Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Bligh, Brett; Lorenz, Katharina (2010)
Publisher: Lillehammer University College
Languages: English
Types: Article
Brett Bligh and Katharina Lorenz of The University of Nottingham, present the Multi-Display Learning Spaces (MD-LS) in this article. It comprises technologies to allow the viewing of multiple simultaneous visual materials, modes of learning which encourage critical reflection upon these materials, and spatial configurations which afford interaction between learners and the materials in orchestrated ways. They argue that Multi-Display Learning Spaces support complex, disciplinary reasoning within learning.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Adams, C. (2006). PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 398-411.
    • Alcolea-Banegas, J. (2009). Visual Arguments in Film. Argumentation, 23(2), 259-275.
    • Andrews, R. (2010). Argumentation in Higher Education: Improving practice through theory and research. New York, NY: Routledge.
    • Arnheim, R. (1977). The Dynamics of Architectural Form. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    • Austin-Wells, V., Zimmerman, T. & McDougall, G.J. (2003). Determining an optimal delivery format for lectures targeting mature adults. Educational Gerontology, 29(6), 493-501.
    • Becher, T. & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of discipline (Second Edition). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
    • Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing Social Infrastructure: critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301- 329.
    • Bligh, B. & Li, S. (2009). On the use of a multiple display, in-room collaboration system to promote free response formative discussion between learners and tutors in small group seminars. In L. Gómez Chova, D. Martí Belenguer & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), INTED 2009: International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia (Spain), 9th-11th March, 2009, Proceedings [CD] (pp.4863-4874). Valencia: IATED.
    • Bligh, B. (2009). On Multi-Display Classroom Systems: the affordances and constraints of simultaneous display and non-linear presentation for students and tutors. In L. Gómez Chova, D. Martí Belenguer & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), EduLearn09: International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona (Spain), 6th-8th July, 2009, Conference Proceedings [CD] (pp.283- 292). Valencia: IATED.
    • Bligh, B., Pearshouse, I. & Lewthwaite, S. (2009). On the evaluation of learning within technology-supported physical learning spaces. In L. Gómez Chova, D. Martí Belenguer & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), EduLearn09: International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona (Spain), 6th-8th July, 2009, Conference Proceedings [CD] (pp.298-307). Valencia: IATED.
    • Coyle, D. (2004). Redefining Classroom Boundaries: learning to teach using new technologies. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 32 [online]. Accessed at http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/ on 28 December 2009.
    • Czerwinski, M., Robertson, G., Meyers, B., Smith, G., Robbins, D. & Tan, D. (2006). Large Display Research Overview. In G. Olson & R. Jeffries (Eds.) Interact, Inform, Inspire: Proceedings of CHI'06 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 22-27 (pp.69-74). New York, NY: ACM Press.
    • Dilly, H. (1995). Die Bildwerfer: 121 Jahre kunstwissenschaftliche Dia-Projektion. In Zwischen Markt und Museum. Rundbrief Fotografie, Sonderheft 2, pp.39-44. Göppingen: Museum Association of Baden-Wuerttemberg.
    • Dowell, J. & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2008). Learning by Arguing About Evidence and Explanations. Argumentation, 22(2), 217-233.
    • Dror, I.E. & Harnad, S. (2008). Offloading cognition onto cognitive technology. In I.E. Dror & S. Harnad (Eds.), Cognition Distributed: How cognitive technology Fagerjord, A. (2005). Prescripts: authoring with templates. Kairos, 10(1) [online]. http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/10.1/binder2.html?coverweb/fagerjord/index.htm l. Accessed on 28 December 2009.
    • Fawcett, T. (1983). Visual facts and the Nineteenth-century art lecture. Art History, 6, 442-460.
    • Fisher, T. (2009). Understanding teachers' use of educational technologies. In M. Karanika-Murray & R. Wiesemes (Eds.), Exploring Avenues to Interdisciplinary Research: from cross- to multi- to interdisciplinarity (pp.39-55). Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.
    • Friedberg, A. (2006). The Virtual Window: from Alberti to Microsoft. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Gaver, W.W. (1992). The Affordances of Media Spaces for Collaboration. In J. Turner & R. Kraut (Eds.), CSCW'92: Sharing Perspectives, Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, October 31 to November 4, 1992, Toronto, Canada (pp.17-24). New York, NY: ACM Press.
    • Gilbert, J.A. (2008). Development of an Advanced Classroom Technology Laboratory: an “incubator” for next generation learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(1) [online]. http://jolt.merlot.org. Accessed on 28 December 2009.
    • Graetz, K.A. (2008). The Psychology of Learning Environments. In D.G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces (pp.6.1-6.14). Boulder, CO: Educause.
