OFFICE OF THE PROVOST
AND VICE CHANCELLOR FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F INAL R EPORT
2008-2009
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
COMMITTEE CHARGE .............................................................................................................. 3
II.
MEMBERSHIP............................................................................................................................... 3
III.
CLASSROOM SCHEDULING: ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS ........................................ 3
IV.
CLASSROOM SCHEDULING: OUTCOMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 5
V.
21ST CENTURY LEARNING SPACES: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 6
VI.
ATTACHMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 8
2008-2009
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T
Charge
Classroom scheduling
The Instructional Space Implementation Team (ISIT) was charged with (1) evaluating the results of a
classroom space audit conducted over the summer, (2) continuing with the college town hall
meetings begun during the summer, and (3) continuing the process of incremental policy reform
outlined in last year’s final report. This final report summarizes the findings of the team and puts
forward recommendations for incremental reform that can be implemented for upcoming semesters.
Learning spaces for the 21st Century and new technologies
The group was also asked to begin a conversation about the challenges and opportunities surrounding
new instructional technologies and learning spaces needs that the campus will face in the future.
Members
Robert Graves, Chair
Leslie Hammersmith
Paula Kaufman
Sandy Goss Lucas
Carol Malmgren
Keith Marshall
Joseph Squier
Jennifer Themanson
Matthew Tomaszewski
Barbara Wilson
CLASSROOM SCHEDULING
Activities and findings
On November 15, 2007, Provost Katehi sent an email memo that identified constraints on campus
classroom scheduling (Attachment A). The campus responded positively and several units made
attempts to move classes to fewer and more regularized meeting patterns, as recommended. In at
least two instances large units collected the schedule from smaller units and optimized the overall
meeting schedule for the allocated space (i.e., College of Media, Foreign Languages Building). During
summer 2008, committee members began an education campaign, meeting with college
administrators, departmental schedulers and department heads in a town hall format to more fully
explain the issues and to present data identifying the campus needs. These meetings continued
through mid-November 2008. The committee also utilized a campus survey to identify specific
scheduling issues. Findings from these activities are summarized below.
Summary of town hall meetings
Meetings were held with colleges and their respective academic departments, including: FAA, AHS,
ACES, ENG, EDU, MEDIA, BUS, and three separate groups for LAS.
Key findings are as follows:
 Departments are willing to change to meet the need of increased utilization and efficiency
but need more guidance in doing so.
 Many colleges are already working towards a more standardized schedule (most often, as a
result of the Provost’s email).
 Inventory of classroom space in the size range of ~75-125 seats does not meet the current
demand. Since construction or renovation of new space is not likely in our current budget
situation, improved efficiency and use of current space is the best option to address this
situation. In addition to reduced meeting patterns and spreading the schedule to better
utilize space several large lecture halls have been identified which could be used for
classroom instruction.
3
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T








