How to ‘future-proof’ the use of space in universities by integrating new digital technologies

(1)

University of Groningen

How to ‘future-proof’ the use of space in universities by integrating new digital technologies

Duvivier, Robbert J.

Published in:

Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education DOI:

10.1080/13603108.2018.1486894

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date: 2019

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Duvivier, R. J. (2019). How to ‘future-proof’ the use of space in universities by integrating new digital technologies. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 23(1), 18-23.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2018.1486894

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

(2)

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tpsp20

Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education

ISSN: 1360-3108 (Print) 1460-7018 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tpsp20

How to ‘future-proof’ the use of space in

universities by integrating new digital technologies

Robbert J. Duvivier

To cite this article: Robbert J. Duvivier (2019) How to ‘future-proof’ the use of space in universities by integrating new digital technologies, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 23:1, 18-23, DOI: 10.1080/13603108.2018.1486894

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2018.1486894

Published online: 06 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1534

View related articles

(3)

PERSPECTIVE

How to

‘future-proof’ the use of space in universities by integrating new digital

technologies

Robbert J. Duvivier*

School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia

ABSTRACT

This paper examines how digital technologies shape the use of space in universities with a particular focus on the implications on organisational level. In order to maximise the potential of new technologies, I argue that universities will have to reconsider their use of space. This includes addressing the impact of new technologies on pedagogies, on facilities and on students. This paper discusses seven organisational consequences, with an aim to guide estate planning and strategic investment in campus buildings and facilities.

KEYWORDS

Technology; estate planning; campus

Introduction

Over the last decades, technology has radically changed the world, and indeed higher education. In particular, advances in wireless Internet and portable devices have allowed‘students to be more ﬂexible as to the time and place of learning in ways that were unimaginable ten years ago’ (Shabha 2000). This quote, however, is from the year 2000 – before the rise of the iPod (launched in 2001), YouTube (created in 2005), e-book readers such as Amazon’s Kindle (2008), and ubiquitous Internet access through mobile broadband such as 3G (ﬁrst launched 2003). To put these advances in perspective, in 1995 less than 1% of the world’s population had access to the Internet, today around 40% has (Internet Live Stats

2017). The number of Internet users has increased tenfold from 1999 to 2014, with the milestone ofﬁrst billion users reached in 2005, the second billion in 2010, and the third billion in 2014 (Internet Live Stats

2017). Furthermore, the use of mobile Internet has exceeded desktop use worldwide (StatCounter2016). This move towards mobile web access has accelerated since 2007 with the rise of smartphones (such as the iPhone), and since 2010 with the rise of tablet compu-ters (such as the iPad). The increased functionality and aﬀordability of mobile devices, greater broadband network penetration as well as increased access to (free) Wi-Fi networks are all contributing factors to this evolution (Australian Communications and Media Authority 2015; Deloitte 2016). The importance for higher education is threefold, and partly inﬂuenced by other changes that have impacted the sector:

(1) The impact on pedagogies: this rise of new tech-nologies allows for and creates new ways to work with knowledge. Students may use digital media to‘discover and construct knowledge that is mean-ingful to them’ (Ellis and Goodyear 2016) even though their levels of digital literacy and learning styles may vary.

(2) The impact on facilities: facilities available to stu-dents have to keep up with technological develop-ments. Students are coming to university expecting wider, perhaps even ubiquitous, access to Internet and educational resources.

(3) The impact on students: technology allows students to take a significant proportion of their learning off-campus. With the composition of the student body becoming more diverse, partly because of widening participation initiatives (Shah, Bennett, and South-gate 2015), students may enter university with a broader range of needs and expectations. This may include a greater flexibility to fit other parts of their lives such as work and family commitments around study (Crozier et al. 2008; Reay, Ball, and David2002).

These changes form the background to this Perspec-tive, which will examine how digital technologies shape the use of space in universities with a particular focus on the implications on organisational level.

