Learning Spaces
Diana G. Oblinger, Editor
Learning Spaces
Diana G. Oblinger, Editor
ISBN 0-9672853-7-2
©2006 EDUCAUSE. Available electronically at
www.educause.edu/learningspaces
Learning Spaces
Part 1: Principles and Practices
Chapter 1. Space as a Change Agent
Diana G. Oblinger
Chapter 2. Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking
Learning Spaces
Nancy Van Note Chism
Chapter 3. Seriously Cool Places: The Future of Learning-Centered
Built Environments
William Dittoe
Chapter 4. Community: The Hidden Context for Learning
Deborah J. Bickford and David J. Wright
Chapter 5. Student Practices and Their Impact on Learning Spaces
Cyprien Lomas and Diana G. Oblinger
Chapter 6. The Psychology of Learning Environments
Ken A. Graetz
Chapter 7. Linking the Information Commons to Learning
Joan K. Lippincott
Chapter 8. Navigating Toward the Next-Generation Computer Lab
Alan R. Cattier
Chapter 9. Trends in Learning Space Design
Malcolm Brown and Philip Long
ISBN 0-9672853-7-2
©2006 EDUCAUSE. Available electronically at
www.educause.edu/learningspaces
Chapter 10. Human-Centered Design Guidelines
Lori Gee
Chapter 11. Designing Blended Learning Space to the Student
Experience
Andrew J. Milne
Chapter 12. Sustaining and Supporting Learning Spaces
Christopher Johnson
Chapter 13: Assessing Learning Spaces
Sawyer Hunley and Molly Schaller
• Assessment Framework • Assessment Targets • Assessment Methods •
An Example of Assessment • Practical Implications • Endnotes • About the Authors
Part 2: Case Studies
Chapter 14. Learning How to See
Diana G. Oblinger
Chapter 15. City of London: Sir John Cass Business School
Clive Holtham
Chapter 16. Denison University: MIX Lab
Scott Siddall
Chapter 17. Duke University: Perkins Library
Marilyn M. Lombardi and Thomas B. Wall
Chapter 18. Eckerd College: Peter H. Armacost Library
J. Michael Barber
Chapter 19. Estrella Mountain Community College: The Learning
Studios Project
Homero Lopez and Lori Gee
Chapter 20. Hamilton College: Science Center
Nikki Reynolds and Douglas A. Weldon
Chapter 21. Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis: The ES
Corridor Project
Nancy Van Note Chism
Chapter 22. Iowa State University: LeBaron Hall Auditorium
Jim Twetten
Chapter 23. London School of Economics: BOX
Andrew Harrison
Chapter 24. Messiah College: Boyer Hall
Dennis Lynch
Chapter 25. Michigan Technological University: Center for Integrated
Learning and Information Technology
Paul Urbanek
Chapter 26. MIT: The Brain and Cognitive Sciences Complex
Phillip D. Long
©2006 EDUCAUSE. Available electronically at
www.educause.edu/learningspaces
Chapter 27. MIT: Steam Café
Scott Francisco
Chapter 28. North Carolina State University: Flyspace
Hal Meeks
Chapter 29. North Carolina State University: SCALE-UP
Robert Beichner
Chapter 30. Northwestern University: The Information Commons
Bob Davis and Denise Shorey
Chapter 31. The Ohio State University: The Digital Union
Victoria Getis, Catherine Gynn, and Susan E. Metros
Chapter 32. Olin College of Engineering: Academic and Olin Centers
Joanne Kossuth
Chapter 33. The Pennsylvania State University: Smeal College of Business
Peter Nourjian
Chapter 34. St. Lawrence University: Center for Teaching and Learning
Sondra Smith and Kim Mooney
Chapter 35. Stanford University: GroupSpaces
Richard Holeton
Chapter 36. Stanford University: Wallenberg Hall
Dan Gilbert
Chapter 37. The University of Arizona: Manuel Pacheco Integrated
Learning Center
Christopher Johnson
Chapter 38. University of British Columbia: The Irving K. Barber
Learning Centre
Simon Neame and Cyprien Lomas
Chapter 39. University of Central Florida: Collaboration and
Multimedia Classrooms
Ruth Marshall
Chapter 40. University of Chicago: The USITE/Crerar Computing
Cluster and Cybercafé
Shirley Dugdale and Chad Kainz
Chapter 41. The University of Georgia: The Student Learning Center
William Gray Potter and Florence E. King
Chapter 42. Virginia Tech: The Math Emporium
Barbara L. Robinson and Anne H. Moore
Chapter 43. Virginia Tech: Torgersen Hall
J. Thomas Head and Anne H. Moore
©2006 EDUCAUSE. Available electronically at
