Content uploaded by Nadya Kozinets
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nadya Kozinets on Apr 02, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Typeset Proof Review Checklist
We recommend that you proofread the typeset proof slowly and with great care. We
also suggest that you request a colleague to proofread your article, as he or she may
notice errors that you miss due to your familiarity with the content. Remember to
check your typeset proof for:
Completeness: inclusion of all text, figures, illustrations, and tables
Correct title and subtitle
Correct authorship and order of authors
Current affiliation details
Section heading formatting and font size
Position of illustrations and figures
Correct captions of illustrations, tables, and figures
Correct sources of illustrations, tables, and figures
Position of tables
Proper quotation formatting
Correct equation formatting
Inclusion of acknowledgements
Typesetting or file conversion errors
Proper use of the 16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style citations.
Please note: Typesetting is NOT the time to make last-minute changes to the
article’s content. Only edits to grammar, citations, formatting, and factual inaccuracies
can be made at this point.
Examples of Author-Date System of the Chicago Manual of Style
In-Text Citations:
When you want to reference a specific text: (Pollan 2006)
When you want to reference a specific page for a quote in the text: (Pollan
2006, 99–100)
When a second text is also being referenced: (Pollan 2006, 99–100;
Weinstein 2009)
Reference List:
Book:
Pollan, Michael. 2006. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four
Meals. New York: Penguin.
Article:
Cope, Bill, and Mary Kalantzis. 2009. “A Grammar of Multimodality.” The
International Journal of Learning 16 (2): 361–425.
More information about the Chicago Manual of Style can be found at
http://commongroundpublishing.com/support/chicago-manual-of-style-citations-quick-
guide.
Journal Standard Style
Order of the Article:
1. Cover page.
2. Copyright page.
3. Article: title/subtitle, author names with affiliation, abstract, keywords, body of
article, acknowledgement (if applicable), reference list, appendix (if any), and
about the author section.
Journal Standard Style:
Article title/subtitle and all headings appear in Title Case, whereby only
definite and indefinite articles (e.g., “the,” “an,” and “a”), conjunctions (e.g.,
“and,” “yet,” “for”), and prepositions (e.g., “in,” “of,” and “to”) appear in
lowercase.
Article margins alternate to accommodate bookbinding.
Author byline will include only the name of the author, university or
organization affiliation, and country. Honorifics will not be included.
Abstract will appear in italics as a single paragraph.
The keyword list will appear in italics and center aligned. Please feel free to
adjust your keyword list based on what is most impactful and searchable for
your research.
The first paragraph of the article will appear in floating style—the first letter
will appear as a drop cap.
No underlined text will be included.
Figure captions are centered below the figure. The figure number and caption
appear on the same line.
Table titles appear above the table, center aligned. The table number and
table title appear on the same line.
About the Author section: Honorifics will be reflected in this section. Only the
following information will be included: Position in Organization, Division in
Organization, Affiliated Organization, City, State, and Country. Contact
details, such as email addresses, will not be included anywhere in the article.
Multi-authored Articles
In the case of multi-authored articles, authors are advised to collaborate when
checking the typeset proof. The lead author will be nominated to either accept the
typeset proof or submit corrections on behalf of all of the authors of the article. We
can only accept one set of revisions or one acceptance of the typeset proof. Once an
author approves the typeset proof, further revisions may not be requested.
Replying to Us
After you review the following typeset proof, please click on the “Author Verify
Typeset Proof” button that is available at the link where you downloaded the typeset
proof.
You will then select the appropriate option to proceed:
Option 1: Accept Typeset Proof
To be selected when your article is ready for publication.
Please thoroughly check the typeset proof before accepting it. You will not
have an opportunity to make additional changes after the typeset proof has
been accepted.
Once the typeset proof has been accepted, it will be ready to be published.
You will be notified when your article has been published and given
instructions on how to access the published version.
Option 2: Request Resubmission of Typeset Proof
To be selected when your article requires corrections.
