ASSESSMENT
the key to
creating
That Promote
Learning
By Sawyer Hunley and Molly Schaller
L
earning spaces in higher education environments have
received much attention in the last several years due to
innovative architectural design,1 the movement to connect campus spaces with learning,2 and assessment technologies that allow for both qualitative and quantitative
evaluation of relevant information.3 Our research has
focused on the connections among learning space, learning, and pedagogical methods and on the characteristics
of successful programmatic change linked to learning
spaces. Beginning in the fall of 2004, we instituted a multiyear study to (1) develop a system for assessing physical
learning spaces on college and university campuses; (2)
explore the relationship between learning and the characteristics of learning spaces; (3)
gather and examine data and information regarding satisfaction and engagement for faculty
and students in learning environments; and (4) define the relationship between innovative pedagogy and learning spaces. In addition, we began work on developing a model for
encouraging strategic change to match programming with expectations for learning spaces.
The ultimate goal in this ongoing study is to create environments that promote learning.
Sawyer Hunley is coordinator of the School Psychology Program and a Learning Teaching Fellow at the University of Dayton. Molly Schaller is coordinator of the College Student Personnel and Higher Education Administration Programs and a Learning Teaching Fellow at the University of Dayton.
26
EDUCAUSE r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 9
© 2009 Sawyer Hunley and Molly Schaller
Illustration by Steve McCracken; photo, ColorBlind Images/Getty Images © 2009
A System for Assessment
The limited literature on spaces in relation
to learning in higher education required a
“blank slate” approach for developing an
assessment strategy. The first priority was
to identify measurement targets, which we
based on the rationale for assessment in
Figure 1. The initial hypothesis was a simplistic assumption that learning was directly influenced by characteristics of the
learning space, pedagogy, and academic
programming. The two-step procedure
for assessment provided a set of criteria to
identify relevant measurable factors and a
process for determining the relationships
between space and pedagogy, programming, and engagement.
Key characteristics of learning spaces
and relationships had to be identified
in order to lay a foundation for ongoing
measurement; student and faculty focus
groups, interviews, and surveys provided
these data. Pedagogical practices and academic programming linked to learning had
a high profile in the literature with regard
to the transition from teacher-centered­
to learner-centered education; we measured students’ learning preferences with
questions developed from the literature
through focus groups, interviews, and surveys. Learning was assessed through measures of engagement: the National Study of
Student Engagement (NSSE) and our own
photographic studies. The photographic
data verified the NSSE survey results
through observation and quantification
T
he two-step
procedure for
assessment
provided a
set of criteria to identify
relevant measurable
factors and a process
for determining the
relationships between
space and pedagogy,
programming, and
engagement.
of specific types and frequencies of engagement in various locations throughout
campus. Early in this process, engagement
emerged as the best measure for learning,
due to the complexity of assessing specific
learning outcomes.
Employing a systematic strategy of
data gathering that incorporated multiple
methods for ascertaining our findings,4 we
gleaned four major insights from the data.
First, faculty tend to facilitate students’ experiences based on the faculty member’s
comfort level with pedagogical practices,
ranging from those that are highly innovative to those that are entrenched in
tradition. Spaces can limit the range of
pedagogical practices that faculty feel
comfortable using, but they do not expand
Figure 1. Rationale for Assessment
Pedagogy
Learning &
Engagement
Academic
Program
28
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 9
Learning
Space
the range. Second, students react positively
to spaces that treat them with respect, that
are serious, and that encourage interaction
with other students and faculty. Students
are most engaged where their basic needs
can be met. Third, physical characteristics
(especially mastery over the environment
and comfort) are extremely important;
the emotional reaction related to the
environment encourages or discourages
engagement for both faculty and students.
Fourth, academic programs that encourage integration, faculty communication,
respect for the student, and innovation
with scheduling, space use, and time are
most likely to engage students and faculty
and to positively influence learning.
Characteristics of Learning Spaces
Key characteristics of learning spaces had
to be identified to develop specific targets
for understanding the physical requirements for engagement. Rate-of-use data
from a library photographic study verified preferences, which were identified
through indirect measures (i.e., focus
groups, interviews, surveys). Preferences
for spaces with differing physical characteristics (e.g., with or without windows,
table size, comfortable seating) and functions (e.g., individual or group study,
access to references) were documented
through frequency counts of users in specific locations.5
Data from the photographic study
revealed those library aspects that encouraged or discouraged both individual and
group engagement with the library facilities. Individual study was encouraged by
spaces that are free from distractions and
noise, have good lighting, are comfortable,
and possess pleasing aesthetics. Spaces
designated for individual work should
house computer stations and study carrels, as well as a variety of other furniture.
Spaces designed to increase group work
should have soft furniture, four- to sixperson tables, and computers. In addition,
all spaces should facilitate interpersonal
communication, be controllable, and promote the integration of basic human needs
and desires (e.g., ­eating, drinking, and enjoyment) with learning activities.
