Presentation on theme: "CSG Survey to understand Teaching & Learning space domain Guenthar, Lakhavani, Leonhardt, Stringer, Werner CSG Discussion May 16, 2014."— Presentation transcript:
CSG Survey to understand Teaching & Learning space domain Guenthar, Lakhavani, Leonhardt, Stringer, Werner CSG Discussion May 16, 2014
20 Responses Yale Cornell University of Pennsylvania Michigan State University Duke University Virginia Tech Harvard University of Iowa Carnegie Mellon University University of Washington UC Berkeley University of Notre Dame University of Virginia University of Chicago Georgetown University University of Wisconsin-Madison Princeton University Penn State University University of Colorado Boulder
Experimental/unique spaces (excluding traditional instructional spaces e.g. with rows & columns of desks or wet-lab counters) Collaborative spaces (flexible and fluid spaces to support active learning etc..) – 95% Makerspaces (enables design, prototype and creation etc..)-- 85% Production Studio with tools (to develop course content) --70% Distance education spaces (equipped with technologies for distance communication and other technologies etc..) -- 40%
Support beyond general maintenance & upkeep Specialized staffing (i.e. instructional & technological assistance etc..) -- 90% Same as other classrooms -- 75% Student supported -- 55% Faculty training – 50% Other – specify – Our active learning rooms have required training, distance education has special staffing, Makerspaces have a director and student employees – We offer instructional and technology assistance for all our spaces, so we don't see this as specialized.
What are we learning? formal or informal assessment for experimental/unique spaces – 70% Assessment of T&L spaces impact on learning – 40% Other comments? – Assessment is spotty – we do not conduct assessments; but plan to in the future – We survey faculty on use and satisfaction of technology classroom spaces and solicit recommendations. – We do very little in terms of specifically assessing learning outcomes due to utilization of these spaces.
Institutional challenges in dealing with T&L spaces Budget/funding 25% Leadership vs. technical challenge Ownership Scaling innovation Balancing innovation and upgrades of aging technologies
Biggest challenge in dealing with innovative T&L spaces Leadership Faculty training Assessing impact Resources including funding Making innovative T&L spaces an institutional priority
Ownership of experimental/unique spaces (central, departmental, etc..) Makerspaces, experimental spaces – primarily departmental ownership Collaborative spaces – primarily Central ownership In general most experimental/unique spaces are departmental
Assuming innovative teaching spaces are federated, are new facilities/services duplicative or complimentary with each other? Mostly complimentary ~35% Some are both – complimentary and duplicative ~15% Some are duplication – ~10%
Who makes decision about learning spaces Various types of committee (most schools) Professional schools Central Academic Technology establish standards in collaboration with key stakeholders Distributed decision making Registrar’s office, Facilities etc.
Estimated resources required to add new innovative spaces Varies 1-2+ staff for high end spaces $14M for learning commons Medical building spaces
Drivers for changes in physical spaces Active learning methods – 90% Flipped Classrooms – 85% Library spaces – 80% Distributed & online learning 70% BYOD – 60% Computer Labs – 60% Gifts and development effort – 45% Reducing #of students in each section – 15%
Correlation between the kind of spaces (e.g. Makerspaces) and the academic programs that are utilizing the new space? Makerspaces are tied to various programs, engineering, architecture, med school etc. Active learning spaces -- STEM programs