BLENDED LEARNING DESIGN:

FIVE KEY INGREDIENTS

Jared M. Carman
Director, Product Development
KnowledgeNet
October 2002
Blended Learning Design: 5 Key Ingredients

P eople are not single-method learners!” says e-learning guru Elliott Masie
(cited in Rossett, 2002). Indeed, while specific “blended” offerings differ,
industry consensus continues to point to the use of multiple modalities for
learning. Masie puts it simply: “We are, as a species, blended learners.”
If this is true–that people perform better when they have a mix of modalities
and methods of learning–what defines the most effective mix? Will any
combination of modalities do, or is there an “optimum blend,” a “sweet
spot” to blended learning? In short, what is the most effective blended
learning design? This paper suggests the need for five critical ingredients
for blended learning, and uses both traditional and modern instructional
design to back it up.
The Business Case
Before we dive into the instructional design, we need to ask the question: what
is the business case for blended learning? In a 2001 IDC study, Julian and Boone
found, “The importance of a blended approach to learning is that it ensures
the widest possible impact of a learning experience and thus ensures…that the
organization optimizes productivity and delivers value to its customers” (Julian
and Boone 2001).
In 2002, IDC validated e-learning vendor KnowledgeNet’s ability to deliver
measurable and effective blended learning results. The independent research
study of nearly 4,000 learners revealed average pretest scores of 54% and
average posttest scores of 89%–a jump of 35 percentage points after learners
completed KnowledgeNet training (Anderson, 2002). Is there a business case
for blended learning? Absolutely.
A Blend of Theories, Not Just One
Having established that blended learning is good for business, let’s take a look
blended learning design in practice. Instructional design can be a volatile topic,
often characterized by competing theories and differing philosophies. But in
practice, value can be drawn from many instructional theories, and in the case
of blended learning, different theories apply to different situations. In fact, this
author would argue that some of the best-designed learning experiences draw
on a blend of learning theories and philosophies.
Allison Rossett, professor of educational technology at San Diego State
University, supports this “blended theory” approach. “Learning theories
aren’t like religion,” says Rossett. “You don’t have to pick Catholic or Baptist
or Muslim, and shun the others. The goal is to have the right theory for the
right situation.” (cited in Zemke 2002).
Zemke states that the situation is dependant upon “the people you serve,
the nature of the skills they must master and the context in which they are
to perform.”
“We are, as a species,
blended learners.”
- Elliot Masie
1

“
“Learning theories
aren’t like religion.”
- Allison Rossett
Blended Learning Design: 5 Key Ingredients
Such a “situational” instructional design model fits well with the concept of
blended learning. By applying learning theories of Keller, Gagné, Bloom, Merrill,
Clark and Gery, (see Figure 1) five key ingredients emerge as important elements of
a blended learning process (see Figure 2):
1. Live Events: Synchronous, instructor-led learning events in
which all learners participate at the same time, such as in
a live “virtual classroom.”
2. Self-Paced Learning: Learning experiences that the learner
completes individually, at his own speed and on his own
time, such as interactive, Internet-based or CD-ROM training.
3. Collaboration: Environments in which learners
communicate with others, for example, e-mail, threaded
discussions or online chat.
4. Assessment: A measure of learners’ knowledge. Preassessments
can come before live or self-paced events, to
determine prior knowledge, and post-assessments can occur
following live or self-paced learning events, to measure
learning transfer.
5. Performance Support Materials: On-the-job reference
materials that enhance learning retention and transfer,
including PDA downloads, and printable references,
summaries, and job aids.
2
Figure 1: A Blend of Learning Theories
Blended Learning Design: 5 Key Ingredients

INGREDIENT 1: LIVE EVENTS

Live, synchronous events are a main “ingredient” of blended learning. For
many learners, nothing can replace the ability to tap the expertise of a live
instructor. But what drives an effective live event? For theorist John Keller, it
comes down to the four elements in his ARCS Model of Motivation: Attention,
Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. In this section we’ll show how each
element of Keller’s model can be used to create an engaging, effective live
learning experience.
Attention: The first aspect of the ARCS model is gaining and
keeping the learner’s attention. For example, an experienced virtual
classroom instructor may begin his class by telling a joke, or by
polling the learners with a thought-provoking question. This engages
online learners and prepares them for learning.
Relevance: Learners stay focused when they believe the training
is relevant to their specific situation. To show relevance a virtual
instructor may use examples or analogies familiar to her audience.
She may also show how learners can use course information to solve
real problems.
Confidence: Learners must have confidence in their skills and
abilities in order to remain motivated. To instill confidence in learners,
an expert virtual instructor will make classroom expectations clear,
then give learners ample time to practice their new skills. As
they experience success, learners gain confidence.
Satisfaction: Finally, learners must be satisfied with the results
of their learning experiences in order to remain motivated.
A good virtual instructor will do this by providing learners with
opportunities to use new skills, such as having them perform
hands-on exercises that simulate their work environment.
While other theories may also be applied, careful application of Keller’s
principles creates a road map for success in one of the most critical elements
of blended learning–the live instructor experience.
3

Assessment
Self-Paced
Learning
Collaboration
Live Event
Performance
Support
Materials
Figure 2: 5 Ingredients for Blended Learning
Blended Learning Design: 5 Key Ingredients

