AC 2011-1311: FIRST YEAR ENGINEERING LEARNING SPACE EN-HANCING THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Diana Quinn, University of South Australia

Diana is a medical scientist who has worked academic development (online teaching and learning) since2000. In 2006 Diana commenced working with the first year engineering team at a suburban universitycampus of the University of South Australia to support their research in curriculum renewal, online en-vironments, student communication, new student orientation, learning space development and evaluationand supporting students at risk of failure.

Elizabeth J Smith, University of South Australia

I am currently a lecturer at the University of South Australia in the School of Natural and Built Envi-ronments (NBE) located at the Mawson Lakes Campus. Prior to commencing with UniSA in 2006, Iwas a research and consulting engineer with the Turbulence, Energy and Combustion Group based at theUniversity of Adelaide, where I was working on my PhD. Before becoming a research engineer, I workedas a manufacturing engineer in the plastics industry.

I coordinate two first year engineering courses. A professional practice course ”Sustainable EngineeringPractice” and an introduction to design course ”Engineering Design and Innovation”.

Syed Mahfuzul Aziz, University of South Australia

Mahfuz Aziz is an Associate Professor in the School of Electrical and Information Engineering at the Uni-versity of South Australia (UniSA) and, since 2007, the inaugural academic director of UniSA’s commonfirst year engineering program. In this capacity he leads the first year teaching and learning team, whichinvolves staff from five schools across the Division of IT, Engineering and the Environment, staff from theLearning and Teaching Unit and the Library. He oversees initiatives to provide active forms of orienta-tion, to identify and support students at risk, and to continuously evaluate and improve student experience.In the last ten years Mahfuz has developed and refined innovative project-based learning strategies andassessment schemes to assist diverse students with their learning. Engaging students in lectures, tutorialsand assessments has been a particular focus of his teaching. Mahfuz has received numerous teaching andresearch awards. In 2009 he was the recipient of the Prime Minister’s Award for Australian UniversityTeacher of the Year. He has attracted research funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC),Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) and Cooperative Research Centre in Australia.His research interests include Computer Hardware and Integrated Circuit Design for various applications,Biomedical Engineering and Engineering Education. He has been a reviewer of IEEE Transactions on Ed-ucation, IEEE Transactions on Computer, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing and IET ElectronicsLetters.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2011

First year engineering learning space – enhancing the student experience

Introduction The University of South Australia (UniSA) was established in 1991 through the merger of several antecedent institutions including an Institute of Technology and Teacher Education Colleges. The University’s founding act and mission has always stated that it should provide education to a diverse range of people from educationally, socially and culturally disadvantaged backgrounds and hence it has a range of access pathways and programs to support this. At the Mawson Lakes Campus, located 12 km to the north of Adelaide city in South Australia, the majority of the students in the Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment (ITEE) have identified themselves with an equity group (57% in 2008). The predominantly male first year undergraduate students (84% in 2008) are drawn from low social-economic status areas (30% in 2007) and are often the first in their family to study at tertiary level (65% at UniSA compared to 55% elsewhere). In 2008, 14% of undergraduate students in ITEE were from rural and remote locations and therefore likely to be disconnected from family and friends1. Students who develop friendships on campus are more likely to receive additional learning support through peer networks that can significantly improve their learning outcomes2, 3 . With the collapse of compulsory student unionism in Australia in 2006 there are fewer social or sporting activities available to students on our suburban campus and less opportunity to form friendships. To help commencing engineering students transition smoothly into university life; a space was created at the Mawson Lakes Campus for them to study, do group work, and develop peer networks. It was conceived as a space that would enhance students’ social and learning engagement by giving them a sense of community and belonging. The space became operational in 2009 and is called the Experience 1 Studio. This space is open plan with a flexible layout. Apart from individual or group study and project work students use the space in a variety of ways, for example, to catch-up with friends, eat and relax. This paper will describe the space; explore how the students use it and how it is used to support learning, with general recommendations about implementing informal learning spaces. Background In part, the Experience 1 Studio was conceptualized as a response to the University of South Australia's new teaching and learning framework. This framework aimed to refocus student-centred learning towards student engagement through experiential learning. Experiential learning is expected to be composed of one or more of the following three elements: practice-based learning in work or simulated work environments, service learning in community settings and teaching-research nexus4.

