A Framework of Factors for Learning Environment Evaluation Transitions, UK 7 September 2017 Graeme Oliver Doctoral Research Candidate – Doctor of Education Melbourne Graduate School of Education

Research question What factors do architects and educators see as most significant in the relationship between innovative learning environments and innovative education practices? Not viewing factors in isolation. Developing a framework to provide conceptual organisation for the factors. Iterative development of framework and factors.

Research purpose Connect the understandings of architects and educators. (framework and factors) Provide structure and rigour in connecting evaluation and practice. (point to most appropriate evaluation strategies) Allow for pragmatic application in differing situations. (user friendly questionnaire) Connect the language, understandings and applications of architects and educators. Address concerns that the history of evaluation in the filed has had a strong orientation to mechanistic POE, or has been ad hoc and self-gratifying from an educational orientation. Evaluation should be purposeful (i.e. connected to declared intentions) and flexible (i.e. acknowledge that this is a dynamic situation).

Proposing a framework Developed through literature review. Framework has three key features: Phases – Design / Transition / Consolidation / Re-appraisal Perspectives – Learning environment focus / Education practice focus/ organising perspectives Factors – 72 initially identified, refined to 52.

Identifying relevant factors Technical Provision Evaluation Furniture Function Evaluation User Comfort Evaluation School Operations User Adaptability Stakeholder Buy-in Professional Engagement Teacher Capacity Spatial Awareness Teaching Programs Student Engagement Student Well-being Social Milieu Learning Activities Facility Sustainability Realisation of Affordance Operational Refinement Occupancy Adaptation Quality Indicators Stakeholder Consultation Pedagogical Flexibility Spatial Optimisation Professional Practice Operational Alignment Student Achievement Student Ownership Student Voice Learning Connections Facility Adaptation Facility Viability Facility Reconfiguration Professional Re-imagining Developmental Leadership Pedagogical Innovation Spatial Innovation Future Learning Learning Culture Flexible Design Future Proofing Design Standards Integrated Technology Design Brief Project Management Education Principles Stakeholder Engagement Community Context School Identity Teaching Approaches Professional Learning Learning Styles Collaborative Learning Inquiry Learning Virtual Learning Occupancy Evaluation Building Performance Evaluation Cost Efficiency Evaluation A set of factors/issues of significance relating to implementing innovative education programs in innovative learning environments identified from the literature. Set of factors refined in the context of the framework – relate to key purpose, eliminate repetition & overlap, provide for balance between architecture and education perspectives.

Gathering expert opinion Questionnaire using expert elicitation Questionnaire trialled through invited responses. V1 had 93 questions covering 72 factors questions and 18 framework questions. V2 had 53 questions covering 48 factors without any direct framework questions. Methodology of expert elicitation. Experts identified through leading professional associations. 43 questionnaires distributed, 20 full responses (11 educators, 9 architects)

Key findings (1) The experts agree on the most significant factors for evaluation of innovative education programs in innovative learning environments. Student Engagement Education Principles Teaching Approaches Pedagogical Innovation Learning Culture Student Voice Learning Styles Collaborative Learning Inquiry Learning Data analysis was done using ranking ordering, scatter plot distributions and univariate cluster analysis to identify sets of most significant factors. Qualitative data so creating “most significant” set is based along a series of judgements along the way. Features of the identified factors……

Key findings (2) The experts view the phases of the framework slightly differently. Higher orientation to phase 1 (Design) especially by architects (24 factors). Educators more even across all phases of the framework, and more consistent in the factors identified as extremely significant (10 across all 4 phases).

Outcomes High degree of agreement between architects and educators in identifying factors. (purpose 1) A questionnaire that can be used in further situations to identify most significant factors - situational profile. (purpose 2) Identified factors can be linked to most appropriate evaluation strategies. (purpose 3)

Graeme Oliver Melbourne Graduate School of Education http://www.unimelb.edu.au/ Evaluating 21st Century Learning Environments http://e21le.com/ graeme.oliver@unimelb.edu.au