Please thoroughly review the typeset proof.
The typesetter will receive notification of your requested corrections. Once
the corrections have been completed, you will be notified of the availability of
a revised typeset proof for your approval.
Please note: Requested changes that conflict with the journal’s standard style, the
16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, or American English grammar rules will
not be accepted.
Documenting Your Corrections (Option 2)
Changes to the Abstract and the Body of the Article
If you wish to make changes to the abstract or the body of your article, please use the
track changes function under the review tab of the provided Word “Body” document.
Additional Authors
If you need to add a co-author, we require the following information for each
additional author:
1. Name of the Co-author
2. Affiliation Details
3. Email address of the Co-author (Mandatory)
4. Short Biography (Limit of 30 words)
The International Journal of
Design Education
DESIGNPRINCIPLESANDPRACTICES.COM
VOLUME # ISSUE #
__________________________________________________________________________
Contemporary Digital Technology’s
Implications for Learning Environments and its
Users
NADYA KOZINETS
Review of Literature
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN EDUCATION
www.designprinciplesandpractices.com
First published in 20## in Champaign, Illinois, USA
by Common Ground Publishing
University of Illinois Research Park
2001 South First St, Suite 202
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
www.commongroundpublishing.com
ISSN: 2325-128X
© 20## (individual papers), the author(s)
© 20## (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground
All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the
applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the
publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact
<cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>.
The International Journal of Design Education is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
The International Journal of Design Education
Volume #, Issue #, 20##, www.designprinciplesandpractices.com
© Common Ground Publishing, Nadya Kozinets, All Rights Reserved
Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
ISSN: 2325-128X (Print), ISSN: 2325-1298 (Online)
Contemporary Digital Technology’s
Implications for Learning Environments and its
Users: Review of Literature
Nadya Kozinets, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA
Abstract: Since the late 1990s, learning environment culture has changed. Recent studies indicate that hierarchical,
formal teacher-centered classroom structure is not fully compatible with current generation’s learning preferences
affected by a rapid rise of accessible digital technologies and online content. Two major themes emerge from this review
of published literature. An arrival of new opportunities and factors associated with widespread accessibility of wireless
mobile technology and changes in pedagogical methods impacted by technology and generational learning preferences
have created new needs, opportunities and activities that demonstrate a need to design effective, flexible student -centered
learning environments that converge with emerging technologies, encour age interaction and collaboration, and support
student learning and learning performance.
Keywords: Wireless Technology, Design of Learning Environments, Evaluation of Learning Spaces,
Learning Outcome, Student-Centered
Introduction
ramatic shifts have occurred since the late 1990s when digital technology became a
critical element in providing students with high-quality education relevant to the
Twenty-first-century world. As a result, contemporary learning space must be able to
embrace and accommodate ubiquitous and fast changing technology in order to enhance student
learning and learning performance. With the advance of digital technology, the traditional idea of
the classroom as formal and teacher-centered space has shifted and expanded to incorporate the
use of both physical and virtual space through wireless connectivity. The accessibility of online
content and affordability of small hand-held portable mobile digital devices has turned almost
any space into a potential classroom. Accessibility and affordability have enabled the emergence
of a learner-centered approach to learning and education, and have expanded the definition of a
traditional classroom to include the learning environment in order “to capture this wider venue
for teaching and learning” (Brown and Lippincott 2003) that is commonly defined as “New
Generation Learning Spaces”(Wilson and Randall 2012). Learning spaces represent a large
capital investment and are supposed to last 50–100 years, while technology may change every
year (Oblinger 2005). The pace of technological advances outstrips the ability of higher
education to adapt its facilities to keep up with the changes. if a significant relationship between
design of a physical space and learning performance and teaching pedagogy is to take place, then
new, flexible, and adaptable learning environments that encourage interaction and collaboration
are required to support student learning and learning performance.
The main purpose of this review of literature is to systematize and analyze the literature that
relates to learning environments using an interpretive meta-analysis of studies published between
2003-2013. This period correlates with the growth and development of information technology
and might signal an emergence of a new learning environment paradigm. The primary goal of
this review is to explore whether learning space and its users were affected by advances in digital
technology and what were the underlying trends, challenges, and gaps in research.
D
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN EDUCATION
Discussion
The importance of the spatial design of higher education learning spaces, in general, cannot be
overstated and receives substantial attention from researchers, as demonstrated by this extended
review of over sixty published articles associated with these investigations. The review indicates
a diversity of literature on the topic, but in spite of diversity in methodologies and independent
variables of the included studies, each of them found some type of significant relationship
between the design of physical space and a student learning, performance, and teaching
pedagogy. Out of sixty reviewed articles, twenty authors addressed the convergence of digital
technology, pedagogy, and learning environment.
Two of the first authors to address the shift from the common definition of a classroom to
the broader frame of a learning environment with the advent of technology incorporated into
learning and teaching were Malcolm Brown and Joan Lippincott (2003). They identified the
main principles for the design of learning environments that include a student-centered design
focusing on learning rather than teaching, and on the integration of technologies to enrich
learning. These principles demand flexible furniture configurations that adapt to a variety of
activities that encourage social interaction and cooperative learning. Lennie Scott-Weber’s multi-
year case study (2013) describes a formal teacher-led classroom as space with physical barriers
to teaching and learning, lacking support for new technologies as opposed to the learning
environment enabling multi-modal and dynamic learning. She identifies eight design principles
to support new educational pedagogies and reflects on the changing nature of learning spaces.
The extracted principles include flexibility, support of multiple learning preferences, integration
of technology and support of social interaction. Diane Oblinger (2003) of EDUCASE and Espey
(2008) also emphasized comfort and social interaction. Many other authors illustrate new
approaches to design and its guiding principles (Gee 2007; Johnson and Lomas 2005; Long and
Ehrmann 2005; Neill and Etheridge 2008; Kondo and Narahara 2011; Scott-Webber 2013; Tom
and Voss 2008; Leigh et al. 2013). The most urgent need that these researchers express is the
need for flexibility and the future-proofing of contemporary learning environments.
One third of the studies included in this review examined the role ambient building attributes
such as acoustics, ventilation, indoor air quality and lighting play in students’ performance,
motivation, comfort and overall well-being (Wu and Ng 2003; Boman and Enmarker 2004;
Mendell and Heath 2005; Kennedy et al. 2006; Shaughnessy et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2007; Hui
and Cheng 2008; Norbäck and Nordström 2008; Lee et al. 2012; Samani 2012; Choi et al. 2014;
Winterbottom and Wilkins 2009). The findings state that environmental stress overall affects
learning performance and motivation. For instance, inadequate indoor air quality has been shown
to adversely affect cognitive development, reading skills, attention, focus and overall
psychological well-being of students. Another variable such as color was also studied with regard
to preferences and meaning and how it might influence the user’s learning experience (Fielding
2006). Wu and Ng (2003) investigated the effect of daylight; Felsten (2009) investigated the
effect of views and nature; Doxey, Walczek and Zajicek (2009) and Han (2009) studied the
influence of interior planting on classroom environment, academic performance, behavior and
overall well-being of students and faculty. The plants appear to have the greatest impact in rooms
without any other natural elements present. The study by Kaya and Burgess (2007) examined the
role of seat preference and gender to affect territoriality in a college setting. Their research
indicates a strong correlation between individual seat assignment and territoriality. Some studies
focused on satisfaction, expectations, and perceptions of student and faculty with regard to
physical space. These studies revealed that perception could rely heavily on spatial attributes
such as visibility and furniture layout followed by the ambient attributes of air quality,
temperature, artificial lighting, room shape, and technology. Two studies indicate that these
attributes are also impacted by design, management, and maintenance of classroom spaces
(Yang, Becerik-Gerber, and Mino 2013; Amedeo and Dyck 2003).
KOZINETS: CONTEMPOR ARY DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY’S IMPLICATIONS FOR LEARNING
Scholars and practitioners have contributed to multiple efforts to rethink traditional
pedagogical approaches in relation to learning spaces. Proposals include the development of
theoretical models and the exploration of effective assessment and evaluation tools through the
formulation of a common terminology relating to learning spaces (Amedeo and Dyck 2003; Long
and Ehrmann 2005; D. G. Oblinger 2005; Gee 2007; MacPhee 2009; Pearlman 2009; Leigh et al.
2013). One of the most compelling studies, completed by Nair, Fielding, and Lackney (2005),
defines a new graphic vocabulary of twenty-five design patterns that synthesize learning research
with best practices in school planning and design drawn from the case studies of award-winning,
innovative school design from over twenty countries.
Numerous studies have evaluated the impact that classroom design has on academic
performance, student learning, and teaching pedagogy. EDUCAUSE, a leading organization for
promoting technological advancements in higher education, devoted entire issues of their most
prominent publications to the subject. Various supporters of the design of new learning
environment have claimed that its benefits (promoting active learning and encouraging
pedagogical innovation) outweigh the short-term costs. They cite the improved conceptual,
theoretical and applied forms of learning and the increased levels of student engagement (Neill
and Etheridge 2008; Brooks 2011; Leiringer and Cardellino 2011). Only two studies provided
some evidence of a causal relationship between the physical space and students’ on-task behavior
and learning outcomes. The findings of studies completed at the University of Minnesota
demonstrate that physical space alone can improve student learning as empirically measured by
standardized test scores (Brooks 2011; Cotner et al. 2013). To better understand the efficacy of
design in relation to user experience Nicolette Lee and Stella Tan (2013) conducted a series of
studies used to evaluate existing and future learning spaces. The authors used the focus group
method in order to gain in-depth insight into the needs and perspectives of users. They found that
the most important aspects of data were difficult to interpret relying on only verbal responses,
and the study concluded that a combination of visual and interactive focus group activities is
needed to increase participants’ engagement and active individual contribution.
A number of authors agree on the key findings that the students today learn the best by being
engaged in their own learning and by collaborating with others (Espey 2008; Chang and Stern
2009; Pearlman 2009; Kondo and Narahara 2011; Strayer 2012; Wilson and Randall 2012;
Steelcase 2014a). A Steelcase study (2014) demonstrates that an active classroom has a
significant effect on student engagement on multiple measures in comparison to traditional
classrooms. Student attitudes toward collaboration have also shown improvement in both
comfort and physical flexibility of active classrooms (Espey 2008). Several institutions have
redesigned their traditional classrooms to realize the potential for active, experiential learning
and student interaction. The presented case studies show that active collaborative learning is
facilitated by including flexible movable furniture layouts, and by providing wireless
connectivity for sharing work on overhead projectors and tableside whiteboards. Cotner, Loper,
Walker and Brooks’ study (2013) found that students in the active classroom outperform learning
expectations. The study provided an empirical confirmation that new technology-enhanced
learning environment has a positive effect on learning. Scott-Weber (2013), in collaboration with
Steelcase, states that active learning suggests people actually move in a space, and her multi-year
evidence-based research has resulted in an active furniture product, “Verb,” designed specifically
for learning environments. Steelcase surveyed hundreds of university students and faculty and
found a statistically significant correlation between classroom configuration and student
engagement (Steelcase 2014a).
