高等教育中学生学习的目的、过程、地点、教学启示和产品(5Ps):超越贝克斯

IF 1.6 Q3 MANAGEMENT Facilities Pub Date : 2022-12-14 DOI:10.1108/f-06-2022-0086
M. Mahat
{"title":"高等教育中学生学习的目的、过程、地点、教学启示和产品(5Ps):超越贝克斯","authors":"M. Mahat","doi":"10.1108/f-06-2022-0086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nUniversities are investing billions of dollars in building infrastructure, with the design of learning spaces driven by technological developments and long-standing changes in pedagogical theory and practice. The aim of the study is to investigate the alignment between pedagogy and space by responding to a single research question: What is the relationship between the purpose, process, place and product of student learning in higher education?\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nDrawing on Beckers et al.’s (2015) purpose–process–place framework, the study uses an online survey and photo elicitation method to gather perspectives from educators and students in one Australian university about their learning spaces. A hybrid approach consisting of inductive and deductive coding to thematic analysis was used to find repeated patterns of meaning.\n\n\nFindings\nA total of 24 images of learning spaces were received from 8 educators and 16 students. Thematic analysis of the images and responses by participants highlights the importance of the pedagogical affordances of the learning environment and the product of learning, which are aligned to the purpose–process–place of learning.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThis study provided a robust approach grounded in data to understand the alignment between space and pedagogy. Articulating students learning as an output of the alignment between space and pedagogy has important implications for the design of learning spaces and pedagogical practices in higher education. One limitation to the study, however, is noteworthy. The surveys had limited responses. Whilst the small response rates may not necessarily lead to biased results, it is acknowledged that a larger sample is likely to give more reliable results to enable the theory to be generalised.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe study’s findings extend the purpose–process–place framework to include pedagogical affordances and the product of learning. The purpose, process, place, pedagogical affordance and product framework posits that pedagogical affordances within a place must be deployed in such a way so that teaching and learning processes can contribute to enhancing educational goals or purpose to improve student learning outcomes, i.e. product. This framework provides a context for understanding the relationships between pedagogy and space in higher education.\n","PeriodicalId":47595,"journal":{"name":"Facilities","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Purpose, process, place, pedagogical affordance and product (5Ps) of student learning in higher education: beyond Beckers\",\"authors\":\"M. Mahat\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/f-06-2022-0086\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nUniversities are investing billions of dollars in building infrastructure, with the design of learning spaces driven by technological developments and long-standing changes in pedagogical theory and practice. The aim of the study is to investigate the alignment between pedagogy and space by responding to a single research question: What is the relationship between the purpose, process, place and product of student learning in higher education?\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nDrawing on Beckers et al.’s (2015) purpose–process–place framework, the study uses an online survey and photo elicitation method to gather perspectives from educators and students in one Australian university about their learning spaces. A hybrid approach consisting of inductive and deductive coding to thematic analysis was used to find repeated patterns of meaning.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nA total of 24 images of learning spaces were received from 8 educators and 16 students. Thematic analysis of the images and responses by participants highlights the importance of the pedagogical affordances of the learning environment and the product of learning, which are aligned to the purpose–process–place of learning.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThis study provided a robust approach grounded in data to understand the alignment between space and pedagogy. Articulating students learning as an output of the alignment between space and pedagogy has important implications for the design of learning spaces and pedagogical practices in higher education. One limitation to the study, however, is noteworthy. The surveys had limited responses. Whilst the small response rates may not necessarily lead to biased results, it is acknowledged that a larger sample is likely to give more reliable results to enable the theory to be generalised.