Section 2
Significance of the Study
The significance of the study was based on newly defined societal and educational expectations as a result of the transition from the industrial era to the knowledge era. The new expectations were: (a) the changing roles and responsibilities of work, family, and community life; (b) the learning outcomes needed to meet the changing roles and responsibilities; (c) the learning processes that supported the achievement of the learning expectations; and (d) the features of the physical environment that enhanced a selected learning process—collaborative, project-based learning.

Changing Learning Expectations and Related Educational Initiatives
To support the need for changing learning expectations, the U. S. Department of Labor’s Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) (1991) recommended a set of skills needed by workers of the new century. Among the skills were the ability to: (a) reason; (b) think creatively; (c) make decisions; (d) solve problems; (e) work in teams; (f) work well with people of other cultures; (g) understand, monitor, correct, design, and improve systems; (h) select appropriate technology and apply it to specific tasks, and (i) direct their own personal and professional growth through lifelong learning.

In 1996, the National Skills Standards Board (NSSB) was formed to determine national industry standards from which learners and employees would show competency in skill areas. One part of the vision of the NSSB was to encourage educational institutions to implement processes to ease the recording and acceptance of completed credits and assessment from one institution to another. A second part of the vision was to encourage educational institutions and business/industry partners to establish common competencies and common assessment tools. Another federal initiative, sponsored by the U. S. Department of Labor, to address the changing needs of work, family, and community was The Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The Act recognized the need to provide necessary family and social service support systems for people while they
developed their workforce skills.

At the same time, other state and federal initiatives were established for identifying learning outcomes or expectations, for establishing new methods for assessment, and increasing accountability to legislators and taxpayers. According to the League for Innovation in the Community College (1999), the outcomes identified for 21st century learners included achievement of strong (a) communication skills; (b) computation skills that included the capability of reasoning, analyzing, and using numerical data; (c) community skills of citizenship, diversity and pluralism; (c) local, global, and environmental awareness; (d) critical thinking and problem solving skills; (e) information management skills; (f) interpersonal skills including teamwork, relationship management, conflict resolution, and workplace skills; and (g) personal skills that included management of change, learning to learn, and personal responsibility.

In summary, the impact of moving from the industrial age through the technology age to the knowledge age spanned the boundaries of work, family, and community. The skills needed to effectively fulfill the roles and responsibilities in the three areas were far different than those needed for the industrial age. The last two decades of the 20th century saw youths and adults: (a) working and living within systems of different cultures; (b) actively participating in the global economy; (c) contributing new thinking to work, family, and community by engaging in team work creating new products and solving problems; and (d) managing their own lifelong learning. To fulfill the roles and responsibilities, youths and adults sought more active, relevant opportunities to learn the skills required to actively participate and make contributions to their work, to their families, and to their communities. The new roles, responsibilities, and expectations of the learners indicate changing learning processes.

Changing Learning Processes. Dede (1993) described the changing learning processes that were needed to prepare learners for the work place and in society. The different learning processes needed to change from “the more traditional classroom-based, discipline-focused, learning-by-listening approaches” to ” just-in-time, life- and work-focused, and learning-while-doing approaches” that were linked to everyday situations (p. 3). The changing learning expectations needed for transformation in work, family, and community roles and responsibilities required new, more active learning processes. According to Skolnikoff (1994), educational institutions needed to provide programs in which learners learned to think and became participants in the larger world.

Collaborative, project-based learning teaches many of the above skills through the active process of designing, developing, and producing products in the forms of information, service, or goods. This learning process occurs through grouping learners into various sized groups depending upon what learning activity is taking place. Direct and guided instruction is often presented to larger groups of learners by a faculty member or teaching team. Exploration and discovery can occur with or without a faculty member and can happen individually, in small groups and teams, or within larger groups. Project work more often happens in teams and includes community and business members as resource people and advisors for the projects.

DESIGN OF STUDY
To support and enhance collaborative, project-based learning, how do community colleges design physical learning environments in which learners successfully gain the understanding and skills to meet the challenges of their future? The study was designed to seek knowledge and understanding of the design features of the physical learning environment that support and enhance the above learning activities at the community college level and to ascertain the thinking behind the selection of the features. To acquire this knowledge and understanding, I chose architects and educators as participants and conducted the research in settings where physical environments are designed and in which collaborative, project-based learning takes place. The design of the data collection and analysis processes used in this study included three phases.

Phase I of the study included site visits to two schools in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, the School for Environmental Studies and the Interdistrict Downtown School and an internship with LSW Architects, PC in Vancouver, Washington. Phase II involved attending a project-based learning workshop at the National Council for Occupational Education Annual Conference and the international conference, Innovative Alternatives in Learning Environments, sponsored by the American Institute of Architects Committee for Education, Hogeschool van Amsterdam, and the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. The third and most intense phase of the research was a two-day design studio that I conducted to produce designs of physical learning environments that supported and enhanced collaborative, project-based learning.

The participants brought different perspectives and sets of experiences to the study. The educators’ experience in teaching and learning ranged from kindergarten through lifelong learning in formal and informal learning setting. Content areas included basic education, technical education, college preparatory, and postsecondary education. The architects brought experience and expertise in all phases of educational facility design including new construction, renovation, and facilities master planning. Figure 1 shows: (a) the phases, events, methods and dates of data collection; (b) the interrelationships between the phases; and (c) the analysis processes used:

Data Gathering and Analysis Processes

FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY
Descriptions and findings of the design features of the physical learning environment that support and enhance collaborative, project-based learning and the rationale for the features that were identified in each of the three phases are described and illustrated through the following verbal descriptions and graphical images. My interpretation or clarification of participant quotes appears within brackets. Specific sites in Phase I included the School of Environment Studies in Apple Valley, Minnesota and the Interdistrict Downtown School in downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota. The internship activities and sites were all in Vancouver, Washington. Postsecondary level education sites in The Netherlands visited in Phase II of the study included Utrecht University, Hogeschool van Amsterdam, and Icthus College. Other sites included several primary and secondary sites and the cities of The Hague and Hilversum. Phase III did not include site visits.

Phase I of the Study
School of Environment Studies. The School of Environmental Studies (SES) was designed and funded in partnership with the Independent School District (ISD) 196, the Minnesota Zoological Gardens, and the City of Apple Valley, Minnesota and is located next to the Zoological (Zoo) Gardens. “The city provided the bonding and the zoo gave the 12 acres,” according to Dan Bodette, Principal of SES (conference presentation, November 10, 2000).

The SES is a focus or magnet school for ISD 196 high school juniors and seniors using environmental studies as the theme for learning. Being located next to the Zoo, learners have access to 2,700 animal species and 500 acres of wetlands and woods (Smith, 1996). During the tour, Bodette stated that the learning at SES is connected and relevant to real-life projects locally and globally and the design [of the physical environment] encourages integration of curriculum and teaching.

The learning process at the SES integrates language arts, social studies, and environmental sciences using an environmental theme in an interdisciplinary, collaborative, project-based approach. Steve Hage, a zoological education specialist on loan to the school from the Zoo, was cited by Smith (1996) as saying, “We talk about what it means to lose a wetland, about environmental economics, government law, and how it affects the Endangered Species Act and the International Boundary Waters Agreement” (p. 27). The learners attend the theme classes in the morning and the elective classes in mathematics, science, foreign language, and technology classes in the afternoon (Smith, 1996).

The learners practice becoming community leaders by accepting and solving problems as part of community-based projects. According to Smith (1996), “After getting their hands dirty like real scientists, learners used technology to synthesize and share their knowledge with the staff at the Zoo, and community and governmental leaders” (p. 26). The learners analyze data, conduct online research, create multi-media presentations, produce videos, and develop computer simulations to solve the problem they choose or to produce a product or service given back to the local community, region, state, or for some projects on a global basis.

Design Features of the Physical Environment
During the site visit to the SES, the natural setting in which the facility was placed first drew my attention. The setting includes a pond, stand of trees, and pathways that are used as learning laboratories. There were teams of students engaged in activities in the pond when we arrived. When I entered the SES, the first feature of the interior physical environment that I noticed was a large space that opened up off of the entryway. I learned that the space has no singular purpose but was designed for a variety of uses, could seat all 400 learners plus staff and was described using such terms as, a commons, cafeteria, gallery, presentation, and conference space. The large, common space was furnished with easily moveable, collapsible, and stackable furniture and included aquariums, terrariums, and a wall, in which plants grew. The south facing wall included two-story, floor to ceiling windows to bring in natural light and provided a view overlooking the pond and woods.

Other walls showcased pictures of learners actively involved in their pursuits as well as recognition plaques for the SES honoring its curricular, staffing, and organizational models and for the design of the built environment. Behind the wall covered with plants were a computer/multi-media laboratory, an art studio, and a zoology laboratory. The building design was two stories with the second level overlooking the large, common space.

The interior physical environment for the SES is designed for 400 learners who are placed into “houses” of 100 each. Each house has a team of three teachers who guide the theme studies to the same 100 learners all year long. The learners work with other teachers in elective classes and with community members who are involved in the theme
studies courses.

The small size of the SES provides an open and flexible physical environment that supports a wide variety of learning experiences and the “houses” provide for personalized learning experiences through the care and guidance of the staff (Copa, Bodette, & Birkey, 1999). The four house spaces are located on the second floor and each house has: (a) a central, common area that can seat all 100 learners and is used for group instruction, (b) project work space, (c) spaces for small and large group work, and (d) “pods” (Smith, 1996), each designed for ten learners on three sides of the perimeter of the central, common area. The design features of the “pods” include: (a) individual workstations with personal, lockable storage, (b) a display space for each learner to personalize her/his space, and (c) access to a computer.

The central area of each house has adjacent science laboratory, seminar, teaching team, and storage spaces for supplies and projects. At the time of my visit, there were six computers in each house in addition to the twenty in the multi-media laboratory located on the first floor. The SES was to be receiving additional individual computer workstations and one more multi-media laboratory in the near future.

Part of what prompted and motivated my interest in the design of the physical learning environment and its connection to quality learning came from some of the observations made and conversations held while on the site visit. The points of interest were:

1. The use of collaborative, project-based learning processes that tied the
   learning to local, regional, and global environmental problems.
2. The knowledge (e.g., self-knowledge, content knowledge, and community to global knowledge) and the skills (e.g., putting knowledge to practice, being skilled communicators, and actively contributing to producing products and services for others) that were explained and demonstrated by the learners.
3. The explanation by the teaching and administrative staff and the learners themselves that many of the students came to school at least an hour before the scheduled start of the day and often had to be asked to go home at the end of the day.
4. The well-maintained and clean appearance of the building, which had been open for four years and received heavy use by the learners and the community. The learners continually went in and out of the facility several times a day in all weather conditions but I saw no stains on the carpet or other signs of disrespect for the learning environment.
5. The explanation by the learners themselves that even though they have lockable space in their desks, they leave their personal belongings out and on top of their desks because there is little theft or vandalism.

The School of Environmental Studies was intriguing not only because of the innovative design of the physical environment, but also because collaborative, project-based learning processes were used and the learners demonstrated what seemed to be significant learning. The sense of pride and ownership shown by the learners and staff indicated that the SES was a unique place for learning.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10