Another study by Steelcase surveyed sixteen colleges in order to evaluate the spatial
implications of technology on learning spaces. The survey showed that technology can
significantly change and improve the relationship between students and instructors when aligned
with teaching strategies and goals (Steelcase 2014b). Six spatial insights emerged from the study
suggesting that the design of blended learning environments might achieve maximum results for
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN EDUCATION
students and teachers. Since the rapid growth of wireless technology has reduced the need for
specially allocated technology spaces, various authors have also articulated the need for the
integration of technology and physical space into the design of learning environments where
technology will not occupy a central function, but will support the learning (Fried 2008; Temple
2008; Pearshouse et al. 2009; Teitelbaum 2010; Solvberg, A. M. Rismark 2012). “Since no one
can predict how educational technologies and teaching modalities will evolve, learning spaces
must adapt to whatever changes the future may hold,” the white paper “21st-Century Learning
Environments” declares (JISC 2006). This demands a greater focus on the flexibility where space
can be reconfigured to fit current needs within a short time. Han, Leoung and Nair (2014)
provide a number of innovative strategies and guidelines for integrating technology and learning
spaces.
Accessibility of wireless technology makes it possible for learning to take place anytime, at
any place, and at any pace that the learner might desire. This emerging condition demands an
extension of the learning space well beyond its physical boundaries to include an entire campus
where a variety of comfortable furniture seating and availability of food and drink will be
conducive to a number of learning activities and their social dynamics. Campus learning can
become a continuous informal learning space located in atriums, residence halls, student lounges,
hallways, corridors and outdoor space (Chang and Stern 2009; Matthews, Andrews, and Adams
2011; JISC 2006). The necessary balance of social learning community and solitude can also
offer a spectrum of private and interactive spaces in contemporary educational environments
(Gee 2007). An increased provision of informal learning spaces will encourage students to spend
more time on campus (Chang and Stern 2009).
Conclusion
The findings presented in this review of literature considerably advance the research on learning
environments. However, only a few studies (Brooks 2011; Cotner et al. 2013) provide an
empirical confirmation that new, technology-enhanced learning environments can positively and
independently affect student learning. A number of researchers identify the need for further
development of research into student-centered, technology-enhanced learning environments that
provide flexible social and interactive spaces in higher education. The arrival of two major
factors (the advent of wireless information technology and the development of innovative
teaching methods) have impacted the learning preferences of a current generation of students and
led to a set of new pedagogical needs and opportunities that focus on collaborative, social,
interactive, deliberate, spontaneous, synchronous/asynchronous and virtual or real time activities.
Since the traditional teacher-centered classroom is functionally fixed, inconducive to change, and
inadequate to embrace these new factors, a broader frame of reference regarding learning
environments have been pronounced necessary by various researchers, as demonstrated by this
review. The research supports the development of new design principles and guidelines for new
generation learning spaces. New learning spaces aim to be active, collaborative, informal and
student-centered. “Learning, rather than heating systems, lighting control or computer projects
should be the center of learning space design” (Oblinger 2005). The most important design
consideration should be given to a learner-centered space that is comfortable, safe, functional,
flexible, mobile, technology-enhanced, socially connected, providing availability of food and
drink, and adaptable to a variety of learning activities and preferences. Despite the considerable
theoretical and practical attention that learning environments have received, still little empirical
research has been conducted to evaluate these claims. Considerable work remains to demonstrate
the impact of design on new learning environments and on student learning outcomes and
practices.
A large body of research completed during 2003-2014 has led this researcher to notice that
the subjects of learning environments and the advent of emerging technologies have been
KOZINETS: CONTEMPOR ARY DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY’S IMPLICATIONS FOR LEARNING
developed primarily outside of the interior design discipline. The disciplines of information
technology and educational psychology have contributed the most notable research in these
areas. The interior design discipline seems inactive in the development of the new learning
environment paradigm. Interior design and architectural research tend to focus on tangible
building attributes of educational facilities, and largely ignore the discussion of the learning
environment’s convergence with rapidly growing technology. An interdisciplinary discussion
could connect these areas of expertise and knowledge.
REFERENCES
Amedeo, Douglas, and James A. Dyck. 2003. “Activity-Enhancing Areas of Designs: A Case
Study of the Classroom Layout.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 20
(4): 323–43.
