Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the Change in Space in a Technology-Enabled Primary Years Setting

  • Chapter
The Translational Design of Schools

Part of the book series: Advances in Learning Environments Research ((ALER))

Abstract

There has been considerable attention in the literature postulating the potential effects of contemporary, technology-enabled new generation learning spaces (NGLS) on both teaching and learning (Brooks, 2011, 2012). This has, in part, been driven by the pervasive and transformative potential of ubiquitous access to and use of digital technology in the classroom (Chan et al., 2006).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Baguley, T. (2009). Standardized or simple effect size: What should be reported? British Journal of Psychology, 100, 603–617. doi:10.1348/000712608X377117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bautista, G., & Borges, F. (2013). Smart classrooms: Innovation in formal learning spaces to transform learning experiences. Bulletin of the IEEE Technical Committeee on Learning Technology, 15(3), 18–21. Retrieved from http://lttf.ieee.org/

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beeson, P. M., & Robey, R. R. (2006). Evaluating single-subject treatment research: Lessons learned from the aphasia literature. Neuropsychology Review, 16(4), 161–169. doi:10.1007/s11065-006-9013-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., O’Mara, J., & Loughlin, J. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes: Literature review. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development Retrieved from http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/publ/research/publ/blackmore_learning_spaces.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers and Education, 50(2), 475–490. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobrovitz, C. D., & Ottenbacher, K. J. (1998). Comparison of visual inspection and statistical analysis of single-subject data in rehabilitation research. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77(2), 94–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocconi, S., Kampylis, P. G., & Punie, Y. (2012). Innovating learning: Key elements for developing creative classrooms in Europe. Luxembourg, Europe: Joint Research Centre for the European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D. C. (2012). Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning spaces on instructor and student behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2), 1–10. doi:http://z.umn.edu/jols

  • Buchanan, R. (2011). Paradox, promise and public pedagogy: Implications of the federal government’s digital education revolution. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 6. doi:10.14221/ajte.2011v36n2.6

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, C., & Grosvenor, I. (2008). School. London, England: Reaktion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2014). Making the space for space: The effect of the classroom layout on teacher and student usage and perception of one-to-one technology. Paper presented at the Conference Proceedings of the Australian Computers in Education Conference 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2014). Making the case for space: The effect of learning spaces on teaching and learning. Curriculum and Teaching, 29(1), 5–19. doi:10.7459/ct/29.1.02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byiers, B. J., Reichle, J., & Symons, F. J. (2012). Single-subject experimental design for evidencebased practice. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(4), 397–414. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0036)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey, L. B., Meindl, J. N., Frame, K., Elswick, S., Hayes, J., & Wyatt, J. (2012). Current trends in education: How single-subject research can help middle and high school educators keep up with the zeitgeist. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(3), 109–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, T.-W., Roschelle, J., His, S., Kinshuk, S., Sharples, M., Brown, T., … Norris, C. (2006). One-toone technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 3–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, W. L. (2009). “A” teacher space or a learner place? Reconsidering the classroom environment. International Journal of Learning, 16(9), 261–267. Retrieved from http://www.Learning-Journal.com

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S. (2005). Evidence-based practice in educational research: A critical realist critique of systematic review. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(3), 415–428. doi:10.1080/01425690500128932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, B. W. (2009). Engaging spaces: An investigation into middle school educational opportunities provided by innovative built environments: A new approach to understanding the relationship between learning and space. International Journal of Learning, 16(5), 385–397. Retrieved from http://www.Learning-Journal.com

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, B. W. (2011). Engaging spaces: Innovative learning environments, pedagogies and student engagement in the middle years of school (Doctor of Philosophy). University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condie, R., & Munro, R. (2007). The impact of ICT in schools – A landscape review. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1627/1/becta_2007_landscapeimpactreview_report.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Coryn, C. L. S., Schröter, D. C., & Hanssen, C. E. (2009). Adding a time-series design element to the success case method to improve methodological rigor an application for nonprofit program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(1), 80–92. doi:10.1177/1098214008326557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An examination of one-to-one computing in the middle school: Does increased access bring about increased student engagement? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4), 423–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, K. D. (2004). Revoicing classrooms: A spatial manifesto. Forum, 46(1), 36–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, K. D. (2010). Technology-enabled active learning environments: An appraisal. CELE Exchange. Centre for Effective Learning Environments, 2010(6–10), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers and Education, 50(3), 906–914. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2007). Breakthrough. Victoria, Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for likert-type scales. Paper presented at the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall-van den Elsen, C., & Palaskas, T. (2014). Transition to next generation learning spaces. In K. Fraser (Ed.), The future of learning and teaching in next generation learning spaces (Vol. 12, pp. 199–218). England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A. D., McGregor, J. C., Perencevich, E. N., Furuno, J. P., Zhu, J., Peterson, D. E., & Finkelstein, J. (2006). The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(1), 16–23. doi:10.1197/jamia.M1749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1499–1509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. Newcastle, England: Center for Learning and Teaching, School of Education, Communication and Language Science, University of Newcastle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213–225. doi:10.1080/17439880701511040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the education endowment foundation. Retrieved November 27, 2013, from http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/The_Impact_of_Digital_Technologies_on_Learning_%282012%29.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, G. M. (1999). Contesting learning models. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education and New Zealand Association for Research in Education Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horner, R. H., Swaminathan, H. S., & George, S. K. (2012). Considerations for the systematic analysis and use of single-case research. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technologyintegrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277–302. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT – Replacement, amplification, and transformation – Framework. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 1616–1620). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hur, J. W., & Oh, J. (2012). Learning, engagement, and technology: Middle school students’ three-year experience in pervasive technology environments in South Korea. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 295–312. doi:10.2190/EC.46.3.e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacklin, H. (2000). Locating pedagogy. Paper presented at the British Sociological Association Annual Conference, York, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenson, W. R., Clark, E., Kircher, J. C., & Kristjansson, S. D. (2007). Statistical reform: Evidence-based practice, meta-analyses, and single subject designs. Psychology in the Schools, 44(5), 483–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, T., Gubby, L., & Smith, A. (2012). Space frontiers for new pedagogies: A tale of constraints and possibilities. Studies in Higher Education, 37(2), 189–202. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.503270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, M. V., Ottenbacher, K. J., & Reichardt, C. S. (1995). Strong quasi-experimental designs for research on the effectiveness of rehabilitation. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 383–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinugasa, T., Cerin, E., & Hooper, S. (2004). Single-subject research designs and data analyses for assessing elite athletes’ conditioning. Sports Medicine, 34(15), 1035–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kromrey, J. D., & Foster-Johnson, L. (1996). Determining the efficacy of intervention: The use of effect sizes for data analysis in single-subject research. The Journal of Experimental Education, 65(1), 73–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, J. M. C., Wang, P. Y., & Lin, I. (2012). Pedagogy* technology: A two-dimensional model for teachers’ ICT integration. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippman, P. C. (2010). Can the physical environment have an impact on the learning environment? CELE Exchange, Centre for Effective Learning Environments, 2010(11–14), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippman, P. C. (2013). Designing collaborative spaces for schools: Part 1. The Journal, January. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2013/02/13/designing-collaborative-spaces-for-schools.aspx

