Running head: BUILDING COLLABORATION

Building Collaboration:
Physical Considerations of Online Collaborative Learning Spaces
Chenoa Dirks
Jenaca Fredheim
Chester Garber
Julie Kotler
Shane Turner
The University of British Columbia

BUILDING COLLABORATION

Abstract
This paper is a proposal for an educational design project in the context of a post-graduate degree
course in educational design methods. We propose creating an online workshop course targeting
educators that creates in them the motivation to create collaborative environments in their
learning spaces, and imparts the knowledge to create the physical requirements for collaborative
spaces. We emphasize the literature that supports the effectiveness of collaborative spaces, draw
a connection to our support of Constructivist learning theory, and offer specific guidelines
regarding the considerations of physical spaces and technology. We then offer a description of
the proposed online learning space, including the learning tasks (InterActivities) of the space.

BUILDING COLLABORATION

Building Collaboration:
Physical Considerations of Collaborative Learning Spaces
Key Frameworks
We propose to develop an online workshop course, which provides K-12 teachers and
administrators the theoretical and procedural knowledge necessary to create collaborative
learning spaces. This workshop, will address constructivist theory and rationale by focusing on
how collaboration supports learning. We will provide specific examples of how to design and
implement the physical layout of learning spaces to support students learning.
According to Jonassen, knowledge is both individually and mutually constructed among
learners in a collaborative learning environment (Jonassen, 1999, p. 18). This environment is best
made by encouraging students to communicate with each other to create a common learning goal
(Jonassen, 1999, p. 24). To encourage communication, we will consider the the physical aspects
of the classroom in how it allows the students to interact.
Learning environments begin with the educator, and their philosophies and practices
within the classroom. Therefore, this project will be primarily suited for professional
development workshops directed at in-service teachers or administrators as well as upper-level
district staff or architects who are intending to adopt the design implications of a constructivist
approach to teaching and are developing spaces to promote student collaboration. To create a
collaborative environment for the learner, teachers themselves need to be targeted, as the agents
of change. By gearing our project towards teachers and administrators, it is likely that the
classroom environment and the teaching approach will shift increasingly. In accordance with this
notion, Brooks and Brooks (1993) promote the significance in teachers making paradigm shifts in
terms of their thinking about knowledge and learning so that the shift from a traditional to
constructivist classroom can occur.

BUILDING COLLABORATION

The primary educational activity for the online course is to educate teachers and
administrators on the importance of collaboration within constructivist learning environments,
the impact of the physical classroom setup, and the integration of computers. The intention
behind this is that they would then alter their teaching practices to support that type of learning
environment. To attain this goal, the course design will itself present modules which are
constructed on the very principles that are being taught. By doing this, the course would
simultaneously explain the concepts and benefits while also demonstrating them, giving the
learners first hand experience in learning within a collaborative learning environment.
Designing the workshop course online would allow the target audience to work together
on a computer with the purpose of learning and gaining knowledge in a new concept in much the
same way their students would in their own classroom. As well, each module within the course
would be set up to first scaffold or inform the user and then introduce an interactive and
collaborative activity. Structuring and delivering the workshop using this type of media is the
most effective way to ensure the project goals and objectives are met.

Intentions and Positions

Through this design project, we intend to increase awareness of the importance of creating
collaborative learning environments in schools. Collaboration is a crucial skill that leads to
increased achievement, and is a vital part of constructivism, which we believe is a learning theory
with great merit. We also intend to display the computer as a useful tool to increase collaboration
and support a constructivist environment. We hope to ultimately increase the number of
classrooms that promote collaboration and help students construct their own learning.
Collaborative environments in learning spaces lead to improvements of essential learning
skills. Wang (2008) studied two cohorts of students assigned to work collaboratively, and the

