You are on page 1of 44

The Learning Space Rating System

Carole Meyers
Dartmouth College

with
Malcolm Brown
EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative

Shirley Dugdale
Dugdale Strategy


1 October 2014
Reporting on Testing of the System:
Tim Murphy
George Mason University

Scott Diener
University of Auckland

Adam Finkelstein
McGill University

Jenn Stringer
UC Berkeley

Learning Space Rating System | V. 1 Authors
Malcolm Brown, Ph.D.
Director
EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative

Joseph Cevetello, Ed.D.
Director, Learning Environments
Univ. of Southern California

Shirley Dugdale, AIA
Principal
Dugdale Strategy LLC




Elliot Felix
Director
Brightspot Strategy LLC

Rich Holeton
Director
Academic Computing Services
Stanford University

Carol Meyers, Ph.D.
Project Director, Research Information
Services
Dartmouth College




Early Contributors:

Phil Long, Ph.D
Director, CEIT
Univ. of Queensland
Andrew Milne, Ph.D.
CEO, Tidebreak Inc.
Bob Beichner
NCSU
Linda Jorn
U.Wisconsin

Enable richer interaction
Measure potential to
support active learning
A framework of criteria
for best practice
A system that continues
to improve with
community input
Enhance support and
evaluation systems
LSRS System Goals
LSRS Structure: 6 sections
Integration with campus context 1
Planning and design process 2
Support and operations 3
Environmental quality 4
Layout and furnishings 5
Technology and tools 6
Page 1 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
Type of Space Being Rated:
<insert institution name> Discussion-focused space
<insert building name> Presentation-focused space
<insert room number> Team-based space
<insert link to photos> Versatile space
Section
Credit
Number
Criterion Sub-criterion
Maximum
Credits
Earned
Credits
Scoring Justification Notes
ICC 1 Alignment with Campus Academic Strategy Provide evidence of alignment
1
ICC 2 Integration with Learning Space Master Plan Provide evidence of alignment
1
ICC 3 Compatibility with Technology Strategic Plan Provide evidence of alignment
1
ICC 4 Committment to Evidence-Based Research and
Assessment
Campus assessment plan
1
ICC 5 Innovation in Integrating Learning Spaces with
Campus Context
Provide evidence of initiatives
1
Section Credit Subtotal 5 0
PP 1 Stakeholder Engagement Document engagement process
1
PP 2 Best Practices in Planning and Design Provide documentation of consultation on best
practices OR provide documentation linking
design strategies with best practices
1
PP 3 Pilots and Prototypes Provide evidence of testing through pilot projects
1
PP 4 Learning Space as a Teaching Tool Develop course or curriculum related to space,
OR conduct faculty development in the space
1
PP 5 Evaluation Plan Evaluate the potential for the space
1
PP 6 Dissemination of Findings Make findings available
1
PP 7 Innovation in Planning and Design Provide evidence of innovation
1
Section Credit Subtotal 7 0
Section 2. Planning Process
Section 1. Integration with Campus Context
Choose the spaces you wish to rate.
Make a copy of this spreadsheet file for each space to be rated. Name one copy for each space using the
file naming convention: institution name_building_roomnumber_MMDDYYYY
Walk through each space and rate it according to the criteria below. Enter points into "Earned Points" column and
provide a brief justification statement as to why points were earned
For each room's total points on each of the six sections and rating, go to the LSRS Score Summary Sheet (second
tab), which is populated with the values from the earned points column, according to the weighting of sections shown.
Provide photos of the space labelled with similar file naming convention in the link area below (e.g., Flickr, Dropbox,
FLEXspace repository) or by embedding them in the third tab on this document.
Check one: Room Information
Room No:
Link to photos:
Institution:
Building:
Learning Space Rating System | Scoresheet Version 1
Creative Commons CC-BY
Sept. 2014
Review the rating system so you have a sense of the criteria for which you can receive credits.
Instructions
Scoresheet
What LSRS does: Identify the low-and high-performers within
particular space types
Once youve rated your spaces (or a sampling of them) you can identify which
ones best support active learning and which are good candidates for renovation or
repurposing, setting internal benchmarks.
GOAL: See how you compare to others
As more institutions adopt the rating system and contribute to a common data
set, comparisons across institutions will be possible.
image credits: http://www.visualizing.org/stories/visualizing-college-choice
http://chancellor.utk.edu/annualreport/2012/images/rank.gif
GOAL: Reference an objective, Third-party standard
Being able to reference an objective third-party standard can help make the case
to leaders and funders about the need to improve learning spaces.
LEED f or Ne w Const ruct i on a nd Ma jor Re nova t i ons ( v2 0 0 9 )
SUSTAI NABLE SI TES
POSSI BLE: 26
SSp1 Const r uct ion act i vit y pol lut ion pr event i on
REQUIRED
SSc1 Sit e sel ect i on
1
SSc2 Development densit y and communit y connect i vit y
5
SSc3 Br ownfi eld redevel opment
1
SSc4.1 Alt er nat i ve t r ansport at ion - publi c t ranspor t at i on access
6
SSc4.2 Alt er nat i ve t r ansport at ion - bicycl e st orage and changing rooms
1
SSc4.3 Alt er nat i ve t r ansport at ion - low-emit t ing and fuel- effici ent vehicles
3
SSc4.4 Alt er nat i ve t r ansport at ion - parki ng capacit y
2
SSc5.1 Sit e devel opment - pr ot ect or r est ore habit at
1
SSc5.2 Sit e devel opment - maxi mi ze open space
1
SSc6.1 St ormwat er design - quant it y cont rol
1
SSc6.2 St ormwat er design - quali t y cont rol
1
SSc7.1 Heat isl and effect - nonr oof
1
SSc7.2 Heat isl and effect - roof
1
SSc8 Light pol lut ion reduct ion
1
WATER EFFI CI ENCY
POSSI BLE: 10
WEp1 Wat er use reduct ion
REQUIRED
WEc1 Wat er effi cient l andscapi ng
4
WEc2 Innovat ive wast ewat er t echnol ogies
2
WEc3 Wat er use reduct ion
4
ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE
POSSI BLE: 35
EAp1 Fundament al commissi oning of buildi ng ener gy syst ems
REQUIRED
EAp2 Mi nimum energy perfor mance
REQUIRED
EAp3 Fundament al refr iger ant Mgmt
REQUIRED
EAc1 Opt imize energy perfor mance
19
EAc2 On- sit e r enewabl e energy
7
EAc3 Enhanced commi ssioning
2
EAc4 Enhanced refr iger ant Mgmt
2
EAc5 Measur ement and veri fi cat ion
3
EAc6 Gr een power
2
MATERI AL & RESOURCES
POSSI BLE: 14
MRp1 St orage and coll ect i on of recyclabl es
REQUIRED
MRc1.1 Buil ding reuse - maint ain exi st ing wall s, fl oors and r oof
3
MRc1.2 Buil ding reuse - maint ain int eri or nonst ruct ural element s
1
MRc2 Const r uct ion wast e Mgmt
2
MRc3 Mat eri als reuse
2
MRc4 Recycled cont ent
2
MATERI AL & RESOURCES
CONTI NUED
MRc5 Regional mat er ial s
2
MRc6 Rapidl y renewable mat er ial s
1
MRc7 Cert i fi ed wood
1
I NDOOR ENVI RONMENTAL QUALI TY
POSSI BLE: 15
EQp1 Mi nimum IAQ perfor mance
REQUIRED
EQp2 Envir onment al Tobacco Smoke ( ETS) cont r ol
REQUIRED
EQc1 Out door ai r deli very moni t ori ng
1
EQc2 Increased vent il at ion
1
EQc3.1 Const r uct i on IAQ Mgmt plan - dur ing const r uct i on
1
EQc3.2 Const r uct i on IAQ Mgmt plan - before occupancy
1
EQc4.1 Low- emit t ing mat er ials - adhesives and sealant s
1
EQc4.2 Low- emit t ing mat er ials - pai nt s and coat ings
1
EQc4.3 Low- emit t ing mat er ials - floor ing syst ems
1
EQc4.4 Low- emit t ing mat er ials - composit e wood and agr i fiber product s
1
EQc5 Indoor chemi cal and poll ut ant sour ce cont rol
1
EQc6.1 Cont r ollabi li t y of syst ems - li ght i ng
1
EQc6.2 Cont r ollabi li t y of syst ems - t her mal comfor t
1
EQc7.1 Ther mal comfor t - desi gn
1
EQc7.2 Ther mal comfor t - verificat i on
1
EQc8.1 Dayl ight and views - dayli ght
1
EQc8.2 Dayl ight and views - views
1
I NTRODUCTI ON/ OTHER
POSSI BLE: 6
IDc1
Innovat ion in design
5
IDc2
LEED Accredi t ed Professional
1
Int r oduct i on/Ot her Int r oduct i on/Ot her
REGI ONAL PRI ORI TY
POSSI BLE: 4
RPc1 Regional prior it y
4
TOTAL
112
40-49 Point s
CERTIFIED
50- 59 Point s
SILVER
60-79 Poi nt s
GOLD
80+ Point s
PLATINUM
http://tinyurl.com/forumeli
ELI Community Forum
http://tinyurl.com/LSPACEcg
Learning Space discussion group
http://tinyurl.com/eliLSRS
LSRS site
George Mason University
Tim Murphy
tmurph13@gmu.edu
OLD ALT Classroom-IN215G
OLD ALT Classroom-IN215G
OLD ALT Classroom-IN215G
New ALT Classroom-IN215G
New ALT Classroom-IN215G
Using the LSRS

