Learning Spaces and Student Success - KI White Paper

8/4/2019 Learning Spaces and Student Success - KI White Paper

1/20


2/20Creating the New Learning Environment

ExECUTIvE SUmmARy

A new educational paradigm has occurred within the realm o higher

education. This paradigm is driven by changes in our growing understanding o

learning theory, shits in campus and student culture, and advances in technology.

Accordingly, new ways to design and deliver educational space must also bedeveloped to complement todays contemporary educational concepts.

While there are no exact ormulas to provide size, conguration, shape and

capacity o educational spaces needed to support student success, there are

recognized criteria or student learning and success that can be adopted as a

basis or the design o educational space.

This paper identies those undamental principles that can be used to create

spaces designed to enhance student success. It includes recommendations or

developing new design standards within the limits o currently available knowledgeas well as rationale or the creation o a comprehensive vision o campus-wide

transormation.



INTRoDUCTIoN

The call or a paradigm shit in teaching and learning in higher education occurred

in 1995 when the article, From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm or

Undergraduate Education,1 was published. Since Robert B. Barr and John Tagg

created this piece orChange magazine, growing awareness or a new learningdirection has gradually impacted the supporting built environment. Designers o

space have begun to seek new solutions in support o changing learning theories.

A growing body o knowledge rom various organizations oers urther insights

into changes in teaching and learning, campus and student culture, and the need

or responsive physical space. Organizations providing valuable inormation include

EDUCAUSE, the Society o College and University Planning, and initiatives like the

Project Kaleidoscope.

Despite the paradigm shit rom teaching to learning, a question remainsis thisnew understanding actually infuencing the way educational space is conceived,

built and used?

Certainly there are scattered examples o wonderully crated physical

environments that have been created to better support learning. Many o these

examples are becoming well known through industry articles, conerences and

seminars. Yet when one looks at the entire abric o the built environment,

signicant progress appears minimalchanges are oten ragmented, exist in

isolated pockets and have ailed to broadly infuence the traditional ways that

space is designed.

The oremost reason or this is that the instructional paradigm model (Barr and

Tagg) seems rmly entrenched throughout the higher-educational system and still

governs the way most space is planned and built.

However, newer, more dynamic learning environments are breaking through old

standards. These designs oten evolve within a community, engaging users o the

space and involving a cooperative partnership ormed within the institution. The

results refect and support the new paradigm o learning.


4/20



This book also uses a summary o the National Survey o Student Engagement

(NSSE) Clusters o Eective Educational Practice5 to urther distinguish colleges and

universities that perorm well in student engagement and graduation rates. Criteria

or principles include:

o Level o Academic Engagement

o Active and Collaborative Learning

o Student Interactions with Faculty Members

o Enriching Educational Experiences

o Supportive Campus Environment

Additionally, Student Success in College reports that most DEEP (Documenting

Eective Educational Practice) schools, artully plan and maintain their physical

acilities to promote student engagement. Space is dedicated or socially catalytic

interactions; areas where students and aculty can meet inormally or where

students can work together on projects.6

These same principles that distinguish student-success institutions can be used to

develop appropriate design-space standards. In act, most o the successul

models o space at institutions experimenting with prototypical learning

environments refect many o the DEEP school principles within their concepts.

NEw DESIGN STANDARDS: BUILDING oN EffECTIvE EDUCATIoNAL

PRACTICES

NSSE Eective Educational Practice principles can provide valuable insights into

the types o spaces that are most advantageous or learning, along with valuable

insights into the relationships o educational spaces.

I we look closely at these principles and imagine the activities that fow rom them,

we begin to understand why most existing educational space, e.g., the classroom,

is no longer adequate. While educators rightly view NSSE principles as their

domain, designers can develop a better understanding o supportive space by

refecting on the activities within these educational principles.



For example, the practice o creating a Level o Academic Challenge is entirely

an academic principle on the surace. However, a closer examination indicates

that this objective also involves better classroom preparation, reading and writing

activities, using higher-order thinking skills, and other similar educational processes.

These are pursuits that must occur somewhereand that somewhere is within

designed space.

We can even extend this reasoning beyond the classroom, in partnership with

educators, to include a variety o campus spaces. The popular development o

learning commons andsuccess centers within libraries can be considered a

response to educational tasks described within the principle academic challenge.

The space necessary or these centers can in turn be designed to dynamically

support academic activities.

