The Impact of Informal Learning Space Design On Collaborative Learning Experience of Architecture Students
Anlan Chen
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
1
CONTENT
Abstract
.…………………………………...…………...……
Introduction
……….………………………….……………..
Problem Statement
3 4
Formal Interviews Research Analysis
………………………………………….
19
Limitations
………………………………..…………
6
………………………………...……….
7
Conclusion
………………………………………………..
23
Key Definitions
...……………………………………………
7
Appendixes
………………………………………………….
25
Research Design
………………………………..…………...
8
Research Objectives
About Data Collection Research Findings
………………………………………….
Observation and Behaviour Tracing Diagnostic Interviews
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
A: Comparison Chart of the Surveyed Areas B: Diagnostic Interview Guide
11
C: Annotated Plans D: Formal Interview Guide Bibliography
Anlan Chen 361100
2
Abstract
The aim of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of informal learning space designed for architecture students within the Parkville Campus of University of Melbourne. It is known that architecture students tend to spend longer time on campus due to the nature of their study; while informal learning constitutes a substantial part of the tertiary architectural curriculum. Therefore it is of great importance to assess their learning environment in terms of physical quality. As this research reveals that physical environment does generally have profound impact on informal learning behaviour, particularly collaborative learning behaviours. The research was conducted at four strategically-chosen informal learning spot within the campus, using methods of physical tracing, observation and interviews. Analysis of the result indicates that the space studied can be better enhanced to further improve students’ learning experience. Whilst the spatial and functional relationships between the informal learning spaces can be reconfigured in order to have them being utilized more effectively.
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
3
Introduction In 2012 the University of Melbourne commissioned John Wardle Architects and NADAAA to design a new faculty building for the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning(ABP) on the site of the existing Architecture and Old Commerce buildings. Since the demolition work commenced in December 2012, all ABP students had been relocated temporarily into four buildings across the campus: the Baldwin Spencer Building, 757 Swanston St(also known as Building 199), Frank Tate Learning Centre, and 33 Lincoln Square South - which has been reserved exclusively for graduate coursework students and ABP research units. Due to the fact that Frank Tate is also shared by students from other disciplines, and Baldwin Spencer Building is less spatially connected with the other three, for the purpose of this research the focused areas were thereby confined to 757 Swanston St and 33 Lincoln Square South. Six Degree Architects was appointed as the architect for the refurbishment of the two decant buildings. In Melbourne they have been known for their adoption of natural, raw materials and spatial layering in their design. Unfortunately apart from the knowledge that 33 Lincoln Square South used to belong to SalesForce Australia, and 757 Building used to be the Arts Centre, no archival information was found regarding the historical use of the two buildings. Little could be found regarding the architect’s design intent either. For 757 Swanston St, a comparison between the architect’s render drawings and photographs of the existing facilities may give some insight into the execution of the design intent(Diagram 1).
From the render it is evident that the landing areas were designed originally as technology- enabled learning space, complementing the computer labs on other levels. It is assumed that due to the dimness of lighting, considerate noise level and sense of enclosure created by the brick walls – which have been complained by several students surveyed during this research, computer-centred learning space may distract users from lack of physical features normally found in such environment. As a result it is observed that the absence of technology devices after the refurbishment has greatly compromised the appeal and effectiveness of the space.
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
4
Fig. 1 Landing within 757 Swanston St
The refurbishment of 33 Lincoln Square South has mostly reserved the design features included in the original rendering. However it can be seen that the number of computers and storage space in the existing environment is slightly lesser than those in the renders. As two of the major problems reported by interviewees were the inadequate number of computers and the underused locker space, again it is suggested that better execution of the design intent may result in more effective utilization of the space.
Fig.2 33 Lincoln Square South Diagram 1. Comparison between architectural renders and photographs of the existing learning spaces
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
5
Whereas for 33 Lincoln Square South, it is stated on the ABP faculty web page that: ‘Not only will there be a much greater space provision for all students, but facilities in the open plan studio space on the first floor will include an informal lounge, meeting spaces, printing facilities, lockers, kitchenettes and toilets. There will also be banks of computer for student use, and full wireless access. This studio space replicates the open plan working styles adopted by many architectural firms, allowing for greater collaboration and communication’.1
Problem Statement
The design statement above suggests a list of key issues that have been addressed during the design process: mix of formal and informal learning space, provision of storage space, food service area and technological equipment, all of which this research has assessed upon. But more importantly, it also addresses the concepts of ‘collaboration’ and ‘communication’, which have been drawing greater attention in the tertiary education sector in the past decade both in terms of pedagogy and physical space design. Collaboration and communication have been recognized as the missing link in the conventional educational system. For even though collaborative skills are important in many work and social contexts, no systematic teaching of them were present or encouraged in the traditional educational mode. What being missing is the specific learning of collaborative skills such as active listening, positive conflict resolution and awareness or acceptance of other’s views2. This is particularly true for the architectural profession. For architects have always been working in collaboration with other professions, or being put into the position of the project manager whose main task is to negotiate the interests of different stake holders. However even though it is expected of architecture students to learn collaborative skills by means of doing group work - which has already constituted a major proportion of the course assessment. The evaluation of the collaborative learning process remain primarily limited only to the design outcome. While issues like peer support, shared effort and risk management were generally neglected in the teaching and marking processes. Moreover, as it is the interest of this research, physical environment has been
1 2
Faqs About The New Building And Decant Process, n.d. accessed from http://www.abp.unimelb.edu.au/new-building-faqs ESL Fundamentals, 2004. Northern Territory Government, ESL Team. Curriculum Services Branch.
