The Learning Space Rating System (242348311)

8/11/2019 The Learning Space Rating System (242348311)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-learning-space-rating-system-242348311 1/44

The Learning Space Rating System

Carole MeyersDartmouth College

with

Malcolm BrownEDUCAUSE Learning Initiative

Shirley DugdaleDugdale Strategy

1 October 2014

Reporting on Testing of the System:

Tim MurphyGeorge Mason University

Scott DienerUniversity of Auckland

Adam FinkelsteinMcGill University

Jenn StringerUC Berkeley



Learning Space Rating System | V. 1 Authors

Malcolm Brown, Ph.D.

DirectorEDUCAUSE Learning Initiative

Joseph Cevetello, Ed.D.

Director, Learning Environments

Univ. of Southern California

Shirley Dugdale, AIAPrincipal

Dugdale Strategy LLC

Elliot Felix

DirectorBrightspot Strategy LLC

Rich Holeton

Director

Academic Computing Services

Stanford University

Carol Meyers, Ph.D.

Project Director, Research Information

Services

Dartmouth College

Early Contributors:

Phil Long, Ph.D

Director, CEIT

Univ. of Queensland

Andrew Milne, Ph.D.

CEO, Tidebreak Inc.

Bob BeichnerNCSU

Linda Jorn

U.Wisconsin



Enable richer interaction

Measure potential tosupport active learning

A framework of criteriafor best practice

A system that continues

to improve with

community input

Enhance support and

evaluation systems

LSRS System Goals



LSRS Structure: 6 sections

Integration with campus context1

Planning and design process2

Support and operations3

Environmental quality4

Layout and furnishings5

Technology and tools6





1

2

3

4

5

6

Type of Space Being Rated:

<insert institution name> Discussion-focused space

<insert building name> Presentation-focused space

<insert room number> Team-based space

<insert link to photos> Versatile space

SectionCredit

Number Criterion Sub-criterion

Maximum

Credits

Earned

CreditsScoring Justification Notes

ICC 1 Alignment with Campus Academic Strategy Provide evidence of alignment1

ICC 2 Integration with Learning Space Master Plan Provide evidence of a lignment 1

ICC 3 Compat ib il ity wi th Technology Strategic Plan Provide evidence of a lignment1

ICC 4 Commi ttment to Evidence-Based Research and

Assessment

Campus assessment plan1

ICC 5 Innovat ion in Integrating Learning Spaces wi th

Campus Context

Provide evidence of initiatives1

Section Credit Subtotal 5 0

Section 1. Integration with Campus Context

Choose the spaces you wish to rate.

Make a copy of this spreadsheet file for each space to be rated. Name one copy for each space using the

file naming convention: institution name_building_roomnumber_MMDDYYYY

Walk through each space and rate it according to the criteria below. Enter points into "Earned Points" column and

provide a brief justification statement as to why po ints were earned

For each room's total points on each of the six sections and rating, go to the LSRS Score Summary Sheet (second

tab), which is populated with the values from the earned points column, according to the weighting of sections shown.

Provide photos of the space labelled with similar file naming convention in the link area below (e.g., Flickr, Dropbox,

FLEXspace repository) or by embedding them in the third tab on this document.

Check one:Room Information

Room No:

Link to photos:

Institution:

Building:

Learning Space Rating System | Scoresheet Version 1Creative Commons CC-BY

Sept. 2014

Review the rating system so you have a sense of the criteria for which you can receive credits.

Instructions

Scoresheet





What LSRS does: Identify the low-and high-performers within

particular space types

Once you’ve rated your spaces (or a sampling of them) you can identify whichones best support active learning and which are good candidates for renovation or

repurposing, setting internal benchmarks.



GOAL: See how you compare to others

As more institutions adopt the rating system and contribute to a common dataset, comparisons across institutions will be possible.

image credits: http://www.visualizing.org/stories/visualizing-college-choice

http://chancellor.utk.edu/annualreport/2012/images/rank.gif

http://www.visualizing.org/stories/visualizing-college-choice








GOAL: Reference an objective, Third-party standard

Being able to reference an objective third-party standard can help make the caseto leaders and funders about the need to improve learning spaces.

LEED for Ne w Cons truc t ion

and Ma jor Reno va tions ( v2 0 0 9 )

