In their blog post, D’arcy Norman talks about the architecture, design, and technology that makes up the new building for the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning. The overall design was guided by flexibility and transparency due to the open space surrounded by glass walls and windows and the ability to move the technology around the space. For instance, the innovative technology used in this case is “collaboration carts,” which are 50″ touch monitors on wheels with many capabilities. The main topics the author focuses on in their blog are sustainability and stewardship regarding the audio-visual (AV) system that was implemented.
Throughout the blog, Norman presents some of the highlights and challenges associated with the design. The design highlights include the student’s opportunity to access the space outside of class time, the ability to collaborate, the different capabilities of the “collaboration cart,” and the constant access to support. Some of the challenges with this innovation are the maintenance required yearly and the possibility of the technology not working when needed. However, the author states that there have been upgrades in technology that will help reduce the dependence on interconnected systems, which should lead to fewer technological issues daily.
From the role perspective of a higher education teacher, I have a couple of concerns regarding the student’s use of the space and technology. Students can book out the spaces for informal uses, like watching Netflix and playing video games, which may limit the availability for teachers and students who require the learning space. In addition, this may also increase the risk of the “collaboration carts” not working and, therefore, negatively impacting a class. Thus, this space should solely be used as a learning environment, which may also positively influence the sustainability of the space.
Reference
Norman, D. (2017, March 11). Lessons learned: AV systems design in the Taylor Institute. https://darcynorman.net/2017/03/11/lessons-learned-av-systems-design-in-the-taylor-institute/
I thought this blog post was very interesting, in part because I have spent many years in Calgary and know different areas of the U of C very well, not so much the TI so that might be why I gravitated to this article in the first place. I noted your comment about minimizing the wear and tear and breakage of the technology by restricting the use of collaboration carts being used outside class delivery and I wonder about a couple of things.
1. Is it the ability for students to use the technology without many restrictions that promote higher usage that causes the technology to not work as expected? but that isn’t the point to use it OR perhaps it is the unfettered access that creates an environment where students may feel removed from the costs and care involved, creating opportunities for misuse?
This is a tricky one but ultimately the technology should be able to withstand excessive use if it aids student learning and promotes flexibility in the classroom. Thanks, Giulia, do you have anything like this at the university you teach at?
Great thoughts Nicole. I agree that the technology should be able to withstand the excessive use but majority of the time, this isn’t the case. At Humber College, we have the Barrett Centre for Technology Innovation, which is a multi-disciplinary research facility meant for both students and faculty. Unfortunately, I have yet to have the chance to explore this space but plan to very soon! Here’s a link to a tour of the space if you’re interested!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqTQGjtg57E
In my initial post, I commented on D’arcy Norman’s blog post that explored the architecture, design, and technology of the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning. Although there are many benefits to the creative learning space, I have concerns regarding the space and collaboration carts used by students outside of class time. Students can access the space for informal uses, including watching Netflix and playing video games. This increases the likelihood of the collaboration carts not working when needed for a class. I initially suggested that the space should only be used as a learning environment to limit technical issues. Instead of assuming students primarily use the Taylor Institute for informal activities and are responsible for technologies not working, it is important to collect data first.
In the educational context, Data-Driven Decision Making (DDDM) “refers to teachers, principals, and administrators systematically collecting and analyzing various types of data, including input, process, outcome and satisfaction data, to guide a range of decisions to help improve the success of students and schools” (Marsh et al., 2006, p. 1). When deciding the type of data to use, it is important to consider the factors that may be relevant to the context. Some factors that may affect data collection in this context are the organization’s motivation to use the data and having the necessary capacity and support.
In this case, the goal is to find out how students use the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning and who the main source of technology needing to be fixed is to limit the number of technical issues that occur. There are a couple of ways that data can be collected to inform future decisions. First, Learning Walks are organized walks around a school meant to collect data on the quality of the learning space and the need for support for both faculty and learners (Marsh et al., 2006). The data is collected by asking questions and examining the work being done in the learning space. Through this type of data collection, there is an opportunity to identify what the space is being used for and the capabilities of using the technology. The second type of data that can be collected is outcome data. It may be valuable to digitally track who uses the space, when, and how they use it. For example, are students using collaboration carts to watch Netflix and play video games? After collecting both types of data, decisions can be made about moving forward. For example, perhaps the space must only be used by instructors or students under supervision, or maybe these spaces should be assessed after each use.
References
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making Sense of Data-Driven Decision Making in Education: Evidence from Recent RAND Research. Rand Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/OP170
Hi Giulia,
I really liked your suggestion of using a “Learning Walk” to collect data – it is likely anonymous (so individuals are not tracked) but would provide a really good sense of how a space can be used. I am involved in a project on campus where they are hoping to gather data directly from the room itself – through activities that have been integrated directly onto the walls. I am always interested in space, and I often think data can explore issues that are not always visible. For example if students are using a space for more informal activities…what does that tell us about their overall learning needs? We know that during the pandemic many digital inequities were revealed – perhaps the university, where access to digital tools is more ubiquitous becomes a more blended space, where learners engage in both more formal/informal learning. In both your posts you explore how we can evaluate the use of spaces – how would you envision using data to help inform your own teaching practice? Thanks!