The Intentional Redesign of Educational Spaces for 21st Century Learning: The Effect of Evidence-based Research

Abstract

The complex relationship between space, pedagogy and technology is a continuously evolving concept. It is important for those in teaching to determine the effectiveness of these relationships for the betterment of education, especially when addressing the needs of 21st Century learners who attend higher learning institutions. Evaluation of these concepts is based around three key areas: pedagogies designed to accommodate a more active and engaging learning and teaching ecosystem; interactive physical learning spaces (ILS), which break through traditional lecture set-ups; and technology relevant to the 21st Century. The Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is a tool developed by Steelcase Education to evaluate the success of students in relation to space. In the past, this analysis has only been used to measure engagement of students. To be more conclusive, the POE was analyzed and used it to measure the relationship between the three different elements. In collaboration with Steelcase Education, the experiment was implemented at Ball State University, a mid-sized institution located in the Midwestern United States, with faculty and students. The experiment examined the relationship between space, pedagogy and technology versus achievement in the course.

Introduction

An interactive learning space (ILS), sometimes referred to as an active learning classroom (ALC), is an environment that engages participants through collaboration. This type of environment has the power to motivate its members to exceptional performance, especially when pedagogy, space and technology are brought together and allowed to evolve (Blincoe, 2008). The purpose of this study was to gauge the perceived change in quality of the teaching and learning experience when comparing ILS to traditional classrooms through the use of a Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE). A secondary purpose was to define any difference in student achievement in the two learning environments.

An often, underemphasized variable in predicting student success, is the influence of the built environment (Scott-Webber et al., 2013). Studies have been completed on how the built environment has affected factors such as retention, attention, motivation, learning and academic achievement (Blincoe, 2008). Post Occupancy Evaluations can provide insight into the effect of interactive learning space design decisions (Carll-White and Guinther, 2014). What prompted Steelcase Education to design the POE was a need to study evidence-based educational spaces that connect learning behaviours and pedagogical practices (Scott-Webber et al., 2013).

The effect of student engagement on learning has been well documented in journals of learning space (Scott-Webber, 2014). The post-occupancy evaluation is a new instrument that uses evidence-based data to analyse the impact formal education spaces, referred to in this paper as interactive learning space (ILS), has on student engagement. As described by Scott-Webber the instrument was created by: incorporating research on impact of space in learning settings (Scott-Webber et al., 2000) to guide the identification of student engagement factors; using a validated two-step decision model survey structure as a template (Banduouin et al., 2007; Hiebert, 2012) and; incorporating secondary research materials from the National Survey of Student Engagement (2012), brain science (Jensen, 2005; Wolfe, 2010) and brain-compatible classrooms (Erlauer, 2003).

Methods

Designed and implemented by the Office of Educational Excellence (OEE), Ball State University’s on-campus teaching support unit, the Interactive Learning Space Initiative (ILS) began in academic year 2011-2012. OEE personnel collaborated with researchers at Steelcase Education to gain insight into the student (n=227) and faculty (n=17) perceptions of the learning experiences in our ILS classrooms.

The ILS Initiative began with a planning phase during the 2011-2012 academic year and included the redesign of two electronic classrooms into interactive learning spaces. The first space (Figure 1) is comprised of 24 Node chairs, which are mobile chairs that allow for more movement around the room and ultimate fluidity in the space. The other space (Figure 2) is comprised of media:scape technology that has 24 moveable chairs but a media:scape in each corner of the space.

fig1

Figure 1 ILS environment with node chairs.

fig2

Figure 2 ILS environment with the media:scapes.

During the construction of the physical spaces, a call for applicants was announced and the initial faculty development programming for the selected participants commenced. The first cohort of teaching faculty entered the classrooms mid-semester fall (autumn) 2012. Cohort 1 continued teaching in the spaces spring 2013 and fall 2013. A second call for applicants and subsequent faculty development programming occurred during the spring and summer of 2013. This new group of faculty participants, Cohort 2, completed teaching the first of two semesters during spring 2014, and concluded fall semester 2014. Cohort 3, identified in spring 2014, participated in an intensive faculty development week and course redesign, taught their first semester in spring 2015 and will conclude at the end of fall 2015.

As they apply to the ILS Initiative, faculty (an academic staff member) is informed that their participation in the initiative also involves participating in researching.

