Learning Spaces Conference Call: August 2; 1:30pm (PST)
1. Dial toll free: 866.740.1260
2. Enter account code: 9879515
Notes from call:
On the call: Paula, Faust, Ruth, Gabriele, Victor, Jan
Decision:
 Ruth will include the learning space issues in the interview with CSU.
 We will separate our inquiry into four types of learning spaces (see
below)
 A critical area in which UC could contribute is in the definition and
implementation of state regulations as they impact how space is
defined, use counted, funds allocated, etc. In addition UC could keep
the campuses trained on policies and implementation and ensure
that UC and campus-policies don’t further impose restrictions.
Action items:
 Paula has created a table for people to fill out with info about
institutions, what we want to learn, UC examples etc for each of the 4
areas at: http://www.ucop.edu:8080/x/0Q4
 Paula will find out who at OP should be part of our discussion; which
people look at related issues across the system; who knows what
the UC and state policies are? etc.
 Paula will talk with Leo about what UCR is doing.
 Victor will put together an agenda for the Media Directors meeting
portion that will focus on Learning Spaces
 Victor will ask his Capital Planning colleague if he and his peers
across the system meet on a regular basis
 Victor will talk with Andrew Mill about experimental centers
 Ruth will add issue of laptop ownership, software licensing, mobile
users, and power issues to the infrastructure focus area.
 Ruth will contact Susan Metros to kick off a conversation with the
Ohio State.
 Jan will talk with the Media Directors to obtain some examples of
“war stories”, based on myth or fact, about what can/cannot be done
with regard to various types of learning spaces.
 Ruth will check with Paul Hagner, ELI Director, to find out whether
ELI is going to continue to push the Learning Spaces focusarea.
Victor: there are really four types of spaces (we fleshed these out during
the call):
1. General assignment classrooms – very real thing we might be able to
do something about like whether there could be system-wide
standards; media directors could get into
 Minnesota
 Vassar? GW was not sure.
 Yale? Victor thought they were forward thinking a couple of
year ago
2. Experimental teaching spaces – regulations now make that
impossible to do with general assignment classes
 Ohio State (Susan Mitrose)
 Stanford (Bob Smith)
 Andrew Miln (?) TideBreak (software vendor; formerly on Bob
Smith’s staff at Stanford)
 OID has new space for faculty experimentation
3. Informal learning spaces: formal and informal spaces that aren’t
classrooms (libraries, res halls, hallways, student commons)
 DePaul (informal)
 UCSD has Playroom for students
4. Computer labs -- 3 types:
 computer classrooms,
 open computer labs,
 hybrids (both a classroom at certain times and open lab at
others)
Other Institutions:
 MIT: Phil Long; mostly talks about informal learning spaces;
differently configured computer labs
 Dartmouth: hosted a session on learning spaces at ELI a few years
ago; Malcolm Brown; did an ECAR article
Notes:
VE: We need to divide these up and do them separately; come up with
questions under each of the 4 topics
RS: we need to understand the state issues and how UC can help us
change them or change the lore of interpretation that’s tying our hands;
and we want to do both.
VE: in terms of informal learning spaces people talk about bench outside
as a learning space and it would be interesting to find out how they are
making those learning spaces.
GW: we’ve done an experiment here we have a computer lab we call a
digital playroom that is quite informal and available 24/7 and we have
cameras in there and we know what they’re doing. They are doing things
that allow them to form communities and watch movies at 1am and after
that work together. Create a certain ambiance and make things available
space can transform
Often you hear the argument that we built it and they didn’t come and there
was one missing ingredient…
Partners/People to include in discussion of learning spaces:
 Budget
 Facilities/capital planning
 Libraries
 Legislative relations
GW: We should think very hard about language we use; some are
scheduled, some are not; some are mixed use, some are not; How do we
create spaces that students can bring in all the stuff that they come with,
e.g. their digital cameras, what they’ve created with them, and use it and
take advantage of software and infrastructure that they don’t have but is
available to them in these spaces. Spaces that are much more fluid. Often
they do not fit neatly into one category or another.
RS: honing wonderful thinking about why this matters and that will be in
our final report for sure. Challenge is what do we take from what we learn
as far as what’s the role of the UC system to help us move from where we
are to where we want to be. Sharing of expertise and resources across the
system.
Ruth mentioned the ELI site that references institutions, articles and other
resources: http://www.educause.edu/LearningSpace/5521
GW: maybe we should talk to business schools and medical schools even
within UC that are more on the leading edge of this.
VE: UCSF has one system that’s pretty interesting;
VE: Many state rules make it illegal to do creative things. We might want to
get that spelled out in terms of recommendations
The media directors meeting could be a start to figuring this out in terms of
“what are the rules that hold us back” and then the next step is we could
find out what is true and what is myth.
RS: Looki at working with CSU to address these state-related issues
together.
There are tiers of rules here.
Who at OP would know about these policies?
GW: the state defines how much space a student needs in a lab; these
rules are very old and don’t take into consideration new disciplines so now
there is new equipment; we always have to circumvent the rules because
otherwise we would build labs that are not functional. Same idea for
classrooms are defined in terms of the activities that take place there, how
long sessions have to be, how they count usage, etc.
