creating adaptive learning environments - scup journal

for Higher Education

• Volume 32, Number 2December 2003-February 2004

Articles

For an online version

of the journal, visit

www.scup.org/phe.

An Assessment of Capital 5Budgeting Practices in Public

Higher Educationby Derrick Manns

Creating Adaptive 12Learning Environments

by Stephen J. Kopp, Linda Seestedt Stanford,Kenneth Rohlfing, and Jonathan P.Kendall

The High Cost of Building a 24Better University

by Donald J. Guckert and Jeri Ripley King

Indiana's Twenty-First Century 30Scholars Program

by Tamara L. Wandel

The Impact of Technologies 37on Learning

by Kimberly Gustafson

This study finds a need for new capital projects toinclude continuing. dedicated revenue streams for theproject lifetime in order to avoid continuation of thecurrent state of underfunded maintenance. especiallyin light of growing needs for upgraded researchequipment and space.

A health professions building project at CentralMichigan University provides focus for a theoreticaland practical discussion of effective planning tooptimize human. spatial. and digital connectionsfor learner-centered environments.

Higher education facilities seem to come at premiumcost, even taking into account that educationalfacilities tend to cost more. The authors argue thatthis is due to appropriate and strategic high aspirations.

Indiana's 1Wenty-FirstCentury Scholars program effectivelymeets the needs of high-risk and low-income students byunderstanding the student's mind-set. providing mentoringrelationships. being flexible with credit load minimums,and utilizing alumni for student recruitment.

A study at the University of Washington called "listeningto the Leamer." asked students about their desirefor usingtechnology in coursework, andfacult about currentapproaches/barriers. O1rriculawere developed thatintergrate education technology in a leamer-centered way.

Planning for Higher Education 1

Creating AdaptiveLearning EnvironmentsA health professions building project at Central Michigan University provides focus for atheoretical and practical discussion of effective planning to optimize human, spatial, anddigital connections for learner-centered environments.

by Stephen J. Kopp, linda Seestedt Stanford, Kenneth Rohlfing, and Jonathan P. Kendall

The Problem of Traditional Practicesin a Learner-Centered Environment

Stephen J. Kopp is the former foundingdean ofThe Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow

College of Health Professions at Central

Michigan University and the current provost

at Ohio University. He earned his Ph.D. from

the University of Illinois at Chicago and his

bachelor's degree from the University ofNotre Dame. He has authored and coauthored

more than 80 scientific, peer-reviewed

publications and presented numerous

scholarly articles at regional, national, and

international symposia. He has served on

numerous state and national scientific panels,

advisory committees, and governing boards

and currently serves on the boards of the

Ohio Learning Network and OhioLiNK.

Coauthor biographies see page 23.

A casual walk through classrooms on many college campuses

would quickly reveal few substantive differences between

current classroom space designs and those found in colonial

times. Historically, assumptions made by university planners

regarding the design of instructional and learning spaces

have been predicated on faculty-centered instruction in the

oral tradition; that is, content delivery via lecture (Bransford,

Brown, and Cocking 2000; Weigel 2002). There has been

relatively little attention given to questioning and validating

these assumptions and the standards that have historically

guided the design of instructional spaces. Not surprisingly,

the reciprocal influence that the traditional row-by-column

seating design has had as a deterrent to innovative and

alternative pedagogic strategies has been largely unrecognized

as well. Just as form profoundly influences function, these

de facto guide plates for instructional spaces have and

continue to reinforce conformity in pedagogic practices.

This disconnect continues to produce environments

misaligned for function while perpetuating designs supporting

traditional, faculty-centered models of education that

emphasize instructional discourse featuring a preponderance

of "listening is learning" methodologies (Oblinger and Rush

1997). Granted, the traditional teaching style of lecturing may

be the best method for some students and certain subjects

but to presume that one method or place for learning is

12 December 2003-February 2004

the only way (or the best way) to teach ignores compelling

evidence to the contrary (Wilson 1997). Moreover, these

designs have impeded advances in learner-centered

environments and instructional strategies that support and

foster the active engagement of students in the generation,

construction, analysis, application, internalization, and

augmentation of knowledge-based thought processes

and matrices.

During the last 50 years, traditional education practices,

which have presumed telling is teaching and listening is

learning, have been profoundly impacted by the explosion

of new knowledge. The response of many faculty members

to the rapidly expanding body of new knowledge and the

collateral compression in the half-life of prior knowledge

has been to cram and dispense more content into lecture

presentations (Paul and Elder 2001; Spence 2001). In an

attempt to cope with the ever-increasing onslaught of

information with seemingly little meaning or contextual

sense, students have responded by engaging in bulimic

learning practices: cramming and purging. This largely

passive educational approach motivates and rewards

students who are proficient at memorizing and recalling

information with little regard for their ability to think with

it. apply it, or transfer it to other contexts. Thus, these

students may receive higher grades, but, unfortunately, few

develop the capacity to think critically with the knowledgeand transfer or relate it to other relevant contexts. Fewer

yet have gained an appreciation for the contexts in which

the knowledge can be applied or misapplied. It should

not be much of a surprise that these practices do little to

advance higher-order thinking, knowledge transfer, and

synthesis (Lemke 2003; Weimer 2002).