INGREDIENT 2: SELF-PACED LEARNING

Self-paced, asynchronous learning events add significant value to the blended
learning equation. In order to get maximum value–real business results–from
a self-paced learning offering, it must be based on effective implementation of
instructional design principles.
Most self-paced learning products claim an instructional design foundation. Actual
implementation of instructional design principles varies widely, with equally diverse
results. For example, two products may both be “based on” Gagné’s Nine
Events of Instruction. The first product contains stated objectives, scrolling text,
and a few multiple-choice questions. The second learning product also contains
learning objectives and text, but adds photo-realistic technical animations, MP3
quality audio, and search capability to the mix. Same foundation, widely differing
implementation and results.
Truly Reusable Learning Objects
Today’s self-paced learning products are often sold as “reusable learning objects”
(RLOs). Once again, the term is common, but actual quality in implementation
varies dramatically. Merrill (2002) advises caution when working with learning
objects. In order to achieve desired results, he says, you can’t just “chop things
up and expect them to make sense.” To deliver on the promise of e-learning,
learning objects must be founded on strong instructional design, such as Merrill’s
Component Display Theory (Merrill, 1994).
Component Display Theory can be classified as “situational” design theory.
Its stated assumption is that for every learning situation, (e.g., facts, concepts,
procedures, principals, processes), there are corresponding instructional treatments
that should be used. Effective treatments may include the appropriate use of
examples, non-examples, instructional animations, “try it” interactions, drill and
practice “flash card” exercises and hands-on labs.
Multimedia and Modern Design Theory
Modern instructional design theory also supports the use of multimedia as a tool
to promote knowledge transfer. Three principles from Ruth Clark (2002) deserve
special attention:
1) The Multimedia Principle: Adding
Graphics to Text Can Improve Learning
Research has shown that graphics can improve learning. The key is to
ensure that graphics relate directly to the instructional message, that is,
they “educate, not decorate.”
2) The Contiguity Principle: Placing
Text Near Graphics Improves Learning
In five out of five studies, multimedia researcher Richard Mayer
(cited in Clark, 2002) found that learning from screens that integrated
words near the visuals yielded an average improvement of 68%.
3) The Modality Principle: Explaining
Graphics with Audio Improves Learning
4

You can’t just “chop

things up and expect
them to make sense.”
- M. David Merrill
Blended Learning Design: 5 Key Ingredients
Audio should be used in situations where overload is likely.
For example, if you are watching an animated five or six-step
software demonstration, you need to focus on the visual–the
animation. If you have to read text and at the same time watch
the animation, overload is more likely than when you can hear the
animation being read to you.
Asynchronous learning products that blend traditional theory, such as Gagné’s
Nine Events of Instruction, with modern instructional design principles, such as
those advanced by Merrill and Clark, consistently yield a more effective, higherquality
learning product. And while many self-paced learning products claim to
be “instructionally correct,” only effective implementation of ID principles delivers
consistent business results.
INGREDIENT 3: COLLABORATION
The power of a live event or self-paced learning experience is augmented when
opportunities for meaningful collaboration exist. Brown (1998) states: “Humans
are social beings, and, as posited by the constructivist theory of learning, they
develop new understandings and knowledge through their social interactions
with a community of others.” Further, Tinzmann argues that “Collaborative
learning affords students enormous advantages not available from more traditional
instruction because a group can accomplish meaningful learning and solve problems
better than any individual can alone.” (Tinzmann et. al., 1990).
When creating a blended learning offering, designers should create environments
where learners and instructors can collaborate synchronously in chat rooms, or
asynchronously using e-mail and threaded discussions. Two types of collaboration
produce effective results: peer-to-peer and peer-to-mentor.
Peer-to-Peer: Peer-to-Peer collaboration allows learners to discuss critical issues
with other learners, and sometimes, even teach it to them.
Peer-to-Mentor: Peer-to-Mentor collaboration makes it possible for mentors to
coach learners one-on-one, field questions, and tailor responses to the needs of each
individual learner. Expert mentors will also “push” additional guidance to learners in
the form of e-mailed tips, reminders, and suggested practice items.
INGREDIENT 4: ASSESSMENT
Assessment is one of the most critical ingredients of blended learning, for two
reasons: 1) It enables learners to “test out” of content they already know, fine-tuning
their own blended learning experience, and 2) It measures the effectiveness of all other
learning modalities and events.
Benjamin Bloom (1956) provides a framework for designing and building assessments.
He is most often identified by his six levels of cognitive learning: Knowledge,
Comprehension, Application, Analysis, and Synthesis (see Figure 3).
5

While many self-paced

learning products claim
to be “instructionally
correct,” only effective
implementation of
ID principles
delivers consistent
business results.
Blended Learning Design: 5 Key Ingredients
These “levels of cognitive learning” make it clear that meaningful assessment is
more than just text-based multiple-choice test items. Examples of “higher level”
assessment items include the use of real-world scenarios, and technical graphics
and animations, as appropriate.
6
Understanding the meaning of remembered
material, usually demonstrated by explaining
in one’s own words or citing examples.
2. Comprehension Give an example of a Class C network address.
Using information in a new context to
solve a problem, to answer a question, or
to perform another task. The information
used may be rules, principles, formulas,
theories, concepts, or procedures.
What steps should be taken to prepare for the
closing of the Houston office and perform the
transfer of users and computers to the Dallas
office once the Houston office is closed?
3. Application
Breaking a piece of material into its
parts and explaining the relationship
between the parts.
Your client needs your help in selecting a
routing protocol for use in their internetwork.
Their primary concern is scalability. They also
would like to ensure the protocol adheres to
open standards. Which protocol would you
recommend?
4. Analysis
Putting parts together to form a new
whole, pattern or structure.
David needs read access to a share located
on the Financial server in your Windows
2000/XP network. You add his account to the
Accountants global group. This global group
is a member of the ReadAccInfo domain
local group. This group has the Allow Read
permission for the share. David logs off and
then logs back on and attempts to access the
ReadAccInfo share and is unable to access the
share. What is most likely the problem?
5. Synthesis
Using a set of criteria, established
by the student or specified by the
instructor, to arrive at a reasoned
judgment.
Bob uses a Windows XP Pro laptop for work
when he is on the road, and he uses a Windows
XP Pro desktop when he is at the office. When
he goes on the road, he wants to have access
to the same My Documents folder that he has
at the office. He connects his laptop using
wireless access and a VPN to the corporate
network. What is the best way to allow access
to the same documents from both PCs?
6. Evaluation
Remembering previously-learned
material, e.g., definitions, concepts,
principles, formulas.
Which networking topology is shown in the
graphic?
1. Knowledge
LEVEL DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE

Figure 3: 6 Levels of Assessment

Blended Learning Design: 5 Key Ingredients 7

INGREDIENT 5: PERFORMANCE SUPPORT MATERIALS

Performance support material is, arguably, the most important ingredient
of blending learning. In Gagné’s terms, it promotes “learning retention and
transfer” to the work environment.
Performance support champion Gloria Gery agrees. “The goal is to generate
immediate work performance by people with little or no experience in what
they’re doing.” (Cited in The Editors, 2000) Today’s most effective performance
support materials come in several flavors: printable references, job aids, and
PDA downloads.
Printable References:
Printable downloads are a popular form of reference tool, due to their
portability and ease of replication.
Job Aids:
Job aids include charts, graphs, summaries and checklists that can be used on
the job to enhance job performance. Job aids are often used for information
that is impractical to memorize and can be easily looked up.
PDA Downloads:
With the increasing availability and popularity of personal digital assistants
(PDAs), learners can now take multimedia learning objects with them wherever
they go. Self-paced learning objects–complete with 3-D animations and MP3
audio–can be downloaded to learners’ PDAs, taking the term “just-in-time”
support to a new level.
Learners can
now download
multimedia learning
objects to their
PDA, taking
“Just-In-Time
Support” to a
new level.
Figure 5: Multimedia Learning Objects on a PDA
Blended Learning Design: 5 Key Ingredients 8

“The question is not if

we should blend. Rather
the question is what are
the ingredients?”
- Marc Rosenberg
CONCLUSION
“Not long ago, there were battling ‘isms’, theories and schools of thought
over the ‘one best theory’ to adhere to in training” says Zemke (2002).
Today, there is growing agreement that “there is not, and probably never
will be, one great unified General Theory of Adult Learning that will solve
all our problems.” Rather, blended learning offerings should be based on an
appropriate blend of learning theories, such as those put forward by Keller,
Gagné, Merrill, Bloom, Clark, and Gery.
Blended learning offerings are gaining momentum, and with good
reason. Says Tom Kelly, Vice President of Worldwide Training at Cisco Systems:
“E-learning is versatile. You have a range of choices. Instructors can use
e-learning tools and technology in a classroom setting. Students and instructors
interact live and on-line over the Web–no physical classroom involved. Selfpaced
learning is another option that makes content accessible on a 7X24 basis.
We’ve found that e-learning is most effective when it uses a blend of all these
delivery options.” (cited in INNOVATIONS@CISCO, 2002).
What will the learning blend look like in the future? As new and better learning
modalities continue to be developed, we are sure to add additional examples to
our mix. But, as Marc Rosenberg (cited in Barbian 2002) puts it, “The question
is not if we should blend. Rather the question is what are the ingredients?”
We know the question. Business results depend upon the answers.
Jared Carman is Director of Product Development at
KnowledgeNet. He holds an MS in Instructional Technology from
Utah State University, and uses his knowledge of the industry
to develop teams, streamline processes, and guide e-Learning
technologies. With eleven years in the industry, he is a regular
speaker at e-Learning conferences, presenting on such topics as:
E-Learning Updates: How Fresh is Your Content? and It’s About
the Learner: Personalizing E-Learning for Maximum Results.
§
Blended Learning Design: 5 Key Ingredients

REFERENCES
Anderson, C. (2002). Customer Needs & Strategies: Effective Learning: Measurable
Results from a Solid Process: A Case Study on KnowledgeNet.
Retrieved from http://www.knowledgenet.com/pdf/
IDC%20Learning%20Effectiveness.PDF.
Barbian, J. (2002, July). Blended Works: Here’s Proof. Online Learning Magazine.
Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningmag.com/onlinelearning/magazine/
article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1526767.
Bloom, B. S. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification
of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans,
Green.
Brown, B. L. (1998). Distance Education and Web-Based Training. ERIC Clearinghouse
on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Center on Education
and Training for Employment, The Ohio State University. Retrieved from
http://ericacve.org/mp_brown_02.asp
Clark, R. C. (2002, August). The New ISD: Applying Cognitive Strategies to
Instructional Design. ISPI Performance Improvement Journal, 41(7). Retrieved from
http://www.clarktraining.com/CogStrat.pdf.
Cummings, E. M. (2001, September). Re-learning e-learning. Darwin Magazine.
Retrieved from http://www.darwinmag.com/read/090101/
relearn_content.html.
Driscoll, M. (2002, March 1). Blended Learning: Let’s get beyond the hype.
Retrieved from http://www.elearningmag.com/elearning/
article/articleDetail.jsp?id=11755.
Haskin, D. (2002, September 20). Choosing The Best Method For Employee
Tech Training. Retrieved from http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/staff/article/
0,,11965_1467491,00.html.
INNOVATIONS@CISCO: Q&A: Tom Kelly, Vice President of Worldwide
Training, Cisco Systems (2002). Retrieved from http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/
innovators/e_learning/tom_kelly_q_a.html.
Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L., & Wilson, B.G. (1999). Learning with technology: A
Constructivist Perspective. New Jersey: Merrill, Prentice Hall, Inc.
Julian, E. H. & Boone, C. (2001). Blended Learning Solutions: Improving the
Way Companies Manage Intellectual Capital: An IDC White Paper. Retrieved
from http://suned.sun.com/US/images/final_IDC_SES_6_22_01.pdf
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS Model of instructional
design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.
9
Blended Learning Design: 5 Key Ingredients