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
6
identified to have considerable influence on the quality of education and learning.3 More and more colleges and universities are incorporating informal learning space into their campus design or renovation. Nevertheless a formal evaluation system still remain absent in the educational research field which could assess the effectiveness of these designed informal learning spaces after occupation.
Research Objectives
Therefore it is the objectives of this research to: identify key physical features of the studied informal learning spaces that have impact, either positively or negatively, on architecture students’ collaborative learning behaviour; measure the intensity of these impact on architecture students qualitatively; enable evidence-based decision making in future development of university campus with respect to informal learning space.
Key Definitions
For the clarity of this research two key definitions need to be addressed first: Informal Learning Spaces are non-discipline specific spaces frequented by both staff and students for self-directed learning activities, which are generally located outside of formal instructive space such as seminar rooms, lecture theatres and laboratories.4 Informal learning space is where students can collaborate, research or complete individual work. This can include but not limited to: student lounge, library, cafe, dormitories and general circulation space.
3 Peter C. Lippman, “Can the physical environment have an impact on the learning environment?” in OECD-CELE Exchange (2010). 4 Deborah Harrop & Bea Turpin, “A Study Exploring Learners’ Informal Learning Space Behaviors, Attitudes, and Preferences” in New Review of Academic Librarianship(2013), 19:1, 58-77.
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
7
Collaborative Learning can be defined as an educational approach that involves groups of learners working together to solve a problem, complete a task, or create a product.5 It is a social act conducted via active engagement among peers, either face-to-face or online (for this research only interpersonal collaboration was studied). It differs from cooperative learning in that group members may work together sequentially also on different aspects of a project. Therefore as long as there is sharing of subject-specific information among students, including sitting in a group but conducting separate studies, it is classified as collaborative learning in this research.
Research Design Through means of physical tracing, observation and interviews, the first three weeks were designed to achieve a deeper understanding of the research objectives and to test the feasibility of the research plan. At this beginning of this phase the research areas were planned as, in 757 Swanston Building: model making space in front of the printing room, Level 7 mezzanine student lounge(hereinafter referred to as mezzanine lounge), informal study space between Level 2 and Level 3 (hereinafter referred to as ISS 23), Level 4 and Level 5 (ISS 45). However due to the fact that even after Week 3 the model making space was still mostly vacant, it had been replaced with a Level 1 of 33 Lincoln Square South(hereinafter referred to as Lincoln Square). Even though the whole floor was selected for the research; for the purpose of observation a specific corner on Level 1 was chosen. It has relatively similar area to the other informal learning spaces. But more importantly it resembles the others in that desks and chairs are arranged in open space for a variety of group activities.(Diagram 2) As a starting point of the research all existing physical features of each research space were recorded and compared(see appendixes). Then annotated plans of each physical space were produced from behaviour observation, with photographs occasionally taken of the key behaviours observed. The observations were conducted three days a week, approximately two hours per day. The continuity of the observation was important, as comparison could be made from detecting changes students had made to the spaces overnight. In addition physical tracing gave insight into how each space was used before and after the observation hours.
5 Collaborative learning, Curtin University, accessed from http://otl.curtin.edu.au/learning_teaching/philosophy_teaching/student_centred/collaborative.cfm
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
8
Interviews, on the other hand, were conducted in two stages. In the first week 21 brief diagnostic interviews were conducted with 14 architectural student on the scene, 4 architectural students who use the spaces often but not on the scene, and 3 students(doing other majors) from other universities who visited the spaces for the first time.(for interview guide refer to appendixes) The interviews were rather informal in nature and were only designed to obtain interviewees’ general impression of the spaces. It was felt that, comparing to questionnaires, open-ended questions would facilitate a comparison of data from several different settings. More importantly the questions were designed to establish a repertoire of the “factors�, may them be physical features, or non-physical ones such as traffic, noise level, proximity to other teaching facilities, which claimed by interviewees to have impact on their learning behaviours, both individually and collaboratively.
Then based on the findings from the data collected, 13 more formal interviews were conducted in the following weeks targeting at groups of
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
9
students studying within the research areas. They were designed to be as specific as possible on the topic of collaborative learning. Overall the questions were categorized into 5 sectors: affordance, group size, adjacency, furnishings, psychological and physiological support. They were designed based on design features proposed by Wolff, which are essential to a physical environment conducive to collaborative learning, and the four assumptions about educational environments established by Weinstein.6 7 However in her paper Wolff focuses more on the college campus in general, while this research targeted on the differences between four chosen research areas.
Diagram 2 Location of the research areas
About Data Collection Measures of the outcomes are necessarily qualitative in this research, but primarily based on comments from student who actually learn and teach in the space. Prior to the conduction of interviews and surveys, oral consent was obtained from all interviewees especially in terms of voice recording. The interviews were either voice recorded or briefly noted. Then they were transcribed into NVivo so that key words could be identified, coded and cross-referenced. As for behaviour observation, it is rather difficult to ask for people’s permissions before taking any photographs without disrupting their ongoing behaviours, especially when they are engaged in heated discussions or conversations. It is also feared that the “Hawthorne Effect” may interfere with the behaviour patterns being observed, meaning that when become aware of the fact that they are being watched, participants may modify
6 7
Susan J Wolff, 2003. “Design Features of the Physical Learning Environment for Collaborative, Project-Based Learning at the Community College Level”, Career and Technical Education. Weinstein, C. S, 1981. “Classroom Design as an External Condition for Learning.” Educational Technology, 21, 12–19.