We should also recognize an immediate and important link o educational space

to other parts o the campus. The result is an increased understanding o the needor a campus-wide vision, one that blends academics, culture and space into a

unied entity (the entity as linked circles o pedagogy, culture and space).

Another NSSE principle, Active and Collaborative Learning provides a wealth o

inormation and inspiration or architects o space. It immediately conjures

concepts o fexible and fuid environments that support a variety o interactive

and engaging activitiesrom teaming, projects, presentations, and discussions, to

individual research and refection, and even, lecturing. These educational activities

have been well ormulated and are being supported by the studio design concept.

Again, the studio concept has evolved to

address this need. But educators also say

engagement is equally important within

a social context. As such, campus space

should acilitate timely eedback, adequate

time spent on task, and interaction with

peers and aculty.

Beyond NSSE principles, educators and architects are urther challenged to

understand a new generation o students, sometimes reerred to as Millennials.

They are technology-smart, have strong collaborative skills and have better

time-management skills than previous generations.7 These shiting cultural

characteristics must also be considered within the design process. Proper

understanding o the increasing complex attitudes and expectations o students

is essential.

Active student engagement

with relevant subject matter

is also vital. Engagement is

the key to learning and

ultimate student success.



It is obvious that design standards created or the instructional paradigm are no

longer adequate. Thereore the development o new design standards based upon

learning become vitally important. This endeavor, while lled with complexities, must

rely on the educational principles being discussed as a oundation. These concepts,

along with a growing understanding o complex cultural shits, are already being

used by astute architects and designers as they explore learning-centered needs.There will undoubtedly be eventual changes to existing codes and space standards

based upon necessity.

In the meantime, the changes that dene student success outlined here are not

ads. Gradually, they will become the everyday principles o education. The

undamental issue is that new design principles must be applied now, leaving

behind design processes created or the instructional paradigm. That is why the

creation and testing o prototype spaces is so crucial. Without valid inormation

key decision-makers cannot be convinced to accept and codiy any new systems

or standards. The call here is not or revisions but an entirely new way o thinking.

ThINkING AND PLANNING DIffERENTLy

Nancy Chism and Deborah Bickord, in their bookThe Importance of Physical

Space in Creating Supportive Learning Environments state, new visions must be

characterized by dierences in thinking about, planning, allocating resources or,

and using learning spaces.8 The rationale behind this signicant concept is easy

to imagine but becomes highly complex when applied in the real world o higher

education.

new visions must be characterized by

dierences in... thinking about, planning,

allocating resources or, and using learning spaces.

For instance, no exact ormulas exist to provide the size, conguration, shape

and capacity o educational spaces that enable student success. In the past, design

standards developed specically or lecture-based teaching have been used. These

standards are still in wide use and are oten enorced by codes and other

regulations.

We now recognize the infexibility o such spacesspaces based on standards that

dene space as an area per student, rather than based upon educational activities.



New ways o planning space must be developed. And these methods must not

be based on the traditional standard o student per square oot, but on learning

per square oot.

This endeavor is quite complex and as mentioned, there is little or incomplete

data on which to shape basic equations. We can however, continue to orgeahead with the development o prototypes that have a learning and space

assessment component. And we can apply the learning concepts associated

with student success to develop responsive programs o space and the resulting

design concepts.

As we progress through untested projects o increasingly larger scale and

complexity, we will need methods to observe and evaluate both learning and

the space to support it. In an industry article, David Orr, Oberlin College, states,

We will need instructive models o sustainability, small enough to get our minds

around, but big enough to give us leverage at a larger scale.9

We will need instructive models o sustainability,

small enough to get our minds around, but big

enough to give us leverage at a larger scale.

This wise understanding provides insight into the value o prototypes that are

scaled to be properly evaluated. A campus-wide revolution is impossible withoutproperly understanding the eectiveness o applied learning theories and how

space can benet student success.

ThE EvoLUTIoN of LEARNING SPACES

As we transorm the built environment to better support shits in teaching and

learning, the process takes on more and more complexity. Various stages o

development, assessment and understanding are necessary as we evolve toward

a complete model o space that supports student success. To date, the studiomodel is supplementing the classroom, and a complex o spaces or a community

o spaces is being tested in advanced settings.



21 sq. t./student 27 sq. t./student 37 sq. t./student

Classr t Studi: D nt rearrange te urniturer else!

