Space

Learning Spaces in Higher Education:

Positive Outcomes by Design

Editors: David Radcliffe, Hamilton Wilson, Derek Powell, Belinda Tibbetts

Proceedings of the Next Generation Proceedings of the Next Generation

Learning Spaces 2008 Colloquium Learning Spaces 2008 Colloquium
Editors: David Radcliffe, Hamilton Wilson, Derek Powell, Belinda Tibbetts University of Queensland, Brisbane University of Queensland, Brisbane
NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 3
4 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES
Support for this project has been provided by
the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, an
initiative of the Australian Government Department
of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations. The views expressed in this report do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian
Learning and Teaching Council Ltd.

This work is published under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-
ShareAlike 2.5 Australia License. Under this
License you are free to copy, distribute, display
and perform the work and to make derivative
works.

Attribution:
You must attribute the work to the original authors
and include the following statement: Support for
the original work was provided by the Australian
Learning and Teaching Council Ltd, an initiative
of the Australian Government Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

Noncommercial:
You may not use this work for commercial
purposes.

Share Alike:
If you alter, transform, or build on this work, you
may distribute the resulting work only under a
license identical to this one.

For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear

to others the license terms of this work.

Any of these conditions may be waived if you

obtain permission from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this license, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ or
send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard
Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105,
USA.

Requests and inquiries concerning these rights

should be addressed to the Australian Learning
and Teaching Council, PO Box 2375, Strawberry
Hills, NSW 2012 or through the website:
http://www.altc.edu.au

2009

ISBN: 978-1-86499-943-3

© The Contributers, 2009

Published by The University of Queensland

St Lucia QLD 4072 Australia

All full paper manuscripts submitted and considered appropriate to the proceedings have been reviewed by two independent reviewers. The final decision to
publish all materials rests with the editors. Responsibility for opinions published rests with the authors.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 5

6 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES
 Contents

Introduction 8
1.0 A Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Framework for Designing and
Evaluating Learning Places (D. Radcliffe) 9
2.0 The Process of Creating Learning Space (H. Wilson) 17
3.0 Evaluation and the Pedagogy-Space-Technology Framework (D. Powell) 25
4.0 The Research Library as Learning Space:
New Opportunities for Campus Development (K. Webster) 31
5.0 Papers 37

5.1 Investigating the Dynamics of an Integrated 5.7 Learning in the Spaces: A Comparative 5.14 The First Year Engineering Learning Centre.
Learning Space at James Cook University. Study of the Use of Traditional and ‘New (J. Steer, G. Howell) Page: 117
(D. Anders, A. Calder, K. Elder, A. Generation’ Library Learning Spaces by
5.15 The Balnaves Foundation Multimedia
Logan) Page: 39 Various Disciplinary Cohorts. (E. Jordan,
Learning Centre. (M. Sutherland,
T. Ziebell) Page: 79
5.2 Collaborative Teaching & Learning Centres H. Wilson) Page: 125
at the University of Queensland. 5.8 The Hawthorn Project Hub at Swinburne
5.16 Learning Lab: Transforming a Learning
(T. Andrews, D. Powell) Page: 45 University of Technology. (N. Lee)
Experience. (P. Tregloan) Page: 131
Page: 85
5.3 Engineering Problem-Based Learning
5.17 Pod Room – A Group Learning Space.
Spaces at Victoria University. 5.9 Lab 2.0 (G. Mitchell, G. Winslett,
(G. Wilson, M. Randall) Page: 135
(A. Stojcevski, S.W. Bigger, G. Howell) Page: 89
R. Gabb, J. Dane) Page: 53
5.10 The Thurgoona Learning Commons.
5.4 Deakin University Immersive Learning (S. Oakley) Page: 93
Environment (DILE): an evaluation.
5.11 Learning in the Learning Commons: The
(J. Dane) Page: 61
Learning Commons at City Flinders and St
5.5 Supporting Teaching and Learning through Albans Campuses. (A. Gallagher,
the Intelligent Design of Learning Support A. Pearce, R. McCormack) Page: 99
Spaces: A Griffith University Example.
5.12 Making it My Street: The Bond University
(C. Graves, E. Berg) Page: 67
“Street” Area. (M. Randall, G. Wilson)
5.6 Centre for Teaching and Learning Seminar Page: 107
Room. (G. Huon, H. Sharp) Page: 73
5.13 TELL us all about it: Establishment of a
Technology Enhanced Learning Laboratory.
(S. Reushle, B. Kissell, M. Fryer,
D. King) Page: 111

6.0 Concluding Remarks 139

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 7

Introduction
The Next Generation Learning Spaces project theatre of the future). These spaces embody new The following people brought their expertise to
(NGLS) focuses on the activities taking place learning modes, innovative uses of space, and the NGLS project. Professor David Radcliffe
in learning spaces within higher education emerging popular technology. They are exemplars has a sustained history of teaching and
institutions. A major contribution of the NGLS at the very cutting edge of worldwide learning learning innovation, research and scholarship
research is the creation of a coherent and practice. in engineering education and learning centre
comprehensive framework for guiding the design design. Hamilton Wilson is the Managing Director
The Pedagogy-Space-Technology framework
and implementation of new learning spaces. This of Wilson Architects. As a working architect
provides a robust basis from which to develop
research is at the leading edge of enhancing he has extensive experience of delivering major
design briefs, assess alternative concepts, and
learning environments and outcomes in higher projects to a variety of clients but especially in the
evaluate learning environments. Its format enables
education. higher education sector. Wilson Architects are
concepts for learning spaces to be replicated and
focused on the design of university libraries and
The Pedagogy–Space–Technology (PST) applied in various contexts around the country,
learning environments, and Hamilton is particularly
framework was developed, rigorously tested, and and beyond.
interested in creating design solutions that
thoroughly evaluated before being disseminated
The detailed case studies in this publication help meet student diversity in study behaviour.
widely through two national colloquia. The
were presented at the NGLS 2008 Colloquium, Derek Powell brings a broad perspective to the
framework, developed through a collaborative
and focus on the successes and obstacles in application of technology to learning spaces. He
process, acknowledges the needs of different
designing next generation learning spaces. The conceived the Advanced Concept Teaching Space
academic disciplines, and was pioneered at the
case studies illustrate the importance of the PST initiative and directed the technology research and
University of Queensland.
framework in the operation and evaluation of new development used in this space.
Three distinct types of learning environments were learning spaces.
designed, demonstrated, and evaluated using the
The information provided in the following chapters Belinda Tibbetts
unified approach made possible by the framework;
and case studies is the result of research and University of Queensland
Next Generation Libraries (connected learning
testing new ideas in learning spaces. The
experiences beyond information), Collaborative
outcomes have significantly improved the learning
Learning Centres (challenging our assumptions
experience for students and have also informed
and pushing the boundaries), and the Advanced
pedagogical and technological approaches to
Concept Teaching Spaces (the interactive lecture
teaching in the university environment.

8 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 A Pedagogy-Space-
1.0 Technology (PST) Framework
for Designing and Evaluating
Learning Places (D. Radcliffe)

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 9

10 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES
 A Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST)

1.0 Framework for Designing and Evaluating

Learning Places

Over the past decade there has been a growing There are real and virtual dimensions to each of There are an increasing number of exemplars of
body of knowledge and working examples of new these and this nexus is now being recognised next generation learning spaces, often associated
approaches to the design of learning spaces in and discussed. For example a recent paper by with the various consortia listed above. Some
higher education institutions. Despite this, a clear Oblinger (2005) concludes that “the convergence like the Technology Enabled Active Learning
consensus is yet to emerge. A number of factors of technology, pedagogy and space can lead to (TEAL) project at Massachusetts Institute of
are driving innovation and experimentation in the exciting models of campus interactions.” Technology (MIT) (Long 2005) and the Learning in
design of learning spaces in North America, Europe a Technology-Rich Environment (LITRE) at North
This paper presents the Pedagogy-Space-
and Australia. These include changing social Carolina State University have a particular focus
Technology (PST) Framework for guiding the design
patterns, generational change, a changing funding on technology.
of learning spaces which takes account of these
environment, new and emerging technology and
three factors in informing the conceptual design Others, like Wallenberg Hall at Stanford University,
the shift to a more learner-centred pedagogy.
and post-occupancy evaluation of either discrete combine technology with a flexible architecture
There has been a tendency for many initiatives learning environments (e.g. individual rooms) or and mobile fittings. The Stanford Centre for
in learning spaces to be technology-driven networks of places (e.g. a whole campus). Innovations in Learning, responsible for Wallenberg
(Long 2005; Valenti 2002) or to a lesser extent Hall, focuses on people, places and processes,
although there is also a strong theme of advanced
technology, especially web-based tools.

David Radcliffe The history of the Integrated Learning Centre at

the University of Arizona highlights the importance
School of Engineering Education of having the right people involved at each stage
Purdue University, USA
in the development of new learning spaces. At the
inception the visionary and the key (political) allies
are the key drivers. During the conceptual design
the “grounded dreamers” need to be brought on
pedagogy-driven. On occasions both technology
Innovative Learning Spaces board and should be drawn from students, staff,
and pedagogy are considered in tandem (Brown
teaching consultants, instructional technology
2005; JISC). Somewhat differently, Jamieson et In the United States of America there are several
specialists, facilities designers and Information
al. (2000) examines the pedagogy-place nexus. collaborative initiatives, consortia and consultancy
Technology specialists. They argue that the
Where pedagogy is a focus, these initiatives groups active in developing innovative learning
planners including the architect and the project
adopt some explicit form of learner-centred or environments, including:
manager only need join by the time of detailed
constructivist pedagogy paradigm (Brown 2005;
• T
 he National Learning Infrastructure Initiative design; although this is contestable. By the time
Oblinger 2005).
(NLII), sponsored by Educause, and their of construction the builders, contractors and
Moore and co workers (2006) observe that as a Learning Space Design Constitutive Group sub-contractors have joined the team. In the early
response to the different approaches to learning years of occupation all the people involved to this
• S
 tudent-Centered Activities for Large
and sensibilities of the next generation, “some stage should be the promoters of the initiative.
Enrolment Undergraduate Programs
faculty have changed teaching strategies simply to
(SCALE-UP) at North Carolina State University The Integrated Learning Centre (ILC) in the Faculty
recapture the attention of students who are net-
to develop a highly collaborative, hands- of Applied Sciences at Queen’s University, in
surfing, instant-messaging, and text-messaging
on, computer-rich, interactive learning Kingston, Ontario (Canada) was conceived with
during scheduled meetings”. They go on to
environment for large enrolment courses. several purposes in mind. These included having
argue that “creating learning environments that
a learning environment that supported a major
challenge students to become actively engaged, • T
 he Kaleidoscope Project which is focused on
piece of curriculum reform based on a shift to a
independent, lifelong learners inside and outside developing learning environments that support
more active and project-based approach. They
of formal learning spaces should be the critical aim undergraduate study in science, technology,
also sought to use the building itself as a learning
of change in teaching strategies”. engineering and mathematics (STEM).
tool and encouraged integration of academic staff
In reality there is a nexus between pedagogy, • T
 he Teaching Learning and Technology (TLT) from different departments through a common,
technology and the design of the learning space. Group overlapping space at the intersection of several

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 11

A Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Framework for Designing and Evaluating Learning Places

existing buildings. The ILC, opened in 2004, provided (NATALIE 2006). pushing the boundaries) and advanced concept
contains design and teaching studios, prototyping, teaching spaces (the interactive lecture theatre
The JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee)
instrumented plazas, active learning centre and of the future). While there is some knowledge
report provides some general advice on the
site investigation facility, competitive teams’ and experience on the use of these new forms of
design of learning centres and a generic floor
spaces, group rooms and live (green) building. learning space there is still much to discover.
plan but very little by way of specific examples.
The ILC learned lessons from the earlier Integrated
The Saltire Centre at Glasgow Caledonian The project is based at the University of
Teaching and Learning Lab and the Discovery
University is highlighted. It is a large informal Queensland which has a track record of innovation
Learning Centre, at the University of Colorado in
space that provides a hub – “the social heart” in teaching and in the design and provisioning
Boulder and other innovative laboratories. Thus
for the university; it physically connects different of new learning spaces. The project is led by
new initiatives build upon earlier ones (McCowan
parts of the campus and also provides wireless a small team of co-principal investigators who
& Mason 2002).
connectivity. It has social and civic spaces and have overlapping interests and complementary
The University of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada) glazed atrium that provides natural lighting and expertise in the design of learning environments
established the Flexible Learning Experience ventilation as well as an exhibition space. The from the perspectives of pedagogy, space and
(FLEX) Lab in 2000 to “support pedagogical Centre incorporates a student services mall and a technology. The team includes a senior faculty
innovation”. The focus is on achieving benefits learning café. The upper floors contain the library member with a history of innovation in teaching,
for both the teachers and the students. They facilities in relatively informal layout with some an architect who has designed numerous new
encourage experimentation and innovation, formal seminar rooms (Saltire 2006). spaces in universities and high schools, and a
tracking results and sharing these with colleagues. university-based manager of teaching technology.

The report “Designing Spaces for Effective The project has engaged a large number of people
Next Generation Learning Spaces
Learning, guide for the 21st century learning representing a diverse range of stakeholders;
(NGLS) Project
design” (JISC) explores the relationship between learners, teachers, learning support staff,
learning technologies and innovative examples In 2006, the Carrick Institute for Teaching and administrators and design and technology
of physical space design. There are several Learning in Higher Education in Australia funded professionals at the University and nationally. This
examples that are of particular relevance to this a national project called Next Generation Learning agrees with the recommendation of Oblinger (2005)
project. The InterActive ClassRoom built in 1998 in Spaces. This project is focused on what happens that the following groups should be “at the table”
Mechanical Engineering at Strathclyde University, in learning spaces and seeks to create a coherent when designing new learning spaces: Administration,
Glasgow, Scotland relates to the ACTS (Advanced and comprehensive framework for guiding the Faculty, Students (undergraduate and postgraduate),
Concept Teaching Space) concept proposed design and operation of new learning spaces. Facilities, Planning, Information Technology, Library
here. Intended to encourage more student The primary goal is to fully develop, rigorously test and Teaching and Learning Support.
interaction via a Socratic dialogue method, the in the field, thoroughly evaluate and disseminate
A key feature of the project’s engagement and
room has relatively conventional facilities with widely a new design framework. It will be in a
dissemination has been a series of national forums
slightly curved desk tops plus the addition of a form that allows the concepts to be generalised
on Next Generation Learning Spaces, the first of
polling system – the Personal Response System. and replicated in new and different applications,
which was held in July 2007. This event provided
In 2000 the University built the first of its new nationally and internationally. This new framework
an opportunity for the diverse stakeholder group
Teaching Clusters to encourage collaborative has been developed through a collaborative,
to experience the new learning spaces at the
learning. There is little detail on these clusters, interdisciplinary and participatory process, drawing
University of Queensland. Various sessions were
so it is difficult to compare with for example the on knowledge from all the stakeholder groups.
held in the new spaces with forum delegates
CLCs (Collaborative Learning Centre). More
The scope of the project includes the design, undertaking interactive exercises designed to
recently they created a product realisation studio
demonstration and evaluation of three distinct demonstrate the features of the different spaces.
based on a similar one in Rensselaer Polytechnic
types of learning environments using this unified The first forum also provided an opportunity for
Institute (USA). They claimed that “overall the
approach that have been pioneered at the other universities to showcase the learning space
change to active teaching styles, with collaborative
University of Queensland. The three space types they were most proud of.
learning, has been a huge success – both in
are: next generation libraries (connected learning
terms of student performance and retention. An To complement the forums, the University has
experiences beyond information), collaborative
independent evaluation was carried out a couple hosted numerous delegations of visitors who
learning centres (challenging our assumptions and
of years ago” and several student quotes are have inspected the new facilities and the project

12 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Pedagogy

y b
led

en
es

en
ab

ha
rag

lar
en

nc
u

ge

es
co

db
en

y
extends
Space Technology
embeds

team have presented at other regional events and The JISC report argues that “a learning space • D
 esign to make use of the vertical dimension
national conferences concerned with aspects should be able to motivate learners and promote of facilities
of new learning spaces. The latter has been learning as an activity; support collaborative, as
• D
 esign to integrate previously discrete
achieved in part through active networking with well as formal, practice; provide a personalised
campus functions
peak stakeholder groups throughout the project to and inclusive environment; and be flexible in the
gather input and to critique ideas. These include face of changing needs”. It states that the design • D
 esign features and functions to maximise
the Higher Education Research and Development of individual spaces within an educational building teacher and student control
Society of Australasia (HERDSA), the Deputy Vice- needs to be:
• D
 esign to maximise alignment of different
Chancellors (Vice Presidents) for Academic Affairs,
• F
 lexible – to accommodate current and curricula activities
the Tertiary Education Facilities Management
evolving pedagogies;
Association, the Association for Tertiary Education • D
 esign to maximise student access to and
Management, and the Association of Educational • F
 uture proofed – to enable space to be re- use/ownership of the learning environment
Technology Managers (AETM). allocated and reconfigured;
Dension University, a small liberal arts college in
The major transferable outcome of the project • B
 old – to look beyond tried and tested Ohio, established the Learning Spaces Project to
will be the new design framework based on technologies and pedagogies; “to enhance the utility, appearance and comfort
the pedagogy-space-technology nexus. This of all campus spaces related to learning. Learning
• C
 reative – to energise and inspire learners
framework will provide a robust basis for spaces must support many styles of learning,
and tutors;
developing design briefs, for assessing alternative be versatile, comfortable and attractive, rich with
concepts and for evaluating new learning • S
 upportive – to develop the potential of all information and reliable technology, maintained
environments. It will be in a form that allows learners; and and accessible” (Siddall 2006). They present the
the concepts to be generalised and replicated following set of design guidelines:
• E
 nterprising – to make each space capable
in new and different applications. The project is
of supporting different purposes. • L
 earning spaces should support a diversity
developing detailed case studies that get into the
of learning styles
‘nitty gritty’ of what really works and what does Oblinger (2005) takes a more focused and learner-
not, based on the development and evaluation of centred approach to the design of facilities: • Learning spaces must be versatile
these three new spaces and their predecessors.
• Design learning spaces around people • L
 earning spaces must be comfortable and
These case studies will illustrate the operation of
attractive
the new design framework. • Support multiple types of learning activities
• L
 earning spaces are information rich and
• Enable connections, inside and outside
technologically reliable
Design Principles for Learning • Accommodate information technology
• L
 earning spaces must be maintained
Spaces
• Design for comfort, safety and functionality continuously
A number of authors have proposed lists of design
• Reflect institutional values • L
 earning spaces should be ubiquitous in
principles or similar as guides in the creation
space and time
of contemporary learning spaces. There is no Jamieson et al. (2005) promote the adoption
generally agreed approach to the creation of new of multi-disciplinary approaches and the use of • Learning spaces should be used effectively
learning spaces and various groups are promoting participatory design processes and offer the seven
• S
 ufficient resources must be allocated for
particular sets of guiding principles for the creation guiding principles to be used for “augmenting
learning spaces
of such spaces. Some of these lists of principles rather than replace in toto existing design
are aspirational while others imply they are based principles” as follows: Johnson and Lomas (2005) point to a series of
on experience. However there is really very little steps that combine “to create an iterative dialogue
objective data based on well-documented case • D
 esign space for multiple use concurrently
among the design team and other stakeholders
studies or analysis that can be used to test these. and consecutively
in the design process.” The process suggested is
As well there is little or no empirical evidence • D
 esign to maximise the inherent flexibility organic and begins by considering the institutional
provided to support the proposed principles. within each space context (its values, strengths and limitations) and
the learning principles that are to be promoted.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 13

A Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Framework for Designing and Evaluating Learning Places

These reflect concepts in classic works like attractive to ‘big-picture’ thinkers but not so to country, both current and completed, so that it
Chickering and Gamson’s “Seven Principles” stakeholders concerned about the specifics. is possible to identify patterns in what different
(1987) or the more recent NRC (National Research institutions are trying to achieve, how they do
Council) report on “How People Learn” (2000). this and how they evaluate success. Obviously
It is recommended that the design team works Proposed Pedagogy-Space- additional and more detailed questions can be
from the desired learning principles to define a Technology (PST) Design & Evaluation added in each section and at each stage as fitting
set of learning activities that will promote these Framework the particular instance.
principles. The design principles flow from
Based on the preliminary findings from the NGLS The sequencing of the items in the framework
learning principles and the learning activities.
Project, we propose the following question- is intentional and important. Each of the three
Thus there is not a single universal set of design
based framework to aid diverse stakeholders to elements, pedagogy, space and technology,
principles but a particular set that meet the needs
approach the creation, operation and evaluation influence each other in a reciprocal fashion. Thus
of a given project. It is only after the design
of new learning spaces. The framework invites achieving a desired pedagogy might suggest a
principles are established that the requirements
stakeholders including administrators, faculty, preferred way to arrange the shape and use of
for the particular setting are derived. Johnson
architects, students, equipment and technology space, equally a learning space irrespective of
and Lomas go on to emphasise the importance of
providers at each stage of the conception, its intended use will tend to shape what people
considering how to measure success in the design
development, realization and use of a new learning do in it and hence the patterns of teaching and
of new learning environments.
space to reflect on what they are doing and why. learning. Similarly a particular space places
Taking yet another tack, Long and Ehrmann (2005) It is inherently self-documenting and aides the constraints (or presents opportunities) for the
suggest four ideas that are useful in imagining elicitation of lessons learned for future projects. introduction of certain type of technology while a
the classroom of the future; Learning by Doing given technology can impact how a space is used
In recognition that each of these stakeholder
Matters; Context Matters; Interaction Matters and by teachers and students. Thus while all three are
groups has a particular set of background
Location of Learning Matters. interdependent in a cyclical manner, the question
assumptions, expectations and practices about
remains; which element do you start with?
They proceed to list the characteristics of the how they should or could contribute to the
Pedagogy seems to be the logical first element,
“classroom of the future” as: realization of a new learning space project, the
then space and finally technology.
framework is not in the form of a prescriptive
• D
 esigned for people, not for ephemeral
model of the design or delivery process per se. However this is not to suggest a hierarchy or to
technologies
A model-based approach would tend to privilege value pedagogy more than space or technology.
• O
 ptimised for certain learning activities; not those who were familiar with that particular form Rather it is a recommended place to enter the
just stuffed with technology of representation, depending on what type of pedagogy-space-technology loop in order to go
model was used or how it was presented visually. through an iterative process. Ideally such iteration
• E
 nabling technologies brought into the
For instance if the framework were constructed would occur several times at each stage of the
space, rather than built into the space
around a model of the design and delivery life-cycle of a learning space (cradle to cradle).
• Allowing invisible technology and flexible use process familiar to architects, this might not mean While only two life-cycle stages are represented in
very much to a faculty member from the liberal the Table 1 (as the columns - Conception & Design
• Emphasising soft spaces
arts who is trying to evoke a particular learning and Implementation & Operation), the framework
• Useful across the 24hr day experience or an administrator who is focused could be made more fine-grained by splitting
on project management issues like cost and risk. these into more than two columns corresponding
• Zoned for sound and activity
By using a series of generic trigger questions all to more life-cycle stages and writing appropriate
stakeholders potentially have equal access to the questions to each stage. Thus if a particular
design conversation. institution has a prescribed set of project stages
While these various lists offer general design
with decision points (stage gates), then the basic
principles for guidance, they are difficult to One reason for keeping the framework simple was
PST framework questions can be re-written to
apply in practice with a multi-disciplinary team to enable it to be used in a wide range of project
suit the declared delivery steps or stages for the
of stakeholders in the creation of new learning types and scales and institutional contexts. An
institution; it can be tailored to meet particular
spaces. The style of the pithy taglines is rather objective of the NGLS is to try to get comparative
ways of doing work.
high-minded and universal and thus ambiguous; data from many different projects across the

14 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

Table 1 - Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Design & Evaluation Framework

Life-Cycle Stage
Focus Conception and Design Implementation and Operation

Overall What is the motivation for the initiative? What does success look like?

What is intended? What initiated the project? Who are the Is the facility considered to be a success? By whom?
proponents and opponents? Who has to be persuaded about Why? What is the evidence? Does this relate to the original
the idea? Why? What lessons were learned for the future? motivation or intent?

What lessons were learned for the future?

Pedagogy What type(s) of learning and teaching are we trying to foster? What type(s) of learning and teaching are observed to take
Why? place? What is the evidence?

Why is this likely to make a difference to learning? What evaluation methodology or approach was used and
What is the theory & evidence? what methods were used to gather and analyse data?

What plans will be made to modify programs or courses to Who was included in the data gathering and analysis?
take advantage of the new facilities? Students? Faculty? Staff? Administrator? Senior Leadership?
Facilities managers and technology staff?
What education or training for academics and other staff is
built into the plan?

Space What aspects of the design of the space and provisioning of Which aspects of the space design and equipment worked
furniture and fittings will foster these modes of learning (and and which did not? Why?
(including environs; furniture
teaching)? How?
and fittings) What were the unexpected (unintended) uses of the space
Who is involved in developing the design brief? Why? and facilities that aided learning or facilitated teaching? Do
these present ideas for future projects?
Which existing facilities will be considered in developing
concepts? Can we prototype ideas? How was the effectiveness of the use of space to aid learning
and teaching measured? What were the different metrics used?
Who is involved in the assessment of concepts and detailed
design? Why? What are their primary issues and concerns? Where there synergies between this and other spaces that
enhanced learning?
Technology What technology will be deployed to complement the What technologies were most effective at enhancing learning
space design in fostering the desired learning and teaching and teaching? Why?
(ICT; lab and specialist
patterns? How?
equipment) What were the unexpected (unintended) impacts (positive and
In establishing the brief and developing concepts and detailed negative) of the technology on learning and teaching?
designs, what is the relationship between the design of the
How did technology enhance the continuum of learning and
space and the selection and integration of technology?
teaching across the campus and beyond?
What pedagogical improvements are suggested by the
technology?

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 15

A Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) Framework for Designing and Evaluating Learning Places

References
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. and Cocking, R.R. (2000) Johnson, C. and Lomas, C (2005) Design the Learning Oblinger, D. G. (2005) Leading the transition from
How People Learn; Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Space: Learning and Design Principles, Educause Review, classrooms to learning spaces, Educause Quarterly, 1:
National Academy Press, Washington, DC. July/Aug., 17-28. 14-18.

Brown, M. (2005) Learning spaces, In Educating the Net Long, P.D. (2005) Learning space design in action, Saltire (2006) The Saltire Centre, http://www.gcal.ac.uk/
Generation, Oblinger, D and Oblinger, J.L (eds), Educause, Educause Review, July/Aug., p60. thesaltirecentre/building/index.html
www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/
Long, P.D. and Ehrmann, S.C. (2005) Future of the Siddall, S.E. (2006) The Denison Learning Space Project,
Chickering, A. W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987) Seven Learning Space: Breaking out of the box, Educause Mission and Guiding Principles http://www.denison.edu/
Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, Review, July/Aug., 43-58. learningspaces/mission.html
AAHE Bulletin, March.
McCowan, J.D. and Mason, J.L. (2002) Creating a Facility Valenti, M.S. (2002) Creating the classroom of the future,
Jamieson, P. (2005) Understanding a Happy Accident: for Developing Professional Skills, Proceedings ASEE Educause Review, Sept/Oct, 53-62.
Learning to build new learning environments, Report of Annual Conference, Montreal.
ECE Research Project on Learning Communities, TEDI,
Moore, A.H., Fowler, S.B. and Watson, C.E. (2007) Active
The University of Queensland.
Learning and Technology: Designing Change for Faculty,
Jamieson, P., Fisher, K., Gilding, T., Taylor, P.G. and Trevitt, Students, and Institutions, Educause Review, Sept/Oct.,
A. C. F. (2000) Place and Space in the Design of New 42 (5): 42-61.
Learning Environments, Higher Education Research and
NATALIE (2006) New Approaches to Teaching & Learning
Development , 19(2), 221-236.
in Engineering, http://www.mecheng.strath.ac.uk/tandl.
JISC Designing Spaces for Effective Learning, guide for asp
the 21st century learning design.

16 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 The Process of Creating
2.0 Learning Space (H. Wilson)

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 17

18 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES
 The Process of Creating Learning Space

2.0

There seems to be a significant disconnect The model for designing and building learning The process of procuring learning space relies
between those who teach in spaces, those spaces has not changed dramatically for over one on many players in order to bring any of these
who design learning spaces, and those who hundred years. More recently we find significant projects to fruition. The game however has had
incorporate technology into these spaces. We can shifts in pedagogy and at the same time a desire its ground shift. We can no longer rely on the
see this disconnection in terms of the language to incorporate technology, whilst still using the standards for learning spaces developed over
and understanding of how different groups same industrial systems of space delivery. In time since the 60s and 70s. Learning space was
describe space: the word ‘collaboration’ may this climate of change new spaces are being distilled into an efficient set of design standards
mean subtly different things to a teacher, architect, developed as potential prototypes for 'the new'. useful for facilities managers and architects.
or technologist. The danger lies in a lack of understanding about Academics based their funding bids on them.
how these spaces are designed and are evaluated They were extremely successful models for
Subsequently we find an inconsistency in quality,
in that they are often copied out of their context didactic teaching models with limited technology.
cost and outcomes of designing learning spaces.
and without any regard for how that space may The new age of learning is much more dynamic
Finding a way to navigate through the current
have related to the particular pedagogy it was and more technologically-rich.
pedagogy/space/technology paradigm has been a
designed for, or whether the technology was
particular focus of our study. With the obvious need to re-examine the way
appropriately assigned.
we design, we find we also need to revisit the
whole procurement process. It is not that there
are not exemplars, but that there is a consistent

Hamilton Wilson
inconsistency in their outcomes.

These are the following themes that were raised in

Wilson Architects
the final colloquium session that we can begin to
Brisbane, Australia
unpack through lessons learned over the two years.

The space bid - The process of the academic

presenting a case to gain funding.

The funding bid - The process to filter

and prioritise which projects from the pool of
space bids should get up. How each project
can contribute to the campus framework and
connected learning experience.

The design phase - The process of

understanding the intersection of pedagogy,
space and technology and the implications to the
enabling of learning.

The construction phase - The process of

building and the co-ordination of key stakeholders
to ensure a quality outcome.

The space bid

What is the format for Academics presenting a
case for new space?

The politics of space mean that quite often the

projects are developed within Faculties and have

Figure 1: The Collaborative Teaching and Learning Centre, UQ

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 19

The Process of Creating Learning Space

their own advocates to push projects through for

funding approval. The bids are often prepared by The funding bid technologies provide an effective learning framework.

This model looks at an institution as a whole

people who may be preparing a submission for the
To begin to develop a framework that strategically and rather than it being made up of a series
first time. The inconsistency of this process is open
places proposed or refurbished space bids in of learning silos we consider space as a highly
for examination. Almost all of the spaces identified
context within the campus can help evaluate connected network of places for learning. This
with the case studies were exceptions to this rule
diverse projects more objectively. By looking at model proposes that every square metre has the
in that they were identified as strategic innovation
the campus as a connected learning experience it potential to support the learning process and so
projects and often fell outside the normal bidding
is possible to strategically understand the balance every coffee shop, every corridor, every courtyard
process. Interestingly, the dominant players in the
and mix of learning space. A new model called the is incorporated into the design.
innovation of space were within the library.
Places for Learning Spectrum begins to consider this
The Places for Learning Spectrum is student-centric
Within the colloquium’s interactive session it was continuum and develops a dialogue to discuss any
and can be broken down into three components
discussed that there may be an opening for a space on campus (Figure 2).
exploring these relationships from their perspective.
new type of person who has an understanding
Campuses need to be contemplated as a complete
in Pedagogy/Space/Technology (a type of The types of physical spaces to support learning;
network of connected learning environments. In
educationalist dramaturge -a theatrical position
this framework the process of learning does not The various communities of people who support
where their contribution is to assist the director to
exist singularly but rather it happens within a range learning (staff, peers, community);
categorise and discuss the various types and kinds
of different types of pedagogies, spaces and
of plays, their interconnectedness and their styles). Learning modalities to enable learning for different
technologies. This learning space continuum has
student outcomes.
This PST Dramaturge would be able to assist the two types of conditions at its extremities. Wholly
faculty in articulating their teaching and learning independent self-directed unstructured learning Every space that can be conceived within and
outcomes to align with space (the amount of at one end and structured teacher-led didactic beyond the campus can be mapped and a
space required for any particular cohort size) and learning environments at the other. Within this dialogue begun about learning potential.
extent of technology support. This kind of support range a spectrum of other pedagogies, spaces and
to faculties could give more weight to their space
bid and a consistency in their evaluation.
Faculty
Community
This method was utilised with the development
Collaborative
of the briefs for the Australian Defence Force Park/ Teaching &
Garden Specialist spaces Lecture Theatre
Academy’s refurbished learning spaces (2008). Landscape
Gym Bar Social Learning Spaces Learning space

In this case the staff were required to apply the

Pedagogy Space Technology metric in their Unstructured SPACE Structured
consideration. For each space a descriptor for
Active Learning Space
the learning outcomes and teaching modality Home Pool Cafe Art Museum Library Peer to Peer Learning Seminar (next generation
was articulated. Space recognised the size and Spaces lecture theatre)

makeup of the cohort. The Technology component City Community Networks

focused on what technology would best enable
School & Staff Cohort
the pedagogy and support the students. This Campus Community
process was in the whole, successful in that it
Campus & Interdiciplinary Networks
examined a diverse range of teacher-led spaces
Library support
as well as social learning spaces. This process
still relies on the briefing group having a deep Learning Modality
Didactic
understanding of how to articulate the various
Active Learning
components. A PST dramaturge would have
been able to sit down with them to work through Feedback
these areas in more detail. This is in effect what
Reflective
happened when it was redrafted and reissued.

Figure 2: Places for Learning Spectrum.

20 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

Figure 3: Smaller Spaces in the CTLC, UQ

A student who enrols in a university to gain

an expertise in a particular field of study is, by
have the same learning challenges results in two
unique outcomes. The student feels they belong to The design phase
default, a member of their faculty community. a community and are supported by it.
Learning places may be broken down into two
Many universities undervalue this group through
The Places for Learning Spectrum begins to distinct types: structured (teacher-led) and
poor visibility of their study cohort and limited
also focus on the types of generic teaching and unstructured learning (peer to peer, social learning
opportunities to interact and to support each
learning spaces that can better enable learning. and self directed). Within this simplistic framework
other. At the entries to faculties more space
Traditionally lecture theatres were the only type all places for learning can be conceived. This
needs to be given over to describing the place
of large structured teacher-led space. Now it is model looks at an institution as a whole rather
of learning, reinforcing the type of learning that
than a series of independent faculties, and instead
looks at space as highly connected network of
places for learning.

Structured Learning Environments

Within any one teacher-led learning experience
there are generally a number of modes that can be
identified.

• D
 idactic mode: set scene for investigation /
delivery of content / instructional

• Collaboration mode: investigating as group

• Feedback mode: discussing group outcomes

• R
 eflective mode: documenting (individual or
group) - assignment/project write up

Figure 4: The University of Queensland First Year Engineering Learning Centre. A ‘noisy’ active learning space co-located with the University Within any learning session the space and
Engineering library. (Scott Burrows, Aperture Architectural Photography)
technology needs to support the dominant
learning mode. If the pedagogy is predominantly
generally acknowledged that, with a shift to more
happens there and spaces to support students collaborative then it is counterproductive to
project-based learning, a broader range of spaces
to be able to study with their own cohort. It is the learning experience to have a room full of
with a range of technology support needs to be
interesting to note how many universities have the tables in rows, with very little room to move
available. (Collaborative teaching and learning
ground floor of a faculty significantly occupied by around furniture. A simple test is to document
spaces and Active Learning Spaces)
staff and the students are to be found elsewhere. the proportion of learning modality. ie If the
pedagogy is project based/collaborative then
Peer to peer learning spaces enable this level of
the pedagogical weighting may be as follows:
engagement if located at entry levels and when With the advent of more project-based learning
Didactic/instructional 10 percent; Collaborative
the space is highly visible. This type of space can there is an obvious need for libraries to support
75 percent; Feedback 10 percent; Reflective 5
be clearly seen and understood with the new First more group work, but spaces associated with
percent. Furniture and technology need to directly
Year Engineering Learning Centre at the University coffee shops and social places also enable
support these modes.
of Queensland (Figures 4 & 11). The client brief was a dynamic environment for study. Although
for a critical space for students to support their supporting a more diverse study cohort these Historically educational spaces have been based
intensive project-based curriculum. The outcome are spaces that can begin to establish better on a 100 percent didactic model for a cohort
was a highly active learning place where the first interdisciplinary networks. of around 30 students. The constraints this can
year students are given the opportunity to own their present often result in teachers struggling to align
The framework lets us begin a more meaningful
space, support each other, and be in a common current pedagogy and space.
dialogue about any place within a campus and
location for lecturer support. The opportunity for
where pedagogy and the community it serves can
students to be supported by other students who
be considered.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 21

Figure 5: The old and rarely used Art Gallery at Bond University (Wilson Architects) Figure 6: The overall view of the room with a glazed collaborative room to the right, booths to the left, MLC, Bond University (Wilson Architects)

Designing Learning Space led spaces all the way through to coffee shops, configuring furniture and technology. The space
corridors, self-directed study places and other needed to allow for a range of opportunities to
When talking to education institutions that are
unstructured learning environments. Every square work in different group scenarios, the pursuit of
reviewing space or are planning to build new
metre of space should be considered in enabling individual projects and allow students to engage
spaces, I am now requesting three things:
learning. with various digital formats. The location, form
1. Documentation of the pedagogy and its and configuration of the various furniture and
Unstructured Learning Environments
modal makeup: what are the conceived technologies need to be understood in that each
learning outcomes. Following any structured learning experience different study space has a distinct pedagogical
students should be given the opportunity for its intent with a spatial and technology arrangement
2. The size of the overall cohort and project-
extension rather than being closed down due to carefully crafted to suit (Figures 6, 8 & 9). This
based collaborative groups.
lack of adequate support. Traditionally the support space is unique in that it sits outside the traditional
3. Consideration of what technology can happened within the library and was a monastic library but is managed by the library staff with
be used to augment greater learning individual pursuit. A library is one particular learning integrated coursework/technology support. It was
outcomes. This element has an obvious cost environment with great support in information interesting to note that the uptake with technology
component and perhaps a less measurable literacy skills, but also able to support technology as a study support tool was significantly greater
time saving and enabling component. (This and course work. The library, when seen as an than the First Year Engineering Learning Centre at
should be done at a reasonably early stage integral part of the social learning environment with the University of Queensland.
so it can be budgeted and value managed). appropriate staff and varied technological study

One area we have been investigating is how one

options, begins to transform the idea of how it
might exist within the overall learning framework. A Experience and
space can be multimodal with a seamless transition
between learning modes. The Collaborative
Teaching and Learning Centre (CTLC) at the
librarian’s support can penetrate beyond the walls of
the library into other social or peer to peer learning Context
spaces.
University of Queensland was the first of these The image of the classroom below describes in
types of spaces where the modes are switched: the Peer to peer/social learning spaces are some of its layout the potential modes of learning capable
physical space is modified by electronic screens the most talked about areas within educational in the space. It is rigidly didactic with very few
and lighting to create smaller groups within the institutions and also the least understood and opportunities to present other modes of teaching
overall cohort (Figures 1, 3 & 10). studied. The re-badging of spaces as ‘learning and learning. However the space also has an
commons’ or ‘hubs’ is often only the old computer emotive content which also impacts the learning
The technology then enables the lecturer to process.
laboratory in disguise (many computers in a
observe and share any one of the group’s work
room with a funky name, colours and furniture).
with another. This learning environment engages
If the study experiences are limited and the
the student at a number of levels and plays on its
opportunities with the onsite technology without
theatrical transitions to constantly give visual clues
diversity then there may cause for review. The
about the mode of learning expected.
ability to choose the most appropriate space
Not all spaces need to be the same. It is just as for this to occur necessitates offering a variety
important to understand the potential of connected of study options. Each of these options enables
learning experiences that can transition from one a different level of engagement with both other
space to another. i.e. A lecture theatre might make students and technology.
sense to be co-located with seminar spaces or
For the new Balnaves Foundation Multi-media
collaborative teaching and learning spaces in order
Learning Centre (MLC) at Bond University
to make the most of the possibilities of different
this metric was applied in both its conception
Figure 7: Traditional Teaching Space
spaces that can support different learning modes.
and later post occupancy evaluation. To take
An extension of this idea can begin to conceive The room is windowless, with hard and immovable
a large unstructured open area, which was
the campus as a whole learning space continuum furniture which is uncomfortable and difficult to
once the university’s art gallery (Figure 5), and
where multiple and diverse opportunities to access and the lights produce distracting glare.
make sense of creating a diverse study learning
learn can be found from the structured teacher The emotive content of the space suggests a
environment required a measured approach to

22 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Figure 8: The Bond study ‘booth’ where students can digitally capture hand notes, surf the web, connect to university databases, watch a movie and plug in their laptop.

The construction
phase
What expertise should be provided by the
university and what expertise should be brought
in?

The process of construction has been well tested

over many years where systems have been
put in place to reduce risk in the procurement
of educational space. A tension that has been
increasingly more significant is the incorporation
of technology within the design and construction
of learning spaces. At the 2007 Association of
Education Technology Managers (AETM) the issue
of process of learning space procurement was
raised. Universally the response to this subject
was one of frustration. Issues of co-ordination
through the design and construction phase often
meant that there was abortive work or insufficient
time allowed for fit-out and fit-off.

This issue can be broken down into various

components:-

• Incorporation of technology at a strategic

level.

• Incorporation of technology at a planning

and design level.

• Installation of technology systems.

• Maintenance of technology systems.

Figure 9: The MLC at Bond
There were very few conclusions that could be
negative response by both students and staff and spent in one space. We can shift the way people
made about the best approach to the problem
despite the best teaching methods the space work together and individually. We can indicate
except that there was a consensus about the lack
will challenge students’ ability to concentrate for through lighting levels whether you can talk loudly
of understanding of what technology managers
any length of time. Although this is an extreme or quietly. We can make a space feel busy and
do and how they are embedded into university
example we understand that well thought through dynamic or quiet and reflective. All of these
space procurement systems. This is an ongoing
functional space needs to also positively engage qualities need an understanding of the students’
conversation which needs to be worked through
the senses. These spaces are people centric and context and expected learning outcomes as it
with all the key stakeholders to begin to develop
as such must recognise their potential emotive differs from one university to the next, faculty to
better systems that can interface with their existing
responses to space. Design can influence the faculty, country to country.
procurement systems.
way we engage with people and place. We can
change or modify behaviour through furniture,
layout, colour and lighting. We can encourage
people to stay longer. We can limit the time

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 23

 Figure 10: Study Nook in the CTLC, UQ.

Conclusion
To move forward with the process, assuming • D
 ocument the learning modalities expected
we are building on knowledge brought forward with the new spaces (pedagogy).
from the evaluation of past projects, it is clear
• D
 ocument the culture and size of the overall
that the way we procure space needs to be
cohort and the project group subsets
revisited. There seems to be a need to be
(space).
able to cut through the politics of space and
set clearly-defined processes based on a • D
 ocument the types of technology that
common documented, agreed and understood can better enable the learning outcomes
language that can inform academics, executive (technology).
administrators, facility managers and external
• U
 nderstand how any new spaces fits within
consultants.
the overall campus structure and the ecology
What has been presented here is a road map to of the existing teaching and learning spaces
the process based on the two year study and the (what spaces are over or under-supplied or
outcomes of both of the colloquia. Using the PST distributed).
framework as a reference, this has been tested
• H
 ow does the new space support the
on various projects where it has been applied
student at a faculty level and a campus
and tested in my architectural practice on real
level? (Space should be seen from their
projects rather than based only on theory. Other
perspective. It should be noted that libraries
campuses need to develop their own roadmap
generally already have a well-developed
based on their own particular context. The
model).
following points should at least be considered.
• E
 nsure that at every stage the Pedagogy
• E
 stablish a common language for your
Space Technology framework is consistently
pedagogies and break down learning into its
reviewed.
various modes (i.e. Didactic, Collaborative,
Feedback, Reflective, etc.).

Figure 11: The First Year Engineering Learning Centre, UQ.

24 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Evaluation and the Pedagogy-
3.0 Space-Technology
Framework (D. Powell)

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 25

26 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES
 Evaluation and the Pedagogy-Space-Technology

3.0 Framework

Both the research work carried out by the project The colloquium closing session pulled together The focus of the NGLS project across two years
investigators and an analysis of the papers the threads of these presentations to examine was to follow the development of succeeding
presented at the 2008 Next Generation Learning the fabric of evaluation. The classic investigative generations of new-style teaching space and to
Spaces (NGLS) Colloquium, strongly indicate that questions of ‘why, who, when, what, and how’ study longer term generational developments
the Pedagogy Space Technology (PST) framework emerged from the debate as useful guidelines to in library space. These two foci yielded an
has significant utility not just in the conception and understanding the issues. interesting divergence in evaluation issues as
design of teaching spaces but also in the crucial well. Roughly one third of the papers presented
process of evaluation. represent library spaces. The papers that were
Why Evaluate? not library-based covered faculty learning spaces
The project was able to track the creation
and “non-traditional” teaching spaces.
process and outcomes of three generations of The papers presented at the colloquium gave
Collaborative Teaching and Learning Spaces at ample evidence that universities are seeking to Library spaces tend to be constantly evolving,
the University of Queensland (UQ). These were experiment with different kinds of learning and though punctuated by major refurbishments from
important and novel spaces, well suited to study teaching spaces. In many cases, the completion time to time. By and large, libraries are both
and of significant interest nationally. Analysis of a new kind of learning space prompts a competent and experienced at self-evaluation.
In contrast, teaching space in general is poorly
represented in terms of evaluative studies. It

Derek Powell
seems likely that traditional teaching spaces are
seen to be well understood and hence not in need
teaching technology support of research or evaluation. Many of the non-library
the university of queensland, australia examples in literature and all of the examples
presented here are revolutionary spaces, new
kinds of teaching and learning spaces which are
seeking to push change in practice. The UQ
strongly supports the contention that to produce plethora of “me too” requests within and across Collaborative Teaching and Learning Centre,
better spaces, the cycle must include a robust institutions. The University of Queensland (UQ) Victoria University Engineering Project Based
evaluation of existing rooms that is used to inform is a case in point. Colloquium attendees in 2007 Learning Space and the Deakin Immersive
the design of succeeding projects. were able to examine the first faculty-based Learning Environment are clear examples in this
“Student Learning Centre” at UQ (though many respect. While the library spaces focus more
The PST framework taken as the basis for this
already existed at other institutions). By 2008 on finding out how users’ needs are changing
project, places significant weight on analysis after
however, UQ had completed another two such and responding, the teaching space design and
the design phase. Each of the contributors to the
spaces with a further four under construction or evaluation looks more intentional with a desire to
2008 Colloquium was asked to include significant
in planning. While these spaces had different shift behaviours.
sections on evaluation, with the questions drawn
planners, builders and user groups, they were
from the framework itself. The questions were
essentially similar in concept and pedagogic
specifically intended to place considerable
intent. The pace of work and overlapping
emphasis on gathering evidence of outcomes
schedules has meant that new centres are being
which could be then evaluated against the design
designed, specified and tendered before others
intent. An examination of the evaluation sections
are even occupied, leaving little or no opportunity
of the papers in succeeding chapters shows a
for evaluation and hence improvement of space
wide variety of methodology and varying success
design or technology provisioning. Clearly this is
in gathering consistent and useful evidence. One
undesirable and the intention is that evaluations
benefit of this diversity is that it brings the key
be undertaken in a timely way and that results
issues regarding evaluation methodology into
might be shared across institutions so that we
sharp focus.
may move ahead and avoid repeating mistakes in
novel spaces.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 27

Evaluation and the Pedagogy-Space-Technology Framework

Who are the evaluators? When should space be evaluated? What should be evaluated?
• Users • Post Occupancy • Usage amount and patterns

• Builders • Pre Funding • Satisfaction

• Managers • Short or long term • Meeting Goals

• Researchers It is not surprising that since the majority of • Efficiency

evaluative studies presented in this collection were
Analysis of the literature (reflected in the • Learning Outcomes
conducted post occupancy and over a relatively
colloquium) finds that the most prolific evaluators
short term that we can be beguiled into thinking Before moving to the question of methodology, it
are librarians. Library staff members are active
of ‘evaluation’ only in this narrow sense. However is instructive to review the goals of the evaluation.
managers of their spaces and are constantly
other views of evaluation were raised during There are a variety of motivators for undertaking
engaged with their users or clients. In general,
the discussion sessions that find support in the evaluation. Some appraisals appear to have the
librarians are committed to ongoing evaluation
papers. goal of validating a newly completed project and
with often highly developed and standardised
by extension, arguing for the creation of similar
instruments. It is worth pointing out, however Deborah Terry (UQ Deputy Vice Chancellor Teaching
spaces. Simpler measures such as head counts
that part of the goal in this case is the evaluation and Learning) argued strongly for proper evaluation
and multiple choice user satisfaction questions
of library services, with only a portion relating techniques to be applied to projects in the proposal
are often the mainstay of these surveys. By
to issues of space design. However in seeking stage in order to facilitate proper competitive funding
contrast, research projects or design studies
to understand the changing usage patterns, decisions. This kind of evaluation of space looks
aimed at informing ongoing development typically
librarians are often in the position of having long to not just answer the question of how we should
strive to uncover more detail, both by targeting
term data upon which to draw. This provides solid design and build space but also where should we
empirical measures and probing with open ended
empirical evidence for change. build and if we should build at all. This view found
questioning and focus groups.
broad agreement with contributors pointing also to
Interesting differences in perspective are evident
the role of projects such as UQ ACTS (Advanced Usage is of course a fundamental measure. It
in the evaluations of space performed by other
Concept Teaching Space) and Stanford’s Wallenberg would be a brave or foolish project manager
groups. Some of the papers presented here
Hall as experimental spaces whose ongoing who would argue success in the face of meagre
are authored by space builders (both architects
evaluation was designed to inform the institution’s occupancy, so gate numbers will always have a
and technologists) who have a vested interest
decision making regarding pedagogy, space and place. However, understanding patterns of use
in improving their solutions as briefs become
technology design across a range of projects. over time is increasingly recognised as useful. Do
more standardised. Academics who study
patterns change hour-by-hour or shift notably
tertiary teaching practice are also becoming more Mitchell, Winslett and Howell (Queensland University
between early, mid and later weeks of semester?
active along with a smattering of independent of Technology) present a comprehensive plan for
Geographic patterns, such as understanding
researchers. evaluation in an evolving and experimental space
where users have been prior to entering the
(Lab 2.0) that takes this approach. Both Graves
evaluated space and where they are headed can
(Griffith University) and Lee (Swinburne) present
also be immensely useful in campus planning.
perspectives on pre-build evaluation and Andrews
Several of the studies presented attempted to gain
and Powell (UQ) sought to illuminate the ways in
a more sophisticated insight into the patterns of
which issues uncovered in evaluation were directly
usage (the work presented by Jordan & Ziebell is
applied to succeeding projects of the same genre.
an example) and this should be seen as an axis of
Others argued for longer term evaluation of space
study which is growing in importance.
to address ongoing environmental concerns. This
prompts a broader question as to why mature
teaching spaces were not subject to regular and
sustained evaluation in the same way as more
closely managed learning spaces such as libraries.

28 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

It is debatable whether satisfaction surveys, while Learning outcomes are clearly dependant on How is space evaluated?
useful in the long term to plot changes over time, a significant number of variables beyond the
• User Surveys
are valuable in a short-term or one-off evaluation. space and the task of evaluating a space with
Questions such as “How would you rate the respect to these outcomes when so many other • Observation
facilities of the space (Poor to Excellent on a 7 contributing factors typically remain uncontrolled
• Empirical measures
point scale)” would seem to offer little in the way is difficult indeed. While in no way denying
of guidance to those planning similar projects. that the goal of improving learning outcomes Virtually all studies presented at the colloquium
Satisfaction surveys, though commonly aimed at should be paramount, the PST Framework included user surveys in their actual or planned
answering the question “should we build more?” takes a step back from trying to evaluate this evaluation regimes. These varied from simple
don’t address continuous improvement. Open- directly. The goals of the space are defined in web-based questionnaires to structured interviews
ended questions are more valuable at uncovering terms of fostering particular modes or patterns and focus groups. Evaluations of teaching spaces
issues that can be addressed. of teaching and learning. The primary evaluation most commonly involved small sample sizes and
therefore, is to determine whether or not such often conducted separate surveys of student and
The Pedagogy Space Technology framework
behaviours are observed and and which aspects teacher user groups. Learning spaces based on
gives more specific guidance, making explicit the
of the space and technology are seen to enable, libraries showed the most consistency in surveys,
contention that evaluation should be focused on
encourage and empower these types of teaching with typically larger sample sizes though none of
measuring the degree to which the original goals,
and learning activities. The task of determining the studies presented attempted a statistically
particularly the defined pedagogic goals, were
whether the pedagogy improves student learning rigorous evaluation.
met. Though overt in the colloquium design,
outcomes is left to a wider, possibly whole-of-
relatively few of the studies presented made clear Analysis of open ended questions remains sketchy
institution based evaluation.
linkages in evaluation between the goals defined and anecdotal evidence suggests that inordinate
in the pedagogy and the outcomes. The PST weight can be placed on a single comment,
framework asks: What types of learning and particularly if it is pithy, humorous or particularly
teaching are observed to take place? What is the apt in its expression. These however remain the
evidence? In his summation, Professor Radcliffe best source for understanding client needs and
(Purdue) asked the same questions in this context: wants and are vital to the process of improvement.
What were we actually trying to achieve? What Several comments indicated that there is much
was the original intent? Surveys and statistics
alone are not enough to measure success in this
framework and observational studies are strongly
suggested as we will see below.

Several threads in the forum addressed the

desirability of evaluating spaces in terms of
(improved) learning outcomes. Gallagher, Pearce
and McCormack (Victoria University) argued
strongly for this while noting the difficulties inherent
in such an evaluation.

…a successful evaluation of the commons as a

site for non-transmission forms of learning may
depend to some extent on the success of the
whole institution in moving away from transmission
models and developing meta-cognition in its
students

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 29

Evaluation and the Pedagogy-Space-Technology Framework

scope for co-operation amongst institutions in video footage holds promise as the technique space hungry compared with high student
sharing survey instruments. can uncover unexpected patterns by repeated density lecture theatres and seminar rooms. It is
review of wide angle footage taken in the space therefore doubly important to gather evidence of
A very useful extension of this form is found in
under study. Mitchell, Winslett and Howell (QUT) positive outcomes from these spaces to counter
the paper by Gallagher, Pearce and McCormack
put forward a number of interesting indirect the inevitable (and understandable) questions of
(Victoria University) who used a combination of
observational methods for tracking student space efficiency.
inputs from their casual staff (Library Rovers). The
activities by undertaking an analysis of content left
rovers are students employed part time and their Conclusion
on the whiteboards.
reflections, blogs, journals and reports proved a
Evaluation is an essential part of the cycle of
rich source for feedback. Though not featured in the papers, facilities
continuous improvement in space design. The
managers at the forum expressed a desire for
Observational studies hold considerable promise colloquium papers represent a cross section
empirical measures to be included in evaluation.
and are fundamental to the operation of the of practice that provides a useful snapshot
Examples cited include energy efficiency and it is
PST framework as already explained. Dane (in of evaluation across a range of spaces. The
likely that environmental investigations regarding
the Deakin Immersive Learning Environment issues of when to evaluate (from pre-design to
power, thermal effectiveness and so on are going
study and later in contributions to the debate) post occupancy); with what purpose and using
to be increasingly important. Hovering always
argues strongly for observation as an evaluative which tools (user surveys, observational studies,
on the margins, but unspoken at this event is
tool and support for this technique can be empirical measures) deserve full consideration
the quantity surveyor’s measure of students/
found in evaluations by Randall and Wilson whether planning new space or considering
square metre. An observation emerging from
(Bond Pod Room) and Andrews and Powell refurbishment.
the NGLS project is that innovative spaces such
(UQ CTLC) amongst others. The extension of
as Collaborative Learning Centres are inevitably
direct observation to the review of time lapse

30 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 The Research Library as
4.0 Learning Space:
New Opportunities for
Campus Development
(K. Webster)

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 31

32 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES
 “I love you my dear Library” or The Research

4.0 Library as Learning Space – New opportunities

for campus development

The quotation in the title of this paper is from a outcomes in an assessment model that embraced Library generations
student’s response to a library satisfaction survey solitary learning. The essay and the examination
It is worth reflecting briefly upon a generational
conducted at The University of Queensland in were the products of individual achievement.
model of library space design which maps out
August 2008. It was typical of the strong sense of
The arrival of electronic forms of scholarly the movement in the concept of the library as
satisfaction with, and importance of, the provision
information resources over the past fifteen years, place over the past thirty years. This model was
of library services in support of students and their
coupled with changes in teaching practices and conceived and developed by Hamilton Wilson who
learning, and of teachers and their teaching. What
comfort with technology, have brought rapid and writes elsewhere in this volume.
this paper sets out to do is explore the role that the
significant change. The challenge for libraries for
Library plays in these activities, with particular refer- In the first generation research library, the physi-
providers of learning space is inextricably linked at
ence to the sense of the Library as place. cal space can be considered collection centric:
this moment in time with the need to make hard
all design was focused upon the building as a
This brief paper does not intend to provide a guide decisions about the future of legacy collections
physical repository of library collections. Space
to designing an academic library, nor does it set out and the securing of sufficient funds to repurpose
was provided in which library clients could consult
to provide a prescription for the creating of a learning library space to meet the expectations of teachers
and work with collections, but the notable design
space. There are many excellent guides to such and students operating in an academic world very
features were very much structured to support the
endeavours, and readers will find much to stimulate different to that seen only one generation ago.
storage of printed materials. This is most instantly
recognised by the appearance of many mid-20-
th century library buildings with narrow windows,

Keith Webster
designed to keep out light which might damage
the collections, irrespective of the wishes of library
university librarian and director of learning services clients (Figure 1).
university of queensland, australia
The second generation library coincides with the
emergence of electronic information resources in
the early 1990s, and a growth in customer care
and quality initiatives which promoted a stronger
This paper maps out a number of themes. In
their thinking elsewhere in this volume. Rather, it focus upon and engagement with clients. The
doing so, it gives voice to library clients, using
seeks to set out a view of the changing nature of the arrival of computers and CD-ROMs brought a
their words as examples of the issues faced in one
research library and the opportunities that are pre- degree of technological sophistication into the
large research library. Inevitably, some responses
sented through this evolution better to support the Library which was often ahead of the ability of
will reflect local matters but there is much to sug-
learning needs of today’s, and tomorrow’s, students. library clients. Inviting spaces were created in
gest that what we confront at The University of
which librarians and clients could work together,
For almost the whole of the 20th century, interac- Queensland has wider application.
facilitating teaching and training and supportive
tions between students, researchers, teachers,
There is evidence to show that the Library remains exploration of new forms of electronic resources.
library staff and collections have taken place within
an important part of decision making by prospec-
the physical boundaries of the library. The con- The third generation library recognises the differ-
tive students and forms a significant part of the
straints of the print environment necessitated the ent forms of learning expected of students in a
student academic experience (Cain & Reynolds
construction of libraries which served as substan- 21st century university and also acknowledges
2006). Studies show high levels of importance
tial warehouses of print materials and provided the different behaviours and learning styles of
attached to the Library, with students making
a place dedicated to the quiet and private study new generations of students. Whilst provision
regular visits, many on a daily basis (UQ Library
of books and journals. Service points were con- for “formal”, quiet study continues, it has been
2009). However, changes in the wider environ-
structed to provide access to library staff for sup- complemented, and occasionally supplanted, by
ment all point to a suggestion of change: surely
port in the use of library materials and to facilitate group study facilities, open discussion spaces
the emergence of widespread availability of infor-
the borrowing of items that could be taken away and social networking environments. Several third
mation in electronic form points to the end of the
from the confines of the library building. The generation libraries have been developed at The
Library? This paper considers these trends, and
nature of university teaching required little else, for University of Queensland. One, at the University’s
offers a new future for the library as a key provider
it embraced a model where students attended lec- Ipswich campus, was created ab initio in a new,
of learning space on campus.
tures and tutorials, but demonstrated their learning purpose-built facility (Figure 2). The Biological

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 33

The Research Library as Learning Space

Sciences Library, which re-opened in 2007, was

designed in a wholly refurbished and extended
building originally constructed in the early 1970s.

Finally, a fourth generation library can be envisaged,

one in which the Library forms part of a campus-
wide learning environment and which is designed
predominantly upon pedagogical principles.

These changes in libraries are emblematic of a

number of changes in the wider environment.
These changes have both driven shifts in library
design, but have also themselves been facilitated
by changes in libraries and in the provision of
academic information resources.

The changing environment

As foreshadowed above, the nature of pedagogy in
the university has shifted. A growing emphasis has
been placed upon student-centered learning, and
upon group work and collaborative forms of assess-
ment. These changes have driven a vast demand
for spaces which foster and support emerging forms
of learning activity. It is worth noting that this shift
has not replaced, but has generally supplemented
conventional forms of student learning.

Secondly, the nature of the student body has shifted,

with the arrival at university of students frequently
characterized as the net generation or Generation
Figure 1: The original Biological Sciences Library, UQ.
Y. These students have grown up surrounded by
technology – most will have been born several years house printed collections and to make them avail- the world and are to be expected: the availability of
after the popularisation of personal computing and able for consultation and borrowing. This mission electronic information has overtaken the demand
will have started school after the emergence of the was enhanced by the work of reference librarians for print materials in many cases, and the success
Internet. They use technology to maintain contact who aided clients in the use of these collections. of information skills training and information literacy
with friends, are inquisitive and multi-tasking (Prensky Such activity was conventionally measured by initiatives have had a positive impact upon client skill
2001). The notion of sitting quietly in a Library for libraries in terms of numbers of loans per annum, and confidence. One area of statistical growth has
prolonged periods of time, reading and taking notes numbers of reference questions answered, and been the number of visits to libraries. The library has
is as alien a concept as sitting motionless in a lecture the numbers of visits to libraries per annum. remained a popular destination, with more than 3
listening and taking notes! As the environment million visits to UQ libraries during 2008.
The University of Queensland has experienced
in high schools shifts towards one which reflects
substantial decline in many traditional library activi- For many years, the library has been regarded
the nature of today’s students, expectations of the
ties. Loans of books to staff and students have as a core part of a university’s research infra-
provision of learning facilities in post-compulsory
fallen from more than 1.1 million in 2000 to just over structure. At the heart of the university, a library
education will also shift.
700,000 in 2008. Enquiry desk transactions have with extensive collections built up over time and
We cannot ignore, either, the changing nature of fallen from around 300,000 to 100,000. These reflecting both a breadth and depth of scholarship,
library use. Conventionally, the Library existed to trends can be observed in research libraries around is regarded as a symbol of research excellence.

34 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Figure 3: The new Biological Sciences Library, UQ.

Whilst there are many great libraries in mod- interaction with technology, information and their sibility of other libraries. Through this approach, a
est institutions, no great university is without peers. On occasion, these interactions might be complete print archive will be maintained onshore
an outstanding library. That status remains of strengthened by the support of librarians, offering for preservation purposes, but with library clients
tremendous importance, and few researchers guidance on information searching and evaluation, having access to the electronic version of the
would dispute the need for extensive collections and by learning advisers skilled in strengthening same titles. Initiatives such as this will provide
of scholarly information and the support of expe- student academic skills. an opportunity for libraries to reduce the storage
rienced librarians in their scholarly endeavours, space in library buildings, and redevelop the space
Against this backdrop, is there a place for the
although with a strong preference for that support released to provide support for learning activi-
Library? Educause identified a schema of learn-
to be delivered in the school or laboratory rather ties. Whilst an approach of this sort might be
ing spaces to match a range of learning activities
than in the library. However, the notion of library less straightforward for monograph collections,
and styles (Oblinger 2006). Each of these can be
as place in that dynamic has shifted. Academics immediate savings through responsible manage-
mapped directly to forms of space and facility offered
report fewer visits to the library than was the case ment of journal collections will yield considerable
in most modern academic libraries. The significant
only a few years ago, and many predict a con- opportunities. As book digitisation projects, such
barrier to a wholesale repurposing of the library as a
tinued decline in years to come (RIN 2007). The as that managed by Google, come to maturity
major provider of learning space is the need to man-
importance of the library’s print collections is also over the next decade, I have little doubt that simi-
age legacy collections of increasingly unused print
diminishing, with desktop delivery of electronic lar approaches will be adopted.
materials, and service points configured to support
information seen as a fundamental requirement
interactions and activities in rapid decline.
(British Academy 2005). Many report a reluctance
to visit the library to copy a journal article held on I would argue that the path is clear: we need to The UQ experience
The first major development of this sort at The
University of Queensland was the redevelopment
of the Biological Sciences Library in 2006-2007
(Figure 3). A broad aim of that modernisation was
to create a range of spaces for group study and
social interaction. A review of the philosophy and
initial outcomes of that work was presented at the
first Next Generation Learning Spaces colloquium
in 2007 (Webster 2007). Post-occupancy survey
showed that our aims were justified: the demand
for, and satisfaction with, group study rooms,
open spaces and informal seating arrangements
Figure 2: Ipswich Library Study Booths, UQ.
was great. However, there was an unexpected
consequence. Formal, structured, individual
the library’s shelves: the effort required is seen as take a long, hard look at the disposition of our col-
space was still sought. The neighbouring Law
disproportionate to the likely academic benefit lections, working collaboratively with colleagues to
Library reported an influx of science students
(RIN 2007). share the responsibility for maintaining lesser used
seeking a quiet space. Intuitively, this demand
material, much of which is available in electronic
was most evident as end of semester examina-
form. For example, The University of Queensland
tions drew near.
An opportunity to repurpose is part of an initiative of major university research
libraries in Australia seeking to manage back What became apparent was the need not only
All of these strands can be brought together to
runs of journals, electronic equivalents of which for redesigned learning space, but also for space
form a hypothesis. We see lowered patterns
have also been purchased by those libraries. The which could be repurposed during the course of
of demand for conventional library services
project aims to identify a single print run of each the academic cycle. At the start of the academic
and collections, and a stronger emphasis upon
journal title to be managed by a participating li- year, students sought group space, coupled with
the provision of information in electronic form.
brary, with each library looking after their fair share a need for library staff support for orientation
However, we can also see a real need for a place
of titles. In turn, they will be able to remove from activities. As the semester unfolded, staff support
on campus which offers a forum for student
their collections those titles which are the respon- was less in demand, with even greater emphasis

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 35

The Research Library as Learning Space

upon space for group work and class presentation Time and again we see comments which show pass, fly-by-night management will move on to the
preparation space. Finally, as the end of semester that one group of respondents want a particular next fashion as always).”
approached, study space for individual essay writ- approach, and another group want the complete
The time for innovation is ripe, but we need to make
ing and exam revision was in high demand. opposite. There appears to be no obvious cohort
haste – slowly. One final comment from a student:
explanation for the nature of responses: age,
Two approaches have been adopted to address
academic field of study, gender, country of origin “Everything in the Library is perfect – so far.”
this need: we are beginning to zone library space
appear to have little pattern. What remains clear
by form of learning activity. Particular branches are
is that our clients want more: more space, more
designated as having facilities and spaces suited to
variety and more opportunity. References
particular learning activities. And individual libraries
have specific zones designated for silent study, One respondent offered a succinct view: British Academy (2005). E-resources for Research in the
Humanities and Social Sciences. A British Academy
group work or “quiet” discussion. We have also
“The facilities are very good. The availability of Policy Review. British Academy: London.
invested in furniture design, for example commis-
these services is nowhere near as good.” Cain, D. & Reynolds, G.L. (2006). ‘The Impact of Facilities
sioning partitions which can be mounted onto
on Recruitment and Retention of Students.’ Facilities
group tables to convert them into individual study We need also to proceed with some sensitivity
Manager, 22(2): 54-60.
carrels (Figure 4). and caution. In an academic environment, it is
important to ensure that whatever we do is tested Oblinger, D. (2006). Learning Spaces. (www.educause.
edu/learningspaces).
against academic need and expectation. Too many
The client voice innovative library designs have failed because they Prensky, M. (2001). ‘Digital Immigrants, Digital Natives.’
were seen as fads or gimmicks. This was echoed On the Horizon, 9(5):
In our work, we have been particularly struck by
by one academic respondent to the survey: Research Information Network (RIN) (2007). Researchers’
the willingness of students and academic staff to
Use of Academic Libraries and their Services. A report
become part of our thinking, and to contribute “Please don't allow the anti-academics amongst commissioned by the Research Information Network and
to our design processes. A number of studies your management to allow our libraries to be the Consortium of Research Libraries. RIN: London.
were conducted during 2008, and Jordan and turned into playgrounds. Playgrounds are available
UQ Library (2009). Surveys. (www.library.uq.edu.au/about/
Ziebell report these in this volume. We have also everywhere to those that want them. If you drive surveys.html).
adopted the international LibQUAL+ library client those of us who want real libraries out, where can
Webster, K. (2007). The Research Library as Learning
satisfaction survey and this has allowed us to we go? (Plus, remember: the current fashion will Space. (www.uq.edu.au/nextgenerationlearningspace/
pay particular attention to clients’ perceptions presentations).
of our learning environment. A study using the
LibQUAL+ approach was conducted in August
2008 and revealed considerable interest in the
library as space. Opinions seemed, at the time, to
be conflicting. Consider the following responses
to the provision of seating and space:

• We need more individual workspaces

• Provide more group areas

• T
 here seems to be a lot of space for
individual work in comparison to group work

• M
 ore individual study spaces. Limit the group
spaces

• M
 ore availability of individual and group study
room

• Q
 uiet or discussion spaces would be
preferable
Figure 4: Study Desks.

36 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Papers
5.0

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 37

38 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES
 Investigating the Dynamics of an Integrated

5.1 Learning Space at James Cook University

What it is? Why it is? It is interesting to note that one area, the Learning
Centre, acts as both a social, collaborative study
The overall design of the James Cook University The vision and leadership for the project was
area in addition to a support service area. A total
(JCU) Cairns Library has resulted in a student provided by Judith Clark, Manager, Information
of nine Teaching and Learning Development
learning hub being established where “the entire Services and Ted Dews, Director Central
staff members share seven offices that adjoin an
complex is a learning environment and supports Services Office. Both were involved in the
open plan general service point area. Computer
the learning process from space to space” (Dittoe, project from beginning to end: from the initial
login data (Adams, 2004) and user traffic counts
2002, p. 87). According to Dews and Clark (2000), vision, development of the brief for the design
(Anders et al., 2005) confirm that students
the JCU Cairns Library was designed to play an consultants, project meetings throughout the
prefer to access computers in spaces where
important social and academic role. “In the context construction phase through to the building
support is located. Thus, by staff and students
of the Cairns campus, this new building had to make occupation and post-occupancy survey. It was
sharing common spaces, the staff becomes
a strong contribution toward building a sense of Judith Clark in particular who facilitated extensive
more accessible and the learning space design
academic community and establishing a culture of collaboration between the staff, students,
removes the traditional power structure implicit in
learning” (p. 2). architects, program managers and facilities
the separation of staff offices and student learning
personnel at the University.
The Library is a three storey building of 6,600 spaces (Jamieson, 2003).
square meters. It is still the largest building on the The Cairns Library provides spaces to encourage
Tuan (1974) has explained how people develop
Cairns campus. Completed in 2000 the whole collaborative learning, those “educational activities
affective bonds with a place or setting, whilst other
project cost AUD$12.7 million, with the building in which human relationships are the key to welfare,
researchers identify the need for an increased
and associated consultancy fees costing AUD$10 achievement, and mastery” (Bruffee, 1999 cited
acknowledgement by institutions of the importance
million. Designed on a ‘learning centre model’, in Graetz & Goliber, 2002, p. 83). Cornell (2002)
of learning spaces and resources “to understand
the building brings together a range of resources, argues that when “… people feel comfortable and
better how learning does take place and the
services and facilities. These include resource valued they will come, stay and return. Learning
role of physical space in the learning process”
collections, information, help desk and reference communities will result” (p. 37). This approach
(Chism & Bickford, 2002, p. 95). It is argued that
services, computing facilities for general access is in keeping with research which suggests that
changes from transmission models of teaching to
and teaching, assistive technologies for students because we learn through talking with others, we
constructivist thinking “where teachers serve as
with disabilities and videoconferencing facilities. should plan interactive coffee shop-like spaces
facilitators for active student engagement, where
learning occurs in many locations, and where
power is distributed across actors”, means that
“learning space needs are seen to be far more
Dana Anders, Alan Calder, dynamic and situational” (Chism, 2002, p. 10).
kate elder, alice logan Common factors amongst the many principles put
james cook university, cairns, australia forward by educators regarding effective learning
spaces include a stress on flexibility, access to
technology and interaction support as well as a
match to learning goals (Chism & Bickford, 2002,
Social spaces include a café and the striking p. 93).
where students and staff can interact informally
foyer atrium which is also used for exhibitions
(Schank, cited in Fielding, 1999). The Library
and other cultural events. The co-location of
contains specifically designed collaborative areas
staff with different professional backgrounds
(Learning Centre, group study rooms, coffee shop,
was a workplace design goal to facilitate better
and lounge chairs) where students gather for social
integration of services.
learning or noisy activities. There are also ‘support
service areas’ where students go for specific
purposes (Loans Desk, InfoHelp Desk, Disabilities
Resources, Learning Centre). Finally there are the
study areas on the top floor for quiet independent
study (carrels, tables, special collection).

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 39

Investigating the Dynamics of an Integrated Learning Space at James Cook University

What happens here? The Library as a social learning hub the comments and examples raised by students in
“One thing I like is that it [the Library] all three focus groups that a high level of informal
The quantitative measures suggest that the Cairns
can be formal to do your things, social interaction exists between student users of
Library is indeed functioning as a student-learning
but if you want to be social you can the Library, captured in the following statement by a
hub. On a campus with approximately 3000
be social too, you can choose in- student: “the social and the academic motivation is
students, the weekly Library user traffic was 6744
between (sic) them as you want.” somehow linked to produce a good study outcome”.
in the week studied, with 1421 movements into
the Learning Centre, 483 enquiries at the InfoHelp Many students indicated that they primarily used
Desk, 1211 library resources borrowed and a the Library for academic activities and that their Individual learning space needs
total of 3317 computer logins registered in the purpose in coming to the building was to avoid “Certain places for certain things”
building’s computer workstations. distractions that were in the home such as partners,
From the explanations given in the focus groups
children, housework, computer games, telephones
Focus group reflective diaries show that fifteen regarding areas of the Library used, it was clear
and television. There appeared to be a general
distinct learning spaces were identified and used that students moved from space to space within
agreement however, that social activities were
by the participants during the monitoring period. the building according to their specific need or
also numerous in the Library due to the inevitable
Table 1 shows how the 253.8 hours that the purpose. One student mentioned being able to
relationships that develop upon seeing the same
twenty participants spent in the Library building study quietly in a silent area, talk about what
people frequently in the Library space, or seeing
were distributed amongst these fifteen learning you’re doing with friends in another area, and
people from the same class. Some students
spaces over the seven-day period. The focus then return to quiet study, “whereas at home
indicated a higher level of social interaction than
group participants spent an average of 12.7 hours you can’t share what you’re doing and then you
others and cited reasons such as the nature of their
per week in Library learning spaces. might start doing something then think Oh, I’ve
study or their role as a Student Mentor that required
got washing, you just focus”. Although not asked
them to approach, or be approached, by first-year
by the focus group convenors, students in each
How is the space used? students in need of assistance. One Student Mentor
of the focus groups mentioned that they move to
A number of themes emerged from the focus group said that “the social aspect comes into it and it can
alternate spaces when they needed a ‘break’ or
transcripts and these are summarised below. be along the lines of academic stuff or just like, ahh,
‘distraction’, for example the reference section,
who do I see about this? So that’s why I say mine is
the reading room or the new books’ stand. Many
more in-between [social and academic], ’cause I play
students also mentioned enjoying being able to
different roles when I come here”. It was clear from

Table 1: Hours Spent by Twenty Focus Group Participants in Cairns Library Learning Spaces from 29 September - 5 October 2005. O
 ne student spent 52 hours in the Learning Centre during the monitoring period

GROUND FLOOR
Foyer Learning Centre Loans Desk Reserve/ Jacs TOTAL
newspapers Coffee Shop GROUND
FLOOR
5.7 92.8* 3.9 10.5 2 114.9

MIDDLE FLOOR
Infohelp Desk Group study tables Group study room Blue lounges Computer lab General access TOTAL MIDDLE
computers FLOOR
3.5 4.8 3.2 3 0.8 43.5 58.8

TOP FLOOR
Quiet study carrels General Access Book Collection Journals TOTAL
Computers TOP
FLOOR
24.3 45.8 6.2 4.7 81

40 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

talk freely in the Learning Centre, with one student over where you’re at with each other and what In addition to temperature and lighting, including
saying that “I can’t work in complete silence assignment you’ve got due next”. the natural light and closeness of rainforest,
because it drives me nuts”. Another student, students also frequently mentioned the artwork or
however, mentioned that the conversation in the exhibitions in the Library building. Specific mention
The year of study
Learning Centre was the reason that they avoided was made of the art displays in the Library foyer
“It took me a long time to feel brave
the space. And yet another student said that they and how this visual display of colour contributed
enough to venture upstairs.”
“generally head towards one particular area, like to the ambience of the building. Certain artworks
close to exam time I like peace and quiet, but A key finding from the focus group discussions such as the pictures in the Learning Centre were
during the semester I like the Learning Centre was that student use of the Library space not only also said to be key contributors to the atmosphere
‘cause you can talk”. changed according to specific need or purpose of the place. That many students enjoy the
but also tended to correlate with the length of time art displays in the Library was not necessarily
Interestingly, one student mentioned that they
spent studying/enrolled at university. Students a surprising finding, but that this issue was
liked the social aspect of the top floor and yet
commented that they initially studied on the repeatedly raised and discussed by all students
admitted that this did not necessarily involve
ground floor close to the support services of the in each of the three focus groups revealed an
talking: “because going upstairs ’cause most of
Learning Centre, or the middle floor close to the emphasis and consistency not initially predicted
your friends are up there, not that you talk upstairs
support services of InfoHelp, and only after they by the focus group convenors. Indeed it was a
but it’s just reassuring to see them”. This aspect of
felt confident did they move or ‘graduate’ to the student-initiated topic and focus of discussion; the
silent peer support was raised by another student
top floor of the Library. This suggests that student convenors did not ask specific questions related
who said that it was the presence of numerous
pattern of movement within the Library is also to artwork, visual displays, colour, natural lighting
fellow students similarly engaged in study/
influenced by their confidence and transition to a or the views through the windows.
concentration on the top floor that they found
self-directed and independent learner.
motivated them to study. It was apparent from Finally, a consistent theme in each focus group
the focus group discussions, that students self- as to what contributed to the atmosphere, or
selected spaces in the Library according to their The ambience of a learning space why they liked the Library building, was “the
own learning style or study pattern. “I love coming to the Library. I love people”. Students mentioned the professionalism
the space, I love the people, I love and friendliness of the staff as well as the
the whole, probably ambience of the encouraging presence of fellow students. One
The nature of the learning task
whole thing and the academic side student suggested: “it’s the building and the
“If you take the trek up there, you’re
of it.” people, the helpfulness of the people, the relaxed,
actually up there to do some work.”
sort of informal relationships of the people who
The specific nature of an assignment also seemed “And sometimes the artwork is like are helping you”. In regards to the feeling of the
to directly dictate student use of space in the the looking out at the window sort of building, another student said that “it comes from
Library. Students indicated that conversation was thing, sometimes it’s an inspiration, every one of us”. To sum up in another student’s
allowed on the ground floor and a quiet level of you need a splash of colour, and you words: “I think there is more of a community here;
conversation was tolerated on the middle floor go - ahhh – connection.” we know each other.”
but conversation was definitely not allowed on the
A point consistently emphasised in each of the
top floor: “if you make the trek up there, you’re
focus groups was the attraction of sitting beside
actually up there to do some work”. The top floor The availability of support services
a window or being able to see outside. For many
is good when “you’re trying to work on this big
students the windows on the top floor of the A further positive factor students mentioned in
assignment and it’s so in-depth” whereas for
Library as well as in the Learning Centre were regards to the Library related to the accessibility
reflective tasks, less formal spaces seemed to be
a key feature of the space. In contrast, another and quality of support services within certain
preferred.
student mentioned that they had classes in a spaces. The InfoHelp Desk was mentioned in
The blue lounge chairs on the middle floor were windowless conference room “and it was dreadful each of the focus groups as a particularly useful
frequently mentioned as a space for group- and what we did is by about week three we source of support. Several mentions were made of
work, quiet reflection before a tutorial, for going decided to draw a window on the whiteboard, the InfoHelp staff being “really helpful”, “incredibly
through “what I have to talk about” or “if you’re drew some trees”. helpful” or “extremely, actually brilliant customer
all studying, you can just sit down and sort of go service”. The Learning Centre was another area

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 41

Investigating the Dynamics of an Integrated Learning Space at James Cook University

of significant support for students with students The provision of videoconferencing facilities provide reliable and detailed information about
mentioning the sense of community where has expanded since the building opened. what is being accomplished” (p.7).
“there’s a certain sort of community feel, a vibe”. Videoconferencing is now available in five different
The recording period for the research was of
Peer support was also noted with one student rooms: an 80-seat conference centre, and tutorial
seven days’ duration over weeks seven and eight
admitting to being “a little bit afraid about showing rooms and meeting rooms of various sizes
of Study Period Two, 2005. During this period
someone my work and he made it really easy and including an access grid facility. The provision
the quantitative methods used included traffic
it’s just that first semester, and after that I sort of of varied teaching rooms including computer
movement into various sections of the Cairns
got enough confidence to go off and do it myself”. laboratories, tutorial and lecture rooms helps
Library, computer login data and InfoHelp Desk
connect academic staff and their classes with the
enquiries. Students were recruited at random to
library/learning environment.
form focus groups with incentives of free printing
What could be improved?
Flexibility was a feature of the initial design and morning teas. The twenty participants
Services relating to printing, use of swipe cards, brief and consequently phone, power and data included representatives from a range of student
credit card and phone facilities were highlighted connections can be provided almost anywhere groups including students with disabilities,
for improvement and a student with a disability in the building. In addition, the extensive use of international students and students from all
suggested the provision of book trolleys. modular furniture ensures that ‘staff only’ and Faculties and all year and age levels. In this
Interestingly, there were a number of suggestions public spaces can easily be reconfigured for respect the focus groups assembled for this study
to improve the social and collaborative spaces both different tasks and functions. avoid the limitation, identified by Gibbs (1997), of
inside and outside of the building. Items suggested being unrepresentative.
The provision of natural light is perhaps the most
included a hot water urn, outside furniture, drinking
striking feature of the Library building. The whole The participants were divided into three groups
water fountains and more art exhibitions.
facility is very energy efficient including the design that met for an hour during which a guided
of external wall and window shading, the roof discussion was recorded on audiotape and key
insulation and sophisticated air-conditioning and points summarised on a whiteboard. Topics
How is technology used?
lighting systems. No heating is required in the raised for discussion by the researchers included
Over 170 computer workstations are available tropical climate other than for humidity control. a listing of all the areas the students chose to use
throughout the Library building in a variety of flexible Both the air-conditioning and lighting is controlled and their reasons for doing so. The researchers
configurations: in teaching rooms of various sizes by programmable occupancy sensing systems, were also interested to explore what motivated
and configurations;(one is available for 24-hour and the lighting system also takes account of the students to move from one area to another and
access); computer workstations configured for natural light available at different times of the day if their use of the Library changed throughout the
collaborative work in small study rooms and open and adjusts accordingly. study period or indeed the course of their degree.
plan areas; and workstations are also available for The audiotapes from the three focus groups were
individuals to work in silent study areas. In addition, transcribed and analysed for common themes and
a wireless network is available throughout the How was the facility evaluated? then checked for consistency with photographs of
building for laptop use, as are network ports for the whiteboard notes.
This paper brings together the evaluation
students to connect directly to the LAN.
and recording strategies used by Information Focus group interaction highlights the participants’
Librarians as well as by Teaching and Learning view of the world, the language they use, and their
Development staff. This creates new opportunities values and beliefs about a subject. “Interaction
for collaboration that will provide colleagues as also enables participants to ask questions of each
well as administrators with a fresh look at how other, as well as to re-evaluate and reconsider
students choose to access services and learning their own understandings of their specific
spaces. This broad approach is supported by experiences” (Kitzinger, 1994, cited in Gibbs 1997,
Kalikoff (2001) who has investigated evaluation p.3). The recording of the key points of each focus
strategies for learning support services and puts group discussion on a whiteboard encouraged
the case for a ‘mosaic’ approach which involves interaction and re-evaluation amongst participants
the implementation of “…a series of textured and and also provided an immediate level of validation
complementary evaluation strategies that aim to from the participants as to the accuracy of the

42 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

whiteboard summary. A reflective diary provided separated from tutorial rooms which are in turn of the importance that students place on the
a further level of validation of the focus group even further separated from staff offices. There ambience of the space and their ability to move
transcripts. The diary, provided by the authors, are a number of examples where new teaching through and between areas according to their
required the participants to document their use of and learning spaces have been developed (see needs as independent learners.
different learning spaces within the Library over Jamieson, 2003 for an overview), yet there appear
the seven-day recording period. to be few examples where both staff and students
share open collaborative spaces. Acknowledgements
The functional considerations driving student use The authors would like to thank the students
What were the main lessons learned?
of learning spaces in the Cairns Library are related who participated in the research as focus group
Wainwright (2004), in an overview of current to the need for various levels of service and needs participants and those who took the time to
influences affecting universities’ planning and for collaborative, reflective and social spaces, all of record how they used the learning spaces in
organisation of learning and research support which are in turn driven by the academic pursuit the Library. We would also like to thank those
services, suggests that most university libraries at hand. The ability to move easily from space students who agreed to be interviewed for the
across Australia have experienced a reduction in to space to meet these needs appears to be video which accompanies this paper.
use. Yet all usage data for the JCU Cairns Library another functional consideration for the students.
points to a reversal of this trend. It could well be However, the students participating in this study
that the evidence gathered in this research project have also provided unsolicited and perceptive
reinforces an important message “that the future comments about architectural and interior design
of the academic library lies in how well it meshes considerations. There is a clear message here
with a whole range of related services. Libraries in relation to the impacts that colour, natural
do not exist separate from their universities” light, artwork, open space, natural views and
(Wainwright, 2004, p.2). Furthermore, the focus appropriate furniture configurations have on a
group data collected from Cairns Library users student’s learning behaviour.
appear to exemplify the concept of a ‘learning
This paper has confirmed the positive impact of
commons’ where, according to Bennett (2003,
carefully designed learning spaces on student
cited in Wainwright, 2004), there should be
learning. The study has implications for future
mechanisms for collaborative learning as flexible
learning space design at JCU as well as other
spaces highly adaptive to changing student needs
university campuses.
and preferences.
• In the future, a re-design of campus-wide
Dews and Clarke (2000) stated that an important
learning environments may be required which
design goal of the Cairns Library was to break
will emulate the type of successful integration
down functional barriers and bring diverse parts
endorsed by students using the Cairns
of the organization into closer contact. Wainwright
Library building.
(2004) takes a broader view when he argues,
“the key to collaborative facility success is not co- • E
 xperimentation and ongoing monitoring
location but the total re-design of service delivery of student use of learning spaces should
within an integrated university approach” (p.4). become part of the design and re-design
In considering such a total re-design of service processes.
delivery it is perhaps the model of a shared staff/
• C
 onsideration should be given to the use of
student space used by the Learning Centre that
shared student and staff spaces from the
offers exciting possibilities for future learning space
perspectives of collaborative learning as well
design. Such a model should not only be restricted
as space efficiency.
to university libraries but equally applied to the
constructed environment of the entire university Finally, when designing space to facilitate student
campus, too often characterized by lecture theatres learning, stakeholders should never lose sight

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 43

Investigating the Dynamics of an Integrated Learning Space at James Cook University

References
Adams, K. (2004). Information, technology and resources: Dittoe, W. (2002). Innovative models of learning Tuan, Y. F. (1974). Topophilia, a study of environmental
Director's report (Internal Report). Townsville: James Cook environments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, perception, attitudes, and values. New York: Columbia
University. 92(Winter), 81-90. University Press.

Anders, D., Calder, A., & Treston, H. (2005, November). Fielding, R. (1999). The death of the classroom, learning Wainwright, E. (2004, September). People, networks,
Encouraging Collaborative Learning Communities: cycles and Roger Schank. Retrieved 10 March 2005 from books: New strategies for university academic information
Interaction in the Teaching and Learning Development www.designshare.com and service delivery. Paper presented at ALIA 2004
Centre at James Cook University Cairns. Paper presented Biennial Conference, Gold Coast, Australia. Retrieved
Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus Groups. Social Research Update,
at the Language and Academic Skills Adviser Conference, 14 September 2005 from http://conferences.alia.org.au/
19, 1-7. Retrieved 31 August 2005 from www.soc.surrey.
Canberra. alia2004/conference.papers.html
ac.uk/sru/SRU19.html
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university:
Graetz, K. A., & Goliber, M. J. (2002). Designing
What the student does. Buckingham: Open University
collaborative learning places: Psychological foundations
Press.
and new frontiers. New Directions for Teaching and
Chism, N. V. N. (2002). A tale of two classrooms. New Learning, 92(Winter), 13-22.
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92(Winter), 5-12.
Jamieson, P. (2003). Designing more effective on-
Chism, N. V. N., & Bickford, D. J. (2002). Improving the campus teaching and learning spaces: a role for
environment for learning: An expanded agenda. New academic developers. International Journal for Academic
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92(Winter), 91-97. Development, 8(1/2), 119-133.

Cornell, P. (2002). The impact of changes in teaching and Kalikoff, B. (2001). From coercion to collaboration: A
learning on furniture and the learning environment. New mosaic approach to writing center assessment. Writing
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 92(Winter), 33-42. Lab Newsletter, 26(1), 5-7.

Dews, T., & Clark, J. (2000). Delivering a new Library Treston, H. (1999). Mentoring: Making a positive difference
building at James Cook University. Facilities Manager, for individuals and institutions. Innovations in Education
16(3) 33-39. and Training International, 36(3), 236-243.

44 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Collaborative Teaching & Learning Centres

5.2 at the University of Queensland

North 4 building at St Lucia, opened during 2008.

Each of these projects has been part of larger

Trish Andrews, Derek Powell developments, so the specific costs just of the
university of queensland, australia collaborative spaces are hard to pin down. The
first and largest project was part of a $24M new
building project. Approximately $1.5M was spent
on the Audio Visual, IT and furniture fit-out of the six
spaces which together hold around 300 students.
The fit-out of the newest space, part of a $54M
six-storey building and designed with a significantly
more ‘corporate’ feel, is estimated at around $0.5M.
The Gatton Regional Collaborative Learning Centre
involved the complete renovation of old laboratory
space into the twin collaborative spaces, plus a
videoconference-equipped teaching room and a
standard seminar space. This entire project was
budgeted at around $1.8M.

The original Collaborative Teaching and Learning

Centre (CTLC) incorporates three distinct kinds
of spaces each of which operate in three different
teaching and learning modes under the command
of the integrated control system. The 90 seat
large collaborative teaching space can be thought
of as a single, wide aspect, seminar space which
physically divides into five separate group working
spaces (called pods), each of which has its own
IT facilities and a full audio visual sub-system with
independent control of sound, projection and
What is it? lights. The unique, lobed design of the interior,
together with motorised screens and blinds create
The University of Queensland now has three distinct group work ‘rooms’ within the space and
Collaborative Teaching and Learning Centres the transformation between teacher-led (seminar)
which represent an evolution in understanding of and group (pod) modes is overt and physical.
the interrelation between pedagogy, space and
technology. The original and largest centre, with The two small collaborative spaces (30 and
six collaborative classrooms of three different 40 seat) divide into three group work spaces,
types was opened in 2005 and is located in the however the pods are not physically divided by
Sir James Foots building on the St Lucia Campus. screens so the transformation is virtual, signalled
In 2007, a second generation space was opened by lighting changes and display switching.
at the Gatton Campus, sixty kilometres west of Two twenty-seat externally focused collaboration
Brisbane, consisting of two combinable spaces spaces adjoin the small collaborative spaces and
accommodating 36 students each with a total here the focus is on enabling group collaboration
of eight new-style pods (group working spaces). at a distance through videoconference and
A further iteration of the design, in the form of a Access Grid facilities.
single, six-pod classroom for 60 students, has
been incorporated into the new General Purpose The second-generation collaborative teaching

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 45

Collaborative Teaching & Learning Centres at the University of Queensland

functions in this context. Not only do innovative

teaching spaces directly and physically enable
the desired practices, the rooms also serve
as an unmistakable signal to the academic
community that changes to teaching and learning
practice will be encouraged and enabled by the
University. Crucial as Professor Gardner’s input
was, the spectacular and multiplicative strides
that UQ has achieved in the last half decade
would not have occurred without more of the
“happy coincidences” which Jamieson (2005)
highlights. Professor Gardner’s successor,
Professor Michael Keniger is an architect and his
professional understanding of the potential led him
to immediately take up the baton, championing
the continued innovative development of space
and the integration of ground-breaking teaching
technology. Proving that good fortune can
come in threes, Professor Deborah Terry, as
DVC Teaching and Learning has brought a
psychologist’s and a teacher’s understanding to
the leadership role, helping focus attention on
the need to evaluate, consolidate and inspire
space at Gatton builds on the lessons learned Why it is? academics to achieve within the spaces.
from the evaluation of the St Lucia Centre.
The full chronology of the development of UQ’s From its inception, it is true to say that the CTLC
The room foregoes the room-within-a-room
first CTLC has been captured by Peter Jamieson project was driven by pedagogy and the need to
transformation typical of the large spaces at St
in an (as yet) unpublished paper (Jamieson, 2005). more effectively support changing teaching and
Lucia in favour of concentrating the group activity
His insights into the inter-relationship between learning practices. UQ’s Teaching and Educational
around individual 10 seat pod tables. These pods,
the teachers, architects and technologists were Development Institute (TEDI), the body responsible
however still overtly signal the shift in pedagogical
extraordinarily prescient and became an important for professional development of teaching in the
mode using large screen monitors which rise from
contributor to the development of the Next University, has played a key role. At the design
the end of the table to enable on-screen group
Generation Learning Spaces Pedagogy-Space- stage, successive directors of TEDI have worked
collaboration.
Technology rubric. The subsequent, sometimes to define the pedagogy which the spaces were to
In the third generation space, the three modes rocky story of the development of the second and foster and provided input to brief the architects.
of student free use, seminar and pod remain third generation spaces demonstrates not only the Post completion, their focus has shifted to
unchanged. However a semicircular hub- importance of understanding these relationships, but providing specific training to academics, fostering
and-spoke arrangement of the pods within the also the difficulties of applying the key principles of the take up of collaborative teaching through
space gives a superior focus on the teacher-led harmonising Pedagogy, Space and Technology in the innovative grant programs linked to appropriate
pedagogies on one hand, while freeing extra real world of conflicting politics, egos and budgets. use of the spaces and undertaking evaluations. A
space for group activity in the pod mode.
The inspiration for these new pedagogies at UQ significant contribution should be acknowledged
came from Professor Margaret Gardner, then from individual academics, especially those who
Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic). Her previous have allowed case studies of their methodologies
experiments in new teaching methodologies had to be collected and distributed. Ultimately, the
convinced her that new kinds of spaces were value of the project will be determined by the
needed to move these pedagogies forward. effectiveness of the teaching.
New projects serve at least two important In respect of space, two kinds of contribution

46 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

should be acknowledged. The first is budgetary given that the project itself contributed to the a new definition of the behaviours required (of
and both experience with UQ’s own CTLC and categorisation. First, the decision to encourage the students and academics) and the novel space
examination of other learning spaces has shown uptake of alternative pedagogies by the creation designs can be clearly seen in the large and small
that collaborative modes are significantly more of purpose-designed space cannot be seen as collaborative spaces at St Lucia.
demanding in terms of square metres/student anything other than key. The credit for the original
The operation of the CTLC is difficult to imagine
than more traditional lecture theatres, seminar decision belongs with Professor Gardner, but the
now without the technology that empowers and
rooms or library quiet study spaces. In this existence of the second and third generations is
encourages the mode changes in the teaching
project, both university executives (as capital due to the considered deliberation of Professor
and learning, yet this novel design response came
managers) and facilities management (as space Keniger, supported by other leading academics in
about largely by accident. A key element of the
stewards) recognised the value of these kinds of both the front line of teaching and in TEDI.
traditional technology specification process - the
spaces and were prepared to make the larger
In respect of space, architect Hamilton Wilson user requirements document - was missing,
investments required to facilitate their creation and
chose first to embark on the arduous and derailed by the novelty of the space design
maintenance. The second contribution of course
potentially risky course of an extended set which simply didn’t fit with existing Audio Visual
was in the design and construction phase in which
of consultations with academics during the practice. As a result, the technology brief was not
the contribution of the project architects (Wilson
extended pre-design (brief) and design stages. completed until very late in the design process,
Architects) has been paramount.
His willingness to not only create designs that when many of the space provisions had already
Technology has also been a significant factor, and was were responsive to a need to enable specific been fleshed out in considerable detail. Co-author
identified during the design phase as being crucial to behaviours but to then test those against research Derek Powell, as a newcomer to technology for
the success of the project. However, the use of the and experience gained from related learning tertiary education (and ignorant of the ‘proper’
technology in innovative ways by the academics post environments (such as libraries) were fundamental process) chose to separately research the
occupation has been just as important. to the final outcome. Within the space plan, requirements of the pedagogy, then responded to
different kinds of space were created to specifically the novel space design with a theatrical solution
It should come as no surprise that the crucial
cater for the needs of different students, identified born of experience in the entertainment and
decisions fall quite distinctly into the three key
through behavioural studies. The link between broadcast television industries.
categorisations that are the basis of this paper,

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 47

Collaborative Teaching & Learning Centres at the University of Queensland

What pedagogical principle(s) drove design of the spaces, the presentation technologies How is technology used?
the design? and the sharing of computers. The CTLCs are also (Technology)
designed to foster active and engaging approaches
Throughout the original process, and to this The categorisation of expected behaviours into
to teaching and learning, through providing
day, the literature on collaborative teaching (as independent study, teacher-led and group work
technology rich spaces that can be reconfigured
opposed to collaborative learning) is somewhat led directly to the decision to use technology to
to cater for a variety of teaching and learning
sparse. The design processes revolved around an not only facilitate these sets of activities but to
purposes and activities (Brown & Lippincott,
imagined set of behaviours along with examples signal expected behaviours and highlight the
2003). Providing for a range of learning activities
from the few projects existing in the area, such as transitions between modes. As it was recognised
is intended to meet the pedagogical needs of the
Stanford’s Wallenberg Hall (see http://wallenberg. that these kinds of teaching sessions would be
‘net generation’, major users of these spaces, who,
stanford.edu/). Care was taken not to rigorously new to both students and academics, it was felt
amongst other characteristics have a particular
define what was expected, so as not to stifle that ‘signposting’ the changes between formal
preference for variety in their learning (Lomas &
creativity and innovation, however three phases presentations, group tasks and unstructured work
Oblinger, 2006). These pedagogical aspects of the
in a typical collaborative session were identified. was beneficial. The technology uses moving
space are supported by design of both technology
Initial input from the academic to the whole physical elements (such as electric screens, monitor
and space aspects and demonstrate the pedagogy,
group was envisioned as being necessary to set lifts and blinds); lighting changes and directional
technology relationship.
the parameters of the learning task and outline audio cues to clarify expectations and assist the
expectations for outcomes. This was to be academic to remain in control of the session.
matched with a report-back session of some sort
How is the space used? (Space) While the spaces are undoubtedly technology-
where once again, an emphasis was on delivery
rich, careful consideration was given to providing
to the whole group. Collaborative efforts were Clearly, space and fittings are going to play a key
appropriate low-tech alternatives and to limiting
imagined as involving several stages, with subsets role in encouraging interaction and collaboration.
complexity to foster uptake and optimise ease
of the groups in twos and threes working on Just as the individual tablet-arm furnishing of
of use. Document cameras were provided
research, while sessions that involved the whole a tiered theatre inhibits discursive behaviour,
specifically to stimulate brain-storming sessions
group were to be empowered by technology. seating and benching must become enablers
using handwritten notes, diagrams or mind-maps.
From the start, the project space was also thought in any collaborative space. The initial design
While whiteboards might serve a similar purpose,
of as serving a function for independent student made several kinds of provision for group work.
the document cameras allowed instant capture
sessions as well as for timetabled teaching. Architect Hamilton Wilson deliberately varied
to PC, allowing the sessions to be recorded and
elements such as group size in order to test the
shared amongst the group. Similarly, no specific
effect on instructional outcomes. However several
collaborative software is installed in the CTLC.
What happens here? (Pedagogy) more subtle effects were also tested between the
Such systems often impose significant learning
‘large’ and ‘small’ collaborative spaces.
Current trends in learning space design and curves, taking valuable class time better spent on
development are influenced by social constructivist The larger rooms were seen as active noisy learning tasks. Many common tools, ranging from
approaches to teaching and learning (Brown & spaces. These rooms are predominantly white and simple email to web based aids such as Google
Long, 2006) which places greater emphasis on light with the ability to moderate the space though Docs and wikis, have been successfully applied
the collaborative aspects of teaching and learning. lighting and screens. The other space is a more by groups using the CTLC with minimal time spent
This is in line with Vygotsky’s views that social introverted 'quieter' space which is timber clad on process.
interactions are a crucial element in the learning and warm with an organic, less structured feel
The goal was always to use technology to focus
process (Vygotsky, 1975). The spaces at both (Wilson, 2008).
the learning, and not allow the technology to
St Lucia and Gatton are intended to foster both
Though not fully tested by data collection to date, become the focus of the learning.
collaborative teaching, through using the spaces
anecdotal evidence and commentaries have
for timetabled classes, and collaborative learning
demonstrated that the distinctive architecture of the
by opening the spaces to student use when not
key spaces in the Sir James Foots CTLC has played How was the facility evaluated?
used for teaching. This is in keeping with social
a key role in the uptake of the rooms. The shapes
constructivist approaches to teaching and learning Both the St Lucia CTLC and the Gatton R-CTLC
are unlike any traditional space and announce clearly
and supported by the design philosophy outlined are considered to be highly successful. Apart from
that different activities are expected and encouraged.
above. This intended use is fostered by the open the more formal evaluation strategies outlined

48 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

below, success has been judged by usage and in the centre. Surveys were sent out to 80 staff individual, private study activities expected in
students and staff at both campuses have been listed as completing the training at the St Lucia libraries and similar spaces). The R-CTLC is also
enthusiastic in their use of the CTLCs from the CTLC; 25 staff completed the surveys. popular for collaborative learning activities outside
beginning. According to room booking statistics, of timetabled usage and students have indicated
Data from Gatton was obtained through the same
the timetabled usage of the St Lucia CTLC is they would like more access to this space.
approach. The survey was sent to 20 staff and
about 70 percent. Outside of timetabled classes
seven staff completed the Gatton survey. Thirty While many teaching applications of the CTLCs
the spaces are commonly used for individual
students completed the student survey and are in line with the intended usage, observations
and collaborative learning student activities.
participated in the observation activities. Additional indicate that much teaching still takes traditional
Equally, the R-CTLC is heavily utilised at Gatton
data was also supplied by an individual lecturer’s approaches and does not attempt to utilise
and students have requested later closing hours
research into the Gatton R-CTLC using student the spaces for any kind of collaboration in
of the space to make further use of it. Further
evaluations and an email poll of staff. the way that it is intended. The St Lucia staff
evidence of this success is seen in the increasing
survey also indicates that no lecturers are using
demand for these kinds of spaces on campus. In Observations of the space and feedback from
the videoconferencing facilities or access grid
particular, the success of the spaces in terms of the surveys indicate that teaching and learning
applications available in the externally focussed
independent use by students has encouraged the activities vary from innovative and collaborative
collaboration rooms. Statistics obtained from
building of several collaborative learning spaces uses of the space to more traditional didactic
room bookings indicate that the videoconferencing
based around identifiable cohorts such as the First teaching and learning uses. For some lecturers the
and access grid rooms, while heavily booked, are
Year Engineering Learning Centre. opportunities provided by the space to engage in
highly under-utilised for their intended applications.
collaborative teaching and learning encouraged
A comprehensive evaluation of the CTLCs was
a range of collaborative activities, utilising the
conducted at St Lucia in 2006 and at St Lucia and
different modes of the spaces and integrating
Gatton in 2007. As these spaces are designated Which aspects of the space design and
online learning tools, presentation technologies
as both teaching and learning spaces the equipment worked and which did not?
and group activities. Case studies were collected
evaluation of the CTLCs sought to:
in the form of recorded interviews with six The original CTLC was blatantly experimental in
• Identify the ways in which both staff and academics whose work covered different methods its space and technology design. Indeed, there
students use the centre for teaching and and fields of study. are radical differences in both the space design
learning activities; and the technology response between the ‘large’
In many cases, particularly in the smaller
and ‘small’ collaborative spaces in the Sir James
• Identify the pedagogical approaches being collaborative room at St Lucia and as indicated
Foots Building. In the realisation of the ‘second-
adopted in the centres; and by the architect’s intentions outlined above,
generation’ space at the Gatton R-CTLC, a
observations confirm that the space itself is
• Identify the strengths and weaknesses in conscious attempt was made to respond to at
utilised for group activities, with little use of the
space and technology design and fit-out of least the expressed views of the academics and
technology. Students often work in groups around
the new learning spaces to inform further students by changing the design. In reality, the
the tables in the centre of the rooms, forming
learning space developments. Gatton space imposed its own constraints, which
and reforming in informal ways for different
made the project different in its own right and
Data was collected via institutional data (e.g. room aspects of their learning activities, facilitated by
added constraints on the type of space design that
booking data) observations of students; surveys of the lecturer. These applications demonstrate
could be realised.
randomly selected students; surveys of randomly the space-pedagogy relationships of the CTLC,
selected staff teaching in the centre and semi particularly the importance placed on face-to-face While a full, evidence-based analysis was not
structured interviews with selected staff. There collaboration without necessarily having to utilise carried out as an input to the new design, the
was also informal data supplied anecdotally. technologically mediated collaboration. tables below demonstrate that the ‘pedagogy-
space-technology’ analysis had some utility in
Observations of student usage of the St Lucia In individual study time, observations have shown
suggesting the broad areas in which design
CTLC were conducted at the beginning the middle that students also use the spaces for collaborative
responses would be best suited to improve the
and the end of the semester. 180 randomly activities. Feedback from the student surveys
usability of the new space.
selected students completed the survey. These indicates that 50 percent of St Lucia students
students were using the centre on the same day using the CTLC use the space for collaborative The ability to move seamlessly between the
and were selected from all the rooms and spaces learning activities (as opposed to the more usual different modes of teaching and learning is a

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 49

Collaborative Teaching & Learning Centres at the University of Queensland

Table 1. Aspects of the CTLC and R-CTLC which students identified as successful.

St Lucia CTLC Rank Category Why

Layout of spaces – structured to support group 20% Space/ Design of pods, integration of technology, ease of use
work; comfortable Technology
Access to space and working areas 18.5% Space Design intention focusing on space to collaborate
Access to multiple computers 13% Technology Supported both the individuals and the groups
Good presentation resources 10% Technology Provision of a range of presentation options available to groups
The rooms enable group interaction 9% Pedagogy Design of pods, ability to work easily in groups
Gatton R-CTLC
Pods supportive of group work 35% Pedagogy Self contained tables with presentation resources and computer /
online access/ addressed need for smaller group areas
Being able to share work on big screen, 16% Technology Incorporation of the plasma screen into the pod allows for ease of
allowing input from everyone sharing- improvement on St Lucia CTLC
Different mode designs 10% Technology Positive aspect of St Lucia CTLC. Supports seamless change
between different teaching and learning activities-minimal
disruption.
Open spaces to encourage group work 5% Space Retained group interaction spaces identified as a positive in St
Lucia CTLC–identified best used elements and retained/improved

positive feature of the St Lucia CTLC, and one that What technologies were most This is also the experience of the staff and students
lecturers found particularly beneficial. This aspect effective at enhancing learning and at the R-CTLC. Students at Gatton find the epods
has been incorporated in the epod model at the teaching? to be extremely beneficial for collaborative activities,
R-CTLC and the new CTLC in GPN4 in St Lucia. particularly the large screens in each epod that
The survey results indicated that staff at the St
enable easy sharing of work.
Staff and students identify the presentation Lucia CTLC have viewed favourably the range
options at both CTLCs as a highly successfully of options for presentation in particular the “The big screen allows you to bring up what’s on
aspect of the design. While the spaces document camera and large screens in the pods. one person’s computer, so everyone can see what’s
are undoubtedly successful there are still This is seen as being very valuable to supporting being typed, allows everyone to have input, table
improvements that would increase functioning and collaborative learning, allowing students to share allows everyone to see each other” (Gatton student).
satisfaction with the spaces. Some of the main and discuss their work easily.
requests for improvements and the response to
these requests are outlined in the Table 2.

50 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

Table 2. Aspects of the CTLC and R-CTLC which students identified as problematic.

St Lucia CTLC Data source Category Response

Smaller group areas for teaching Verbal feedback from staff using the Space / Pedagogy Design layout to allow 2/4/10 groupings using
CTLC more pods and smaller tables / group zones
Ability to project individual pod materials 33% staff survey Technology / Pedagogy Move to LCD screens instead of projectors
onto the main screen when not in pod and allow use in ‘individual’ mode
mode
Better whiteboards in the smaller rooms 33% responses Staff surveys Space / Technology Flat walls provide better opportunities for
whiteboards – maximize use by placing
adjacent to each pod
Some indication the room is in use 25% responses staff survey Technology St Lucia: retrofit ‘room-in-use’ lights that
function when an academic logs into the
20% responses student surveys, plus
lectern
anecdotal
Other: fit ‘room-in-use’ lights
More of these kinds of spaces (for both 25% responses student surveys Pedagogy/ Create more CTLC spaces; create other
teaching and student independent new learning spaces such as Engineering
Space/
learning) Learning Centre (two built, one in planning )
Technology and Science Learning Centre
More useful catering facilities/more eating 10% responses in staff & student Space Not acted on due to associated problems
areas surveys
R-CTLC Data source Category Response
Reliability of computers 20% of responses staff survey Technology Optimize common image provided to PCs

50% of responses student surveys

Improving the location of the screens for 28% of responses staff survey Space Move to spoke and wheel space design to
seminar optimize sight lines to main seminar screens
Providing more desk space without 15% of responses staff survey plus Space Refine desk design to provide more clear
computers anecdotal feedback space. Provide occasional furniture without
PCs at the front and sides of the room
Location of the printer 10% in staff survey Space / Technology Printer moved to an accessible in-room
location in Gen 3 at GPN4
5% student survey

What were the main lessons learned? In the observations conducted at Gatton, the ways responding with appropriate design changes to
in which students participated in collaborative the ‘next generation’ space, and then repeating
As much as the technology, staff and students
learning was particularly interesting. Students the studies, we were engaging in a process similar
find the ‘space’ in the CTLC useful for a whole
moved between individual work to group work to the Action Research Cycle (Carr & Kemmis,
range of activities including role plays. The
and back. They worked individually on tasks, from 1986; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). It is rare
spaces provide considerable flexibility for a wide
time to time using the large screens in the pod to that cascading projects of this nature provide an
range of teaching and learning activities. This was
share and discuss their work, then moving back to opportunity for continuous improvement and the
particularly apparent in the smaller CTLC rooms
individual work again. technology design at least, overtly used the inputs
at St Lucia where the table legs were damaged
available to produce improved outcomes.
by being moved around. This small issue has now A key aspect of the evaluations was the
been addressed by placing casters on the tables ability to use the information to refine further
and strengthening the table frames. developments. In studying emerging issues,

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 51

Collaborative Teaching & Learning Centres at the University of Queensland

What would you do differently next time?

Generation One Generation Two Generation Three
User training and careful evaluation of the strengths
Pedagoy

and shortcomings of each succeeding project are Continuous Improvement

ISSUE
both key to producing better and more cost- Need Smaller
effective teaching and learning spaces. While Group Sizes

the three generations of CTLC UQ have so far

observe reflect plan act
produced have demonstrable improvements, more
time for evaluation and consolidation of practice RESPONSE
between projects might have produced even better More Pods

outcomes.
Space

Result Result
Keeping a budget provision to go back after New ISSUE New
12 months and correct shortcomings that have Desk-Focused Sightlines Hub-and-Spoke
Space Design Space Design
emerged in fit-out or technology is also a powerful
(though rarely exercised) tool.
RESPONSE
The crucial lesson that emerges from the Screen Lifts

experience of the CTLC and its derivatives is

Technology

that successful design is a collaborative process

ISSUE RESPONSE
and not a ‘cookie cutter’ template that can be LCD Screens RESPONSE ISSUE
Pod to be Useable
PC Reliability
applied to differing places and spaces. Without in Individual mode Laptop PCs

appropriate involvement and feedback from users

observe reflect plan act
and managers of the proposed facilities and
interaction during the design phase between the Figure 1: PST Analysis which shows the development of several design elements and identifies the stages as analogous to the action
research cycle ‘plan, act, observe, and reflect’.
requirements of the pedagogy, the space and the
technology, the chances of creating an expensive
white elephant increase exponentially with budget.

References
Brown, M. & Long, P. 2006, ‘Trends in Learning Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (Eds.) 1988, The action Vygotsky, L. 1978, Mind in Society, London: Harvard
Space Design’, in Oblinger, D. (Ed.) Learning Spaces, research planner, 3rd edn. Victoria: Deakin University. University Press.
EDUCAUSE ( www.educause.edu/learningspaces). Lomas, C. & Oblinger, D. 2006, ‘Student practices and Wilson, H. 2008. Collaborative Teaching and Learning
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. 1986, Becoming critical: education their impact on learning space’ in Oblinger, D. (Ed.) Centre, Brisbane: The University of Queensland.
knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press. Learning Spaces, EDUCAUSE ( www.educause.edu/
learningspaces).
Jamieson, P. 2005, ‘Understanding a Happy Accident:
Learning to build new learning Environments’, Report of Schunk, D. H. 2000, Learning Theories: An educational
ECE Research Project on Learning Communities, TEDI, perspective, 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
The University of Queensland. Hall.

52 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Engineering Problem-Based Learning

5.3 Spaces at Victoria University

What is it? The learning spaces that exist in the PBL precinct Each student team is allocated a studio space (see
have been specifically designed for engineering Figures 2 and 3) that they can use for an entire
The electrical engineering problem/project based
students who work in teams on PBL projects. The semester; they effectively “own” the studio for that
learning (PBL) precinct at Victoria University (VU),
cost to complete the precinct was AUD$7M. time. Each studio is approximately 3 x 3 metres in
Melbourne, Australia, is designed to support the
its dimensions and equipped with a table setting
transition from traditional lecture-based teaching to The physical environment is a PBL precinct that is
and chairs for 6 or 7 people, whiteboard and
problem-based learning. In designing the learning made up of multiple PBL studios for small group
pin-board, a desktop computer, wireless network
spaces in the precinct, it was considered critical to work, a multifunction room or PBL common
and one locker per student. Partitions are 1600
support student team meetings, research, design, room, a soldering and experimentation workshop,
mm high, so it is possible to see over them when
construction, testing, report writing and reflection, plus secondary support infrastructure such as
standing, but to have a degree of privacy when
all of which are important aspects of the VU PBL the technical store, small lecture theatre, printing
seated.
model. services and the campus library (Figure 1).
Academic staff member:

We did tell [the architects] what would

Alex Stojcevski, happen and we did tell them that we’d like
Stephen W. Bigger, Roger Gabb the studios set up in this environment with
dividers and so on. We did tell them that
faculty of health, engineering & science
we were going to have about four to six
victoria university, australia
students in each studio with the supervisor
Jo Dane in each studio… It gives students flexible
learning because each studio has a
faculty of art & design
computer for the students. Each studio
monash university, australia
has wireless access. Each student has a
locker in the studios.

Dane, 2008.

PBL Each team is assigned at least one academic staff

Common member as its supervisor and is timetabled to
Library
Room meet with the supervisor in the studio for one hour
per week. Supervisors also communicate with
their allocated groups via Blackboard/WebCT and
provide occasional support in the workshops.

Lecture Studios Supervisors The first stage of the PBL infrastructure

Theatre 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th years development involved the construction of PBL
studios as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The precinct
also includes a workshop and an experimentation
Laboratories laboratory as shown in Figures 4 and 5. Each
Soldering &
Store and PBL team has its own workstation in this area.
Printing Experimentation
workshops plus techinal
Services new advanced
workshops
support The PBL laboratories are slightly different to
traditional laboratories both in terms of design
and student access. A major challenge has
Supporting infrastructure Electrical Engineering PBL precinct Supporting infrastructure been to design laboratories that allow students
and supervision
to construct and test electronic and mechanical
projects without continuous supervision. The
laboratories are equipped with appropriate
Figure 1: The PBL precinct organisational diagram (Dane, 2008).
technical equipment and general-purpose

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 53

Engineering Problem-Based Learning Spaces at Victoria University

engineers also need well-developed generic an engineer that industry really seeks. The
attributes, including the skills associated with oral industry partners expressed a view that an
and written communication, working in teams, engineer should possess strong oral and written
locating and evaluating information, and project communication skills, project management skills
management. This emphasis on generic attributes and technical knowledge. This view was one of
is reflected in the accreditation requirements of the major drivers for change in the undergraduate
the professional body in engineering, Engineers engineering programs in the Faculty of Health,
Australia: Engineering and Science at VU, and led to the
shift from the traditional lecture-based curriculum
Graduates from an accredited program should
to a PBL curriculum. The other major driver
have the following attributes:
for change was the desire to improve retention
• a
 bility to apply knowledge of basic science rates in engineering programs. These drivers are
Figure 2. A cluster of PBL studios.
and engineering fundamentals; consistent with the notion that curriculum change
is highly influenced by external social factors.
• a
 bility to communicate effectively, not only with
engineers but also with the community at large; Following the decision to introduce an engineering
PBL curriculum and associated infrastructure at
• in-depth technical competence in at least
VU, a consultant was appointed to advise on the
one engineering discipline;
curriculum change process and to assist with the
• a
 bility to undertake problem identification, first step in implementing the change to PBL (Parr,
formulation and solution; 2005). The PBL so far at VU has been critically
dependent on both the academic structure of the
• a
 bility to utilise a systems approach to design
programs and on the development of appropriate
and operational performance;
infrastructure, especially the learning spaces to
• a
 bility to function effectively as an individual and support the programs.
Figure 3. A single PBL studio.
in multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural teams,
The PBL pedagogical principles, which drive the
with the capacity to be a leader or manager as
hand tools and assembling apparatus. They Engineering curriculum, were the main driver for
well as an effective team member;
were designed to meet the University’s strict the design. The following learning principles have
occupational health and safety guidelines • u
 nderstanding of the social, cultural, global been extensively used and employed in most, if
and meet the State Government’s legislative and environmental responsibilities of the not all, PBL models:
requirements (Victorian Occupational Health and professional engineer, and the need for
• Project-based learning
Safety Act 2004). Such requirements include sustainable development;
rules about safe working numbers, the installation • P
 articipant-directed or “self-directed”
• u
 nderstanding of the principles of sustainable
of fume extraction units and the general control learning
design and development;
of access to the laboratory facilities to ensure the
• Activity-based learning
facilities are used by authorized persons only. To • u
 nderstanding of professional and ethical
control access to the PBL precinct, all students responsibilities and commitment to them; and • Interdisciplinary learning
are given an electronic key (fob) that allows them
• e
 xpectation of the need to undertake lifelong • Analytical thinking
entry to the PBL studios, the multifunction room
learning, and capacity to do so.
and the laboratories between 8 am and 10 pm. • Team-based learning
Engineers Australia, 2006
Figure 6 illustrates the main learning principles in
In order to address this need, the Vice-Chancellor three categories: cognitive learning, collaborative
Why is it?
of VU created a working party comprising learning, and contents used in the Engineering
Victoria University has a strong record of academic staff and a large contingent of industry curriculum.
producing engineering graduates who are partners. It worked throughout late 2004 and
The cognitive learning category involves learning
technically competent. However, today’s into 2005 to identify those competencies of
that is scheduled around some types of problems

54 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 learning principle where theory and practice come
together. It is indicated in Figure 6 that practice
is across all of the learning principles of the VU
Engineering PBL model. This is very important,
as it not only indicates that practice is the integral
part of the model but that it is performed while
achieving all of the abovementioned learning
principles.

Figure 6. PBL Learning Principles

What happens here?

There is also a range of other group activities in
Figure 4. A PBL experimentation laboratory. A PBL program requires students to work in
which all teams participate. For example, in first
teams, ideally teams of about five to six students
year, students attend workshops that introduce
in early years and individually or teams of two to
them to the PBL process, working in teams and
three in final year. In each semester, the students
project management. A series of language and
take one PBL unit of study that constitutes half
communication workshops focusing on writing both
their study load and two non-PBL units of study
technical and reflective reports is also provided.
that are taught conventionally. They therefore work
Individual activities include locating resources,
on PBL projects for approximately half of their
writing software, building and testing equipment,
study time in each semester.
and writing sections of reports and presentations.
The PBL cycle requires each team to meet to
Thus, although work in small teams lies at the
identify learning issues (what they need to learn
heart of PBL, the PBL precinct must also support
in order to address the technical problem) and
learning in larger groups in a workshop format and
allocate specific issues to members of the team
Figure 5. Team workstation in PBL experimentation laboratory. students working independently or in groups of
to research. The next stage is for the members
two or three. It must support students working
and that is achieved through project work. Here of the team to research these issues, either
around a whiteboard or a computer screen as
the problem is the initialisation of students’ individually or in small sub-groups, and then report
well as working in a workshop to build and test
learning and in this way, learning is placed in back to the team what they have found. What
prototypes.
context. The idea behind learning being achieved happens next depends on the required output of
through project work means that a unique task the problem or project. Typically, individual team
involving complex problem analysis is usually members or sub-groups design, build and test
How is the space used?
required. components of a final product before working
as a team on assembling that product and the A formal study of the level of use of the studios,
The collaborative learning category encompasses technical report that accompanies it. Reflection laboratories and multifunction room has not
learning that takes place in teams and is self- on the learning experience is an essential part been conducted as yet. However, informal
directed. Here learning takes place through of the PBL approach, so students prepare both observation confirms that students use the PBL
communication that will usually involve a team of individual and team reflective reports during the precinct extensively throughout the day, with some
students with similar objectives. An integral part of PBL cycle. students also using it in the evenings. The various
this process is that students learn from each other, spaces are used for the many team and individual
and take ownership in what they do, especially in The PBL cycle therefore involves a range of team
activities for which they were designed but also
the formulation of the teams. and individual activities. Each team meets formally
for some that were not considered in the design
once a week with its supervisor and, in first year,
The contents category involves multidisciplinary phase. For example, it was not envisaged that
each team will typically have two supervisors –
learning and analytical thinking. Here the work that the studios would be used as the set for several
an engineering academic and a language and
students perform can be spread across traditional short videos of the student view of PBL that some
communication academic. Between these formal
field-related boundaries, as well as outside these teams produced and uploaded to YouTube!
meetings, there are unsupervised team meetings.
boundaries. Analytical thinking is another critical

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 55

Engineering Problem-Based Learning Spaces at Victoria University

The pattern of use of the PBL precinct in the Researcher: The multifunctional design of this space has
first year of operation was somewhat different enabled its more informal use by students.
The common studio, do you use that for
from what was planned, in that there were fewer Students sometimes use this space for watching
other events apart from presentations?
unsupervised meetings of full PBL teams than movies, making movies, playing computer
expected and more work by individuals and Academic staff member: games and other social activities. This appears
groups of two or three. Working in teams was a to contribute to the sense of community that is
We do use them for other meetings… the
challenge, as reflected in responses to student evident throughout the precinct and is therefore
meetings [for] all the academics…we usually
surveys and focus groups: not discouraged.
meet in there to discuss PBL. Usually we
Students acknowledged that working in meet two or three times a semester… The
teams would be a feature of their working language and communications workshops are
lives and many saw the benefits of learning being conducted in the PBL common studio.
how to work effectively in teams. They
Dane, 2008.
identified benefits of team projects such
as developing friendships and socialising,
80
sharing the workload, gaining different
perspectives on a given problem, support 70
and motivation. Relatively few students 68
60
reported being members of effective teams,
characterised by respect, collaboration, 50
rotating leadership, task focus, productivity,
40
and meeting deadlines. Most students, Percentaage
unsurprisingly, found that teamwork was 30
challenging. In particular, many reported
20 24
being in teams with students who did not
contribute to the work of the team or even 10
attend team meetings. . 0 0 8
0
Gabb & Keating, 2007: vi. 1 2 3 4 5

Students told us that they sometimes found it
difficult to arrange team meetings because most Figure 7. Student responses to the question: “How would you rate the PBL studios in terms of a teaching facility?” expressed as a
percentage of the 37 responses in total.
of them had part-time employment off campus
and some had family commitments as well. Some 90
students chose to meet off campus because they 80
lived in the same neighbourhood. 78
70
While there were fewer meetings of full teams than
60
expected, it was observed that the PBL precinct
rapidly became the students' “home” on campus. 50
The PBL common room has developed as a space 40 Percentaage
where students meet informally, use computer
30
facilities, use kitchen facilities, conduct presentations,
attend occasional lectures and workshops, and 20
where staff also meet for PBL planning and 10 16
coordination. It is generally a non-timetabled space 0 0 5
0
with open access, apart from occasional dedicated
1 2 3 4 5
meetings, workshops and presentations.


Figure 8. Student responses to the question: “How would you rate the facilities within the PBL studios?” expressed as a percentage
of the 37 responses in total.

56 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Technical staff member: How is technology used? Technical staff member:

One of the most important things is the When the PBL precinct was designed, computers There’s a very important change in the role
fact that the students have the sense were deliberately not installed, on the assumption of the technical support staff, from problem-
of community, and therefore we set up that most students would bring their own laptops based learning, in that it shrinks the gap
a facility where they had that, where to the studios. Student feedback in the first year between academics and support personnel.
they could come and go, they had the of operation indicated that students chose to work Because we rely on the students to find
community, they had space where they instead in the Library or open-access computer out information and learning for themselves
could sit down, do their work, do their laboratories where they could access the internet and to a large extent with the problem-based
team-based work, and where their do their research more easily. Desktop computers learning, they will come and ask for help
supervisors could go in and meet them. were then placed in the studios and almost from technical staff… we try and direct
The studios have multiple functions, one immediately student use of the studios increased. them to the source where they can find the
of which is where they can just go in and information where they will be able to do it
The University's online learning system is
work, but then also where they can have for themselves.
Blackboard/WebCT and it was used to support
their supervisor meetings, their group team
the work of PBL groups, but in the first year of When you have the [technical] staff from
meetings, but overall I think the fact that
PBL operation its use by both students and staff the beginning, you can work with, because
they’re all located within the one space
was somewhat variable: the technical staff has familiarity in terms
gives the students a sense of community.
of facilities, equipment, everything that we
Participants reported that they found
Dane, 2008. have in the school, we are also familiar with
it difficult to find time for face-to-face
how to obtain certain bits of equipment. It
Moreover, students do not use the spaces team meetings. WebCT was offered as
helps in saying ‘okay, we can plan ahead,
exclusively for their PBL activities and for social a communication tool to complement
we can obtain those things, they’re quite
activities. As noted above, PBL units of study face-to-face meetings but it was evident
cheap’, instead of ‘oh, that’s going to cost
only constitute half of the study load and students that it was not used a great deal... When
us a lot of money if you want to go in that
also undertake two units that are conventionally it was used, students generally just used
direction’. So it sort of gives you a bit of
taught. While these units tend to utilise individual the basic features. [Some] supervisors
perspective in what sort of projects we
assessment tasks, the students often work encouraged students to use WebCT and
can do.
together on these tasks in the PBL precinct. reportedly checked the amount of traffic
They therefore make considerable use of the from time to time. Participants from both It’s almost like the PBL cycle we go
PBL precinct for individual and small group study groups claimed that they were not shown through, we sit down, we brainstorm, then
related to non-PBL units. how to use WebCT effectively. In any case, we go, everybody goes off working with
some participants found WebCT clunky particular parts of the [problem], then we
Academic staff member:
and preferred to use other online tools, come back and we produce a problem
In their studio they don’t just all work on such as Hotmail and Messenger, for team for the students to work on. So it’s sort of
their PBL problems, but I have witnessed communication. like the PBL process in what we’re doing
them working on their tutorial questions, for in terms of planning the PBL problems
Gabb & Keating, 2007: 61.
other subject-based units. themselves.
In broad terms, technology plays a central role in
Researcher: Dane, 2008.
any undergraduate engineering course and the
So when they're not required to work PBL units of study at VU are no exception. As
collaboratively they're still working noted above, the PBL laboratories were the site
of considerable activity which presented new
collaboratively?
challenges for the technical staff:
Academic staff member:

Yes, that’s right, for other subjects as well.

Dane, 2008.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 57

Engineering Problem-Based Learning Spaces at Victoria University

When all the PBL facilities are eventually ...Students on the whole reported enjoying Students consistently identified the role
completed, they will include a range of laboratories PBL. In particular, the hands-on style of that working in teams played in helping
for students at different year levels: learning and working in teams were aspects them to develop friendships within the
that many students enjoyed. They were also class, especially in first semester. The
Technical staff member:
mostly supportive of what PBL was designed value of this cannot be understated, as
This room has been decked out with to achieve and they generally understood social integration in first year university is
computers where they can run simulations the principles of PBL, such as self-directed considered an important factor in student
and things like that, as well as a section on learning, collaborative learning and a focus retention. Given the University’s current
where they can just do soldering, but also on engineering practice. There was general focus on improving the retention of its
for testing and for checking their circuits agreement that this style of learning would students, this is an encouraging finding.
with the test and measuring equipment… help prepare them for working life. They
Gabb & Keating, 2007: v.
we have generators, power supplies, appreciated the importance of developing
frequency counters, which they will be able the capabilities of working in teams, This substantially positive evaluation did not focus
to use and which they do use, as well as communicating effectively and managing on the PBL precinct as such, although it was the
computers with computer aided design their own time and their own learning. stage on which both students and staff performed.
software, simulation software. When explicit questions were asked in student focus
In their questionnaire responses and in
groups about the facility, the response was positive:
Academic staff member: the focus groups, most students reported
learning a great deal from their PBL ...students liked the new studio spaces
Every team has a dedicated time and a
experience. Most reported improvements and liked having the individual team suites.
bench in the soldering area…to avoid a
in generic skills such as working without However, they noted that [they] would like
lot of groups going into the laboratory and
direct supervision, writing both technical access to computers in their PBL suites
hogging the laboratory I suppose, this is
reports and reflective reports, working on rather than having to go out to the PBL
integrated into the timetable.
problems, working effectively as a member multipurpose room:
Technical staff member: of a team, reflecting on their learning,
“I think it would help if each room has,
working without direct supervision,
We have two new laboratories being built like, has a computer or … so then if we
speaking in front of a group and managing
there, where the students will be able need to, like, access our email when
their time effectively. Most also agreed
to manufacture circuit boards, so that we’re discussing stuff or we need to show
that they had learnt technical skills and
will allow our students to go from the something on a computer screen, it’s right
knowledge in PBL, although in second
design stage of electronics through to the there. We do not need to go out of here.”
semester they were less sure that they
manufacture of completed products.
had learnt much in the way of technical They also commented on other minor issues
Dane, 2008. skills and knowledge. In both semesters, including that markings on the white boards
the students were less sure that they had weren’t easy to rub off and that they would
learnt about using the library or about like a fridge in the multi-purpose room.
How was the facility evaluated? diversity. Most students were also doubtful
Gabb & Keating, 2007: 60.
that they used what they learnt in PBL in
The student experience of PBL is evaluated
their non-PBL subjects...
each year. After the first year of operation in
2006, a comprehensive report based on a series
of student questionnaires and focus groups
was prepared. It found that the students were
generally positive about their PBL experience:

58 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

Stojcevski administered a short questionnaire After interviewing staff members, Dane (2008) It is important to involve both academic staff and
on the PBL studios to the 2007 cohort in which reported there is consensus that the PBL precinct technical staff in planning and development of
students were asked to respond to the following: has been a tremendous success, supporting the PBL problems/projects. At least half of the work
range of PBL activities in which students, technical of a PBL student revolves around the PBL project
• H
 ow would you rate the PBL studios in terms
support staff and academics engage. A number and most projects involve designing, building and
of a teaching facility?
of interviewees spoke of the sense of community testing equipment. Providing facilities for this
• H
 ow would you rate the facilities within the that has been achieved by creating a physical “hands-on” work is therefore an important design
PBL studios? environment that enables collaboration, with consideration. Members of the technical staff were
access to appropriate and relevant resources. The initially involved in this process mainly because of
• P
 lease also provide your comments in terms
contention is that students become independent their expertise in occupational health and safety
of the benefits and difficulties, in terms of the
learners in a supportive environment that brings but, as some of the interview data reported above
PBL studios used as a teaching facility?
them into contact with practice-related problems. attests, their contribution extended well beyond
The response scale used for the first two items this. Indeed, technical staff members have a
was 1 (Very poor), 2 (Poor), 3 (Good), 4 (Very key role to play not only in designing the physical
good) and 5 (Excellent). The results for these two What are the main lessons learned? facilities but also in designing the projects that drive
items are summarised in Figures 7 and 8 below. the activity in the facilities.
The design of the PBL spaces influenced
In addition, 32 of the 37 students responded to the both student and staff behaviour. The studios It is also important to provide some desktop
third open-ended item; “Please also provide your encouraged students to work collaboratively within computers rather than relying on student laptops.
comments in terms of the benefits and difficulties, in their teams on a range of tasks, PBL and non-PBL The initial assumption was that the students would
terms of the PBL studios used as a teaching facility?” related, whereas the common space encouraged use their own laptops in the PBL precinct, so
These responses were subjected to content analysis cross-team activities within the larger group. no desktop computers were installed. Frequent
and the following common themes identified: Because the PBL precinct was “colonised” by the student requests for computers in the PBL studios
students, teaching staff used the space with less showed that this assumption was incorrect.
Benefits
authority than they demonstrated in traditional Installing a desktop computer in each PBL
• D
 edicated space for each team for the entire teaching spaces such as lecture theatres and studio then led to increased student usage of the
semester. laboratories. Thus, the design of the space studios. It is not known whether a preference for
reinforced the shift in staff role from instructor (i.e. using University machines represents a low level
• Supervisors know where to find students.
“sage on the stage”) to facilitator (i.e. “guide on the of laptop ownership by this group of students,
• High-quality technology. side”). In another VU PBL program not reported an unwillingness to lug heavy laptops around all
here, individual studios were not constructed and day or a preference for working collaboratively
Difficulties
the main space in that precinct closely resembles around a larger screen. This is a topic requiring
• Initial access problems (electronic key a classroom. Not surprisingly, staff members that further research. Both the high level of usage
allocation). teach in this space were more likely to slip into of library computers and a recent survey of VU
instructor mode and the students demonstrated students confirm that, despite the fact that most
• No microwave and refrigerator supplied. students have broadband access at home,
less signs of ownership of the space.
These results suggest that the students strongly there continues to be a strong demand for open
Students greatly value having their own place,
valued the PBL studios and appreciated both the access computers on campus (Gabb et al.,
especially on a campus with limited spaces for social
space itself and the equipment provided. Their 2007). For these students, at least, the age of the
interaction. The campus has few spaces where
responses to the open-ended question indicate omnipresent laptop has not yet arrived.
students can gather, other than two fairly spartan
again that they identify the space as “theirs” and
cafeterias. Thanks to recent landscaping work, there
their only real request is to make the space more
are now several external spaces where students
“home-like”.
can meet in good weather but there are very few
internal spaces in inclement weather. It is therefore
not surprising that the students used the meeting
spaces provided in the PBL precinct, especially
when a computer was provided in each PBL studio.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 59

Engineering Problem-Based Learning Spaces at Victoria University

The PBL precinct enables students to develop a References

sense of community and ownership of studios,
Dane, J. 2008. Data collected for doctoral thesis entitled:
leading them to use the precinct for activities other “New Generation Learning Environments in Higher
than their formal PBL units. When appropriate Education”, Monash University, (thesis in progress).
resources are conveniently located and students
Engineers Australia. 2006. Engineers Australia
are provided with facilities they feel comfortable Policy on Accreditation of Professional Engineering
to use, the facilities appear more likely to be well Programs, Document No. P02, Engineers Australia,
utilised. In the initial implementation of the PBL Barton ACT, viewed on 29 July 2008, <http://www.
engineersaustralia.org.au/shadomx/apps/fms/
studios, there was some concern that the facilities
fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=0B1B282A-EB70-EC35-
were not being well used. Informal feedback from 6B21-BB84E8F0C8E7&siteName=ieaust>
students confirmed they were going elsewhere
Gabb, R., Milne, L. & Cao, Z. 2006, Understanding
primarily to access computers, which instigated
attrition and improving transition: a review of recent
the installation of fixed computers into the studios. literature. Postcompulsory Education Centre, Victoria
From this point on, utilisation of the studios University, Melbourne.
improved noticeably.
Gabb, R. & Keating, S. 2007. PBL in Engineering: student
The proximity of studios to each other also perspectives 2006. Postcompulsory Education Centre,
Victoria University, Melbourne.
contributes to the sense of community in the
precinct. Student teams can interact with each Gabb, R., Keating, S., Inglis, A., Dixon, J. & Perri, F.
other, develop friendships, discuss assignments, 2007. Making e-learning inclusive: a survey of VU higher
education students. Postcompulsory Education Centre,
and generally provide each other with collegiate
Victoria University, Melbourne.
support. The PBL common room is essentially
Kolmos, A., 2006. Why PBL?, PBL models, lecture: in
a social space, allowing students to interact
Session 1, Topic 1, Masters in Problem Based Learning:
informally through eating, playing computer Aalborg University, Denmark, 2006.
games, and watching DVDs, etc. That these
Parr, P., Submission to Higher Education Course
activities are not discouraged contributes to
Approvals Committee, Victoria University, “Proposal to
the sense of belonging students have in that Introduce a Problem Based Learning Curriculum to the
environment, making it more desirable for Bachelor of Engineering Degree Courses Commencing
them to be there with their colleagues, rather with First Year in 2006, Overview and Background
than “somewhere else”. In this kind of physical Briefing”, July, 2005.

environment social activities tend to blend more

seamlessly with educational activities, leading
to an increase in collaborative learning and
ultimately to increased retention and engagement
of students. The research literature on retention
tells us that both academic integration and social
integration are central to retaining students,
especially in their first year (Gabb et al., 2006). It
also tells us that collaborative learning activities
and informal interaction between students and
staff improve integration. PBL emphasises both
of these activities and the PBL precinct provides
spaces that support and encourage these
important functions.

60 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Deakin University Immersive Learning

5.4 Environment (DILE): an evaluation

What it is? Why it is? and resulted in T1’s aim of getting students
“away from the computer; to understand that
The Deakin Immersive Learning Environment The initiative for the new collaborative learning
95 percent of their work is conceptual and that
(DILE), or studio as it is also referred to, is an studio was generated by a Multimedia academic
the last 5 percent, the production of any digital
‘L’ shaped classroom, designed to support (T1) who experienced significant frustration
media product, is at the computer.” This became
collaborative learning (figures 2 and 3). It is attempting to apply active teaching and learning
the rationale for a small number of computers
located on the north western fringe of the in a computer laboratory, recognising that
to be incorporated into the studio; to establish
Burwood campus and was completed in late collaborative activities were difficult to practice in
a hierarchy of activities that de-emphasised the
2005. Undergraduate Multimedia students have that type of space. T1 began a dialogue with the
importance of computer-based activities and
been the primary users of the studio, but the facility manager about the possible development
promoted places for group discussion where
intention is to make it accessible to a broad range of a new type of classroom that would support
problem-solving would take place.
of disciplines. Approximately 105m² in size with collaborative learning. The facility manager was
a 5 metre high ceiling, the space has a capacity cognizant of new types of learning environments T1: The design…is premised on the assumption
of 30 students, although most timetabled classes internationally, stating he was “influenced by what that students will have to work collaboratively…
are for units with enrolments of approximately was happening through the SCUP network”. So [Multimedia] students don’t enjoy collaborative
20 students. Duration of classes is two or three when T1 began discussing the idea of a space work, so that’s the reason why there is a big
hours and is preceded by a lecture conducted for collaborative learning, the facility manager emphasis on comfort. There’s the couches…and
in a traditional lecture theatre. Undergraduate immediately supported the concept. stuff like that… Given the nature of our industry,
students are the primary users of the space, but collaborative learning is essential. Students don’t
The facility manager was able to secure a space
all students are able to access the studio outside like it. They actually learn to like it.
within a new major teaching precinct already
of timetabled commitments.
under construction. Selection of an architect
Deakin University
Immersive Learning Environment

Jo Dane
faculty of art & design
monash university, australia

The features of the studio that have the most defaulted to the architects commissioned to the
impact upon teaching and learning are: new project. A meeting took place between T1,
the architect, the facility manager, and others,
• Board room table
whereby T1 verbally articulated the pedagogical
• Lounge vision and intention of the space. Due to the
significant time pressures associated with the
• Fixed computers and bench
base building already being under construction,
• Presentation desk notes taken at that meeting effectively
formed the brief. The architects captured the
How these spatial features support collaborative
client requirements and developed a plan
learning will be explained in greater detail shortly.
simultaneously.

A critical concept of the educational vision

expressed by T1 related to the perceived high use
of computers in multimedia courses. In actuality,
industry practice is more about problem solving Figure 1. Deakin University, Burwood campus site plan
www.deakin.edu.au

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 61

 MWB

Lounge

Lobby

Tb1

Tb1 Exterior planning

and walkway Figure 2. Deakin University Immersive Learning Environment. Dane, 2007
Tb1

As part of the author’s PhD research into ‘new

generation learning environments for higher
education’, human ethics approval was achieved
to conduct an evaluation of the Deakin University
Computers

Immersive Learning Environment, utilising the

following methodology:
Board Room Table
1. interview a range of people instrumental
in the delivery of the DILE, including the
OHP Tb1 architect, facility manager, I.T. Manager, and
Standing height table
others as nominated by the facility manager.
chair
T1 was interviewed as both the academic
Equipment Presentation desk
cupboards OHP - Overhead Projector stakeholder who initiated the project, and as
Whiteboard & Projection Screen
an academic who teaches in the studio;
MWB - Mobile Whiteboard
2. interview a number of academics who
currently teach in the DILE, to be known
Figure 3. Deakin University Immersive Learning Environment, furniture plan. Dane, 2007 throughout this paper as T1, T2, and T3; and

3. observe the academics and their students

Architect: From a relaxed sort of more individual- from the ceiling. With time pressures bearing down
using the DILE.
based approach, through to a more formal but still on the team, an expedient design and approval
relaxed group approach (which was then obviously process ensued. Furniture was ordered and
the higher tables), through to a more rigorous one- construction completed in time for commencement
How is the space used?
on-one sort of approach that you could promote of semester 1, 2006.
most of your pedagogies. The unique aspect of the Deakin Immersive Learning
Environment is the variety of settings within one
T1: Students need to feel comfortable in the
What Happens Here? classroom. The main features of the studio were
space; they need to feel that they own it… the
observed being used in the following ways:
ability for things like furniture, and any of the other The Deakin Immersive Learning Environment
resources were movable, completely movable. So supports collaborative learning in a number of Board table
whilst I have an ideal of how the rooms would be ways. Firstly, a range of different settings have
The boardroom table was a place to start a class,
set up, it's irrelevant…it is the students who are in been created to enable a diverse range of teaching
for the whole group to meet together and discuss
control of the way in which the room is set out and and learning activities, for example, brainstorming,
the preceding lecture and/or the activities to be
I think that's really important… I'm very concerned researching on the internet, problem-solving,
undertaken during that class. It was observed as
to ensure that students enjoy the process of preparing presentations, presenting to the whole
a place where small groups can meet to discuss
learning; that they love it, that they embrace it, class, debriefing a lecture, discussing assignments,
and work, as well as a place for student groups
that they are completely immersed in it. etc. Secondly, the academics who teach in the
to present to each other towards the end of the
DILE are able to plan their subjects and classes
At the briefing meeting the architect commenced timetabled class. It is a setting that facilitates many
with collaborative learning and the physical setting
sketching in response to T1s description, different activities as was initially intended.
in mind. A variety of collaborative learning tasks
incorporating a variety of learning settings for group
work modes. The initial sketch included an area
are able to be engaged with, from short duration Lounge
activities best suited to first year students, to
for large group meetings, the ‘board room table’, The lounge was not heavily utilised during the
semester-long projects that are undertaken by third
a lounge for informal gathering, round tables for observations, but its colour and form did break up
year students.
quick group discussions, and a bench with three the formality of the classroom. One class being
fixed computers. A ‘presentation desk’ containing observed was small enough for the whole class
a fourth computer was located at the southern end to meet around the lounge setting, which was
of the room, along with a fixed whiteboard, pull- perceived as a more intimate setting and appeared
down projection screen and a data projector fixed to generate a more fluid group discussion. In this

62 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

Figure 4. DILE, board room table and fixed computer bench. Source: Jo Dane, 2006 Figure 5. Computer Bank. Dane, 2006

instance the tutor moved around continuously Different use between year levels How is technology used?
in the background drawing students into the
There was a notable difference in use of the studio The studio is a relatively low-technology space, with
conversation. Teachers discussed this setting with
between first year and third year students. This teacher-operated equipment and four computers
positivity, particularly in their reflections of students
appears to be as a result of differing pedagogical shared between students. The budget did not
using the feature. Although the observations did
approaches for each cohort. First year students extend to designing educational technology systems
not verify its extent of use, the lounge does appear
need to learn to work collaboratively. T2’s specifically to suit collaborative learning. Therefore,
to evoke a sense of informality and creativity to the
approach is to “set them little mini projects in each the audiovisual strategy was to fit out the studio with
studio.
studio. They have to complete something in each equipment and technology that was the same as
High tables studio as a group… [In] first semester, they’re all every general teaching space in the university. This
coming from secondary school where they've was not only a budget-driven decision, but also a
The high tables were intended to be used by small
been all doing things individually and moving risk strategy developed by management in case the
groups in a standing position, with or without a
straight into teamwork is like: no. I find I have to DILE needed to be transformed back to a general
laptop. There were no observations of teachers
warm them up quite a bit and get them used to teaching space in the future.
or students using the high tables, although there
it…In the next semester it's all group work; it's all
was evidence that they were being moved around. The studio is part of the Deakin wireless network,
focused on doing studio stuff together; all of the
The general consensus among the academics encouraging students to bring in their own
assignment work is teamwork as well.”
interviewed was that the high tables are not of laptops. Anecdotally this occurs more frequently at
great value in supporting their teaching approach. By third year, as T3 explains, “we expect third year level, but there was little evidence of first
students to have already picked up the skills and year students bringing their own laptops.
knowledge in second year, and to now apply
The computers were initially anticipated to be
Presentation desk that knowledge and some project management
used by individuals, but in reality the majority of
skills in this unit. So my role really is to act as
The presentation desk is generally loathed by observations of the computers in use involved
a mentor, and as an adviser and just help them
the teachers, who believe it creates a hierarchy group collaborations of up to five people. Students
go through the paces. Not to engage with them
between teacher and student, and promotes were often cramped around one monitor as the
and teach them new things. So it's very much
a teacher-centred approach. One event was distance between computers was estimated to
an independent unit.” In this scenario the studio
observed whereby a group of students presented be less than one metre (refer figure 7). Some
is a place to meet as a small group to work on
to the class from the presentation desk, but the students were observed ‘hanging back’ from the
a project, to discuss their project with their tutor,
general perception from academic staff is that it group, not engaging in the learning activity. The
get briefed on the project at the beginning of the
is a barrier and counterintuitive to the educational quantity of students condensed into one part of
semester and present to the class at the end of
intentions of the classroom. the studio also appeared to make it difficult for the
the semester.
teacher to move around and talk to each group.
Fixed computer bench During the observations, four categories of activity T1’s contention that 95 percent of collaborative
While educational technology in the studio is were evident: activities that were solely teacher work would be away from the computer was not
understated, it is nonetheless important. As directed (i.e. mini lecture), activities that were supported by the observations.
anticipated during design, access to computers teacher-led, but included discussion and interaction
was to be on the fringe of student activities: with students, activities that students undertook
available when required. However, the fixed collaboratively, and student presentations to the How was the facility evaluated?
computers and bench contained the highest whole class. These categories are represented in
Zimring and Reizenstein (1980) broadly define
degree of activity of all the studio features. Group the following diagram (Figure 6) and begin to tell the
post occupancy evaluation as “an examination
discussion and problem-solving was certainly story of what teaching and learning looks like in the
of the effectiveness for human users of occupied
in evidence, but computers appeared to be studio.
design environments”. Lackney (2001) more
accessed as part of the problem-solving process. specifically discusses post occupancy evaluation
in the context of educational adequacy, where

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 63

 120 minutes

T2
1st year class 10 10 40 50 10

Start class
T2
1st year class 15 80 15 10 Teacher directed

Teacher-led interactive

T1 & T3 Student activity

3rd year class 120

Student presentation

Figure 6. What teaching and learning looks like in the DILE. Dane, 2007

the evaluation focuses on the “degree to which university even know of the studio’s existence, or seamless: “I would have had computers in key
the building supports the goals of the educational for what educational purpose it serves. The studio areas around the room to encourage group
process”. A review of building evaluation and data has attracted little publicity across the university work…That was a deliberate choice of the
collection methods revealed a variety of examples or professional development for teachers to architects [to group the computers together],
from simple question and response templates, to learn how to use the classroom. These issues do because it was of money. It was cheaper to put all
rigorous qualitative analysis methods employed not impact directly on the design of the studio, the network things together.” (sic)
in the field of environmental psychology (Sanoff, but have a significant bearing on the perceived
The collaborative learning studio is not a state-of-
Christie, Tester, & Vaupel, 2006; Zimmerman & success of the facility.
the-art facility in terms of educational technology,
Martin, 2001; C. Zimring & Rosenheck, 2001).
The teachers interviewed expressed unanimous and demonstrates that innovative learning
Relating to approaches embedded in support for the studio and collaborative learning. environments do not have to be technology-rich
environmental psychology research, the methods The studio has enabled the teachers to practice in order for good teaching and learning practice
of collecting data for this research project teaching in ways that encourage students to occur. However, T1 expressed that it would
were determined to include semi-structured to engage deeply with the curriculum and have been desirable to explore educational
interviews (Kvale, 1996) and passive observations importantly, with other students. technologies that were aligned with collaborative
(Sanoff et al., 2006). Interview questions were learning, but the limited budget did not enable that
T3: I think just in the structure of the room... it
prepared to cover topics related specifically to to occur.
probably allows me to engage more with the
each participant’s role. Topics for discussion
students than in a normal tutorial room or in The studio could be utilised more by promoting it
included design and procurement processes
a prac room [computer laboratory]… In this as a place for collaborative learning to the broader
prior to occupancy, the briefing process and how
space, it has allowed me to...have a better university community, through publicity, special
pedagogy was considered in the design phases,
relationship with the students. events and professional development. Promotional
how teachers approached teaching and learning
activities enable community stakeholders to take
with the learning environment in mind, and the T2: I like it. I think it's a really good way of
an interest in alternative teaching and learning
physical features and qualities of each space. teaching. I don't think it's suitable for
practices and seek opportunities to participate in
The observational study was approached as an everything. But it's suitable for a great many
professional development programs.
opportunity to track human movement throughout things, a great many units. I think it's very
the space, to see how both teachers and students conducive for learning and teaching. The Deakin University Immersive Learning
interacted with the physical classroom features. Environment is a clear example of a ‘new
The key features of the classroom allow a range
generation learning environment’, which the author
of learning activities to occur simultaneously,
defines as a classroom that has been designed in
empowering students to determine for them how to
How to measure? complete the tasks set by the teacher. Consequently,
response to a specific pedagogy and to support a
more student-centred approach to teaching and
There is no doubt that collaborative learning the facility does achieve its major objective as a place
learning.
occurs in the studio. But is the collaborative for collaborative learning and in this sense enables
learning studio a success? How should success good teaching and learning practice to occur. As a result of the findings from the case study,
be measured? The Space Allocation Manager the author proposes a preliminary framework
raised the issue that ‘utilisation rates’ for the for cultivating future New Generation Learning
studio were below expectations. ‘Utilisation’ is What were the main lessons learned? Environments. This framework is intended
the facility manager’s measure of how often a to assist institutions manage the design and
While the evaluation generally yielded positive
classroom is being used and how many people procurement processes involved with new
reflections and observations, the studio is not
are using the space (AAPPA, 2002). It does not educational facilities.
without faults. The decision to collocate the fixed
consider what the students are doing and for what
computers appears to have been budget driven,
educational purpose; utilisation does not measure
with apparent disregard for the educational
learning outcomes or effectiveness. Access to the
outcomes in the space. T1 reflected that it
studio for timetabled classes has been limited to
would have been preferable to have distributed
a select number of schools within the university,
computers throughout the classroom so the
resulting in limited demand for the classroom. It
transition between modes of learning was more
is questionable as to how many teachers in the

64 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 MWB
Tb1
A framework for developing New
Generation Learning Environments Lounge
1. The briefing process should explicitly state
the educational vision of the proposed facility
and anticipate the range of teaching and
learning activities that may take place. This Lobby
vision should come from academics likely to
teach in the space.

2. The design phase is a highly consultative

Tb1 Tb1
process that includes academics likely to
teach in the facility, and enables confirmation
of the brief.

3. Educational technology to enhance teaching Group 2

and learning should be considered and
incorporated in both the briefing and design
phases.

4. The resultant design is the product of a

partnership between the facility manager,
Board Room Table
the architect, the information technology
manager and academics teaching in the
Group 3
Computers

space.

5. The anticipated pedagogy underpins all

design decisions.
Group 4
6. Professional development should be
implemented to allow teachers to discover
the teaching and learning potential of the
facility, and adapt their practice if necessary. OHP
7. The institution should publicise the new
facility as a means of promoting good
Presentation desk
teaching and learning practice, across the Equipment
university. cupboards
Group 1
Whiteboard & Projection Screen

Figure 7 First year class 2:15pm, 20th March 2007. Dane

Figure 7: All students dispersed in their groups and commenced the planned task. The teacher moved around room discussing the
activity with each group as needed. It was noticeably difficult for the teacher to access Group 3. The task involved students creating
an audio recording, so Group 1 moved to the lounge to record some sounds, before relocating to the presentation desk to continue
task. There was significant interaction between groups as they could hear the production of each groups’ sounds. Duration of activi-
ties in this setting: 45 minutes.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 65

Deakin University Immersive Learning Environment (DILE): an evaluation

Acknowledgements References
The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge AAPPA. (2002). Space Planning Guidelines. 2. Retrieved
30th October, 2007, from www.tefma.org/infoservices/
the support of numerous voluntary research
publications/space_planning.jsp
participants from Deakin University. Particular
thanks to Mr. Wayne Reid (previously Deakin Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to
Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage
University) for his assistance in implementing the
Publications, Inc.
research methodology. A great deal of gratitude is
reserved for Associate Professor Peter Jamieson, Lackney, J. (2001, July 3-6, 2001). The State of Post-
Occupancy Evaluation in the Practice of Educational
University of Melbourne, for his support and
Design. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
guidance throughout this research project. Environmental Design Research Association, Edinburgh,
Scotland.

Sanoff, H., Christie, S., Tester, D., & Vaupel, B. (2006).

Building Evaluation. In 53 Research Papers in Social
Architecture 1965 - 2005: Aardvark Global Publishing
Company, LLC.

Zimmerman, A., & Martin, M. (2001). Post-occupancy

evaluation: benefits and barriers. Building Research &
Information, 29(2), 168-174.

Zimring, C., & Reizenstein, J. (1980). Post-Occupancy

Evaluation: An Overview. Environment & Behaviour, 12(4),
429-450.

Zimring, C., & Rosenheck, T. (2001). Getting it Right the

Second or Third Time Rather than the Sixth or Seventh.
Retrieved 07/08/2004, 2004, from www.poe/dgs.ca.gov/
More+Info/FFCTalk+.htm

66 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Supporting Teaching and Learning through the

5.5 Intelligent Design of Learning Support Spaces:

A Griffith University Example

What is it? (i) Principles espoused by (Jamieson, Dane curricula activities.

and Lippman, (2005) for development of on- • D
 esign to maximise student access to,
For a number of years, universities in Australia have
campus teaching and learning facilities; and use and ownership of, the learning
rung with the sound of the construction of new
(ii) The characteristics of modern students that environment. (Jamieson et al., 2005 p.18-20)
buildings or the refurbishment of old or dysfunctional
spaces. Driven by a range of factors that include influence our learning spaces as articulated
increasing student enrolments, the ageing cycle by Lomas and Oblinger (2006); and
of existing stock or just a general strength in the Why is it?
(iii) Key characteristics of well-designed
economy, many universities are looking to modernise Changes in pedagogy have also influenced
architectural space that enhance ambience
or develop their buildings and spaces. changes in the physical infrastructure of learning
and shape behaviour.
spaces and buildings. Pedagogy has moved a long
way from the traditional ‘chalk and talk’ approach to
embrace a variety of teaching methodologies and
practices. For example, most curricula, certainly
Con Graves, Elaina Berg at a post-graduate level but increasingly at an
undergraduate level, now incorporates a variety of
griffith university, australia
teaching and assessment approaches that include
inter alia; formal lectures, group work, practical
demonstrations, student delivered presentations
and multi-media content. These approaches to
In 2004, Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, teaching and assessment may be delivered in
Principles for the Built Campus formal classrooms, laboratories, tutorial/seminar
started on a process of reinvigorating library
Environment rooms and in some cases are blended in the
spaces. Following some experimentation, it was
decided to refurbish spaces to reflect the major Jamieson et al. (2000) proposed a set of principles physical and virtual environment. In order for these
components of intellectual activity including for designing built environments. These principles approaches to be effective, some thought needs to
quiet research, group work, multimedia work were "based on an emergent idea of student be given to the design of both the delivery spaces
and presentation preparation. While it could be centred, flexible learning … [and were] … intended and the environments students and staff may use
argued that this thinking is becoming increasingly to result in facilities which are less prescribed to prepare for these activities.
common in many library spaces, the Griffith and function-specific than is presently the case. While significant attention has been devoted to
refurbishment considered this change in the Their application is intended to foster a sense the delivery spaces, there is increasing interest
context of three frameworks when thinking about of ownership by individual communities created being devoted to spaces that support the learning
users and their space. These included: through the use and occupation of specific endeavours such as libraries and computing labs.
locations on-campus." (Jamieson et al., 2000, This paper will describe an attempt by Griffith to
p.227) These principles included; develop the Library space as a support space for
• D
 esign space for multiple uses concurrently student and academic approach to learning. It
and consecutively. will discuss some of the frameworks utilised for
development and evaluation of this space.
• D
 esign to maximise the inherent flexibility
within each space.
• D
 esign to make use of the vertical dimension
of facilities.
• D
 esign to integrate previously discrete
campus functions.
• D
 esign features and functions to maximise
teacher and student control.
• Design to maximise alignment of different

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 67

Supporting Teaching and Learning through the Intelligent Design of Learning Support Spaces: A Griffith University Example

What happens here? • S

 ocial: students are comfortable to engage • M
 aximising natural light -- ensuring all
in loosely formed groups that change as their spaces that are to be used for any length of
Student Characteristics needs change. time have as much ambient, natural light as
Lomas and Oblinger (2006, p.5.2) have identified possible.
• P
 articipatory: students often engage in using
“five… [student] characteristics... [that]… seemed a range of communication technologies • B
 ringing the outside in -- related to light,
particularly applicable for learning spaces”. These and mediums to contribute to corporate Griffith has significant natural bush assets,
characteristics include: good. Examples of this may include blogs, so attempts were made to engage the
• D
 igital: adopting digital technology to engage social networking websites (such has Flickr, users of the space with the outside natural
with the world for both work and pleasure. Facebook and mySpace). surroundings.

• M
 obile: using a range of devices to bring • Z
 oning of activity -- using zoning to identify
their preferred digital environments to behaviours or activities appropriate to the
How is the Space Used?
campus with them. space (e.g. quiet zones, mobile friendly
Our final framework was based on a distillation of zones, noisy zones etc).
• Independent: "Individuals surf the Internet literature in architecture, design, social psychology,
to uncover facts, chase down links of • D
 eclaration of function -- the notion that a
psychiatry and marketing and promotion. From
interest, and then aggregate and synthesise student could identify behaviour appropriate
our reading, we believe the dominant factors
information. This self reliance reveals that to the space as they approach it from the
that needed to be considered in maximising the
many of today's students are self-directed, outside rather than relying on signs to inform
ambience or shaping learning behaviour in any
internally motivated, and inquisitive." (2006 or influence their behaviour.
space would include:
p.5.2) • U
 se of colour – using a range of colours
in spaces to influence the mood and/ or
behaviour of the users in the space.

• U
 se of textures and materials -- to control
sound, lighting and to give tactile feedback.

• U
 sing familiar objects (or props) to establish
standards of behaviour or use -- e.g. having
lounges and bean bags in more casual areas
and study carrels in quiet study areas.

• F
 lexibility of function to allow spaces
to change and adapt to different uses
dependent on the time of the semester or
group that was using the space.

• P
 roviding technology to support a range of
behaviours in the environment -- ensuring
access to necessities to allow students
to maximise the use of the environment
including wireless network, power,
whiteboards, A. M. X. panels etc.

68 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

The Griffith Zones Research Zone rooms (including dedicated training computer
labs). This space is not intended to only be used
Using these frameworks Griffith has built a range Secondly, this space is designed as a more by students who wish to see our staff but it is
of formal and informal zones in its libraries. The traditional library space for users who wish to use attractive to students waiting for workshops or
three formal zones include a ‘Collaboration Zone’, more specialised equipment (such as microfiche individual appointments. This space encourages
a ‘Research Zone’ and a ‘Learning Zone’. on microfilm), non-networked databases (such as quiet conversations not noisy interactions. During
early CD ROM based ABS statistics or specialist SWAT and exam periods this area becomes a
databases) or library reference materials. This zone silent study zone.
Collaboration Zone contains more fixed furniture and larger desks (to
allow clients to spread materials out), and more
Firstly, this zone is designed as the space for users
single workspaces. It is a quiet study area and
to congregate in groups to collaborate on work, Informal Zones
is inhabited more frequently by postgraduate
study or projects, or just to meet in preparation to
students or more mature students and staff. The informal zones include our library collections
go elsewhere as their work /study/learning needs
area and a quiet study zone.
dictate. This zone contains a mixture of seating,
including beanbags, wheeled chairs, light movable
chairs, tables and whiteboards and lounge furniture.
Learning Zone
Collections Area and Quiet Study
This furniture can be moved to facilitate the formation Thirdly, this zone is designed to provide an easier
of transient groups and activities. In addition, these
Zone
interface between students and library teaching
zones contain DVD players and large flat panel and support staff (such as Learning Advisors and Griffith has also standardised some features of its
screens where students and staff can watch DVDs Computer or Information Literacy Specialists). library layouts. In our multi-floor libraries, we have
for coursework or research or other significant events This space contains a mixture of study booths separated the noisy areas (including Collaboration
such as the recent Olympics. This space is often that will seat up to eight people, larger four person Zone, entrances and print areas) from the quiet
noisy and filled with undergraduate and postgraduate movable tables and presentation practice rooms. areas (such as collections and quiet, individual
student users. Users in this area are more likely to be Along the sides of this zone are the offices for study spaces). On all three campuses where we
a younger population (Gen X or Gen Y). library teaching staff and more specialised training have multi-story buildings, the entrance floor is a

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 69

Supporting Teaching and Learning through the Intelligent Design of Learning Support Spaces: A Griffith University Example

Table 1. (Jamieson et al., 2000, 231-232) Space Design Principles Evaluation.

Principle Provision for and some early experiences with refurbished library spaces
1. Design space for multiple uses concurrently Provision: spaces should be able to be adapted to fit the needs of multiple student groups to support their
and consecutively. learning styles.

Experience: The furniture, props and zoning of spaces allow students to arrange the study space,
according to the individual or group’s needs. Students are able to assemble tables/chairs/beanbags/two-
way whiteboards/ to meet their preferred approach to practice in the collaboration and learning zones.
The Library, more generally provides spaces that allow for a range of study modes, including quiet study,
(collection and quiet zone). Research (Research Zone), and group work (Collaboration, Zone). A significant
number of loan laptops have been made available in the many of the libraries.
2. Design to maximise the inherent flexibility Provision: Learning and Research zones contain a range of movable chairs/tables/beanbags/whiteboards
within each space. that maximise flexibility.

Experience: As indicated in Principle 1, students can manipulate props to fit appropriate study styles.
During different parts of the semester, students may move furniture to allow for larger study groups and
projects, while during SWAT, they may form small study cells.
3. Design to make use of vertical dimension in Provision: where possible, walls have been used to extend the workable space by a flat screen monitors,
facilities. whiteboards and data projected images.

Experience: whiteboards and flat screen TV monitors have been used extensively for both study person
purposes, entertainment (screening Olympics) and messaging by students.
4. Design to integrate previously discreet Provision: multimedia content developed for a range of university services are played on flat screen panels
campus functions. in the Library.

Experience: the university services are played on the library flat- screen panels. An evaluation of the impact
of promotion of services will be conducted in early 2009.
5. Design features and functions to maximise Provision: Spaces are made available for the library user to adapt to meet their needs. Props are portable
teacher/ student control. where possible and users are given access to control electronic equipment in the environment.

Experience: Users move furniture and other props around the Library. Extensive use is made of whiteboard
spaces and flat panels are used with limited staff intervention.
6. Design to maximise alignment of different Provision: All refurbished libraries have space to support aspects of academic activity including research,
curricula activities. group work, individual study and multi-media work.

Experience: All refurbished libraries have spaces for group collaboration, multi-media computer labs, a
quiet research area and individual study. Our most recently refurbished library at the Gold Coast has a
presentation practice area.
7. Design to maximise student access to, use Provision: All areas are available for the students to use and manage themselves.
and ownership of, the environment.
Experience: Students are able to use any of the areas set aside for their use at any time the Library is open.

70 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Table 2. Student Characteristics and how our library spaces support them. (Adapted from: Lomas and Oblinger’s 2006 p.5.2)

Characteristic Provision for support

Digital. All Griffith libraries have ubiquitous wireless access, good mobile phone coverage, and computing labs to
allow students to be constantly connected to access material for both study and personal interest.
Mobile. All refurbished libraries in addition to the above facilities have free laptop loans available for students as
well as a significant number of power outlets to keep devices charged.
Independent. All libraries offer courses and training programmes to support students develop an independent, self-
regulated approach to learning.
Social. The Collaboration Zone has been designed to allow a broad range of groups to function based on the
student needs at different times of the semester.
Participatory. As indicated above, extensive services have been implemented to allow for ubiquitous access to a broad
range of work and social networking opportunities.

Table 3. Dominant Factors designed to increase ambience of refurbished spaces.

Dominant Factors Response

Natural Light. All spaces/rooms have outside windows with natural light in at least some part of the space.
Outside In. All spaces/rooms have outside windows that afford a view outside in at least some part of the space.
Zoning of Activity. The Library has a range of zones that reflect each of the dominant activities of the curriculum.
Declaration of Function. All areas afford an entrance area or a transition space outside the area that allows users to stop and
observe the appropriate behaviour expected in the area. Limited numbers of signs exist to reinforce
behaviours where necessary.
Use of Colour. The Library has adopted a vibrant range of colours that vary between zones based on expected functions.
Textures and materials. Textures and materials vary around the zones dependent on function. High pile carpet has been used in
quiet areas to reduce noise of ambient traffic. There is a range of soft furnishings available to users based
on availability and preference.
Familiar Props. Large tables with multiple chairs have been used in areas where noise and collaboration is sanctioned.
Specially designed seating, general power outlets and boutique tables have been installed in areas where
high laptop use is expected. Single study booths and tables with limited chairs have been provided in
areas where quiet study is expected.
Flexibility of Space. See point 2 in Table 1.
Provide spaces to Support Technology. The Library has ubiquitous wireless access. General power outlets have been installed extensively to
recharge portable devices. Presentation practice rooms are equipped with technology consistent with
their use.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 71

Supporting Teaching and Learning through the Intelligent Design of Learning Support Spaces: A Griffith University Example

noisy, mobile-friendly area while the upper floor is evolved. The frameworks enabled all those Conclusion
the collection, quiet study and mobile-free area. involved to understand the key principles and
In this paper we have described Griffith’s
to have a common understanding of the design
Unlike other sections, this area is not specifically development of the Library space as a support
objectives of the space. We also believe it helped
named but is dominated by the significant space for student and academic work. The
in clarifying to all parties the criteria we would use
presence of our physical collection. designing of the space was premised on
to judge the refurbishment a success.
supporting the key activities of teaching and
Obviously these were not the only inputs to design learning and research in the university and
Evaluation of spaces against the and will not be the only criteria for evaluation. We informed by some key frameworks we used for
principles also sought (and received extensive) input from development and evaluation of this space.
students/users (through the use of suggestion
Using the framework adopted by Jamieson et al.,
boards painted on walls in the refurbished library,
2000 Table 1 outlines how experiences align with
a mySpace page and food for comment deals), References
the espoused principles.
and engaged a marketing researcher to undertake
Lomas, C. and Oblinger, D. (2006), ‘Student
a qualitative study of student perceptions and
practices and their impact on learning space.’ In
desires prior to refurbishment. Following the
Reflections on the Approach Oblinger, D. (Ed.) Learning Spaces, EDUCAUSE
refurbishment, we also intend to conduct student
(www.educause.edu/learningspaces).
The use of this simple, tabulated approach has surveys and focus groups to solicit input on
helped Griffith to focus on some key driving satisfaction, functionality and ambience. We are Jamieson, P., Fisher, K., Gilding, T., Taylor, P.G.,
principles in designing a space to support the also proposing to undertake video surveillance and Trevitt, A.C.F. (2000), ‘Place and Space in the
teaching and research functions of the university. and areas to assess use and observe user activity Design of New Learning Environments.’ HERDSA
These frameworks were used extensively in patterns. 19(2): 221-237.
our discussions with architects and builders
Jamieson, P., Dane, J., and Lippman, C. (2005),
and assisted in supporting our decision making
‘Moving Beyond the Classroom: Accommodating
processes as the “Design and Construct” process
the changing pedagogy of higher education.’
Proceedings of the Forum of the Australasian
Association for Institutional Research.

72 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Centre for Teaching and Learning

5.6 Seminar Room

What it is? Why it is? 1. To secure a purpose-designed space for

academic staff development and support;
The University of Newcastle’s next generation The Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL)
learning space is located in the Centre for was established at the end of 2006 to assume 2. To provide a collaborative learning space
Teaching and Learning (CTL) within the Auchmuty a leadership role in learning and teaching at the for academics who facilitate the learning
Library building of the University’s Callaghan University of Newcastle. Its mission included of students who use collaborative student
campus. It is adjacent to the Auchmuty improving support for high quality teaching and learning spaces;
Information Common, a dynamic student learning across the following five core function
3. To resource the space with up to date
space incorporating a café, computer facilities, areas: Teaching and Learning Support and
equipment to support e-technology mediated
photocopying facilities, and information desk. Development, Educational Resources Support
teaching and learning; and
The CTL Seminar room is primarily accessed by and Development, Learning Support, Teaching
academic and teaching staff at the University of Spaces Support and Office of the Directorate. 4. To provide opportunities for modelling best
Newcastle. practice interactive learning experiences that
Critical to the successful achievement of the
can be transferred into the teaching of the
The educational technology infrastructure cost Centre’s mission has been the design and
participants' students.
$43 500 and the cost of the refurbishment was development of its purpose-built spaces. The
approximately $25 000. first, for Teaching and Learning Support and Additionally, this learning space, through
Development workshops and seminars, was the application of multimedia technologies,
Consistent with the commitment to create an
designed in a way that would reflect and reinforce complements the following aims of the overall
environment for promoting student-centred teaching,
the University’s commitment to fostering an academic development program, that include:
core elements of the workshop and seminar
environment that promotes quality, collaborative
space are flexibility of seating and desk space and 1. Modelling activities that engage learners,
learning through the application of principles of
cutting edge educational e-technology for optimal particularly those that utilise interactive
scholarly teaching and student-centred learning.
interactivity and participant engagement. So, tables technology and facilitate collaborative or
and chairs can be arranged in multiple ways and are An important component of the CTL’s peer-based learning;
easily moveable. E-technology includes an interactive responsibilities is to develop and conduct
2. Providing programs at different levels of
whiteboard, data projector, videoconference workshops and courses that model, support
sophistication for academics with different
screen and facilities, 20 laptops with wireless and enhance teaching and learning for and
levels of teaching experience;
connectivity, and most importantly, Genesis™ with academic staff. Creating a technologically
interactive technology. The latter allows for maximum innovative and pedagogically sound seminar 3. Fostering scholarship of disciplinary teaching
interactivity, among workshop participants, and room for academic development had four core and learning; and
between participants and workshop facilitators. motivations:
4. Evaluating the quality of learning using
educational technology.

A significant aspect of the planning and

Gail Huon, Heather Sharp

development of the space was the collaboration
and input from staff from the CTL, especially
university of newcastle, australia the teaching spaces support team, University
architects, facilities management, and information
technology. Importantly, the collaboration
occurred from the outset. Traditionally, teaching
spaces support teams (or their equivalent) are
responsible only for the technical aspects of

rooms such as lecture halls, tutorial rooms, and
computer labs. Typically, their role is to ensure
that the computer systems operate efficiently
and are called upon to fix issues that arise when
users of the technology have problems, such as

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 73

Centre for Teaching and Learning Seminar Room

Lectopia™ not operating effectively. In the design What happens here? “Teaching is a scholarly activity and a life-long
of the CTL seminar room, however, this was not learning process with no single method or
The CTL Seminar Room provides a space for
the case, with the teaching spaces support team pedagogy that is most effective” (Ali, 2005, p.
the facilitation of experiential learning in a higher
involved in the planning from the initial stages. 243). This statement is taken with the view, in this
education context that is grounded in recognised
context, that there are various ways to facilitate
From the outset, those with relevant expertise pedagogy theories combined with the use of
student-centred learning approaches in face-to-
made decisions in either educational technologies innovative multimedia technology. The University
face learning contexts, both mediated through
or student-centred pedagogical practices. has a strong commitment to high quality student-
e-technology and not.
Importantly, the CTL, guided by information centred learning, and many of the participants
provided by the experts, was involved in the at workshops are adult learners. Facilitation of The pedagogical approach combined with the
decision-making processes. sessions in this space are, therefore, characterised physical space encourages interaction between
by active and reflective, group-based and participants. In particular, sessions are based on the
collaborative inquiry-based experiences that premise that participants will work with each other
It is widely acknowledged that student group are designed to promote deep and continued and facilitators on aspects of teaching and learning,
learning spaces incorporated in university library learning. Workshop participants are encouraged rather than a didactic approach to teaching, which
designs have become increasingly common in to reflect on the relevance and importance of encourages passive learning, through an “…
order to meet the learning needs of students these experiences for promoting high quality approach of transferring technical information…to
(e.g. Bennett, 2006). Less common, however, learning among the students they teach. students…” (Barraket, 2005, p. 67).
are learning spaces specifically designed for
Educational technologies are integrated in
the learning needs of academic staff. The CTL
academic workshops in ways that contribute
workshop and seminar room was deliberately
to the enhancement of participant learning,
designed as a dedicated space for academic
rather than being used principally because the
development. Creating a space that enables
technology is available. This is one measure used
meaningful social interactions and collaborations
to align pedagogy and workshop outcomes,
between participants in ways that encourage deep
ensuring that facilitators acknowledge that
learning, was at the forefront of the design stages
of this learning space.

Essentially, constructivist pedagogical principles

informed the development of the CTL seminar
room, with particular attention being paid to
principles relevant to, or able to be modified for,
high quality adult learning. They are Vygotsky’s
social constructivism and Zone of Proximinal
Development (ZPD) (McInnerney & McInnerney,
2002), and an inquiry-based approach drawing on
Dewey’s theories of constructing learning (Dewey,
1966). Both Vygotsky and Dewey are aligned
philosophically and the theories mentioned here
encourage active learning processes within social,
or group, contexts.

Figure 1. Participant logging in to Genesis™

74 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 There is a strong focus on modelling teaching and
learning approaches that participants, who are
typically academic staff with teaching responsibilities,
can incorporate into their own teaching practice. In
using the seminar room for academic development
in the areas of enhancing teaching and learning skills
for teaching academics, a principle of co-facilitating
workshops between academics positioned in the
CTL and faculty academics has been established.
This way, the authenticity and relevance of the
workshop by having a faculty academic as a co-
facilitator, is enhanced.

Emphasis is placed on facilitating engaging

activities that enable participants to examine
their teaching and learning styles and activities
that demonstrate collaborative learning activities.
This approach also ensures best practice use
of cutting edge educational technology, such as
the wireless interactive technology of Genesis™
is modelled. Genesis™ is a classroom based
teaching tool that enables participants to connect
Figure 2. Facilitator guiding participant though Genesis™ chat facilities
with each other and the facilitator through the use
of laptops with wireless capabilities. Participants
These approaches are underpinned by the 50
can communicate both one-on-one and through
45 Physical environment (n = 123)
aim of the Teaching and Learning Support and 40
e-Infrastructure (n = 83)
whole-class discussion.
P
Development team that is to support staff in taking e
r
35
c
a scholarly approach to teaching and learning. e
n
30

t 25
This approach is characterised by: f
20 How is technology used?
r
e
q 15
1. reflective practice, where teaching and u
e 10 Combining educational technologies with student-
n

learning is developed through: self reflection; c

y 5
centred pedagogical approaches used in order to
peer review and feedback from colleagues; 0
outstanding very good good adequate poor present workshop content is an important aspect of
student feedback; and the scholarship of Figure 3. Satisfaction of physical environment and educational technology workshop design and delivery. How pedagogies and
from 4 workshops
teaching and learning; educational technologies are combined and effectively
2. student-centred teaching; integrated into workshops is explored here.

3. teaching that engages students intellectually How is the space used? The initial conceptualisation of the learning
and develops their professional and practical space included a large focus on showcasing
The CTL seminar room is designed for seminar, collaborative learning possibilities. Embedding
capacities; and
forum and workshop-style events for up to 20 the multi-media technologies in workshop
4. engagement in open, critical dialogue about people. The space allows for maximum flexibility, planning has enabled this to be realised. As a
teaching and learning, and the exchange particularly in the use of modularised furniture that result, learning activities take place which provide
of ideas and strategies within and across can be configured in a variety of ways to suit the participants with a combination of interactive
disciplinary boundaries. numbers of participants and the predetermined collaboration between participants, independent
aims and outcomes of sessions. of the facilitator as well as collaboration between
participants and facilitators. This is able to occur
through the use of Genesis™. Figures 1 and 2

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 75

Centre for Teaching and Learning Seminar Room

peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86 in Daniels, 2001, p. How was the facility evaluated?
57), in this case peers being fellow participants who
The space is systematically evaluated as part of
may have had experiences in either the content or
participant surveying, occurring at the end of each
the tools being used to learn the content.
workshop or course. Unsolicited informal feedback
Social constructivism aligns with computer provided by participants, such as through emails
educational technology mediated learning, when sent post-event, are also being collated to inform
the educational technology is seen as a tool to build evaluation and future planning for both the use of
on participants’ prior understanding and knowledge this space and future learning spaces.
of a particular topic. In recent years, with the wide
Specifically, the physical landscape of the
spread use of computer educational technologies,
environment is evaluated through the following
there has been an increase in the publications that
type of questions (adapted depending on the
link constructivism as a good practice pedagogy
workshop held) in the survey tool, with responses
to use with computer mediated learning within
marked on a five-point Likert scale:
higher education contexts (Laurillard, 2002). In
applying pedagogical practices to learning with 1. I rate the physical environment of the
Figure 4. Whole group reporting using Genesis™ e-technologies, Rubin (1996) asserts that when workshop (for the context of learning) as:
“Technology is viewed as a tool…in the context of
show Genesis™ being used by participants, with 2. I rate the convenience of the location of this
solving problems” it enables participants to assist
the guidance of a facilitator, in a collaborative workshop as:
one another. Whilst Rubin discusses this in the
learning workshop.
context of the mechanics of technology, this can 3. The infrastructure of the classroom (such
Vygotsky’s theory of social constructivism plays also be applied to content understanding. as computer technologies) enhanced my
an important role in mediating learning between learning experience:
In selecting the educational technology for the
the pre-existing knowledge participants bring to
seminar room, targeting facilities that were able 4. The layout of the classroom (eg desks,
workshops and the tools used in the workshop,
to effectively incorporate interactivity resulting chairs) was conducive to providing good
such as Genesis™ and the interactive whiteboard.
in heightened participant engagement was learning opportunities:
These tools are used in order to extend the
important. Consequently, interactive whiteboard,
learner’s knowledge, rather than as a reinforcing The space is also evaluated informally, through
video conferencing and most importantly,
tool or merely a superficial learning activity. In feedback based on observations of workshops
Genesis™ technology were selected to be
this way, the ‘tools’ (for example, Genesis™) “… from CTL and faculty-based facilitators. For
incorporated in the seminar room. The selected
act as cognitive scaffolds that facilitate extension example, through observation of participant
technologies are non-intrusive, though play an
of knowledge into related areas” (McInerney & movement and comfort during a number of
important role in facilitating workshops and other
McInerney, 2002, p. 45). This transformative workshops, it was decided that the furniture
sessions held in the seminar room. As mentioned
process has been successful in improving, selected was too large for the space available.
previously, sessions often utilise movable laptop
amongst other things, the likelihood of participants As a result, the furniture initially used was moved
computers that go online via wireless network. The
to integrate learning technologies into their own to another workshop space, and furniture that
network, Genesis™, enables virtual interactivity
teaching, as explained in the evaluation section fitted more ergonomically in the seminar room
between participants and facilitator(s) and allows
below. Embedded within Vygotsky’s theory of social was brought in. This has resulted in a more
all participants to observe the work of each other
constructivism is the Zone of Proximal Development comfortable workshop environment, enabling
and provide feedback as appropriate; and use of
(ZPD) (Daniels, 2001; Newman & Holzman, 1993), interactions between participants to continue in a
the interactive white board.
and an aspect of student-centred learning that heightened way, and in the way initially planned.
is applied in workshop facilitation. In this way,
Evidence from participants, gained through
mediating between educational technologies
surveys, indicates that the workshop space has
and workshop content, the facilitator assists, or
been rated a success, determined by post-survey
scaffolds, participants through individual problem
workshops conducted in particular when the
solving to achieve higher knowledge “under…
educational technologies are incorporated within
guidance or in collaboration with more capable
the workshop delivery and content.

76 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

The quality of the CTL collaborative learning space teleconferencing with participants on multiple sites What were the main lessons learned?
was rated on a five point scale from excellent and to hold one-topic forums in the space. Both
The effectiveness of the interactive technologies has
to poor by participants of workshops facilitated these endeavours will continue to promote and
been more positive than expected both in terms of
by the CTL during Semester 1, 2008. As figure encourage collaborative learning as an important
improving learning outcomes of participants and in
3 shows, a majority of participants thought the aspect of staff development activities at the CTL.
the positive attitudes displayed by participants using
physical environment and educational technology
Overall, the space design and equipment has e-technologies in a facilitated workshop. The success
(e-infrastructure) was outstanding or very good.
worked as planned. There were, however a number and learning benefits of using Genesis™ over
Another 22 percent (averaged result) thought that
of minor problems that presented. For example, other face-to-face activities when sharing detailed
they were good.
there was a plan to include couches and side information between participants was realised when
Analysed participant data indicates that in tables, but the limited physical space of the seminar for one particular workshop, Genesis™ was unable to
workshops where Genesis™ is used, the room prevented this from being actualised. As be used, due to technical difficulties, An activity that
e-interactive technology has enhanced the already detailed, changes in furniture were made had worked exceptionally well through the mediation
experience of participants, with 100 percent as a result of using space and realising the desk of Genesis™, did not work as well when participants
indicating they strongly agreed or agreed that configurations did not suit the desired workshop did not have the facility to display and thus draw
their experience had been enhanced. 83 percent outcomes in a completely satisfactory way. on explicitly and honestly on their responses to
of participants indicated the use of Genesis™ a set activity. As a result, conversations between
Problems to do with the use of Genesis™
enhanced learning opportunities for participants participants and the facilitators did not develop as
presented themselves early in the delivery of
through the facilitation of content. Demonstrating the deeply as it had in previous workshops. In this case,
workshops. It was realised that logging on in
transformative impact that modelling effective use the benefits of using Genesis™ were made evident,
a consistent way presented a challenge to the
of e-technologies has, 80 percent of participants and have encouraged its continued and greater use
facilitators, due to the number of steps needed to
indicated that they would consider using Genesis™ in workshops.
log onto the laptop, to the University server and
to support teaching and learning in their courses.
to Genesis™ itself. Although these steps cannot Plans are currently being considered to
Supporting the quantitative data, one participant be eliminated, focused training has enabled the implement this style of innovative use of teaching
commented that a workshop using Genesis™ process to be made clear and explicit to users of space, through interactive video conferencing,
technology was a positive experience, due to the the technology. Ongoing issues with the University’s with satellite campuses in Ourimbah (NSW
“Interaction, looking at the work of others really wireless capabilities, beyond the scope of the CTL, Central Coast), Port Macquarie and Singapore.
helped me understand the subject much better” have presented difficulties in using Genesis™. For Additionally, planning is currently underway
(anonymous participant, 29th May, 2008). example, when wireless connectivity is not working for another innovative learning space, to be
in the library, this impacts the seminar room, accessed primarily by students seeking to use
The main types of learning and teaching that occur
resulting in Genesis™ not being available. This Learning Support services. Experiences from the
in the seminar room are workshops and seminars
negatively impacts the intended learning of specific design and construction of the seminar room
for academic staff. These sessions are guided by
workshops. The University network is continuing and facilitation of workshops have informed the
the pedagogical approaches identified already in
to be improved. The e-technology problems have planning of two new learning spaces used by
this paper. Data of the effectiveness of the physical
highlighted the need to have a backup plan and the CTL. Aspects of the seminar room that need
space, content of workshops, activities conducted
hard copy resources. modification, or have been problematic, have been
and use of e-technologies is gathered through formal
detailed throughout this paper.
surveys completed by participants at the conclusion Genesis™ enables collaborative learning to
of workshops, and also through observations and take place in a way that can be modelled in The main advice relates to the planning and
reflections of the facilitators of sessions. a user-friendly way for both experienced and development of such a space and to the real value
inexperienced e-technology users. Figure 4 of having all expertise and experience involved from
In terms of comparison with intended usage,
shows Genesis™ being used during a workshop the outset. The CTL workshop space was truly
there is a clear alignment. The purpose of the
for participants to report to the whole workshop a collaborative endeavour, involving people from
space was to model student-centred approaches
group outcomes from a set activity. facilities management, IT, AV, and teaching and
through workshops designed for academic and
learning. All decisions, therefore, benefited from the
teaching staff. Survey data, as reported above,
expertise and experience of several key players.
has demonstrated that this has occurred. Future
plans for the use of the seminar room include

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 77

Centre for Teaching and Learning Seminar Room

Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Nicholas Barnham and Peter
Santone for their assistance in developing the multi
modal presentation that accompanied this paper.

References
Ali, S. (2005). Effective teaching pedagogies for computer
science. Mathematics and Computer Education, 39(3),
243-257.

Barraket, J. (2005). Teaching research method using a

student-centred approach? Critical reflections on practice.
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 2(2),
64-74.

Bennett, S. (2006). First questions for designing higher

education learning spaces. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 33(1), 14-26.

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and Education. USA: The

Macmillan Company.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A

conversational framework for the effective use of learning
technologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

McInnerney, D. & McInnerney, V. (2002). Educational

psychology: Constructing learning (3rd ed.). Frenchs
Forest: Pearson Education Australia.

Newman, F. & Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky:

Revolutionary scientist. London: Routledge.

Rubin, A. (1996). Educational technology: Support for

inquiry-based learning. Retrieved May 30, 2008 from
http://rapb.mspnet.org/index.cfm/8353

78 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Learning in the Spaces: A Comparative Study

5.7 of the Use of Traditional and ‘New Generation’

Library Learning Spaces by Various Disciplinary
Cohorts

The University of Queensland Library comprises 14 The Research library. They also confirmed what we know from
service delivery branches and a number of service observation: student demands of spaces change
On 12 August, surveys were distributed to students
support units. During 2008 the Library undertook during the academic year according to course
using four UQ Library branches. The surveys had
research into the use of library learning spaces. The progression and the nature of the assessment
three elements: a series of questions about the
research included a survey and a design workshop. tasks on which they are working. So flexibility is an
student’s intentions (what were they coming to the
The aim of the survey was to elicit information important design consideration.
library to do?); a floor plan on which they marked
about what happened during one day at four of
their movements and activities during their visit; and
the branches: the Social Sciences and Humanities
a series of exit questions to assess the success of
Library, the Dorothy Hill Physical Sciences and ‘My Time at UQ Library’ Survey
their visit (had they achieved their intentions?).
Engineering Library, the Biological Sciences Library
A survey was carried out during the course of
and the UQ Ipswich Library. These libraries serve In excess of 1500 responses were returned.
an entire day from opening to closing in four
obvious disciplinary cohorts. Two of the libraries Results show that students are intentional about
branches of the UQ Library: the Social Sciences
are products of ‘next generation’ design concepts their use of library spaces and services: they
and Humanities Library and the Dorothy Hill
and two await planned refurbishment. The design schedule their visit into their day; they appreciate
Physical Sciences and Engineering Library,
both of which have been identified for future
refurbishment, and the UQ Ipswich Library and the

Elizabeth Jordan, Tanya Ziebell

Biological Sciences Library, two ‘next generation’
learning spaces.
the university of queensland library, australia

Type of data collected

The survey was anonymous and only basic
workshop was conducted with focus groups of how much time they have to spend and what demographic data was collected. The time of entry
students and was intended to delve deeper into they need to achieve in that time; they know and exit was collected to establish hours of use.
student requirements of our spaces and to find out what spaces and services are available and
Information about student intentions for their use
what, to the students, represents an ‘ideal’ space are purposeful about where they go to work in
of the space was collected: what had they come
that would support them in various learning activities. the library according to their current task; and
to the library to do; why had they come to the
they expect to complete what they have to do.
The research focused on student use of library library to do this; where were they before; how
Students use the various types of spaces provided
learning spaces to gather information about long did they plan to stay there on that visit; where
in the library intelligently.
how students interact with one another, with in the library did they plan to work; was that their
technology, and with library learning spaces in A design workshop was held during the only visit to the branch on that day; and how often
their pursuit of learning outcomes. There were two week following the survey. Groups of students did they usually visit, in person, that branch/any
parts to the research: a survey in which students ‘designed’ their preferred learning space for UQ Library/non UQ libraries.
were asked to provide information about their three academic scenarios: collaborative group
Students were asked to mark the sequence of
use of the library and a design workshop, where work; an individually assessed piece of course
their activities on a floor plan of the branch and
student focus groups brainstormed their ideal work; and examination preparation. While each
include comments about what activities they did
space to support different learning activities. One group had its preferences, a number of common
and how long they spent on each activity.
research objective was to gather information about themes emerged. These included reliable and
how actual use of space compares with intended widespread access to the Internet; a range of Students were also asked ‘exit questions’: what
use. Another aim was to explore how student technology to support group work including voice had they actually done on this visit; what else
use of space relates the learning or research recorders, smart boards and printers; a steady beyond their original intent had they done and
activity being undertaken: do students undertake supply of drinking water and coffee; and adequate why; what more could the library provide to
self-directed work in quiet spaces and group work natural light. Services that provide convenience support them in their studies; had they spent as
in active spaces and how is technology used to are valued. The students affirmed that place much time as they had intended on this visit, and
support these activities? is important to them: they like to come to the if not why; and where were they going next?

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 79

Learning in the Spaces: A Comparative Study of the Use of Traditional and ‘New Generation’ Library Learning Spaces by Various Disciplinary Cohorts.

Number of respondents 2. Respondents also visited the other branches. These libraries contain
library to undertake social or collections that support the arts, social
Completed surveys numbered 1532 with the
sciences and humanities disciplines. These
following breakdown: Social Sciences and group learning activities
disciplines tend to still be more reliant on
Humanities Library: 492 (10 percent of the branch Students also came to the library to print materials than electronic, vis-à-vis the
gate figures that day); Dorothy Hill Physical undertake group work or meet friends. Using sciences. Students in the Social Sciences
Sciences and Engineering Library: 405 (19 percent services provided in person by library staff, and Humanities Library were also least
of gate figures); UQ Ipswich Library: 149 (23 was not identified by most students as their likely to be successful in finding journal
percent of gate figures); and Biological Sciences main reason for visiting the library. The lowest articles. The postgraduate cohort across all
Library: 486 (16.7 percent of gate figures). rated reasons why students were coming to libraries recorded the highest failure rate for
the library were to get research help, attend a finding journals.
training session, and get IT help.
Results and preliminary discussion Students in the Social Sciences and
Branch data mirrored that data obtained Humanities Library had most difficulty finding
from all respondents, with only slight course materials and also had the highest
1. Most respondents visited the variations. For example in the Social failure rate in using the High Use collection.
library to undertake individual Sciences and Humanities Library the most
In all libraries, fewer used their own laptops
study-related activities and they quoted reason for visiting was to undertake
than had intended, with the greatest
accomplished this. quiet study, followed by computer
variance being in the Social Sciences and
use. Data obtained from postgraduate
Most students (63.11 percent of all Humanities Library.
respondents also fit the pattern however
respondents) came to the library in order to
they were more likely than other students In all libraries, students met more friends
use a computer/laptop. Other popular reasons
to come to the library to seek assistance than intended, except at the Dorothy Hill
for coming to the library were, in ranked
from library staff. Physical Sciences and Engineering Library.
order, to undertake quiet study, find or borrow
books, work on an individual assignment, 3. In all but a few instances, 4. In all but a few instances,
use a printer or photocopier, and find journal respondents actually did less of respondents actually did more
articles. That is, the top five reasons for visiting what they had intended to do. ‘other’ things that they had
the library are individual activities.
The exception to this was students in the intended to do.
‘next generation’ libraries where more Everyone except Social Sciences and
worked at computers than had intended. Humanities Library users did more of ‘other’
It seems that students met friends or things than they had intended. Fewer got
had other reasons to distract them. In all research help than had intended (and those
libraries fewer students achieved quiet numbers were small), likewise IT help.
study than had intended to, with the
greatest variation being in the yet-to-be-
refurbished Dorothy Hill Physical Sciences
and Engineering Library. Students in this
library also did less work on an individual
assignment, made less use of printers/
photocopiers, and did less group work
than they had intended.

Students at the UQ Ipswich Library and

Social Sciences and Humanities Library
were least likely to be successful in finding/
borrowing books than students using the

80 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

5. Most respondents chose to 6. All cohorts put location, Library. This is a not surprising outcome, given
work in the library because it is atmosphere, study space, and that the two former libraries serve the humanities
conveniently located and provides finding what they need above and social sciences disciplines that are still more
good study spaces. the social reasons (group print-reliant than the science, medicine and
technology disciplines served by the other two
The highest cited reasons why students
meeting or meeting friends).
libraries.
chose to undertake their activities in the library Most of the students who attributed their visit
were: convenient location (50.9 percent of all to the library to the fact that their group was
respondents); good study/working spaces; meeting there were using the UQ Ipswich
good study atmosphere; and it was the only Library. This was followed by the Dorothy
place to find what they needed. This was Hill Physical Sciences and Engineering
consistent across the branches surveyed. Library, the Social Sciences and Humanities
Convenient location was the top reason for Library, and finally the Biological Sciences
all respondents and all libraries except the Library. These results may be outcome of the
newer UQ Ipswich Library where ‘good study/ availability of alternative group working sites
working spaces’ ranked first, with ‘good study within reasonable proximity.
atmosphere’ a close second.
Most of the students visiting the Social
Sciences and Humanities Library went
there because it was the only place to find
what they needed. This was followed in
order by the UQ Ipswich, the Biological
Sciences Library and finally, the Dorothy Hill
Physical Sciences and Engineering

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 81

Learning in the Spaces: A Comparative Study of the Use of Traditional and ‘New Generation’ Library Learning Spaces by Various Disciplinary Cohorts.

7. Most respondents visited the 10. Students spent most of their time 12. Students wanted the library to
library after they had been at in the library using computers and provide more computers and
home or at a class. quiet study spaces. more quiet areas.
8. Most respondents planned to Computers are the most used facility in the There were 771 responses to the question
stay in the library for between 30 library: 25 percent of respondents spent about whether library could do more to
minutes and two hours 53 percent of their time using a library support them in their studies. One student
computer/laptop. After computers, students wrote ‘More computers. Sometimes it is
Around a third of students (32.69 percent) made use of the quiet study carrels in the quite difficult to find somewhere to study
planned only a quick visit (less than 30 library: 11.8 percent of respondents spent (with a computer), if you come during the
minutes) and 22.61 percent planned to 53 percent of their time using this facility day. Need to be here by 9am to get a
stay for longer than two hours. (students also used laptops in quiet study study spot with a computer.’ Another said
carrels). The next area most used was the ‘The library is great except for all the other
9. Respondents were regular
group study rooms/tables: 7.67 percent students.’ Students wanted the library
library visitors.
of students spent 28 percent of their time to enforce quiet in designated areas and
Most respondents (58 percent) said they visit a in group areas. The information desk, Ask objected to other students talking loudly on
UQ Library daily, and 42 percent of them visited IT desk, and loans desk together were mobile phones. These results are consistent
more than once on the survey day. Many visit cited as areas used by just 7.54 percent of with the outcomes of client surveys.
at least weekly and only 5 percent responded individuals, who spent 2.5 percent of their
that they visited infrequently (less than monthly). time here on the survey day.
Design workshop
In addition, 30 percent of respondents visit The survey was followed a week later with a two-
non-UQ libraries at least once a month. Social
11. Students also used email in the
hour design workshop. Incentives to participate
Sciences and Humanities Library respondents library, used the Internet, met
were offered. Eighteen students participated and
(at 48 percent) and postgraduates (at 43 or chatted with their friends, were divided into three groups. The students were
percent) are less likely to be daily visitors to the ate, borrowed books, and used undergraduates and postgraduates, and enrolled
library than other cohorts. Facebook. in different programs. Completion of the space use

82 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

survey was not a prerequisite but was mentioned at the same time valued a view to the outside Alternatives to fluorescent lighting were
to set the scene. world. Students expressed a preference for proposed: natural light or adjustable
working in rooms rather than in open areas. lighting/lamps perhaps.
The flexible learning space setting – the
Collaborative Teaching and Learning Centre Students liked the group rooms in the Tables should be large, to provide space
(CTLC) – supported the use of instruction, Biological Sciences Library, which include to spread out, read, and work at a
collaboration, and reporting. technology that supports cooperative computer. Chairs should be comfortable
group work: plasma screens to which and height adjustable. Students expressed
The student experience was critical and the
laptops can be connected allow multiple a desire to be allowed to eat and drink
workshop aim was to tease out ‘the ideal’ for
group members to view an assignment and while they worked, and requested more
students. Three scenarios were put to the groups
whiteboard walls allow students to map water fountains. If students had access
who brainstormed the ideal space that would
concepts and write notes. They said they to a space that met their needs, then they
support them best in that learning activity.
wanted rooms to contain whiteboards with would prefer to remain there.
1. What resources and space are inbuilt printers or ‘smart boards’ to capture
2. What resources and spaces are
desired for group work? and facilitate the sharing of electronic
content, and printers/scanners. desired for individual assignment
Groups were asked to imagine that work?
they had been set an assignment that Students wanted access to multiple
required collaboration with other students. computers and power points, as well as Students expressed a preference for
Interestingly, groups thought of this in Internet and wireless access for laptops working in an enclosed private space and
terms of working together physically. and mobile devices. requested bookable, swipe card accessible,
sound-proof rooms. This is consistent with
To support this activity, students wanted Spaces that simulate the presentation
results from client surveys: students would
bookable, swipe card accessible study environment and allow students to rehearse
like 24 hour, swipe card access to study
rooms fitted with plasma screens or presentations were desirable. These
spaces. Security was a consideration.
projectors. Rooms should be spacious and spaces would provide the appropriate
Students wanted lockable rooms or lockable
soundproof, and students wanted privacy but technology, including voice recorders.
desks so they could leave their belongings

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 83

Learning in the Spaces: A Comparative Study of the Use of Traditional and ‘New Generation’ Library Learning Spaces by Various Disciplinary Cohorts.

safely if they had to get up for breaks. 3. What resources and spaces and wanted the library to move more
are desired when preparing for textbooks into the High Use area around
Again students expressed a preference
exam time. They wanted past exam papers
for large tables that provided space to exams?
within reach and extended opening hours –
spread out books and work at a computer
Students valued a ‘soothing environment’. to midnight, or 24-hour access.
(students are regularly observed working on
They wanted to be able to study in
the floor with their laptop and books spread
comfortable, attractive spaces with natural
out around them.) They repeated the desire
light and fresh air if possible. They also Conclusions
for alternatives to fluorescent lighting.
wanted minimal distractions.
Place is important. Despite wanting online access
Students wanted to be able to access
When studying for exams, they wanted to journals, books, forums, and help, students
electronic books and journals, as well as
access to individual study rooms that were like to come to the library. While students want
online forums for their courses, to engage
bookable (for entire days) and fitted out online access to materials, forums that provided
with other students and their lecturer.
with whiteboards. They would prefer tables engagement with other students and lecturers,
They wanted easy access to computers,
bigger than current library carrels so they and even support such as the library’s online chat
including some that did not require a login
could spread out textbooks and notebooks. service, results from the design workshop were
for quick catalogue searches. Students also
Security was raised again. A suggested that staff support available in person in the library
wanted the library to provide specialised
alternative to rooms was the concept of and having their ‘own space’ within the University
software required by their courses. Again,
lockable desks so items could be left safely were all valued aspects of the library as place.
they wanted access to more power points
if students wanted to get up for a break.
for laptop and iPod recharging. The Flexibility in spaces is important. Students
Comfortable chairs were also appreciated.
students also requested cheaper printing, acknowledged that their need for space differs
more download quota, more scanners and Students wanted easy access to things during semester. This reinforces the need for
recharge machines on every floor (to top up to help them study and make good use of libraries to think about flexible designs that
credit to pay for printing). their time, like stationery vending machines accommodate needs at various times of the year.
and fast printing facilities. They wanted
Students would value devices that help Convenience is valued by students. Students
water fountains on each level of the library
them save time, especially with locating are busy and the more we can do to provide
and permission to eat and drink while
books. Many said they did not understand convenient access and desirable spaces, the
studying (they also requested that more
the classification system and had difficulty better their experience is likely to be. Things like
bins be provided). The survey found that
locating items on the shelf. They were easy access to water fountains, multiple access
having to leave the library in order to eat/
positive about online features that might points to libraries, toilets on every level, and
get a coffee meant that students ‘lost their
assist such as receipts showing call permission to eat and drink – all help to optimise
place’, and it was one reason why they did
numbers and book locations, which could their time in the library.
not stay as long as they had intended.
be printed from catalogue records, or
Students wanted to find communal areas The information obtained from the research into
being able to SMS a call number from the
in the library where they could take a study student use of library and learning spaces will be
catalogue to their mobile phone.
break, relax, and socialise. In these areas considered along with the results of library surveys
Many of the students wanted libraries to be when developing spaces to suit learning needs.
they would like bean-bags, comfortable
quiet spaces and suggested social spaces in
couches, free lockers for storage and free
the library should be separately located. They
tea and coffee.
also wanted printers, copiers, and recharge
machines to be isolated to contain noise. Students were aware that their demands
of spaces vary during the course of the
academic year. They felt that access
to computers was not as important at
exam time as it was at other times during
semester. At exam time students wanted
more online textbooks and semester loans

84 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 The Hawthorn Project Hub at Swinburne

5.8 University of Technology

What it is? Why it is? services departments has provided a means

of multidirectional communication about the
The Hawthorn Project Hub is located within the Over 2006 and 2007, research was undertaken
process and product requirements of a project-
Hawthorn Campus of Swinburne University of with students to gain a better understanding of
based curriculum, and the characteristics of
Technology in Melbourne, Australia. It occupies group project experiences at Swinburne. Findings
a project-oriented campus space. The most
approximately 1,000sqm in a former basement car from this research included a strong indication that
critical decisions have been around how we
park. It has direct access to the library ‘Late Lab’. space for project teams to meet was the single
develop a space that fosters independence and
The overall budget for the project was $2.5m. most important thing we could do to improve their
accommodates the needs of student project
work. Along the way, the design team have been
responsible for the final decisions on how the
space is developed. However, in every case, the
reference group has been consulted and asked
for feedback as the plans have evolved. In the
latter stages, dealing with the detail of access,
policies, promotion and support has fallen to
a management group. The group continues to
use the input of stakeholders from across the
institution for decision-making.

In tertiary education over recent years there has

been a shift towards constructivist approaches
to learning and teaching that emphasise active,
collaborative, peer and social learning (Brown,
2005; Lee, 2006). Reflecting this shift, a key
feature of the Swinburne Professional Learning
Figure 1: Hub floorplan
model is that from 2009 all undergraduate
students’ final year will include one quarter of
the workload as major professional projects

Nicolette Lee – ‘capstone projects’. These projects are an

opportunity to develop professional and personal
swinburne university of technology, australia maturity in Swinburne graduates, with an
emphasis on inter-discipline, teamwork, industry
relevance and/or partners, project management
and a range of skills and knowledge gained
experience. This was more important overall than through active, hands-on, real world experiences.
The Hawthorn Project Hub has been designed
curricula or pedagogical changes. Students and As with the project units that have been running
to take up every inch of the available footprint
academics also reported a strongly positive sense across the disciplines for many years, a great
(see figure 1), accommodating group and
of community, ownership and commitment to number are designed as group projects of
individual work, meetings with clients and other
their work in those cases where dedicated project significant complexity and scope. In all cases,
external partners, and every aspect of project
spaces were available. It became clear that the students are expected to collaborate effectively,
development barring physical prototyping. It
physical environment had a significant impact on manage their time, and work productively in a
houses a combination of meeting and boardrooms,
team and project experiences. manner that reflects a professional approach.
social and informal learning spaces designed
The Hawthorn Project Hub is intended as a place
to accommodate group practices. The Hub Over the first half of 2008, a team from the
that responds to the needs of a project–based
is accessible to final year students only, and Swinburne Professional Learning Unit and
curriculum, and to facilitate a student community
has gallery spaces and the facilities to deliver Facilities and Services has been working to
of practice.
presentations to project clients, and exhibitions of design the Hub. A reference group including
student work to large groups. students, academics, management and

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 85

The Hawthorn Project Hub at Swinburne University of Technology

What Happens Here? approximately 2200 students will be undertaking furnishings and fittings to support both informal
projects in 89 units of study at the Hawthorn and formal group activity. Additional booths and
The fundamental purpose of the space is to
campus. Of these, following current patterns, tables are placed to make use of what would
provide a creative space for students to engage
we can estimate that around 1500 students are otherwise be ‘dead zones’ in the space due to
in their projects. The nature and scale of these
likely to be working in project teams. With current access issues, such as plant rooms and storage.
projects is a key underpinning consideration in
students reporting that there is insufficient meeting A street access will be opened up to create an
the design. Students working on major projects
space for group work, the matter of providing operable glass wall to allow the Hub to be opened
will often be required to work extensively together
learning spaces dedicated to this purpose was for public access for events such as student-
outside of class time, frequently across disciplines,
urgent. A lateral solution to this problem was organised exhibitions.
and for some, across faculties. They are expected
proposed – the transformation of a basement car
to meet and, working within their combined The whole space, in effect, will operate as a
park into a high-value student learning space.
timetabling constraints, develop ideas, produce formal and informal working and event space.
From February 2009, students working on
project outcomes and prepare and rehearse The openness of the space and its design to
projects will have exclusive use of the space to
presentations. Students engaged in major accommodate a variety of working activities will
carry out project work.
professional projects require spaces that facilitate allow students to make choices about how and
collaborative working and a sense of community. when they make use of the facilities. Feedback
from students and academics to date suggests
The Project Hub is a dedicated space, large How is the space used?
that this flexibility and sense of student-ownership
enough for various sizes of project teams, working
The space has been designed based on five is one of the most valued aspects of the design.
groups and activities, and is designed to provide
key concepts based on the project experience:
the context for: Learning spaces in universities are typically
creativity, interaction, reflection, action and
controlled by the university through timetabling
• T
 eam meetings, brainstorming sessions and communication. This has culminated in a design
and managed access. The Hub is a student-
general collaboration; based on three major design zones: creative,
owned learning space, designed to support
focus, and social.
• S
 mall group peer reviews and cross-group final year students in a professional community
collaboration; Creative zones are open spaces with half- of practice. The aim is therefore to provide
height wide shelving/benches providing curved students with a space that not only facilitates their
• P
 roject development including writing and
boundaries. These boundary walls also provide project work, but is also a learning experience in
multimedia work;
storage and high sitting or working space. Inside itself, effecting a transition to independence. A
• P
 resentations including inter and intra group the walls, comfortable tub seating and low tables management committee model, including student
rehearsal and review; are oriented to wall-length whiteboards. representation, will drive future directions for
design and management of the Hub, and inform
• Individual and informal social study; and Focus zones are designed in several types:
new campus developments. Faculties are also
small group meeting rooms accommodating
• M
 eetings and presentations with external exploring the use of student experiences on a
4-6 students (the average team size);
partners or clients. Hub Committee as part of the project experience
boardrooms designed for meeting clients or
in itself.
In 2007, a proposal was put forward to Swinburne giving presentations; and a desktop computer
Council to develop a dedicated project space for area. The computer area is designed to be wide
students at the Hawthorn Campus. The proposal enough to accommodate groups of students
How is technology used?
was based on an evaluation of need in three gathering at a computer. An additional ‘docking’
areas: student experience of group projects, bench is provided at one end of the space along Technology is to be used to support project
increasing emphasis on project-based learning an otherwise unusable wall, for laptop use and activity, including the collaborative processes,
experiences in final year studies, and student recharging. client presentations and display of final project
reports of a sense of transience at the Hawthorn outcomes. For day-to-day working needs,
Three social zones are to be furnished with soft
campus. Swinburne is among the most space- desktop PCs and laptop loans have been built
movable seating. In one, wall size pinboards
constrained universities in Australia, so space in to the plans for the Hub. The infrastructure to
dominate. In the largest, a projection screen
is at a premium. Using commencement data support their use includes extensive power access
makes use of the biggest wall space and viewing
and current student data we can estimate that and both hard and wireless networks. Boardrooms
distance in the Hub. Each area has differentiated

86 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

and meeting rooms will have LCD screens with the Professional Learning Model’ (Australian
wired connections for laptops and projectors. Universities Quality Agency, 2008). While the Hub
In the largest social space a wall-size projection now goes into full construction, more campus
screen is fed by a ceiling mounted projector learning spaces are proposed. A refurbishment
and DVD player with additional wall-mounted of the Lilydale Atrium is to include a mezzanine
speakers. Building on existing student familiarity project space for students, and independent
with the software, the potential for cross- learning spaces at the Hawthorn and Prahran
institutional and external partner collaboration is to campuses incorporate some of the student
be supported with web-conferencing. feedback from the hub concept. The themes
developed as part of the Hawthorn design, the
Along with the technology infrastructure, more
inclusive process, and the results of the first
traditional working tools are also to be fitted in the Maintaining this participatory process, the project round of evaluations, will also be fed back into
space, including wall-length whiteboards in the team is now recruiting a second-round reference the proposal stage for a new building at the
creative areas. Pin-up display systems for work in group comprising students from the Hawthorn Prahran campus. Students in Interior Design
progress are included along corridor walls. All of Campus, academics, facilities and services and were also briefed with the same project, and the
the fitted technology is designed to serve double library staff. The purpose of this group will be to outcomes are to be shared with a newly formed
duty as part of the working experience of students establish how to best manage the day-to-day management committee, and have the potential to
doing group work, and for exhibitions and events. running of the space, student representation, inform future campus development.
The large projection screen, for example, faces communications, room bookings and access
into the largest open social space, allowing for as a starting point. Subsequent management
large audiences. Displays and focus room screens of the space will be taken on by a management What were the main lessons learned?
mean that every space in the Hub can be utilised committee including student representatives.
for showing as well as developing project work. In the early stages, we were surprised by the
The next formal evaluation will be a post- sheer number of stakeholders, and confronted
occupancy evaluation of the space. It is this stage by the need to incorporate the sometimes
How was the facility evaluated? of the evaluation cycle that presents the greatest very different perspectives of different groups.
challenges in aligning the evaluation method with The task of bringing together those needs and
Informal and formal evaluation cycles have the philosophy, participatory process and practical building consensus required a level of vision
been incorporated into the conceptualisation, outcomes that drove design intent. However, it is and communication that challenged us, but we
proposal, planning, and design phases of the also crucial as the formative model for a full design believe that it also drove the design to a more
project Hub process. The Swinburne Professional and evaluation process, and as a source of data sophisticated level. Strategic direction and
Learning Model, the nature of project curricula for new informal and collaborative spaces. budgetary drivers, as described by Hunter (2006),
and the experiences of students undertaking
As a result, a proposal is underway to develop our have certainly contributed to the decision-making
group projects, have highlighted several
evaluation processes further in a comprehensive process and their impact needs to be taken
practical environment needs. Building on some
cycle, taking into account the challenges into consideration in any space planning and
of the insights presented by Jamieson (2007),
presented in incorporating the needs of a range of evaluation process. Having a space that was
multiple stakeholders have been involved
stakeholders. Two national universities - Victoria originally designed for utilitarian plant purposes
in the development of ideas and plans as a
University and the University of Queensland – are has also proven challenging. Agreement has
reference group or actively within the team.
working with us to share evaluation practices. had to be reached to suit the needs of electricity
The reference group represents a wide range
Three international universities and several providers, plant machinery and extraction
of perspectives, interests and needs regarding
organisations involved in the development systems, while maintaining a workable design for
the design and evaluation of learning spaces.
and evaluation of learning spaces, have also the students. Managing sound, air, light, heating
Students, academics, management and services
volunteered their assistance as critical friends. and access all have presented design challenges
departments have all been involved in the design
to be overcome.
process, and have provided feedback on the The 2008 AUQA (Australian Universities Quality
relationship between the space and curriculum Audit) panel affirmed the Hub’s curriculum- There was also an unanticipated challenge in
requirements. focused design direction, its validity for Swinburne managing the access systems through our
students and as an ‘essential component of student management system. Collaboration

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 87

The Hawthorn Project Hub at Swinburne University of Technology

between the team, ITS, the library, and Facilities consult widely but also to present a vision with References
and Services has been needed to solve technical which stakeholders could engage. Support from
Australian Universities Quality Agency. (2008). Report of
issues in identifying and providing access to senior management in the university has also been an audit of Swinburne University of Technology.
students that we would not have guessed at in phenomenal – including those whose parking
Brown, M. (2005). Learning spaces. In D. G. Oblinger
our early planning, nor would we have been able spaces are being co-opted. Their advice and
& J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation.
to begin to solve them without the active support interest has empowered us to drive forward the Washington: Educause.
of those groups. The final resolution of some of vision and understand the potential obstacles to
Hunter, B. (2006). The Espaces study: designing,
these issues may not be achieved until several campus development.
developing and managing learning spaces for effective
iterations of trials have established the limitations learning. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 12(2),
and opportunities of the systems already in place. 61-81.
Acknowledgements Jamieson, P. (2007, 4th - 5th July). Rethinking the
Most positively, the enthusiasm of students
University Classroom: Designing ‘Places’ for Learning.
and academics about the space and the We are delighted to acknowledge the work of
Paper presented at the Inaugural Next Generation
vision of student engagement with it have the team from SPL and Facilities & Services, in Learning Spaces Colloquium.
been extraordinary. We initially anticipated that particular Briony Jennings and Vince Persi for their
Lee, N. (2006). Design as a learning cycle: a
academics might find the idea that students would unceasing support and contributions. From the
conversational experience. Studies in Learning,
invite them into the space to be an uncomfortable wider team, we also offer our thanks to DL Design Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 3(2), 12-22.
one. On the contrary, they have embraced the (architects) the staff of the Hawthorn library, our
concept and given their own time to sourcing DVC (Academic) Dale Murphy and Dean (L&T)
feedback on how student management might be Margaret Mazzolini, who drove the idea and
achieved and facilitated. Our consultative process sought funding for it. Last but not least, thanks
with representative groups evolved over the period to the many academics and students who have
of the design development. In particular, students engaged in the design development process.
and academics have been extraordinarily insightful
and supportive and could have been even more
involved in the design process given sufficient time
to deal with the communication issues that arise
when engaging with many perspectives. However,
the management group for the Hub will become
a resource that we can use in the development of
new learning spaces across the campuses. Focus
groups are now being arranged with students
to establish their perceptions of the feasibility of
student engagement and representation in the
direction of campus spaces.

