Spaces for Learning Report

8/8/2019 Spaces for Learning Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spaces-for-learning-report 1/52

















































































Its success prompted the university to developsimilar suites of space, using technology andinnovative seating arrangements, when itrefurbished the third and fourth oors ofthe building.

Professor Jim Boyle, Head of the MechanicalEngineering Department, says that in an idealworld his department would have a third of itsspace for studio work, a third for core engineeringteaching and a third for problem-based learning. AtStrathclyde, it was not possible to accommodate thisin one large, exible, multi-functional studio spaceand the changes made to the James Weir Buildinghave achieved a good compromise. The exiblespaces are generally fully booked, even though theywould function better if they were closer together.

Lighting the central circulation areas (3 and4.5 metres wide) has been improved, the walls

repainted and the space made more useableby removing lockers and installing seating foroccasional working in some of the recesses. Thishas improved students’ attitudes to the building byproviding a useful facility. Unfortunately, the seatingis of poor quality and is showing signs of wear.

ConclusionsWhile the changes are a success, they havebeen restricted by budget and by the buildingitself. Most rooms still operate as conventionallecture theatres (although improved by the

installation of interactive technology includingpersonal response voting systems).

However, Strathclyde has thought through what itcan achieve and implemented it effectively. It hastaken the sophisticated use of technology a stagefurther than most other institutions, both in termsof how teaching spaces can best be used, and in theway that course material can be drawn from a rangeof sources, compiled to a high standard, tailoredfor individuals and distributed electronically. Thereduced dropout rates illustrate clearly the bene tsof engaging with students and the importanceof having a variety of teaching spaces to supportthe different modes of teaching and learning. Double projection screen, James Weir Building.

(photo: AMA)

Group learning, James Weir Building.(photo: AMA)

Banana shaped desks assigned to four personstudent cohorts to facilitate interaction.(photo: AMA)

Floor plan of the refurbished spaces, James Weir Building.(image: courtesy of University of Strathclyde)

37



38

With 20,000 students, Edinburgh’s Edinburgh’sTelford College is one of the largest FE collegesin Scotland. Established in the 1960s, itcurrently extends across three campusesin the socially deprived areas of Pilton andMuirhouse and a fourth site at the Gyle.However, a new campus at West Granton duefor completion in 2006 will replace these.

West Granton Road CampusLike many FE establishments, Edinburgh’s TelfordCollege needs to break down barriers againsteducation among people for whom formal educationhas failed. While Edinburgh’s Telford College seeksto prepare some students for higher education,the focus is rmly on vocational training andgaining employment within local industry.

The college recognises the importance of makingfull use of exible learning and ICT, particularly withregard to making learning as accessible as possible.It goes further, helping students learn communallyby gearing teaching spaces for interaction anddiscussion, and blurring the boundaries betweenformal teaching circulation and social spaces. This

plays to the psychology of a generation that seestechnology-driven interaction as fun, therebymaking learning more fashionable and attractive.

The West Granton Road campus implements theabove strategy within the constraints of the siteand this has resulted in a tightly packed, four- oorbuilding. The building is U-shaped, with two longarms extending around an open courtyard. Thereis the dramatic social space, the hub – a signi cantshift away from the low status canteen on the oldcampus. On the two upper oors of the building areopen plan staff areas where the majority of staff willbe hot desking, something new in education buildings.

The Learning Resource Centre, a exible, open planspace, is a signi cant improvement on the equivalentspace in the old campus. It combines a traditionalbook and computer-oriented library with enclosedand semi-enclosed work and project areas. It islikely to be more structured and quieter than eitherthe Glasgow Caledonian University Saltire Centre(see case study 4) or the central concourse of theWesterhouse Road Campus at John Wheatley College(see case study 1). The space is 18 x 70m and similar

Case study 3Edinburgh’s Telford College, West Granton Road

Model of the new Edinburgh’s TelfordCampus, West Granton Road.(image: courtesy of HOK)



39

in character and strategic approach to a large,

open plan of ce. It makes ef cient use of spaceand introduces an atmosphere of innovationthat spills out into the college as a whole.

From here, extending down either ‘arm’ aretwo ‘learning streets’, which service the rst

oor classrooms that make a transition fromindependent learning to teaching. The streets,generous central circulation spaces, incorporatealcoves for ‘purposeful socialisation’ equippedwith computer workstations, like the rest ofthe campus, and wireless data access. Thelearning streets are key to the college’s exiblelearning plan and will ensure that learning is notrestricted to formal classrooms – they will helpcreate an atmosphere of pervasive learning.

The streets and teaching classrooms are equippedwith raised oors to accommodate futuretechnology. Vertical ducts and the arrangementof permanent and moveable walls will determinethe con guration of future modi cations.Throughout the college and wherever Internetaccess is available, students can ‘enter’ the VirtualLearning Environment, through which theycan communicate with their tutors and fellowstudents as well as access learning materials.

Flexibility has been incorporated into thegeneral teaching spaces in a variety of ways:

- raised oors provide cabling to all areas- stud walls between classrooms enable

easy removal or modi cation- sliding/folding doors are provided

between some classrooms forexibility in classroom size

- mains services within walls is restrictedto corridors, (although in a fewinstances electronic whiteboards andother equipment has been located oncrosswalls, limiting their exibility)

- wet services are provided wherepossible for exible uses

- cable management is kept separate fromloose furniture (except in speci c computertraining areas) so it can be rearranged quickly

- room sizes vary from 30m2 to 72m2.- Computer laboratories are paired, with

glazed walls, and may be either used as twoseparate labs, or as one large teaching space.

A distinction in possible exibility is drawnbetween spaces for practical trades and generalteaching spaces. Simulated environments,such as the hairdressing salons, have speci cdesign requirements for drainage, specialventilation or additional oor loading capacity.These determine how they can be used.

The classrooms are divided by walls with highspeci cation for sound-proo ng. The designis also in uenced by the sustainability agendaand use of natural ventilation, which hasresulted in openings onto the learning streetsand atrium that affect the arrangement ofthe street levels and the wall space availablein the classrooms. Most rooms have beenmade as open plan as possible in order toenable easy change and recon guration asindustry or educational needs change.

External perspective of the new campus.(image: courtesy of HOK)

Internal view of the main reception,(image: Steve Atkinson)

View of social and dining space.(image: Steve Atkinson)



40

ConclusionThe campus represents a signi cant stepforward in the provision of innovative teachingand learning, especially with its facilitation ofindependent leaning. New AV equipment hasbeen introduced into most classrooms as wellas wi throughout the college. The layout isef cient and likely to generate an exciting andenergetic atmosphere. Interestingly, the formalteaching spaces, while incorporating certainelectronic features, do not differ substantially

from the classroom spaces of the old campus.Rather, emphasis is on the easy availability ofelectronic data via comprehensive cabling anddata infrastructure. This makes good sense asIT equipment will undoubtedly change whilethe cabling / data infrastructure will changeless frequently, and is more important inyielding teaching opportunities over time.

The biggest change has been the move to‘independent learning’, where general access tolearning is key. This psychological shift away fromlearning only in classrooms to an environmentwhere learning is possible anywhere, at anytime,is enhanced by the design of the campus.

View of typical learning street at rst oor level.(image: courtesy of HOK)

Ground oor of the West Granton campus building.(image: courtesy of HOK)

Ground oor plan of Learning Resource Centre.(image: courtesy of HOK)



41

Glasgow Caledonian University was granteduniversity status in 1993 and quicklyestablished itself as a fully- edged instituteof higher education. It describes itself as a‘21st century university’ and is determinedto put learning and teaching on the samelevel as research. It takes pride in the factthat over 27% of its students come fromdeprived communities and that it bridges

the gap between higher education and thepractical world of business and industry.

Glasgow Caledonian has embarked on anambitious rebuilding programme, pullingtogether disparate buildings into a campusthat is very much part of the city. Recentprojects such as the Mbeki Building, the ARCand the highly signi cant Saltire Centre allhelp generate a sense of place without beingexclusive. The programme is as much abouttechnology and facilitating a new kind of teachingas it is about physical space and facilities. Theinternationally-acclaimed Saltire Centre is aprime example of how this can be achieved.

The Saltire CentreLes Watson, a Pro Vice-Chancellor of Glasgow

Caledonian University and the project champion,describes the university’s primary challengeas that of reaching out to include those whohave not previously considered entering highereducation. It must engage with its students,make them want to be there and make themexcited, not intimidated, by the prospect oflearning. It has to make education fashionableand fun. Les Watson points out that in businessand industry people learn from each other and,for students especially, this is the most powerfulway of learning, complemented by formalinstruction and re ective understanding.

The Saltire Centre recognises the importanceof exible learning, supported self-learning andsimilar learning concepts that are made possibleby the electronic delivery of information. Itgoes further, by making itself the starting pointof the learning process and by encouraging‘deliberate socialising’. This includes acceptingnoise, combining learning environmentswith food and drink with the associated riskof damage to equipment and property. Thisapproach places con dence in the students,trusting them to identify what constitutesacceptable behaviour. The University hasproved that this approach can work, albeit ona smaller scale, at its popular Learning Café.

