Mapping next generation learning spaces as a designed quality enhancement process

References

• Alderman, L., Towers, S. & Bannah, S., 2012, ‘Student feedback systems in higher education: a focused literature review and environmental scan’, Quality in Higher Education, 18(3), pp. 261–80.10.1080/13538322.2012.730714
   Google Scholar
• Allais, S., 2011, ‘‘Economics imperialism’, education policy and educational theory’, Journal of Education Policy, 27(2), pp. 253–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggs, J.B. & Collis, K.F., 1982, Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the observed learning outcome) (New York, NY, NY, Academic Press).
   Google Scholar
• Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J. & Aranda, G., 2011, Research into the Connection Between Built Learning Spaces and Student Outcomes: Literature review (East Melbourne, Victoria, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Deakin University).
   Google Scholar
• Boysen, G.A., Kelly, T.J., Raesly, H.N. & Casner, R.W., 2014, ‘The (mis)interpretation of teaching evaluations by college faculty and administrators’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(6), pp. 641–56.10.1080/02602938.2013.860950
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braudel, F., 1995, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press).
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. & Katz, B., 2009, Change By Design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation (New York, NY, HarperCollins Publishers).
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, D.T., 1976, Assessing the Impact of Planned Social Change, Paper #8. Proceedings of the Occasional Paper Series (Hanover, NH, Darthmouth College).
   Google Scholar
• Carrell, S.E. & West, J.E., 2010, ‘Does professor quality matter? Evidence from random assignment of students to professors’, Journal of Political Economy, 118(3), pp. 409–32.10.1086/653808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton, G., 2012, ‘Turning thinking on its head: how bodies make up their minds’, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(2), pp. 78–84.10.1016/j.tsc.2012.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coates, H., 2007, ‘Excellent measures precede measures of excellence’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(1), pp. 87–94.10.1080/13600800601175805
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., 2001, ‘Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization’, Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), pp. 133–56.10.1080/13639080020028747
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y., 2006, ‘Activity theory and expansive design’, in Bagnara, S. & Smith, G.C. (Eds.) Theories and Practice in Interaction Design (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers).
   Google Scholar
• Funnell, S.C. & Rogers, P.J., 2011, Purposeful Program Theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
   Google Scholar
• Gruenewald, D.A., 2003, ‘Foundations of place: a multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education’, American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), pp. 619–54.10.3102/00028312040003619
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey, L. & Williams, J., 2010, ‘Fifteen years of quality in higher education (part two)’, Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), pp. 81–113.10.1080/13538322.2010.485722
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E., 2010, ‘Cognitive ecology’, Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), pp. 705–15.10.1111/tops.2010.2.issue-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E., 2014, ‘The cultural ecosystem of human cognition’, Philosophical Psychology, 27(1), pp. 34–49.10.1080/09515089.2013.830548
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kashif, M. & Basharat, S., 2014, ‘Factors impacting university students’ engagement with classroom activities: qualitative study’, International Journal of Management in Education, 8(3), pp. 209–24.10.1504/IJMIE.2014.062957
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, A.E., Baek, J.Y. & Lesh, R.A., 2008, Handbook of Design Research Methods In Education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (New York, NY, Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• Kyndt, E., Cascallar, E. & Dochy, F., 2012, ‘Individual differences in working memory capacity and attention, and their relationship with students’ approaches to learning’, Higher Education, 64(3), pp. 285–97.10.1007/s10734-011-9493-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lave, J. & Wenger, E., 1991, Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).10.1017/CBO9780511815355
   Google Scholar
• Leonard, S.N., Belling, S., Morris, A. & Reynolds, E., 2017, ‘Playing with rusty nails: “Conceptual tinkering” for “next” practice’, EDeR—Educational Design Research, 1(1), pp. 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Leonard, S.N., Fitzgerald, R. & Riordan, G., 2016, ‘Using developmental evaluation as a design thinking tool for curriculum innovation in professional higher education’, Higher Education Research & Development, 35(2), pp. 309–21.10.1080/07294360.2015.1087386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingard, B., 2011, ‘Policy as numbers: ac/counting for educational research’, Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), pp. 355–82.10.1007/s13384-011-0041-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingard, B. & Sellar, S., 2013, ‘”Catalyst data”: perverse systemic effects of audit and accountability in Australian schooling’, Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), pp. 634–56.10.1080/02680939.2012.758815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lom, E. & Sullenger, K., 2011, ‘Informal spaces in collaborations: exploring the edges/boundaries of professional development’, Professional Development in Education, 37(1), pp. 55–74.10.1080/19415257.2010.489811
   Google Scholar
• Marmot, A., 2006, Spaces For Learning: A review of learning spaces in further and higher education (Edinburgh, Scottish Funding Council).
   Google Scholar
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology, n.d., TEAL: Technology-enhanced active learning. Available at http://web.mit.edu/edtech/casestudies/teal.html (accessed 30 August 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, K.E., Andrews, V. & Adams, P., 2011, ‘Social learning spaces and student engagement’, Higher Education Research and Development, 30(2), pp. 105–20.10.1080/07294360.2010.512629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenney, S. & Reeves, T.C., 2012, Conducting Educational Design Research. (New York, NY, Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• McKenney, S. & Reeves, T.C., 2013, ‘Systematic review of design-based research progress: is a little knowledge a dangerous thing?’, Educational Researcher, 42(2), pp. 97–100.10.3102/0013189X12463781
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, J.E. & Seldin, P., 2014, Changing Practices in Faculty Evaluation (Washington, DC, American Association of University Professors).
   Google Scholar
• Munnerley, D., Bacon, M., Fitzgerald, R., Wilson, A., Hedberg, J., Steele, J. & Standley, A., 2014, Augmented Reality—Application in Higher Education: Final report 2014, (Sydney, Office of Learning and Teaching). Available at https://www.olt.gov.au/resource-augmented-reality-application-higher-education (accessed 13 July 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, E. & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M.A., 2008, ‘Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology’, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), pp. 442–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton, M.Q., 2011, Developmental Evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use (New York, NY, Guilford Press).
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M.Q., 2012, Essentials of Utilization-Focused Evaluation (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, M. (Ed.), 2001, Univeristy Builders (London, Wile-Academy).
   Google Scholar
• Ployhart, R.E. & Oswald, F.L., 2004, ‘Applications of mean and covariance structure analysis: integrating correlational and experimental approaches’, Organizational Research Methods, 7(1), pp. 27–65.10.1177/1094428103259554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Power, M., 1994, The Audit Explosion (London, Demos).
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.M., 1998, ‘Situated cognition and assessment of competence in science’, Evaluation and Program Planning, 21(2), pp. 155–69.10.1016/S0149-7189(98)00004-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, W.M. & Hsu, P.L., 2014, ‘Space, relations, and the learning of science’, Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(1), pp. 77–113.10.1007/s11422-013-9533-4
   Google Scholar
• Roth, W.M. & Jornet, A., 2013, ‘Situated cognition’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(5), pp. 463–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saarinen, T., 2010, ‘What I talk about when I talk about quality’, Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), pp. 55–57.10.1080/13538321003679507
   Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W.A., 2014, ‘Conjecture mapping: an approach to systematic educational design research’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), pp. 18–36.10.1080/10508406.2013.778204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer, R.K., 2006, ‘Educating for innovation’, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), pp. 41–48.10.1016/j.tsc.2005.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, G., Shah, M., Grebennikov, L. & Singh, H., 2008, ‘Improving student retention: a University of Western Sydney case study’, Journal of Institutional Research, 14(1), pp. 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Shum, S.B. & Ferguson, R., 2011, Social Learning Analytics [Available as: Technical Report KMI-11-01] (London, Knowledge Media Institute, Open University).
   Google Scholar
• Strickdorn, M. & Schneider, J., 2010, This is Service Design Thinking (Amsterdam, BIS Publishers).
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L.S., 1978, Mind in Society : The development of higher psychological processes (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Waldrip, B., Cox, P. & Yu, J.J., 2014, ‘Quantitative research on personalising learning and wellbeing in open-plan up-scaled learning communities; challenges in researching attempts to personalise learning’, in Prain, V., Cox, P., Deed, C., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., Keeffe, M., Lovejoy, V., Mow, L., Sellings, P., Waldrip, B. & Yager, Z. (Eds.) Adapting to Teaching and Learning in Open-Plan Schools (Rotterdam, Sense).
   Google Scholar
• Wenger, E., 1998, Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).10.1017/CBO9780511803932
   Google Scholar
• Wenger, E., Trayner, B. & Laat, M.D., 2011, Promoting and Assessing Value Creation in Communities and Networks: A conceptual framework (Heerlen, Ruud de Moor Centrum).
   Google Scholar
• Woolcott, G., Chamberlain, D., Keast, R. & Farr-Wharton, B., 2016, ‘Engagement and undergraduate retention: Social network analysis and student social ecologies’, Research in Higher Education Journal, 31, pp. 1–35.
   Google Scholar
• Zepke, N., Butler, P. & Leach, L., 2012, ‘Institutional research and improving the quality of student engagement’, Quality in Higher Education, 18(3), pp. 329–47.10.1080/13538322.2012.730338
   Google Scholar