2. STUDY & ENVIRONMENT
Three Voices
Students
Teachers
Researchers
This section allows three voices from three user groups to make themselves heard. Here, students, teachers and researchers talk about their visions for a good physical study and research environment. What is common to them all is that they think in terms of cross and multidisciplinary collaboration, and they also indicate that knowledge is something that is created in interaction with others.
The students are represented by the 1st and 2nd prize-winning proposals in the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation’s essay competition for students about the good study environment. The competition focused on the physical frameworks at Danish universities. The 1st prize winner describes how she visits different places when she is looking for a good study environment, e.g. university libraries. The 2nd prize winner describes qualities such as in-depth studying and connectedness as they are exemplified in everyday scenarios from an optimum future.
The teachers are represented by two teachers who are both experienced in working with different learning forms. Both experiment with the use of space in the learning situation. One of them reflects on how learning spaces have developed through the ages, starting with the ideals of the past. He describes how learning is only possible if the framework in which the learning is to unfold is established. The other talks about the importance of integrating pedagogies and design in the teaching spaces.
The researchers are represented by one researcher from the ’dry’ social studies subjects and another from the ’wet’ scientific subjects, which have laboratories as a part of their everyday workplace. One of them would like architecture to invite disruptions that can break the loneliness that a researcher might often experience in his or her office. The other describes the potential that exists in upgrading laboratories in order to achieve scientific breakthroughs.
The good study environment
By Lise Nielsen who won 1st prize for this entry in the Ministry of Science's student essay competition about the good study environment. Lise Nielsen was studying Danish at the University of Copenhagen when she won the competition.My physical study environment has always been elsewhere. It has never been my institute on the island of Amager. And I do not think the institute alone is to be blamed. In fact, it is not really an issue of blame. I think it is more a question of temperament. I was not looking for an ‘environment’. I actually didn’t expect there to be an environment. When the new KUA (University of Copenhagen at Amager, ed.) was set up, I was deeply grateful for the inflow of light in the classrooms and the Internet access in the corridors. However, my sense of being a student still did not correspond with the mental space created by the institute’s framework. It would be more accurate to say that I was looking to create my own study environment. I think the concept of study environment is flexible, as mobile as modern man. And it is not necessarily tied to one specific physical space. Ideally, it is tied to several spaces.
The ‘other’ places I have gone to when I didn’t have classes at KUA, have certain things in common. I went to the Diamond (The Royal Library), and I went to the library at Copenhagen Business School (CBS). I studied for a year in New York, and there, I typically used the gigantic library at New York University (NYU). First of all, the three places are characterised by the diverse composition of the student groups. Not only do the students come from different institutes, they also come from very different schools. I feel that I need this diversity to gain an identity as a student, which is not only determined by my institute. Secondly, all three places offer a good framework for studying. What do I mean by ‘good framework’? A lot of things, as it happens, but first and foremost something as simple as peace and quiet and the allocation of an individual, autonomous little island, a table, one’s own lamp; a framework that emanates partly that it is there for the students, partly that as a group you figure as a factor. This strengthens one’s identity and in the end, one’s motivation. Additionally, the libraries of CBS and NYU excel by being there to an even higher degree for the students. The library at CBS is open not only during the week and on Saturdays, but also every Sunday until 5 pm, and it is crammed full of people, a living island in an otherwise dead Copenhagen. In New York, they have gone one step further: here, you can use the reading rooms until midnight every single day of the week, and there are hundreds of computers with Internet access available to the students, a wireless network across the building, gigantic reading rooms as well as individual rooms if you want complete quiet. It may well be that the institute library’s Monday to Friday opening hours are one of many reasons that I have not used it even once. In other words, the three libra-ries offer a level of accessibility that suits me – and many others, I’m sure – because it matches perfectly the desire to manage your own time across weekends and the Act on Closing Hours. Just think of podcasts, which are an expression of the same phenomenon.
Thirdly, all three places contain a duality of community and individualism. You sit together with a lot of people, who are in principle busy with the same thing – acquiring knowledge – in long rows, but you do so at your own table, just as your own project remains your very own, usually completely different from that of the person at the next table. The duality of community and individualism is strengthened by the physical framework in all three places. At the Diamond, for instance, the long rows of tables offer a view to students both in front of you and behind you. I think this spacious view is crucial. It strengthens the sense of community, and in the end the identity as a student, that you are able to see others engrossed in the same activity as yourself.
Fourthly, in all three places, thanks to the glass facades, there’s plenty of natural light in the reading rooms. From the Diamond, for instance, you have a view across the harbour of Copenhagen. The building opens up instead of closing in, which gives you the impression that you have not shut yourself off to the world, but that you are still a part of it. At the same time, the inflow of light simply provides energy and a chance to lift your eyes from the books or the computer towards a place of life and movement – a ship sailing by, people standing around chatting, etc. In this way, the break is integrated to a much higher degree, while you remain in your seat. And this, I believe, is more productive in the long run, because the contrast between break and work is more blurred.
In terms of the physical location of a campus, I think that ‘proximity’ is essential to the sense of belonging to an actual study environment. The relative proximity among different university functions enhances the sense of a true identity-creating space. Again, in this respect, I experienced the campus at NYU as something close to the ideal. The university’s administration, institutes, training centres and dorms are all located around a park, Washington Square Park, which in turn is surrounded by New York City. And whereas on the one hand you might say that it is impossible to compare Denmark and the USA, as the structure in Denmark is significantly different – for instance, in the USA, typically the universities are privately owned with a much more widespread campus culture – on the other hand, you might say that not everything has to be comparable for you to be inspired. New York University is unique, because campus is the city, not a delimited area outside the city, as you see it in practically all other American universities and certain Da-nish ones. And this makes it obvious to make a comparison with e.g. Copenhagen. What I mean is that at NYU, they have succeeded in creating a study environment that is not forced. It is a study environment that on the one hand features the relative proximity between the various NYU buildings, which contributes to removing any doubt that you belong, and where your identity as a student is never questioned, whilst on the other hand, the framework is never too restrictive or dictating. After all, you find yourself in the midst of diversity, the city is right there, existing as a contrast to your identity as merely a ‘student’. NYU’s dominance, for instance, is not completely overpowering Washington Square Park. The area also includes cafés, restaurants and clothes shops. Apart from the fact that personally I thrived with this dual identity as a student and ‘myself’ in the knowledge that the study identity had holes through which I could escape if it grew too restrictive, I believe that this is a study environment form that suits many young people today. Modern man needs several identity-creating options – I think that having just one would quickly seem limiting. On the other hand, I also feel that an identity with ‘holes’ is beneficial in relation to one’s understanding of the surrounding world. The world is changing constantly, and in order to understand this changeability, I think it is important that you yourself are flexible and have the ability to accept other people’s terms. Especially in the light of growing globalisation, I think that the greater the interplay between different physical spaces, and ultimately, identities, the better the developed ability for empathy and understanding.
And finally, it is of course essential that oases exist where you can meet up and relax from studying. New York University is privileged because of the way it is located, as already mentioned, around Washington Square Park, a park that is used for recreation and which is populated by many other people apart from students. At the centre of the park, there’s a circular fountain where people sit and eat their lunch, students, tourists and working New Yorkers alike. Scattered around the place are street performers or musical bands, and street vendors selling their goods around the park. In one corner there’s a small park within the park, where dogs are walked. In another corner, people play chess, there’s a playground, a replica of the Arc de Triomphe, and among the many paths that lead to the fountain are green areas where some sit alone and read, whilst others sit and talk together, and some play Frisbee or football. Again, it is the diversity of the people who feel that this is their park, and the diversity of the park’s offers that inspire. The park may be full of students, but it is not their park alone, it is everybody’s park, or the city’s park. If future planning involves enhancing the sense of campus in Denmark, I think it is important not to create too claustrophobic a framework. Ideally, the city to which the campus is attached, should seep in and mingle. As is so often the case, the way of thinking in a study environment may become too uniform, if you never come across people who are unlike yourself and speak a different academic lingo. Here, the physical framework is decisive when it comes to creating this kind of openness.
One of the alternative spaces that can be included in the interaction with other spaces is cyberspace. As I said at the beginning, I consider the study environment a flexible entity. The concept is not necessarily related to a specific physical space. Neither is it necessarily connected to a physical space at all. As Jakob Linaa Jensen writes in his article, ‘Offentligheden i de digitale mediers tidsalder’ (The public in the age of the digital media) on the website Turbulens.net, the public is no longer determined by a physical space. “As in cyberspace, social interaction in public is not physical. Physical presence is not a prerequisite. The individuals who interact online or in public (or in the online public) are themselves placed in a physical space while the interaction takes place. At New York University, the Internet served as an alternative – and dominant – space to the physical. This was where texts to be read were ‘posted’, and both academic discussions and dissemination of information took place by email. Just as a concrete physical space, cyberspace becomes a space that intensifies the identity as a student. Again, I think that this space is ideal for mobile, modern man; you are not dependent on your own physical presence, in principle you can be anywhere and still follow the teaching. I also believe that physical space and cyberspace work best in interplay. The contrast between the two types of space inspires and allows more types of identity to be created.
I think that it is in the interplay between several spaces that the optimum study environment of the future will be found. A duality of a physical acknowledgement that the students are important via a basic, good framework, and openness towards the surrounding world. Ultimately, it is the surrounding world, life, that inspires academic considerations.
Room for IN-DEPTH STUDIES, KNOWLEDGE, CONNECTEDNESS, INSPIRATION
By Mette Bergenser and Linda Lützau Nielsen, both from the University of Copenhagen's Dept. of Anthropology. They won 2nd prize for this entry in the Ministry of Science's student essay competition on the good study environment.INTRODUCTION
Much too often, the debate about the physical study environment is reduced to a discussion of the number of student facilities and services. Should we have more computers, more reading places, more thesis places, more party facilities, a canteen? And although such discussions are important, we think that the development of the physical framework should take its starting point in a wider discussion of which qualities the university of the future as a knowledge institution should inspire and provide room for. The physical framework is the starting point for the university’s architectural and material set-up. But the significance goes beyond bricks and buildings. The physical framework determines, facilitates and stimulates different forms of study life.
Our basis for writing this essay is thus that the physical framework ‘creates space’. However, to create space is more than just creating places. Consequently, we have chosen to combine concrete ideas for the physical design and interior decoration with a discussion of the qualities that we believe to be central to the study life of the future. We have selected four qualities, which we think a physical framework should allow space for: in-depth studies, knowledge, connectedness and inspiration. Basically, students differ. We study diffe-rent subjects. We study in different ways, at different times, and we develop differently in the course of our studies. It is therefore a success criterion to us to create a lively and flexible physical framework that does not dictate which activities can unfold in the space. The perfect study environment emerges in interaction between people, activities and the physical place. Material and social aspects are closely related. In other words, the physical framework cannot be separated from the life that unfolds within it.
The design of the physical framework must consider local conditions at the individual educational institution and the individual subjects. This essay is written on the basis of our own student life at the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Copenhagen. We are the special type of students whose education is characterised by a high degree of independent study. A large part of our study life is spent either in a classroom or with our heads buried in a book or our fingers on a keyboard. Although the concrete design of the physical study environment necessarily will and must vary, we still believe that the qualities we describe can be applied to the work with physical frameworks at all institutions of higher education.
IN-DEPTH STUDIES: PEACE AND QUIET AND REFLECTION
I enter the room where I and four other students have our workstations. The room is seething with activity and atmosphere – knowledge is created here. I have constructed my workstation of four elements, which I have been able to combine myself. My choice includes small bookcases for my books, a locker, a height-adjustable table and a couple of mobile partitions, so that I can adjust my contact to the rest of the room. The desk and the partition walls also serve as interactive surfaces, on which I jot down my ideas, make mind maps and drafts for outlines, which I can transfer directly to my computer. I am able to unfold my knowledge in several media, forms and dimensions. The room is arranged as a decentralised working environment. This means, that close to my workstation, I have everything I need: photocopier and printer, tea and coffee and a small room where I can take a power-nap..
Life as a student is a nomad’s life. We constantly move around between classrooms, with books and laptops under our arm. This constant mobility is essential to student life, but there is also a need for spaces where in-depth studies are the focus. Spaces created for peace and quiet, where we can have a private sphere and work with a concentrated effort. One way of making this possible is by providing us with a personal workstation. A workstation that we can compose individually, adjusting its boundaries both in space and sound. A base, where we are anchored and do not need to worry about practical issues such as, where can I find a socket for my computer, a network connection or a place to put my stuff?
A workstation provides the basic conditions for in-depth studies, but at times, it may be necessary to have the opportunity to withdraw completely into absolute silence. We imagine that small physical spaces be created within the space. Little cocoons or dens where you can find perfect quiet and a different atmosphere. A door that opens onto a haven, where we can read or simply gather our thoughts, find new energy and strength.
We imagine that the workstations be gathered in little work communities in small rooms, as otherwise noise would be inevitable. Despite the advantage of mobile partition walls, large office spaces or other rooms of passage are not a good solution when room needs to be created for in-depth studies. We do not want to fight against the conditions dictated by the room’s limitations. Students and study assignments differ. A personal workstation is therefore just one type of work space among many. We suggest that the design should take into account lighting conditions, different degrees of silence and graduations between private and public. As a student at today’s university you often have just two options: the Friday bar with all its noise and beer-drinking, or the reading room where the dictatorship of silence reigns. We miss environments between these two extremes, where you can concentrate and still experience the presence of other students and their chit-chat. They could take the form of chill-out zones with green plants and soft chairs, or work- stations where you could quickly hook up your computer.
KNOWLEDGE: EXCHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
Today, I am meeting my group to prepare an analysis strategy for our project work. We have booked ourselves into one of the university’s knowledge workshops. This is an interactive group room, which not only offers us the opportunity to exchange ideas without being disturbed, but also stimulates our creativity because of its interior design. The room has online access to reference works and literature search facililities. When we have an idea, we can follow up on it immediately. We start by drawing our analysis model on the interactive surfaces of the walls and on the ceiling. While we draw, we transfer our work directly to our laptops. We withdraw a little, sit in the flexible furniture, rock backwards and forwards a little, while we discuss the model, get up again and continue our work on the walls of the room.
The university is primarily a knowledge institution – a place where knowledge is created and acquired. However, often the university’s knowledge space is limited to classrooms or individual workstations. In this way, current university buildings reflect a classical concept of knowledge as a thing that should merely be transferred from a teacher to a student, or be taken from a book. In contrast, we understand knowledge as something that can be learnt, exchanged, created and developed through many different contexts and activities. Knowledge is not produced in the individual alone, but in relationships. This versatile knowledge and learning concept should be reflected in the design of the university’s spaces.
We think the physical framework plays a central role in the stimulation of knowledge and learning. As a minimum, this implies that as a student you should have unlimited access to knowledge environments and sources, e.g. easily accessible libraries and electronic resources. We also suggest that a number of knowledge environments be created at the university, where knowledge can be exchanged and developed outside the classroom. Physical knowledge environments – knowledge workshops.
We imagine rooms where academic networks can be formed and maintained. Rooms that facilitate in-depth studies and group work debates. These could be a sort of labs, where students and researchers can book a place and work. Such knowledge workshops could be multi-functional and flexible depending on the group’s size and the work to be carried out. Additionally, rooms could be set up specifically adapted to certain functions and forms of knowledge exchange. Idea rooms, where project groups or research networks could brainstorm and develop ideas. Exchange rooms where small lectures could be given and workshops could be held.
CONNECTEDNESS: ANCHORING AND COMMUNITY
After the lecture, some of my classmates go to the café. A festive room with music, bar and table football. I often go there to socialise with students from both my own and other subjects. It gives me a sense of being part of a large community at the university. However, today, I don’t feel like going there. Today’s lecture was difficult, and I am feeling frustrated. Instead, I head for the lounge along with two fellow students. It’s nice here, light, cosy, homely. I relax in one of the sofas and enjoy a cup of coffee. The room is fitted out with little comfortable islands where you can sit together in small groups and talk relatively privately. I have been hanging out with these two fellow students the last three study years. We have collaborated on several assignments and draw on each other’s strength when student life gets tough. Being able to discuss the issues of today’s lecture with them gives me the courage to once again throw myself into new academic challenges.
In recent years, there has been a lot of talk about the university’s transformation into a service institution, where education is becoming a commodity and the students are becoming consumers. But we do not want to attend a university where we are like customers in a supermarket – a place without identity, history and relationships. To us, connectedness to the place and the people here is a driving force in our personal and academic development. We do not want to be customers, but co-producers of knowledge. Being connected to the university as students creates commitment and a sense of security that enable us to seek out new knowledge, new thoughts and new relationships.
The physical expression is an important part of the way in which the university is present as an institution in our student life. When we walk along the corridors or sit in a lecture hall, we would like to sense the place’s history, visions, values and the people who have helped shape them through the years.
It is important that the university creates space for not only physical but also social anchoring. The sort that we establish in communities of students, teachers and other employees. Conversations at lunch, over a cup of coffee or the Friday beer are not merely a question of meeting a social need. Networks are a resource on which we can continually draw – also after graduation. Relationships created in one context can be updated in another. Therefore, it is necessary that the physical framework encourages people to meet. That space for fellowship is incorporated into the plans. Places where you can gather on different scales: one-on-one, work groups, as a class, degree programme, faculty, campus area and university.
INSPIRATION: IDENTITY AND COMMUNICATION
When I walk through the university’s corridors, it feels like I am walking through new knowledge and ideas. Research is present in the space around me. I stop in front of the board by the library to read this week’s book reviews. On the interactive notice boards by the researchers’, PhD students’ and teachers’ offices I can see news and input about their research. I come across photos from people’s fieldwork, publication lists and extracts from scientific articles. On large virtual information boards along the corridors by the classrooms, I can read news from the different subjects on campus, about different debate events, conferences, workshops. On one of the boards, I find an invitation to a meeting, which I think I will attend. It is in a network for students and researchers who work with Eastern Europe.
In its architectural and aesthetic design, the university’s spaces should inspire us, challenge us, engender a desire for learning, innovation and creativity. The space should be bright, sumptuous and surprising. It should be playful and changeable. It should encourage us to expand our imaginative horizon and shift our perceptual limits – it should question the known and predictable.
The university should be more than just rooms separated by function and connected by empty corridors void of identity. When we are in the corridor areas, we should not be met by clinically empty walls and closed doors. The academic identities should be visibly present. When we are exposed to each other’s points of view and notions of the world, we are prompted into interdisciplinary collaboration. The research that takes place behind the university’s many closed doors, should be communicated into the space. This could, for instance, be done by means of an interactive noticeboard in front of each office, on which the research is communicated.
The university should not be an ivory tower. The physical framework should reflect that the institution is an active and living part of society. The university must turn itself inside out and invite the surrounding world in.
The relations to society contextualise our studies and provide inspiration for our future professional lives. This adds an entirely new dimension to the academic swotting. It gives new meaning and direction.
Relationships can be created, e.g. via a project exchange or a careers advice service where students can meet future employers both through notices and booklets and face to face. But also by making the university’s physical space available to potential partners, e.g. for lectures, workshops, debate evenings, meetings and conferences, where students, researchers and invited guests can meet and inspire each other.
LEARNING SPACES – PLACES AND AREAS FOR CHANGING LEARNING
By Hans Siggaard Jensen, Pro-Dean for education. As Institute Director he heads research and development at Learning Lab Denmark at the Danish School of Education.Today, there is hardly any connection between space and the knowledge about what learning is. Instead, space for learning has its roots in the ideals of society of the past. E.g. introverted monasteries, gaudy manor houses, efficient factories or decentralised housing estates. It affects the way in which we consider learning spaces today. Maybe we should reconsider them! In order to do so, we have to understand what has happened and work on an interpretation of this. This is why I am attempting a minor outline of our collective historical experience with learning spaces.
We all know the cosy word, ‘schoolroom’. It evokes a completely different mood in comparison to ‘classroom’ or the more formal-sounding ‘lecture hall’. All three are examples of learning spaces. The schoolroom is the familiar sitting room simply transferred to the school where learning takes place – as opposed to what takes place at home in the sitting room. The classroom is probably lighter and more airy, but here, tables and chairs are placed in rows. It is a room that forms part of a large organisation – otherwise there would be no mention of ‘class’. The lecture hall is a place for listening. Lectures are given, and people listen to them. It is like a sort of Greek theatre with the lecturer at the centre, and row upon row of students, who, however, are not watching a show, but rather listening to a radio play. Behind the lecturer, there will often be several boards, which will be filled with signs and drawings. Maybe we picture the schoolroom in a building that resembles an old farmhouse, the classroom in a building, which might just as well be a factory, and the lecture hall as part of a large building complex, in which a lot of other learning also takes place. It contains laboratories and libraries, offices and canteens. The three learning spaces are also associated with very different notions of social structures and organisation. In the schoolroom, the teacher helps the individual pupil; in the classroom, pupils are heard and given ‘homework’ assignments, and in the lecture hall, maybe the student comes and goes almost independently of the lecturer.“ I am just off to listen to a lecture.”
Through the ages, school and learning have taken place in very different spaces. Ancient Greek sophists held school in connection to the market place – the ‘agora’. We have unearthed a school – a villa – from the time around Caesar in Antiquity’s Rome, where rhetoric was practised. The remains can be seen in the digs under southern Naples – Herculanum. The classical spaces are lost. All that remains are sparse ruins and the words left behind, such as ‘academy’ derived from the hillock where Plato had his school, and ‘lyceum’ (‘lycee’ in French) derived from Aristotle’s ‘Lyceum’. It was not until the emergence of early medieval monasteries that the learning tradition started that we have lived with continuously ever since. The monks would meet in the monastery ‘chapter house’ for a reading of a chapter of Bernhard’s monastic rule. The monks sat in a ‘schoolroom’ and were read the text. Bernhard’s text was divided into chapters of suitable length, which could be spread out over a prolonged period of readings. We still call a section of a book a ‘chapter’. With the appearance of the large cathedrals from around the beginning of the 12th century, the need for educated personnel arose, and the first cathedral schools emerged. They probably looked like monasteries and most definitely featured rooms for lecturing similar to the chapter room, but also rooms where books were written – the ‘scriptorium’ – after the lectures. If you have seen the film based on the book ‘The Name of the Rose’, you have probably seen what it looked like. And just as in the book/film, the library with its few books was a central element. The books had to be read in the room. They were often chained to it. So, the library was not merely a place for book storage, but a place for reading and learning. Around 1200, the university came into being, and it was given lecture rooms – ‘auditoriums’. And small theatrical performances actually took place in the form of defences, where theses were attacked and defended on the basis of a lecture on a text – via a ‘lector’, a reader. And disputes were settled by a professor, who could ‘profess’ something, i.e. claim it as applicable knowledge or dogma. A professor who sat in his ‘chair’ and could speak ‘ex cathedra’, from an elevated place. The academic discussion was quite similar to what later on became the model for the courtroom. The professor became the judge, and the prosecutor and the counsel for the defence took over the roles of the ones who gave the critique and defended, respectively.
Thus there is space for reading, space for listening, space for discussion. Later on, two completely new types of learning space emerged. With the advent of the Renaissance, the anatomic theatre, as it is known, came into being. This is a place where the researcher and the medical doctor can carry out a dissection whilst demonstrating it. Students sit around the dissection table and observe and experience a new world unfolding. Then when it is the student’s turn to practise, the learning space is converted from a place of watching and listening into a place of action. It becomes a ‘laboratory’ – a place of labour. The work can be on animals and plants, human parts or chemical and physical phenomena. Then, towards the end of the 20th century, the computer laboratory surfaced with its row upon row of screens and keyboards.
The monastery as a learning space is characterised by a ‘cloister’, i.e. an enclosed space. There is a boundary between the world and the monastic world. Life is shielded, and learning is based on in-depth study or meditation. Learning is directed inwards. It is a sort of refuge. However, other forms of learning exist. In the Renaissance palace, learning takes on a completely different nature. Here, the humanist is both educator and teacher, and in the nursery, the walls are clad with didactic pictures, which are to transfer their contents of virtues, as if by magic, to the children as they grow up. Just as it was intended in several of Botticelli’s paintings. The humanist becomes courtier, and learning equals acquiring the right ability to do well, not only in conversation, but in behaviour in general. It is focused on the ability to dress well, to comport oneself, to participate in dance and games, in arts and sports. An apt expression is ‘sprezzatura’, the ability to make that which is very difficult and has been hard to learn look easy and effortless – to hide what you really want behind a ‘mask’ of vaguely defensive irony. A learning ideal that would mark later centuries’ notion of luxury and upper class. Unlike the monasteries’ fervent in-depth studies, this is more learning as an outwards physical performance. Oddly enough, the Renaissance palaces would become the architectural role model for the schools and universities of the 19th century.
The end of the 18th century saw the dawn of the first factories. The factory quickly became a model for a modern, rational institution. Learning was to take place in rooms resembling those of the factory. In reality, a school or a university was a sort of learning factory.
Karl Marx considered the factory a model for learning. Schools for the children of ordinary people had started emerging, and learning had to be organised. Slowly, most industrialised societies saw the birth of school systems with an open and free offer of teaching and learning. Schoolrooms became classrooms, and with the advent of democracies, the population at large started stressing the need to complete schooling, even compulsory education and learning. The great Victorian institutions were established: hospitals, museums, schools and universities. Often, they were built as huge Gothic castles or as Renaissance palaces. Those were the two eras that were held in highest esteem. As Functionalism arrived after World War I, the focus on the factory as an ideal grew even greater. The home was a factory of living and the school was a factory of learning. The most famous example of a learning space built in the deep shadow of the factory is the Bauhaus in Dessau by the architect Walter Gropius. The ideal here was for learning to take place in workshops, and these were manned by both theorists and practicians. Study equalled work, and work equalled learning. The buildings might as well have been used for a machinery factory. When the Bauhaus due to Nazism and the end of World Word II ended up in the USA, it was established south of the centre of Chicago on a campus of learning buildings designed by Mies van der Rohe. The shielded yard of the monastery and its cloister are replaced by transparent pavilions spread across a park-like landscape. They reflect openness towards the world and towards each other. Light and air in the home of the 1930s have become light and air in learning. Learning is not the in-depth studies of the individual but associated with a busy network of people in ongoing interaction.
From the middle of the 1960s, universities came into being based on a combination of problem-based learning and project work. This required completely new ways of planning buildings. A space for each project group. Learning happened in a village of small learning spaces, each a framework for all the processes connected to the project organisation: formulation of purpose and the problem to be studied, division of labour, research and writing, production of a report, and finally the exam as a conversation between group, supervisor and examiner. Still others were inspired by the brand new technological possibilities. Buildings can be large, open and flexible, as we know it from trade fair and congress centres, and they can be equipped with advanced types of technological infrastructure, first and foremost connected to information and communication technology.
Today, new learning forms are surfacing. Listening, reading and discussing remain incredibly important, but can take place in new ways. New forms based on games may be introduced and supported by the vast possibilities offered by technology. The learners now have to create their own learning space. They are given options and tools, and the idea of ‘learning by doing’ takes on a completely new dimension. You only learn, if you can create the framework and the content within which your own learning is to unfold. The central aspect of learning may even become the establishment and breaking of this framework. This may even be the case in the first job you get after graduation. The requirement for innovation in the work is on the increase, and learning is now seen as an essential form of value-creation. Learning is a sort of curriculum to be mastered but also transcended. Work takes on the character of learning and is associated with ever more reflection and conceptualisation of the experience gained, just as learning happens through interaction with others. It is crucial to the learning spaces of the future that they allow space for both personal in-depth study and intense social interaction.
So, what can we learn from history? We can see that there have been many forms, and that we have a wide selection, which can stimulate our pedagogical imagination. We have to both transcend what has taken place until now and take something with us. The learning spaces of the future may be a combination of monastery, manor house and factory. We must make tradition and vision interact, turn identity, in-depth study, flexibility and interaction into living, pedagogical opportunities.
Today, there is no connection between space and the knowledge about what learning is. Instead, the universities’ spaces are based on societal ideals. E.g. introverted monasteries, gaudy manor houses, efficient factories or decentralised housing estates.
Pedagogy and design
By Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Professor at the Department of Communication, Aalborg University. She works with communication, computer science and learning.Pedagogy and design have to be planned together. Aesthetics and process-orientated design should further learning that breaks with old ways of thinking, encourages collaboration and interdisciplinarity and creates commitment. The relationship between learning and space has changed in recent years, but it remains important.
Information and communication technology (ICT) is still in the making, but even now, ICT is in many ways making knowledge acquisition and learning processes independent of both time and space. They take place everywhere: on the train, at the dinner table, in airports, in companies, in fieldwork, in laboratories, at cafés through the laptop and other mobile appliances. While we work on our projects, we are constantly in touch with fellow students, supervisors, external partners and participants, while simultaneously we participate in other online activities, Skype, Facebook, Google etc. You can learn and participate in teaching and the common learning processes wherever you are. This is the reality for most researchers and students today. Consequently, the physical university is under pressure. This trend is particularly evident to adult professionals who attend our Master’s programmes. They only visit the university four or five times a year for intensive seminars. The rest is done via the Internet. The sense of belonging is therefore not anchored in the buildings but in the virtual environment created by the participants through their activities and traditions. But even here, the physical university and the spaces play an important role. It is during the physical seminars that personal relations between participants are maintained and developed, just as the physical gatherings facilitate planning of other experiences and learning processes than the virtual ones, as we utilise that which is tangible, the fact that we can experiment, experience and wonder together. The challenge is then to do so and to have some places that support this.
Guidance forms and spaces
As teachers, we can offer students different forms of guidance. The Norwegian learning and classroom researcher Olga Dysthe has developed a model that embraces the different guidance forms that make up modern day university education:
- Guidance as teaching, based on a hierarchical relationship between teacher and student, where learning takes place as communication;
- Guidance as a dialogue, based on horizontal learning and reflection processes between participants; and
- Guidance as learning in practice communities and networks, based on learning happening as unintended learning processes and in an opinion negotiation through joint projects and collaboration with fellow students closely related to the academic environment.
The three forms of guidance are all significant. However, whereas the first form dominated the classical university, my message is that the modern university, which is to act as an engine in the knowledge society, needs to focus on the last form. We have to design for the practice community and the network, both the physical-concrete and the virtual. The important thing is to plan binding and productive collaboration between students, and between students and researchers. At the same time, we need to ensure that these groups do not close in on themselves and become self-sufficient. They should continually be challenged through contact to the surrounding world and other networks.
The project room
Aalborg University and Roskilde University both did away with the conventional teaching concept and based themselves on contemporary pedagogical principles about problem and project orientated learning. The layout was designed with project rooms, rooms for workshops, seminar rooms and a common kitchen. In Aalborg, the site was old factory facilities, which had become available when the cigar production moved out of the city. The buildings were not custom-designed, but rooms were made available, which could be put into use, i.e. which students, researchers and teachers could make their own place. Each group of students was given a large project room, which they fitted out with the advanced study tools of the day: typewriters, book cupboards, books, blackboards, noticeboards, coffee machines, refrigerators, spirit duplicators etc. The rooms and the pedagogy fitted together. The students and the teachers owned the rooms and were provided with the necessary resources and tools to support the project work. Even a bit of art was added, so that the students’ ideas of life and the world could be challenged.
The new form of project work
The project work form still exists, but today, building design and pedagogical form have grown apart. In many ways, the project room is too narrow. It shuts the students in – and shuts them out, away from the world. At Humanities, we do not even have the resources to provide every project group with a room. For a number of years now, we have experimented with group rooms, which the students can borrow: empty rooms without tools, resources or art on the walls. Some students have used them, but most of them have been left as a gaping void.
The solution is instead to bring design and pedagogical practice back together again in the form of common group rooms, flexible furniture and ICT equipment. This is happening at some degree programmes at Aalborg University. Here, project work has taken on a new form: less closed in on itself, and through ICT still in touch with the surrounding world. The workshop and the laboratory are supplements in which the students can experiment and test their theories before testing them in ‘real life’ or ‘second life’. Both students and researchers are very pleased with these environments. The problem may be to find peace and quiet for in-depth studies, which are also a part of the learning processes, but then we use earplugs or withdraw to rooms that are functionally dedicated to this.
The network university
The challenge of the network university is both to design a place where students, researchers and teachers feel at home, are drawn in, challenged and like coming, and at the same time to support that large parts of communication and collaboration will be conveyed by ICT. On the one hand, design should ensure that everybody has a place to belong to, e.g. an open project environment. On the other hand, ICT provides great flexibility in terms of how to design learning spaces. At times, it is most practical and comfortable to be able to lie down on beanbags whilst listening to the latest podcast from the lecturer. At other times, it might be nice to follow the lecture whilst using an exercise bicycle, so as to get a bit of exercise at the same time. In the joint meeting, you sometimes need to sit at small café tables or in soft sofas, whilst at other times, you need formal meeting and collaboration tools, such as a projector, a flip chart and common modelling tools, so that everybody has the same basis for the discussions.
Process architecture
Some rooms are individual or belong to the project group, while other rooms are multi-user rooms. This calls for organisational solutions. Who looks after the rooms? How are joint ownership and responsibility established? How can we give a study year their own room for project and course activities and create joint ownership and commitment to handle this? In contrast to all other spaces, which mainly serve as a backdrop to the teaching. However, it takes time for a room to be put to use, and it takes resources to equip the rooms with the necessary tools and artwork. When pedagogy and design are to work together to a higher degree, we therefore need to take a much deeper interest in understanding pedagogical practice as a starting point for design. Practice is not even predetermined, it unfolds and develops. This is why it is crucial that funds be allocated to adapting architecture to the specific practices that take place. That there is enough money to buy a ladder, so that the books on the top shelves can be reached. That extra soundproofing can be provided, when the noise level has not been considered efficiently. That the furniture is light and flexible, so that it can be moved around, and that the portable walls can actually and are allowed to be moved without a lot of additional cost. Turid H. Horgen and colleagues (1999) have suggested an approach to design, which they call ‘process architecture’. The essence in this approach is that designers and users in collaboration should create and redesign their spaces and artefacts to support and work together with the working and learning forms that are under development, and which it is desirable to further. They indicate a series of principles for this, such as incomplete rooms, which invite the users to fill out the missing part; blurred territorial boundaries and ambiguity that support interdisciplinary communication and collaboration; flexibility and cheap adaptations to the ever changing constellations and work forms; different sizes and shapes to support and delimit special functions; mutual visibility and transparency to ensure that you can follow each other’s work processes and further the chance of meeting spontaneously, and access to artefacts and technology that support work and learning. Our spaces are thus not merely a framework for work and learning processes: they work with these dynamically and contribute actively to their realisation.
Disruption furthers productivity!
By Kristian Kreiner, Professor at the Department of Organization, Copenhagen Business School, and associated with the Center for Management Studies of the Building Process.I work at Kilen (the Wedge) at CBS, an award-winning¹ university building designed by Lundgaard and Tranberg Architects. This is the best place I have ever worked in my entire career. However, to say that I work at Kilen is only a qualified truth! In fact, I work anywhere else but at Kilen. The computer I have at my disposal there is switched on far less hours than my computer at home and my laptop. All of my teaching, dissemination and research activities draw me away from my office. Often I feel that I do not have the time to go to work, because I have to do my job. Even so, I steal the time to do so once in a while!
My work habits probably do not differ all that much from that of most other researchers. This I gather from the fact that research environments in general have a very low utilisation rate. My experience from both Danish and foreign universities is that on a normal working day, institutes are only thinly populated by researchers. And those who are present, are often visiting from other universities – from which they in turn are absent.
The low utilisation rate is partly due to the fact that a researcher position in Denmark only facilitates research during a small proportion of the working hours. But it is also due to the fact that technological development has made research less confined to one place. We used to have to go to the library, whereas today, we can download articles from anywhere around the globe. And whilst we used to have to collaborate with people who we could meet with physically, today, we often work and correspond more with researchers on the other side of the world than with those sitting in the office next door.
In a certain sense, in relation to new university construction, we have to accept the fact that researchers no longer ‘go to the office’ to do their job. In jest, you might say that the office has become the place where we leave our coats and dump our bags when we have to teach or attend a meeting, and an archive for the books and papers that we are not currently working with.
It would seem that the functional need for offices has eroded, but this has not changed the requirements. Frank Gehry explains that when he asks professors how they would like their new offices designed, they describe what they have already got! My experience is that the large majority would like a large, soundproof one-man office, where they can shut the door and concentrate on their studies and writing. In practice, of course, the door is shut from the outside most of the time, and it might seem paradoxical that we fight with such determination for something we use so little! Perhaps the explanation is simply that the office has great symbolic importance.
Having your own office is a sign that you are employed! And not only employed, but also appreciated! Any suggestion that individual researcher cells may not be the solution, immediately sparks a revolt. We find this symbolic significance in all organisations. The office is a status symbol and an indication of your place in the social hierarchy. The higher up you are in the social hierarchy, the larger and better an office you occupy, and ironically, the less time you spend there! This goes for ministers and directors as much as for professors. Were it not for this symbolism, it would be hard to explain why the employees who come here every day should have the worst and smallest offices: the technical and administrative staff, because it is their duty to be present, and the PhD students because they do not have a desk at home.
A lot has been written about how companies build and how they seek to avoid this expensive and complicated way of symbolising social hierarchies, but to the best of my knowledge, no one has succeeded in this. Although open-plan offices have been introduced in many places, managers still sit on their own in the majority of cases, and competition remains focused on the corner office. Nobody wants to admit that it is about symbolism, and hence the interior design is always rationalised with a reference to functional needs. Open-plan offices are said to further knowledge sharing, and managers have confidential conversations. However, these are probably no better rationalisations than saying that researchers need their own offices so that they are not disturbed and lose their concentration on their intellectual work – a work which to a great extent they carry out away from the office.
In my opinion, neither functional nor symbolic needs should constitute the decisive design terms for the researcher workplaces of the future. The Social needs should. In order to explain what I mean by this, I will refer to an example from the world of studies.
At CBS, we have a library at Solbjerg Plads square, which was designed by Vilhelm Lauritzen Architects. From early morning, queues form here for the workplaces. Not only CBS students study there, but also students from all the other universities – in fact, even self-employed business people come there regularly. People do not turn up because of the library’s books and computers – they work with their own stuff which they bring along. Neither do they come to do something together – they are not allowed to talk or share knowledge. They come to sit together – to break the isolation and boredom of their room at the residence hall or at the one-man company. An isolation and boredom which in itself can be very disruptive. My interpretation is that the library reading rooms are full, because isolation is more interruptive than the presence of others.
A researcher career is potentially a very lonely and individual life. Even when you collaborate, you often do so sequentially, because four-handed writing is impossible. The physical design cannot contribute much to changing these circumstances. But it can help break down the social isolation instead of enhancing it by building closed offices. What exactly is it that is supposed to seem tempting to new candidates, if the sight that meets them is long corridors with closed doors? What is it that would make anyone venture out into early morning traffic, if it is as lonely at work as it is at home? It might be architecture’s most important task in the future to create disruptions that would break down the social isolation.
In the beginning, I was worried whether there would be too much noise at Kilen, considering that it is built around a large, open atrium space. Now, I consider it one of the attractions of the building that you always have a sense of life. I also worried about the many glass facades, which made it possible for people to look in. Now, I consider it an attraction that it is possible to look out! As a consequence, today I am based in a large centre office with 12 workstations. I come to be interrupted – not so that it prevents me from working, but in order to sense the community, experience a social fellowship and facilitate spontaneous knowledge sharing. This type of disruption is far more constructive and productive than the one caused by isolation behind closed doors, which leads to useless Internet surfing and generally wandering thoughts. Whether the employees appreciate having ‘the boss’ in their midst, and whether the employees at the centre all dream of having their own, closed office, remains an open question.
The most attractive thing about Kilen is the sense that there are people present – active people. It is the sound of students, the sight of them when they take possession of the open areas for group work. It is the smile from a colleague passing by the conference office. Yes, it interrupts, but it interrupts just sufficiently for you to stay awake and concentrate on your business.
Not everybody agrees with me. Some of the empty tables have signs reserving them for the employees. There are bookcases against the glass walls, and there are closed doors. And naturally, it is a management task to control the disruptions, but in all honesty, the solution is not to remove them. The challenge is to turn disruptions into something positive when we know that they could easily have negative consequences. Maybe all it takes is the introduction of a few behavioural regulations. Maybe, in our open-plan workplace, we need to learn to isolate ourselves when we are worried that we might disturb others inappropriately, rather than isolating ourselves, as before, because we worry that others might disturb us. This is the social norm of the reading room, and it might be equally applicable outside.
We are talking about the difference between the physical ‘space’ and the significant ‘place’. The researcher’s workplace is less interesting as the first than as the latter. We need to talk less about square metres, access and rights, and more about the social sense, inspiration and proximity – an inspiring workplace for researchers. Architecture cannot create this, but it can help us and others do so.
NOTES
¹ RIBA European Award 2006
The road to new scientific breakthroughs
By Robert Feidenhans'l, Professor of physics at the Niels Bohr Institute and Jette Miller, Specialist Consultant at the Dean's office at the Faculty of Science, both at the University of Copenhagen.When the great French encyclopaedia was written in the 18th century, its 28 volumes contained practically all the scientific knowledge that was recognised at the time. In other words, the combined knowledge was reasonably easy to grasp! This is not the case anymore. The growth in knowledge and the division into the classical sciences has made this an impossible task for just one person.
And that’s not all: Just as it is the case with mobile phones, science has reached its 3rd generation: Technically speaking, we are reaching an ever higher level, and the possibilities for communicating across hitherto unknown boundaries keep growing. The same goes for science version 3.0, where collaboration and academic breakthroughs happen across known scientific borders – and where technology to an increasing degree is becoming a common tool.
Multidisciplinary melting pot
Seeds have already been sown for that development, e.g. at Nano-Science Center at the University of Copenhagen. Here, scientists, geologists, biologists and chemists collaborate across subjects and sciences, each taking their starting point in their own solid academic basis in order to expand their combined knowledge of everything from oil research in the North Sea to medical diagnostics.
We will see a lot more of this in years to come, because the answer to many of the future’s challenges will be found precisely in the multidisciplinary melting pot, e.g. in the fields of energy supply, climate change and lifestyle issues. So, the road towards the research environment of the future involves a showdown with the old-fashioned thinking that cements the division between sciences – both physically and in terms of content. In the research environment of the future, the challenges and the projects will be the physical pivot point. This should have a knock-on effect on the buildings that constitute the framework for research and education.
It would be natural to gather the subjects, dissolving the rigid academic division we know today. This would create fertile soil for collaboration and idea exchanging between both students and researchers across traditional subject boundaries. And it is precisely by increasing collaboration between the different disciplines that the university expects to have more scientific breakthroughs in years to come. The laboratories and work rooms of the future should thus facilitate extensive, multidisciplinary collaboration. The exciting but demanding challenge consists in creating buildings and a physical framework that not only further cross-disciplinary research collaboration, but also create space for researchers to retain and develop their own academic discipline.
Closer research association
In Denmark, research and education are closely related, and what is special about the Danish education system is the anchoring in inter-nationally recognised research environments. This means that teaching is managed and handled within the research environments, and that the development of the educational programmes’ academic profiles to a large extent is driven by research. I.e. when students within scientific programmes carry out projects, write their Bachelor’s or Master’s theses, they do so in close collaboration with the research group with which they are associated.
We will see more of this in the future. Students will no longer sit in reading rooms or special rooms for people writing their theses, as it is seen at the so-called ‘dry’ degree programmes, e.g. within humanities and social sciences. Students will physically be placed in laboratories and offices, with a strong emphasis on the fact that they are being educated within the research groups. Therefore, when planning the interior design of new laboratories and buildings for science disciplines, it is necessary to incorporate space for the students, who are to sit side by side with the researchers.
The way in which we teach has also changed significantly over time. A high level of technology, cross-disciplinary collaboration, increased openness, joint communication, inter-subject synergy etc. are all keywords in modern teaching. In the future, teaching will take place in many different ways: on the Internet, in working groups, in laboratories, in classes of e.g. 30 or 60 students or through lectures, where several hundred students are taught simultaneously. Consequently, flexible learning environments and rooms that can be adapted according to the teaching need are essential. This will also provide new opportunities for a more rational utilisation of the buildings and rooms available to the university.
The research environment of the future is flexible
If Denmark is to do well in the competition about attracting the smartest thinkers, we also need to be able to offer a flexible research environment with an optimum technical infrastructure – including a quick start-up phase and highly specialised instrument platforms. This is the case because the best researchers in the world will go where the best researchers are already found, where the facilities are excellent, and where the chan-ces of gaining financing is greatest. These are the terms, if Danish degree programmes and Danish graduates are to have the quality that is in demand, and which is attractive in the global labour market.
One example of the significance of a technical infrastructure is the weighting of infrastructure in applications to the European Research Council, ERC, which allocates DKK 56 billion over a period of six years. The first priority is the quality and the idea of the application and the researchers’ performance so far. Second in importance is access to state-of-the-art technology, equipment and infrastructure. Considering that an increasing proportion of Danish research has to be financed externally, the research environment of the future needs to have an up-to-date infrastructure and a framework to support it. We therefore need a research environment with flexible layout options.
As research environments are run on the basis of grants, the demand for flexibility is huge, because in step with grants being given and expiring, it will be necessary to close or open all or parts of a research group’s activities.
The buildings’ flexibility should also make it possible for researchers to get on with their work as soon as their grant applications are approved. To researchers who are dependent on laboratory facilities, this is a decisive factor. To them, the laboratory has the same crucial function as the engine has to any car. Without the engine, the car will go nowhere – and it goes without saying that whoever has the best and most well-tuned-up car, will reach the goal first.
The same applies in the world of research. Without a laboratory that can be geared and adapted to the researcher’s needs and grants, the researcher will be unable to work to the optimum. And without a laboratory with cutting-edge technical specifications you neither reach the goal first nor do you come up with new ideas or attract the very finest talents.
University with an open door towards the world
The research environment of the future is also a limitless size. For centuries, researchers have studied, tested and continued to build on peers’ results, regardless of where in the world they were born. As a result, in the course of the past 100 years, natural science has developed into a thoroughly international science. You might say that it has been globalised. This means that our knowledge increasingly crosses borders, and this will influence everyday life at the laboratories of the future. A university should have international campus environments as its role model and provide inspiring study environments, housing for researchers, cafés, confe-rence centres and IT facilities.
The campus environment – the environment in the immediate vicinity of the university – is becoming more and more international and is characterised by students and researchers from very different parts of the world staying there for short or long periods of time. Housing, residence halls and guest researcher accommodation in the immediate university environment are therefore a natural extension of the idea of an open university where people meet and boundaries are broken.
The doors to the university should be like open swing doors to an innovation and growth power centre, which stimulates innovative environments and strengthens the interplay between public and private companies. Researchers should live next door to entrepreneurs, and the university campus should be the place of preference when new technical companies are to be launched. Research results should be converted into new products and into companies that quickly start implementing the result of groundbreaking research. Increased connections between students, researchers and public and private companies are the focal point in this development – and this should be reflected in the way in which the research environment of the future is planned together with the surroundings.
Poor framework for knowledge without borders
Our knowledge may have become borderless, but the financial framework has not. If Denmark is to prepare for the competition in a globalised society, it is necessary to invest in new powerful campus areas, which can produce qualified graduates, create research results of a high international standard and contribute to socio-economic growth.