www.educause.edu/learningspaces
Chapter 13
Assessing Learning Spaces
Sawyer Hunley and Molly Schaller
University of Dayton
An eloquent case can be made to explain the relationship between learning spaces
and learning. But how do we know when a learning space enhances learning? We
need assessment data to answer this question. The answer, in turn, provides guidance for developing learning spaces and for monitoring their impact on learning.
We cannot assess the impact of learning spaces without addressing instructional and programmatic issues, which requires a multifactor, multimethod analysis.
The analysis determines the learning space characteristics that enhance student
learning and support the faculty’s pedagogical strategies. Data can then be used
to establish a set of principles or guidelines to inform learning space development,
while a monitoring system evaluates space effectiveness. This system should take
into account learning outcomes and space utilization and should be sensitive to
change over time.
Assessment Framework
Three issues must be addressed in the assessment design:
 First, it must be clear whether assessment focuses on teaching or learning.
 Second, the audience(s) for the assessment information must be identified to ensure the assessment blends with existing requirements, such as accreditation.
 Third, assessment of learning space must take into account the fact that learning and instruction are no longer confined to the classroom.
This chapter provides a framework for assessing the impact of learning spaces
on learning. Assessment targets and methods will be identified and then contextualized with an example of one university’s approach.
Focus of Assessment
While the goal of higher education is to help the students learn and develop, there
is a difference between a learning focus and a teaching focus. An institution with
an emphasis on learning measures its success through assessment of student
©2006 Sawyer Hunley and Molly Schaller
13.1
Learning Spaces
learning outcomes. While the assessment of teaching might include evaluation
of student learning outcomes, it is often limited to the assessment of student
satisfaction with courses or peer observation of teaching performance, neither of
which directly addresses learning. Assessment should integrate the evaluation of
instruction and learning. Learning is facilitated through the pedagogical efforts of
the faculty; both faculty and learners are supported by learning space. Therefore,
appropriate assessment targets are learning outcomes, teaching methods, and
use of learning space.
Accountability
Traditional accountability methods include reports on quality to federal, regional, or
state agencies and accreditation bodies. The audience for systematic assessment
of institutional quality lies outside the institution. Quality indicators generally are
based on indirect measures of academic performance such as selectivity, academic
expenditures, faculty-student ratios, and Carnegie classification. Because these
measures do not adequately represent the net effects or value added from higher
education, alternatives must be sought.
Full accountability is not limited to external audiences. Internal examination of
effectiveness is important for institutional growth and development. Pascarella and
Terenzini1 found that educationally effective institutions are differentiated by
 student involvement in the academic and nonacademic systems;
 the nature and frequency of student contact with peers and faculty members;
 interdisciplinary or integrated curricula;
 pedagogies that facilitate learning engagement and application;
 campus environments that emphasize scholarship and provide opportunities
for encounters with diverse individuals and ideas; and
 environments that support exploration.
These factors are linked to student learning and can be measured in terms of engagement in learning activities and use of space. The assessment of the relationship
between learning spaces and academic engagement aligns closely with accountability and can be included in the overall assessment plan for the institution.
