OFFICE OF THE PROVOST
Instructional Space Advisory Committee
Final Report
May 15, 2007
______________________________________________________________________________________
I. Committee Charge
The Instructional Space Advisory Group was charged to establish a forum in which new
instructional facility space needs, facility design, facility scheduling, departmentally managed
space, campus managed space, information technology innovations, support staffing for facilities,
technology replacement budgeting, and academic program changes and needs simultaneously
can be considered. It also was asked to make recommendations about the long-term need for a
permanent committee, either devoted entirely to this topic or incorporated into another extant
committee.
II. Committee Membership
Abbas Aminmansour
Michael Andrejasich
Tom Berfield
Cheelan Bo-Linn
Helen Coleman
Deb Forgacs
Paula Kaufman, Chair
Sandy Goss Lucas
Deanna Raineri
Ken Spelke
Joseph Squier
III.
Process
The group met monthly throughout the academic year as a forum in which to discuss these
issues. Subgroups met frequently to discuss specific topics and to prepare recommendations.
We are pleased to submit this report and recommendations based on this work.
IV. Findings and Recommendations
The campus contains 405 general pool classrooms, ranging from 10 to 750 seats. Classrooms with
fewer than 70 seats are allocated to departments for scheduling during six weeks of each
scheduling cycle. Those that are not scheduled during this period return to the general pool.
Departments control about 400 additional classrooms and 100 seminar rooms, the latter of which
range from a few to hundreds of seats. Wet and dry labs also ‘belong’ to departments. This
system of multiple points of control results in inefficient use of classroom assets; it is not
uncommon for classrooms designed to accommodate 40 students to be assigned to classes with
higher enrollments.
1
Since the early 1990’s, F&S has controlled funds for general classroom renovations; these were
expended under Steve Hesselschwert’s direction. Renovations, which include installing
instructional technologies, began with the largest classrooms and now include classrooms with 60
seats. Although there were consultations with faculty who have used these classrooms about the
types of technologies they required, there has not been a systematic approach to consulting
faculty widely about their needs and anticipated needs.
Classrooms are scheduled and used for many purposes besides formal instruction. These
additional uses number about 100,000 annually.
There are insufficient funds for classroom renovations. There also are insufficient recurring
funds to maintain and replace installed technology in classrooms. As a result, some equipment is
well past its intended or useful lives.
The group thinks it is important to understand that learning spaces extend well beyond formal
classrooms and include informal spaces, library spaces, hallways, nooks and crannies, and other
places in which people gather to discuss, collaborate, and learn. Learning occurs everywhere on
campus. See Appendix A for a discussion of educational and philosophical considerations
pertinent to learning spaces on campus.
New buildings and buildings that are undergoing renovation or repurposing present important
opportunities for the campus to add new types of learning spaces. At present, the planning
process, which tries heroically to be inclusive, may rely too heavily on building ‘owners’ to
specify needs and thus represent lost opportunities to improve learning on campus.
Recommendations
1.
There is a need for a standing oversight committee to advise the Provost and other
campus officials on issues relating to instructional space. Its charge should be to serve as
an advocacy and advisory group to communicate information related to instructional
space issues to the Provost and other campus officials and to assist the Provost’s Office in
prioritizing and supporting projects and in ensuring the optimal use of space and other
instructional resources. Committee members should include student and faculty
representatives of the Senate and representatives from the Center for Teaching
Excellence, Chancellor’s Design Advisory Committee, FMS, CITES, Teaching
Advancement Board, F&S Planning, University Library, the CIO, and the Provost’s
Office. Together with the chair, the Provost should set priorities for the Committee’s
work annually.
2.
The current mix of general pool, departmentally scheduled, and departmentally ‘owned’
classrooms and the designation of ‘seminar rooms’ applied as it is to rooms with a wide
range of capacities results in a less than optimal allocation of classroom space on campus.
The group recommends that with the exception of special-purpose spaces (e.g., wet labs),
all classrooms should be ‘owned’ and controlled by the Provost and FMS, which should
be delegated the authority to apply policies and make appropriate exceptions. Rooms
should be assigned for appropriate class sizes; classes of 60 should not be assigned to
classrooms built for 40. Seminar rooms controlled by departments should be allocated on
the basis of a formula (to be determined by a successor committee).