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
10
their behaviours accordingly either consciously or unconsciously.8 As a result only occasional photographs were taken with consent obtained afterwards. Whilst in most cases key behaviours were either described in written format or being annotated on a sketch plan(refer to appendixes). In order to further minimise the Hawthorne Effect, the role of a “secret outsider” and a “marginal participant” was adopted during observations with a purpose of trying not to draw any attention.9 Except the landing between Level 5 and Level 6 of 757 Swanston Building, which provides an overview of the informal study space downstairs where the researcher could observe without intruding, in all the other sampled areas the researcher pretended to be just another student studying in the same space. Then if of any doubt of the observed behaviours, the researcher approached the participants later asking for their own justifications.
Research Findings
Observation & Physical Tracing Based on data collected from observation and behaviour tracing, as well as recorded through annotated plans, several key aspects of each space were found particularly relevant to this research: Informal Study Space between Level 2 & Level 3
8 9
Collaborative behaviour afforded by furniture: Due to the size and furniture provision of this space it could contain at most one collaborative study group. If there were two people in a group they tend to sit anywhere around the table. However if there were more than two people in a group, its members tend to sit at the corner of the table so they could talk to each other face to face.
R McCarney, J Warner, S Iliffe, R van Haselen , M Griffin, P Fisher, 2007. "The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial", BMC Med Res Methodol 7, p.30. John Zeisel, 1984. Inquiry by Design, CUP Archive, pp.117-119.
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
11
Privacy: As noticed even though the length of the couch is quite long, no more than three students conducting individual activities could sit on it at the same time. If there were three individuals, they tend to stay at then ends of the couch with at most two individuals occupying the table. The general distance between them tend to be approximately between 1.5 to 2 metres. Moreover, though there were posters pinned up on the walls around this study space, few students willing to intrude upon the occupiers’ territory while looking at the posters, with the exception when the space being completely empty. Waiting area: Through observation it was found that the part of the couch with no table in the front functioned like a “waiting area” where visitors to the building tend to sit and relax, which may caused by its proximity to the building entry. While for architecture students sat on this spot, most of them explained that they were either waiting for the next class to begin, which occurs either on the ground or on the third level, or waiting for their friends. Temporariness: Before the new semester began no activity was observed in this space. After the semester commenced individual and collaborative study could be observed. As confirmed by the interviews students would not normally stay there longer than 5 hours. However as the new semester progressed the duration of students’ stay also extended, in some cases up to 8 hours with breaks in between. Natural lighting: Before the commencement of the new semester it was observed that collaborative studies tend to occur when there was natural daylight present. However after the new semester collaborative studies were found after dark too.
Informal Study Space between Level 4 & Level 5
Collaborative behaviour: Same as ISS 23 where there was no table present more subject-irrelevant activities were found in this space such as chatting or playing on mobile phones. Where there were tables provided usually 1-2 individuals or one group would locate themselves on each table, with at least 1.2 metres distance in between each two. This may also related to the fact that students’ personal items, including a variety of books and texts, laptops, model materials, food and
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
12
drinks, and their bags, were often found scattered around the whole table while occupying a relatively large area of the couch. It was observed that generally speaking architecture students tend to carry more items than other students. Moreover even though model making was forbidden in this space, students were still found making models here. When being inquired they simply explained that the other model making spaces were full. Restorative space The absence of restorative space, both within the space and the whole building, was suggested by the student found sleeping in this research area.
Mezzanine Student Lounge
Movement and cross-group interaction In comparison to ISS 23 and ISS 45 more physical movement was found between individuals or groups on the scene. A number of students were observed wandering about the space, sitting on the couches along the balustrade and looking out of the curtain wall during study breaks. In addition peer interaction, which was absent in ISS 23 and ISS 45, was also observed here with students talking to other groups whose member they already know. Non-learning behaviours A few groups of students were found coming here only to have lunch or have a chat with their friends, which according to interviews were sometimes disturbing for other students who only come here for study. The hot water service was frequently used by students in the lounge and in the model making space below. Tutoring This is the only space where tutoring by an university-employed tutor was found during the time span of this research. Even though the space is equipped with teaching devices such as projectors and screens, they are already out of use and the space has been exclusively reserved for informal study. Flexibility of furniture Though no furniture-moving behaviour was found during observations, the different furniture arrangement found almost every day suggested frequent furniture movement according to students’ needs. The random arrangement may seem chaotic and interfere with
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
13
circulation flow at times, as reported by some students during interviews. An instruction on the wall suggests that the space was designed to be kept in order at all time.(Fig.1) In addition it was also observed that round tables were rather different to be pulled together in comparison to rectangle ones. This indicates that the designer had not expected the approximate area a group of 2-4 students may occupy. Neither are the tables designed to be pulled together. Display space The fact that students were found laying their posters on the floor may suggest a display space is needed for students to discuss their works. Sitting preference It is observed that students with laptops tend to sit at the perimeter of the space where power points are located. While students without laptops tend to sit at the perimeters as well, reportedly for a sense of privacy and security. 33 Lincoln Square South
Fig. 1 Instructions on the wall of the Student Lounge
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Movement and cross-group discussion Same as the Student Lounge frequent communication between different groups could be observed throughout the 3 weeks. Computer provision Almost all students observed in this space gathered around either desktops or laptops. Model making This is the only space among the four research areas that allows model making, and is equipped with lockers where models can be stored. However not all
Anlan Chen 361100
14
lockers were occupied, nearly half of them were empty in contrast to the inadequacy of lockers within 757 Swanston St. Flexibility of furniture Same as the Student Lounge positions of the tables and chairs were found changing every day. The location and orientation of the chairs were found a good indication of the behaviours occurred before and after the observation periods. In Lincoln Square chairs were often found clustered in semi-circle, indicating face to face discussions. Litters Though there were rubbish bins present, litters and left-over materials could often be seen scattered on the floor or tables. Food and drinks provision Though vending machine was provided few students were observed to use them. Instead they would often go to coffee shops or restaurant out of the building adjacent to the University of Melbourne campus. As some interviewees considered going out of the building as breakout from all day long studies.
