Introduction Notions of context in TEL tend to focus on cultural concerns. When discussing the “instrumentalising” of learning contexts, for example, the STELLAR Vision and Strategy Statement (Sutherland & Joubert, 2009, p.7) suggests that “technologies for learning should be designed to take into account the ways in which the settings where they will be used are mediated by cultural context” so as to “provide learners with novel experiences by exposing them to a wider range of contexts than was previously possible”. This document outlines relevant work on Learning Spaces and points to the need for a “spatial turn” in TEL discussions of context for two reasons: (1)TEL designers need an increased awareness of the physical settings in which their systems will be deployed and (2) this approach can help to augment our notions of what context actually is.

A Spatial Turn Context is a notoriously contentious topic. From a TEL perspective, Sharples (2010) has provided a representational model of Context (p.4) as a historical process which can be understood as an interweaving of ‘movies’ of people interacting with settings and artefacts over time (p.6). ‘Context states’ comprise the scenes in the movie, from which ‘Context Substates’ of relevant elements can be abstracted. In earlier work, a Context Engine was proposed to select more relevant elements from the context state and make them available for learners through mobile devices (Lonsdale et al., 2004). This view is partly compatible with prior conceptions of context from HCI (Dourish, 2004) in that context is seen as personally constructed rather than as a container. But where Dourish (2004) argues that “representational” and “interactional” views of context are opposed (p.22), this work aims to explore how a (representational) model of contextual relevance can support the (interactional) “process by which context is continually manifest, defined, negotiated and shared” (p.26). This process of context construction will involve the learner navigating both external and internal influences (Jacob, 2009), where external influences include “the artifacts, the people, and the particular setting(s) associated with a given situation, task or activity” (p.92). In this view, Learning Spaces would be settings, which both encompass people and artifacts and, in turn, are created by them (Laegran, 2009). Adopting an Activity Theory perspective reminds us that this relationship between people and artifacts is asymmetrical, since only people have “the ability and the need to act” (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006, p.33), that is the internal influences which affect context creation.

The Learning Spaces concept itself has increasingly come to be understood through a social lens. Learning Spaces literature used to be about producing design specifications and descriptions of “innovative spaces”, taking inspiration from “basic research about space, place, perception and learning” (Van Note Chism, 2002, p.8). But more recently such work has become more socially (and sociologically) conscious. Building on work by Lefebvre (1974/1991), for example, Boys (2011, p.81) proposes that we examine space as a dynamic between: social and spatial practices (“ordinary” routines of educational communities of practice); designed transformations of existing spatial practices (established repertoires for transformations); and spaces in-between (our individual understandings of our social-spatial practices).

Recent work on students’ spatial practices in a technology-rich University library (Crook and Mitchell, in press) has highlighted the importance of developing a “nuanced” view of how social interaction occurs to support learning, since such interactions occur along a spectrum from intense collaborative problem solving — the subject of much study within the TEL/CSCW literature — through more intermittent exchanges and serendipitous encounters and on to an “ambient sociality” where individual study occurs within an atmosphere which seems sociable(or convivial) to learners. Interestingly from a TEL viewpoint, Crook and Mitchell (ibid) note that much physical collaboration occurs in ways reminiscent of online interactions within Web 2.0 social networking sites, i.e. loosely-coupled, improvised and intermittent as well as the close and intense encounters which are much better represented within TEL literature.