Boman, Eva, and Ingela Enmarker. 2004. “Factors Affecting Pupils’ Noise Annoyance in
Schools: The Building and Testing of Models.” Environment and Behavior
36 (2): 207–238.
Brooks, D. Christopher. 2011. “Space Matters: The Impact of Formal Learning Environments on
Student Learning.” British Journal of Educational Technology 42 (5): 719–26.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01098.x.
Brown, Malcolm B., and Joan K. Lippincott. 2003. “Learning Spaces More than Meets the Eye.”
Educause Quarterly 26: 14–17
Chang, Rosemary L., Linda Stern, Harald Hadgraft, and Sondergaard and Roger. 2009. “Places
for Learning Engineering: A Preliminary Report on Informal Learning Spaces.”
Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2009, Palm Cove,
QLD.
Choi, SeonMi, Denise A. Guerin, Hye-Young Kim, Jonee Kulman Brigham, Theresa Bauer,
Caroline Hill, Asha L. Hegde, and Carl Matthews. 2014. “Throwing in the Towel:
Burnout among Practicing Interior Designers.” Journal of Interior Design
39 (3): 41–60. doi:10.1111/joid.12029.
Cotner, Sehoya, Jessica Loper, J. D. Walker, and D. Christopher Brooks. 2013. “It’s Not You, It's
the Room—Are the High-Tech, Active Learning Classrooms Worth It?” Journal of
College Science Teaching 42 (6): 82–88. http://www.cbs.umn.edu/sites /default/files
/public/downloads/JCST-July2013.pdf.
Doxey, Jennifer S., Tina Marie Waliczek, San Marcos, and Jayne M. Zajicek. 2009. “The Impact
of Interior Plants in University Classrooms on Student Course Performance and on
Student Perceptions of the Course and Instructor” HortScience 44 (2): 384–91.
Espey, Molly. 2008. “Does Space Matter? Classroom Design and Team-Based Learning.”
Review of Agricultural Economics 30 (4): 764–75.
Felsten, Gary. 2009. “Where to Take a Study Break on the College Campus: An Attention
Restoration Theory Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (1): 160–67.
Fielding, Randall. 2006. “Learning, Lighting and Color: Lighting Design for Schools and
Universities in the 21st Century.” DesignShare 1–7.
Fried, Carrie B. 2008. “In-Class Laptop Use and Its Effects on Student Learning.” Computers
and Education 50 (3): 906–914.
Gee, Lori. 2007. “Chapter 10. Human-Centered Design Guidelines.” In Learning Spaces edited
by Diana Oblinger, 10.1–10.13.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN EDUCATION
Han, Andrew Ng Yew, Lim Chee Leong, and Pradeep Kumar Nair. 2014. “X-Space Model:
Taylor’s University's Collaborative Classroom Design and Process.” Procedia—Social
and Behavioral Sciences 123: 272–79. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1424.
Han, K.-T. 2009. “Influence of Limitedly Visible Leafy Indoor Plants on the Psychology,
Behavior, and Health of Students at a Junior High School in Taiwan.” Environment and
Behavior. 123 (4): 272–279.
Hui, Sam C. M., and Cheng, Kenneth K. Y. 2008. “Analysis of Effective Lighting Systems for
University Classrooms.” In Proceeding of the Henan-Hong Kong Joint Symposium
JISC. 2006. “Designing Spaces for Effective Learning: A Guide to 21st Century Learning Space
Design.” Jisc 2009: 1–36. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/eli_learningspaces.html.
Johnson, Chris, and Cyprien Lomas. 2005. “Design of the Learning Space: Learning and Design
Principles.” EDUCAUSE Review 40 (4):16–28.
Kaya, N., and B. Burgess. 2007. “Territoriality: Seat Preferences in Different Types of
Classroom Arrangements.” Environment and Behavior 39 (6): 859–876.
Kennedy, Susan M., Murray Hodgson, Lisa Dillon Edgett, Noelle Lamb, and Rod Rempel. 2006.