VE: DePaul Univ. in Chicago uses halls for informal learning space but we
can’t do that because halls can only be x percentage of the building
GW: how do we get meaningful data out of this? You can only do good
research if you have good questions. How do we capture this so that a
really useful analysis can be made?
VE: When you look at these different approaches, really different places are
the places to talk to. I don’t know anybody that’s really good at all these
things. Stanford for experimental; etc.
GW: Why are we all so interested in justifying why we want to shake up
teaching and learning? We have to get to the need that is driving this.
RS: we will pick up that thread in our introduction.
JD: it would be wonderful if there was a resource at UCOP regarding state
regulations that impact classrooms. To differentiate what’s fact and myth
could be instructional. Tends to be experiential. We have on all of our
campuses someone in capital planning someone who is the liaison with the
rules (UC or state) and those people might join us for that discussion.
VE: we had a discussion here like that and they ended up being in disarray.
PM: I could ask Leo if he’s come up against these issues in his prep for
experimental classrooms
VE: we could ask systemwide what people are doing with experimental
classrooms
RS: sometimes they don’t call them classrooms so they are not beholden
to the policies
VE: Ohio state set up an experimental room and got vendors to contribute
JD: New Media center concept also brought in some of that too.
VE: so many evolved in different directions.
RS: will raise issue of state policies with CSU and what they’re doing;
Paula should ask who at OP can help us understand; do capital planning
folks meet across the system? Victor will ask his guy if he knows.
VE: so often the conversation is about the commons in the student union
building and I don’t know if we want to go there.
GW: that’s student affairs. We seem to be in silos. Is there a work group for
this?
PM: no the student experience focus area does not have a WG; currently it
is more exploratory
GW: but it’s important; we should move into this area?
RS&PM: yes.
VE: when I hear the Commons things they are different than what we look
at in the academic side.
RS: but it comes down to saying this is part of the core services that we
need to offer. Need funding to do these kinds of things. What are the
barriers to doing that?
JD: for laptop requirement purposes helpful to distinguish between
different lab types because usage may go up or down depending on laptop
use
GW: laptop use – how to leverage what students are bringing; funding
models, strategic planning; can we negotiate purchase of software so
students have access to it with their own personal machines; creating an
infrastructure to make what students have effective
RS: should we raise some of these topics in the common infrastructure
area?
YES.
RS: we know from watching Wake Forest etc. that students are hesitant to
bring their laptops to the classroom.
GW: Our current classrooms are not set up to accommodate this; no easy
way to recharge battery, size of desk, etc.
Information sent out in preparation for the meeting:
Revised description (a brief description that tries to capture the major
points of inquiry)
New methods of pedagogy recognize a wide variety of learning styles and an
appreciation of the influences of information technology and societal changes
that are affecting the very concept of how, when and where learning occurs.
The physical design and technological infrastructure of spaces within the
university can be designed to greatly complement existing student uses of
technology, and provide faculty with more tools for teaching that are inline with
current thinking about how students learn best.
With a trend toward ubiquitous computing, a growing number of spaces now
must considered for how they enable learning. Classrooms as well as informal
learning spaces should be designed to align pedagogic goals with information
technology and media and to allow for flexibility and collaboration.
There is also value in providing faculty with facilities, network infrastructure, IT,
media, and support that facilitate experimentation with new teaching methods as
well as in providing vehicles for the findings and best practices from this type of
experimentation to be disseminated widely across the campus and UC system.
What we want to learn (both from external interviews, about UC & in
general)
 Which institutions are doing interesting work in this area? Who has
designed new types of classrooms? Learning spaces? Teaching
experimentation spaces?
 Are any institutions taking an institution-wide or systemwide approach to
how teaching and learning spaces are designed?
 What could the UC campuses do together to provide better learning
facilities and support to faculty and students?
 Which policy, funding and other issues unique to UC need to be
addressed to make positive changes in this arena?
 How could the culture and organizational structure of UC change to allow
for a comprehensive approach to designing and funding learning spaces?
Are there institutional goals we could point to that bolster the case for this
approach?
Potential institutions to interview
???
Content that has been posted to the Confluence page for Learning Spaces
* Policies (UC, Legislative, State)
* Funding
* Organizational structures
* New designs to meet new learning styles and needs
* Experimental spaces - how to create them? What are the advantages to this
approach?
* How to coordinate with Registrar systems?
* Do our online systems support a different use of space?
* What would you do differently?
* Lessons learned?
* How do you hope to shift instruction and teaching?
* Are the faculty on board in small numbers or large numbers?
* What have you found to be the most effective ways to engage faculty?
* Have campuses established minimum standards of technology that should
be in every classroom? Across a system?
Institutions to potentially interview:
* Victor said he would ask Phil Long if he knew of any institutions that have
done institutionwide planning of learning spaces.
* Society of College and University Planners (SCUP).
List of institutions doing interesting things:
* Carlton College (consider one of "most wired" campuses)
* Dartmouth is very wired; Ruth has a contact (Malcolm Brown)
* Virgina Tech (Math Emporium, Cave, etc.)
