1.0 A Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Framework for Designing and Evaluating Learning Places (D. Radcliffe) - NTNU
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
A Pedagogy-Space-
1.0 Technology (PST) Framework
for Designing and Evaluating
Learning Places (D. Radcliffe)
NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 910 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES
A Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST)
1.0 Framework for Designing and Evaluating
Learning Places
Over the past decade there has been a growing There are real and virtual dimensions to each of There are an increasing number of exemplars of
body of knowledge and working examples of new these and this nexus is now being recognised next generation learning spaces, often associated
approaches to the design of learning spaces in and discussed. For example a recent paper by with the various consortia listed above. Some
higher education institutions. Despite this, a clear Oblinger (2005) concludes that “the convergence like the Technology Enabled Active Learning
consensus is yet to emerge. A number of factors of technology, pedagogy and space can lead to (TEAL) project at Massachusetts Institute of
are driving innovation and experimentation in the exciting models of campus interactions.” Technology (MIT) (Long 2005) and the Learning in
design of learning spaces in North America, Europe a Technology-Rich Environment (LITRE) at North
This paper presents the Pedagogy-Space-
and Australia. These include changing social Carolina State University have a particular focus
Technology (PST) Framework for guiding the design
patterns, generational change, a changing funding on technology.
of learning spaces which takes account of these
environment, new and emerging technology and
three factors in informing the conceptual design Others, like Wallenberg Hall at Stanford University,
the shift to a more learner-centred pedagogy.
and post-occupancy evaluation of either discrete combine technology with a flexible architecture
There has been a tendency for many initiatives learning environments (e.g. individual rooms) or and mobile fittings. The Stanford Centre for
in learning spaces to be technology-driven networks of places (e.g. a whole campus). Innovations in Learning, responsible for Wallenberg
(Long 2005; Valenti 2002) or to a lesser extent Hall, focuses on people, places and processes,
although there is also a strong theme of advanced
technology, especially web-based tools.
David Radcliffe The history of the Integrated Learning Centre at
the University of Arizona highlights the importance
School of Engineering Education of having the right people involved at each stage
Purdue University, USA
in the development of new learning spaces. At the
inception the visionary and the key (political) allies
are the key drivers. During the conceptual design
the “grounded dreamers” need to be brought on
pedagogy-driven. On occasions both technology
Innovative Learning Spaces board and should be drawn from students, staff,
and pedagogy are considered in tandem (Brown
teaching consultants, instructional technology
2005; JISC). Somewhat differently, Jamieson et In the United States of America there are several
specialists, facilities designers and Information
al. (2000) examines the pedagogy-place nexus. collaborative initiatives, consortia and consultancy
Technology specialists. They argue that the
Where pedagogy is a focus, these initiatives groups active in developing innovative learning
planners including the architect and the project
adopt some explicit form of learner-centred or environments, including:
manager only need join by the time of detailed
constructivist pedagogy paradigm (Brown 2005;
s 4HE .ATIONAL ,EARNING )NFRASTRUCTURE )NITIATIVE design; although this is contestable. By the time
Oblinger 2005).
(NLII), sponsored by Educause, and their of construction the builders, contractors and
Moore and co workers (2006) observe that as a Learning Space Design Constitutive Group sub-contractors have joined the team. In the early
response to the different approaches to learning years of occupation all the people involved to this
s 3TUDENT #ENTERED !CTIVITIES FOR ,ARGE
and sensibilities of the next generation, “some stage should be the promoters of the initiative.
Enrolment Undergraduate Programs
faculty have changed teaching strategies simply to
(SCALE-UP) at North Carolina State University The Integrated Learning Centre (ILC) in the Faculty
recapture the attention of students who are net-
to develop a highly collaborative, hands- of Applied Sciences at Queen’s University, in
surfing, instant-messaging, and text-messaging
on, computer-rich, interactive learning +INGSTON /NTARIO #ANADA WAS CONCEIVED WITH
during scheduled meetings”. They go on to
environment for large enrolment courses. several purposes in mind. These included having
argue that “creating learning environments that
a learning environment that supported a major
challenge students to become actively engaged, s 4HE +ALEIDOSCOPE 0ROJECT WHICH IS FOCUSED ON
piece of curriculum reform based on a shift to a
independent, lifelong learners inside and outside developing learning environments that support
more active and project-based approach. They
of formal learning spaces should be the critical aim undergraduate study in science, technology,
also sought to use the building itself as a learning
of change in teaching strategies”. engineering and mathematics (STEM).
tool and encouraged integration of academic staff
In reality there is a nexus between pedagogy, s 4HE 4EACHING ,EARNING AND 4ECHNOLOGY 4,4 from different departments through a common,
technology and the design of the learning space. Group overlapping space at the intersection of several
NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 11A Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Framework for Designing and Evaluating Learning Places
existing buildings. The ILC, opened in 2004, provided (NATALIE 2006). pushing the boundaries) and advanced concept
contains design and teaching studios, prototyping, teaching spaces (the interactive lecture theatre
The JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee)
instrumented plazas, active learning centre and of the future). While there is some knowledge
report provides some general advice on the
site investigation facility, competitive teams’ and experience on the use of these new forms of
design of learning centres and a generic floor
spaces, group rooms and live (green) building. learning space there is still much to discover.
plan but very little by way of specific examples.
The ILC learned lessons from the earlier Integrated
The Saltire Centre at Glasgow Caledonian The project is based at the University of
Teaching and Learning Lab and the Discovery
University is highlighted. It is a large informal Queensland which has a track record of innovation
Learning Centre, at the University of Colorado in
space that provides a hub – “the social heart” in teaching and in the design and provisioning
Boulder and other innovative laboratories. Thus
for the university; it physically connects different of new learning spaces. The project is led by
new initiatives build upon earlier ones (McCowan
parts of the campus and also provides wireless a small team of co-principal investigators who
& Mason 2002).
connectivity. It has social and civic spaces and have overlapping interests and complementary
The University of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada) glazed atrium that provides natural lighting and expertise in the design of learning environments
established the Flexible Learning Experience ventilation as well as an exhibition space. The from the perspectives of pedagogy, space and
(FLEX) Lab in 2000 to “support pedagogical Centre incorporates a student services mall and a technology. The team includes a senior faculty
innovation”. The focus is on achieving benefits learning café. The upper floors contain the library member with a history of innovation in teaching,
for both the teachers and the students. They facilities in relatively informal layout with some an architect who has designed numerous new
encourage experimentation and innovation, formal seminar rooms (Saltire 2006). spaces in universities and high schools, and a
tracking results and sharing these with colleagues. university-based manager of teaching technology.
The report “Designing Spaces for Effective The project has engaged a large number of people
Next Generation Learning Spaces
Learning, guide for the 21st century learning representing a diverse range of stakeholders;
(NGLS) Project
design” (JISC) explores the relationship between learners, teachers, learning support staff,
learning technologies and innovative examples In 2006, the Carrick Institute for Teaching and administrators and design and technology
of physical space design. There are several Learning in Higher Education in Australia funded professionals at the University and nationally. This
examples that are of particular relevance to this a national project called Next Generation Learning agrees with the recommendation of Oblinger (2005)
project. The InterActive ClassRoom built in 1998 in Spaces. This project is focused on what happens that the following groups should be “at the table”
Mechanical Engineering at Strathclyde University, in learning spaces and seeks to create a coherent when designing new learning spaces: Administration,
Glasgow, Scotland relates to the ACTS (Advanced and comprehensive framework for guiding the Faculty, Students (undergraduate and postgraduate),
Concept Teaching Space) concept proposed design and operation of new learning spaces. Facilities, Planning, Information Technology, Library
here. Intended to encourage more student The primary goal is to fully develop, rigorously test and Teaching and Learning Support.
