The Learning Space Rating System Carole Meyers Dartmouth

  • Slides: 44
Download presentation
The Learning Space Rating System Carole Meyers Dartmouth College with Malcolm Brown Reporting on

The Learning Space Rating System Carole Meyers Dartmouth College with Malcolm Brown Reporting on Testing of the System: Tim Murphy George Mason University Scott Diener EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative University of Auckland Shirley Dugdale Adam Finkelstein Dugdale Strategy 1 October 2014 Mc. Gill University Jenn Stringer UC Berkeley

Learning Space Rating System | V. 1 Authors Malcolm Brown, Ph. D. Director EDUCAUSE

Learning Space Rating System | V. 1 Authors Malcolm Brown, Ph. D. Director EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative Elliot Felix Director Brightspot Strategy LLC Joseph Cevetello, Ed. D. Director, Learning Environments Univ. of Southern California Rich Holeton Director Academic Computing Services Stanford University Shirley Dugdale, AIA Principal Dugdale Strategy LLC Carol Meyers, Ph. D. Project Director, Research Information Services Dartmouth College Early Contributors: Phil Long, Ph. D Director, CEIT Univ. of Queensland Andrew Milne, Ph. D. CEO, Tidebreak Inc. Bob Beichner NCSU Linda Jorn U. Wisconsin

LSRS System Goals Enable richer interaction Enhance support and evaluation systems Measure potential to

LSRS System Goals Enable richer interaction Enhance support and evaluation systems Measure potential to support active learning A framework of criteria for best practice A system that continues to improve with community input

LSRS Structure: 6 sections 1 Integration with campus context 2 Planning and design process

LSRS Structure: 6 sections 1 Integration with campus context 2 Planning and design process 3 Support and operations 4 Environmental quality 5 Layout and furnishings 6 Technology and tools

Scoresheet

Scoresheet

What LSRS does: Identify the low-and high-performers within particular space types Once you’ve rated

What LSRS does: Identify the low-and high-performers within particular space types Once you’ve rated your spaces (or a sampling of them) you can identify which ones best support active learning and which are good candidates for renovation or repurposing, setting internal benchmarks.

GOAL: See how you compare to others As more institutions adopt the rating system

GOAL: See how you compare to others As more institutions adopt the rating system and contribute to a common data set, comparisons across institutions will be possible. image credits: http: //www. visualizing. org/stories/visualizing-college-choice http: //chancellor. utk. edu/annualreport/2012/images/rank. gif

GOAL: Reference an objective, Third-party standard Being able to reference an objective third-party standard

GOAL: Reference an objective, Third-party standard Being able to reference an objective third-party standard can help make the case to leaders and funders about the need to improve learning spaces.

http: //www. educause. edu/eli/initiative s/learning-space-rating-system

http: //www. educause. edu/eli/initiative s/learning-space-rating-system

LSRS site http: //tinyurl. com/eli. LSRS ELI Community Forum http: //tinyurl. com/forumeli Learning Space

LSRS site http: //tinyurl. com/eli. LSRS ELI Community Forum http: //tinyurl. com/forumeli Learning Space discussion group http: //tinyurl. com/LSPACEcg

George Mason University Tim Murphy tmurph 13@gmu. edu

George Mason University Tim Murphy tmurph 13@gmu. edu

OLD ALT Classroom-IN 215 G

OLD ALT Classroom-IN 215 G

OLD ALT Classroom-IN 215 G

OLD ALT Classroom-IN 215 G

OLD ALT Classroom-IN 215 G

OLD ALT Classroom-IN 215 G

New ALT Classroom-IN 215 G

New ALT Classroom-IN 215 G

New ALT Classroom-IN 215 G

New ALT Classroom-IN 215 G

Using the LSRS Scott Diener University of Auckland 19

Using the LSRS Scott Diener University of Auckland 19

 BUILDING ROOM # 260 OGGB 005 (CR 1) # OF POSSIBLE CRITERIA POINTS

BUILDING ROOM # 260 OGGB 005 (CR 1) # OF POSSIBLE CRITERIA POINTS Creative Commons CC-BY TOTAL Version 1. 0 Learning Space Rating System Scoresheet Integration with Campus Context Planning Process Support and Operations Environmental Quality Layout and Furnishings Technology ROOM ASSESSMENT (Calculated from scoresheet tab) % Earned Achiev Section Points ed Score WEIGHTING 5 9 14 8 16 11 10. 15. 20 20. 5 9 11 7 8 9 1. 00 0. 79 0. 88 0. 50 0. 82 63 100 10. 00 15. 00 11. 79 17. 50 10. 00 16. 36 80. 65