“Subjective Assessment of Listening Environments in University Classrooms:
Perceptions of Students.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
119 (1): 299–309.
Kondo, Hideki, and Hiroyuki Narahara. 2011. “Design and Implementation of a Dynamic
Reconfigurable Classroom for Cooperative Learning.” Presented at the 2011 Third
International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems. IEEE.
Lee, M. C., K. W. Mui, L. T. Wong, W. Y. Chan, E. W. M. Lee, and C. T. Cheung. 2012.
“Student Learning Performance and Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) in Air-
Conditioned University Teaching Rooms.” Building and Environment 49 (March): 238–
44.
Lee, Nicolette, and Stella Tan. 2013. “Traversing the Design-Language Divide in the Design and
Evaluation of Physical Learning Environments: A Trial of Visual Methods in Focus
Groups.” Journal of Learning Spaces 2 (2) n.p.
Leigh, Katharine E., Kenneth Tremblay, Nancy Miller, Amy Huber, Laura Malinin, and Derrell
Jackson. 2013. “A Design Case Examining Learning in the D-Lab.” International
Journal of Designs for Learning. 4 (2): 80–91.
Leiringer, Roine, and Paula Cardellino. 2011. “Schools for the Twenty-First Century: School
Design and Educational Transformation.” British Educational Research Journal 37 (6):
915–934.
Long, Phillip D., and Stephen C. Ehrmann. 2005. “The Future of the Learning Space: Breaking
out of the Box.” Educause Review. Educom. July 1.
MacPhee, Larry. 2009. “Learning Spaces: A Tutorial.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 32 (1): 14.
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/
LearningSpacesATutorial/163854.
Matthews, Kelly E., Victoria Andrews, and Peter Adams. 2011. “Social Learning Spaces and
Student Engagement.” Higher Education Research and Development 30 (2): 105–120.
doi:10.1080/07294360.2010.512629.
Mendell, M. J., and G. A. Heath. 2005. “Do Indoor Pollutants and Thermal Conditions in
Schools Influence Student Performance? A Critical Review of the Literature.” Indoor
Air 15 (1):27–52.
Nair, Prakash, Randall Fielding, and Jeffery Lackney. 2005. The Language of School Design:
Design Patterns for 21st Century Schools. Minneapolis: The National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities and the KnowledgeWorks Foundation.
Neill, Stern, and Rebecca Etheridge. 2008. Flexible Learning Spaces: The Integration of
Pedagogy, Physical Design, and Instructional Technology. Marketing Education Review
18 (1): 47–53. http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/mkt_fac/22.
KOZINETS: CONTEMPOR ARY DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY’S IMPLICATIONS FOR LEARNING
Norbäck, D., and K. Nordström. 2008. “An Experimental Study on Effects of Increased
Ventilation Flow on Students’ Perception of Indoor Environment in Computer
Classrooms.” Indoor Air 18 (4): 293–300.
Oblinger, Diana. 2005. “Leading the Transition from Classrooms to Learning Spaces.”
EDUCAUSE Quarterly 28 (1). 14–18.
———. 2005. Educating the Net Generation. Online. Vol. 264. doi:10.1177/0898010105275838.
Pearlman, Bob. 2010. “Designing New Learning Environments to Support 21st Century Skills.”
In 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn edited by James Bellanca and
Ron Brandt, 116–147. Bloomington, Indiana: Solution Tree Press.
Pearshouse, Ian, Brett Bligh, Elizabeth Brown, Sarah Lewthwaite, Rebecca Graber, Elizabeth
Hartnell-Young, and Mike Sharples. 2009. “A Study of Effective Evaluation Models
and Practices for Technology Supported Physical Learning Spaces (JELS).” JISC.
http://oro.open.ac.uk/29996/2/B0DAC2BE.pdf.
Samani, S. A. 2012. “The Impact of Indoor Lighting on Students’ Learning Performance in Learning
Environments: A Knowledge Internalization Perspective.” International Journal of Business
and Social Science. 3 (24): 127–136. http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_24_S
pecial_Issue_December_2012/14.pdf.
