Three sociomaterial framings for analysing emergent activity in future learning spaces

ABSTRACT

Institutions are increasingly redesigning academic learning spaces with the aim of enhancing learning outcomes. Existing research into this phenomenon has shown promise regarding how these new spaces are being designed and used; however, there has been much less effort towards developing a language for analysing the emergent learning activity within these spaces. In other words, it has been under-theorised. This paper responds to this gap by proposing three analytical framings and grounding each in vignettes illustrative of how they might be applied: (1) space-time-feedback as an assemblage for emergent interest-driven student activity; (2) embodiment-material as an assemblage for emergent public sensemaking; and (3) proximity-material-time as an assemblage for emergent collaborative benchmarking through group awareness and ambient feedback. Although not an exhaustive list, the three analytical framings serve as a starting point for investigations of emergent activity within future learning spaces from a sociomaterial perspective.

KEYWORDS:

• Learning spaces
• education
• theory
• sociomateriality
• embodiment
• proxemics

Introduction

An emerging phenomenon in education is the design and evaluation of Future Learning Spaces. A Future Learning Space (FLS), as defined by Hod (2017), is a learning space which brings together three emerging phenomena: the future of work (and how learning spaces have the potential to mirror authentic collaborative work environments), new theories on learning processes as mechanisms for knowledge building, and advanced tools and technologies that support learning in new and transformative ways. This definition of a Future Learning Space assumes a learning space is a relational construct where the ‘person and environment are mutually entailed’ (Goodyear and Carvalho 2013, 131). Future Learning Spaces move away from the dominant view of the ‘classroom-as-container’ where space is conceptualised as a passive, inert thing, towards space as an evolving ‘material-cultural practice’ (Mulcahy 2018, 15–16). In other words, space is emergent, malleable, participatory, and a network of relations unbounded by time or location (Leander, Phillips, and Taylor 2010; Mulcahy 2018). This network of relations views spaces as ‘geographies or space-times’ with an acknowledgement that learning often occurs outside the geographies which we investigate (Leander, Phillips, and Taylor 2010, 381).

Learning across geographies and space-times

Learning is not confined to classrooms, but rather manifests itself as a complex phenomenon that develops across geographies and space-times. Considering space in relation to space-time enables a holistic view of learning distributed across social spaces and times, with additional emphases on embodiment, mobility, and thinking shaped by multiple perspectives and histories (Leander, Phillips, and Taylor 2010). Embodiment recognises the role played by our physical bodies and gestures in learning and cognition, and mobility emphasises the constant reconfiguration of social systems where students are in continuous movement across physical and virtual spaces. We define space-time as a particular call to consider, not only where, but also when learning is occurring with the acknowledgement that learning experiences often occur beyond the traditional boundaries of the classroom space and time and thus, space-time draws greater attention to learning’s spatio-temporal nature.

Research on future learning spaces

Recent research on Future Learning Spaces has advanced our understanding of learning design principles. Specifically, research has shown how spaces based on learning theories support the development of a learning community (Rook, Choi, and McDonald 2015; Rook et al. 2020) and how smart spaces support distributed, collaborative, real-time inquiry within a learning community (Tissenbaum and Slotta 2019). Rook et al. (2020) found that FLSs can bring together, hold together, and move the users of an FLS together to form aspects of a learning community in setting norms and implicit goals and policies. Tissenbaum and Slotta (2019) categorised design principles according to those which aid the teacher’s orchestration in Future Learning Spaces, those which support pedagogical approaches, and those which focus on technological frameworks to support classroom inquiry. Three examples of these design principles are that visible representations of student work can provide important ambient cues for the instructor (an orchestration design principle), emergent representations of the community’s knowledge and progress can facilitate student inquiry (a pedagogical design principle), and large shared displays can support student collaboration and community knowledge construction (a technological design principle).

Active learning spaces and affordances

FLS literature extends research on active learning spaces which has shown that learning spaces which move away from a traditional professor-centric spatial layout yield positive impacts on learning (Brooks 2011; Florman 2014). For example, Brooks (2011) found that students in an active learning space performed better academically than those in a traditional classroom. Similarly, Shieh (2012) found that implementation of an active learning design led to improvements in academic performance as well as classroom participation. Henshaw, Edwards, and Bagley (2011) focused specifically on the material factor of classroom seating and found that a classroom redesigned with swivel seating showed promise in meeting three design goals: promoting face-to-face interaction among students, facilitating instructor movement throughout the room, and minimising transition time between instructional modes.

Others have observed how the more open layouts of active learning spaces afford easy reconfiguration for different collaborative activities, and in turn, facilitate more collaborative interactions (Fahlberg et al. 2014; Mercier, Higgins, and Joyce-Gibbons 2014). These studies point to the affordances of materials such as movable tables and chairs, digital displays, and open floor plans in relation to learning. The concept of affordances is a relational construct where the ‘qualities of a thing’ and the ‘capabilities of a person’ come together to describe what the ‘thing’ offers the ‘person’ (Goodyear, Carvalho, and Dohn 2016, 106). This relational definition of an affordance is based on the work of Gibson (1986) which points to the impact of the learner’s context when determining the affordance.

Innovative learning environments

FLS literature also extends research on innovative learning environments, defined as an inclusive term ‘from huge open spaces to highly flexible arrangements of classrooms, corridors, student retreat spaces, “maker” spaces and much more’ (Bradbeer et al. 2017, 3), which have been shown to have a stronger relationship with teachers’ positive states of mind and students’ deeper learning when compared against traditional classroom spaces. Bradbeer et al. also established a typology of teaching styles which exist during emergent activity such as teacher facilitated large (Type 1) and small (Type 2) group discussions, team teaching (Type 3), collaborative learning (Type 4), one-on-one instruction (Type 5), and individual learning (Type 6). Findings demonstrated that teachers spent most of their time facilitating small group discussions followed by Types 1, 4, and 3 in the New Zealand schools used as the context in their study. One implication is that spaces for learning should afford the types of teaching and teaching styles which teachers use, and which have proven to be effective for learning.

A sociomaterial perspective

Studies of active and innovative learning spaces have provided a foundation for generating preliminary impressions about how FLSs are being used or interpreted by students and faculty; however, there has been much less effort devoted towards developing a language for analysing the emergent activity within these types of spaces; in other words, this is a phenomenon that has been under-theorised. If the underlying premise is that material and spatial arrangements play an important role in an FLS, then it is important for there to be a set of robust theoretical perspectives for framing these discussions and related claims through which to better understand the role and impact of material and spatial elements. Indeed, a growing number of voices have pointed to the lack of theoretical framings regarding the role of space on emergent activity during learning (Ellis and Goodyear 2016; Melhuish 2011; Temple 2018). Melhuish (2011) argues the study of space as a material element needs more attention because we should understand ‘ … how designed settings affect teaching and learning.’ A promising option for giving greater credence to the role of materials in these newly emergent learning spaces is sociomateriality (Fenwick and Edwards 2013; Fenwick, Edwards, and Sawchuk 2011).

In this paper, we present three analytic perspectives for FLSs informed by sociomateriality and introduce each of these perspectives according to scale level (e.g., macro, micro). We begin by describing some of the informing literature from sociomateriality. Next, we introduce our three theoretical perspectives and follow each with vignettes illustrating their application. We conclude with some takeaways about the potential value of these analytical perspectives.

Theoretical framework

On a broad level, sociomateriality urges greater recognition of the role of the material context in shaping learning. It takes issue with the common predilection to view material things as static and inconsequential and instead advocates for seeing them as carrying relational impacts that shape perceptions and actions.

What sociomaterial approaches offer to educational research are resources to consider systematically both the patterns and the unpredictability that make educational activity possible. They promote methods by which to recognize and trace the multifarious struggles, negotiations and accommodations whose effects constitute the ‘things’ in education: students, teachers, learning activities and spaces, knowledge representations such as texts, pedagogy, curriculum content, and so forth. Rather than take such concepts as foundational categories, or objects with properties, they become explored as themselves effects of heterogeneous relations. (Sørensen 2009, 2 emphasis added)

Key to sociomateriality is how it views materials and human action as entangled heterogeneous relations. A sociomaterial perspective resists viewing things and humans as separate categories, but instead posits them as equivalent or symmetrical in terms of their ability to exert force on one another. Material is conceptualised as capable of shaping human perception and activity in the same way that a human can direct or shape a material thing. Thus, in sociomateriality, agency is not positioned as a human characteristic above the material but instead both have agency in relation to the other; they are enmeshed and entangled. Another way to describe this perspective is by considering humans and materials as an assemblage.

Assemblages

An assemblage, or collection of things or people, is an important construct here because learning is seen as a socio-material assemblage (Sørensen 2009). Learning is social, and learners and teachers are entangled with learning tools and resources during the practice of teaching and learning (Sørensen 2009). Humans and materials are not pre-existing entities in a learning space but are always in ‘entangled becoming’ (Goodyear, Carvalho, and Dohn 2016, 101). An assemblage of humans and materials in a learning context is an emergent and co-evolving relationship whereby the learning activity involves connecting or enmeshing materials, ideas, symbols, and bodies into an assemblage that is ‘always active, always reconstituting’ itself (Fenwick and Landri 2012, 3).

Actor-network theory

A sociomaterial approach to analysing learning builds on social science researchers who embraced poststructuralist approaches towards studying a phenomenon. This was evidenced through the work of social scientists such as Latour (1987) who studied the work practices of scientists and argued that scientific concepts now considered established, were developed through recurrent cycles of negotiation among both human and material elements such as microscopes, microbes and computers. He rejected the prevailing sociological view of seeing humans and things as separate and distinct categories (Latour 2005). Things were not passive, innocuous objects but part of the assemblage that contributed to the development of scientific advancements. This work came to be encapsulated into Actor-Network Theory, which positioned human and material elements as engaged in an ongoing network of heterogeneous relations (Latour 2005). Actor-Network Theory has been identified as a pivotal influence in the development of sociomateriality (Leonardi 2013; Orlikowski 2007).