General
The size of the collaborative groups were normally between 2 to 4 people, with one exception being a group of 7 found in the Student Lounge. More collaborative study groups were found in the Student Lounge than the other 3 research areas, both graduate and undergraduate. In all research areas most students were observed carrying food or drinks with them. Empty packaging and bottles were also found left in these spaces. Regardless of individual or group studies, student were found heavily rely on computers and laptops. Where collaborative study behaviours were present the noise level would be at least approximately 5 decibels higher than individual studies. In all spaces except ISS 23 personal belongings were often found unattended, which may suggest a sense of security.
Diagnostic Interviews Among the 7 interviewees whom were not studying at the research spaces, 4 of them considered Lincoln Square as their preferred collaborative
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
15
learning space, while the rest chose Mezzanine Lounge. This preference over Lincoln Square and Mezzanine Lounge was rather obvious in students’ duration of stay in each of the research spaces. For among all the interviewees who either prefer or were studying at Lincoln Square and Mezzanine Lounge, it was commonly confessed that on average they spent at least 2-3 days a week in these spaces, regardless they have classes scheduled on those days or not. While graduate students tend to stay 1-2 days longer than undergraduate. Before assignment deadlines or examination period the two spaces will be fully occupied every day. In contrast all the interviewees studying within ISS 23 and ISS 45 claimed that they tend to spend at most 4-5 hours there, usually when they have classes scheduled. Furthermore some of them claimed that theses spaces would not be their first choice if the other informal study spaces were not fully occupied. As to the design intent of each space, most of the interviewees stated that ISS 23 and ISS 45 were simply temporary study or relax spaces in between classes. Whereas Mezzanine is reserved for learning as well as a breakout space for students between and after classes. Lincoln Square, on the other hand, is more suitable for overnight study with a homey appeal, where students could bring their own personal belongings and literally live there for a couple of days. Moreover, a repertoire of ‘factors’ were collected from all interviewees which they consider were important in regard to their preferences over collaborative learning spaces. It was found that each surveyed space has following positive and negative factors:
Informal Study Area between Level 2&3
Informal Study Area between Level 4&5
Positive Proximity to tram stop Proximity to seminar rooms Seating arrangement not suitable for discussion Relatively more private then ISS 45 Natural skylight Proximity to tram stop Proximity to seminar rooms Seating arrangement not suitable for discussion Adjacency to posters which could be inspirational
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
Negative Lighting is better then ISS 45 but still dim when natural sunlight is not available High noise level from stairwell
Dim lighting – good for working on laptops but not for reading People going up and down the stairwell or staring at presentations can be distracting
16
Mezzanine Student Lounge
33 Lincoln Square South
for study
High noise level from stairwell
Proximity to model storage space Proximity to the printing room Proximity to tram stop Natural lighting City view Presence of breakout area to relax & have lunch Flexibility of furniture Suitable for small group discussion Provision of food and hot water Low ceiling bring a sense of security Partitions between different zones preserve people’s privacy Presence of good-quality computers, printers Presence of pantry
No provision of pantry Not enough space before assignment deadlines Relatively higher noise level Not enough privacy for group discussion The temperature can drop to very low Not suitable for sleep overnight High noise level due to group discussions
Too comfortable to concentrate Relatively far from the teaching space which is in 757 Swanston St, as it was claimed rather difficult to carry models walking around Few desktops provided
All the other preferred collaborative learning spots, either within the University of Melbourne or in other universities, were either a space within a library where talking is allowed, or natural environment such as the South Lawn of the University of Melbourne. Common factors could be found among the interviewees’ comments on these spots and the research areas: open plan with a level of privacy for the learning group, technological equipment(for architecture students), provision of food and drinks, and good environmental conditions such as lighting and temperature. Formal Interviews Affordance
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
17
Common physical features among the four research spaces which interviewees consider conducive to collaborative learning includes: natural lighting, size and material of the seating, provision of technological devices, and provision of model making space. Some interviewees confessed that even though they have to talk within the group, they do not wish to have any ambient noise. Rather they prefer a quite and exclusive space where could talk freely, as this respond to their need for space and privacy. On the contrary if everyone else is relatively quite, interviewees would not talk aloud either, which to some extent hinder the quality of their collaborative learning. Group Size In Student Lounge and Lincoln Square, the group size, as most groups commented, is determined by the number of chairs each table has been assigned for. Whereas in ISS 23 and 45 the group size is determined mostly by the length of the seating. This may due to the fact that seating in these areas only align on one side of the table. All 13 groups prefer flexible furniture to build-in ones, while some of the group members said that “it would be nice to have some individual space next to the group area”. Some interviewees at ISS 23 and 45 noted that in comparison to the Student Lounge build-in furniture may appear more ordered and organized, which may not necessarily aid collaborative learning but does improve the overall circulation . Adjacency Among the 13 groups 10 of them consider the adjacency to teaching space somewhat irrelevant, while the remaining 3 remarked that the proximity allow them not to “carry a model running around”. Most groups does not mind their exposure to the other students. However in terms of distraction and disturbance they brought to the others most groups also considered private space a better option. As confirmed by observation only students in the Student Lounge would like to stroll around the space simply because of the views. Most groups are also quite satisfied with the density of the spaces. However almost all of the interviewees wish there would be more desktops provided. The ideal situation would be one desktop each students – as this is unpractical as it sounds, some students just want “as many computers as possible”. Furnishing
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
18
12 groups consider natural lighting and views important but not indispensable. In addition some group members commented that in general people may tend to be more creative in a sun-lit airy environment. Most groups were unclear on how furniture would impact on the experience of collaboration, particularly in terms of furniture shapes and heights. A few of them compared the University of Melbourne campus to that of RMIT, stating that the diverse colour scheme of the RMIT academic building seemed more inspiring. At the same time, as has also been mentioned during diagnostic interviews, the incorporation of display boards and screens would be beneficial to architecture students. As it is easier to record and share ideas. Psychological/physiological support All the 13 groups agreed that food and drink provisions were important, while most of the interviewees did not mind others eating as long as there were not “all of them eating at the same time”. Members in 6 groups remarked that if the space were too comfortable then it would have the opposite effect on study. Most groups agreed that a breakout space may be helpful in that it could potentially reduce students’ stress level during long hours of discussion. In terms of sense of community, interviewees at the Lincoln Square particularly feel that belong to the architecture student community whether they talk to the others or not. Whereas in other surveyed areas this psychological support was reportedly not very evident, possibly due to the number of students each space could afford and the temporary nature of their stay.