Only 25% of the general purpose classrooms are equipped with IT and this situation does not
meet the current demand. Resources are needed to move us into outfitting more classrooms
with technology. Every college and department indicated that the lack of adequate
technology in the classrooms impedes scheduling. What are the technological standards to
equip classrooms in the future? How can this be funded? Is consideration of a laptop
program for students part of the discussion? Addressing this issue is an important
consideration for future discussion on designing class space for the 21st century and is
addressed in the next section of this report.
It is important to note that each department, regardless of college, may have a unique set of
pedagogical needs and requests.
Colleges are generally supportive of a central policy related to the scheduling of classroom
space, in an attempt to better use our space from 8-5, Monday through Friday.
Many departments expressed support for a policy that is implemented across the colleges
and curriculum so that students are able to get the classes they need.
Departments are sensitive to the effect of scheduling on students and their ability to make
progress toward graduation.
Many departments noted that the ability to increase enrollment in courses has been restricted
due to the lack of availability of larger instructional space
The poor condition of classrooms was mentioned in numerous meetings—the need for
maintenance (broken seats, lights, etc.) and upkeep is critical.
There is a strong desire to have the Office of the Registrar work toward scheduling
classrooms earlier in the process so that faculty and departments are well-aware of the
assignment in advance of the term.
Summary of campus survey
The survey was conducted by the Office of the Registar over a period of three weeks in July and final
results were collected on July 31, 2008. Of 132 surveys sent, there were 106 departmental responses
(118 units currently offer courses on campus). This represents an 80% response rate. Of the
respondents, 14 were department heads, 15 were administrators, and 80 were department schedulers.
Key points are as follows:
overall
 Departments feel constrained with regard to enrollment growth; not enough larger rooms
 Classrooms, both general pool and departmental, lack needed technology
 Survey supports Registrar data that 10-2 are peak hours (spreading the schedule Monday
through Friday from 8-5pm is key to gaining more access to needed instructional space).
general practices
 Nearly 74% of the responding departments indicated there were some scheduling guidelines
within the unit
 56% indicated that they do allow faculty to request a preferred time
 30% specifically do not schedule classes on certain days (typically Friday)…note 1/3 of all
units.
 The most requested time is 10am-12pm, followed by 12pm-2pm
 The most requested meeting pattern is Tuesday/Thursday, followed by
Monday/Wednesday
allocated space
4
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T

Instructor time preference, followed by course conflicts and Integrated Teaching System (ITS)
technological constraints are the greatest departmental challenges in scheduling outside of
the 10-2pm time frame.
 53% indicated they did not have adequate technology in allocated classrooms, thus
constraining the scheduling of those rooms and resulting in requests for
additional/alternative space from registrar staff.
 Nearly 63% indicated that they could have larger class enrollments but are constrained by the
lack of larger space.
departmentally scheduled space
 61% indicated they do not have enough departmental space to teach in.
 41% indicated that they do not have adequate technology in their departmentally scheduled
space.
 ITS in the most requested need in departmentally scheduled rooms.
 Size of room, meeting time and lack of ITS equipment are the biggest issues/constraints for
departmentally scheduled spaces.
Outcomes and outlook for Fall 2009
Based on the findings above and discussion among the committee members, ISIT proposed that the
Provost release an additional email memo providing further incremental adjustments to classroom
scheduling policies. ISIT prepared a draft that included a list of guiding principles and a set of
policies that established a standard campus teaching schedule – classes begin on the hour MWF (i.e.,
8am, 9am, 10am ...), and begin on the hour and half-hour TTH (i.e., 8am-9:20am, 9:30am-10:50am,
11am-12:20pm ...). This memo was distributed to the campus November 25, 2008 (Attachment B).
For Fall 2009, registrar staff began priority scheduling for those courses meeting the standardized
pattern in late December 2008. The focus for Fall 2009 was aligning the large (>50 seats) lecture halls
and ITS outfitted classrooms (which are in heavy demand) with the scheduling guidelines.
Email notices to departmental schedulers were sent to all units offering courses outside the
guidelines (nearly 250 messages, total) in January 2009.. Departments were given an opportunity to
adjust their class meeting times or provide a justification for scheduling outside the guidelines.
Second and third notices, as well as direct phone calls, were made in February 2009—again asking
the departments to adjust course times. Those that did not respond were notified that their classes
would be moved to fit the guidelines. Overall, the response from the departments was very positive
and proactive. Of these initial courses, over 80% were in compliance by late February.
As a result:
 Scheduling in classrooms with 50 or more seats was completed in entirety before registration
began. It appears at this time that enforcing standardized meeting patterns has eliminated the
need to make use of additionally identified large lecture space.
 Registrar staff were able to schedule more classes in ITS equipped rooms (per requests).
 Registrar staff reported greater ease in scheduling courses which meant less room changes
and greater ability to accommodate departmental preferences. This increase in efficiency had
a very positive outcome of stress reduction for the staff.
5
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T


