• Volume 32, Number 2

December 2003-February 2004

for Higher Education

For an online version

of the journal, visit
www.scup.org/phe.
Articles
An Assessment of Capital 5 This study finds a need for new capital projects to
include continuing. dedicated revenue streams for the
Budgeting Practices in Public project lifetime in order to avoid continuation of the
Higher Education current state of underfunded maintenance. especially
in light of growing needs for upgraded research
by Derrick Manns
equipment and space.

Creating Adaptive 12 A health professions building project at Central

Michigan University provides focus for a theoretical
Learning Environments and practical discussion of effective planning to
by Stephen J. Kopp, Linda Seestedt Stanford, optimize human. spatial. and digital connections
Kenneth Rohlfing, and Jonathan P.Kendall for learner-centered environments.

The High Cost of Building a 24 Higher education facilities seem to come at premium
cost, even taking into account that educational
Better University facilities tend to cost more. The authors argue that
by Donald J. Guckert and Jeri Ripley King this is due to appropriate and strategic high aspirations.

Indiana's Twenty-First Century 30 Indiana's 1Wenty-FirstCentury Scholars program effectively

meets the needs of high-risk and low-income students by
Scholars Program understanding the student's mind-set. providing mentoring
by Tamara L. Wandel relationships. being flexible with credit load minimums,
and utilizing alumni for student recruitment.

The Impact of Technologies 37 A study at the University of Washington called "listening

to the Leamer." asked students about their desirefor using
on Learning technology in coursework, and facult about current
by Kimberly Gustafson approaches/barriers. O1rriculawere developed that
intergrate education technology in a leamer-centered way.

Planning for Higher Education 1

Creating Adaptive
Learning Environments
A health professions building project at Central Michigan University provides focus for a
theoretical and practical discussion of effective planning to optimize human, spatial, and
digital connections for learner-centered environments.
by Stephen J. Kopp, linda Seestedt Stanford, Kenneth Rohlfing, and Jonathan
Stephen J. Kopp is the former founding
dean ofThe Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow
College of Health Professions at Central
Michigan University and the current provost
at Ohio University. He earned his Ph.D. from
the University of Illinois at Chicago and his
bachelor's degree from the University of
Notre Dame. He has authored and coauthored
more than 80 scientific, peer-reviewed
publications and presented numerous
scholarly articles at regional, national, and
international symposia. He has served on
numerous state and national scientific panels,
advisory committees, and governing boards
and currently serves on the boards of the
Ohio Learning Network and OhioLiNK.
Coauthor biographies see page 23.
12 December 2003-February
P. Kendall
The Problem of Traditional Practices
in a Learner-Centered Environment
A casual walk through classrooms on many college campuses
would quickly reveal few substantive differences between
current classroom space designs and those found in colonial
times. Historically, assumptions made by university planners
regarding the design of instructional and learning spaces
have been predicated on faculty-centered instruction in the
oral tradition; that is, content delivery via lecture (Bransford,
Brown, and Cocking 2000; Weigel 2002). There has been
relatively little attention given to questioning and validating
these assumptions and the standards that have historically
guided the design of instructional spaces. Not surprisingly,
the reciprocal influence that the traditional row-by-column
seating design has had as a deterrent to innovative and
alternative pedagogic strategies has been largely unrecognized
as well. Just as form profoundly influences function, these
de facto guide plates for instructional spaces have and
continue to reinforce conformity in pedagogic practices.
This disconnect continues to produce environments
misaligned for function while perpetuating designs supporting
traditional, faculty-centered models of education that
emphasize instructional discourse featuring a preponderance
of "listening is learning" methodologies (Oblinger and Rush
1997). Granted, the traditional teaching style of lecturing may
be the best method for some students and certain subjects
but to presume that one method or place for learning is
2004