REFERENCES (cont.)
Kiser, K. (2002, June 1). Is Blended Best? [Electronic Versoin]. E-learning
Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.elearningmag.com/elearning/article/
articleDetail.jsp?id=21259.
Merrill, M.D. (2002). Scorm: Clarity or Calamity. Online Learning Magazine,
Summer 2002, 14-18.
Merrill, M.D. (1994). Instructional Design Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Educational Technology Publications.
Rossett, A. (ed.) (2002). The ASTD E-Learning Handbook. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
The Editors. (2000, January). Six for the Century [Electronic Version].
Inside Technology Training Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.trainingsupersite.com/ittrain/pastissues/Janua

Home | Contact | Login

Keyword Search:

Major Initiatives Resources Professional Development Community About EDUCAUSE

Location:

Home » Resources » EDUCAUSE Review » EDUCAUSE Review Archive » ER Volume 40, 2005 » Volume
40, Number 4, July/August 2005 » Design of the Learning Space: Learning and Design Principles

EDUCAUSE Review
Design of the Learning Space:
Options

View PDF
Learning and Design Principles
Navigation

EDUCAUSE Review
Magazine, Volume 40,
Number 4, July/August
2005

A Legacy of Collaboration

Creation of the Learning

Space: Catalysts for
Envisioning and
Navigating the Design
Process

Design of the Learning

Space: Learning and
Design Principles

Future of the Learning

Space: Breaking Out of the
Box

Learning Objects: A Rose

by Any Other Name...

Learning Space Design in

Action

Learning Space Design

Precepts and Assumptions

Learning Space Design

Theory and Practice

Learning Space Design:

Photos and Interviews

Leveraging National
LambdaRail: The Road to
RON

Security Breaches:
Notification, Treatment,
and Prevention

The Future of Networking

in Higher Education

The Myth about E-

Learning

The Open Source Congress

© 2005 Chris Johnson and Cyprien Lomas
Tight Times: Utilizing IT to
Optimize Scarce EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 40, no. 4 (July/August 2005): 16–28.
Resources
Design of the Learning Space:
Learning and Design Principles
CHRIS JOHNSON AND CYPRIEN LOMAS

Chris Johnson is Senior Consultant, Learning Technologies, at the University

of Arizona. Cyprien Lomas is Director of the Learning Centre, Faculty of Land
and Food Systems, at the University of British Columbia. Comments on this
article can be sent to the authors at cgj@u.arizona.edu and
cyprien.lomas@ubc.ca.

The only true voyage . . . would be not to visit strange lands but to possess
other eyes, to see the universe through the eyes of another, of a hundred
others, to see the hundred universes that each of them sees. —Marcel Proust,
In Search of Lost Time

When asked to define the "spaces for learning" on campus, most in

higher education identify the classrooms or laboratories. These
"formal" spaces are usually controlled via parameters such as
scheduling requirements, set hours of use, set number of seats, and
predetermined learning activity patterns such as lectures or
discussions. Though classrooms and laboratories come first to mind,
auditoriums, performance rooms, computer labs, and studios are
other examples of campus spaces that, under these parameters, can
be defined as formal learning spaces.

But what about all the other spaces on campus? As Malcolm Brown,
of Dartmouth, states in Educating the Net Gen, "Net Gen students,
using a variety of digital devices, can turn almost any space outside
the classroom into an informal learning space."1 What, then,
becomes the role of spaces such as faculty offices, hallways, plazas,
courtyards, dormitories, and food service areas? Designers have
traditionally studied courtyards, plazas, and hallways for usage and
flow patterns. Learning space designers must now consider the
instructional implications of these spaces. Although discussions
about these spaces still need to be concerned with usage patterns, a
more important issue is: What types of learning activities should be
facilitated in these spaces, and what type of infrastructure is needed
to support these activities?

As students become increasingly digitally literate, higher education

also needs to be concerned about the creation and support of virtual
learning spaces. Anyone who has stood outside of a class as it is
dismissed has witnessed the number of students using cellphones to
call a friend or check for text messages. These "digital natives"2 are
literate with the tools of the twenty-first century and remain
connected through multifaceted, complex social interactions, both
physical and virtual. As we design meaningful learning experiences,
we need to be aware of how the potential of virtual learning space
influences what happens in the formal and informal physical
learning spaces. Therefore, a definition of learning space might be
the following, as stated by Brown: "Learning spaces encompass the
full range of places in which learning occurs, from real to virtual,
from classroom to chat room."3

The Traditional Approach to Space Design

Each institution has processes and procedures for remodeling or
creating a space. In a traditional design process, the department
sends a request for space remodeling to the college or university.
Some sort of formal approval process is begun, often involving a
number of committees, organizational units, and people. Once the
request is formally approved, a project manager decides if the work
can be done in-house or must be contracted out. If the project cannot
be done within the institution, the project manager hires a designer
or architect, depending on the scope of the project. If the project is
large, an architect determines the needs of the department in the
programming phase and then creates the design. Usually, this
process focuses on the design of classrooms and labs driven solely
by space needs, that is, one classroom for 300 students, three for
150, etc.