The need for a new framework is evident at the Faculty of Science at the University of Copenhagen, where we work. Facilities for researchers and students have, quite simply, been overtaken on the inside by technological development. To coin a phrase, the problem is found under the bonnet. The bodywork is solid, but the engine stems from the last century. The incredibly accurate measuring equipment and fantastic research apparatus that make up some of the researchers’ most important tools, pose very strict requirements for e.g. vibration-free zones, temperature adjustment and high air quality. Naturally, these requirements were not considered when the buildings were built in the 1960s, more than forty years ago, when the foundation for the majority of the science laboratories was laid. It is inefficient and costly for the Danish society that as a result, researchers have to carry out experiments during the night in order to reduce the inaccuracies in their research results caused by the outdoor traffic that makes the building shake. Another example is the lack of ventilation capacity, which means that the university has to consider turning down groundbreaking research projects, because it is not possible to build more exhaust into the buildings.
If at the universities we are to contribute positively to educating a qualified labour force, creating new knowledge heavy workplaces and socio-economic growth, it is necessary to invest in a future-orientated framework for research and education. This will shift the limits for our knowledge growth, and it will allow our knowledge to grow across national borders, sciences and companies. All of this to the benefit of the socio-economic development in an ever increasingly globalised world.
Challenges
This section pinpoints the question of how physical frameworks can contribute to creating world-class study and research environments. This is done by means of examples from studies of international and Danish environments.
The section refers to universities that strategically use the physical environment to become even more efficient. They all strive to open up towards the surrounding world and use researcher and student workstations, ICT, laboratories and learning spaces to achieve this.
Examples demonstrate how students are given permanent workstations in the professor’s office, how large lecture halls are being rebuilt into dialogue-based classrooms, and how students are used as a resource that develops the physical environment. It also shows how universities extend their opening hours by creating more activities and attractive places.
As a whole, the material points to some of the challenges that the universities encounter when working with the physical study and research environment. How, for instance, can teachers be backed in experimenting with space and ICT? And what does it take to create space for both peace and quiet and interaction in the researcher’s workplace? And how can students be involved appropriately in the physical planning? The section outlines an answer and a strategy for the future. The examples may serve as a contribution to inspire further debate.
What does a world-class study environment look like?
How can the physical framework contribute to creating an optimum study and research environment for modern world-class universities? The Danish University and Property Agency has found examples of a number of universities in Denmark and abroad that can inspire further debate
Long opening hours – and supporting activities
The modern university is open when people need to use it. This book provides examples of foreign universities that consider themselves pulsating knowledge centres with activities spread out across every hour of the day and every day of the week. It would seem unthinkable to them that students should not have access to book collections, printers and food 24/7. This openness supports a modern lifestyle in which you can also choose to study and work during weekends, evenings and holidays.
Open doors, keycards and sandwich vending machines, however, are no guarantee that the universities will buzz with life every hour of the day. The universities realistically focus their efforts on the times where they have a real chance of affecting the number of visitors. ETH Zürich, Hönggerberg, is located on the edge of the city, and they have realised that as yet, it is not attractive to stay on campus late at night. Instead, they have exploited the weekend by inviting the locals to attend academic activities such as tours of the laboratories, chess club for children and parents and ‘ScienceTalk’¹ – a series of science lectures, which may be of general interest. To ETH, this is the first step towards making it more attractive to come to the campus during weekends.
Other universities are placed closer to the city centre, or the majority of the students live on campus, which naturally increases opening hours. In many cases, the result is special buildings that function as meeting places, concentrating life and activities during the evenings and at night as well as during weekends. This is the case at e.g. Columbia University and MIT, which both have a ‘Student Center’ which is open 24 hours a day. In both cases, an independent building has been constructed, visually distinct from the rest of the area. The buildings offer facilities such as study workstations, cafés, student political activities, information search, printing and basic book collections. Such places concentrate a multiplicity of activities and it feels safe and inspiring to come there, because they are full of life. Also at night.
Several universities are currently working on creating buildings that will be ‘light towers’, ‘students’ hubs’ or ‘student and faculty clubs’. Common to all of them is their visibility, openness and differentiated functions, which are to attract different user groups.
Recently, the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation held a student essay competition about the good study environment, and the 1st and 2nd prize winners are included in this book. A common theme among the contributors was the desire for extended access to the university libraries in the cities. It would seem that CBS’s reading room has the longest opening hours in Denmark, typically from 7.30 am to 10.30 pm every day of the week. It is used by students from all fields of study and institutions in Copenhagen. They consider the place an inspiring place to come during weekends and in the evening, because the place is vibrating with student activity. The library’s long opening hours also make it possible for people with normal working hours to use the university’s facilities.
In order to target the resources, the University of Copenhagen’s library at the Panum Institute has introduced flexible working hours. Week by week, opening hours are adapted to the exams of the semester, so that during periods leading up to exams, access is also granted during evenings and weekends.
The challenge when extending opening hours is to both be able to open up and invite the surrounding world in and at the same time to prioritise resources for staffing and handling of security requirements. The risk of theft, assault, vandalism – and within certain research areas also the fear of espionage – is real. However, this should not stop universities from acting as accessible knowledge centres that are open 24 hours a day and thus making it possible for students, researchers and other interested parties to make use of the facilities.
Examples in the survey indicate the need to consider which activities and facilities could be combined with the open doors – e.g. a café, academic assistance with assignments, workshops, lectures and tours.
The long opening hours as such are a practical measure signalling in a very direct way how the university perceives itself: Are you met by a locked door, or should the university be experienced as an accessible knowledge centre?
Differentiated learning spaces and ICT
The modern university offers a variety of learning spaces, which naturally include modern technology and facilities for ICT-supported learning. Neither the use of ICT nor the layout of the room are an object as such, they are merely tools to support and challenge the teaching. It is still necessary to actively decide when and how to make use of them.
In his article in this book, Hans Siggaard describes how there is no connection between space and the knowledge we have about what learning is. We build learning spaces in accordance with ideals of the past, he writes. Should we then change and renovate all our classrooms? Probably not. But maybe we should experiment more?
MIT has taken a significant step in this direction. At a time where many would like large lecture halls in order to be able to present lectures to a lot of people in one go, the university has done away with one of its two large lecture halls. It used to seat 300 people in a traditional set-up with folding seats. The lecture hall has now been transformed to accommodate 100 students seated in groups around round tables with enough space for the group members’ laptop computers. The teacher is placed in the centre by a mixing desk from which he/she can pick out relevant work from the groups. The room still supports traditional lectures, but primarily problem-solving in group work. MIT has used this room for a couple of years, and experience shows that this layout and teaching form can pull particularly weak students up to a higher level.
It is far from all ICT-supported learning activities that require new physical room types. Interchanges between students from several parts of the world at the same time only require mobile equipment and easily take place in flexible workshop-like rooms.
In other situations, a more stationary set-up is needed to ensure reliability. MIT transmits lectures live to the University of Singapore and vice versa several times a day. This happens from three minor lecture halls, equipped especially for transmissions, i.e. they are better soundproofed and without daylight. These three rooms in the basement below the university make it possible for MIT’s teaching staff to be heard across the world, just as students can easily collaborate. MIT is now adding more rooms like this in keeping with an increasing demand. It seems to be a quick and cheap way for the university to establish itself and create visibility in other countries or continents.
Studies indicate that although ICT can be integrated into many existing spaces, new teaching types and ICT possibilities will emerge that will require new spaces. Design and fitting out of classrooms will change and supplement the types we know already. Maybe the traditional lecture hall will become an arena characterised by not having a hierarchy, and in which you collaborate and perform for each other. The corridors will develop into an academic landscape in which you disseminate knowledge and perhaps involve passers-by in the academic work.
One of the challenges when using new room types and incorporating ICT is to get the teachers interested in the room and the technology. The use of ICT and new types of space requires more planning and choreography on the teacher’s part. Typically, the students have no reservations and are already accomplished users. Danish universities have not yet utilised the full potential of thinking pedagogy and academic needs into the rooms. The development of new room types for learning and collaboration is not very pronounced in university construction today. In recent years, Danish upper secondary schools, on the other hand, have developed and built spaces that support pedagogy and academic principles. In this way, the upper secondary schools are challenging the traditional teaching situation. The Ørestad upper secondary school may be one of the clearest examples: classrooms without walls and with zones for academic experiments and games.
Attractive study and learning environments for students
The modern university offers attractive study and collaboration environments to students. The issue is different types of fixed or flexible study workstations, which can be anywhere across the university. Rooms or spaces can help push, further or simply overcome a challenge, just as the layout of a physical framework can strengthen academic and social relations across study years and degree programmes.
At Lancaster University, a large number of lounge and reading environments have been established for students, similar to what is known from modern office workplaces. Furthermore, they are currently building a ‘Students’ Hub’, a modern student house with reading places, learning lounge and café open 24/7, which is to gather student activities and render them more visible. The students are to inspire each other by buzzing together. The same type of student house is found at several American universities² and the same trend is seen on other continents, too. The University of Tokyo recently opened a prestigious centre with differentiated types of learning environment, which are used by different degree programmes within one faculty. The place is so physically attractive that the centre earns money by leasing the facilities to other faculties. Despite the fact that traditional Japanese architecture favours introverted buildings, this centre deliberately opens up for people to look in.
What characterises the examples mentioned above is that they often occupy a prominent place on campus because of their modern design and interactive and transparent working environments. Attractive workplaces that support contemporary work forms, transmitting a positive signal to the users and the surrounding world.
The survey of a number of Danish study workstations, as referred to in this publication, indicate that they can help students complete in particular their first study year. The universities have accepted the challenge and are now establishing flexible workstations in existing buildings. The future building for Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Southern Denmark in Kolding, however, is an example of a building in which study workstations have been incorporated into the design from the beginning, and therefore they have been given a more prominent place.
Attractive learning environments for researchers
The modern university offers attractive study and collaboration environments to researchers and teachers. The issue here is the way in which institutes are designed, and the way in which they form part of the whole, but it is also about the researchers’ workplace at the university. The spaces can challenge customary workflows and strengthen knowledge sharing and academic relations across different subjects.
Whilst the focus is directed at study workstations and learning environments for the students, far less planners look at the researchers’ workplaces. In Danish university traditions, each researcher has his/her own office, which provides the setting for in-depth studies as well as private conversations and meetings in the same room. This tradition is only a few decades old and was introduced at a time where all researchers typically worked at home. Researchers were allocated permanent offices to encourage them to man the institutes.
Today, the issue is quite different. Many researchers have to stay in many other places rather than at their offices in order to carry out their work, as Kristian Kreiner describes in his article in this book.
The offices are left empty most of the time. Kristian Kreiner describes how he as a researcher, just as the students in the essay competition express it, wants the workplace to create disruptions and social interaction. It should buzz with researcher life. This inspires both the researcher and not least the students.
However, this buzz does not emerge when the corridor with researcher offices is long and shut off, and the researcher is not present. Maybe the researcher’s right to his/her own private office needs to be reconsidered. Might there be better ways of using the space and each other’s resources?
There are examples of a few places where they experiment with the design of the researcher workplace and attempt to create differentiated environments with multifunctional rooms in which more people can work at the same time. 10 VIPs from Humanities now have their permanent workstations in one open-plan room along with PhD students and students writing their theses at E-learning Lab, Aalborg University. The common office strengthens the academic environment and renders activities visible to passers-by. Each semester, 1-2 students writing their thesis are offered a workstation in the room, and thus they work in the same room as the institute’s professor. This gives the students an equal contact to teachers and researchers and a taste of working life and rules of conduct applicable to a workplace. To E-learning Lab, the advantage is that they are increasing their chances of attaching potential PhD students to the set-up. Thinking along the same lines, Aalborg University has established a growth house where PhD students and students writing their theses work in the same room. It is worth noticing that all of the above workstations are equipped with the same furniture. I.e. there is no difference between what is offered to a student or a researcher.
A little anecdote illustrates another aspect of the value of creating equality: It is said that the first rector at Roskilde University decided that he only needed a 12 m2 office. Naturally, this set standards for what researchers and other employees at the university could demand.
At the University of Southern Denmark in Kolding, users and management have decided that researcher workstations in a future large new building are to support the researchers’ request for visibility and collaboration. The competition programme emphasises a greater differentiation of workstations than what is traditional. The office is not considered the permanent property of the researcher – it can be shared or lent out for periods of time. This makes it possible to introduce more spacious spatialities, which can support some of the other work tasks that researchers have apart from the actual research.
The challenges in creating attractive environments for students and researchers are found in the schism that on the one hand, users require peace and quiet for in-depth studies, whilst on the other hand, they also need exposure and a framework that supports collaboration.
This applies to both student reading places and researcher workplaces. It is striking that while students request new measures and frameworks that support their learning and lifestyle, researchers are conspicuously silent and typically do not want spatial changes.
The researchers’ reluctance when it comes to changing the traditional one-man office seems to be a fear of noise, limitations in private conversations, and for some the fear of losing status or a sense of belonging. Even so, an increasing number of Danish researchers see³ more advantages than disadvantages in choosing solutions where they share the areas with others to a higher degree. They opt for arranging the workplace so that they have differentiated possibilities that support the specific work situation. The researcher can both seek out space for quiet in-depth studies and find a place for exposure and collaboration. All according to his or her need.
Modern laboratory facilities
The modern university has up-to-date facilities available to its researchers and students. This means that the laboratories have to make it possible for students and researchers to experiment by means of modern facilities and technology. And at the same time ensure that this happens in a way that stimulates collaboration and knowledge sharing.
In Denmark, we are facing modernisation of many university laboratory buildings. Most of them were built during the 1960s and 1970s and have to be upgraded in order to meet new needs. This applies to requirements about environment and sustainability, the need for more specialised equipment and for physical flexibility in the layout in order to accommodate changing grants and research projects. Apart from the technical needs, there is also a need for new spaces for collaboration, as traditionally, the focus has been on the conventional workflow in the laboratory without any particular consideration being given to an informal and cross-disciplinary environment.
The Blizard Building at Queen Mary’s in London is an example of a laboratory building that works with space for collaboration and desires to make this visible. The building has a large room from which there is a view to both laboratories and meeting rooms floating like cells and DNA strings, clearly indicating the academic subject area of the house. Naturally, the open laboratories cannot be classified or live up to strict safety requirements that differ from country to country. However, the house does suggest a way in which laboratories can be planned to disseminate knowledge and facilitate collaboration.
The future ‘Protein Center’ (The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research) at the University of Copenhagen is an example of a laboratory that also incorporates space, which will stimulate the contact between the leading researchers who are to use it. The project, which will be ready for use in 2009, also accommodates many new technical focus areas. The project involves a thorough modernisation of a section of the existing Panum building, which has conventional wiring in the floor. The new design does away with this by moving wiring to the ceiling and also by removing heavy installations from the laboratory tables. This ensures flexibility for continual rearranging in step with changing projects and grants.
The challenges in creating up-to-date laboratories are first of all financial, as significant costs are involved, and there are also structural limitations in the existing buildings that are to be modernised. However, the challenges also involve strategically thinking laboratory planning into a larger plan for the entire university. A laboratory ‘locks’ an area because of the expensive installations, and the question is e.g. whether to choose decentralised teaching laboratories with general equipment or to opt for centralised specialist laboratories? It is also interesting to consider whether laboratories are to be built and modernised in a robust way that makes it possible to continually upgrade them over a century. Or should we choose solutions that will probably need replacing within a shorter period of time? Regardless of the chosen laboratory strategy, it must be seen in the context of complete campus planning.
Involving students in campus development
The modern university actively involves its students in the issues concerning campus development. Universities have several issues that can be used in connection with teaching. This increases the students’ insight and understanding of the complex institution of which they are a part. The involvement may both engage students and achieve a better quality result.
This happens in many different ways: MIT allows IT students to solve infrastructural problems, e.g. by programming a new information and news system, which is shown throughout the entire campus. The task is not merely to create the software but particularly to solve the organisational part, which will ensure that the system can live on also after the students have left the university. A minor, but important detail.
Another model can be seen at Lancaster University, where students are employed to find voluntary work in the local community. In the United Kingdom, there is a tradition for students to do voluntary work to enhance their CV. Three students are employed by the university, but in practice they fundraise their own salaries, so that they are cost neutral, and at the same time, the university achieves goodwill in the local community.
Harvard strategically uses its students as ambassadors for sustainable initiatives. They are paid on an hourly basis to teach their fellow students how to save water and electricity. Students following the course ‘Environmental Design’ are also involved in analysing consumption at Harvard – information which has proved useful to the university’s operations department.