SUS TAINABLE SIT ES

POSSIBLE: 26

SSp1 Cons t ruc t ion ac t i vit y poll u t ion

pre ven t ionREQUIRED

SSc1 Sit e selec t ion

1

SSc2 De velopmen t densi t y and comm

uni t y connec ti vi t y

5

SSc3 Bro wn field rede velopmen t

1

SSc 4.1 Alt erna t iv e t ranspor ta t ion - pub

li c t ranspor ta t ion access

6

SSc 4.2 Alt erna t iv e t ransport a tion - bic ycle s t o

rage and changing rooms

1

SSc 4.3 Al t erna t i ve t ranspor t a ti on - lo w

-em it t ing and fuel-e f fic ien t vehicles

3

SSc 4. 4 Al t erna t i ve t ranspor t a t ion - par

king capaci t y2

SSc5.1 Si te de velopmen t - pro t ec t or re

s to re habi ta t1

SSc5.2 Si t e de velopmen t - ma xim ize open space

1

SSc6.1 S t orm wa t er design - quan t i t y co

n t rol

1

SSc6.2 S t orm wa t er design - quali t y con

t rol

1

SSc7.1 Hea t is land e ffec t - nonroo f

1

SSc7.2 Hea t is land e f fec t - roo f

1

SSc8 Ligh t pollu t ion reduc t ion

1

WA TER EFFICIENC Y

POSSIBLE: 10

WEp1 Wa t er use reduc t ion

REQUIRED

WEc1 Wa t er e ffic ien t landscaping

4

WEc2 Inno va t i ve was te wa t er t echnolo

gies

2

WEc3 Wa t er use reduc t ion

4

ENERG Y & A TMOSPHERE

POSSIBLE: 3 5

E Ap1 Fundamen t al comm issioning o f building en

erg y s ys t emsREQUIRED

E Ap2 Minim um energ y per formance

REQUIRED

E Ap3 Fundamen t al re fr igeran t Mgm t

REQUIRED

E Ac1 Op t im ize energ y per formance

19

E Ac2 On-sit e rene wable energ y

7

E Ac3 Enhanced commissioning

2

E Ac 4 Enhanced re fr igeran t Mgm t

2

E Ac5 Measuremen t and veri fica t ion

3

E Ac6 Green po wer

2

MA TERIAL & RESOURCES

POSSIBLE: 14

MRp1 S torage and collec t ion o f rec ycla

blesREQUIRED

MRc1.1 Building reuse - main tain e xis t

ing walls, floors and roo f

3

MRc1.2 Building reuse - main t ain in t erio

r nons t ruc t ural elemen t s

1

MRc2 Cons t ruc t ion was t e Mgm t

2

MRc3 Ma t erials reuse

2

MRc 4 Rec ycled con ten t

2

MA TERIAL & RESOURCES

CON TINUED

MRc5 Regional ma te rials

2

MRc6 Rapidl y rene wable ma t er ials

1

MRc7 Cer t if ied wood

1

INDOOR EN VIRONMEN TAL QUALI

T YPOSSIBLE: 15

EQp1 Minim um I AQ performance

REQUIRED

EQp2 En vironmen tal Tobacco Smoke

(E TS) con t rolREQUIRED

EQc1 Ou tdoor air deli ver y moni t ori ng

1

EQc2 Increased ven t ila ti on

1

EQc3.1 Cons t ruc t ion IAQ Mgm t plan - d

ur ing cons t ruc tion

1

EQc3.2 Cons t ruc t ion IAQ Mgm t plan -

be fore occupanc y

1

EQc 4.1 Lo w-em i t t ing ma te r ials - adhes

i ves and sealan ts

1

EQc 4.2 Lo w-em it t ing ma t er ials - pain t s

and coa t ings1

EQc 4.3 Lo w-em it t ing ma t eri als - floor in

g s ys t ems

1

EQc 4.4 Lo w-em i tt ing ma t er ials - comp

osit e wood and agr i fiber produc t

s1

EQc5 Indoor chem ical and poll u tan t s

ource con t rol1

EQc6.1 Con t rollabili t y o f s ys t ems - ligh

t ing

1

EQc6.2 Con t rollabil it y o f s ys t ems - ther

m al com for t1

EQc7.1 Thermal com for t - design

1

EQc7.2 Thermal com for t - ver i fica t ion

1

EQc8.1 Da yligh t and vie ws - da yligh t

1

EQc8.2 Da yligh t and vie ws - vie ws

1

I N TRODUC TION /O THER

POSSIBLE: 6

IDc1Inno va t ion in de

sign

5

IDc2 LEED Accredit ed Pro fessio

nal

1

In t roduc t ion/O therIn t roduc t ion

/O t her

REGIONAL PRIORI T Y

POSSIBLE: 4

RPc1 Regional pr ior it y

4

TO TAL

11 2

40- 49 Poin t s

CER TIFIED

50-59 Poin t s

SIL VER

60-79 Poin t s

GOLD

80+ Poin t s

PL A TINUM





http://tinyurl.com/forumeli

ELI Community Forum

http://tinyurl.com/LSPACEcg

Learning Space discussion group

http://tinyurl.com/eliLSRS

LSRS site



George Mason University

Tim Murphy

[email protected]



OLD ALT Classroom-IN215G









New ALT Classroom-IN215G

N ALT Cl IN215G



New ALT Classroom-IN215G



Using the LSRS

Scott Diener

University of Auckland

19



Learning Space Rating System

Scoresheet

Version 1.0

Creative Commons

CC-BY

BUILDING 260 OGGB

ROOM # 005 (CR1)