The shit rom classroom to studio model grew rom the need or more

interaction within the typical lecture-based classroom. The original motivation

was primarily discussion basedboth within the regular class structure and in

breakout groups. Early examples refected desperate cries or better space andcould be ound across many campuses in the get the chairs into a circle

model employed by then rogue aculty.

A byproduct o this movement was confict and misunderstanding among aculty

members, which also had ripple eects in acilities management. This oten

resulted in cryptic signs posted on blackboards, Do not rearrange the urniture

or else!

The studio model answered the need or more fexible space that also supported

interaction. Some very competent spaces are currently being created. They refectthe shit rom passive to active learning and provide more space per student than is

typically used in lecture-based teaching.

These models also use a variety o movable urniture and are designed to

provide multiple lines-o-sight and improved acoustics that permit a higher

degree o interaction.

Shiting the lecture-based classroom toward a studio environment was a major

design response that has now become one o the better-understood models.

Many other orms o learning environment models have evolved including

congurations popular with law and business schools and interactive science

laboratories as promoted by Project Kaleidoscope and Scale UP.



Classr t Studi: Paing te wa t Engageent

Observe the dynamics within the studio model and one quickly gains insights into

positive changes that occur in both student and aculty behavior.

Generally, acultys role will continue to slowly shit rom being an instructor whoimparts wisdom to one who engages students, shaping both how and what they

learn. Lecture still occurs within the studio environment, oten at the beginning o

class to outline objectives and expectations or the day. But students may also be

expected to arrive prepared to contribute to discussions, oten accessing course

content via the Internet.

In this way studios support the educational elements o student engagement.

While there are some exceptions, most students have assumed ownership within

the studio model. They are more involved and seem reer to express themselves.

Properly designed and positioned studios are important to the development o

team and interdisciplinary teaching as they more easily support the connections

required or this activity. Examples o the studio classroom evolution rom the Ryan

C. Harris Learning Teaching Center at the University o Dayton and other similar

models have shown that there are three undamental elements needed to design

an eective studio spacefexibility, unction and aesthetics.10



Obviously fexibility is o prime importance. It allows or the interaction and

engagement needed to support student success.

Function is another undamental design consideration. No longer is the ocus

solely on supporting the teacher; students are now major players within the studio

environment. As such they are involved in the everyday dynamics o the learningprocess and must have equal access to all aspects o the space and its supporting

educational tools. Beyond mechanical systems and lighting and saety, designing or

unction has experienced a undamental shit that also stresses the importance o

lines-o-sight and improved acoustics.

There is also an increasing awareness in the importance o aesthetics and its role

within the learning environment. Although additional study is required, it is obvious

that well-designed environments with pleasing proportions, colors, textures,

lighting and with a human scale and a sense o place can have a proound

infuence on educational activities.

Cunit Spaces: Learning in Cunit

The compelling rationale or the importance o learning in community is presented

by Deborah Bickord and David Wright in Community: The Hidden Context for

Learning.11 They state, Research on learning theory, how the brain works,

collaborative learning, and student engagement has taught us that people learn

best in community.

Bickord and Wright describe a community as a group o people with a commonpurpose, shared values, and agreement on goals. They urther state, A real

community, however, exists only when its members interact in a meaningul way

that deepens their understanding o each other and leads to learning.12

Learning in community requires a response rom designers o space that is ar

dierent rom even the advancements o the studio concept. The studio design,

while a major leap orward, is insucient to meet the total requirements o a

community o learners. The initiative instead requires a new type o spacea

community o spaces. These are places that are interconnected, related and

specically designed to support learning in community.

An immensely complex issue, learning in community creates ripple eects in space

design as institutions make the bold leap rom classroom to studio, and then to

a community o spaces. Where the classroom model ocused primarily on the

instructor, the studio involves multiple playersinstructor, students, acilities

management, scheduling department, and perhaps instructional technology.



In contrast, a community o learners

requires involvement rom all these

constituents, plus a variety o additional

stakeholders, some with opposing agendas.

Imagine the issues that arise in a living-

learning community that likely involvesStudent Aairs, Housing, Academics, IT,

and Facilities Management, not only in

concept and design, but also in operations!

Cunit Spaces: Eaples in Success

Remember the mantra, think, plan, and use dierently? There are some

shining examples o successul collaborative projects that have created a

community o spaces that support student success. These projects were

accomplished by a group o people with a common purpose, shared values,and agreement on goals.13 In other words, in community.