Informal Learning
Informal learning, which occurs outside the formal instructor-facilitated setting,
is now recognized as an important part of the overall learning environment.
Informal settings include libraries and physical spaces that facilitate group
Assessing Learning Spaces
13.2
and individual academic activities and computer-assisted learning. Technology has redefined the meaning of learning space by changing our notions of
place and time:
 Place is defined by both physical and virtual settings.
 Learning time has become more flexible and can be formally scheduled or
individually selected by the learner.
 The structure and content of learning can be formally structured and facilitated
within a program or course or it can be self-directed.
Assessment Structure
The assessment structure is extended with the inclusion of informal learning activities. Thus, a comprehensive assessment of learning space addresses the use of
physical space that accommodates formal as well as informal and technologically
based learning. (See Table 1.)
Table 1. Assessment Structure
Characteristic
Formal Learning
Informal Learning
Environment
Physical and virtual
Physical and virtual
Time
Scheduled, self-selected,
and flexible
Scheduled, self-selected,
and flexible
Structure
Facilitated
Self-directed
Content
Program-directed
Self-directed
Assessment Targets
Institutions should determine assessment targets based on their own missions,
goals, and culture. Models, theories, and research suggest relevant targets:
 In their general model for assessing change in college students, Pascarella and
Terenzini2 suggested using university-wide targets to determine student growth.
 Strange and Banning 3 pointed to the importance of the person-environment
interaction.
 Huba and Freed4 emphasized learning outcomes as a direct measure of learning.
 Astin’s theory of involvement 5 makes the case for measuring student engagement as an indicator for student learning.
13.3
Learning Spaces
General Model for Assessing Change
Pascarella and Terenzini’s 6 model approaches growth and development as a function of student background and precollege traits, structural and organizational
features of the institution, interaction with agents of socialization, and quality of
the study effort. Precollege traits and background can be addressed through
the process of selectivity, but are less relevant to the discussion of how students
develop once they enter the academy.
For the purpose of measuring the impact of learning space, organizational
and structural features are translated into programmatic, pedagogical, and environmental factors. Student growth and development are affected by their level
of engagement and quality of study efforts. Thus, learning space assessment
targets the facilitation or inhibition of student interactions with faculty and peers
within formal and informal environments. The academic and cocurricular program,
pedagogical approaches used by faculty, and environment become critical elements affecting engagement and are targets for assessment.
Person-Environment Interaction
Person-environment interaction models can help focus learning space assessment.
Strange and Banning7 identified four person-environment themes:
 Physical surroundings encourage or constrain behavior.
 The collective socialization by individuals creates or defines environments.
 Organizational goals, complexity, centralization, formalization, stratification,
production, and efficiency influence environments.
 Environmental pressure, social climate, and campus cultures influence perceptions of settings.
Measures that target frequency and type of space use identify factors of the
physical environment that encourage or constrain engagement. Focus groups,
interviews, and surveys provide descriptive information regarding interactions
between individuals, instructional characteristics, institutional climate, and other
relevant structures. Quantitative and qualitative assessment methods reveal multiple aspects of the relationship between physical space and learning.
Learning Outcomes
Learning outcomes are observable and measurable indicators of student learning. Huba and Freed8 suggested that statements of learning outcomes usually
Assessing Learning Spaces
13.4
begin with the phrase, “Students will be able to....” Maki 9 classified four levels of
learning outcomes.
 Institutional outcomes are general and reflect students’ entire educational
experience.
 Program outcomes reflect work within a specific program.
 Course outcomes reflect the type of work within a particular course.
 Individual outcomes come from data collected on the same individual over time.
Direct measures of learning outcomes are the most valid and reliable indicators
of academic gains. But direct measures to determine the impact of learning spaces
on learning are fraught with complexity. For example, students generally participate
in courses and learning activities not confined to one type of learning environment.
