide range of technology which, together with
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
20
the physical attributes of the room, provide for a large degree of flexibility. There is some
suggestion, especially amongst some of the lecturers interviewed, that there will be a
continued development and negotiation between them and as they become more confident in
its use. However, the newness, the light, the furniture and technology are all suggestive of a
message to students that the university is interested in the quality of their learning and their
development academically.
4.2 Student and lecturer perceptions of the General Seminar Room
The General Seminar Room is used by academic staff from the Academic Practice Unit to
undertake the PG Cert in Academic Practice in Higher Education which must be completed by
all new lecturers, focusing on their practice as teachers. An interview with one of the lecturers
from the Unit clearly demonstrates that the reorientation and refurbishment of the seminar
room has had a fundamental impact on both her teaching and on the learning of students who
complete the course. By having more than one focus in the room, through the introduction of a
glass writing panel and plasma screen, the tables are often re-orientated to foster group work
when compared to the traditional use of the room which tended to lead to tables in rows. As a
result the lecturer believes that students act more as a group rather than a number of
individuals. The tables are also collapsible and allow a greater number of configurations to be
used for different activities, something that was more difficult before refurbishment. As the
lecturer commented;
‘…..so one of the benefits of that room bizarrely is that it gives you the chance to be
very different in terms of configurations so that people can see two very different
learning spaces within that same room.’
Given the nature of the course focusing on professional practice in lecturing, the refurbishment
of the room and the extra flexibility that it affords has also become a learning opportunity in its
own right as there are explicit discussions concerning the configuration of space and its relation
to different forms of activity. There was far less consideration during the interview about
technology, as there is far less present than in the MSLS. However the glass writing wall was
considered at length and has obviously made a large difference. When groups feed back ideas,
the lecturer identified the opportunity for several people to note ideas at any one time, thereby
making feedback far more efficient, and leading to more time for discussion rather than note
taking.
One student, a university lecturer who is currently on the PG Cert course, was extremely
positive about the nature of the new room. The glass white board was seen as motivating
students’ learning in a number of ways leading to a number of creative opportunities. In
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
21
addition, the student identified an emotional benefit saying that the room now feels as if some
care has been given to it, leading to a much greater feeling of being treated as a professional;
‘It seems ridiculous, but it is part of that whole climate of feeling more professional,
in part to do with the PG cert because you are trying to fit it in around everything
else, because the room was really a bit grubby it really needed to be painted. It feels
more just as if the university values the fact that you are fitting it in, because there
is quite a ground swell of resentment against the PG cert, mostly because it needs a
bit of care. So the room has an impact.'
One element which is criticised by the student is the size of the tables which are now in the
room. They argued that the tables are too big and as a result some of the new fluidity of the
space is lost although, the tables present have recently been replaced and are already smaller
than standard sized tables. With smaller tables, the space would become more flexible and
would also allow for a greater number of different activities to be undertaken at any one time.
However, even given this particular problem the student believes that people are now working
more closely together as there is a greater focus on collaboration which makes the learning
experience more positive. Again, the student commented that;
‘…..it feels more collaborative. That's a lot to do with the fact that you’re brought
together, and I've missed lots because I've been teaching lots. The times I've been
this term with the room altered seems to me that it has been more purposeful,
more cohesive in terms of how people are interacting with each other. Before you
were taught in the corridor bit and the coffee was at the back so you were pushing
past people all the time where as now it feels slightly more spacious and the coffee
goes in the middle. I know it sounds stupid but it creates more of a circle feeling, so
you feel as if you are part of a circle rather than being isolated.’
The evidence from both the lecturer and student suggest that whilst technology is not at the
forefront of their thinking in relation to the refurbishment of this space, unlike the MSLS, the
introduction of movable furniture, and a glass writing wall have created the opportunity for a
much more flexible and group orientated learning space. As with the MSLS, the other major
impact seems to be that the process of refurbishment in its own right has led to a clear cultural
message that the university values the learning of students by creating a modern, flexible
learning space in which they can work.
