Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Space Design and Use survey: Establishing a reliable measure of educators’ perceptions of the use of learning environments

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

Abstract

Significant investment in innovative learning environments (ILEs) around the world has created the need for a suite of reliable measures regarding their educational impact. Focusing specifically on principals’ perceptions of pedagogy and learning in a variety of spatial design types, this paper will argue the Space Design and Use survey contains teacher mind frames and student deep learning subscales that constitute a robust analysis of the teaching and learning activities currently being sought by global education priorities. While many studies have investigated variants of teacher mind frames and student learning approaches, few have done so in the context of innovative learning environments. Analysis of 822 survey responses provides much-needed evidence of the possible impact of innovative learning environments on teacher practices and student 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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits and actions: Dispositional predictions of behavior in personality and social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–63). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. (2005). Pedagogy, curriculum and culture. Pedagogy and Practice: Culture and Identities, 2, 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, N. (2018). Negotiating learning spaces design in Irish post-primary schools. In W. Imms & M. Mahat (Eds.), Transitions Europe: What are teachers doing (well) when transitioning from traditional classrooms to innovative learning environments? (pp. 45–50). Retrieved from https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/212080/TransitionsLondon_2017_web%5b1%5d.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

  • Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various χ2 approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological), 16, 296–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Research monograph. Retrieved from Melbourne https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED308201.

  • Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (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), 261–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Cloonan, A., Dixon, M., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Senior, K. (2011). Innovative learning environments research study. Retrieved from https://www.learningspaces.edu.au/docs/learningspaces-final-report.pdf.

  • Bond, T., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbeer, C., Mahat, M., Byers, T., Cleveland, B., Kvan, T., & Imms, W. (2017). The state of play concerning New Zealand’s transition to innovative learning environments: Preliminary results from phase one of the ILETC project. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 32(1), 22–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers, T., Mahat, M., Liu, K., Knock, A., & Imms, W. (2018). A systematic review of the effects of learning environments on student learning outcomes—Technical report 4/2018. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carro, R. & Mosa, E. (2018). Beyond the classroom: Learning spaces for a new generation of schools in Italy. In W. Imms & M. Mahat (Eds.), Transitions Europe: What are teachers doing (well) when transitioning from traditional classrooms to innovative learning environments? (pp. 93–100). Retrieved from https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/212080/TransitionsLondon_2017_web%5b1%5d.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

  • Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1977). Research on teacher thinking. Curriculum Inquiry, 7(4), 279–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coe, R. (2002). It's the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, England.

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth of Australia. (2010). Building the education revolution. Retrieved January 23, 2019, from https://web.archive.org/web/20100417041604/http:/www.deewr.gov.au:80/schooling/buildingtheeducationrevolution/Pages/default.aspx.

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development, theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, H., Dijkstra, M., & Kuhlman, P. (1988). Self-efficacy: the third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioural intentions. Health Education Research, 3(3), 273–282.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J. (1977). Strategies of learning and studying: Recent research findings. British Journal of Educational Studies, 25(3), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3120694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filardo, M., & Vincent, J. (2010). Research on the impact of school facilities on students and teachers: A summary of studies published since 2000. Educational Facility Planner, 44, 25–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gable, R. K., & Wolf, J. W. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain: Measuring attitudes and values in corporate and school settings. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, J. J., Lumpe, A. T., Czerniak, C. M., & Egan, V. (2002). From beliefs to actions: The beliefs and actions of teachers implementing change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 171–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analysis relating to achievement. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Zierer, K. (2017). 10 Mindframes for visible learning: Teaching for success. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Imms, W. (2018). Innovative learning spaces: Catalysts/agents for change, or ‘Just another fad’? In S. Alterator & C. Deed (Eds.), School space and its occupation (pp. 107–118). Amsterdam: Brill Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imms, W., Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. E. (2016). Learning environments evaluation. Snapshots of emerging issues, methods and knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Murphy, D. (2017). Type and use of innovative learning environments in Australasian Schools ILETC Survey 1. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne, LEaRN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Istance, D. (2015). Schooling redesigned: Towards innovative learning systems. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4), 401–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1974). A note on the equamax criterion. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 9(4), 501–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leadbeater, C. (2012). Innovation in education: Lessons from pioneers around the world. Doha: Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomas, C., & Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Student practices and their impact on learning spaces. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 5.1–5.11). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, M. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahat, M., Bradbeer, C., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2018). Innovative learning environments and teacher change: Defining key concepts—Technical Report 3/2018. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne, LEaRN.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • MCEETYA. (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Retrieved March 21, 2018, from https://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.

  • Nash, R., Edwards, H., & Nebauer, M. (1993). Effect of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived control on nurses’ intention to assess patients’ pain. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18(6), 941–947.

    Google Scholar 

  • New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2011). The New Zealand school property strategy 2011–2021. Retrieved from https://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/SchoolOperations/~/media/MinEdu/Files/EducationSectors/PrimarySecondary/PropertyToolbox/StateSchools/SchoolPropertyStrategy201121.pdf.

  • New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2016a). The impact of physical design on student outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Primary-Secondary/Property/School-property-design/Flexible-learning-spaces/FLS-The-impact-of-physical-design-on-student-outcomes.pdf.

  • New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2016b). Māui whakakau, kura whakakau—the impact of physical design on Māori and Pasifika student outcomes. Retrieved from Wellington https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Primary-Secondary/Property/School-property-design/Flexible-learning-spaces/FLS-Maui-whakakau-kura-whakakau.pdf.

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: MacGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2017). The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • P21. (2016). Framework for 21st century learning. The partnership for 21st century skills. Retrieved from https://www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework.

  • Painter, S., Fournier, J., Grape, C., Grummon, P., Morelli, J., Whitmer, S., et al. (2013). Research on learning space design: Present state, future directions. Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 128–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02305.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pask, G., & Scott, B. C. E. (1972). Learning strategies and individual competence. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 4(3), 217–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(72)80004-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perusse, R., Goodnough, G. E., Donegan, J., & Jones, C. (2004). Perceptions of school counselors and school principals about the national standards for school counseling programs and the transforming school counseling initiative. Professional School Counseling, 7, 152–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, A. (2018). Leveraging teachers' lived experiences of inhabiting educational design. In W. Imms & M. Mahat (Eds.), Transitions Australasia: What are teachers doing (well) when transitioning from traditional classrooms to innovative learning environments? (pp. 163–170). Retrieved from https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/198087/Transitions_Melb.indb.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

  • Postareff, L., Parpala, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2015). Factors contributing to changes in a deep approach to learning in different learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 18(3), 315–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, K. (2003). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling. In M. Meiers (Ed.), Building teacher quality: Research conference 2003 proceedings (pp. 15–23). Melbourne: ACER. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/3/.

  • Sasot, S., & Belvis, E. (2017). Hack the school: A creative toolkit to transform school spaces. In W. Imms & M. Mahat (Eds.), Transitions Europe: What is needed to help teachers better utilize space as one of their pedagogic tools. (pp. 41–46). Retrieved from https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/212080/TransitionsLondon_2017_web%5b1%5d.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: NY Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K. (1990). Teacher mind frames and science learning. In K. Tobin, J. B. Khale, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with high-level cognitive learning (pp. 33–91). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., Vassiliou, V., & Nassiakou, M. (1968). Three cross-cultural studies of subjective culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4, Part 2), 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2003). On choosing a model for measuring. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(3), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2005). Subscales and summary scales: issues in health-related outcomes. In J. Lipscomb, C. C. Gotay, & C. Snyder (Eds.), Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods and applications (pp. 465–479). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: Meta Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalaquett, C. P. (2005). Principals’ perceptions of elementary school counselors’ role and functions. Professional School Counseling, 8(5), 451–457.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Australian Research Council. The authors would like to acknowledge the research assistance of Kirra Liu and Roz Ann Mountain on the analysis of the survey data, and the feedback of Joann Cattlin, Dr Terry Byers, Chris Bradbeer, Aamna Shah, and Lisiane Closs on earlier versions of the manuscript. The authors also wish to acknowledge the role of Dr Pippa Soccio in visualising the spatial typologies used in this article within Fig. 1 and in the Space Design and Use survey.

Funding

This research is supported under Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects funding scheme (Project LP150100022). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Melbourne, 100 Leicester Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia

    Marian Mahat & Wesley Imms

Authors
  1. Marian Mahat
    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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marian Mahat.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 994 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahat, M., Imms, W. The Space Design and Use survey: Establishing a reliable measure of educators’ perceptions of the use of learning environments. Aust. Educ. Res. 48, 145–164 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00382-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-020-00382-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation