report on learning spaces at carleton university: part 1 · teachers as part of advancing carleton...

2016

ReportonLearningSpacesatCarletonUniversity:Part1PHYSICALLEARNINGSPACESLEARNINGSPACESACTIONGROUP,TEACHING&LEARNINGCOUNCIL,CARLETONUNIVERSITY

1

Contents Re-conceptualizing the Notion of Space in Physical and Online Learning Contexts .................... 2

Our Context .................................................................................................................................. 2

Institutional Objectives .............................................................................................................. 4

Dimensions of Learning Spaces ................................................................................................... 5

Literature Review: The Disconnect Between Learning Spaces and Pedagogy ........................ 5

The Case for Active Learning Classroom (ALC) ....................................................................... 5

Measuring the Impact of Learning Spaces ................................................................................ 6

Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 6

Survey - Quantitative Analysis of Student Impressions ............................................................ 7

Distribution of Responses ...................................................................................................... 7

Student Impressions of the Classrooms – Building by Building ............................................ 8

Qualitative Analysis of Open-Ended Questions Student Responses .................................. 11

Survey - Quantitative Analysis of Instructor Impressions ........................................................ 13

Distribution of Responses .................................................................................................... 13

Instructors Impressions of the Classrooms ......................................................................... 13

Focus Groups - Students ........................................................................................................ 15

Student Experiences: Lecture Theaters .............................................................................. 16

Student Experiences: Mid-sized Classrooms ...................................................................... 22

Students’ Recommendations ............................................................................................... 22

Next Steps ........................................................................................................................... 23

Focus Groups - Instructors’ Perspectives ............................................................................... 24

Instructors’ Recommendations ............................................................................................ 28

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 28

References ................................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix 1: Campus Master Plan .............................................................................................. 31

Appendix 2: List of Classrooms Outside of the General Pool ..................................................... 32

Appendix 3: List of Classrooms within General Pool .................................................................. 33

Appendix 4: Classroom Visit Script for Focus Groups ................................................................ 34

Appendix 5: Diamond Activity ..................................................................................................... 35

Appendix 6: Survey Instrument - Students ................................................................................. 36

Appendix 7: Analyses Classroom Room by Room (Student Responses) .................................. 43

2

Re-conceptualizing the Notion of Space in Physical and Online Learning Contexts The educational landscape is significantly evolving and so is our understanding of the role of space in learning, whether formal or informal, digital or face-to-face. A number of factors are shifting our perception of learning spaces and giving way to innovative thinking about the “places of learning”. Changes in social patterns, generational mindsets, communication, pedagogical theories, learner profiles are cited as contributing factors. With the increasing focus on learning outcomes there is a growing need for students being actively engaged for developing critical skills and competencies. Not only has the nature of learning changed, today’s student populations have become much more diverse in nature, from the “digital natives” to “lifelong learners” and “global learners.” Teaching now involves the creation of learning opportunities in multiple learning environments unrestricted by time and place (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Haythornthwaite & Andrews, 2011; Illeris, 2003; Prensky, 2006). Online learning environments are also diverse, from Learning Management Systems (LMS) and e-Portfolios to 3-dimensional Learning Environments (3DVLEs). Students may experience a number of these environments in a course or programme setting. For this reason, understanding the relationship between pedagogy, space and technology is critical. All these factors have implications on how we define, configure and commit to the next generation of learning spaces on our campuses, whether physical or online. In this first report, the Teaching and Learning Spaces action team, as part of Carleton University’s Teaching and Learning Council, set out to gain understanding of what students and educators on campus value in a physical learning space so as to better guide and inform future decisions in this area. The second report, forthcoming, will share objectives, but in terms of online learning spaces.

Our Context Carleton University’s student body consisted of 24,554 undergraduate (20,292 full time; 4,262 part time), 3735 graduate (3,115 full time; 620 part time), 850 faculty, 1050 staff and 106 librarians in the year 2014-151. Such a large population places considerable demand on space on campus, especially for teaching and learning purposes. Students attend classes across the campus, and the following buildings all have classrooms that are in the general classroom pool2.

● Azrieli Pavilion ● Azrieli Theatres ● Dunton Tower ● Kailash Mital Theatre

1 http://carleton.ca/about/facts 2 http://carleton.ca/ims/classroom/

3

● Leeds ● Loeb ● Mackenzie ● Minto Centre ● Paterson Hall ● Residence Commons ● River Building ● Southam Hall ● St. Patrick’s Building ● Steacie ● Tory Building ● University Centre

The organizational structure overseeing the communal physical campus learning spaces includes the following committees:

● Learning Space Strategic Planning Committee - strategic direction ● Integrated Classroom Fund Committee - classroom maintenance ● Operating Classroom Committee.

These committees oversee the organization, management and updating of learning space on campus. Members of these committee come from Computing and Communication Services (CCS), Facilities and Management Planning (FMP) and Instructional Media Services (IMS), members of the Office of the Provost and Vice-President (Academic), and the Office of the Vice President (Students and Enrolment), as well as faculty members and students. For general computer laboratories, and computer hardware and software for teaching, there is also the Teaching and Learning Computing Committee. Funding for learning space initiatives is allocated through the Integrated Classroom Fund Committee, with recommendations from the Operating and Strategic Committees. For each formal learning space, attention is paid to the three areas:

1) General space quality 2) Teaching technology 3) Computing infrastructure

These areas are respectively overseen by FMP, IMS and CCS. All classrooms are reviewed and rated based on conditions of furnishings and the age of technology and infrastructure. Decisions are then made to identify and prioritize spaces that will be renewed and/or upgrade pending funding availability. Informal learning spaces are defined as spaces intended for learning, but not for formal or scheduled learning between an instructor and student. These include building entrances and spaces, food courts and coffee shops, tunnels, corridors, the Library, the Discovery Centre, computer labs, open classrooms, student residences and some outdoor benches and tables.

4

These spaces do go through renewal and development, often through individual units responsible for the space. So funding or assessment of quality does not go through the above three committees. There are also rooms and laboratories that are not in the general pool and these are maintained by individual Faculties or departments. The number of these in each building are listed in Appendix 2. The potential major planned renovation or development of the campus and its buildings are detailed in the Campus Master Plan, see Appendix 1 (currently under review).

Institutional Objectives The Strategic Integrated Plan (SIP) for Carleton University has two of its four vision statements as: “Carleton is a university that promotes and leads in:

● Teaching and research that respond to the needs of society today and in the future through a learning environment that fosters and nourishes critical and creative inquiry; knowledge preservation, creation, dissemination and transfer; employability through the development of transferrable skills and intellectual capabilities; and the education of highly skilled and qualified citizens.

... ● A student-centred educational experience with a national and international reputation for

linking academic endeavours with student support and accessibility, and for empowering students to be productive and engaged citizens.”

This shows the high level commitment to the student learning experience the University has placed within its current five year plan and vision. Specific actions in the SIP also point to a commitment to learning spaces that includes the establishment of the Discovery Centre and to “ensure a high-quality learning environment at Carleton through the promotion, facilitation and recognition of excellence in teaching and learning.” It is also important to note that the 2014 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) showed, at Carleton, 20% first year and 21% final year students cited the quality of the classroom and lecture halls as the most needed improvement inside the classroom. According to 34% of the first year and 44% of the final year students, outside the classroom “the university most needs to address improving the quality/availability of study space” (p. 9)3.