Strategic Considerations

An integral part of contemporary reform efforts involves

restoring the active and interactive roles of faculty and

students in the learning process. Students must assume

and the educational enterprise must permit a more dynamic

and engaged role for students in the learning process as

researchers and questioners of knowledge, engaged

collaborators and critical thinkers in the learning process,

formulators of ideas, synthesizers of information, and

solvers of problems. These active processes are intended

to diminish the unintended role of students as simply

passive receivers of information.This modification in the role of students needs to be

accompanied by a modification in the current role of faculty

Creating Adaptive Learning Environments

and a redesigning of learning spaces. Instead of perpetuating

a role as knowledge and content dispensers, faculty will

need to reorient their knowledge expertise and transition

to function as designers and architects of learning

experiences; experiences that advance such attributes as

ordered and disciplined thinking, inquiry, and knowledge

construction and transfer. These experiences will need to

Students respond to the onslaught of infor

mation by engaging in bulimic learning

practices: cramming and purging.

be responsive to and engage multiple forms of intelligence

and learning styles. Authenticating these experiences in

terms of the extent to which they advance learning and

lead to the intended developmental outcomes is an implicit

part of this endeavor. Concepts such as the effectiveness

of operant learning strategies, the efficiency of learning

experiences, learning assessment, and evidence-based

practices are relatively new to education, especially higher

education, but they are becoming increasingly more

prevalent expectations. In effect, learning environments

(e.g., classrooms) have become experimental laboratories,

and, as such, they need to function like laboratories

equipped with the resources needed to perform and adapt

to well-designed learning experiments. Key elements involved

in this transformational process and the reclassification of

roles are highlighted in figure 1.This figure depicts the rela

tionships and integration viewed as essential to achieving

the envisioned, learning-centric model of education. Key

elements in this model include elevating the role of faculty

and students in the learning process; rethinking the

design of learning spaces and the reconceptualization of

instructional environments as experimental laboratories,

incubators, and test beds for ideas; and using immersive

strategies that empower and engage the learner and achieve

the outcomes outlined in the building programming objectives.

Concepts like the ones described herein have been

discussed elsewhere but rarely implemented because they

require major transformational change (Dolence and Norris

1995; JointTask Force on Student Learning 1998; National

Panel Report 2002). The transition of pedagogy from one

method to a blend of strategies focused on the learner is

not easily achieved. Faculty, staff members, and students,

all of whom have learned how to cope in traditional faculty

centered classrooms, often are hesitant to change. After

all, most of us were educated in the traditional way and, as


Stephen J. Kopp, linda Seestedt Stanford,

Kenneth Rohlfing, and Jonathan P.Kendall

Figure 1 Strategic Considerations Involved in Organizational Reengineering for Learning

Vision and Goals

Advance Learning-Centered Education by Organizing for Learning:Reshaping Expectations, Environments, and Roles

Instructional Environments and Learning Spaces, which function as:

co

'iij

:>

II)QI

'c,QI••CQ•..••

en

cC)'iijQI

CQIUCQ

C.enC)c'c•..CQQI

...J

Faculty

... as contentexperts,architects,andco-designersof interactive learning

experienceandmodules,which advancecritical/higher-orderthinking,

communication,andproblemsolving

Students

... as critical thinkers,knowledgeresearchers,learningcollaborators,

problemsolvers,producersandassemblersof new information,

and long life learnersen.•.cC.ID::J..•.

m::J

IQ~IQID

3ID

::J.•.

Programming Objectives

a result, it is the approach we know best. But what if we

could truly revolutionize the educational experience; if we

could change it and blend it to one that is responsive to

the individual needs of students, adapted to their specific

learning styles while achieving each individual's full

educational potential? This transformation can reasonably be

expected to improve quality of life and provide substantial

socioeconomic benefit through a better educated society.As the educational environment is transformed from

the traditional faculty-centered model to a student-centered

learning model, faculty will become increasingly more

responsible for guiding the creation of learning experiences,

courseware, multimedia instructional programming, authentic

project-based learning modules and presentations, and the

design of sophisticated evaluation matrices for assessing

educational achievement. These changing expectations

will necessitate fundamental alterations in the learning

environment. Access to advanced educational technology

capabilities, equipment, and resources that enhance learning

opportunities is imperative for the classroom of tomorrow.

Immersing students in the learning experience is a concept

that can be realized with current technology-for the visual

learner, a way to see the algorithm; for the aural learner, a

way to listen to the greatest teachers; and for the kinesthetic

learner, a way to feel the processes and skills as they

happen in the real world (Brown 2000; Dolence and Norris

1995; Norris 1997). The creation of appropriate learning

opportunities for students, faculty, and support staff will



Figure 2 Various Active Learning Strategies and Approaches

Inquiry-Based Learning(e.g., research, observation, hypothesis formulation/testing,

experimentation, creative expression, abstract/discipline/integrative thinking,knowledge assembly/discovery)

Collaborative!

