The Experience of Co-Designing a Learning Space with Teachers and Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

First of all, I would like to congratulate you for your work, since it is an original and interesting paper that represents an advance in the literature of education and its spaces. Therefore, I am going to recommend its publication, subject to some modifications that I recommend for discussion. 

The first thing I would like to recommend is that you explain the objective of the article more clearly, as it is sometimes contradictory, especially with respect to the research question. 

In line 100 you say: 

"In this paper, we aim to present an alternative methodology for researching learning spaces by focusing on the design process before any intervention on the part of estate management and architects takes place."

While in line 117 they explain: 

"The main question underlying this research is: how different would a learning space be if we were to integrate its main stakeholders in its design in a creative manner?"

This leaves important questions, are you focusing on the design of a methodology? Are you researching spaces? From my point of view, and after reading your research, perhaps the research question is the one that is more appropriate. 

Also, in the methodology section, it would be interesting to know a little more about the data analysis process, especially with the recordings that you explain you have made: have they been categorized? how have they been used? 

Finally, perhaps it would be interesting to include some textual information. What specialty do the students belong to? And the teachers? Have differences between degrees been found? It is possible that this same process would give rise to different results depending on whether the students belong to science or social sciences, as part of the teaching-learning process of each degree. 

Without further ado, best regards. 

The reviewer.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the feedback and suggestions regarding our manuscript. We have made significant changes to improve the readability of the paper as well as expand on some of the elements explored.
We followed the advice from the reviewer and changed the introduction in order to provide consistency. We agree it was in parts contradictory and it was difficult to find the research objectives. We also made a better connection between the new version of the introduction and the revised conclusion.
We improved the methodology section by including a new section on data analyses and providing more context about the participants. 
We included a reflection in the conclusion about how different backgrounds and education cultures may produce different outcomes and different learning space designs.
Finally, we also included new references to support some of the suggestions and recommendations. 
The paper was fully proofread and we made the decision to upload a version with track changes and a clean version to allow for a better understanding of the changes made.
We hope this revision addresses the reviewer's main concerns.
Kind regards,
The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting topic but its treatment is so superficial. References must be improved, authors must include a better number of references from the last 5 years.  In addition, it must include international references to be able  compare with the present study.

Conclusions are too short and it doesn´t show  relationship with the fulfillment of the research objectives.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the feedback and suggestions regarding our manuscript. We have made changes to improve the readability of the paper as well as expand on some of the elements explored. In particular, we significantly improved the conclusion section, improved the links of the conclusion with the research objectives and provided more detail in the introduction (including a new paragraph on the role of Technology in learning spaces); in the methodology; and in the conclusions. We also included new references the majority of which are from the last five years:

• B. Mei and L. May, ‘Reflective renovation: Insights from a collaborative and active learning space project evaluation’, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 34, no. 6, 2018.
• M. Henderson, N. Selwyn, and R. Aston, ‘What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1567–1579, 2017.
• M. Verdonck, R. Greenaway, A. Kennedy-Behr, and E. Askew, ‘Student experiences of learning in a technology-enabled learning space’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 270–281, 2019.
• A. Raes, L. Detienne, I. Windey, and F. Depaepe, ‘A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: gaps identified’, Learn Environ Res, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 269–290, 2020.
• Y. Shi, M. Tong, and T. Long, ‘Investigating relationships among blended synchronous learning environments, students’ motivation, and cognitive engagement: A mixed methods study’, Comput Educ, vol. 168, p. 104193, 2021.
• T. Triyason, A. Tassanaviboon, and P. Kanthamanon, ‘Hybrid Classroom: Designing for the New Normal after COVID-19 Pandemic’, in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology, 2020. doi: 10.1145/3406601.3406635.
• P. Goodyear, ‘Design and co‐configuration for hybrid learning: Theorising the practices of learning space design’, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1045–1060, 2020.

The paper was fully proofread and we made the decision to upload a version with track changes and a clean version to allow for a better understanding of the changes made.

We hope these changes respond to the reviewer´s concerns. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has markedly improved