A component of the framework, vital to its success, was the concept of flexible learning environments5. This extended the existing notion of flexibility from a focus on the online learning environment, to include new physical learning environments that could foster student engagement through experiential learning on campus. These were to be informal, or non-teaching spaces – however the curriculum required change to promote conditions where students would need to work together in an independent way. The approach used to re-design the Engineering curriculum was to create a common first year of study for students in the four year Bachelor and two year Associate Degree programs in the disciplines of Mechanical, Electrical and Civil Engineering. A majority of the engineering students are based at the city campus location and up to 10% based at the rural campus location (400km north of the city). The common first year program aims to provide students with a foundation in multidisciplinary areas of engineering and emphasizes experiential learning through project and practice based learning and development of professional practice skills. There are eight courses in the first year engineering program, four courses each semester. One course in each semester was to be focussed on group projects that required student-directed collaboration, namely Sustainable Engineering Practice in first semester and Engineering Design and Innovation in second semester. The program commenced in 2008 with an intake of 192 students. The enrolment of engineering students across the three programs was 180 in 2009. The first year engineering space concept was developed during 2007-2008, converting the Isobar, an infrequently used student bar/restaurant on campus, into the Experience 1 Studio. Designing learning spaces has been categorized as a wicked problem – one for which there is no right solution and that any solution is unlikely to be transferable to another context6. However, there are general lessons that can be learnt and this paper will attempt to capture these. An edition of Educause Quarterly focussing on Learning Space Design7 provides contemporary guidance for the person new to informal learning space design and Educause also has a downloadable eBook on learning spaces8. Some spaces are designed for teachers to be a part of the space, and some are designed to support informal learning. The Experience 1 Studio falls into the latter category, it is an unsupervised informal learning space. Experience 1 Studio – Features and Design The Experience 1 Studio is expected to help students ease into university life, develop peer networks and benefit from collaborative learning. It is hoped the space will help students to further engage with their studies, while balancing the social experience of being a university student. These are expected to help students enjoy their university experience and therefore help with improving retention rates. The Studio has a modern design with brightly colored furniture and decor. The engineering aspects of the space have been made as visible as possible (e.g. visible air conditioning ducts and outlets, clear Perspex used for electricity outlets, and for covers over the electricity distribution boards and computer network wiring). It offers flexibility from open studio environments for project based learning to intimate spaces for small group interaction, and zones for individual study. The holistic nature of this unique design provides areas for relaxation, social interaction, collaboration, games and display concepts. It includes a network printer, a photocopier, data

projectors, LCD displays and wireless access points. An area has been set aside as a social spot where students can eat and unwind9. The Studio offers a number of zones that can expand or contract via sliding walls to lockdown sound attenuated areas, creating six small rooms for group discussion or quite study. To ensure wide and equitable access, students and teaching staff are able to book any of these small rooms via an online booking system for a maximum of two hours per day. The entire space can be booked by teaching Staff for exhibition of student work, networking and other relevant events. The interior of the Experience 1 Studio can be seen in Figures 1 and 2 and a map of the space is shown in Figure 3

   Figure 1 Experience 1 Studio has a flexible layout and moveable furniture

   Figure 2 Experience 1 Studio features 10 fixed computers, floor-based checkers/chess set and

outdoor seating

Developing the initial design of the space involved collaboration among the stakeholders, i.e. staff in the three engineering schools, to provide input in the early stages of development. Selected staff were invited to attend planning meetings with the university’s planning and development unit and the architects, Woods Bagot. The initial brainstorming meetings assisted the architects in developing a draft concept plan. The detailed design stage involved working through the details of the design and specifications of the equipment and facilities. The architects met with the university’s project team on several occasions to develop these details. Finally, the architects made presentations on the studio’s design concept and detailed facilities to the first year engineering teaching and learning team in July 2008. So, there was wide consultation and opportunity for stakeholder feedback throughout the process. The Experience 1 Studio was opened at the start of semester 1 in 2009.

Figure 3 Map of the Experience 1 Studio  

Although this is a “student owned space”, the university’s Facilities Management Unit (FMU) manages its everyday running, security and ongoing maintenance. The use of the Experience 1 Studio has so far been a great success; however there have been various operational and service issues, primarily focussed on access to the studio, the locker key booking system and the related laptop borrowing facility. These issues will be discussed later in the paper. Examples of the use of the Experience 1 Studio to support teaching First year students can be hesitant to seek help from teaching staff, and rarely go to staff offices even during designated consultation times. To overcome this, help desks are provided in the Experience 1 Studio for students to meet with staff and ask questions in a more relaxed environment. These help desks have proven to be very successful with students who might not normally feel comfortable to approach staff in their offices. In the first year courses Sustainable Engineering Practice and Engineering Design and Innovation in 2009, four help desk sessions were held to assist students with assessment tasks and were scheduled near due dates. This was increased in 2010 with regular help desk sessions held once a week and further increased to twice a week closer to assessment due dates. The help desk is managed by the course coordinators and held in lieu of consultation times based in their offices. This resulted in an increased number of students seeking timely help with course content, assessment tasks and managing difficult group work dynamics. A team of senior students are also available at regular times in the Experience 1 Studio to provide help and mentoring to the first year students. The Experience 1 Studio is used to host project exhibitions, and design and build competitions among all first year students. Such activities would normally be held in tutorial classes, but the flexible layout of this space provides an excellent location to hold such events for a large cohort of students. For example Figure 4 shows the Experience 1 Studio being used to host a design and build competition for the first year course Engineering Design and Innovation where students were required to build creative and innovative mouse trap vehicles to travel as far as possible. The chairs and tables were moved to one side of the space and a track was mapped out on the floor for students to demonstrate their devices. The partial lockdown area was used as judging stations where students presented to judges as to why their devices were creative and innovative. The Experience 1 Studio is also used to host the Engineers Without Borders10 Project exhibition as part of the Sustainable Engineering Practice course. The partial lockdown area was opened, and chairs and tables moved, so display areas could be created for each of the project groups. Students used their allocated display areas to present posters and other props to communicate their design solutions. Local high schools, university staff and industry representatives were invited to view the students’ work.

Figure 4 Design and Build Competition held in the Experience 1 Studio

             Methodology for evaluating student use of the Experience 1 Studio A mixed method evaluation of the Experience 1 Studio was adopted during the first year of its use to examine: • the aesthetics of the space and what messages students were receiving, (e.g. did they feel

safe, positive, student satisfaction)

• the function of the Experience 1 Studio to determine how the students were using the space and if the infrastructure (e.g. computers, appliances) was supporting them in their learning and socialising

• the flexibility of the space

• and indirectly, the impact on the student experience and learning outcomes. A methodology for this evaluation was developed following consultation with a researcher from Swinburne University, who was leading an ALTC (Australian Learning and Teaching Council) project in relation to the evaluation of learning spaces11. The evaluation methodology included:

• A survey of all first-year engineering students conducted two months after students were first allowed access to the space in 2009. This survey reviewed many aspects of first-year experience and had several items that specifically drew information about the Experience 1 Studio. A similar anonymous survey was repeated towards the end of 2009.

• Student focus groups were also organized to more deeply explore the issues raised in the surveys and to allow investigation into other issues.

• A study on how the walls within the Experience 1 Studio were adjusted to create different spaces was conducted over one week.

• Students were asked to map their typical travels within the first year experience space.

• To facilitate metacognitive talk (discussion of thoughts and thinking) a selection of visual methods were used in a photoelucidation activity. Random focus group participants were provided with disposable cameras and asked to capture what the first year engineering space means to them. These images were used to facilitate discussion about meaning in subsequent focus groups 12, 13.

• A comparison of Grade outcomes was made for the four first semester courses before and after student access to the Experience 1 Studio

The results from this evaluation strategy are discussed in the following sections. They highlight the usefulness of the Experience 1 studio and how the students use the space.

Survey responses As stated above, two anonymous online surveys were conducted within the first year of study. The surveys were open for 2 weeks for all students enrolled in any one of the 4 first year core courses. There were 86 respondents to the first survey representing just under half of the students who have access to the Experience 1 Studio. Using a likert scale students were asked if the space was useful for their learning and socialising. These results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Usefulness for learning and socialising, n=86 Strongly

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree Useful for learning 31% 27% 35% 4% 3% Use of the socialising 23% 27% 45% 4% 1%

Only 50% of the respondents who identified themselves as Associate Degree students were using the space while 88% of the respondents, who identified themselves as Bachelor Degree students, were using the space. Some of the comments from the Associate Degree students, who were not accessing the studio, indicated that they were unaware of the studio or were unable to access it as they had work commitments. In response to the usefulness of the space for learning and socialising, the degree students’ agreement rate was 63% and 53% respectively while for the associate degree students the agreement rate was 47% and 42% respectively. In response to the item, In what ways are you using the Experience 1 Studio? 76 of the 86 respondents provided free text responses (84%). Some comments contained multiple uses and these were separated into 143 separate items and then categorized (Refer to Table 2).

Table 2 How the Experience 1 Studio is being used, n=76 Experience 1 Studio use Percentage of respondents

that identified this use in their response

Discussions for group work 16% Using computers 16% Study 12% Assignments 11% Help desks/ support 7% Socialising 6% Relaxing 6% Meeting place 4% Using desks 3% Reading 3% Lock-down rooms 2% Not using 11%

General responses to What are the best aspects about studying the first year of engineering? generated responses that reflected the re-energized curriculum and the new Experience 1 Studio:

The first year engineering space - the relaxed atmosphere at the uni

The first year engineering space the interesting assignments and projects the many

opportunities and areas to explore

Great facilities and learning interesting information

Good social environment, meeting new people and also practicing and expanding skills.

The courses for all engineering degrees are common. This makes socialising easier.

Can work in your own time. Freedom of choice given. Working in different projects.

In response to What needs improvement? prompted 4 requests for more computers in the Experience 1 Studio and also requests for more appliances (e.g. fridge, microwave). A microwave was provided subsequently, but not a fridge, as the focus group members ruled this out for fear that some students might leave food for a long time, then cleanliness and hygiene may become an issue. There were 79 responses to the second survey, which closely echoed the views expressed earlier in the first survey. Students (66) made 91 comments in response to the question ‘how are you using the Experience 1 studio?’ Group work (44%), individual study (28%) and socialising (29%) were the main responses. Some respondents were still unaware of the studio (4%) and some were choosing not to use the Studio because of noise and game playing by some (6%). Some student leadership may be required to assist with managing the site for the majority of users.

Focus groups As stated earlier, students were invited to participate in focus groups for the post-occupancy evaluation of the Experience 1 Studio. The 9 Participants of the focus group were provided with a map of the learning space (Figure 3) and asked to draw a line that reflected their usual movement when they visit the Studio. These were scanned and analysed. Areas were identified and the number of students who went to an area tallied (see Table 3). If a student indicated they went to the same area multiple times this was recorded as a single visit.

Table 3 Map tracks - student movements through the studio, n=9

Experience 1 Studio areas Number of students who visited this area

Computers (plug in) 9 Open studio area 9 Partial lockdown (24, 26, 28) 6 Unwind (non-sink area) 6 Full lockdown (25, 27, 29) 4 Utility 3 Unwind (Sink area) 3 Team zone 1 Balcony 0

Students use the space for learning and for social purposes, but it depends on when their break from classes occurs and how long it is for. Some students spend part of their time in group work, some studying and the rest, socializing. The white boards are important in supporting learning as they use these to help explain difficult concepts of problems to each other. The two purposes, learning and socialising, sometimes clash - but there are enough spaces in the studio to escape if needed, as discussed by this focus group participant:

There are places where you can go to get away from the noise if you want to (Focus group Participant, 22nd May 2009)

The curriculum re-design, to include collaborative group work, has been important to help the use of the space for learning purposes.

… because with the engineering space, I tend to socialize a lot … I only like basically stay if I’m working with a group and I need to do team work or something. But if it’s for myself, I kind of go to a place where I don’t know anyone.

(Focus group Participant, 22nd May 2009) Students have made friends that extend beyond their program groups and they have identified the Studio as being important in helping this happen. The comrades-in-arms metaphor was clear.

You’ve kind of in a fox hole where you’re all experiencing the same stresses, you’ve all got the same assignments, everyone going, oh question 5, that’s so hard, what do I do? I don’t know either, let’s find some people that do know. So you all just kind of band together through this hardship.

(Focus group Participant, 22nd May 2009)

This dimension of peer support and networking is vital for student persistence at University 14, 15 and is a significant outcome. The initial impression for many focus group participants was one of exclusion. The site is so secure that students have a battle getting access to the facility (swipe card and access code at all times). Despite the secure environment offered by the studio the students want to pack up their belongings every time they go to the toilet outside of the space or go downstairs to get food or drink – with getting back in after hours not being necessarily easy.

… access after hours … even if you leave the area and go to the toilet, last night they had to actually walk around the back of the building and then go out and then onto the walkway and then go back, because it was the only way you could get in.

(Focus group Participant, 22nd May 2009) Once in the studio, the students found the space to be nice, modern and colorful. They appreciated the facilities such as whiteboards and were impressed with the floor-based checkerboard. However some of the furniture, although modern, proved to be uncomfortable and infrequently used. The air-conditioning in the space was also mentioned as being problematic. Although the students tried to adjust the temperature, the control panel (and other functions like lights, television etc) is password protected and not all students knew the standard (user) password and were unable to operate the lights, televisions and the curtains. The lock down rooms supported the group activities that the curriculum demanded – but a small enhancement was identified. The doors need to be fitted with peek-in viewers as students in meetings were often interrupted by others checking to see if the room was free. The practice now is to use the front lock down rooms with the movable walls – if they are closed, then you know that there are people in there. There is an online booking system – that students respected – but it was not obvious to students and it is much easier to have a quick look to see if a room is free. The request was to make the space more homely – couches, access to food (high energy and caffeine vending machines), food warming facilities (microwave) and even consideration about the sink – the filtered water dispenser was placed over the sink drainer so it was not possible to fill water bottles, and easier access to the toilet. The students in different programs studying the core engineering courses have gelled well within this space for learning as well as relaxing

A lot of assignment work gets done… on the tables and stuff there’s usually about six people all doing maths together. Usually in the red room you’ll see people sitting down and reading their study notes for engineering materials. Now and then you just see people having lunch somewhere, watching the TV.

(Focus group Participant, 22nd May 2009)

When prompted, students preferred 24x7 access as some students work, as commented by this focus group participant

I work till 1 o’clock in the morning so if it was open 24 hours I would use it. (Focus group Participant, 22nd May 2009)

The studio provided a suitable venue for learning that can be better than what is normally available to students:

There are distractions at home. If you’re here, I find if I’m here I probably do more than – if I’m home I can always find something to distract myself, because there’s always plenty of other things that you know you can … Plus at home I’ve got three brothers, plus my cousin’s live across the road, and the neighbours, like all these people under 13 years old and I’m just – there’s so much noise at my house. So to be here all the time would be useful.

(Focus group Participant, 22nd May 2009) Results from Photoelucidation Activity Six focus group participants were provided disposable cameras at random and asked to, over the period of three weeks, to photograph what the Experience 1 Studio meant to them. Four cameras were returned and the images were processed. A total of 69 images were available, a selection of these is shown in Figure 6. A focus group of the photographers was conducted and the available images were displayed and used to guide discussion. The location of the photograph helped understand which parts of the space are most important and meaningful for students. The aim is to focus on what is there and how it works for students. The areas within the studio that were photographed in the 69 images were categorized, tallied and presented in Table 4. In some cases two regions were evident and these were both noted. When three or more regions were included in the image then the location was classified as multiple areas. From this we can see that the open studio areas are by far the most meaningful for our photographers as well as long shots that showed multiple areas (33 instances). Having an open space, rather than cubicles, where people can interact and work rated highly in importance to the students. Another major area of significance was the ‘plug in’ area where students used the computer facilities.

Table 4 Studio areas photographed as being areas of meaning to the photographer, n=6 Experience 1 Studio areas Number of images of

that area Open studio area 23 Computers (plug in) 11 Multiple zones - expanse 10 Unwind 7 Full lockdown (25, 27, 29) 7 Partial lockdown (24, 26, 28) 7 Entrance 6 Utility 4 Chess/checkers set 4 Balcony 4 Reception 1

Students spoke about why they had taken each image. A total of 173 comments were made. The comments were categorized into 19 reasons that were then grouped into five major themes: Studying in the space (27%), Relaxing in the space (23%), the Functionality (21%) and Flexibility (14%) of the space, and Problems associated with the Space (17%). These comments are tabulated in Table 5. Some photographs depicted areas that the students wanted to be more meaningful to them – in particular the balcony area. The current furniture and environment in this area was uncomfortable and impractical and therefore the area was not being used. Similarly the furniture in the unwind area was seen as uncomfortable and therefore limited the meaningfulness of this space. One TV was identified as not being used and a suggestion was that DVD players could be available on some televisions to improve the functionality. Two of the photographers were female. As they discussed their images they emphasized how important the space was for them as women in a male-dominated engineering program. The space facilitated their socialising and networking which was important for their persistence with study. Results from Wall study To determine if the movable walls were being utilized, a wall study was conducted. During week 3 of second semester in 2009 the movable walls were photographed each day to see how they had changed in location and use. On Monday to Thursday photographs were taken once a day and on Friday the walls were photographed at 10am, 1pm and 4 pm. Each day the walls were found to be in a different position – from fully open to fully closed and variations in between. During the Friday observations, two of the rooms were found to be extensively changed during the day – and one of the rooms stayed as it was in the morning. There was sufficient evidence in this small sample that the studio’s movable walls were a well-utilized affordance.

Figure 6 Examples of images taken by students as part of the Photoeludication activity

Table 5 Classification of comments in Photo-elucidation study, n=6 Theme Why important Number of

comments Percentage %

Study

Allowed individuals to work 15

46 (27 %)

Allowed students to work together

15

People are busily working 11 Peer pressure to behave appropriately

5

Relaxing

Socialising 6

41 (23%) Eating 11 TV watching 4 Gender balance 4 Fun cool groovy 12 Tree 4

Function Provides functionality (e.g. whiteboards)

13 37 (21%)

Being used 24

Flexible Time 11

24 (14%) Walls 7 Furniture 6

Problem Not being used 24

30 (17%) Uncomfortable 2 Needs something 4

Grade outcomes and Attrition First semester grade outcomes were compared for the four core courses in 2008 (when the studio did not exist) and in 2009, where students could use the studio for informal learning. Table 6 presents this comparison.

