1 of 38

Building Flexible Learning Spaces Utilizing Faculty & Student Driven Design

G. Alex Ambrose, PhD

Director for Learning Research

University of Notre Dame

Educause 2019

Chicago, IL

1

2 of 38

2

How to cite this presentation:

Ambrose, G. Alex (2019) " Building Flexible Learning Spaces Utilizing Faculty & Student-Driven Design." Educause Annual Conference, Chicago, IL

How to access this slides and eHandout:

https://tinyurl.com/2019educauseND

Or

Google “Notre Dame Real Design Lab Blog”

3 of 38

Challenge

Experiment

Tour

Method

Results

Summary

3

4 of 38

4

5 of 38

5

6 of 38

6

7 of 38

7

8 of 38

8

9 of 38

9

10 of 38

Challenge

Experiment

Tour

Method

Results

Summary

10

11 of 38

11

12 of 38

12

13 of 38

Learning Space Report Card

13

Design Dimensions	Design Domains	Typical Classroom Design Features	Student Preference Rating	Faculty Preference Rating	Prototype Classroom Design Features	Student Preference Rating	Faculty Preference Rating	Design Effect
Furniture	Desks & Chairs:
Furniture	Writing Surfaces:
Technology	Screens
	BYOD Compatible
	Lectern
Environment	Density Occupancy Data:
	Layout & Zones:
	Room Orientation:
	Instructor Station Placement:
			Student Grade	Faculty Grade		Student Grade	Faculty Grade
Overall Learning Space								/9

Step 1:

Dissect

Step 2:

Define

Step 3:

Distinguish

Step 4:

Determine

Step 5:

Decide

[] maybe put green check and red x for design impact

Overall Grading

The Prototype Classroom was graded a full letter grade higher (B) by faculty and students than their counterparts in the typical classroom (C)

Design Feature Ratings:

Got Worse

Orientation & Instructor Station: Faculty and students agreed that shifting from a clear front of the room with a instructor station tethered to the front to no clear front of the room with the instructor station tethered to the rear was too disruptive to site line lines.

Positive Perception

Density Data: Doubling the sq ft per student ( 17.71 → 32.33) was just right for students but too much space for faculty.

17.71 → 32.33 Sq ft per student

Positive Perception

Zones: Students and faculty prefer the flexibility of 4 break out learning zones to 1 teaching zone

4 Breakout learning zones > 1 teaching zone

Furniture: Students and faculty strongly prefer varied and flexible tables and chairs to rolling tarm arm chairs

Flexible tables and chairs > Rolling tarm arm chairs

Writing Surfaces: Students and faculty prefer 3 marker boards and 30 huddle boards to 1 chalkboard

3 Marker boards and 30 huddle boards > 1 chalkboard

Screens: Students and faculty strongly prefer LCD to projector and multiple screens on multiple walls to 1 projector in the front.

Multiple LCD screens on multiple walls > 1 projector in the front.

BYOD Compatibility:

Seminar (traditional, discussion) - 22.44 sq ft/student

Tablet armchair - 17.71 sq ft/student

232 DeBartolo - 32.33 sq ft/student

Before (Traditional) --> After (Active Learning Classroom) --> Future?

SPACE (ND Facilities $50K in space)

Square Ft per Student: 20 sq ft --> 40 sq ft (check with sticky note

Orientation: Clear front --> No Direct Front

Instructor station: in front --> in rear

Zones: 1 teaching zone (1 board 1 screen) --> 4 breakout learning zones (each with board and screen)

FURNITURE (Steelcase $65K in furniture)

Boards: 1 board --> 3 boards + 30 mini boards

Furniture: Standardized + Moveable (4 or 8 in a group) --> Varied + Flexible (1-5, +)

TECHNOLOGY (OIT $25k in tech)

Screens: 1 projector --> 4 LCD screens

Equipment: doc cam/desktop/projector --> same + 3D/VR + BYOD configuration

Environmental Other

Wall Color, carpet, lighting

14 of 38

Challenge

Experiment

Tour

Method

Results

Summary

14

15 of 38

Typical Classroom (Debart 246)

Click here for Virtual Tour

15

16 of 38

Dissection Activity:

During the virtual tour of our prototype learning spaces see if you can distinguish at least 5 different design features that transformed between the two spaces.