One of the challenges when involving students in issues concerning university operations and organisation is that as a starting point, they do not have any means of understanding the complex structure and decision processes of the university. In the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation’s student essay competition about the good study environment, many students called for opportunities to be included and heard in connection with development of the physical framework. “Where should we take a good idea?” or “How can I contribute?” – these are questions from students full of initiative. Many students would like to get involved, but they are unable to act in relation to the organisation and naturally end up frustrated.
The example from Harvard shows that students need induction in order to be able to act constructively within the university structure. It often takes a serious amount of preparatory work before students can be involved in the development of study environments. For instance, administrative personnel will have to allocate time to finding data about consumption or planning. However, one positive effect is that it links the administrative personnel closer to the teaching, and this may contribute to an increased level of respect between teachers and administration.
It may seem more manageable to involve students in concrete projects that are not related to the daily operation of the university. The examples in this book show that universities involve students more and more. They are asked about interior design, decoration and environmental measures, and they contribute with ideas and sketches, often in workshop form. This is a process that can create an inclusive commitment, but which should never replace professional advisers. The challenge is that students as well as employees may be caught up in very down-to-earth issues and therefore do not develop visionary ideas that can actually be put into practice. At worst, this will be obvious from the outset – and then students are only involved for the sake of involvement.
One or two universities reply – when pushed – that the students who are asked today will not be here in four years’ time when the plan is implemented. So why involve them? The answer is that the physical framework of the universities also needs to suit student activities and practices. Involvement is therefore not merely a question of asking students what they want, but also a question of continually considering the development in what it means to be a university student. Similarly, changes in researchers’ work and knowledge dissemination must be reflected in the physical framework.
There is no doubt, however, that students constitute a potential resource for the physical development of the study environment. There are typically two different reasons for involving them: either to engage and inform students or to develop ideas together. Regardless of the intention, the examples show that resources are required along with frameworks and objectives that are clear to all parties, if students are to be involved in the development of campus environments in a constructive way.
World class?
What does a world-class study environment look like, then? The conditions concerning opening hours, study and learning environments, ICT-supported spaces, laboratories and the involvement of students have been discussed here, outlining an answer and a strategy for the future. You might also mention libraries, lecture halls, canteens, collections or meeting places, after all – where and how are we to store and exchange knowledge? The overall question has not been answered conclusively and will require increased attention in the coming years.
NOTES
¹ See the programme for Science Talk at www.sciencecity.ethz.ch/treffpunkt/
² E.g. ITT’s McCormick Tribune Campus Center designed by Rem Koolhaas.
³ In connection with renovation and new construction carried out by the Danish University and Property Agency.
Themes
Study workstations
ICT- supported learning spaces
Laboratories
This section shows how Danish and international universities have chosen to handle current and global challenges in relation to three chosen themes: Study workstations, learning spaces supported by information and communication technology and laboratories.
The themes were chosen on the basis of their topicality: Study workstations are required by various parties at different universities. The focus on the need to include ICT in teaching is increasing, and university laboratories are facing extensive modernisation.
The three themes also focus on general challenges facing the universities: floating subject boundaries, new learning forms and a demand for physical flexibility, sustainability and knowledge sharing all add to a change in the way we consider study and research environments.
Study workstations
The theme ’study workstations’ is illustrated on the basis of a study of workstations at a number of Danish universities.
The examples were chosen because they each represent a ’good story’, which describes how the study workstation is used strategically in the effort to create a good study environment. They are, for instance, used as a ’battering ram’ for extending opening hours, as team spaces that reduce the rate of drop-out, and as a method of transferring students into apprenticeships at the professor’s office!
The section includes excerpts from the study from Aalborg University, the University of Aarhus, Copenhagen Business School, the Danish School of Education, the University of Copenhagen and the University of Southern Denmark. It includes both old and newly established places and represents different learning forms and teaching programmes. The study’s target group is practitioners and users at universities and consultants who establish study workstations.
Further to the examples, the section first describes the background for placing study workstations on the agenda. The theme then closes with an article that points to the challenges that face the universities when they establish and run study workstations. The article also provides examples of how universities have tackled the challenges.
Strategic use of workstations
a current Danish survey
Attractive study environments and workstations at the university support modern learning methods, create social and academic networks and reduce the drop-out rate. It goes without saying that all universities wish to have attractive study environments, but which planning tools and strategies are effective when creating and operating the workstations and the environment? How are the initiatives financed and organised? A survey of Danish universities gives an idea and at the same time provides a picture of current trends in the design of the physical study environment
Students demand more and better workstations. In 2007, the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation held a competition in which students had to write an essay about the physical framework at Danish universities. Almost all 63 entries mentioned the need for more and better workstations with longer opening hours. Regardless of the year of study, the study pattern and the subject, all students – for different reasons – emphasise this requirement.
Workstations in hindsight
In the past, workstations were something that was made available at the university libraries. Apart from that, there were generally only a few places where the students could read and study. Environments based on project groups, like the group rooms and project buildings with permanent workstations that were introduced at Roskilde and Aalborg Universities in Denmark, changed the picture of the type of facilities made available by the university.
Until recently, we were discussing what the introduction of technology would do to the need for physical universities. However, the virtual university with E-learning and podcast lectures does not seem to have reduced the need for a place where students can meet. Quite the opposite.
Now all universities in Denmark make facilities and areas available as a matter of course so that students have an opportunity – and the inclination – to remain at the university to learn. The universities are investing in additional furniture. Workstations can now be found in corridors and abound in library corners. The emphasis has changed, however, from fixed workstations, allocated to students for a period of time, to flexible arrangements where several students take turn to use the workstations.
The university buildings we build today differ from earlier buildings in the sense that the workstation – the place where social and academic aspects of the studies come together – are included in the original architectural drawings. Some of these buildings are on the drawing board and we will be able to visit them before long. Other buildings have already been inaugurated. The common feature of all these buildings is that they incorporate a new approach to learning. Learning is not something poured into the students’ heads in the lecture hall but something that happens in an exchange between people. The workstation is therefore the physical meeting place and a platform for learning. This is where students meet each other, the researchers and the surrounding world. The student meets the university’s environment and spirit.
Why focus on workstations?
In Denmark, workstations and the physical study environment have been placed on the agenda for several reasons. Of these, three stand out:
Learning method: The study environment and the offer of a desk or a room at the university to study support modern learning methods based on collaboration. Learning is the result of dialogues and exchanges with others. Even individual work requires sparring and close collaboration with other people.
Competition: A good study environment and attractive workstations for the students give the university a competitive advantage. They create a sense of belonging, which helps retain students and ensure that they complete their studies. This, in turn, has a major impact on university funding. Another aspect of competition is that private companies in certain cases start offering workstations outside the university to e.g. students who are working on their thesis. This removes both activities and knowledge from the university area and raises questions about the university’s obligations towards its students.
Area usage: The university areas must be put to optimum use, an issue that has become more important for the universities today than it used to be, in part because of the introduction of a government rent scheme that allows the universities to reallocate money saved on rent to other activities such as teaching. The result is an increased focus on the value of the way each m2 is being used. The workstations are an excellent way of using facilities for dual purposes e.g. canteens and libraries, etc. In other words, the workstations and the physical study environment are a strategic tool, which the universities use to handle current challenges.
How are these challenges being handled?
How do the universities then handle these challenges? Which tools are effective for developing and operating the physical study en-vironment? We asked eight Danish universities this question in a survey of Danish workstations for students.
The survey ‘Strategic use of workstations for students’ is based on the recording and analysis of 16 select workstations for students at eight Danish universities. The survey shows how the study environment, including the creation of workstations for students, can be used as a strategic tool: Study environment and workstations can contribute to reducing the drop-out rate and support learning as well as academic and social relations.
The purpose of the survey is to create a knowledge base that can be used in connection with the establishment of future study environments. It provides information about the factors that are relevant for establishing and operating workstations for students. In the survey, we describe the universities’ experience with the establishment, use and operation of workstations. The survey also describes practical aspects such as the choice of furniture, work methods and support facilities.
It gives a general picture of the types of workstations currently found at Danish universities and indicates general trends and challenges that many Danish universities face when establishing new workstations and study environments.
| The following examples are an extract from the survey ‘Strategic use of workstations’, prepared by SIGNAL Arkitekter in collaboration with the Danish University and Property Agency. |
Mikala Holme Samsøe
Aalborg University
Transparency in modern learning spaces
At Aalborg University (AAU), the individual institutes are responsible for providing workstations for the students. The decentralised planning of the workstations means that the individual institutes have been allocated funds for the purchase of furniture and equipment. However, ordering and purchasing is a centralised function handled by the technical administration, where a design consultant recommends different types of furniture to maintain a uniform design at the university.
The university chooses furniture of good quality in a simple classic design to ensure a long, useful life. For example, they have had the same office chairs for many decades and used defective furniture as spare parts for the remaining chairs.
As a result of the decentralised structure, initiatives flourish from the bottom up. The E-learning Lab research unit is an example of enthusiastic people who over the years have experimented with their interior design. They began with open offices in a so-called ‘garage’ and are now based in a building where the students work in the same room as the professor.
| Specialepladser i E-learning lab | |
|---|---|
|
Description:
E-learning Lab is a research unit under the Dept. of Communication. Here, the students have their own workstations in the same room as the researchers and the professor. The aim of this setup is to promote knowledge sharing and benefit from each other’s competences. | |
|
Users:
The room is the daily workplace for one or more students writing their thesis, a number of PhD students as well as assistant research professors and administrative staff. | |
|
Furniture:
The furniture for the room was purchased new when the building was constructed. The institute purchased the lounge furniture with funds acquired through research projects. Most of the furniture is fitted with castors for mobility to make it easy to change the layout of the room. | |
|
Access:
The buildings are open from 8.00 am to 5.30 pm. After that time, access requires a keycard. E-learning Lab, however, is always locked |
Students doing their apprenticeship at the researchers’ office
E-learning Lab aims to create an environment where the students are given special opportunities for professional development. That is why workstations have been set aside in the research unit for students writing their thesis. One of the advantages is that the students work in a professional environment where they have an opportunity to discuss their projects with researchers and PhD students, among others, while at the same time gaining an insight into the business community. Professor at AAU, Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeldt, who developed the ideas for the multidisciplinary environment at E-learning Lab, describes this form of working as a type of apprenticeship. The students are typically employed to do 10 hours of work per week while writing their thesis, during which they carry out different tasks for the other employees at the research unit. The result is a mutual exchange of competences, which helps strengthen the academic environment.
The layout of the room as an open landscape supports the mutual knowledge exchange between employees and students. It is worth noting that the furniture is the same for everyone, as the intention was to break down the hierarchy between the different users of the office. The mobile furniture makes it easy to quickly modify the room to suit the work function. AAU has successfully introduced similar offices elsewhere on campus where groups of 10-12 students writing their thesis and PhD students work in the same room.
Aarhus University
Good start reduces drop-out rate
The strategy for the creation of workstations for students was incorporated from the start when Aarhus University established the iNANO nanotechnology degree programme in 2002. Special group rooms have therefore been created for first-year students at iNANO. They function as a type of classroom where groups of 20 students have all their group lessons. In addition, the rooms are used as a student café and for social activities to promote a sense of belonging.
The underlying idea is that a good start to the degree programme gives students a reason to stay and in that way reduces the drop-out rate. The iNANO centre therefore places special emphasis on workstations for students in the first year of their degree programme.
The centre management wishes to create synergy between researchers and students by making sure they work in close proximity. The group rooms are therefore located along the same corridor where the iNANO administration and associate professors have their offices. This solution presents the additional advantage that the administration is in close contact with the students and therefore has its finger on the pulse as to how the study environment functions.
The degree programme in nanotechnology is of a multidisciplinary nature, and the students therefore attend lectures at different parts of campus. This was the reason why we made a special effort to create a sense of belonging for the students in the degree programme by allocating a special work area to them," says Signe Osbahr, Academic Coordinator at iNANO.
| Group rooms for first-year students at iNANO | |
|---|---|
|
Description:
At iNANO, the Interdisciplinary Nanoscience Center, three group rooms have been allocated to first-year students. | |
|
Users:
Each group of 20 students has one room at its disposal. The workstations are used for teaching, group work, lunch and social interaction. | |
|
Furniture:
Each group room has 20 standard desks and chairs, in addition to nine purpose-made computer desks with room for two students per desk. This saves both space and computers and means that students work together on their assignments. The desks were designed by the person responsible for the teaching and manufactured by a furniture company. The funds for establishing the group rooms were provided by a special grant from the Danish Ministry of Education earmarked for the establishment of nanotechnology degree programmes. | |
|
Access:
Standard opening hours are 7.00 am – 5.00 pm. After that time, the students gain access to the buildings by means of a keycard. |
Group rooms create a sense of belonging
The group rooms at iNANO are very popular among the students and are pictured on the Internet to attract new students. The rooms have been fitted out so they support several functions such as group lessons and group work, which presents many advantages. On the one hand, it saves space and money, as one workstation replaces two, and on the other, the group gets a physical and social ‘home’ during their degree programme, which clearly reduces the drop-out rate.
The interior design combines standard and purpose-made furniture, which has resulted in a solution that is completely customised to suit the users. To minimise the overall budget, the centre chose to allocate some of the funds to purpose-made furniture: a computer desk where several students can work together at one stationary PC, with the rest being standard furniture.
The Danish School of Education (DPU)
Everything in one place
The DPU has adopted the principle that all individual workstations should be placed in the library, whereas group workstations and group rooms should be distributed in other buildings. In addition to these formally established workstations, the DPU has a large number of lounge and café environments with wireless Internet access, power plugs and places where food is sold. The canteen is one of them. This ensures optimum utilisation of the facilities and creates a lively study environment, which is very popular among the students. Study, discussions, collaboration, lunch and breaks all happen in the same environment.
The DPU experiments with different types of furniture and has, for instance, chosen to purchase a very short and narrow desk used all over the DPU in different contexts. The students complained that the distance to the teacher was too great in teaching situations and the new desk, which is 60 cm wide, has considerably reduced this feeling of distance, according to a survey carried out by the DPU. The desk is 130 cm long, which is just enough room for two students. This creates a certain closeness, which the students like. Any length less than 130 cm would mean that the desk would accommodate only one student.
During the fitting-out process, the DPU chose to collaborate with the architectural advisers, who are also responsible for the reconstruction in general. The result is a clear visual identity created by the coherence between building, rooms and furniture.
The workstations at the DPU were established with a general and long-term strategy in mind, which has resulted in a uniform and consistent visual expression throughout the campus.
| Individual workstations at the library | |
|---|---|
|
Description:
At the DPU, individual workstations are only available at the library. | |
|
Users:
The workstations are mainly used by students writing their thesis. They use the workstations for difficult, concentrated work, writing and research. | |
|
Furniture:
The workstations consist of standard equipment. Approx. half of the workstations have stationary PCs. The students would like the number of PCs to be increased, as many do not have their own laptop. | |
|
Access:
The library is open from 9.00 am – 7.00 pm. The library has just extended its opening hours by one hour following a growing demand from the students. |
Workstations as a lever for longer opening hours
It is the vision of the DPU that the library should be open around the clock, and the workstations are being used as an argument in favour of this change. That is why all ‘quiet’ workstations are located at the library. The library is experiencing a massive demand for an extension of the opening hours, as the students also need to use the workstations during evenings and weekends.
Recently, the library extended its opening hours by one additional hour in the morning and now opens at the same time as the rest of the DPU at 9.00 am This extension of the opening hours is being handled by student assistants and on an annual basis, the cost of this additional hour is DKK 150,000.
“Additional staff costs should of course be expected if the library is to remain open 24/7, but we see this as a minor problem compared with a solution in which individual sections of the library are locked off, e.g. with grated doors. Telling the students that they have to study ‘behind bars’ would also send a wrong message," says Thomas Møller Kristensen, Senior Consultant.