ROOM ASSESSMENT

(Calculated from scoresheet

tab)# OF

POSSIBLE

CRITERIA

POINTS WEIGHTING

Earned

Points

%

Achiev

ed

Section

Score

Integration with Campus

Context 5 10. 5 1.00 10.00

Planning Process 9 15. 9 1.00 15.00

Support and Operations 14 15. 11 0.79 11.79

Environmental Quality 8 20. 7 0.88 17.50

Layout and Furnishings 16 20 8 0.50 10.00Technology 11 20. 9 0.82 16.36

TOTAL 63 100 80.65



Learning Space Rating System Scoresheet Version 1.0

Creative Commons CC-BY

BUILDING 502 Grafton

ROOM # B41

ROOM ASSESSMENT

(Calculated from scoresheet tab)

# OF

POSSIBLE

CRITERIAPOINTS WEIGHTING EarnedPoints

%

Achieved Section Score

Integration with Campus

Context 5 10. 5 1.00 10.00

Planning Process 9 15. 9 1.00 15.00

Support and Operations 14 15. 13 0.93 13.93

Environmental Quality 8 20. 7 0.88 17.50

Layout and Furnishings 16 20 8 0.50 10.00

Technology 11 20. 9 0.82 16.36

TOTAL 63 100 82.79



T L

S

Adam Finkelstein

Educational Developer

08/10/2014

LSRS Rating System

© McGill University - [email protected]



McGill Context

• 35,000 students from 120 different countries

• 1700 tenure track faculty

•

3400 admin and support• 475 classrooms

/ 21,200 seats

• 190 yr-old Heritage campus

• Accumulated deferred maintenance of $900M

08/10/2014© McGill University - [email protected]



Stewardship of Teaching and

Learning Spaces at McGill (‘06)

Teaching and Learning Spaces Working Group

University Teaching Labs Working Group

Mandate

A vision for teaching and learning space development

Standards based on sound pedagogical and technical principles.

Steward funding for classroom and lab renovations, IT &

equipment

Representation

All Faculties, relevant service units, students: 40+ stakeholders

Co-Chaired by Academics and Operations




LSRS Initial Pilot

1. Largest Lecture Hall (598) – unrenovated

2. Mid-sized Lecture Hall (184) – 2011

3. Versatile classroom (64) – 20124. Active Learning Classroom (74) – 2009

• Known rooms with expected results (we think)




1. Largest Lecture Hall (unrenovated)

598 seats




2. Mid-sized Lecture Hall - AFTER

184 seats




“Standard” Classroom – 64 seats

Movable tables and chairs, writable walls

2014-9-29© McGill University 28



3. Active Learning Classroom – AFTER

72 seats




LSRS Sections

• Integration with Campus Context

• Planning and Design Process

•

Support and Operations

• Environmental Quality

• Layout and Furnishings• Tools and Technology




LSRS Analysis

LargestLecture

Hall

Mid-sizedLecture

Hall

VersatileClassroom

ActiveLearning

Classroom

Environme

ntal Quality

2/8 5/8 6/8 8/8

Layout and

Furnishings

1/14 4/14 8/14 9/14

Technology 5/9 6/9 4/9 8/9

58 72 75 91




LSRS Strengths

• Makes important learning space criteria

explicit

• Matches our principles, values and standards

• Data from multiple perspectives

• Clear and easy to use

•

Results appear valid• Provides “potential” of space




LSRS Challenges

• Rating a room within a system

• Some constraints beyond University control

• Data from multiple perspectives

• Some criteria are more “core” than others

• Problem of “innovation”

• Provides “potential” of space




UC Berkeley’s LSRS Experience

EDUCAUSE 14| Jenn Stringer, ACIO Academic Engagement

Brenda Farmer | Owen McGrath | Nicole Sattler| Chris Washington



Berkeley Context

● Student Population: ~35,000

● Faculty: ~2000

● 224 General Assignment (GA) Classrooms

○ 25 Lecture Halls > 100 seats

○ 4 Lecture Halls > 400 seats

● 1 GA Active Learning Classroom

● 55 Web/screencast Classrooms

● 13 Classrooms w/o A/V Technology



Classroom Selection:

● Seminar Room (15 seats)

● Small Classroom (22 seats)

● Active Learning Classroom (30 seats)

Learning Spaces Rating System



Seminar Room

LSRS score: (42/100)



Small ClassroomLSRS score: (42/100)



Active Learning ClassroomLSRS score: (86/100)





● Aligned with our A/V Standards!

● Aligned our customer services!

● Made us think partnerships

● Made us think process

● Made us think service

● Thorough

Learning Spaces Rating System Strengths



● Dependencies on departments and/or SMEs

● Ratings subjective when trying to compare to otheruniversities

● Innovation hard to quantify w/o feedback from

end-users

Learning Spaces Rating System Challenges



Recommendations for LSRS

● Create a peer network for the LSRS

●

Define reports and or context for key high levelstakeholders

● Develop a better way to recognize space

characteristics e.g. age, discipline, use



Next steps

Further coordination with FLEXspace database andSCUP (Society of College & University Planning)

Next round of institutional testing using v1

Work session at EDUCAUSE 2015 for testers to share

findings and analyze comparative scores

Need to develop approach to operationalize the

rating system, engage partners, seek funding

Joint presentations with FLEXspace in 2015

Documents

The Learning Space Rating System (242348311)