The use of space in universities

The narrowest deﬁnition of ‘space’ relates to the phys-ical elements of a university, that is, its buildings and

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

CONTACT Robbert J. Duvivier r.duvivier@maastrichtuniversity.nl Department of Educational Development and Research, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, Maastricht 6200 MD, Netherlands

*Present aﬃliation: Department of Educational Development and Research, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands PERSPECTIVES: POLICY AND PRACTICE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

2019, VOL. 23, NO. 1, 18–23

(4)

surrounding campus. However, as Ellis and Goodyear argue,‘the term “space” is used heavily in educational and social research, with a wide range of meanings’ (2016). In their conceptualisation of different models of learning spaces, they focus on‘material spaces and their virtual/digital counterparts’. Most of the literature in this area does not distinguish between‘space’ and ‘place’ and often these terms are used interchangeably. A full appraisal of the distinction (and relationship) between these concepts goes beyond the purpose of this Perspective, but I consider it essential to point out that‘place’, not ‘space’, is often used to describe people’s experiences with(in) a physical environment, for example, in thefields of architecture, anthropology, (social) geography and urban studies. Or, as Ingold states – ‘places are created, furnished, reconfigured, personalized and made meaningful as people go on with their lives’ (2009). In his aptly titled ‘Against Space: Place, Movement, Knowledge’ he argues that

of all the terms we use to describe the world we inhabit, it [space] is the most abstract, the most empty, the most detached from the realities of life and experience. […] When we are at home, we are indoors, not in space, and when we go outdoors we are in the open, not in space. […] Space is nothing, and because it is nothing it cannot truly be inhabited at all. (Ingold2009, empha-sis in original)

Another view, grounded in the daily reality of estate managers, considers ‘space’ in terms of spatial metrics, such as gross ﬂoor areas, occupancy rates and space norms (Boys2010; Temple 2008). This view probably matters most to university leaders, trying to shape physical ‘space’ in pursuit of the educational, ﬁnancial and strategic goals of the institution. This entails, amongst other things, understanding ‘how the affordances of available space map onto edu-cational needs at task level, course level, programme level and faculty level’ (Ellis and Goodyear2016).

For the remainder of this Perspective, I will attempt to combine this abstract understanding of‘space’ from a management and planning perspective, with the ontologically quite different nature of ‘place’ which cannot be left out since university spaces such as lecture halls, cafes, offices, libraries, laboratories take on much of their character from the presence and actions of the people within them (Temple 2009). Without the staff and students inhabiting these build-ings, they would be nothing but aesthetically pleasing structures of glass, concrete, steel and stone (Coulson, Roberts, and Taylor2015; Edwards2014).

How then is the use of space aﬀected by the rise of new technologies, in terms of the impact on pedago-gies, facilities and students?

The most extreme implication of new technologies is that they may render the university in its current form obsolete. Indeed, some commentators have ques-tioned the wisdom of further investment in the

physical campus, considering the costs associated with maintaining the estate and existing infrastructures (Shabha2000; O’Donoghue, Singh, and Dorward2001). The online learning (e-learning) hype around the turn of the century initiated debate in the sector; whether universities should be investing in ‘clicks’ rather than ‘bricks’ (Taylor 2001; Selwyn 2007). Proponents of such a strategic re-direction predicted the rise of ‘virtual universities’ – individual organisations appear-ing only on the Internet, with no physical locations aside from administrative units, which deliver courses solely through information and communication tech-nologies. These have yet to materialise in any meaning-ful form – with the exception of institutions like the Open University, but one could argue they have existed long before the Internet and are merely adopt-ing new technologies to deliver courses they used to deliver by mail. Certainly, many more universities are now oﬀering distance learning as a way to reach working adults and increase revenue. In other countries, however, institutions such as the Virtual Uni-versity of Pakistan and the UniUni-versity of the People in the US have been established that brand themselves as being ‘online’ yet rely on a network of physical locations to support students with modern computer lab and Internet access facilities.

Most bricks-and-mortar institutions provide some form of online learning as part of their catalogue, either as courses that are partly delivered online (hybrid or blended learning), or as stand-online pro-grammes (which would be more akin to distance education).