Research Analysis
The diagnostic interviews, along with observation and behaviour tracing, provided a preliminary evaluation of the four spaces. It showed the discrepancy in students’ behaviours due to differences in the physical environment. The four most prominent findings listed below, was further confirmed by group responses during formal interviews. Group space
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
19
It is evident that collaborative groups, acting as a study unit, also need space and privacy as individuals. Hence the concept of group space, as a counterpart of the concept “personal space” introduced by Sommer, should be brought forth here.10 Group space, similar to personal space, tend to have a focus point and could be carried around based on its members’ position. It was observed in this research that the general distance between groups tend to be determined by the existing distances between tables, which is generally 1-2 metres. However exceptions could also be made to this rule. One instance recorded in the annotated plan is when students need to prop their model against the lighting fixture(see annotated plans), this distance was drastically shortened. Furthermore, this research also confirmed that the common belief “people tend to sit face-to-face during collaborations” may not be entirely true. As in four settings whenever collaborative learning behaviours were noticed, students were found mostly sitting side by side or in a consecutive row. This is, as the researcher observed, more evident among architecture students as they often have to share information through a common computer screen. Whereas when students were dining together or having casual conversations they tend to sit opposite each other. This phenomenon has already been summarized by Sommer, as he commented that “in general, casual groups prefer corner seating, cooperating groups to sit side-by-side, co-acting in a distant arrangement, and competing groups opposite one another”.11 As none of the interviewees has reported uncomfortable crowdiness during this research, it could be said that the spatial density in the four surveyed areas are well-designed. However it has been implied that apart from public studying area, more individual group learning space could be zoned out of or be added to the public area. Therefore an feasible approach would be to create a gradient of privacy in the informal study spaces where zoning of different study modes can be applied. Spatial arrangment While open plan arrangement such as the ones in the Student Lounge or in the Lincoln Square are intended to provoke a sense of community among students, the accompanying distraction and noise may also substantially hamper the collaboration process - as statements on two sides 10 11
Robert Sommer, 1959. “Studies in Personal Space”, Sociometry, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 247-260. Robert Sommer, 1965. “Further Studies of Small Group Ecology”, Sociometry, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 337-348.
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
20
were both reported. Interestingly researches shows that open plan office generally make office workers hostile, insecure and distracted.12 The level of distraction is also dependent on the task at hand. For example if all students were conducting computer-concentrated work, then the level of ambient noise may not be particularly distracting. Therefore the effectiveness of such open plan is also relevant to the number of computers provided or present in the informal learning space. If in future development such spatial arrangement is still to be maintained, then zoning or increase number of computers may seem necessary. Technological provision Due to the fact that the architecture course at the University of Melbourne is heavily loaded with digital assignments, students are forced to carry their laptops with them whenever a collaborative study has been arranged. Therefore the number and location of power points, the number of desktops are crucial in determining the effectiveness of an informal learning space. As the renderings by Six Degree Architects showed that more desktops were initially included in the renovation plan, the shortage of computers reported in this research therefore exhibited the negative ramification of this management decision. Natural Lighting and Views As one interviewee pointed out that dim lighting may be suitable for working on computers, natural lighting is generally more conducive to collaborative learning. Though in this research most students had deemed natural lighting dispensable, the favour for natural lighting was revealed in their preference of the Student Lounge over the other three. Though no research was found on the direct connection between sunlight and collaboration, it is believed that a well-lit environment would improve its occupiers’ mood and productivity.13 On the contrary, study shows that fluorescent lighting can reduce students’ sociability.14 While dim lighting tend to lead to a loss of self-awareness and normative inhibition.15 12 Aimee Groth, 2012.“Why An Open Office Environment Can Totally Kill Creativity”, accessed from http://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-an-open-office-environment-can-totally-kill-creativity-2012-1 13 Tim Donnelly, 2011. “Your Office Design is Killing Teamwork”, from http://www.inc.com/articles/201110/coolest-offices-fostering-teamwork-through-innovative-design.html 14 Kuller, R., and Lindsten, C. “Health and Behavior of Children in Classrooms With and Without Windows.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1992, 12, 305–317.
