Learning Environments 2013: Planning for Learning and Maximizing your Institutional Resources

Planning for Learning Environments: Maximizing Your Institutional Resources

Learning Environments 2013 Orlando, FL January 31, 2013

Jones Architecture LLC 10 Derby Square Salem MA 978.744.5200 www.jonesarch.com

01

Introduction + General Experience

02

Trends in Learning Environments

03

Data Mining

04 Case Studies Norwich University, Kreitzberg Library Dartmouth College, Jones Media Center

01

Introduction + General Experience

01

Mission

Support our clients in the broadest sense as they seek to shape their environment.

01

Design Principles

Responsive to Context Environmental, Societal, Cultural, Architectural, Historical

01

Design Principles

Sustainable Design Integrate Site, Program, Systems, Use Patterns, Operations & Maintenance, Building Design

01

Design Principles

Consensus Building “The process that Rick advocates embraces a spectrum of constituents. Rather than trying to winnow them down, he believes that they enrich the project.”

Jill Anthes, Campus Planner, University of Arkansas

01

Higher Education Oriented Practice

01

Recent + Current Work

122K gsf $31.2M

Norwich University

Dartmouth College

Northeastern University

M.I.T.

02

02

Trends in Learning Environments

02

History: Form Follows Function

02

History: Form Follows Function

02

History: Form Follows Function

02

Fifty Years Later: A Persistent Model

02

Trends: Increased Student Expectations

02

Trends: Range of Learning Styles • Individual • Pair • Group • Social • Ownership • Flexibility

02

Trends: Range of Teaching Styles

Sage on the Stage

Guide on the Side

02

Trends: Be Flexible On the Fly

Starting configuration

Variations

02

Trends: Be Flexible Long Term

02

Trends: Blended Programs

• • • • •

400 seat auditorium & 100 seat lecture hall 50 & 60 seat case study rooms 24 & 32 seat classrooms 16 & 20 seat seminar rooms Purpose-built research lab space, computer labs, group study rooms, admin suites, faculty offices, media lab

02

Trends: Be Interdisciplinary

02

Trends: Combine Service & Learning

Academic Commons

CETL

Service Commons

Communications

02

Trends: Seek Program Consolidation

02

Trends: Find Learning Spaces Everywhere

03

03

Data Mining

03

Data Mining: Libraries • Over the past 12 months, we have looked at 15 libraries renovated or constructed in the past decade.

• Categories that we have tracked include the following: • institution • library • number of libraries on campus • weekly hours of operation • food and drink policy • year completed • architect • undergraduate FTE • graduate FTE • number of undergraduate majors

• number of graduate majors • number of volumes • number of online titles • number of periodicals in print and electronic • seat types and quantities • strategic partners (tutoring, IT support, counseling, media lab, archives, instruction space, student services, etc.)

03

Data Mining: Libraries

03

Data Mining: Libraries

30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Composite FTE

10

11

12

13

14

15

03

Data Mining: Libraries

168

180 160

147

142

140

122

110 107

120

96

91

100

116 96

96

91

96

96

12

13

14

15

75

80 60 40 20 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Hours of Operation, Weekly

11

03

Data Mining: Libraries

90 75

80 65

70

58

60

56 44

50 40

81

36

32

32

45

47

32

30

29 19

20

6

10 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Number of Undergraduate Majors

12

13

14

15

03

Data Mining: Libraries

38%

40%

Carrel

35%

Desks

30%

Work Stations

25%

Soft Seating

20%

Open Table 16%

15%

12%

13%

10% 5%

Group Study 11% 7%

4%

0% Composite Seat Type Blend

Instruction

03

Data Mining: Libraries

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Open Table as Percent of Total Seats, By Institution

13

14

15

03

Data Mining: Libraries

40%

35%

35% 28%

30%

26% 23%

25%

21% 18%

20% 15%

13%

10%

11% 10%

9%

10%

5%

5%

9% 2%

3%

13

14

0% 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Seat Count as Percentage of FTE

11

12

15

04

04

Case Studies

04

Case Study 1: Norwich University Norwich University 40%

35%

35% 28%

30%

26% 23%

25%

21% 18%

20% 15%

13%

10%

11% 10%

9%

10%

5%

5%

9% 2%

3%

13

14

0% 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Seat Count as Percentage of FTE

Outliers / Commuter Campuses

12

15

04

Case Study 1: Norwich University

40%

38%

Carrel

35%

+22

Desks

30%

Work Stations

25%

Soft Seating Open Table

20% 15% 10% 5%

Group Study

15% 9%

+5

10% 7%

-23

-3

-5

0% Seat Type Ͳ Norwich

11%

11%

+4

0

Instruction

04

Case Study 1: Norwich University

• homogenous • differentiated - public at grade and increasingly private as • carrels distributed throughout you rise vertically • quiet floors designated only • carrels consolidated at upper through signage floors / quiet • second floor commons • new partners - academic achievement center (tutoring), admissions program

04

Case Study 1: Norwich University Academic Commons

Academic Achievement Center

Electronic Classroom

04

Case Study 1: Norwich University Proposed Seat Count will bring Norwich into alignment with regional peers 40%

35%

35% 28%

30%

26% 23%

25%

21% 18%

20% 15%

13%

10%

11% 10%

9%

10%

5%

5%

9% 2%

3%

13

14

0% 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Seat Count as Percentage of FTE

11

12

15

04

Case Study 1: Norwich University

25% 21%

20% 20%

23%

Carrel

-15

Desks

+8

+5

Work Stations 14%

15% 11% 10%

+4 5%

5%

+1

6%

-6

0% Seat Type Ͳ Norwich (Proposed)

+3

Soft Seating Open Table Group Study Instruction

04

Case Study 2: Dartmouth College

conference room office office office office readers editing classroom

office

equipmt storage

dig media lab

DVD + VHS microfiche + microfilm viewing

group study

classroom + training circulation

reserves

look up stations

microfiche + microfilm

EXISTING PLAN

04

Case Study 2: Dartmouth College

FLEX FRAME 04 GROUP WORK OR PODIUM FOR INSTRUCTOR BOTH IN PRIVATE ROOM AND OUT IN SPACE. 8’ X 10’

FLEX FRAME 01 FOR COLLABORATIVE WORK, CASUAL OR GROUP. FOR GAMING OR LARGE GROUP VIEWING 20’ X 25’

MS003 FOR COLLABORATIVE WORK, CASUAL OR GROUP. ALSO PLACED IN PRIVATE SETTING FOR GAMING OR INDIVIDUAL / SMALL GROUP VIEWING 11’ X 8’

MS002 FOR COLLABORATIVE WORK, CASUAL OR GROUP. FOR GAMING, LARGE GROUP VIEWING PRESENTATION PRACTICE 11’ X 11’

MS001 FOR COLLABORATIVE WORK, CASUAL OR GROUP. FOR GAMING, LARGE GROUP VIEWING PRESENTATION PRACTICE 11’ X 8’

FURNITURE TYPOLOGIES / GROUP + COLLABORATIVE

04

Case Study 2: Dartmouth College

ANSWER 06 WORK TABLE FOR INDIVIDUAL AND SMALL COLLABORATIVE WORK 12’6” X 12’6”

ANSWER 03 WORK TABLE FOR INDIVIDUAL AND SMALL COLLABORATIVE WORK 10’ X 22’

EYE LEVEL WORKTABLES FOR INDIVIDUAL WORK 18’ X 5’6”

NODE CHAIR FOR INDIVIDUAL, CLASSROOM, OR SMALL GROUP WORK

SCAPE 022 FOR COLLABORATIVE WORK, CASUAL OR GROUP. ALSO PLACED IN PRIVATE SETTING FOR GAMING OR INDIVIDUAL / SMALL GROUP VIEWING 13’-4” X 12’

FURNITURE TYPOLOGIES / INDIVIDUAL + PAIRS + SMALL GROUP

04

Case Study 2: Dartmouth College

4

0

0

15

5

24

0

0

0

0 TOTAL

EXISTING SEATING TYPOLOGIES

48

04

Case Study 2: Dartmouth College conference room

group study + viewing

quiet + individual quiet + pairs quiet + individual office office classroom

quiet + individual

group study + viewing gadget bar

look up stations

group + collaborative group study

group viewing + collaborative work areas

tech station

group + collaborative flex to open classroom + training

circulation open office

gaming + group study

reserves

equipmt storage

readers

DVD + VHS

dig media lab

office

classroom + training

office

reserves

SCHEME 4 4

4

! !

4 !

"

4 ! ! !

4 " " "

4 ! $

04

Case Study 2: Dartmouth College

04

Case Study 2: Dartmouth College

04

Case Study 2: Dartmouth College

8

0

+4

0

12 -3

18 +18

24 +0

32 +32

24 +24

0

12 +12 TOTAL

SCHEME 04 SEATING TYPOLOGIES

130 +82

Planning for Learning Environments: Maximizing Your Institutional Resources

Learning Environments 2013 Orlando, FL January 31, 2013

Jones Architecture LLC