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThe study’s findings extend the purpose–process–place framework to include pedagogical affordances and the product of learning. The purpose, process, place, pedagogical affordance and product framework posits that pedagogical affordances within a place must be deployed in such a way so that teaching and learning processes can contribute to enhancing educational goals or purpose to improve student learning outcomes, i.e. product. This framework provides a context for understanding the relationships between pedagogy and space in higher education.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":47595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Facilities\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Facilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/f-06-2022-0086\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facilities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/f-06-2022-0086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大学正在投资数十亿美元建设基础设施,学习空间的设计受到技术发展和教学理论与实践的长期变化的驱动。本研究的目的是通过回答一个单一的研究问题来调查教学法和空间之间的一致性:高等教育中学生学习的目的、过程、地点和产品之间的关系是什么?设计/方法/方法借鉴Beckers等人(2015)的目的-过程-场所框架,该研究使用在线调查和照片启发方法,从澳大利亚一所大学的教育工作者和学生那里收集关于他们学习空间的观点。采用归纳和演绎编码的混合方法对主题进行分析,发现重复的意义模式。研究人员共收到了来自8位教育工作者和16名学生的24张学习空间的图片。对参与者的图像和反应的专题分析强调了学习环境和学习产品的教学启示的重要性,这与学习的目的-过程-地点是一致的。研究局限/启示本研究提供了一种基于数据的稳健方法来理解空间与教育学之间的一致性。将学生的学习作为空间和教学法之间的一致性的输出,对于高等教育中学习空间的设计和教学实践具有重要的意义。然而,这项研究的一个局限性值得注意。调查得到的回应有限。虽然小的回复率不一定会导致有偏差的结果,但人们承认,更大的样本可能会给出更可靠的结果,从而使理论得以推广。原创性/价值本研究的发现将目的-过程-场所框架扩展到包括教学启示和学习成果。目的、过程、地点、教学可视性和产品框架假设,一个地方的教学可视性必须以这样一种方式进行部署,以便教学和学习过程能够有助于提高教育目标或目的,以改善学生的学习成果,即产品。这个框架为理解高等教育中教育学和空间之间的关系提供了一个背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Purpose, process, place, pedagogical affordance and product (5Ps) of student learning in higher education: beyond Beckers
Purpose Universities are investing billions of dollars in building infrastructure, with the design of learning spaces driven by technological developments and long-standing changes in pedagogical theory and practice. The aim of the study is to investigate the alignment between pedagogy and space by responding to a single research question: What is the relationship between the purpose, process, place and product of student learning in higher education? Design/methodology/approach Drawing on Beckers et al.’s (2015) purpose–process–place framework, the study uses an online survey and photo elicitation method to gather perspectives from educators and students in one Australian university about their learning spaces. A hybrid approach consisting of inductive and deductive coding to thematic analysis was used to find repeated patterns of meaning. Findings A total of 24 images of learning spaces were received from 8 educators and 16 students. Thematic analysis of the images and responses by participants highlights the importance of the pedagogical affordances of the learning environment and the product of learning, which are aligned to the purpose–process–place of learning. Research limitations/implications This study provided a robust approach grounded in data to understand the alignment between space and pedagogy. Articulating students learning as an output of the alignment between space and pedagogy has important implications for the design of learning spaces and pedagogical practices in higher education. One limitation to the study, however, is noteworthy. The surveys had limited responses. Whilst the small response rates may not necessarily lead to biased results, it is acknowledged that a larger sample is likely to give more reliable results to enable the theory to be generalised. Originality/value The study’s findings extend the purpose–process–place framework to include pedagogical affordances and the product of learning. The purpose, process, place, pedagogical affordance and product framework posits that pedagogical affordances within a place must be deployed in such a way so that teaching and learning processes can contribute to enhancing educational goals or purpose to improve student learning outcomes, i.e. product. This framework provides a context for understanding the relationships between pedagogy and space in higher education.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Facilities
Facilities MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
17.40%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The journal offers thorough, independent and expert papers to inform relevant audiences of thinking and practice in the field, including topics such as: ■Intelligent buildings ■Post-occupancy evaluation (building evaluation) ■Relocation and change management ■Sick building syndrome ■Ergonomics and workplace design ■Environmental and workplace psychology ■Briefing, design and construction ■Energy consumption ■Quality initiatives ■Infrastructure management
期刊最新文献
Facility network design by using k-mean and elbow method: a case of Indian handloom industry Investigating the role of path architecture complexity in users’ movement patterns in hospital circulation systems: case studies in Golestan, Iran Students with disabilities (SWDs) and facilities accessibility in a northern Nigerian public university: dismantling exclusion in achieving SDG4 Students’ support facilities and academic adjustment among first-year undergraduates: evidence from a Nigerian public university Barriers to the adoption of energy management systems in residential buildings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1