Higher Education Research & Development

ISSN: 0729-4360 (Print) 1469-8366 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

Social learning spaces and student engagement

Kelly E. Matthews , Victoria Andrews & Peter Adams

To cite this article: Kelly E. Matthews , Victoria Andrews & Peter Adams (2011) Social learning
spaces and student engagement, Higher Education Research & Development, 30:2, 105-120, DOI:
10.1080/07294360.2010.512629

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.512629

Published online: 16 Mar 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2746

View related articles

Citing articles: 33 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cher20
Higher Education Research & Development
Vol. 30, No. 2, April 2011, 105–120

Social learning spaces and student engagement

Kelly E. Matthews*, Victoria Andrews and Peter Adams

Faculty of Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

(Received 16 October 2009; final version received 28 June 2010)
Taylor and Francis Ltd
CHER_A_512629.sgm

Higher
10.1080/07294360.2010.512629
0729-4360
Original
Taylor
202011
30
Kelly
k.matthews1@uq.edu.au
000002011
ElizabethMatthews
&
Education
Article
Francis
(print)/1469-8366
Research &(online)
Development

Notable gains have been made in understanding the factors that influence the
student experience in higher education, particularly in the area of student
engagement. While tremendous effort has been focused on identifying
educationally beneficial activities for students, we must also consider where these
activities are occurring. In recent years there have been technological advances
that have paved the way for blended learning environments, however, physical
learning environments continue to dominate the functionality of many
universities. The development of purpose-built informal social learning spaces as
a strategy to enhance the student experience is becoming more prevalent, although
empirical research in this area is lacking. This study explores the role of social
learning spaces on the student experience using the student engagement
framework within a qualitative research design. Informal interviews with 103
students were conducted within a social learning space. Findings reveal that social
learning spaces can contribute to enhanced student engagement by fostering active
learning, social interaction and belonging amongst tertiary students. The study
also suggests that design is a contributing factor to students’ perceptions of social
learning spaces.
Keywords: first-year experience; higher education; learning spaces; student
engagement; transition

Introduction
Over the last several decades there has been a growing body of literature examining
strategies to enhance the student experience in higher education. A positive student
experience is frequently associated with reduced attrition and higher student learning
outcomes. Although notable gains have been made in understanding the factors that
influence student experience, there is still limited information on how physical learn-
ing spaces affect student engagement.
Much of the literature on student experience arises from research examining the
underlying factors contributing to educational excellence and student attrition in the
first year of university. Often referred to as the ‘first year experience’, the transition
period into university plays a critical role in forming students’ attitudes and behav-
iours towards learning (Krause, 2005; McInnis & James, 1995) and, therefore, helps
to determine whether students will persist at an institution, in addition to the learning
outcomes that they will achieve (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Astin (1975, 1984)
presented a theory of student involvement arguing that the amount of physical and

*Corresponding author. Email: k.matthews1@uq.edu.au

ISSN 0729-4360 print/ISSN 1469-8366 online

© 2011 HERDSA
DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2010.512629
http://www.informaworld.com
106 K.E. Matthews et al.

psychological energy that students invest into their educational experience determines
whether they will achieve desired learning and developmental outcomes. Astin (1975)
suggested that a lack of involvement is a major contributing factor for student attrition.
Tinto’s (1975, 1993) theory of student departure states that successful transition, and,
thereby, student persistence, is determined by a student’s ability to integrate into an
institution’s academic and social systems, in which involvement plays a critical role.
Chickering and Gamson (1987) proposed ‘Seven Good Educational Principles in
Undergraduate Education’ that have helped to guide universities in understanding
what educational activities are most beneficial for students. The principles were as
follows:

(1) Student-faculty feedback

(2) Cooperation among students
(3) Active learning
(4) Prompt feedback
(5) Time on task
(6) High expectations
(7) Respect for diversity of learning.

Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) synthesised the research on student experience, which
has become a primary resource for understanding how college affects students in the
USA. In Australia, the first national study examining students’ first year experiences
was conducted in 1994 and again in 2004 (Krause, Hartley, James, & McInnis, 2005).
The findings revealed that students are reporting a more positive first year experience
in comparison to their counterparts from ten years ago. However these changes were
relatively small and, overall, student engagement remained reportedly low. In the UK
a national report published by Yorke and Longden (2008) examining student attrition
found that students discontinued their studies due to a lack of commitment and a lack
of fit within courses, financial strain, poor teaching quality, limited student-staff inter-
action and slow academic process. These findings support an earlier study on student
attrition conducted in the UK in the mid-1990s and research on student attrition in the
USA and Australia (Kift, 2004; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008; McInnis
& James, 1995; Nelson, Duncan, & Clarke, 2009; Tinto, 1993). It is clear that impor-
tant gains have been made in this area of research but the literature on student experi-
ence remains segmented, especially with regard to student attrition and learning
outcomes.
The accumulation of this research highlights that the student experience is
enhanced when students participate in appropriate educational activities inside and
outside the classroom. Based on the student experience literature, Kuh (2001a, 2001b,
2003) developed the student engagement (SE) model to investigate how much time
and effort students allocate to educationally purposeful activities that directly relate to
academic success. Engagement not only reflects what students do but also examines
the extent to which institutions actively involve students in good educational practices
that contribute to high quality outcomes (Hu & Kuh, 2002; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). Central to Kuh’s concept of SE, the National Survey of Student Engagement
(NSSE) was developed in the mid-1990s for colleges in the USA as a measure of SE.
Recently, the NSSE has been adapted for other countries, including Australia, where
the Australian Survey on Student Engagement (AUSSE) was developed. Higher
education providers are investing in the NSSE/AUSSE survey because it can be easily
 Higher Education Research & Development 107

administered, data can be compared to evaluate institutional performance at a national

level and results are immediately actionable. Nevertheless, caution should be applied
when considering this data as it is not a direct measure of learning outcomes and
provides only one piece of evidence concerning educational excellence. Although SE
does not account for all the factors relating to student experience, it does take a more
holistic approach by considering how students involve themselves in the academic,
personal and social aspects of university life (Krause & Coates, 2008).
Data from the NSSE has led to the identification of activities designed to direct
students’ energies towards more effective educational activities but it has failed to
consider other aspects of the student experience, such as physical learning spaces on
university campuses. Although it is important to find out what students are doing, it is
also important to consider where they are doing it (Webb, Schaller, & Hunley, 2008).
In recent years, there have been technological advances that have paved the way for
blended learning environments and distance education, but physical learning environ-
ments continue to dominate the functionality of most universities. An institution’s
physical environment has significant implications for the teaching and learning
process as well as social practices (Jamieson, 2003; Montgomery, 2008; Oblinger,
2005). Though controversial, it is thought that physical spaces influence student learn-
ing behaviours as different spatial designs determine those activities in which students
can and cannot engage (Bennet, 2007). The impact of ‘spaces’ becomes more promi-
nent as pedagogical practices in higher education start to move away from the tradi-
tional, teacher-centred approach to a more flexible, student-centred approach. As
students’ learning styles, aspirations and expectations evolve, it is clear that learning
environments need to evolve with them. There is accumulating research on how to
develop more interactive formal teaching spaces, where ‘formal’ refers to learning
that occurs in the classroom (Joint Information Systems Committee [JISC], 2006;
Montgomery, 2008; Oblinger, 2006; Radcliffe, Wilson, Powell, & Tibbetts, 2008;
Williamson & Nodder, 2002).
This study instead focuses on ‘informal’ social learning spaces (SLS). Informal
refers to student learning outside of designated class time. Given the nature of learning
in higher education, students spend the majority of their time learning in informal
settings. Similar to the idea of the ‘common room’, SLS in this context are defined as
purpose-built, informal physical spaces. Social learning spaces act as a medium
through which the social and academic aspects of university life can coincide. Given
what is known about student transition into university (Kift, 2004; Krause & Coates,
2008; Tinto, 1993), these spaces are especially important for first year students as an
outlet to form social networks that stem from intellectual commonalities and shared
knowledge (JISC, 2006). Social learning spaces provide a place for students to interact
with their peers as well as academic staff members outside class and take command
over their own learning (Jamieson, 2003; Jamieson, Fisher, Gilding, Taylor, & Trevitt,
2000; Oblinger, 2005). From a social constructivist viewpoint, this interaction is a
vital component in the creation and development of knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978).
Learning is largely a social process, which is enriched when students are able to
conceptualise and critically think about academic problems with others (Hunter,
Laursen, & Seymour, 2007). Social learning spaces, therefore, help to facilitate
student involvement in their learning through social experiences.
However, there is limited empirical evidence on the role of informal SLS on the
student experience. Although, Bennett (2007) emphasises the importance of designing
SLS with the intention of enhancing the student experience, many have noted the
108 K.E. Matthews et al.

difficulties in evaluating such spaces, especially as one considers the number of

factors that influence the educational experience (Radcliffe et al., 2008).