Anecdotally, we have received positive feedback from students and parents regarding
student schedules and minimal conflicting courses.
Many departmental schedulers have been supportive of the guidelines as it has eased
departmental scheduling conflicts/demands and has given them a definitive argument to
respond to faculty preference during peak teaching times.
Use and Utilization reporting for Fall 2009 will be completed in September 2009. The Office of the
Registrar plans to take a similar approach to scheduling for Spring 2010 (our first spring semester
with guidelines). That is, focusing on large lecture space and ITS classrooms, and then to continue to
align the smaller capacity classrooms with the guidelines in future scheduling activity. Over time,
this will bring a large percentage of the courses into alignment with the guidelines effectively
changing the inefficient scheduling culture that has grown and persisted over decades.
Recommendations
The team suggests that the Provost consider formalizing these guidelines and policies in one of two
possible ways: (1) incorporating the contents of the November 2008 memo in a new draft of
Communication #28, a scheduling policies document which has fallen into disuse, or (2) including
them as part of the Campus Administrative Manual.
6
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T
LEARNING SPACES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES
Activites
The Spring semester was devoted to study and discussion of the current state of instructional
technology support on campus, current trends in learning space utilization and design, and emergent
visions of the future.
Findings and recommendations
The theme of coordination quickly emerged as a primary obstacle towards seeing real progress in this
area. The committee identifies coordination as both a challenge and an opportunity for the campus.
The challenge is to find ways to enable better communication and interaction across committees,
units, and programs. The campus is full of innovative ideas and goals, but they frequently exist in
isolated pockets organized by discipline, department, college, or committee. It is a challenge to
develop an efficient mechanism for bringing these activities into enough sustained focus that the
campus can support innovation in visible, powerful, and long-lasting ways. We view ISIT as an
important piece in this vision of connectedness and focus.
The need for standardization of instructional technology was another issue that was identified as being
of vital importance. ISIT believes that the campus should adopt a standards-based approach to
developing new learning spaces and to maintaining existing space.
It is our recommendation that next year ISIT be given the primary charge of helping the Provost
develop a strategic vision for developing innovative learning spaces at Illinois, with the goal of
making our campus a leader in this realm. We recommend that the primary activity under this charge
be to study, discuss, and ultimately propose a campus organizational structure that would foster
coordination among groups now working in isolation. An incomplete list of groups that would
benefit from closer association would include ISIT, the E-Learning Committee, the Chancellor’s
Facilities Planning Committee, the Teaching Advancement Board, the Ubiquitous Learning Institute,
and IT@Illinois.
Specific aspects of this charge could be articulated as follows:
 Conduct a study on instructional space requirements and future direction in cooperation
with campus stakeholders in the planning and implementation of spaces. This focused study
should shed light on “the next big things”, such as mobile computing in learning, and
prepare the campus for the implications for the future and implementing new models of
learning.
 Discuss the future of learning spaces as it relates to a vision and plan for increased access to
educational experiences, both online and blended, that may be pertinent to the E-learning
Committee.
 Create a report that describes our instructional spaces on this campus and provides
recommendations or plans for making innovative practices more visible.
 Identify critical connections that should be strengthened or maintained between people,
resources, units, colleges or funds.
 Discuss the possibility of a Teaching Commons, or some campus entity that would provide
opportunities to develop and promote innovative instruction and enhanced learning
outcomes of our students with the Teaching Advancement Board.
7
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T




