Andrea Annus, Kai Pata, Terje Väljataga, Halliki Põlda
pp. 111 – 140, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-064-002)
Abstract
Technologically enhanced social dimension of a learning space is under researched, yet it plays an important role in supporting the learners. The aim of the study was to explore the values that underpin the construction of the social dimension of a learning space supporting adult education practices. Perceptions of higher education learners, learning facilitators, and educational technologists were collected in the form of group-interview workshops. Results indicated that disruptive technologies encourage the appearance of engagement, interactivity, effectiveness, empowerment and empathy in relation to the social dimension of a learning space. Findings suggest that disruptive technologies have the potential for the emergence of enhanced accessibility to learning, rise in learner autonomy and equity of the learning parties. However, questions regarding privacy, surveillance, trust and coercion of the social dimension might arise due to the technology integration.
Keywords: learning space construction, social dimension, values perspective, disruptive technologies, higher education.
References
1. Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of Architecture 19(1), pp. 43-63 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2014.882376
2. Harrison, M. Space as a tool for analysis: Examining digital learning spaces. Open Praxis 10(1), pp. 17-28 (2018). https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.1.782
3. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education 4(2), pp. 193-212 (2005). https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566
4. Oblinger, D. Space as a Change Agent. In Oblinger D. (Ed.) Learning Spaces, pp. 1.1-1.6. Educause (2006).
5. Chism, N. V. N. Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces. In Oblinger D. (Ed.) Learning Spaces, pp. 2.1-2.12. Educause (2006).
6. Montgomery, T. Space matters: Experiences of managing static formal learning spaces. Active Learning in Higher Education 9(2) 122-138 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787408090839
7. Elkington, S., & Bligh, B. Future learning spaces: Space technology and pedagogy (Doctoral dissertation Advance HE) (2019).
8. De Caro-Barek, V., Lysne, D. A., Støckert, R., Solbjørg, O. K., & Røren, K. A. F. Dynamic learning spaces—dynamic pedagogy. Students’ voices from a master’s program focusing on student active learning in a cross-institution two-campus organization. In Frontiers in Education vol. 8 pp. 1155374 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1155374
9. Maheran, Y., Fadzidah, A., Nur Fadhilah, R., & Farha, S. A Review of Criteria for Outdoor Classroom in Selected Tertiary Educational Institutions in Kuala Lumpur. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 291). Institute of Physics Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/291/1/012014 (2018).
10. Leijon, M., Nordmo, I., Tieva, Å., & Troelsen, R. Formal learning spaces in Higher Education–a systematic review. Teaching in Higher Education, pp. 1-22 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2066469
11. Jessop, T., Gubby, L., & Smith, A. Space frontiers for new pedagogies: a tale of constraints and possibilities. Studies in Higher Education 37(2), pp. 189-202 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.503270
12. Bergdahl, N., & Hietajärvi, L. Social engagement in distance-remote- and hybrid learning. Journal of Online Learning Research 8(3), pp. 315-342 (2022).
13. Christou, E., Parmaxi, A., Nicolaou, A., & Pashia, E. Learning spaces in higher education: A systematic literature Review. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 431-446, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34550-0_31
14. Haggis, T. Exploring the ‘black box’ of process: A comparison of theoretical notions of the ‘adult learner’ with accounts of postgraduate learning experience. Studies in Higher Education 27(2), pp. 207-220 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220119986
15. Schwartz, S. H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 1-65. Academic Press (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
16. Parks, L., & Guay, R. P. Personality values and motivation. Personality and Individual Differences 47(7), pp. 675-684 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.002
17. Flavin, M. Disruptive technologies in higher education. Research in Learning Technology 20 (2012). https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.19184
18. Lambert, S. R. Six critical dimensions: A model for widening participation in open online and blended programs. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 35(6), pp. 161–182 (2019). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5683
19. Mystakidis, S., Berki, E., & Valtanen, J. P. Deep and meaningful e-learning with social virtual reality environments in higher education: A systematic literature review. Applied Sciences 11(5), pp. 2412 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052412
20. Cahapay, M. B. A reconceptualization of learning space as schools reopen amid and after COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education 15(1), pp. 269-276 (2020).
21. Adedokun, O. A., Parker, L. C., Henke, J. N., & Burgess, W. D. Student perceptions of a 21st century learning space. Journal of Learning Spaces 6(1) (2017).
