Sit still, be quiet, do what you’re told
I recently participated in a 3-day workshop hosted by the Learning Spaces Collaboratory (LSC). This group “…is an emerging community of practice making the case that spaces matter to learning.” See http://www.pkallsc.org/ for more about the LSC and its ongoing work. I came away with much to think about, so I’m taking the time for a little reflection.
I spent a beautiful fall weekend inside windowless meeting rooms surrounded by enough Post-It notes, flip charts and colored markers to stock an Office Deport Store. For me, this is 
usually a cruel form of torture. But the event was organized and attended by a group of dedicated, experienced, thoughtful and genuinely nice practitioners from all facets of higher ed. It was an international group of faculty, senior administrators, facilities managers and instructional technologists. Several architects who have worked on innovative learning space projects also participated. And yes, there were even students present who spent Friday night sharing their perspective on how the physical environment affects learning. The collective wisdom of this group was impressive.
The workshop focused on four fundamental questions:
- What are the qualities that we want to see in our students and graduates?
- What kind of learning spaces will support development of these qualities?
- How can we know what works and share that knowledge?
- What are we going to actually do about all of the above?
What are the qualities that we want to see in our students and graduates?
This was an important question to start with and brought out terms like
- creative
- curious
- resourceful
- adaptable
- action-oriented
- problem solvers
- good communicators
- effective users of technology
Notably absent from this vocabulary was “well informed.” The implicit assumption is that if students are all of the above, then “well informed” will naturally follow. This is an assumption that needs to be questioned.
These qualities stand in sharp contrast to the tone of many traditional lecture classes and the spaces in which they happen:
- sit still, eyes forward
- be quiet – don’t speak unless spoken to
- do what you’re told to do – no more and no less
- refrain from using the technology that is so integral to everything else you do
What kind of learning spaces will support development of these qualities?
We discussed a variety of formal and informal learning spaces – classrooms, labs, libraries, lounges, etc. For me, the biggest attraction were the “active learning” or “collaboration” style classrooms, many of which are based on the Scale-Up format (Student-Centered Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs http://scaleup.ncsu.edu/). These rooms can support a variety of subject areas, but I am especially interested in how they are being used in the sciences. I was surprised to see the extent to which the pedagogy and facilities have been refined and disseminated. Both the rationale and the results of this format are compelling.
A video from University of Minnesota provides a concise testimonial
Many of the students present at our workshop have taken chemistry classes in a similar facility at UMBC and provided the same kind of comments about their experience.
How can we know what works and share that knowledge?
This tough question is at the core of the LSC’s work. We reviewed several aspects of effective assessment processes. Again, I was impressed by the extent of existing information about the efficacy of active learning strategies, best practices, and lessons learned through experience. Many good links are posted on the LSC resources page and through the SCALE-UP site.
A detailed report from University of Minnesota provides quantitative evidence of positive effects on learning outcomes, and supports the anecdotal information presented in their video. Read the report from Educause Quarterly, 33, 3, 2010.
“…our evidence strongly suggests that when controlling for nearly every other factor, the [active learning classroom] had a significantly positive effect on student learning outcomes as measured by course grades.”
What are we going to actually do about all of the above?
Another tough question, but one for which I (hopefully) have an answer. In my job I have the opportunity to work closely with some of our leading faculty, our senior administrators, Penn’s Center for Teaching and Learning, the Provost’s Classroom Committee and the Penn Libraries – especially the Weigle Information Commons. I want to develop a partnership among all these groups to concurrently explore the pedagogical value of active learning methods along with the facilities and technology requirements, the administrative, financial and practical realities of operating active learning classrooms. My goal is not to promote a specific vision of how education ought to be done, but to help make sure that we collectively make well informed decisions about how to build our teaching spaces going forward.
The time for this partnership is ripe since we are at a point when we can move beyond meeting the minimum requirements for traditional classrooms. By September 2012, all of Penn’s Central Pool classrooms will have at least basic computer projection capabilities. SAS will soon begin architectural design of a new life sciences building for Biology and Psychology. A little further out, we will be looking to improve facilities for Physics and Math. All of these opportunities require a forward looking approach to both pedagogy and classroom design.
None of this is simple or easy to accomplish. But given everything I learned this past weekend, I can’t sit still, be quiet, and do only what I’m told. That’s not what we want to promote at Penn.