16

[on the huddleboard, poster paper, sticky note, or the eHandout: https://tinyurl.com/2019educauseND]

17 of 38

Prototype Classroom (Debart 232)

Click here for Virtual Tour

17

18 of 38

Learning Space Report Card

18

Design Dimensions	Design Domains	Typical Classroom Design Features	Student Preference Rating	Faculty Preference Rating	Prototype Classroom Design Features	Student Preference Rating	Faculty Preference Rating	Design Effect
Furniture	Desks & Chairs:	Rolling Single Tablet Chair			Varied and Flexible (1-5) tables and chairs
Furniture	Writing Surfaces:	1 chalkboard			3 markerboards + 30 huddle boards
Technology	Screens	1 projector			4 LCD monitors + 3D VR
	BYOD Compatible	No			4 power towers, floor plugs, cables to hook up
	Lectern	Desktop, doc cam, DVD			Same
Environment	Density Occupancy Data:	17.71 square foot per student			32.33 sq ft per student
	Layout & Zones:	1 teaching zone			4 breakout learning zones
	Room Orientation:	Clear Front of the room			No clear front of the room.
	Instructor Station Placement:	Fixed in front			Deliberately fixed in the rear
			Student Grade	Faculty Grade		Student Grade	Faculty Grade
Overall Learning Space								/9

Step 3:

Distinguish

[] maybe put green check and red x for design impact

Overall Grading

The Prototype Classroom was graded a full letter grade higher (B) by faculty and students than their counterparts in the typical classroom (C)

Design Feature Ratings:

Got Worse

Orientation & Instructor Station: Faculty and students agreed that shifting from a clear front of the room with a instructor station tethered to the front to no clear front of the room with the instructor station tethered to the rear was too disruptive to site line lines.

Positive Perception

Density Data: Doubling the sq ft per student ( 17.71 → 32.33) was just right for students but too much space for faculty.

17.71 → 32.33 Sq ft per student

Positive Perception

Zones: Students and faculty prefer the flexibility of 4 break out learning zones to 1 teaching zone

4 Breakout learning zones > 1 teaching zone

Furniture: Students and faculty strongly prefer varied and flexible tables and chairs to rolling tarm arm chairs

Flexible tables and chairs > Rolling tarm arm chairs

Writing Surfaces: Students and faculty prefer 3 marker boards and 30 huddle boards to 1 chalkboard

3 Marker boards and 30 huddle boards > 1 chalkboard

Screens: Students and faculty strongly prefer LCD to projector and multiple screens on multiple walls to 1 projector in the front.

Multiple LCD screens on multiple walls > 1 projector in the front.

BYOD Compatibility:

Seminar (traditional, discussion) - 22.44 sq ft/student

Tablet armchair - 17.71 sq ft/student

232 DeBartolo - 32.33 sq ft/student

Before (Traditional) --> After (Active Learning Classroom) --> Future?

SPACE (ND Facilities $50K in space)

Square Ft per Student: 20 sq ft --> 40 sq ft (check with sticky note

Orientation: Clear front --> No Direct Front

Instructor station: in front --> in rear

Zones: 1 teaching zone (1 board 1 screen) --> 4 breakout learning zones (each with board and screen)

FURNITURE (Steelcase $65K in furniture)

Boards: 1 board --> 3 boards + 30 mini boards

Furniture: Standardized + Moveable (4 or 8 in a group) --> Varied + Flexible (1-5, +)

TECHNOLOGY (OIT $25k in tech)

Screens: 1 projector --> 4 LCD screens

Equipment: doc cam/desktop/projector --> same + 3D/VR + BYOD configuration

Environmental Other

Wall Color, carpet, lighting

19 of 38

Challenge

Experiment

Tour

Method

Results

Summary

19

20 of 38

Spring 2019 Survey Consent & Response Rates

Medium Sized (30 Seat) Classroom Comparison

Typical (DeBartolo 246) = Rolling Tablet Arm Chairs Classroom, 17.7 sq ft per student

Prototype (Debartolo 232) = Rolling Tables & Chairs, Screen, & Writing Surface Classroom, 32.3 sq ft per student

20

	Prototype	Typical	Total Respondents (N=)
Students	46% (N=74/162)	37% (N=60/162)	134
Faculty	70% (N=7/10)	36% (N=4/11)	11

21 of 38

Survey Triangulation

21

Prototype Classroom

Typical Classroom

22 of 38

Challenge

Experiment

Tour

Method

Results

Summary

22

23 of 38

Learning Space Report Card

23

Design Dimensions	Design Domains	Typical Classroom Design Features	Student Preference Rating	Faculty Preference Rating	Prototype Classroom Design Features	Student Preference Rating	Faculty Preference Rating	Design Effect
Furniture	Desks & Chairs:	Rolling Single Tablet Chair			Varied and Flexible (1-5) tables and chairs
Furniture	Writing Surfaces:	1 chalkboard			3 markerboards + 30 huddle boards
Technology	Screens	1 projector			4 LCD monitors + 3D VR
	BYOD Compatible	No			4 power towers, floor plugs, cables to hook up
	Lectern	Desktop, doc cam, DVD			Same
Environment	Density Occupancy Data:	17.71 square foot per student			32.33 sq ft per student
	Layout & Zones:	1 teaching zone			4 breakout learning zones
	Room Orientation:	Clear Front of the room			No clear front of the room.
	Instructor Station Placement:	Fixed in front			Deliberately fixed in the rear
			Student Grade	Faculty Grade		Student Grade	Faculty Grade
Overall Learning Space			C (2.65)	C (2.50)		B+ (3.45)	B+ (3.33)	7/9

Key	Negative	Rating: Strongly Disagree-Disagree (0-1.6) Grade: F & D	Neutral	Rating: Neutral(1.6-3.2) Grade: C	Positive	Rating: Agree-Strongly Agree (3.4-5.0 ) Grade: B & A


A	4.000
A-	3.667
B+	3.333
B	3.00
B-	2.667
C+	2.333
C	2.000	Lowest passing grade for graduate students
C-	1.667	Lowest passing grade for graduate business students
D	1.000	Lowest passing grade for undergraduate students
X	0.000
I	0.000
F*	0.000

The Current Grade Scale is as follows:

[] maybe put green check and red x for design impact

Overall Grading

The Prototype Classroom was graded a full letter grade higher (B) by faculty and students than their counterparts in the typical classroom (C)

Design Feature Ratings:

Got Worse

Orientation & Instructor Station: Faculty and students agreed that shifting from a clear front of the room with a instructor station tethered to the front to no clear front of the room with the instructor station tethered to the rear was too disruptive to site line lines.

Positive Perception

Density Data: Doubling the sq ft per student ( 17.71 → 32.33) was just right for students but too much space for faculty.

17.71 → 32.33 Sq ft per student

Positive Perception

Zones: Students and faculty prefer the flexibility of 4 break out learning zones to 1 teaching zone

4 Breakout learning zones > 1 teaching zone

Furniture: Students and faculty strongly prefer varied and flexible tables and chairs to rolling tarm arm chairs

Flexible tables and chairs > Rolling tarm arm chairs

Writing Surfaces: Students and faculty prefer 3 marker boards and 30 huddle boards to 1 chalkboard

3 Marker boards and 30 huddle boards > 1 chalkboard

Screens: Students and faculty strongly prefer LCD to projector and multiple screens on multiple walls to 1 projector in the front.

Multiple LCD screens on multiple walls > 1 projector in the front.

BYOD Compatibility:

Seminar (traditional, discussion) - 22.44 sq ft/student

Tablet armchair - 17.71 sq ft/student

232 DeBartolo - 32.33 sq ft/student

Before (Traditional) --> After (Active Learning Classroom) --> Future?