2
3.
The current class schedules, which do not utilize all days and times equally and which
permit irregular start and end times, contribute to ineffective use of classroom assets and
keep students from taking the courses they need to graduate on time. The group
recommends that class schedules be regularized throughout the entire week (MondaysFridays).
4.
Although investments in new and renovated classrooms have enabled the installation of
new instructional technologies, sufficient funds are not available to maintain or replace
this equipment as needed. We recommend that sufficient recurring funds (amount still
to be determined) be allocated to Classroom Tech (CITES) to ensure that instructional
technology remains functional and current. Specialized classrooms should be outfitted
with special equipment. Furniture should be selected to meet the needs of adults.
5.
Security and energy use considerations lead the group to recommend that after-hours
use of classrooms be restricted. A set of classrooms in one building should be designated
for general after hours use.
6.
The campus should acknowledge changing student demographics and the ways in which
learning occurs. The group believes that old assumptions that learning only happens in
classrooms at fixed times by individuals must be shed in recognition that learning takes
place everywhere in more conversational models, which invites and encourages colearning and co-teaching. New pedagogical methodologies and the blending of learning
styles call for flexibility in classroom design. New flexible designs must be used when
renovating or building new classrooms.
7.
Although some students do not choose or cannot afford to bring laptops to campus, we
must acknowledge that an increasing number of students have laptop computers. The
campus should increase greatly plug and play capabilities, with access to sufficient
electrical outlets and to projectors for group work; “dead spots” on campus where the
wireless computing network doesn’t reliably reach must be eliminated.
8.
Faculty and other instructors must have easy access to materials about teaching and
learning. We recommend that the Center for Teaching Excellence, with support from
CITES, create a wiki where these materials can be easily accessible and that fosters dialog
about teaching and learning issues.
9.
RSOs do not have access to instructional technologies in the evening hours during which
they are most active. A group of classrooms, outfitted with basic instructional
technology, should be designated for their use.
10. There are many dance clubs whose members rehearse daily throughout the year. The
only venue currently available to them is the Armory, where their rehearsals often
disrupt other learning activities. We recommend that there be discussions with DIA,
KCPA, the Assembly Hall, and the Dance Department to allocate more appropriate space
to these clubs.
3
Appendix A
Report from the Educational and Philosophical Subcommittee
of the Provost’s Instructional Space Advisory Group
In its broadest sense, learning can be defined as a process of progressive change
from ignorance to knowledge, from inability to competence, and from indifference
to understanding... In much the same manner, instruction or education can be
defined as the means by which we systematize the situations, conditions, tasks,
materials, and opportunities by which learners acquire new or different ways of
thinking, feeling, and doing.” 1
“Spaces are themselves agents for change. Changed spaces will change practice” 2
The following report is from the Educational and Philosophical Subcommittee. Members
were Cheelan Bo-Linn, Sandra Goss Lucas, Brian McNurlen, and Joseph Squier.
Introduction
Oblinger’s opening sentence in her book, Learning Spaces, (2006) reads “learning is the central
activity of colleges and universities” (p. 1). The extension from this quote is that it is the ethical
responsibility of faculty and their respective institutions to provide an environment that
maximizes learning by our students. However, to repeat an oft-referenced quote “teaching does
not occur without learning,” we would like to put forth the emphasis on “learning” rather than
on “instruction.” As such, in this report, we will use the term “learning space” and its reference
to both formal and informal areas.
In addition, just as new buildings and remodeled existing buildings follow the program
statement that provides the physical parameters, we propose a pedagogically-based program
statement that can become a part of the dialogue in designing learning spaces. This pedagogicallybased program statement, viewed simultaneously with the traditional program statement, can
provide the description, support, and rationale for ways in which to maximize learning, critical
thinking, and innovative thinking by our campus community.
Who are our students and how does learning occur for them?
It would be difficult to adequately describe our students for as one institution stated “the
traditional college student is now a minority.” Shaped by varied experiences and world
knowledge, each cohort is different, as evidenced by Beloit College’s annual release of its Mindset
List describing the current college student cohort
(http://www.beloit.edu/~pubaff/mindset/index.php). Being cognizant of such differences and
preferences is imperative for an optimal learning environment. Oblinger (2006) identified certain
characteristics of our students that do have an impact on designing learning spaces. Our
students can be described as
 Participatory, engaged, and experiential learners
 Social, connected and collaborative learners
 Busy, active, and multi-faceted learners with many time constraints
Learning should be viewed as more than memorization and application. The desired learning
should be one that causes change in our students and is of long-lasting duration; a learning that
Dee Fink (2003) identifies as “significant learning.” How do we create such learning?
4
Learning occurs when students:
 actively construct and own the knowledge
 have frequent practice accompanied by timely feedback
 have the opportunity to be in dialogue with the teacher and fellow students
 have a sense of emotional and motivational connectedness to the culture and
history of the institution and the professions or disciplines studied.
Learning occurs when teachers:
 are aware of students prior knowledge and experiences
 are respectful of differing opinions and styles
 provide safe environments for moderate risk-taking and innovation
 are flexible and creative in providing a variety of stimuli and activities
Creating an optimal learning space
Keeping in mind who our students are and their preferences for learning, two important
premises are: a) learning can take place anywhere – it is not limited by time or space and b)
learning can take place without the teacher. Graetz (Oblinger, 2006) identified three fundamental
characteristics of the “environmental psychology of teaching and learning:”
 Learning takes place in a physical environment with quantifiable and perceptible physical
characteristics
 Students do not touch, see, or hear passively; they feel, look, and listen actively
 The physical characteristics of learning environments can affect learners emotionally, with
important cognitive and behavioral consequences
As such, the charge for our teachers are:
 To be proactive, not reactive to the changing environment
 To be scholarly teachers; i.e., to be knowledgeable of pedagogy and the scholarly work
on teaching and learning by their colleagues
 To contribute to the communal knowledge through an inquiry-based approach. Randy
Bass posits that all teachers should ask of themselves: “What am I doing now that I'd like to
do better?” and “What do I wish that my students did better or more often?”
 To create a continuous loop of implementation, assessment, and reflection
 To remember when implementing instructional technology that learning is the driver;
not technology
Important Considerations for Creating an Optimal Learning Space
In a review of the literature, key considerations have been identified:
EDUCATIONAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS
 Learning spaces must acknowledge changing student demographics and new
understanding of how learning occurs.

“Built pedagogy” - the ways in which space is designed shapes the learning that
happens in that space. Learning spaces do not ‘cause’ learning. Learning occurs as a
result of what students and faculty do. Architecture is no longer merely a container
within which learning happens – buildings themselves can provide several dimensions
of support for learning.
 We must shed old assumptions (i.e. learning only happens in classrooms, at fixed times,
etc).
5

There must be a radical shift away from the old ‘transmission’ model of learning towards
a more ‘conversational’ model.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH ASSUMPTIONS ON LEARNING SPACE
 Learning space is more than just classroom space: learning can occur anywhere, anytime.
We must move beyond the classroom to provide informal learning spaces: hallways,
benches, “commons areas.” We should consider other spaces – outdoor spaces, cafes,
lobbies, residence halls – as potential learning spaces. The whole campus should be seen
as a potential learning environment, rather than just classrooms.
 The physical environment should align with institutional priorities and goals for student
success. Good space is not a luxury, but a key determinant of good learning
environments.
 Learning spaces should encourage and accommodate co-learning and co-construction of
knowledge.
 The learning space should reflect the curriculum. In other words, engineering spaces
should reflect what goes in the engineering word, art spaces should reflect what goes on
in the art world, etc. The resulting classrooms will look and feel very different because
the curriculum is different and the researchers and workers in those
disciplines/environments behave differently (Long & Ehrmann, 2005).
 Learning spaces should be optimized for learning activities, not learning technologies.
 The design of learning space should evolve from formal settings to both formal and
informal settings; from passive listening, reading, note-taking to action, collaboration,
coaching, and reflection.
