3.8 Article

Perceptions About Innovative and Traditional Learning Spaces: Teachers and Students in New Zealand Primary Schools

期刊

NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
卷 58, 期 1, 页码 133-151

出版社

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s40841-023-00280-9

关键词

Teaching spaces; Innovative learning environments; Reading; Primary school students

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In New Zealand, schools are innovating their architectural designs and learning spaces to encourage collaboration between teachers and students. However, there is limited research on how both teachers and students perceive these learning spaces. Asian students, in particular, have not received much attention despite potentially having different perceptions of learning compared to their English-speaking counterparts. This article compares the perceptions of teachers and students, with a focus on Asian students, in both innovative and traditional learning environments.
In New Zealand, the architectural design of schools and the spaces where children learn are being innovated to allow for more opportunities for teachers and students to work collaboratively. However, there is a dearth of research that has investigated both teachers' and students' perceptions of the learning spaces. Little attention has been paid to Asian students, who may perceive learning quite differently from their English-only speaking counterparts. This article compares the perceptions of teachers with students, highlighting the group from Asian backgrounds in both innovative with traditional learning spaces. Fourteen Year 5 and 6 primary teachers from traditional and innovative learning environments were interviewed. Additionally, a questionnaire was given to 150 Year 5 and 6 students. The study found that although many of the teachers perceived challenges with noise and distraction in innovative learning environments, this was not as evident in the responses from the students, particularly the Asian students.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据