4.3 Student and lecturer perceptions of the Geography Seminar Room, School of Education
This learning space was refurbished during the summer of 2009, being devised by one of the
authors of the current paper in an attempt to facilitate a coherent blended learning approach
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
22
(Wood, 2010), part of which was the development of a more active learning orientated face-toface element to the course. Use was made of an interactive whiteboard to build group
generated notes which were then saved and made available on the course virtual learning
environment for later use and review by students. Folding tables were also introduced to the
room, and at the beginning of major activities the students were asked to configure the room in
whatever way they felt appropriate. Because the room is small, and due to restrictions in
funding, it was not possible to introduce a writing wall as exists in both the MSLS and the
Generic Seminar Room. Instead, small white boards were positioned at four points around the
room which could then act as foci for group work. In the author’s opinion the resultant learning
space whilst very cheap to create was very flexible and allows for a number of activities to
occur which had not previously been attempted.
The students were generally very positive about the opportunities available to them in the
room. One student commented;
'I think the whole room is brilliant…… I don't know if it is relevant but the white
boards in the corners I have thought of using when I start teaching, because it is
such a good idea, it is such a simple idea that to have them all around the walls if
you are asking kids to do group work, then they can show you their ideas and that
kind of thing. So it has given me ideas about the classroom environment that I can
follow up.’
Another student commented;
‘The white boards, such a simple idea but you don't really have that, I never had
that in university or in sixth form, or at school and that is a real bonus. It is
something simple, quick, easy, easy to manage, easy to use and can be used for
multiple reasons.’
The tables are also seen as a great benefit in making the room more flexible and allowing a
number of activities to occur with relatively easy reorientation of the room. The use of the
interactive whiteboard to make group generated notes has also had a positive impact for some
who feel that they can focus on listening and thinking as opposed to writing. The major
advantage of the space is seen as being its flexibility and the fact that many of the positive
developments in other, more expensive rooms, are essentially present but in a simplified state.
The only negative comments concerning the room was that it is sometimes too hot, the
unfortunate result of a central heating system which is approximately 70 years old.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
23
5.0 Discussion of findings
The results from all three rooms show a clear link between post-graduate student preferences
for active and interactive learning spaces and experiences, and the rooms which have been
created. Technology is an important element in these rooms, but is clearly seen as being an aid
rather than an end in itself. The one facility which is additional to the rooms as previously
constituted and which has had the greatest impact for both students and lecturers is the
addition of writing walls or white boards. These appear to be seen as creative opportunities for
group discussion and group activity work and together with foldable or collapsible tables
appear to be central to the change in orientation of the learning spaces analysed.
Two potential issues need to be considered to ensure that the learning spaces are used to their
full potential. Firstly, it is clear that in some cases lecturers may feel alienated if new
technologies are introduced with little or no consideration of the media which they are
replacing. For some lecturers this may cause pedagogical issues which need to be considered
and rectified. The second issue which appears to occur from the results of the study is that the
wider physical location of a learning space may impact upon how different groups use that
space. It is clear in the case of the MSLS that its physical location within the Museum Studies
Department has led to a heightened feeling of ownership, particularly amongst the student
body. It is unclear from interview evidence whether the reverse is true of other students, such
as those entering from the School of Education, but if such cultural norms begin to develop it
may inhibit some of the flexibility which the room is capable of offering for some groups.
However, it is clear from the results that in all three cases the refurbishment and use of the
new learning spaces has been predominantly positive.
The growing literature focusing on changing approaches to pedagogy within higher education,
and the need for resultant changes in learning spaces, emphasises the need for flexibility,
creativity, the accommodation of ICT and an underlying understanding of learning as a process
(for example Vredevoogd and Grummon, 2009; Jamieson, 2003; Jamieson et al, 2000). The
results from the present study suggest that the spaces which have been created meet all of
these criteria. This is particularly interesting given that they were all developed with widely
varying availability of funding. Some technological features might be seen as being almost a
‘base-level’ degree of provision, including the presence of WiFi connectivity, digital projector
and interactive white board provision, and DVD and audio players. However, in the present
work both lecturers and students found the presence of mobile furniture and opportunities to
develop written ideas in a collaborative medium just as, if not more, important. The results also
strongly suggest that the provision of flexible learning spaces have greatest utility when the
discussion leading to their creation is focused on pedagogy and a deep understanding of how
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
24
lecturers and students together navigate the learning experience. It is certainly not the case
that large budgets used to create technologically rich learning spaces will, by definition, create
positive and constructive learning experiences.