Conceptual framework
The SE model is being increasingly used to explore the student experience in
Australian and US universities (Coates, 2005; Krause & Coates, 2008; Kuh, 2003) as
engagement is positively correlated with student satisfaction, persistence and achieve-
ment in learning and personal development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Higher
education providers in Australia are using this model to inform policy on student
experience. Engagement in effective education practices is also being used as a perfor-
mance indicator for quality assurance and has been used as a basis for the distribution
of federal funds to universities. Matthews, Adams and Gannaway (2009) proposed
that the SE model can be used as a framework to evaluate SLS.

Purpose of study
This paper reports on the second phase of a research project that is situated within a
larger study investigating the impact of SLS on the student experience. The first phase
of the study (Matthews et al., 2009) used quantitative methods to investigate how SLS
impact on student experience using the SE framework. This study found that students
who use informal SLS report significantly higher levels of engagement in comparison
to those students who do not use such spaces. The main aim of this study was to
expand upon the initial study and use the student voice to examine the impact of SLS
on student experience. The study was guided by the following research questions:

(1) How are students using SLS and how do these activities contribute to the
student experience?
(2) How effective is the SE model as a framework for evaluating SLS?

Methods
Qualitative methods, namely observations and interviews, were employed to gain a
richer, more in-depth understanding of the quantitative data found in the first phase of
this study (Matthews et al., 2009). The quantitative analysis completed in the first
phase allowed the authors to understand the scope of the area. However, the main
priority of this study is to capture students’ stories and accounts of how the SLC
impacts on their student experience. Using a qualitative paradigm is essential, as it
‘illuminates the people behind the numbers and puts faces on the statistics … to
deepen understanding’ (Patton, 2002, p. 10).
The first phase of this study examined the impact of multiple student spaces, but
here the central focus is the Science Learning Centre (SLC). The SLC is an informal,
social space for all undergraduate science students at a large, research intensive
university in Australia. It is important to note that although this space is primarily
intended for science students, this level of restricted student usage is not actively
enforced or heavily monitored. Hence, students from a variety of degree programs
often use this space in conjunction with science students. The SLC opened in semester
1 of 2008 and offers a variety of comfortable furniture, wireless access, power points,
whiteboards, meeting rooms with presentation capabilities and a small kitchenette (see
 Higher Education Research & Development 109

Appendix 1). The SLC is available to students daily from 6am to 9pm. Advanced-
level students staff the SLC, providing informal mentorship and tutoring each day
during peak teaching periods. The overarching goals of the SLC are:

● to enhance the student experiences (learning and social),

● to develop an identifiable ‘science space’ for students,
● to foster vertical and horizontal student interactions (that is, between and across
years of study),
● to increase positive, informal staff/student interactions,
● to build on social learning as a key to student success and
● to enable staff and students to be part of a Learning Community resulting in a
sense of belonging and identity.

This study was granted ethical clearance through the University’s Behavioural and
Social Science Ethical Review Committee.

Participants
Individuals and groups of students present in the SLC were observed and approached
to participate in an informal interview. Of the 112 students who were approached, 103
undergraduate students gave permission to be interviewed. Of these participants, 91
were in groups (23 groups in total) and a further 12 were interviewed as individuals.
Fewer interviews occurred on an individual basis as the SLC is mainly populated by
groups of students. Within the groups, efforts were made to direct questions at every-
one to allow each member an opportunity to offer input. Although not everyone in the
groups provided the same level of verbal input, those who remained relatively quiet
still responded to the questions when directly asked. Group members also contributed
by displaying non-verbal gestures, namely head nodding, as well as ‘yes’ responses
when an individual member spoke. The students identified in Table 1 contributed
verbally in the interviews and were included in the code analysis. Participants were
assured that any information they provided would remain anonymous.

Table 1. Participant demographic data.

Program Male Female 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year Total
Sci 34 31 20 20 25 0 65
Biomed 4 3 4 3 0 0 7
Marine 2 1 2 0 1 0 3
Biotech 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
Sci/Dual 4 2 0 1 2 3 6
Profess 3 4 1 1 5 0 7
Arts 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
Eng 8 1 2 5 2 0 9
Med 2 2 4 0 0 0 4
Total 58 45 34 31 35 3 103
Note: Sci = Science; Biomed = Biomedical Science; Marine = Marine Science; Biotech = Biotechnology;
Sci/Dual = Dual degree program with Science; Profess = Professional degrees (Pharmacy &
Physiotherapy); Eng = Engineering; Med = Medicine.
110 K.E. Matthews et al.