Fenwick et al. (2015) argue that adopting a sociomaterial perspective moves the analyst away from focusing on things in isolation towards how they are enmeshed in practices. A sociomaterial view enables us to see how ‘ … boundaries come into being, the practices which define things and identities, the practices which assign value to some while ignoring others’ (124). Similarly, Sørensen (2009) argues that a sociomaterial perspective can help us better understand how material elements shape educational practices. Sørensen (2009, 2) explains that by modifying our analytical approach to include how ‘ … a particular arrangement of social and material components is established’ it prompts us to ask ‘… what practice is constituted through this socio-material arrangement, what knowledge comes about, what kinds of pupils and teachers are created, and what learning is achieved.’ A focus on assemblages of the material and the social offers a more meaningful account of how these aspects are enmeshed with each other and how they are shaped in the enactment of learning-related goals. This means moving beyond an anthropocentric focus (Hultman and Taguchi 2010) to recognise the value and integrated nature of our material context.

Sociomateriality of learning spaces

Researchers (Goodyear and Carvalho 2014; Yeoman 2018) have begun to consider the sociomateriality of learning spaces in the design and analysis of learning environments. For example, Goodyear and Carvalho (2014) established the Activity Centred Analysis and Design (ACAD) framework based on theories of sociomateriality to understand how learning is physically, socially, and epistemically situated. The framework focuses attention on the aspects of the learning environment which can be altered including the set (or physical elements such as furniture), the social (such as division of labour or group assignments), and the epistemic (or pedagogical elements such as tasks). By attending to these three aspects, designers can have more confidence that the emergent activity and learning outcomes will match those which are desired.

Building on the ACAD framework, Yeoman (2018) developed the ACAD wireframe which aligns the three alterable aspects of the learning environment according to scale levels (e.g., micro, meso, and macro). These scale levels focus on the global (macro), the regional (meso) and the local (micro) influences on the learning environment. Yeoman applied the ACAD wireframe to explore how writable whiteboards supported the learning assemblage on the micro, meso, and macro scale levels in terms of its physical, social, and epistemic properties. Of note is the ability for writable whiteboards to contribute to shared sensemaking on the micro-social level and to see others’ progress and work on the meso-social level (Yeoman 2018). Similar to analysing emergent activity on the micro, meso, and macro levels, Goodyear (2020, 1052–1053) argues for investigating practices by zooming in to ‘look closely at what people are doing and saying’ and zooming out to ‘see how the practice relates to other practices.’ We combine these perspectives in our three framings by focusing on zooming out to analyse activity at the macro level and zooming in to analyse activity at the micro level.

Zooming out and in

We define zooming out to the macro level as a call to analyse the histories, cultures, and communities within which the emergent activity resides. All of these (histories, cultures, and communities) are both being created in and exist outside of a particular moment in time. Zooming out invites one to consider the moment of the emergent activity and its relationship to the history, culture, and community structures which impact it. Our first framing at this level is that of space-time-feedback as an assemblage for emergent interest-driven student activity.

Zooming in to the micro level invites one to consider the emergent activity within a moment of time and place. Considering the sociomaterial nature of the activity, there will always be a reference to history, culture, and community within the assemblage, but the analysis is primarily focused on the emergent activity in the context. This is true in our second and third framings. What follows is an analysis of emergent activity by zooming out to analyse activity at the macro level and zooming in to analyse activity at the micro level. By focusing on assemblages of emergent activity in FLSs, this paper extends the ACAD framework to deepen analysis of emergent activity. In particular, we see the value of drawing on sociomaterial theoretical perspectives and applying those perspectives to analyse what is occurring during emergent activity. Instead of looking at the physical, social, and epistemic aspects of the design prior to emergent activity, we look at the assemblage of emergent activity and consider the interactions between humans and materials that are emergent, co-evolving, and working together to reconstitute the assemblage.

Sociomaterial framings

We propose three sociomaterial framings for analysing the emergent activity within Future Learning Spaces: (1) space-time-feedback as an assemblage for emergent interest-driven student activity; (2) embodiment-material as an assemblage for emergent public sensemaking; and (3) proximity-material-time as an assemblage for emergent collaborative benchmarking through group awareness and ambient feedback. Our first framing involves zooming out to the macro level, and the second and third framings involve zooming in to the micro level (see Table 1 for details explaining each framing, assemblage, and analysis level). We begin by providing details on the material context of our analysis and vignettes. Next, we outline each analytical frame and a corresponding vignette to illustrate how they can be applied to an FLS. Finally, we conclude with some high-level takeaways and possible questions for further investigation.

Table 1. Three analytical framings for analysing emergent activity within FLSs.

Framings	Description	Analysis Level
Space-time-feedback as an assemblage for emergent interest-driven student activity	Space (reconfigurations of Yellow Space and Learn Lab) Time (three semesters of teaching in the Learn Lab, 20 minutes remaining) Feedback (prior semester histories) Implication (entanglement of space-time-feedback informs interest-driven student group activity)	Macro
Embodiment-material as an assemblage for emergent public sensemaking	Embodiment (gestures) Material (table, whiteboard, markers) Implication (entanglement of materials and embodiment informs public (shared) sensemaking)	Micro
Proximity-material-time as an assemblage for emergent collaborative benchmarking through group awareness and ambient feedback	Proximity (distance between two groups, professor walking around the groups) Material (group knowledge artefacts) Time (constraints of group activity and progress) Implication (entanglement of proximity-material-time informs collaborative benchmarking through group awareness and ambient feedback such as over hearing conversations from other groups and hearing instructor’s reminder about time)	Micro

Material context

To illustrate the analytical framings in this paper, we draw on a series of vignettes of a learning design studio (LDS) course in a multi-use, open FLS designed to accommodate classroom instruction, faculty and student meetings, and individual work needs. As a multi-use space, the FLS referenced in this paper consists of the following:

• Four semi-private meeting rooms with digital displays;

• Four open ‘pods’ with digital displays;

• A lab space designed for pedagogical experimentation (‘Learn Lab’);

• An open meeting space designed to accommodate 10–12 individuals (‘Yellow Space’).

The LDS course used in these vignettes was a masters- and doctorate-level design studio where students had the opportunity to grow as learning designers through experiential and project-based learning. Projects included the development of digital artefacts with the potential to transform the learning environment. Readings and discussions focused on topics related to design and learning (e.g., interaction design, design judgement, wicked problems, constructionism, etc.). For more information on the LDS studio course, see Rook and Hooper (2016) or Hooper, Rook, and Choi (2015).

Because the LDS course was designed as a multi-semester sequence, students were asked to select a project track at the level appropriate to their corresponding knowledge level. For example, beginning-level students would select Level 1, which consisted of project assignments such as basic web development, image editing, etc. Level 2 involved more advanced work such as JavaScript programming.

In general, the LDS class sessions occurred in two areas of the FLS: a formal classroom space (‘Learn Lab’ named so because it was specifically designed to accommodate pedagogical experimentation) and a minimalist space oriented towards discussion (‘Yellow Space’ named so because its walls were painted yellow). The Learn Lab features four group tables with five to six chairs per table and a designated projector screen near each table, multiple portable whiteboards, and markers readily available. It is a decentralised bring-your-own-device learning environment (i.e., not a computer lab). Figure 1 provides a floor diagram and image of the Learn Lab.

Figure 1. Floor diagram and images of the Learn Lab and Yellow Space.

One noteworthy detail regarding the Yellow Space is how it does not present a definitive, enclosed space (see Figure 1). It is a space that is not separated with a physical boundary such as a door or wall, instead it feeds into and melds with the larger surrounding space and therefore features a topology that is more porous and fluid than what is found with formal classroom settings. This porous nature allows for flexible work groupings and informal, emergent collaborative work/learning sessions to occur, which is consistent with the approach of design studios in professional industry settings. Thus, the physical space in which this LDS course is being conducted aligns well with the spatially informed practices of professional design studios.

Framing 1: space-time-feedback as an assemblage for emergent interest-driven student activity (zooming out to the macro level)

The first analytical framing examines how history, culture, and community (e.g., student feedback from prior semesters, a professor’s prior experiences, spatial constraints, etc.) come together to impact pedagogical practice. This Space-Time Feedback framing draws from Actor-Network Theory by approaching the phenomena of interest in terms of heterogeneous assemblages comprised of both human and non-human elements and how these assemblages are formed, persist, mutate, or decline as they interact with other entities. This framing recognises the mobility of learning across space and time and how embodiment, mobility, and thinking were shaped by multiple perspectives and histories. For example, student feedback from prior semesters and a professor’s prior experiences are combined with the pedagogical goals of the current iteration of the class to establish new emergent activities such as organising into groups based on students’ learning need(s) or area(s) of interest. These elements are recruited into a sociomaterial assemblage that informs the decision to propose a new pedagogical practice for the professor and the course – i.e., self-organised learning groups. As a result, the spatial topography of the learning space changed from one generally focused on course content communicated primarily through the professor to one of dispersed, self-organised peer learning groups where the substance of the conversations was determined by more individually based learning needs, questions or concerns.

Vignette 1: space-time feedback as an assemblage for emergent interest-driven student activity

In this vignette, the professor and class are meeting in the Yellow Space (see Figures 1 and 2). Relevant to note in this situation is that the class meets in the Yellow Space for the first hour and then moves to the Learn Lab for the remaining two hours. The decision to meet in the Yellow Space for the first hour came about as a result of a partial time conflict where another class was already scheduled to use the Learn Lab during the first hour of the design studio class and so rather than the professor trying to find another, separate classroom on campus, he opted to take advantage of another region in the FLS, namely, the Yellow Space. In the vignette, the class has concluded some logistics and discussions of assigned readings, but still has 20 minutes remaining before they are scheduled to move to the Learn Lab. The professor proposes they use the remaining 20 minutes to self-organise into groups aligned to their project interests (e.g., videos, image editing, web programming). He makes this rationale visible to them by explaining that it is informed by student feedback received from previous sections of the course.

Figure 2. Meeting in the Yellow Space.

In the past, one of the things people have said to me in Design Studio is that they want to have fairly regular opportunities to be able to collaborate with people who are working on similar projects to see what they’re working on, or possibly bounce ideas, or to solve each other’s problems (Professor).

From a sociomaterial perspective, this proposed activity is an entanglement of four agents: (1) student feedback from previous semesters, (2) the ‘lived’ experiences of the students from those previous semesters that informed that feedback, (3) the professor’s reflection on that feedback as a resource for possible design strategies for the current timeframe, and (4) an available block of 20 minutes. These elements combine to contribute to the assemblage of a learning activity that is designed around interest-based discussion groups.

Acting on the professor’s reference to prior students’ feedback, a student initiates the process of self-organisation by indicating he would be interested in talking with others about his video project.

Chris (pseudonym): I’m working now on video. I’ve got a few ideas that I’d like to brainstorm out on how I could build [inaudible] … I’ve got a few ideas that I’d like to talk with someone about.

Shortly after this request for feedback, other students express their interest in talking about the video project.

Tony:

I’ll talk about … [Chris] with video …

Sarah:

I’ll do video …

Professor:

Okay, that’s three for video.

As students begin to share their interest in talking about their respective video projects, the movable chairs and tables enable them to easily reconfigure the space to accommodate their self-organised group, contributing to the developing assemblage.

After the professor identifies that three students have elected to organise around discussing video projects, other students begin to self-organise around different topics of interest such as image editing (e.g., Photoshop) and database programming. Gradually, the physical arrangement of the space constraining the assemblage begins to change from one that featured a relatively dispersed array of people directed towards the professor’s communication (talk) and his corresponding location in the space to an arrangement that features more concentrated (discussion) circles. Viewed in terms of Bradbeer et al.’s (2017) typology, the teacher style moves from a teacher-led large group discussion (Type 1) to interest-driven collaborative learning (Type 4).

As three students self-organise into a small group interested in talking about their video projects, we can see how the assemblage of the professor’s reference to prior student feedback persists in serving as a relational effect for encouraging the formation of a group centred around project interests (e.g., video). The professor did not determine or require a small group regarding video projects be formed or the composition of members, instead, it was directed by the students; they determined the direction and focus of this learning activity. The semi-open, flexible configuration of the Yellow Space (space) and lightweight furniture, having the design studio course in the studio over the period of three semesters (history/time), and having 20 minutes remaining before a scheduled move into the Learn Lab (time) combined to enable the co-construction of an interest-driven student group activity (assemblage).

While the first framing looked across space-time to consider histories and experiences from prior iterations of the LDS course at a macro level of analysis, the next two framings are focused on particular moments in time. For this reason, we zoom in to the micro level to consider specific dialogue and embodied interactions when illustrating the next two framings. For each, we offer a multimodal transcription (Bezemer and Mavers 2011), which is a combination of different modes of interaction. Rather than focusing solely on transcripts of dialogue, a multimodal transcription provides deeper insight into how the different modalities (video, audio) come together to show embodied interactions in relation to dialogue (see Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2. Multimodal transcription of vignette 2: embodiment-material assemblage.

Dialogue	Embodied Interaction	Description
N: Unless it was like the homepage of the thing … Unless the teacher knew, that this motion (a) meant ‘mispronounced word,’ this motion meant ‘skipped word,’ holding or double tapping the word meant something. M: That’s actually written on here. (b) M: So this could be the instruction screen.	(a) (b)	Nancy extends arm forward and places her right hand on the edge of the whiteboard. (a) She moves her index finger to right, left, and holding still to signify the different capabilities of the interface for their iPad application. Next, Matt builds on Nancy’s idea and points while suggesting where those features might exist in their mock-up. (b)

Table 3. Multimodal transcription of vignette 3: proximity-material-time assemblage.

Dialogue	Embodied Interaction	Description
J: Would you like to draw a hand? (a) P: 15 minutes, you have 15 minutes. S: You gave me the one thing that no art student likes to draw. (b) J: You know, I have no idea where you’re going with that, but that already looks better than anything I could do. (c) (d) N: Ha – we haven’t done that much. J: [laughs in agreement] M: Wow. S: Yes, it says that is the one thing that. N: Okay, that’s perfect. M: Is that a human being? N: Looks like a monster. A: That’s good enough. … S: Yea, I’m the biased one … freshening it … A: (I’ll give you this one) (e) N: No, it’s good enough, no, no, no, it’s fine. J: Yeah. M: We have 15 minutes. N: We have, we have 15 minutes.	(a) [off-screen – professor walking around the room] (b)(c) [off-screen – professor responds to another group’s question about their progress and project status] (d) (e)	John asks Stephanie, who has an art background, to draw a hand/finger pointing icon. Meanwhile, the professor walks around the room (a) and announces the time left. Stephanie begins to draw the pointer. (b) After overhearing the professor’s response to another group (c) and seeing the visual representation of the group’s progress (d), the group responds by discussing how they have yet to complete much of the assignment as evidenced in their mock-up. The group shifts attention and leans towards the whiteboard (e) while Stephanie tries to erase a part of the icon using her finger and Anna offers an eraser. After initially questioning Stephanie’s artwork, they quickly pivot to say it’s good enough in order to move on.

Framing 2: embodiment-material as an assemblage for emergent public sensemaking (zooming in to the micro level)

The second analytical framing examines how embodiment and gestures along with material affordances aid and impact social learning and public sensemaking. This framing draws from theories of embodied learning (Leander, Phillips, and Taylor 2010; Streeck 2013) and affordances (Gibson 1986), especially as they relate to shared sensemaking artefacts such as whiteboards, which have been found to offer the ability to see others’ work in real time (Yeoman 2018). Streeck (2013, 10) found that hand gestures can be used for ‘displaying communicative action’ when people use their index fingers to show interest or capture the interest of others. Shared understanding of gestures depends on the context and culture. Through touching and feeling, people make meaning of and from an object, environment, or concept in relation to others and the culture.

The vignette focuses on how gestures and embodied learning in combination with whiteboards entangle to form an assemblage that enables public sensemaking. That is, the entanglement of gestures and materials enable a group to toggle between sketching out different ideas and acting out different interaction scenarios through gesturing. The vignette occurs in the LDS around a rapid prototyping design (RPD) activity.

Vignette 2: embodiment-material as an assemblage for emergent public sensemaking

This vignette begins with the professor describing the details and expectations of the RPD assignment. He explains that the students will be organised into small groups and will develop a mock-up of interfaces for software designed for elementary-age school children. He further explains that as an RPD activity, the groups will have 45 minutes to propose and complete a new mock-up of their interface.

Groups are formed, and students are arranged into three small groups. Viewed in terms of Bradbeer et al.’s (2017) typology, the teacher style moves from a lecture (Type 1) to interest-driven collaborative learning (Type 4). Each group organises themselves around one of the four circular tables in the Learn Lab.

As one group of students is gathered around an elliptical table (see Figure 3), the whiteboard becomes an easy, low friction means for sharing and sketching out their ideas. The whiteboard eliminates the need to invest time in deciding on a software drawing tool or familiarising themselves with another set of icons and interface. Students use the low-fidelity and analogue nature of the whiteboard and markers to quickly sketch out ideas. Group members also appropriate the whiteboard as a material tool for testing out different gestures (e.g., tapping, swiping). Thus, it becomes more than just a passive, material object that sits in the background, but rather emerges as a low-friction drawing surface very compatible with rapid-prototyping design constraints and a simulation space for testing out different end-user interaction scenarios. The whiteboard becomes a focal point or what Roth et al. (1999) call a ‘focusing artifact’ of the group’s design efforts and related conversations. Rather than gathering around one member’s laptop, the group positions a whiteboard across the table so that it is easily visible to all the group members. The whiteboard becomes a way for them to make sense of and quickly test out ideas for different aspects or components of the interface mock-up. For example, when they talk about or explore ideas related to the navigational controls for the iPad application.

Figure 3. The small group’s work area.

Using the whiteboard, the group (pseudonyms of John, Matt, Nancy, Anna, Stephanie) begins to share different understandings of how the interface might look or function. For example, John publicly shares two ideas with the group. In the first, he checks to see whether his understanding regarding the number of control options agrees with the understanding held by the rest of the group (e.g., ‘ … don’t they control for whether it’s correct, incorrect, or a third issue’), and in the second, he explores how the different assessment options will be displayed to the teacher using the app (e.g., ‘Are we talking about those appearing once you interact with a word, or phrase, or question?’). This public sensemaking process prompts other members to offer their understanding or options for interactions with the app. Matt interprets John’s understanding to mean that the gesture interactions will involve swiping actions, whereas Nancy suggests the gesture interaction of ‘tapping’ (e.g., ‘One tap means “mispronounce,” two taps means something … ’).