One additional issue which arises from the interviews undertaken for this research can be
emphasised by the degree to which students and lecturers could or could not discuss the
rationales behind the changes made, and how those rationales worked together as a coherent
system. One lecturer from the Museum Studies Department could discuss in depth the changes
made to the learning space in that department. He gave clear reasons for the inclusion of new
ideas and facilities and his use of those new facilities. The same can be said for one of those
involved in the current research who was responsible for developing the Geography Seminar
Room in the School of Education. If greater understanding and critical development of learning
spaces is to be made, these observations suggest that design and innovation should be more
democratic with both students and lecturers being more widely consulted and included in the
development of learning space specifications and design.
5.1 Deriving a theoretical framework
The differing experiences of both lecturers and students suggest that within any given learning
space there is a constant negotiation concerning pedagogy and media. These will differ
between lecturers, but will also change and evolve over time for any given group and lecturer.
Therefore, learning spaces need to be seen as dynamic not only spatially but also temporally.
Radcliffe et al (2009) offer a design and evaluation framework based around the interaction of
pedagogy, space and technology. These three variables are seen to interact and determine the
nature of the resultant learning spaces. Given the present evaluation of students and lecturer
experiences, we tentatively suggest an alternative model for considering the design, but more
importantly the evolving relationships and pedagogies within new learning spaces, what we
refer to as DEEP learning spaces (see Figure 5.1).
Learning spaces need to be seen as extremely dynamic in nature. This means that they should
be seen as constantly changing in both space and time. Massey (2005) makes the case for
seeing space as being socially constructed and therefore constantly changing. However, this can
only happen if considered in relation to time and therefore we must see learning spaces as
inherently flexible and dynamic as the relationships, activities and personal histories of both
students and lecturers change and evolve. In designing learning spaces and in assessing their
long-term development these issues need to be taken into account.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
•In space
•In time
•co-constructivist
•consultative
25
•environment
•pedagogy
•multiple learning
approaches
Dynamic
Engaging
Participatory
Ecological
•systems approach
•sustainable
Figure 5.1 Outline schematic of elements of DEEP learning spaces
Learning spaces also need to be engaging. This includes the environments in which learning
takes place, and there is clear evidence from the present research that a well considered,
modern and clean environment with suitable light, temperature and furniture becomes central
in engaging students in their learning. The environment must also be considered in relation to
the pedagogies which are used by lecturers, themselves dynamic due to changes over time as
the result of changing experiences. By developing engaging pedagogies through multiple
learning approaches within engaging environments the learning space becomes more learning
orientated. Again, evidence from the current research suggests that where both environments
and pedagogy are engaging the learning experience of students is more positive.
Ecological learning spaces should be sustainable at a practical level. This means that the
inclusion of technology needs to be carefully considered, as well as making sure that choices in
furniture and other basic elements of a learning space such as paint, lighting etc have been
considered for their sustainability and longevity. Ecological learning spaces should also be
considered through a systems approach which means that not only all elements of the space
itself, including the physical, technological and human elements need to be considered, but also
the relative positioning of the learning space in relation to other available physical spaces (both
formal and informal) and virtual spaces such as virtual learning environments and Web 2.0
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
26
applications. Again, the results from the current research suggests that where these various
elements have been explicitly linked the flexibility and enrichment of learning is deeper.
Participatory learning spaces are those where the environment, learning and relationships are
continually negotiated, both formally and informally, by the lecturers and students. This closely
aligns participatory learning spaces with the notion of dynamism in time and space. In their
creation both staff and students need to be consulted in order to facilitate a sense of ownership
and belonging. Participatory learning spaces, in being co-constructivist must also take account
of the needs and development of lecturers, ensuring that they have the opportunity and time
to consider and discuss the development of their own practice.