 Learning Space Rating System Scoresheet BUILDING ROOM # Integration with Campus Context Planning

Learning Space Rating System Scoresheet BUILDING ROOM # Integration with Campus Context Planning Process Support and Operations Environmental Quality Layout and Furnishings Technology Version 1. 0 Creative Commons CCBY 502 Grafton B 41 # OF POSSIBLE CRITERIA POINTS ROOM ASSESSMENT (Calculated from scoresheet tab) % Achieve d Section Score Earned Points WEIGHTING 5 9 14 8 16 11 10. 15. 20 20. 5 9 13 7 8 9 1. 00 0. 93 0. 88 0. 50 0. 82 63 100 TOTAL 10. 00 15. 00 13. 93 17. 50 10. 00 16. 36 82. 79

LSRS Rating System © Mc. Gill University - adam. finkelstein@mcgill. ca 2020 -09 -24

LSRS Rating System © Mc. Gill University - adam. finkelstein@mcgill. ca 2020 -09 -24 TLS Adam Finkelstein Educational Developer

Mc. Gill Context • • 35, 000 students from 120 different countries 1700 tenure

Mc. Gill Context • • 35, 000 students from 120 different countries 1700 tenure track faculty 3400 admin and support 475 classrooms / 21, 200 seats • 190 yr-old Heritage campus • Accumulated deferred maintenance of $900 M © Mc. Gill University - adam. finkelstein@mcgill. ca 2020 -09 -24

Stewardship of Teaching and Learning Spaces at Mc. Gill (‘ 06) Teaching and Learning

Stewardship of Teaching and Learning Spaces at Mc. Gill (‘ 06) Teaching and Learning Spaces Working Group University Teaching Labs Working Group Mandate § A vision for teaching and learning space development § Standards based on sound pedagogical and technical principles. § Steward funding for classroom and lab renovations, IT & equipment Representation § All Faculties, relevant service units, students: 40+ stakeholders § Co-Chaired by Academics and Operations © Mc. Gill University - adam. finkelstein@mcgill. ca 2020 -09 -24

LSRS Initial Pilot 1. 2. 3. 4. Largest Lecture Hall (598) – unrenovated Mid-sized

LSRS Initial Pilot 1. 2. 3. 4. Largest Lecture Hall (598) – unrenovated Mid-sized Lecture Hall (184) – 2011 Versatile classroom (64) – 2012 Active Learning Classroom (74) – 2009 • Known rooms with expected results (we think) © Mc. Gill University - adam. finkelstein@mcgill. ca 2020 -09 -24

1. Largest Lecture Hall (unrenovated) 598 seats © Mc. Gill University - adam. finkelstein@mcgill.

1. Largest Lecture Hall (unrenovated) 598 seats © Mc. Gill University - adam. finkelstein@mcgill. ca 2020 -09 -24

2. Mid-sized Lecture Hall - AFTER 184 seats © Mc. Gill University - adam.

2. Mid-sized Lecture Hall - AFTER 184 seats © Mc. Gill University - adam. finkelstein@mcgill. ca 2020 -09 -24

“Standard” Classroom – 64 seats Movable tables and chairs, writable walls © Mc. Gill

“Standard” Classroom – 64 seats Movable tables and chairs, writable walls © Mc. Gill University 2014 -9 -29 28

3. Active Learning Classroom – AFTER 72 seats © Mc. Gill University - adam.

3. Active Learning Classroom – AFTER 72 seats © Mc. Gill University - adam. finkelstein@mcgill. ca 2020 -09 -24

LSRS Sections • Integration with Campus Context • Planning and Design Process • Support