interaction via a Socratic dialogue method, the in the field, thoroughly evaluate and disseminate
A key feature of the project’s engagement and
room has relatively conventional facilities with widely a new design framework. It will be in a
dissemination has been a series of national forums
slightly curved desk tops plus the addition of a form that allows the concepts to be generalised
on Next Generation Learning Spaces, the first of
polling system – the Personal Response System. and replicated in new and different applications,
which was held in July 2007. This event provided
In 2000 the University built the first of its new nationally and internationally. This new framework
an opportunity for the diverse stakeholder group
Teaching Clusters to encourage collaborative has been developed through a collaborative,
to experience the new learning spaces at the
learning. There is little detail on these clusters, interdisciplinary and participatory process, drawing
University of Queensland. Various sessions were
so it is difficult to compare with for example the on knowledge from all the stakeholder groups.
held in the new spaces with forum delegates
CLCs (Collaborative Learning Centre). More
The scope of the project includes the design, undertaking interactive exercises designed to
recently they created a product realisation studio
demonstration and evaluation of three distinct demonstrate the features of the different spaces.
based on a similar one in Rensselaer Polytechnic
types of learning environments using this unified The first forum also provided an opportunity for
Institute (USA). They claimed that “overall the
approach that have been pioneered at the other universities to showcase the learning space
change to active teaching styles, with collaborative
University of Queensland. The three space types they were most proud of.
learning, has been a huge success – both in
are: next generation libraries (connected learning
terms of student performance and retention. An To complement the forums, the University has
experiences beyond information), collaborative
independent evaluation was carried out a couple hosted numerous delegations of visitors who
learning centres (challenging our assumptions and
of years ago” and several student quotes are have inspected the new facilities and the project
12 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACESPedagogy
y
db
en
ble
es
en
h
ag
a
an
la
en
ur
rge
ce
co
s
db
en
y
extends
Space Technology
embeds
team have presented at other regional events and The JISC report argues that “a learning space s $ESIGN TO MAKE USE OF THE VERTICAL DIMENSION
national conferences concerned with aspects should be able to motivate learners and promote of facilities
of new learning spaces. The latter has been learning as an activity; support collaborative, as
s $ESIGN TO INTEGRATE PREVIOUSLY DISCRETE
achieved in part through active networking with well as formal, practice; provide a personalised
campus functions
peak stakeholder groups throughout the project to and inclusive environment; and be flexible in the
gather input and to critique ideas. These include face of changing needs”. It states that the design s $ESIGN FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS TO MAXIMISE
the Higher Education Research and Development of individual spaces within an educational building teacher and student control
Society of Australasia (HERDSA), the Deputy Vice- needs to be:
s $ESIGN TO MAXIMISE ALIGNMENT OF DIFFERENT
Chancellors (Vice Presidents) for Academic Affairs,
s &LEXIBLE n TO ACCOMMODATE CURRENT AND curricula activities
the Tertiary Education Facilities Management
evolving pedagogies;
Association, the Association for Tertiary Education s $ESIGN TO MAXIMISE STUDENT ACCESS TO AND
Management, and the Association of Educational s &UTURE PROOFED n TO ENABLE SPACE TO BE RE use/ownership of the learning environment
Technology Managers (AETM). allocated and reconfigured;
Dension University, a small liberal arts college in
The major transferable outcome of the project s "OLD n TO LOOK BEYOND TRIED AND TESTED Ohio, established the Learning Spaces Project to
will be the new design framework based on technologies and pedagogies; “to enhance the utility, appearance and comfort
the pedagogy-space-technology nexus. This of all campus spaces related to learning. Learning
s #REATIVE n TO ENERGISE AND INSPIRE LEARNERS
framework will provide a robust basis for spaces must support many styles of learning,
and tutors;
developing design briefs, for assessing alternative be versatile, comfortable and attractive, rich with
concepts and for evaluating new learning s 3UPPORTIVE n TO DEVELOP THE POTENTIAL OF ALL information and reliable technology, maintained
environments. It will be in a form that allows learners; and and accessible” (Siddall 2006). They present the
the concepts to be generalised and replicated following set of design guidelines:
s %NTERPRISING n TO MAKE EACH SPACE CAPABLE
in new and different applications. The project is
of supporting different purposes. s ,EARNING SPACES SHOULD SUPPORT A DIVERSITY
developing detailed case studies that get into the
of learning styles
‘nitty gritty’ of what really works and what does Oblinger (2005) takes a more focused and learner-
not, based on the development and evaluation of centred approach to the design of facilities: s ,EARNING SPACES MUST BE VERSATILE
these three new spaces and their predecessors.