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
21
Therefore it is recommended, based on results from this research, that natural lighting should be introduced into informal learning space to promote interaction and collaboration. Similarly few studies has shown the direct link between views and learning behaviours. The results of this research, however, seem to indicate that with views connecting students to the outside world, they are more willingly to stroll around the place, which allegedly could “spark more ideas” and increases their chances of interacting with fellow students. In addition during observation it was found that with the restorative effect of the view, students at the Student Lounge incline to take more breaks in between their study sessions. Therefore even though the presence of a view is not indispensable, it is highly recommended to promote students’ productivity both in terms of collaboration and reflective study. Psychological and Physiological Support Graetz and Goliber found that when people live and work in physical settings after a long period of time, they incline to develop a strong connection to that particular location which goes beyond simple preference.16 Therefore interviewees’ favour over Student Lounge and Lincoln Square, as well as their stronger sense of belonging towards the two, could not be simply read as their superiority in respect to physical feature. Rather it may relate to the average duration of stay at each surveyed place. As most students regard ISS 23 and 45 only as a temporary study place in between classes. Furthermore, the provision of food and drinks were mentioned by almost all of the interviewees. It was also observed that students tend to bring water bottle and food to these surveyed areas. Although the impact of food and beverages on collaborative learning remain to be confirmed by further researches. It was reported that break from collaborative learning at appointed times, when group members have to go out and buy food, could be rather disruptive rather than at natural breaking points.
15 16
Prentice-Dunn, S., and Rogers, R. W. “Deindividuation and the Self-Regulation of Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 39, 104–113. Ken A. Graetz, Michael J. Goliber, 2002. “Designing Collaborative Learning Places: Psychological Foundations and New Frontiers’, New Directions For Teaching And Learning, No. 92.
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
22
Conclusion
Overall this research shows that collaborative learning, as an essential part of the architectural course, can be considerably affected by five key aspects of its physical environment: group space, spatial arrangement, technological provision, natural lighting and views, and psychological and physiological support. Through comparison of the four surveyed spaces it is revealed that the right design in regard to these aspects could make the environment most appealing to students, and, as reported by students observed and interviewed in this research, enhance their creativity and productivity. Adopting these five aspects as criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the four surveyed areas, particularly in terms of their support of collaborative learning experiences, one can see that there is still room for improvement. Nevertheless due to the fact these spaces were only used as temporary hub for the faculty for at most three years, the limited budget and relatively lower expectation may also cause the design to be under-researched.
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
23
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
24
APPENDIX A: Comparison Chart of the Surveyed Spaces Lighting
Views
Furniture
Display lights; recessed lights; skylight only visible around noon
Build-in timber desks and leather couch, oriented towards the lights
Dim light from skylight windows; pendant light in the centre of the space; display light for pin-up panels
Build-in timber desks and leather couch, along perimeters of the space
Other Fixtures
Fittings
Other provisions
Location of Power Points Under the table
Informal study space between Level 2&3
Informal study space between Level 4&5
Level 7 Mezzanine Student Lounge
Natural lighting from curtain wall; ceiling-mounted florescent lights; wall-mounted light for sink area
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
View of the A variety of tables, city chairs, single and multiple-seater couches, all movable
Sink; cabinets
Anlan Chen 361100
Occasional display boxes/pedestals for models
Under tables
Projector and projection screen, however the computer connected to them is missing;
Rubbish bins; Along mugs and walls dish washing liquid
the
25
Recessed ceiling lights
View of Lincoln Square and Bouverie St
Movable desks and chairs, some covered with vinyl cutting matts; two drafting tables
40 Lockers;
4 desktops,
Rubbish bins;
On columns and along 2 sides of the walls
33 Lincoln Square South
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
26
Appendix B: Diagnostic Interview Guide For on-the-scene students conducting either individual or collaborative learning: Are you an architecture student? What year are you in? What type of study are you conducting at the moment (group assignment /individual study)? What about this space that particularly attract you? How often do you come here? For how long usually? Any feature of the space that you think can be further improved? What do you think is a good physical environment for collaborative learning? Additional questions for out-of-scene architecture students: When you are conducting collaborative study, which spot on campus would you prefer? Why? (If the preferable spot is not one of the research areas) What about this place do you think is better comparing to 757 Swanston St/ 33 Lincoln Square South? For first-time visitors: What is your first impression of the space? What physical qualities of it particularly attract/repel you? Do you think you would like to study in groups here? What is your favourite spot for conducting collaborative study? What about this place do you think is better comparing to 757 Swanston St/ 33 Lincoln Square South? What does your ideal group study space look like?
Appendix C: Annotated Plans
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
27
LEGEND
July 16 10:00am- 12:00pm
INDIVIDUAL STUDY
Noise Level: 60-63db
COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR
Natural daylight shone through skylight around 11am.
THE RESEARCHER
A couple was sitting side by side in silence seemed like they were waiting for someone, possibly their children.
LEGEND
July 19 12:00pm- 2:00pm
INDIVIDUAL STUDY
Noise Level: 59-63db
COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
A group of three discussing assignment for winter subject. They thought this space has a sense of privacy and was well-lit by sunlight.
LEGEND
July 25 3:00pm- 5:00pm
INDIVIDUAL STUDY
Noise Level: 60-63db
COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
A group of 2 was studying individually on their own laptops while occasionally converse with each other.
July 26 2:00pm- 4:00pm Noise Level: 63-67db
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
LEGEND
August 5 4:00pm- 6:00pm
INDIVIDUAL STUDY
Noise Level: 61-65db
COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
A group of 2 was studying collaboratively on a project. Their modeling material spread all over the table and the couch.
July 16 2:00pm- 4:00pm Noise Level: 50 - 53db
The fact that there was a student sleeping here temporarily suggested that the furniture was relatively comfortable in this space, at the same time it pointed out that a proper place for student to rest was missing from the building.
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR STUDY ON LAPTOP
July 25 1:00pm- 3:00pm Noise Level: 60-63db
A sense of security was suggested by the personal belongings left on this table.