Given the current state of aﬀairs, with online-only universities yet an unrealised prediction, it would seem there is currently still a need for on-campus experiences. Defenders of the university in its physical form have argued that indeed,‘online learning cannot replicate everything that is of value in the face-to-face, on-campus experience of learning’ (Ellis and Goodyear

2016). Arguments include the‘need to have hands-on experience with scarce, expensive equipment’ and the‘value of interacting directly with leading scholars’ as well as‘the serendipitous beneﬁts of mixing with a random collection of peers in the social as well as the academic spaces of the university’ (Ellis and Goodyear

2016).

It is worthwhile to note, that however plausible these arguments in favour of a physical university might appear, there is limited research to support them (Phipps and Merisotis 1999). While a wholly digital university is indeed probable, albeit with distinct implications for managing such learning processes, this Perspective represents merely a stage on the way towards such presumed obsolescence of physical universities.

Nevertheless, despite the fear displayed in the litera-ture– e.g. ‘will the university as we know it be able to

(5)

exist at all’ (Shabha 2000) – universities continue to spend on new buildings (Morris, Adams, and Ratcliﬀe

2016). For example, total investment in new buildings across the UK in 2016 increased 43 per cent compared to previous years (Financial Times2016).

Now that we have established that universities will remain physical entities (at least for the foreseeable future), we can consider how to best ‘future-proof’ the estate to deal with technological advancements. I will focus on the organisational consequences that derive from the three main implications highlighted earlier; pedagogies, facilities and students.

Impact of technology on pedagogies

Current best-practice approaches to teaching and learning emphasise the importance of student engage-ment in the form of active, meaningful involveengage-ment in the learning process (Graetz 2006). Simultaneously, physical environments‘are increasingly recognized as the “containers” that give context to group inter-actions’ (Milne 2007). Traditional classrooms and lecture halls do not encourage engaged learning, with static seating arrangements, for example, that do not allow students to turn their seats around thereby limiting the success of techniques for engage-ment such as interactivity, discussion and group work. Long and Ehrmann argue that students who are taught in face-to-face lecture halls take up a‘broadcast-model’ of learning (Long and Ehrmann 2005), highlighting how ‘the physical learning environment becomes an integral part of the learning process and is capable of inﬂuencing students in powerful ways long after the physical learning space has been left behind’ (Thomas 2010). Of course, this does not mean that engaged learning cannot happen in such spaces, but rather that they are not designed to actively encourage such engagement. Therefore, designing physical learn-ing spaces and learnlearn-ing environments (as well as their furniture and lay-out (Graetz2006)) would beneﬁt from direct involvement of students and teachers as legiti-mate partners in the process (Lomas and Oblinger

2006) (organisational consequence #1).

With regards to the design of learning spaces, an inﬂuential report by the Joint Information Systems Committee (2006) states that the kind of learning that allows for active, meaningful involvement in the process requires learning spaces to ‘promote innova-tive ways of thinking’. The report states that upon entering a university campus, students should be ﬁlled with ‘a sense of excitement about learning’. One way of achieving this, from an organisational perspec-tive, is to recognise the‘scholarship of teaching as an integral part of the planning and use of such spaces’ (Long and Ehrmann 2005) (see organisational conse-quence #1). The report, however, goes further and calls for learning spaces to become ‘a physical

representation of the institution’s vision and strategy for learning’. Or, put diﬀerently, ‘learning spaces impart a feeling of the campus culture to students. But is the culture they sense one of a previous era or one that meshes with their habits’ (Lomas and Oblinger

2006). Such a physical representation that is aligned with students’ habits can be expressed by designing spaces that are

ﬂexible, to accommodate both current and evolving pedagogies

future-proofed, to enable space to be re-allocated and reconﬁgured

bold, to look beyond tried and tested pedagogies creative, to energise and inspire learning and tutors supportive, to develop the potential of all learners enterprising, to make each capable of supporting diﬀerent purposes. (Joint Information Systems Com-mittee2006)

The overriding principle here seems ‘ﬂexibility’ – as Shabha stated, as the relationship between an organis-ation and its buildings is becoming more changeable, it thus necessitates moreﬂexible design layouts to cope with different patterns of change in the functional, organisational, managerial and IT requirements (2000) (organisational consequence #2).