s $ESIGN LEARNING SPACES AROUND PEOPLE s ,EARNING SPACES MUST BE COMFORTABLE AND
These case studies will illustrate the operation of
attractive
the new design framework. s 3UPPORT MULTIPLE TYPES OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES
s ,EARNING SPACES ARE INFORMATION RICH AND
s %NABLE CONNECTIONS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE
technologically reliable
Design Principles for Learning s !CCOMMODATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
s ,EARNING SPACES MUST BE MAINTAINED
Spaces
s $ESIGN FOR COMFORT SAFETY AND FUNCTIONALITY continuously
A number of authors have proposed lists of design
s 2EmECT INSTITUTIONAL VALUES s ,EARNING SPACES SHOULD BE UBIQUITOUS IN
principles or similar as guides in the creation
space and time
of contemporary learning spaces. There is no Jamieson et al. (2005) promote the adoption
generally agreed approach to the creation of new of multi-disciplinary approaches and the use of s ,EARNING SPACES SHOULD BE USED EFFECTIVELY
learning spaces and various groups are promoting participatory design processes and offer the seven
s 3UFlCIENT RESOURCES MUST BE ALLOCATED FOR
particular sets of guiding principles for the creation guiding principles to be used for “augmenting
learning spaces
of such spaces. Some of these lists of principles rather than replace in toto existing design
are aspirational while others imply they are based principles” as follows: Johnson and Lomas (2005) point to a series of
on experience. However there is really very little steps that combine “to create an iterative dialogue
objective data based on well-documented case s $ESIGN SPACE FOR MULTIPLE USE CONCURRENTLY
among the design team and other stakeholders
studies or analysis that can be used to test these. and consecutively
in the design process.” The process suggested is
As well there is little or no empirical evidence s $ESIGN TO MAXIMISE THE INHERENT mEXIBILITY organic and begins by considering the institutional
provided to support the proposed principles. within each space context (its values, strengths and limitations) and
the learning principles that are to be promoted.
NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 13A Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Framework for Designing and Evaluating Learning Places
These reflect concepts in classic works like attractive to ‘big-picture’ thinkers but not so to country, both current and completed, so that it
Chickering and Gamson’s “Seven Principles” stakeholders concerned about the specifics. is possible to identify patterns in what different
(1987) or the more recent NRC (National Research institutions are trying to achieve, how they do
Council) report on “How People Learn” (2000). this and how they evaluate success. Obviously
It is recommended that the design team works Proposed Pedagogy-Space- additional and more detailed questions can be
from the desired learning principles to define a Technology (PST) Design & Evaluation added in each section and at each stage as fitting
set of learning activities that will promote these Framework the particular instance.
principles. The design principles flow from
Based on the preliminary findings from the NGLS The sequencing of the items in the framework
learning principles and the learning activities.