CooperativeLearning

(e.g., consultation,'

group strategies,

interdiscliplinary

solution finding)

Technology Enhanced(e.g., simulation, virtual reality,

immersive environments,

asynchronous communication,multisensory activators/

integrators, on-demandinformation access)

Knowledge Diffusion(e.g., lecture, declarative processes,

narratives, recitation, digital media,

print media, visual/abstract objects)

Skills- and CompetencyBased Learning(e.g., drills, contextualized

practice, modeling, mentoring,

apprenticeship)

Application-Based Learning(e.g., case scenarios, problems,

contextual frames, projects,

designs, functionality)

necessitate unprecedented, highly efficient resources and

capabilities to enable the development of multimedia

instructional courseware materials, which will allow seamless,

asynchronous, on-demand access and distribution of these

learning modules via a robust technology infrastructure.

Although some may argue that this concept is a radical

departure from the traditional expectations of classroom

environments, this functional transformation is supported by

findings demonstrating and documenting the effectiveness

of such educational practices. In this regard, instead of

creating classroom spaces designed to control knowledge

dissemination centering on the faculty member, learning

environments need to be reorganized and redesigned

around the learner, creating opportunities for active learning


experiences that empower each student to engage, access,

and use resources and information in ways that support their

active role and their development and refinement of higher

order thinking skills as part of the learning process. Figure

2 illustrates some of the key instructional strategies that

are part of this process. Beginning with" knowledge

diffusion" and rotating clockwise, the strategies represent

ed shift from declarative/structured approaches to ones

that offer greater flexibility and adaptability to the learner.

Experiencing a blend of strategies is more likely to develop

the requisite foundations for lifelong learning as opposed

to a single approach. Arguably, however, there may be no

one strategy or blend of strategies that will be optimally

effective over time for all learners and areas of study.

Engaged Learning

There are certain truths that devotees of critical thinking

and cognitive science regard as self-evident about learning

and knowledge transfer (Paul and Elder 2001). First, learning

begins with a compelling question, one that engages

the learner to think; seek information, clarification, and

understanding; and, ultimately, formulate meaningful

answers or solutions. As such, it is motivated by inquiry

and curiosity. The progression to deep learning is enhanced

by inquiry that requires the formation and internalization of

The transition of pedagogy from one

method to a blend of strategies focusedon the learner is not easily achieved.

knowledge and conceptual elements in ways that make

connections to prior knowledge, experience, or meanings.

Meaningfulness in learning implies context. the idea that

learning is contextual and reinforced by application. It

requires regular, active engagement. practice, and thinking

that is disciplined and involves the testing and rethinking

of understandings. Finally, authentic learning requires the

mastery of the elements of thought that are intrinsic to the

field of study, the process of learning to think like a scientist,

a doctor, and so forth. To achieve this level of integration

requires time for reflection, evaluation, validation, and

verification. Yet, even though this truth is intuitively self

evident, too often educators devote the vast majority of

instructional time in faculty-centered classroom settings to

dispensing answers through lectures (i.e., telling the answers

without framing them in the context of the questions).Because students often do not know or understand the

Stephen J. Kopp, Linda Seestedt Stanford,


questions and because the faculty member does most of

the thinking for the students in these approaches, it is

hardly surprising that most students learn to perform only

at the most rudimentary levels of thinking: memorizationand factual recall.

A corollary to this principle is that learning is an active

process, one that requires learners to engage in mental

work: questioning, reasoning, testing, verifying, and refining

their thinking. Various strategies for active learning are

depicted in figure 2. Interestingly, the oral tradition of

instruction (i.e., lecturing) constitutes an active process for

the faculty member but a largely passive experience for the

student. It is well designed for content dissemination to

large audiences, but it may do little to engage the student

actively in the learning process. It is based on the premise

that the imparting of knowledge through the act of professing

activates and promotes learning in most or all students.

There is little evidence to support this notion. Instead, a

robust body of literature exists, which asserts that this

assumption is invalid based on what is known about how

humans learn (Bain 1997; Bransford, Brown, and Cocking

2000; JointTask Force on Student Learning 1998).

Another implicit truth is that learning is about making

connections-neural connections as well as knowledge

connections across disciplines that build on existing

conceptual frameworks and understandings, which advance

different ways of thinking and knowing (Bransford, Brown,

and Cocking 2000). Applied learning activities that engage

the mind by arousing curiosity, exercising it, disciplining it.

and stimulating creativity have been shown consistently to

deepen learning with concomitant improvements in thinking

capacity, acuity, and problem-solving skills (Bowden and

Marton 1998; Spence 2001; Weimer 2002). Educational

innovations that provide full-cycle integration of theory-to

application and application-to-theory experiences create

opportunities for powerful and engaged learning. The

transition to these approaches in higher education has

been slow, at best, in part because traditional classroom

environments, which are configured to express the teacher

centeredness of the experience, discourage it. Moreover,

the artificial" learning time, seat-time model" of education

involves the scheduling of blocks of classroom time (e.g.,

50 minutes), which implies that learning is somehow

compartmentalized to discrete time periods. In reality,

there is little evidence to suggest that learning is fostered by

this approach. Consider, for instance, the meta-messages

expressed by the traditional classroom alignment of seats,

in rows and columns, all facing the teacher. Such seating



Figure 3 Resource Implications of Learning-Centric Instructional Practices

Traditional InstructionalPractice

"Oral, declarative instruction;

lecture format predominates;aural learning emphasis"Single subject instruction;

standard time blocks; minimalemphasis on learning/knowl-edge transfer"Passive or one-way modes of

instruction predominate

"