the only way (or the best way) to teach ignores compelling
evidence to the contrary (Wilson 1997). Moreover, these
designs have impeded advances in learner-centered
environments and instructional strategies that support and
foster the active engagement of students in the generation,
construction, analysis, application, internalization, and
augmentation of knowledge-based thought processes
and matrices.
During the last 50 years, traditional education practices,
which have presumed telling is teaching and listening is
learning, have been profoundly impacted by the explosion
of new knowledge. The response of many faculty members
to the rapidly expanding body of new knowledge and the
collateral compression in the half-life of prior knowledge
has been to cram and dispense more content into lecture
presentations (Paul and Elder 2001; Spence 2001). In an
attempt to cope with the ever-increasing onslaught of
information with seemingly little meaning or contextual
sense, students have responded by engaging in bulimic
learning practices: cramming and purging. This largely
passive educational approach motivates and rewards
students who are proficient at memorizing and recalling
information with little regard for their ability to think with
it. apply it, or transfer it to other contexts. Thus, these
students may receive higher grades, but, unfortunately, few
develop the capacity to think critically with the knowledge
and transfer or relate it to other relevant contexts. Fewer
yet have gained an appreciation for the contexts in which
the knowledge can be applied or misapplied. It should
not be much of a surprise that these practices do little to
advance higher-order thinking, knowledge transfer, and
synthesis (Lemke 2003; Weimer 2002).
Strategic Considerations
An integral part of contemporary reform efforts involves
restoring the active and interactive roles of faculty and
students in the learning process. Students must assume
and the educational enterprise must permit a more dynamic
and engaged role for students in the learning process as
researchers and questioners of knowledge, engaged
collaborators and critical thinkers in the learning process,
formulators of ideas, synthesizers of information, and
solvers of problems. These active processes are intended
to diminish the unintended role of students as simply
passive receivers of information.
This modification in the role of students needs to be
accompanied by a modification in the current role of faculty
Planning for Higher Education
Creating Adaptive Learning Environments
and a redesigning of learning spaces. Instead of perpetuating
a role as knowledge and content dispensers, faculty will
need to reorient their knowledge expertise and transition
to function as designers and architects of learning
experiences; experiences that advance such attributes as
ordered and disciplined thinking, inquiry, and knowledge
construction and transfer. These experiences will need to
Students respond to the onslaught of infor-
mation by engaging in bulimic learning
practices: cramming and purging.
be responsive to and engage multiple forms of intelligence
and learning styles. Authenticating these experiences in
terms of the extent to which they advance learning and
lead to the intended developmental outcomes is an implicit
part of this endeavor. Concepts such as the effectiveness
of operant learning strategies, the efficiency of learning
experiences, learning assessment, and evidence-based
practices are relatively new to education, especially higher
education, but they are becoming increasingly more
prevalent expectations. In effect, learning environments
(e.g., classrooms) have become experimental laboratories,
and, as such, they need to function like laboratories
equipped with the resources needed to perform and adapt
to well-designed learning experiments. Key elements involved
in this transformational process and the reclassification of
roles are highlighted in figure 1.This figure depicts the rela-
tionships and integration viewed as essential to achieving
the envisioned, learning-centric model of education. Key
elements in this model include elevating the role of faculty
and students in the learning process; rethinking the
design of learning spaces and the reconceptualization of
instructional environments as experimental laboratories,
incubators, and test beds for ideas; and using immersive
strategies that empower and engage the learner and achieve
the outcomes outlined in the building programming objectives.
Concepts like the ones described herein have been
discussed elsewhere but rarely implemented because they
require major transformational change (Dolence and Norris
1995; JointTask Force on Student Learning 1998; National
Panel Report 2002). The transition of pedagogy from one
method to a blend of strategies focused on the learner is
not easily achieved. Faculty, staff members, and students,
all of whom have learned how to cope in traditional faculty-
centered classrooms, often are hesitant to change. After
all, most of us were educated in the traditional way and, as
13
 Stephen J. Kopp, linda Seestedt Stanford,
Kenneth Rohlfing, and Jonathan P. Kendall

Figure 1 Strategic Considerations Involved in Organizational Reengineering for Learning

Vision and Goals

Advance Learning-Centered Education by Organizing for Learning:

Reshaping Expectations, Environments, and Roles

Faculty Students

c ... as contentexperts,architects,and ... as critical thinkers, knowledge

o
'iij co-designersof interactive learning researchers,learningcollaborators,
:> experienceandmodules,which advance problemsolvers,producersand
c critical/higher-orderthinking, assemblersof new information,
en
C) .•.
'iij communication,and problemsolving and long life learners cC.
QI
C ID
::J
QI ..•.
U
CQ m
C. ::J
en Instructional Environments and Learning Spaces, which function as: IQ
C)
~
c IQ
ID
'c
•.. 3
CQ
ID
::J
QI
...J .•.
II)
QI
'c,
QI
••
CQ
•..
••
en

Programming Objectives

a result, it is the approach we know best. But what if we
could truly revolutionize the educational experience; if we
could change it and blend it to one that is responsive to
the individual needs of students, adapted to their specific
learning styles while achieving each individual's full
educational potential? This transformation can reasonably be
expected to improve quality of life and provide substantial
socioeconomic benefit through a better educated society.
As the educational environment is transformed from
the traditional faculty-centered model to a student-centered
learning model, faculty will become increasingly more
responsible for guiding the creation of learning experiences,
courseware, multimedia instructional programming, authentic
project-based learning modules and presentations, and the
design of sophisticated evaluation matrices for assessing
educational achievement. These changing expectations
will necessitate fundamental alterations in the learning
environment. Access to advanced educational technology
capabilities, equipment, and resources that enhance learning
opportunities is imperative for the classroom of tomorrow.
Immersing students in the learning experience is a concept
that can be realized with current technology-for the visual
learner, a way to see the algorithm; for the aural learner, a
way to listen to the greatest teachers; and for the kinesthetic
learner, a way to feel the processes and skills as they
happen in the real world (Brown 2000; Dolence and Norris
1995; Norris 1997). The creation of appropriate learning
opportunities for students, faculty, and support staff will

14 December 2003-February 2004

 Creating Adaptive Learning Environments

Figure 2 Various Active Learning Strategies and Approaches

Inquiry-Based Learning
(e.g., research, observation, hypothesis formulation/testing,
experimentation, creative expression, abstract/discipline/integrative thinking,
knowledge assembly/discovery)

Knowledge Diffusion
(e.g., lecture, declarative processes,
narratives, recitation, digital media,
Collaborative!
print media, visual/abstract objects)
Cooperative
Learning
(e.g., consultation,'
group strategies,
interdiscliplinary
solution finding)