Participants in this study included Cohort 1 faculty members (n=17) and their students (n=227) during spring 2013. Implemented during the final weeks of the academic semester, POE respondents were provided a link to complete the survey via the online survey software Qualtrics. Faculty and students were asked to compare their traditional (row-by-column seating) environment with the intentionally redesigned (actively engaged) environment on the basis of identified student engagement.

In addition to the POE responses, several of the participating ILS faculty (n=11) either taught two sections of their course—one in an ILS room and the other in a traditional higher education classroom—concurrently or during the prior semester. This allowed us to compare student achievement (n=) for those particular sections.

Results

Student Achievement

During the spring and fall semesters of 2013, we were able to control for influences of instructor, timing and course content when comparing student achievement in courses taught in the ILS versus a traditional classroom. Each course that was taught in the ILS had the same instructor teaching in a traditional classroom either the semester before, during or immediately following their time teaching in the ILS.

When pairing ILS sections with those taught by the same instructor in a traditional space, the overall impact on the course grade is not statistically significant, with a small negative difference for the Node chair classroom countered by a small positive impact for the media:scape classroom. However, the typical classroom (7 out of the 11 examined) showed small differences between .14 and .21, with 6 of the 7 being positive. If it can be hypothesized that the four classrooms with very large changes in classroom grades (-.53, -.39, -.43, and .51) could have been influenced by other, unintended factors and should be examined separately, the remaining seven classrooms showed a positive impact of a .12 improvement in grades that approached statistical significance (t = 2.30, df = 6, p =.061). More classroom sections need to be examined to see if the four classrooms with large variations were indeed unusual. If that is the case, then the .12 improvement in grades may be a better estimate than no change.

Figures 3, 4 and 5 breakdown the Grade Point Averages achieved in the various learning spaces compared to their traditional counterparts.

Node chair ILS

Figure 3 Grade Point Average comparison between the ILS environment featuring node chairs and traditional classrooms.

Media scape ILS

Figure 4 Grade Point Average comparison between the ILS environment featuring media:scapes and traditional classrooms.

ILS grade point average

Figure 5 Overall Grade Point Average comparison between the ILS and traditional classrooms.

Quality of Educational Experience – Students

Realizing the value in terms of learning impact rather than preference (Chism, 2006), the Office of Educational Excellence collaborated with Steelcase Education to gain insight on the student and faculty perceptions of the learning experiences in our ILS classrooms through the use of the Post-Occupancy Evaluation survey. Addressing the quality of the educational experience, the following spring 2013 survey results provides examples of student preference, which are statistically significant (p<.001), for the ILS environment compared to a traditional classroom, these included:

The degree to which the [ILS] supported:

  • emphasis on collaborative work during class time.
  • your active involvement in classroom activities.
  • opportunity you have to engage in different learning activities.
  • repeated exposure to same course material through multiple means.
  • your engagement in the ways that you learn best (i.e., seeing, hearing, doing).
  • physical movement you engaged/engage in within the classroom.
  • your stimulation by your classroom environment.
  • your finding this class to be an enriching experience.

The level to which the classroom furnishings:

  • supported/supports collaborative work during class.
  • helped/helps you stay oriented and focused during class.
  • allowed/allows you to actively involved in class activities.
  • allowed/allows you the opportunity to engage in different learning experiences.
  • supported/supports your ability to repeatedly engage with course material in multiple ways.
  • allowed/allows you and your classmates to model ‘real-world’ scenarios.
  • supported/supports the way that you learn best.
  • allowed/allows you to move around while learning or participating in learning activities.
  • contributed/contributes to your interest and stimulation in class.
  • contributed/contributes to your ability to feel comfortable to participate in class.
  • contributed/contributes to enriching your educational experience.

Student Perception of Success in Space (post-occupancy)

Students in the active learning classes took a post-occupancy evaluation of their perception of how the space and environment influenced their engagement, achievement, motivation and creativity. It is important to recognize that each category had five ratings: in increasing order, ‘Not At All,’ ‘Low,’ ‘Moderate,’ ‘High’ and ‘Exceptional.’ In all four categories the students perceived a positive relationship in the space (scores of ‘High’ or ‘Exception’) over a negative relationship (‘Not At All’ or ‘Low’). In three of the four categories ‘High’ was the most selected answer. The only category that did not have ‘High’ selected as the top category was the students’ perception of achievement. The actual differences in academic performances between the ILS and traditional classrooms were not significant so this perception seems to indicate a pattern.

engagement

Figure 6 Students’ perception of how the ILS positively affected their levels of engagement in the course.

achievement

Figure 7 Students’ perception of how the ILS positively affected their levels of achievement in the course.

creativity

Figure 8 Students’ perception of how the ILS positively affected their motivation.

motivation

Figure 9 Students’ perception of how the ILS positively affected their motivation

Tables 1 and 2 show how students compared their ILS experience to what they perceived as a traditional classroom environment. These questions are from the POE that was distributed and is rooted in the students’ perception of ILS influences. In all cases, the ILS was rated as a more conducive environment for their educational experiences.

Table 1 Students’ Perspective of Activities in Class

 

Paired Comparisons of Your Activities in the Classroom Scale is 0=Not OK to 4=OK Traditional ILS  

Change

 

t***

 

df

The degree Mean SD Mean SD
of emphasis on collaborative work during class time. 2.92 0.88 3.91 0.84 0.99 11.52 223
to which you were/are able to stay focused during class time. 3.17 0.93 3.71 0.93 0.54 5.84 222
of your active involvement in classroom activities. 3.00 0.92 3.79 0.90 0.79 9.44 223
of opportunity you have to engage in different learning activities. 2.92 0.86 3.85 0.90 0.93 10.80 223
of repeated exposure to same course material through multiple means. 2.93 0.86 3.64 0.92 0.71 8.15 224
to which you were/are able to get in-class feedback from your teacher on your work. 3.13 0.92 3.56 0.99 0.43 4.94 223
to which your coursework includes “real-life” scenarios. 3.11 0.90 3.69 0.96 0.58 7.75 224
to which you were/are able to engage in the ways that you learn best [i.e., seeing, hearing, doing]. 3.09 0.93 3.79 1.00 0.70 6.87 223
of physical movement you engaged/engage in within the classroom. 2.53 0.98 3.47 1.07 0.94 10.32 224
to which you were/are stimulated by your classroom environment. 2.73 0.93 3.78 0.88 1.05 11.68 223
to which you felt/feel comfortable participating during class. 3.17 1.04 3.79 0.99 0.62 7.00 223
to which you found this class to be an enriching educational experience. 3.14 0.92 3.74 1.04 0.60 6.11 222
*** all p < .001

Table 2 Students’ Perspective of Furnishings in Space

Paired Comparisons of How Furnishings Support

Scale is 0=Not OK to 4=OK

Traditional ILS  

Change

 

t***

 

df

The level furnishings Mean SD Mean SD
supported/supports collaborative work during class. 1.80 0.90 3.16 0.88 1.36 14.19 216
helped/helps you stay oriented and focused during class. 1.96 0.96 2.68 0.99 0.72 6.73 215
allowed/allows you to be actively involved in class activities. 1.89 0.83 3.03 0.84 1.14 13.16 215
allowed/allows you the opportunity to engage in different learning experiences. 1.78 0.84 2.82 0.86 1.04 11.99 215
supported/supports your ability to repeatedly engage with course material in multiple ways. 1.90 0.83 2.98 0.88 1.08 12.44 215
allowed/allows you to receive in-class feedback from the teacher on your work. 2.02 0.96 2.65 1.00 0.63 7.20 216
allowed/allows you and your classmates to model ‘real-world’ scenarios. 1.84 0.87 2.67 0.92 0.83 10.42 214
supported/supports the way that you learn best. 2.05 0.99 2.72 1.00 0.67 6.19 214
allowed/allows you to move around while learning or participating in learning activities. 1.61 0.97 2.87 1.00 1.26 12.52 216
contributed/contributes to your interest and stimulation in class. 1.80 0.81 2.75 0.90 0.95 10.71 215
contributed/contributes to your ability to feel comfortable to participate in class. 2.00 0.92 2.79 0.92 0.79 8.81 216
contributed/contributes to enriching your educational experience. 2.05 0.86 2.82 0.97 0.77 8.45 212
*** all p < .001

Faculty Impact on Student Achievement

In addition to an expectation of course redesign and incorporating active learning pedagogies during class instruction, faculty are also expected to evaluate how the students achieved in the course. This includes their perception of their own ability to influence students. While this element is highly subjective, it is an essential aspect in the evaluation of the relationship between faculty and student and the influence of the physical environment on that relationship.

Quality of Educational Experience – Faculty

Addressing the quality of the educational experience, the following spring 2013 survey results provides examples of faculty preference, which are statistically significant (p=.005 – <.001), for the ILS environment compared to a traditional classroom.

The degree to which the [ILS] supported:

  • emphasis on collaborative work.
  • students were/are able to stay focused during class.
  • students’ active involvement in classroom activities.
  • opportunity students have to engage in different learning activities.
  • repeated exposure to same course material through multiple means.
  • you were/are able to provide in-class feedback on student work.
  • you were/are able to engage in the ways that students learn best (i.e. seeing, hearing, doing).
  • physical movement that students engaged/engage in within the classroom.
  • you believe your students were/are stimulated in this class.
  • you felt/feel students were/are comfortable participating during class.
  • you believe students received/receive an enriching educational experience in your class.

The level to which the classroom furnishings:

  • supported/supports collaborative work during class.
  • helped/helps students stay oriented and focused during class.
  • allowed/allows student to be actively involved in class activities.
  • allowed/allows student to engage in different learning experiences.
  • supported/supports your ability to have students repeatedly engage with course material in multiple ways (e.g. individual study, group work, presentations, etc.).
  • allowed/allows you to provide in-class feedback to students on their work.
  • supported/supports the multiple ways that students learn best.
  • allowed/allows students to move around while learning or participating in learning activities.
  • contributed/contributes to the students interest and stimulation in class.
  • allowed/allows the students to feel comfortable participating in class.
  • contributed/contributes to creating an enriching educational experience for your students.

Faculty Perceptions of Student Success in Space (post-occupancy)

Faculty perceptions of student success affect what occurs in the classroom environment. Instructors have the unique perspective of observing the class as a whole as well as individuals. Within the space the faculty perception of various aspects of student involvement was measured. In the post-occupancy evaluation, the faculty members were asked to determine their perspectives of the students in terms of engagement, achievement, motivation and creativity in the ILS. As in the student survey, there were five ranking categories including, in increasing order, ‘Not At All,’ ‘Low,’ ‘Moderate,’ ‘High’ and ‘Exceptional’ which all addressed the question ‘To which degree did the ILS have a positive effect on your (engagement / achievement / motivation / creativity).’ The faculty evaluation shows a significant positive association of engagement, motivation and creativity as it related to the active learning classrooms. It did not, however, reflect a high association in achievement in the course.

fig10

Figure 10 Faculty members’ perceived positive effect the ILS had on student engagement.

fig11

Figure 11 Faculty members’ perceived positive effect the ILS had on student achievement.

fig12

Figure 12 Faculty members’ perceived positive effect the ILS had on student creativity.

fig13

Figure 13 Faculty members’ perceived positive effect the ILS had on student motivation.

Tables 3 and 4 show how faculty compared their students’ ILS experience to a traditional classroom environment. These questions are from the POE that was distributed and is based on perception. In all cases, the ILS was rated as a more conducive environment for their educational experiences.

Table 3 Faculty Members’ Perspective of Activities in Class

Paired Comparisons of Your Activities in the Classroom Scale is 0=Not OK to 4=OK Traditional ILS  

Change

 

t***

 

df

The degree Mean SD Mean SD
of emphasis on collaborative work during class time. 1.76 1.20 3.35 .606 1.59 4.484 16
Students were/are able to stay focused during class time. 1.82 .728 2.94 .827 1.12 3.379 16
students’ active involvement in classroom activities. 1.59 1.004 3.24 .664 1.65 4.667 16
of opportunity students have to engage in different learning activities. 1.88 .857 3.18 .809 1.30 3.928 16
of repeated exposure to same course material through multiple means. 2.88 .697 3.94 .827 1.06 4.854 16
you were/are able to provide in-class feedback on student work. 1.82 .951 2.88 .781 1.06 3.364 16
coursework includes “real-life” scenarios. 2.76 .831 3.12 .600 0.36 1.852 16
you engage in the ways that students learn best [i.e., seeing, hearing, doing]. 1.82 .728 3.18 .393 1.36 7.098 16
students engaged/engage in within the classroom. 1.24 1.033 3.06 .748 0.72 5.636 16
your students were/are stimulated in this class. 2.00 .707 3.24 .664 1.24 5.250 16
students were/are comfortable participating during class. 2.29 .849 2.94 .659 0.65 2.524 16
students received/receive an enriching educational experience in your class. 1.53 .717 3.29 .772 1.76 3.250 16
*** all p < .001