3 http://oirp.carleton.ca/surveys/NSSE2014_Summary.pdf

5

Dimensions of Learning Spaces

Literature Review: The Disconnect Between Learning Spaces and Pedagogy During the post-war period of the 50s and 60s, higher education institutions witnessed the expansion of “traditional” learning spaces on campuses, spaces that were designed based on a knowledge transfer view that supported the learning theories of the day, behaviorism and cognitivism. These theories reinforced the notion of students as receptors of information and educators as the transmitter of knowledge (Merriam, Caffarella & Baumgartner, 2007). Vygotsky’s theory of social constructivism in the late 1970s marked an important tipping point. It valued the importance of student-centered learning where knowledge is actively, collaboratively constructed by learners (Palincsar, 2005). As technology became pervasive in the classroom, it made way for ubiquitous learning opportunities that are no longer bounded by time or physical space (Siemens, 2005; Kop & Hill, 2008). Despite these changes, institutions still retain a high percentage of traditional spaces for learning.

The Case for Active Learning Classroom (ALC) Research has shown that students’ perception of classroom design plays a role in motivation, engagement and attendance (Walker, Brooks & Baepler, 2011; Rudd, Reed, Reed & Smith, 2008). Active Learning Classrooms (ALC) when combined with the appropriate pedagogy are spaces that support a social constructivist approach to learning (Brooks, 2011). These spaces differ from traditional classrooms in that they are integrated with technology, have increased flexibility, provide tables and seating to support group work, and maximize aesthetics and lighting (Perks, Orr & Alomari, 2016). These classrooms alter in-class dynamics by breaking down hierarchies that divide teachers and learners and by fostering collaborative learning (Baepler & Walker, 2014). Researchers noted that students in ALCs showed gains in conceptual understanding, adaptability, communication, attitude, interpersonal skill, critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, achievement as well as improved attendance when compared to students in traditional classrooms (Beichner et al., 2007; Brooks, 2012; Brooks, 2011; McCarthy & Anderson, 2000; Kember & Leung, 2005). Students themselves reported that the space in active learning classrooms is superior to that in traditional rooms based on different attributes: engagement, effective use, room/course fit, collaboration, overall satisfaction and flexibility (Boddington & Boys, 2011; Brooks, 2011; Walker, Brooks, & Baepler, 2011; Oblinger, 2006; Park & Choi, 2014; Whiteside, Brooks, & Walker, 2010). Though financial commitment and resistance to change may act as barriers, many institutions in Canada recognize the importance of providing effective teaching/learning environments for students and their educators by making ALCs a strategic priority and by committing significant funding to the renewal of their traditional classrooms. In their report “Focus on Outcomes,

6

Centre on Students: Perspectives on evolving Ontario’s University Funding Model (2015)”, the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities cites the adoption of ALCs as a way to support innovative programming and quality infrastructure. Studies of students’ and faculty’s experiences relating to physical space are limited (Cox, 2011). This study aims to capture the voice of these traditional classroom users so as best inform the re-design of traditional classrooms on campus into active learning spaces.

Measuring the Impact of Learning Spaces The Office of the Associate Vice-President of Teaching and Learning is engaging students and teachers as part of advancing Carleton University as a world-class post-secondary institution. The Office’s 2013-2018 Teaching and Learning Framework centres around learner-centred, outcome-focused decision-making, calling for close consultation and collaboration with students and teachers. As part of this initiative, the Teaching and Learning Spaces Action Team has been tasked with reviewing both physical and virtual learning spaces. Carleton seeks to incorporate student feedback in the design of future learning spaces to increase student engagement and academic success. The Action Team is responsible for providing detailed and well-researched student reflections and perspectives on classroom design for senior management. This qualitative study has been organized into three phases: large halls, medium-sized classrooms, and virtual learning spaces. The first installation of this research considers lecture hall spaces.

Methodology Survey - Students and Instructors In this exploratory, mixed-method study, we deployed two surveys with a range of question types from ranking to open-ended (see Appendix 5) for instructors and students asking their opinions about classroom spaces at Carleton. The survey for students was posted on cuLearn throughout March 2015 and approximately 3,600 students completed the survey (the response rate 13%). The survey for instructors was disseminated through the EDC electronic newsletter and email, and approximately 100 instructors completed the survey (the response rate 6%). The results of the surveys are analyzed below and helped to guide the framework for the focus group activities. Focus Groups - Students and Instructors In addition, we conducted four focus groups with students (total of 30 students) and two focus groups with instructors (12 instructors) with each focus group lasting 2 hours. The student groups were diverse, including undergraduates and graduates from Engineering and Design, Arts and Social Sciences, Public Affairs, Science and Business. Each group included two Aboriginal students, and there was one student who is mobility impaired. We were not able to

7

achieve the same diverse representation in the instructor focus groups. While three faculties were represented (FASS, Engineering and Design, and Science), the majority of the participants were from the faculty of Science. The transcripts for these focus groups, and a qualitative analysis using a grounded4 theory approach was completed to identify themes that emerged from the students’ and instructors’ commentary using NVivo qualitative analysis software.

Results and Discussion

Survey - Quantitative Analysis of Student Impressions

Distribution of Responses The number of responses for the student survey (Ns) was 3064. After cleaning the data, especially coding the room numbers, there were 2207 entries with valid room numbers. Table 1: Distribution of Responses across Buildings Building Code Number of

Responses Year Build Types

Southam Hall SA 618 1963 Both Tory Building TB 310 1957/1963/x/2003 Both Azrieli Theatre AT 228 2002 Theatre River Building RB 187 2011 Both MacKenzie ME 169 1962 Both Unicentre UC 152 1970/ Classroom Loeb LB 127 1967 Both Minto Centre MC 122 1992/2000 Theatre Paterson PA 69 1960 Classroom Saint Patrick's SP 40 1973 Classroom Dunton Tower DT 39 1971 Classroom Canal Building CB 38 2011 Classroom Azrieli Pavilion AP 33 2002 Classroom Steacie SC 27 1965/ Both Herzberg HP 20 1966/1972/1985 Classroom Residence Commons RC 18 2011(?) Classroom

Architecture AA 10 1973 Lab

4 According to Strauss and Corbin (1994), grounded theory is an approach for developing theory that is "grounded in data systematically gathered and analyzed".

8

The number of responses for the Architecture building (AA) was below a sample size threshold of 20, so it along with other rooms with low response rates were removed from all analyses. All data was normalized using Ns = 2207. Graph 1: Distribution of Responses across Buildings

Student Impressions of the Classrooms – Building by Building The following analysis is based on results from the survey (see Appendix 5). Question 3: For each of the following aspects, please rate the classroom you identified in Question 1 by selecting the appropriate number (0 means Very Poor and 100 means Very Good). Do your best to separate aspects of the room itself from the content of the lecture. The impressions for each room with a suitable response rate are presented below. To begin, the mean responses are compared across rooms to identify major trends and differences. Following, the full data for each room is explored to provide a greater depth of analysis beyond the simple mean. Most buildings have either one or more theatres plus classrooms. In this initial analysis, differences in responses between these theatres and classroom types are not explored.