Scott Diener
University of Auckland
19

Learning Space Rating System
Scoresheet
Version 1.0

Creative Commons
CC-BY
BUILDING
260 OGGB

ROOM #
005 (CR1)

ROOM ASSESSMENT

(Calculated from scoresheet
tab)

# OF
POSSIBLE
CRITERIA
POINTS WEIGHTING
Earned
Points
%
Achiev
ed
Section
Score
Integration with Campus
Context 5 10. 5 1.00 10.00
Planning Process 9 15. 9 1.00 15.00
Support and Operations 14 15. 11 0.79 11.79
Environmental Quality 8 20. 7 0.88 17.50
Layout and Furnishings 16 20 8 0.50 10.00
Technology 11 20. 9 0.82 16.36


TOTAL
63 100
80.65


Learning Space Rating System Scoresheet
Version 1.0

Creative Commons CC-
BY

BUILDING
502 Grafton


ROOM #
B41

ROOM ASSESSMENT
(Calculated from scoresheet tab)

# OF
POSSIBLE
CRITERIA
POINTS WEIGHTING
Earned
Points
%
Achiev
ed Section Score

Integration with Campus
Context 5 10. 5 1.00 10.00
Planning Process 9 15. 9 1.00 15.00
Support and Operations 14 15. 13 0.93 13.93
Environmental Quality 8 20. 7 0.88 17.50
Layout and Furnishings 16 20 8 0.50 10.00
Technology 11 20. 9 0.82 16.36



TOTAL
63 100
82.79

T
L
S


Adam Finkelstein
Educational Developer

08/10/2014
LSRS Rating System
McGill University - adam.finkelstein@mcgill.ca
McGill Context
35,000 students from 120 different countries
1700 tenure track faculty
3400 admin and support
475 classrooms
/ 21,200 seats

190 yr-old Heritage campus
Accumulated deferred maintenance of $900M

08/10/2014 McGill University - adam.finkelstein@mcgill.ca
Stewardship of Teaching and
Learning Spaces at McGill (06)
Teaching and Learning Spaces Working Group
University Teaching Labs Working Group
Mandate
A vision for teaching and learning space development
Standards based on sound pedagogical and technical principles.
Steward funding for classroom and lab renovations, IT &
equipment
Representation
All Faculties, relevant service units, students: 40+ stakeholders
Co-Chaired by Academics and Operations