Individual courses may be taught by multiple instructors using a variety of methods.
Institution-wide learning goals measured at discrete points during students’ matriculation cannot fully account for the impact of their various experiences. Measures of
learning specific to courses probably are not sensitive enough to detect differences
due to instruction or the setting of variables. Individual measures collected over time
would be costly and differ across individuals, making the data difficult to interpret.
One alternative measure for student learning is student engagement.
Engagement
Astin’s theory of involvement10 asserts that “students learn by becoming involved.”
A general consensus in the literature finds student engagement to be a valid indicator of educational effectiveness and a good indicator of learning. Research based
on the National Survey of Student Engagement (http://nsse.iub.edu/index.cfm)
validates this assessment target.
The flexibility of the concept of engagement makes it useful for investigating
the relationship between learning space and learning for several reasons:
 The relationship between the learning environment and the individuals occupying that environment can be determined.
 The involvement of students in learning activities within formal and informal
learning environments can be measured.
 Engagement can be measured through direct (observation) and indirect
(survey, focus groups) methods.
 Measures of engagement are sensitive to changes over time.
13.5
Learning Spaces
Assessment Methods
We have identified three general targets for assessing the impact of learning
spaces on learning:
 Academic engagement
 Teaching methods
 Use of learning spaces
Issues such as validity and reliability would be problematic if the assessment
system relied on a single method; however, a multifactor, multimethod assessment approach allows for the aggregation and verification of outcomes across
measures. Qualitative measures provide insight and a depth of understanding
into how individuals respond to space, as well as into their needs and if those
needs are being met. Quantitative measures reveal statistical relationships
between specific types of space and their uses. Consistent patterns from the
analyses demonstrate the impact of the space on learning. Three of the most
useful methods are briefly described here.
Focus Groups and Interviews
Focus groups and interviews explore the users’ experience of spaces. They provide
insight into how faculty and students respond to a particular space, how their
views of each other change in different spaces, and how their views of learning
are related to a specific space. While this approach relies on individual memory
and interpretation, it also allows for a deeper understanding of individual reactions to spaces.
Surveys
While focus groups and interviews produce a rich understanding of users’
experience of space, surveys can tap the perspectives of a larger number of
students and validate findings from other measures. The National Survey of
Student Engagement (http://nsse.iub.edu/index.cfm), for example, assesses
engagement of students across multiple institutions; annually developed
norms can be used to compare institutions. Surveys administered repeatedly
within a single institution can target specific questions and monitor changes
in perceptions over time. Well-designed surveys generate both quantitative
and qualitative information.
Assessing Learning Spaces
13.6
Photographic Studies
Photography, as a direct observational method, can determine usage patterns
in learning spaces. Photographic studies capture observational data across time
and in multiple settings with minimal intrusiveness and using modest resources.
This approach quantifies students’ use of space, including their interactions with
the physical and human environment. Direct observation offers a validity check
for interpretations from other measures.
An Example of Assessment
Over the past decade, the University of Dayton has worked to improve the
overall campus environment through planning, renovation, and construction.
The multiyear Learning Living Assessment Project examines the relationship of
the built environment, academic programs, and learning/engagement involving
three innovative campus learning spaces and the library. A two-stage model
first identifies the characteristics of learning spaces and academic programming
that positively impact learning, then incorporates the findings to develop space
and programs while monitoring their effectiveness. The project was launched
in fall 2004.
Two unique living/learning spaces that opened on campus in fall 2004 were
included in the study. Conceived and developed over a three-year period,
ArtStreet includes student townhouses, music practice rooms, classrooms,
and studios. The Marianist Hall learning/living space (attached to a residence
hall) was designed with a specific integrated learning community in mind. This
space has two large classrooms, two smaller meeting rooms, many smaller
spaces for faculty and students, and a rotunda for large group meetings. The
Learning Teaching Center (LTC)—the third space included in the study—is an
established space holding an experimental classroom, one large and one small
meeting room, a coffee shop, meeting space, and personal study spaces. The
study included the campus library study spaces to encompass a wider range of
informal learning spaces on campus.
