Why do they study there? Diary research into students’ learning space choices in higher education

References

• Appel-Meulenbroek, R. (2014). How to measure added value of corporate real estate and building design. Knowledge sharing in research building (PhD dissertation). Eindhoven University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Groenen P., & Janssen I. (2011). An end-user's perspective on activity-based office concepts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 13(2), 122–135. doi: 10.1108/14630011111136830
   Google Scholar
• Barnett, R., & Temple, P. (2006). Impact on space of future changes in higher education. Space Management Group (SMG). Higher Education Space Management Project. Retrieved May 31, 2012, from http://www.smg.ac.uk/documents/FutureChangesInHE.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Beckers, R., & Van der Voordt, T. (2013). Facilitating new ways of learning in Dutch higher education. International Journal of Facilities Management, EuroFM Journal. Conference papers 12th EuroFM Research Symposium. Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 25–35.
   Google Scholar
• Beckers, R., Van der Voordt, T., & Dewulf, G. (2015). A conceptual framework to identify spatial implications of new ways of learning in higher education. Facilities, 33(1/2), 2–19. doi: 10.1108/F-02-2013-0013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Rumble, M. (2010). Draft white paper 1 defining 21st century skills. The University of Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
   Google Scholar
• Brett, P., & Nagra, J. (2005). An investigation into students’ use of a computer-based social learning space: Lessons for facilitating collaborative approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 281–292. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00457.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collis, B., & Van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of technology and change in higher education. Enschede: CHEPS.
   Google Scholar
• Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M.W., Nordgren, L.F., & Van Baaren, R.B. (2006). On making the right choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect. Science, 311(5763), 1005–1007. doi: 10.1126/science.1121629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, K. (2005). Research into identifying effective learning environments. Paper for OECD/PEB, Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities, pp. 159–167.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, K., & Newton, C. (2014). Transforming the twenty-first-century campus to enhance the net-generation student learning experience: Using evidence-based design to determine what works and why in virtual/physical teaching spaces. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(5), 903–920. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.890566
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster, C. (2008). Learning for understanding: Engaging and interactive knowledge visualization. Durham, NC: Durham University, Technology Enhanced Learning Research Group.
   Google Scholar
• Gensler. (2012). Changing course. Connecting campus design to a new kind of student. Retrieved March 10, 2014, from http://www.gensler.com/uploads/documents/Changing_Course_Survey_10_08_2012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gomis Porqueras, P., & Rodrigues-Neto, J.A. (2010). Adopting new technologies in the classroom (Working Paper 528). Canberra: Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, A. (2002). Accommodating the new economy: The SANE space environment model. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 4(3), 248–265. doi: 10.1108/14630010210811877
   Google Scholar
• Harrop, D., & Turpin, B. (2013). A study exploring learners’ informal learning space behaviors, attitudes, and preferences. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 19(1), 58–77. doi: 10.1080/13614533.2013.740961
   Google Scholar
• Iida, M., Shrout, P.E., Laurenceau, J.P., & Bolger, N. (2012). Using diary methods in psychological research. In M. Iida, P.E. Shrout, J.P. Laurenceau, N. Bolger, H. Cooper, & P.M. Camic et al. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 1: Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics (pp. 277–305). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson, P. (2003). Designing more effective on-campus teaching and learning spaces: A role for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1–2), 119–133. doi: 10.1080/1360144042000277991
   Google Scholar
• Jessop, T., Gubby, L., & Smith, A. (2012). Space frontiers for new pedagogies: A tale of constraints and possibilities. Studies in Higher Education, 37(2), 189–202. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.503270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JISC. (2006). Designing spaces for effective learning. A guide to 21st century learning space design. Joint Information Systems Committee. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
   Google Scholar
• Marais, N. (2011). Connectivism as learning theory: The force behind changed teaching practice in higher education. Education, Knowledge and Economy, 4(3), 173–182.
   Google Scholar
• Marmot, A. (2006). Spaces for learning. A review of learning spaces in further and higher education. Alexi Marmot Associates and haa design by order of Scottish Funding Council. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from http://www.sfc.ac.uk/publications/spaces_for_learning_report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, K.E., Andrews, V., & Adams, P. (2011). Social learning spaces and student engagement. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 105–120. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2010.512629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. doi: 10.1080/08923648909526659
   Google Scholar
• Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Higgins, S., Lin, M., Miller, J., Newton, D., et al. (2004). Thinking skill frameworks for post-16 learners: An evaluation. A research report for the learning and skills research centre. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Nair, P., & Fielding, R. (2005). The language of school design: Design patterns for the 21st century schools. Minneapolis, MN: DesignShare.com, The International Forum for Innovative Schools.
   Google Scholar
• Oblinger, D. (2005). Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces. Educause Quarterly, 28(1), 14–18.
   Google Scholar
• Oldenburg, R. (2001). Celebrating the third place: Inspiring stories about the ‘great good places’ at the heart of our communities. New York: Marlowe.
   Google Scholar
• Park, E.L., & Choi, B.K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, 68(5), 749–771. doi: 10.1007/s10734-014-9742-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole, P., & Wheal, A. (2011). Learning, spaces and technology. Canterbury: Canterbury Christ Church University.
   Google Scholar
• Prensky, M. (2001). Teaching digital natives. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Radcliffe, D., Wilson, H., Powell, D., & Tibbetts, B. (2008). Designing next generation places of learning: Collaboration at the pedagogy-space-technology nexus. Brisbane: The University of Queensland.
   Google Scholar
• Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K., Bacigalupo, M., Ferrari, A., & Punie, Y. (2009). Learning 2.0: The impact of web 2.0 innovations on education and training in Europe. Final report. Seville, Spain: European Commission-Joint Research Center-Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Rudd, T., Gifford, C., Morrison, J., & Facer, K. (2006). Opening education. What if … ? Re-imagining learning spaces. Bristol: Futurelab.
   Google Scholar
• Salter, D., Thomson, D.L., Fox, B., & Lam, J. (2013). Use and evaluation of a technology-rich experimental collaborative classroom. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(5), 805–819. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2013.777033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawon, K., Pembroke, M., & Wille, P. (2012). An analysis of student characteristics and behaviour in relation to absence from lectures. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(6), 575–586. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2012.716004
   Google Scholar
• Smith, C., & Bath, D. (2006). The role of the learning community in the development of discipline knowledge and generic graduate outcomes. Higher Education, 51(2), 259–286. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-6389-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souter, K., Riddle, M., Sellers, W., & Keppel, M. (2011). Spaces for knowledge generation. Final report. Strawberry Hills: Australian Learning & Teaching Council.
   Google Scholar
• Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57–70. doi: 10.1023/A:1003548313194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Q. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 411–419. doi: 10.1080/14703290802377307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteside, A., & Fitzgerald, S. (2009). Designing spaces for active learning. Implications, 7(1). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from http://www.informedesign.org/Implications/Issues-of-Implications
   Google Scholar