08/10/2014 McGill University - adam.finkelstein@mcgill.ca
LSRS Initial Pilot
1. Largest Lecture Hall (598) unrenovated
2. Mid-sized Lecture Hall (184) 2011
3. Versatile classroom (64) 2012
4. Active Learning Classroom (74) 2009

Known rooms with expected results (we think)
08/10/2014 McGill University - adam.finkelstein@mcgill.ca
1. Largest Lecture Hall (unrenovated)
598 seats
08/10/2014 McGill University - adam.finkelstein@mcgill.ca
2. Mid-sized Lecture Hall - AFTER
184 seats
08/10/2014 McGill University - adam.finkelstein@mcgill.ca
Standard Classroom 64 seats
Movable tables and chairs, writable walls
2014-9-29 McGill University 28
3. Active Learning Classroom AFTER
72 seats
08/10/2014 McGill University - adam.finkelstein@mcgill.ca
LSRS Sections
Integration with Campus Context
Planning and Design Process
Support and Operations

Environmental Quality
Layout and Furnishings
Tools and Technology
08/10/2014 McGill University - adam.finkelstein@mcgill.ca
LSRS Analysis
Largest
Lecture
Hall
Mid-sized
Lecture
Hall
Versatile
Classroom
Active
Learning
Classroom
Environme
ntal Quality
2/8 5/8 6/8 8/8
Layout and
Furnishings
1/14 4/14 8/14 9/14
Technology 5/9 6/9 4/9 8/9
58 72 75 91
08/10/2014 McGill University - adam.finkelstein@mcgill.ca
LSRS Strengths
Makes important learning space criteria
explicit
Matches our principles, values and standards
Data from multiple perspectives
Clear and easy to use
Results appear valid
Provides potential of space
08/10/2014 McGill University - adam.finkelstein@mcgill.ca
LSRS Challenges
Rating a room within a system
Some constraints beyond University control
Data from multiple perspectives
Some criteria are more core than others
Problem of innovation
Provides potential of space

08/10/2014 McGill University - adam.finkelstein@mcgill.ca
UC Berkeleys LSRS Experience
EDUCAUSE 14| Jenn Stringer, ACIO Academic Engagement
Brenda Farmer | Owen McGrath | Nicole Sattler| Chris Washington

Berkeley Context
Student Population: ~35,000
Faculty: ~2000
224 General Assignment (GA) Classrooms
25 Lecture Halls > 100 seats
4 Lecture Halls > 400 seats
1 GA Active Learning Classroom
55 Web/screencast Classrooms
13 Classrooms w/o A/V Technology








Classroom Selection:
Seminar Room (15 seats)
Small Classroom (22 seats)
Active Learning Classroom (30 seats)

Learning Spaces Rating System







Seminar Room
LSRS score: (42/100)
Small Classroom
LSRS score: (42/100)

Active Learning Classroom
LSRS score: (86/100)
Aligned with our A/V Standards!
Aligned our customer services!
Made us think partnerships
Made us think process
Made us think service
Thorough



Learning Spaces Rating System Strengths
Dependencies on departments and/or SMEs
Ratings subjective when trying to compare to other
universities
Innovation hard to quantify w/o feedback from
end-users









Slides 1-3 Quick overview of how we used the LSRS
-How we did it?
-Which classrooms we used?
-What were positive takeaways and the major obstacles using the LSRS
-Use classroom photos


Learning Spaces Rating System Challenges
Recommendations for LSRS
Create a peer network for the LSRS
Define reports and or context for key high level
stakeholders
Develop a better way to recognize space
characteristics e.g. age, discipline, use
Next steps
Further coordination with FLEXspace database and
SCUP (Society of College & University Planning)
Next round of institutional testing using v1
Work session at EDUCAUSE 2015 for testers to share
findings and analyze comparative scores
Need to develop approach to operationalize the
rating system, engage partners, seek funding
Joint presentations with FLEXspace in 2015