Science Learning Centre student workers also participated in this study. Seven
advanced-level students were employed to mentor and/or tutor students in the SLC
and five (M = 1, F = 4) were available to participate in the study. Three of these
students were enrolled in their second year and two were in their third year. The SLC
student workers were provided with information about the research project and asked
to sign a consent form as the interview was audio-taped.

Data gathering
The observations and semi-structured interviews were carried out by a recent Psycho-
logical Sciences graduate of the University of Queensland who had worked in the SLC
the previous year as a student worker. Many students were familiar with the inter-
viewer’s presence in the SLC. This researcher conducted interviews and observations
as opposed to academic staff specifically to avoid influencing students’ behaviours
and interview responses. Observations and semi-structured interviews were conducted
three days a week over a period of three weeks in the middle of the first semester and
took place during active teaching hours (9am–4pm, Monday–Friday). They were done
at random times and on random days of the week.
Following the arrival of the researcher in the SLC, general observations were
recorded for approximately 15 minutes. Observations were then taken of a specific
group of students or an individual student present in the SLC for 10 minutes. Certain
aspects of behaviour were noted, such as what he/she/they were doing, location, types
of staff-student interactions, mood, reactions to environment, group structure and
interesting events involving the individual or group during that time. The student(s)
were then approached to participate in an informal interview. The interviews were
guided by core questions (see Appendix 2). The interview questions were designed to
be deductive and non-directive to elicit more open answers from interviewees that
could later be used to inform the SE framework. By utilising a non-directive approach,
participants were able to guide the conversation more naturally and limit biased
responses.
Probing questions were included to expand upon or clarify responses. The inter-
views ranged from 10 to 15 minutes. Student responses were recorded via note-taking
during the interview and after the interview. The interviews were not audio-recorded
as a primary goal of this research was to maintain a naturalistic feel and avoid inad-
vertently inhibiting responses (Patton, 2002). Following this, reflective notes were
taken.
Science Learning Centre student workers were also observed for 10 minutes
followed by an interview. The interviews with SLC student workers took approxi-
mately 15 minutes to complete and were followed by 10 minutes of reflective writing
by the researcher. The student workers were not the primary focus of this study,
although they provided important supporting evidence concerning the nature of
student engagement in the SLC. Hence, the interviews with student workers were
audio-taped in order to keep a record of the conversation and provide direct quotes
regarding the impact of the SLC on student engagement.

Data analysis
An elaborative coding technique outlined by Auerbach and Silverstein (2003) was
used to categorise and analyse the observation and interview data. This technique is
 Higher Education Research & Development 111

Table 2. Coding scheme based on the AUSSE scales.

Coding origins Initial coding constructs
Engagement measures (AUSSE) Academic challenge
Active and collaborative learning
Student-staff interaction
Supportive campus environment
Enriching educational experience
Outcome measures (AUSSE) General learning outcomes
Departure intention
Overall satisfaction
Higher order thinking
General developmental outcomes
Average overall grade

based on deductive analysis in which pre-conceived constructs relating to the research

framework were explored. In this case, the scales and constructs from the AUSSE
were used, aligning with the methodology of the initial study (Matthews et al., 2009),
which are displayed in Table 2. The themes were then broken down into smaller
coding units to categorise different patterns of ideas and observations found in the
data. Additional coding units, which did not fit within the prescribed framework, were
created based on an iterative process in association with the student voice. An analysis
of the coding units was undertaken by two independent coders. Consensus on coding
units and emerging themes was verified by the authors.
Upon reviewing the observation and interviews it was apparent that not all of the
initial AUSSE coding units were relevant to categorise the data and that not all
the data fitted within the AUSSE coding units. There was also substantial overlap in
the AUSSE coding constructs. However, three overarching themes emerged that
brought the AUSSE coding units and those that did not fit within this framework
together. These were social learning, belonging and spatial design.