To make sure that the project is on track, the architect holds periodic
reviews with representatives of the department and/or the institution
until a design is complete. Contractors are hired, and based on the
design developed by the architect, construction or remodeling of the
space begins. Often at this point, the only people who are concerned
with the process are the institution’s project manager, the architect,
and the contractor. Construction then continues until the remodeling
or construction is complete. During this time, numerous decisions
are made regarding the actual construction as budgets are cut and
priorities are shifted. All these things can cause a construction
project to stray from the original instructional intent and can lead to
a mismatch between design and reality. This, then, is the context
within which design decisions are typically made.

This process is changing as architects and designers are becoming

more familiar with instructional and student needs. However, the
task of clearly communicating the desired outcomes can still be
fraught with miscommunications. The process of learning space
design offers strategies and language to facilitate discussion among
campus planners, architects, and other stakeholders to ensure that the
new space is designed around learning needs instead of space
requirements. Underlying this process are the institution’s values
about what makes successful teaching and learning. These values
define how people see, talk about, and feel about what should
happen in a learning space. By focusing on these values, instead of
simply meeting space requirements, an institution can revolutionize
the design process to create learning spaces that meet the needs of
both faculty and students.

A New Way to View Design

Phillip Long and Ed Crawley have proposed a different view of the
design process. This new view, based on the Conceive, Design,
Implement, Operate (CDIO) process of engineering, begins with
seeing the learning environment as a "product" to be developed
rather than simply as a space to be redesigned.4 The product has
certain characteristics that are based on the institution’s values about
learning, or "learning principles." These learning principles become
the driving force within the design process and are the benchmarks
through which progress is measured and decisions are made.
Throughout the entire process, the client (the department, college, or
university) remains the expert in the product—learning—while the
architect remains the expert in space development. To guide this
process, the client should appoint a full-time champion who has the
domain and departmental expertise necessary to see the project
through. Thus, the learning needs of the discipline drive the planning
process.

The champion works with various members of the department,

college, and university to identify the vision, needs, goals, concepts,
principles, requirements, and methods of evaluation to complete the
project. During this phase, the champion creates a team of people to
help guide the process. This team includes faculty members and
students who use the space, campus representatives, architects, and
other interested stakeholders.

Working under the direction of the champion, the team plans the
design of the learning space. First, the team begins by identifying the
institutional context within which the space will be constructed. The
next, and most important, step is to specify the learning principles
that are meaningful to the institutional context. Third, the team
defines the learning activities that will occur within the space to
support these learning principles. In the fourth step, the team
develops clearly articulated design principles that support the
learning principles and learning activities. Next, the team creates a
set of requirements that can be communicated to those who will
carry out the renovation or construction. The sixth and last step is to
determine a methodology for ongoing experimentation, evaluation,
and improvement to assess whether the new space is a success.
These steps combine to create an iterative dialogue among the design
team and other stakeholders in the design process.

At this point, after everyone has a clear idea of the learning and
design principles that will guide the construction, the architect is
hired. The champion, collaborating with the architect, then works to
gain formal approval for the project from the institution. The team is
responsible for monitoring the project from start to finish, based on
the learning and design principles developed in the previous phase.
If something in the project must be cut or modified, the decision is
made by the team after asking the question, "How will this affect the
implementation of the learning and design principles?" This process
gives the institution the benchmarks it needs to ensure that the
"product"—that is, the renovation or new construction—meets the
needs and goals of the institution.

Changes
Before taking these steps to determine the principles that will guide
the process of designing the learning space, the planning team
should consider changes in life-cycles, in how people learn, in the
technologies used for teaching, and in the students themselves.

Life-Cycles

The life-cycles of buildings are much longer than the life-cycles of

technologies or even of learning theories. Plans usually allow for
buildings that will last fifty to eighty years. In contrast, a technology
refresh cycle suggests that computer hardware should be replaced
every two to four years and that nondigital assets such as
blackboards, desks, and tables should be refreshed with an eight- to
ten-year cycle. These rapid changes are requiring us to rethink how
we teach and learn. Effective practices are emerging around these
very new technologies as users collectively figure out what can be
done with them. Discussions of space must thus include how to meet
this rapid change. The planning team should ask: "Can we be sure
that the spaces built today will still be useful later in their life-
cycle?" "How do we support, update, and modify these spaces in a
rapidly changing environment?"

How People Learn

Numerous changes are occurring in the teaching and learning
process. This material has been summarized in the National
Research Council book How People Learn, which provides a
comprehensive starting point to understanding how individuals learn
and what types of environments are best to support learning.5 For
example, one key finding outlines the difference between expert and
novice learners. Expert learners have a more developed scaffold of
experiences and knowledge that allows them to assimilate and
process new information quickly. Novice learners will fare better if
they can reconcile new information with prior knowledge. Expert
learners are able to transfer problems and data from one context to
another with greater ease than novices. Self-conscious reflecting on
learning, or meta-cognition, is a particularly effective tool to
promote deeper learning.

