Search

This study is part of a larger critical discourse analysis (CDA) that examines technology-enhanced learning environments, such as online learning, e-learning, Web-based learning, computer-assisted learning, computer-mediated learning, and open and distance learning. The goal of this qualitative research was to analyze how educational technology scholars perceive and interpret technology in teaching and learning contexts. Using Carl Mitcham's typology of technological frames, which categorizes technology into four groups: (1) object, (2) knowledge, (3) activity, and (4) volition, we identified the types of technological frames that educational technology scholars use to define learning environments. The content analysis of nine semi-structured interviews showed that scholars primarily associate technology with volition (i.e., individuals’ motivations, desires, will, culture, and consent regarding technology), followed by activity (i.e., technology related actions such as designing, drafting, crafting, programming, and analyzing) and object (i.e., tools), while technology as knowledge (i.e., facts, explicit and implicit skills, recipes, rules, beliefs, descriptive laws, principles, and experiences) was the least referenced technological aspect. Additionally, we discovered a new aspect of technology called “space.” The findings provide theoretical and practical insights into the literature on technological frames in online and distance learning. Importantly, insights into possible directions for research on online learning in the coming decade are offered.

Introducing new technologies to faculty members provides opportunities to reconstruct the ways they teach, evaluate, interact, and communicate. Yet, the personal and organisational perceptions regarding the nature of technology can filter, frame, and guide faculty’s interactions with technology. In this case study conducted in a faculty professional development context, we carried out a thematic analysis to explore the technological interpretations in the faculty’s definitions of technology. We analysed 32 definitions through Mitcham’s technological frames categories, and it was observed that faculty attached various meanings to technology in terms of (1) object, (2) knowledge, (3) activity, and (4) volition perspectives. The role of self-interactions and social interactions in higher education has been discussed regarding the formation of technological understanding.

In this qualitative case study, we investigated how active learning strategies discussed and practiced in the face-to-face classroom context were transferred to an online modality by four faculty fellows of Indiana University’s Mosaic Faculty Fellows Program. This program is intended to support faculty members’ perception of how classroom space influences approaches to active learning. In 2020, all faculty members had to transition their courses online, and the semi-structured interview findings of this study showed that faculty members used three online space types to support the continued use of active learning approaches when transitioning to online: (1) core space to replicate existing practices (e.g., video conference and text), (2) shared space to supplement existing practices, and (3) augmented space to transform existing practices (e.g., activities that merge the physical world and online space). We concluded that preparing faculty members to effectively use active learning approaches in in-person classrooms can also guide active learning approaches in online teaching environments. The study also discussed the need for professional development programs that address support for active learning in different modalities by considering augmented space and its impact on student engagement.

Educators have used outdoor space to support learning throughout history. Over the past several years, the COVID-19 pandemic has compelled institutions of higher education to make innovations toward planning and constructing outdoor learning spaces on campus as a necessary measure for promoting student health and safety. This scoping literature review explores the landscape of research on use of campus space developed for outdoor learning in higher education around the world. In this review, we synthesize relevant research based on descriptive characteristics, research interests, supporting theories and frameworks, technology use, and learning outcomes. Our search uncovered a range of developed (i.e., constructed) outdoor space design guidelines, outdoor learning activities, and theoretical frameworks that expand our understanding of outdoor spatial use on college and university campuses. This scoping review offers qualitative and descriptive quantitative findings and offers practical implications for higher education stakeholders as they explore possibilities for developing outdoor space on their campuses for teaching and learning.

A growing diversity of classroom designs, broadly labeled as active learning classrooms, is a rising development across higher education institutions. Along with the construction of these new spaces, stakeholders have developed new vocabularies and concepts for articulating and identifying the impact of new classroom designs for teaching and learning. As new language evolves and ways of thinking about classroom space evolve along with new designs, there has yet to emerge an explicit conceptual framework of the nature of the learning spaces that holistically addresses the cultural, contextual, communicative, and interactional experiences of the faculty. The aim of the present study was to investigate spatial understandings of faculty members in the context of a professional development program in an attempt to identify the social construction of space in active learning classrooms. We conducted a content analysis of 25 reflective portfolios written between 2018 and 2020. Grounding on the Henri Lefebvre's Spatial Triad (1991), we found that faculty members used three types of space as describing their spatial experiences in classrooms: (1) perceived space, (2) conceived space, and (3) experienced space. The results were discussed in terms of a cultivated space approach to support faculty in developing pedagogical agility across various learning environments.

Purpose: Systematic efforts to study students' use of informal learning spaces are crucial for determining how, when and why students use such spaces. This case study provides an example of an effort to evaluate an informal learning space on the basis of students' usage of the space and the features within the space. Design/methodology/approach: Use of heatmap camera technology and a semi-structured interview with a supervisor of an informal learning space supported the mixed-methods evaluation of the space. Findings: Findings from both the heatmap outputs and semi-structured interview suggested that students' use of the informal learning space is limited due to the location of the space on campus and circumstances surrounding students' day-to-day schedules and needs. Practical implications: Findings from both the heatmap outputs and semi-structured interview suggested that students' use of the informal learning space is limited due to the location of the space on campus and circumstances surrounding students' day-to-day schedules and needs. These findings are actively contributing to the authors' institution's efforts surrounding planning, funding and design of other informal learning spaces on campus. Originality/value: While most research on instructors' and students' use of space has taken place in formal classrooms, some higher education scholars have explored ways in which college and university students use informal spaces around their campuses (e.g. Harrop and Turpin, 2013; Ramu et al., 2022). Given the extensive time students spend on their campuses outside of formal class meetings (Deepwell and Malik, 2008), higher education institutions must take measures to better understand how their students use informal learning spaces to allocate resources toward the optimization of such spaces. This mixed-methods case study advances the emerging global discussion on how, when and why students use informal learning spaces.