Results
Social learning
Students and student workers described the SLC as a ‘laid-back, social’ environment
that promotes active and collaborative learning. In the SLC, students view each other
as academic resources and seek each other out to discuss assignment ideas and get
clarification around difficult concepts that students are sometimes better able to
explain than lecturers and tutors. The following abstract from a second year student
illustrates the type of comments that the users were making:

There is lots of group assignments in science … good to know that there is someone you
can go to answer your questions. (2nd year female student)

The social nature of the SLC further affects how students meet academic chal-
lenges in terms of preparation for class. Students talked about how they ‘know’
not to engage in ‘serious’ study in the SLC. This finding is supported by the
observational and student worker data, indicating that this space is mostly used for
social interaction with few recorded instances of students engaged in individual
studying. Students consider that ‘serious’ studying, described as memorising
112 K.E. Matthews et al.

concepts and cramming for exams, requires one’s full concentration and, hence,
socialising introduces unwanted distractions. On the other hand, students agree that
individual-based coursework described as reviewing notes, class preparation and
weekly assignments does not require their full attention and can occur in a social
environment:

I think for people that want to actually seriously study they are better off to go to the
library because it can get pretty loud and boisterous in here. Nonetheless, I do think a lot
of people do prefer to study here because it gives them a chance to take a break from
their study and talk to a friend and whatever else. (2nd year female student)

Doing coursework in the SLC still makes students feel ‘social’, even if students are
not directly interacting with their peers. Moreover, students like that they have the
option of taking a ‘social break’, asking for academic help from peers and/or SLC
student workers or accessing the computer labs located down the hall while doing
coursework in the space. These comments align with observational data, which found
that students often go into the SLC between individual coursework, socialising and
seeking out academic help in relatively short periods of time.
Users identified a preference for having advanced-level students manage the SLC
and provide academic tutoring and mentoring. As the statement below illustrates, the
majority of students as well as student workers did not want academic and adminis-
trative staff in the SLC as they felt that their presence would disrupt the informal,
social dynamic of this space:

There is no administrative staff here and it is more open. You get the impression you
don’t have to be quiet or anything here, you can talk. (2nd year male student)

First year students often seek tutoring help or mentoring advice from the SLC student
workers and feel that they benefit from this. Those who do not seek such help still
appreciate that tutors and mentors are available if needed.
Engaging with the versatility and social nature of the SLC has led students to
develop a number of general learning outcomes. By acting as student teachers and
participating in group discussions, students feel that they have gained a more in-
depth and critical understanding of course material and were better able to conceptu-
alise and consolidate information learned across courses. As explained by a student
worker:

When you have to explain something, you have to know it really well yourself. (2nd year
female student)

Users found themselves problem solving, sharing and building upon ideas in this
space, which they believed to be helpful to their learning. Students felt that this
had directly contributed to better academic outcomes. However, students acknowl-
edged that if they spent too much time socialising without participation in group
learning activities, then accessing the SLC could lead to worse academic
outcomes:

It could help or hinder. It could help by group study, which is the best way to study
because if you don’t know something, someone else will. That is a good thing and this
is a good place to do that but if you are always skipping lectures to be with friends that
is bad. (2nd year male student)
 Higher Education Research & Development 113

Belonging
By providing a space to socialise and relax, students believed they were being given
the opportunity to form friendships and establish extended social networks with others
in their courses as well as peers across different year levels and science-based degree
programs. Students and student workers described how they met their current friends
in the SLC. This is illustrated in the example statements below:

I met Rob and those guys … good to have the room to meet new people instead of being
by yourself all of the time. (2nd year male student)

All my friends are here, I can study here. It is like my home away from home. (3rd year
female student)

Forming social networks is an essential aspect of creating a sense of belonging

amongst students, who referred both explicitly and implicitly to how the SLC contrib-
uted to their sense of belonging. These included comments about having a space to
develop social networks, participate in active and collaborative learning and access
academic help. Users and student workers described the SLC as ‘familiar’, ‘home-
like’, ‘permanent’, and the ‘home-base at uni’. Observational data showing that the
majority of SLC users utilise this space daily supports such comments. Many students
discussed the role of the SLC in their transition from high school to university, as
illustrated by the following student:

You get a lot of people straight from school that come here … reminds you of school,
where you got somewhere to sit where all your friends know to come to …. (2nd year
male student)

Students recognised that science is a large, diverse degree program that is character-
ised by long hours on campus. However, students identified the SLC as an important
element that brings them together. As one SLC student worker articulated a phenom-
enon that many students described or alluded to:

