Abstract:

The focus of this paper is a flexible learning space (LS) integrated within a higher education institution. The LS offers flexible solutions for both individual and collaborative learning (e.g., flexible furnishing and shared access to digital tools by several users). The LS is equipped with both digital and analogue artifacts (e.g., interactive whiteboards, programming equipment, tablets, and podcast equipment) aimed at promoting a richer learning experience. The LS is used by students in different fields, however, there is a special focus on teacher students and pedagogical use of technology. The LS is also used by in-service schoolteachers and university professors as an arena for professional development.

The sessions carried out in the LS are scaffolded by student assistants – employees who can help planning the sessions and are present in the room during the sessions for practical help. This paper is focused on the experiences of student assistants. The main research question (RQ) is: What do student assistants perceive as the key factors for carrying out a successful session at the LS? To answer the RQ, three student assistants were interviewed (SA1, SA2, and SA3). (This paper presents the results of a bigger study that also included observations of collaborative learning and interviews of teacher educators).

According to SA1, most of the questions asked during the sessions are practical. Namely, in-service schoolteachers are interested in what it would imply practically and cost-wise to equip their classrooms with certain tools, while teacher educators and teacher students are mainly focused on the practical questions on how to use the tools themselves. However, there are not as many questions focused on the pedagogical use of technology. SA1 emphasizes that the degree of inquiry depends on individuals. On one hand, some visitors briefly explore all the equipment available in the room but do not go deeper into any specific tools. Here, SA1 is also pointing out the “wow-effect”, e.g., when visitors see virtual reality equipment. On the other hand, SA1 gives examples of projects that led to higher degree of inquiry. Those projects tend to have a higher degree of scripting. SA1 believes that for a session to be successful, the learners must have something to create in a set time. SA1 also points out that the product needs to be something for the learners be proud of, and for that reason it is important to require them to demonstrate the product for the rest of the class. As a general challenge with this LS, SA1 points out that there is often focus on the equipment itself, while there is no common vision on how the LS is to be used.

SA2 and SA3 were interviewed together. Both underline that while the room is inspiring for inquiry, a lot depends on the session leader. They point out that some of the sessions become more of a play rather than focusing on the pedagogical aspect of the available equipment. SA2 and SA3 point out that the room is excellent for collaboration (e.g., it is easy to adjust the furniture and move around the room). SA2 and SA3 discuss that thinking outside the box is important when planning and carrying out sessions here. “Usual” teaching where learners are on their laptops will not give extra outcome.

The authors of the paper believe that studying the perspective of student assistants is important for a better understanding of the challenges related to new flexible learning spaces.

Keywords:

Learning spaces, collaborative learning, educational technology, scripting, inquiry.