9

Table 2 - Mean Response per Room Six point scale: 1= Very Poor; 6= Very Good Overall room average= 4.33

SA AT TB ME MC LB UC RB PA SP DT Average

/6 Lighting Quality 4.51 5.32 4.91 4.59 4.62 4.48 5.13 5.57 5.01 5.00 4.56 4.88 Seat Comfort 3.47 3.70 3.99 3.40 2.78 3.54 4.12 5.50 4.28 4.28 4.05 3.92 Table Space 4.14 5.52 4.68 2.95 3.26 3.34 5.12 4.80 4.39 5.05 4.45 4.33 Belongings Space 3.63 4.90 4.21 2.77 3.45 3.16 4.38 4.61 4.45 4.43 3.87 3.99 Air Quality 3.96 4.65 4.02 4.04 4.20 3.78 4.52 4.99 4.46 3.98 3.82 4.22 Sound Quality 4.79 4.67 4.89 4.73 4.63 4.65 4.80 5.42 4.83 4.65 4.87 4.81 Spaciousness 3.94 5.26 4.62 3.15 4.19 3.51 4.70 5.25 4.35 4.45 3.39 4.26 Cleanliness 4.23 4.79 4.88 4.23 4.35 4.10 4.83 5.33 4.40 4.87 4.67 4.61 Power 2.33 4.14 2.79 2.34 2.18 2.20 2.60 4.41 2.59 3.73 3.59 2.99 Wireless 4.57 5.03 4.85 4.31 4.62 4.15 4.92 5.37 4.70 4.82 4.74 4.73 Interaction with Instructor 4.36 4.42 4.74 4.38 4.02 4.55 4.27 5.17 5.19 4.90 5.10 4.65 Interaction among Students 4.28 4.62 4.50 4.03 4.02 4.36 4.40 5.05 4.84 4.82 4.67 4.51 Building Average 4.02 4.75 4.42 3.74 3.86 3.82 4.48 5.12 4.46 4.58 4.32 4.33 At a glance, the ratings are consistent with the physical age of each building. As examples: older buildings like MacKenzie (ME), Minto Centre, Loeb (LB)s and for the most part Southam Hall (SA) are below average in most aspects whilst new buildings like Azrieli Theatre (AT) and the River Building (RB) score above average. The Tory Building (TB), the Unicentre (UC), Patterson (PA) and Saint Patrick’s (SP) are older buildings but with relatively recent renovations and have a large range of classroom sizes, with small seminar rooms, midsize classrooms, and two lecture theatres (TB 360 and UC 231). Despite some of their updates, their ratings are for the most part do not seem to be significantly different than the average. To see detailed analyses of classrooms building by building, please see Appendix 7. Comparisons between Classroom Types

10

In some buildings there are both lecture theatres and classrooms. For example in Southam Hall (SA), there are two large lecture theatres (KM Theatre, seating 444, and Theatre B, seating 331), as well as 34 small to midsize classrooms. In this building it is possible to compare students perception across both types of spaces. Table 3: Southam Hall (SA) Aspect Rating Theatre Classroom Combined Diff. Theatre

and Combine Diff.

Classroom & Combine

Lighting Quality 4.32 4.58 4.51 -0.19 0.07

Seat Comfort 3.22 3.56 3.47 -0.25 0.09 Table Space 2.93 4.58 4.14 -1.21 0.44 Belongings Space 3.05 3.84 3.63 -0.57 0.21

Air Quality 4.11 3.90 3.96 0.16 -0.06 Sound Quality 5.08 4.68 4.79 0.30 -0.11

Spaciousness 3.74 4.02 3.94 -0.21 0.08 Cleanliness 4.17 4.25 4.23 -0.06 0.02 Power 2.02 2.44 2.33 -0.31 0.12 Wireless 4.51 4.60 4.57 -0.07 0.02 Instructor Interaction 4.03 4.49 4.36 -0.33 0.12

Student Interaction 4.18 4.32 4.28 -0.10 0.04

Mean 3.78 4.11 4.02 Standard Deviation 0.79992 0.60595 0.62621

Confidence Interval 016105 0.122 0.12608

11

Qualitative Analysis of Open-Ended Questions Student Responses Two open-ended questions were posed in the survey.

● What is the one thing that you like most about this classroom? ● What is the one thing you would most like to improve about this classroom?

In terms of the positive elements, the three most predominant features according to student responses are: (1) seating comfort and arrangement, (2) spaciousness, and (3) lighting: “Comfy seats, big tables” “I really enjoy having a good seat to sit on” “The openness of the space” “Amount of space” “I absolutely love the space I have for my books, laptop and for when I need to write” “It is nice and bright” “Lighting is very good” “Windows/natural light” When considering the elements that needed to be improved about their classroom, the students identified the some of the same elements, that is to say (1) the quality of seating (2) the overall quality of the room, including spaciousness, and (3) access to electrical outlets. Some of the responses are: “More ergonomic seating is needed all over the campus” “The seating , for some of the bigger people we don't fit in the seats let alone be able to pull the desk over on to our laps to put a keyboard on” “Having a 3 hour lecture on a hard seat is almost impossible” “The seats makes terrible noise is a student moves” “Not enough room, no room to move” “This room and other rooms in the building stink when at full capacity.” “The room can be described in one word as "dingy".” “Access to electrical outlets, or even enough electrical outlets is a major problem. It frequently stops me from bringing my laptop to school” “More electrical outlets (ie for charging laptops)” “There isn't enough plugs”

12

The following two images visually represent overall student responses across all buildings. Figure 2. The one thing the respondent liked about their classroom.

Figure 3. The one improvement the respondent would make to their classroom

13

Survey - Quantitative Analysis of Instructor Impressions

Distribution of Responses The number of responses for the instructor survey was 124. The majority of responses was about classrooms on the fifth floor of Southam Hall, followed by classrooms in Tory Building (second and third floor), and Loeb building (second and sixth floor).

Instructors Impressions of the Classrooms The following analysis is based on results from the survey (see Appendix 6) When asked to rate various characteristics of classrooms in which they taught, the respondents chose (1) wireless access, (2) overall spaciousness and (3) the quality of lighting as the best rated features, while the classroom conduciveness to interaction among students was rated as the most lacking feature. In addition, Carleton instructors gave a negative rating to classrooms’ conduciveness to interaction between them and students, as well as to overall classrooms’ cleanliness. Overall, instructors found their classrooms to be roomy (55 respondents) and bright (52 respondents). However, a significant number of instructor taught in classrooms that are cramped (46 respondents), noisy (43 respondents), antisocial (38 respondents) and dark (36 respondents). Qualitative Analysis of Open-Ended Questions Instructor Responses Two open-ended questions were posed in the survey.

● What is the one thing that you like most about this classroom? ● What is the one thing you would most like to improve about this classroom?

The majority of respondents liked that they were (1) able to see all students and that students could face each other, followed by (2) flexible/movable furniture, and (3) the size of the screens in the classroom.

“The open U table arrangement for students, so no one is behind anyone and we're all facing inward as we discuss -- but the U also allows students to focus at the board when I'm lecturing and moving around” “I can see all the students very well and can thus interact with them easily”

“I like the two big windows and the fact that students can move their chairs” “[...] at least the tables and chairs move” “[...] accessible chairs for PMC student”

14

“movable tables and chairs” “Two large and very high screens” “The large TV screen”

When answering question on the most important features that need to be improved in classrooms in which they taught, instructors chose (1) the flexibility of furniture, (2) the quality of seating and (3) the room size. Some of the responses are: “Too many students for the room size”

“It is not big enough for 28 students” “Too many students for the room size”

“Remove the fixed seating to allow break out groups and better student-student and student-faculty interaction” “Change the seating from fixed to movable furniture”

The following two images visually represent overall instructor responses across all buildings. Figure 4. The one thing the respondent liked about their classroom.

Figure 5. The one thing the respondent want to improve.