[The SLC] increased the feeling that there is a science community here, rather than you
just come to uni and take science. It re-enforces the fact that science is about group work
and community, not you by yourself, trying to struggle through it. (2nd year female
student)

An SLC student worker also recognised the importance of having a place to socialise
as opposed to a room dedicated solely to study and how this impacts on the student
experience:

It is really important for students to have a sense of togetherness with like-minded people
who are studying the same thing … students are going to enjoy their time at uni more if
they have that, rather than if it is always about studying all the time. Even though you
can study in the SLC, I think it is mostly about being able to see your friends and feel
that you are all in this together. (2nd year female student)

The upper level students who went through first year without the SLC provide
unique insight into university life before and after having a social learning space.
Before the SLC was developed, they felt that science students did not have a support
network of friends at university, did not have a space to socialise and, consequently,
114 K.E. Matthews et al.

often went home when they had long breaks. Some students considered that this nega-
tively affected their grades and they contemplated dropping out.

Spatial design
Students identified the physical features of the SLC that drew them to this space, such
as the comfortable furniture, controlled temperature, open space, eating facilities,
location and large tables. As one third year student illustrates, these features have
helped to create a welcoming atmosphere in the SLC:

People use it to study, you see people bring food in here, you see people do their uni
work in here, people bring their laptops in here, people bring their textbooks, the rooms
in the back are used for group work. (3rd year female student)

Students recognised how the spatial design of the SLC contributed to their behav-
iours, both academic and social. They discussed the different zones of the room, the
‘open areas’ where students are more likely to socialise and eat and the ‘more closed’
areas with the booths and meeting rooms that cater to group work. These comments
are in agreement with the observational data, where this behaviour was recorded
numerous times. They identified the comfortable furniture with ‘padded seats and
padded chairs’, ‘with backs’ and ‘big tables’ that are more inviting than other informal
student areas. Students appreciated the many power points and reliable wireless
connection. The design created a ‘social centre for students’ where you can ‘do what
you want’.
Another design attribute that students identified was noise. Students recognised
that the SLC was designed to be a social space and with that inevitably comes noise,
which they associated with interaction. However, the role of noise in facilitating study
in a ‘learning centre’ seemed contradictory to some students. The noise levels resulted
in ‘difficulty to get anything done’ in terms of study, although students realised that
some people prefer to study with noise and that they ‘thrive on distraction’. As such,
many students were drawn to the SLC because ‘you can create an element of noise
here’, making the SLC uniquely different from other informal learning spaces on
campus, particularly the libraries:

When you just want to relax and take it easy, especially if they have a long day of
lectures, you are more likely to come to the SLC because when you go to the library, it
is all quiet and so you can’t just relax and have a bit of fun with your friends, studying
or not studying depending on your mood. (2nd year female student)

Generally, the ability to make noise in the SLC was viewed in a positive light.
Comments from student workers and users suggested that one of the main reasons that
students prefer the SLC is because they can make noise, talk, eat and socialise. One
student described the SLC as ‘the place to be noisy’ with another student commenting
that having a space to make noise means that ‘students can feel free to be themselves’
in a more unrestricted environment.
Apart from the design attributes, students were surprisingly appreciative that they
were provided with the basic necessity of space on campus. Students felt that they had
to ‘fight for’ available space in the libraries and other student areas during active
teaching hours and that a space was needed to accommodate for the large number of
science students. Science students who are not typical users as well as students in
 Higher Education Research & Development 115

other disciplines occasionally come to the SLC because of the limited student-centred
space on campus.
Interestingly, some students believed that the SLC was also developed to promote
the image of the university in order to attract potential students and place the univer-
sity ahead of competing institutions.