We believe that the fundamental task in

developing new learning spaces is to identify and
understand the needs of stakeholders. Asking
the target users about their environmental needs
and understanding the curriculum it was to serve,
in our case, were also crucial. This allowed us to

88 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Lab 2.0

5.9

What it is? Why it is? • Ensuring physical and technological flexibility

Lab 2.0 is an experimental learning space designed In the area of virtual learning environments o De-emphasing fixed technology
for students to be able to alter their physical considerable thought and attention has been (Long Ehrmann 2005)
environment to suit their learning needs. Students given to the concepts, tools and opportunities
o Creating spaces with a memory (Milne 2007)
are encouraged to "make the space work for them" surrounding Web 2.0. The Lab 2.0 concept has
with new non-traditional forms of movable furniture been underpinned by the idea that we might apply o Providing tools for (collaborative)
and related technology. The space is enhanced with the affordances that Web 2.0 culture provides remediation of digital content
technology and collaboration software that enables within virtual spaces, to the design of physical
o Leveraging student technologies including
mobile devices

• E
 nsuring that the space was zoned for
Dr Geoff Mitchell, sound and activity
Greg Winslett, Dr Gordon Howell • E
 nsuring that the space supported ongoing
queensland university of technology, australia experimentation and evaluation that can
guide ongoing institutional adoption.
(O’Brien 2006)

• E
 nsuring that the outcomes established
students to share project work, documents and spaces. In mapping this virtual to physical cross- in the spaces could be cost effectively
artefacts in real-time with other group members. over, the design of the initial Lab 2.0 space was replicated elsewhere across QUT.
based on a number of objectives including:
The Lab 2.0 space has been developed in a
vacant space within the Library building on • M
 oving from the perspective of a computer
the Gardens Point campus. It sits adjacent to lab as an information access space to the lab
more formal computer labs and is seen as a as a participation/interaction space.
complementary addition to the more structured
• P
 roviding students with some sense of
University computing facilities. The space covers
ownership and control of the space.
approximately 350 square metres and was
redeveloped with a focus on flexibility, simplicity • D
 esigning the space around architectures of
and reuse resulting in a total development cost of participation.
slightly less than $90,000 including all furniture,
• Installing fittings and technologies that
technology, power and data fittings. Based on
allow the space to evolve rather than ‘be
traditional figures for space redevelopment within
designed’.
the University, the space was redeveloped for
between a third and a fifth of the normal costs In seeking to achieve these objectives, the first
associated with space redevelopment. Lab 2.0 space was established as an ongoing
experiment to test next generation learning
spaces design principles. The space was co-
designed with students with a focus at the outset
on meeting changing student learning needs
rather than designing in response to a particular
pedagogical specification. To meet the challenge
of providing a space that could be used in a
variety of ways there was an emphasis on:

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 89

Lab 2.0

What happens here? supports their needs to manipulate text and graphics How is the space used?
and utilise visual frameworks and models, as part of
The space is used in a variety of different ways In order to support a variety of uses and reflecting
their assessment and problem solving activities.
depending on the time of the semester. At a broad its experimental heritage, all the furniture in the
level the space is used in the first and last parts A number of staff teams involved in various project space is both lightweight and easily portable
of the semester as an individual reflective space, related activities have been observed using the allowing students to make the space their own.
however during the middle of the semester (weeks space suggesting that the utility or this type of Furniture ranges from non-traditional recyclable
4 -11) the design of the space facilitates group space extends beyond student requirements furniture designed specifically to support dynamic
collaborative activities. During this time a range to more broadly the support of group based group work, to more traditional ergonomic lab-
of different group related activities have been activities. Staff adoption also suggests that based furniture. The sense of ownership and
observed including: attraction to the use of ‘funky’ and non-traditional privacy is enhanced by the use of lightweight
furniture is not limited to younger students. It expandable paper walls that student use to create
• R
 eal World Learning and Work Integrated
appears that the shear functionality and flexibility their own ‘private’ space.
Learning
of the space is the defining characteristic.
• Peer Partnering and Peer Assessment
The common characteristic for all users appears
to be their desire to use a range of technologies in
How is technology used?
• Problem Based and Inquiry Based Learning
an easily configurable group setting to share and Like the furniture, the computers and plasma
• Reflective, Creative and Critical thinking
jointly create documents, diagrams, and models screens that form the basis of the technology
Observation of activities within the space and data and/or to access a range of technologies, tools provisioned into the space are designed to be
collected from survey results and wireless usage and content in order to solve problems. mobile and flexible. All technology is situated on
logs suggest that the predominant users of the mobile trolleys that utilise umbilical cords to allow
space are undergraduate students doing science students to move them around, within certain
or engineering units. It is speculated that the space parameters, to use them as they wish. The mobile

90 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

workstations allow individual use, facilitate connect How was the facility evaluated? • T
 echnology utilisation and adoption
to a student laptop and come installed with evaluation: facilitated by analysis of system
The evaluation of the space has been based on
TeamSpot software to aid group collaboration. and wireless access logs to provide an
a series of complementary and compounding
overview of technology use and preference.
TeamSpot software (http://www.tidebreak.com) evaluation methods allowing for both triangulation
One of the interesting elements of the
allows students to create virtual collaboration of key issues and analysis in depth of findings. The
analysis is the number of repeat users,
teams by connecting a number of their own approaches used to date include:
those students who return again and again
laptops to a central plasma screen and then either
• S
 tudent experience evaluation: facilitated by to use the space – an indication, in part, of
share documents via the central screen, share
an ongoing space user’s survey designed the durability of the design to meet ongoing
documents with other laptops in the team and/
gather data about student attitudes to the needs.
or co-create documents on the central screen.
space and its contribution to their learning
Unlike collaboration spaces that use small computer • E
 valuation of the level of knowledge work
experience. The survey contains both closed
screens, the use of larger plasma screens means undertaken in group collaboration sessions:
and open-ended questions designed to test
that a number of students can be meaningfully facilitated by informal analysis of the nature
students’ views of the space; the elements
engaged together in real group work. This high-tech of student content left on both the mobile
they like or dislike; the ways in which they
solution is matched with another popular low-tech collaboration workstations and whiteboards
use the space; and the technology they use
element in the space: small mobile whiteboards. at the end of each day.
in the space. The survey also as acts as a
A typical configuration in the space is four to five
mechanism to elicit further design ideas that
students with a range of furniture types suiting
will be used in the evolution of the space
both their own individual and group needs with a
over time. The survey remains open and to
whiteboard and a mobile collaboration workstation.
date there are over 100 responses.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 91

Lab 2.0

Two remaining forms of analysis are currently predict but spaces designed around flexible
being implemented. They are: fittings and technology allow students
References
themselves to design and redesign spaces to
• S
 pace utilisation and adoption evaluation: Ehrmann, S.C., Milam, J., and Group, T. (1999).
suit their specific and changing needs.
facilitated by time-lapse recording of the Flashlight Cost Analysis Handbook: Modelling
way in which the space is configured and • M
 obility of items increases utilisation – mobile Resource Use in Teaching and Learning with
reconfigured by students. It is expected collaboration workstations are utilised at a Technology: TLT Group.

that this will help confirm and provide an rate of 2 to 1 over the same technology fixed Long, P.D., and Ehrmann, S.C. "Future of the Learning
understanding of how the use of the space to the walls of the space. Space: Breaking Out of the Box," EDUCAUSE Review,
changes across the academic semester. vol. 40, no. 4 (July/August 2005): 42–58,
• T
 he way furniture is used by many students is
Milne, A.J., 2007, “Entering the Interaction Age:
• L
 earning outcomes evaluation: facilitated by sometimes inconsistent with the intentions of
Implementing a Future Vision for Campus Learning
student focus groups designed to unpack spaces designers and furniture manufacturers Spaces”, EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 42, no. 1 (January/
trends identified in each of the previous – within the Lab 2.0 space tables are often February 2007): 12–31
evaluation approaches and ratified by a used as seating surfaces and seating items
O’Brien, L.M., “Transitioning Academic Technologies
broader range of evaluation instruments are regularly re-purposed as layout or from Experimentation to Institutional Support,”
such as discipline specific mapping of the workspace. presentation, EDUCAUSE 2006 Annual Conference,
curriculum with the space as well as drawing Dallas, Tex., October 10, 2006
• R
 isk management and innovation are not
upon the data generated by the above
necessarily good companions – in the design
approaches. This approach will build upon
and implementation of this experimental
the Flashlight methodology of evaluation.
space there were a number of examples
(Ehrmann, Milan and Group 1999)
where new policy was needed and some
central elements needed significant
convincing to try things that were not
What were the main lessons learned?
necessarily consistent with previous practice.
While the Lab 2.0 experiment is ongoing there are
a number of lessons that have been learnt to date.
At the level of the space itself, the Lab 2.0 project At the level of the users of the space – students,
has shown that: a range of addition lessons have been identified
including:
• S
 pace design needs to facilitate changing
demands and building single purpose • S
 tudents both enjoy the use of the Lab
spaces (e.g purpose built group collaboration 2.0 space and believe that it has a positive
spaces) may not be an effective use of space impact on their learning outcomes.
for universities with limited space.
• T
 he use of students as a co-design partner
• E
 ffective and meaningful group collaboration is both feasible and provides for highly
can be facilitated in a cost effective and interesting and useful outcomes.
relatively simple small-scale manner, implying
• H
 igher order group thinking flourishes when
that this type of model could be used in any
the right blend of physical and virtual elements
spare space across a campus – including
are brought together – analysis of content
outdoors.
remnants suggests that either alone is
• Student learning preferences are hard to insufficient.

92 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 The Thurgoona Learning Commons

5.10

What it is? The TLC building is designed to accommodate social, interactive and collaborative spaces are
the Library and its services and collections; located, to the rear, facilitating noise control and
The Thurgoona Learning Commons (TLC) is a
Information Technology help services; Learning a stronger sense of privacy in the quiet, individual
learner-centred space that facilitates learning
Skills Advisors; and Indigenous Student Services. learning spaces. The Library collection is arranged
outside the classroom setting. It is located in
It has a café and a 24-hour access space. to buffer noise and create different sorts of
Albury-Wodonga on the Thurgoona Campus of
Adaptive technology to assist students with learning spaces. Group rooms provide spaces for
Charles Sturt University (CSU).
disabilities is available in the 24-hour space. discussion and rehearsal of presentations.

Furniture is a mixture of fixed and movable

tables and chairs, with couches and easy chairs
for less formal interactions. Moveable furniture

Shirley Oakley can be reconfigured to accommodate different

sized groups as required. Electricity and data
charles sturt university, australia connections are provided in all fixed furniture
and via cabling pods for the flexible areas.
Wireless connectivity is available throughout the
building and in the quadrangle outside. The TLC

ADMINISTRATION LEARNING Tier 3

In depth assistance,
Critical incidents

Tier 2
Specialist assistance

How do I enrol? How do I print? How do I research my Tier 1

How do I pay my student How do I contact my essay topic? First line - generic assistance
residence fees? lecturer? How do I write an
How do I get a new essay? Tier 0
Self help - provided in anticipation of need
transcript? How do I cite my
references?

Figure 1: Service Continuum Figure 2: Tiered Service Model

is designed to accommodate learner provided

The Thurgoona Campus has an international Specially designed areas are available for
technologies, but desktop PCs and Macs are
reputation for its environmentally sensitive design researchers and for parents who need to bring
available and students can borrow laptops for use
and its focus on sustainable living, energy and very young children onto campus while they study.
in the building and its environs.
water conservation and habitat preservation. There are three teaching areas fully equipped with
Buildings on the campus are sited and designed to PCs and designed to accommodate classes of up Why it is?
maximize natural ventilation and lighting, using sun to 16 students. Two of these teaching spaces are
Student support services at CSU are visualised as
shading and landscaping to reduce energy use. transitional and expected to disappear within two
spanning a continuum from administrative support
Water is harvested and recycled. Woollen carpets, years as other facilities develop on the Campus.
to learning support (Figure 1).
natural linoleum, recycled and plantation timbers All three areas are open to casual use when they
and low volatile paints provide healthy indoor air. are not used for classes.
The design of the TLC follows these principles.
The design of the physical spaces and furnishings
designate the use of the area: from noisy, social
learning spaces through group study areas to
individual quiet spaces. The ceiling height steps
down from the front of the building where the

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 93

The Thurgoona Learning Commons

The end goal is a Single Point of Contact where

students can have all their enquiries resolved
without any need to understand the organisational
structure of the University and without any need
to be physically present at any particular point.
Support services are available face-to-face or
virtually, synchronous or asynchronous. Support
services are tiered by level of complexity (Figure 2).

The objective is to have as many queries as

possible answered at Tier 0 so that queries are
answered at the point of need at the time of need.
Because 75 percent of CSU’s 34,000 students
are enrolled in off-campus modes, the virtual
component of service alignment and delivery is
extremely important.

The TLC operates at the learning skills end of Figure 3: Pedagogy Space Map – Learning & Teaching Precinct
the service continuum. It provides a physical
manifestation of the Single Point of Contact. The
services relating to learning skills are provided by
four separate organisational units at CSU including
Library Services, IT, Learning Skills Advisors,
and Indigenous Services. The staff from each
of these units is co-located in the TLC building.
Service alignment across organisational units and
tiers of service is an essential ingredient of the
concept. Tier 1 services are provided from a single
service point, backed by a common knowledge
management system. Tier 2 and Tier 3 services
are handled by specialist staff in physical spaces
that provide greater privacy and confidentiality.

The TLC is not just a service delivery point: it is also

an integral part of the Learning & Teaching Precinct
on the Thurgoona Campus. Pedagogies were
mapped to spaces within the Learning & Teaching
Precinct, including outdoor spaces (Figure 3).

The TLC caters for self-directed, non-facilitated,

collaborative learning; providing facilities for
individuals and small groups, and interactive
videoconferencing for collaboration at a distance.

The virtual aspect of the learning spaces provided

in the TLC is just as important as the physical
spaces, and for the same reasons as the virtual
aspects of service delivery are important: the Figure 4: Learning Strategies Mapped to Physical Spaces
high proportion of off-campus modes of study.

94 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

The physical learning spaces of the TLC are
complemented by the virtual learning and
collaboration spaces and tools provided through
CSU Interact - the University’s SAKAI-based online
collaboration and learning environment.
Flexible Flexible Flexible Ablutions Adaptive tech.
teaching teaching teaching + Unisex Parents study
In designing the physical layout of the building, Disabled
we started by mapping the learning strategies
that would occur within the TLC to the activities
Student
associated with those strategies, and then placing computer
Display
lounge, Collection,
the activities into four zones (Figure 4): lounge,
Print and Catalogue access
cafe, Private study,
copy
display Quiet group work
utilities
• Social zone;

• Group collaborative/interactive zone;

• Group creative/presentation zone; and

entry Open Staff meeting, Management Student Multi Media,
Information, reserve Tea Room, suite services, Meetings,
• Individual study zone. service (T1) Info libs Ablutions ISU Researchers

As learners move from the social zone to the

individual study zone, they also move from noisy Delivery, Dock,
Book return,
spaces to quiet spaces. Production, store

Functions were then mapped to the zones (Figure

5). Service points and specialist usage spaces
(such as group discussion/presentation rooms,
microform and multimedia viewing areas) are Figure 5: Functions Mapped to Zones of Learning

located in the relevant zone. Some functions

overlap zones.

In this schematic map:

• The green spaces are 24-hour spaces.

• T
 he yellow spaces show where service
provision is located and how different services
relate to the zones. For example, Open
Reserve and the Enquiry point are closer to the
social interactive zones than Learning Skills and
Indigenous support that are more private.

• M
 oving from yellow to red indicates the
gradation from more public to more private
functions.

• T
 he blue areas contain quieter functional
spaces, using the collection to buffer sound
and to define study areas.

• T
 he size of each lozenge indicates the
relative size of the space required for the
function. Figure 6: Thurgoona Learning & Teaching Precinct

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 95

The Thurgoona Learning Commons

The architects used this information in designing the collaborative learning by individuals and groups. The The adaptive technology area is located in the
building. locus of control is in the hands of the learner. 24-hour space. It is a glassed enclosure that
offers privacy but allows connection to the social
The design aligns with the environmental The TLC is also a Single Point of Contact that
activities in the Commons. Use of these facilities
sustainability principles that underlie all development provides seamless access to support services at
has increased.
on the campus. The building is oriented so that the the learning skills end of the support continuum.
entry is north facing. Glazing along the walls and in The Learning Commons has changed the social
the stepped roofline allows maximum natural light. dynamics of the Campus: activities now centre on
The collection is located in the centre and towards How will the space be used? the spaces around the Commons. The Commons
the back of the building to shield it from sunlight and is the place to be: to meet up with friends, to work
The TLC is not yet occupied; however the
to provide the best temperature and humidity control together in formal and informal groups, or to work
planning and design are based on Stage 1 of the
for preservation. People are located at the front alone in a social space.
Learning Commons on the Bathurst Campus.
and sides where there is maximum natural light and
The Bathurst Learning Commons is grafted onto
views to the outside.
an existing building and provides the 24-hour
How will technology be used?
The social zone is at the front of the building, and functionality and spaces that form part of the
activities move through Zones 2 and 3 to Zone 4 TLC. Observation and assessment of activities at Based on the Bathurst Learning Commons
- individual study - at the back. The roof-line steps Bathurst informed the development of the TLC. experience, technology is used as a tool in the
down from front to back, and the glazing reduces, learning process – students take it for granted that
Students use the space across the whole spread of
so that the individual study zone is lower and what they need will be available to them.
hours, 24/7. CSU has a high proportion of residential
cosier as well as quieter.
on-campus students and all rooms in the residences The space is designed to be highly flexible,
The Learning & Teaching precinct is designed in have access to the University’s network. However catering for student-provided technologies. At
the belief that learning is something that occurs students prefer to use the Learning Commons present this means laptop computers and a mix of
everywhere. The whole precinct is a learning because of the social interaction possible in the wireless and wired connection and lots of power
space with different sorts of nodes, one of which space. They will queue up to use equipment in the points, but iPhones in particular are introducing
is the TLC (Figure 6). Commons area, and sit on the floor if nothing else new expectations.
is available, rather than move to the more traditional
Network access and social learning spaces Groups of between two and four students cluster
library space. This applies even if they are working
indoors and out are part of the concept. around workstations and larger groups around
alone rather than as part of a group.
Landscaping of the quadrangle takes account laptops. Furniture is reconfigured to suit the needs
not only of environmental considerations, but also When the Library proper is closed, access is via of the students at the time. It is notable that the
the provision of social learning spaces. Wireless the CSU ID card. Security is enhanced by CCTV ergonomic chairs provided at fixed workstations are
access covers the entire precinct. cameras that scan the interior and exterior spaces almost always substituted for casual chairs. Laptops
and display on large plasma screens inside the are often used by students sitting or lying on the floor.
Commons. Students can see what is happening
What will happen here? from wherever they sit. This is popular at night –
students like to be able to see what is going on
The TLC is a learning space outside the classroom
immediately outside the Commons before they exit.
that sustains the learning experience from the class
session into other learning contexts. It provides The Commons Café is a popular feature and well
an integrated environment with spaces and used. Academic staff come to the Commons for
technologies that support learning theory principles. coffee, often holding meetings with their colleagues
It is a student-centered learning space that provides in the Commons space. This has facilitated informal
seamless access to the University’s information interaction between academic staff and students,
resources; supports all flexible learning methodologies which was an unexpected outcome. Academics
that students may require now and in the future; like the space as much as the students.
and facilitates socialisation as part of the learning
experience. It facilitates self-directed, non-facilitated,

96 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

How will the facility be evaluated? Students regard the social aspects of campus Acknowledgements
life as an essential ingredient of the on-campus
Evaluation of the TLC will follow the techniques Academic staff at the Thurgoona Campus gave
experience: a feeling shared by Distance
used to evaluate the Bathurst Learning Commons. considerable input to the pedagogical map for the
Education mode students when they are on
The methods used included formal and informal Learning & Teaching Precinct and how different
campus for residential schools which are part of
feedback from: nodes in the Precinct could be used to provide
their course. The Commons and the student bar
a comprehensive learning experience. These
• Library specific client satisfaction surveys are cited as significant aspects of that experience.
discussions were initiated by Caoimhin Ardren,
• C
 ourse evaluation questionnaires and the Project Manager for the Campus development
First and Final Year evaluation projects at and facilitated by staff in the Centre for Enhancing
What were the main lessons learned?
University level Teaching & Learning led by the Director, Associate
Feedback from Bathurst used to inform the design Professor Marian Tulloch.
• Library online forums and the Library Blog
of the TLC indicates the following:
Leslie Burr, Director, Learning & Access Support
• Library suggestion boards, physical and virtual
• F
 urniture and equipment must be championed the principles underlying the concept
• Observation of actual use reconfigurable by the users on demand of the Single Point of Contact within the University.

• P
 atterns of use from login and door entry • F
 ixed workstations are valued only when Staff of the Divisions of Library Services, Student
statistics applications require high speed and good Services, and Information Technology contributed
bandwidth connectivity to (and continue to develop) models for delivery
At Bathurst, students like the noise and vibrancy
of seamless services to students and for how
of the space and its physical appearance, they • T
 here is an increasing demand for
operations will be managed in the TLC building.
feel comfortable there. Access to the café and the videoconference access to group members
Kerryn Amery, Director, Operations (Library
refreshments via vending machines outside café who are physically scattered
Services), Liz Smith, Manager, Learning (Student
hours is highly valued.
• N
 oisy social spaces are highly valued for Services), and Phil Sefton, Director, Customer
Group study rooms are popular for larger groups most activities, but students want to move Services (IT) lead the teams developing service
and to rehearse group presentations. Whiteboards to quiet spaces for tasks requiring in-depth alignment and management models.
are still in demand, regardless of other thinking and for exam preparation – ability to
Doug Westland and Bernard Jovaris from JWP
technologies and collaboration tools available. reconfigure spaces at different times in the
Architects translated the concept models into a
academic year should be considered in the
Students move from the Commons area into the physical building and provided the floor plan.
design
quieter parts of the Library when they want to
concentrate on individual study or when they are • F
 lexibility is the key: usage changes very fast
studying for exams. with or without corresponding changes in
technology
Requests for help with a range of issues are
addressed to the “Ask us” desk at Bathurst, • N
 ever underestimate the indoor/outdoor flow
although it is not yet set up as a single point of activity. Students like to work outdoors
of contact for the full range of learning support even when climatic conditions are far from
issues. Students like to be able to ask someone inviting
for help when they can, although the full range of
online and telephone services are also well used.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 97

The Thurgoona Learning Commons

Charles Sturt University – Thurgoona Learning Commons

Construction Completion - September 2008
JWP Architects

98 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Learning in the Learning Commons: The

5.11 Learning Commons at City Flinders and St

Albans Campuses

What it is? … students should not have to understand the o Facilitate active, independent and
organisational structure of the University in order collaborative learning;
Since 2006, the development of the Learning
to access the support and resources they need
Commons has been a key strategic direction for o Focus on student needs, preferences and
for their learning ... [The Learning Commons] is a
Victoria University, driving the re-development of work patterns;
learning space that is open – in terms of reflecting
libraries, campus learning spaces and educational
the need of students to learn when they have time o Be part of a University-wide development of
support services and programs. This study will
– often outside the usual University opening time learner autonomy;
report on evaluations of two examples of the
and also reflecting students preference for flexible
Learning Commons at VU: the City Flinders o Be responsive to the changing needs of
spaces that can be moulded and modified to
Learning Commons and the St Albans Learning learners for resources and support;
suit their preferred learning styles …The Learning
Commons, with a focus on the impact on student
Commons is an approach to supporting our o Be based on collaboration between different
learning achieved at each location.
students’ learning that recognises that we need to support areas in the University; and
take into account the entire learning experience of
o As a community space provide a hub for
the learner while at university, not just their time in
Why it is? the classroom.
physical and virtual interaction for staff and
students.
At VU the Learning Commons aims to put the
The Learning Commons has been guided by a
student ‘at the centre’ by providing an educational
set of principles designed to make learning the
one-stop-shop, integrating services and functions
primary focus. These principles are that the What happens here?
that have been separate in the past. According to
Commons should:
Keating and McLennan (2005, 10): The City Flinders Learning Commons opened in
October 2006 and became a testing ground for
the Learning Commons model developed at VU.
Against a background of striking city views, the

Adrian Gallagher, Amanda Pearce, Commons combines a library collection, diverse

Robin McCormack
spaces to support different learning styles and a
mix of educational services and programs. The
victoria university, australia St Albans Campus Learning Commons was
developed in mid 2007 through the large scale
refurbishment of the existing Library space,
Table 1. Learning Commons Services and Metrics. including the development of new discrete
CITY FLINDERS ST ALBANS learning spaces as advanced 'assisted study'
environments.
Opening Date Oct 2006 Aug 2007
At both locations educational support
Architects Fish, Payne, Pattenden and Viney Ltd McIldowie Partners
services and programs are provided through a
Size 980m² 2530m² collaboration between the Library; Academic
Total Learning Spaces 184 404 Language and Learning (ALL) and Student Career
Student Numbers 3905 8406 Development (SCD) staff in the VU College (VUC);
and Information Technology Services (ITS). At
Student Computers 93 (PCs, laptops, MACs) 130 (PCs, laptops,)
the centre of the new service model are Student
Computer per 1:42 1:65 Rovers, who offer student peer mentoring to
Student provide practical and motivational learning support
Equipment Costs $185,000 $260,000 for students
Building Costs $1,250,000 $650,000
Services Library, IT, Learning Support, Careers, Library, IT, Learning Support,
Student Rovers Careers, Student Rovers

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 99

Learning in the Learning Commons: The Learning Commons at City Flinders and St Albans Campuses

Figure 2. St Albans Learning Commons

Figure 1. City Flinders Learning Commons (Blocking)

How is the space used? The first level of this service model relies heavily on As successful students, Rovers mentor student
the ‘Rover’ team involving later year VU students. ‘communities of learning’ by modelling and
Each Learning Commons contains a variety of
They are selected and trained by the collaborative facilitating successful approaches to learning.
learning spaces to support different learning styles
team formed by Library, IT and ALL staff, They systematically share knowledge, skills
ranging from informal, collaborative, technology
coordinated by an ALL academic and supervised and insights through a RoverSpace blog and
intensive, formal (training areas) and reflective.
by campus librarians on a daily basis. The Rovers’ wiki, thereby also developing their VU Graduate
Although neither learning space contains a café,
role includes: Capabilities (including teamwork) and fulfilling
both are food-friendly to encourage the social use
learning in the workplace requirements. Thus the
of each space. • A
 ssisting with basic student queries
Rover program is deeply embedded in social and
related to using and locating core facilities,
A Learning Commons service model has been collaborative learning models, both in the context
information resources, software and
developed to coordinate educational support of the Rover team itself and insofar as these
hardware
services to students in these spaces and set models underpin the relationships between Rovers
the pattern for collaboration and cooperation • H
 elping students to clarify and articulate and others.
in the provision of services. This model works basic issues related to their learning
to a background of automated self-help and strategies
embedded support at the course and faculty level. How is technology used?
• D
 irecting students to options or to further
The three layers of the model delineate services
information that may assist them, or referring Technology is a pervasive feature of the
from first level enquiries to technical or functional
them to ITS, Library, ALL or SCD staff or Commons aiming to be the major point of
support at service desks up to the specialised
other services such as Counselling. student computing on campus with access to
consultations and training required for advanced
a standard desktop image supplemented by
information seeking and knowledge creation.
specific learning software, a complete wireless
network and printing/scanning infrastructure.
This level of technology is essential for delivering
program content via WebCT, administrative

100 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

processes through the MYVU student portal and presented without commentary or self-reflection. with measures of student satisfaction traditionally
digital information resources. The University also A more detailed articulation of learning impacts collected by the library. However to provide
recognises the potential of social networking Web may require a relatively atypical meta-cognitive evidence regarding the Learning Commons impact
2.0 technologies and therefore provides Internet awareness of their own learning on the part of on student learning, a range of qualitative data has
access in a relatively unrestricted environment. student Commons users, as well as a set of beliefs been collected including survey comments, focus
that recognises and legitimises collaborative and group transcripts, student diaries and Rover end of
peer learning rather than being restricted to a shift reflections.
How was the facility evaluated? transmission model. Thus a successful evaluation
The student survey comments were derived from
of the Commons as a site for non-transmission
Most attempts to measure the success of the the Library Client Survey conducted in second
forms of learning may depend to some extent on
Learning Commons have focused on indicators semester 2007 using a service quality instrument
the success of the whole institution in moving away
of activity or measures of user satisfaction. The developed by Insynch Surveys. A total of 1684
from transmission models and developing meta-
task of assessing the impact of the Learning comments were provided in the responses from
cognition in its students.
Commons on student learning is more difficult users at the City Flinders and St Albans Learning
and beyond the scope of the most commonly The VU enabling principles of the Commons Commons. Thematic categorisation of these
used metrics and evaluation tools. Bennett (2005) (outlined above) are the focus of our assessment, comments was undertaken loosely following the
notes that in 240 construction and renovations with particular attention to ways in which the space approach outlined by Ryan and Bernard (2003) in
projects in libraries from 1992 to 2001, there supports active, collaborative and independent examining repetitions and key words in context.
was a lack of evaluation of resultant student learning; provides a community space as a hub
A series of focus groups were conducted in May
learning. One challenge in assessing the impact for physical and virtual user interactions; and offers
2008, including two student sessions at both
on student learning is the difficulty of getting flexible support that can effectively respond to the
City Flinders and St Albans, along with a session
students to articulate their learning experiences changing needs of learners.
containing a selection of staff who directly provide
when collecting data and feedback. Student
In terms of evaluative techniques, some quantitative services in the Commons environment. Student
feedback can be restricted to their access to
evidence of the success of the facility is required volunteers were recruited by Rovers and library
resources within learning spaces or the basic
as context for our evaluation of learning outcomes. staff from the floor of each Commons, and the
activities that are undertaken in the Commons,
This includes usage and services statistics along groups were conducted by a researcher from
the University’s Post Compulsory Education Unit.
Analysis of the results followed a focus on thematic
content following the approach outlined above.

The student diaries combined features of mapping

diaries – as inspired by the 2007 University of
Rochester Undergraduate Project (2007) – and
reflective diaries allowing students to comment on
their activities within each space. The students were
recruited at the City Flinders Learning Commons
and before commencing the diary, were instructed
in the diary tool by the campus librarian. They were
also provided with some examples of the general
categories of data needed to be collected, with a
view to focusing attention on the meta-cognitive
aspects of the survey. However care was taken to
avoid the ‘Hawthorne Effect’ and ensure the diary
instrument was not distorting students’ learning
behaviours through recording them.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 101

Learning in the Learning Commons: The Learning Commons at City Flinders and St Albans Campuses

Lastly, data examined in relation to the Rover but also protected spaces for individual study.
program included transcripts of Rover Debriefing At City Flinders, this emphasis may be a result
sessions and Rovers’ End-of-Shift Reports. These of the large numbers of Postgraduates studying
were thematically analysed as described above. onsite. Some comments at St Albans called for
more casual (social) areas; however the utilisation
A crude form of evidence of the Commons’
of the Commons as a social space was not a
responsiveness to students’ needs is provided by
strong theme in the responses and more likely to
usage and satisfaction data. Visit statistics at each
be identified as a source of disruption. Where the
Commons provide encouraging data on usage,
recent St Albans renovations were discussed, the
with the City Flinders door count increasing by 85
response was generally favourable as students
percent from 2006 to 2007, while the St Albans
appreciated the visible investment in their spaces.
Commons experienced a more modest increase
Typical comments include:
with usage rising by 25 percent when comparing
first semester 2008 door count to the same period Unfortunately I think there has been a
in 2007. More evidence of the popularity of the reduction in private study areas. It's great
Commons is provided by SCD (Careers) statistics that there is (sic) now areas for groups
from first semester 2008; all categories of service but there needs to be more places for
had increased when compared to the same period individual study [City Flinders]
in 2007, with a 90 percent increase in ‘drop in’
The new renovation for the campus library
enquiries and consultations suggesting that the
is fresh and gives off a welcoming vibe [St
reach of the service is benefiting from inclusion
Albans]
in the new educational service model of the
Commons. Another positive indicator evidenced In comparison with the survey data, the focus
in the Library Client Survey was that overall library groups provided more fertile ground for exploring
client satisfaction has increased by 10 percent participant experiences relating to learning in
since the library has been a Commons. groups and the role of the Commons as a social
space in the development of communities of
Of the qualitative comments attached to the 2007 The social dimension of learning and the
practice. Although much of the discussion still
Library Client survey, about 19 percent of overall presence of community within the Commons is
registered student concerns about shortages
responses related to student learning areas and an encouraging thread of discussion. Throughout
of spaces and resources, the group discussion
29 percent related to student computing needs. the focus groups, participants express an easy
was able to express the regularity and context of
Unfortunately the comments did not contain many confidence with technology suggesting attributes
working in groups, its place in the curriculum and
reflections on the capacity of the space to support of the ‘net generation’ identified by Lippincourt
an understanding of the value of group work:
different learning styles; most responses on both (2005), such as multi-tasking between applications
individual (reflective) and group (collaborative) Yeah group assignment, then we definitely and moving seamlessly between the academic
spaces were calls for more learning spaces, have to work in groups and then by doing and the social through technology:
particularly at City Flinders. However the fact that so we do the interaction straight away in
these were often combined with complaints about I think it’s different for each person. I know
front of the computer … we talk, that’s it.
noise suggests that provision for silent and group if I sit there and try and … just sit there and
[St Albans]
study need to be carefully balanced, difficult in write just non-stop I’ll just burn out and
Gives us that opportunity to be able to lose interest so what I’ll do is I’ll type up a
a very small space such as City Flinders where
learn, to work with other people because paragraph, check MSN, just have a chat to
the Commons zone constitutes the entire Library.
there [may be] that reality when we go into some people and then back to - - - (again)
Comments on student computing provided few
the workplace. [City Flinders] - - -[St Albans]
insights into the role of the technology in learning
outcomes as these issues were swamped by In contrast to the survey data, the presence of
an overwhelming demand for the provision of community was identified in focus groups as
more PCs. Other comments requested not tending to focus students on their work:
only more study rooms for collaborative work

102 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 In here I guess you get more motivated of mutual assistance throughout their studies. If they know their way around this place,
because you see others studying but when Technology is a pervasive feature of their activities and can act with confidence, maybe I too
you’re at home you get to do some other throughout the week as assignment work and can learn all these systems. They even
stuff that’s not study related…..[St Albans] social interaction is conducted through a variety of know who to ask when they don’t know!
systems: WebCT, student email, hotmail, MYVU
It was clear from the combined focus group We had a few students come over for a
(VU student portal), Google, library databases and
and survey responses that there was an uneven chat, we had four students who wanted
Facebook. The diary narratives throw into relief
appreciation of the range of educational services to just sit and chat to us about their
the unmediated nature of much of the activity
and programs provided in the Learning Commons. assignments and tests that they have in the
within the Learning Commons as so much is
Although the survey registers consistent next few weeks. Because we have already
accomplished through online services such as
satisfaction with library staff and Rovers, there done those subjects we gave them a few
WebCT, self-service borrowing equipment and the
is less recognition of the more recent entrants tips on how to overcome the hardship
self-service infrastructure of the Commons. Only
to the Commons service areas (SCD and ALL throughout the term.
one participant refers to seeking help on a regular
Support staff) and of the range of what is on offer
basis throughout the week. A student called Mohammad came and
or the benefits of the educational one-stop-shop
asked for help with accounting….well he
approach. The range of responses is illustrated by One weakness of the diaries is a tendency for
was confused with some transaction. I
the following comments: entries to be descriptive without students reflecting
helped him out. He was very happy. He
on their learning experiences. When instructing
Yeah but overall there’s help everywhere, needs help with management accounting
students in using the diary, it is difficult to encourage
from the student Rovers, the service desk, as well…so he said he will come back
reflection without inadvertently transforming instead
in the tutor centre and then there’s the next Thursday, so that Richard (former
of documenting student practice. In fact Catherine
brochures there if you want to know how to management accounting mentor) will be
Tang (2002) recommends that reflective diaries
reference at least there’s areas where you here and help him out.
work best as a tool to facilitate both reflection and
can go for help. [St Albans]
learning in a cycle where understanding reflects Social and collaborative learning is central to the
Student A I’ve seen the careers section in on practice and where improvements in practice, experience of actually being a Rover, within the
the Library … fed by reflections on learning, are encouraged. In Rover team. As well having a physical place at
this context the diaries may work better as part the Rover desk in the student space, Rovers work
Student B I don’t see anyone in there. [St
of an assessment tool embedded in academic to create a ‘social presence’ in the Commons by
Albans]
programs where students can relate their growth establishing friendly relationships with as many
I think that the idea is messed up because as learners and present the contributions from the students as possible. One example illustrated
… okay you wanted to bring in everything Learning Commons as part of this broader learning significant social interaction between international
but then the things should have been development. and domestic students, the promotion of which is
brought in and there should have been currently a major challenge for the sector:
The ongoing Rover evaluation focuses on the
different sections and it should have been
effectiveness of the Rovers in the City Flinders [I had a] conversation with t[h]ree
managed individually … what happened
Learning Commons as an approach to supporting international students I see regularly, one
here is like … they just dumped in
other students’ learning and to develop Rovers’ of them Ahmed … gave a little lecture on
everything … they should have different
VU Graduate Capabilities. The qualitative data culture which was very interesting! He
sections for individual studies, different
from the Rovers themselves suggests that the asked me a few question[s] about w[h]ere
section for… using computers, different
Rover program supports active, collaborative I am originally from (Lebanon) and then he
section for (giving) books … [City Flinders]
and independent learning both in terms of said on first impression - including accent,
The student mapping diaries provide evidence collaboration with other students and within the dress etc. I look very Australian but after
of learning in both group and individual contexts Rover team itself. The Rover program does not talking to me about values etc. he said he
adding revealing details about their study patterns simply provide an additional element to the Library believes I appear to have Lebanese values
and usage of the different parts of the Commons service delivery model (McCormack and Dixon imbedded in me … he said … I get the
through different periods of the week. Each of 2007); Rovers model and advise on the learning best of both worlds in this way!
the 10 students refers to the Commons as a behaviours underpinning university study, including
meeting place, mixing social encounters with acts active and independent learning.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 103

Learning in the Learning Commons: The Learning Commons at City Flinders and St Albans Campuses

Lastly, the social aspect of Rover activity extends Alongside this reflective practice shared on the What were the main lessons learned?
to staff, with transformative potential relating to Rover blog is the ongoing evaluation undertaken
The major evaluation findings have been outlined
staff-student interaction: by the Rovers as researchers/evaluators of their
above. In summary, there is some evidence
own practice. This has taken a participatory
I helped out a session tutor find a video- that the space successfully supports active,
action research approach. ‘Instead of a linear
tape! He was an interesting guy – he collaborative and independent learning, and
model [of evaluating practice], participatory action
tutors in the art subjects and we had an perhaps more conclusive evidence that it provides
research … proceeds through cycles, ‘starting’
interesting conversation on the difference a community space as a hub for physical and
with reflection on action, and proceeding round
in the arts subject and legal subjects. Let’s virtual users interactions and offers flexible support
to new action which is then further researched’
just say the arts people seem to have more that is responsive to the changing needs of
(Wadsworth 1998).
fun when doing assignments - no 3000- learners.
word essays on law reform for them! Thus Rovers reflect on their practice and make
Specific findings are that:
changes to it. These changes have included
In fact Rovers extend the space beyond the
the introduction of a Rover desk at City Flinders, • T
 he Commons has improved usage and
boundaries of the physical Commons: as a
thereafter included in the designs for subsequent satisfaction statistics
consequence of being very visible and widely
LCs; a new Rover-developed statistics record
acknowledged as ‘go-to’ students, their advice • T
 he space requires careful planning to
sheet to include records of referrals; and a new
is sought even when they are not on Rover duty balance students’ needs for quiet and noisy
approach to Rover training and knowledge
- be it on a different campus, on the train, or in a space
management including ‘Lead Rovers’, a new
lecture theatre: ‘Few students came and say Hi …
collaborative software platform, Rover webmasters • T
 he capacity for students to use technology
while I was having breakfast in Mc’s’.
and training teams. for both private and study purposes, and
Yesterday I was in Queen Street Campus to observe other students’ study practices
The reflection that Rovers engage in is perhaps
Library, and saw many known faces from appears to assist learning outcomes
summarised by one Rover’s description of a single
City library. Guess what! They were thinking
incident. After assisting a student to log in and • M
 ore work is required to increase students’
I was doing my Rover's shift up there! I
register on the VU Careers system, the Rover awareness of the types of assistance
helped one guy with Web CT, and told
chatted to him about searching for a job. As a available in the Commons by improving
them that Rovers are yet to come to Queen
result she oversaw the whole process of preparing the profile of each service and the level of
Street Campus Library.
and sending a job application online, including coordination between services (although
There is a wealth of evidence that Rovers provide commenting on his spelling and grammar, and current staffing constraints may be a problem
the sort of practical assistance required for referring him to the SCD resume checking service. here)
students to become independent and active
She described her roles in this exchange as • T
 he Rover program is very positive in terms
learners. Rovers have a sense of responsibility for
‘un-bossy, but laid-back big sister’, and ‘mentor’, of collaborative learning within the Rovers
good functioning of the space:
commenting: team and in Rovers’ mentoring role, i.e. a
We are still having trouble with the printing, form of collaborative learning shared with
At the end of that day shift when I was in
as some of the computers still have signs student users
the train what I … realised was that at that
popped up saying that the printers have to
moment not only professional help took
be re-installed …Currently, CF1507-10, 27,
place but a social network between a Rover
54, 51 are not working,… So please keep However in terms of the evaluation methodology,
and a student, a social network between
an eye on the PCs, Rovers! more effective methods need to be developed
a student and the learning commons,
and finally, in a broader sense a network to triangulate the perceptions of the Rovers
The Rovers offer flexible support that is responsive
between a learner and VU took place in a themselves with those of student users of
to the changing needs of learners, and are required
positive way. the Commons in order to further explore the
to learn new things to provide support to other
Commons as a social space in the development of
students, for example new desktop applications or
a learning community. New ways of encouraging
new academic softwares such as Turnitin.
students to articulate their learning are required,
including gathering data from students who may

104 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

be non-users of the Commons spaces. This Keating, S., Kent, P. and McLennan, B. (2008). Putting
raises the challenge of students’ meta-cognition learners at the centre: the Learning Commons journey
at Victoria University. In Schader, B. Learning Commons:
and the success of the university as a whole in
evolution and collaborative essentials. Oxford: Chandos.
developing the awareness of students of their
preferred learning styles and what supports they Lippincott, J. K. (2005) Net generation students and
libraries. In D. G. Oblinger and J. Oblinger (Ed.), Educating
require. The evaluation of the Learning Commons
the Net Generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
is therefore an ongoing project, requiring the
http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/5989
involvement of a broad range of Faculty and other
staff, and a continuing management commitment McCormack, R. and Dixon J. (2007). Rovers at the
to active, collaborative and independent learning border: the double framing of student rovers in Learning
Commons. In Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and
across Victoria University.
Scholarship, Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Annual
Conference Adelaide, 8-11 July. Retrieved July 30th 2008
from http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/
References conference/2007/PDF/REF/p223.pdf

Bennett, S. (2005). Righting the Balance. Washington Ryan, G.W. and Bernard, H.R. (2003). Techniques to
D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources. Identify themes. Field Methods, 15, (1), 85-109.
http://fmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/15/1/85
Clark, K. (2007). Mapping Diaries, or where do they go all
day? In Foster, N. F. and Gibbons, S. The undergraduate Tang, C. (2002) Reflective diaries as a means of facilitating
research project at the University of Rochester. Chicago: and assessing reflection. In Quality conversations:
Association of College and Research Libraries. Proceedings of the 29th HERDSA Annual Conference
Perth, 7-10 July. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from http://
Keating, S., and Gabb, R. (2005). Putting learning into www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/herdsa/main/papers/
the learning commons: a literature review. Retrieved June nonref/pdf/CatherineTang.pdf
1, 2008 from http://tls.vu.edu.au/PEC/LC%20paper%20
(pdf).pdf

Keating, S. and McLennan, B. (2005). Making the Links to

Student Learning. Retrieved June 1, 2008 from http://tls.
vu.edu.au/PEC/PEC_docs/Making%20the%20links%20
to%20student%20learning.pdf

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 105

Learning in the Learning Commons: The Learning Commons at City Flinders and St Albans Campuses

106 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Making it My Street:

5.12 The Bond University “Street” Area

What is it? Why is it?