Deeper learning goes beyond the memorization of facts for later

recall; it implies a disciplined perspective similar to that of a
practitioner, professional, or scholar. In contrast, shallow or surface
learning may permit short-term mastery of facts with reduced long-
term retention. Colleen Carmean and Jeremy Haefner offer a view of
the deeper learning that occurs when learning is social, is active,
promotes student ownership, is collaborative, includes prompt and
ongoing feedback, and is reflective.6 Other works, such as "The
Seven Principles of Good Practices in Undergraduate Education,"
How Students Learn, Knowing What Students Know, and Educating
the Net Gen, provide additional insight into the nature of learning
and learners and the environments that enhance learning.7 These
findings reveal the importance of being aware of how people learn
and the implications for how to set up environments to promote
learning. Identifying these meaningful learning principles helps to
determine the key methods needed to achieve that deeper learning.
The planning team should ask: "What learning theories and practices
meet our instructional needs, as well as the learning needs of our
students?"

Technologies Used for Teaching

New technologies and their adoption have always had an influence

on what happens in the classroom. The recent widespread adoption
of tools such as course management systems and the availability of
wireless access in classrooms are promising to change practices once
again. These tools are allowing students and teachers to find new
ways to communicate, collaborate, and interact. Ubiquitous access to
information has helped to shift the emphasis of education away from
the simple transmission of information to an active acquisition of
skills and knowledge. Other uses for technologies have given rise to
applications that facilitate team-based, collaborative, and inquiry-
based approaches to constructing knowledge. The planning team
should ask: "How will the technologies help facilitate the learning
principles?"

The Net Generation

Many students are much more comfortable with technology than are
their teachers. Students who prefer instant messaging to face-to-face
meetings are said to be part of the Net Generation.8 "Net Gen"
students have preferred modes of interaction, communication, and
socialization, and these differences are putting pressure on higher
education to change. Current and new students may be less willing to
spend a large part of their education in large lecture halls. Instead,
they may prefer to augment, or even replace, their lectures with
formal and informal small-group discussions with peers. Rather than
write a term paper, some may want to create a short digital story to
demonstrate mastery and competence. This new generation of digital
natives will change the nature of higher education. As Marc Prensky
has stated: "Our students have changed radically. Today’s students
are no longer the people our educational system was designed to
teach."9 The planning team needs to ask: "What technology skills
and preferences do students currently have?" "What skills will they
have in the future?" "What skills will they need?" "How will we
meet these needs?"

Identifying the Institutional Context

As the planning team begins the design process, it needs to discuss
the context of the institution. Exploring the institutional context—
values, culture, strengths, and limitations—will allow the team to set
boundaries that everyone can agree with. This should be a
continuing conversation, started at the very beginning of the process
and extending long after the learning space has been created.
Through these ongoing conversations, definitions and boundaries
can be constantly tested, and pushed, to ensure that the learning
space is what is needed to achieve the learning goals. Setting the
boundaries allows the team to focus the discussion, define common
terms, and set the parameters within which it will work. Doing so
also provides a common language for explaining the space to those
outside the project.

For example, suppose the planning team has been tasked with
renovating an existing classroom—a moderate classroom space that
accommodates sixty students and that is used by a variety of general
education courses. By coming to a consensus on how the institution
defines this formal space, the team can identify which interested
parties need to be brought into the conversation. Within the context
of the campus, this may mean that faculty from math and English,
two primary users, should be consulted on the learning activities to
be supported; personnel in room scheduling should be asked about
future use patterns; those in charge of central support of audio-video
equipment should be consulted about who is responsible for
maintaining and refreshing the equipment; and both local and central
networking staff should be asked about the placement of wireless
access points so as not to interfere with the existing infrastructure.
The team may even decide that someone from custodial services
should be consulted because proposed changes may make it difficult
or impossible to keep the room clean.

Discussing, defining, and refining the institution’s understanding of

the learning space also allows the planning team to explore the
institutional parameters within which it will work. Again, within the
context of the institution, the team may need to discuss issues such
as ownership of the space: Does the new space fit into the overall
campus plan? Will increasing or decreasing the available number of
seats affect established enrollment quotas? Is there sufficient budget
to build, support, and modify the space?

This conversation becomes even more complex when informal

spaces are considered. Therefore, it is important that discussions
about the learning principles and activities be kept in the forefront of
the conversation and that they be carried out within the context of
the institution. In doing so, everyone on the team has a clear idea of
the space being developed and of the activities that the space will,
and will not, support.

Specifying Learning Principles

As the planning team progresses in the design process, it must now
take what has been discovered about learning theories, processes,
new technologies, and new learners and identify the deeper learning
principles that are meaningful to the institution. Continuing with the
previous example, assume the team has decided to focus on "The
Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education."10
Since one goal of the institution’s mission is "to promote
collaborative inquiry across the disciplines," the second principle—
"develops reciprocity and cooperation among students"—is of
particular interest to the math and English departments. The team
has also identified several of the "Learner-Centered Psychological
Principles" as being important to the institution.11

The math and English departments have discussed these various

theories and philosophies, and from their explorations, they now
begin to develop a set of learning principles. The principles may
simply quote work from another source—for example, "We believe
that ‘the learning of complex subject matter is most effective when it
is an intentional process of constructing meaning from information
and experience’"12—or they may be a combination of principles
expressed in a way that is meaningful to the institution—for
example, "We believe that all students learn through collaborative
work and should have access to the tools and resources to facilitate
this work at any time of the day or night and in all spaces of the
institution." In a sense, it does not matter what learning principles
the team identifies; what is important is that the team identifies a set
of principles that promote learning and are meaningful to the
institution.

Defining Learning Activities

Once the learning principles have been identified, the planning team
must then determine the specific learning activities that facilitate
these principles. For example, problem-based learning, small-group
work, study teams, and synchronous and asynchronous online
communities of practice are just some of the activities that promote
collaborative learning. At this stage of the design process, the team
must decide which of these activities the learning space should
support in order to facilitate the previously defined learning
principles.