15

Focus Groups - Students The study comprised of two 120-minute focus groups, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. The participants in each focus group were selected to be representative of the Carleton student population, varying in ability, ethnicity, gender and level/area of study. Participants were guided through three different learning spaces: the Kailash Mital Theatre, the Bell Theatre in the Minto Centre and Minto 5050. (For greater detail on the classroom spaces, please see Figures 1, 2, and 3.) Students were invited to comment on each space, reflect on their feelings, and discuss how the room’s design enhances/inhibits learning. In the final classroom, participants were asked to rank classroom features in order of importance by organizing 16 images in a diamond shape. The image at the top of the diamond represented the most important feature of a classroom, and the image at the bottom of the diamond represented the least important feature. Participants were able to replace any of the selected features with their own if they felt something was not available in the images provided. It is important to note how eagerly students participated in this study. Recruitment was not difficult; students were convinced this project was of significant importance. Students contributed their classroom preferences very freely and candidly in the focus groups and immersed themselves in the diamond activity. The session moderators had to do very little to encourage students to stay on task, and students offered incredibly rich data. It appears that students welcome the opportunity to have their voice heard and make a meaningful contribution to Carleton’s design process moving forward.

16

Student Experiences: Lecture Theaters This qualitative study aims to assist the Associate Vice-President of Teaching and Learning in designing future lecture halls and theatre spaces by offering the student perspective. According to Carleton students, a learning space can influence the willingness and ability to learn in two different ways: a student’s subjective experience in a space, and the available physical supports.

Figure 1. Kailash Mital Theatre The Kailash Mital Theatre seats 444 students across 18 rows. There are entrances at the front and rear levels of the theatre. Students using assistive mobility devices can access and be seated in the theatre in both the front and back. The stage is 33’ wide. Professors will place themselves on the stage or directly in front on the floor. There is a podium, projectors, and a PA system available. The projector can accommodate up to two sources simultaneously. The walls are concrete. Each theatre-style seat has a writing desk that can be folded out onto the student’s lap. The seats are 30 years old.

17

Figure 2. Bell Theatre The Bell Theatre seats 391 students, divided into two sections. This lecture theatre was part of the original construction of the Minto Centre in 1992. The floor section is gently raked while the upper section is raked at a steeper angle. The theatre is quite wide. All seats are molded plastic; the floor seating is red, and the upper seating is blue. Each seat has a writing desk that can be folded out onto the student’s lap. Students may enter through the rear or middle section of the theatre. Students using assistive mobility devices can sit at the rear of the theatre or in the middle. The walls are concrete block and painted blue at the top of the room. The soundproofing panels are flat white. There is a podium, projector, and PA system available.

Figure 3. Minto 5050 Minto 5050, is located on the upper floor of the Minto Centre. This classroom was added in 2000 with the construction of three floors to the Minto Centre. It has a capacity for 154 students. Students sit in blue plastic chairs that are affixed to swivel from long tables, each seating 6 to 10 students. The room is gently raked. Although the rows between tables are not wide, chairs can

18

be easily turned around into small groups. There are two projection screens and four chalkboards at the front of the room. The soundproofing panels are decorated and visually appealing. There is a loud hissing sound. A microphone and PA are available for professor use. The walls are painted a warm ochre colour.

Mood (Feel, Lighting) “…this is my first time in here and I honestly it feels like a prison … I can see why like if it was my first junior year I would feel very jaded, uncomfortable, unwelcoming and just like I don’t want to be in here.”

—Student, afternoon session, Bell Theatre

“… although there could be improvements like better technology or just more comfort… I think you want everything to be happy, happy, and happy.”

—Student, morning session, Bell Theatre A student’s interpretation of a learning space can predetermine their willingness to stay throughout a full three-hour lecture and to engage with teachers, students and the material. As one student describes, “it [sic] about the ambiance … like you just have a space where like students come in and feel like they could really maximize their learning.” Participants contend that a classroom must create a mood that will foster student participation. To do so, students suggest using lighting, being creative in the design and colours, and ensuring there is a variety of ways that students can interact with the professor and one another. Natural light sources appear to have a significant influence on student engagement. As one respondent describes, “if I have windows … I don’t know, just from my personal experience, I’m just find better ideas and in just discussing things.” Students say the lack of natural light makes them feel as if they are trapped underground, comparing the room to a prison or a dungeon. These spaces may create a somber atmosphere, where students report feeling sleepy and listless. In the winter months, natural light becomes increasingly important, as a lack of daylight can reduce overall productivity. Students encourage any opportunity to increase light exposure during this time. The size of a space also appears to influence a student’s mood. A large space can feel institutional and empty, which can make some students feel diminished. Participants described feeling like cattle or similarly commodified. Students suggest large spaces can be designed more intentionally and creatively to uplift mood. Although a lecture hall’s current design and structure satisfies a practical purpose, students suggest these spaces could be further used to showcase and highlight features relating to studying at Carleton. Graduate level students could be consulted in the design process to incorporate engineering features, for example, or other visually stimulating designs. Students indicate “it is still enjoyable to be in other spaces and to

19

see what other students are doing […] and the space can even be enjoyable even if your work comes from outside of the discipline, but because the discipline is concentrated in this building, I think it is a great opportunity missed”. The large size of lecture halls and theatre spaces can also distance students from the professor and one another. Students report feeling disconnected and more isolated. As one student describes, “[…] you can be sitting beside a person, and other students, and you wouldn’t even make eye contact to talk to them.” Participants speculate that a theatre-style classroom reinforces the distance between students and teachers, as the structure suggests students are to act as observers instead of active learners. Although sound can travel better with raked seating, one student notes, “[…] it usually feels like there is unilateral information [if it was] from the front to the back, and the intimidation is a lot of times. I feel like is that you [are] derail what the professors say when, you don’t know, you’re interrupting the lecture as opposed to contributing”. Raked seating also reduces the ability for educators to circulate among the rows, keeping everyone on task. Participants complain that offside conversations, cheating, and technological distractions are too easy in a theatre. These competing stimuli can “create[s] a certain hostility” between students trying to pay attention and those who are not, reducing the collegial nature of a classroom setting. In these situations, a professor may have to work more creatively to engage students. For example, one teacher uses social media: “I had a professor who set it up so that there is an ongoing document on the screen and students who logged into a specific link could type their responses onto the screen. You would need a certain amount of tech support, but it was a really great opportunity.” Another student describes an ongoing Twitter feed using a class-specific hashtag. These innovative attempts to overcome the structural inflexibility of larger lecture halls support the idea that diverse and interactive experiences increase student engagement and facilitate learning.

Freedom to Move (Space, Flexibility) “I often turn to classmates to collaborate, but the space isn't conducive to a collaborative environment.” — Student, survey response Participants suggest lecture halls can feel constraining. The seats and attached writing tables are too small, students with visibility or mobility needs have few options, and narrow rows make moving around difficult. Although students would like to better connect with their peers, the tight space can make introductions and movements feel intrusive. As one student describes, “ I remember being in this room and having two people beside me I didn’t know at all and just want to like, move in any direction, and anyway I went I’d be in someone else’s space.” Students would like to see swiveling seats, more flexible and ambidextrous writing tables, and wider rows to ease both passage and congregation.

