Designing hubs for connected learning: social, spatial and technological insights from Coworking, Hackerspaces and Meetup groups

Connected learning, as a design approach, does not restrict learning to a dedicated learning space (school, university, etc.), but considers it to be an aggregation of individual experiences made through intrinsically motivated, active participation in and across various socio-cultural, every-day life environments. Urban places for meeting, interacting and connected learning with people from diverse backgrounds, cultures and areas of expertise are highly significant in the knowledge economy of our 21st century. However, little is yet known about best practices to design and curate such hubs that attract and support interest-driven and socially embedded learning experiences. The research study presented in this paper investigates design aspects that contribute to successful place-based spaces for connected learning. The paper reports findings from observations as well as interviews with users and managers of three different types of local, community-led learning environments, i.e., coworking spaces, hackerspaces, and meetup groups across Australia. The findings reveal social, spatial and technological interventions that these spaces apply to nourish a culture of connected learning, sharing and peer interaction. The discussion suggests a set of design implications for designers, managers and decision makers that have an interest in nourishing a connected learning culture among their user community.

Shut up & write!

This case-study exemplifies a ‘writing movement’, which is currently occurring in various parts of Australia through the support of social media. A concept emerging from the café scene in San Francisco, ‘Shut Up and Write!’ is a meetup group that brings writers together at a specific time and place to write side by side, thus making writing practice, social. This concept has been applied to the academic environment and our case-study explores the positive outcomes in two locations: RMIT University and QUT. We believe that this informal learning practice can be implemented to assist research students in developing academic skills. DESCRIPTION: Please describe your practice as a case study, including its context; challenge addressed; its aims; what it is; and how it supports creative practice PhD students or supervisors. Additional information may include: the outcomes; key factors or principles that contribute to its effectiveness; anticipated impact/evidence of impact. Research students spend the majority of their time outside of formal learning environments. Doctoral candidates enter their degree with a range of experience, knowledge and needs, making it difficult to provide writing assistance in a structured manner. Using a less structured approach to provide writing assistance has been trialled with promising results (Boud, Cohen, & Sampson, 2001; Stracke, 2010; Devenish et al, 2009). Although, semi structured approaches have been developed and examined, informal learning opportunities have received minimal attention. The primary difference of Shut Up and Write! to other writing practices, is that individuals do not engage in any structured activity and they do not share the outcomes of the writing. The purpose of Shut Up and Write! is to transform writing practice from a solitary experience, to a social one. Shut Up and Write! typically takes place outside of formal learning environments, in public spaces such as a café. The structure of Shut Up and Write! sessions is simple: participants meet at a specific time and place, chat for a few minutes, then they Shut Up and Write for a predetermined amount of time. Critical to the success of the sessions, is that there is no critiquing of the writing, and there is no competition or formal exercises. Our case-study examines the experience of two meetup groups at RMIT University and QUT through narrative accounts from participants. These accounts reveal that participants have learned: • Writing/productivity techniques; • Social/cloud software; • Aspects of the PhD; and • ‘Mundane’ dimensions of academic practice. In addition to this, activities such as Shut Up and Write! promote peer to peer bonding, knowledge exchange, and informal learning within the higher degree research experience. This case-study extends the initial work presented by the authors in collaboration with Dr. Inger Mewburn at QPR2012 – Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference, 2012.

Working in groups

This chapter is a condensation of a guide written by the chapter authors for both university teachers and students (Fowler et al., 2006). All page references given in this chapter are to this guide, unless otherwise stated. University students often work in groups. It may be a formal group (i.e. one that has been formed for a group presentation, writing a report, or completing a project) or an informal group (i.e. some students have decided to form a study group or undertake research together). Whether formal or informal, this chapter aims to make working in groups easier for you. Health care professionals also often work in groups. Yes, working in groups will extend well beyond your time at university. In fact, the skills and abilities to work effectively in groups are some of the most sought-after attributes in health care professionals. It seems obvious, then, that taking the opportunity to develop and enhance your skills and abilities for working in groups is a wise choice.

A comparison of the hazard perception ability of matched groups of healthy drivers aged 35 to 55, 65 to 74, and 75 to 84 years

We examined differences in response latencies obtained during a validated video-based hazard perception driving test between three healthy, community-dwelling groups: 22 mid-aged (35-55 years), 34 young-old (65-74 years), and 23 old-old (75-84 years) current drivers, matched for gender, education level, and vocabulary. We found no significant difference in performance between mid-aged and young-old groups, but the old-old group was significantly slower than the other two groups. The differences between the old-old group and the other groups combined were independently mediated by useful field of view (UFOV), contrast sensitivity, and simple reaction time measures. Given that hazard perception latency has been linked with increased crash risk, these results are consistent with the idea that increased crash risk in older adults could be a function of poorer hazard perception, though this decline does not appear to manifest until age 75+ in healthy drivers.

Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups : a social identity analysis

Developing the social identity theory of leadership (e.g., [Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200]), an experiment (N=257) tested the hypothesis that as group members identify more strongly with their group (salience) their evaluations of leadership effectiveness become more strongly influenced by the extent to which their demographic stereotype-based impressions of their leader match the norm of the group (prototypicality). Participants, with more or less traditional gender attitudes (orientation), were members, under high or low group salience conditions (salience), of non-interactive laboratory groups that had “instrumental” or “expressive” group norms (norm), and a male or female leader (leader gender). As predicted, these four variables interacted significantly to affect perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Reconfiguration of the eight conditions formed by orientation, norm and leader gender produced a single prototypicality variable. Irrespective of participant gender, prototypical leaders were considered more effective in high then low salience groups, and in high salience groups prototypical leaders were more effective than less prototypical leaders. Alternative explanations based on status characteristics and role incongruity theory do not account well for the findings. Implications of these results for the glass ceiling effect and for a wider social identity analysis of the impact of demographic group membership on leadership in small groups are discussed.

Critique groups : a technique for the author’s toolbox?

With a lack of places to gain an education in the craft of romance writing, novelists have few places to turn to gain real feedback. This paper investigates an alternative to textbooks, conferences, and workshops through an examination of the role provided to the writer by critique groups. How these groups work, how they benefit an author, and the critique groups as a whole are discussed. This work studies the form of Peer Assessment and Learning (PAL) and compares the technique used by educational institutions all over the world with the practice of author groups critiquing their own work. The research shows how a critique group can assist a writer to learn, grow and develop, helping to enhance the writer’s skills through constructive feedback, which gives them confidence to sell their work.