Innovative and Hybrid Learning Spaces

A special issue of Education Sciences (ISSN 2227-7102).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 November 2021) | Viewed by 3777

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Graduate Studies, Gordon Academic College of Education, Haifa 3570503, Israel
Interests: teaching-learning in blended/hybrid learning environments; curriculum planning and design; gifted education; future thinking

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

You are invited to submit your abstract and manuscript for review for this Special Issue of the journal Education Sciences. It is evident that many schools and higher education institutions worldwide have invested a lot in changing the physical learning environments, creating innovative spaces for learning suitable for the current era. Although it is believed that these changes have a positive effect on learning, there is not enough research on the impact and contribution of these changes on the actual learning process and outcomes. Hence, contributions that focus on the most recent research on learning environments/spaces in elementary, secondary, and higher education are most welcome.

Examples of the research foci are illustrated in the key themes and references below, which should provide some impetus for further exploration, examination, and elaboration; in addition, you might have a unique research project that you wish to write up for publication.

Collaborations are encouraged, so consider co-authoring with colleagues both within and across fields or disciplines or nations, and, as experts, please include early career researchers, research fellows, or PhD candidates as your co-authors to nurture further tertiary academic talent. It is hoped that the articles in this Special Issue will provide the dissemination of further research to inform effective practice for designing and using innovative learning spaces for all types of students (gifted, excellent, special needs, and regular).

I look forward to seeing your submission.

References:

Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Cloonan, A., Dixon, M., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Senior, K. (2011). Innovative learning environments research study. (pp. 1-61) Victoria Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Australia.

Bradbeer, C., Mahat, M., Byers, T., Cleveland, B., Kvan, T., & Imms, W. (2017). The ‘state of play’ concerning New Zealand’s transition to innovative learning environments: Preliminary results from phase one of the ILETC project. In LEaRN. New Zealand Educational Administration & Leadership Society.

Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2018). Evaluating teacher and student spatial transition from a traditional classroom to an innovative learning environment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 156-166.

Cardno, C., Tolmie, E., & Howse, J. (2017). New spaces - new pedagogies: Implementing personalized learning in primary school innovative learning environments. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 32(1), 111.

Fletcher, J., Mackey, J., & Fickel, L. (2017). A New Zealand case study: What is happening to lead changes to effective co-teaching in flexible learning spaces? Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 32(1), 70-83.

Hod, Y. (2017). Future learning spaces in schools: Concepts and designs from the learning sciences. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1(2), 99-109.

Imms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Murphy, D. (2017). Type and use of innovative learning environments in Australasian schools. ILETC Survey 1.

Kariippanon, K. E., Cliff, D. P., Lancaster, S. L., Okely, A. D., & Parrish, A. M. (2018). Perceived interplay between flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing. Learning Environments Research, 21(3), 301-320.

OECD (2015). Schooling redesigned: Towards innovative learning systems. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publications.

Osborne, M. (2016). Innovative learning environments. CORE Education White Paper.

Saltmarsh, S., Chapman, A., Campbell, M., & Drew, C. (2015). Putting “structure within the space”: Spatially un/responsive pedagogic practices in open-plan learning environments. Educational Review, 67(3), 315-327.

Singh, A. D., & Hassan, M. (2017). In pursuit of smart learning environments for the 21st century (Current and critical issues in curriculum series, No. 12). Geneva: UNESCO.

Smardon, D., Charteris, J., & Nelson, E. (2015). Shifts to learning eco-systems: Principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of innovative learning environments. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 12(2), 149-171.

van Merriënboer, J. J., McKenney, S., Cullinan, D., & Heuer, J. (2017). Aligning pedagogy with physical learning spaces. European Journal of Education, 52(3), 253-267.

Whyte, B., House, N., & Keys, N. (2016). Coming out of the closet: From single-cell classrooms to innovative learning environments. Teachers and Curriculum, 16(1), 81-88.

Dr. Hava E. Vidergor
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Education Sciences is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Innovative learning environments/spaces: Conceptions, frameworks, designs, models, and theories
  • Policy development, professional learning, teacher education
  • Development of measurement tools
  • Educating diverse students: Research-based instructional strategies, challenges, and benefits
  • Cultural aspects: the effects on social, emotional, behavioral, and/or cognitive development
  • Hybrid learning environments

Published Papers (1 paper)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

12 pages, 992 KiB  
Article
Quantitative Comparison between Traditional and Intensive Face-to-Face Education through an Organizational Model
by Cristina Checa-Morales, Carmen De-Pablos-Heredero, Yenny Guiselli Torres, Cecilio Barba and Antón García
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11(12), 820; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120820 - 18 Dec 2021
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 2962
Abstract
Face-to-face education continues to present benefits in terms of student motivation, even though in COVID-19 scenario, online education has been the model of choice. In addition to the traditional face-to-face style, the intensive face-to-face style remains, which allows greater flexibility for the student. [...] Read more.
Face-to-face education continues to present benefits in terms of student motivation, even though in COVID-19 scenario, online education has been the model of choice. In addition to the traditional face-to-face style, the intensive face-to-face style remains, which allows greater flexibility for the student. The objective of this study was to compare both educational styles and build an organizational model to improve student satisfaction. Two-way general linear model (GLM) with educational styles and satisfaction as fixed factors and discriminant analysis was applied. The selection of the most discriminant variables was made applying the F of Snedecor, Wilks’-Lambda, and the 1-Tolerance. A discriminant model was built. The four variables with the highest discriminant power were problem-solving communication with students’ representatives and shared knowledge and goals with lectures in the intensive style and frequent communication with administrative officers in the traditional style. In addition, it was found that greater face-to-face attendance did not imply greater coordination and that intensive style students show greater satisfaction. The appropriate duration of face-to-face education can contribute to the design of an innovative hybrid system in the future. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovative and Hybrid Learning Spaces)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop