CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS WHO ARE USING INFORMAL SOCIAL LEARNING SPACES: A CASE STUDY OF BUSINESS SCHOOL IN SRI LANKA

Main Article Content

BHASURI AMARATHUNGE
L. A. PAVITHRA MADHUWANTHI

Abstract

Business Schools are more than mere collections of classrooms and offices, rather destinations for studying, collaboration, group discussions, and they contribute to developing a sense of community among students and faculty therein enhances student experience for effective learning. Although it has been brought to attention in previous research studies that, informal SLS support enhanced student involvement in their learning mainly through generated social experiences, limited empirical evidence has examined the characteristics of students who are using them. The objective of the study is to identify the characteristics of students who are using informal Social Learning Spaces in a Business School in Sri Lanka. A qualitative case study approach is adopted in the study. The data are gathered through six focus group discussions held at three different purpose-built informal social learning spaces at the selected Business School and thematic analysis is used. In this exploration, the thoughts, feelings, emotions and judgments of students are brought into discussion. The findings disclosed that the usage of informal social learning spaces differ based on personal characteristics of students like; gender, year of study, distance to campus from their residence, and engagement in co-curricular activities. Hence, this study will fill that empirical vacuum by raising the student voice to examine the under-examined area of student experience to facilitate effective learning.  Therefore, it will contribute to the growing body of empirical evidence on student preferences for learning and the use of informal social earning spaces.

Keywords:
Students’ characteristics, informal social learning spaces, business school, case study.

Article Details

How to Cite
AMARATHUNGE, B., & MADHUWANTHI, L. A. P. (2020). CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS WHO ARE USING INFORMAL SOCIAL LEARNING SPACES: A CASE STUDY OF BUSINESS SCHOOL IN SRI LANKA. Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science, 14(2), 57-66. Retrieved from https://ikprress.org/index.php/JOGRESS/article/view/5508
Section
Original Research Article

References

Strange CC, Banning JH. Educating by design: creating campus learning environments that work. the jossey-bass higher and adult education series, ERIC.

Kalnitskaya P. Challenging the oppressive social context by redesigning learning space. The case of a business ethics class in Russia. Cuadernos de Administración. 2018;31.

Gundersen PE. How Does the High School Redesigned Learning Space Influence Collaboration, Communication, Creativity, and Critical Thinking; 2018.

Alstete JW, Beutell NJ. Designing learning spaces for management education: a mixed methods research approach. Journal of Management Development. 2018;37:201-211.

Matthews KE, Andrews V, Adams P. Social learning spaces and student engagement. Higher Education Research & Development. 2011;30:105-120.

Blackmore J, Bateman D, Loughlin J, O'mara J, Aranda G. Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes; 2011.

Judson G. Curriculum spaces: situating educational research, theory, and practice. Journal of Educational Thought. 2006;40:229.

Thomas H. Learning spaces, learning environments and the dis ‘placement’of learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2010;41:502-511.

Graetz KA. The psychology of learning environments, Educase Review. 2006;41(6):60-75.

Brown HD. Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman; 2001.

Parsons CS. Learning the ropes: The influence of the roundtable classroom design on socialization. Journal of Learning Spaces. 2018;7.

Jarvis P. Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning, Routledge; 2012.

Crook C, Mitchell G. Ambience in social learning: Student engagement with new designs for learning spaces. Cambridge Journal of Education. 2012;42:121-139.

Bryant J, Matthews G, Walton G. Academic libraries and social and learning space: A case study of Loughborough University Library, UK, Journal of librarianship and information science. 2009;41:7-18.

Kuh G. Understanding campus environments. In. MJ Barr, MK Desler, & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2000;50-72.

Beckers R, Van Der Voordt T, Dewulf G. Why do they study there? Diary research into students’ learning space choices in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development. 2016;35;142-157.

Sawon, K., Pembroke M, Wille P. An analysis of student characteristics and behaviour in relation to absence from lectures. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2012;34:575-586.

Gomis-Porqueras P, Rodrigues-Neto J. Adopting new technologies in the classroom. Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of, 2000.

Fonseka M. The story of an educational milestone of our age (First Edition ed.). Pitipana, Homagama, Sri Lanka: NSBM Green University Town; 2017.

Matthews K., Gannaway D, Adams P. The impact of social learning spaces on the student experience; 2009.

Rallis SF, Rossman GB. Mixed methods in evaluation contexts: A pragmatic; 2003.

Denzin NK, Lincoln Y.S. The landscape of qualitative research, Sage; 2008.

Yin RK. Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications. Thousand oaks; 2009.

Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches: Sage Publications; 2017.

Rabiee F. Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 2014;63(4):655-660.

Kitzinger J. Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995;311(7000);299-302.

Thomas L, MacMillan J, McColl E, Hale C, Bond S. Comparison of focus group and individual interview methodology in examining patient satisfaction with nursing care. Social Sciences in Health. 1995;1(4):206-220.

Creswell JW, Miller DL. Determining Validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice. 2000;39(3):124-130, DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newberry Park. CA: Sage; 1985.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101.

Bandura A, Walters RH. Social learning theory. Prentice-hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ; 1977.

Rush L, Balamoutsou S. Dominant voices, silent voices and the use of Action Learning Groups in HE: A social constructionist perspective. Paper Presented at the British Educational Reserch Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick. 2006;6-9 England.

Pascarella ET, Terenzini PT. How College affects students: a third decade of research. Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley; 2005;2.

Bennett, S. 2007. First questions for designing higher education learning spaces. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33, 14-26.