SPACE (ND Facilities $50K in space)

Square Ft per Student: 20 sq ft --> 40 sq ft (check with sticky note

Orientation: Clear front --> No Direct Front

Instructor station: in front --> in rear

Zones: 1 teaching zone (1 board 1 screen) --> 4 breakout learning zones (each with board and screen)

FURNITURE (Steelcase $65K in furniture)

Boards: 1 board --> 3 boards + 30 mini boards

Furniture: Standardized + Moveable (4 or 8 in a group) --> Varied + Flexible (1-5, +)

TECHNOLOGY (OIT $25k in tech)

Screens: 1 projector --> 4 LCD screens

Equipment: doc cam/desktop/projector --> same + 3D/VR + BYOD configuration

Environmental Other

Wall Color, carpet, lighting

24 of 38

Learning Space Report Card

24

Design Dimensions	Design Domains	Typical Classroom Design Features	Student Preference Rating	Faculty Preference Rating	Prototype Classroom Design Features	Student Preference Rating	Faculty Preference Rating	Design Effect
Furniture	Desks & Chairs:	Rolling Single Tablet Chair			Varied and Flexible (1-5) tables and chairs
Furniture	Writing Surfaces:	1 chalkboard			3 markerboards + 30 huddle boards
Technology	Screens	1 projector			4 LCD monitors + 3D VR
	BYOD Compatible	No			4 power towers, floor plugs, cables to hook up
	Lectern	Desktop, doc cam, DVD			Same
Environment	Density Occupancy Data:	17.71 square foot per student			32.33 sq ft per student
	Layout & Zones:	1 teaching zone			4 breakout learning zones
	Room Orientation:	Clear Front of the room			No clear front of the room.
	Instructor Station Placement:	Fixed in front			Deliberately fixed in the rear
			Student Grade	Faculty Grade		Student Grade	Faculty Grade
Overall Learning Space			C (2.65)	C (2.50)		B+ (3.45)	B+ (3.33)	7/9

Key	Negative	Rating: Strongly Disagree-Disagree (0-1.6) Grade: F & D	Neutral	Rating: Neutral(1.6-3.2) Grade: C	Positive	Rating: Agree-Strongly Agree (3.4-5.0 ) Grade: B & A


A	4.000
A-	3.667
B+	3.333
B	3.00
B-	2.667
C+	2.333
C	2.000	Lowest passing grade for graduate students
C-	1.667	Lowest passing grade for graduate business students
D	1.000	Lowest passing grade for undergraduate students
X	0.000
I	0.000
F*	0.000

The Current Grade Scale is as follows:

[] maybe put green check and red x for design impact

Overall Grading

The Prototype Classroom was graded a full letter grade higher (B) by faculty and students than their counterparts in the typical classroom (C)

Design Feature Ratings:

Got Worse

Orientation & Instructor Station: Faculty and students agreed that shifting from a clear front of the room with a instructor station tethered to the front to no clear front of the room with the instructor station tethered to the rear was too disruptive to site line lines.

Positive Perception

Density Data: Doubling the sq ft per student ( 17.71 → 32.33) was just right for students but too much space for faculty.

17.71 → 32.33 Sq ft per student

Positive Perception

Zones: Students and faculty prefer the flexibility of 4 break out learning zones to 1 teaching zone

4 Breakout learning zones > 1 teaching zone

Furniture: Students and faculty strongly prefer varied and flexible tables and chairs to rolling tarm arm chairs

Flexible tables and chairs > Rolling tarm arm chairs

Writing Surfaces: Students and faculty prefer 3 marker boards and 30 huddle boards to 1 chalkboard

3 Marker boards and 30 huddle boards > 1 chalkboard

Screens: Students and faculty strongly prefer LCD to projector and multiple screens on multiple walls to 1 projector in the front.

Multiple LCD screens on multiple walls > 1 projector in the front.

BYOD Compatibility:

Seminar (traditional, discussion) - 22.44 sq ft/student

Tablet armchair - 17.71 sq ft/student

232 DeBartolo - 32.33 sq ft/student

Before (Traditional) --> After (Active Learning Classroom) --> Future?

SPACE (ND Facilities $50K in space)

Square Ft per Student: 20 sq ft --> 40 sq ft (check with sticky note

Orientation: Clear front --> No Direct Front

Instructor station: in front --> in rear

Zones: 1 teaching zone (1 board 1 screen) --> 4 breakout learning zones (each with board and screen)

FURNITURE (Steelcase $65K in furniture)

Boards: 1 board --> 3 boards + 30 mini boards

Furniture: Standardized + Moveable (4 or 8 in a group) --> Varied + Flexible (1-5, +)

TECHNOLOGY (OIT $25k in tech)

Screens: 1 projector --> 4 LCD screens

Equipment: doc cam/desktop/projector --> same + 3D/VR + BYOD configuration

Environmental Other

Wall Color, carpet, lighting

25 of 38

Learning Space Report Card

25

Design Dimensions	Design Domains	Typical Classroom Design Features	Student Preference Rating	Faculty Preference Rating	Prototype Classroom Design Features	Student Preference Rating	Faculty Preference Rating	Design Effect
Furniture	Desks & Chairs:	Rolling Single Tablet Chair			Varied and Flexible (1-5) tables and chairs
Furniture	Writing Surfaces:	1 chalkboard			3 markerboards + 30 huddle boards
Technology	Screens	1 projector			4 LCD monitors + 3D VR
	BYOD Compatible	No			4 power towers, floor plugs, cables to hook up
	Lectern	Desktop, doc cam, DVD			Same
Environment	Density Occupancy Data:	17.71 square foot per student			32.33 sq ft per student
	Layout & Zones:	1 teaching zone			4 breakout learning zones
	Room Orientation:	Clear Front of the room			No clear front of the room.
	Instructor Station Placement:	Fixed in front			Deliberately fixed in the rear
			Student Grade	Faculty Grade		Student Grade	Faculty Grade
Overall Learning Space			C (2.65)	C (2.50)		B+ (3.45)	B+ (3.33)	7/9

Key	Negative	Rating: Strongly Disagree-Disagree (0-1.6) Grade: F & D	Neutral	Rating: Neutral(1.6-3.2) Grade: C	Positive	Rating: Agree-Strongly Agree (3.4-5.0 ) Grade: B & A


A	4.000
A-	3.667
B+	3.333
B	3.00
B-	2.667
C+	2.333
C	2.000	Lowest passing grade for graduate students
C-	1.667	Lowest passing grade for graduate business students
D	1.000	Lowest passing grade for undergraduate students
X	0.000
I	0.000
F*	0.000

The Current Grade Scale is as follows:

Step 4:

Determine

Step 5:

Decide

[] maybe put green check and red x for design impact

Overall Grading

The Prototype Classroom was graded a full letter grade higher (B) by faculty and students than their counterparts in the typical classroom (C)

Design Feature Ratings:

Got Worse

Orientation & Instructor Station: Faculty and students agreed that shifting from a clear front of the room with a instructor station tethered to the front to no clear front of the room with the instructor station tethered to the rear was too disruptive to site line lines.

Positive Perception

Density Data: Doubling the sq ft per student ( 17.71 → 32.33) was just right for students but too much space for faculty.

17.71 → 32.33 Sq ft per student

Positive Perception

Zones: Students and faculty prefer the flexibility of 4 break out learning zones to 1 teaching zone

4 Breakout learning zones > 1 teaching zone

Furniture: Students and faculty strongly prefer varied and flexible tables and chairs to rolling tarm arm chairs

Flexible tables and chairs > Rolling tarm arm chairs

Writing Surfaces: Students and faculty prefer 3 marker boards and 30 huddle boards to 1 chalkboard

3 Marker boards and 30 huddle boards > 1 chalkboard

Screens: Students and faculty strongly prefer LCD to projector and multiple screens on multiple walls to 1 projector in the front.

Multiple LCD screens on multiple walls > 1 projector in the front.

BYOD Compatibility:

Seminar (traditional, discussion) - 22.44 sq ft/student

Tablet armchair - 17.71 sq ft/student

232 DeBartolo - 32.33 sq ft/student

Before (Traditional) --> After (Active Learning Classroom) --> Future?

SPACE (ND Facilities $50K in space)

Square Ft per Student: 20 sq ft --> 40 sq ft (check with sticky note

Orientation: Clear front --> No Direct Front

Instructor station: in front --> in rear

Zones: 1 teaching zone (1 board 1 screen) --> 4 breakout learning zones (each with board and screen)

FURNITURE (Steelcase $65K in furniture)

Boards: 1 board --> 3 boards + 30 mini boards

Furniture: Standardized + Moveable (4 or 8 in a group) --> Varied + Flexible (1-5, +)

TECHNOLOGY (OIT $25k in tech)