We suggest that it is by considering these elements of the learning experience and the
environments in which they occur that not only critical design of learning spaces can develop,
but continued discussion and debate can take place which ensure that the learning spaces
continue to evolve and regenerate long after initial physical refurbishment.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
27
6.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, the literature on higher education learning spaces in recent years has made a
strong case for flexible and creative physical learning spaces. The research here suggests that
this change need not be expensive and related to large allocation of resource. With a small
number of physical changes, and a clear rationale concerning pedagogy, new learning spaces
can make a large difference in the experiences of both lecturers and students. However, we
would go further by suggesting, through our tentative DEEP learning model, that a more
complex systems approach which continues to consider the pedagogical and spatial changes in
spaces once refurbished can continue to evolve new and dynamic learning opportunities.
Practical Implications
The following points are the main practical implications for the design, development and
evaluation of learning spaces which emerge from the current research:








pedagogy must be central to the design, development and use of learning spaces;
spaces need to be flexible to allow for different pedagogical approaches to be aided by
their design. This means that more ‘traditional’ approaches to teaching and learning
should be equally applicable as more innovative pedagogies;
diff levels of ICT and infrastructure input have been strongly vindicated – successful
learning spaces do not always require a wide spectrum of technological inputs;
white walls are a central element of learning space design where possible;
technology must be implemented in a way that is enabling for lecturers and learners;
in the design phase of learning space development, stakeholders need to be consulted
to ensure that the resultant space provides a positive experience for both lecturers and
students;
careful planning and use of new furniture and decoration can play a central role in
making a learning space more flexible;
the design of learning spaces should take the level of environmental sustainability into
account.
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
28
References
Brown, M.B. & Lippincott, J.K. (2003) ‘Learning Spaces: More tan Meets the Eye’ EDUCAUSE
Quarterly, 1, pp.14-16
Cigman, R. and Davis A. (eds.) (2009) New Philosophies of Learning Chichester, WileyBlackwell
Dudek, M. (2000) Architecture of Schools: The New Learning Environments London,
Architectural Press
Fisher, D. and Khine, M.S. (2006) Contemporary Approaches to Research on Learning
Environments New Jersey, World Scientific
Jamieson, P.J.; Fisher, K.; Gildng, T.; Taylor, P.G. & Trevitt, A.C.F. (2000) ‘ place and space in the
design of new learning environments’ higher education research and development, 19 (2),
pp.221-237
Jamieson, P. (2003) ‘Designing More Effective On-campus Teaching and Learning Spaces: A Role
for Academic Developers’ International Journal for Academic Development, 8 (1/2), pp. 119-133
Jarvis, P. (2009) Learning to be a Person in Society, London, Routledge
JISC (2006) Designing spaces for effective learning: a guide to 21st-century learning space
design , Bristol, HEFCE
Johnson, C. & Lomas, C. (2005) ‘Design of the Learning Space: Learning and Design Principles’
Educause Review, July/August. pp. 16-28
Jonassen, D.H. and Land, S.M. (eds.) (2000) Theoretical Foundations of Learning
Environments New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Long, P.D. & Ehrmann, S. C. (2005) ‘Future of the Learning Space: Breaking Out of the Box’
Educause Review, July/August. pp. 42-58
Massey, D. (2005) For Space , London, Sage.
Oblinger, D.G. (2006) Learning Spaces, Washington D.C., Educause,
Punie, Y. (2007) ‘ Learning Spaces: an ICT-enabled model of future learning in the knowledgebased society’ European Journal of education, 42(2), pp.185-199
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
29
Radcliffe, Wilson, Powell, and Tibbetts (2009) Learning spaces in higher education-positive
outcomes by design University of Queensland
Scottish funding Council (2006) spaces for learning: a review of learning spaces in further and
higher education
Taylor, A. (2009) Linking Architecture and Education: Sustainable Design of Learning
Environments, Albuquerque University of New Mexico Press
Temple, P. (2008) ‘ learning spaces in higher education: an under-researched topic’ London
review of education, 6 (3), pp. 229-241
Van Note Chism, N. & Bickford, D.J. (2002) ‘The importance of physical space in creating
supportive learning environments’ New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92 (Winter)
Vredevoogd, J. & Grummon, P. (2009) ‘ survey of learning space design higher education’
presented at the 44th annual, International conference of the Society for college and university
planning, July 19-22, 2009, Portland, Oregon
Woolner P. (2010) The Design of Learning Spaces. London, Continuum
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
Appendix 1 – Selected results from baseline questionnaire
I like teaching approaches
which focus on discussion
I like teaching approaches
which focus on lectures and
note-taking
I like teaching approaches
which focus on problemsolving and decision-making.