The Street area is the central point of the One of the patterns of student behaviour observed
University’s main teaching building. Until recently, it in recent years is that students will only be on
was merely a transition space – people would move campus for particular classes or events, such as
through it in order to get to their next class. It is a social functions or examinations. The students’
large rectangular area measuring approximately 20 perspective of the University was that it was a place
by 5 metres and rising three stories high. In many where they would visit in order to attend classes,
ways, it resembles a classical loggia. not necessarily as a place that was essentially
providing a once in a lifetime experience! Many
The new space consists of a raised, carpeted
students live in the adjacent suburb of Varsity
seating area. Large, comfortable couches, free-
Lakes, and can easily slip home when not required
moving ottomans, and circular coffee tables are
on campus. There were very few places on
located in this space. The couches are of the
campus where students could spend substantial
highest commercial quality to guard against stains
amounts of time if they chose to stay. One of these

Marcus Randall, Gail Wilson

bond university, australia

was the Library. Before the advent of the Street

and potential misuse. Each of the coffee tables
and the Multimedia Learning Centre (see the related
has four inbuilt power points for students to be
case study), the Library was often at capacity
able to plug in their notebook computers and other
throughout semester. The original design of the
electronic devices. The entire area is also wireless.
Library did not cater for this demand.
The total cost was approximately $30,000.
A strategic decision was made by University
Figure 1 shows the plan of the space while Figure
management to rectify the above. In their
2 shows various photos of the Street area from
consideration, one of the purposes of a university,
several angles.
and a feature of the Bond experience in particular,
is to foster a sense of community across a range
of people and disciplines, and to encourage
many levels of interaction – social, intellectual
and collaborative. Following the 2007 Colloquium
Figure 1. Architectural plan of The Street area. The diagram shows three
on Next Generation Learning Spaces, the basic elements, a) the ottomans (in blue), b) small coffee tables with power
rejuvenation of The Street was identified as project points (in aqua) and c) large lounges (in red).

that could help to achieve these goals.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 107

 Figure 2-4. The Street

The key players in the design of The Street

were Marcus Randall, Cathy Murray and Senior Please help us to evaluate and improve the spaces on campus by taking a few minutes to complete this survey.
Management Group. Marcus Randall and 1. What faculty are you from? BTSD HSM HSS Law
Cathy Murray were responsible for the original
concept. Senior Management Group suggested 2. Are you: Undergraduate Postgraduate
revisions because of concerns about security
3. Have you used either The Street or the MLC? Yes No, please continue to question 14
(i.e., that some students may want to take some
of the more movable pieces of furniture). The 4. How many times a week do you use this space:
subsequent redesign of the space was accepted. MLC Never Used 1 2-4 4-6 7-10 >10
The Street Never Used 1 2-4 4-6 7-10 >10

5. How long did you use the space?

What happens here? MLC Never Used <30mins 1hr 2hrs >2hrs
The Street was designed to be an informal The Street Never Used <30mins 1hr 2hrs >2hrs
area for staff and students to spend their time
6. What did you use the area for?
between classes, and as mentioned above, a
Individual study Group study Meet with friends Taking a break
place that helps to develop a sense of University
Wireless Network Computers/Game Consoles Other, please specify ______________
community. In some ways, it is similar to the
seating areas within airline lounges, as students 7. How did this space meet your requirements/expectations?
often use it as an area that they can use to wait (Not at all) (Adequately) (Very much)
for a class. However, its usage goes beyond MLC 1 2 3 4 5
this. We have found that the different activities The Street 1 2 3 4 5
can be categorised as follows: a) group work, b)
8. Did you need assistance/or help when you used the area?
socialising, c) private reflection, d) interaction with
MLC Yes No Please Comment _______________________
academic staff, and e) access to the University’s
The Street Yes No Please Comment _______________________
Career Development Centre. These points are
discussed in detail in the next section. 9. What do you like most about either area (circle)?

The space is available during teaching time across MLC The Street
Bond’s three semesters.
10. What would you like to see changed or added to either area (circle)?

MLC The Street

How is the space used?
11. Would you recommend these areas to other students?
There are five main ways that the space is used: MLC Yes No If No, why? ________________________________________
The Street Yes No If No, why? ________________________________________
1. Group work activity
12. Where else on campus would a ‘Street’ like area be useful? _______________________________
One of the University’s key educational strategies
is to foster cooperation and collaboration amongst 13. Any further comments?___________________________________________________________
students on project work and assignments. In many 14. Why haven’t you used these areas?
subjects, group assignments are very important Doesn’t meet my requirements Didn’t know they existed Other ______________________
and form a large part of the final grade. However,
until recently, there were very few specifically 15. Do you plan on using these areas in the future?
designed places on campus where students could MLC Yes No
meet to work together in groups. The Street with The Street Yes No
its “L” shaped couches facilitates these activities,
Thank you for participating in this survey.
and accompanying tables provide a good venue
Figure 5. Web-based survey on The Street and MLC spaces
for students to meet and to work collaboratively.

108 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 The use of wireless notebook computers means
Q. Have you used either The Street area or the Multimedia Learning Centre (MLC)? that access to the Internet and a range of University
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count information sources is assured. Additionally, no
Yes 89.8% 255 noise restrictions are imposed.
No 10.2% 29 2. Socialisation
answered question 284
skipped question 0 Before, between and after classes, students will
come to The Street to relax and catch up with their
friends. A café is in the near vicinity. Often students
Q. How many times a week do you use this space? will bring coffee and food to the area as well.

Answer Options Never Used 1 2-4 4-6 7-10 >10 Response Count 3. Private moments
The Street 63 86 52 18 2 1 222
Some students simply come to The Street to relax,
answered question 244 work or read in the large comfortable couches.
skipped question 40
4. Interaction with staff
Sometimes it is simply not possible for students
Q. How long did you use this space? to have all their questions answered in class time.
Lecturers and tutors regularly meet with students
Answer Options Never Used <30 minutes 1hr 2hr >2hrs Response Count
in The Street to continue their discussions.
The Street 46 74 55 13 16 204
answered question 244 5. Career development
skipped question 40
Located beside the Street is Bond’s Career
Development Centre (CDC). This is a service that
students use for post-university career advice, and
Q. Did this space meet your requirements/expectations?
gaining part-time employment during their studies.
Answer Options Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree N/A Average Response The staff of CDC use this area to consult with
Count students as well as to display and distribute career
MLC 5 10 21 63 122 18 43 239 materials.
The Street 7 8 30 84 46 43 3.88 218

answered question 242

skipped question 42 How is technology used?
The Street was deliberately designed to have
little technology. Only electrical power points
Q. Would you recommend The Street area to other students? and computer wireless access are provided.
Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Our idea was to minimise the technology so that
Yes 83.5% 172 students and staff can interact in groups or simply
No, Please comment 16.5% 34 be left alone to their own thoughts. There are
many places across the campus (the Multimedia
answered question 206 Learning Centre being a prime example) that give
skipped question 78 students access to state-of-the-art technology
and the ability to communicate electronically.
Areas like The Street help to keep the balance
between the personal and the electronic.

Figure 6 . Some results of the survey relevant to the Street.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 109

Making it My Street: The Bond University “Street” Area

Many students use the wireless support. At any Figure 6 shows some of the survey results (those
given time, approximately 70 - 80 percent of directly relevant to The Street). A relatively large
the students will be working on their notebook number of students, 284, responded to the
computers. Surprisingly, there is little call for survey.
access to power. Perhaps this is because of
What were the main lessons learned?
computers’ extended battery lives and the fact the
students will spend only a short amount of time in Both formal and informal evaluations have
The Street, or a combination of these two factors. indicated that students need dedicated “breakout”
spaces available on campus. This sounds intuitive
and reasonable, but until recently, very little of
How was the facility evaluated? this type of space has been available. By having
facilities such as The Street on campus, students
There have been two types of evaluation of this
are encouraged to stay between classes – leading
facility conducted, informal and formal. Informal
to greater informal learning experiences and
evaluation involves occasional viewing of this area
increased socialisation opportunities. Naturally,
by the designers. We have found that it is heavily
additionally spaces of this kind are being currently
used each day during normal teaching time. In
planned.
fact, it can often be difficult for students to find
a spare place on the couches or ottomans. In Acknowledgements
some cases, students have resorted to sitting on
There are a number of people and departments,
top of the backs of the couches or sitting on the
without whom, the refurbished Street would not
carpeted floor. Our informal observations have
have been possible. These are (in no particular
led us to believe that it has been too popular, and
order):
that we need to extend the area and the concept
of these types of area throughout the University • F
 acilities Management, in particular Cathy
Centre. To this end, a new project is underway for Murray (Director of Campus Operations)
a similar area that also includes a coffee shop.
• Information Services, in particular Mark
Sutherland (Associate Director, Information
Services)
A more formal evaluation approach has taken
the form of a web-based survey which combined • B
 ond University’s Teaching and Learning
questions on both the Street space and the new Committee, and, in particular, the former Pro-
Multi-Media Learning Centre (MLC) (see related Vice Chancellor, Professor Duncan Bentley.
case study) on the campus. Figure 5 shows a
copy of this survey.

The results of the survey showed that students

enjoyed having a comfortable area that they could
freely access in between classes. Additionally,
the convenience of being able to wait, read
email, have access to power (for mobile devices)
and perhaps have a snack made the area very
appealing. The major criticisms were that it was
not opened 24 hours a day, that the area should
be extended and the ambient noise be damped.

110 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 TELL us all about it: Establishment of a

5.13 Technology Enhanced Learning Laboratory

What it is? The first iteration of the TELL has been created workstations offers a choice of operating system
on a “lightweight” budget relying predominantly (Windows and Linux) and image (USQ Staff or Student
The Technology Enhanced Learning Laboratory
on the updating or relocating of existing Lab) where three groups of three can work. This use
(TELL), formally introduced to the University of
infrastructure, hardware and software. However, of the work space for collaborative activity aligns with
Southern Queensland (USQ) community in early
as with a project described by Tom, Voss and the findings from the MIT Technology-enabled Active
2008, is a physical, multi-purpose space located
Scheetz (2008, 42), even with a limited budget, Learning (TEAL) project (http://icampus.mit.edu/teal/).
in an area previously used as a television studio.
Other work spaces include two large oval tables with
power outlets and ergonomically designed chairs,
a circular padded couch for group-based activities,
and two long high movable tables (with stools) with
multiple outlets to support the connection of electronic
devices. The choice of furnishings and floor treatments
has aimed to create a contemporary, welcoming
environment. Furniture configurations can be seen in
Figure 1.

The Lab includes an access grid that supports multi-

point video conferencing and consists of an ensemble
of resources including several multimedia large-format
displays, presentation and interactive environments,
and interfaces to Grid middleware. For some time,
this technology was housed elsewhere on campus
and was not used effectively. With its relocation to
the TELL, the aim is to raise the profile of access grid
and its role in supporting learning and teaching in
dispersed locations. The TELL has Windows PC and
Figure 1. TELL furnishing (Photo taken from Observation room) Macintosh hardware, streaming Satellite TV to an LCD
monitor, wireless network functionality and wireless
tablet PCs. Power and fixed data points are supplied

Shirley Reushle, Brian Kissell, to tables across the space via ceiling umbilicals. The
room includes an elevated observation deck with
Maggie Fryer, David King audio capability allowing unobtrusive observation of
division of ict services learning and teaching situations.
university of southern queensland, australia

Why it is?
USQ is a regional, multi-campus institution with
The space is located in a building that houses
this experimental space needs to guide USQ in more than seventy-five percent of the twenty-six
the University Learning and Teaching Support
“evolving new approaches to learning appropriate thousand students studying at a distance in local,
Unit and is associated with the USQ Australian
to our context”. national and international locations. Given the
Digital Futures Institute (see http://www.usq.
regional spread of students, the gap between the
edu.au/adfi/tell.htm). The term “laboratory” has The Lab is quite different from existing physical learning
service provided to on-campus and off-campus
been chosen because it conveys a sense of spaces such as lecture theatres and ICT training
students has to be considered. To reduce this gap
innovation, newness, experimentation, prototyping rooms. It embraces the ‘next generation learning
and also support the investigation of innovative
and improved learning through the application space’ concept by adopting an open plan, studio-style
approaches to learning and teaching, the concept
of innovative pedagogy and the creative use of room, with flexible, configurable technologies and
of the TELL was conceived. The concept aligns
technology. fittings. A seven-foot circular table fitted with Sunray
with the University Vision to improve learning

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 111

TELL us all about it: Establishment of a Technology Enhanced Learning Laboratory

and increase access through the creative use of limited funds being available, the project did not space. He also points out that sometimes it
technology. The TELL also supports the flexible move forward until early the following year when is important to reduce rather than fill every
learning priorities identified in the Learning and initial plans were drawn up and quotes requested for space – to keep some space empty to
Teaching Operational Plan 2007-2012 which hardware and software configurations. The official accommodate “possibilities”.
states that USQ is committed to “flexible modes opening of the TELL occurred in February 2008.
• E
 nsure that equipment, facilities and furniture
of program delivery, both on and off-campus, The concept plans at proposal stage are shown in
are accessible to both teachers and learners.
including technology-supported and online Figures 2 and 3.
Trialling of technologies to increase accessibility
learning as well as quality classroom teaching”
The design principles that guided the development for those with visual and hearing impairments
(http://www.usq.edu.au/resources/ltplan.pdf).
of this learning space reflect many of those put and other disabilities provide important
A proposal for a technology enhanced “sandpit”, forward by Tom et al. (2008). The principles avenues for further exploration. Key to the
submitted in August 2006 by two academics in suggest that the space must: TELL should be the concepts of inclusivity and
the Faculty of Education (Dr Shirley Reushle and accessibility.
• B
 e flexible to accommodate differences
Associate Professor Peter Albion) to the Chief
in discipline, learning and teaching The concept and design of the space has drawn
Technical Officer, Division of ICT Services marked
requirements and activities; on pedagogical principles related to the theories
the beginning of planning for the TELL. Soon after, a
of adult learning and constructivism that together
small reference group was formed consisting of the • H
 ave interfaces that are user-friendly and
place the user at the centre of the learning process.
CTO (Brian Kissell), the Principal Advisor, Learning intuitive;
The design acknowledges that adults have a
and Teaching in the Division of ICT Services (position
• P
 rovide social spaces that enable wealth of experience on which to draw and that
also held by Dr Reushle) and two members of the
collaboration and other interactive activities; the focus should be on providing authentic activity
Learning and Teaching Support Unit. This group
that is task-centred, practical and with immediate
participated in several brainstorming and planning • A
 ddress creature comforts and ambience.
application to the user’s (learner’s) work. The design
sessions to determine the purpose, design principles According to Jamieson (2008), people
takes into account the self-directedness of adult
and functionality of the space. However, due to create identity through their association with

Figure 2. Initial concept plan Figure 3. Location of audio

112 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Figure 4. TELL in use for group brainstorming sessions (Photo taken from Observation room) Figure 5. Evaluation design

learners who can usually identify their needs, prefer The TELL provides a space where staff can
flexibility, but need some structure and support. explore the pedagogical aspects of learning and
In addition, experiences that are isolated and teaching technologies and be challenged to
unrelated to the “now” can be irrelevant for these rethink the possibilities in using a physical space
learners. Adults also need to be able to reflect – on with technological enhancements. It provides an During semester 2, 2008, two academic staff
the activity, on the learning environment, on their experimental prototype, ICT-enabled environment members were awarded Learning and Teaching
interactions with others and then relate it to what for exploring the effective use of ICT and to link Fellowships. Part of their respective projects include
they already know and do. USQ staff and students at remote locations. It also trialling software and hardware in the TELL with
aims to create a visible and high profile environment the intention of documenting effective means of
for ICT innovation and exploration and to provide a using learning spaces and technology to enhance
What happens here? proof of concept space for future deployment into learning and teaching. In addition, industry partners
learning and teaching environments. are being actively sought to support the refresh of
Use of technology-enhanced learning spaces at
infrastructure.
USQ has, until recently, focused on on-campus The experimental research and development
teaching and the use of videoconferencing intent of the TELL suggests that the space should
to link the Toowoomba campus with its two not be used for regular timetabled classes as the
How is the space and technology used?
other campuses located at Fraser Coast and aim is to make it available for trial-based activity
Springfield. The intent of the TELL is to encourage through an electronic booking system. However, It is early days in terms of the regular use of this
USQ teachers to think beyond this and be given teaching staff are encouraged to trial the efficacy space by teachers at USQ. Now that an online
the opportunity to easily access and trial other of the TELL with their own “real” classes with booking system is in place and more teachers are
potential technology solutions. the intention of deploying successful ideas into becoming aware of the space and its potential
mainstream activity and other teaching spaces in uses, the expectation is that its usage will
the University. increase. Figure 4 shows the room being used for
a brainstorming and training session. Recently, a

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 113

TELL us all about it: Establishment of a Technology Enhanced Learning Laboratory

video has been produced to promote the space to outcomes is an important institutional requirement. is essential as well as opportunities for
the USQ community. The video can be viewed at As part of the Learning and Teaching Fellowships showcasing innovation. A promotional video of
mms://WinMedia.usq.edu.au/ICT/TELL.wmv previously mentioned, formal evaluation plans are the learning space has been produced.
required but are not yet available.
8. Responsive technical support is essential as
well as advice on how to use the technologies
How was the facility evaluated?
effectively.
What were the main lessons learned?
Many “flexible” classroom designs are now in
As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, the
operation around the globe but often assertions Despite the relative newness of this project, a
term “laboratory” has been chosen because it
of effectiveness are not accompanied by evidence. number of recommendations have emerged from
conveys a sense of innovation, adventure and
an initial, informal evaluation of the TELL initiative
A qualitative action research method originally supporting new ways of thinking and doing. These
conducted through focus groups. These include:
developed by Salmon (2002) and adapted by are high expectations of a single room renovation
Reushle (2005) is being used to frame the design and 1. The space should be an enabler of change and but our hope is that the efforts of the University
conduct of the trial of the TELL. This method (Figure not perpetuate the traditional classroom model. community with turn this room into an effective
5) provides an iterative, cyclical process to develop, and innovative learning space.
2. Teachers must drive the space – they need
implement, evaluate, and modify the trial process and
to see a reason for its “being” – a motivation
make recommendations for future action.
to use and continue to re-use the space is
Acknowledgements
At this point in time, Phase 1 is underway and essential to ensure its sustainability. This
no formal evaluative data have been collected. learning space should not just be regarded as The creation of the TELL has involved a range of
Anecdotal comments through discussions held a group of technologies. Learning should be stakeholders. The concept of the TELL emerged
with several groups of stakeholders in informal at the centre of learning space design and this from an initial proposal prepared by Dr Shirley
focus groups (USQ teachers, ICT support space should assist in showing off what USQ Reushle and Associate Professor Peter Albion
personnel and managers) have indicated that the can do in terms of learning and teaching. from the Faculty of Education. Mr Brian Kissell,
acceptance and successful uptake of the TELL Chief Technology Officer, Division of ICT Services
3. Who owns the space? For a successful,
will be influenced by: progressed the concept through Division of ICT
sustainable project such as the TELL, a formal
staff including David King, Stuart Cornford, Colin
• Institutional buy-in; project management process needs to be in
Glasby, Michael Beveridge, Stuart Gibbs, James
place and implemented. This includes allocating
• Ease of use; Page, Ray Smythe and Chris de Byl.
a project “champion” as well as a Manager
• S
 ustainable support structures (including ICT of an operational unit within the university
and pedagogical); and who assumes operational responsibility
References
for scheduling, managing of resources,
• Evidence of pedagogical enhancement. Jamieson, P., (2008, July). Experiencing places for active
maintenance, promotion of the concept, etc.
learning – an alternative perspective. iCampus Network
Powell, Single, and Lloyd (1996, p. 499) define a
4. The sponsor must be responsive to Meeting, Victoria: University of Melbourne.
focus group as “a group of individuals selected
proposals for updated technologies and new Powell R. A., Single H. M., and Lloyd K. R. (1996). Focus
and assembled…to discuss and comment on,
technologies. Teachers will need support as groups in mental health research: Enhancing the validity of
from personal experience, the topic that is the
they think of new ways to use the facilities. user and provider questionnaires. International Journal of
subject of the research”. The main purpose Social Psychology, 42(3), 193-206.
of conducting these informal focus groups at 5. A formal scheduling/timetabling process needs
Reushle, S. E., (2005). Inquiry into a transformative
this stage was to offer an open forum to draw to be in place and efficiently managed.
approach to professional development for online
upon participants’ attitudes, feelings, beliefs, educators. Doctoral thesis, USQ.
6. The mix of interfaces should be user-friendly
experiences, and reactions to the TELL concept
and simple to understand. Planning for and Tom, J. S. C., Voss, K., and Scheetz, C. (2008). The
and space design. space in the message: First assessment of a learning
using the space should not be an onerous
studio. Educause Quarterly, 2, 42-52.
The need to collect both qualitative and task with innovative pedagogy supported by
quantitative data to demonstrate that this kind technology, not hindered by it.
of investment can pay off in improved learning
7. Effective promotion of the learning space

114 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 115
TELL us all about it: Establishment of a Technology Enhanced Learning Laboratory

116 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 The First Year Engineering Learning Centre

5.14

What it is? Beyond the wall of whiteboards, the centre also The proposal for the FYELC was linked to priority
houses a smaller meeting room, kitchenette, areas identified within the University’s 2003-2007
The First Year Engineering Learning Centre
reception area and administration office and is Teaching and Learning Enhancement plan.
(FYELC) is a multi-purpose space located within
served by wireless Internet connection. The During 2005 the proposal was submitted and
the Engineering Precinct of the St Lucia campus
architects have not only made excellent use of approved by UQ Central Administration. Following
of The University of Queensland. The plan to
natural light with the full length glass walls on each approval of the initial concept (Figure 2), a project
build this space was proposed in late 2004 with
side of the room, but have also enhanced the manager from UQ Property and Facilities was
construction commencing late 2006. The FYELC
environment by incorporating the use of coloured assigned to development. Wilson Architects
was open for student use in March 2007.
lighting. Appealing contrasts in colours, form and tendered the architectural professional services
The ELC consists of a large open-plan room line are additional elements utilised to create a component of the project, and submitted an initial
divided into several zones, each of which serves visually interesting space. design (Figure 3).
a different purpose. The design employs furniture
and lighting effects to create three distinct zones
that support a range of social and learning Why it is? – The principles behind the
spaces. Along one wall is a series of booths design
consisting of seating, a large table and a module
First year engineering at The University of
housing a 40” flat screen monitor, computer,
Queensland is a broad program and not owned
audio-visual equipment and data switch. Each
by any particular engineering discipline. While
booth is controlled by an AMX control system
this allows time for students to sample the various
centrally connected at the lectern situated
strands of engineering and to gain an overall
towards the back of the space in front of a wall
grounding in general engineering principles,
of whiteboards. The centre of the room contains
there is a drawback. Students who are new to
a number of tables and benches. Electricity is
a university experience can feel overwhelmed
supplied to these tables via floor ports allowing
and fail to develop a sense of “belonging” to
students to charge laptops, tablets, phones and Figure 1: The First Year Engineering Learning Centre
their cohort. According to Krause et al. (2005),
personal digital assistants (PDA). The opposite
students are spending fewer hours on campus
now than they did ten years ago. As this trend
narrows the opportunities for social learning and
Jasmine Steer limits formation of learning communities, it is
the university of queensland, australia important to place significant value on addressing
the diminishing time students spend on campus.
Gordon Howell Owing to the nature of their program, the need
queensland university of technology, australia for a separate space was identified among first
year engineering students. This was addressed
by providing a space on campus that they felt
belonged to them and that they belonged to; a
space where they could meet with their first year
side of the room is furnished with large couches
The FYELC is a congruent blend of formal and colleagues; a space tailored to the unique needs
and small circular café tables. The furnishings
informal learning space. The lectern and projector of students studying engineering.
vary across the room from fixed to flexible
have been used to deliver workshops and
configurations (Figure 1).
presentations at pre-arranged times. Ordinarily,
the centre operates on a drop-in basis and
invites interaction between students. It is used
very much as a meeting space for both studious
pursuits and casual, social gatherings.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 117

The First Year Engineering Learning Centre

Typically, the first year engineering cohort consists

of around 90 percent of school leavers (students
under 21 years of age). Over 80 percent of first
year students are male. The majority of the first
year cohort is engaged in paid employment, many
of them working more than 11 hours per week
which is in line with current trends in Australia
(Krause et al., 2005).

The main purpose of the FYELC is to enrich

the first year student experience by providing
collaborative learning and networking
opportunities and nurturing a sense of belonging
and identity. The centre has been in operation
since March 2007 and is now open on a 24/7
basis with access available via student swipe
card facilities outside of regular business hours.
The final design layout is shown in Figure 4. By
its very nature, modern engineering practice is
collaborative and interdisciplinary. A first year
learning space with flexible uses was designed to
embrace this collaborative landscape.

Figure 2: Initial concept map

What happens here?

The FYELC is a technology-rich social learning
environment that provides first year engineering
students with a space to congregate, collaborate,
socialise and identify with other first year
engineering students. It is home to a number
of programs supporting student transition into
university life; an issue that many students are
challenged by. In this particular setting the first
year cohort size can be larger than the size of
the student’s entire secondary school cohort.
Environmental factors such as size and unfamiliar
layout coupled with the process of forming
acquaintances with staff and other students can
be an overwhelming experience for a student. It
is essential to foster a strong sense of belonging
in students new to university as early in the new
semester as possible (Tinto, 1999) to assist in
easing the stressors of transition.
Figure 3: Initial design from architect.
The FYELC provides a “walk-up” tutor support
program. The centre is staffed by tutors between
the hours of 9am and 3pm, five days a week.

118 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

These tutors are drawn generally from the third
year engineering cohort. Students are encouraged
to seek assistance from the tutors with academic
challenges they are experiencing. The tutors are also
often asked other “settling in” questions such as
room locations in the early part of the first semester.
The FYELC also hosts librarians twice a week during
first semester, bringing the library experience to
the students and assisting with research for group
projects. Additionally, some of the first year teaching
team hold their consultation times within the centre,
bringing the academic staff into closer contact with
the students. The administration staff is available
to field enquiries and to loan keyboards, mice and
laptops for use within the centre.

Figure 4: Final plan

How is the space used?
One single learning space cannot hope to cater to
all learning needs; at best it can strive to provide a
balance of environments that suit the widest possible
cross-section of students. By accommodating
individual and group study areas and spaces to
allow for some time out from concentrated study the
FYELC aims to achieve this balance.

The design of the FYELC uses lighting and furniture

to create three distinct environments to support a Figure 5: Students at work in different zones Figure 6: A view from outside through the glass walls

range of social and learning environments. There are

three zones within the space – booths (Figure 1), and gathering for discussions over coffee. While the The FYELC is a bustling, energetic and noisy
tables, benches and couches (Figure 5). booths and central table zones are being utilised environment. The students who occupy its walls
It was anticipated that students would use the much as anticipated, it is interesting to note that demonstrate a sense of ownership over “their”
booths to support their group project work and the couch zone has not been used as expected. space. The students who use this centre appear
the central area for study groups and collaborative Far from the relaxed social space envisaged in protective of the resources contained within.
work. The booths are technology-rich zones the design brief, observations of student use Vandalism has not been a dominant issue, nor is
where students usually engage in group-work indicate that the predominant use of this space is littering, although we have learned some lessons
either in teams or in study groups. There is for group and individual study. Students cluster about handling waste.
some use of these facilities for social interaction. around the small tables in groups of up to five
Students watch news, current affairs, cartoons filling the table with laptops and books. Students
and sport on the HD TV screens, play DVD movies are still engaging socially however, predominantly
and occasionally use games consoles. The tables around their learning activities rather than over a
and benches in the centre of the room are utilised coffee or soft drink. Figure 6 shows typical use of
for both individual and group academic work. This the centre and couch zones. The space has also
space is also popular for card games. been used to conduct workshops, provide group
feedback on assessment outside of scheduled
The soft furnishings in the couch area are used class time and host student social activities.
to create a more social space, with students

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 119

The First Year Engineering Learning Centre

In the couch zone no technology is provided other

than the wireless network and the loan laptops.
Despite the lack of power or inbuilt technology
within this zone, students regularly work in groups,
clustered around a laptop. Students use this
space in a way they might use their homes also,
with friends visiting for a study group.

How does pedagogy influence the

use of the space?
As outlined in the original proposal, the FYELC
space aligned with social constructivism and
was developed to improve the first year learning
experience through:

1) Fostering a sense of belonging and identity

2) Providing collaborative learning and

networking opportunities and

3)  Providing a home for physical and virtual

resources essential to supporting the
transition to and implementation of high
quality teaching and learning in first year
engineering.
Figure 7: Experimental statics models
Engineering at The University of Queensland
commences with a common first year program.
How is technology used? using the flat screens to collaborate they use the During this year students are encouraged to
television to provide background noise, much as they choose a discipline area. The FYELC is designed
Each of the three zones within the main space of to embrace the interdisciplinary and collaborative
would at home. Students utilise a combination of
the FYELC has differing levels of technology and nature of modern engineering (Steer, 2008).
their own laptops, laptops on loan from the FYELC
would, by nature, lend themselves to different During the common first year, students are
and the built-in PCs within the booths. The AMX
uses. Wireless coverage is available throughout introduced to project-based learning through the
system is used to operate the controls of individual
the centre (and across significant areas of the flagstone course “Introduction to Professional
booths. Students use this regularly, and are seen to
University). The option for students to use Engineering”. Students undertake a major
“experiment” with the central controller at the lectern
wireless connection to the University servers and team-based design project in their first semester.
to operate the lights and data projector and screen.
the Internet has seen a steady increase in the The nature of small group-based assessment
Students rarely use these features at the lectern in an
usage of this facility, to the point of saturation. drives the way the centre is used during this
operational sense, more out of curiosity.
The University is now addressing the phenomenal first semester. Students identify the room as
increase in wireless use to provide better and “somewhere to belong to”. Additionally, it provides
seamless service to all staff and students. students with a place to congregate between
The central zone (tables and benches) is utilised
The booth zone boasts a console containing a as expected for both individual and group work. formal classes. Referring again to The First Year
DVD, VCR, 40” flat-screen with digital TV and PC Power points are built into each table and bench. Experience study by Krauss et al. (2005), mention
connected to the university network. While students These are routinely used for powering laptops is made of the decreasing number of hours spent
do socialise and watch various media in the booth which students use to support both individual and on campus over the past decade. The FYELC is
zone, the students are predominantly engaged in group study. While laptops are available for loan a valuable tool to encourage students to stay on
individual or group study. When students are not from reception, many students use their own. campus and engage with other members of their
cohort outside of formalised teaching times.

120 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 How was the facility evaluated?
As can be seen in Figure 8, evaluation cannot
be taken out of context; pedagogy drives use of
the physical and virtual learning spaces, both of
which are technology-rich. There are multiple
aspects that can be examined: the relationship of
space to students, both as individuals and within
groups, the pedagogy of first year engineering
courses, aspects of curriculum and the teaching
staff. There is a lot of money being invested in
building spaces in Australian universities (NGLS,
2007), a fact which can be applied internationally:
universities around the world are devoting time
and money to provide cutting edge facilities for
their students.

The biggest question is not so much about how

to assess impact, but more importantly “what is it
that we want to assess”? Given the nature of this
particular space as less of a classroom and more
of a common room, looking at direct measures
of classroom learning and teaching is complex
and makes meaningful interpretation problematic.
However, in employing literature on that which
Figure 8: Model of First Year Engineering Student Experience at UQ.
defines effective learning, broader measures
become more applicable. Chickering & Gamson
Students themselves make meaning of their Fitting Space, Technology and (1987) composed their “seven principles of good
studies through exploration of concepts in a social Pedagogy together practice” some decades ago. These principles
context. The FYELC takes advantage of this social
The nexus between technology-space-pedagogy are still widely referred to, providing a useful place
constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) by furnishing
in first year engineering learning strives to produce to begin. They suggest the following:
the space with a continuous round of interactive
capabilities in graduate attributes by “enriching the first • Frequent student-faculty interaction
models for students studying “static mechanics”
year experience by providing collaborative learning
to experiment and play with to enhance their
and networking opportunities and nurturing a sense of • Cooperation among students
understanding of the principles behind statics.
belonging and identity” (Steer, 2008). The capabilities • Provide opportunities for active learning
The students themselves become the makers of
of the centre are enhanced by the availability of tutors
meaning outside the formal classroom setting
and the co-location of the first year coordinator. • Ensure prompt feedback
(Figure 7).
The FYELC utilises technology and its use is driven • Emphasize time on task
A report compiled for the Scottish Funding Council
by the pedagogy of the first year curriculum. The • Communication of high expectations
(2006) states that “…engineering students using
technology is used to create virtual learning spaces
technology-enabled collaborative learning modes
to be used in conjunction with the FYELC as well as • R
 espect for the diverse talents & ways of
in purpose designed spaces showed an improved
supporting the pedagogy of the first year curriculum. learning of the students
ability to solve problems, increased conceptual
In the model (Figure 8), each axis supports the other
understanding and reduced failure rates”. In more recent research Kuh, Pace and Vesper
and is grounded in both the flagstone course and
(1997) and Norwani (2005) suggest that only two
the extracurricular transition program.
of the above factors make a significant difference,

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 121

 Table 1: Frequency of Student Use. Table 2: Hours spent per week Table 3: Overall Learning Experience

those being: shared experience of being first year engineers. concentrate on study” were juxtaposed with “as
The natural concentration of students in the one in the working world ‘Silent Learning Spaces’ are
1. Cooperation among students, and
place lends itself to a unique learning experience, a luxury”. Many students felt that the noise levels
2. Active learning as the likelihood of finding another student who is were positive, with students commenting “I find the
studying the same course is very high. A student library too quiet”, “the ELC provides a less intense
Taking this into account, the impact of the space on
commented: “Everyone surrounding you is a first surrounding for those who find it hard to study
students was assessed by examining the activities
year engineer. It means that whenever you turn up in complete silence”, and “I think some people
for which the students were using the space, the
there are people who know what assignments you complain about the constant noise level in the ELC,
length of time and frequency the space was used
are doing and they are willing to help”. I actually like it… it is much better than the awkward
and student perceptions of the space itself.
silence that is always present in the library”.
In terms of frequency of usage, 65 percent of
students reported frequent use as illustrated in The physical environment of the centre surfaced
Research has revealed that 93 percent of students Table 1. (“most weeks” 14 percent, “every week” as an important theme as well. Architecturally the
agree that the FYELC design is suited to small 23 percent and “most days” 27 percent), with students commented that the centre was “easy
group work with 71 percent of students reporting only 8 percent stating that they did not use the on the eyes”. They mentioned the distinctive
a positive group work experience (Steer, 2008). space. More than a quarter of the students used furnishings, the colourful lighting, couches and
Overall, students think the centre is extremely well the learning space on most days with the mean the overall layout of the learning space. They also
suited to group work, commenting that the centre number of hours spent per week in the FYELC commented on the technical capabilities of the
is team-oriented, interactive and collaborative in estimated at 4.8. Overall, 60 percent of students room and the human resources, which include the
its nature; for instance, “the FYELC is excellent used the learning space more than two hours per tutors and their peers, all of which contributed to
for discussing work, having a group meeting in week and 22 percent used it for between 5 and the overall physical environment. While this is very
a relaxed and pleasant environment or catching 10 hours per week Table 2. important, there are also environmental qualities
up with other first year engineers” and “the more which are less tangible, but no less important.
There has been a positive outcome in terms
sociable environment of the FYELC also means Students remarked that the centre had a special
of learning support with students commenting
that it is more suited to teamwork with interactive atmosphere, that it is “dynamic”, “alive”, “positive”,
“[in the FYELC there are] first year engineering
team discussions being the norm in the centre”. “enthusiastic”, “vibrant”, and “fun” as well as
students and tutors in the room so help is
Students have the opportunity to connect with “relaxing”, “homely”, “friendly”, “informal”, “inviting”
always available’” and “having people to study
their peers in a conversation-friendly environment. and “creative”. They said it is “student-friendly”
with and friends to check your work and help
They find the environment encourages them to and that it encourages “laid-back learning”.
you understand things is an amazingly powerful
brainstorm and to work on common problems. This is in stark contrast to other comments like
learning tool”. When asked to rate their overall
When looking at individual study, 27 percent “distracting”, “crowded” and “more of a social
learning experience in the FYELC, students
of students agreed it was a suitable design for area than an area of learning”, with suggestions
responded very positively with only 12 percent
individual study with 43 percent of students that some students do not connect their learning
considering the space not good for their learning
reporting that the ELC was beneficial to their with social discourse such as “[they] use it to
Table 3. Students recognise the value in being
individual study experience. socialise and have fun. None of them actually
surrounded by their peers as one student stated,
get work done”. Many, of course, do make this
The students were asked if during semester they “you may in fact be supported, assisted and
connection, for instance, and commented that
had approached someone they did not know for strengthen relationships – sort of like weight lifters
the space was “a relaxed and social place to
help. Over 50 percent of students reported that they spotting each other”.
discuss lessons” and “in the FYELC we can feel
had, and of these, 88 percent said they received the
The students described both positive and negative free to discuss the problem with our classmates”.
help needed. Students revealed that it was easy
aspects of the space. They agreed that the centre Some students even consider this a vital part of
to approach colleagues they had not previously
was a noisy environment. This in itself makes it their education: “There is opportunity to talk and
met. They felt comfortable asking for help. This
different to most other traditional learning spaces confer in the FYELC. Although quiet learning is
illustrates how the space can facilitate peer tutoring
such as a library or lecture theatre. Students were important, I feel that team learning is even more
and is a powerful demonstration of peer learning.
sharply divided in their opinions whether noisy was vital to a rounded learning experience”.
Many students recognise the serendipitous nature
a positive or negative attribute. Opinions such as
of the centre, one in which the students have the
“The ELC is so loud most of the time… hard to

122 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

What were the main lessons learned? Acknowledgements Tinto, V. (1999). Taking student retention seriously.
National Academic Advising Association Journal, 10(2),
1. T
 he use of casual space has not been as The creation of the First Year Engineering Learning 5 -10.
expected. Far from being the relaxation space Centre has involved a range of stakeholders. The The University of Queensland (2003), Teaching and
it was designed for, students instead sit at the FYELC was initially proposed by Professor Ian Learning Enhancement Plan 2003 – 2007, http://www.
tables, sometimes individually, sometimes in Cameron and Professor Caroline Crosthwaite. uq.edu.au/teaching-learning/download/TLEP2003-
groups of up to five students, clustered around Professor Michael Keniger (Senior DVC UQ) has 2007FinalAugust2003.pdf (accessed 15 Feb, 2008).

a laptop or books, with rarely a coffee cup provided ongoing support for the development Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
in sight despite the introduction of a coffee and continuing operation of the centre. Hamilton higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press,
cart just outside the door to the ELC. The Wilson, the Managing Director of Wilson Cambridge MA.

students use this space in a similar way they Architects, provided the authors the plans and
would use their homes with friends visiting for input into the FYELC case study.
a study group (Figures 5 & 6) demonstrating
the essence of social learning. One student
described the centre as a space where References:
“learning happens through interaction”. As
Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven
a result, the original low coffee tables were
Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education,
ignored in favour of the small round café-style AAHE Bulletin, Vol 39, no. 7, 3-7
tables. Low coffee tables were relocated and
Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R., and McInnis, C.
more café-style tables and stools were added.
(2005). The first year experience in Australian universities:
2. A
 nother significant surprise has been the Findings from a decade of national studies. Department
of Education, Science and Training (DEST): Australian
amount of time students spend in the space
Government, Canberra.
every week. This was not anticipated. The
furniture was not selected with this kind of use Kuh, G. D., Pace, C., & Vesper, N. (1997). The
development process indicators to establish student
in mind. As furniture is replaced, these issues
gains associated with good practices in undergraduate
will be considered. education. Research in Higher Education, 38(4), 435-454.