Discussion
The study found that SLS can foster social interaction amongst students. Social learn-
ing spaces can provide students with an outlet to develop social networks with peers
that can lead to greater engagement in active and collaborative learning and that facil-
itates the sharing of knowledge to meet academic challenges. While a direct correla-
tion between SLS and positive academic outcomes cannot be claimed, nor was it the
intention of this study to propose such a claim, it can be deduced that providing a
space for students to engage in such educationally effective activities indirectly
contributes to academic success. This conclusion is supported by social constructivist
learning theories based on Vygotsky’s (1978) developmental and educational theories,
postulating that the most significant learning takes place when individuals participate
in social learning activities (Hunter et al., 2007; Kim, 2001).
The study also revealed that SLS help to foster a sense of belonging and commu-
nity amongst students in broad discipline based programs, suggesting a supportive
campus environment and greater overall satisfaction. The SLC is a unique space
where students have opportunities to interact with their peers and form friendships
based on academic camaraderie. These findings support Astin’s (1984) and Tinto’s
(1993) theories regarding student involvement and departure intention, respectively.
Tinto, in particular, considered that successful transition into higher education
requires integration into an institution’s academic as well as social environment,
which is evidenced in the findings. In addition, a recent UK report on student attrition
found that the social aspect of university life was becoming a more prevalent factor in
student transition compared to a decade ago (Yorke & Longden, 2008).
While spatial design was outside of the SE framework adopted from the AUSSE
for this study, spatial design emerged from the student voice as an important factor in
determining student preference over space as well as student learning behaviours. The
extent to which students identified the spatial design as a key factor was not antici-
pated. Webb et al. (2008) found that students are more likely to use spaces that are
comfortable, facilitate interpersonal communication and are easily controlled. More-
over, students preferred ‘areas that promote the integration of basic human needs and
desires, such as eating, drinking, and enjoyment, with learning activities’ (p. 419).
Although there is a large amount of literature on how to effectively develop and
design informal learning spaces, the findings produced by Webb et al. and the present
study provide some of the few pieces of empirical evidence demonstrating how spatial
design influences the student experience.
After reviewing the findings, it is important to consider whether the SE model is
an effective framework for evaluating SLS. The NSSE and AUSSE were developed
to measure SE in a quantitative manner. The scales were designed to correlate with
each other but represent separate measures on the survey. However, when the SE
framework is used for qualitative purposes to assess how SLS impact on the student
experience, the scales overlap and the boundaries between scales become blurred and
difficult to disentangle. By interviewing and observing users and SLC student
116 K.E. Matthews et al.

workers, we were able to obtain a wealth of rich, in-depth data that cannot be collected
from a fixed answer survey such as the AUSSE. The findings in the current study
demonstrate that the SE constructs are interrelated and possibly should not be thought
of as strictly distinct measures. By using the SE framework for a qualitative study, we
have gained significant insights into how SLS impact on the student experience.
However, when using this framework in the future it is important to be aware of the
extent to which these scales are interwoven.

Conclusion
This study offers an in-depth exploration of informal, physical social learning spaces.
The use of an established framework, the SE model, which has been utilised across
multiple cohorts of students from a plethora of institutions across various countries,
offers a level of validity and generalisation to the findings. In addition, the lack of
empirical research into SLS offered little basis for building on existing work in this
area. While the study is limited in that only one such space for a single discipline
cohort is examined, a single institution study seemed appropriate as a starting point
for the application of an existing framework (SE) to a new context (evaluation of SLS
in higher education). As a substantial body of literature for social learning spaces does
not exist, this study adopted a broad approach in identifying an evidence-based meth-
odological framework for examining how SLS impact on the SE. Future studies can
apply this model to different institutional and disciplinary contexts and explore the
impact of SLS on students based on demographic data, including gender and age.
This study contributes empirical insight into an under-researched area. As tertiary
institutions focus more effort, attention and resources into improving the student expe-
rience, having evidence from which to make informed decisions on all aspects of the
student experience will be desired. While research into the SE has focused on what
students do and how they engage, research into where students are engaging and how
this influences their engagement is needed.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to recognise the contribution of the Evaluation Unit in the Teaching and
Educational Development Institute at the University of Queensland, particularly Deanne
Gannaway. We also thank m3 Architects, particularly Michael Christensen. Finally, the
insightful and constructive feedback of the reviewers was invaluable. This project was funded
through a strategic teaching and learning grants scheme at the University of Queensland.

References
Astin, A.W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(3), 297–308.
Auerbach, C.F., & Silverstein, L.B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and
analysis. New York: New York University Press.
Bennet, S. (2007). First questions for designing higher education learnng spaces. Journal of
Academic Librianship, 33(1), 14–26.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven prinicples of good practice in undergraduate
education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
Coates, H. (2005). The value of student engagement for higher education quality assurance.
Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 25–36.
 Higher Education Research & Development 117

