JISC

The efficient and effective use of physical learning spaces is a major issue for many educational institutions. Organisations all face pressure to deliver higher standards of education, to greater numbers of students, with tight financial restrictions, but still need to provide facilities that will attract students in a competitive educational market. Learning spaces are expensive to build, maintain and support and must be suitable for an ever widening range of learning scenarios. Making long-term decisions is difficult in any area, but with the pace of technological development this is particularly challenging and decisions will seriously impact upon the future direction and success of an institution.

Background

The outcomes of the study are intended to help senior managers to understand and manage the risks involved in projects to develop learning spaces. The need for this study came from a recognition that most, if not all, institutions are now integrating learning technologies into the design of new buildings and the refurbishment of existing ones. Managed learning environments, mobile computing, wireless LANs (local area networks) and broadband are just a few of the technologies that are influencing how we design, use and manage our learning spaces. This study has brought together examples of the wide range of current practice, based on a comprehensive survey, and includes a set of guidelines for senior managers and possible scenarios for the future.

Conclusions

This report begins with an analysis of the committee/management structures that are in place for the strategic planning and management of learning and teaching spaces in FE and HE institutions. The analysis has suggested that there are many different, and sometimes complex, kinds of management/committee structures that are in place for the strategic planning and management of learning and teaching spaces in post-16 education institutions. This complexity may be shaped in part by the variety of different departments that are involved in these structures, and the way in which such departments report to each other.

The analysis has shown that institutions outline their particular management/committee structure in one of two key ways. The majority of institutions have provided detailed structures, specifying the particular departments involved. A significant number of institutions have provided a more general description of their management/committee structure. From an analysis of these two different kinds of descriptions, some common themes have emerged. Many of these institutions have reported having Senior Management Teams involved in the strategic planning and management of learning spaces. Similarly, Estates Teams are also reported to play a role within many of these structures. Some institutions have reported having ‘Heads’ of departments or services involved. Institutions who provided specific detail about these ‘Heads’ suggest that Academic and Support Departments, Faculty, Quality Improvement, Information and Media Services are all represented within some institutional management/committee structures.

Finally, the analysis of question B4 has also shown that the majority of institutions have multiple layers to their structures, whereby some departments report to others in the process of planning and managing learning spaces. These reporting mechanisms indicate a reporting structure whereby those who are responsible for the operational management of learning spaces liaise and report to those who are responsible for the strategic development of these spaces at some institutions.

The analysis of questions C1 and C2 has suggested that most FE and HE institutions who responded to the survey currently have or plan to introduce areas of innovation into a range of different learning spaces to support learning and teaching practices at these institutions. A significant number of institutions (n=30/87:36%), however, refrained from answering question C2, which aimed to understand what kinds of facilities and technologies may be used in specific learning spaces in these institutions by 2008. An analysis of comments to these questions suggests that these institutions were unable to provide detailed information or any information at all about their future plans for 5 key reasons. Firstly, institutions were unable to answer question C2 because they were unable or did not wish to predict levels of provision in the context of a lack of relevant information or current problems with learning space utilisation. Secondly, some of these institutions were in the process of restructuring or revising their learning and teaching strategies, which would have a direct impact on the kinds of facilities and rooms that would be in operation by 2008. Thirdly, new building work or plans to move into new buildings elsewhere made some institutions unable to respond to this question. Some of these institutions also refrained from specifying their plans over the next 3 years by indicating very generally that investment in technologies and learning spaces would continue. Finally, these responses suggested that different kinds of delivery (for example, off-campus delivery) may determine the relevance of this question to some institutions.

Survey participants were also asked if their institution used any learning technologies to support their students off-campus (question C3). The analysis has shown that 5 key themes that have emerged from these survey responses. Survey responses indicate that the use of a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) to support students off-campus is significant at many institutions. These responses suggest that course materials, self-assessment and communication tools, multi-media and online support are all provided via institutional VLEs to support students off-campus. Responses also indicate that mobile technologies such as laptops, PDAs and mobile phones are used by many institutions to support students in this way. Thirdly, off-campus learning centres are provided by some institutions to support students. These include ‘outreach centres’ with Internet access, ICT centres in the community and computer rooms situated in student halls of residence. Some institutions also provide students with video-conference studios and IT lab services to support offcampus course delivery. In doing so, students are able to link to their campus or to tutors and visiting speakers overseas. Finally, some institutions have experimented with CDROMS to support their distance learners. CDROMs/DVDs have been used, for example, to provide distance postgraduate courses with lecture content and course information.

The analysis above also provides a summary of the different themes that have emerged from survey responses which have described institutional visions for the innovative use of learning technologies over the next 5 years (question D1). Many institutions have described a vision for increasing facilities such as data projectors, Interactive WhiteBoards and Personal Response Systems in their teaching rooms across campus. Some institutions have also described how the use of mobile technologies such as PDAs, wireless networks and laptops may be introduced to enhance learning and teaching. In addition to these specific technologies, some institutions have suggested that the need to expand existing resources overall is an important part of their vision.