The Learning Café, launched in 2001 and locatedon the ground oor of the main library, was builtto encourage social learning. It has a mixtureof comfortable furniture, serves good coffeeand food and welcomes mobile telephone use

and general chat. Its success with students andstaff resulted in the approach being expandedto the larger, 1,800 seat Saltire Centre.

The Saltire Centre, comprising 10,500m 2 overve oors, is multi-functional, exible and

open plan and delivers the full range of libraryservices. It does this by focusing on people andthe process of learning, rather than on storageand resource management. On each oorthere are books, on open shelves and compactshelving, and facilities for studying, browsing and

borrowing, as well as for relaxing and socialising.

Case study 4Glasgow Caledonian University, Saltire Centre

View of the front entrance to the Saltire Centre.(image: Richard Barrett, courtesy of Glasgow Caledonian Univeersity)



42

The ground oor consists of a 2,500m 2 ‘servicesmall’, which provides a one-stop access pointfor all services for students. A main servicedesk, auxiliary desks, service kiosks, meetingpods, semi-private in atable meeting corners,six private consulting rooms and access to theconsulting suite are all set within a lively mixtureof study space, a café and access to 40% of the

centre’s book stock on compact shelving.

The Saltire Centre could be seen as an unstructured‘educational soup’ and, at nine times the size of theLearning Café, might not be so easy to operate.Yet on close examination it is clear that it hasbeen well thought through and is based on soundresearch into the workings of open plan, exiblespace. As can be seen from the plan and section,the centre offers a wide range of spaces to suitdifferent people, learning methods and styles – fromopen and interactive to closed, structured studyspaces. The large, open ground oor contrastswith the smaller scale top oor, and there is agradual shift from noisy front ground oor toquiet back top oor. The interior design, furniture,

xtures and ttings have been carefully selected tocomplement the range of spaces within the Centre.

ConclusionThe Saltire Centre turns circulation and informalteaching spaces into a major resource. Ithighlights the essential role this type of spaceplays in modern teaching and encouragesthe combination of socialising and learningin a much more radical manner than in manyother educational establishments.

Students in the Learning Café(photo: courtesy of Glasgow Caledonian University)

View of ground oor of the Saltire Centre.(photo: Richard Barrett, courtesy of Glasgow Caledonian University)

Internal view of the Saltire Centre atrium.(photo: Richard Barrett, courtesy of Glasgow Caledonian University)

Students in the Learning Café, thepredecessor of the Saltire Centre(photo: courtesy of Glasgow Caledonian University)



43

APPENDIX 7Abbreviations and Glossary

Many organisations and concepts have beenreferred to during this project. As an aid tothe reader, the following guide is offered.

CABE Commission for Architectureand the Built Environment

FE Further EducationFEC Further Education CollegeFTE Full-time equivalentGCU Glasgow Caledonian UniversityHE Higher EducationHEA Higher Education AcademyHEDQF Higher Education Design Quality ForumHEFCE Higher Education Funding Council of EnglandHMIE HM Inspectorate of EducationHEI Higher Education InstitutionJANET Joint Academic NETworkJISC Joint Information Sub CommitteeLSC Learning and Skills CouncilPRS Personal Response System (electronic voting)QAA Quality Assurance AgencySCRE The Scottish Council for Research in EducationSFC Scottish Funding CouncilSFHEFC Scottish Further and Higher

Education Funding CouncilSFEU Scottish Further Education Unit

Asynchronous learning – learning which doesnot take place in real time (eg learning via email,video messaging, online coursework)

Active learning – learning where the student isengaged in thinking critically about their existingknowledge and directing future study

Blended learning – e-learning combinedwith traditional learning

Computer commons – social space

equipped with computers

Collaboratory – a place designed to supportcollaborative learning (see below)

Collaborative learning – learning that involvesinteraction between students/peers

Cyber café – see internet café

E-learning – networked access to digital learning materialsand communication systems to deliver and support learning

Immersive environment – space with several large screensfor projecting information so that occupants are immersedin the data; 3-dimensional simulations sometimes included

Information commons – library space for teachersand learners to explore information and resources

Internet café – space providing computeraccess to the internet plus refreshments

Learning-centred environment – an environmentthat pays careful attention to the skills, attitudes and

beliefs that learners bring to the educational setting

M-learning – mobile learning via wireless access tomobile devices (laptops, handhelds or phones) todeliver learning materials and support services