    • Grimm, H. (1892/1981). Die Umgestaltung der Universitätsvorlesungen über neuere Kunstgeschichte durch die Anwendung des Skioptikons (1892). In W. Kemp (Ed.), Theorie der Fotografie I. 1839-1912 (pp.200-205). Munich: SchirmerMosel.
    • Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. (T. McCarthy, trans). London: Heinemann.
    • Harrison, S. & Tatar, D. (2008). Places: people, events, loci - the relation of semantic frames in the construction of place. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 17(2/3), 97-133.
    • Hopkin, M., Hewitt, N., Smith, J. & Mason, O. (2008). Using A Distance Learning virtual Flipchart to Share Instructional Resources for Pre-Service Teacher Education Programs Among A Consortium of Five Texas Colleges. In K. McFerrin, R.Weber, R. Carlsen, & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp.2036-2039). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
    • JISC (2006). Designing Spaces for Effective Learning: a guide to 21st century learning space design. Bristol: Joint Information Systems Committee.
    • Kjeldsen, J.E. (2006). The Rhetoric of PowerPoint. Seminar.net: International Journal of Media, Technology & Lifelong Learning, 5(2) [online]. http://www.seminar.net/. Accessed on 28 December 2009.
    • Landsberger, F. (1924). Heinrich Wölfflin. Berlin: Elena Gottschalk.
    • Lanir, J., Booth, K.S. & Findlater, L. (2008a) Observing Presenters' Use of Visual Aids to Inform the Design of Classroom Presentation Software. In M. Burnett, M.F. Constabile, T. Catarci, B. De Ruyter, D. Tan, M. Czerwinski, & A. Lund (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI 2008 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems April 5-10, 2008 (pp.695-704). New York, NY: ACM Press.
    • Lanir, J., Booth, K.S. & Tang, A. (2008b). MultiPresenter: a presentation system for (very) large display spaces. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Multimedia (pp.519-528). New York, NY: ACM Press.
    • Luff, P., Heath, C. & Greatbatch, D. (1992). Tasks-in-interaction: paper and screen based documentation in collaborative activity. In J. Turner & R. Kraut (Eds.), CSCW'92: Sharing Perspectives, Proceedings of the Conference on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work, October 31 to November 4, 1992, Toronto, Canada (pp.163-170). New York, NY: ACM Press.
    • Milligan, P. (2008). Learning with two Thunders. AV Magazine, February 2008, 18-19.
    • Monahan T. (2002). Flexible Space & Built Pedagogy: emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 1-19.
    • Myers, G. (2000). Powerpoints: Technology, lectures and changing genres. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Analysing professional genres (pp.177-191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    • Nelson, R.S. (2000). The Slide Lecture, or The Work of Art History in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Critical Inquiry, 26(3), 414-434.
    • Nicol, D, J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
    • Nordkvelle, Y. (2004). Technology and didactics: historical mediations of a relation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(4), 427-444.
    • Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place: cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. 3rd Edition. New York, NY: Marlowe & Company.
    • Pearshouse, I., Bligh, B., Brown, E., Lewthwaite, S., Graber, R., Hartnell-Young, E., & Sharples, M. (2009). A study of effective evaluation models and practices for technology supported physical learning spaces (JELS): final report. Bristol: Joint Information Systems Committee.
    • Peberdy, D. & Hammersley, J. (2009). Brilliant Meetings: What to know, do and say to have fewer, better meetings. Harlow: Pearson Education.
    • Sandoval, W.A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39, 213-223.
    • Savin-Baden, M. (2008). Learning Spaces: Creating opportunities for knowledge creation in academic life. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
    • Seward, R.R., Diaper, D. & Sanger C. (1993). The Pod: a purpose-built environment to support group working. In D. Diaper & C. Sanger (Eds.), CSCW in Practice: an introduction and case studies (pp.151-161). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
    • Shwom, B.L. & Keller, K.P. (2003). “The Great Man Has Spoken. Now What Do I Do?”: a response to Edward R. Tufte's “The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint”. Communication Insight, 1(1) [online]. http://www.communipartners.com/documents/ComInsV1._000.pdf. Accessed on 28. December 2009.
    • Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Susskind, J.E. (2005). PowerPoint's power in the classroom: Enhancing students' selfefficacy and attitudes. Computers & Education, 45(2), 203-215.
    • Tan, D.S., Czerwinski, M. & Robertson, G. (2003). Women Go With the (Optical) Flow. In G. Cockton & P. Korhonen (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI 2003 - the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, April 5-10 (pp.748-749). New York, NY: ACM Press.
    • Tufte, E. (2003). The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
    • Van Note Chism, N. (2006). Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces. In D.G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces (pp2.1-2.12). Boulder, CO: Educause.
    • Wölfflin, H. (1915). Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe: das Problem Stilentwickelung in der neueren Kunst. Munich: Bruckmann.
    • Wölfflin, H. (1958). The Sense of Form in Art: a comparative psychological study. New York, NY: Chelsea Publishing Company.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article