Table 6 Percentage of students passing or failing in 2008 (before studio) and 2009 (after

studio) Year Courses % Total Pass % Total Fail

2008

MATH1063

56

44

2009

MATH1063 74 26

2008 ENGG1003 89 11 2009

ENGG1003 91 9

2008 COMP1036 75 25 2009

COMP1036 76 24

2008 RENG1005 82 18 2009 RENG1005 83 17

In the course Mathematical Methods for Engineers 1 (MATH 1063) there was a significant change in percentage pass and fail rate when comparing 2008 results with 2009 results. Instances of collaborative learning and problem solving for weekly Mathematics quizzes and assignment submissions had been mentioned in focus groups of students using the studio. However, extra ‘brush-up’ sessions for students studying mathematics were available in 2009, but not in 2008, which would also impact on the pass rate. It is hoped that the Experience 1 Studio will help improve student retention, but this is hard to measure accurately. Government reported statistics show a slight improvement; from 83% retention of the commencing student cohort from 2006 to 2007, to 86% retention from 2008 to 20091. Since attrition rate cannot be simplistically related to one or two factors such as the learning space. It is rather affected by a range of issues, including overall teaching and learning strategies, student engagement, motivation, support available, peer networks, personal/family/financial circumstances, and the overall student experience. Discussion This paper documents a multi-faceted post-occupancy evaluation of the Experience 1 studio. The evaluation methods used were diverse in their design, but were supportive in their findings: that the aesthetics, functionality and flexibility of the space were meeting the majority of students’ informal learning needs. The flexibility of furniture, walls and wireless connectivity are the key affordances that we would recommend as a high priority for all informal learning environments. It is also thought that points of beauty are essential16, other than the balcony and view, our space does not offer this.

During the evaluation, opportunities for improvement in the studio were identified and these are listed below as recommendations.

1. More computers be installed 2. Better advertising of the Space to Degree and Associate Degree students, including

clearly identifying where the space is located, how it can be used and accessed 3. Studio to be accessible 24 x 7 – and looking at methods to simplify security 4. Consider including toilets within the Space. 5. Peep holes in lockdown room doors to see if the rooms are in use 6. Instructions for using facilities. Many students commented on their lack of

knowledge about the instructions on how to operate the equipment within the space. 7. Provision of DVD players, microwave and fridge 8. Implementation of the lockers and laptop borrowing system, which is still non-

operational 9. More comfortable furniture in the unwind area 10. More comfortable and practical furniture on the balcony (tables, chairs, heaters,

partitions) 11. Vending machines 12. Use mentors for inducting new students to space 13. Student-created rules for things like game-playing on computers when others need to

do work 14. More spaces for subsequent informal learning to occur in later years of study

Many of these items have been actioned, for example, introducing students to the space during orientation and through subsequent emails, extended opening hours (6 am – 12 midnight), training and instruction sheets on using facilities pasted to walls, some furniture in the unwind area replaced with more comfortable ones, provisioning of a microwave, and senior student mentors attending the space. A swipe card based automated system that would allow students to borrow locker keys and laptop cabinet keys using their ID cards has been non-operational. The system is currently being upgraded with a more advanced one and is expected to be in operational soon. This will enable students to borrow locker keys where they can leave their personal belongings and laptops (to charge) while they attend a class or learning activity. Students will also be able to borrow laptops from the lockers; this will address the issue of the low number of computers in the Space to some extent. Figure 7 summarizes the main aspects of the Experience 1 studio and emphasizes that its establishment was supported by several key parallel changes that help ensure our investment in an informal learning space was beneficial. First, the academic program was realigned to create a common first year. This provided students with similar timetables and afforded shared experiences in their transition. In the studio, this meant that students were relaxing at the same time as well as sharing common deadlines, such as completing mathematics assignments.