In some instances a community o spaces is needed to support specic

learning goals. Consider the space needed to support the NSSE principles, Level

o Academic Challenge and Student Interaction with Faculty. New places, oten

within libraries, are being created to mix students and aculty in spaces with mutual

ownership. Writing centers, success orlearning centers, and learning commons are

all developments created in response to the need or interaction, engagement,

socialization, and eedback. Properly conceived, these can be places or socially

catalytic interactions; area where students and aculty can meet inormally orwhere students can work together on projects.14

One example o such a space is currently being studied or The Ohio State

University Science and Engineering Library. The planning study calls or the

conversion o the library to become a place that:

o Is a vital & dynamic space;

o Fosters a spirit o collaboration;

o Stimulates creativity;

o Is a testing place or learning;

o Enhances relationships and stimulating engagement

between librarians, aculty, and students.

Issues o unding, control

and conficting agendas oten

overshadow what should be

the initial objective o eachand every projectstudent

success.



Its third-foor concept mixes a Digital Union and support oces with new studios,

interaction areas, and research to provide a highly interactive environment. This

new place promises to be not only highly productive, but a testing model or other

campus areas.

A Stud in Cunit: Learning and Space

The University o Dayton took recent advantage o 10,000 square eet o space

within a new residence hall that was built to deliver additional and better student

housing. This space, inormally christened, The Learning Space in Marianist Hall,

extended the lessons learned by observing activities in the universitys Ryan C.

Harris Learning Teaching Center (LTC).

This older space, the LTC, had many components that contributed to improved

learninga studio linked to a multipurpose orum, a ca, spaces or Learning

Enhancement and Academic Development, as well as oces or those needinginteraction with users o the space. All this was created with oversized pathways

that link destination points while oering space or group study or private

refection. These spaces promote a continuation o learning and impromptu

exchanges.

The new Learning Space incorporates many o LTCs eatures to not only provide

fexibility within the more ormal studios, but also support the educational

elements o eedback and interaction, and other learning principles.

For instance, the studios oer students and aculty the fexibility to engage in the

multiple tasks that accompany active and collaborative learning. Because the studio

in itsel is insucient to support all the needs or engagement, timely eedback, and

ongoing interaction, the studios are supplemented with additional types o space.



When taken together, the Learning Space provides an innovative and enhanced

learning environment, along the lines o a Jeersonian model o education. Its wide

array o spaces and elements work in concert and include:

Linkedstudios to provide the fexibility

advantage ound within a single learningenvironment while also encouraging co-

curricular and interdisciplinary teaching.

Ofces are mixed within the heart o the

complex to provide accessibility to aculty

and encourage interaction. Partial glass wallsallow aculty to observe students working

while providing students with visual signs

o aculty availability. Subtle arrangement o

urniture gives aculty a degree o privacy

when desired. An unwritten understanding

o when aculty is available or interaction

evolved naturally ater only a ew months

o use. The position and use o these

oces has also heightened the community

o practice among at least part o the aculty.

ACommonsarea accommodates up to

80 persons. This space serves a multitude

o unctions, rom acting as a scheduled

studio, to serving as a gathering place or

three classes meeting at once. Mobility and

ease o reconguration is critical to

the operational success o this space. The

urniture selected is easily moved and

stackable, or easily nested. Lightweight

screens are used to provide temporary

sectioning o the space. At other times it

becomes group project space, individual

study space, or hosts presentations by,

and receptions or, visiting scholars.



Pathways serve as links between the major

spaces. While older models would use

corridors (or by code, means o egress),

the Learning Space makes use o

generous areas lled with sot seating,

marker boards, out-o-the-way nooks orrefection and tables that extend learning

beyond the studios. This principle has been

extolled by numerous educators as

essential to deeper learning. Pathways

are open to squatters and interlopers,

acilitating impromptu exchanges, and are

oten used by students or the preparation

o presentations.

A high degree o emphasis in the Learning Space is given to aesteticscolor,

lighting, and textures. Walls are covered with artwork and posters that tell o

activities. Artwork is selected to relate to current events, curriculum topics and

other eorts that extend learning into a real-world setting.

ThebenetsandrewardsgeneratedbytheuniversitysnewLearningSpace

ae been nuerus:

Studentsandfacultyappeartofunctiontoahigherdegreewithinthiscomortable atmosphere, associating the space with a more homey eeling

than that o a typical classroom building.

Richerinteractions,benecialsocialconnectionsandasenseofstudent

ownership have been noted over the two years o use.

StudentswithintheLearningSpaceseemtoexhibitthesamepositive

characteristics observed within the LTC Studio. They appear more open to

interaction and engagement.

