1 / 58

ES Informal Learning Spaces: A Study of Use

ES Informal Learning Spaces: A Study of Use. IUPUI June 2, 2005. Project Background. Spaces designed and developed by community partners Major partners RJE Business Interiors Maregatti Interiors CSO Architecture Engineering & Interiors Rowland Design, Inc. Plus many other contributors.

Donna
Télécharger la présentation

ES Informal Learning Spaces: A Study of Use

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ES Informal Learning Spaces: A Study of Use IUPUI June 2, 2005

  2. Project Background • Spaces designed and developed by community partners • Major partners • RJE Business Interiors • Maregatti Interiors • CSO Architecture Engineering & Interiors • Rowland Design, Inc. • Plus many other contributors

  3. The Spaces • Five learning spaces created • Design • Lighting • Furniture • Infrastructure: paint, carpet, built-ins • Corridor plants • Adjacent to classrooms in Education-Social Work building • Completed September 2004

  4. The Old “Platforms”

  5. Area 1—Carrels

  6. Area 2 –Sectional Sofa

  7. Area 3 –White Board

  8. Area 4 –Triple Divide

  9. Area 5—Recycling Bar

  10. The Study

  11. Study Team • Nancy Chism, Associate Vice Chancellor and Associate Professor of Education • Liz Coles, Assistant Professor of Interior Design • Erica Pyle and Lauren Bevers, Interior Design Undergraduate Students • Brooke Worland, Education Graduate Student

  12. Methods • Institutional Research Board approval • Design • Observation of use • Informal interviews with users • Table top surveys • Focus groups • Email solicitations to faculty and maintenance staff

  13. Observations • Conducted over a period of 4 weeks in Fall semester 2004 • Covered time range of 9 AM – 7 PM • Noted number of users, types of users, behaviors of users in each space

  14. Informal Interviews • 38 student users for on-the-spot interviews • Standard open-ended questionnaire used (see handout) • Detailed notes transcribed • Analyzed by themes

  15. Table Top Surveys • Standard questionnaire (see handout) placed in all five areas with envelope for completed surveys • Distributed and collected regularly over period of two weeks • 58 completed surveys collected • Analyzed by theme and numerically

  16. Focus Groups • Two time periods set aside for focus groups—before afternoon and evening classes • Instructors of classes notified • On-the-spot recruiting • Four impromptu groups, 23 total students • Question prompts used • Notes from multiple recorders transcribed • Data analyzed by theme

  17. Electronic Requests for Feedback • Email to instructors teaching in adjacent classes (see handout) • Three questions: overall impression, use in teaching, suggestions for change • 20 responses • Analyzed by theme • Email to maintenance staff

  18. Results

  19. Observation Results • 724 people observed • 303 alone • 421 with others • Most common uses • Studying • Talking • Eating • Hanging out

  20. Activities Observed

  21. Observation Time Line Note: Represents the number of students in each space during an average day per observations.

  22. Interview Demographics Interview Age Groups Hours on Campus Per Week Note: Total interviews = 38

  23. Interview Demographics-2 Major Fields of Study

  24. Interview Findings: Positive Overall Impressions-1 • Comfortable (16) • Like chairs (14) • Comfortable, fabrics, placement • Attractive décor (7) • “Gorgeous, state of the art” • Relaxing (4) • Convenient (4) • Close to classes

  25. Interview Findings: Positive Overall Impressions-2 • Colorful (3) • “Starbucks-like” areas • Bright/light (3) • Secluded (3) • “I feel secluded and isolated from everything else” • Nice spaces (3) • Contemporary (2) • Functional (2) • Moveable furniture

  26. Interview Findings: Positive Overall Impressions-3 • Unique (2) • Like tables (2) • “Great for studying” • Quiet (1) • Different from before (1) • Big windows (1) • View and light

  27. Interview Findings: Complaints • Can’t find a place to sit (6) • Tractor stools are uncomfortable (3) • Hallway is too noisy (2) • Rolling task chairs (1) • “They get stuck on the carpet.” (Area 1) • “Always moved to other spaces.” (Areas 4 & 5)

  28. Interview Comments on Design • “I really like them, it’s the reason I stopped, I thought WOW!” • “Stylish, looks great!” “Very modern” • “I think they are nice looking.” • “It’s nice and convenient. It’s sometimes loud, but I know they can’t really restrict that.” • “I like it. It’s cute.” • “Good use of corridors. Good use of extra space because of the way the corner is cut.” (Area 1)

  29. Interview Comments on Furniture • “I like the rotating chairs.” (Area 5) • “I’m confused by the bar stools. What is their purpose?” (Area 2) • “All the furniture is relaxing except the stools.” (Tractor stools Area 2) • “I like the poofy chairs.” (Area 5) • “I like the desk part. The chairs are for relaxing.” (Area 4) • “More cushiony seats are nicer.” (Area 3)

  30. Interview Comments on Colors • “The different colors in the spaces make me feel different ways.” Area 4 makes her feel relaxed. • “Why not use regular colors instead of this weird yellow?” She goes on to say the space is her favorite. (Area 2) • “The color is bright. It makes me feel more awake.” (Area 2) • “All the colors are aesthetically pleasing.”

