Innovative Learning Environments (Essay Sample)

Literature Critique of ILEs
Student Name
Course Name
Professor’s Name
Date of Submission
Innovative Learning Environments
Currently, many schools are changing their spatial and architecture arrangements from the traditional classroom and corridor layout to flexible school designs that reflect the learning and teaching approaches of the 21st Century. However, establishing different learning environments is not a new case. For many years, learning environments have changed in response to political, social, and cultural impacts (Imms, 2018). In the 21st Century, Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs) design is grounded on our current apprehension of how teaching and learning takes place have been established (French et al., 2020). This paper focuses on the concept of ILEs, how it differs from traditional spaces and its educational rationale. The research also addresses how ILEs educational rationale describes its preferred learning and teaching practices.
Literature Concept of ILEs
Innovative Learning Environments are current generation learning environments (Gislason, 2010), modern learning environments (Imms, 2018), and new learning spaces (woodman, 2016) which are characterized by infused information and communication technology, room designs that are polycentric, friendly students’ furniture, agile interior elements, and resources that are easily accessible. It might also include large spaces in tertiary settings that occupy a maximum of hundred students with furniture like tiered seating that modify to help students gather into groups. The rooms are designed in triangular or circular pods without a particular defined front and have screened all around the room facing different directions. To understand these spaces broadly, they are described as spaces that focus on all learners’ activities, well-structured and designed to enhance autonomous learning and inclusive as they are sensitive to individual differences in terms of learning needs (Ellis & Goodyear, 2016). 
Although some theories argue that ILEs enhance increased achievements because they readily support learners' needs, there is minimal research on the firmness of how the standard of school structures and the educational achievements relate. However, ILE has several positive outcomes like increased engagement, collaborative and personalized earning experiences, and an increased inactiveness. The many-sided classification of studying environments and the various Learning and teaching programs established within ILEs, hinder effective research on the impact of ILE designs. In addition, geographical and cultural variations in schools that interconnect with the layout and pedagogical choices make vulnerability to context an essential factor that interferes with the achievements of the ILEs initiative (Groff, 2013).
In contrast, there are features which are well-developed that link the structure's designs and the students' performance. For example, poor and inadequate lighting, heating, ventilation might lead to poor results for the students. Imms (2018) urges that structural features of a building are essential to achievements than the design features of a structure. In open-plan ILEs high noise levels negatively affect students’ concentration, attention, and memory. Intrusive noise from other class groups or teachers affects students’ ability to listen or hear the teacher and noise annoyance. High density and crowded structures result in low engagement and results. Insufficient provision of effective features in a building influences the students’ performance and the teachers’ effectiveness (Harrop & Turnip, 2013). However, even though making these features adequate makes a remarkable impact, there is minimal confirmation that proves that it is helpful to upgrade these features beyond adequate magnitude.
Gislason (2010) study has focused on the link between student performance and the affordances of the actual learning space for specific pedagogical chances. A flexible learning environment can impact positively the teachers’ mindsets and pedagogical approaches. However, there is minimal research that identifies the link between characteristics of the physical learning space and students’ accomplishment.
A school in Australia recorded a rise in inactive pedagogical undertakings such as assistance and giving feedback and interactive instructions after developing ILE classes (Eijkman, 2001). It also recorded a decline in the percentage of time taken in offering direct instructions. The time taken in direct instructions was shorter and focused more on the instruction’s intents. Students consumed more time on high-order activities which involved more practical and hands-on activities such as generating and processing products. There was a decrease in the time that was spent off time or disengaged.
How ILEs Differs from Traditional Space
Innovative Learning Environments differs from traditional space in various ways. In the 1970s and 1980s classes were designed in an open-plan environment that ILE doesn’t focus much on. This is because open-plan arrangements do not reach the students’ needs and interfere with potential teaching and learning. During this time, most of the teachers had not acquired the teaching and pedagogies plans obligated to work in these environments (Cleveland, 2011). However, some research shows that there is a link between lower measures of positive teacher ethos and teacher-centric pedagogies and traditional environments. In a case where learner-centered pedagogies are established in traditional classrooms, there is an increase in the measures of teacher mentality and intensive learning. This clearly shows that the change of pedagogy is more important and leads to positive outcomes than the change in classroom designs.
According to Imms (2018), it is assumed that ILEs are superior to traditional space as they aid students in developing communicative, collaborative, critical and creative skills of leaning. Unlike traditional classrooms, ILEs designs and innovative structures allows students to learn in a very explicit approach and at times allow them to learn by themselves either in small groups, or in collaboration with large groups. Nevertheless, ILEs are not meant to oppose traditional spaces, however, innovative learning space, flexible learning environments, are very much suite of space that students can use to learn in a way that they are comfortable and motivated.
The flexible and open nature of ILE is said to make the changes in practice and pedagogy that are essential for an ILE. Jamieson (2003) argues that current, flexible, and learner-centered learning environments linked with modern technologies can enhance a paradigm change from traditional pedagogies to the personalization of inclusive and learner-centered strategies where every student is included in learning activities in a way that fulfills their needs. However, the research has clearly indicated that changing the designs of learning structurers alone will not help in achieving the paradigm shift.
Educational Rationale for Innovative Learning Environments
According to Woodman (2016), the rationale for ILEs is based on three learning theories which are social constructivist, constructivist, and experimental learning. These learning theories have led to a significant effect on the interactions between teaching and learning and environmental conditions.
Innovative Learning Environments are essential in education as they lead to a positive perception of learning to a student and help them enjoy and engage more in learning within ILE. The environment also enhances students’ ability to express their desires for learning in such an environment. This is a result of greater flexibility and personalization of the learning environments for the students. In New Zealand, secondary school students with innovative environments have proved equal relationships with teachers, more ownership of learning, and an increased likelihood to participate in combine way of learning that supports traditional learning using digital media (Instance & Kools, 2013). An environment that exploits both spatial designs and digital technologies enhance significant improvement in student outcomes as they enable responsive pedagogies.
 Students within an open and flexible space have an intrinsic drive to learn. Intrinsic drive to learn makes the environment unstable and noisy hence distracting learning and teaching activities. In modern quality environments, students and teachers are happier and they feel more valued leading to greater motivation to learn. Also, ILEs have increased students’ engagement in learning. According to (Woodman, 2016), the engagements notion is a constructivist approach that has improved in terms of emotions, behavior, cognitive and geographical engagements. This is only achieved by the learning spaces that afford opportunities for the learner to participate in various range of pedagogical experiences and activities, ones that provide students with access to various learning materials and resources including ICT, and one that affords chances for workable grouping positionings that offer learners regular transition between working as an individual and as a member of multiple groups (Imms, 2018). The level of geographical engagements enhances the effective demonstration of learners as self-directed.
In addition, Innovative Learning environments have benefits that are beyond academics. Several improvements were noted in the study of three open-plan schools with differentiated and varied learning spaces. The study showed an improvement in s...