Aheightenedsenseofemotionalsecurityseemstoallow,evenencourage,

exploration. Students eagerly ask questions in the Learning Space environment

when they might otherwise remain mute in the typical classroom setting, or

ear their questions might be judged as dumb.



Therearefacultyreportsofstudentsmakingmeaningfulconnectionsbetween

their courses. History, English and philosophy courses take on new meaning as

relationships between those subjects become linked and better understood.

All in all this community o spaces is designed to support student success by

advancing NSSEs criteria o eective educational practices. It urthermoreconsciously creates a sense o place. Kuh, et al, states, Students are more

likely to fourish in small settings where they are known and valued as individuals

than in settings where they eel anonymous.15

Students are more likely to fourish in small settings

where they are known and valued as individuals

than in settings where they eel anonymous.

Additionally, the physical characteristics o environments like the Learning Space

can aect learners emotionally with important cognitive and behavioral

consequences. For instance, sot-seating comort is important ergonomically, but it

also creates an association with a positive place o well being. Environments that

elicit positive emotional responses may lead not only to enhanced learning but

also to a powerul, emotional attachment to that space.16

o Designs and Dileas

A move to a community o spaces sounds utopian and is indeed a vast

improvement over traditional spaces in supporting learning-centered processes.

Such a move may need to address several cultural issues howevereven

clashesthat can inhibit its eectiveness.

To truly realize results, a dierently designed space must also be utilized dierently.

Otherwise, a lecture is still just a lecture. Additionally, there remains a certain

percentage o students who, by nature or by previous educational experiences,

are not able to ully adapt to a culture o engagement and interaction. This

presents a diculty since, Student growth and development are aected bytheir level o engagement and quality o study eorts.17

Student growth and development are aected by

their level o engagement and quality o study eorts.



CoNCLUSIoN

The present era demands radical rethinking rather

than tinkering. Chism/Bickord

Institutions o higher learning are aced with complex issues that can greatly

infuence their positions among peer institutions. Such issues also aect

recruitment and retention o students and aculty, and at times, even threaten

their very existence. The range o issues include societal changes, shits in

campus culture, in teaching and learning, and in traditional sources o unding.

Moving the transormation o learning and space orward is equally multiaceted and

lled with complexities. Responses to date are as varied and diverse as the number

o institutions. There are, however, several important universal steps that can

acilitate the necessary change required to create eective learning environments.

CreateaUniedStakeholderVisionFocusedonStudentSuccess

Learning environments are more than just space issues. Campus stakeholders

must act as a ocused community placing student success as the overriding,

common goal. A team o learning-centered advocates should be appointed by

the president to represent the various learning-centered interests. This advocate

group can provide insight and guidance on educational space planning. It should

act as a resource to acilities management and planning consultants in any upgrade,

renovation, or construction o academic space. In other words, every project

involving space should be considered an opportunity to create a learning-centered

environment.

It is also important that the acilities director establish a policy supporting the

universitys learning-centered strategies and directives. Facilities management

should establish a leadership group within its organizational structure that has

knowledge o the principles o learning-centered initiatives. In this way they will

be able to maintain a close and respected relationship with the academic

learning advocates. The learning advocates must also develop an understanding

o the pressures in the daily operations o acilities and why their knowledge and

expertise is vital to ultimate transormation.

Establis Prttpes t Test Learning & Space

Scattered across the United States and in other countries are rich pockets o

advanced prototypes o space that support learning. These examples represent

valuable inormation regarding the connection between space and learning.



Although this inormation is ragmented and typically not well studied or shared, it

can still have a powerul infuence on its users. Simply having experimental spaces

within a campus environment provides aculty, students and administrators with a

visible illustration o student success and its resulting benets.

Deelp a Parallel facult Deelpent CpnentO course, i newly created space models are used to sustain the old, instructional

paradigm, they will be o no real benet. In act, they will be detrimental to the

causethe cost o these prototypes will be seen by adversaries as a sound reason

to retain the lecture approach as the best teaching method.

New space models dont yet come with instruction books thereore aculty

development is a critical component to the success o new space design and

implementation. Proper assessment methods must be established to test learning

theory, identiy how space supports learning, and provide guidance to aculty

that wish to hone their teaching skills in the new learning environment.