Project, we propose the following question- is intentional and important. Each of the three
Thus there is not a single universal set of design
based framework to aid diverse stakeholders to elements, pedagogy, space and technology,
principles but a particular set that meet the needs
approach the creation, operation and evaluation influence each other in a reciprocal fashion. Thus
of a given project. It is only after the design
of new learning spaces. The framework invites achieving a desired pedagogy might suggest a
principles are established that the requirements
stakeholders including administrators, faculty, preferred way to arrange the shape and use of
for the particular setting are derived. Johnson
architects, students, equipment and technology space, equally a learning space irrespective of
and Lomas go on to emphasise the importance of
providers at each stage of the conception, its intended use will tend to shape what people
considering how to measure success in the design
development, realization and use of a new learning do in it and hence the patterns of teaching and
of new learning environments.
space to reflect on what they are doing and why. learning. Similarly a particular space places
Taking yet another tack, Long and Ehrmann (2005) It is inherently self-documenting and aides the constraints (or presents opportunities) for the
suggest four ideas that are useful in imagining elicitation of lessons learned for future projects. introduction of certain type of technology while a
the classroom of the future; Learning by Doing given technology can impact how a space is used
In recognition that each of these stakeholder
Matters; Context Matters; Interaction Matters and by teachers and students. Thus while all three are
groups has a particular set of background
Location of Learning Matters. interdependent in a cyclical manner, the question
assumptions, expectations and practices about
remains; which element do you start with?
They proceed to list the characteristics of the how they should or could contribute to the
Pedagogy seems to be the logical first element,
“classroom of the future” as: realization of a new learning space project, the
then space and finally technology.
framework is not in the form of a prescriptive
s $ESIGNED FOR PEOPLE NOT FOR EPHEMERAL
model of the design or delivery process per se. However this is not to suggest a hierarchy or to
technologies
A model-based approach would tend to privilege value pedagogy more than space or technology.
s /PTIMISED FOR CERTAIN LEARNING ACTIVITIES NOT those who were familiar with that particular form Rather it is a recommended place to enter the
just stuffed with technology of representation, depending on what type of pedagogy-space-technology loop in order to go
model was used or how it was presented visually. through an iterative process. Ideally such iteration
s %NABLING TECHNOLOGIES BROUGHT INTO THE
For instance if the framework were constructed would occur several times at each stage of the
space, rather than built into the space
around a model of the design and delivery life-cycle of a learning space (cradle to cradle).
s !LLOWING INVISIBLE TECHNOLOGY AND mEXIBLE USE process familiar to architects, this might not mean While only two life-cycle stages are represented in
very much to a faculty member from the liberal the Table 1 (as the columns - Conception & Design
s %MPHASISING SOFT SPACES
arts who is trying to evoke a particular learning and Implementation & Operation), the framework
s 5SEFUL ACROSS THE HR DAY experience or an administrator who is focused could be made more fine-grained by splitting
on project management issues like cost and risk. these into more than two columns corresponding
s :ONED FOR SOUND AND ACTIVITY
By using a series of generic trigger questions all to more life-cycle stages and writing appropriate
stakeholders potentially have equal access to the questions to each stage. Thus if a particular
design conversation. institution has a prescribed set of project stages
While these various lists offer general design
with decision points (stage gates), then the basic
principles for guidance, they are difficult to One reason for keeping the framework simple was
PST framework questions can be re-written to
apply in practice with a multi-disciplinary team to enable it to be used in a wide range of project
suit the declared delivery steps or stages for the
of stakeholders in the creation of new learning types and scales and institutional contexts. An
institution; it can be tailored to meet particular
spaces. The style of the pithy taglines is rather objective of the NGLS is to try to get comparative
ways of doing work.
high-minded and universal and thus ambiguous; data from many different projects across the
14 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACESTable 1 - Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Design & Evaluation Framework
Life-Cycle Stage
Focus Conception and Design Implementation and Operation
Overall What is the motivation for the initiative? What does success look like?
What is intended? What initiated the project? Who are the Is the facility considered to be a success? By whom?
proponents and opponents? Who has to be persuaded about Why? What is the evidence? Does this relate to the original
the idea? Why? What lessons were learned for the future? motivation or intent?
What lessons were learned for the future?
Pedagogy What type(s) of learning and teaching are we trying to foster? What type(s) of learning and teaching are observed to take
Why? place? What is the evidence?