In documenting the use of an innovative technology-rich Learning Space used for more formal learning, Bligh & Lorenz (2010, p.16) reason that whereas more traditional spaces can utilise socio-spatial convention as a guide for action, innovative spaces which break these conventions must be more explicit about how they are to be used. Thus creating innovative learning spaces must be associated with documenting innovative models of pedagogy which can occur there. Bligh & Lorenz (2010) articulate how they believe “multiple perspective learning” can work within a Multi-Display Learning Space. Bligh & Sharples (2010) make the link between TEL and Multi-Display Learning Spaces more explicit, drawing on Ainsworth’s (2006) DeFT framework to show how multiple perspective learning can be seen as a co-located, real-time orchestration of the principles of learning from Multiple External Representations which have been derived from work with online tutoring systems.
While this work ostensibly focusses on the ability of Learning Spaces to support the visual aspects of interaction, it must be acknowledged that writers within the architecture literature have proposed that it is precisely the dominance of the visual in architectural design (or “ocularcentrism”) which is responsible for the sterility of much contemporary architecture, and that re-focussing on the experience of the whole body (Pallasmaa, 1995/2005) can result in better spatial experiences and understandings (cf. spaces in-between above). Work on Multi-Display Learning Spaces answers this challenge by emphasising how the space supports movement (Bligh & Lorenz, 2010) and the construction of disciplinary argument (Bligh & Sharples, 2010), but understanding the limitations of the visual sense in physical interactions is nonetheless useful more broadly in avoiding situations where the visual aesthetic becomes an end in itself, devoid of the contextualisation provided by activity and the physical situation.

Studying the relations between socio-spatial practices, design and individual understandings can also be informed by work which has examined the evaluation of physical Learning Spaces. Bligh & Pearshouse (in press) stress that such work highlights significant tensions as spaces are valued in different ways by different people. Spaces might be assessed on whether they are (a) in demand, (b) change learning outcomes, (c) satisfy their occupants, (d) enable scenario provision, (e) support spatial activities, (f) fit into a wider ecology of provision or (e) enhance institutional brand. Student satisfaction with space often follows a deficit model (i.e. it is only mentioned as relevant when students are dissatisfied and believe that a problem needs to be addressed), which also needs to be understood by those working with TEL. Perceived relevance (or focus of attention) is not uniformly a good thing. Meanwhile the relationship in this model between evaluating scenario provision (ensuring that space is appropriate for anticipated activities) and evaluating support for spatial activities (systematic observation of spatial practice) highlights how complex the relationship is between design, physical manifestations of action which can be observed and (phenomenological) personal understanding. Bligh & Pearshouse (in press) also highlight how space evaluation is an essentially political act which balances the above values against institutional and cultural constraints, implying that we must view evaluation reports themselves critically when we wish to inform design or policy.

Finally, we want to highlight that TEL can benefit from hindsight of Learning Spaces’ history of deriving design from “evidence” which amounts to little more than word association. Boys (2011, p.18) highlights the examples of informality and flexibility, where understanding that learning is mobile and flexible and is often informal was taken to mean that Learning Spaces should be inherently ‘flexible’ (i.e. have moveable furniture) and ‘informal’ (adding beanbags, or mimicking the spatial repertoires of cafes). Boys (ibid) refers to these solutions as under-theorised, common-sense and obvious. More nuanced views of these issues can be found: on flexibility in the work of Goodyear (2008) who considers the advantages and drawbacks of time-space flexibility at macro, meso and micro scales; and on formality in the work of Sutherland & Sutherland (2010), who note that spaces can be better viewed as diverse and positioned along a spectrum from formal, through semi-formal and semi-informal and onwards to informal spaces, based upon the roles of teachers in activities occupying the space. Thus work on Learning Spaces can help to highlight for TEL that ‘obvious’ solutions may not always be wrong, but that in determining applicability there is no substitute for understanding activity and context when making design decisions.

Emerging aspects of research

• How can Learning Spaces be designed to enable appropriate context for learning? Continuing Sharples’ (2010) movie metaphor, how can we set up scenes for learning and what would be the role of props and actors in these scenes?


• How can we design new buildings (and, for Higher Education) campuses to create new context opportunities for learning?


• What is the relationship between technologies for learning and Learning Spaces? Can space be viewed as a ‘technology’ for learning within interaction design?


• What does it mean to design to provide a convivial learning environment? Can we create ‘tools for conviviality’?


• How can spatial action, perhaps within a Community of Practice, be understood as related to space? What elements of this relationship are poorly represented by affordances and ergonomics arguments (Goodyear, 2008)?


• Can we construct models of the relationship between design and various forms of evaluation (measurement based, phenomenological) to form a better understanding of how context is constructed?


• How does a contextual view of Learning Spaces challenge traditional design and evaluation practices?

for references, please download pdf version of TEL note