LSRS Sections • Integration with Campus Context • Planning and Design Process • Support and Operations • Environmental Quality • Layout and Furnishings • Tools and Technology © Mc. Gill University - adam. finkelstein@mcgill. ca 2020 -09 -24

LSRS Analysis Largest Lecture Hall Environme 2/8 ntal Quality Mid-sized Versatile Lecture Classroom Hall

LSRS Analysis Largest Lecture Hall Environme 2/8 ntal Quality Mid-sized Versatile Lecture Classroom Hall 5/8 6/8 Active Learning Classroom 8/8 Layout and 1/14 Furnishings 4/14 8/14 9/14 Technology 5/9 6/9 4/9 8/9 72 75 91 58 © Mc. Gill University - adam. finkelstein@mcgill. ca 2020 -09 -24

LSRS Strengths • Makes important learning space criteria explicit • Matches our principles, values

LSRS Strengths • Makes important learning space criteria explicit • Matches our principles, values and standards • Data from multiple perspectives • Clear and easy to use • Results appear valid • Provides “potential” of space © Mc. Gill University - adam. finkelstein@mcgill. ca 2020 -09 -24

LSRS Challenges • • • Rating a room within a system Some constraints beyond

LSRS Challenges • • • Rating a room within a system Some constraints beyond University control Data from multiple perspectives Some criteria are more “core” than others Problem of “innovation” Provides “potential” of space © Mc. Gill University - adam. finkelstein@mcgill. ca 2020 -09 -24

UC Berkeley’s LSRS Experience EDUCAUSE 14| Jenn Stringer, ACIO Academic Engagement Brenda Farmer |

UC Berkeley’s LSRS Experience EDUCAUSE 14| Jenn Stringer, ACIO Academic Engagement Brenda Farmer | Owen Mc. Grath | Nicole Sattler| Chris Washington

Berkeley Context ● Student Population: ~35, 000 ● Faculty: ~2000 ● 224 General Assignment

Berkeley Context ● Student Population: ~35, 000 ● Faculty: ~2000 ● 224 General Assignment (GA) Classrooms ○ 25 Lecture Halls > 100 seats ○ 4 Lecture Halls > 400 seats ● 1 GA Active Learning Classroom ● 55 Web/screencast Classrooms ● 13 Classrooms w/o A/V Technology

Learning Spaces Rating System Classroom Selection: ● Seminar Room (15 seats) ● Small Classroom

Learning Spaces Rating System Classroom Selection: ● Seminar Room (15 seats) ● Small Classroom (22 seats) ● Active Learning Classroom (30 seats)

Seminar Room LSRS score: (42/100)

Seminar Room LSRS score: (42/100)

Small Classroom LSRS score: (42/100)

Small Classroom LSRS score: (42/100)

Active Learning Classroom LSRS score: (86/100)

Active Learning Classroom LSRS score: (86/100)

Learning Spaces Rating System Strengths ● ● ● Aligned with our A/V Standards! Aligned

Learning Spaces Rating System Strengths ● ● ● Aligned with our A/V Standards! Aligned our customer services! Made us think partnerships Made us think process Made us think service Thorough

Learning Spaces Rating System Challenges ● Dependencies on departments and/or SMEs ● Ratings subjective

Learning Spaces Rating System Challenges ● Dependencies on departments and/or SMEs ● Ratings subjective when trying to compare to other universities ● Innovation hard to quantify w/o feedback from end -users

Recommendations for LSRS ● Create a peer network for the LSRS ● Define reports

Recommendations for LSRS ● Create a peer network for the LSRS ● Define reports and or context for key high level stakeholders ● Develop a better way to recognize space characteristics e. g. age, discipline, use

Next steps § Further coordination with FLEXspace database and SCUP (Society of College &

Next steps § Further coordination with FLEXspace database and SCUP (Society of College & University Planning) § Next round of institutional testing using v 1 § Work session at EDUCAUSE 2015 for testers to share findings and analyze comparative scores § Need to develop approach to operationalize the rating system, engage partners, seek funding § Joint presentations with FLEXspace in 2015