A major finding from this photographic study was that the re-designation
of a space function will not change usage
Figure 2. How Do We Measure the Impact of Space?
Faculty
Space
Learning
Outcomes
Students
patterns unless the physical aspects of the
space are reconfigured. In addition, given
the long-standing traditions of library procedures, users want permission (e.g., signs
indicating what is allowed) before they will
use the space in different ways.
Faculty and Students
The third stage of the multiyear project focused on the interactions between learning spaces, faculty, students, and student
learning, as symbolized in Figure 2. The
reciprocal interactions between space and
faculty, between space and students, and
between faculty and students are complicated by the concurrent reciprocal interaction between the learning space and the
faculty-student interaction.
The complexity of measuring these
interactions required a new strategy for assessment. The following questions framed
this stage of the study:
1. How do faculty and students assess
the “fit” between course goals and the
physical facility of the learning space?
2. What is the relationship between
space characteristics and pedagogical
innovation?
3. Do faculty communities of practice
promote innovative practices in pedagogy and use of space?
A quasi-experimental approach was used
to investigate the relationship between the
characteristics of four different classrooms
30
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 9
and pedagogical practices: four classes were
rotated through the rooms during a semester. The four rooms were all designed differently, ranging from traditional seats in rows
to highly flexible accommodations. Flexible space contained comfortable, movable
furniture and was relatively unstructured.
One space contained large tables with comfortable chairs, and another space had soft,
movable chairs with tablet arms (called the
“circle room” due to the typical configuration of the chairs in a circle). To address
question 3, the study included graduate
courses held on two evenings per week.
One group participated in a community
of practice once a month to discuss the
members’ pedagogy; the other group participated only in the room rotation.
F
aculty who
were not
comfortable
with a
range of pedagogical
approaches tended
to alter the most
innovative spaces so
that the rooms would
have a “lecture room”
feel.
Observations and photo studies
documented the interactions. Surveys and
focus groups revealed faculty members’
and students’ perceptions of the experiences. The study confirmed that academic
engagement was encouraged by learning spaces that were comfortable, open,
flexible, and appealing to the emotions.
Students were most engaged in settings
and in academic activities that encouraged
interpersonal interactions and that were
supported by technology. In comparison,
when students met in more traditional
classrooms, with seats arranged in rows
and with the instructor at the front of the
room, they felt they had less responsibility for participation. Poor air circulation,
uncomfortable temperatures, distractions,
and noninteractive pedagogical practices
all discouraged engagement. Interestingly, when classes began in the traditional
room, the room was rated as acceptable.
But students who experienced the flexible and comfortable rooms first and then
spent four weeks in the traditional classroom perceived the traditional classroom
negatively. Perception of the learning
space was framed by the past experiences
of the users; experiences in spaces with
aspects that promoted engagement tended
to heighten users’ expectations for future
learning spaces.
Faculty who were not comfortable with
a range of pedagogical approaches tended
to alter the most innovative spaces so that
the rooms would have a “lecture room”
feel. Space that was unstructured, with too
many options, was viewed as overwhelming, and it discouraged innovation. On
the other hand, space that was extremely
restrictive also discouraged pedagogical
innovation. Although faculty members’
awareness of pedagogical options was
expanded, they typically failed to follow
through with innovative pedagogical practices, preferring to adapt the space to their
own style. Thus, the next phase of the multiyear study focused on understanding the
elements that encouraged the connection
between learning space and innovative
pedagogy.
The Relationship between Innovative
Pedagogy and Learning Spaces
A review of the data collected from the
faculty groups in this study and from
a highly innovative faculty group in an
earlier stage of this study suggested that
specific elements did indeed encourage
the link between learning space and innovative pedagogical practices. A successful
connection between learning space and
pedagogical and programmatic innovation
requires attention to teacher learning and
engagement.
Teachers tend to engage in three types
of learning activities: (1) sharing and
reflecting on practice and experiences;
(2) experimenting with new ideas and
techniques; and (3) gathering information
independently.6 Pedagogical innovation is
constricted by lack of time, resource availability, meaningful rewards, and limited
power to make changes.7 Adult learning
processes are ideally a (1) self-regulated,
(2) planned, (3) spiral, and (4) reflective behavioral change. The core of self-regulated
learning is best defined as ‘‘independently
directing the process of improving teaching and/or attaining learning goals.”8
The assessment process for investigating the hypothesis that a successful connection between learning space and pedagogical innovation necessitates attention
to teacher learning and engagement first
required that learning space be redefined to
consist of the content to be learned, as well
as the environment in which the learning
occurs.9 Learning spaces that are likely to
increase the engagement of the learning
facilitators promote a sense of connection
with the environment, stimulate positive
emotional responses, interest, and enjoyment, and encourage feelings of autonomy
and competence during challenging tasks.