As described in the multimodal transcription in Table 2, Nancy uses the surface of the whiteboard to simulate different hypothetical gesture-based actions that the teacher might take when interacting with the app, and therefore, the whiteboard is transformed from a static, analogue object into an interactive, digital interface where group members shared their ideas and other members could comment and reflect on them. The spacious, flat, and open space of the whiteboard joins with Nancy’s desire to depict her suggested designs in a richer way – i.e., with hand gestures. In other words, the whiteboard becomes more than just a passive, material object that sits in the background; instead, it operates as a versatile, interactive platform where it toggles between being a drawing surface for sketching out different ideas for the interface and a ‘live’ iPad surface on which to act out different end-user interaction scenarios.

Framing 3: proximity-material-time as an assemblage for emergent collaborative benchmarking through group awareness and ambient feedback (zooming in to the micro level)

Our third analytical framing examines how physical proximity, material affordances, and time constraints entangle to enable collaborative benchmarking. We define collaborative benchmarking as measuring a group’s progress based on other groups’ work. This framing draws from both Tissenbaum and Slotta’s (2019) design principles and the field of proxemics (Hall 1966). Tissenbaum and Slotta (2019) found that large visible representations of student work can provide important ambient cues and feedback for the instructor about when to move forward. Similarly, large displays can serve as material artefacts by which a group can be made aware of progress. The material affordances of the large representations and displays serve a role in collaborative benchmarking. The vignette we use to illustrate this process demonstrates the proximity between groups, material affordances, and time constraints interacting to inform collaborative benchmarking.

The fairly rapid growth and adoption of FLSs has prompted educational researchers to consider the role of proxemics more actively, the study of distance among actors within an environment (Hall 1966). Oblinger (2006) advocated that analysis of proximity offered benefits such as increased interaction between faculty and students:

Because of the importance of faculty-student interaction, faculty offices are being located close to student spaces. … Interaction, collaboration, and engagement can be stimulated by placing people in close proximity to one another (5.8)

In another study, Van Note Chism (2006), examined how overflow spaces that were positioned in close proximity to classrooms functioned as a meaningful support to learning. Studying the context of Social Work students, she observed that the proximity of these ‘Front porches’ to classrooms also allows them to function as overflow areas for ‘ … general activities – group work, practice clinical interviews, tutoring and other components of class-based instruction’ (21.7).

More recently, Altimare and Sheridan (2016) found that physical proximity promoted social interaction which also supported the development of learning communities.

These findings suggest that the design of individual spaces and the positioning of a variety of spaces in close proximity to each other contributes to social connectedness, which has been cited as the key benefit of LCs [Learning Communities] (9)

Within our data, we found that physical proximity facilitated the learning benefit of benchmarking. More specifically, collaborative groups of learners used physical proximity and ambient feedback as a way to measure the progress of the group at given points in time, and in turn, used that as a tool for determining future actions such as accelerating the pace of their work processes in order to meet a deadline set by the professor. In the example provided below, we focus our analysis on small groups of students engaged in a rapid prototyping design (RPD) activity.

Vignette 3: proximity-material-time as an assemblage for emergent collaborative benchmarking through group awareness and ambient feedback

This vignette closely follows the RPD activity described in vignette 2. Students are expected to organise into groups and complete an interface mock-up design within the timeframe of 45 minutes. This time structure constrains the amount of time they can spend thinking, brainstorming, and dialoguing about different options and details concerning the mock-up they decide to ultimately produce. It impacts the decisions (conscious or unconscious) they make about how to approach the RPD design challenge, the technical features or capabilities that should be included in the revised software tool, the interface aesthetics and so forth. In an educational setting, McGregor (2003) explains how timeframes both structure and regulate the activity of students:

Many school rules and practices are connected to spatiality and embodiment, determining the use of space by students… and regulating their movement and expected actions in particular space-times.

Within the context of this vignette, the material constraint of time appears particularly notable within the span of two consecutive actions. The first is when the professor announces that groups have 15 minutes left to complete the activity, which has the relational effect of prompting members of one group to ‘check in’ with the professor about their status and progress on the project. The proximity of the group’s work areas allows them to overhear the conversations happening there. In the situation described Table 3, one group uses the conversations of another with the professor to shape perceptions of their progress – specifically, how far along they should be in the production of their interface mock-up.

In the multimodal transcription in Table 3, group members express their surprise at their lack of progress compared to another group. The proximity of one group to another enables them to assess their own progress in relation to others. The group uses time as a material benchmark for assessing where they should be in relation to others. Feedback cues are provided in much the same way that Tissenbaum and Slotta (2019)’s visible representations of student work provided important cues and ambient feedback for group progress.

Similarly, in the latter part of the transcription, we see the impact that the proximity-material-time assemblage has on the group’s decision to accelerate the process of creating the look and feel of the navigational icons on their interface mock-up (e.g., ‘it’s good enough … we aren’t striving for artistic perfection’). They exhibit a usability-design characteristic of ‘satisficing’ (Krug 2014); rather than spending additional time in pursuit of a higher aesthetic standard that might typically be expected of a final, polished product, they quickly and collectively identify a benchmark that is acceptable for meeting the expectations associated with a rapid prototyping standard (e.g., ‘it’s good enough … ’). Thus, the conversations of another group become an emergent benchmark against which to compare their own progress.