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR STUDY ON LAPTOP
The two girls were sitting here having a chat while waiting for their afternoon tutorial.
August 5 1:00pm- 3:00pm Noise Level: 63-68db
Three students sitting on the floor discussing in front of their model. This may indicate that they feel comfortable and at ease with the space. On the other hand it also suggested that a proper discussion space is missing from the building where students could place and discuss their model.
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR STUDY ON LAPTOP
August 5 1:00pm- 3:00pm Noise Level: 63-68db
Three students sitting on the floor discussing in front of their model. This may indicate that they feel comfortable and at ease with the space. On the other hand it also suggested that a proper discussion space is missing from the building where students could place and discuss their model.
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR STUDY ON LAPTOP
August 6 2:00pm- 4:00pm Noise Level: 56-60db
The girl with her shoes off suggested the "homey" feeling of the leather furniture.
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR STUDY ON LAPTOP
The group who was sitting there the day before left their model in this place.
August 5 6:00pm- 8:00pm
LEGEND
Noise Level: 63-70db
VENDING MACHINE
INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY
VENDING MACHINE
CHAIR
MEETING ROOM BIN
LOCKER AREA
TRACING TABLE
TRACING TABLE
BIN
BALCONY
August 6 11:00am- 1:00pm
LEGEND
Noise Level: 65-67db VENDING MACHINE
INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VENDING MACHINE
CHAIR
MEETING ROOM BIN
LOCKER AREA
TRACING TABLE
TRACING TABLE
BIN
BALCONY
August 7 4:00pm- 6:00pm
LEGEND
Noise Level: 65-70db VENDING MACHINE
INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VENDING MACHINE
CHAIR
MEETING ROOM BIN
LOCKER AREA
TRACING TABLE
TRACING TABLE
BIN
BALCONY
August 9 6:00pm- 8:00pm
LEGEND
Noise Level: 62-68db VENDING MACHINE
INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VENDING MACHINE
CHAIR
MEETING ROOM BIN
LOCKER AREA
TRACING TABLE
TRACING TABLE
BIN
BALCONY
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST PROJECTION SCREEN BINS
SINK
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST
Someone left his/her coat & laptop on this table.
This student was playing on laptop and eating KFC.
PROJECTION SCREEN
This student was reading. When asked why choose a couch in the middle of the room she explained she was waiting for her friend to occupy the table in front of her.
BINS
All students have either water bottle or drinks with them.
SINK
July 26 12:00pm- 2:00pm Noise Level: 58-62db
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST PROJECTION SCREEN
A group of 4 had a heated discussion. When asked why clustered in the corner, they replied one of them sat there first, then the rest of the group simply gathered around him.
BINS
SINK
August 5 10:00am- 12:00pm Noise Level: 63-67db
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST PROJECTION SCREEN
A group of 4 had a heated discussion. When asked why clustered in the corner, they replied one of them sat there first, then the rest of the group simply gathered around him.
BINS
SINK
August 5 10:00am- 12:00pm Noise Level: 63-67db
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST
This student was working on his laptop unitl 1:40 when he joined the other two standing in front of his table for group discussion.
PROJECTION SCREEN
At 2:00 the student working on laptop left, with the student from the other table replaced him conversing with the student left.
The group of two had discussion with a presentation board on the ground.
BINS
SINK
July 16 12:00pm- 2:00pm Noise Level: 65-68db
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST
This student was working on his laptop unitl 1:40 when he joined the other two standing in front of his table for group discussion.
PROJECTION SCREEN
At 2:00 the student working on laptop left, with the student from the other table replaced him conversing with the student left.
The group of two had discussion with a presentation board on the ground.
BINS
SINK
July 16 12:00pm- 2:00pm Noise Level: 65-68db
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST
Someone left his/her coat & laptop on this table.
This student was playing on laptop and eating KFC.
PROJECTION SCREEN
This student was reading. When asked why choose a couch in the middle of the room she explained she was waiting for her friend to occupy the table in front of her.
BINS
All students have either water bottle or drinks with them.
SINK
July 26 12:00pm- 2:00pm Noise Level: 58-62db
LEGEND
Some of the blinds were pull down because of the direct sunlight during day time.
INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST
Even though these two students were doing individual work, one was constantly teaching the other regarding software.
PROJECTION SCREEN
While this group of 6 was doing group assignment, they kept interrupted by students they know from other tables who joined in the conversation.
This group of 5 was just having a chat with shared food on the table.
BINS
SINK
August 6 7:00pm- 9:00pm Noise Level: 67-72db
LEGEND
Some of the blinds were pull down because of the direct sunlight during day time.
INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST
Even though these two students were doing individual work, one was constantly teaching the other regarding software.
PROJECTION SCREEN
While this group of 6 was doing group assignment, they kept interrupted by students they know from other tables who joined in the conversation.
This group of 5 was just having a chat with shared food on the table.
BINS
SINK
August 6 7:00pm- 9:00pm Noise Level: 67-72db
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY
Group of 2 drew on paper in silence.
VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST
Tables have been moved apart.
PROJECTION SCREEN
Group of 2 working on their laptop while occasionally have discussion with each other.
At 3:40 they wandered around the lounge and eventually standing in front of the curtain wall looking out and talking with each other.
At 2:35 the student sit on the couch to take a phone call.
BINS
SINK
July 19 2:00pm- 4:00pm Noise Level: 65-68db
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY
Group of 2 drew on paper in silence.
VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST
Tables have been moved apart.
PROJECTION SCREEN
Group of 2 working on their laptop while occasionally have discussion with each other.