Screens: 1 projector --> 4 LCD screens

Equipment: doc cam/desktop/projector --> same + 3D/VR + BYOD configuration

Environmental Other

Wall Color, carpet, lighting

26 of 38

Learning Space Report Card

26

Design Dimensions	Design Domains	Typical Classroom Design Features	Student Preference Rating	Faculty Preference Rating	Prototype Classroom Design Features	Student Preference Rating	Faculty Preference Rating	Design Effect
Furniture	Desks & Chairs:	Rolling Single Tablet Chair			Varied and Flexible (1-5) tables and chairs
Furniture	Writing Surfaces:	1 chalkboard			3 markerboards + 30 huddle boards
Technology	Screens	1 projector			4 LCD monitors + 3D VR
	BYOD Compatible	No			4 power towers, floor plugs, cables to hook up
	Lectern	Desktop, doc cam, DVD			Same
Environment	Density Occupancy Data:	17.71 square foot per student			32.33 sq ft per student
	Layout & Zones:	1 teaching zone			4 breakout learning zones
	Room Orientation:	Clear Front of the room			No clear front of the room.
	Instructor Station Placement:	Fixed in front			Deliberately fixed in the rear
			Student Grade	Faculty Grade		Student Grade	Faculty Grade
Overall Learning Space			C (2.65)	C (2.50)		B+ (3.45)	B+ (3.33)	7/9

Key	Negative	Rating: Strongly Disagree-Disagree (0-1.6) Grade: F & D	Neutral	Rating: Neutral(1.6-3.2) Grade: C	Positive	Rating: Agree-Strongly Agree (3.4-5.0 ) Grade: B & A


A	4.000
A-	3.667
B+	3.333
B	3.00
B-	2.667
C+	2.333
C	2.000	Lowest passing grade for graduate students
C-	1.667	Lowest passing grade for graduate business students
D	1.000	Lowest passing grade for undergraduate students
X	0.000
I	0.000
F*	0.000

The Current Grade Scale is as follows:

[] maybe put green check and red x for design impact

Overall Grading

The Prototype Classroom was graded a full letter grade higher (B) by faculty and students than their counterparts in the typical classroom (C)

Design Feature Ratings:

Got Worse

Orientation & Instructor Station: Faculty and students agreed that shifting from a clear front of the room with a instructor station tethered to the front to no clear front of the room with the instructor station tethered to the rear was too disruptive to site line lines.

Positive Perception

Density Data: Doubling the sq ft per student ( 17.71 → 32.33) was just right for students but too much space for faculty.

17.71 → 32.33 Sq ft per student

Positive Perception

Zones: Students and faculty prefer the flexibility of 4 break out learning zones to 1 teaching zone

4 Breakout learning zones > 1 teaching zone

Furniture: Students and faculty strongly prefer varied and flexible tables and chairs to rolling tarm arm chairs

Flexible tables and chairs > Rolling tarm arm chairs

Writing Surfaces: Students and faculty prefer 3 marker boards and 30 huddle boards to 1 chalkboard

3 Marker boards and 30 huddle boards > 1 chalkboard

Screens: Students and faculty strongly prefer LCD to projector and multiple screens on multiple walls to 1 projector in the front.

Multiple LCD screens on multiple walls > 1 projector in the front.

BYOD Compatibility:

Seminar (traditional, discussion) - 22.44 sq ft/student

Tablet armchair - 17.71 sq ft/student

232 DeBartolo - 32.33 sq ft/student

Before (Traditional) --> After (Active Learning Classroom) --> Future?

SPACE (ND Facilities $50K in space)

Square Ft per Student: 20 sq ft --> 40 sq ft (check with sticky note

Orientation: Clear front --> No Direct Front

Instructor station: in front --> in rear

Zones: 1 teaching zone (1 board 1 screen) --> 4 breakout learning zones (each with board and screen)

FURNITURE (Steelcase $65K in furniture)

Boards: 1 board --> 3 boards + 30 mini boards

Furniture: Standardized + Moveable (4 or 8 in a group) --> Varied + Flexible (1-5, +)

TECHNOLOGY (OIT $25k in tech)

Screens: 1 projector --> 4 LCD screens

Equipment: doc cam/desktop/projector --> same + 3D/VR + BYOD configuration

Environmental Other

Wall Color, carpet, lighting

27 of 38

Prediction Activity:

When surveying students and faculty what order do you think they rank the importance of furniture, technology, and environment design dimensions?