Open learning centre – physical place facilitatedwith experts, online and paper based materials,where students can study at their own pace.Such spaces are often provided within librariesand can include presentation rooms

Peer-to-peer learning – learning whichtakes place between one or more students.(See also ‘collaborative learning’)

Pedagogy – study of the methods andapplication of educational theory

Self-directed learning – learner assumes primaryresponsibility for planning, implementing and evaluatingthe learning process. (See also ‘active learning’)

Skills laboratory – space where hands-onpractical teaching and learning takes place

Student-centred learning – teaching methods thatpay careful attention to skills, attitudes and beliefsthat learners bring to the educational setting

Synchronous learning – learning that takes placein real time (eg classroom situations, video-conferencing, synchronised chat rooms)

Teaching cluster – a group of learning spaces

offering a variety of learning modes

Transparent technology – supportive technologywhich is easy and intuitive to use

Virtual learning environment – virtual forumwhich integrates online learning with deliverymethods and students tracking

Virtual Classroom – online discussion forumsupported by digital materials

Wi- – commonly used to signify the 802.11bstandard. A form of wireless networking whichallows the connection of two or more computerswithout the need for physical cabling



44

APPENDIX 8Conference October 2005– Summary

To disseminate the ndings of this reportto Scottish Higher and Further Educationinstitutions, the SFC arranged the Spacesfor Learning conference, which took placeon 31 October 2005 at Glasgow CaledonianUniversity. Representatives from Estates, IT andtechnology, Senior Administration, Libraries andLearning Specialists attended from seventeenHigher Education and 32 Further EducationColleges to discuss and comment on the draftreport. The day was well attended by 130delegates, and the report was well received.

Following an introduction by Ian Murning (SFC)the Spaces for Learning report was presentedby (AMA Alexi Marmot Associates). Thepresentation focused on case study examples ofthe portfolio of space types that are emerging tomeet the needs of the new pedagogy, to exploitthe opportunities brought by technology andthe changing demographics of the learningpopulation. Essential design qualities of thesespaces were discussed and twelve keys steps toproviding successful spaces for learning identi ed.

This was followed by a presentation by Fiona

Parsons on the E-spaces study conducted forJISC by the University of Birmingham. Thepresentation gave an overview of the researchmethodology and guidelines for the effectiveintroduction of learning technologies into learningenvironments. Case study examples were included.

Six workshops were offered (each repeatedtwice) to generate further discussion. Workshopsexplored the portfolio of space types identi ed inthe Spaces for Learning report: Group teaching/learning space; Simulation and immersive

environments; Social / peer-to-peer spaces;Learning clusters; and Private study & externalspaces. In addition, a workshop on LearningTechnologies was offered by the University ofBirmingham team and a hard-hat tour of theSaltire Centre, which was under constructionat the time, was given by Les Watson.

A wide ranging set of thoughtful commentswere recorded from the workshop participants.These are summarised below:

On creating good learning environments:

• The basics of good light, temperature and

air quality, suitable locations, are alwaysprerequisites for successful spaces.

• Differences between universities and collegesmust always be taken into account. Collegesmay need more support for change.

• Examples and site visits provideinvaluable opportunities for learning.

• The importance of a strong project sponsorwilling to keep the project high pro le amongststaff and students, cannot be underestimated,

• Obtaining student views and needs helps tocreate the right type of place and atmosphere

• It is important that appropriate guidance andmaterials are available to support learning andteaching in new environments. Highly committedstudents and lecturers are essential to take newtypes of space and teaching methods forward.

• Feedback and Post-Occupancy Evaluation isessential, along with dissemination of lessonslearned to the sector. Understanding of theimpact of space on learning effectiveness isneeded as this could help secure funding for newdevelopments that is otherwise hard to get.

On funding mechanisms:

• It seems that the current driver in the sectoris to reduce the oor area of the estates to

be more ef cient. If space utilisation is notto be a determinant of funding, what is?

• New approaches to space utilisations measureswill need to be considered for differentuse patterns and a wider range of spacetypes - it is still an important concept.

• The varying levels of available fundingand timescales for projects impact on theability of institutions to consult widely andreally think about estates strategies.



45

On Group Teaching / Learning Spaces:

• Traditional lecture theatres will still be used inthe future. Students and staff still value face toface methods, increasingly supported by IT.

• New teaching methods seem to require morespace which may be in tension with messages

about space ef ciency. There is clearly scopeto consider the use of better designed furniturealthough this is not always affordable.

• Centralised timetabling can aid ef ciency, butthere is a need to achieve a balance betweenef cient use of resources and appropriatelearning environments for each subject.

