By Dr. Martin Horejsi
Two years ago, I wrote a blog post here that explored the relationship between a physical meeting space and the technology that would support it while not competing with it. At that time, the iPad was a toddler, there was no Windows 10, and the iPhone 6 had yet to be released (thus breaking all previous cell phone sales records). Also, at that time, I described the question about the soul of a learning commons as a search to define what a modern learning commons should look like when technology competes with face-to-face interactions.
Back then, I was comfortable designing collaborative spaces and embedding technology into every possible nook and cranny, whether it would be used heavily or rarely. So the conundrum was squarely rooted in the difference between synchronous and asynchronous space.
A synchronous space is one where the essence of use is anchored to the same moment in time. Asynchronous space, on the other hand, is a conceptual storage area where content can be consumed and replenished at the leisure of its users. The asynchronicity of the space only works if time is a variable. While synchronous space holds time as a constant and measures productive work as a function of real time, an asynchronous workspace provides its users on-demand feeding through a flexible digital environment where time expands and contracts at the whims of its users.
So back to the original question: How do you build a learning space where technology leverages the power of face-to-face work and collaboration with in-your-face inspiration?
A first reaction might be to limit technology to require in-person participation in the space. While this makes sense on the surface, it fails to put users first in that it withholds potential under the false belief that technology will undermine the traditional collaborative workflow by competing with it. In fact, limiting technology would actually preserve the status quo by imposing limits on creativity, collaboration, presentation, and information access. How do I know this? I have experienced two more years of watching Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) and Don’t Bring Your Own Device (DBYOD) programs in schools from elementary through college.
Bring Your Own Chips
BYOD is a concept where the technology within an educational ecosystem includes the digital processors brought by the students. By processor, I mean anything with a computer chip—cell phone, tablet, laptop, camera, or data-collection probe. DBYOD, on the other hand, is simply the inverse where students are told not to bring their own device.
Some students joke that a DBYOD policy is the airplane model: enter classroom, sit still in straight rows, and turn off all electronics; upon exiting the classroom, turn electronics on, and resume normal life.
To revisit some definitions, Wikipedia provides the following:
- Learning is “acquiring new, or modifying and reinforcing, existing knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, or preferences and may involve synthesizing different types of information.”
- Commons refers to “the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth.”
Yet, when the words are combined, the following definition is given:
- “Learning commons, also known as scholars’ commons, information commons or digital commons, are educational spaces, similar to libraries and classrooms that share space for information technology, remote or online education, tutoring, collaboration, content creation, meetings and reading or study.”
When a Learning Commons abandons the airplane model and embraces the digital contributions that students bring to the table, the experience is warmer and more welcoming. This improvement translates into a feeling that the Learning Commons is to serve and enrich.
As noted before, is easy to assume that 1 + 1 = 2, or Learning plus Commons equals Learning Commons. The error in this math is that the formula for success is incomplete. For comparison, there are many public spaces that were developed with the best interests in mind, but the public avoids the space for many reasons. There are two main take-aways from the inspection of failed public space:
- Gather demographic details about who avoids the space and who inhabits the space
- Learn the interaction points between the two groups
Applying the above inspection of public space to educational space, let’s consider the library or media center. A trend over the past few decades is to modify the traditional school library into a more comfortable and welcoming media-rich learning space, which has transitioned library offerings from hard-copy books and quiet desks to computer workstations and more flexible floor plans. Essentially, the blueprint allocation of square footage designated “Library” on school building plans is like the screen on an iPad; it’s mostly blank, allowing the students and teachers to define the design and use as long as it meets certain requirements.
The hard truth is that students and teachers vote with their feet. If few people enter the space, then that is a significant indicator that something is wrong. A well-designed learning commons should have no trouble attracting users. But, if students are required to use the space, it will be hard to discover how to improve it, since the fluidity of choice is an excellent gauge of the success of the design.
Around the Campfire
In his book From the Campfire to the Holodeck: Creating Engaging and Powerful 21st Century Learning Environments, author David Thornburg uses colorful and familiar names to describe learning spaces. His chapter topics include campfires, watering holes, caves, and the Holodeck (a Star Trek reference). Then several chapter titles repeat, except with the addition of the word “Technological” in front of campfire, cave, etc. In the chapter about the Technological Watering Holes, Dr. Thornburg observes that students in face-to-face environments will overcome some of the obvious limitations of social media selection, namely that we all tend to run in circles of friends rather than circles of peers. In other words, online social aspects usually involve only those who we have let into our circle of “friends.”
Adding to this phenomenon is the tendency for educational searches on Google, et al., to be highly targeted or specific, which tends to locate results that fit preconceived notions of important information or anticipated solutions. In other words, you will find what you asked for, but is what you asked for really what you need? Through the lens of social groups, will your collaboration efforts yield enriching contributions, or just the reinforcement of current perspectives and designs?
In this revisit of the “Soul of a Learning Commons,” an idea has stood on the sidelines watching the action, which is adapting a Learning Commons model not based in business, instruction, or even recreation, but instead in one that considers the spiritual aspects of design. For centuries, architecture has been guided by the desire to inspire, and those ancient designs still attracts people, if for no other reason than so they can stand in the shadow of the great structure and whisper, “Wow!”
It is that emotion that a learning commons is searching for—and it will likely be the measure of success when the soul of the learning commons comes alive. I guess that means you will have to wait for Part Three.
Dr. Martin Horejsi is an associate professor of Instructional Technology and Science Education in the Phyllis J. Washington College of Education and Human Sciences at the University of Montana, Missoula. He was previously a middle and high school science teacher, and his areas of specialty include mobile technologies, collaborative applications, digital creative expression, standard and nonstandard digital assessments, wireless data collection, hybrid and blended learning environments, and innovative classroom uses of consumer technologies. Dr. Horejsi is a board member of the Northwest Council for Computer Education (NCCE), writes a column and blogs for the National Science Teachers Association called Science 2.0, and has been blogging about meteorites and space science since 2002 in his Meteorite-Times.com column titled “The Accretion Desk.”