Hu, S., & Kuh, G.D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activites: The
influences of students and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education,
43(5), 555–575.
Hunter, A.B., Laursen, S.L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of under-
graduate research in students’ cognitive, personal and professional development. Science
Education, 91(1), 36–74.
Jamieson, P. (2003). Designing more effective on-campus teaching and learning spaces: A
role for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1),
119–133.
Jamieson, P., Fisher, K., Gilding, T., Taylor, P.G., & Trevitt, A.C.F. (2000). Place and space
in the design of new learning environments. Higher Education Research and Develop-
ment, 19(2), 221–236.
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). (2006). Designing spaces for effective learning:
A guide to 21st century learning space design. Bristol, UK: Joint Information Systems
Committee.
Kift, S. (2004, July). Organising first year engagement and learning: Formal and informal
curriculum intervention. Paper presented at the The Inaugural Pacific Rim First Year in
Higher Education Conference: Dealing with Diversity, Melbourne, VIC.
Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism: Emerging perspectives in learning, teaching and
techonology. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/Social
Constructivism.htm
Krause, K. (2005). Serious thoughts about dropping out in first year: Trends, patterns and
implications for higher education. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Devel-
opment, 2(3), 55–68.
Krause, K., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first year university. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education 33(5), 493–505.
Krause, K-L., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in
Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Retrieved June 5,
2009, from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au
Kuh, G.D. (2001a). Asessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National
Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–17.
Kuh, G.D. (2001b). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and
overview of psychometric properties. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Kuh, G.D. (2003). What we’re learning from student engagement from the NSSE. Change,
35(2), 24–32.
Kuh, G.D., Cruce, T.M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R.M. (2008). Unmasking the
effects of student engagement on first year college grades and persistence. Journal of
Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563.
Matthews, K., Adams, P., & Gannaway, D. (2009, May). The impact of social learning spaces
on student engagement. Paper presented at the Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education
Conference, Townsville, QLD.
McInnis, C., & James, R. (1995). First year on campus: Diversity of the initial experience of
Australian undergraduates. Canberra: AGPS.
Montgomery, T. (2008). Space matters: Experiences in managing static formal learning
spaces. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 122–138.
Nelson, K., Duncan, M., & Clarke, J. (2009). Student success: The identification and support
of first year university students at risk of attrition. Studies in Learning, Evaluation,
Innovation and Development, 6(1), 1–15.
Oblinger, D.G. (2005). Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces.
EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(1), 14–18.
Oblinger, D.G. (2006). Space as a change agent. In Oblinger, D.G. (Ed.), Learning spaces
(pp. 1.1.–1.4). Retreived July 20, 2009, from EDUCAUSE http://www.educause.edu/
LearningSpaces
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Radcliffe, D., Wilson, H., Powell, D., & Tibbetts, B. (2008). Designing next generation
places of learning: Collaboration at the pedagogy-space-technology nexus. Retrieved
118 K.E. Matthews et al.

July 20, 2009, from http://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/webdav/site/carricksite/users/sitead-

min/public/grants_pp_projectreport_nextgeneration_uq_jan09.pdf
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theorectical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webb, K.M., Schaller, M.A., & Hunley, S.A. (2008). Measuring library space use and prefer-
ences: Charting a path toward increased engagement. Libraries and the Academy, 8(4),
407–422.
Williamson, A., & Nodder, C. (2002). Extending the learning space: Dialogue and reflection
in the virtual coffee shop. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 32(2), 1–2.
Yorke, M., & Longden, B. (2008). The first year experience of higher education in the UK:
Final report. York, UK: The Higher Education Academy.
 Higher Education Research & Development 119

Appendix 1. Plan of the Science Learning Centre

Appendix 2. Discussion guide – ‘Science Learning Centre Users’

1. Introduction
1a. Welcome and introduction of interviewer
1b. Objective
The objective of the informal interviews is to gather information for a research project
investigating students’ perceptions on how informal learning spaces impact on student
experience.
1c. Process
I will be taking notes during the interview so I can revisit and reflect on the information
provided. We respect your right to privacy. Our Ethical Clearance ensures that any infor-
mation that is obtained in connection with this study and that could be identified as relat-
ing to you will remain confidential. If you decide to participate in the interview, you are
free to discontinue participation at any time without prejudice.

2. Questions
Student perceptions of SLC/role in student experience:

(1) Why do you (all) think UQ converted an old lecture theatre into a space like this?
120 K.E. Matthews et al.

Interaction/cohort information:

(1) Who do you (all) think this space was designed for?

Use of space:

(1) How do you (all) think this space should be used?

(2) How do you (all) use it?
(3) How do you think using the SLC impacts on students’ academic performance?

Student voice:

(1) What is your favourite SLC story/memory?