Why Reinvent the Wheel (or Learning Space)?

Earlier this week I went with a couple colleagues to an event on technology in higher education sponsored by BKM Total Office of Texas. Some of the key ideas presented during the one of the sessions on generational differences within the workforce are available as an article on the Steelcase website. Another interesting session focused on Steelcase's research on academic libraries. There was also a session with representatives from a local community college talking about their Steelcase "LearnLab" prototype classrooms.

In the Baylor Libraries we are currently working, in partnership with Baylor's Academy for Teaching and Learning, on the design for what we are calling a "learning innovation studio" for Moody Library. On the way home from the workshop, one member of our team asked the question, "Why reinvent the wheel?" His point was that the vendor had put considerable research into the design of this new "off the shelf" classroom, the LearningLab. Why would we continue to put time and energy into a completely new design, having heard some testimony from students and a faculty about how the LL creates an entirely different learning experience?

These are good questions -- but I think we came up with some good answers. I read an article earlier this week on course management systems. In that piece, Lane (2009) makes the point that "course management systems ...are not pedagogically neutral shells for course content. They influence pedagogy by presenting default formats designed to guide the instructor toward creating a course in a certain way." She goes on to compare "opt-out" systems, like Blackboard, with "opt-in" systems, like Moodle. According to Lane, most users of these CMSs are relative web novices, so tend to take the path of least resistance. This means translating into the web-based world old pedagogical practices, especially when the structure of the CMS reinforces this trend. So a CMS that emphasizes space for storage and submission of documents, rather than a course timeline, or learning objectives, tends to become something akin to a photocopier, email client, and grade book, rather than a stimulus for pedagogical reflection.

The LearnLab, it seems to me, is much like Blackboard. Blackboard provides a useful, structured way to get some elements of a course online. The truly creative faculty member can go far beyond the basics. But most will take the path of least resistance and take the default settings. The LearnLab is similar. There is merit to the space, and it does make worthwhile improvements by, for example, creating a greater sense of community within the classroom. Students face each other, the instructor can move about the classroom, and there is no back row where students can hide (and get lost). Yet the LL  has a certain rigidity to its setup. The tables are large, so while the chairs are mobile (chairs with casters, now that's innovative), the tables really are not mobile. So the LL may not look like a lecture hall, but it will almost always look the same from class to class, in the default "X" arrangement. In addition, the complexity of this opt-out system will tend to push the novice toward using the "defaults."

Our learning innovation studio, I would argue, should be much more flexible. One goal for the space is that it serve as a sandbox for the study of pedagogy. It should be an opt-in space where faculty members decide what to include, based on their pedagogical goals and a commitment to trying new things, rather than an opt-out room crowded with tools and a default way to use them.

Lane, L. M. (2009). Insidious pedagogy: How course management systems impact teaching. First Monday, 14(10). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2530/2303