Second, course work was changed to require more project-based collaborative learning with related community events, such as exhibitions, which bring in the broader community such as high school students, industry and professional society representatives. Study support became embedded and flexible, being available online as well as scheduling regular studio-based help desks for each course. Finally efforts to improve the community were made. A first year director was appointed to provide leadership and support. Also, in our second year, trained peer mentors were developed and scheduled to help first years in transition, starting from orientation and continuing to provide peer study support. New social clubs were formed by students to further support the social dimension of first year engineering.

 

Figure 7 Contextual changes supporting the implementation of the Experience 1 studio Summary The Experience 1 studio has been a positive influence on student learning that in some cases has translated to better learning and social outcomes. It is anticipated that student retention will also improve, but this is hard to measure accurately, as there are many other factors that impact upon retention. A significant outcome has been the student creation of a new club (Amalgamated Engineering Recreational Organization - AERO), that spans the civil, mechanical and electrical engineering students (previously each program had their own club). Students enjoyed interacting with their peers in other engineering programs as part of the common first year and the space, and are keen to continue these connections as they move into the specialized years of their program. The knowledge gained from the evaluation of the Experience 1 Studio has indeed been useful for the refining of the space to maximize student-learning outcomes, and is also helpful as we set about planning other future learning spaces across the university. One key finding is that the development and establishment of new spaces such as this is demanding on the Facilities

Management Unit (FMU) and any future developments would need to factor in this increased workload on FMU staff. What is clear is that the implementation of the studio as well as adjusting related contextual environments, has enhanced the first year engineering student experience. Bibliography [1] UniSA (2009). Equity statistics (on-line, restricted access) [2] Wlodowski, R.J. (1999). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. [3] Coates, H. (2006) Student engagement in campus-based and online education: University connections. London:

Routledge. [4] Lee, P. (2007). University of South Australia - The Teaching and Learning Framework 2007. Accessed July 2,

2009 from http://www.unisa.edu.au/ltu/staff/start/framework/default.asp. [5] Quinn, D. (2009). Flexible Learning Environments. University of South Australia Accessed August 6 2009

http://breeze.unisa.edu.au/fle [6] Rittel, H. and Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155-169.

Accessed August 20, 2009 from http://www.uctc.net/mwebber/Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Planning.pdf

[7] Educause Quarterly (2009). Learning Spaces 32 (1) Accessed August 20 2009 from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EQVolume322009/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/163844

[8] Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Learning spaces. Accessed March 2, 2011, from http://www.educause.edu/LearningSpaces

[9] UniSA (2009), Experience 1 Studio, Accessed January 10, 2011 from http://www.unisa.edu.au/itee/engineer/experience_1_studio/default.asp

[10] Engineers Without Borders (EWB) (2009) Engineers Without Borders Challenge. Accessed May 13 2009 from http://www.ewb.org.au/ewbchallenge/

[11] Lee, N, (2009) A Comprehensive Learning Spaces Evaluation Model Accessed January 10 2011 from http://www.swinburne.edu.au/spl/learningspacesproject/

[12] Woolner, P., Clark, J., Hall, E., Tiplady, L., Thomas, U., and Wall, K. (2009, in press). Pictures are necessary but not sufficient: using a range of visual methods to engage users about school design. In Press.

[13] Wall K. & Higgins, S. (2006). Facilitating metacognitive talk: a research teaching and learning tool. International Journal of Research and method in Education 29(1) p. 39-53.

[14] Pitkethly, A. & Prosser, M. (2001). The First Year Experience Project: A model for university-wide change. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(2), 185-191.

[15] Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students. Vol 2: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[16] Poole, G., (2008). Keynote address: A place to call a learning home. Ascilite Conference Melbourne Australia November 30 – December 3 2008 Accessed March 2 2011 from http://server.ilecture.deakin.edu.au/lectopia/lectopia.lasso?ut=1186&id=30576