22. Walker, J. D., & Baepler, P. Social context matters: Predicting outcomes in formal learning environments. Journal of Learning Spaces 7(2) (2018).
23. Steel, C., & Andrews, T. Re-imagining teaching for technology-enriched learning spaces: An academic development model. In Physical and virtual learning spaces in higher education: Concepts for the modern learning environment, pp. 242-265. IGI Global (2012). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-114-0.ch015
24. Lubis, F. Education in the disruption era. Britain International of Linguistics Arts and Education (BIoLAE) Journal 1(2), pp. 183-188 (2019). https://doi.org/10.33258/biolae.v1i2.85
25. eDiploma project. D.2.2 e-learning ecosystem for practice based learning with disruptive technologies (No. V1.3) (2023). https://e-diplomaproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/e-DIPLOMA_D.2.2-e-learning-ecosystem-for-practice-based-learning-with-disruptive-technologies.pdf
26. Fiorini, L. A., Borg, A., & Debono, M. Part-time adult students’ satisfaction with online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education 28(2), pp. 354-377 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714221082691
27. Mullen, C., Pettigrew, J., Cronin, A., Rylands, L., & Shearman, D. The rapid move to online mathematics support: changes in pedagogy and social interaction International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 53(1), pp. 64-91 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1962555
28. Troyes Declaration (Timisoara 2.0), retrieved from: https://www.aslerd.org/troyes-declaration/ (n.d.)
29. Biesta, G. Against learning. Reclaiming a language for education in an age of learning. Nordic Studies in Education 25(1), pp. 54-66 (2005). https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-5949-2005-01-06
30. Lagerspetz, M. Konstruktivismi konstrueerimine Eesti ajakirjandusdebatis. In Raud R. (Ed.) Tegelikkus ja sotsiaalsed konstruktsioonid, pp. 119-130. Salv (2019).
31. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology 35(5), pp. 31-38 (1995).
32. Smith, D. P., Hoare, A., & Lacey, M. M. Who goes where? The importance of peer groups on attainment and the student use of the lecture theatre teaching space. FEBS Open Bio 8(9), pp. 1368-1378 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.12494
33. Ramu, V., Taib, N., & Aziz, N. F. The attributes of future social learning built environments towards 21st century education in tertiary education. Planning Malaysia 18 (2020). https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v18i13.796
34. Illeris, K. Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory of learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education 22(4), pp. 396-406 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370304837
35. Kemp, S. Constructivism and problem-based learning, pp. 45-51 (2000).
36. Vygotsky, L. Mind and Society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press (1978).
37. Karu, K. Üliõpilaste arusaamad õppimisest ülikoolis: andragoogiline vaade. [Doctoral dissertation Tallinn University]. ETERA https://www.etera.ee/zoom/76615/view?page=1&p=separate (2020).
38. Wlodkowski, R. J. Enhancing adult motivation to learn (Revised edition). Jossey-Bass (1999).
39. Kolb, D. A. Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall (1984).
40. Wenger, E. A Social Theory of Learning. In Contemporary Theories of Learning p. 217-240. Routledge (2009).
41. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press (1991). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
42. Engeström, Y. Learning in Activity. In Keith Sawyer R. (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, pp. 134-155, Cambridge University Press (2022). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.009
43. Stahl, G., & Hakkarainen, K. Theories of CSCL. In International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, pp. 23–43, Springer International Publishing (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3_2
44. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. In Keith Sawyer R. (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, pp. 406–427. Cambridge University Press (2022). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.025
45. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (Eds.). Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press (1999). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774
46. Illeris, K. A Comprehensive Understanding of Human Learning. In Illeris K. (Ed.) Contemporary Theories of Learning, pp. 1-14, Routledge (2018). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147277-1
47. Bandura, A. Social learning theory. Prentice Hall (1977).
48. Jarvis, P. Lifelong learning: A social ambiguity. In The Routledge International Handbook of Lifelong Learning, pp. 9–18. Taylor and Francis (2009). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203870549
49. Irvine, J. A Comparison of Revised Bloom and Marzano’s New Taxonomy of Learning. Research in Higher Education Journal 33 (2017).