Discuss how blended and online learning opportunities can offer new opportunities in
curriculum redesign and development of new programs with both TAB, E-learning
Committee, Chancellor’s Committee on Textbooks.
Discuss the implications of and possibilities for a campus vision for innovative learning
spaces with Chancellor’s Facilities Planning Committee, E-Learning Committee.
Promote student engagement in campus decision making on instructional practices, learning
space design, and priorities for implementing changes in our learning environments with the
Student Senate.
Define measures of success for instructional spaces that can contribute to the Provost’s
portfolio and track successes and progress in this area.
ISIT has assembled a bibliography of possible ‘study documents’ that relate to the bullet points
above, and that may be helpful to next year’s team. It is included here as Attachment C.
Attachments
 Attachment A: Provost’s memo, November 2007
 Attachment B: Provost’s memo, November 2008
 Attachment C: Bibliography of relevant material for further study
8
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T
ATTACHMENT A
To:
Deans, Directors, and Department Heads
From: Linda Katehi, Provost
Re:
Lincoln Hall Renovation Impact on Course Scheduling
Date: November 15, 2007
Beginning Fall semester 2008, the campus will begin the much awaited
renovation of Lincoln Hall. This exciting event has been preceded by
years of careful planning, with input from multiple units, faculty and
staff across the entire campus. One of the processes that will create a
far-reaching affect is the relocation of hundreds of classes typically
taught in the Lincoln Hall space, and other courses which are relocated
to accommodate these courses.
Academic departments will soon receive the classroom allocation
assignments for Fall 2008 course scheduling, which are based on past
utilization data, and will meet units' prior classroom need. I ask for
your cooperation in recognizing the importance of the campus'
expectation to use all classroom space efficiently and to support this
goal through flexibility in departmental course scheduling. Toward this
end, I specifically request that your departmental schedulers and
faculty:
- Use all allocated space as fully as possible (Monday through Friday
and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m,), rescheduling courses to fit this need.
- Follow the recommended campus standard class hour schedule, MWF
classes on the hour, TTh classes for 1.5 hours beginning at 8am.
- Limit the need to reschedule courses -- Facility Management and
Scheduling will not have the flexibility of past years.
- Understand that units may need to use departmental space to a fuller
extent than in the past.
- Understand that faculty may need to teach in classrooms located in
different parts of campus.
- Carefully consider new program initiatives that require additional
classroom space.
This renovation will result in brand new offices, classrooms and
teaching spaces in our central campus area, meeting a dire and
9
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T
long-standing need for our academic programs. Thank you in advance for
your patience and cooperation during the next phase of this project.
10
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T
ATTACHMENT B
November 19, 2008
Dear Colleagues,
The uncertainty of the Lincoln Hall renovation project, in combination with ongoing fiscal challenges on campus,
have made it imperative that we maximize the efficient use of classroom space. Toward this end, I ask that
academic departments adhere to the following principles and policies in scheduling classes for the Fall 2009
semester and beyond. Your cooperation is crucial and highly valued as we work towards an improved
scheduling process.
Guiding Principles
Proper use and scheduling of classroom space is a shared responsibility. Good stewardship is achieved through
cooperation among campus units, the Office of the Registrar, and the Office of the Provost.
The Office of the Provost is responsible for setting policies and procedures for management of all campus
classroom and learning spaces. It adheres to the following guiding principles in managing classroom
space inventories and class schedules:
-Scheduling should support (1) the pedagogical requirements of teaching and learning, (2) efficient use of
campus resources, (3) student access to and choice among courses.
-Classroom inventories should include diverse, creative, and innovative learning environments that are
intentionally created for better learning.
-Scheduling policies should undergo periodic assessment and evaluation by a campus committee charged with
this task. Policies should be adaptable and flexible.
-Practices should always reflect evolving student and instructor responsibilities, educational practices,
technologies, and interfaces with other support services (i.e. transportation and maintenance).
Policies and Guidelines
-Departments/Units will be expected to use all allocated space as fully as possible Monday through Friday and
from 8:00am-5:00pm prior to requesting additional space from the Office of the Registrar. Peak hours
are considered classes that begin 10am-2pm.
-Departments/Units should follow the campus standard teaching schedule:
*Classes taught on MWF should begin on the hour (i.e., 8am, 9am, 10am...)
*Classes taught on TTH should be taught for 75 or 80 minutes beginning at 8am (i.e., 8am-9:20am, 9:30am10:50am, 11am-12:20pm...)
-Classes taught within the campus standard teaching schedule as noted above will have priority and be
scheduled first.
-Classes not meeting the campus standard teaching schedule are strongly encouraged to consider teaching in offpeak hours (not within the 10am-2pm start times) and in departmental space.
-It is recognized that there may be academic and pedagogical reasons for scheduling classes at non-standard
hours and/or days. However, departments should continually review these instances to assure a need
for the use of non-standard schedules.
11
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T
-The Office of the Registrar reserves the right to review the distribution of courses, and when necessary (most
often, due to lack of available space), ask the unit to provide alternate times for specific
courses. Additionally, class enrollments will be reviewed regularly to ensure efficient classroom utilization.
Allocations of general campus classrooms may change from semester to semester.
Linda Katehi, Provost
ATTACHMENT C
Instructional Space Implementation Team (ISIT)
Bibliography for further study
Getting Started

One of the most influential projects for designing pedagogically-driven active classrooms is SCALE-UP
at North Carolina State University. Many of the projects we will look at from other universities
modeled their projects after the SCALE-UP rooms,
http://www.ncsu.edu/PER/SCALEUP/Classrooms.html.

University of Minnesota Active Learning Classroom (ALC) Evaluation,
http://www.classroom.umn.edu/ALC_Report_Final.pdf

Read about/see at U of M Active Learning General Purpose Classroom Initiative,
http://www.classroom.umn.edu/active-learn-room.asp

"The Space Is The Message: First Assessment of a Learning Studio", Educause Quarterly
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/TheSpaceIstheMessageFirst/46593?time=123272336
9

San Jose State University Academic Success Center Incubator Classroom,
http://www.sjsu.edu/asc/classroom_resources/index.htm
A great overview of the space, reasoning and evaluation: http://ic.sjsu.edu/news/Educause2008.pdf

Pictures of "incubator" spaces on Flickr: http://flickr.com/search/?q=incubator%20classrooms&w=all

Before & After pictures of 23 Illini Hall:
http://picasaweb.google.com/RICKLANGLOIS/23IlliniHallBeforeAfter#

Penn State just formed a group to review and enhance informal learning spaces at Penn State,
http://tlt.its.psu.edu/about/news/2009/group-formed-to-review-enhance-informal-learning-spacesat-penn-state

University of Iowa: 2001 ITAC Learning Space Committee Final Report:
http://cio.uiowa.edu/itac/learningspaces/finalreport.shtml. 2001 ITAC Learning Space Committee
Final Report Information Technology Services (ITS) response:
http://cio.uiowa.edu/itac/ITSResponse.shtml

2007 Learning Environments Reaccreditation Subcommittee report (warning: very long!):
http://www.reaccreditation2008.uiowa.edu/resourceroom/pdf/SubCommitteeReports/LearningEnvironments.pdf
12
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T

The Ohio State University Learning Collaboration Studio,
http://digitalunion.osu.edu/lcstudio/whatisit.html
Further Study

Educause Review, March/April 2009, Learning Spaces
Kolowich, Steve (2009) “U. of Virgina Plans to Phase Out Public Computer Labs”. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, March 23, 2009. Accessed March 23, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/labphaseout
This article provided background for the committee to have a discussion framed by these questions:
Imagine if our campus changed its model for providing student computing space, what could we do
with those spaces? Move away from the model of providing a room full of desktop computers, let's say.
What we might have then is a space that is designed for collaboration, flexible enough to support many
types of activities (not just computer-student interaction), and is supported with a laptop check-out
service, among other things. We could save thousands of dollars in this "green" model of computing lab
(reduce the number of machines plugged in all the time), save thousands of dollars buying hundreds of
desktop machines, and open space that can be utilized in lots of different ways -- as formal learning
spaces during the day, as student informal learning spaces all of the time that can accommodate group
work, single work, printing services, access to specialized software....
So, some thoughts to mull over. What are the challenges to moving to a model like this? What might
our campus gain from it? And, just as importantly, what would need to be in place that would allow an
idea/change like this to gain support, momentum, and be implemented before 2015? (I chose 2015
because by then this will be an old idea and Illinois wouldn't be considered a leader of this change.)

Hammersmith, Leslie (2009) “Creating Excellence in Academic Innovations” Accessed March 31, 2009,
https://wiki.cites.uiuc.edu/wiki/x/SQJkAg.