Technology Enhanced
(e.g., simulation, virtual reality,
Skills- and Competency-
immersive environments,
Based Learning
asynchronous communication,
(e.g., drills, contextualized
multisensory activators/
practice, modeling, mentoring,
integrators, on-demand
apprenticeship)
information access)
Application-Based Learning
(e.g., case scenarios, problems,
contextual frames, projects,
designs, functionality)

necessitate unprecedented, highly efficient resources and environments, this functional transformation is supported by
capabilities to enable the development of multimedia findings demonstrating and documenting the effectiveness
instructional courseware materials, which will allow seamless, of such educational practices. In this regard, instead of
asynchronous, on-demand access and distribution of these creating classroom spaces designed to control knowledge
learning modules via a robust technology infrastructure. dissemination centering on the faculty member, learning
Although some may argue that this concept is a radical environments need to be reorganized and redesigned
departure from the traditional expectations of classroom around the learner, creating opportunities for active learning

Planning for Higher Education 15


experiences that empower each student to engage, access,
and use resources and information in ways that support their
active role and their development and refinement of higher-
order thinking skills as part of the learning process. Figure
2 illustrates some of the key instructional strategies that
are part of this process. Beginning with" knowledge
diffusion" and rotating clockwise, the strategies represent-
ed shift from declarative/structured approaches to ones
that offer greater flexibility and adaptability to the learner.
Experiencing a blend of strategies is more likely to develop
the requisite foundations for lifelong learning as opposed
to a single approach. Arguably, however, there may be no
one strategy or blend of strategies that will be optimally
effective over time for all learners and areas of study.
Engaged Learning
There are certain truths that devotees of critical thinking
and cognitive science regard as self-evident about learning
and knowledge transfer (Paul and Elder 2001). First, learning
begins with a compelling question, one that engages
the learner to think; seek information, clarification, and
understanding; and, ultimately, formulate meaningful
answers or solutions. As such, it is motivated by inquiry
and curiosity. The progression to deep learning is enhanced
by inquiry that requires the formation and internalization of
The transition of pedagogy from one
method to a blend of strategies focused
on the learner is not easily achieved.
knowledge and conceptual elements in ways that make
connections to prior knowledge, experience, or meanings.
Meaningfulness in learning implies context. the idea that
learning is contextual and reinforced by application. It
requires regular, active engagement. practice, and thinking
that is disciplined and involves the testing and rethinking
of understandings. Finally, authentic learning requires the
mastery of the elements of thought that are intrinsic to the
field of study, the process of learning to think like a scientist,
a doctor, and so forth. To achieve this level of integration
requires time for reflection, evaluation, validation, and
verification. Yet, even though this truth is intuitively self-
evident, too often educators devote the vast majority of
instructional time in faculty-centered classroom settings to
dispensing answers through lectures (i.e., telling the answers
without framing them in the context of the questions).
Because students often do not know or understand the
16 December 2003-February
Stephen J. Kopp, Linda Seestedt Stanford,
Kenneth Rohlfing, and Jonathan P. Kendall
questions and because the faculty member does most of
the thinking for the students in these approaches, it is
hardly surprising that most students learn to perform only
at the most rudimentary levels of thinking: memorization
and factual recall.
A corollary to this principle is that learning is an active
process, one that requires learners to engage in mental
work: questioning, reasoning, testing, verifying, and refining
their thinking. Various strategies for active learning are
depicted in figure 2. Interestingly, the oral tradition of
instruction (i.e., lecturing) constitutes an active process for
the faculty member but a largely passive experience for the
student. It is well designed for content dissemination to
large audiences, but it may do little to engage the student
actively in the learning process. It is based on the premise
that the imparting of knowledge through the act of professing
activates and promotes learning in most or all students.
There is little evidence to support this notion. Instead, a
robust body of literature exists, which asserts that this
assumption is invalid based on what is known about how
humans learn (Bain 1997; Bransford, Brown, and Cocking
2000; JointTask Force on Student Learning 1998).
Another implicit truth is that learning is about making
connections-neural connections as well as knowledge
connections across disciplines that build on existing
conceptual frameworks and understandings, which advance
different ways of thinking and knowing (Bransford, Brown,
and Cocking 2000). Applied learning activities that engage
the mind by arousing curiosity, exercising it, disciplining it.
and stimulating creativity have been shown consistently to
deepen learning with concomitant improvements in thinking
capacity, acuity, and problem-solving skills (Bowden and
Marton 1998; Spence 2001; Weimer 2002). Educational
innovations that provide full-cycle integration of theory-to-
application and application-to-theory experiences create
opportunities for powerful and engaged learning. The
transition to these approaches in higher education has
been slow, at best, in part because traditional classroom
environments, which are configured to express the teacher-
centeredness of the experience, discourage it. Moreover,
the artificial" learning time, seat-time model" of education
involves the scheduling of blocks of classroom time (e.g.,
50 minutes), which implies that learning is somehow
compartmentalized to discrete time periods. In reality,
there is little evidence to suggest that learning is fostered by
this approach. Consider, for instance, the meta-messages
expressed by the traditional classroom alignment of seats,
in rows and columns, all facing the teacher. Such seating
2004
 Creating Adaptive Learning Environments

Figure 3 Resource Implications of Learning-Centric Instructional Practices

Assessment
Teacher
Theoretical
Individual,
Oral,
Passive
Ability
Single does
declarative
or based
thinking
as competitive
dispenser
emphasis
one-way
Discipline-specific
grouping
subject offor
work;of
instruction;
modes
instruction;
instruction Performance-
Research and and outcome-
information Efficient
Simulation;
Ready
Fast
Reliable,
Access
Interactive
Omnipresent
Requires tolearner
network
access
Longitudinal honing to access
immersive,
access
efficient
and expert and
learner
collaborative
models;
information
of to
thinkers
developmental
learning
efficient
Traditional Instructional Teacher
Collaborative
Learner
Interactive,
Guided
Heterogeneous
Integrated, as challenger
learning
centered,
inquiry;
21st Century and guide
modules
interdisciplinary
active,
grouping:
Instructional Resource
tests
students
standard Practice
time blocks; minimal Implications
information
and retrieval resources
edge
passing transfer
principle
knowledge;
instruction
aural
lecture
emphasis
recall, memorization-based
is
learning
format
predominantly
and content
organizing
predominate
on emphasiscoverage
predominates;
learning/knowl-
specific
on knowledge,
skills Strategies individual
access;
capabilities
access
diagnostic
strategies
virtual
user-friendly
anytime,
distance; student
toinformation
digital
tools
cognitive-motor-sensory
technologies
tools;
integration;
flexible
simulation
to
anywhere
delivery forprogress
beneficial search
resources
simulation
spaces
promote
and
publishingevaluating
modeling
learning;
tools
applications
"
•• " "
modules
like
customized
styles
thinking,
and
for
a a
student
complex
thinking scientist.
and
exploration
management;
based
environments;
cooperative
real-world
of
through
organizing
learning
technology focused
assessment;
as
engaged
psychologist,
developing
skills;
skill/knowledge on
intelligences
interdisciplinary to a
problem
formative
outcomes
opportunities
expectations critical
mathematician,
individual
problem
and collaborative,
demonstration
discovery;
solver
learning,
learning
higher-order
etc.
principle
applied
work student
environments;
assessment
mastery
to
"
learning
relevant
solving to
to think
is equalize
targeted
"
" ••
"
"•••• "
" ••

•• Theory-to-application
(practice)/a pplication-to-theory
emphasis

Planning for Higher Education 17


configurations forecast and predispose activity centered on
the faculty member as the professor of knowledge and the
role of the student as the receiver of knowledge. These
roles and expectations are reinforced by the longitudinal
experiences and conditioning that takes place during a
student's primary and secondary education. The reengineering
of learning spaces can help disrupt this regimen both from
a symbolic as well as a functional perspective. Various
transitional concepts in the migration to a learning-centric
model of education and the corresponding resource
implications are depicted in figure 3.
Rapid advances in educational technology have provided
the capacity to create novel educational experiences, which
are designed to match the individualized learning needs of
students (Dolence and Norris 1995; Strauss 2002). Never
before has it been possible to provide personalized mass
education. The goal of achieving customized learning
experiences designed and tailored to the individual
learning styles of the students is within the grasp of
today's technology because of unprecedented advances
in the education technology available to support learning.
Interestingly, estimates indicate that less than half of
the students in today's classrooms are auditory learners
(i.e., students who favor and learn best via predominantly
auditory modes of sensory stimulation and instruction).
The remaining students cluster within two other dominant
learning domains: visual and kinesthetic. Visual learners
favor and learn best from predominantly visual sensory
integration. These learners benefit most from learning
experiences that use visual and diagrammatic represen-
tations and depictions to impart knowledge and concepts.
Kinesthetic learners learn best by multisensory integration,
especially involving the physical and tactile domains.
Activities, such as those involving laboratory experiments,
enhance conceptual understanding and learning for
these students. To advance critical thinking and cognitive
development of all students, it is essential that pedagogy
and learning environments function symbiotically to
support and accommodate multiple types and approaches
to engaging students in learning processes.
Building Programming Focused on
Learning-Centered Education
The $50 million, state-of-the-art health professions building
at Central Michigan University, which began construction
the fall of 2001, was designed to address critical resource
needs of the university's growing health professions
18 December 2003-February
Stephen J. Kopp, Linda Seestedt Stanford,
Kenneth Rohlfing, and Jonathan P.Kendall
programs. This new, 173,000 gross-square-foot facility
includes advanced technology, research, and clinical and
other educational resource capabilities that will support the
preparation of graduates who excel in meeting the expec-
tations of the nation's health care industry.
The new building was designed to
• integrate Central Michigan's health professions
programs and create an environment that models
the integrative, interdisciplinary, and collaborative
nature of the contemporary health care industry;
• provide progressive learning, instruction, office, and
research resources specifically designed for the health
professions disciplines at Central Michigan;
• create a learning environment that fosters and
empowers students to learn independently and acquire
lifelong learning skills supported by access to integrated
state-of-the-art information technology resources;
• educate health profession students in an environment
designed to facilitate technological fluency and the
acquisition of essential skills that will enable
graduates to provide high-quality, cost-effective
care in tomorrow's health care system;
• provide the requisite resources for Central Michigan's
new interdisciplinary program in the neurosciences;
• foster modern, educationally integrated community
outreach for Central Michigan's health professions
programs;
• configure the building infrastructure to be flexible and
adaptable so that the university can respond rapidly
and cost-efficiently to emerging technologies and to
the ever-changing resource needs of educational
programs in the health professions;
• design the new facility to be energy-efficient and provide
for cost-effective maintenance while incorporating
recyclable building materials wherever possible;
• give priority to the design of interdisciplinary shared-
use areas (e.g., classrooms, clinics, teaching and
research laboratories, technology resource areas)
whenever possible that would be versatile and
adaptive to the needs of multiple educational
programs to minimize inefficiencies and avoid
unnecessary staffing and service duplication costs;
• create environments conducive to the education and
the development of graduates prepared to serve the
in
health care needs of rural and underserved Michigan
communities.
2004