BUILDING COLLABORATION

majority of students reported that they learned to communicate better and build trust with their
partners by sharing experiences, remaining open-minded to positive and negative feedback and
respecting others ideas (Wang, Q., 2008, p. 1142). Many students also reported having gained
new knowledge from other members. With the varied backgrounds and knowledge of individual
group members, ideas tend to be challenged or questioned, which leads them to either explain and
justify their thoughts or collectively search for new answers. (Wang, 2008) Group members also
learn when they help one another, as giving help requires the giver to clarify and reorganize
their understanding, helping him or her to understand the material better. Receiving help may fill
in gaps in the receivers understanding or help them clarify misconceptions (Williams, M.,
2009, p. 7). Evidence for other significant benefits resulting from group collaboration is in
regards to computer supported learning wherein students higher order thinking skills are
improved and student satisfaction increases, which tends to lead to an increase in productivity
(Williams, M., 2009, p. 7). Rao, Collins & DiCarlo (2002) at Wayne State University examined
the effects of collaborative testing on student performance wherein the participants were first
given four separate individual tests and then later re-issued the same tests to be completed as a
group. Results showed the academic performance was significantly higher for each test when the
students completed the tests together compared to when it was done individually (Rao, S. et al.,
p. 29). Likewise, another study found similar results in comparing the effects of cooperative
learning (experimental group) to traditional methods (control group) on academic achievement.
(Aydin, S., 2011, p. 640).
Collaboration is even more powerful when approached as part of a broader philosophy of
education. This philosophy must suggest principled changes in the curriculum. We think that this
philosophy must be constructivism, a theory of cognitive growth and learning that has gained
many adherents in recent years (c.f. Forman & Pufall, 1988; Newman, Griffin, and Cole, 1989;

BUILDING COLLABORATION

Piaget, 1973; Resnick, 1989; Vygotsky, 1978). Our primary goal, then, is to help our learners
create collaborative environments as part of constructivist learning theory.
Our secondary goal will be to show how technology can be employed in these
collaborative environments. In a technology-rich environment one must remember that the
educational focus is on learning and instructional goals instead of the technology itself, because
technology are merely tools or vehicles for delivering instruction (Campoy, 1992). It is not what
equipment is used, but how the equipment is used which makes it relevant to a constructivist
classroom (Strommen and Lincoln, 1992).
We understand that there are challenges against the effectiveness of a constructivist
approach to education and have taken these opinions into consideration while constructing this
online workshop course. As stated by Jonassen (1994), the conundrum that constructivism poses
for instructional designers is that if each individual is responsible for knowledge construction,
then designers cannot determine and ensure a common set of outcomes for learning. Through
our online workshop course, we specify that designers are able to determine and ensure a
common set of outcomes for the learner and provide information on how to accomplish this. In
addition, it is difficult to set a common standard in a fully constructivist course (Prawat and
Floden, 1994). This is definitely an important concern as constructivist views are studentcentered thus, creating an individual assessment may seem extremely difficult. However, our goal
as active constructivists is to create individualized assessment, assignments, and projects which
help meet the needs of each student individually. Throughout our workshop we have included
theoretical and procedural knowledge on how to create these individual standards.
Key Concepts and Contexts
In his inspiring video case study The Third Teacher (2011), architect Trung Le notes that
schools have spent the last century requiring students to sit quietly in rigid rows which he says is

BUILDING COLLABORATION

unnatural to the way living system work [sic]. He goes on to describe the title of the video as
taken from Malaguzzis Reggio Emilia philosophy that the environment itself is an important
teacher (third, after the instructor and the peers). Our project will similarly emphasize the
importance of considering and creating the factors of a proper learning environment before one
can expect collaboration to occur. We will, therefore, primarily focus on helping the learners
identify the physical needs of collaborative environments, and how modifying them will increase
the likelihood of successful collaborative activity.
Physical Classroom Arrangement
According to Light and Littleton, grouping students provides significant learning benefits
(Anghileri, 2006, p. 40). We will strongly encourage the use of clustered groups of desks or,
preferably, tables that can accommodate groups of 2-4 persons. In an interesting case study
reported by Cornell (2004), desks in a college setting were removed and replaced with moveable
small tables and mobile visual aids such as whiteboards. As a result, the ability of students to
form groups facilitated interactions between students. It would appear, therefore, that grouped
seating settings are naturally conducive to group discussions.

