Physical considerations in the development of a computer learning environment

Waddick, John

doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00009

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There has been some work which indicates that students would prefer to use computers in a collaborative mode for their learning. A small study by Waddick (1997) of face‐to‐face teaching using computers found that the way in which computer‐based study was organised affected student perceptions of their learning. They identified strong preferences for a group and social arrangement around the computers.…”

Section: Mismatch Between Collaborative Approaches To Learning and Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

An investigation into students’ use of a computer‐based social learning space: lessons for facilitating collaborative approaches to learning

Brett

Nagra

2005

Brit J Educational Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Provision of computers in universities for self-study is taken for granted and is seen as a "must have" educational resource, yet it is very expensive to fund. Students report that they use the Internet as their first stop in approaching research tasks. Learning theorists posit the important role of social interaction in contributing to learning. The use of collaborative methodologies such as group work also illustrate the importance, and perceived beneficial role of, learning with others. However, in general, student access to computers for selfstudy in UK Higher Education is provided through large rooms furnished with serried ranks of computers, which do not allow or encourage computer-based collaborative working. This study addresses this mismatch between approaches to learning and the way universities make computers available to learners. The University of Wolverhampton provides a social learning space with 24 computers on four fishbone-shaped tables, in a room without any restrictions on talking, eating, or drinking. It was provided so as to encourage learners to work collaboratively and to be able to integrate the use of a computer whilst doing so. This paper reports the initial findings of a study into its use, through questionnaires, observational data, and interviews. Has the provision of a computer-based collaborative learning space positively affected approaches to computer-based self-study? The results of this study inform how best Higher Education institutions might provide computer access to learners so as to encourage collaborative working and positively affect student approaches to their learning.

show abstract

Section: Mismatch Between Collaborative Approaches To Learning and Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

An investigation into students’ use of a computer‐based social learning space: lessons for facilitating collaborative approaches to learning

Brett

Nagra

2005

Brit J Educational Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Allocation of seats not only influences the movements of teachers in classrooms, but also induces different behaviours and creates different learning atmospheres among students (Waddick, 1997). For example, seat allocation in rows forms a pattern of authority in which one person, who is superior, speaks to a group of people, who are subordinate.…”

Section: Major Characteristics Of Fmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to today's serious air pollution, the design of both natural ventilation and the air‐conditioning system has been changed. Poor ventilation induces poor indoor air quality resulting from airborne contaminants, such as volatile organic compounds, suspended particulates or microbial particles, which can cause illness and diminish learning potential greatly (Friday and Cotts, 1995; Waddick, 1997).…”

Section: Major Characteristics Of Fmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Theoretically, facilities management (FM) is the process by which an organization delivers and sustains services in a quality environment to meet strategic needs (Alexander, 1996). A quality environment can be improved by space management (Rose, 1994; Clothier, 1996; Edwards, 2000; Senter and Charles, 2002), lighting (Waddick, 1997), colour and decoration, furniture (Clothier, 1996; Michael, 1998) and so forth. These all affect students' self‐esteem, participation, interaction, comfort, concentration, mood, fatigue, morale and response (Waddick, 1997; Clothier, 1996; McAndrew, 1993; Senter and Charles, 2002; Pratt, 1994), and subsequently influence their learning behaviours.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Investigating key components of the facility management of secondary schools in Hong Kong