The learning environments and resources in the new
building were designed to
• be versatile and progressive with respect to interactive
educational technology;
• provide superior, learner-centered instructional
capabilities;
• facilitate interdisciplinary clinical education, research,
and collaboration;
• provide technologically advanced classrooms and
laboratories to support on-campus and off-campus
instruction, research, and teleconsulting/telehealth
programming (e.g., multilevel "smart" classrooms,
virtual patient and online clinical instructional
resources, community telehealth programming
[see www.chp.cmich.edu/rtcen/J. global interactive
telecommunication/teleconferencing, and digital
video production capabilities);
• support research and teaching laboratory spaces for
faculty and students as well as office space and space
for selected community outreach and service programs.
A primary focus of the building's infrastructure
will be flexibility and adaptability so that the university can
respond rapidly and cost-effectively to emerging technologies
and the evolving resource needs of educational programs in
the various health-related disciplines housed in the building.
Audiology, clinical psychology, health administration,
promotion and rehabilitation, physical education/exercise
science, physical therapy, and speech language pathology
are some of the graduate programs that will be served by
the new building. The new building will also serve a number
of principal undergraduate majors/minors, including
communication disorders, community/public health
education, health administration, health fitness/exercise
science, neuroscience, physical education, psychology,
and sports medicine/athletic training.
The goals of this construction project at Central
Michigan were guided by the various learning principles
already addressed. These principles are consistent with the
recommendations outlined in the report presented by the
Joint Task Force on Student Learning (1998) sponsored
jointly by the American Association for Higher Education,
the American College Personnel Association, and the
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
Lastly, futuristic perspectives about the learning
environments of tomorrow forecast a need to be highly
responsive, integrated, and able to provide increasingly
more rapid access to and retrieval of an array of technologic/
Planning for Higher Education
Creating Adaptive Learning Environments
electronic information and resources. As experiential
learning becomes increasingly coupled to technologically
created and facilitated interactive experiences (e.g., virtual
patient encounters) and other interactive paradigms, virtual
environments and simulation capabilities will become
integral components of the learning environment. These
environments must also have the capacity to provide the
student with greater flexibility, wherein the student has the
ability to modify the rate at which curricular competencies
and learning outcomes are accomplished (asynchronous
learning productivity). These planning considerations were
incorporated in the program and design of the new health
professions building at Central Michigan and are integral to
the vision ofThe Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow College of
Health Professions.
Technology Systems Design
The design team for the new health professions building
was strongly influenced and benefited from a wealth of
prior knowledge and experience regarding the legacy
design "smart" or "mediated" classrooms from the 1980s and
1990s. Having worked on the early technology-enhanced
classrooms beginning with the University of Maryland,
College Park, in 1985 and, subsequently, with dozens of
institutions and hundreds of projects from Alaska to Florida,
health the design team tested and analyzed every physical layout,
technology, angle, screen, and network for application fit
within the Central Michigan project. The legacy technology
of the smart classroom over the past 10 years, including
computers, networks, multichannel audio, remote control,
television, VCR, and DVD, served as a baseline for evaluating
functionality in these new classrooms. These models were
helpful from the standpoint of guiding and informing
decisions that would produce the most cost-effective and
functional state-of-the-art solutions.
The design team at Central Michigan was guided by a
key principle: Spatial, human, and digital connections must
be optimized within the building. One might ask why we
need physical spaces if we can make connections via
technology such as the Internet, and it can be reasoned
that the only need for space is for the computers and
network technology. But that is an oversimplification of
the impact of technology on real learning and the role
interpersonal interactions play in this process. The reality
is that to truly foster connections and collaboration for the
majority of humans, people need to be with people; it is an
important social consideration to accelerate the learning
19

process for a majority of learners. Therefore, as the design
team looked at the challenge of the university's new facility,
it looked at creating classrooms that could be malleable,
learning laboratories, places where these connections could
be made. The classrooms are adaptable environments where
• people can collaborate with each other in real time;
• people can communicate with other people using
technology as a facilitative media;
• technology can create environments to provide the
exact skills training for the individual;
• students can test their hypotheses and see the direct
impact of their research in real time;
• students can see, feel, and touch processes and reveal
cognitive patterns;
• students can be placed inside the human body for
a sci-fi fantasy trip through the human heart or get
inside a fast Fourier transform to see the process
of mathematics.
In other words, a whole new world of learning can
be achieved. Students can become the teachers as they
discover a way to touch and move bits of information in free
space via virtual reality pens, exploring the outcomes as
medical data are updated or manipulated and communicating
this to others by a simple methodology (teaching).
Overlaying geographic information systems (GIS) data
sets such as water quality, factory pollution dissipation,
physical land layout and land use changes, and chronic
disease incidence via zip code can reveal new connections
for the potential underlying causes of chronic diseases
and medical-related conditions. Using these approaches,
education fosters connections, becomes exploration, and
involves research.
With this vision as the catalyst, questions regarding the
building design went from the usual of how many square
feet are needed and what it costs to what educational
outcomes do we want to achieve and how can we create
spaces and technology within our budget to support these
outcomes. Through the design process, a facility was created
that shunned the traditional classroom for a new breed of
adaptable spaces, places where people can meet, where
skills and fluencies can be developed, and where people
can access technologies that cannot be accessed anywhere
else for learning. Although this conception sounds simple,
in reality, it is very difficult to accomplish. In the case of
Central Michigan, the pedagogical needs of the program
drove the technology needs to support these requirements.
This approach, in turn, drove the architectural space and
20 December 2003-February
Stephen J. Kopp, Linda Seestedt Stanford,
Kenneth Rohlfing, and Jonathan P.Kendall
building systems required to support the users and their
technology tools.
As most educators understand, change to the pedagogy
of a college or program is very difficult. Adapting technology
to an existing program in a way that does not just repackage
the material (e.g., taking the class notes and putting them
on a Web site or taking the overheads and creating a
Microsoft PowerPoint™ presentation) but truly redefines
the educational experience is essential. The architectural
and program design was driven by a strategic and tactical
plan that would integrate the technology into the pedagogy
while fusing it with the physical environment. The vision,
which was to create an adaptable, for\o'\(ard-thinking,complete
facility that would change and adapt to the needs of the
faculty, staff, and students, was clearly articulated at the
outset. The technology solution to meet these needs was
based on extensive use of visual information.
This display of visual information in a multimedia
environment was envisioned as the cornerstone of the
new educational experience. The program for the building
required a truly visual, auditory, and tactile-rich environment
that can conform to the education program and learning
styles in an adaptable and efficient manner. The design
team's vision was to create spaces that could change
through the application of new "bits" of information, not
by having to change the "atoms" of the physical space (to
borrow a reference by Nicolas Negroponte [1996]), what is
referred to as an Immersion Classroom™. An Immersion
Classroom is a physical space with hardware and software
packaged together with the academic program, goals, and
mission to customize the learning experience. In this design
configuration, the traditional writing surface is augmented
with flexible electronic displays, which support text, graphics,
Adapting technology to an existing
program in a way that truly redefines
the educational experience is essential.
imaging, and video in multidimensional modes. The displays
are interfaced with systems that have the ability to draw
data simultaneously from a variety of local and remote data
sources and the capability to record and store results created
during the interactive learning sessions. In this environment,
the student does not passively sit and receive instruction.
Rather, the student experiences something like an immersion
in a sea of information with the requisite tools that enable
him or her, either alone or in concert with his or her peers
and mentors, to extract meaning and construct knowledge.
2004

These standardized learning support technologies, such as
the Immersion Board™ and Immersion Classroom, allow
the educator to create and manage the learning experience in
immersive, stimulating, and customizable ways to empower
the student and provide for his or her educational requirements.
A common, well-supported interface including technical support,
content creation, and faculty classroom development is the
key benefit of the Immersion Board.
To implement this vision is to start at the beginning,
in this case, the infrastructure necessary to support these
Immersion Classrooms. The network is the key to success
in this type of environment. As Bob Metcalfe, the Ethernet
inventor and founder of 3Com, is quoted as saying, "the
value of a network grows as the square of the number of
its users" (Kirsner 1998). In other words, as the connections
increase, the increase in value increases logarithmically.
Therefore, a digital network with exceptionally wide band-
width is a necessity. This solid foundation must have the
capacity to create connections that meet the needs of early
adopters of innovative technologies and applications. The
information needs of the people will dictate the topology of the
network: wired and wireless. Bandwidth, mobility, resolution,
and cost will be the final arbiters of the correct solution here.
As students enter the learning environment, they see
the display system or wall, the focal point of the learning.
During normal conversation, only 7 percent of communication
comes from the words themselves, 38 percent comes
from the tone or how the words are spoken, and the
remaining 55 percent of communications comes from the
physiology of movement (Argyle, Alkema, and Gilmour
1971; Birdwhistle 1970; Mehrabian and Ferris 1967). This
means that the majority of communication comes from the
visual content, even in natural conversation. The fine details
of communication require a resolution well above that of
today's average computer screen displayed on the wall.
When parallel information displays are added to the learning
environment and the typical presentation-based pedagogy
of serial information dispensation is removed, students can
visualize and experience information in a variety of formats
that can foster learning in new, more diverse, and sometimes
unexpected ways.
The solution was a baseline of classroom technology
that included a large, high-resolution, Immersion Board to
allow multiple images and immersive-type display of clinical
settings, along with multiple computer inputs distributed
around the room that will enable students and faculty to
engage in collaborative group learning methodologies. The
ubiquitous VCR and document camera could be placed
Planning for Higher Education
Creating Adaptive Learning Environments
anywhere in the space as well, whereas the hub of the
information flow is the PC. Digital media, digital video,
collaborative video conferencing, common applications,
and remote control functionalities would be handled by a
powerful, off-the-shelf PC. The PC will have a wide bandwidth
network connection (a given) for high-resolution, full-motion
imaging and video streaming to and from the video server
system. Each room will have one to three cameras and
microphones tied to a master control room for the secure
and properly managed flow of classroom activities to
support e-Iearning, skills training, Room MemoryTM (where
the activities within each learning space can be archived
for later reference). and capture and storage of the best
teaching modes for real-time and store-and-forward learning.
The more in-depth, high-production, video-telepresence
environment will be the idea Reserve Global Telepresence
Room. In this center, a television studio-like environment
and an Immersion Board combine to create an almost 3-D
experience where the lecturer can be surrounded by the
student body or a class can look through the glass screen
to the classroom on the other side, fostering personal
collaboration. When it comes to a truly 3-D environment,
the facility is designed for a CAVERN or Computer Aided
Virtual EnviRoNment. It is a place where the students can
take a sci-fi voyage through the human body or a global
perspective of health concerns as they relate to geography,
topology, or industrialization on true-to-life maps. The
interdisciplinary ambulatory clinic will be an applied learning
and research environment with a digital network designed
to permit secure information transmission with local storage
for asynchronous distribution.
To allow the proper management and security of this
vast quantity of disparate information, the design team has
included a dynamic master control facility. This facility will be
the central management station, security node, information
storage and production facility, and a central hub for the
dissemination of multimedia information. A limited staff of
technologists, artists, producers, and managers will oversee
the technology and keep it working in the best interest of the
faculty and students. This staff will manage and dictate the
flow of information within the facility over private networks
and throughout the world via a secure network infrastructure.
Another function of the master control station will be the
production of high-quality, digital video programming for
students, faculty, patients, and the community. The master
control station will have the capability to add this production
value to the programming at the College of Health Professions,
and with ties to Central Michigan's television studio and the
21
 Stephen J. Kopp, Linda Seestedt Stanford,
Kenneth Rohlfing, and Jonathan P.Kendall

local public broadcasting station, these programs will have responsibilities of participants in the learning process in
a quality the public expects. accordance with basic principles and research findings
To achieve high-quality educational programs and of cognitive science about how people learn-postulating,
materials, the facility must include content development. testing, and authenticating the efficacy of educational
The learning spaces within the health professions building experiences designed to advance learning opportunities.
are at the cutting edge of technology and resolution. It would Institutional resource and facility planning must be more
be inappropriate to support the faculty and students with evidence driven and focused on identifying and prioritizing
only simple presentation software such as Microsoft functional considerations that improve the effectiveness
PowerPoint. An instructional and content development and versatility of these environments. An important
center and an animation suite have been designed in the consideration in this regard is the extent to which these
building to provide the enhanced materials that will drive space designs enable and support students independently
these new educational experiences. New network-based and collaboratively in their cognitive development, regardless
applications will be developed to track and manage a of their preferred learning style.
student's progress to provide" just-in-time" (not just-in- To facilitate these transitions and gain full value from
case) learning in the appropriate format to foster the the available instructional technology resources, a proactive
most efficient learning possible for that individual. and comprehensive five-year "migration program" was
Artificial intelligence, multiple data streams, relational developed and implemented with the support of faculty
and object-oriented databases, and adaptable technologies leaders and champions. The goal of this plan was to identify
will allow students to take the most appropriate path and address obstacles, real and imagined, involved with the
through their learning. Software such as flexible room transition to learner-centered pedagogies. As the building
scheduling and collaborative technology management was being constructed, a new technology team was
will allow the precise utilization of these very expensive established. The team engaged key faculty members in a
resources. These systems will be adaptable enough to process of self-examination of teaching strategies and the
constantly improve as new applications and educational pedagogical implications of past experiences and practices.
materials are designed and implemented. Nine "faculty champions" were identified. A faculty
champion is a volunteer faculty member who is an early
Concluding Remarks adopter of the advanced technology within the facility and
who is committed to developing new teaching programs
Transitioning from a teaching-centric mind-set guided by to be used when the building opens. Each champion
the organizing principle of content/information delivery to a participated in an intense 12-month experience that
mind-set that is learning- and student-centric organized for encouraged reflection and rethinking about the effectiveness
engaged learning requires a fundamental, transformative of the strategies used to engage students in accomplishing
change in thinking, identity, philosophy, and practice. It the targeted learning outcomes. In addition, each champion
begins with reframing and affirming the core purpose of developed a new content and cognitive development
the educational experience and concentrating on the project that blended with a common pedagogical theme:
activities and strategies that advance thinking and learning. Faculty want the new building to deliver, support, and
It means rethinking and reframing the way we view our encourage just-in-time learning and questioning. When the
operational domains to ensure that they are organized for building opens, faculty will be able to fully utilize the new
learning and that they support the integration of strategies, technologies but not because they attended a simple "how
methods, and physical resource designs and structures to press the buttons" training class. In the case of Central
needed to enable this transformation. It also means that Michigan, faculty worked long hours to develop strategies for
these designs need to assist the active engagement of enhancing active engagement and stimulating experiences
learners in the mental work required to advance their that challenge students to think critically and creatively.
cognitive development through activities and experiences Through this process, faculty members have migrated from
that develop sophisticated patterns of thinking, knowledge knowledge dispensers to knowledge coaches and mentors.
construction and deconstruction, cognitive fluencies, The results of the faculty champions' migration program
and synthesis of ideas and concepts. Ultimately, this informed and enabled the technology team to also determine
transformation requires rethinking and realigning roles and