    Google Scholar 

  • Magee, C. M. (2009). A phenomenological, hermeneutic case study of two studio learning environments: Reggio Emilia pre-school atelier and MIT teal freshmen studio physics (Doctor of Education). The George Washington University, Washington, DC. Retrieved from EBSCOhost psyh database website: https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2009-99231-304&scope=site

    Google Scholar 

  • Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarter, S., & Woolner, P. (2011). How listening to student voice can enable teachers to reflect on and adjust their use of physical space. Educational and Child Psychology, 28(1), 20–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, J. (2004). Space, power and the classroom. Forum, 46(1), 13–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller-Cochran, S., & Gierdowski, D. (2013). Making peace with the rising costs of writing technologies: Flexible classroom design as a sustainable solution. Computers and Composition, 30(1), 50–60. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2012.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2012). Research design explained (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space and built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 1–19. Retrieved from http://www.torinmonahan.com/papers/Inventio.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouza, C., & Lavigne, N. C. (2013). Introduction to emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective. In C. Mouza & N. C. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perone, M. (1999). Statistical inference in behavior analysis: Experimental control is better. The Behavior Analyst, 22, 109–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 525–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prieto, L. P., Dlab, M. H., Gutiérrez, I., Abdulwahed, M., & Balid, W. (2011). Orchestrating technology enhanced learning: a literature review and a conceptual framework. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(6), 583–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radcliffe, D., Wilson, H., Powell, D., & Tibbetts, B. (2008). Designing next generation places of learning: Collaboration at the pedagogy-space-technology nexus. Brisbane, Australia: The University of Queensland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rassafiani, M., & Sahaf, R. (2010). Single case experimental design: An overview. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 17(6), 285–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynard, R. (2009, April). Designing learning spaces for instruction, not control. Campus Technology. Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/04/29/designing-learning-spaces-for-instruction-not-control.aspx

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, C. (2006). Towards an integrated framework for designing effective ICT-supported learning environments: The challenge to better link technology and pedagogy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(2), 239–255. doi:10.1080/14759390600769771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (3rd ed.). Chichester & Hoboken, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, Y., & Beck-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining digital content and a one-to-one laptop environment in teaching and learning: Lessons from the time to know program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present:

    Google Scholar 

  • Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., & Cook, T. D. (1999). Comment-design rules: More steps toward a complete theory of quasi-experimentation. Statistical Science, 14(3), 294–300. doi:10.2307/2676764

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, K., van’T Hooft, M., Kratcoski, A., & Schenker, J. (2007). Ubiquitous computing and changing pedagogical possibilities: Representations, conceptualizations and uses of knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 481–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamim, R. M., Lowerison, G., Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2011). A multi-year investigation of the relationship between pedagogy, computer use and course effectiveness in postsecondary education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(1), 1–14. doi:10.1007/s12528-010-9041-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington, KY: CreateSpace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upitis, R. (2004). School architecture and complexity. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 1(1), 19–38. Retrieved from www.complexityandeducation.ca

    Google Scholar 

  • Upitis, R. (2009). Complexity and design: How school architecture influences learning. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 3(2), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, A. (2003). How many repeated measures in repeated measures designs? Statistical issues for comparative trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 3(1), 22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, S. G., & Thoemmes, F. (2010). Campbell’s and Rubin’s perspectives on causal inference. Psychological Methods, 15(1), 18–37. doi:10.1037/a0015917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilks, S. (2009). Observing the transformation of pedagogies and spaces. Critical and Creative Thinking, 17(2), 29–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2004). Learning environments in information and communications technology classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(1), 97–123. doi:10.1080/14759390400200175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, A. A. (2007). A framework for studying 1:1 computing initiatives. In M. van’T Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 147–166). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Melbourne, Australia

    Terry Byers

  2. University of Melbourne, Australia

    Wesley Imms

Authors
  1. Terry Byers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wesley Imms
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Melbourne, Australia

    Kenn Fisher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Byers, T., Imms, W. (2016). Evaluating the Change in Space in a Technology-Enabled Primary Years Setting. In: Fisher, K. (eds) The Translational Design of Schools. Advances in Learning Environments Research. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-364-3_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-364-3_10

  • Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-364-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation