Fluid Trajectories: Learning Spaces for the Net ...

Learning Spaces for the Digital Age: Blending Space with Pedagogy Lynne Hunt, Henk Huijser and Michael Sankey University of Southern Queensland, Australia Abstract This chapter shows how virtual and physical learning spaces are shaped by pedagogy. It explores the shift in pedagogy from an orientation to teaching to an emphasis on student learning. In so doing, it touches on Net Generation literature indicating that this concept has a poor fit with the diverse nature of student populations engaged in lifelong learning. The argument is that the skill set required for lifelong learning is not age related. At the core of the chapter is a case study of the University of Southern Queensland (USQ) which describes a history of learning environments that have been variously shaped by pedagogy and the limits of technology. It refers to the concept of the „edgeless university‟, which acknowledges that learning is no longer cloistered within campus walls, and it describes how USQ is engaging with this concept through the development of open source learning materials. An important point in the chapter is that the deliberate design of quality learning spaces requires whole-of-institution planning, including academic development for university teaching staff, themselves often ill-equipped to take advantage of the potential of new learning environments. The import of the discussion is that higher education learning spaces are shaped by deliberate design and that student learning is optimised when that design is pedagogically informed and properly managed.

INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the journey from traditional learning spaces to contemporary, open learning environments, including Web 2.0 environments such as wikis, social networking spaces and virtual classrooms and worlds. The concept of „learning space‟ is helpful in this respect because it provides a framework to explore emerging pedagogies and it broadens conceptualisations of learning beyond classrooms and lecture theatres. It also provides an opportunity to describe the potential of virtual learning spaces such as learning management systems and web-based learning opportunities. The term learning environment is also widely used and in this chapter the two terms are used interchangeably, as both refer to situations – physical or virtual – that are structured to assist student participation and learning. The contemporary higher education context increasingly requires flexibility of access for an increasingly diverse student cohort. Overall, therefore, this chapter argues the need for a carefully planned and appropriately managed design of learning spaces to maximise learning for all students. The key point is that pedagogy informs learning space design.

1

Student characteristics and the design of learning spaces There are many factors that influence the design of contemporary learning spaces in higher education. Some of these refer to students‟ needs and wants, especially those of the so-called Net Generation or „digital natives‟ (Prensky, 2001). That said, this chapter addresses learning spaces for diverse student populations and it draws on research that has convincingly deconstructed the discourse about the Net Generation (Kvavik, 2005; Kennedy et al., 2008), arguing that it should refer to a skill set that all students need. Similarly, it is important to challenge the notion that lifelong learners are mature-aged students. Everyone, young or old, is a lifelong learner and all students can be helped or hindered by learning design (Candy et al., 1994). This reinforces the point that pedagogy is the driving force in the effective design of learning spaces. The contemporary context of higher education has been described as „supercomplex‟ (Barnett, 2000) necessitating learning environments that enable students to cope in a world that is „radically unknowable‟ (Barnett, 2000, p. 42). An important factor in this context is the changing political expectations of higher education, including a requirement for widened participation, which will clearly have an influence on how student learning is managed because it engages with notions of „lifelong learning‟, defined as being „concerned with both flexible, convenient, relevant provision of learning opportunities and with curricula that promote lifelong learning qualities‟ (Walters, 2005, p. 2). In Australia, for example, the federal government has explicitly called for widening participation in higher education, firstly in terms of the numbers entering higher education, but more importantly in terms of greater participation of lower socio economic students (Heagney, 2009). Considerable incentives are planned to facilitate access to university and ambitious targets are being set. The implication is that there will be more students and greater diversity of students‟ learning needs that can only be accommodated through the careful design of learning spaces. To function effectively in an „age of supercomplexity‟ students require multidimensional thinking and critical analysis. We now live in a world subject to infinite interpretability. It is this world for which universities are having to prepare their students ...a situation of complexity exists where one is faced with a surfeit of data, knowledge or theoretical frames within one‟s immediate situation ... [but] professional life is increasingly becoming a matter not just of handling overwhelming data and theories within a given frame of reference (a situation of complexity) but also a matter of handling multiple frames of understanding, of action and of selfidentity. The fundamental frameworks by which we understand the world are multiplying and are often in conflict (Barnett, 2000, p. 6). The notion of the Net Generation (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005, Kennedy et al., 2008) seeks to capture the apparently complex and fast changing skills and knowledge sets of a new generation, rather than focusing on what this generation should be able to know and do. It ascribes specific characteristics to a generation that has grown up in a technology saturated environment. 2

These include an ability to read visual images, visual-spatial skills, digital literacy and connectedness. Barnes, Marateo and Ferris (2007) suggest that the Net Generation is easily bored and needs active, engaged learning experiences; self-directed learning opportunities; immediacy; interactivity; experiential learning; and above all, opportunities for social interaction. If this is the case, then such characteristics have major implications for the design of learning spaces and it is not difficult to see parallels between the perceived needs of the Net Generation and the potential of a Web 2.0 learning environment. The characteristic of „connectedness‟, for example, indicates a need for learning spaces that facilitate social networking opportunities. For example, traditional libraries with rules of silence and individual carrels are being replaced by „learning commons‟ designed to facilitate interaction through shared desk design and break-out rooms. Empirical research is now emerging that deconstructs generalisations about the Net Generation (Ellis & Newton, 2009; Kvavik, 2005; Lomas & Oblinger, 2006; Kennedy et al., 2008). For example, Lomas and Oblinger note that “although students have little fear of technology, they are not necessarily proficient with technology, information retrieval, or cognitive skills – what many call information fluency” (2006, p. 5.10). In their study of blogging for instructional purposes, Leslie and Murphy (2008) found that students did not move beyond low level information sharing, nor engaged in knowledge construction, which they attributed to a lack of teacher presence. Further, it seems that there is considerable intra-generational variation in skill levels and in the ways in which the Net Generation uses technologies, particularly for educational purposes. For example, Kennedy et al.‟s study shows that “many first year students are highly tech-savvy. However, when one moves beyond entrenched technologies and tools (e.g. computers, mobile phones, email), the patterns of access and use of a range of other technologies show considerable variation” (2008, p. 108). While they found a significant growth in students‟ general use of instant messaging, blogs and podcasting, they also found that the majority of students rarely or never used these technologies for study, and importantly, “the transfer from a social or entertainment technology to a learning technology is neither automatic nor guaranteed” (Kennedy et al., 2008, p. 119). The strength of Net Generation studies is that they have identified skill sets which assist in the design of learning spaces for all students. The task of university management, then, is to harness this evidence and the opportunities afforded by the internet, social networks, and collaborative online tools (Bradwell, 2009) in the design of contemporary, pedagogically informed, learning spaces. Pedagogy to inform contemporary learning needs The required reorientation of thinking about pedagogies suited to contemporary learning design is paradigmatic in proportion, as Barr and Tagg (1995, p. 1) recognised in their classic article, „From teaching to learning – a new paradigm for undergraduate education‟: We are beginning to recognize that our dominant paradigm mistakes a means for an end. It takes the means or method – called "instruction" or "teaching" – and makes it the college's end or purpose. To say that 3

the purpose of colleges is to provide instruction is like saying that General Motors' business is to operate assembly lines or that the purpose of medical care is to fill hospital beds. We now see that our mission is not instruction but rather that of producing learning with every student by whatever means work best. Traditionally, the teacher assesses, judges and evaluates (and thus „controls‟) student learning outcomes. This is understood to ensure standards, and it is a fundamental way in which individual universities build and maintain their reputations. As Geith notes, “measuring, valuing, and recognising learner performance remains an exclusive function inside formal education systems” (2008, p. 224). In contrast, pedagogies focused on student learning increase “the level of collaboration with experts and peer groups and [connects] students to an emerging global network or „architecture of participation‟ that transcends the walls of the institution” (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008, p. 13). The role of teachers or instructors in this context becomes one of working “collaboratively with learners to review, edit, and apply quality assurance mechanisms to student work while also drawing on input from the wider community outside the classroom or institution” (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008, p. 14). McLoughlin and Lee (2008) define the principles of a new approach under the heading Pedagogy 2.0: “Pedagogy 2.0 integrates Web 2.0 tools that support knowledge sharing, peer-to-peer networking, and access to a global audience with socioconstructivist learning approaches to facilitate greater learning autonomy, agency and personalisation” (2008, p. 2). They identify the main challenge as enabling “self-direction, knowledge building, and learner control by offering flexible options for students to engage in learning that is authentic and relevant to their needs and to those of the networked society while still providing necessary structure and scaffolding” (2008, p. 7, our emphasis). This suggests a major shift in the role of the teacher, and the level of teacher control over the learning process for which, as Mabrito and Medley note, university teachers may be poorly prepared: “while N-Gens interact with the world through multimedia, online social networking, and routine multitasking, their professors tend to approach learning linearly, one task at a time, and as an individual activity that is centred largely around printed text” (2008, p. 4). Much of the literature on pedagogical change is dichotomised, characterising a change from linear and didactic teaching and learning to complex and interactive approaches. The reality is that staff of all universities are variously positioned along a continuum of pedagogies and there are many instances of individual teachers taking advantage of the availability of “ubiquitous, free, and efficient online collaboration tools for teaching and learning” (Hargis & Wilcox, 2008), for example through innovative uses of blogs (Bruns & Jacobs, 2006) or by incorporating Web 2.0 environments like Wikiversity (Friesen & Hopkins, 2008), social networking sites (boyd, 2008) or Second Life (Kelton, 2007), which provide openness and searchability, contrasting sharply with virtual learning environments that do not take advantage of network effects (Alexander, 2008). In brief, it is the pedagogical design of learning spaces that is important – not simply the availability of technologies. In this, the role of the 4

teacher is paramount. However, recognising the importance of the teacher requires the development of a context in which teachers are supported in developing pedagogically informed learning spaces. The following case study shows how one university undertook a whole-of-university change process to support teachers in the redesign of learning spaces for their students. It describes how the University of Southern Queensland (USQ) managed change to enhance flexible learning spaces informed by „Pedagogy 2.0‟. Case Study: structural holistic change at USQ The University of Southern Queensland fits the mould of an „edgeless university‟ (Bradwell, 2009), which is “no longer contained within the campus, nor within the physically defined space of a particular institution ...“ (Bradwell, 2009, p. 8). Some 78% of USQ‟s students study by distance education and about 5000 international students study USQ programs in their home countries. The University now has four decades of history in designing learning spaces for students studying off campus. The changing nature of these learning environments has been characterized in terms of five generations (Taylor, 2001): 1. First generation correspondence model; 2. Second generation multimedia model; 3. Third generation tele-learning model; 4. Fourth generation flexible learning model; and 5. Fifth generation intelligent flexible learning model. The design of each generation of learning environments is clearly dictated by the limits of technology at the time and the pedagogies that informed the development of course materials. This case study explores the continuing interrelationship between pedagogy and the design of learning spaces by detailing the change management process and its influence on the learning design outcomes. USQ set out to address pedagogy and learning systems. The direction of change is towards student-centred learning design and enhanced use of digital futures, including the development and use of open access learning opportunities. It is argued that both the development of new learning spaces and appropriately designed learning experiences are contingent on organisational reorientation within universities. This means that both the organisational culture and the structures that govern the institution need to change because, as Barr and Tagg (1995, p. 7) noted: There is good reason to attend to structure. First, restructuring offers the greatest hope for increasing organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Structure is leverage. If you change the structure in which people work, you increase or decrease the leverage applied to their efforts. A change in structure can either increase productivity or change the nature of organizational outcomes. Second, structure is the concrete manifestation of the abstract principles of the organization's governing paradigm. Structures reflecting an old paradigm can frustrate the best ideas and innovations of new-paradigm thinkers.

5

In other words, structural changes that are aligned with a university‟s pedagogical direction need to be in place to effect cultural change, which in turn will affect the pedagogy underlying teaching in the university. At USQ, changes to pedagogy and learning environments required a series of adjustments. This was a challenge because, as Henshaw (2008) notes, universities are notoriously slow at adapting to major changes. Chowcat et al. (2008, p. 20) argue that, “the development of new pedagogies can be a substantial professional challenge: teachers must learn new skills and rethink and refashion the teacher-learner relationship”. The preparation of university teachers for the paradigm shift to Pedagogy 2.0 will, therefore, require “a tremendous amount of institutional support” (Mabrito & Medley, 2008, p. 16) and a flexible „whole-of-institution‟ approach (Taylor, 2001). Yet universities are traditionally monolithic systems that are “less flexible and ultimately less innovative than the granular and remixable information services now often called Web 2.0” (Unsworth, 2008, p. 229). Part of the vision of the change management process at USQ was that cultural change will arise from structural change. Indeed, it was envisaged that changes in pedagogy might be assured, at least in terms of minimum standards, by the development of an online Course and Program Management System (CPMS). This will facilitate staff autonomy in making changes to courses and programs whilst also assuring quality and communication through built-in approval processes. This is a basic building block for improvement and it is in advance of similar products because it syndicates key information to other systems, such as e-portfolios for staff and students. This means that the CPMS will automatically deposit the outcomes of student review in staff e-portfolios, which will facilitate data collection for annual performance review and promotion. For students, the system will automatically record the graduate skills acquired in each course that they pass. This will facilitate the development of their Statement of Graduate Outcomes and hence employability. In brief, the design of the CPMS was all about getting the context right for both staff and students. The key principle of the change management process was to avoid reliance on voluntaristic professional development and to lock in quality via the CPMS to make it difficult to avoid the essential ingredients of good learning design. Of itself, the CPMS may be seen as staff learning space. It was designed to render course design and review a business-as-usual activity. At the same time, a new, integrated system of academic professional development, including online foundation modules, was implemented to support course development. Van Note Chism (2006, p. 2.2) adopts the term „built pedagogy‟, to describe how space might shape learning. However, the extent to which innovations such as the CPMS influence the adoption of new pedagogies remains to be seen. The indications are that the potential of learning spaces is contingent on the pedagogical input of university teachers. For example, Lane (2009) refers to the „insidious pedagogy‟ inherent in learning management systems (LMS) because many teaching staff in universities under-utilise the potential and work at only the most basic level: “the defaults of the CMS [LMS] therefore tend to determine the way Web-novice faculty teach online, encouraging methods based on posting of material and engendering usage 6

that focuses on administrative tasks” (Lane 2009, p. 1). What students lacked in these contexts is what teachers traditionally offer: the design of the educational experience; the facilitation of that experience; and subject matter expertise (Leslie & Murphy, 2008, p. 37). The required changes in pedagogy and learning environments had implications that would affect many aspects of the University. Accordingly, in 2008, the University undertook a whole-of-university change project to enhance students‟ learning journeys. The approach was inevitably holistic because students want universities to deliver on a number of fronts. They want “the combination of consistently capable staff, with appropriate learning designs and a support system that enables them to deliver what is intended” (Scott 2005). In their account of USQ‟s change management process, Hunt and Peach (2009, p. 18) describe the key elements of holistic change: There is considerable agreement about what needs to be done to lead holistic change. Burnes‟ (2004) model of organisational change included the need to develop: vision; participative strategies; the right culture and conditions of change; and implementation plans. ... it is holistic and recognizes the need for structural and cultural reorientation for change to be effective. The characteristics shared by these models is that they are multidimensional, systematic approaches designed to produce change-capable cultures. The change process may be described as top-down, bottom-up and middleout (Cummings et al., 2005), the last of these being effected by the university‟s central Learning and Teaching Support Unit. The change management process was strategic, targeted and evidence-based. Exactly how such change might be effected is described in Hunt‟s (2006) community development model of change. It includes reference to key strategies including financial support, a policy framework, creating a learning mood and building capacity through inter-sectoral collaboration. At USQ, key policy changes included the introduction of a Fleximode Policy to diminish differences in the design of learning experiences between on-campus and distance education students and to guarantee to students appropriate and equal access to learning resources. Financial support was delivered through the change management project which was organised as four sub-projects: facilities; academic profile; student management; and corporate services. Worthy of note is that only one of them directly focuses on academic matters. Rather, the emphasis was on getting the context right for learning and teaching. Significant, also, is the priority given to „facilities‟ to upgrade ageing infrastructure to learning spaces that enable flexible learning. For example, a key outcome of this project has been the development of plans for a new learning commons enabling access to the internet and web-based learning. The number of degree programs and courses offered by the University was drastically reduced. This structural change was considered important in creating a learning mood because the expected outcome is that teaching staff will have more time to focus attention on improvement of the remaining 7

courses and programs. The change process focussed on whole-of-program learning design to ensure coherence across all levels of study based on the mapping of graduate skills and assessment. The pedagogical principles of learning design are now summarised in templates and modelled in exemplars that are on the USQ Learning and Teaching website as open access learning materials. They may be used for self-help or in conjunction with the assistance of instructional designers in the development of new courses. Clarity about what is expected by way of good teaching is provided through the development of guidelines which encapsulate pedagogies suited to the development of physical and virtual flexible learning spaces. The creation of an integrated, academic professional development program that includes open access, foundation modules has improved support for staff. Further, an annual course and program management process has been developed which provides staff with one-stop-shop information about the outcomes of their courses and opportunities for reflection by those who teach each course. This now creates a supported and reflective framework for the deliberate design and improvement of courses. In short, it is an evidence-based way of getting the context right for pedagogy to take flight. Pedagogically informed learning environments at USQ The USQ whole-of-university change management project was designed to get the context right for learning and teaching. The aim was to achieve blended learning environments suited to the needs of a diverse and dispersed student population. The concept of blended learning environments refers to the potential links between mobile spaces, virtual spaces and physical spaces. They may also be defined as, “the combination of mobile students and mobile technologies ... [associated with] virtual spaces” (Milne 2006, p.11.4). They are a fluid combination of physical, online, networked and mobile spaces that are always open and subject to change. As Johnson et al., (2009, 4) note: The learning environment is no longer limited to physical space. Today, the notion of a „classroom‟ includes experiences. Experts, collaborators, peers, and resources are located all over the globe and available twenty-four hours a day. To take advantage of this trend, institutions must reflect and support the transformation of the learning environment by embracing the means that make it possible: social networking tools, semantic applications, mobile devices, virtual worlds, and other emerging technologies that facilitate collaboration, communication, and learning. In regard to the design principles of physical learning spaces Gee‟s (2006) human-centered design guidelines advocate flexible and healthy environments that stimulate the senses and spaces that balance communal space and solitude. Characteristics of blended learning spaces include comfort; sensory stimulation; technology support; decenteredness (spaces that centre on learning rather than „experts‟); living-learning spaces (integrating living, leisure and learning spaces); and corridor niches which refers to ubiquitous learning not confined to the classroom (Van Note Chism, 2006, p. 2.6). These characteristics blur boundaries between learning and 8

living spaces, and online and offline spaces. Making corridors attractive acknowledges that learning can happen anytime, anywhere, and that it is social and collaborative (Dittoe, 2006). However, “design is a process, not a product” (Oblinger 2006, p. 1.3) and it requires vision because, as Malcolm Read observes in Bradwell‟s Edgeless University, “the aim has to be to make those running universities realise that technology isn‟t just something that means you build a room full of computers on your campus” (Bradwell, 2009, p. 8). Les Watson‟s vision for 21st century learning spaces is that they should be: inspirational, flexible, play to diversity, have a social component, create community, and have embedded technology (The Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 2007). Learning spaces should be open-ended enough to allow for students‟ imagination to blossom and flexible enough for students to arrange things in their own ways and to push the boundaries of their knowledge and lifelong learning skills. This process is not always predictable, and does not necessarily align with the use of space that was envisaged. However, if there is sufficient flexibility, the learning space will enable innovation driven by imagination. The flexibility inherent in blended learning spaces was key in USQ‟s change management processes because the diverse and dispersed student population must be supported at differing levels of technological sophistication and technology per se (Education.au, 2009). For example, USQ has a significant number of students in prison (around 400) who may not be permitted access to the internet, or to CD-ROM for safety reasons. The focus is on student learning outcomes that give rise to design features including:      

a shift from instruction to active learning; growing emphasis on collaborative learning; growing commitment to project-based learning; emphasis on skills needed for the 21st century; collaborative networks that support professional learning; and globalisation of education through national and international networks. (adapted from Education.au, 2009, 1)

USQ‟s vision for blended learning and more meaningful interaction between staff and students, and between students, has spawned a range of technologies and Web 2.0 approaches that are mediated by open source tools such as the Moodle learning management system and the Mahara ePortfolio software. These include:     

virtual classroom technology; synchronous and asynchronous voice and chat applications; 3D virtual worlds; ePortfolios and personal learning environments; and blog and wiki spaces, that facilitate collaboration and reflection.

9

The university has developed its own open source, structured content authoring system known as ICE (Integrated Content Environment) that is used for consistency in writing and developing course materials that can automatically be rendered to print, web, CD or DVD. Further, there is a separate environment for staff professional development, which is also used as a playground for trialling emerging tools. There is also an installation for engaging with the University‟s community and an OpenCourseWare installation, housing courses offered through the International OpenCourseWare Consortium emanating from MIT. Bradwell notes that “social networks, Google maps, mobile internet and the immediate availability of information have found their way into the everyday lives of those on campus, but they have not yet followed students and teachers into the classroom” (2009, p.55). Yet USQ is committed to the use of open educational resources (OER) and the further development of its own and third party open source systems. Aligned with this are the affordances offered both through cloud computing and the plethora of social networking software. This means that the learning management system, traditionally conceived of as a box-like repository of knowledge artefacts, becomes more akin to a narrow band of interaction that is used to mediate a range of activities and resources that may be syndicated into the university environment (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The changing face of the universities LMS. The implementation of a campus-wide approach to virtual classrooms (VCs) in 2008, using the Wimba Collaboration Suite, has allowed this technology to be embedded in the Moodle LMS, though it is hosted externally. This has facilitated the contextualized use of the VC at both a course/subject level and a university community level. The VC allows for the synchronous sharing of voice, video, presentations and application sharing, allowing these sessions to be either instructor or student led. Over the course of 2009, VCs have been used in over 110 courses/subjects in 2009 to host live interactive sessions, both in staff-to10

students interactions and student-to-student interactions. Figure 2 illustrates the growth in their use from 2008 to 2009. Once a VC is established within a course anybody enrolled in that course can access this room at any time. Archives may be made of sessions to allow for recording of particular interactions for asynchronous use. This technology is intuitive enough for novices to manage, and it has allowed many students, particularly distance students, to establish new and previously unattainable networks. USQ has a high proportion of non-traditional learners, some less able to access technology enabled learning. For students unable to interact in the online sessions due to bandwidth constraints, each VC can be accessed by telephone link for the cost of a local call. Initially it was not clear how many students would require this functionality; however, within the first 10 months of use this feature was used in excess of 500 times.

Figure 2. The growth in the use of virtual classrooms The use of voice and chat applications has also been developing for many years at USQ. In previous years tools such as MSN Messenger and Skype have been used in an ad hoc way. However, the implementation of Moodle has facilitated embedding voice and text-based chat applications. Wimba voice boards allow asynchronous voice and text messaging, and the Wimba Pronto tool allows for synchronous chat with similar functionality to MSN Messenger. These two tools were not adopted until late 2008 but over 1700 sessions were recorded prior to the end of that year. The proliferation of 3D gaming environments has opened up new possibilities for creating immersive, multi-user learning environments. This did initially present some security issues that have been largely resolved by simultaneously employing two 3D environments: Second Life (2Life) and the open source product Open Simulator (OpenSim). The latter was deployed „within the walls‟ and its interoperability features take students out to 2Life as required.

11

Figure 3. A USQ 2Life augmented reality room with live video conferencing (left) and a USQ Court Room (right) For example, USQ currently has an island in the 2Life environment called Terra Incognita, hosting a range of different activities, including marketing and promotional activities for the University, a careers fair, teaching areas (Figure 3), break out rooms, a mock law court for hosting moot courts and a number of social spaces. Privacy has been a concern because anyone who can access the USQ island can drop in at any time, but OpenSim embedded in the USQ environment provides more discreet space if required. The move towards ePortfolios for students and staff has taken an interesting turn at USQ. The Mahara software and the integration of this software with the Moodle LMS has allowed the university to provide not just a space for students to create a profile, but also an environment akin to a Personal Learning Environment (PLE). The Mahara environment allows for the creation of multiple views that students can set-up for a range of purposes (Figure 4). They can create and upload documents, house a blog, draw in content from external spaces and make a variety of these available for different people to see, and, in some cases, interact with.

12

Figure 4. The Mahara software allowing for the development of personal learning environments (PLE)

Education students are using their PLEs to house records of their professional practice while also using them to complete assignments for other courses. Final year accounting students are building up their PLEs with an ePortfolio of their work-integrated learning practice. Visual Arts and multimedia students are using their PLEs as a stage from which to link to a range of other environments housing video and audio components while uploading others. These elements then all appear within one or multiple views. Nursing students are encouraged in their first year of study to start creating their professional ePortfolio using the PLE environment, so that by the time they graduate they can demonstrate all the graduate skills required to enter their profession. These skills are embedded at the course level and once attained are automatically fed to their ePortfolio from the CPMS. Once there these skills can be augmented with further examples (evidence) of how they have attained these skills. Furthermore, the maintaining of the ePortfolio is itself an important skill in a contemporary context where professional online identity development and maintenance are an increasingly important part of graduates‟ lives. When a staff member undertakes a professional development (PD) activity, such as attending an assessment workshop, the official attendance and successful completion of this activity can be syndicated to their ePortfolio or PLEs from the Human Resources database. Once in this environment, this record, and any artefact that the user may want to associate with this PD event, can be managed and utilised across a range of views (see Figure 4). It may, for example, be used to support a promotion application. Evidence may be provided by linking to the university‟s ePrints repository that can syndicate a staff member‟s publication outcomes into this same environment. This is just the beginning of what is being achieved through PLEs. Notably, it saves on the double handling of data drawn from credible sources. Finally, four work-integrated journalism professional development courses reveal what can be done to combine the potential of a range of interactive Web 2.0 environments mediated through the LMS. A program website augmented with rich media files provides baseline information pertinent to the whole program and links them to a series of wiki sites to collaborate and share good practice. This site also guides students to a series of learning environments with a range of interactive tools. These online multimodal course materials sites have been authored using USQ‟s Integrated Content Environment (ICE). This system has allowed the average academic staff member to author their own HTML rendered materials at their desktop, using only standard word processor. They author the base content in Word, view it in HTML and produce a print friendly PDF all in one application. The resultant multimodal courses includes multimedia enhancements and links to each course‟s blog, wiki, and discussion fora, all mediated through the LMS.

13

The use of blogging in assessment enables students to complete story writing assignments as part of their daily work at the newspaper and allows them to further engage in critical evaluation of the practices they applied in story composition. Elements such as a Newsroom Diary, a Research Record and Reflective Posts on self-selected stories, a Court Experience Journal, and a Story Mission Statement, are built into an electronic, portfolio-based assessment model integrated into the LMS. Each of the instances of innovative practice described in this chapter identifies the possibilities that are created by structural changes in the overall learning environment at USQ, and the importance of pedagogically informed innovation. The whole-of-institution approach supports the design of learning spaces, broadly informed by Pedagogy 2.0 principles.

CONCLUSION The need for the transformation of learning spaces at USQ is based on a number of broad, interrelated, and mutually reinforcing trends: the changing complexity of society; changing characteristics of students (Net Generation); fast-changing information technology; and changing conceptions of learning. This chapter has argued that a whole-of-institution approach (Hunt & Peach, 2009) is required to create a context that delivers appropriate and pedagogically informed learning spaces for students. Outcomes of USQ‟s holistic change management project include the CPMS, the implementation of Moodle and advancement of Wimba and Camtasia, a new Course and Program Review process, templates that embed pedagogy in course and program design, assessment and graduate skills, and a new, integrated professional development program to facilitate cultural change. Without the additional funding and policy support provided by the wider change process, the outcomes would have been more limited. The change management project concentrated on the university‟s top fifteen programs that serve some 80% of the university‟s students. This strategic approach and project methodology ensured that a holistic framework for 21st century learning spaces design is now in place. The conclusion is that appropriately designed learning spaces – „built pedagogy‟ (Van Note Chism 2006, p. 2.2) – are a necessary, but not sufficient condition for effective student learning. As Radcliffe et al. (2009) note, appropriately designed learning spaces will be „positive by design‟, which refers to a blend of physical, online and mobile spaces characterised by openness and searchability. The actual learning occurs when teachers begin to engage with the possibilities that are created by a consistent and pedagogically informed whole-of-university approach to the development of contemporary learning spaces. REFERENCES Alexander, B. (2008). Social Networking in Higher Education. In R. N. Katz (Ed.), The Tower and the Cloud: Higher Education in the Age of Cloud Computing (pp. 197-201). Boulder, CO: Educause. Barnes, K., Marateo, R., & Ferris, S. (2007). Teaching and learning with the 14

net generation. Innovate 3 (4). Retrieved 4 December 2008 from: Barnett, R. (2000) Realizing the University in an Age of Supercomplexity. Buckingham: Open University Press. Barr, R. B., & Tag, J. (1995). From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education. Change. Nov/Dec. Retrieved 10 October, 2009, from: boyd, d. (2008). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, Identity, and Digital Media (pp. 119-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bradwell, P. (2009). The Edgeless University: Why Higher Education Must Embrace Technology. London: Demos. Bruns, A., & Jacobs, J. (Eds) (2006). Uses of Blogs. New York: Peter Lang. Candy, P. C, Crebert, G. and O'Leary J. (1994). Developing Lifelong Learners Through Undergraduate Education. Commissioned Report No. 28. National Board of Employment, Education and training. AGPS, Canberra. The Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (2007). Places and Spaces for Learning Seminars, September 2007. Draft Report. Sydney: Carrick Institute. Chowcat, I., Phillips, B., Popham, J., Jones, I. (2008). Harnessing Technology: Preliminary Identification of Trends Affecting the Use of Technology for Learning. London: Becta. Cummings, R., Phillips, R, Tilbrook, R. and Lowe, K. (2005) Middle-Out Approaches to reform of University teaching and learning: Champions striding between top-down and bottom-up approaches. The International Review of research in Open and Distance Learning, 6 (1). Dittoe, W. (2006). Seriously Cool Places: The Future of Learning-Centered Built Environments. In Oblinger, D. (Ed.). Learning Spaces (pp.3.13.11). Boulder, CO: Educause. Education.au (2009). 21st Century Learning Spaces. Retrieved October 10, 2009 from . Ellis, A. & Newton, D. (2009). First Year University Students‟ Access, Usage and Expectations of Technology: An Australian Pilot Study. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2009 (pp. 2539-2546). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Friesen, N., & Hopkins, J. (2008). Wikiversity; or Education Meets the Free Culture Movement: An Ethnographic Investigation. First Monday. 13 (10). Retrieved October 16, 2008 from Gee, L. (2006). Human-Centered Design Guidelines. In Oblinger, D. (Ed.). Learning Spaces (pp.10.1-10.13). Boulder, CO: Educause. Geith, C. (2008). Teaching and Learning Unleashed with Web 2.0 and Open Educational Resources. In R. N. Katz (Ed.), The Tower and the Cloud: Higher Education in the Age of Cloud Computing (pp. 219-226). Boulder, CO: Educause. Hargis, J., & Wilcox, S. M. (2008). Ubiquitous, Free, and Efficient Online 15