* MIT (TEAL classrooms, Aero Astro Lab)
* Stanford School of Medicine - Distributed learning commons (Kevin has a
contact there)
* Swathmore Computer Society - empower students to create their own
spaces
* Northwester Univ. Info Commons
* Univ. of Chicago Crear Library Computing Center
* Emory Univ. Cox Lab
* Rhode Island School of Design: Center for integrative technologies
* Harvard Univ., Film and Video Headquarters
* Clemson, ArchitectureCenter
UC Examples
* UC Irvine East Campus
* UC Riverside is developing Learning Studios, which are sandboxes for
experimental teaching and learning (contact: Leo Schouest)
Information technology is transforming what happens both inside and outside the
classroom and is changing the very concept of how, when and where learning
occurs. Today, learning spaces are physical and virtual and, increasingly, a
combination of both. On many of today's campuses they exist as classrooms
(with flexible furniture that can be reconfigured for group activities), study rooms
in libraries, multimedia labs, and discussion pods in cafes. These spaces often
incorporate technology into their design to enable a variety of teaching methods
and to maximize student engagement and spur their creativity.
Jan D: In para. above, first sentence, I don't think it's info technology alone that
is transforming. Many forces are at work. How about something like:
Currently at UC, campus and state funding and planning processes sometimes
provide obstacles to innovating in this area and result, in many cases, in less
than adequate learning spaces. As a system, UC could ...
Jan D proposes for above (concept, not exact wording): explore Business
Process Re-engineering for this process. ( Even if this does not result in an
entirely new process with the state and internally, it might provide the exceptions
necessary to allow a certain percentage of discretionary use space, or some
other option that would allow support for more spaces for new technologies and
lower productivity numbers). Another thing UC might be able to do solo (without
the state) is allocate some $$ for this purpose - entertain applications/proposals
for work on each UC campus to serve as model projects and to allow
assessment of instructional methodologies.
[THOSE OF YOU WITH MORE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LEARNING SPACES,
PLEASE REVISE AND ADD TO THIS PRELIMINARY DRAFT -- thanks, Paula]
Jan D: It would be wonderful if there were a recognition that support current
teaching/learning success to produce the best students in the world, that we be
allowed to provide some spaces that are different from traditional lecture hall and
classroom settings. Wording to incorporate this would set a vision or goal.
THIS IS FROM Wienhausen, Gabriele
Dear Colleagues,
I am not changes the current text, but would like to explore with you if the
following ideas/concepts should be part of the paragraph. Sorry for not taking a
stab at writing a paragraph and instead just throwing out ideas...
G
* Learning space(s): as indicated below, learning spaces are NOT just
traditional classroom spaces, but include: computer labs, study spaces in the
library and in the dorms and in student commons; and the 'outside space' : the
lawn, the coffee cart. This means that very different admin units/entities are
responsible (i.e. provide funding for those spaces). This inhibits looking at
learning spaces from a holistic (hare that word but do not have a better one...)
viewpoint, i.e. it breeds conflicting views if how space should be designed and
different admin cultures have different values/fears, which determines the type of
policies/cultures developed for using the space
* Classroom space I suggest to include the following ideas: identify how
learning will take place, in other words: What instructional goals do we have.
What are the pedagogical needs/goals? For example: will students be expected
to bring laptops. If that is the case, the chairs need to have tables big enough for
students to place the laptops and to also still use old technologies such as paper
and pencil; the room also needs additional outlets. Another example: should the
class room support group interactions, this should influence chair arrangements.
Another example: should the room support synchronous interaction with another
teacher/students? Etc etc..
* Should we be explicit in what we think a classroom should support? E.g.
Exchange data inside classroom; Access internet; Present digitized materials; on
demand Webcasting/videotaping; sufficient bandwidth; appropriate lighting etc
* Campuses create generic classrooms. What sorts of needs are common to
professors? Is it different by area of study (e.g. Science/Engineering,
Arts/Humanities, and Social Sciences)? This information is unknown.
* Technology in the classroom - students/professors are a mobile workforce. If
we are to use technology in the classroom students/faculty will need a mobile
input/output device that will allow them to exchange data or the classrooms will
require fixed devices that students can access. This could be done either directly
via device-device communication or mediated by the internet. If one cannot
depend on access to these devices then instructors cannot build lessons around
this technology. So the issue is how do we do this? There are two solutions: 1)
We build smart classrooms and 2) We require our students to purchase
technology and bring it to the classroom. I would argue that it's much smart to go
with #2 because it off loads the cost and maintenance and it doesn't fix us to any
particular device. But it will require a high level administrative decision and will
have to be reconsidered on a year to year basis
* "Always On" classrooms. Impromptu use of technology in the classroom is
critical. Technology should be like the blackboard - we never think about it
because it's always there. This could very well be a catalyst for real interesting
new ideas
* Campus resources: Single point contact for ed tech questions; Central
software warehouse - what's free, what do we get a discounts, etc.
* HiTech Classrooms: The need for experimentation is critical, but costly
because only by the more progressive of instructors - consequently they tend to
be underutilized.