Inle Users Space

I institutions are to plan educational spaces dierently, they must logically include

the users o spaceaculty and studentswithin the planning process. Recently,

there has been a rereshing trend to especially involve students in planning. Many

o the projects that use student surveys and design involvement include student

unions, residence halls, and recreational acilities. Unortunately, this remains less

so or the most important o campus spacesthose scheduled or educational

purposes.

optiize Space opprtunities and Blend Psical and virtual Spaces

It is both physically and nancially impossible to redesign colleges and universities

to support new learning using traditional planning methods and operational

procedures, and conventional space standards and unding methods.

Space standards can no longer be based on bodies per square oot, per standard

time intervals. New measurements must be developed that refect learning rather

than by the math equations developed or the instructional paradigm. This

becomes a nancial issue as the amount o space within a typical studio designed

or active learning increases by a actor o at least two over a lecture-based

classroom. Also these spaces usually cost more due to improvements in urniture,

educational tools and aesthetics.



Thereore, besides creating new orms o space, institutions must nd creative

ways to use them. In addition, all spaces across the campus must be used in wiser

and more ecient ways. Spaces can now have multiple uses and learning can be

spread into areas that to date may have been o limits. To do so involves all

campus stakeholders and operational aspects o the campus and will oten

require the breaking down o silos or territories.

There must also be a blending o physical and virtual space to increase eciencies.

Educators must devise new ways o scheduling space and distributing course

content. More creative ways o using technology will be the key to this

transormation.

SUmmARy

Creating a new vision o the campus and all its possibilities requires resh

approaches. Nancy Chism neatly sums up where we now are in this evolutionby this exhortation, A radical rethinking o the use o space in learning,

exploring related items such as scheduling and use o instructional technology,

is clearly needed at this juncture.18

The path toward a learning-centered campus will travel though uncharted

territories. It will require orming cooperative relationships that break down

traditional barriers. It will create new ways to plan and use space. And above

all, it will require communitya community o explorers with the common

goal o student success.


20/20

Creating the New Learning Environment

This research report urnished to you courtesy o KI

REfERENCES

1 R.B. Barr and J. Tagg, From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm or Undergraduate

Education, Change, Nov./Dec. 1995, 27(4).

2 Chris Johnson and Cyprien Lomas, Design o the Learning Space, Learning & Design

Principles, EDUCAUSE Review, July/August 2005.

3 George Lorenzo, Diana Oblinger, and Charles Dziuban, How Choice, Co-Creation, and

Culture Are Changing What It Means to Be Net Savvy, EDUCAUSE Quarterly, Vol. 30, No.

1, 2007.

4 George D. Kuh et al., Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter,

Jossey-Bass, 2005.

5 Ibid., pp. 10-11.

6 Ibid., pp. 93, 106.

7 Diana Oblinger and James Oblinger, Educating the Net Generation, EDUCAUSE eBook, 2005

8 Nancy Van Note Chism, Deborah J. Bickord, The Importance o Physical Space in Creating

Supportive Learning Environments, Jossey-Bass New Directions or Teaching and Learning,

No. 92, Winter 2002. Chapter 10, Improving the Environment or Learning: An Expanded

Agenda.

9 David W. Orr, A Meditation on Building, The Chronicle o Higher Education, The Chronicle

Review, October 20, 2006.

10 William Dittoe, The Importance o Physical Space in Creating Supportive Learning

Environments, Jossey-Bass New Directions or Teaching and Learning, No. 92, Winter 2002.

Chapter 9, Innovative Models o Learning Environments.

11 Deborah Bickord and David Wright, Learning Spaces, EDUCAUSE eBook, 2006. Chapter 4,

Community: The Hidden Context or Learning, p. 3.

12 Ibid., p. 5.

13 Ibid.

14 George D. Kuh et al., Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter,

Jossey-Bass, 2005, pp. 93, 106.

15 Ibid., p. 106.

16 Ken A. Graetz, Learning Spaces, EDUCAUSE eBook, 2006. Chapter 6, The Psychology o

Learning Environments.

17 Sawyer Hunley and Molly Schaller, Learning Spaces, EDUCAUSE eBook, 2006. Chapter 13,

Assessing Learning Spaces.

18 Nancy Van Note Chism, The Importance o Physical Space in Creating Supportive Learning

Environments, Jossey-Bass New Directions or Teaching and Learning, No. 92, Winter 2002.

Chapter 1, A Tale o Two Classrooms, p. 11.

Photos courtesy of The University of Dayton

Documents

Learning Spaces and Student Success - KI White Paper