Flexibility in the learning space is paramount. Successful designs now being produced include
modular or movable furniture pieces to allow for flexible setups (De Gregori, 2011). Learners
must be able to retreat to spaces to allow movement and space to meet their needs for each
activity.
Technology in the Learning Space
A further complication of the learning space arrangement is technology. With more
schools transitioning to greater ratios of computers to students, there must be additional attention
paid to the inclusion of the learners tools in the collaborative group. The standard laptop screen

BUILDING COLLABORATION

is engineered to be visible to one person, but is less effective in group collaborative settings. We
will encourage a flexible setup that allows learner groups access to a larger format display screen
(monitor, projector, etc) around which they can all participate in the same image without
interrupting the natural flow of human contact by isolating people behind laptops while
participating in group activities. Collaboration is a contact sport (Kiesler & Cummings, 2002),
and the technology cannot be allowed to interfere unduly. We know that students work better in
groups than individually on computers (Hattie, 2009), so we will help our learners become
comfortable with the concept of individuals working on one computer as a group, but with
comfortable distances.
Other Physical Factors
Often overlooked, but no less important factors include: proper lighting to allow students
to see each other and their work well (Zuczek 1996), sound and acoustic factors to allow for
intelligible, appropriate conversation, yet inhibit excessive crosstalk from other conversations or
from other learning spaces (Crandell & Smaldino, 2000; Berg, Blair, & Benson, 1996). Even the
temperature is a factor in learning, as collaborative efforts depend upon social interaction, and
people who are uncomfortable will be less inclined to share optimally (Graetz & Goliber, 2002).
We will encourage learners to engage their designers, maintenance staff or district engineers
armed with the knowledge of what makes an optimal classroom space.
Unfortunately, with time constraints, educators often are too busy pushing through
outcomes towards examinations to notice that their learning spaces are not optimally configured
to allow for collaboration. A bloated number of standards (Marzano & Kendall, 1998) often
prevents educators from taking necessary time to allow students to communicate and collaborate.
It is our hope that, in spite of this contextual constraint, we shall be able to convince educators

BUILDING COLLABORATION

that this is a worthwhile endeavor which shows how collaboration can be used to meet many of
their other standards or outcomes.
Primarily our targeted learning group is in-service teachers and administrators, so our
targeted learners are adults. Therefore, we will focus on the special educational subset of adult
learners, and the intersection of their special set with the theories of constructivism and studies of
online learning. Brookfield (1995), expanding upon Usher and Bryant (1989), noted that adults
increasingly find themselves interested in the theories of their practice, such as the subject of our
project. We will be guided by adult educational themes of empowerment, critical reflection,
experience and collaboration (Brookfield, 1995) in the presentation of the subject.
Further, Huang (2002) and Jonassen (1994), both note that creating an online environment
that promotes social negotiation subsequently fosters collaboration and promotes reflection. With
this in mind, we will create such an environment in the form of discussion panels where all the
grouped participants are required to input group answers and reflections thereby promoting
collaboration.
How Constructivism applies to our audience of adult learners and/or the setting of online
learning is also relevant to our project. Supporters of the Constructivist theory have emphasized
that the social aspect of education assists in the individuals scaffolding of knowledge and is an
important part of learning (Vygotsky, 1978; Jonassen, 1994). We will draw from this work to
support our assertion that the content of our material, as well as the delivery method, should
encourage a collaborative environment with the adult learners we are addressing. Moreover,
Petraglia (1998) said that people perform in collaborative groups naturally in their lives while
working, so the collaborative environment is a close fit for all adults and even more so for those
enrolled in a profession of regular structural collaboration such as our expected audience of
teachers and administrators with their regular meeting times.