27

[on the huddleboard, poster paper, sticky note, or the eHandout: https://tinyurl.com/2019educauseND]

28 of 38

Learning Space Design Dimension Ranking

28

	Typical Classroom	Student Grade & Ranking	Faculty Grade & Ranking	Prototype Classroom	Student Grade & Ranking	Faculty Grade & Ranking
Design Lens Ranking	Environment	1st	1st	Environment	2nd	1st
	Furniture	2nd	2nd	Furniture	1st	2nd
	Technology	3rd	3rd	Technology	3rd	3rd

Key		Ranking: Third Place		Ranking: Second Place		Ranking: First Place

Rank the most important elements of classroom design:

Daphne’s Notes

Typical

Students and teachers ranked the environment, more specifically, space as the most important design element

The “explain” section indicated that many were dissatisfied with how small and cramped space was in the typical classroom which justifies doubling the sq ft/student

Furniture was ranked second for similar reasons — comfort is important to focus, also said groupwork was hard, even though desks are moveable
Split feedback on tech: some people said it was frustrating that tech did not work/was not accessible; others said that they didn’t see need for any more technological capability than what classroom had — people really saw tech as a secondary concern that paled in importance in comparison to space and furniture

Prototype

Students

Space and furniture were almost tied
Most people put tech 3rd; may suggest that professors need to be trained on effective use so students feel like it is an important contributor to classroom experience, not just an added benefit to having class in 232

Faculty

Profs were really appreciative of having extra space; emphasized enjoying having the space to move throughout the class
Furniture: Profs appreciated having multiple whiteboards
Tech: Again 3rd. Suggests that there might have to be some training to make sure there is effective use of tech

Seminar (traditional, discussion) - 22.44 sq ft/student

Tablet armchair - 17.71 sq ft/student

232 DeBartolo - 32.33 sq ft/student

Before (Traditional) --> After (Active Learning Classroom) --> Future?

SPACE (ND Facilities $50K in space)

Square Ft per Student: 20 sq ft --> 40 sq ft (check with sticky note

Orientation: Clear front --> No Direct Front

Instructor station: in front --> in rear

Zones: 1 teaching zone (1 board 1 screen) --> 4 breakout learning zones (each with board and screen)

FURNITURE (Steelcase $65K in furniture)

Boards: 1 board --> 3 boards + 30 mini boards

Furniture: Standardized + Moveable (4 or 8 in a group) --> Varied + Flexible (1-5, +)

TECHNOLOGY (OIT $25k in tech)

Screens: 1 projector --> 4 LCD screens

Equipment: doc cam/desktop/projector --> same + 3D/VR + BYOD configuration

Environmental Other

Wall Color, carpet, lighting

29 of 38

Brainstorm Activity:

What effects would you expect from these active learning classroom design decisions? (higher level of what kinds of learning or increased frequency of which behaviors)

29

[on the huddleboard, poster paper, sticky note, or the eHandout: https://tinyurl.com/2019educauseND]

30 of 38

30

31 of 38

31

32 of 38

32

Learning Space Comparison
Students ranked how their classroom experience compared to their experience in other small classrooms using a 5-point scale with the options: "much worse, somewhat worse, about the same, somewhat better, and much better."
Comparison	Average Student Ranking of Typical Classroom	Average Student Ranking of Prototype Classroom	Δ Ranking
Orientation & Layout of Classroom	3.14	4.6	+1.46
Promotes Collaborative Learning	3.25	4.63	+1.38
Flexibility of Space	3.39	4.76	+1.37
Overall Learning Experience	3.3	4.42	+1.12
Ability to See Information	3.2	4.23	+1.03
Classroom Supports Focus/Isn't Distracting	3.11	4	+0.89

Key	Negative	Rating: Much Worse-Worse (1-2.99)	Neutral	Rating: About the Same (3-3.99)	Positive	Rating: Somewhat Better-Much Better (4-5)

Daphne’s Notes

Students ranked the prototype classroom as better than the typical classroom for all of the learning dimensions asked about
Not only were rankings higher, but they were significantly higher than the rankings of the typical classroom — if you correlate the 5-point scale with letter grades, there is an increase of more than one letter grade for 5/6 learning dimensions

What is the impact of classroom type on learning dimensions?

