26 NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES
3.0Evaluationand the Pedagogy-Space-TechnologyFrameworkBoth the research work carried out by the projectinvestigators and an analysis <strong>of</strong> the paperspresented at the 2008 Next Generation LearningSpaces (NGLS) Colloquium, strongly indicate thatthe Pedagogy Space Technology (PST) frameworkhas significant utility not just in the conception anddesign <strong>of</strong> teaching spaces but also in the crucialprocess <strong>of</strong> evaluation.The project was able to track the creationprocess and outcomes <strong>of</strong> three generations <strong>of</strong>Collaborative Teaching and Learning Spaces atthe <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Queensland</strong> (UQ). These wereimportant and novel spaces, well suited to studyand <strong>of</strong> significant interest nationally. Analysisstrongly supports the contention that to producebetter spaces, the cycle must include a robustevaluation <strong>of</strong> existing rooms that is used to informthe design <strong>of</strong> succeeding projects.The PST framework taken as the basis for thisproject, places significant weight on analysis afterthe design phase. Each <strong>of</strong> the contributors to the2008 Colloquium was asked to include significantsections on evaluation, with the questions drawnfrom the framework itself. The questions werespecifically intended to place considerableemphasis on gathering evidence <strong>of</strong> outcomeswhich could be then evaluated against the designintent. An examination <strong>of</strong> the evaluation sections<strong>of</strong> the papers in succeeding <strong>chapters</strong> shows awide variety <strong>of</strong> methodology and varying successin gathering consistent and useful evidence. Onebenefit <strong>of</strong> this diversity is that it brings the keyissues regarding evaluation methodology intosharp focus.The colloquium closing session pulled togetherthe threads <strong>of</strong> these presentations to examinethe fabric <strong>of</strong> evaluation. The classic investigativequestions <strong>of</strong> ‘why, who, when, what, and how’emerged from the debate as useful guidelines tounderstanding the issues.Why Evaluate?Derek Powellteaching technology supportthe university <strong>of</strong> queensland, australiaThe papers presented at the colloquium gaveample evidence that universities are seeking toexperiment with different kinds <strong>of</strong> learning andteaching spaces. In many cases, the completion<strong>of</strong> a new kind <strong>of</strong> learning space prompts aplethora <strong>of</strong> “me too” requests within and acrossinstitutions. The <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Queensland</strong> (UQ)is a case in point. Colloquium attendees in 2007were able to examine the first faculty-based“Student Learning Centre” at UQ (though manyalready existed at other institutions). By 2008however, UQ had completed another two suchspaces with a further four under construction orin planning. While these spaces had differentplanners, builders and user groups, they wereessentially similar in concept and pedagogicintent. The pace <strong>of</strong> work and overlappingschedules has meant that new centres are beingdesigned, specified and tendered before othersare even occupied, leaving little or no opportunityfor evaluation and hence improvement <strong>of</strong> spacedesign or technology provisioning. Clearly this isundesirable and the intention is that evaluationsbe undertaken in a timely way and that resultsmight be shared across institutions so that wemay move ahead and avoid repeating mistakes innovel spaces.The focus <strong>of</strong> the NGLS project across two yearswas to follow the development <strong>of</strong> succeedinggenerations <strong>of</strong> new-style teaching space and tostudy longer term generational developmentsin library space. These two foci yielded aninteresting divergence in evaluation issues aswell. Roughly one third <strong>of</strong> the papers presentedrepresent library spaces. The papers that werenot library-based covered faculty learning spacesand “non-traditional” teaching spaces.Library spaces tend to be constantly evolving,though punctuated by major refurbishments fromtime to time. By and large, libraries are bothcompetent and experienced at self-evaluation.In contrast, teaching space in general is poorlyrepresented in terms <strong>of</strong> evaluative studies. Itseems likely that traditional teaching spaces areseen to be well understood and hence not in need<strong>of</strong> research or evaluation. Many <strong>of</strong> the non-libraryexamples in literature and all <strong>of</strong> the examplespresented here are revolutionary spaces, newkinds <strong>of</strong> teaching and learning spaces which areseeking to push change in practice. The UQCollaborative Teaching and Learning Centre,Victoria <strong>University</strong> Engineering Project BasedLearning Space and the Deakin ImmersiveLearning Environment are clear examples in thisrespect. While the library spaces focus moreon finding out how users’ needs are changingand responding, the teaching space design andevaluation looks more intentional with a desire toshift behaviours.NEXT GENERATION LEARNING SPACES 27