University of Southern Denmark, Campus Odense (SDU)
Space creates study atmosphere
At SDU, the job of providing workstations for the students is a centralised function. The overall vision is to create functional and viable solutions in which the physical surroundings are given high priority. An aesthetically pleasing study environment and good workstations are regarded as an important parameter in the competition to attract new students.
The selection and purchase of furniture is handled by the Buildings Department. The building manager spends a lot of time walking around campus and initiates both minor and major improvements of the aesthetic environment.
The Buildings Department has set up a working group to select the furniture. The department is responsible for the design of minor components, whereas the architects associated with the university under a framework agreement are used for major projects. The individual solutions are assessed on an ongoing basis and the Buildings Department independently tests the different furniture components to be able to offer the students the best furniture.
| Study cube | |
|---|---|
|
Description:
The study cube is a space-saving individual workstation. Study cubes are available at different parts of SDU. The cubes can be installed individually or in different combinations. | |
|
Users:
All types of students use the cubes for concentrated work. | |
|
Furniture:
The study cube has been purpose-made. It is accompanied by a lamp that can be integrated and an adjustable office chair. The desk can be adjusted individually to different working heights. The total price is approx. DKK 6,000 for all the components. | |
|
Access:
At Kilen, only students associated with CBS have access. The opening hours are from 8.00 am to 10.30 pm, and after that time there is no access to the building. CBS is currently working on a solution that will allow the students extended access during weekends and evenings by means of a keycard. |
The study cube is a cheap workstation
The SDU wanted to be able to establish workstations for concentrated and in-depth work in open spaces at short notice. An architectural student, Stinne Bjerre, who had developed the workstation in connection with her graduation project, introduced SDU to the study cube. SDU was open to the idea, as the university was keen to optimise the individual workstation, and worked with the student and a well-known furniture company to complete the development of the product.
The study cube is a success among the students, and the dept. of medicine, where it was first installed, would like more of the cubes to replace traditional workstations. The cube was developed on the basis of an extensive survey of individual study requirements and is therefore ideally suited to its purpose. The study cube functions as a visual barrier as well as a sound barrier. It provides maximum leg room. The cube is module-based and can be placed in different constellations in many types of rooms, which SDU has done e.g. at Alsion in Sønderborg where the cubes have been used to furnish a very large room.
Copenhagen Business School, CBS
Customised furniture raises aesthetics
The latest CBS building, Kilen (the Wedge) at Solbjerg Plads square, has both customised furniture in café and lounge style and designer furniture with a young look. Today, the line between studies and spare time has become increasingly blurred and at Kilen, CBS has created an environment that appeals to CBS students; furniture they recognise and can relate to.
The workstations cover different types: formal, informal and an in-between type for short-term work, which gives the students an opportunity to change workstation depending on the nature of their work. All workstations are equipped with Internet connection, power and various other support facilities. The combination of the visual expression, the streamlining of the functions and the informal but fully serviced student environment makes CBS an attractive place to study.
In several places, CBS has chosen specialised solutions in the form of customised furniture for its workstations. The purpose was to support the work function in the modern and elegant style that characterises CBS.
As a general rule, CBS establishes its workstations in connection with new construction projects. Their own Campus Service works closely with both architects and furniture manufacturers to ensure optimum utilisation and to be able to offer an attractive study environment in which the aesthetic expression is just as important as functionality.
| Group workstations at Kilen | |
|---|---|
|
Description:
The group workstations are located near the atrium at Kilen and consist of tall bar counters and stools. Perfect for ad hoc meetings or short-term work. | |
|
Users:
The group workstations are available for all students associated with CBS but are primarily used by students in the first part of their degree programme. They use the workstations for informal group work. | |
|
Furniture:
The wave-shaped bar counters are custom-designed and developed specifically for Kilen. The counter is module-based and can be used in different contexts depending on the size of the room. | |
|
Access:
At Kilen, only students associated with CBS have access. The opening hours are from 8.00 am to 10.30 pm, and after that time there is no access to the building. CBS is currently working on a solution that will allow the students extended access during weekends and evenings by means of a keycard. |
Café environment for short-term work
CBS wanted to create an alternative to the traditional workstation, and the form and function of their chosen solutions set the trend for future study environments. The vision was to create different types of workstations, which could supplement each other in both formal and informal environments.
The areas with tall, wave-shaped bar counters are informal in character and are placed in an open environment where the users have plenty of contact with other students. The wave-shaped form means that the counter is suitable for both group work and individual work and that several groups can use a counter at the same time.
The design is modern and inspired by a typical café environment. The counters have built-in cable trays to make it easy to connect laptop computers, and in that way, the counters can function as proper workstations. It is important to note that the counters are intended as a supplement to the other workstations at CBS but meet a need for informal and accessible places for short-term work.
University of Copenhagen (KU)
Rapid establishment
Within a short period of time, the University of Copenhagen has established a large number of workstations all over the university. The workstations were established as part of a large strategy based on the ‘Mærk suset’ (‘Feel the rush’) report. The report describes the university’s vision for a better study environment and contains a prioritised list of the 10 most important focus areas. ‘Action Workstation’ is one of the top items on the list, focusing on the creation of workstations and wireless Internet access.
‘Action Workstation’ set aside a pool of funds, which the individual faculties can apply for. The money is earmarked for the establishment of student workstations, and the faculties can choose between four pre-defined types. These four types are: a tall desk, low lounge furniture and desks with either an adjustable or a standard chair. To begin with, furniture has been purchased for 1,000 new workstations.
The principle behind the allocation of the funds is ‘the maximum amount of study environment for the money as quickly as possible’.
To meet the acute need for more workstations, KU chose to purchase a large amount of standard furniture under a framework agreement with National Procurement Ltd. – Denmark, which guaranteed a high bulk discount and prompt delivery. During the process of creating the workstations, the faculties worked with interior designers and design consultants from the chosen furniture company who prepared a proposal for the interior design based on the four furniture types. The choice of furniture was approved by the individual faculties and purchased by the central administration on behalf of everyone.
An important aspect of the choice of furniture was the design, as the furniture will be used in many different contexts all over the university.
| Special workstations at KUA for students writing their thesis | |
|---|---|
|
Description:
The workstations at KUA consist of redesigns of existing offices. The rooms can accommodate five to eight students. | |
|
Users:
The rooms are earmarked for students writing their thesis. | |
|
Furniture:
The room is equipped with standard furniture. One workstation consists of a fixed desk, an office chair with a flexible back and a number of shelves in a common shelf system. | |
|
Access:
The rooms are accessible around the clock for students with keycards. The students have expressed a wish to have locks fitted to the doors because of the risk of theft. |
Effective strategy for a speedy implementation process
KUA wanted to improve the conditions for students writing their thesis as quickly as possible. They wanted to offer them a place to work on campus and a multidisciplinary and social study environment to motivate the students to write their thesis at the university rather than e.g. rent rooms in the city or work at home.
KU wanted to find a quick solution and did so by purchasing a large amount of standard furniture. To begin with, the university purchased 1,000 desks and chairs intended for other parts of the university as well. The faculty applied for funds and in that way was able to establish a new autonomous section with 122 new workstations, of which 83 are dedicated to students writing their thesis. The workstations have just been put into use, and just under half of those reserved for students writing their thesis are occupied.
The students regard it as a great advantage that the workstations are located in a special section, as this supports their need to concentrate in peace and quiet.
Challenges and inspiration
The examples indicate some of the challenges the universities face when establishing and operating workstations for students. The way the eight universities in this survey have tackled these challenges is a source of inspiration
Study at any time
A possibility for studying 24/7
A university open 24/7 signals its accessibility and meets the needs of the users for flexibility. Regardless of whether or not the students distinguish clearly between studies, spare time and work, there are valid arguments for giving them the option to study evenings and weekends. The challenge of access 24/7 is the increased risk of theft and malicious damage.
Safety: The Panum building at the University of Copenhagen has extremely strict safety requirements, in part because of its collection of dead bodies that must not be misused. They have positive experience with a scheme in which the students are security screened before being given a keycard that provides access around the clock. CBS, with its new designer furniture, currently works on a similar solution.
Flexible opening hours: The library at Panum adjusts its opening hours to the rhythms of the semesters and examination periods. This solution saves money for staff and ensures good conditions for the students who feel that the library accommodates their needs. Booking systems can help students secure a workstation and at the same time create a sense of belonging.
Booking: At RUC, some students only go to the university if they have secured a place beforehand. Conversely, bookings can also block an otherwise flexible system and create the risk that the workstation remains unused. In some places, the universities protect themselves against this phenomenon by releasing the workstation if it has not been used within 15 minutes from the time booked.
Lever for opening hours: The Danish School of Education (DPU) purposely places all its individual workstations at the library and uses this as an argument for extending the library’s opening and lending hours. If the library is closed, no workstations are available!
… and anywhere
Plug & study
Study work on laptop computers and wireless Internet access make it possible to study anywhere. This option is popular in the places where it has been introduced. The examples also show – with one exception – that the need for fixed PC workstations is on the decline. Many of these workstations are being abolished and many educational institutions try instead to create a physical framework that supports study on laptop computers.
Power plugs in the steps of the staircase: In the Kilen building at CBS, power plugs have been installed in the steps of the staircase in the atrium, which makes it possible for students to sit and work here for short periods of time, an option that is frequently being used. The power supply is an important aspect if study activities are to take place everywhere.
Wireless Internet access: RUC and DPU have used wireless Internet access to utilise rooms that are not being used during the day. These rooms now take the pressure off the canteens, which are already being used for studying, by providing workstations with wireless Internet access and furniture suitable for work situations.
Tables and chairs are not enough!
Services are also required
EA workstation must be accompanied by a number of support functions and other services to be attractive. The core services are access to the Internet and electricity, good opening hours and ergonomic furniture. In many places, these services cannot be taken for granted. In addition, this survey highlights a wish and a need for a number of other services:
Italian sandwich vending machine: DPU used a remotely located room for an Italian coffee and sandwich vending machine. The machine was relatively cheap and is restocked by the canteen. Its presence suddenly made the remotely located room with its soft furniture very attractive for group work.
Aesthetics: At all the locations surveyed – except for one IT degree programme – the students and the staff attached importance to the aesthetic environment. The aesthetics have a direct impact on how much they enjoy using the room and how valued they feel.
Standard or customised furniture
‘Expensive solutions are not necessarily the best’
Good solutions require a needs analysis and a prioritisation of the funds available. This can result in both standard and customised solutions. The survey shows good examples of both.
1,000 identical chairs: KU has purchased 1,000 chairs and desks as standard furniture to meet an immediate need for more workstations. The furniture was purchased under a framework agreement with National Procurement Ltd. Denmark, which resulted in a considerable bulk discount. The joint purchase made it possible to act quickly and buy cheaply. The challenge to this solution is that the furniture does not necessarily fit in aesthetically in all the different buildings at the university. The same chair may look cosy in one building and cold and flimsy in another. In addition, the right lighting is required to create a pleasant environment, and lighting was not part of the concept.
Customised computer desk:iNANO, Aarhus University (AU) chose a mixed solution with standard desks and customised computer desks. They were designed so the students could sit in groups around the computer desk, as this is important for the teaching methods.
Study cube at DKK 6,000: In collaboration with a student of architecture and a furniture manufacturer, the University of Southern Denmark has set the production of a ‘study cube’ in motion. As a result, the university can now, at the cost of approx. DKK 6,000, quickly establish a complete workstation with adjustable desk, chair and lamp as well as partitions. In addition to being a fully customisable workstation, the study cube also functions as a shield, a room divider and a sculpture. The university uses this solution in several new buildings.
Three-in-one – a focus on densification
One workstation – several functions and an active study environment
A lack of space is a general challenge according to representatives from the universities that took part in the survey. Nevertheless, many of the study environments were empty when we dropped in without warning. Densification is one way of creating a good environment and visible life at the university.
Classroom reduces drop-out rate: iNANO, AU, and the Department of Information Technology at AAU, among others, have established multi-functional group rooms, a type of classroom in which many different functions such as teaching, homework and Friday bar are combined. Experience shows that it promotes a sense of belonging among the students and reduces the drop-out rate.
New types of furniture
for new rooms and new forms of learning
The new types of furniture are flexible and mobile and require limited space. The standard dimensions of tables and chairs have been reviewed in many places.
Close to the teacher: The DPU uses 60 cm wide desks because they reduce the distance to the teacher, which has a positive effect, according to experience. They also order standard desks that are 10 cm higher than normal because they realised that desk heights of 80 cm are better suited for tall students. At the same time, this reduces the need for the somewhat more expensive adjustable chairs in the seminar rooms.
A table for two: KU and DPU purchase 130 cm long desks because they provide just enough room for two students. Any length less than 130 cm would mean the desk would accommodate only one student.
Wave-shaped counters for several students: Kilen at CBS is one of the places that experiments with new types of workstations suited for something between formal and informal learning. The wave-shaped bar counters, for instance, accommodate students working individually as well as several groups of students working at one counter at the same time.
Mobile furniture: The survey shows several examples of flexible furniture that can be adapted to different functions. The DPU, for instance, purchases small, light desks that can easily be used for both seminars and group work. It is not unusual that students and teachers quickly shift the furniture around in the middle of a lesson – and later put it back in place.
What about aesthetics
‘… I have the same chair!’
The visual expression can also be used strategically to create a brand for the educational institution, with which the students can identify. The universities in this survey work more or less strategically with aesthetics and the visual impression. They are aware that it is not enough to base decisions on quantity, functionality and durability. Design and architecture create value.
Expression matching the target group: Via the interior design, furniture and colours, the educational institution can demonstrate that it recognises modern values and the modern society in which we live. Kilen, for instance, has chosen furniture in a young design that matches the target group.
Aesthetic eyes: The presence of professional aesthetic eyes is evident in the study environment, according to the survey. These eyes may belong to staff members, e.g. architects employed in the administration who make time for regular walks around campus. They correct minor and major details: the right lighting, a piece of matching furniture, or they may notice areas that have been left out and can be developed.
Purchase framework agreement: Many universities point out that future purchases through National Procurement Ltd. Denmark (SKI) could impose limitations on the choice of furniture, as SKI suppliers have a strong focus on traditional workstations consisting of a desk, a chair and a filing cabinet.
Rooms as strategic tools
The survey shows examples of very different creative processes. In most places, the workstation is the result of an overall strategy and a vision on the part of management. In a couple of cases, the initiative grew from the bottom up and is the result of the efforts of individuals. The most holistic examples are those where management allocated resources for the project.
The survey also shows that the universities are aware that rooms can push, facilitate or simply overcome challenges. In many cases, they use the design of the physical framework to strengthen academic and social relations across different years and subjects.
Workstations for students at the professor’s office: At E-learning Lab at AAU, rooms are being used to create a synergistic effect between the teacher and the students. Here, a total of approx. 10 academic staff members from Humanities work in an open-plan office together with Master’s degree students writing their thesis and PhD students. The professor therefore works in the same open space as a couple of students.
Creating a sense of belonging: ‘Lysningen’ (The clearing) at the Department of Humanities at SDU in Odense was created to give the students a sense of social belonging and reduce the drop-out rate. The clearing is a room with high ceilings and soft furniture where you have visual contact with a large amount of the department’s teaching facilities and staff. At KUA, the newly established workstations for the students writing their thesis were created to retain the students and create a sense of belonging at the educational institution, both academically and socially. Previously, the students largely worked at home.
Mikala Holme Samsøe The examples are an extract from the survey ‘Strategic use of workstations’, prepared by SIGNAL Arkitekter in collaboration with the Danish University and Property Agency.ICT-supported learning spaces
The theme ‘ICT-supported learning spaces’ takes its starting point in a study of six international examples of how information and communication technology has been implemented in university learning environments.
The examples stem from Singapore Management University, Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Strathclyde and University of Leeds, and they were chosen because they all use as their starting point the pedagogical perspectives inherent in the use of technology in the learning space for furthering learning through interaction. This means that the starting point is the interplay between pedagogy, technology and space rather than just technology as such.
The purpose of the study is to inspire the universities’ management, technical staff and teachers through good international examples.