As early as 1978, Fawcett argued that campus design required ﬂexibility, in order to take into account the uncertainty and changeability of the relationship between activities and space: ‘the prob-ability that a building will not become obsolete, and it is a subjective probability based on the state of knowledge about the activities that might occur in the building’ (1978).

The key design notion, from a pedagogical perspec-tive then, embodies the move from designing spaces for specific requirements or specific users, towards more general and indeterminate use (Maclure 1984). In other words, one important feature of the university of the (foreseeable) future is that the‘spatial organiz-ation of buildings can be altered to suit any unique requirements of its users to any particular point in time’ (Ellis and Goodyear 2016). For example, spaces with the ability to subdivide rooms, or to rearrange fur-niture make it possible for the same space to be used in different ways, by different groups, at different times of the day. For example, a computer lab might be used for a games night, lecture halls can be used to host com-munity functions and classrooms can be combined to become the site of a music concert or theatre perform-ance (Lomas and Oblinger2006). However, this might require additional storage and porterage.

This ﬂexibility not only allows for customisation, letting students and faculty take increased control of their environment, it also fosters diﬀerent teaching

(6)

and learning styles. Flexible spaces can accommodate different approaches to teaching, allowing teachers to tailor pedagogies to the subject, the learners and the intended learning outcomes. For example, outfitting rooms with moveable tables, chairs and whiteboards so that they can be reconfigured easily between classes.

Impact of technology on facilities

Current views on pedagogy acknowledge that learning does not only occur in formally designated learning spaces (however flexible they are), but in ‘informal spaces not necessarily originally envisaged as learning spaces’ such as corridors and coffee shops (Cross2011). By extension, the campus as a whole has the potential to become a learning space, which has major conse-quences for the design of all campus areas, but in par-ticular the design of informal spaces. Independent study is no longer strictly confined to the library or computer rooms; indoor and outdoor areas can become spaces for learning as long as students can access the Internet and power points.

For example, combining food services with seating areas and wireless access enables both casual and learning activities and encourages serendipitous con-nections and interaction among students and staﬀ. The main consequence from an organisational per-spective, relates to the importance of designing ‘spaces that facilitate connections’ (Lomas and Oblin-ger2006) (organisational consequence #3).

Another consequence thatﬂows from this attention to social spaces is that of integration. Increasingly, ‘stu-dents’ comfort with the Internet means it isn’t “technol-ogy” to them – it may be a way of life’ (Lomas and Oblinger2006). Therefore, students seem to progress-ively blend the physical and virtual world, ‘moving seamlessly between living and learning environments’ (Lomas and Oblinger 2006). Universities can facilitate students’ integrative behaviour by designing spaces where students can mix classes, group work, and study, with social activities, eating and sleeping. Provid-ing multi-use spaces, or repurposProvid-ing previously unused between-building space for student use, integrates ser-vices and brings together diﬀerent elements of stu-dents’ life to better serve their needs (organisational consequence #4).

Another consequence of students inhabiting a world that‘is increasingly digital, connected, immedi-ate, social, and participatory’ (Lomas and Oblinger

2006) is that this requires access to a wireless network at all times. Such ubiquitous access puts certain demands on available infrastructure, in particu-lar ease of connectivity, bandwidth (to stream videos and audio), and prevention of network congestion and outages (especially during peak periods and at busy locations). Another area of concern relates to

cyber security, in particular regulating use of software and applications on the network, and mitigation of increased risks of hacking and malware. This requires sufficient investment in hardware and software, bud-geting for appropriate maintenance, as well as the right mix of staff to develop and support such a network (organisational consequence #5). Some insti-tutions have copied business practice by appointing a Chief Technology Officer, or Chief Information Officer, at executive level whose job it is to oversee the ICT strategy and policy.

Impact of technology on students

With laptops, mobile phones, tablets becoming more affordable and ownership of these devices increasing, institutions will have tofind ways to deliver information and services in a variety of formats (organisational con-sequence #6). Convenience is a priority for students, who are used to a wide range of services being acces-sible from anywhere, anytime, such as food delivery, entertainment and online shopping. Ensuring students can access course information and library resources from off-campus locations, and from mobile devices, allows any space to become a learning space – bus, beach or bedroom.

