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