Conclusions

Researchers and practitioners have lauded the development of Future Learning Spaces that mirror authentic collaborative work environments and build upon new theories of how learning occurs through social interactions, and how those interactions can be supported by advanced tools and technologies. Studies of active and innovative learning spaces have provided a foundation for generating preliminary impressions about how FLSs are being used or interpreted by students and faculty; however, traditionally the primary focus has been on the human learner. Largely this has resulted in highlighting the value students and teachers have found in alternative arrangements of chairs and tables, as well as other aspects such as colour and lighting. While these material things have been accorded much significance as having positive impacts on learning, the analysis and discussion of these material elements have been generally confined to surface-level concerns such as their physical or functional affordances. Yet if these material elements are to be attributed with value, then it requires that greater time and care be spent with developing robust theoretical frameworks which can serve as a foundation for conceptual language for talking about the materiality of FLSs.

This need to develop a more robust set of conceptual terms for framing and analysing the role of the material aspects of space was the driving impetus of this paper. We argued that sociomaterial perspectives offer a promising starting point as they position the material aspects and humans (e.g., students, teacher) as engaged in an ongoing network of heterogeneous relations. More particularly, we proposed three analytical framings arising out of a sociomaterial analysis of an FLS: (1) space-time-feedback as an assemblage for emergent interest-driven student activity; (2) embodiment-material as an assemblage for emergent public sensemaking; and (3) proximity-material-time as an assemblage for emergent collaborative benchmarking through group awareness and ambient feedback.

In the first, we saw how the collective assemblage of student feedback from previous semesters interacts with a professor’s desire to make a learning experience more responsive to a current group of students. Rather than simply directing the students to organise into groups, he publicly references and explains the impact of the feedback (i.e., material) from previous cohorts of students as a relational force that informs the rationale for the current activity. Additionally, constraints within the environment enable opportunities for using FLSs in new ways which in turn acts as a relational force on the course. The new way of using the FLS exhibits characteristics more closely aligned with a student-centred learning space; thus, we see how the space shifts the class dynamic to one more directed by the students’ emergent learning needs.

In the second, embodiment-material as an assemblage for emergent public sensemaking, we analysed a facet of a Rapid Prototyping Design activity by looking at the material impact of a whiteboard enmeshed with gestures. We examined how the whiteboard becomes a focal point for group members’ sensemaking processes as it becomes the thing that they point at, sketch on and gesture on as a way of testing and exploring different design options for the software interface. Similarly, the large circular table on which the whiteboard is positioned and around which the group members are gathered enables them all to easily orient their focus towards the whiteboard.

The interface mock-ups they eventually develop and share with the class at-large are enacted through the dynamic social practices of the group’s cycles of questioning, proposing, and negotiating (of perspectives); yet these social practices and processes are sedimented and thus hidden from the class and professor viewing their final product. Looking at the processes that produced this embodiment-material assemblage can be helpful for understanding the human and non-human elements that went into making it. More broadly, there could be some benefit into exploring the underlying social practices of different groups creating educational software artefacts. What negotiations took place? How were material affordances enmeshed with embodied learning during the process? In addition, there could be some benefit into exploring the legacy of these artefacts on a macro level. How does the artefact get used across time? How does the embodiment-material assemblage change when considering the history, culture, and community? These questions might frame future investigations.

In the third, proximity-material-time as an assemblage for emergent collaborative benchmarking through group awareness and ambient feedback, we explained how social practices enmeshed in an assemblage of proximity-material-time serve as benchmarks that student groups use to assess their progress and instructors use as ambient cues to move forward or not. We analysed how one groups’ assessment of progress during a Rapid Prototyping Design challenge is determined by the conversations it overhears and representations it sees of another group by virtue of its proximity to their workspace. Group awareness and feedback cues are consistent with Tissenbaum and Slotta 2019)’s design principle focused on visible representations of student work which can provide important cues and ambient feedback for group progress.

Combined, the three analytical framings introduced in this paper provide a coherent perspective emerging from prior theorising and literature. Although the analytical framings presented are not an exhaustive list, they serve as a meaningful contribution to the emergent body of research that aims to develop a set of robust theoretical perspectives for future discussions of FLSs and related claims on the role and impact of material and spatial elements. Future work might include replication of the vignettes presented in this paper in new FLSs, introducing additional analytical framings as expansions on the ones described in this paper, or using the work here as a starting point for future investigations of emergent activity in FLSs from a sociomaterial perspective. We hope that this paper will act as a call to action for others interested in FLSs to develop additional robust theoretical perspectives for analysing emergent activity during learning.

Acknowledgments

The Krause Studios for Innovation in the College of Education at the Pennsylvania State University are named after Gay and Bill Krause, the donors and benefactors of the initiative. We are grateful for their support and guidance in the development and continued operation of the Krause Studios for Innovation.

This paper is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.