22 December 2003-February 2004

 Creating Adaptive Learning Environments

the appropriate level of technical support required for the Paul. R., and L. Elder. 2001. Master the Thinking, Master the "Content:'
Ch. 7 in Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your
inaugural year in the facility.i!
Learning and Your Life. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Spence, L. D. 2001. The Case AgainstTeaching. Change 33 (6): 10--19.
References Strauss, H. 2002. New Learning Spaces: Smart Learners, Not
Smart Classrooms. Syllabus 16 (2): 13-17.
U.S. Department of Labor. 1999. Futurework: Trends and
Argyle, M., F.Alkema, and R. Gilmour. 1971. The Communication
Challenges for Work in the 21 st Century. Washington, D.C.:
of Friendly and Hostile Attitudes by Verbal and Non-Verbal
U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved September 8, 2003,
Signals. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1: 385-402.
from the World Wide Web: www.dol.gov/asp/programs
Bain, K. 1997. A Sustained and Substantial Influence: A Model for
/h isto ry/h erma n/re ports/futu rework/re port. htm.
Evaluating and Improving Teaching. The National Teaching and
Weigel, V. B. 2002. Deep Learning for a Digital Age. San
Learning Forum 7 (1): 1-17. Retrieved September 8, 2003,
Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
from the World Wide Web: www.ntlf.com/html/pi/9712
Weimer, M. 2002. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes
/influence.htm.
to Practice. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Birdwhistle, R. 1970. Kinesics and Context. Philadelphia, Penn.:
Wilson, J. M. 1997. Reengineering the Undergraduate Curriculum.
University of Pennsylvania Press.
In The Learning Revolution: The Challenge of Information
Bowden, J., and F. Marton. 1998. The University of Learning:
Technology in the Academy, edited by D. G. Oblinger and
Beyond Quality and Competence in Higher Education. London:
S. C. Rush. Bolton, Mass.: Anker.
Kogan Page.
Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, eds. 2000. How
Linda Seestedt Stanford served as the director of clinical
People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Expanded
instruction and services in audiology at Central Michigan
ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
University for more than 20 years. She is currently the assistant
Brown, J. S. 2000. Growing Up Digital: How the Web Changes
dean in The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow College of Health
Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn. Change 32 (2):
Professions. She is the coauthor of a book on language learning
10-20.
disabilities and has published and presented widely on numerous
Dolence, M. G., and D. M. Norris. 1995. Transforming Higher
audiology issues. She is currently completing a doctorate in
Education: A Vision for Learning in the 21st Century. Ann
higher education at Michigan State University.
Arbor, Mich.: Society for College and University Planning.
Joint Task Force on Student Learning. 1998. Powerful
Kenneth Rohlfing, is a vice president of Smith Group, the
Partnerships: A Shared Responsibility for Learning. country's sixth largest architecture, engineering, and planning
Retrieved September 8, 2003, from the World Wide Web: firm, and is director of its Chicago office. He received his bachelor
www.aahe.org/teaching/tsk_frce.htm . and master of architecture degrees from the University of Illinois
Kirsner, S. 1998. The Legend of Bob Metcalfe. Wired Magazine 6 at Urbana-Champaign. He has provided services on more than
(11). Retrieved September 8, 2003, from the World Wide Web: 40 projects at 25 institutions of higher education, including
www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/metcalfe.html. Central Michigan University; Duke University; Howard University;
Lemke, C. 2003. en Gauge'" 21st Century Skills: Literacy in the Loyola University Chicago; Michigan State University; Oberlin
Digital Age. Naperville, III.: North Central Regional Educational College; The Ohio State University; the University of California,
Laboratory. Retrieved September 28, 2003, from the World San Diego; the University of Michigan; the University of Utah;
Wide Web: www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/skills.htm. and Western Michigan University.
Lovett, C. M. 2002. Cracks in the Bedrock: Can U.S. Higher
Education Remain Number One? Change 34 (2):10-15. Jonathan P.Kendall is the chief executive officer and chief

Mehrabian, A., and S. R. Ferris. 1967. Inference of Attitudes from innovation officer of idea Reserve" LLC, a professional services
Nonverbal Communication in Two Channels. Journal of firm that focuses on forward-thinking educational technology
management, planning, consulting, design, and service. He
Consulting Psychology. 31: 248-52.
specializes in enhancing learning and implementing appropriate
National Panel Report. 2002. Greater Expectations: A New Vision
technologies to redefine the educational experience. He is an
for Learning as a Nation Goes to College. Washington, D.C.:
author and a featured speaker at industry gatherings such as
Association of American Colleges and Universities.
the American Institute of Architects, the Healthcare Information
Negroponte, N. 1996. Being Digital. New York: Vintage Books.
and Management Systems Society, and SCUP, and has assisted
Norris, D. M. 1997. Revolutionary Strategy for the Knowledge Age.
a variety of institutions, including Atlantic Cape Community
Ann Arbor, Mich.: Society for College and University Planning.
College, Central Michigan University, the Stanford University
Oblinger, D. G., and S. C. Rush. 1997. Challenges of the Learning
Medical Center, The George Washington University Hospital, the
Revolution. Ch. 15 in The Learning Revolution: The Challenge
University of Alaska, the University of California, the University
of Information Technology in the Academy, edited by D. G. of Maryland, and Western Michigan University.
Oblinger and S. C. Rush. Bolton, Mass.: Anker.

Planning for Higher Education 23