Impact Claim # Better Active Learning Comparisons???

Students in the prototype learning space rated the space better in all factors than the typical classroom (listed in order from greatest to least):

-Orientation & Layout of Classroom

-Promotes Collaborative Learning

-Flexibility of Space

-Overall Learning Experience

-Ability to See Information

-Classroom Supports Focus/Isn't Distracting

33 of 38

Challenge

Experiment

Tour

Method

Results

Summary

33

34 of 38

Research & Design Questions:

1) How do we assess and visualize the comparison of a prototype learning space to a typical classroom?

2) How were specific learning space design features perceived by faculty and students?

3) Which learning space design dimensions (furniture, technology, or environment) do faculty and students value the most?

4) What are the impacts of the learning space on faculty and students?

34

35 of 38

5 Step Methodology to

Evaluate the Design Impact of

Emerging Learning Spaces

DISSECT with the Design Dimension

35

DISSECT with the Design Dimension

DEFINE each Design Domain

DISTINGUISH the Design Features

DETERMINE through Triangulation

DECIDE using the Learning Space Report Card

36 of 38

Learning Space Design Lessons Learned

Our Faculty & Students Want...

More Space (32-35 square foot per student)
Moveable Tables (trapezoid tables of 2-3)
More Writing Surfaces (multiple marker boards and team tablets)
Multiple Breakout Learning Zones
Multiple Screens (LCD>Projectors)
More Power (Power towers in the floor)

Our Faculty & Students Don’t Want…

Instructor station deliberately placed in the rear away from screens without a clear front of the room orientation or considering sight lines
Traditional single arm tablet chairs

36

Faculty & students graded the prototype better (B+) than the typical classroom (C)

Alex summary based on the survey data on over 1K students and dozens of faculty over 1.5 years:

Single arm tablet chairs

IF "Active learning is anything course-related that all students in a class session are called upon to do other than watching, listening and taking notes." (Felder and Brent) MAP TO ICAP INTER-Active��AND we believe active learning can and should happen in any classrooms not just “Active Learning Classrooms”

THAN the goal of our “Flexible table, surface, and screen classrooms” is to be designed to optimize the practice of active learning and amplify its positive effects.

(and to reduce direct frontal first exposure lecture )

SO Instead of passive learning activities (watching, listening, and taking notes)

We want to increase learning activities through higher frequency of:�Discussing (and less lecturing)�Moving� Furniture layout changes� Student movement� Instructor circulation�Writing/Drawing on Surfaces� Instructor� Student�Computing BYOD� Notes, research, and creation (without distraction)� Connecting and sharing to screen

If we are successful we should see self-reported higher Levels of reported:�Critical Thinking�Instructor� Experiment and employ more instructional active learning strategies� More group work, collaborative learning� Investing more effort to adapting their course specifically to maximize use space�Student� Creativity� Motivation� Problem solving� Classmate collaboration and connection

37 of 38

Learning Space Impact Takeaways

↑ Active Learning Levels

Classmate Collaboration & Connection
Motivation & Creativity
Problem Solving

�↑ Active Learning Behavior Frequency

Instructor Circulation & Student Movement
Critical Thinking & Discussion
Furniture Layout Changes

�Better Comparisons

Orientation & Layout of Classroom
Promotes Collaborative Learning
Flexibility of Space
Overall Learning Experience
Ability to See Information
Classroom Supports Focus/Isn't Distracting

37

38 of 38

Acknowledgments

Kaneb Center for Teaching & Learning

Kevin Barry, Senior of ND Learning

Daphne Saloomey, Undergraduate Research Assistant

Registrar

Linda V Martellaro, Assistant Registrar

Christina Wojtysiak, Learning Spaces

Office of Information Technologies

Jason Railton, Manager ND Studios AV Technologies,

Brian Burchett, Manager Educational Tech, IT Service Delivery

Paul Turner, Manager Academic Tech

In honor and memory of

Jeffry L. Bain-Conkin 1/9/81-9/8/17

38