Methods not chosen

I chose to use observation and interviews as methods to collect data for my research. However, during my studies, I read articles on research that used a number of alternative methods which I could have used to study learning spaces. It is important to acknowledge these methods and offer them as alternatives for future research. This section outlines these possible alternative methods and my justification for rejecting them for my study.

Clarke et al (2002), in their research on the flexible use of space in FE colleges, made use of the participants’ hand-drawn diagrams to show the semiotics5 _{of the spaces that they were using. Using this method allowed the} researchers to encourage the participants to discuss the spaces and describe what activities were taking place. I tried this method during the pilot of the interview by getting the participant to draw a diagram of the space they used when they were observed. I wanted to examine if this was a good method to compare the spaces observed and the perception of the use of space from the participant’s point of view. However, unlike Clarke et al’s research, which centred on the participants’ use of one particular learning space, my research discussed the participants’ use of a number of different spaces over a longer

period of time. Drawing diagrams for all the different learning spaces used would have been too time-consuming and missed the details picked up by the non-participant observation. I still think there is potential to use participants’ diagrams in discussions regarding the perceptions of and negotiations with learning spaces to support recall during the interviews and this could be a method used in future research.

Upton and Fingleton (1985) measured the number of times participants visited certain spaces using a technique called Spatial Analysis. This was developed further by Neilsen et al (2014) to make use of GPS data logging devices to track participant’s movements around a particular space. Spatial Analysis could have been a possible method for my research, but this technique works by tracking use and movement within one defined area or space. The learning spaces used by the participants within my study were located throughout the campus, and in the virtual spaces on the Internet, making this multi-modal use of space difficult to track in this way. Also, the GPS system would track the participants’ every movement and I did not want to record every space used by the participants, as this would be intrusive and unethical. I planned to focus on places in which they had planned to facilitate some learning.

In a similar vein to Spatial Analysis, there was an option to develop an Inventory of Workspace (or room utilisation) tool, as a way of measuring the number of times a space is actually used (Agilquest, n.d.). However, this method, and Spatial Analysis, would only generate data on how many times

as space was being used, rather than exploring the issues and negotiations related to the planning and use of the space.

3.4 Sample

The methods I used in my research were similar to those used in Clarke et al’s (2002) study, which made use of interviews to collect rich data regarding complex environments. However, even though Clarke et al sampled two different FE colleges and carried out fifty interviews. My study identifies more with their conclusion that each FE College is unique in their history,

geography and demographics. In this section, I explain that the research for my study focused purely on the context of one FE College, City Green, and the teachers who made use of the learning spaces available in the new building. I outline the sample of participants chosen for my study and the size of the sample. The sample size in my study was relatively small but varied enough to create situational sampling as suggested by Gribch (2013) and explored the different contexts in which learning takes place within the college.

I focus on City Green College as a case study for my research, as I work in that environment, have access to a range of participants and it is an example of a large general FE college that has recently taken the opportunity to rebuild its learning spaces. My use of a case study approach follows Bogden and Biklen (1982) suggestion that a case study is an observation of activities that take place in a particular organisation and I followed Wellington’s (2008)

advice that a case study is an effective approach to answer questions about why events are happening. Bennett (2011), in his study of learning spaces, sent a questionnaire to students and staff of six different educational

institutions and used that data set to present findings on the most significant responses. However, for my research, a quantitative data set of this type would not allow in-depth exploration of teachers’ perceptions of learning spaces. Rather than randomly sampling from the possible population, the sample group of teachers, managers and architects were chosen via ‘convenience sampling’ (Wellington and Szczerbinski, 2007, p.67). The

sampling method I chose more closely matched the ‘quota methods’ (Johnson and Christensen, 2008, p.238) because a representative from each teaching department was chosen and each participant fulfilled my criteria.

My criteria for the selection of each teacher for interview expected that they taught within the new learning spaces of City Green College and that they have been observed in learning spaces within the old building. My criteria for the selection of the senior managers and architects expected that they were involved in some aspect of developing the new building and attended

meetings in which discussions took place to outline the vision of how the new learning environment at the college was to be used. The middle managers were selected to represent each of the four main faculty areas of the college and each was involved in timetabling the learning spaces in the new City Green College building. I was acutely aware that I may not have been able to collect enough data to answer my research questions by restricting the

sample group through the criteria chosen, but this sample would reveal enough rich data in observations and interviews to support my analysis.

I interviewed fifteen teachers, four middle managers, four senior managers and two architects. The fifteen teachers worked in a variety of different departments throughout City Green College and had access to a range of different learning spaces. All of the selected teachers were teaching in the new building and were willing to be observed in practice; I also had access to the records of their previous observations in the old college building. More teachers could have been included, but this would have led to the generation of repetitive data and data saturation (Johnson and Christensen, 2008, p.205) as teachers within particular departments worked as teams and often followed the same teaching practice. The four senior managers were chosen as they held strategic positions during the development of the new building phase and they contributed to the vision for the learning spaces. Three managers were at director level, and the other was responsible for the line management of the Learning Development Coaches, whose role it was to support teachers to make effective use of the new learning spaces at the college. The sample number of managers was restricted by the limited number of senior managers involved in the development of the new college building and who had an input into the vision. The managers’ interviews did provide a significant data set to identify the existence of an expectation that the new learning spaces could transform the routines of the teachers. The data provided by the senior managers was supported by interviews with the two senior architects who

were involved in the project and who had acted in key positions to turn the senior managers’ plans into reality.