Flexible spaces … what students expect from university facilities

Purpose – Educational facilities and their design have considerable impact on how students learn. Recent research indicates that modern university students are spending less time on campus and more time interacting with their peers through technology. This paper aims to examine the responses of a small number of first year university students, at RMIT University, Melbourne, to questions about the type of learning facilities they want on campus. Design/methodology/approach – First year undergraduate students were interviewed about their engagement with university and in particular their learning styles in the physical environment. Although a small volunteer sample ( n =12), they were all first‐time users of the university and its facilities. The average age of the sample was 19.8 years. The case studies were interviewed regularly ( n =8) over a 12‐month period and their responses to learning needs and styles and university facilities recorded. The gender mix (m=8, f=4) reflected the enrolment patterns in the university school. The students were given a range of discussion triggers in semi‐structured interviews to promote discussion about their own learning styles and where and when they felt they learnt best at university. Findings – The responses of these students indicate a number of features about their interpretation of the relationship between university learning and teaching expectations and facilities. These are: learning for these students occurred in both formal and informal settings; there was evidence that the timetabled facility dictated the teaching style used and the opportunities for collaborative learning; active learning occurred more often for these students away from the classroom, often in informal, ad hoc spaces; these students placed an important emphasis on the technology available throughout the university; and the students favoured collaborative, social spaces for learning and technology exchange. The conclusions drawn from their responses indicate that these university students want flexible learning spaces that can adapt to both individual and collaborative work with a strong emphasis on social learning and advanced technology. The responses also indicate a mismatch between existing lecture theatres and tutorial rooms and the third space learning that these students want. The results have implications for the design and construct of future teaching and learning spaces in universities and other learning institutions. Practical implications – Fisher notes the importance of safety, security, natural ventilation, lighting and other physical features as conducive to effective learning. Students in this study also indicated a need for multi‐use spaces for intense work and learning opportunities. These spaces also need to allow for students to interact with the global environment through technology. Originality/value – The changes in learning and teaching have been significant in the past 25 years and the role of features such as technology, collaborative spaces and third space learning have created pressure on universities and staff to meet the demands of a modern community of scholars. There is now a far greater emphasis on the learning needs of tertiary students and the relationship between learning and facilities. The responses of this small sample of first time university users indicate that this relationship is critical.