How do we know these are issues?

In order to discover the range of issues with open-plan technology-rich learning space the JISC initially used a questionnaire. The initial questions posed in the questionnaire were about the type and extent of issues that the managers of this type of space were faced with (we identified these earlier). The authors of the study also thought that it would be useful to know how the managers of these spaces knew that these issues existed - was heating and cooling, for example, an issue because users reported it as such, or because everyone simply thought it was 'hot in here' and repeatedly said so. The results of this part of the survey were interesting and looked like this:

Source of opinion on issues with open-plan technology-rich learning spaces

Remarkably over 80% of those responding to the questionnaire reported partly on the basis of their opinion and around 40% off those reporting included some aspects of rumour and institutional consensus as part of their return. This carries an important message particularly for those involved in managing new and innovative types of space and that is that people's opinions matter. Institutional consensus and rumour can define the success or failure of a space unless deliberate systematic data (both qualitative and quantitative) are collected. The opinion that people have about the comfort and usefulness of a learning space is decided against their expectations. There is therefore a job to be done in managing the expectations of users and in informing users of aspects of the space and the possibilities that it offers. Uniformed users will come to their own, often unsatisfactory, conclusions unless there is a dialogue between those that use and those that manage the space accompanied by a systematic approach to collection of data and comment.

It is also worth noting one of the conclusions of this report that relates to the collection of data and that is evaluation. The methods that we currently have for evaluating spaces are mostly those developed by the Space Management Group of the Higher Education Funding Council (www.smg.ac.uk). These tools are, not surprisingly, focused on parameters such as number of people present and percentage occupancy. Whilst having this type of data is useful it does not help us to understand a space in the context of its contribution to learning and teaching. It would be worth thinking about what techniques you could use to evaluate your space that relate to this key question of improving learning and teaching - these might include, for example, techniques of behavioural observation and description of observed behaviours. Having decided on an approach for evaluation it would be a good idea to try this out on existing spaces to enable a comparison with the new space and to show anticipated improvements are real ones.