Use of creative space in enhancing students’ engagement

Abstract

This paper explores the effect teaching in a specially designed 'creative learning space' has on students' engagement with the learning process, their motivation to explore, experience and discover (i.e. to be creative), and on them becoming more active, autonomous learners. It examines the notion of creative space, how it differs from teaching and learning in a typical classroom environment and the impact it has had on students and staff. Socio-economic changes affecting Higher Education are having a considerable impact on the nature of the curriculum and the way in which teaching is carried out. The student body is becoming increasingly diverse and a greater premium is being attached to the development of so-called higher-order skills such as creativity. This is being further affected by an increase in the use of advanced technology and changes in the teaching-learning relationship with the lecturer's role becoming increasingly one of a facilitator of the learning process. Thus, there has been an increased interest in exploring innovative and stimulating practices and learning spaces. It is not an easy task to measure the effectiveness of any learning space as there are many variables: teacher style, learning techniques, the method of delivery, etc. This paper reports on the initial findings of using such a space in an attempt to make a difference to students' learning and their creative capacity. OverviewThis paper concentrates on the notion of 'creative learning space' and its different uses in a Higher Education environment. The C-space (Creative space) is one of the professional spaces of the 'Bridges' Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) at the University of Bedfordshire. There are 74 CETLs in the UK, which are funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) as part of a national initiative. Each CETL has a leading theme, and Bridges' is to support the Personal, Career, and Professional Development of undergraduate students. The name 'Bridges' is not accidental as the centre aims to bridge the gap between students' learning experiences and the world beyond university, smoothing transitions into the workplace and opening opportunities.The relationship between learning and space is central to 'Bridges' and it has its own professional working environment, the Bridges Learning Space, comprising three different learning areas:• The S-space (Social Learning Space) -designed to enhance learner engagement in a relaxed setting (see Figure 1). • The F-space (Formal Space) -a 'boardroom' which is used for seminars and lectures and includes a range of technologies to support learning.

Unpacking frames of reference to inform the design of virtual world learning in higher education

“…Yet, we suggest that this may also relate to the impact of space and ownership on individuals. We submit that when designing learning for the disciplines within a virtual world there is a tension between, on the one hand, the desire to make best use of the creative space by capitalising on a sense of novelty and surprise (Jankowska & Atlay, 2008), and on the other, the need to be aware of expectations and reference points for the learner. As identified by SavinBaden (2008), the opportunity to do things differently when designing for disciplinary learning within these new environments, in which there is less order than in traditional learning environments, forces a reconsideration of how learning spaces are to be constituted.…”

Psych-Out: Using a Team-Based Game to Teach Diagnosis and Interventions

“…Jankowska and Atlay (2008) investigated the impact of creative learning spaces on engaging college students in the learning process and motivating them to become more active, creative, autonomous learners. Focusing on motivation to learn and achievement among graduate students, Hancock (2004Hancock ( , 2007 studied the impact of cooperative learning groups and peer orientation in the earlier study (finding that students with high peer orientation were more motivated to learn) and group testing in the later study (finding that students who tested with partners achieved higher scores and were more motivated to study).…”

“…Researchers used a variety of evaluation strategies such as anonymous, open-response, written surveys generated by the researchers (i.e., Jankowska & Atlay, 2008); closed-response surveys generated by the researchers (i.e., Ang & Rao, 2008); a blend of established inventories, rating scales developed by the researchers, and open-response items (i.e., Brewer & Klein, 2006); group interviews (i.e., Markey et al, 2009); and other combinations of various qualitative methods (e.g., de Carmargo Ribeiro, 2008;Hancock, 2007). Among these studies, patterns emerged among questions used to evaluate and rate these games.…”

Editors’ Notes

“…The last area of learning spaces research devotes considerable attention to pedagogical issues related to teaching in such spaces. They include such things as case studies, lessons learned, best practices, and practical recommendations, few of which are subjected to rigorous empirical testing (Jankowska and Atlay ; Jorn, Whiteside, and Duin ; Montgomery ).…”

“…While the call for empirical research that evaluates the efficacy and impact of formal learning spaces on student learning has proliferated (Bligh and Pearshouse ; Hunley and Schaller ; Savin‐Baden, McFarland, and Savin‐Baden ; Temple ), most of the work in this area has focused on data related to feedback on experiences within new spaces or measures of satisfaction from student and faculty users (Jankowska and Atlay ; Matthews, Andrews, and Adams ; Soderdahl ). There are two important exceptions to these more impressionistic lines of inquiry in which researchers attempted to empirically demonstrate the impact of technologically enhanced formal learning spaces on student‐learning outcomes.…”