• College students often work in very smallgroups with a high degree of technologyand this requires more space(s) to divideup classes into many groups.

On Learning Clusters:

• Furniture rearrangements or varied roomsize requirements over the day may reducereal exibility - clusters of rooms can bemanaged as a group to help mitigate this,ideally with a local cluster manager.

• Space clusters are usually found to bebetter utilised than other spaces.

• Concerns from colleges that there areadditional costs involved in the managementof exible space. If this is not underpinnedby funding for ongoing support then it isless likely that they will be implemented.

On Social / Peer-to-peer spaces:

• We need to stop talking about social space andembrace the term ‘learning space’ because evencirculation space is becoming learning space.

• Social spaces are best located in openareas with a large throughput of people toencourage usage by a broad population.

• Questions arose as to how you justify socialand peer-to-peer spaces in an outlinebusiness case? More evidence on demandand effectiveness need to be gathered.

• Some colleges reported being unable touse corridor spaces due to re regulations.How do you balance non-combustible, xedfurniture with comfort and affordability?

• The extent to which social areas are providedwith xed IT needs to be thought about inrelation to the view that students need some

‘down time’ areas without PCs, such as cafes.

On technology:

• Innovative teaching methods oftenrequire signi cant IT support. This is muchmore manageable if there is a policy ofstandardised speci cation and equipment.

• The skill set required to deliver teaching in a digitalage must be considered. Knowledge gaps shouldbe addressed by more training for teaching staff.

• In the future more students will own their owntechnology kit but issues of social inclusion willremain. Currently, desktop PC’s provided on siteare the machine of choice for most students.

On Private / External Spaces:

• Currently the SFEFC funding/bursary model

requires a record of physical attendancethat is perceived to discourage thecreative use of off-campus learning.

• Learning should be drawn from the FE sector,which has extensive experience of non-campus learning (e.g. community premises,workplaces). Issues to consider includeaccess to PCs, linking to college IT networks,and health and safety responsibilities.



46

APPENDIX 9 – References

The following references are offered forreaders interested in further pursuingthe subject matter of this report.

Anderson, P, Blackwood, A 2004, Mobile and PDAtechnologies and their future use in education, JISCTechnology and Standards Watch: 04-03, November.

Barr, R and Tagg, J, 1995, A new paradigm forUndergraduate Education From Teaching toLearning, Change, November, pp 13-25

Bartlett P, and Chase G, 2005, Sustainabilityon Campus: Stories and strategies forchange, Cambridge Mass., MIT Press.

Bransford, J D, Brown Ann L, Cocking, R R, 2000,

How People Learn: brain, mind, experienceand school, National Research Council,National Academy Press, Washington DC.

CABE, 2005, Design With Distinction: The valueof good building design in higher education,the Commission for Architecture and the BuiltEnvironment, ODPM, London, March.

Learning and Skills Council, March 2005,World Class Buildings: Design quality in furthereducation, LSC and RIBA Client Forum.

PKAL Roundtable of the Future, 2001,Information Technology in the service ofstudent learning, Project Kaleidoscope.

Schneider M, 2002, Do school facilities affectacademic outcomes?, National Clearinghousefor Educational Facilities, November.

Scottish Executive, 2003, Life through learning:Learning through life, the life long learning strategyfor Scotland, Scottish Executive, February.

Scottish Funding Councils, 2005 Joint SFEFC/SHEFC E-Learning Group: Final Report, SHEFC.

Wilson V, 2002, Does small really make a difference?A review of the literature on the effects of classsize on teaching practice and pupils’ behaviourand attainment SCRE Research report No. 107

www.cpmag.comCollege Planning & Management Magazine

www.educause.edu/Educause

www.smg.ac.ukSpace Management Group

www.tltgroup.orgTeaching, Learning & Technology Group

http://web.mit.edu/Massachusetts Institute of Technology

http://scil.stanford.eduStanford Center for Innovations & Learning





Scottish Funding CouncilDonaldson House97 Haymarket TerraceEdinburghEH12 5HD

Tel: 0131 313 6500Fax: 0131 313 6501Email: [email protected]

Alexi Marmot AssociatesLinton House39 Highgate RoadLondonNW5 1RS

Tel: +44 (0)20 7284 5888Fax: +44 (0)20 7284 5889Email: [email protected]

haa design limitedCentral Chambers109 Hope StreetGlasgowG2 6LL

Tel: 0141 221 6234Fax: 0141 221 6543Email: [email protected]

D e s i gn e d b yD r a u gh t A s s o c i a t e s

Documents

Spaces for Learning Report