Leung

Xin-hong

Ip³

2005

Facilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe Hong Kong SAR Government increased its expenditure on education by 13.2 per cent from 1998‐1999 to 2002‐2003 in order to improve education and upgrade school facilities, despite the fact that the economy was in bad shape. To investigate the current facility management (FM) of secondary schools in Hong Kong, a study of the needs of the end‐users (students and teachers) was conducted. The paper aims at identifying major FM components and investigating the relationships between the identified FM components and overall satisfaction with FM in three common locations within secondary schools (classrooms, IT laboratories and libraries).Design/methodology/approachA questionnaire survey of 1,472 local students was conducted to evaluate the FM performance of schools, as well as to establish the relationships between the levels of satisfaction with each FM component and overall satisfaction with FM. A number of formal interviews with local students, teachers and professional school designers were also conducted so that the gap between users' needs and designers' considerations could be identified by cross‐checking the differences between the data gathered from the questionnaires and the interviews.FindingsThe study revealed that different locations within secondary schools emphasise different FM components (e.g. flexibility, temperature and safety and security in classrooms; seat allocation, density, colour and decoration, technical support and safety and security in IT laboratories; and seat allocation, lighting, temperature and furniture in libraries). Hygiene, natural lighting and sufficient facilities were found to be key FM components in all three locations in secondary schools.Research limitations/implicationsThe interviews focussed on two schools only, while the questionnaire was conducted on four schools. However, since the interviewees included end‐users (teachers and students) and designers of both schools, we believe that the differential responses to the FM components reflected in the study do not indicate that our results are biased. On the other hand, the study only examined students in Forms 2, 4 and 6. The results might be slightly different if the questionnaires were filled in by all the students in the schools. A study of all students in secondary schools is recommended in order to understand and confirm the requirements of FM from the point of view of end‐users.Practical implicationsDesigners need to understand end‐users' expectations in the preliminary stage of design in order to enhance learning among students and ensure that school buildings are designed to achieve educational purposes. Some important elements are the arrangement of classroom seats in rows, the avoidance of desk movement in class, the provision of natural lighting, the installation of an adjustable temperature control, the improvement of natural ventilation, the measurement of noise, the installation of a lock for each drawer, the provision of sufficient facilities in each room and the selection of building materials for hyg...

show abstract

“…The assumption in these articles is that new technology is better than old technology and old technology is better than no technology. It was also easy to find articles which assess whether students like multimedia presentations (Waddick 1997;Sammons 1995). However, my literature search turned up only one published article that addressed the impact of new technologies on learning (Evert 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Presidential Address: Humanistic Teaching and Technology

Tiemann

1999

Humanity & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because the theme of our conference is "Teaching and Learning," tonight I will talk about what it means to be humanistic teachers. I have three goals. First, I will revisit what constitutes humanistic sociology. Second, I will address what it means to be a humanistic teacher. And, finally, I will consider how technology and the organizations in which we work subvert our efforts to be humanists in the classroom.To get started, let me give you a little background that helps explain my interest in this topic. I taught my frst class as a new doctoral student in 1980. I had taken a seminar on university teaching and I spent a lot of time thinking about what I would do in my relatively small class of 60 students. I decided to use the technology that was available at the time because I had learned that some students are more visually oriented than others and because I thought it would help to ''viviv' the classroom (Goldsmid and Wilson n.d.). In addition to using the chalkboard, I added films, handouts, and transparencies to communicate sociological ideas--something that I continued to do after I took my first job as a professor. Over time, I have incorporated other technologies into my classes as they have become available because of their potential to facilitate learning.When I moved to the University of North Dakota in 1988, I was forced to make some changes. Instead of small introduction to sociology classes of 40-60 students, I was assigned a mass class of 240 students. So instead of meeting in small, rather intimate classrooms, this class meets in a wide, multi-tiered lecture hall. Because of the size of my class and the configuration of the room, it is not realistic to hold discussions; that activity is reserved for weekly discussion groups. However, I can ask questions, encourage students to ask me questions, solicit examples from them, and use student volunteers in simulations. I do these things because they help engage students in their own learning.* At UND, discussion occurs in weekly "labs" or discussion groups. I have eight discussion groups of 30 students, which meet once per week and which are run

show abstract

Physical considerations in the development of a computer learning environment

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

An investigation into students’ use of a computer‐based social learning space: lessons for facilitating collaborative approaches to learning

An investigation into students’ use of a computer‐based social learning space: lessons for facilitating collaborative approaches to learning

Investigating key components of the facility management of secondary schools in Hong Kong

Presidential Address: Humanistic Teaching and Technology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About