BUILDING COLLABORATION

10

Even amongst adults, we note that collaboration does not always flow smoothly. Austin
and Baldwin (1991) identified several impediments to healthy collaboration. Thus, we will cover
rules of healthy collaboration such as creating groups by learning communities (Graham, 2007)
to prevent some issues from arising, but previous seeds sown by the school in the form of
collaborative norms before the inception of the program would certainly bear fruit in the smooth
collaborative process of the program.
In addition to the possible collaborative impediments, the special requirement of adult
education in our society requires a look at the possible drawbacks of addressing this audience.
That is, adult learners typically have more personal constraints than children, which could prove
problematic to implementing a program of this type. Valentine and Darkenwald (1990) identified
several deterrents to adult education, and we will address these in our course to promote
maximum acceptance and enrollment.
Our position is that adult learners will function successfully in our collaborative
environment, and we will design our course to maximize interaction between learners. We will
design our digital presentation such that social collaboration is encouraged, and the effectiveness
of reaching our target audience of adult educators and related professionals is maximized.
Inter-Activities
For our project, we will be creating inter-activities that live in the online world and are
available for adult learners to discover and develop their understanding of creating a collaborative
learning environment within their classroom. Thus, the main focus of our course will be the
creation of a website using course management systems. Furthermore, through this site, learners
will be provided with researched based content, thought provoking questions, and tasks that will
give them an opportunity to explore both collaborative learning environments and its application
to the student or schools individual setting and system of learners.

BUILDING COLLABORATION

11

Our learning platform will be developed using a constructivist method of learning. By

using a format similar to the WISE website, we will be able to teach about collaboration in a
constructivist way. This will provide a modular development of our course and encourage the
development of students understanding. Our course will engage students by asking probing
questions, and by encouraging participation in social and real world activities. In addition, within
our course we will have a variety of situations and diagrams to assist students in progressing from
one module to another.
As well, since our focus is on classroom design and organization, it is prudent to provide
students with an opportunity to explore the layout of a constructivist classroom. Therefore, we
will present a classroom layout plan to students and have them develop a plan that will allow
collaboration within their own classroom setting and situation. In this respect, the adults involved
in our course will be able to quickly relate information presented to their individual settings and
have a plan ready to implement changes in their practice. Along with providing research and
demonstrating the benefits of collaborative settings, we will also provide inspiration and
strategies which learners will be able to take back to their individual classroom settings.
Even though our course content will be delivered through an online format, it would be
beneficial to include a unit plan that could be used to assist course delivery and development
through professional learning. This plan will assist in the delivery of the course by explaining the
layout and development of our course website.
Project steps
In order to complete our project and produce the materials that will support our interactivity, we will need to begin by creating a position paper. Through this paper we will be able to
create an informed stance on collaboration within the classroom, which will allow our group to
develop a focus and create a strong background for the rest of our course development. To

BUILDING COLLABORATION

12

continue our project design we will be required to create a unit plan that outlines the direction and
questions our project will be focused around. This unit plan will lead us into the creation of our
site plan and layout as we will be able to map out a course web site that will allow learners to
progress in their understanding and development as designed through our unit plan.
During the planning process, we will be able to finalize our decisions around an
appropriate platform to host our course site. We will need to develop a platform that can be
accessed by many students, providing development in a variety of school settings and situations.
Our platform needs to allow students to develop through constructivist learning and
collaboration, similar to that presented within our course. After considering the intended student
development and transitioning through the course content, discussions and probing questions, we
will be able to design individual modules to meet the intended outcomes and provide challenges.
These will include research, images, videos, and diagrams providing challenges that develop
thinking around constructivist learning and student collaboration.
The final step in our design process will be to test our website lessons to determine their
ability to engage students and develop the thinking that we intend with our course. In particular,
we will need to verify that the activities not only provide information and background on
constructing collaborative learning environments, but also provide realistic examples and inspire
teachers to make changes within their individual classroom settings.
In this project, we hope to show teachers the importance of technology-rich collaborative
environments in creating a constructivist classroom, and how to build these environments. We
propose to change minds, and influence the educators of our next generations. It is our hope that
in the following years, coming together for learning will be the norm for students, and
collaborative environments will be evident in every classroom, hallway, commons, and learning
space for students across the world.