In addition, learning contexts that incorporate high-quality opportunities for independent and social activities are likely to
hold the attention of adult learners, including faculty. Learning is optimized through
engagement, and engagement is promoted
through thoughtful learning facilitation
within appropriate learning contexts.
The assessment plan for this stage of
the multiyear study was created to address
the issues in the literature through a phenomenological process by involving the
researcher and the study participants (i.e.,
the faculty) in the conversation over a twoyear period.10 It provided sufficient time,
resources, and meaningful rewards, and it
empowered participants to make changes.
32
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 9
Conceptually, the idea was to gain, from
all members of the various programs in a
Learning Teaching Center (LTC), engagement in the creation of their own assessments. Data from their self-created and
self-administered assessments then would
be used to drive program improvement.
The two-year plan included a year of development and a year of implementation.
Development began with the collection
of materials such as policy and accreditation documents, assessment instruments
that were currently used, and research
literature relating to the development of assessment outcomes. Individual interviews
with LTC unit members enabled a better
understanding of their roles and helped
A
lthough
rooms
should
not be
scheduled based solely
on “space occupancy
rates,” there are wise
ways to outfit rooms
to improve pedagogical
practices to increase
learning.
activities also capitalized on the creativity,
diversity, and expertise of the members
and increased the members’ ownership of
the vision. The result was the creation of
one mission statement, which reflected the
general consensus of the entire unit while
allowing for individualization of specific
goals.
All programs in the unit established
the same three assessment goals: engagement, satisfaction, and learning. Each
program created specific objectives that
were meaningful to help improve work
and decision-making and that were worth
the time and effort needed to measure
them. Assessment measures were created
for each objective. To allow for consistency
of measurement and end-of-year aggregation of data, the “Active Visioning” process used Goal Attainment Scaling as the
outcome gauge. In the second year of the
process, unit members implemented the
assessments and reported on their results.
Although we have not yet analyzed all of
the data, anecdotal reports indicate that
after some initial hesitation by LTC members, they accepted and, in some cases,
became very interested in the assessment
process. We believe that our investigation
into the use of self-developed and selfimplemented­ assessment practices will
demonstrate that faculty-development­
strategies can indeed strengthen the connection between learning space and innovative pedagogical practices.
Summary
to identify their questions, concerns, and
current methods of assessment. Results indicated that all members were doing some
sort of assessment of their work but that
the assessments varied in quality and usefulness and that there was a desire for more
collaboration among and understanding of
programs outside of their own area.
A process called “Active Visioning”
included all LTC members in discussions
and activities to identify their values, vision, and mission. This process generated
a list of unit values that held merit for
all members of the LTC unit. Members
participated in activities designed to connect the values conversation with the
creation of the vision. While providing an
opportunity for all members to actively
contribute to the visioning process, these
At this point, our research leads us to agree
with C. Carney Strange and James H. Banning: campus culture, social climate, and
environmental press (the notion that environments shape individuals and thus their
behavior within specific contexts) influence the effectiveness of learning spaces.11
We have also found that learning spaces
can encourage or constrain behavior. Students and faculty engage in a full range of
learning behaviors (1) when environments
are constructed to optimize interaction
between faculty and students inside and
outside of the classroom or course time;
(2) when there is high engagement with
course material both through class preparation, on the part of faculty and students,
and through active learning inside class;
and (3) when the atmosphere encourages
students and faculty to behave as if “serious
work” is taking place.
Students will use any space for learning activities if the space is so designed.
Providing a diverse set of spaces where
faculty and students can “run into” one another increases engagement and learning.
Undergraduate students are particularly
eager to find study and work spaces that
meet their needs throughout the day and
into the evening. Space outside of faculty
offices should be carefully designed to
provide for interaction between students
and faculty. If faculty are “tucked away”
from students or from one another, they
run the risk of encouraging the practice of
isolation, which limits the development of
student and faculty relationships and thus
their impact on one another.
Students and faculty are accustomed to
a variety of space options that serve their
needs. Learning spaces that encourage
engagement are visually appealing, have
flexible lighting and temperature controls,
and allow access to natural light. They are
also designed to limit auditory distractions
from outside, hallways, air handlers, and
classrooms next door. A pleasant olfactory presence, permission to eat or drink,
and comfortable and easy-to-negotiate
spaces tend to improve engagement and
satisfaction.
Outfitting an engaging environment
requires careful consideration of furniture selection. Flexible furniture should
be lightweight and easily movable, with
a ratio between furniture and free space
that allows for alteration of the room setup.
Although rooms should not be scheduled
based solely on “space occupancy rates,”
there are wise ways to outfit rooms to improve pedagogical practices to increase
learning. Seating and flat-space options
should take into consideration the full
needs of students. Graduate students, who
spend long hours in class, are particularly
sensitive to seating options. Having just
one seating option in a room is not desirable. Seating options, when possible,
should include comfortable rolling chairs,
straight-back chairs, and some soft seating. Although faculty and students often
want flat surfaces where they can spread
out their work and have extra room, they
also report that these same flat surfaces
may keep students from engaging fully in
M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 9  E d u c a u s e r e v i e w
33
classroom activities, since they can provide a barrier to participation. Physical
barriers seem to limit students’ readiness
to take responsibility for their participation and active learning in the classroom.
Finally, lightweight and transportable
whiteboards, alternative surfaces for visual
demonstrations, and media technology are
also important.
The most engaging classes are those that
provide opportunities for faculty to work
together to collaborate on the delivery of
course content and that use shared spaces
to meet learning outcomes. Students engage more deeply in spaces where they
“hold ownership.” Spaces that are difficult
to enter, or that require permission to stay
in, will not encourage use by students.
Territoriality and the ownership of highly
prized rooms by individual departments
decrease the use of the spaces and therefore decrease learning. When faculty are
relegated to “stand” in one place (e.g., to
focus students on one screen), interaction,
problem-solving activities, and innovative
use of the learning space may be limited.
34
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 9
In short, there appears to be a reciprocal interaction between a learning space
and its users. Institutions that assess the
I
nstitutions
that assess the
use of learning
spaces on their
campuses must also
ascertain pedagogical
practices that yield
optimal learning; space
and pedagogy are
undeniably intertwined.
use of learning spaces on their campuses
must also ascertain pedagogical practices
that yield optimal learning; space and
pedagogy are undeniably intertwined. The
level of student and faculty engagement is a
symptom of the effectiveness of the learning experience and represents the quality
of learning outcomes. Without assessment, institutions may miss the important
connections between context, institutional
culture, and students’ specific needs. Maximizing learning is seldom an endeavor that
involves one simple approach; it therefore
must be studied, experimented with, and
perfected using active assessment.
Notes
  1. William Dittoe and Nat Porter, “Appealing
Spaces,” American School and University, October 1,
2007, <http://asumag.com/Furniture/university_
appealing_spaces/>; Maja Jankowska and Mark
Atlay, “Use of Creative Space in Enhancing Students’ Engagement,” Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, vol. 45, no. 3 (August 2008),
pp. 271–79.
  2. Sawyer Hunley and Molly Schaller, “Assessing
Learning Spaces,” in Diana G. Oblinger, ed., Learning Spaces (Boulder, Colo.: EDUCAUSE, 2006),
<http://www.educause.edu/Chapter13.Assessing
LearningSpaces/11911>; Ernest T. Pascarella and
Patrick T. Terenzini, How College Affects Students: A
Third Decade of Research, volume 2 (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 2005).
  3. Hunley and Schaller, “Assessing Learning Spaces.”
  4. For a detailed account of this process, see ibid.
  5. See Kathleen M. Webb, Molly A. Schaller, and
Sawyer A. Hunley, “Measuring Library Space Use
and Preferences: Charting a Path toward Increased
Engagement,” Portal: Libraries and the Academy, vol.
8, no. 4 (October 2008), pp. 407–22.
  6. Margaret C. Lohman, “Factors Influencing Teachers’ Engagement in Informal Learning Activities,”
Journal of Workplace Learning, vol. 18, no. 3 (2006),
pp. 141–56; Margaret C. Lohman and Nicholas
H. Woolf, “Self-initiated Learning Activities of
Experienced Public School Teachers: Methods,
Sources, and Relevant Organizational Influences,”
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, vol. 7, no. 1
(March 2001), pp. 59–74.
  7. Margaret C. Lohman, “Environmental Inhibitors
to Informal Learning in the Workplace: A Case
Study of Public School Teachers,” Adult Education
Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 2 (2000), pp. 83–101.
  8. I. M. Van Eekelen, H. P. A. Boshuizen, and J. D.
Vermunt, “Self-regulation in Higher Education
Teacher Learning,” Higher Education, vol. 50, no. 3
(October 2005), pp. 447–71.
  9. Sawyer Hunley, “Best Practices for Preparing
Learning Space to Increase Engagement,” in Alex
Thomas and Jeff Grimes, eds., Best Practices in School
Psychology V, 6 vols. (Bethesda, Md.: National Association of School Psychologists, 2008), 3:813–26.
10. Graham Webb asserted that a deeper understanding of a phenomenon may be reached by involving
the research participant in the conversation in
which categorization and judgment take place.
Graham Webb, “Deconstructing Deep and Surface: Towards a Critique of Phenomenography,”
Higher Education, vol. 33, no. 2 (March 1997), pp.
195–212.
11. C. Carney Strange and James H. Banning, Educating
by Design: Creating Campus Learning Environments
That Work (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001).