Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The affordances of innovative learning environments for deep learning: educators’ and architects’ perceptions

  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 13 November 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

Recent learning environments research conducted in Australasia reports positive correlations between innovative learning environments (ILEs) and students’ deep learning. Yet, understandings about how ILEs may support teachers’ professional practice and students’ learning activities are limited, with little research having been conducted into how different spatial affordances may—or may not—enhance opportunities for effective teaching and learning. This study investigated the affordance for learning perceptions of educators and architects with respect to the action possibilities for deep learning in both ILEs and more traditional classrooms. The study identified a taxonomy of affordances found to enhance opportunities for varied pedagogical approaches. In addition, differences were found between educators’ and architects’ perceptions of affordances for learning, revealing a need to better understand how both groups might learn to recognise and subsequently take advantage of action possibilities for deep learning.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Adapted by Imms et al. (2016) (Illustration P. Soccio)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 13 November 2019

    In the original publication of the article, Table 6 was incorrectly published online. The correct Table 6 is given below. The original article has been corrected.

References

  • Atmodiwirjo, P. (2014). Space affordances, adaptive responses and sensory integration by autistic children. International Journal of Design, 8(3), 35–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Davies, F., & Barrett, L. (2015). Clever classrooms: Summary report of the HEAD project. Salford: University of Salford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1970). Faculty patterns in study behaviour. Australian Journal of Psychology, 22(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00040537008254570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48(3), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03013.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8(4), 381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Research monograph. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

  • Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes (Vol. 22). Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, B. (2011). Engaging spaces: innovative learning environments, pedagogies and student engagement in the middle years of school. PhD thesis, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne.

  • Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2014.882376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Hattie, J. (2017). Surface, deep, and transfer? Considering the role of content literacy instructional strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(5), 567–575. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. (2018). Deep learning: engage the world, change the world. Thousand Oaks: California Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaver, W. (1991). Techology affordances. In: CHI ‘91 proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 79–84).

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpin, D. (2007). Utopian spaces of “robust hope”: The architecture and nature of progressive learning environments. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660701447205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to environmental description. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5(3), 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertzberger, H. (2008). Space and learning—Lessons in architecture 3. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imms, W. (2016). Can altering teacher mindframes unlock the potential of innovative learning environments?. Parkville: University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imms, W., Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2016). Evaluating learning environments: Snapshots of emerging issues, methods and knowledge. Advances in learning environments research. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

  • Imms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Murphy, D. (2017). Type and use of innovative learning environments. In LEaRN (Ed.), Australasian schools ILETC survey 1. Parkville: University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2008). Bindings against boundaries: Entanglements of life in an open world [Periodical]. Environment & Planning A, 40, 1796–1810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904773839879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S., Jeong, J. Y., Kim, M. K., Lee, S. W., & Kim, M. (2011). Personal cognitive characteristics in affordance perception: Case study in a lobby. In S. Fukuda (Ed.), Emotional engineering: Service development (pp. 179–206). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S., Kim, M. K., Lee, S. W., Lee, C. S., Lee, C. H., & Lim, J. S. (2007). Affordances in interior design: A case study of affordances in interior design of conference room using enhanced function and task interaction. In ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (Vol. 3, pp. 319–328). https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2007-35864.

  • Koutamanis, A. (2006). Buildings and affordances. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Design computing and cognition’06 (pp. 345–364). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, A., & Lyytinen, K. (2013). Towards a theory of affordance ecologies. In F. de Vaujany & N. Mitev (Eds.), Materiality and space. Technology, work and globalization (pp. 41–61). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lomas, C., & Oblinger, D. (2006). Student practices and their impact on learning spaces. In: D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 501–505.511). Chicago: Educause.

  • Mahat, M., Bradbeer, C., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2018). Innovative learning environments and teacher change: Defining key concepts. Melbourne: LEaRN, University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, J., Fadel, G., & Battisto, D. (2009). An affordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice. Design Studies, 30(4), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. Graphics Interface, 177, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, C. (2009). Disciplinary dilemmas: Learning spaces as a discussion between designers and educators. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy in Education, 17(2), 7–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). Innovative learning environments, educational research and innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2014.958035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tweed, C. (2001). Highlighting the affordances of designs. In B. de Vries, J. van Leeuwen, & H. Achten (Eds.), Computer aided architectural design futures 2001 (pp. 681–696). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects funding scheme LP150100022. We would like to acknowledge the support of the Innovative Learning Environments and Teachers Change (ILETC) ARC Linkage project and the Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN) at the University of Melbourne. We also thank Dr Kenn Fisher for his valuable input into this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN), Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Fiona Young & Benjamin Cleveland

  2. Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN), Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Wesley Imms

Authors
  1. Fiona Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Cleveland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wesley Imms
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiona Young.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: Table 6 was updated.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Affordances perceived by educators and architects at case study sites
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Young, F., Cleveland, B. & Imms, W. The affordances of innovative learning environments for deep learning: educators’ and architects’ perceptions. Aust. Educ. Res. 47, 693–720 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00354-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00354-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation