05 EVIDENCE-BASED PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR 21st CENTURY BUSINESS SCHOOLS

05

EVIDENCE-BASED PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR 21st CENTURY BUSINESS SCHOOLS

PUBLIC NEXT GENERATION GLOBAL STUDIO

Building 5 Block A&B, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Australia

Evidence-based planning and design for 21st century business schoolsby Dr Kenn Fisher

Abstract

The 21st century has seen the emergence of wireless broadband and mobile communications devices which are inexorably changing the way people communicate, collaborate, create and transfer knowledge. Yet much of the built learning environment was designed in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Today new learning environments are being constructed to meet these emerging technologies and pedagogical practices, although these have not been thoroughly evaluated to see if they actually work and should be replicated.

This article examines the drivers behind 21st century pedagogical practices and the physical learning environments they are carried out in. It covers the competitive pressures impacting on business schools and the needs of employers in appointing graduates with specific competencies.

The paper argues for an evidence-based approach to the design of new learning environments. In this context, whilst there have been a range of new learning spaces designed in the past five years or so, it is only just recently that a more rigorous research approach is being taken to evaluate their performance.

The examination also explores some innovative business school learning environments and argues for a more collaborative and team-based approach to learning to better replicate the approach used by the business community.

Introduction

The evidence-based design approach is a recent and emergent discipline. This was derived largely from the medical model of pharmaceutical trials, which ensure that the evidence emanating from these large trials is sufficient to ensure the safety of the drug under test for use with patients.

Otherwise known as Translational Research – from bench to bed – this evidence-based approach has been adapted to health facility design with rigorous studies measuring the healing rate of patients in different physical environments. These studies follow similar rigour used for drug trials and are resulting in seemingly irrefutable evidence of the impact of the physical environment on human behaviour1.

These methods are now being trialled in non-health environments such as learning environments, with a range of innovative 21st century learning environments now being evaluated.

Results so far are of limited rigour, but do show promise and point to future directions. Some of the key issues to be addressed in improving the approach include:

– Understanding business school tracer studies of students i.e. where do they go when they graduate and what are the graduate competencies being sought by employers and research institutions? – What accreditation criteria are set for business schools to qualify? – Which business schools are competitors and what are they doing? – What are the emerging teaching, learning and research approaches in the 21st century, especially the impact of online and face to face – or blended – learning? – From the above points, what would be the key performance indicators that should be measured in an evidence-based evaluation of learning environments?

This paper addresses these issues and more, profiling what an evidence-based approach to business school planning and design might look like.

Building 5 Block A&B, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Australia

05

The Business School - Issues for a New Future | Page 3WOODSBAGOT.COM

Future Learning Space, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Needs of a 21st century business school

Accreditation by AACSB2, CEMS3 and EQUIS4 is critical to the legitimacy of a business school in the competitive marketplace. CEMS is a global alliance of business schools, whilst criteria for AACSB is largely concerned with six mission statement elements being aligned with school’s processes and practices. An EQUIS accreditation criterion covers:

– Physical facilities and the learning environment – Financial resources – Financial management systems – Information and documentation facilities – Computing facilities – Marketing and public relations – Administrative services and staff.

The key features in the physical environment are illustrated in the extracts following:

No feature of the degree programs of a school is more influential in determining the educational practices of the school than the characteristics of the student population.

What happens in classrooms, online, in group projects, and in individual study is all influenced by students’ backgrounds in educational experiences, cultural history, work experiences, family relationships, and other characteristics. (AACSB, 2011, p26)

The school’s infrastructure fits its activities, e.g., campus-based learning, distance learning, research, and executive education. Classrooms, offices, laboratories, communications and computer equipment, and other basic facilities are adequate for high quality operations.

Technology support for students and faculty is appropriate to programs (e.g., online learning, classroom simulations), and to intellectual contributions expectations (e.g., databases, data analysis programs). (AACSB, 2011, p28).

The physical facilities should provide an adequate learning environment for the students and participants in the school’s various programs. The EQUIS assessment of adequacy will take into account the fact that the requirements for undergraduate students are very different from those for an MBA cohort or for executive education participants. The basic principle is that the physical facilities in terms of auditoriums, classrooms, breakout rooms, social space, etc. should be sufficient to support the particular pedagogical approach in each program. It is usually the case that MBA programs and executive education activities will require dedicated facilities. How is the potential contribution of facilities to the personal experience and development of students evaluated? (EQUIS, 2011, p 56, 57).

The evaluation noted immediately above is covered in the final section of this paper.

05

Building P, Professional Development Unit, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Graduate Competencies and Employer Requirements

Many universities are articulating graduate competencies which represent the generic characteristics they wish their graduate students to express, such as the University of Sydney as illustrated.

Some universities are now describing these at the discipline or faculty level. For example, business school students would have specific graduate competencies that potential employers or other related target groups, such as research institutes and universities, could expect from new appointments.

What is not yet emerging is a learning environment typology that matches these graduate competencies, although this is required in the accreditation criteria noted above.

Competitive advantage: Local, national, regional and global - and business school rankings

Increasingly business schools are competing for students, locally, nationally, regionally and globally. At a regional level, for example, Australia is competing with similar schools in South East Asia and China such as:

– Lee Kong Chian Business School – Singapore Management University, Singapore – HKUST Business School, Hong Kong – NUS School of Business, Singapore.

These particular schools also compete at a global level as illustrated in the summary of Financial Times Business School Rankings 2009-20105. It should be noted that there is a dearth of Australian business schools in this list.

These Asian business schools, however, provide a wealth of targets as exemplars to inform a business school evidence-based design and planning practice.

21st century teaching, learning and research trends: Blended learning and the face-to-face experience

The recent advent of wireless broadband internet access and mobile communication devices has provided learning models - simultaneously online and face-to-face. This has seriously called into question the industrial age traditional ‘egg crate classroom’ model of teaching and learning. It has also enabled the emergence of a true synchronous/asynchronous and virtual/physical matrix of learning opportunities for which our existing built learning environment infrastructure is not well suited6.

In response to these developments, many innovative learning environments are being trialled. These include an increasing focus on the “third space” which supports social forms of student interaction. The important issue here, especially in universities, is that students can now learn off-campus on line so universities need to identify what spatial characteristics are needed to support a face-to-face experience.

Source: University of Sydney

Summary of Financial Times Business School Rankings (2009-2010)

European Executive Education - Customised

Executive Education – Open Global Rankings

HEC ParisLondon Business SchoolINSEADIMD (Switzerland)IE Business School (Spain)IESE (Spain)Rotterdam SoM (Erasmus)EM Lyon (France)Esade (Spain)Vierick Leuven Gent MS (Belgium)Essec (France/Singapore)

Duke Corporate EducationHEC ParisEsade BSHarvard BSIMDCentre for Creative Leadership (US/Belgium/Singapore)Cranfield SMFundacio Dom CabralINSEAD

University of Darden (USA)Iese Business School (Spain)IMD (Switzerland)Harvard BSThunderbird School of Global Management (US)London Business SchoolCentre for Creative LeadershipMIT Sloan SoMFundacio Dom CabralUniversity of Western Ontario:Ivey (China/Canada)Essec Business School (Fr/Sing)Stanford GSBNorthwestern University: KelloggHEC ParisIE Business SchoolOxford: SaidINSEADColumbiaUofPenn: WhartonUofChicago: Booth

London Business SchoolUni Penn: WhartonHarvard BSStanford GSBINSEADColumbia BSIE BS (Spain)MIT Sloan SoMUniv Chicago: BoothHong Kong UST BSIESE (Spain)Indian School of BusinessNew York Univ: SternDartmouth College: TuskIMDYale SoMUniv Oxford: SaidHEC ParisEsade (Spain)Duke: Fuqua

05

WOODSBAGOT.COM

synchronous asynchronous

local

remote

face-to-face meeting places

site specific signage

exhibitionsinstallationswhiteboard

telephonevideo conference text messages

shared cyber links

internetweb

virtual studio ‘Google it’

Figure 1. Blended learning matrix combining face-to-face physical and online learning - Virtual and physical online learning, time dependent and time independent. Source: Mitchell, 2005.

This is forcing us to rethink the nature of the 21st century campus, and more specifically what physical attributes need to be provided to actually meet face-to-face with their colleagues, rather than interacting through the now prevalent social networking tools. Interestingly, many of these spatial developments are being instigated through initiatives led by information technology and communications departments and the wholesale uptake of mobile technologies by the current generation of students7.

Collaborative and team-based learning

Collaborative learning is becoming increasingly relevant due to the impact of wireless broadband technologies and the wholesale uptake of mobile technologies by the current generation of students. This approach suggests a more active learning model, rather than the largely passive 20th century model of lectures supported by tutorials. Technology Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) environments support a collaborative approach to teaching and learning.

Collaborative learning means students are engaged in the completion of a common task. Students are not only in groups, they work together in groups, playing a significant role in each other’s learning. The collaborative learning process creates a shared understanding of a topic and/or process among a group that members of the group could not achieve alone. Students may work face to face and either in or out of the classroom, or they may use information technology to enable electronic discussion or collaborative writing tasks8.

It focuses on the learning aspect of working together whereas group ‘teaching’ focuses on what the lecturer does, rather than on the way students can take responsibility for their own learning in collaboration with others.

Collaborative Learning is the umbrella term encompassing many forms of collaborative learning from small group projects to the more specific form of group work called Cooperative Learning. Collaborative learning activities can provide students with the opportunity to think for themselves, compare their thinking with others, conduct small research projects, investigate subject matter with fellow students and to practice using higher level cognitive thinking skills. It can provide activities that encourage students to confront the logic of their own thinking, their own beliefs, and the accuracy of their understanding of previous learning9.

They focus on the social and interactive/active nature of learning including the development of learning, work and life skills. Cooperative learning tends to be teacher facilitated whilst collaborative learning can be in informal spaces often focusing on a group project. Furthermore it can occur online, in a laboratory, in the field or in a classroom. These approaches have the following characteristics:

05

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Figure: TEAL at MIT11

The problem to be solved is an example of the types of problems found in the community, in industry or in commerce; the solution to the problem requires the use of knowledge, skills and attributes that are part of the curriculum; the problem can be solved by a small team of students, none of whom possesses the knowledge or skills to solve the problem alone, yet each of whom is able to contribute to the final product10.

Technology Enabled Active Learning (TEAL)

These spaces were developed around 2003 in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to enhance the teaching of physics. They later spread to Australia and are now becoming very popular in The University of Queensland and The University of Melbourne, particularly for their engineering and architectural schools.

Essentially, they combined the use of information technology with face-to-face collaborative and cooperative learning.

The business community

Advisory boards of business schools are increasingly seeking experience enhancement in teaching programs to develop the above-mentioned graduate competencies. This has some impact on the normal teaching program, such as:

– Time tabling flexibility – to allow students to undertake their studies on a part time basis – Work integrated learning – work placements, projects and internships into the curriculum structure which can be assessed – Commercial engagement – increased engagement with industry figures, including the use of adjunct lecturers for specialised subject material.

The overall approach is to strengthen the authentic nature of the curriculum and the way it is delivered, as well as gain a more collaborative approach to ‘town and gown’. Other innovations may include research projects taken by Masters students in collaboration with industry and industry-supported linkage research projects through the Australian Research Council Grants program.

21st century evidence-based planning and design: Performance measures

The emerging TEAL models, which proliferated since MIT first launched the concept in the late 1990s and early 2000s, are in the early stages of evaluation.

Some publicly available articles11 on evaluation show that these spaces work well. Although it is difficult to argue that the physical learning environment by itself can enhance teaching and learning, what is clear, however, is that the physical learning environment can inhibit the practice of some forms of effective pedagogy and therefore limit the extent to which graduate competencies can be developed in students.

Specifically, is the TEAL approach more effective in creating life-long learners compared to the 19th century traditional classroom model? Some studies suggest there are significant improvements to learning outcomes in adopting this approach.

Westfield Group, Sydney, Australia

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Source: TOM, The Space is the Message, 2008.

Overall, in some studies, these Active Learning Classrooms yielded very positive responses from instructors and students. For example a TEAL space evaluated at The University of Minnesota revealed that the instructors who were interviewed enjoyed teaching in the rooms so much that their only concern was a fear of not being able to continue to teach in these new learning spaces.

Similarly, more than 85 percent of students recommended the Active Learning Classrooms for other classes. Instructors and students overwhelmingly found that this space made a difference for them: “I love this space! It makes me feel appreciated as a student, and I feel intellectually invigorated when I work and learn in it”12.

In another study, the studio space was also seen as a significant investment and so must clearly improve learning outcomes: engagement, attitude and collaboration in addition to absorption of the curriculum. Measures of those outcomes were seen as necessarily qualitative. But, based on comments from students and faculty who actually learned and taught in the space, the evaluation team would cautiously say that the studio has met those goals. They also acknowledge that they will need to continue to evaluate progress in outcomes as people gain experience with using the space13.

At The University of South Australia in the Experience 1 Engineering Collaborative, the following areas were evaluated14:

– The aesthetics of the space and what messages students were receiving, (e.g. did they feel safe, positive, student satisfaction). – The function of the Experience 1 Studio to determine how the students were using the space and if the infrastructure (e.g. computers, appliances) was supporting them in their learning and socialising. – The flexibility of the space and, indirectly, the impact on the student experience and learning outcomes.

A number of research tools were used in the evaluation process:

– A survey of all first-year engineering students was conducted two months after students were first allowed access to the space in 2009. This survey reviewed many aspects of first-year experience and had several items that specifically drew information about the Experience 1 Studio. A similar anonymous survey was repeated towards the end of 2009.

– Student focus groups were organised to more deeply explore the issues raised in the surveys and to allow investigation into other issues. – A study on how the walls within the Experience 1 Studio were adjusted to create different spaces was conducted over one week. – Students were asked to map their typical travels within the first year experience space. – To facilitate metacognitive talk (discussion of thoughts and thinking) a selection of visual methods were used in a photoelucidation activity. Random focus group participants were provided with disposable cameras and asked to capture what the first year engineering space means to them. These images were then used to facilitate discussion about meaning in subsequent focus groups. – A comparison of Grade outcomes was made for the four first semester courses before and after student access to the Experience 1 Studio.

Studio space layout example

05

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Studio

Core first year courses Experiential curriculum

Community Study support

Similar timetables for study and relaxing

Projects requiring teams

First Year directorPeer mentors

OnlineEmbedded

Shared experiences

Collaborative learning

Help desksMovablefurnitureTechnology

Social clubsMentoring

Social Academic

The findings were quite detailed but, in summary, the key outcomes were:

– A positive influence on student learning that in some cases has translated to better learning and social outcomes. – Student retention will also improve, although hard to measure accurately, as there are many other factors that impact upon retention. – Student creation of a new club (Amalgamated Engineering Recreational Organisation - AERO), that spans the civil, mechanical and electrical engineering students (previously each program had their own club). – Students enjoyed interacting with their peers in other engineering programs as part of the common first year and the space. They were keen to continue these connections as they move into the specialised years of their program.

Clearly evaluation of the TEAL approach involves both quantitative and qualitative examination. It is also evident that qualitative studies show significant support for the TEAL model from both teachers and students. Further quantitative study is required to support these qualitative findings and this work is currently underway at The University of Melbourne’s Learning Environments Action Research Network Centre. Findings will be made available as they become public.15

In this context the Harvard Case Study method has been carried out in spaces as illustrated for some decades. Whilst these case study rooms foster eye-to-eye contact between participants, they do not really allow for significant collaboration in small syndicate teams other than for, say, two or three minute exercises between two or three students. There are around 90 of these case study rooms in the Singapore Management University. It is surprising that the TEAL model has not yet been adopted there.

Teaching, Learning and Research in business schools - exemplars

Modern business school facilities often include various forms of applied learning spaces in which business students can receive ‘hands-on’ experience with career-related activities in a risk-free environment. Examples of a variety of applied learning spaces are provided below.

Behavioral Research Laboratories

The China Europe International Business School (CEIBS) www.ceibs.eduHosts a behavioural laboratory designed to facilitate, through a boardroom set-up and one-way mirrors, behavioural experiments and scenario simulation.

University of Maryland, Smith School of Business www.rhsmith.umd.edu/behaviourlabThe Netcentric Behavioural Lab complements an adjacent Eye Tracking Lab and Team Processing Lab.

Eye Tracker Labwww.customerexperiencelabs.com/services/eye-tracking“Eye tracking data provides a direct way to measure and visualise your customers’ subconscious response to your web and product design. Eye movements are a measure of visual attention and cognitive processing. In fact, eye muscles are the faster muscles in the body and they often react before we are consciously aware of what has occurred or before we can verbalize it out loud.”

SOURCE: University of South Australia

05

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Team Processes Lab http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/labs/University of Texas at Austin McCombs School of Business Behavioural Research Lab

The behavioural lab facilities at the McCombs School are extensive and well equipped with the technological enhancements necessary for the conduct of research. The capabilities are extensive and designed to facilitate the research faculty members and PhD students.

There are two major rooms in the Behavioural Research Laboratory: a large room with tables and associated viewing area with video equipment and a workstation room. There is also a third room (Small Focus Room) that can be used for smaller experiments, conferences, or as a control area for administering experiments taking place in the other rooms.

Financial markets labs and simulated trading floors

Trading floors and financial labs are among the most common forms of specialised instructional spaces. These spaces are designed to allow business students to hone their stock-market trading skills and apply learned theory in a risk-free setting.

American University in Cairo (AUC) Citadel Capital Financial Services Centre http://datacenter.aucegypt.edu/smc/Representing AUC’s strong focus on linking theory and practice, the centre is equipped with technological capabilities equal to any business school trading floor in the world.

University of Maryland Smith School of Business, Netcentric Financial Markets Data Centre / Netcentric Financial Markets Teaching Theatre and Data Centre / Netcentric Financial Markets Teaching Theatrehttp://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/financelab/The second of three components of the Smith School’s Netcentricity Laboratories, the Financial Markets Lab comprises a teaching theatre for classes and a data centre for student and faculty research and practice.

University of Michigan, Ross School of Business, The John R. & Georgene M. Tozzi Electronic Business and Finance Centre - Ross Trading Centre http://www.bus.umich.edu/The hands-on experience provided by the Tozzi Centre includes a student-managed fund for which the centre’s technology provides both raw data-gathering and financial analysis capabilities.

China Europe International Business School Eye Tracker Lab Netcentric Financial Markets Data Center

University of Maryland, Smith School Team Processes Lab Netcentric Financial Markets Teaching Theatre

WOODSBAGOT.COM

University of Reading, Henley Business School, International Capital Market Association (ICMA) Centre - Dealing Rooms http://www.icmacentre.ac.uk/about_us/dealing_room_facilitiesHenley’s ICMA Centre contains state-of-the-art facilities, which allow students to gain experience managing stock portfolios using live pricing data.

Drexel University, Lebow College of Business http://avsg.hifihousegroup.com/projects.php/education/The school is home to six moot boardrooms with ceiling-level projectors for monitoring and remote operation.

Rutgers University, Rutgers Business School Food Innovation Centre Business Incubator http://www.foodinnovation.rutgers.edu/incubatoroverview.htmlThis incubator for food-based businesses is a 23,000 sq ft facility that houses “shared-use food processing space for a broad array of products and processes, marketing capabilities and technical laboratories, distance learning and educational programming, and administrative space for staff as well as clients.”

Michigan State University, Eli Broad College of Business, IBM On-Demand Supply Chain Centre http://broad.msu.edu/supplychain/lab The IBM Supply Chain Management lab not only allows Broad College graduate students and faculty to test theory using live supply chain data, it is also linked to an interconnected grid of partner business schools which also have a strong focus on supply chain management, including Smeal College of Business at Penn State University, the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, Smurfit School of Business at University College Dublin and the National University of Singapore.

Drexel University, Lebow College of Business

Rutgers University Institute of Food & Nutritions

05

University of Michigan, Ross School of Business

University of Reading, Henley Business School

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Conclusions

Dodgson (see appendix) notes that 'few Australian business schools are known for their research intensity or relevance for industry'. He suggests that the 'new model business school' which has emerged from the global financial crisis is attuned to a more relevant research and industry-linked strategy and role.

He holds up the Imperial College Business School in London as a global exemplar, citing its high ranking, its cross-disciplinary activities and its innovative approaches to research and industry collaboration. The school has a global reach with international partners and focuses on entrepreneurship. It features a compulsory MBA unit covering innovation, entrepreneurship and design, alongside other Masters courses in digital and sustainable business.

It is exemplars such as this that can inform an evidence-based approach to the design of business schools.

Linking this evidence with relevant theory, such as Gibbons (1994) and Brinkerhoff (2001)16, can provide a robust platform on which to plan, design and operationalise a socially engaged 21st century business school.

Appendix

Research in business schools – case study

An enterprising concern by Mark Dodgson (The Australian, August 25, 2010)

Few Australian business schools are known for their research intensity or relevance for industry.

Universities rarely promote business schools as research leaders or bridges with business, government and the community. The global financial crisis provided an opportunity for significant soul-searching on the part of business schools across the world.

Questions were asked about the relevance of their research and the utility of producing graduates who knew nothing about how organisations work and the value they created, let alone the ethical consequences of their actions. The new model business school is perhaps best represented by the Imperial College Business School in London17.

During the past few years it has emerged from a mundane management school to a rapidly growing, vibrant organisation that competes with the best in the world. It is jointly ranked first in Britain for the quality of its research and attracts the most funding per head of any business school in Europe. The school holds important lessons for business schools that wish to improve their research and relevance.

First, it actively engages with researchers in engineering, science and medicine to address big questions that confront business and society, such as sustainability and public health. It partners in large-scale research programs in urban energy systems and healthcare management.

There are joint staff appointments in business and engineering, and the medical school funds an academic position in the business school. Such arrangements allow the business school to contribute to important research problems. They also highlight the relevance of business research to the broader university community.

WOODSBAGOT.COM

University of Adelaide First Year Learning Centre, Adelaide, South Australia

Second, a model of partnership encourages leading businesses to fund and support research and teaching. The school has strategic European and US corporate partners with which it works in research, education and training, recruitment and consulting, and develops deep relationships of enduring value. The school also manages a high-level international network of leading innovative firms, sponsored by Microsoft.

The school has created a hub to develop entrepreneurial skills and is a partner in Design London, a joint venture that uses an innovative laboratory to promote the merger of design, engineering and business skills. Its educational offerings are equally innovative. Uniquely among MBA degrees in the world, Imperial College has a compulsory integrating course on innovation, entrepreneurship and design. New postgraduate courses include Masters degrees in digital and sustainable business.

The school also hosts the Rajiv Gandhi Centre studying innovation and entrepreneurship in India. Social entrepreneurship is a feature, and staff members work on issues related to health in the developing world and developing eco-cities in China.

There are clear lessons for business schools in Australia. Relevance is enhanced by research excellence. But that research has to be meaningful for business and society.

Mark Dodgson is director of the Technology and Innovation Management Centre at the University of Queensland business school.

Third, the school has developed its core expertise in innovation and entrepreneurship. The groups in this area have grown from seven in 2003 to 70 today. Its research ranges from the role of design in services innovation to the management of billion-dollar infrastructure projects to how consumers often fail to use sustainable technologies in the ways their producers plan.

05

WOODSBAGOT.COM

References

1. The Role of the Physical Environment in the Hospital of the 21st Century: A Once in-a-Lifetime Opportunity, Abstracts Table Supplement (100 pages, 250 Abstracts). Eds Roger Ulrich*, Xiaobo Quan, Centre for Health Systems and Design, College of Architecture, Texas A&M University; Craig Zimring*, Anjali Joseph, Ruchi Choudhary, College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology. Abstract supplement to a report to The Center for Health DesignSM for the Designing the 21st Century Hospital Project. This project is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The Center for Health DesignSM, May 2005

2. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp

3. http://www.cems.org/about

4. http://www.efmd.org/index.php/accreditation-main/equis/equis-guides

5. Financial Times (Jaio/Tong) Business School Rankings 2009-2010

6. Mitchell, W. (2003), “21st Century Learning Environments”, presentation at a workshop on new learning environments at Queensland University of Technology in conjunction with K. Fisher.

7. See a) Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) on behalf of JISC (2006), “Designing Spaces for Effective Learning”, www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISClearningspaces.pdf; b) Education.au Limited (2009), “21st Century Leaning Spaces”, www.educationau.edu.au/learning-spaces; c) Scottish Funding Council (2006), “Spaces for learning: a review of learning spaces in further and higher education”, www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/Resources/external.../sfc-spaces-for-learning and Bill Mitchell, 2005.

8. The University of Adelaide Leap into Collaborative Learning: Home page http://www.adelaide.edu.au/clpd/resources/leap/leapinto CollaborativeLearning.pdf

9. Nagata, K. and Ronkowski, S. (1998). Collaborative Learning: Differences Between Collaborative and Cooperative Learning, The Office of Instructional Consultation, University of California Santa Barbara. http://www.oic.id.ucsb.edu/Resources/Collab-L/Differences.html

10. Miller, A. H., Imrie, B. W. and Cox, K. (1998). Student assessment in higher education: a handbook for assessing performance. London: Kogan Page.

11. http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm

12. Alexander, D. et al (2009), “Active Learning Classrooms Pilot Evaluation: Fall 2007 Findings and Recommendations”, The University of Minnesota. www.classroom.umn.edu/projects/ALC_Report_Final.pdf.

13. Tom, J., K. Voss and C. Scheetz (2008), “The Space is the Message: First Assessment of a Learning Studio”

14. Anon, First year engineering learning space – enhancing the student experience. Unpublished, Undated. Source, University of South Australia.

15. The Learning Environments Action Research Network is associated with the Smart Green Schools project; see www.abp.unimelb.edu.au/research/funded/smart-green-schools.

16. Gibbons. M., Limoges. C., Nowotny. H., Schwartzman. S., Scott. P. & Trow. M. (1994) The new production of knowledge – the dynamics of science & research in contemporary societies. SAGE Publications Ltd, London UK.

Brinkerhoff, R. (2001) High Impact Learning. Perseus. Cambridge, MASS

17. Author’s Note – currently globally ranked no 37 http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/imperial-college-london-tanaka

Dr Kenn FisherEducation Specialist

Kenn is widely recognised as one of the leading educational planners practicing globally and has worked on projects in Australia, Asia, the Middle East and Europe. With a background as a teacher and academic/researcher, a strategic facility and campus planner and as a project, facility and design manager, Kenn acts as the prime interface between designers and teachers to co-create learning environments for new and emerging teaching, learning and research paradigms.

Author

WOODSBAGOT.COM

Copyright © Woods Bagot Pty LtdABN 41 007 762 174

All Rights Reserved. No material may be reproduced without prior permission. While we have tried to ensure the accuracy of the information in this publication, the Publisher accepts no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions or resultant consequences including any loss or damage arising from resilience in information in this publication. Any opinions in this publication are solely those of the named author of the article in which they appear. Unless named as author, the Publisher, Editorial team or other contributors and Woods Bagot do not endorse any such views and disclaim all liability arising from their publication.

Published by WB Research PressPodium Level 13 Southgate Avenue, SouthbankMelbourne VIC 3000

All document images not references are from Thinkstock photo library.

WOODSBAGOT.COM