Methods
The first year of the project focused on determining the relationship among
learning, academic programs, and physical learning space. Multiple methods and
multiple sources were used in developing a streamlined and user-friendly assess-
13.7
Learning Spaces
ment system. In most cases the measures were administered in the fall and in the
spring to identify response patterns over time. Both qualitative and quantitative
approaches were used.
Engagement served to represent learning outcomes, as measured through the
National Survey of Student Engagement (http://nsse.iub.edu/index.cfm), focus
groups, surveys, and photographic studies of both formal and informal learning spaces. Data identified programmatic and pedagogical characteristics that
increased both student and faculty engagement in the learning process. These
data were also used to generate quantitative information about space usage and
qualitative information clarifying why certain spaces were preferred.
The National Survey of Student Engagement data were obtained from the spring
2004 administration of the survey to first-year students and seniors. These
data suggested an overall pattern of student engagement for the university.
Surveys were administered in the fall and spring to students who lived or took
courses in the three innovative living/learning spaces and to a nonparticipant
control group. The surveys provided both quantitative and qualitative data
regarding perceptions of physical spaces on campus and academic programs.
Focus groups recorded the in-depth perceptions of students and faculty who
participated in the innovative spaces or programs.
Photographic studies were conducted in the three innovative spaces
and the library, with a layout of the space used to select photo spots. Still
pictures taken on a digital camera were stored on a computer hard drive and
then transferred to compact discs for ArtStreet, Marianist Hall, and the LTC.
Photographers took a picture at each designated spot, chosen according to
the arrangement of furniture and the configuration of the environment. Photos taken on the library’s six floors using a video camera were converted to
DVDs. Photographers began on the top floor and followed a designated path
throughout the building. Floors were designated with “zones” determined by
a change in furniture. Photographs were taken by the primary researchers,
volunteer students, student staff, or professional staff every hour beginning
at approximately a quarter after the hour for one week.
The library space, LTC, and Marianist Hall were each photographed in the
fall of 2004. ArtStreet was not photographed at that time due to a delay in
construction and opening of the facility until late in the fall term. Marianist Hall
and ArtStreet were each photographed in spring 2005. The photographic study
will continue to record changes in space use for the next two years.
Assessing Learning Spaces
13.8
Insights
Based on our first year of data collection and analysis, we have discovered relationships among learning space, instructional practices, and learning. Academic
engagement was encouraged by learning spaces that were comfortable, open,
flexible, and appealing. For example, students described classes in one of the
innovative spaces as requiring more accountability on their part because there
were few physical barriers between themselves and faculty. Students were most
engaged in settings and in academic activities that encouraged interpersonal
interaction and were supported by technology. In comparison, in more traditional
classrooms with seats arranged in rows and the instructor at the front of the
room, they felt they had less responsibility for participation. Engagement was
discouraged by poor air circulation, uncomfortable temperatures, distractions,
and noninteractive pedagogical practices. In addition, our photographic studies
showed students using our newest and perhaps most innovative spaces late into
the night for individual and group study. Students reported that they felt at home
in the space and also that they could stay focused on academics while there.
The results also revealed that no one physical structure accommodated all types
of learning needs. A balanced environment facilitates both group and individual
activities, with features that support computer access and spaces that allow for
a break from focused academic work.
The learning space often limits the faculty’s pedagogical repertoire. Faculty
discussions or communities of practice expand their awareness of pedagogical
options. Faculty who are comfortable leading case studies, discussions, or small
group activities in flexible spaces do not believe they can accomplish these same
activities in traditional spaces. They prefer flexible space with movable furniture
and seamless technology. Faculty who were not comfortable with a range of
pedagogical approaches tended to alter our most innovative spaces to obtain
a lecture-room feel. In one classroom with no tables, just comfortable chairs in
a circle, one faculty member consistently pulled a table in front of her seat and
lectured from that position. In order to expand faculty pedagogy, we cannot simply
build or design new spaces—faculty need to discuss exploring new approaches
for engaging students.