In addition to the international cases, the section first describes the potential found in thinking ICT-supported learning spaces into the physical framework of the study environment. In closing, an interview is included with one of the people behind a project at Stanford University, where an ICT-supported exploratorium has been created for students and teachers.
ICT-supported learning environments
The rows of seats in the lecture rooms are being replaced by round workstations for group work and the podium is discarded in favour of the mixer desk. When the door is closed, the lecture room is ‘switched on’. The topic is projected onto the walls and the lecture room is connected to the surrounding world. The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has examined best practice within international ICT-supported learning environments
How does technology affect the classroom? In most cases, the universities have installed the technology in existing rooms, but that will not necessarily be the case in the future. New technology changes our perceptions of the lecture room or the classroom and creates a new picture of the way we learn. From that platform, we may be able to make the leap to new radically different rooms; new physical learning frameworks that in turn can create a new understanding of the way we learn.
Letting the world into the classroom
The computer screen allows us to see a stream, city life or another study object in its natural surroundings. External professors or other experts can give guest lectures or hold workshops at the university without being physically present. Collaboration between students can also take place across different time zones and borders.
Involving new information and communication technology does not lead to uniform ways of teaching; quite the contrary: technology makes it possible to experiment with different forms of teaching and learning styles.
On the classroom screen, students can quickly demonstrate their ideas visually. Statistics, poems, pictures and films combine to create a better understanding of the subject. While the teacher places the next presentation on the university’s Intranet, the students look for more information on the Internet. Better use is made of lesson time, both in group and individual work. Technology-based teaching programmes allow the students to work with the material at their own speed. Teleconference equipment or electronic boards do not affect the room to any major extent but create different ways of using technology.
Easy to change between different work methods
The advantage of working with a subject in different ways – by listening, acting and asking questions – is that the students remember the material better and become able to use it. Several universities therefore now try to mix different teaching methods but it can be difficult to apply different methods in the same room. It also takes time to move from lecture room to group room and back again. Technology helps mix the teaching methods at MIT. Students can quickly and easily change between different teaching methods, as the lecture room has been done away with and the students sit at round tables and work in groups. The teacher can walk around and supervise or display examples of group work on large screens on the walls. Pre-sentations, group work and summing up for the more than 100 students can easily succeed one another in the same room.
New role for the teacher
The teacher is more of a supervisor in the technology-supported learning environment than in the traditional lecture room. The teacher’s desk has perhaps been replaced by the mixer desk since subject-specific knowledge is available at a click of the mouse. It is the responsibility of the teacher to place all the bits of information in a context. Whereas in the past, the students had fixed seats in the classrooms, both students and teacher can now move around. The teacher can therefore mingle with the students and help them navigate and find information, create hypotheses and test them. Whereas, in the past, the classrooms were hierarchically structured, today’s classroom allows collaboration between the students and the teacher. The teacher and the students stand at the electronic board when exploring an issue together to develop their own – and preferably brand new – solutions.
In that way, technology and the newly fitted rooms create an optimum framework for problem-orientated teaching. The teaching is based on the knowledge the students already possess and constantly generate new questions that expand the students’ understanding of the material.
Technology tests understanding
Technology can be used for different educational purposes, and the survey provides some examples. At the University of Strathclyde, the students are equipped with an electronic voice; much like a normal remote control. They can use this voice, to give quick and anonymous answers to the teacher’s questions about facts or opinions about a topic. This gives the teacher a quick overview. In this way, technology can be used to measure the level of the class. However, the main advantage is that the answers provide a good basis for a discussion in class. The feedback system does not affect the room in the above example, but in the future, the students could also become physically involved. Today, school pupils in Aarhus move around electronically generated maps or simulated environments as part of knowledge games. Light and images are projected up through the floor, and the floor is equipped with sensors, which react to the way the students physically move across it. The question is whether we will see the same technological knowledge game environment at the university in the future.
Technology and learning as a field of knowledge
To develop learning, rooms and technology is a field of knowledge in its own right. Foreign universities use virtual and physical rooms not only to improve their teaching. The teaching concepts are also a source of income for international universities and therefore given high priority in the universities’ development strategies. Collaboration between Stanford University and manufacturers of IT products results in new technological products and learning environments adapted to the wishes of the university’s own teachers, which can also inspire and be purchased by others. Danish universities are well placed to contribute to this development, as Danish universities and other educational institutions have been working with different teaching and collaboration methods for a long time. To abandon lectures in favour of teaching methods that involve the students is nothing new to the Danes. The challenge is to support these new working methods with the new technology. The university students of the future will, however, be familiar with technology and diffe-rent forms of learning from primary, secondary and upper secondary school.
The situation in Denmark
The Danish ‘Folkeskole’ (primary and secondary school) has experimented with the combination of technology and rooms that create new possibilities for learning through movement. These experiments have not yet been introduced at the universities. It therefore remains an open question what the future integrated virtual and physical rooms will look like at university level. Perhaps technology will result in a more effective use of the rooms with nomadic project rooms; rooms covered with interactive boards and scanners that transmit and store data directly on the computer. Here, project groups can perhaps quickly surround themselves with mind maps, notes and outlines for assignments. The tabs on the computer screen will be displayed in the room, and after finishing, the group will switch off the equipment and leave the room for the next group to develop its own projects. Especially in science and health science subjects, rooms for computer-generated simulation could help make issues less theoretical and training more realistic. Perhaps games and role-play will no longer be limited to primary and secondary school. Perhaps virtual and physical rooms will help students assume different roles when working with learning scenarios and cases.
Barriers to technology, rooms and learning
The technology has to be adapted to the planned collaboration, whether you wish to combine different university subjects and campuses or collaborate with other universities or companies at home or abroad.
Another barrier could be that the strategic use of technology requires human resources for guidance, research and dissemination of information. Stanford University offers teachers guidelines that go beyond mere instructions in the use of technology. This work with education and technology takes place in a building called Wallenberg Hall. Here, teachers can test rooms with information and communication technology. The teachers can contact one of the academic technology specialists for guidelines or brainstorming based on the specific issues the teacher wishes to resolve. The internal consultants gather and share their experience and thereby directly implement the development at the university.
The third barrier could be money for new rooms and new technology but the universities can start by using the technology they already have at their disposal. This can be done in normal classrooms or study areas using standard software. The survey of best practices at international universities shows that dedicating special rooms to the initiatives promotes focus and commitment amongst students and teachers.
Cathrine SchmidtCASE: Singapore Management University
Technology geared to the teachers
The teacher does not have to adapt to diffe-rent technology in different rooms. The technology must be the same everywhere and be adapted to suit the teacher. Therefore, Singapore Management University has implemented the same standard design throughout the campus. This is a practical and safe solution that gives the teacher an incentive to use the technology. At the same time, the stan-dardised design means fewer restrictions in the planning of the timetable and allows the university to maximise the use of classrooms. The challenge is that the technological design must support different subjects and the teachers’ different teaching methods.
The solution chosen by the university was to establish collaboration between two professors from each faculty and the university’s IT department. The group worked closely together about the technological development. As a result, the design was modified throughout the development process to take into account the input of the teachers.
Over the course of a year, teachers and students tested the new technologies in an ‘experimental teaching classroom’. The final model was subsequently implemented throughout the campus. The room and the collaboration between teachers and IT department now ensure ongoing development of the technology in the classrooms.
One year after the introduction of the technology in the classrooms, 96 % of the teachers think the technology is easy to use with little or no training.
CASE: Stanford University
Rooms and guidance promote educational development
Stanford University has established Wallenberg Hall as an experimental teaching facility. With the latest and most advanced technology at their disposal, teachers and dedicated academic technology specialists test new ideas about teaching and technological support of teaching that can also be used at other locations and within other frameworks – including more low-tech classrooms.
The challenge to Stanford University was to convince the teachers to use the new technological facilities. It involved a shift from a teaching-based information transfer to a more group-based and interactive form of teaching.
The solution was a centre that gathers and develops knowledge and technology that support collaboration. This centre is called Wallenberg Hall. Here, academic technology specialists give advice about the use of the technology. They share their experience, and the teacher can call for technical assistance before and after lessons.
Each room has 20 laptops with wireless connection and equipped with open source software. The students can share files between computers and project images or documents onto a common screen. They sit at joint workstations that connect the laptops of the individual students, and each workstation is equipped with a plasma screen. In that way, it becomes easy to share the work within the group and present it to the class. Of course, the laptops can also be used for individual work.
Wallenberg Hall has stationary equipment for video conferences, but the same effect can be better achieved with mobile equipment. External presenters such as researchers and business people with little spare time can be involved in the teaching without having to be physically present at Stanford University. Classes at Stanford University can also be linked up with classes abroad. The technology in the rooms is controlled by means of standardised control panels.
The students use lightweight, portable whiteboards to visually demonstrate their ideas. The material is converted into digital images using wall-mounted scanners, is shared with others, stored on websites or in files or printed out. This is useful, if the presentation has not been completed by the end of the lesson. The classrooms are also equipped with light furniture that can easily be placed in different constellations.
The technology makes it easy to combine sources. Images and documents can be projected onto large digital screens. Special software allows the screens to be used as digital whiteboards, and you can ‘write’ directly on documents and pictures. With several of these screens in the classroom, you can show a number of projections at the same time – text, photos and paintings produce a varied context for analysis and discussion.
Stanford University points out that the Wallenberg Hall model does not necessarily have to be copied in its entirety to the rest of the university or other institutions. However, new ideas can be tested at Wallenberg Hall and subsequently used elsewhere, also in more low-tech classrooms.
CASE: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT
One room, several teaching methods
Today, the university has two rooms, each with a capacity for 117 people. One of the rooms used to be a traditional lecture room seating 300 people. Each room has 13 round tables seating 9 people. Three groups of three people each can work at these tables.
Laptops and whiteboards are placed along the walls and are at the disposal of the students. The students can use the technology for computer simulations and experiments. The work at the whiteboard is filmed and can be projected onto the three screens, which are also placed along the classroom walls.
The teacher has a desk in the middle of the room. The computer on his desk is connected to the groups as well as the screens. In that way, the teacher can show presentations, examples of group work or the like. Equipped with a wireless microphone, the teacher can walk around among the students, assist groups or facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing. The teacher can also interact electronically with the students, e.g. by sending out multiple choice questions that require immediate answers. The teacher quickly gets a general overview of the nature of the replies from the students, which allows him/her to assess whether further explanation of the subject is required.
Struggling students do better
After four years of use in science teaching, language courses, engineering subjects and at conferences, evaluations show that struggling students do much better than with traditional teaching methods, whereas strong students do as well as before. The average learning outcome was twice that of traditional teaching. These results are supported by studies from other universities, as is evident from other examples described below.
MIT now plans to establish similar classrooms on a smaller scale for teaching of 20-40 people.
CASE:MIT, National University of Singapore + Nanyang Technological University
The global classroom
The three universities in the USA and Singapore, respectively, wish to promote engineering studies and bioscience – subjects in rapid development in these countries. Connections between camera, video and computers ensure Singapore the necessary high quality knowledge resources and give MIT students and teachers a global perspective.One second separates the teaching in Massachusetts and Singapore. Several times a day, teaching is beamed across 15,000 km and 12 time zones with a sound delay of less than a second. MIT has three global classrooms. Due to requirements for reliability of operation, the distance teaching cannot be carried out using portable equipment. The university therefore plans to increase the number of classrooms equipped with technology for distance teaching.
Teaching facilities
Cameras film the teacher, the students, the board and documents from several angles, and a computer link ensures the display of the digital material used by the teacher. This material can include PowerPoint slides, animations or simulations. As a result of the way the information from the video and the computer is split, the written presentations of the teacher and the students can be displayed during their verbal presentations.
The technology has given students at the two Singaporean universities access to seminars with Nobel Prize winners and other renowned members of MIT’s teaching staff. The majority of the students who complete a degree within this collaboration have an opportunity to obtain two degrees, one from MIT and another from one of the two universities in Singapore. The candidates are therefore popular and in demand by large, multinational companies in Singapore and the surrounding area such as Motorola, Hewlett-Packard, Phillips Electronics, Singapore Airlines, Apple Computer and Dell.
CASE: University of Strathclyde
Feedback starts discussion
Feedback increases interaction between teachers and students. It ensures that the students attend the lessons, promotes learning and reduces the drop-out rate. The solution requires that the room be fitted out differently and that the teacher adjust his expectations.An alarming drop-out rate and declining attendance at lectures was the challenge faced by the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. The solution was new technology and different fitting out. Today, the teacher can ask a question and get immediate answers from the entire class by means of an electronic personal response system. The answers stimulate discussion in class, and the teacher gets an idea of whether the topic has been covered or needs further elaboration. This teaching method also prepares the students for their exams. The feedback equipment costs approx. DKK 10,000 per 100 students.
The solution requires the classroom to be fitted out differently. Banana-shaped desks create opportunities for discussion in small groups while still facing the teacher. Computers behind each office chair make it easy for the students to alternate between independent study, group work and lectures.
Anonymous answers promote student involvement
Anonymous feedback gets students involved who normally do not speak out in large groups. Anonymity is important. Even students in their last semester who know their fellow students well and are only 30 in their class say so.
A barrier to using the personal response system is that a lesson must be two hours long to allow the discussions to unfold. In addition, the room must be fitted out in such a way that many small groups can be formed within a large lecture room. The teacher must also accept that it is impossible to go through the syllabus in detail when some of the time is spent on discussions.
CASE: University of Leeds
Text messages further discussion
Using text messages, teachers from the University of Leeds increase interaction with their students.Mobile phones are normally not allowed during lessons, but at the University of Leeds, they form the basis of academic discussions. The students can answer questions by texting. The incoming messages are projected onto a screen and used to discuss the material in class.
The answer categories are not defined beforehand. The students reply using free text, as this improves the dynamics. On the other hand, it means that it is impossible to easily display statistics of the answers from the students, even if the teacher actually wants answers within specific categories.
Compared with other feedback systems, it is easy and quick to include mobile phones in the teaching. If all students have mobile phones, no special remote controls have to be handed out and no advanced equipment has to be set up.
It is up to the students whether they wish to answer, as the university does not cover the students’ text costs. However, the teachers have not experienced this as a problem, as no students have complained about the costs.
Edited extract of the survey ‘IKT-støttet læringsmiljø – det gode eksempel’ (ICT-supported learning envi-ronments – a good example) prepared by the Danish University and Property Agency.Technology is a lever that helps change teaching methods
Wallenberg Hall is a teaching, classroom and technology exploratorium. Here, Stanford University offers optimum physical surroundings, the latest technology and experts to inspire the teachers
InterviewDaniel Gilbert, Academic Technology Specialist, Stanford University
At Wallenberg Hall, teachers can try out and gain experience with ICT and new forms of learning. Wallenberg Hall has five classrooms. All have video conference equipment, furniture that can be moved around as required and digital screens that can be connected to laptop computers. This also creates optimum conditions for dialogues with the teacher, as the best solutions are often found when you stop thinking in terms of what you believe is possible.
At Stanford University, technology specialists cover the topic of ICT-supported learning and learning environments in their instructions to the teachers, but how does this dialogue take place?One question that can open the dialogue is: What would you like your students to be able to do if we forget about finances and current technology? Perhaps the teachers would like their students to be able to search for information in the best possible databases, be able to work with other students around the world or that they would just keep quiet and listen. Once we know that, we can look at suitable ICT solutions and at how we can best coordinate the teaching.
How do you do that then?Fundamentally, it is a question of being open to a new teacher role. The teacher is not just a knowledge transmitter but the person who directs the conversation and draws attention to the most interesting comparisons or models. He or she guides the students on how to find information and how to derive knowledge from the information, because the teacher’s role is to place the information in a context. The ICT facilities open the eyes of the teachers to new ways of getting the students more involved and increasing the collaboration, both between students and between the students and the teacher.
If the dialogue plays the main role, it is essential that you can make your ideas visible. A visual display of the ideas is the quickest way to exchange knowledge. Electronic boards create new ways in which to instantly display, store and distribute ideas. Light and flexible furniture is another fundamental component for a good learning environment. Both the classroom and the furniture should be suitable for the teaching method. The light furniture makes it easier to alternate between different forms of teaching, as you can shift the furniture around as required.