  31. Where Interview Respondents Spend Time on Campus • Education/Social Work (10) • University Library (7) • Lecture Hall (6) • Cavanaugh Hall (6) • Business/SPEA (5) • Engineering/Science and Technology (4) • University College (4) • Informatics and Computer Technology Complex (3) • Science (3)

  32. Impact on Interviewee’s School Work • Positive (14) • “It’s nice to have somewhere on campus to work.” • “It’s quiet, isolated, and I like to be close to class.” • “It is easy and comfortable for groups.” • “It helps me to get more work done. It’s easier and more convenient.” • Not about school work (12) • “Always full.” “Fairly noisy.” • “I study at home and play games with friends here.” • “I usually just eat and wait for class.” • “Not really, I just like that it is comfortable.” • Undecided (2)

  33. Change in Interviewee’s Space Use • Used space before renovation (7) • “It was awful!” • “It’s a pretty good improvement. I like it a lot.” • “Big blocks were so uncomfortable.” • “We usually sat on the floor around the cubes.” • Did not use space before (18) • “I went outside when it was nice.” • “The cubes were too uncomfortable.” • N/A—first semester at IUPUI (9)

  34. Interviewees’ Comparison with Spaces at Other Campuses-1 • Indiana University Bloomington (3) • “Not this neat.” • “The spaces are old.” • Purdue University (2) • “Similar but not as nice.” • Indiana State University (1) • “Kind of in the food areas.” • Marian College (1) • “Nothing like this. Just tables and chairs.”

  35. Interviewees’ Comparison with Spaces at Other Campuses-2 • Eastern Kentucky University (1) • “Similar.” • Franklin College (1) • “No, not spaces like these. Not commuter friendly” • Butler (1) • “They only have tables and chairs. Nothing like this.” • Vincennes (1) • “Just space in the Library, but nothing like this.”

  36. Survey Results: Demographics • Average Years at IUPUI: 2.72 • Gender • Male 29% • Female 71% • Average Age: 26.14 • Most Common Majors • Social Work, Nursing, Dentistry, Education

  37. Surveys Ratings of Carrels Rating: 1-10, with 10 being excellent.

  38. Survey Comments on Carrels

  39. Survey Ratings on Sectional Sofa Area Rating: 1-10, with 10 being excellent.

  40. Survey Comments on Sectional Sofa Area

  41. Survey Ratings on White Board Area Rating: 1-10, with 10 being excellent.

  42. Survey Comments on White Board Area

  43. Survey Ratings on Triple Divide Area Rating: 1-10, with 10 being excellent.

  44. Survey Comments on Triple Divide Area

  45. Survey Ratings on Recycling Bar Area Rating: 1-10, with 10 being excellent.

  46. Survey Comments on Recycling Bar Area

  47. Electronic Results: Faculty • Comfortable • Functional/Practical • “In short, I think it was one of the wisest uses of space and best thing for the students that I have seen in many years.” • Appealing/Inviting • “My initial impression upon . . . seeing the renovations was that I had stumbled into Starbucks. It is very pleasant and pleasing to the eye.” • “. . . gives the school a look of cohesiveness, as it promotes student interaction.”

  48. Electronic Results: Faculty • Break-out Space for Group Work • “ . . my students regularly work in small groups and one or more of the groups will venture to the areas outside during class to discuss and work in small groups.” • “My students use the space . . . as a classroom extension.” • Meetings with Students • “Instead of going to my office to discuss a concept after class, I find a comfortable chair to sit and chat with students.”

  49. Electronic Results: Faculty • Group Work • “I have often seen students before and after class using those spaces to work on small group assignments so this space makes this easier for them.” • Studying • “I definitely think the space is being used for more than just getting together or chatting.”

  50. Electronic Results: Faculty • Well Populated • “I wanted to use the space for chatting with a student but couldn’t find an empty spot.” • “I see many students studying and waiting for classes.” • “I feel that they are great informal learning areas and there appear to be people at them most of the time that I am there.”

More Related