A key to academic engagement is to minimize the separation between living
and learning. Learning takes place in all environments, so a complete assessment
of the impact of learning environments must include informal as well as formal aca-
13.9
Learning Spaces
demic settings. Formal settings are most engaging when they encourage learning
through social interaction and are relevant to students’ lives. Informal settings must
be flexible and comfortable and accommodate a variety of learning activities. This
understanding of the relationship between living and learning led our research
team to adopt the motto “Bring life to learning; bring learning to life.”
Practical Implications
Higher education has significant investments in learning spaces with the
expectation of making a positive impact on learning. Well-designed assessments will provide the information needed to confirm the impact of learning
spaces on learning. The process must account for the complex interaction
among learning spaces, pedagogical practices, and student outcomes.
Problems in interpreting the results can be mediated through a system that
incorporates data gathered over time from multiple factors, multiple methods,
and multiple sources.
A two-stage model for assessment provides
 a set of criteria useful in guiding space development that also assists in identifying measurable targets; and
 a process for monitoring the impact of space on key learning and engagement
targets over time.
While concepts about the impact of learning space on learning are certainly
generalizable, assessment procedures should be conducted by each institution to
account for individual differences. Higher education must assess its own performance, address its weaknesses, build on its strengths, and promote high-quality
experiences. The main advantage of an assessment strategy is the enhancement
of student learning—the goal of every college and university.
Endnotes
1. Ernest T. Pascarella and Patrick T. Terenzini, How College Affects Students: A Third
Decade of Research, vol. 2 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005).
2. Ibid.
3. C. Carney Strange and James H. Banning, Educating by Design: Creating Campus Learning Environments That Work (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001).
4. Mary E. Huba and Jann E. Freed, Learner Centered Assessment on College Campuses:
Shifting the Focus from Teaching to Learning (Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon,
2000).
Assessing Learning Spaces
13.10
5. Alexander W. Astin, “Involvement: The Cornerstone of Excellence,” Change, vol. 17,
no. 4 (1985), pp. 35–39.
6. Pascarella and Terenzini, op. cit.
7. Strange and Banning, op. cit.
8. Huba and Freed, op. cit.
9. Peggy L. Maki, Assessing for Learning: Building A Sustainable Commitment Across the
Institution (Sterling, Va.: Stylus Publishing, 2004).
10.Astin, op. cit.
About the Authors
Sawyer Hunley is coordinator of the School Psychology Program and a
learning/teaching fellow at the University of Dayton in Ohio. As program
coordinator, she has advanced the concept of learning and behavioral assessment in a prevention and response to intervention model. In her role as
chair for the National Association of School Psychologists Certification Board,
she has integrated this model into the requirements for national credentialing.
Hunley is currently investigating the impact of learning space on learning at
the University of Dayton.
Molly Schaller is an assistant professor and coordinator of the College
Student Personnel Program and a fellow in the Learning Teaching Center
at the University of Dayton. She and Hunley are engaged in a multiyear,
comprehensive study of the relationship between space and learning. She
holds a master’s degree from Miami University in college student personnel and a PhD in higher education administration from Ohio University. Her
research focuses on college student development with a special emphasis
on sophomore students.
13.11
www.educause.edu/learningspaces
ISBN 0-9672853-7-2
©2006 EDUCAUSE. Available electronically at
www.educause.edu/learningspaces
[email protected]
1150 18th Street, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20036
202-872-4200
202-872-4318 (fax)
www.educause.edu
4772 Walnut Street, Suite 206
Boulder, CO 80301-2538
303-449-4430
303-440-0461 (fax)