20

Currently, lecture halls make it difficult for students to feel confident and comfortable collaborating with others. One student describes feeling disconnected from group members: “it was like really difficult to kind of coordinate within the groups and just like sitting wise, [and] you are all facing back like in front of each other, so it’s hard to even like have that kind of connection.” Participants suggest individual connections between students could be improved by arranging the seats so that students face one another as well as the professor. A lecture hall’s fixed seating arrangements may predetermine a lecture-style class, as group work can be challenging. The prescriptive space indicates to students that interactive experiences are unlikely: “responding to questions and having a conversation in the theatre is always difficult … because it is not really how it is set up to be it is set up as a kind of listening place rather than a interactive place”. Students recognize that traditional lectures can be an essential component of a class, but many would like to learn using a variety of approaches, including student participation. One student hopes for a space that would “shake [them] out of the sort of lecture and listening format that’s kind of gets stagnated and get [them] back into a more interactive learning environment […] we can maybe pay more attention if [we] can transition easily between various learning resources or learning technologies.” Students observe how the podium and assistive technology, being fixed to the front of the class, can also limit a teacher’s movements. During a lecture, a teacher will move across the stage, facing and addressing only sections of a class at a time. This inflexibility can reduce interaction between students and teachers. One student watched her professor try to overcome these barriers: “[…] she would walk up and down the stairs, and I think after a while she got a little winded but [laughter] but it was nice that she tried to kind of like make that individual connection with students”. Students ask for closer and more frequent contact with the professor, as regular interactions between students and teachers create opportunity for real-time feedback.

Interactions with Peers

“I struggled like with contributing because I didn’t know anybody or, if I didn’t understand something I didn’t want to tap to the person next to me and ask.” — Student, afternoon session, Kailash Mital Theatre

Students believe that a big part of the learning experience is their ability to interact with their peers. As one student describes, “in a social environment, like if you’re enjoying yourself and you’re having a good time, you’re going to be more excited to learn.” The structure of existing lecture halls and theatre spaces may create barriers to interacting with peers. Sound carries poorly from the back of the hall to the front, so it can be difficult to hear questions from the class. Students believe the constraints created by fixed seating discourages group work and makes

21

sitting together nearly impossible. Sound treatments on the walls would address some of these concerns. Students ask for more opportunities to face one another in seated circles or small groups so that they may share resources and materials with one another more easily. Small groups may also allow for shy or reticent students to share their perspectives more freely, as larger lecture halls can be intimidating. Some teachers use technology to address the pervasive physical limitations of a lecture hall, like clicker technology. Classroom response technology can generate discussion, increase engagement and create a sense of unity in a classroom. Again, creative uses of Twitter and other online platforms can increase student interaction without significant cost or change to the physical space.

Physical Supports The physical supports of a learning space can provide direction and focus for students. Students indicate that supportive, ergonomic seating, visibility, and audibility are crucial for learning. As one student describes it, “It simply gives you the ability to do your work … if you don’t have good visibility … if you’re not comfortable in your seat, you are fidgeting all the time and you’re going to have trouble with keeping up with taking your notes.” Students are critical of lecture halls for their poor visibility, poor sound, and physical discomfort. Large classes are often busy and well-attended, and so the most comfortable and accessible seats fill up quickly. Carleton students show thoughtfulness and consideration for all students using a space, including for those that may have specific needs and requirements. Despite this, students failed to note the parallels between a specific accessibility requirement and their own needs for sound, sight, and physical comfort. There may be an opportunity to move beyond the minimum standards set in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and begin teaching and incorporating principles of universal design. Learning spaces that require minimal physical effort will ensure that all students, regardless of ability, can transition smoothly into a supportive and focused learning environment. For example, blackboards are not as useful in larger spaces as they are in medium classrooms, as students at the back cannot see the chalk contrast. Students recommend using newer technology, like Smart Boards. To assist with room acoustics, students seek improved amplification and a reduction in background noise, like reverberations, echoes and hisses. These barriers to education are felt by all students, regardless of ability, and so to improve the accessibility of these facilities will serve to increase participation and engagement with all students.

22

Student Experiences: Mid-sized Classrooms The midsized classroom focus group generated no new significant data. Student observations cluster on similar themes for both the theatre halls and the mid-sized classrooms, which define a central student preference using different stimuli. For example, the theatre halls were evaluated negatively for the narrow aisles, while the mid-sized classrooms were evaluated positively for the space between the aisles. This data can be interpreted as students feeling that adequate aisle space is an important feature of a comfortable classroom. The most frequently referenced themes for students were consistent across both conditions: the physical seats, proximity to others, and the ability to interact with peers. Although the ‘feel’ of a classroom was a significant subject in the theatre hall focus group, it was not replicated in the mid-sized classrooms. Worth noting, students in the theatre condition reported over twice as many negative ‘feel’ statements than positive statements. This discrepancy between groups may be understood as part of a negativity bias: students may report more feelings in the theatre space as it inspired more negative impressions than the mid-sized classrooms, and in turn, elicited more observations along this theme. Further examples of the mutually reinforcing properties of the theatre and mid-sized classrooms include the size of the classroom affecting the ability of the student to hear and see their fellow students, the ease of classroom interaction afforded by a smaller classroom, and the space between the aisles. These structures all share the ability to enhance or hinder a student’s focus, either through sight, or sound, or space. If a student is interrupted or barred from the task at hand, the student can become disengaged from the learning. If structural supports are created to ensure that a student experience can be fluid and flexible, and a student is able to maintain their focus under different conditions, students appear to remain more consistently connected to their learning.

Students’ Recommendations Students suggest that Carleton can improve student engagement and learning outcomes by:

- including natural light in all lecture halls and theatre spaces, whether by use of windows or skylights;

- brightening walls and making a space more attractive and creative; - ensuring adequate space between each row of seating; - offering comfortable, reliable seating; - providing students requiring physical accommodations with a variety of seating options

and vantage points; - investing in new technology and physical construction that will allow the professor and

students to be heard by all other classmates; - providing clear and visible visual aids from all vantage points;

23

- creating a diverse host of technological resources (social media, Smart Boards, touchscreens, clickers, etc.) to participate in and study lecture material;

- creating additional group work opportunities; - offering flexible seating arrangements.

It is further recommended that Carleton continue to employ participatory research methods to inform future decision-making. Students appear eager and receptive to contribute to the future of their university.

Next Steps “But to me, the thing seems to be the structural limit of the university, having to cram as many people as possible into the room and so necessarily, the university can’t have classrooms better like (MC 5050). They’re more accessible, they’re nicer looking, feels nicer to be in for all of the classes […] but because there are so many students in the university, the university needs to treat its classrooms like a business.” — Student, afternoon session Participants strongly believe that interactivity and flexibility in a class increases performance, retention and participation. However, students are cognizant of the tension between a university’s large volume of students and the ability to create smaller, more flexible classrooms. Students emphasize that learning is impeded by the large size of a lecture hall, as it generates feelings anonymity and isolation. The next iteration of focus groups may benefit from asking students directly how they might reconcile that tension in their designs. The ‘charrette' model of collaborative project design may prove useful in designing the next round of focus groups. By asking students to reflect on the space only briefly, a greater amount of time can be designated for identifying specific design solutions. Charrettes intend to create specific actionable items, and student focus groups provide a cross-section of disciplines and experience to generate some novel solutions. This may frame the conversation to focus on a room’s strengths and opportunities. In any event, the positive support and feedback from study participants demonstrates that participatory design can be leveraged as a successful approach for advancing and grounding Carleton University decision-making. Participatory design gives all stakeholders the opportunity to contribute to the design process to ensure that the results meet the needs for end users. Students appreciated being consulted and worked carefully and deliberately together to co-create priorities and recommendations. The success of this model indicates that the Office of the Associate Vice-President of Teaching and Learning should encourage participatory design processes in their projects.