Burbules, Nicholas (2009) “Ubiquitous Learning Center – A Possible Campus Role”

Reynard, Ruth (2009) “Designing Learning Spaces for Instruction, Not Control” Campus Technology,
April 29, 2009, Accessed 4/29/09 http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2009/04/29/DesigningLearning-Spaces-for-Instruction-not-Control.aspx?Page=1&p=1

“E-Learning at Illinois: Experience, Vision, and Values” A position paper from the University of Illinois
E-Learning Committee, October 1, 2008.
Other
Learning Space Design Resource Collection

Jim Tom, Kenneth Voss and Chris Scheetz, "The Space Is the Message: First Assessment of a Learning
Studio," EDUCAUSE Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 2 (April-June 2008).

Ralph Gabbard, Anthony Kaiser, and David Kaunelis, "Developing Collaborative
Workstations," EDUCAUSE Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 2 (April-June 2008).

Bryan Sinclar, "Commons 2.0: Library Spaces Designed for Collaborative Learning," EDUCAUSE
Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 4 (September-December 2007).
13
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T

Ken Graetz, "The Psychology of Learning Environments," EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 41, no. 6
(November/December 2006): pp. 60–75.

Library as Place: Rethinking Roles, Rethinking Space (Washington, D.C.: Council on Library &
Information Resources, February 2005).

Lennie Scott-Webber, In Sync: Environmental Behavior Research and the Design of Learning Spaces, SCUP,
2004.

Paul McCloskey, "Syllabus2003 Review: Designing New Learning Environments," Syllabus, Vol. 17, No.
3, October 2003.

"Designing the Space: A Conversation with William J. Mitchell," Syllabus, Vol. 17, No. 2, September
2003.

Thomas Warger, "Revisiting the Classroom," Edutech Report, Vol. 19, No. 3, June 2003.

Torin Monahan, "Flexible Space and Built Pedagogy: Emerging IT Embodiments," Inventio, Vol. 4, No. 1,
Spring 2002.

Howard Strauss, "New Learning Spaces: Smart Learners, Not Smart Classrooms," Syllabus, Vol. 16, No.
2, September 2002.

Mark S. Valenti, "The Black Box Theater and AV/IT Convergence: Creating the Classroom of the
Future," EDUCAUSE Review, Vol. 37, No. 5, September/October, 2002.

Nancy Van Note Chism and Deborah J. Bickford, eds., New Directions for Teaching and Learning: The
Importance of Physical Space in Creating Supportive Learning Environments, No. 92 (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2002).

Andrew J. Milne, "Research Findings in Communication Interface Technology: Implications for
Learning Space Design," SCUP Annual Conference 2001, Boston, Mass. (bibliography).

Planning & Designing Technology-Rich Learning Spaces, JISC infoNet
JISC infoNet is an advisory service for the United Kingdom's higher education technology professionals
with resources to support technology planning and management. Planning & Designing TechnologyRich Learning Spaces is a toolkit to help individuals and institutions with the design and development
of technology-enabled learning spaces. It includes case studies, pictures of model learning spaces, and a
'virtual tour' of an imaginary campus composed of exemplary spaces derived from multiple
institutions.
Presentations

ELI 2008 Annual Meeting, Connecting and Reflecting: Preparing Learners for Life 2.0, January 28-30, 2008

Kathleen Tyner, Designing Spaces for New Media Literacy Learning

Linda Garcia and Homero Lopez, Learning Studios: Engaging Millenial Students in a New Classroom
Environment
14
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T

Shirley Dugdale and Philip Long, "Planning the Informal Learning Landscape," ELI Web seminar,
March 2007.

ELI 2007 Annual Meeting, Creating a Successful Learning Culture: Connecting Learners, Communities and
Information, January 22-24, 2007

Deborah Bickford, William Dittoe, and David Wright, Creating New Spaces for Learning in Community

Laurence Johnson, Alan Levine, and Heidi Trotta, The Next Generation of Digital Learning Spaces:
Exploring the Frontier of Virtual Worlds

Sawyer Hunley and Molly Schaller, "Assessment of Learning Spaces," ELI Web seminar, October 2006.