Individual, competitive work;

passing memorization-basedtests

"

Teacher as dispenser of

knowledge; organizingprinciple is content coverage

••

Teacher does thinking for

students

••

Ability grouping

••

Assessment based

predominantly on knowledge,recall, and specific skills••

Discipline-specific instruction

"

Theoretical emphasis21st Century Instructional

Strategies

"Learner centered, modules

customized to individual learningstyles and intelligences••

Guided inquiry; active,

interdisciplinary studentexploration and discovery;student as problem solver"Interactive, interdisciplinary

modules focused on criticalthinking, engaged learning,and complex problem solving••

Collaborative learning

environments; demonstrationof skill/knowledge masterythrough formative assessment"Research and information

management; collaborative,cooperative work environments;organizing principle is targetedlearning outcomes"Teacher as challenger and guide

for developing higher-orderthinking skills; learning to thinklike a scientist. a mathematician,a psychologist, etc."Heterogeneous grouping:

technology applied to equalizelearning opportunities"Performance- and outcome-

based assessment; relevant toreal-world expectations••

Integrated, interdisciplinary

thinking

•• Theory-to-application(practice)/a pplication-to-theoryemphasis

Planning for Higher Education

ResourceImplications

"Omnipresent information

access; information searchand retrieval"

Requires honing of efficient

strategies to promote learning;virtual simulation and modelingcapabilities beneficial"Reliable, efficient learner

access to digital resources

"

Access to collaborative learning

tools; flexible spaces

"

Efficient learner access to

information resources

••

Ready access to expert thinkers

anytime, anywhere

••

Fast network access and

user-friendly publishing tools

"

Longitudinal and developmental

diagnostic tools for evaluatingindividual student progress"Interactive models;

cognitive-motor-sensoryintegration; simulationtechnologies"Simulation; immersive,

distance; delivery applications

17

configurations forecast and predispose activity centered on

the faculty member as the professor of knowledge and the

role of the student as the receiver of knowledge. These

roles and expectations are reinforced by the longitudinal

experiences and conditioning that takes place during a

student's primary and secondary education. The reengineering

of learning spaces can help disrupt this regimen both from

a symbolic as well as a functional perspective. Various

transitional concepts in the migration to a learning-centric

model of education and the corresponding resource

implications are depicted in figure 3.

Rapid advances in educational technology have provided

the capacity to create novel educational experiences, which

are designed to match the individualized learning needs of

students (Dolence and Norris 1995; Strauss 2002). Never

before has it been possible to provide personalized mass

education. The goal of achieving customized learning

experiences designed and tailored to the individual

learning styles of the students is within the grasp of

today's technology because of unprecedented advances

in the education technology available to support learning.

Interestingly, estimates indicate that less than half of

the students in today's classrooms are auditory learners

(i.e., students who favor and learn best via predominantly

auditory modes of sensory stimulation and instruction).

The remaining students cluster within two other dominant

learning domains: visual and kinesthetic. Visual learners

favor and learn best from predominantly visual sensory

integration. These learners benefit most from learning

experiences that use visual and diagrammatic represen

tations and depictions to impart knowledge and concepts.

Kinesthetic learners learn best by multisensory integration,

especially involving the physical and tactile domains.

Activities, such as those involving laboratory experiments,

enhance conceptual understanding and learning for

these students. To advance critical thinking and cognitive

development of all students, it is essential that pedagogy

and learning environments function symbiotically to

support and accommodate multiple types and approaches

to engaging students in learning processes.

Building Programming Focused onLearning-Centered Education

The $50 million, state-of-the-art health professions building

at Central Michigan University, which began construction in

the fall of 2001, was designed to address critical resource

needs of the university's growing health professions



programs. This new, 173,000 gross-square-foot facility

includes advanced technology, research, and clinical and

other educational resource capabilities that will support the

preparation of graduates who excel in meeting the expec

tations of the nation's health care industry.

The new building was designed to

• integrate Central Michigan's health professions

programs and create an environment that models

the integrative, interdisciplinary, and collaborative

nature of the contemporary health care industry;

• provide progressive learning, instruction, office, and

research resources specifically designed for the health

professions disciplines at Central Michigan;

• create a learning environment that fosters and

empowers students to learn independently and acquire

lifelong learning skills supported by access to integrated

state-of-the-art information technology resources;

• educate health profession students in an environment

designed to facilitate technological fluency and the

acquisition of essential skills that will enable

graduates to provide high-quality, cost-effective

care in tomorrow's health care system;

• provide the requisite resources for Central Michigan's

new interdisciplinary program in the neurosciences;

• foster modern, educationally integrated community

outreach for Central Michigan's health professions

programs;

• configure the building infrastructure to be flexible and

adaptable so that the university can respond rapidly

and cost-efficiently to emerging technologies and to

the ever-changing resource needs of educational

programs in the health professions;

• design the new facility to be energy-efficient and provide

for cost-effective maintenance while incorporating

recyclable building materials wherever possible;

• give priority to the design of interdisciplinary shared

use areas (e.g., classrooms, clinics, teaching and

research laboratories, technology resource areas)

whenever possible that would be versatile and

adaptive to the needs of multiple educational

programs to minimize inefficiencies and avoid

unnecessary staffing and service duplication costs;

• create environments conducive to the education and

the development of graduates prepared to serve the

health care needs of rural and underserved Michigancommunities.


The learning environments and resources in the new

building were designed to

• be versatile and progressive with respect to interactive

educational technology;

• provide superior, learner-centered instructional

capabilities;

• facilitate interdisciplinary clinical education, research,

and collaboration;

• provide technologically advanced classrooms and

laboratories to support on-campus and off-campus

instruction, research, and teleconsulting/telehealth

programming (e.g., multilevel "smart" classrooms,

virtual patient and online clinical instructional

resources, community telehealth programming

[see www.chp.cmich.edu/rtcen/J. global interactive

telecommunication/teleconferencing, and digital

video production capabilities);

• support research and teaching laboratory spaces for

faculty and students as well as office space and space

for selected community outreach and service programs.

A primary focus of the building's infrastructure design

will be flexibility and adaptability so that the university can

respond rapidly and cost-effectively to emerging technologies

and the evolving resource needs of educational programs in

the various health-related disciplines housed in the building.

Audiology, clinical psychology, health administration, health

promotion and rehabilitation, physical education/exercise

science, physical therapy, and speech language pathology

are some of the graduate programs that will be served by

the new building. The new building will also serve a number

of principal undergraduate majors/minors, including

communication disorders, community/public health

education, health administration, health fitness/exercise

science, neuroscience, physical education, psychology,

and sports medicine/athletic training.

The goals of this construction project at Central

Michigan were guided by the various learning principles

already addressed. These principles are consistent with the

recommendations outlined in the report presented by the

Joint Task Force on Student Learning (1998) sponsored

jointly by the American Association for Higher Education,

the American College Personnel Association, and theNational Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

Lastly, futuristic perspectives about the learning

environments of tomorrow forecast a need to be highly

responsive, integrated, and able to provide increasingly

more rapid access to and retrieval of an array of technologic/


electronic information and resources. As experiential

learning becomes increasingly coupled to technologically

created and facilitated interactive experiences (e.g., virtual

patient encounters) and other interactive paradigms, virtual

environments and simulation capabilities will become

integral components of the learning environment. These

environments must also have the capacity to provide the

student with greater flexibility, wherein the student has the

ability to modify the rate at which curricular competencies

and learning outcomes are accomplished (asynchronous

learning productivity). These planning considerations were

incorporated in the program and design of the new health

professions building at Central Michigan and are integral to

the vision ofThe Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow College of

Health Professions.

Technology Systems Design

The design team for the new health professions building

was strongly influenced and benefited from a wealth of

prior knowledge and experience regarding the legacy"smart" or "mediated" classrooms from the 1980s and

1990s. Having worked on the early technology-enhanced

classrooms beginning with the University of Maryland,

College Park, in 1985 and, subsequently, with dozens of

institutions and hundreds of projects from Alaska to Florida,

the design team tested and analyzed every physical layout,

technology, angle, screen, and network for application fit

within the Central Michigan project. The legacy technology

of the smart classroom over the past 10 years, including

computers, networks, multichannel audio, remote control,

television, VCR, and DVD, served as a baseline for evaluating

functionality in these new classrooms. These models were

helpful from the standpoint of guiding and informing

decisions that would produce the most cost-effective andfunctional state-of-the-art solutions.

The design team at Central Michigan was guided by a

key principle: Spatial, human, and digital connections must

be optimized within the building. One might ask why we

need physical spaces if we can make connections via

technology such as the Internet, and it can be reasoned

that the only need for space is for the computers and

network technology. But that is an oversimplification of

the impact of technology on real learning and the role

interpersonal interactions play in this process. The reality

is that to truly foster connections and collaboration for the

majority of humans, people need to be with people; it is an

important social consideration to accelerate the learning


process for a majority of learners. Therefore, as the design

team looked at the challenge of the university's new facility,

it looked at creating classrooms that could be malleable,

learning laboratories, places where these connections could

be made. The classrooms are adaptable environments where

• people can collaborate with each other in real time;

• people can communicate with other people using

technology as a facilitative media;

• technology can create environments to provide the

exact skills training for the individual;

• students can test their hypotheses and see the direct

impact of their research in real time;

• students can see, feel, and touch processes and reveal

cognitive patterns;

• students can be placed inside the human body for

a sci-fi fantasy trip through the human heart or get

inside a fast Fourier transform to see the process

of mathematics.

In other words, a whole new world of learning can

be achieved. Students can become the teachers as they

discover a way to touch and move bits of information in free

space via virtual reality pens, exploring the outcomes as

medical data are updated or manipulated and communicating

this to others by a simple methodology (teaching).

Overlaying geographic information systems (GIS) data

sets such as water quality, factory pollution dissipation,

physical land layout and land use changes, and chronic

disease incidence via zip code can reveal new connections

for the potential underlying causes of chronic diseases

and medical-related conditions. Using these approaches,

education fosters connections, becomes exploration, and

involves research.