Again, the team should work to identify these activities within the
context of the institution. For example, even though the faculty may
be ready to support problem-based learning and study teams, the
infrastructure may not yet exist to support online communities of
practice. Or, the faculty may be supportive of small-group work but
may be unsure how to implement such work in a large-classroom
environment. Therefore, the planning team needs to explore and
experiment with a variety of learning activities before proceeding to
the next step.

Developing Clearly Articulated Design

Principles
Once the team has identified the relevant learning principles and the
supporting learning activities, it is ready to develop a set of design
principles. Design principles will allow the team to facilitate its
desired learning principles by describing what most students and
teachers should be able to do in the space.13 We say most students
and teachers because the team needs to recognize that it may not be
able to accomplish all that it desires, based on a number of
constraints on the space. The budget may be insufficient, the
infrastructure may be lacking, or the institution may just not be ready
for a particular innovation. At this point, the team must weigh what
is possible today and what may be possible in the future and decide
what it wants to support, based on the learning principles it has
developed.

Ideally, design principles should include a description of the learning

activities in which students and teachers will participate. For
example, the team may identify the following learning principle as
being important: Learning that is social requires feedback and
interaction among participants. A learning space should enable
learners to get to know each other and engage in dialogue, work on
group projects, interact in a variety of ways such as collaborative or
cooperative learning, and present their work publicly, teach others,
or give feedback.

For each aspect of this learning principle, the team members should
ask: "What does the space need to do in order to support this
principle?" From their discussions, they develop the following
design principle: The space will allow the teacher and students to (1)
display multiple types of resources simultaneously, (2) do so easily,
simply, and (3) with continuity across spaces without being tied to a
physical location, and (4) provide distributed control of
presentations.

As the team develops its design principles, members need to

remember that these principles may conflict with one another. The
principles may also conflict with, or be complemented by, other
types of design inputs such as budget constraints, physical
limitations, or the need for flexibility. The important task is to
develop all of the design principles and then come to consensus
about what will be gained, and what will be lost, when two
principles are in conflict.

During this stage, the team also needs to guard against becoming
bogged down in trying to describe specific spaces or tools. The
conversation often quickly turns to questions such as: "Do we want
U-shaped seating, separate tables, or conference-type seating?"
"How many ceiling-mounted projectors do we need?" Although
these are important questions, they must be tabled until after the
learning principles, learning activities, and design principles have
been discussed and decided on.

Creating a Set of Requirements

After developing the design principles, the team needs to determine
the physical requirements that will bring about the desired learning
outcomes. To continue the previous example, the team has decided
to implement a learning principle that allows students and teachers to
present their work publicly, teach others, or give feedback with a
corresponding design principle that will allow the teacher and
students to (1) display multiple types of resources simultaneously,
(2) do so easily, simply, and (3) with continuity across spaces
without being tied to a physical location, and (4) provide distributed
control of presentations. A requirement for such a space might be:
The space, at a minimum, will provide the following: four display
screens with video projectors, visual presenter, VCR, DVD, wireless
overlay, twenty tablet PCs, wireless connectivity to the Internet,
wireless connectivity to the presentation system, power outlets in the
walls and floors, productivity software, and shared presentation
software.

After everything has been discussed and clearly defined, the team is
ready to work with campus planners, architects, and other experts to
refine and move forward on the construction of the new learning
space. As the team proceeds to market the space to campus planners,
students, alumni, the architect, and other interested stakeholders, it
will be able to refer to the principles to guide the development of
architectural and construction plans. More important, this work
provides a roadmap to make decisions as the renovation or
construction process moves forward.

Determining a Methodology for Assessing

Success
As plans unfold, the team needs to take all that has been learned and
develop methodologies to assess the success of the new space. One
of the most valuable processes of exploring learning spaces is the
ability to discover uses and practices that were previously unknown.
Creating a flexible learning space and providing the users of this
space with an adequate level of technical support is a particularly
useful way to uncover new uses. Experimentation also helps to
uncover shortcomings in the usage of a designed space. Often, the
simplest things contribute to a space not working as well as it
should. By including experimentation and an appropriate means for
measuring success into the design process of a learning space, the
planning team can create an opportunity for greater longevity and
flexibility in the learning places. In the best cases, it may also
observe an evolution of practices that are associated with a new
learning space.

What is the best way to experiment with a learning space? Providing

ample technical support for the users of a space is one way to ensure
that it is being used to the full potential of the space and its
operators. This should also help to implement the vision of the
creators. Supporting the creativity, experimentation, and playfulness
of the users can uncover potential new uses. Often, faculty members
have their hands full struggling to provide a good environment for
their students and are unable to reflect on how to make a space work
better. If instructors receive support, they may be freed to explore
more creative uses of a particular space. Encouraging students to
explore new uses for a space is also effective. Often, it is not until a
space is pushed to its limits that the desirable (or lacking) features
can be identified.

A space may be deemed successful if it is used in the manner that the

creators envisioned. Even better, the space may be used,
productively, in ways that were not originally envisioned. In other
cases, a space may be successful because it is always busy. Still
other spaces may be successful because they are cost-effective to
provide. Identifying the guiding learning principles and the
corresponding design principles provides a good set of guidelines to
determine the success of a space. Does a space promote deeper
learning? Is a space conducive to the type of arrangement/amenities
needed to support a learning activity? In the previous example,
processes might be developed to track the evolution of writing
through the use of electronic portfolios or to assess the effectiveness
of providing access to spreadsheet or simulation software in the math
curricula. Determining the success of the space to support deeper
learning is a good way to determine the success of the space itself.