Why is this likely to make a difference to learning? What evaluation methodology or approach was used and
What is the theory & evidence? what methods were used to gather and analyse data?
What plans will be made to modify programs or courses to Who was included in the data gathering and analysis?
take advantage of the new facilities? Students? Faculty? Staff? Administrator? Senior Leadership?
Facilities managers and technology staff?
What education or training for academics and other staff is
built into the plan?
Space What aspects of the design of the space and provisioning of Which aspects of the space design and equipment worked
furniture and fittings will foster these modes of learning (and and which did not? Why?
(including environs; furniture
teaching)? How?
and fittings) What were the unexpected (unintended) uses of the space
Who is involved in developing the design brief? Why? and facilities that aided learning or facilitated teaching? Do
these present ideas for future projects?
Which existing facilities will be considered in developing
concepts? Can we prototype ideas? How was the effectiveness of the use of space to aid learning
and teaching measured? What were the different metrics used?
Who is involved in the assessment of concepts and detailed
design? Why? What are their primary issues and concerns? Where there synergies between this and other spaces that
enhanced learning?
Technology What technology will be deployed to complement the What technologies were most effective at enhancing learning
space design in fostering the desired learning and teaching and teaching? Why?
(ICT; lab and specialist
patterns? How?
equipment) What were the unexpected (unintended) impacts (positive and
In establishing the brief and developing concepts and detailed negative) of the technology on learning and teaching?
designs, what is the relationship between the design of the
How did technology enhance the continuum of learning and
space and the selection and integration of technology?
teaching across the campus and beyond?
What pedagogical improvements are suggested by the
technology?
NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 15A Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Framework for Designing and Evaluating Learning Places
References
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. and Cocking, R.R. (2000) Johnson, C. and Lomas, C (2005) Design the Learning Oblinger, D. G. (2005) Leading the transition from
How People Learn; Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Space: Learning and Design Principles, Educause Review, classrooms to learning spaces, Educause Quarterly, 1:
National Academy Press, Washington, DC. July/Aug., 17-28. 14-18.
Brown, M. (2005) Learning spaces, In Educating the Net Long, P.D. (2005) Learning space design in action, Saltire (2006) The Saltire Centre, http://www.gcal.ac.uk/
Generation, Oblinger, D and Oblinger, J.L (eds), Educause, Educause Review, July/Aug., p60. thesaltirecentre/building/index.html
www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/
Long, P.D. and Ehrmann, S.C. (2005) Future of the Siddall, S.E. (2006) The Denison Learning Space Project,
#HICKERING ! 7 AND 'AMSON :& 3EVEN Learning Space: Breaking out of the box, Educause Mission and Guiding Principles http://www.denison.edu/
Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, Review, July/Aug., 43-58. learningspaces/mission.html
AAHE Bulletin, March.
McCowan, J.D. and Mason, J.L. (2002) Creating a Facility Valenti, M.S. (2002) Creating the classroom of the future,
Jamieson, P. (2005) Understanding a Happy Accident: for Developing Professional Skills, Proceedings ASEE Educause Review, Sept/Oct, 53-62.
Learning to build new learning environments, Report of Annual Conference, Montreal.
ECE Research Project on Learning Communities, TEDI,
Moore, A.H., Fowler, S.B. and Watson, C.E. (2007) Active
The University of Queensland.
Learning and Technology: Designing Change for Faculty,
*AMIESON 0 &ISHER + 'ILDING 4 4AYLOR 0' AND 4REVITT Students, and Institutions, Educause Review, Sept/Oct.,
A. C. F. (2000) Place and Space in the Design of New 42 (5): 42-61.
Learning Environments, Higher Education Research and
NATALIE (2006) New Approaches to Teaching & Learning
Development , 19(2), 221-236.
in Engineering, http://www.mecheng.strath.ac.uk/tandl.
JISC Designing Spaces for Effective Learning, guide for asp
the 21st century learning design.
16 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACESYou can also read