 Learning spaces should support activities associated with effective teaching; such as
situated, collaborative, and active learning.
PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF LEARNING/INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE
 Learning spaces should be designed for people, not for ephemeral technologies.
 The basics: physical attractiveness, lighting, and comfort are linked to motivation and
performance.
 Learning space should be flexible and reconfigurable, accommodate multiple uses and
approaches. Furniture should invite flexible arrangement, and should be ‘adult’
furniture rather than adolescent lapboard desks. A critical element is the need to design
for change and adaptability. We should view buildings as in a constant state of evolution
and flux.
 Learning space should acknowledge the need for social space and technology access.
 Learning space should: provide experience, stimulate the senses, encourage the exchange
of information, and offer opportunities for rehearsal, feedback, application, and transfer.
LOGISTICAL AND SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
 Thought should be given to designing learning space that is useful and accessible across
the 24-hour day.
 Faculty offices should be less segregated from instructional space.
 Learning spaces of the future will need more flexible plug-and-play technology
capabilities; less reliance on cumbersome rack systems and locked cabinets; more
accommodation of technology that can be carried to the learning space (laptops, ipods,
cell phones, for example).
 Furniture should be viewed as instructional technology; should be financed and
periodically replaced as such.
6

Classes should be able to move from room to room as the needs change over the course
of a semester. For example, a course may need teamwork spaces at the beginning of the
semester, computer lab space during the middle of the semester, and presentation space
at the end. It is acknowledge that this will be a challenge for space scheduling.
Ways to Create Sustainability, Innovation, and Excellence:
We acknowledge that to create sustainability, innovation, and excellence when addressing
learning spaces, that a teaching commons is a necessary component. Hutchings and Huber (2005)
describes “the teaching commons as a conceptual space in which communities of educators
committed to inquiry and innovation come together to exchange ideas about teaching and
learning, and use them to meet the challenges of educating students for personal, professional,
and civic life.” We propose that our teaching commons contain the following aspects:
 Workshops and seminars – both in the discipline and across disciplines, with a focus on
pedagogy, pedagogical content knowledge, and instructional technology.
 Grants to promote innovative, yet effective approaches
 Retreats at a campus level for sharing and recognition
 Support for an inquiry-based environment on teaching and learning
 Opportunities for dialogue and partnerships not only among individuals, but also among
units
 Set up a virtual reference space for working groups and individuals
 A permanent campus-level advisory committee, such as the Provost’s Instructional Space
Advisory Group, dedicated to promoting innovative, quality learning spaces
Cameron Fincher, "Learning Theory and Research," in Teaching and Learning in the College
Classroom, edited by Kenneth A. Feldman and Michael Paulson, Ashe Reader Series, Needham,
MA: Ginn Press, 1994.
2 Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Designing Space for Effective Learning: A Guide
to 21st Century Learning Space Design, p. 30,
<http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISClearningspaces.pdf>
1
7
References
Bass, R. A Framework: Using technologies to engage students and enhance learning.
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/bassr/outline.html.
Brown, M. B. & Lippincott, J. K. (2003). Learning spaces: More than meet the eye. Educause
Quarterly, 14-16.
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (October 1996). Implementing the seven principles:
Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 3-6.
Fink, D. (2003). Creating Significant Learning Experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
http://www.ou.edu/pii/significant/index.htm
Huber, M. T. and Hutchings, P.(2005) The Advancement of learning: Building the teaching
commons. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Laurillard, D. Rethinking university teaching in the digital age.
https://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0205s.pdf 28 – 31.
Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of
educational technology. London: Routledge-Falmer Publishers. An e-book.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=99eQakJyAj4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA31&dq=di
ana+laurillard&ots=_0RZYmRaqV&sig=01HCR7B-haxipg2Cc6CTMGTLezc#PPP1,M1
Laurillard, D. The changing university. http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper13/paper13.htm
Long, P. D., & Ehrmann, S. C. (2005). Future of the learning space: Breaking out of the box.
Educase review. 42-58.
Oblinger, D. G. (ed). (2006). Learning spaces. Educause e-book.
www.educause.edu/learningspaces.
8