Finally, in determining the success of a space, the team should ask:

How can we make this space work better? How do we determine the
best usage of this space? Are there best times to use this space? Are
new practices emerging within these spaces? Can we capture these
practices to share with other users? Who will maintain the space?
How do we ensure that the technology within the space continues to
evolve?

Conclusion
Designing a vibrant learning space can be a daunting proposition.
There are many places along the path where the planning team can
lose its way and end up with "just another classroom" or "just
another building." However, institutions can create learning spaces
that will transform their ability to teach current and future students
by taking the following steps: (1) identify the institutional context;
(2) specify learning principles meaningful to that context; (3) define
the learning activities that support these principles; (4) develop
clearly articulated design principles; (5) create a set of requirements;
and (6) determine a methodology for assessing success.

Although we have detailed specific steps, the planning team should

remember that designing a learning space is an organic and iterative
process that continues long after the space is complete. For example,
Dan Gilbert, computing information analyst for the Stanford Center
for Innovations in Learning at Wallenberg Hall, stresses the
importance of continually evaluating the uses and effectiveness of
recently renovated spaces.14 By returning to design principles
grounded in deeper learning principles, learning space evaluators
have a means to determine the success of current and future space.

Finally, we hope that we have engendered a spirit of adventure in

looking at and discussing how space can be utilized to bring about
deeper learning. Or, to put this another way, we quote Mark Twain:
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the
things you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the
bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in
your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."

If you are interested in finding out more about learning space design,
see the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (formerly the NLII)
Learning Space Design Web page:
http://www.educause.edu/LearningSpace/942. If you would like to
participate in a conversation on learning space design, see the
EDUCAUSE Learning Space Design Constituent Group:
http://www.educause.edu/cg/learningspace. On September 14–15,
2005, the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative will hold a focus
session—"Design of Informal Learning Spaces"—at Estrella
Mountain Community College in Avondale, Arizona; see
http://www.educause.edu/eli054.

Notes

1. Malcolm Brown, "Learning Spaces," in Educating the Net Gen,

ed. Diana G. Oblinger and James L. Oblinger (Boulder, Colo.:
EDUCAUSE, 2005), 12.3, e-book, available at
http://www.educause.edu/LearningSpaces/6072.

2. This term was coined by Marc Prensky: "Digital Natives, Digital

Immigrants," On the Horizon, vol. 9, no. 5 (October 2001),
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-
%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-
%20Part1.pdf.

3. Brown, "Learning Spaces," 12.4.

4. Phillip Long is senior strategist for academic computing at MIT,

and Ed Crawley is the former head of the Aeronautical/Astronautical
Department of MIT. The CDIO process was used in the renovation
of the Aero/Astro building at MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/www/about/facilities/learninglaboratory
.html. See Christopher G. Johnson and Phillip D. Long, "Learning
Space Design," presentation at the EDUCAUSE Annual Conference,
Denver, Colorado, October 21, 2004,
http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?page_id=666&ID=EDU04124
&bhcp=1. For more on the CDIO process, see
http://www.cdio.org/index.html.

5. National Research Council, John D. Bransford et al., eds., How

People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, expanded ed.
(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000).

6. Colleen Carmean and Jeremy Haefner, "Mind over Matter:

Transforming Course Management Systems into Effective Learning
Environments," EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 37, no. 6
(November/December 2002): 29,
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0261.pdf.

7. Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson, "Seven Principles for

Good Practice in Undergraduate Education," AAHE Bulletin, March
1987,
http://aahebulletin.com/public/archive/sevenprinciples1987.asp;
National Research Council, M. Suzanne Donovan and John D.
Bransford, eds., How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and
Science in the Classroom (Washington, D.C: National Academies
Press, 2005); National Research Council, James W. Pellegrino,
Naomi Chudowsky, and Robert Glaser, eds., Knowing What
Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment
(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001); Oblinger and
Oblinger, Educating the Net Generation,
http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen.
 8. Diana Oblinger and James Oblinger, "Is It Age or IT: First Steps
toward Understanding the Net Generation," in Oblinger and
Oblinger, Educating the Net Generation,
http://www.educause.edu/IsItAgeOrIT/6058.

9. Prensky, "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants."

10. Chickering and Gamson, "Seven Principles for Good Practice in

Undergraduate Education."

11. Learner-Centered Principles Work Group, American

Psychological Association Board of Educational Affairs, "Learner-
Centered Psychological Principles: A Framework for School Reform
and Redesign," 1997, http://www.apa.org/ed/lcpnewtext.html.

12. Ibid.

13. The development of design principles and the examples

described here are based on work begun at the NLII 2004 Fall Focus
Session—"Learning Space Design for the 21st Century"—held in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

14. Dan Gilbert, Christopher G. Johnson, and Phillip D. Long,

"Learning Space Design," presentation at the NLII Annual
Conference, San Diego, California, January 27, 2004,
http://www.educause.edu/librarydetailpage/666?id=nli0427.

Learning Space | Technology Buildings

© Copyright 1999-2011 EDUCAUSE

Need Help? | Feedback | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

EDUCAUSE Review authors retain the copyright to their intellectual content,

with EDUCAUSE owning the copyright to the magazine presentation as a
whole. Individual articles may be licensed under Creative Commons licenses.
Content from EDUCAUSE Review articles reflect the opinions of the authors
and not necessarily those of EDUCAUSE or its members. For more
information about EDUCAUSE copyright, please see
http://www.educause.edu/copyright.