Table 4 Faculty Members’ Perspective of Furnishings in Space

Paired Comparisons of How Furnishings Support

Scale is 0=Not OK to 4=OK

Traditional ILS  

Change

 

t***

 

df

The level furnishings Mean SD Mean SD
supported/supports collaborative work during class. 1.38 1.025 3.63 .619 2.25 7.268 15
helped/helps students stay oriented and focused during class. 1.75 0.856 3.19 0.75 1.44 4.755 15
allowed/allows students to be actively involved in class activities. 1.88 .957 3.50 .516 1.62 5.975 15
allowed/allows students the opportunity to engage in different learning experiences. 1.56 .892 3.31 .704 1.75 5.916 15
supported/supports your ability to have students repeatedly engage with course material in multiple ways [eg., individual study, group work, presentations, etc.]. 1.38 1.025 3.19 .655 1.81 5.928 15
allowed/allows you to receive in-class feedback to students on their work. 1.87 .834 3.20 .676 1.33 4.934 14
allowed/allows students to model ‘real-world’ scenarios. 2.13 .855 2.94 .929 0.81 3.313 15
supported/supports the way that students learn best. 1.53 .915 3.20 .676 1.67 5.229 14
allowed/allows students to move around while learning or participating in learning activities. 1.13 .915 3.33 .976 2.20 5.601 14
contributed/contributes to students’ interest and stimulation in class. 1.20 .941 3.47 .743 2.27 6.107 14
allowed/allows the students to feel comfortable participating in class. 1.88 .885 3.31 .602 1.43 4.987 15
contributed/contributes to creating an enriching educational experience for your students. 1.31 1.104 3.44 .727 2.13 5.506 15
*** all p < .001

Discussion

Addressing the quality of the educational experience, the spring 2013 higher institution post-occupancy evaluation provided statistically significant results of student and faculty preferences for the ILS environment compared to a traditional classroom. Interactive learning spaces supported specific elements of the programme, such as collaboration, engagement, motivation, creativity and learning enrichment. From data gathered thus far, the Interactive Learning Space Initiative appears to have had a positive impact on student and faculty perceptions of their time in the active learning classrooms as well as the quality of teaching and learning to enhance the student experience. This data supports the idea that collaboration, engagement, motivation and creativity have a positive relationship with students’ participation in the course (Jensen, 2005).

While quantitative data on student achievement does not demonstrate a difference in student performance in an interactive learning space classroom compared to a traditional classroom at this time, it is important to note that this is just the beginning and sample sizes are quite small. If the trends hold, however, with seven out of eleven (64%) of the classes showing positive gains, these results would eventually become statistically significant with a large enough sample size.

Looking beyond course grades and to future studies, the Drop, Fail and Withdraw (DFW) rates for high-risk classes have begun to be examined. For spring 2014 and fall 2014, four sections of MATH 125 taught in the ILS are being compared to sections taught in traditional spaces. Other studies have shown the statistical significance of the lowering of DFW in interactive learning spaces already (IMPACT 2013). The current research will culminate in the unique relationship between DFW and overall course achievement.

Data in this experiment show a clear increase in the motivation of students, their engagement in the course material and their ability to be creative in the space. If these results hold steady in future surveys, universities should strongly consider creating new and/or redesigning existing spaces to support active learning. Our campus is also just beginning to look at fall to spring first-year student retention, second semester to second-year retention and four-year graduation rates for students taking a high risk course in an interactive learning space compared to students enrolled in the same high risk courses in a traditional classroom environment. The results of this study may prove to become a financial boost to universities dependent on state funding formulas based on retention and four-year graduation rates. As Oblinger (2005) suggests a university’s philosophy about teaching and learning is conveyed through learning spaces. Finally, the information gathered from the post-occupancy evaluation examinations can be utilized to truly advance future interactive learning space design at Ball State University. This data will help in moving forward with the Ten-Year Campus Master Plan.