With this vision as the catalyst, questions regarding the

building design went from the usual of how many squarefeet are needed and what it costs to what educational

outcomes do we want to achieve and how can we create

spaces and technology within our budget to support these

outcomes. Through the design process, a facility was createdthat shunned the traditional classroom for a new breed of

adaptable spaces, places where people can meet, where

skills and fluencies can be developed, and where people

can access technologies that cannot be accessed anywhere

else for learning. Although this conception sounds simple,

in reality, it is very difficult to accomplish. In the case of

Central Michigan, the pedagogical needs of the program

drove the technology needs to support these requirements.

This approach, in turn, drove the architectural space and



building systems required to support the users and their

technology tools.

As most educators understand, change to the pedagogy

of a college or program is very difficult. Adapting technology

to an existing program in a way that does not just repackage

the material (e.g., taking the class notes and putting them

on a Web site or taking the overheads and creating a

Microsoft PowerPoint™ presentation) but truly redefines

the educational experience is essential. The architectural

and program design was driven by a strategic and tactical

plan that would integrate the technology into the pedagogy

while fusing it with the physical environment. The vision,

which was to create an adaptable, for\o'\(ard-thinking,complete

facility that would change and adapt to the needs of the

faculty, staff, and students, was clearly articulated at the

outset. The technology solution to meet these needs was

based on extensive use of visual information.

This display of visual information in a multimediaenvironment was envisioned as the cornerstone of the

new educational experience. The program for the building

required a truly visual, auditory, and tactile-rich environment

that can conform to the education program and learning

styles in an adaptable and efficient manner. The design

team's vision was to create spaces that could change

through the application of new "bits" of information, not

by having to change the "atoms" of the physical space (to

borrow a reference by Nicolas Negroponte [1996]), what isreferred to as an Immersion Classroom™. An Immersion

Classroom is a physical space with hardware and software

packaged together with the academic program, goals, and

mission to customize the learning experience. In this design

configuration, the traditional writing surface is augmented

with flexible electronic displays, which support text, graphics,

Adapting technology to an existing

program in a way that truly redefines

the educational experience is essential.

imaging, and video in multidimensional modes. The displays

are interfaced with systems that have the ability to draw

data simultaneously from a variety of local and remote data

sources and the capability to record and store results created

during the interactive learning sessions. In this environment,

the student does not passively sit and receive instruction.

Rather, the student experiences something like an immersion

in a sea of information with the requisite tools that enable

him or her, either alone or in concert with his or her peers

and mentors, to extract meaning and construct knowledge.


These standardized learning support technologies, such as

the Immersion Board™ and Immersion Classroom, allow

the educator to create and manage the learning experience in

immersive, stimulating, and customizable ways to empower

the student and provide for his or her educational requirements.

A common, well-supported interface including technical support,

content creation, and faculty classroom development is the

key benefit of the Immersion Board.

To implement this vision is to start at the beginning,

in this case, the infrastructure necessary to support these

Immersion Classrooms. The network is the key to success

in this type of environment. As Bob Metcalfe, the Ethernet

inventor and founder of 3Com, is quoted as saying, "the

value of a network grows as the square of the number of

its users" (Kirsner 1998). In other words, as the connections

increase, the increase in value increases logarithmically.

Therefore, a digital network with exceptionally wide band

width is a necessity. This solid foundation must have the

capacity to create connections that meet the needs of early

adopters of innovative technologies and applications. The

information needs of the people will dictate the topology of the

network: wired and wireless. Bandwidth, mobility, resolution,and cost will be the final arbiters of the correct solution here.

As students enter the learning environment, they see

the display system or wall, the focal point of the learning.

During normal conversation, only 7 percent of communication

comes from the words themselves, 38 percent comes

from the tone or how the words are spoken, and the

remaining 55 percent of communications comes from the

physiology of movement (Argyle, Alkema, and Gilmour

1971; Birdwhistle 1970; Mehrabian and Ferris 1967). This

means that the majority of communication comes from the

visual content, even in natural conversation. The fine details

of communication require a resolution well above that of

today's average computer screen displayed on the wall.

When parallel information displays are added to the learning

environment and the typical presentation-based pedagogy

of serial information dispensation is removed, students can

visualize and experience information in a variety of formats

that can foster learning in new, more diverse, and sometimes

unexpected ways.

The solution was a baseline of classroom technology

that included a large, high-resolution, Immersion Board to

allow multiple images and immersive-type display of clinical

settings, along with multiple computer inputs distributed

around the room that will enable students and faculty to

engage in collaborative group learning methodologies. The

ubiquitous VCR and document camera could be placed


anywhere in the space as well, whereas the hub of the

information flow is the PC. Digital media, digital video,

collaborative video conferencing, common applications,

and remote control functionalities would be handled by a

powerful, off-the-shelf PC.The PC will have a wide bandwidth

network connection (a given) for high-resolution, full-motion

imaging and video streaming to and from the video server

system. Each room will have one to three cameras and

microphones tied to a master control room for the secure

and properly managed flow of classroom activities to

support e-Iearning, skills training, Room MemoryTM (where

the activities within each learning space can be archived

for later reference). and capture and storage of the best

teaching modes for real-time and store-and-forward learning.