Interweaving the material and virtual world opens up new possibilities for students to fit other aspects of their lives around study, such as paid work and family responsibilities. An implication of such increas-ingflexibility is a potential danger of fragmentation – with learning experiences being spread across ‘frag-ments of time and different location, as well as across multiple devices and media, and in interactions with different groups of people’ (Ellis and Goodyear2016). Similarly, shifting the emphasis of learning and study-ing away from the university and onto the home might be problematic for those students whose home environment is not conducive to the learning process, e.g. because of family demands.

Moreover, there is a downside to these develop-ments as increasing reliance on IT for delivery of edu-cation or access to learning resources has the potential to increase theﬁnancial burden on students to purchase laptops, and mobile devices. Additionally, with changes in IT as rapid as they currently are, people might need additional training to catch up with the latest developments. This might make it more diﬃcult for certain groups (low socioeconomic status, mature aged, those with learning disabilities) to enter and participate in higher education (Shah, Bennett, and Southgate2015).

From an organisational perspective, there might be a need to (re-)train staﬀ and students to increase digital literacy and comfort levels with new technologies in order to maximise the beneﬁts in educational practice (organisational consequence #7).

(7)

Conclusion

In this Perspective, I have argued that, in order to maxi-mise the potential of digital technologies, universities will have to reconsider their use of‘space’. I have dis-cussed the implications from an organisational per-spective, in particular the need to:

(1) include students and teachers as legitimate part-ners in the design process of learning spaces; (2) create spaces that areﬂexible and can be

reconﬁ-gured easily to suit diﬀerent needs thereby allow-ing for changes in the patterns of use;

(3) facilitate connections between students and staﬀ; (4) integrate diﬀerent elements of student life and

uni-versity services;

(5) allocate suﬃcient resources to the development and maintenance of a wireless Internet network that is reliable, fast, and easy to connect to; (6) deliver information and services in a variety of

formats, ensuring students can access course infor-mation and library resources from mobile devices and oﬀ-campus locations;

(7) oﬀer opportunities to familiarise students and staﬀ with new technologies.

Disclosure statement

No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Robbert J. Duvivieris a medical doctor with a background in international health professions education. Currently in post-graduate training to become a psychiatrist, he holds academic appoint-ments at Maastricht University, the

Netherlands and the University of

Newcastle, Australia. Robbert has an MD and PhD in medical education from Maastricht University, and he recently completed an MBA in higher education man-agement at the Institute of Education, University College London. This perspective results from his involvement in the MBA, and Robbert wishes to acknowledge Dr. William Locke and Prof. Claire Callender for their mentorship and encouragement.

References

Australian Communications and Media Authority. 2015.

“Australians Get Mobile.” Web pages. June 9.http://www. acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/ Research-snapshots/Australians-get-mobile.

Boys, Jos.2010. Towards Creative Learning Spaces: Re-thinking the Architecture of Post-compulsory Education. London: Routledge. Coulson, Jonathan, Paul Roberts, and Isabelle Taylor. 2015. University Planning and Architecture: The Search for Perfection. London: Routledge.

Cross, Jay.2011. Informal Learning: Rediscovering the Natural Pathways That Inspire Innovation and Performance. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiﬀer.

Crozier, Gill, Diane Reay, John Clayton, Lori Colliander, and Jan Grinstead. 2008. “Diﬀerent Strokes for Diﬀerent Folks: Diverse Students in Diverse Institutions– Experiences of Higher Education.” Research Papers in Education 23 (2): 167–177.

Deloitte. 2016. “Deloitte Mobile Consumer Report.” Deloitte Global Mobile Consumer Survey 2016: UK Cut.http://www. deloitte.co.uk/mobileuk/.

Edwards, Brian.2014. University Architecture. London: Taylor & Francis.