24

Focus Groups - Instructors’ Perspectives Compared with students, teacher participants used a more practical and technical lens to evaluate the learning spaces. Teachers seem to approach a learning space with a clear goal in mind, as they are accountable to deliver their lesson plan effectively and clearly. Students, while no means confined to a passive role, are afforded a more responsive position than the instructor. With this in mind, teachers describe distinct expectations for a classroom’s performance and how a classroom must assist them in best communicating with their students. The subjective experience of a teacher in a learning space is less relevant to their success than a learning space’s utility. If designed well for end users, a classroom can serve as an instructional tool. If end users are not considered during the design, the same space may hinder or interfere with an instructor’s lesson plan. To maximize the utility of a learning space, Carleton instructors would like adequate and flexible teaching space as well as a deliberate mix of high and low technologies. Space and Presence “That lectern is an awfully big piece of furniture in between you and the

people you're trying to communicate with.” —Teacher, afternoon session

The diversity of classroom subjects greatly influences the degree to which a particular classroom might be useful to any particular instructor. Participants seek flexibility and ease in teaching space to maximize student connections. For example, one professor noted that “This space would be perfect – actually, this is design for performance like lecture. But in terms of teaching, I’m teaching in math. I think there are some challenges here…”. The spatial needs of teachers can be divided into two categories. The first is the physical space afforded to teachers at the front of a classroom. This space requires adequate counter or table room to distribute papers, hold a laptop or slide deck, and contain all technological aids. This console must be positioned so that student sightlines are not affected, which can often mean the direct centre of the room. If there is not enough space in front or behind the console, the teacher can feel confined to one side of the console or the other, jeopardizing the student connection with those sitting on the other side. Secondly, teachers need adequate space and room to move around and between students. One participant said, “I want to be able to easily drift into the middle of the room and back out again”. Simultaneously, students need to be somewhat close to the front of the room so that a teacher in a raked classroom can still field questions and monitor behaviour. The large size of lecture halls renders a teacher unable to ensure that students are not cheating, although they attempt to compensate for this using

25

multiple version of exams. Still, participants feel resigned to the fact that dishonesty is still very possible in large, deep seating arrangements. One instructor lamented, “I don't even try to control cheating off each other’s papers because there is no point in a room like this, if they want to copy their buddies there's nothing I can do to prevent it. I just have to do my marking schemes so that I work around it, because I have no control over whether the midterm they hand in was their own work or their next door neighbour’s work … it’s just worse here.” —Teacher, afternoon session

Teachers understand the tension between designing for student proximity and the number of students you can fit in a room. The solution can often be to increase the length of the rows while keeping the number of rows to a minimum. Although teachers enjoy the proximity, one participant says that it can be “very hard to engage everyone left to right because […] what amounts to basically a pacing problem, and you're just constantly going left to right across to keep everybody engaged. […] I think that detracts from your overall presentation because you are focused on just moving around”. They observe that as an instructor, you tend to focus your gaze on the most central portion of any room, and so the larger and wider the classroom, the less likely you are to engage the fringes. One teacher describes this as “the useful capacity of this room [being] definitely smaller from the absolute capacity in this room”. There was an interesting relationship between a teacher’s space and presence in a classroom and the positioning of classroom entrances. Some participants reported that entrances where students enter the front of the room can cause untimely distractions that can cause teachers to lose their place or to lose connection with the students. Students can pass directly in front of a teacher as they are lecturing, which some found disrespectful and disruptive. Entrances at the front of the room also don’t allow for anonymity entering and exiting the classroom, which some participants felt can be important for both the students and themselves. Other teachers observed that students often sit closest to where they enter, so that entrances at the rear of the classroom can encourage students to sit at the rear and prevent them from accessing the first few rows, despite the poorer visibility and hearing. Although there was a brief discussion around accessibility laws, participants felt that it should be possible to minimize interruptions while still ensuring that all rooms remain accessible to all students. Similarly to the student focus groups, teachers expressed concern with the overarching drivers of designing learning spaces at Carleton. The volume of students requires the university to design spaces that will accommodate several hundred, in some cases, but the quality can be compromised with that number of students. Teachers also questioned whether it would be more useful to participate in the CUOL courses, as you can re-watch the lectures, than it would be to enroll in the large lecture classrooms. As one teacher describes, “… it comes down to, I think, question of quality, delivery versus delivery to quantity of

students. What are we striving for? And if there’s a need for it, a large room that we can jam students into because frankly, we’ve just got the numbers we have to teach, I can

26

understand that perspective. It’s disappointing because obviously quality is a critical aspect as well and I think the quality space is what we’re missing on campus, right?”

Teachers are interested in exploring other designs than the traditional lecture format. It appears that teachers would support smaller class sizes with more room for movement. As one participant describes, “Someone arrives late is trying to sidle in discreetly while stepping on everyone's toes and everyone's who are landing in someone's lap, so yeah, I'd like to see us invest a little more space in the ability of people to walk around, a little less in packing people in.” Teachers can be an excellent resource when searching for new ideas, as they travel for professional development or lecture at other institutions. One teacher described a hybrid model of particular interest, where students are clustered in semi-circles of four or six with a shared table. All students can face the front of the room as to not compromise the ability to give traditional lecture delivery, but can come together easily to allow for peer-to-peer interaction. Another participant singled out rooms in Queen’s University’s Sir John A. MacDonald Hall as “… an amazing experience. It was fresh air. I mean you can actually learn something.”

Technology

“I mean it's not just of the matter of the chalk fairy has been and you have to go on a raid to your neighbour’s classroom that was the good old days, now you need tech support and sometimes you need tech support and you need tech support now.”

—Teacher, afternoon session

Every classroom visited incorporated a varying degree of technological supports. The focus groups suggest that a space that offers low tech options alongside mixed use technology creates an optimal learning environment for teachers across various subjects. Although a designer’s first instinct when upgrading a learning space may be to ensure the latest and most powerful technology available, teachers argue that blackboards are essential pieces of any classroom’s infrastructure. As one participant described, “Chalkboards can be critical to answering questions because you kind of have to off-script, and that’s a challenge in this room, that right now, it’s not equipped to cope with properly.” Teachers find that blackboards offer the flexibility to answer questions and capture any off-topic discussions in a quick and efficient manner. The friction between a chalkboard and the writing utensil is superior to that of a whiteboard, which slips and streaks easily. A green chalkboard is easy for students to read and does not strain the eyes. Teachers are cognizant that whiteboards are better for those who have allergies, but from a teaching perspective, it appears that participants preferred the chalkboard, as whiteboards can also dirty with time. Teachers would recommend access to multiple chalkboards that scroll upwards to reveal