3. S
 tudents need for electricity recharge should Next Generation Learning Spaces (2007), Next Generation
not be underestimated. There are now plans Learning Spaces Colloquium: Innovative learning spaces
from participating universities, http://www.uq.edu.au/
for more electronic outlets to be added to the
nextgenerationlearningspace/NGLSscroll.pdf (accessed
FYELC. 15 Feb, 2008).

4. S
 tudents use the kitchen area as a study zone Norwani, N. (2005). Learning Outcomes at Higher
– if there is space to be occupied, students will Learning Institutions: Do Institutional Environments
use it. This can make things awkward when Matter? 2005 Forum of the Australasian Association for
Institutional Research., 42-52.
the kitchen is being used to prepare food.
Scottish Funding Council, (2006). Spaces for learning: a
5. Initial inclusion of chilled drinking water and review of learning spaces in further and higher education,
hot water tap in the planning stages should be http://www.sfc.ac.uk/publications/spaces_for_learning_
addressed, as retrofitting is expensive. report.pdf (accessed 12 May, 2007).

Steer, J. (2008). Innovative engineering first year learning

6. N
 o matter how tidy students are, there is a
space: Early exploration of students’ experience at The
waste stream. Planning for efficient waste University of Queensland. Proceedings of 11th Pacific
disposal is important and should not be an Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, Hobart,
afterthought. Tasmania.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 123

The First Year Engineering Learning Centre

124 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 The Balnaves Foundation Multimedia

5.15 Learning Centre

or for holding functions as there were significant

issues regarding reverberation and lighting.
Mark Sutherland Initially it was thought the space would be good
for a 24-hour “study hall” with tables and chairs
bond university, gold coast, australia
and computers. However, the Main Library at

Hamilton Wilson Bond University had in recent years undergone

an incremental transformation into an unplanned
wilson architects, brisbane, australia but very well used learning environment and this
was increasingly observed and acknowledged
across the campus. As a result the gallery space
was identified as being suitable for an extension
What it is? began in November 2007 and was completed in
early April 2008 with students using the facility by of the Main Library’s learning environment but
The Multimedia Learning Centre (MLC) is located with updated technology and furniture to meet
the start of Bond’s second semester in early May.
in the northern wing of the main Arch Building the changing needs and learning behaviour of
Shortly before opening, the centre was named
on the Bond University campus. The facility students.
The Balnaves Foundation Multimedia Learning
functions as an environment for extended learning
Centre. At the same time, the need was identified for a
experiences for all Bond students, as well as a
suitable space to project student digital art as
digital gallery for the projection of multimedia high
well as to provide facilities for students enrolled in
art and the use of computer gaming technology.
Why it is? Bond’s Bachelor of Computer Games program.
It is managed and staffed centrally by Information
The existing art gallery at Bond University was These concepts were therefore brought together
Services (Library and ICT) and this is one of its key
essentially a “dead space” in a prominent and in a single brief to architects. A number of
distinguishing factors.
central building on the campus. Since its inception architects were invited to put forward proposals
There are a number of zones in the centre for the refurbishment of the gallery space on
it was a difficult space to use as an art gallery
including a social learning zone, group oriented
study booths, individual computer stations, tables
with provision for students to work in pairs where
extra chairs are provided, as well as an enclosed
Collaborative Learning Room (CLR) with complete
AV fit-out. The social zone includes lounge seating
with easy access to power outlets as well as a
Laptop Bar. A concierge style kiosk that is staffed
at all times provides support and information for
students as well as loans of peripheral equipment
for use in the booths, CLR and at the computers.

The facility was built as part of a project that

included the construction of two mezzanine levels
in the former art gallery space. The mezzanine
levels are used as teaching spaces for the Faculty
of Humanities and Social Sciences and are not
part of the Centre. The entire project including the
mezzanine levels cost around M$3.4. This also
includes costs associated with new building code
compliance, given that the building had not been
refurbished since original construction around
1988, as well as a significant technology cost
component. Construction of the 500m2 facility Figure 1: MLC shortly before opening

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 125

 VERANDAH VERANDAH

FEMALE MALE STORE

MEETING
KITCHEN

AIR STAIR
LOCK

OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE ENTRY OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE

WAIT
OPEN
AIR
LOCK

DEAN
STAIR

FILES/COPY
CORRIDOR

SERVICES OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE

RECEPTION / OFFICE

OFFICE
FIRE TUNNEL

STAIR
LIFT LIFT

AIR
LOCK
MALE
LEVEL 2 PLAZA ENTRY LIFT FOYER

EXISTING GALLERY SPACE FEMALE

STAIR

VOID

0m 1m 5m 10m

Figure 2: The original space showing the Art Gallery and surrounding offices.

The pedagogical principles that drove the

design included provision of extended learning
opportunities, peer-to-peer learning, partially

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
structured learning and collaborative learning.
ART GALLERY / MULTI- FUNCTION ROOM
COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

What happens here?

INFO KIOSK
Lift Lift
In this section the broad pedagogical intent for the
facility is discussed and in the section on space
below, the pedagogy-space-technology rubric is
detailed under the heading for each zone in the
MLC. During Bond’s 3-semester year, the MLC
is open 18 hours per weekday from 7am to 1am
and 15 hours on each Saturday and Sunday from
8am to 11pm, thus a total of 120 hours per week.
Essentially, extended learning occurs here as the
learning experience that starts in the lecture or
LEVEL 2 NORTH tutorial extends into peer-to-peer and collaborative
Figure 3: Initially proposed plan showing the conversion of offices into teaching spaces surrounded by extended learning occurring in the gallery space. learning with students engaging in the following:
this basis and Wilson Architects secured the executive staff including the Pro-Vice Chancellor, • Discussing assignments and projects
commission. Information, the Vice-Chancellor, the Director of
Finance & Projects as well as key members of the • W
 orking on assignments in individual, pair or
The initial concept for the space was to build on group mode
University Council including the Chancellor. In the
ideas developed for the First Year Engineering
design stage and collaboration with the architects • E
 xperimenting with technology for group
Learning Centre at the University of Queensland
and consultants, the key players were senior work – digital presenters/document cameras,
that is predominantly a peer-to-peer social
Information Services staff, the Head of the School web cams, gaming technology
learning space. A significant aim in the design
of Communication and Media in the Faculty of
of this space was to enable extended learning
Humanities & Social Sciences and other staff on • V
 iewing of digital high art produced by
experiences. The original proposal to convert
a consultative basis, including staff from Facilities students and projected onto the high parts of
offices on the same level as the Bond Art Gallery
Management. the walls on one side of the gallery
into collaborative teaching and learning spaces
would have created a logical extension for this Critical decisions were made by the University Each of the zones or spaces in the MLC is
space. However, this strategy has been deferred Council specifically in terms of approving and designed to support different student behaviours
until more office space can be found for the funding the creation of the new space as well as and different cohort sizes, broadly falling into three
Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences. Since by the Vice-Chancellor and Director of Finance & categories:
the Multimedia Learning Centre is managed by Projects. Other decisions relating to technology,
• Introvert: Focused quiet study (although this
Information Services (Library and ICT) and being furniture and layout were made as the project
is an open space focus has been created by
both centrally located and close to the Main unfolded by the Director of Information Services
design and layout)
and Law libraries, the possibilities for campus and Associate Director, Information (Corporate
social learning coordination and support are Services) in consultation with both senior • E
 xhibitionist: Active extrovert space,
considerably enhanced. management and other stakeholders on campus, particularly in the social learning zone
including students. The Library’s customer
The key players involved in the concept planning • V
 oyeur: Passive engagement with other
engagement strategies of holding face-to-face
and gathering of support were the Director of people or aspects of the overall space
roundtable discussions with students played a key
Information Services who had long lobbied for
part in incorporating their input into the design of
refurbishment of the Main Library essentially to
the space.
accommodate more learning spaces and senior

126 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

How is the space used? 4,550

Essentially the space presents a number of

options for social learning engagement. As part of
the design it was important to enable students to
‘hyperlink’ between various learning spaces and
modes and this is reflected in the various zones
or areas as shown in this floor plan and detailed
below. Actual use is compared with intended use
in the section dealing with evaluation of the space.
Figure 4: MLC layout as built
The space was designed to ensure visual
engagement by the users with the inside and 2. Laptop Bar working sessions. More focused introvert
the outside – additional windows were created behaviour within groups and with the study
• P
 edagogical intent: Social learning, casual practice on display for others to engage
to engage with the courtyard outside and at the
drop-in, quick research or touching up of which encourages the extrovert and voyeur
rear of the centre the building was opened up to
assignments
provide a spectacular view of the campus lake • T
 echnology: 40inch LCD screen with
and Fountain of Learning. The acoustics of the • S
 pace design: Close to the entry, toilets and networked computer, wireless keyboard and
space were dramatically improved through the use vending machines, this bar was designed mouse; document camera to capture print
of acoustic battens across the ceiling and parts of for short term use by students in between material; ability to connect a laptops to the
the internal walls. classes. The short term stay overlooking the large LCD screen; ability to view DVDs and
other learning spaces supports the behaviour play computer games using the PlaySation3
The furniture was designed to ensure comfort
preferences of the voyeur and exhibitionist. console; power for laptops without using the
and support a variety of learning modes. At some
The colour of the bar changes to reflect LCD screen and wireless connectivity
tables two chairs have been provided for a single
potential different learning moods.
computer with sufficient desk space for two 5. Open Computer tables
students to work together on the computer. This • T
 echnology: Power for laptops and wireless
also ensures that there are more chairs available connectivity • P
 edagogical intent: Reflective 70 percent,
than simply one for each computer and provides collaborative 30 percent modes of study
3. Lounge seating
the flexibility for pairs and groups to be formed
• S
 pace design: Open study workstations
easily as required. • P
 edagogical intent: Social learning, flexible to support one to two students at each
furniture to support group work with laptops computer. The colour of the bar changes to
as well as print based material. reflect potential different learning moods
1. Entry/Foyer
• S
 pace design: To support cohorts of four • T
 echnology: Networked computer
• P
 edagogical intent: Instructional display with - eight with comfortable casual furniture workstations with 20” wide screen monitors
touch-screen monitor as well as campus for longer study sessions. Caters for both – cable management in centre of tables
wide digital signage more focussed introvert behaviour as well as
extrovert behaviour within groups 6. Individual Computer stations with a
• S
 pace design: Comfortable ottoman for
view
students to wait for friends and to engage • T
 echnology: Power for laptops underneath
with passing traffic and information displays seating and wireless connectivity • Pedagogical intent: Reflective modes of study

• T
 echnology: Large screen LCD, campus- 4. Study Booths • S
 pace design: Students working with back to
wide information coordinated by Information open space facing landscape view of lake and
• P
 edagogical intent: Open collaborative
Services (Library and ICT), campus telephone campus environs. Introvert behaviour for one to
learning
for students to contact lecturers two students to enable more focussed work
• S
 pace design: Booths for a cohort of four -
• T
 echnology: Networked computer
six. Comfortable casual furniture for longer
workstations with 20” wide screen monitors

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 127

The Balnaves Foundation Multimedia Learning Centre

adequately spaced to allow for additional the study booths, microphone for PA system students reporting that they owned their own
materials to be placed alongside announcements laptop in a survey in 2007. This is evidenced in
the way the MLC is used as many students bring
7. Collaborative Learning Room The unique or noteworthy aspects of the
their own technology into the space. This was
Multimedia Learning Centre include:
• P
 edagogical intent: Collaborative learning considered in the design and ample provision was
space enclosed for quiet focused work within • T
 he projection of digital art within the learning made for power outlets for laptop use.
groups environment
Networked printing facilities from both desktops
• S
 pace design: Boardroom-style table • Mood lighting in the modern furniture and wirelessly from laptops are available in the
supports a cohort of eight to ten with room MLC and well used by students.
• G
 aming consoles in the study booths and
for an additional 14 along bench seating
Collaborative Learning Room
at the edges of the room. Extensive use
of glass enables passive engagement with • T
 he fact that the facility is managed by How was the facility evaluated?
activity occurring in the room Information Services (Library and ICT) and is
staffed during all opening hours The MLC was evaluated using a variety of
• T
 echnology: Smartboard, HD projector, methods including:
videoconferencing, gaming hardware • T
 he high ceiling (triple volume) in the centre
and software for Computer Games and provides extensive headroom and white • P
 aper-based exit survey during the Weeks
Multimedia students (Xbox, Playstation, space, making the environment conducive to 1-4 of operation
Nintendo Wii), laptop plug-in facility creativity and learning. • Online survey during Weeks 5-7.
8. Art displays and viewing How is technology used? • L
 ibrary blog, the L Files , used to gather
The technology has been discussed above in comments from students
• P
 edagogical intent: Passive engagement
with the digital art projected onto large wall terms of the pedagogy-space-technology rubric Usage of the facility has also been measured using
for each zone in the MLC. This section features electronic people counters and comparing this to visit
• S
 pace design: Can be viewed throughout some broad comments about the technology statistics for the libraries. Although these instruments
space but additional seating is provided on in general. Technology is used in various ways provide data indicating that the facility is being used as
opposite wall throughout the centre, depending on the type intended, a formal post-occupancy evaluation of the
• T
 echnology: High resolution digital projectors of zone and the furniture provided. Wireless space has not been undertaken yet. As the MLC has
configured as a group of 3 images in connectivity is ubiquitous so laptop use extends only been open for just over two months at the time of
landscape format throughout the facility in areas where power writing, the full picture can only be seen once further
outlets have been purposely provided as well as in evaluation has been undertaken.
9. Service Kiosk other areas such as at tables in between desktop
• P
 edagogical intent: Instructional. Learning computers.
support staff managed by Information The study booth zone is the most technology
Services (Library and ICT) able to assist with rich part of the space. Early use of these booths
information, IT/AV support and peripheral seemed to be mainly for computer games.
equipment loans However, as the semester progressed, this
• S
 pace design: Centrally located stand- gradually declined and the booths have been used
up support desk backed up with storage with and without technology by small and larger
cupboard for IT/AV peripheral equipment groups alike. In particular, groups gather around
the large LCD screen to collaboratively work on
• T
 echnology: Staff computer with barcode assignments using either a plugged in laptop or the
scanner, cordless telephone to enable networked computer with wireless keyboard and
staff to rove around the facility and assist mouse.
students, Xpanel for control of lighting,
projection equipment and sound levels in Bond University has a comparatively high laptop
ownership ratio with more than 85 percent of

128 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

Exit Survey: During weeks one to four of the percent of students surveyed said that they were students. Two percent felt the facility did not meet
semester, students were encouraged to complete working on an assignment while in the MLC while their needs at all and 8 percent were indifferent.
a quick paper based questionnaire to gauge their 23 percent were just meeting friends. Almost 83 percent of students stated that they did not
impressions and obtain initial feedback on the new 60 percent of students indicated that they were require any assistance while in the centre while the
facility. A total of 300 responses were received, at the beginning of an assignment rather than remainder did.
210 undergraduate and 90 postgraduate, across in the middle or near the end probably because
When asked what they liked most about the MLC,
all four faculties but predominantly from the Faculty the survey was conducted at the beginning of
the majority of students said the computer access,
of Humanities & Social Sciences. Considering that semester. Approximately half of the students
lots of chairs and the comfort and layout for group
Bond has a student population of around 3,600 said they were using a laptop and the other half
work. The modern look and feel and “funkiness”
this was a good response. Students were asked to a desktop computer. Only 7 percent were using
also rated highly.
indicate on a floor plan which zones they had been gaming technology and only 2 percent document
using. The zones in order of popularity were: cameras. In conclusion, 93 percent of students indicated
that they would recommend the MLC to other
1. Group tables with desktop computers students and 80 percent said they intended to use
2. Study booths for groups Online Survey: This survey was conducted the facility again in the future.
for a period of three weeks after the conclusion
3. Social learning area of the exit surveys. It covered both the MLC and
4. Laptop bar
another new extended learning environment Blog and survey comments: Although
on the Bond Campus known as The Street. well publicised and encouraged, very few students
5. Bench with individual desktop computers Some 284 responses were received of which left comments on the MLC on the Library’s blog,
the undergraduate to postgraduate split was The L Files. This is one of them:
6. Banquet seating with view of digital art
approximately 68 percent to 32 percent. Only
“I am very impressed with the MLC, it is gorgeous
7. Collaborative Learning Room 10 percent of respondents said they had not yet
and luxurious, a pleasure to study there. Thankyou
made use of the MLC. 30 percent indicated they
8. Foyer I hope other students will respect the space - I
used the facility once per week; 38 percent 2-4
saw someone eating noodle box noodles in
When asked what they were doing before using times; 16 percent 4-6 times and 5 percent 7-10
there - nobody needs hoisin sauce on the new
the MLC, 57 percent, indicated that they had times with 3 percent using it more than 10 times
keyboards!”
been at a lecture or tutorial. With regard to their per week. In terms of the length of time spent in
next port of call after using the MLC, a similar the facility on each visit, 26 percent spent more Other significant comments from the online
percentage (58 percent) indicated that they were than 2 hours while 51 percent spent 1-2 hours survey:
going to a lecture or tutorial. These figures serve and 14 percent less than half an hour.
“As students we are so privileged to have the use
to reinforce the fact that the MLC is being used
When asked what they primarily did when visiting of such amazing facilities. Both the Street and
primarily as a place for extended learning or
the MLC, students responded as follows: 76 the MLC have been designed in the students’
transitional learning between structured learning
percent had used it for individual study at times; 54 best interests and are world class. Paying higher
sessions. The majority of students indicated that
percent had used it for group study; 44 percent to university fees is definitely worth it when we
they had worked in pairs or groups of up to five
meet friends; 41% percent just to take a break. In receive facilities like these. Thank you”
during their visit to the MLC.
terms of the technology used, 48 percent had used
“The MLC is so fantastic – I find myself going there
Around 37 percent indicated that they purposefully the wireless LAN and the same percentage had
just to do work rather than at home because I
chose their selected place in the centre based used the desktop computers. Interestingly, only 16
enjoy the environment”
on preference while around 30 percent did so percent indicated that they had used the games
because of the appropriateness of technology and consoles. “The MLC is brilliant – they way it is designed
20 percent because their friends were already in space-wise is really neat. The materials used ...,
In terms of overall satisfaction with the space,
the particular zone. A very small minority indicated etc is very nice”
51 percent of students strongly agreed and
that it was “the only place they could find to study”
26 percent agreed that the centre met their Not everyone agreed, though:
which provides evidence that the space is catering
requirements/expectations, revealing that overall
for what students are looking for. Just over 50 “I think this new space is absolutely unnecessary
satisfaction was experienced by 77 percent of

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 129

The Balnaves Foundation Multimedia Learning Centre

and a waste of money” • T

 he idea of a concierge style service kiosk Acknowledgements
where the staff member would stand at times
Comments from a number of students also The creation of the Multimedia Learning Centre
but rove around and help students most
indicated that the concept of social learning as has involved a range of stakeholders. Significant
of the time is still taking off with staff being
opposed to old-fashioned studious learning is not acknowledgement is due to the Chancellor
encouraged to “create work for themselves”
understood by all with some believing the facility of Bond University, Trevor Rowe and Council
by weaving in and out of the various zones
should be quiet with no “fun” activities or social members, in particular Neil Balnaves; Vice-
in the space and checking if students need
chatting. Chancellor and President, Prof Robert Stable;
help and or demonstrating some of the
Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Provost, Prof
newer technologies such as the Crestron
Garry Marchant; Director of Finance & Projects,
controllers and digital presenters.
Visit statistics: John LeLievre; Director of Information Services,
• It very soon became apparent that students Gulcin Cribb and senior Information Services
In the first three weeks after opening, 20, 691
wanted to plug laptops in at places where no staff; Dean of the Faculty of Humanities & Social
visits were recorded while the following month,
power outlets had been provided, such as Sciences, Prof Raoul Mortley; Head of the School
June, this rose to 32,668. When compared to
in between desktop computers. As a result, of Communication & Media, Prof Jeff Brand;
the Main Library’s 43,918 and the Law Library’s
students began unplugging equipment in Hamilton Wilson and Brent Hardcastle of Wilson
21,405 the two libraries together only showed
order to use their own. Architects; and Matthew Bedford and staff of
a 1 percent decrease in visits over the previous
ADCO Constructions.
year indicating that students are still visiting both • S
 ome of the furniture is not being used as
libraries despite the availability of the MLC. More intended. However this does not appear to
than likely many of those who never frequented be too much of a problem – students like
the libraries are now using the MLC. to sit on the timber bench meant for their
feet! Unless the intended design of the seats
can be demonstrated to students, they will
continue to use furniture as they think fit.
What were the main lessons learned?
• A
 “wait and see what happens” approach
In the short time that the Multimedia Learning
was taken in relation to the handling of the
Centre has been open, a number of key lessons
gaming technology in the centre and this
have been learned all of which reflect one or
has proven the right approach. The lesson
more aspects of the pedagogy-space-technology
learned is that it is not always necessary to
rubric:
open a new facility with rules and regulations
• T
 he entry space was initially not used much. in place – some must be allowed to develop
Some of the reasons for this were related to organically. Although there were initially
the fact that the digital display monitor was some complaints about too much social
only operational some time after opening gaming as opposed to academic gaming, as
and at the time of writing, the touch-screen mentioned, this has settled down and social
monitor is still not working. As such, there gaming now seems to be mainly undertaken
was not really anything to make the students in the early part of semester while gaming
stop and sit down in the area students engage in academic gaming
throughout semester.
• L
 aptop bar: this area was initially not well-
used until signs were placed prominently
indicating what it was designed for and that
power-points were available below the edge
of the bar as these were not clearly visible.
Having power outlets underneath is also
a problem with regard to cords becoming
entangled with stools, etc.

130 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 The Learning Lab:

5.16 Transforming a Learning Experience

What it is? Why it is? What happens here?

The Learning Lab at the University of Melbourne is First year chemistry at the University of Melbourne In replacing our old first-year chemistry problem-
designed to support active group and collaborative consists of a suite of subjects, taken by students tutorial classes, the design brief for the Learning
approaches to teaching and learning, integrated who major in all of the sciences, as well as others Lab program was to
with seamless access to information and in engineering, medical and health sciences,
* Make group and active learning a central
presentation technologies. The Learning Lab is veterinary science, commerce and arts. The total
feature of our major first year subject streams
used by around 1200 first year chemistry students enrolment in these streams is typically 1100 to
on a weekly basis in classes of around 40. 1400 students in any semester. These large * Change the ways our teaching staff can work
with individual students

* Develop students' abilities in contributing to and

presenting solutions to group tasks
Peter Tregloan * Enable presentation of science using a range of
University of Melbourne, Australia new technologies.

subjects have a 'traditional' teaching structure

of three large group lectures a week, six to eight
half-day lab classes a semester, and a one-hour
problem-solving tutorial class each week.

Providing effective personal feedback in large

classes and supporting students to be part of a
learning community, especially when they come from
diverse enrolment cohorts, is a major challenge. The
weekly problem-tutorial classes provided the best
opportunity to address these issues, but any attempt
The Learning Lab was the first stage in a major to change the modes of learning there was severely
redesign and building program at the University limited by the lecture theatre spaces in which they
of Melbourne, where new teaching laboratories, were normally held. The West Theatre in Chemistry
informal learning spaces, major lecture theatres, was a small theatre able to accommodate up to 90,
student support and advice services, library and typically there were 35 – 50 students in the tutorial
computing/ICT access, will all form part of a classes held there. The Learning Lab is the result
chemistry learning precinct. of the demolition, redesign and reoccupation of this
space.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 131

The Learning Lab

expectation and experience. In these situations,

control of the zone LCD displays can be handed
over to the student groups to use their own
computer, document camera or other sources to
share information within their group. Later these
sources can be switched back to central control
to share with the whole class, either via the zone
LCDs or onto the projection screen in the Lab.

* ChemCAL Online is a suite of online interactive

modules around topics that cover the entire first
year chemistry syllabus; many of the pages are
multi-layered screens where students encounter
formative questions in a range of innovative styles,
or animations illustrating key chemical ideas and
experimental techniques. Use of animations
from ChemCAL or other sources, are used in
the Learning Lab program as a focus for active
discussion and concept development by students.

* The safety induction in Week One uses

How is the space used?
QuickTime Virtual Reality (QTVR) movies that
The Learning Lab consists of five zones, each with Group work and moderated peer explanation
show good and bad laboratory practice in the
a swivel desk arrangement for flexibility in grouping is a feature of the approach; the objective is to
laboratory that students will be working in during
and each supported with a range of ICT and build students' confidence to 'talk chemistry' in
the next week. Students navigate this virtual
presentation tools. The space accommodates describing what they are seeing and learning. The
space to identify and discuss issues related
a class of up to 40 - arranged in five groups of response of staff and students to this has been
to appropriate and safe laboratory practice
up to eight students, or ten groups of four. The very positive. The flexibility of the physical facilities
with their tutors and the students with whom
space has been designed over four levels, with the in the space and the variation in the design of
they will be sharing the laboratory. Discussion
objective of meeting two criteria - accommodating student tasks to accommodate the strengths and
is energetic, the approach is effective and
the significant change in level between the inside experience of the staff and students are central
feedback from staff and students, in contrast
and outside of the building, but more importantly, elements in the program.
to the traditional 'safety lecture' pre-lab
as a device to create the five individual and presentation, is very positive.
separate smaller group settings.
* The 'Structural Analysis' ChemCAL Online
How is technology used?
Each zone has IT access that includes group use modules introduced into the Learning Lab
of PCs, laptop points, external input sources, a Seamless access by students to computing, program, are undertaken in student groups of
document camera in each zone and a large LCD online resources and technology is a key feature three to four. Students build up the layers of
display that can be driven 'centrally' or be under of the Learning Lab - but the focus must be information that are necessary to characterise a
the control of the zone group to share their work the learning not the technology. Here are some chemical 'unknown'. The discussion and debate
within the group or present to the other zone examples: among the groups as their solutions develop
screens in the space. have produced some of the most active sessions
* S
 ome tasks for student groups in the class
in the program so far.
By adjusting workloads and budget to be able require online access to electronic databases,
to provide two staff - an experienced tutor, often e-journals and resources; Gathering the * The Back to Reality Project has involved the
a subject lecturer, and a post-graduate 'class information as it is required and the problem development of facilities to enable 'live' yet safe
tutor' - we have created a much more fluid and solution that is enabled become part of the chemical demonstrations by exploiting modern
adaptable learning environment in these classes. student task. These skills are becoming a macro-video and projection technology. A suite of
valued feature of our students' undergraduate micro-scale demonstrations that are mapped to the

132 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 How was the facility evaluated?
Evaluation is an ongoing aspect of the operation
of the Learning Lab program.

Staff development and support are vital

to the successful use of the facility. This
includes exploring the flexibility of the physical
arrangements to suit their own teaching style
or requirements, as well as layering in the use
of the range of IT resources that are available.
The learning curve for staff has been steep,
but feedback from staff and from students has
been very positive. As a simple initial measure,
tutorial attendance, that typically would drop to
30-50 percent by mid-semester, was running at
70-90 percent in censuses in 2007 and 2008.
Broad Quality of Teaching scores for the subjects
and end of semester exam scores have each
content of the course have been developed. There availability of multiple LCD and projection
marginally improved - hardly yet a trend, but an
is no intention that these should replace students' screens enables up to two video sources to be
encouraging signal.
own laboratory experience and development of used - these could be, for example, the Zone
their material handling and manipulative skills; these 0 (staff zone) computer and their laptop, or the The first formal stages of an external evaluation
are critical for a practicing scientist. The objective laptop and document camera, or computer and of the program are now being completed.
here is to provide an immediacy and engagement any source from one of the student zones. Evaluation has involved interviews with focus
with the chemical process or observation 'as it groups of students and, on a much larger scale,
The Learning Lab is a technologically rich
happens' in the class. using survey questionnaires, both early and later
space, but a key to its use as part of an effective
in students' experience of the Learning Lab
* The use of Keepad 'personal response systems' learning experience is the appropriate use of this
program. The evaluation process has involved
in the Learning Lab has had a dramatic impact technology. Activities must make genuine use of
focus group discussions with the different staff
on student interest and engagement during it. If the technology is not necessary, it is not used.
groups that make up the teaching team - tutorial
these classes. Opening questions provide “Pen and paper” problem solving or learning to
staff, who carry the bulk of the class workload,
staff - and the class - with hard data about sketch and draw chemical structures, for example,
lecturers in the subjects, who also give some
students' prior knowledge. A brief closing check and then discussing those efforts with peers and
Learning Lab tutorials in the parts of the subject
highlights what has been learned during the staff are also important features of our chemistry
in which they give lectures, post-graduate 'class
class - collective and anonymous data for the classes in the Lab.
tutors', and the staff responsible for coordinating
teacher, but individual and private feedback to
and resourcing the Learning Lab program. These
their students.
are now being followed up after a second year of
* Web video conferencing is available from experience in the space to discuss refinements
the Learning Lab. This can support remote and changes in teaching approach and reaction.
collaboration or communication and input from More details of these studies will be presented.
researchers on site.

* From the staff perspective, appropriate

technology has become part of effective
teaching practice in the Learning Lab. The

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 133

The Learning Lab

Another facility that may play an important role in Acknowledgements

this review, development and evaluation process
Peter Jamieson, from the Office of the Provost,
is the provision of remote video observation and
Jon Peacocke and Carlo Sgro, from Teaching
recording that has been built into the Lab. This
Space Services, Frank McCoy, from Property and
can be used for reflective analysis by staff, as
Campus Services, Jo Joyce and Peter Schreuder,
records and examples of good practice and
from Blomquist and Wark Architects, worked
innovation, and as the basis of research analysis
with us in Chemistry, throughout the design,
and evaluation in the use of the Lab for teaching
implementation and building processes and were
and learning.
key contributors to the project.

In parallel with the design and construction of the

What were the main lessons learned? Learning Lab, there has been a full review and
revision of the tutorial program that uses the space.
The Learning Lab Project brought together
The energy of Carmel Abrahams, Genevieve Adams,
resources and institutional support, established
Sarah Harvey, Brendan Abrahams, Penny Commons
design experience and expertise, with academic
and David McFadyen has been critical in this. The
input and commitment to curriculum change. The
ongoing evaluation of the program is being been
interplay between the design and curriculum groups
carried out with the involvement of Kerri-Lee Harris
was a critical factor in the creation and successful
and Chi Baik, from the Centre for the Study of Higher
implementation of the space and the program.
Education at The University of Melbourne.
Major curriculum change, especially in large and
complex subjects, is most safely carried out as
an incremental process. The interplay between
the strands of learning activities can be subtle.
Bad experiences for students - and for staff
responsible for the subject - can be difficult to turn
back. Pilot programs undertaken by staff willing
to try them and share that experience, create
confidence in the innovation for colleagues. The
development and refinement of the Learning Lab
program is an ongoing project.

While first year chemistry classes, by sheer weight

of their numbers, are the major users of the Learning
Lab, experience is developing in using the space
for research workshops, professional development
programs and undergraduate classes in a range of
other disciplines. Sharing these experiences in an
important element in understanding and exploiting
the potential of the space.

134 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 The Pod Room – A Group Learning Space

5.17

What it is? a problem. A classroom typically has four or five features of assessment practice at the University.
pods. The teacher controls the display system of Until now, we have not had a formal teaching
Bond University has recently completed
all pods via a switching system, allowing students space in which group-oriented activities could
construction of an engaging formal teaching
in all the pods to see either the same view (either easily occur. If group work was required in class
space, known as the Pod Room, named as a
from the teacher’s station or another pod), or their time, often classroom furniture would need to be
result of its pod, or kidney-shaped, group work
own view. moved to accommodate, and computer access
desks. The room has been designed to facilitate
was via the lectern computer. For many teachers,
interactivity, teamwork, and sociability amongst Figure 1 shows the plan of the pod room, while
this has been an understandably unsatisfactory
students. Our concept of this pod space is based Figures 2 to 5 shows photos of the space from
arrangement. The Pod Room has been specifically
on an innovative design that has been successfully various angles.
designed to easily facilitate these activities.
trialled at the University of Melbourne and the
University of Queensland. Essentially a pod is
an area consisting of a large group table, chairs, Why is it?
What happens here?
and computer system, in which a small group of
The opportunities for students to work together
students can work. Each pod naturally allows a Essentially this room is designed to accommodate
and collectively solve problems are important
team of students to work cooperatively on solving blended learning activities, where information and
communications technology is combined with
face-to-face teaching using both group based
and problem based learning exercises. In blended
Gail Wilson, Marcus Randall learning environments afforded by this Pod Room
space, emphasis needs to be placed on:
bond university, australia
o Redesign of the conventional face-to-face
classroom activities to take advantage of the
potential for interactivity that the technology-
enhanced learning environment provides;

o Designing the online activities to take

advantage of “time on task” and

o Creating opportunities for increased learner

control of their learning using both group
and team-based activities as well as time for
independent learning (Skill & Young, 2002).

How is the space used?

A common activity is to set each group an
exercise requiring the use of the pod-based
computer where students can access information
via the Internet and prepare information for
presentation to other students and the teacher.
During the activity time, the teacher can preview
the work of each pod on the master pod
computer (Figure 3). This can help to put the
students in the right direction, or to stop students
from wandering to sites other than those that are
Figure 1 . Plan of the pod room.
the focus of the class. At the end of the activity,

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 135

The Pod Room – A Group Learning Space

Figure 2. Pod room from entrance. Figure 3. Master pod/control panel. 1. The Master Pod (Figure 3).

The master pod is the facilitator’s workspace and

is used to control the entire room. These controls
are completely inbuilt into a single touch panel
(Figure 6). The technological features of the master
pod include:

• A
 ll lighting. There are front and back house
lights, as well as down lights for each pod.
Each light can be controlled individually from
the Master Pod.

• T
 he two projectors. These are Mitsubishi
HD4000 wide screen projectors. Figure 6
shows the on-screen controls.

• Image switching (Figure 6). Images from

each pod (including the master pod) can
be switched to any other pod or projector.
This flexibility gives the room many of its
educational advantages. The teacher/
facilitator may also choose to preview the
image on their screen first before putting to
another device, such as a projector.

• Document camera. This is a Lumen DC160.

Figure 4. Individual pod. Figure 5. Pod and ottoman furniture.
• DVD Player. This is Sony DVPN78P.

• T
 ouch Pen. The pen acts as a mouse and an
the teacher can display the solutions from each How is the technology used?
pod on the projector screen at the front of the annotation tool.
The technology is an integral, yet not
room for class analysis and discussion. • E
 xternal AV and Computer Input. The
overwhelming, part of the Pod Room. It has
The room also has informal breakout capacity in teacher can use their own computer and/or
been designed as an affordance, or as a way
the form of several ottomans. This furniture can be video equipment instead of the computers at
of supporting the learning process, rather than
pushed into any configuration and serve to allow each pod.
something that is learned about, such as in
groups to talk with one another, away from the training students to use a computer in a computer 2. The Student Pods
pod area. Teachers are also using them to bring laboratory. In many ways this hides the fact that
students together at the end of a class for a final Each pod has its own network enabled computer
the Pod Room is a technologically sophisticated
discussion and overview of the learning that has system with two 19” monitors (Figure 4). Like the
room. Its features can best be described in terms
taken place in that particular class. Whiteboards master pod, there are facilities that allow students
of two principle components—the master pod
are provided along the sides of the room and are to connect their own computer to the pod.
(Figure 3) and the group pods.
used to support discussion and summarising Additionally, a lighting control is mounted in each
(Figure 3). desk that allows the students to change the level
of lighting directly over their pod.

How is the facility being evaluated?

A pilot program in the use of the Pod Room began
in May 2008 and is continuing until the end of
this year. This pilot involves a small group of six

136 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

teachers representing a spread of disciplines – online dictionaries, and project planning tools. From an observer’s perspective, in each of the
Health Sciences, Languages, Town Planning, For time-poor students, being able to undertake classes visited students seem to move effortlessly
Teacher Education, and Information Technology. research in class time has been seen as a positive from a computer-based activity to a discussion
Throughout the pilot teachers are recording their in terms of being more time efficient than in a group, and back again to the online environment.
thoughts, ideas and issues about their use of traditional classroom where individual computer Their social networking skills appear to have
and student reaction to the Pod Room using research activity is limited. For many students equipped them with the ability to quickly decide
a Blackboard Learning Community space. To the learning space has enhanced group work whose turn it is to summarise notes on the
date, one of the authors has observed four of the and interactivity with other students and their computer, or search for information on the Internet
teachers using the Pod Room, and followed up appreciation of the potential of the room to enhance and make PowerPoint™ summaries for use by
that observation with an interview to focus on the their learning has increased during the semester as the whole class. The flexibility of the furniture in
details of how the room was used by the teacher they and their teachers become more experienced the room supports small group discussions and
during the observed class. In addition, students in using the space. Other students have found students’ moving in and out of different activities
and teachers have completed a survey focused the height of the computers at the individual pods quickly. This is a particular strength of the design of
on their experiences of use of the learning space. distracting, and a few have even questioned the space. The final report on the pilot of this room
Student survey questions have included: whether their particular subject is best suited to will be disseminated in December 2008. Its findings
being taught in this learning space. A small number will inform targeted professional development for
• H
 ow has the design of the Pod Room space
of students have found that their interactions with academic staff planning to use this space in 2009,
impacted on the way you have approached
other students has been less in this space than in and the design of similar spaces to be developed in
your learning in this subject?
traditional tutorial rooms, offset by their increased the University in the future.
• H
 as any aspect of the way you worked as use of ICT and Internet-based activities.
student in this room stood out above all
others? If so, please describe.

• What would you add/change/remove from

the current Pod Room and why?

What are the main lessons being

learned?
Based on information gathered to date from
student and staff surveys and staff interviews,
it is clear that the use of the room requires
considerable planning on the part of the teacher.
Careful attention to the design of the blended
learning activities used in the space is essential
to maximise the affordances of the technologies
available and the design of the learning space.
Technical difficulties in the space do occur, such
as computer malfunctioning, and teachers have
shown themselves to be quite resilient in dealing
with these challenges.

Student reaction to the Pod Room through the

student surveys has been mixed. Many have
praised how the learning space has supported
increased use of electronic media during classes,
Figure 6. Touch panel images. From top left to bottom right they show projector control, advanced image switching, projector
and made access to ICT tools easier, such as image control and preview mode.

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 137

The Pod Room – A Group Learning Space

Acknowledgements
There are a number of people and departments,
without whom, the pod room would not have
been possible. There are (in no particular order):

• F
 acilities Management, in particular Cathy
Murray (Director of Campus Operations) and
Darren Lord.

• C
 orporate Interiors –Suppliers of all the
furniture for the room. Darren Hardy has
been especially helpful.

• Information Services, in particular Mark

Sutherland (Associate Director, Information
Services)

• B
 ond University’s Teaching and Learning
Committee, and, in particular, the former Pro-
Vice Chancellor, Professor Duncan Bentley.

References
Skill, T. & Young, B. (2002). Embracing the hybrid model:
Working at the intersections of virtual and physical
learning spaces. In N. Chism & D. Bickford (Eds.), The
importance of physical space in creative supportive learning
environments (pp. 23-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

138 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES

 Concluding Remarks
6.0

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 139

140 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES
 Concluding Remarks

6.0

While many new learning or educational facilities question the ‘what, why and how’ of initiatives to
start out with sound pedagogical intent, the create new learning spaces. Its simplicity means
resultant design often reflects the imperatives it can potentially be used for any type of learning
of technology, architecture, or operational space, from a laboratory to a learning commons
considerations. There is however, growing interest to more conventional performance space.
amongst higher education institutions in the
The case studies presented in this publication
creation of new types of learning environments
illustrate the importance of the PST framework in
supporting learner-centred or constructivist
the design, operation and evaluation of new learning
pedagogy. The Pedagogy-Space-Technology
spaces in higher education institutions.
(PST) framework developed through the
The sharing of successful new approaches is leading
Next Generation Learning Spaces project
these institutions to adopt more rigorous testing
provides a more systemic way to maintain the
and evaluation of learning spaces. This will lead to
appropriate balance between pedagogy, space
improved learning outcomes and a positive learning
and technology as a basis for the design and
experience for teaching staff and students alike.
evaluation of new learning spaces.

Belinda Tibbetts
university of queensland, australia

The PST framework has proven to be a simple

yet flexible instrument that assists stakeholders to
reflect on ideas and outcomes at every stage in
the life-cycle of a new learning space. As a design
enabler, it moves beyond general lists of design
attributes and provides a structure for design
conversations. As an evaluation tool it links intent
with outcomes and challenges all concerned to

NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 141

142 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES
NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 143
144 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES
 Space
Learning Spaces in Higher Education:
Positive Outcomes by Design

Editors: David Radcliffe, Hamilton Wilson, Derek Powell, Belinda Tibbetts

Proceedings of the Next Generation Proceedings of the Next Generation

Learning Spaces 2008 Colloquium Learning Spaces 2008 Colloquium
Editors: David Radcliffe, Hamilton Wilson, Derek Powell, Belinda Tibbetts University of Queensland, Brisbane University of Queensland, Brisbane