At 3:40 they wandered around the lounge and eventually standing in front of the curtain wall looking out and talking with each other.
At 2:35 the student sit on the couch to take a phone call.
BINS
SINK
July 19 2:00pm- 4:00pm Noise Level: 65-68db
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST PROJECTION SCREEN
Group of 3 having a conversation.
BINS
SINK
July 25 5:00pm- 7:00pm Noise Level: 61-65db
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST PROJECTION SCREEN
Group of 3 having a conversation.
BINS
SINK
July 25 5:00pm- 7:00pm Noise Level: 61-65db
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY
Group of 2 drew on paper in silence.
VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST
Tables have been moved apart.
PROJECTION SCREEN
Group of 2 working on their laptop while occasionally have discussion with each other.
At 3:40 they wandered around the lounge and eventually standing in front of the curtain wall looking out and talking with each other.
At 2:35 the student sit on the couch to take a phone call.
BINS
SINK
July 19 2:00pm- 4:00pm Noise Level: 65-68db
LEGEND INDIVIDUAL STUDY COLLABORATIVE STUDY
Group of 2 drew on paper in silence.
VISITOR THE RESEARCHER
HOST
Tables have been moved apart.
PROJECTION SCREEN
Group of 2 working on their laptop while occasionally have discussion with each other.
At 3:40 they wandered around the lounge and eventually standing in front of the curtain wall looking out and talking with each other.
At 2:35 the student sit on the couch to take a phone call.
BINS
SINK
July 19 2:00pm- 4:00pm Noise Level: 65-68db
Appendix D: Formal Interview Guide Affordance Based on the collaborative learning you are conducting, what physical features of this space do you think is essential or conducive to your learning experience? What physical features do you think is necessary for architectural project-based learning? What about this space that can be further improved to complement our course? If everybody else are doing quite individual study, do you think you should adjust your behaviour accordingly? Group Size What do you think are the maximum group size that will not compromise the quality of the learning experience? What group size do you think this space is designed for? Would you prefer build-in furniture or movable ones that can be adjusted according to group size. What advantages/disadvantages do you think each type has? Do you think it is important to allow individuals of a group drift in and out of the group, meaning he/she has the freedom to join the group learning whenever he/she want? If so, do you think this space has been designed for that? Adjacency Do you think it is important that collaborative learning space should be placed adjacent to the teaching space? Would you mind your collaboration being visible to other students? Or you prefer the space to be zoned into single cells where you can have a certain degree of privacy? Would you prefer this space to be a bit more spacious or more compact? Would you like to wander about this place? Do you think you can circulate well here? Do you think technical devices are important to project-based group work? How many devices would you think will be enough for
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
28
architecture students? Furnishings Do you think natural lighting is indispensable for collaborative learning? How about views? Do you think furniture with different texture, height and form should be provided to suit different personalities? What other equipment would you prefer to be provided during collaborative learning? Psychological/Physiological Support Do you feel responsible for the maintenance of the space? Would you have a sense of community, or a rapport with other students studying in the same space? Do you think others will be willing to help you if you have trouble with your study> Do you think food and drink provisions are conducive to collaborative study? Would you mind other students eating next to you? Do you think it is necessary to provide a breakout space adjacent to collaborative learning space? Or should the learning space be designed as comfortable as possible?
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
29
Bibliography Collaborative Learning, Curtin University, accessed from http://otl.curtin.edu.au/learning_teaching/philosophy_teaching/student_centred/collaborative.cfm Donnelly, Tim. 2011. “Your Office Design is Killing Teamwork”, from http://www.inc.com/articles/201110/coolest-offices-fostering-teamwork-through-innovative-design.html ESL Fundamentals, Northern Territory Government, ESL Team. Curriculum Services Branch, 2004 Faqs About The New Building And Decant Process, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, accessed from http://www.abp.unimelb.edu.au/new-building-faqs on August 6, 2013. Graetz, Ken A. & Goliber, Michael J. 2002. “Designing Collaborative Learning Places: Psychological Foundations and New Frontiers”, New Directions For Teaching And Learning, no. 92. Groth,Aimee,2012. “Why An Open Office Environment Can Totally Kill Creativity”, from http://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-an-open-office-environment-can-totally-kill-creativity-2012-1 Harrop, Deborah & Turpin, Bea. 2013. “A Study Exploring Learners' Informal Learning Space Behaviors, Attitudes, and Preferences”. New Review of Academic Librarianship 19:1, pp. 58-77. Kuller, R., and Lindsten, C. 1992.“Health and Behavior of Children in Classrooms With and Without Windows.” Journal of Environmental Psychology,12, 305–317. Lippman, Peter C, 2010. “Can the physical environment have an impact on the learning environment?” in OECD-CELE Exchange .
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
30
McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S, Haselen R van, Griffin M, Fisher P, 2007."The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial", BMC Med Res Methodol 7, p.30. Prentice-Dunn, S., and Rogers, R. W. 1980.“Deindividuation and the Self-Regulation of Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 104–113. Sommer Robert, 1959. “Studies in Personal Space”, Sociometry, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 247-260 Sommer, Robert, 1965. “Further Studies of Small Group Ecology”, Sociometry, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 337-348 Weinstein, C. S. 1981.“Classroom Design as an External Condition for Learning.” Educational Technology, 21, 12–19. Wolff, Susan J, May 2003. “Design Features of the Physical Learning Environment for Collaborative, Project-Based Learning at the Community College Level”, Career and Technical Education. Zeisel,John, 1984. Inquiry by Design, CUP Archive, pp.117-119.
ABPL90332 Human Environment Relations
Anlan Chen 361100
31