Collaboration Tools for Teaching and Learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9 (4). Heagney, M. (2009) Australian higher education sector on the brink of a major shake up. Widening Participation & Lifelong Learning. 11 (1). Retrieved March 3, 2010 from: http://www.staffs.ac.uk/journal/volelevenone/editorial.htm Hunt, L. (2006). A Community Development Model of Change: The Role of Teaching and Learning Centres. In A. Bromage, B. Tomkinson, & L. Hunt (Eds.). The Realities of Change in Higher Education: Interventions to Promote Learning and Teaching. London, Routledge. Hunt, L. & Peach, N. (2009). Planning for a Sustainable Academic Future. In iPED 4th International Conference, “Researching Beyond Boundaries” Academic Communities without Borders (pp. 14-26). Programme and Proceedings, 14-15 September 2009. Coventry University TechnoCentre, UK. Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., Smythe, T., & Stone, S. (2009). The Horizon Report: 2009 Australia-New Zealand Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Kelton, A. J. (2007). Second Life: Reaching into the Virtual World for RealWorld Learning. ECAR Research Bulletin. Vol 2007, Issue 17, August 14. Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. (2008). First Year Students‟ Experiences with Technology: Are They Really Digital Natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (1), 108-122. Kvavik, R. B. (2005). Convenience, Communications, and Control: How Students Use Technology. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation (pp. 7.1-7.20). Boulder, CO: Educause. Lane, L. (2009). Insidious Pedagogy: How Course Management Systems Impact Teaching. First Monday. 14 (10). Retrieved 10 October, 2009 from . Leslie, P., & Murphy, E. (2008). Post-Secondary Students‟ Purposes for Blogging. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 9 (3). Retrieved October 24, 2008 from Lomas, C. & Oblinger, D. (2006). Student Practices and Their Impact on Learning Spaces. In Oblinger, D. (Ed.). Learning Spaces (pp.5.15.11). Boulder, CO: Educause. Mabrito, M., & Medley, R. (2008). Why Professor Johnny Can‟t Read: Understanding the Net Generation‟s Texts. Innovate, 4 (6). Retrieved July 20, 2008 from McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). Future Learning Landscapes: Transforming Pedagogy through Social Software. Innovate, 4 (5). Retrieved May 31, 2008 from

16

Milne, A. J. (2006). Designing Blended Learning Space to the Student Experience. In Oblinger, D. (Ed.). Learning Spaces (pp.11.1-11.15). Boulder, CO: Educause. Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is It Age or IT: First Steps Toward Understanding the Net Generation. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation (pp.2.1-2.20). Boulder, CO: Educause. Oblinger, D. (2006). Space as a Change Agent. In Oblinger, D. (Ed.). Learning Spaces (pp.1.1-1.4). Boulder, CO: Educause. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5). Retrieved February 14, 2007 from Radcliffe, D., Wilson, H., Powell, D., & Tibbetts, B. (Eds.) (2009). Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Positive Outcomes by Design. Proceedings of the Next Generation Learning Spaces 2008 Colloquium. University of Queensland, Brisbane. Scott, G. (2005) Accessing the Student Voice. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved 29 September, 2008 from Taylor, J. (2001). Fifth Generation Distance Education. Keynote Address Presented at the 20th ICDE World Conference, April 2001, Düsseldorf, Germany. Unsworth, J. (2008). University 2.0. In R. N. Katz (Ed.), The Tower and the Cloud: Higher Education in the Age of Cloud Computing (pp. 227-237). Boulder, CO: Educause. Van Note Chism, N. (2006). Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces. In Oblinger, D. (Ed.). Learning Spaces (pp.2.1-2.12). Boulder, CO: Educause. Walters, S. (2005). Realizing a Lifelong Learning Higher Education Institution. In P. Sutherland, & J. Crowther (Eds.). Lifelong Learning: Concepts and Contexts (pp. 71-81). London: Routledge. Key terms and definitions Virtual and physical learning spaces – in this chapter, learning spaces are broadly defined as spaces where learning takes place, which may include physical spaces, virtual spaces, and mobile spaces, or blended spaces that combine all of these to more or lesser degrees. Net Generation – also known as Generation Y, Millennials or Digital Natives, the Net Generation refers to a generation of students who are currently entering universities and who have grown up, immersed in an environment saturated by technology, which has arguably given them a number of distinct characteristics. Lifelong learning – lifelong learning is increasingly seen as a vital graduate attribute, which provides students with the disposition to keep learning, which in turn is seen as an important element of productive citizenship in the 21st century. Pedagogy 2.0 - “Pedagogy 2.0 integrates Web 2.0 tools that support knowledge sharing, peer-to-peer networking, and access to a global 17

audience with socio-constructivist learning approaches to facilitate greater learning autonomy, agency and personalisation” (McLoughlin & Lee 2008, p. 2). Built pedagogy – a term used by Van Note Chism (2006) to describe how space might shape learning. In other words, built pedagogy refers to the extent to which learning is influenced by the spaces or environments in which it takes place, and how this may influence learning spaces design. Whole-of-university change – this refers to a holistic approach to learning spaces design, where the primary concern is getting the context right for learning to take place, which according to Geoff Scott (2005) involves a “combination of consistently capable staff, with appropriate learning designs and a support system that enables them to deliver what is intended”. Personal Learning Environment (PLE) – personal learning environments are characterised by a combination of both formal and informal spaces within an environment that is managed by students themselves. PLEs, such as ePortfolios for example, allow students to develop and display digital artefacts, as well as pull in material from beyond the institution‟s walls. University of Southern Queensland (USQ) – one of the leading distance education providers in Australia, with more than 75% of its almost 25,000 students studying via distance or online.

18