Crit Stuart, "Georgia Tech's Learning Commons: An Epicenter for Student Success," ELI Web seminar,
July 2006.

Alan Cattier and Kim Braxton, "Adventures in Space Design: Building and Supporting A Collaborative
Computing Lab," ELI Web seminar, April 2006.

ELI 2005 Fall Focus Session, Design of Informal Learning Spaces, September 14-15, 2005. Proceedings
include: Nancy Chism, Informal Learning Spaces in Support of the Institutional Mission;
Lori Gee and Terry Hajduk, Importance of Informal Spaces for Learning, Collaboration, and
Socialization; Malcolm B. Brown and Phillip D. Long, Trends in Informal Learning Spaces

NLII 2005 Annual Meeting, The Enabling Role of Technology in Successful Learning, January 23-25, 2005.
Relevant presentations: David Futey and Richard Holeton, TeamSpace: Walk-up, Cross-Platform
Collaboration for Mobile Computing Users: Stan N. Martin, Sharon P. Pitt and Cynthia Williford, What
Works? Envisioning Learning Spaces That Enhance Learning

NLII 2004 Fall Focus Session, Learning Space Design for the 21st Century, September 9-10, 2004.
Proceedings include: Malcolm B. Brown, Dan Gilbert, Christopher G. Johnson, and Phillip D.
Long, Principles of Learning Space Design Illustrated by Case Studies; Jose Mestre, Using Learning
Spaces to Encourage Deeper Learning; William J. Mitchell, Rethinking Campus and Classroom Design;
Mark S. Valenti, Technology Convergence and the Future of Learning Spaces
Podcasts

ELI 2007 Annual Meeting, Creating a Successful Learning Culture: Connecting Learners, Communities and
Information, January 22-24, 2007. Podcasts include: Deborah Bickford and David Wright, Creating New
Spaces for Learning; An Interview with Heather Gordon; An Interview with Mara Hancock

ELI 2006 Annual Meeting, Advancing Learning: Insights and Innovations, January 29-31, 2006. Podcasts
include: Kathryn Gates, Jie Tang, and Anil Vinjamur, Classroom Technology Standards and Design
Made Simple; An Interview with Phil Long; Enhanced Podcasts on Learning Spaces

ELI 2005 Fall Focus Session, Design of Informal Learning Spaces, September 14-15, 2005. Podcasts include:
Informal Learning Spaces in Support of the Institutional Mission, Nancy Chism (Session Audio)
Informal Spaces and the Design Process: An Interview with Lori Gee and Terry Hajduk, Lori Gee, Terry
Hajduk, and Jarret Cummings (Post-Session Interview); Information Commons Interview with Joan
Lippincott, Joan Lippincott and Diana Oblinger (Pre-Session Interview); Institutional Culture and
Informal Space Design: An Interview with Lori Gee and Terry Hajduk, Lori Gee, Terry Hajduk, and
15
OFFICE
OF THE
PROVOST
INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
F I N A L R EP O R T
Jarret Cummings (Post-Session Interview); Trends in Informal Space Design, Malcolm B. Brown and
Phillip D. Long (Session Audio)

Oblinger, Diana (ed)., Learning Spaces, http://www.educause.edu/LearningSpaces, October 2006.
Selected Chapters:
Chapter 9. Trends in Learning Space Design
by Malcolm Brown and Phillip D. Long
View: HTML | PDF
Chapter 12. Sustaining and Supporting Learning Spaces
by Christopher Johnson
View: HTML | PDF
Chapter 13. Assessing Learning Spaces
by Sawyer Hunley and Molly Schaller
View: HTML | PDF
Chapter 29. North Carolina State University: SCALE-UP
Robert Beichner
View: HTML | PDF
Chapter 40. University of Chicago: USITE/Crerar Computing Cluster and Cybercafé
Shirley Dugdale and Chad Kainz
View: HTML | PDF
Additional Resource: Web sidebar
16