The more in-depth, high-production, video-telepresence

environment will be the idea Reserve Global Telepresence

Room. In this center, a television studio-like environment

and an Immersion Board combine to create an almost 3-D

experience where the lecturer can be surrounded by the

student body or a class can look through the glass screen

to the classroom on the other side, fostering personal

collaboration. When it comes to a truly 3-D environment,

the facility is designed for a CAVERN or Computer Aided

Virtual EnviRoNment. It is a place where the students can

take a sci-fi voyage through the human body or a global

perspective of health concerns as they relate to geography,

topology, or industrialization on true-to-life maps. The

interdisciplinary ambulatory clinic will be an applied learning

and research environment with a digital network designed

to permit secure information transmission with local storage

for asynchronous distribution.

To allow the proper management and security of this

vast quantity of disparate information, the design team has

included a dynamic master control facility. This facility will be

the central management station, security node, information

storage and production facility, and a central hub for thedissemination of multimedia information. A limited staff of

technologists, artists, producers, and managers will oversee

the technology and keep it working in the best interest of the

faculty and students. This staff will manage and dictate the

flow of information within the facility over private networks

and throughout the world via a secure network infrastructure.Another function of the master control station will be the

production of high-quality, digital video programming for

students, faculty, patients, and the community. The master

control station will have the capability to add this production

value to the programming at the College of Health Professions,

and with ties to Central Michigan's television studio and the


local public broadcasting station, these programs will have

a quality the public expects.

To achieve high-quality educational programs and

materials, the facility must include content development.

The learning spaces within the health professions building

are at the cutting edge of technology and resolution. It would

be inappropriate to support the faculty and students with

only simple presentation software such as Microsoft

PowerPoint. An instructional and content development

center and an animation suite have been designed in the

building to provide the enhanced materials that will drive

these new educational experiences. New network-based

applications will be developed to track and manage a

student's progress to provide" just-in-time" (not just-in

case) learning in the appropriate format to foster the

most efficient learning possible for that individual.

Artificial intelligence, multiple data streams, relational

and object-oriented databases, and adaptable technologies

will allow students to take the most appropriate path

through their learning. Software such as flexible room

scheduling and collaborative technology management

will allow the precise utilization of these very expensive

resources. These systems will be adaptable enough to

constantly improve as new applications and educational

materials are designed and implemented.

Concluding Remarks

Transitioning from a teaching-centric mind-set guided by

the organizing principle of content/information delivery to a

mind-set that is learning- and student-centric organized for

engaged learning requires a fundamental, transformative

change in thinking, identity, philosophy, and practice. It

begins with reframing and affirming the core purpose of

the educational experience and concentrating on the

activities and strategies that advance thinking and learning.

It means rethinking and reframing the way we view our

operational domains to ensure that they are organized for

learning and that they support the integration of strategies,

methods, and physical resource designs and structuresneeded to enable this transformation. It also means that

these designs need to assist the active engagement of

learners in the mental work required to advance their

cognitive development through activities and experiences

that develop sophisticated patterns of thinking, knowledge

construction and deconstruction, cognitive fluencies,

and synthesis of ideas and concepts. Ultimately, this

transformation requires rethinking and realigning roles and



responsibilities of participants in the learning process in

accordance with basic principles and research findings

of cognitive science about how people learn-postulating,

testing, and authenticating the efficacy of educational

experiences designed to advance learning opportunities.

Institutional resource and facility planning must be more

evidence driven and focused on identifying and prioritizing

functional considerations that improve the effectiveness

and versatility of these environments. An important

consideration in this regard is the extent to which these

space designs enable and support students independently

and collaboratively in their cognitive development, regardless

of their preferred learning style.

To facilitate these transitions and gain full value from

the available instructional technology resources, a proactive

and comprehensive five-year "migration program" was

developed and implemented with the support of faculty

leaders and champions. The goal of this plan was to identify

and address obstacles, real and imagined, involved with the

transition to learner-centered pedagogies. As the building

was being constructed, a new technology team was

established. The team engaged key faculty members in a

process of self-examination of teaching strategies and the

pedagogical implications of past experiences and practices.

Nine "faculty champions" were identified. A faculty

champion is a volunteer faculty member who is an early

adopter of the advanced technology within the facility and

who is committed to developing new teaching programs

to be used when the building opens. Each champion

participated in an intense 12-month experience that

encouraged reflection and rethinking about the effectiveness

of the strategies used to engage students in accomplishing

the targeted learning outcomes. In addition, each champion

developed a new content and cognitive development

project that blended with a common pedagogical theme:

Faculty want the new building to deliver, support, and

encourage just-in-time learning and questioning. When the

building opens, faculty will be able to fully utilize the new

technologies but not because they attended a simple "how

to press the buttons" training class. In the case of Central

Michigan, faculty worked long hours to develop strategies for

enhancing active engagement and stimulating experiences

that challenge students to think critically and creatively.

Through this process, faculty members have migrated from

knowledge dispensers to knowledge coaches and mentors.

The results of the faculty champions' migration program

informed and enabled the technology team to also determine


the appropriate level of technical support required for the

inaugural year in the facility.i!