27

additional panels underneath. This design allows for students who are late to class or slower to transcribe the opportunity to catch up before a teacher is forced to erase the material for additional space. The setup of a room must consider that teachers may use both the chalkboard and projection screens within the same lecture. Participants report that often, sightlines to the chalkboards are compromised or, in some cases, the boards are completely covered when screens are in use. As one participant described, “I found that in the classrooms where there are the sympodium setups, they don’t work well enough to be useable for me, so I really do need the classical chalkboard and screen and have accessed to both at the same time.” Participants report a degree of mistrust of the technological supports provided. Although they appreciate that tech support is responsive and well-intentioned, the nature of technology is such that despite best efforts, sometimes the technology still will not work. One participant went so far as to refuse using technology altogether: “I have a very negative feeling about the whole lecture and I don't know why just nothing here ever worked, I got into the habit of using the document, camera and pieces of paper”. Although this may seem like a simple solution, the document camera that assists professors in displaying their longhand work is currently set at an inadequate height. When professors choose to use it, they fall below the line of sight of students, which can compromise communication. Participants shared other ideas, such as combining the existing projection technology with tablets, or how they might use some functions of a smart board or console better. Through these conversations, it became apparent that there was variability among the group in their ability to use the technology provided. Participants agreed that a certain degree of training would be beneficial in assisting instructors to maximize the utility of their learning spaces. This training would ideally cover not only the console and its ability to capture and record activity, but also a room’s lighting presets, where the remote controls are stored, and how to use the projection screens. Instructors would also like clear labelling on all controls and presets so that they may follow instructions in case of malfunction. They feel inadequately prepared to manage the technological aspects of their classroom and feel that training could help to offset the pressure on the technical support staff. Participants stress that “tech support isn't a substitute for having it set up well in the first place”. Regardless of a teacher’s willingness or ability to use the technological tools provided, a room must be designed for clear sound and sight. As instructors vary in their voices, their heights, and their approach, it is important to have technology aids available but also to design for the poorest possible outcome, as one professor warned, “ if that MIC doesn't work, then the best sightlines, the most comfortable seats, and an eighty thousand dollar projector could still be completely wasted if nobody can hear what I'm doing, because all it takes is one critical thing to be off for the whole room to become a bit disastrous.” It was suggested that classrooms could model the United Nations and offer each attendee an audio plug in the arm of their chair, similar to an airplane. The audio feed could come directly from the speaker into the headsets of each student.

28

Instructors’ Recommendations Teachers suggest that Carleton can improve student engagement and learning outcomes in the classroom and improve classroom design by: - providing both high and low tech options for visual aids; - ensuring that the high and low tech options are designed to be used simultaneously; - providing adequate space at the front of the room for both the console, teaching aids, and free walking space; - ensuring that all classrooms carry sound adequately regardless of microphones; - providing adequate training and assistance for all instructors to use classrooms effectively; - ensuring adequate space between rows of students to facilitate interactions; and - to position room entrances so as to not interrupt lecturers.

Conclusion This study captured issues that both students and educators on campus regard as valuable to their teaching/learning experience in large and medium-sized classrooms on campus. In the findings, disciplinary differences were noted as to preferred classroom features. For example, engineers preferred classrooms with white boards/blackboards and instructors in architecture preferred high quality audio-visual equipment. The value of certain classroom design features were widely accepted as important: enough laptop space, greater space between seats, more outlets to recharge electronic devices, wider as opposed to long/narrow classrooms, warm/ bright lighting, cleanliness, proximity to instructor/students, more strategically placed classroom entrances, accessible rooms, more options for accessible seating. Students strongly believe that interactivity and flexibility in a class increases performance, retention and participation. Participants felt validated and expressed an eagerness to contribute to future studies of this kind.

29

References Baepler, P. & Walker, J. D. (2014). Active learning classroom and educational alliances: Changing relationships to improve learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 137, 27- 40 Beichner, R. J. (2014). History and evolution of active learning spaces. New Directions for

Teaching and Learning, 137, 9-16. Beichner, R. J., et al. (2007). The Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment

Undergraduate Programs (SCALE-UP) Project. In Research-Based Reform of University Physics (1). Retrieved March 3, 2016, from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4517&DocID=183

Boddington, A., & Boys, J. (Eds.). (2011). Re-shaping learning: A critical reader: The future of

learning spaces in post-compulsory education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Brooks, D. (2012). Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning spaces on

instructor and student behavior. Journal Of Learning Spaces, 1(2). Retrieved from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/285/282

Brooks, D.C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student

learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 719–726. Cox, A.M. (2011). Students’ experience of university space: An exploratory study. International

journal of teaching and learning in higher education. International journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 23, 197 – 207.

Kop, R. & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The

international review of research in open and distributed learning, 9. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/523

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A

comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Oblinger, D. (Ed.). (2006). Learning spaces. Boulder, Colorado: EDUCAUSE. Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (2015). Focus on Outcomes — Centre on Students: Perspectives on Evolving Ontario's University Funding Model: Final consultation

30

report. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Palincsar, A. S. (2005). Social Constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. In An introduction to Vygotsky. H. Daniels (Ed.), New York: Routledge. Park, E.L. & Choi, B.K. (2014). Transformation of classroom spaces: Traditional versus active

learning classroom in colleges. Higher Education, 68, 749-771. Perks, T., Orr, D. & Alomari, E. (2016). Classroom Re-design to Facilitate Student Learning:

A Case Study of Changes to a University Classroom. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16, 53–68.

Rudd, P., Reed, F., & Smith, P. (2008). The Effects of the School Environment on Young People’s Attitudes Towards Education and Learning: Summary Report. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of

Instructional Technology and Distance Learning (ITDL), January. Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994). "Grounded Theory Methodology." In NK Denzin & YS Lincoln

(Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 217-285). Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

31

Appendix 1: Campus Master Plan Link to current Campus Master plan: http://carleton.ca/fmp/wp-content/uploads/2010-Final-CMP1.pdf A review of the Campus Master Plan began in September 2015 and will be completed in June 2016. Details about the 2015-’16 review can be found at this website: http://carleton.ca/fmp/campus-master-plan/

32

Appendix 2: List of Classrooms Outside of the General Pool Besides the classrooms there are a number of rooms and laboratories that are under the control of individual departments. The numbers of these across the campus are:

Building Number of rooms

Architecture DEPT 15

Architecture LABS 6

Azrieli Pavilion DEPT 6

Azrieli Pavilion LABS 2

Canal Building LABS 13

Dunton Tower DEPT 20

Herzberg Laboratories DEPT 4

Herzberg Laboratories LABS 15

Loeb DEPT 12

Loeb LAB 1

MacKenzie DEPT 12

Mackenzie LAB 19

Minto Centre DEPT 1

Minto Centre LABS 8

Nesbitt Biology LAB 1

Patterson Hall DEPT 7

River Building DEPT 12

Stacie Building DEPT 2

Stacie Building LABS 7

St Pats DEPT 2

St Pats LABS 2

Tory Building LABS 9

33

Appendix 3: List of Classrooms within General Pool A list of the classrooms that are in the general classroom pool.

Building Number of rooms

Azrieli Pavilion 1

Azrieli Theatre 4

Canal Building 10

Dunton Tower 1

Leeds 1

Loeb 7

MacKenzie 14

Minto Centre 2

Patterson Hall 14

Residence Commons 7

River Building 15

Southam Hall 36

St Pats 7

Stacie Building 1

Tory Building 20

University Center 9

34

Appendix 4: Classroom Visit Script for Focus Groups

Give students a few minutes to walk around and uncover in various features of the classroom.

(Ask students to then move to the front of the room where we are located and sit down once they have had a chance to roam around for 3 minutes).

1. Close your eyes and Imagine you are in this class and it is filled with students, describe how this classroom set-up would :

a. help support how you would like to learn?

b. inhibit how you would like to learn?