The importance of Interactive Learning Spaces cannot be undervalued at higher education institutions, especially as we look to the future of learning. The relationship between pedagogy and space is clear in that students and faculty experience a higher quality experience in the classroom. There is an increased degree of motivation, engagement and creativity with no corresponding negative affects. The redesign of the college classroom is essential as universities look to establish the best higher educational experiences for students and faculty alike.

References

Blincoe, J. M. (2008). The age and condition of Texas high Schools as related to student academic achievement. EdD diss., University of Texas at Austin.

Carll-White, A. and Guinther, L. (2014). Utilizing emergency departments as learning spaces through a post-occupancy evaluation. Journal of Learning Spaces 3 (1).

Chism, N. (2006). Challenging traditional assumptions and rethinking learning spaces. In Oblinger, D. G. (ed.) Learning Spaces. Washington, D. C.: Educause.

Erlauer, L. (2003). The Brain Compatible Classroom: Using What We Know About Learning to Improve Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Hiebert, B. (2012). Post-pre assessment: An innovative way for documenting client change. Guidance Perspectives Around the World. Retrieved 9 October 9 2014, from: http://iaevg.org/crc/resources.cfm?subcat=200,202&lang=en

IMPACT Management Team and IMPACT Assessment Team. (2013). Annual IMPACT Report 2013: A report by the IMPACT Data Collection and Analysis Team. IMPACT Reports. Paper 1. Retrieved 9 October 2014, from : http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/impactreps/1

Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the Brain in Mind. 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Oblinger, D. (2005). Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces. Educause Quarterly 1 (1).

Scott-Webber, L., Branch, J., Bartholomew, P., and Nygaard, C. (2014). Learning Space Design in Higher Education. Faringdon: Libri Publishing.

Scott-Webber, L., Marini, M., and Abraham, J. (2000). Higher education classrooms fail to meet needs of faculty and students. Journal of Interior Design 26 (1), pp. 16–34.

Scott-Webber, L., Strickland, A., and Kapitula, L. (2013). Built environments impact behaviors: Results of an active learning post-occupancy evaluation. Planning for Higher Education Journal 42 (1).

Wolfe, P. (2010). Brain Matters: Translating Research into Classroom Practice. 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Gary Pavlechko

Gary Pavlechko is Director of Teaching Technology, in the Office of Educational Excellence, at Ball State University. Mr. Pavlechko oversees the daily operation of on-campus teaching support and the leadership of the Interactive Learning Space Initiative - the design, study and advancement of learning spaces on Ball State’s campus, in accordance with the Ten-Year Campus Master Plan. Pavlechko is also an instructor in Honors College, facilitating a colloquium on space, place and the experience.

Kathleen Jacobi

Kathleen Jacobi is the Assistant Director of Faculty Development in the Office of Educational Excellence at Ball State University. She holds a PhD in music education from the University of Arizona and teaches courses for the School of Music.

James Jones

James Jones is Director of the Office of Research and Academic Effectiveness, at Ball State University. Dr. Jones is responsible for providing leadership and procedural assistance with research design and analysis by supporting empirical research. Jones is instrumental in advising faculty members in the Interactive Learning Space Initiative with the research design and analysis stages and serves as a co-principal investigator on numerous studies.

Jack Hesser

Jack Hesser is an undergraduate student who created the Undergraduates for the Advancement of Interactive Learning Space commission at Ball State University. The committee works with the university and the Office of Educational Excellence to develop and implement active learning environments on campus. Hesser is the Student Body President and has been involved with the Interactive Learning Space Initiative since the fall of 2012.

Creative Commons License
This paper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Double Blind Review
This paper has been subject to a double blind peer review by at least two reviewers. For more information about our double blind review process please visit: http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/about/double-blind-review/

How to cite this paper.
Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Research Paper

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Subscribe to BeJLT

Get email alerts when there is a new issue.
* = required field

Send this page to Kindle

your kindle user name:
(you@kindle.com, without @kindle.com)
Approved E-mail:
(Approved E-mail that kindle will accept)
Kindle base email kindle.com | free.kindle.com
(Use kindle.com to download on wispernet or wifi, use free.kindle.com for wifi only.)
using kindle.com may incur charges)