Scott-Webber, Lennie. 2013. “The Story of Verb TM: Innovative Design Fit for Education’s 21st
Century Learning Needs.” International Journal of Designs for Learning 4 (2): 30–40.
Shaughnessy, R. J., U. Haverinen-Shaughnessy, A. Nevalainen, and D. Moschandreas. 2006. “A
Preliminary Study on the Association between Ventilation Rates in Classrooms and
Student Performance.” Indoor Air 16 (6):465–68.
Solvberg, A. M. Rismark, Marit. 2012. “Learning Spaces in Mobile Learning Environments.”
Active Learning in Higher Education 13 (1): 23–33. doi:10.1177/1469787411429189.
Steelcase. 2014a. “How Classroom Design Affects Student Engagement: Post Occupancy.”
Steelcase Education. Accessed November 9, 2016. https://www.steelcase.com/insights
/white-papers/how-classroom-design-affects-student-engagement/
———. 2014b. “Technology-Empowered Learning: Six Spatial Insights.” Steelcase Education.
Accessed November 9, 2016. https://www.steelcase.com/insights/white-papers
/technology-empowered-learning-six-spatial-insights/
Strayer, Jeremy F. 2012. “How Learning in an Inverted Classroom Influences Cooperation,
Innovation and Task Orientation.” Learning Environments Research 15 (2):171–93.
doi:10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4.
Teitelbaum, Marilyn. 2010. “Revision of Space Utilization in the Ontario Colleges to Support
Learner Centered Pedagogy, Technology and Users.” College Quarterly 14 (1): n.p.
Temple, Paul. 2008. “Learning Spaces in Higher Education: An Under‐researched Topic.”
London Review of Education 6 (3): 229–41. doi:10.1080/14748460802489363.
Tom, Jim S. C., and Kenneth Voss. 2008. “The Space is the Message: First Assessment of a
Learning Studio.” Educause Quarterly 2008 (2): 42–52.
Wilson, Gail, and Marcus Randall. 2012. “The Implementation and Evaluation of a New
Learning Space: A Pilot Study.” Research in Learning Technology 20.
doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0/14431.
Winterbottom, Mark, and Arnold Wilkins. 2009. “Lighting and Discomfort in the Classroom.”
Journal of Environmental Psychology. 29 (1): 63–75.
Wu, Wei, and Edward Ng. 2003. “A Review of the Development of Daylighting in Schools.”
Lighting Research and Technology. 35 (2): 111–125.
Yang, Zheng, Burcin Becerik-Gerber, and Laura Mino. 2013. “A Study on Student Perceptions
of Higher Education Classrooms: Impact of Classroom Attributes on Student
Satisfaction and Performance.” Building and Environment 70: 171–88.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGN EDUCATION
Zhang, Guoqiang, Cong Zheng, Wei Yang, Quan Zhang, and D. J. Moschandreas. 2007.
“Thermal Comfort Investigation of Naturally Ventilated Classrooms in a Subtropical
Region.” Indoor and Built Environment 16:148-158. doi:10.1177/1420326x06076792
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Nadya Kozinets: Assistant Professor, College of the Arts/School of Architecture and
Design/Interior Design Program, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, Louisiana,
USA
The International Journal of Design Education is
one of six thematically focused journals in the
collection of journals that support the Design
Principles and Practices knowledge community—its
journals, book series, conference and online
community.
The journal explores aspects of learning to become a
designer and to develop modes of “design thinking”.
It explores design strategies, methodologies and
tactics. It analyzes forms of professional stance. And
it examines pedagogies of engagement with design
purposes, designed objects and design.
As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this
journal invites presentations of practice—including
documentation of curricular practices and exegeses
analyzing the effects of those practices.
The International Journal of Design Education is a
peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
IS S N 2 325 -12 8 X