2. How does this classroom make you feel? Explain.

3. How does this classroom inhibit your interaction with:

a. the instructor

b. your fellow students

4. How does this classroom facilitate your interaction with:

a. the instructor

b. your fellow students

5. What is the best and worst feature of this classroom?

6. What type of course (in your own discipline) do you feel should be taught in this type of classroom?

35

Appendix 5: Diamond Activity The purpose of this activity is to see and understand what you define is as an important feature of a classroom space. Instructions 1. You will be given an envelope with 16 images of classroom features. Two additional blank sheets and markers are included in case you want to add a feature that you feel is not represented in these images. If you choose to add any new images, you will need to remove an image from the stack that was given to you. Please let us know which image you removed. 2. As a group, you will be asked to rank all the images in order of importance using a diamond shape. The image at the top of the diamond will represent the most important feature of a classroom to your group and image at the bottom of the diamond represents the least important feature. In other words, at the top of the diamond shape is the most important feature. In the second row are two of next most important features. In the third row will consist of the next three most important features. In other words, the pattern that is formed using the 16 pictures is: Row 1 1 photo (most important) Row 2 2 photos Row 3 3 photos Row 4 4 photos Row 5 3 photos Row 6 2 photos Row 7 1 photo (least important) Sharing your thoughts A representative your group will share and explain why the group arranged the images in a particular order. Please have a member post the photos in the pattern established by your group on the front board using the tape provided. Note: the individual group discussion and the sharing session will be recorded. Please let us know if you have any issues.

36

Appendix 6: Survey Instrument - Students We would like to get your thoughts and opinions about the classroom spaces at Carleton as a first step in improving those. The following questions are intended to take 5-7 minutes of your time and if you provide your Carleton email address, your name will be entered into a draw to win an iPad mini, or one of five $50 campus cards, or one of ten $20 coffee cards. Otherwise, the survey is completely anonymous. Thank you for your help! 1. Approximately how long have you been at Carleton? 1 year or less 2 years 3 years 4 years or more 2. What is the building and room number of the last class you attended. If you do not know the exact room number, please enter the course code and section of the class (e.g. PSYC1000 C) 3. For each of the following aspects, please rate the classroom you identified in Question 1 by selecting the appropriate number (0 means Very Poor and 100 means Very Good). Do your best to separate aspects of the room itself from the content of the lecture.

Very Poor (0)

20 40 60 80 Very Good (100)

N/A

Quality of Lighting

Seating comfort

Writing and/or laptop space

Space for my books, knapsack, purse, coat

Heating and/or air circulation

Sound quality (How well I can hear the

37

instructor or how much other sounds interfere) Overall Spaciousness

Cleanliness Accessibility of Technology (e.g. Access to electrical plugs for charging)

Wireless Access

Conducive to interactions with instructor

Conducive to interactions with other students

4. Overall, I find the classroom that I identified above to be (Choose all that apply) roomy cramped bright dark noisy peaceful social anti-social 5. What is the one thing that you like most about this classroom? 6. What is the one thing you would most like to improve about this classroom? Figure 1 below shows a traditional seating arrangement. The next question asks you to rate this kind of seating arrangement according to how you feel the seating arrangement would impact your learning. 7. Please indicate how you feel a traditional classroom seating arrangement would contribute to each of the following learning experiences:

38

Adequate Exceptional

Collaboration Focus Active Involvement Opportunity to engage

Repeated exposure to material through multiple means

In-class feedback Real-life scenarios Ability to engage ways of learning best

Physical movement Stimulation Feeling comfortable to participate

Creation of enriching experience

Figure 2 below shows alternative seating arrangements. The next question asks you to rate these kinds of seating arrangements according to how you feel the seating arrangement would impact your learning. 8. Please indicate how you feel an alternative classroom seating arrangement would contribute to each of the following learning experiences:

Adequate Exceptional Collaboration Focus Active Involvement Opportunity to engage


In-class feedback Real-life scenarios Ability to engage ways of learning

39

best Physical movement Stimulation Feeling comfortable to participate


9. Thank you! If you would like your name to be entered into the draw, please provide your Carleton email address in the space below:

40

Appendix 6b: Survey Instrument - Instructors We would like to get your thoughts and opinions about the classroom spaces at Carleton as a first step in improving those. The following questions are intended to take 5-7 minutes of your time and if you provide your Carleton email address, your name will be entered into a draw to win an iPad mini, or one of several $50 campus cards or $20 coffee cards. Otherwise, the survey is completely anonymous. Thank you for your help! 1. Approximately how long have you been an instructor at Carleton 4 years or less Greater than 4 year but less than 8 years Greater than 8 year but less than 12 years Greater than 12 years 2. What is the building and room number of the last class you taught in? If you cannot remember the exact room number, please enter the course code and section instead (e.g. PSYC1000 C) 3. Please rate the classroom you identified in Question 1 by selecting the appropriate option.

Very poor (0)

20 40 60 80 Very good (100)

N/A

Quality of Lighting

Heating and/or air circulation

Sound quality (how well students can hear you or how much other sounds interfere)

Overall Spaciousness

Cleanliness Accessibility of Technology (e.g. Access to electrical plugs for

41

charging) Wireless Access

Conducive to Interaction with students

Conducive to Interaction among students

4. Overall, I find the classroom I identified above to be (choose all that apply) roomy cramped bright dark noisy peaceful social anti-social 5. What is the one thing that you like most about this classroom? 6. What is the one thing that you would most like to improve about this classroom? Figure 1 below shows a traditional seating arrangement. The next question ask you to rate this kind of seating arrangement according to how you feel this seating arrangement would impact your teaching. 7. Please indicate how you feel a traditional classroom seating arrangement would contribute to each of the following teaching activities:

Inadequate Adequate Exceptional Collaboration Focus Active Involvement Opportunity to engage


In-class feedback

42

Real-life scenarios Ability to engage ways of learning best



Figure 2 below shows alternative seating arrangements. The next question ask you to rate these kinds of seating arrangements according to how you feel these seating arrangements would impact your teaching. 8. Please indicate how you feel an alternative classroom seating arrangement would contribute to each of the following teaching activities:

Inadequate Adequate Exceptional Collaboration Focus Active Involvement Opportunity to engage


In-class feedback Real-life scenarios Ability to engage ways of learning best



9. Thank you! If you would like your name to be entered into the draw, please provide your Carleton email address in the space below:

43

Appendix 7: Analyses Classroom Room by Room (Student Responses) 1. Southam Hall (SA) Southam is an older building with two large lecture halls paired up with several floors of classrooms. Figure 1.1

Table 1.1

Q3 0 (V. Poor) 20 40 60 80 100 (V. Good) Mean Aspect Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Lighting Quality 11 26 91 147 193 148 4.51 2 Seat Comfort 70 94 128 165 115 43 3.47 3 Table Space 50 65 88 106 158 147 4.14 4 Belongings Space 57 109 111 142 109 85 3.63 5 Air Quality 49 62 95 146 168 92 3.96 6 Sound Quality 9 16 64 111 212 202 4.79 7 Spaciousness 38 71 94 166 162 81 3.94 8 Cleanliness 22 54 85 161 170 117 4.23 9 Power 239 125 74 67 44 38 2.33 10 Wireless 17 31 60 104 193 191 4.57 11 Instructor Interaction 12 45 82 120 209 135 4.36 12 Student Interaction 15 35 92 145 189 123 4.28

2. Azrieli Theatre (AT)

44

As its name suggests, this new building houses only four large theatres. Figure 2.1

Table 2.1


3. Tory Building (TB) The Tory Building is identified as being old. Its one large theatre is indeed of the old style with very steep rows of chairs. Classrooms in Tory Building though have been recently renovated. Figure 3.1

45

Table 3.1


4. MacKenzie Building (ME) This is an older building with three theatre-type classrooms of capacity around 100 students, and classrooms. All have been renovated - yet the ratings do not suggest successfully.

46

Figure 4.1

Table 4.1


5. Minto Case (MC) All collected student responses for the Minto Case building are all for MC2000, the Bell Theatre.

47

Figure 5.1

Table 5.1


report on learning spaces at carleton university: part 1 · teachers as part of advancing carleton...

Documents