BUILDING COLLABORATION

13

BUILDING COLLABORATION

14

References
N/A. (2010). Before the Year Begins: Classroom Tips. Washington, DC: American Federation of
Teachers.
Anghileri, J. (2006). Scaffolding practices that enhance mathematics learning. Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 33-52. DOI: 10.1007/s10857-006-9005-9.
Austin, A. & Baldwin, R. (1991) Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the quality of scholarship and
teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Washington, D.C.: Graduate School of
Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
Ayadin, S. (2011). Effect of cooperative learning and traditional methods on students
achievements and identifications of laboratory equipments in science-technology
laboratory course. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(9), 636-644.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Adult learning: an overview. Retrieved from
http://nlu.nl.edu/academics/cas/ace/facultypapers/StephenBrookfield_AdultLearning.cfm
Bell, A. (2010). Dialogue on learning. Retrieved from
http://www.dialogueonlearning.tc3.edu/model/environment/introduction-grp.htm
Berg, F., Blair, J., & Benson, P. (1996) Classroom acoustics: the problem, impact, and solution.
Language, Speech & Hearing Services In Schools, 27, 16-20.
Campoy, Renee. (1992, August). The role of technology in the school reform movement.
Educational Technology, 32, 17-22.
Cornell, P. (2002). The impact of changes in teaching and learning on furniture and the learning
environment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92, 33-42.
Crandell, C., & Smaldino, J. (2000). Clinical forum. Classroom acoustics for children with
normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Language, Speech & Hearing Services In
Schools, 31(4), 362.
De Gregori, A. (2011). Reimagining the classroom: opportunities to link recent advances in
pedagogy to physical settings. McGraw-Hill Research Foundation. Retrieved from
http://mcgraw-hillresearchfoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/10/Reimagining_the_Classroom_DeGregoriFINAL.pdf
Ediger, M. (2009). College student journal. Seven criteria for an effective classroom
environment, 43(4), 1370-1372.
Fernandes, A., Huang, J. & Rinaldo, V. (2011). Does Where A Student Sits Really Matter? - The

BUILDING COLLABORATION

15

Impact of Seating Locations on Student Classroom Learning. International Journal of

Applied Educational Studies, 10(1), 66-77.
Graetz, K. & Goliber, M. (2002). Desiging collaborative learning spaces: Psychological
foundations and new frontiers. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 92, 13-22.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. New York: Routledge.
Huang, H.-M. (2002), Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 33: 2737. doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00236
Huang, H., Rauch, U. & Liaw, S. (2010). Investigating learners attitudes toward virtual reality
learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55,
1171-1182. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.014.
Jonassen, David H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31, 2833.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking Technology. Educational Technology, 34 (4), 34-37.
Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work
groups? A legacy of research, distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marx, A., Fuhrer, U. & Hartig, T. (2000). Effects on Classroom Seating Arrangements on
Childrens Question-Asking. Learning Environments Research, 2(3), 249-263. DOI:
1023/A: 1009901922191.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (1998). Awash in a sea of standards. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Le, T. (Narrator). (2011). The Third Teacher. Video retrieved from
https://www.nscds.org/podium/default.aspx?t=52562&a=197556&play=1
Prawat, R., & Floden, R. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning.
Educational Psychology, 29 (1), 37-48.
Petraglia, J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: the (mis)application of constructivism to the
design of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development,
46(3), 53-65.
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning. 35-38, California:
Corwin.
Rao, S., Collins, H. & DiCarlo, S. (2002). Collaborative testing enhances student learning.
Advances in Physiological Education, 26(1), 37-41.

BUILDING COLLABORATION

16

Read, M. A. (2010). Contemplating Design: Listening to Children's Preferences about Classroom

Design. Creative Education , 2, 75-80.
Strommen, E., & Lincoln, B. (1992). Constructivism, technology and the future of classroom
learning. Education and Early Society, 24, 466-476
Valentine, T. & Darkenwald, G. (1990) Deterrents to participation in adult education: Profiles of
potential learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 41, 29-42.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Wang, Q. (2009). Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers and
Education, 53, 1138- 1146. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.023
Williams, S. (2009). The Impact of Collaborative, Scaffolded Learning in K-12 Schools: A MetaAnalysis. Cisco Systems, 1-19.
Wolfe, P., & Brandt, R. (1998). What do we know from brain research?. Educational Leadership,
56(3), 8-13.
Zuczek, D. (1996). Illuminating Classroom Design. American School & University , 68, 40+.