The analysis suggests that the implementation and/or development of a VLE, including expanding access to students, is an important vision for many institutions who responded to question D1. The use of a VLE and other technologies such as wireless technology are also seen by some institutions as a means of increasing flexible learning opportunities for students. Indeed, technologies are perceived as a means of widening participation by enabling institutions to deliver learning ‘any time, anywhere’. Part of this flexible provision, is the aim to provide a more ‘blended approach’ to learning, whereby students can incorporate e-learning materials from many sources with more traditional forms of delivery. For some institutions, a key element in the successful delivery of such initiatives is to maintain a pedagogy-driven rather than technology-driven approach.

Like responses to question C2, some institutions were unable to provide any details about their vision over the next 5 years due to the need to revise or develop their learning and teaching strategies. These institutions suggested that these strategies would have significant implications for the ways in which technologies would be used to support learning and teaching and study spaces.

Finally, a small number of institutions suggested that providing opportunities for staff and students to access materials off-campus was an important vision for them over the next 5 years. Similarly, further staff development was important to some institutions in order to embed technology effectively into the mainstream curriculum and to enhance the learning and teaching experience.

Question E1 requested examples of innovative uses of learning spaces that have enhanced learning and teaching in FE and HE institutions. Institutions were requested to describe their innovations under two headings: what kinds of innovations worked and what kinds of innovations did not work in their experience. Two key themes emerged from an analysis of what innovations worked in these institutions and four key themes emerged from an analysis of what did not work. Firstly, survey responses suggested that flexible learning spaces can encourage collaborative and independent student learning by enabling students to interact and share ideas through group-based activities and online resources. Mobile technologies such as laptops and projects have also proved useful in that staff and students can use these facilities in different learning spaces and configurations.

Learning spaces and technologies designed to provide students with practical examples and demonstrations relating to their area of study have enhanced the learning experience by enabling students to gain a greater understanding of the profession they seek to enter after graduation Learning technologies such as video conferencing and discussion boards or ‘chat rooms’ can also help overcome practical problems such as providing students with access to international speakers and experts in their field of study that would not otherwise be possible. Furthermore, learning spaces and technologies designed to provide students with practical examples and demonstrations relating to their area of study have enhanced the learning experience by enabling students to gain a greater understanding of the profession they seek to enter after graduation. Flexible learning spaces and technologies have also proved very useful in supporting students with disabilities or special learning needs.

Survey responses also suggest, however, that there can be problems with flexible learning spaces and technologies. Although the ability to easily reconfigure seating arrangements in classrooms are immensely useful for group work, some institutions draw attention to problems specifically relating to open access areas where boundaries are more difficult to manage when users undertake different teaching and learning activities. More specifically, there appear to be significant drawbacks in allowing staff-led/facilitated groups and individual users to occupy the same areas, even if partitioning is available to reduce noise and distraction. Survey responses suggest that learning spaces need to be flexible enough to enable different kinds of work to take place and may require different ‘zones’ rather than just the partitioning of space.

Institutions also suggest that the effective and confident use of learning technologies requires sufficient support and training for staff. These technologies should also be used as a support to learning and teaching activities, rather than the driving force for any such activity. Finally, survey responses suggest that flexible learning spaces and technologies need to be easy to access by all students and staff. Institutions such as the University of Reading have found that centralised open access areas are more heavily used than more isolated clusters. In addition to location, institutions have also suggested that physical comfort, heating, lighting and size of learning spaces all impact on the learning and teaching experience.

The analysis above also provides a summary of the different assumptions that survey respondents suggested should be challenged in the design of learning spaces for the future (question E2). Institutions suggested that traditional approaches to learning and teaching, and the spaces in which these activities take place, need to be challenged. Within the context of new technological innovations and a diversifying student population, some institutions suggest that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is inadequate in meeting the needs of students today and in the future. ‘Flexibility’ is therefore considered central to the design and use of learning spaces to enable students and staff to meet their learning and teaching objectives.

Survey responses have also suggested that the design of learning spaces needs to be pedagogicallydriven rather than technology-driven. Future learning spaces must accommodate a ‘blend’ of traditional and modern approaches to learning and teaching and spaces that are only suitable for one purpose need to be challenged. However, some institutions point out that the provision of new learning spaces and different styles of learning and teaching should not replace traditional methods of delivery (such as lectures). Furthermore, in designing flexible learning spaces, some institutions have questioned the effectiveness of ‘multipurpose’ open spaces in the light of noise and acoustic problems.

Finally, institutions raise questions about the extent to which staff and students will need formal teaching spaces in the future, with the development of online and remote learning. On the one hand, some institutions have suggested that we cannot assume that face-to-face teaching on-campus will be redundant in the future, despite technological developments enabling students to study elsewhere. On the other hand, it has been suggested by other institutions that we should challenge the assumption that anything within post-16 education will look or be the same in the future.

Download the full report below. This report is available electronically only.