Findings
The five major areas of analysis in the planning process include campus outreach, inventory of classroom spaces, classroom utilization analyses, informal learning spaces review and learning spaces management review. Refer to the report for key findings from each of these analyses.
Analysis 1. Campus Outreach
A campus survey was available from August to October 2019 allowing faculty, instructors, students (undergraduate and graduate), and administrators to provide feedback related to classroom spaces. Some of the key findings include:
- 81% of faculty and instructors have had to adapt their teaching because the classrooms did not support their pedagogy and therefore more than half have not tried new pedagogical practices due to space limitations.
- Student respondents cite the ability to see, hear, and connect with the instructor and other students in the room as the single most important attribute of classroom design.
- Student respondents cite insufficient informal learning spaces on campus and a strong preference for staying on campus.
- Administrator respondents report uneven user experience and varying levels of success in scheduling classrooms for courses and events.
Ability to Accommodate Preferred Teaching Methods
Analysis 2. Inventory of Classroom Spaces
As part of this project, all university classrooms and known department-managed classrooms were surveyed – more than 250 rooms. The inventory noted physical space, furnishings, features, and configurations, technology, and accessibility features. Here are some of the high-level findings:
- With instructors adopting new pedagogical approaches, traditional descriptors (lecture, seminar, case study and flex) are no longer the best way to describe a learning space for class scheduling or for course design and planning.
- A seat on the perimeter of the room is not equivalent to a seat at the seminar table yet it is included in capacity counts for a classroom.
- Supplying flexible furnishings does not – alone – result in excellent active learning spaces. With increasing use of active learning pedagogies and a wider range of activities occurring in learning spaces, the need for flexible learning environments, has never been greater.
- In 53% of the classrooms inventoried, dropping a screen to use the projector covered 50% or more of the available writing surface, making simultaneous display and writing at least a challenge.
- While 24 of the 186 University rooms (~13%) currently have a means of voice lift, given the survey feedback from students expressing their concern over their ability to accurately hear the instructor and other students, this is an area that demands attention.
- Many of the classrooms in the stacked masonry buildings of the inner Quad are not accessible due to lack of an elevator.
- Students also reported that seeing and hearing the instructor and other students was often a problem in Stanford classrooms, suggesting that acoustic, room layout, and lighting designs leave something to be desired.
- Daylight and views to outside are highly valued in Stanford classrooms. Unfortunately, not all rooms on campus offer natural light and views to the world beyond.
Analysis 3. Classroom Utilization
This is the qualitative assessment of classroom efficacy in accommodating modern pedagogies. We analyze classroom space utilization to determine how effectively existing spaces are used and evaluate how the existing supply of learning spaces comports with demand.
- Analyzing room and seat utilization can provide useful insights into how well the existing inventory is suited to meet the demand for teaching and learning space.
- Peak scheduling periods occur in mid-morning (10am to noon) and early afternoon (1pm to 3pm).
- Overall room utilization rate for University Classrooms (on a daytime basis from 830am to 530pm) is ~44%, which is within the range of many of Stanford’s peers among Ivy League institutions. Average seat utilization is 46%.
- There is a substantial shortage in very small rooms (1 to 10 seats), somewhat offset by excess supply in 11 to 20 and 21 to 30 seat classrooms. But there is also an oversupply of large rooms (41 to 60 and 61+ seats) relative to demand.
- There is an imbalance or misalignment between Stanford’s room inventory and the class sections it offers. This condition, not uncommon at many campuses, can be ameliorated through “rightsizing” some of the inventory.
That Stanford has a number of rooms with foot per seat allocations below modern standards, combined with a significant number of flat-floored classrooms presents potential opportunities for rightsizing to achieve an inventory that aligns more closely with the needs and planning standards of modern pedagogies.
Analysis 4. Informal Learning Spaces
We provide information on best practices nationwide by describing learning spaces, their characteristics and hallmarks, and how they can support learning outside of the classroom. As part of the national move toward active learning, there is increasing recognition that informal learning spaces are an integral part of the learning space inventory. Examples of informal learning spaces on campus include: CoHo Coffee House, Community Centers, and any number of outdoor spaces on Stanford’s beautiful campus.
- Students noted that for the most part student life at Stanford is on-campus, which make study, informal learning and social spaces on-campus very important.
- The top six features are: comfortable climate, comfortable furniture, space to spread out, quiet, pleasant ambient noise, and access/ability to have food.
- Themes from focus groups on student views of Stanford’s of existing informal learning spaces and needs for the future include: Studying alone among peers, need for more informal study spaces, outdoor space, informal study space features, and access.
- As a general framework, informal learning spaces can be categorized in four types or “domains:” academic, library, residential, and community.
Analysis 5. Learning Spaces Management Review
There are several organizations involved in learning spaces: scheduling, facilities planning and construction, operations and maintenance, residential facilities, and budgeting. Many players “touch” learning spaces, but the strategic element – an entity with a “big picture” view of learning spaces – does not exist to ensure that the classrooms offer consistent and high-quality experiences for instructors and students. Stanford has at least three significant issues in collecting and managing learning space data resulting in several challenges:
- disaggregated data
- no standards for data collection
- out-of-date data