Ellis, R. A., and P. Goodyear.2016.“Models of Learning Space: Integrating Research on Space, Place and Learning in Higher Education.” Review of Education 4 (2): 149–191. Fawcett, W. H.1978. A Mathematical Approach to Adaptability

in Buildings. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

Financial Times. 2016. “Boom at UK Universities Sees

Construction Rise 43% Year-on-Year.” Financial Times.

https://www.ft.com/content/03522a1c-4a9b-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab.

Graetz, Ken A. 2006. “The Psychology of Learning

Environments.” EDUCAUSE Review 41 (6): 60–75.

Ingold, Tim. 2009. “Against Space: Place, Movement,

Knowledge.” In Boundless Worlds: An Anthropological Approach to Movement, edited by Peter Kirby, 29–43. Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Internet Live Stats.2017.“Number of Internet Users (2016) – Internet Live Stats.” Accessed March 24. http://www. internetlivestats.com/internet-users/.

Joint Information Systems Committee.2006. Designing Spaces for Eﬀective Learning: A Guide to 21st Century Learning Space Design. Bristol: HEFCE.

Lomas, Cyprien, and Diane G. Oblinger. 2006. “Student

Practices and Their Impact on Learning Spaces.” In

Learning Spaces, edited by Diana G. Oblinger. Educause.

www.educause.edu/learningspaces.

Long, Phillip D., and Stephen C. Ehrmann.2005.“The Future of the Learning Space: Breaking out of the Box.” EDUCAUSE Review 40 (4): 42–58.

Maclure, Stuart. 1984. Educational Development and School Building: Aspects of Public Policy, 1945–73. London: Longman Publishing Group.

Milne, Andrew J. 2007. “Entering the Interaction Age:

Implementing a Future Vision for Campus Learning Spaces… Today.” EDUCAUSE Review 42 (1): 13.

Morris, Steven, Richard Adams, and Rebecca Ratcliﬀe.2016. “How Universities Went on a Building Spree as Tuition Fees Pour in.” The Guardian, September 22, sec. Education.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/22/uk-universities-building-schemes-tuition-fees-new-students. O’Donoghue, John, Gurmak Singh, and Lisa Dorward.2001.

“Virtual Education in Universities: A Technological Imperative.” British Journal of Educational Technology 32 (5): 511–523.

Phipps, Ronald, and Jamie Merisotis. 1999. “What’s the Diﬀerence? A Review of Contemporary Research on the Eﬀectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education.”

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED429524.

Reay, Diane, Stephen Ball, and Miriam David. 2002. “‘It’s Taking Me a Long Time but I’ll Get There in the End’:

Mature Students on Access Courses and Higher

Education Choice.” British Educational Research Journal 28 (1): 5–19.

Selwyn, Neil. 2007. “The Use of Computer Technology in University Teaching and Learning: A Critical Perspective.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23 (2): 83–94. Shabha, Ghasson. 2000. “Virtual Universities in the Third

Millennium: An Assessment of the Implications of

(8)

Teleworking on University Buildings and Space Planning.” Facilities 18 (5/6): 235–244.

Shah, Mahsood, Anna Bennett, and Erica Southgate. 2015.

Widening Higher Education Participation: A Global

Perspective. Kidlington: Chandos Publishing.

StatCounter.2016.“Mobile and Tablet Internet Usage Exceeds Desktop for First Time Worldwide.” StatCounter Global Stats. http://gs.statcounter.com/press/mobile-and-tablet-internet-usage-exceeds-desktop-for-ﬁrst-time-worldwide. Taylor, James C. 2001. Fifth Generation Distance Education.

Higher Education Division, Department of Education,

Training and Youth Aﬀairs. http://core.ac.uk/download/ pdf/11034576.pdf.

Temple, Paul.2008.“Learning Spaces in Higher Education: An Under-researched Topic.” London Review of Education 6 (3): 229–241.

Temple, Paul. 2009. “From Space to Place: University

Performance and Its Built Environment.” Higher Education Policy 22 (2): 209–223.

Thomas, Herbert. 2010. “Learning Spaces, Learning

Environments and the Displacement of Learning.” British Journal of Educational Technology 41 (3): 502–511.