IMAGINING IT. BUILDING IT. LIVING IT.
A new model for flexible learning environments
Karen J. Head, Georgia Institute of Technology
Rebecca E. Burnett, Georgia Institute of Technology
Introduction
Imagining It
Building It
Living It
Conclusion
2.0 IMAGINING IT: CREATION OF A VISION FOR THE COMMUNICATION CENTER
In contributing to the overall design of Clough Commons and to our specific design of the Communication Center within that large learning commons, we adopted the view that “spaces are themselves agents for change. Changed spaces will change practice” (JISC, p. 30). As Diana G. Oblinger (2006) explained in Learning Spaces, reconceptualizing spaces can change the ways students learn, the ways information technologies are used, and the ways we think about and approach learning. For example, we expected students to demonstrate a strong sense of ownership of the space itself and of their use of that space; we encouraged this initial ownership by involving them in the early political decisions about use, about proximity decisions regarding the locations of units, and later in decisions about furnishings and mission statements. We expected the space to promote not only social interaction, but also learning in clustered spaces adapted to a variety of individual and small group needs.
We started thinking about space in new ways, becoming part of the provocative history behind the ways creative people shape and use their spaces. As Henri Lefebvre (1991) noted, we need to be able to account for the physical, the mental (that is, the intellectual), and the social—all central elements in designing our Communication Center (p. 11). Lefebvre also observed that “physical space has no ‘reality’ without the energy that is deployed within it” (p. 13). This argument takes on special relevance for us, with the energy deployed in our physical space coming in part from mental activity: tutoring, collaboration, workshops, performance, demonstrations, and, especially, the creativity of students in generating projects. Social space is equally important in our Communication Center. As Chris Butler (2012) explained, Lefebvre sees social space “as a political instrument and a mechanism for social regulation,” which is an especially accurate representation of our space (p. 42). Why? While space is socially produced, it is “an essential precondition for the reproduction of social relations” and a necessary “part of the means of production” (Butler, 2012, p. 42; p. 43). Because we emphasize that communication—both creation and interpretation—has strong social elements, the view that space has an explicit social component is important.1
The importance of space and place in writing (and, for us, communication more broadly) is not limited to professional writers but extended to students as well. Nedra Reynolds (2004) began Geographies of Writing by reminding us that “Plato draws attention to the role of place in conversations, persuasion, and learning” (p. 1). She went on to say that “Places evoke powerful human emotions….they become embodied….[in ways that can] stimulate and refresh—or disturb and unnerve—their visitors” (Reynolds, 2004, p. 2).
Metaphors about space are important to us. As with Reynolds, we recognize the power of metaphors about physical space; for us, such metaphors play out in the central and highly visible location of our Communication Center, a critical message at an institution where space is at a premium because our campus is entirely surrounded by commercial and residential urban landscapes. Metaphor plays out in another way because writing spaces are often virtual, as noted by Jay David Bolter (2009), in ways that challenge our cultural concepts of what we mean by familiar alphabetic texts or what we mean by a writer or speaker or designer.
While metaphor matters, we see the actual use of our space as equally important. We value recent research that confirms the importance of attention to the design and careful use of space, particularly the influence on pedagogical decisions and on student learning. We’ve observed that many of the conclusions by Aimee Whiteside, D. Christopher Brooks, and J. D. Walker (2010)—for example, that “learning environments affect which teaching-learning activities occur…”—play out not just in classrooms but in our tutoring and rehearsal spaces as well (Concluding, para. 1). A recent study by D. Christopher Brooks (2012) supports this work:
[D]ifferent classroom types are conducive to different outcomes: traditional classrooms encourage lecture at the expense of active learning techniques while ALCs marginalize the effectiveness of lecture while punctuating the importance of active learning approaches to instruction, but both are effective at producing high levels of on-task student behavior. (Conclusion, para. 1)
We have observed Brooks’ generalization play out in our own Communication Center spaces, with activities achieving visible results in spaces designed for them (e.g., conducting MOOC Hangouts, conducting interactive workshops, tutoring for individual documents, tutoring group presentations, tutoring for poster design). As J. D. Walker, D. Christopher Brooks, and Paul Baepler (2011) concluded, instructors—and in our case, tutors—adapt pedagogical approaches to the resources of the space; in spaces that are designed for active, engaged learning, instructors intentionally incorporate “more active, student-centered teaching techniques,” and “student learning improved” (Key Takeaways, bullet point 2).
Our Communication Center, as a critical part of the Writing and Communication Program, supports and extends our rhetorical, multimodal mission by offering support for WOVEN (written, oral, visual, electronic, and nonverbal) communication across campus—available to our entire undergraduate and graduate student population. The Center welcomes students to spaces (with technologies and human resources) to help them become more effective, efficient communicators. Simply put, for us, space affects teaching and learning in visible and fulfilling ways. Our goal is to create a space where communicators have a sense of ownership, feel safe, and feel encouraged to share and create. Space becomes “a physical representation of the institution’s vision and strategy for learning” (JISC, 2006, p. 2).