50. Fink, L. D. Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. John Wiley & Sons (2013).
51. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. Train-the-trainers: Implementing outcomes-based teaching and learning in Malaysian higher education. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 8, pp. 1-19 (2011). https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli.8.2011.7624
52. Põlda, H., & Teidla-Kunitsõn, G. Õpiruumi keeleline konstrueerimine üliõpilaste arusaamades. Keel ja Kirjandus 8-9, pp. 719−736 (2020). https://doi.org/10.54013/kk754a6
53. Riddle, M. D., & Souter, K. Designing Informal Learning Spaces Using Student Perspectives. Journal of Learning Spaces 1(2) 1-6 (2012).
54. Lefebvre, H. From the production of space. In Theatre and Performance Design (pp. 81-84). Routledge (2012).
55. Bhakte, A. Disruptive Technology in Higher Education with Special Reference to Library and Information Science. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science Communication and Technology, pp. 212–214 (2022). https://doi.org/10.48175/IJARSCT-2524
56. Danneels, E. Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management 21(4), pp. 246-258 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00076.x
57. Hopster, J. What are socially disruptive technologies? Technology in Society 67 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101750
58. Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. Disruptive technologies: catching the wave. Business Review 73(1) 43–53 (1995).
59. Horváth, I. Disruptive technologies in higher education. In 7th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications CogInfoCom 2016 – Proceedings (2017), pp. 347-352, IEEE (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/CogInfoCom.2016.7804574
60. Xanthidis, D., Manolas, C., Paul, S., & Xanthidou, O. K. Virtual and Augmented Reality: Enhancing the learning experience in higher education in the UAE Current standing & research directions. In 2020 Seventh International Conference on Information Technology Trends (ITT) (pp. 206-211). IEEE (2020 November). https://doi.org/10.1109/ITT51279.2020.9320882
61. Väljataga, T., & Pata, K. Interactivity and Scaffolding in Practice Based Learning with Disruptive Technologies. In INTED2024 Proceedings, pp. 3039-3047. IATED (2024). https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2024.0819
62. AlGerafi, M. A., Zhou, Y., Oubibi, M., & Wijaya, T. T. Unlocking the potential: A comprehensive evaluation of augmented reality and virtual reality in education. Electronics 12(18) 3953 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12183953
63. Johri, A. Augmented sociomateriality: implications of artificial intelligence for the field of learning technology. Research in Learning Technology 30 (2022). https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v30.2642
64. Tang, K. H. D. Implications of Artificial Intelligence for Teaching and Learning. Acta Pedagogia Asiana 3(2), pp. 65-79 (2024). https://doi.org/10.53623/apga.v3i2.404
65. Thompson, P., & Chaivisit, S. Telepresence robots in the classroom. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 50(2), pp. 201-214 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211034778
66. Zhang, M., Duan, P., Zhang, Z., & Esche, S. Development of telepresence teaching robots with social capabilities. In ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (Vol. 52064 p. V005T07A017). American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2018 November). https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2018-86686
67. Kenter, J. O., O’Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K. N., … & Williams, S. What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics 111, pp. 86-99 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006
68. Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. Models of learning space: integrating research on space place and learning in higher education. Review of Education 4 (2), pp. 149–191 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3056
69. Weinberg, M. Technology Values and the Shaping of Social Reality. Bahai World 5. https://bahai-library.com/weinberg_technology_values_reality (2019).
70. Gray, C. M., & Boling, E. Inscribing ethics and values in designs for learning: a problematic. Educational Technology Research and Development 64, pp. 969-1001 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9478-x
71. Pärnpuu, M. Designing for values: value elicitation toolkit. Master’s thesis. Tallinn University (2020).
72. Liao, J., & Lu, X. Exploring the affordances of telepresence robots in foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology 22(3), pp. 20-32 (2018).
73. Saghafian, M., Laumann, K., Akhtar, R. S., & Skogstad, M. R. The evaluation of virtual reality fire extinguisher training. Frontiers in Psychology 11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.593466
74. Kasepalu, R., Prieto, L., Ley, T., & Chejara, P. Do teachers find dashboards trustworthy, actionable and useful? A vignette study using a logs and audio dashboard. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 1–19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09522-5
75. Malmberg, J., Haataja, E., & Järvelä, S. Exploring the connection between task difficulty, task perceptions, physiological arousal and learning outcomes in collaborative learning situations. Metacognition and Learning (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09320-z
76. Saldaña, J. Coding and analysis strategies. Sage Publications, (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.013.001