The most important outcome
of a course is passing an
exam or other assessment
well
The most important outcome
of a course is the
development of learning and
understanding
The most important outcome
of a course is feeling that I
have been challenged
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
MAIE & TESOL
MSLS
25.0%
62.5%
0.0%
12.5%
0.0%
12.5%
25.0%
37.5%
12.5%
12.5%
37.5%
37.5%
12.5%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
25.0%
25.0%
0.0%
37.5%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2
5
0
1
0
1
2
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
0
0
4
2
2
0
3
4
0
0
Museum Studies
MSLS
14.3%
1
57.1%
4
28.6%
2
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
42.9%
3
42.9%
3
14.3%
1
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
42.9%
3
42.9%
3
14.3%
1
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
42.9%
3
14.3%
1
42.9%
3
0.0%
0
28.6%
2
71.4%
5
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
Geography PGCE
D107
25.0%
2
62.5%
5
12.5%
1
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
37.5%
3
25.0%
2
12.5%
1
25.0%
2
37.5%
3
62.5%
5
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
37.5%
3
12.5%
1
50.0%
4
0.0%
0
75.0%
6
25.0%
2
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
PGCert
SB001
18.8%
75.0%
6.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.2%
43.8%
37.5%
12.5%
18.8%
75.0%
0.0%
6.2%
0.0%
0.0%
6.2%
43.8%
37.5%
12.5%
43.8%
56.2%
0.0%
0.0%
3
12
1
0
0
0
1
7
6
2
3
12
0
1
0
0
1
7
6
2
7
9
0
0
Strongly disagree
12.5%
1
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
37.5%
25.0%
12.5%
25.0%
3
2
1
2
14.3%
85.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1
6
0
0
37.5%
62.5%
0.0%
0.0%
3
5
0
0
18.8%
62.5%
18.8%
0.0%
3
10
3
0
Strongly disagree
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
30
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
I like working in a room with
desks in rows, facing the front
of the room.
I like working in a room
where the desks are in groups
of 4-6 seats.
I like working in a room with
no tables, only chairs
I like working in a room with
lots of light
I like to work in a room where
furniture can be moved
around to allow different
activities
I like to have information and
exercises provided on virtual
learning environments (e.g.
Blackboard, WebCT) to
supplement my work in
lessons
I like to use Web 2.0
applications such as blogs and
wikis etc
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
0.0%
12.5%
37.5%
37.5%
12.5%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
62.5%
37.5%
12.5%
50.0%
25.0%
12.5%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
75.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
1
3
3
1
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
1
4
2
1
0
4
4
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
0.0%
57.1%
28.6%
14.3%
0.0%
14.3%
57.1%
14.3%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
57.1%
42.9%
28.6%
57.1%
14.3%
0.0%
0.0%
42.9%
57.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
28.6%
28.6%
28.6%
14.3%
0
4
2
1
0
1
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
4
3
2
4
1
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
0.0%
37.5%
0.0%
50.0%
12.5%
0.0%
75.0%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
25.0%
37.5%
25.0%
50.0%
37.5%
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
75.0%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
62.5%
37.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0
3
0
4
1
0
6
2
0
0
0
1
2
3
2
4
3
1
0
0
6
2
0
0
0
5
3
0
0
0.0%
12.5%
6.2%
62.5%
18.8%
25.0%
43.8%
31.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
18.8%
12.5%
56.2%
12.5%
50.0%
43.8%
6.2%
0.0%
0.0%
56.2%
43.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
62.5%
12.5%
12.5%
0
2
1
10
3
4
7
5
0
0
0
3
2
9
2
8
7
1
0
0
9
7
0
0
0
2
10
2
2
Strongly disagree
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
37.5%
50.0%
0.0%
12.5%
0
3
4
0
1
0.0%
14.3%
42.9%
28.6%
14.3%
0
1
3
2
1
12.5%
62.5%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1
5
2
0
0
12.5%
18.8%
25.0%
43.8%
0.0%
2
3
4
7
0
31
Evaluation Report: Experimental Learning Spaces
32