References

Argyle, M., F.Alkema, and R. Gilmour. 1971. The Communication

of Friendly and Hostile Attitudes by Verbal and Non-Verbal

Signals. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1: 385-402.

Bain, K. 1997. A Sustained and Substantial Influence: A Model for

Evaluating and Improving Teaching. The National Teaching and

Learning Forum 7 (1): 1-17. Retrieved September 8, 2003,

from the World Wide Web: www.ntlf.com/html/pi/9712

/influence.htm.

Birdwhistle, R. 1970. Kinesics and Context. Philadelphia, Penn.:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bowden, J., and F. Marton. 1998. The University of Learning:

Beyond Quality and Competence in Higher Education. London:

Kogan Page.

Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, eds. 2000. How

People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Expanded

ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Brown, J. S. 2000. Growing Up Digital: How the Web Changes

Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn. Change 32 (2):

10-20.

Dolence, M. G., and D. M. Norris. 1995. Transforming Higher

Education: A Vision for Learning in the 21st Century. Ann

Arbor, Mich.: Society for College and University Planning.

Joint Task Force on Student Learning. 1998. Powerful

Partnerships: A Shared Responsibility for Learning.

Retrieved September 8, 2003, from the World Wide Web:

www.aahe.org/teaching/tsk_frce.htm .

Kirsner, S. 1998. The Legend of Bob Metcalfe. Wired Magazine 6

(11). Retrieved September 8, 2003, from the World Wide Web:

www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/metcalfe.html.

Lemke, C. 2003. en Gauge'" 21st Century Skills: Literacy in the

Digital Age. Naperville, III.: North Central Regional Educational

Laboratory. Retrieved September 28, 2003, from the World

Wide Web: www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/skills.htm.

Lovett, C. M. 2002. Cracks in the Bedrock: Can U.S. Higher

Education Remain Number One? Change 34 (2):10-15.

Mehrabian, A., and S. R. Ferris. 1967. Inference of Attitudes from

Nonverbal Communication in Two Channels. Journal of

Consulting Psychology. 31: 248-52.

National Panel Report. 2002. Greater Expectations: A New Vision

for Learning as a Nation Goes to College. Washington, D.C.:

Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Negroponte, N. 1996. Being Digital. New York: Vintage Books.

Norris, D. M. 1997. Revolutionary Strategy for the Knowledge Age.

Ann Arbor, Mich.: Society for College and University Planning.

Oblinger, D. G., and S. C. Rush. 1997. Challenges of the Learning

Revolution. Ch. 15 in The Learning Revolution: The Challenge

of Information Technology in the Academy, edited by D. G.

Oblinger and S. C. Rush. Bolton, Mass.: Anker.


Paul. R., and L. Elder. 2001. Master the Thinking, Master the "Content:'

Ch. 7 in Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your

Learning and Your Life. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Spence, L. D. 2001. The Case AgainstTeaching. Change 33 (6): 10--19.

Strauss, H. 2002. New Learning Spaces: Smart Learners, Not

Smart Classrooms. Syllabus 16 (2): 13-17.

U.S. Department of Labor. 1999. Futurework: Trends and

Challenges for Work in the 21 st Century. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved September 8, 2003,

from the World Wide Web: www.dol.gov/asp/programs

/h isto ry/h erma n/re ports/futu rework/re port. htm.

Weigel, V. B. 2002. Deep Learning for a Digital Age. San

Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.

Weimer, M. 2002. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes

to Practice. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.

Wilson, J. M. 1997. Reengineering the Undergraduate Curriculum.

In The Learning Revolution: The Challenge of Information

Technology in the Academy, edited by D. G. Oblinger and

S. C. Rush. Bolton, Mass.: Anker.

Linda Seestedt Stanford served as the director of clinical

instruction and services in audiology at Central Michigan

University for more than 20 years. She is currently the assistantdean in The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow College of Health

Professions. She is the coauthor of a book on language learning

disabilities and has published and presented widely on numerous

audiology issues. She is currently completing a doctorate in

higher education at Michigan State University.

Kenneth Rohlfing, is a vice president of Smith Group, the

country's sixth largest architecture, engineering, and planning

firm, and is director of its Chicago office. He received his bachelor

and master of architecture degrees from the University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign. He has provided services on more than

40 projects at 25 institutions of higher education, including

Central Michigan University; Duke University; Howard University;

Loyola University Chicago; Michigan State University; Oberlin

College; The Ohio State University; the University of California,

San Diego; the University of Michigan; the University of Utah;

and Western Michigan University.

Jonathan P.Kendall is the chief executive officer and chief

innovation officer of idea Reserve" LLC, a professional services

firm that focuses on forward-thinking educational technology

management, planning, consulting, design, and service. He

specializes in enhancing learning and implementing appropriate

technologies to redefine the educational experience. He is an

author and a featured speaker at industry gatherings such asthe American Institute of Architects, the Healthcare Information

and Management Systems Society, and SCUP, and has assisted

a variety of institutions, including Atlantic Cape Community

College, Central Michigan University, the Stanford University

Medical Center, The George Washington University Hospital, the

University of Alaska, the University of California, the University

of Maryland, and Western Michigan University.


creating adaptive learning environments - scup journal

Documents