Does this flexibility not have the drawback that you waste a lot of energy on rearranging the room and defining a new situation?It does. It takes some time to prepare mentally and physically for new situations. What our teachers do is to start the lesson by creating a place that supports the type of teaching that is going to take place that day. The students quickly take responsibility for shifting things around like each taking a chair if suggested by the teacher. However, it is not only the furniture that has to be flexible. The flexibility also has to be incorporated in the design of the rooms.
What advice do you give to the teachers who wish to change their teaching?We encourage the teacher to focus on one issue, e.g. a topic the students find difficult to grasp. The teachers should identify one specific topic for which they want to change their teaching. That creates a good starting point for development and one focus always leads to a lot of other new ideas.
What are the things you should never do when technology is involved?First of all, it is important not to use the ICT equipment as a starting point. There are many examples of universities that have purchased technology without thinking through whether it will actually allow them to carry out some of the activities they need. In the USA, the government has placed great emphasis on the possibility of automatically recording a lesson on video. However, nobody has thought about how much time it takes to view or edit the recording. Therefore, this method is hardly being used. Only a few of our teachers use it. Instead, the equipment has been used by the students to show their university presentations to future employers.
It is not at all the intention that all classrooms should have the facilities you see at Wallenberg Hall. The advice is therefore also about how to practise the teaching methods outside Wallenberg. The purchase of IT equipment is a heavy investment for some universities, but you can easily implement the teaching methods without Wallenberg Hall’s technical facilities.
Cathrine SchmidtLaboratories
This section takes a look at laboratories at Danish universities, and outlines a picture of the challenges that universities and developers encounter when the universities are to be modernised.
The theme is based on a study of a selection of natural, health, veterinary and engineering science laboratories at five Danish universities. The study is ongoing, and the first excerpt is shown here.
The section first introduces the background for and the new requirements to the laboratories: sustainability, subject specialisation, flexibility and, not least, new collaboration forms.
Subsequently, a researcher and a head of operations at a university offer their view of what the future holds. The researcher explains how glass rather than plaster strengthens collaboration, whilst the head of operations describes how aesthetics provide a more secure working environment.
The section presents archetypical typologies for the laboratories we come across today, followed by a draft proposal for how they can be modernised and thought out in the future to meet current challenges.
Flexibility and sustainability are the new challenges
New forms of collaboration and increased awareness of the influence of the buildings and their management on the environment are among the main challenges when Danish universities in the future modernise and build new laboratories
The fitting out and development of research and teaching laboratories are an extremely complex issue, and developers and consultants at Danish universities are facing a huge challenge, as most of the existing laboratories were planned and built about 30-40 years ago. The laboratories comply with government requirements to work environments but most of them were built for a different way of working than what is the norm today.
When we talk about laboratories today, we no longer think of a single room but of a complete research complex. A research complex includes weighing and storage rooms, offices, study rooms, recreation rooms with lunch facilities, lounge areas as well as hotels and residences for researchers and students, both Danish and foreign. The research complexes are part of the university’s infrastructure and physical planning.
To be equipped for development in this area, the Danish University and Property Agency has initiated the drawing up of an inventory and a survey of most Danish university laboratories. They make up approx. 40 % of total university floor space, and the inventory covers approx. 425,000 net m2. The survey aims to analyse current standards in order to prepare an estimate of the expected costs of upgrading. The inventory comprises representative facilities within science, health, veterinary and engineering laboratories at five Danish universities. The inventory, which is followed by an analysis and an action plan, will provide a general overview of the area and the possibility for prioritising the efforts of the coming years.
So what are the issues that should be incorporated into the planning of research and teaching frameworks at the universities? How do we make sure that the project planning in this field can attract and support the best researchers, teachers and students? How do we develop a framework that is sufficiently robust to accommodate the accelerated development of the coming decades? There are no simple answers to these questions but we can point out a number of areas that will be of key importance in future planning.
One area is the need for a multidisciplinary approach. Elsewhere in this book, Robert Feidenhans’l and Jette Miller from the Niels Bohr Institute and the Faculty of Science, the University of Copenhagen, describe how new scientific breakthroughs will be the product of a multidisciplinary melting pot. The focus will be on the projects, and the physical and academic separation of the subjects is out of date. Such a reality requires room sequences that both promote multidisciplinary collaboration and support the individual subject areas of the researchers to allow them to maintain and develop their individual fields. In his interview in this book, Søren Brunak, Professor at the University of Copenhagen and the Technical University of Denmark, describes how essential it is to create open work environments that break down hierarchies and promote an exchange between different academic areas.
Another issue that will be of key importance is flexibility. Collaboration across different subject areas, international collaboration and collaboration between universities and the business community highlight the need for new forms of generic and centrally located laboratories with both special technical equipment and more stan-dardised equipment. Such laboratories could be used by many diffe-rent people and ensure better utilisation of the facilities because they would meet the varying needs of different researcher teams.
However, flexibility must also be incorporated in the fitting out of the individual research complexes. Which facilities can be fitted out generically? Can the building structure and layout be changed? Does the layout allow for ICT-supported teaching and multidisciplinary collaboration? If these questions are answered during the planning of the layout, they can help make the laboratories more flexible.
Today, there is an increased need for specialisation. Previously, laboratories were expected to contain everything in one place, but today researchers move from one laboratory to another in search for the right equipment. This requires strategic considerations by the universities about the type of equipment and its location, as Lene Hjerrild, Work Environment Manager at the Technical University of Denmark, mentions in her interview in this book. If a researcher stays for two weeks in one place, carries out experiments and returns home to analyse the results, it could also be relevant to think in terms of hotels for researchers and facilities that support such brief stays.
The focus on sustainability is a new area. If sustainability is included in the project planning for the operation of the laboratories, the possibilities of reducing the overall resource consumption and protecting the environment are maximised. Sustainable construction and renovation can support behaviour-changing measures and become part of the university’s strategy. Several universities are currently thinking along those lines.
Finally, the actual structure of the building is a key issue in connection with modernisation and new buildings. Should we continue to modernise and build laboratories that last for many decades if the fitting out of the laboratories has to be renewed much more frequently? One alternative could be buildings that last for shorter periods of time and are made of recyclable materials. Another alternative could be a load-bearing structure that is robust and has a long lifespan, and light, new laboratory units of recyclable materials that can be replaced on an ongoing basis, i.e. a form of Plug & Play.
Strategic planning and action plans
The many core issues require long-term planning that gives the developer of the building an opportunity to support the university’s strategy and prioritise the process. It is important that the laboratory facilities are incorporated into the overall plan and infrastructure of the university in order to fully utilise the potential. The main task is likely to be the incorporation and modernisation of the many existing laboratories including decisions about classification, work environment and operation.
The inventory of the Danish laboratory facilities will be followed up by analyses, a catalogue of ideas and an action plan with suggestions for ways to face the challenges. Even now, we can look at existing typologies and learn about the challenges ahead. We can also study the first sketches of what the future will look like. This will primarily involve reconstruction and modernisation of the many existing laboratories, supplemented by new construction when more appropriate or profitable.
Lene SchaumburgThe laboratories of the future are flexible and transparent
Hierarchical structures must be broken down and there should be more glass than plaster in future research centres
InterviewSøren Brunak, Professor and Director of the Center for Biological Sequence Analysis at the Technical University of Denmark What are the most important aspects of the physical framework for top-level research?
Research environments face two important challenges: firstly, to create research environments that break down hierarchies rather than create them, and, secondly, to create a physical framework that promotes knowledge exchange between different academic areas.
Research traditions vary considerably, especially internationally. The UK, for instance, traditionally has a very flat structure in which visibility depends on results, and this structure is supported by many new laboratory environments. France, on the other hand, has a more hierarchical structure in which the researchers at the top of the hierarchy ‘take up all the space’ and have the best conditions. In Denmark, the structure has traditionally been a compromise between the structures we see in these two countries. In my opinion, we ought to have a generic, physical framework that creates scope for the individual to develop, as is the case in the UK.
The researchers who take the initiative to study topics at the interface between different research areas are often young researchers at the bottom of the ladder. Initiatives are encouraged by factors such as open, transparent environments that support collaboration; traditions that break down the borders between different research areas; communication and IT facilities that are integrated in the research environment, and a framework that encourages interaction with the surrounding world. The research centres of the future should be made of glass rather than plaster. What is the optimum framework for a research centre with research and teaching facilities, including laboratories?
The optimum framework is a matrix-inspired organisation with considerable flexibility, which can handle ongoing and rapid changes in requirements.
One of the most important aspects is to get people to meet, prefe-rably in new ways. The challenge of bringing researchers together has grown concurrently with the trend for many researchers to work from home and travel a lot.
It is a problem that many research environments have few meeting facilities. There are no kitchens with decent coffee machines, cookers and microwave ovens where informal contact occurs naturally. Good meeting rooms and other informal meeting places for researchers as well as areas for brainstorming with small comfortable seating arrangements in the corridors are therefore essential.
It is characteristic of research-based teaching that we have a lot of contact in connection with project work. For this purpose, it would be ideal to have lounge areas, offices with communication screens and cameras as well as corridors and similar areas that can also be used for other purposes. Research environments should not be designed to function from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm. Employees should have the opportunity to cook their meals and work there at any time. It is also important to plan the research centres in such a way that there is room for the students to work at the research centres and not only in centralised student centres.
At the Center for Biological Sequence Analysis, of which I am the Center Director, we have organised large lounge areas with seating arrangements consisting of modular couches, which can be combined in many different ways. These seating arrangements are very effective and are used for project work, informal meetings and social gatherings.
What is your experience with virtual equipment and ICT-supported teaching?Our experience with virtual equipment is that it must be an integral part of the research environment in order to be used. If it is too complicated to use the equipment, nobody uses it. If there is an opportunity for ICT-supported teaching in classrooms and laboratories, it will become an integral part of the teaching. Making the same opportunities available to everyone also helps break down the traditional, hierarchical structure. MSN Messenger is also a good example of uncomplicated technology, and we have written many scientific articles with the help of this tool although the people who work closely together are physically based in Lyngby, Heidelberg and Boston.
Are there any examples of research centres with the qualities you mention? The new biochemistry centre at Oxford University in the UK is a good example of a research environment with many of the qualities I am looking for – i.e. flexible, open rooms that support collaboration and multidisciplinary work.
Lene SchaumburgIndoor climate and ergonomics
The operation of the building must be taken into consideration in the design phase. We should use a larger number of centralised buildings for teaching and specialised laboratories to improve indoor climate and ergonomics
InterviewLene Hjerrild, Work Environment Manager and Chemical Engineer, Technical University of Denmark
For a number of years, Lene Hjerrild has been responsible for the work environment at DTU, and she participates in the planning of all major building work, whether renovations or new constructions. The aim is to promote and implement a high work environment standard that takes into account the university’s interests in the subsequent use and operation of the areas.
What do you consider the most important aspects of work environment in research and teaching laboratories?I think the most important aspects are indoor climate and ergonomics. Researchers should work in adjustable, closed systems to prevent them from being affected by the substances they work with. We need protected workstations that can be adapted to the physiology of the individual.
In teaching laboratories, a good layout is also important for effective teaching. In addition, it is important to have sufficient support functions for the students such as locker rooms for coats and bags that would otherwise be dumped on the floor and present a security problem. The students do not have offices or other places where they can leave their things.
What are the optimum conditions for a research centre with research and teaching activities?Flexibility is also essential when it comes to the connection of equipment in our laboratories. It should be possible to move the equipment and change the layout. It would be best if the furniture could also be moved and the working height adjusted. This is rarely seen in laboratories but is just as important here as in offices where adjustable desks and chairs have gradually been installed throughout. The lack of desks and chairs that can be raised and lowered in the laboratories causes a lot of back and neck problems.
It is a good idea if support functions are located near the laboratories so offices, kitchens, locker rooms, etc. are nearby. Social aspects are very important for a well-functioning work environment.
I suggest that teaching laboratories be established as centralised teaching laboratories for large groups of Bachelor’s degree students, which the different institutes can book. This would ensure much better utilisation of resources and therefore make it easier to provide good facilities. The solution is also very flexible and it provides the same opportunities for everyone. Today, we have special rooms for inorganic chem-istry, organic chemistry and technical chemistry as well as special rooms for biology courses. These rooms are not being fully utilised, as they only accommodate courses within the specific subject areas. Centralised teaching laboratories could be fully utilised – the only requirement is that the laboratory should be flexible, as mentioned above.
Are there any specific technical conditions that create optimum laboratories?One thing that does not work well at many research centres is the access to support functions and transport between one laboratory and another. This aspect has to be considered when modernisation and new buildings are planned so that the work with the different substances is always carried out in a classified area.
Sustainability and operation must be included in the planning from the very beginning. Functions like goods delivery are often forgotten and such a relatively simple function then becomes a problem if later on, you have to construct a loading ramp, gates, etc. or if the goods delivery area is placed right next to the air intake for the ventilation system!
The waste disposal issue should also be taken into consideration in the planning, and the amount of dangerous waste should be minimised. It should be possible to destroy as much waste as possible on site, e.g. by autoclavation of infectious waste, chemical destruction, etc. Proper waste collection should also be in place as well as easily accessible facilities for storing the waste until collected.
In my opinion, all laboratory areas should be equipped with adjustable sun screens and be made of robust materials. In fact, today all laboratories should, as a minimum, comply with the GMO Class 1 criteria [reference to the Danish Working Environment Agency’s guidelines on the classification of laboratories for genetic technological work, ed.], to be sufficiently easy to clean. A more uniform level at all laboratories would also contribute to the flexibility.
People in the construction industry discuss what type of buildings should be built for laboratories in the coming years. They distinguish between buildings made of heavy materials that can last for many years and buildings made of light materials with a limited useful life. A third variant is a heavy, durable main structure combined with light laboratory elements that can be replaced as the need arises. You have been involved in many construction and renovation projects at DTU. What do you think of the above scenarios?I think a combination of a durable main structure and light, replaceable laboratory elements that can be adapted to changing needs is a brilliant idea. However, it is important that the building is of a high aesthetic standard. In my experience, if the rooms are attractive, the users look after them much better and work in a more responsible manner. This also improves security in the laboratories.
What kind of challenges do you think future laboratories will present?I think we will be working with centralised, specialised laboratories that can be used by everyone, i.e. laboratories with costly specialised equipment that can be updated as the need arises. This would also encourage collaboration. In this context, it is also interesting to consider laboratory hotels where you can rent premises for short periods of time so that not just the university but also other universities and private companies can use the facilities.
Lene SchaumburgFrom laboratory cubicles to multidisciplinary collaboration
The way researchers work has changed and traditional teaching has been supplemented by new teaching methods. This requires modernisation of today’s laboratories. A look at existing buildings gives an idea of what the plans for future buildings need to take into account to meet future needs
A large part of the existing laboratories at Danish universities can be divided into three types. They typically have one or two central corridors that provide access to laboratories, offices and support facilities.
A large part of these laboratories were planned and fitted out in another era when conditions were different; a time when almost all research and collaboration took place in laboratories and offices at the university. Research material was forwarded by snail mail or occasionally exchanged at conferences, and the research was traditionally divided by subject area.
The fitting out of the laboratories therefore mainly caters for quiet in-depth study and research in small teams consisting of researchers from the same subject area. There are few or no shared facilities such as meeting rooms, kitchens or lounge areas that encourage informal conversation and new forms of collaboration. The buildings appear closed with long corridors without light or views into the many cubicles, laboratories and offices. The stairwells and corridors are the central areas, and recreational areas and open meeting places for researchers were traditionally not included in the planning of the building.
Today’s Danish research and teaching laboratories
The Danish University and Property Agency has just completed an assessment of the structural quality of the laboratories at the University of Copenhagen, Roskilde University, University of Southern Denmark, Aarhus University and Aalborg University. In addition to the assessment of the quality of the fitting out, the survey also recorded which type of building was most common within the 425,000 net m2 surveyed. The survey includes teaching laboratories (5 %), research laboratories (32 %) and support facilities such as offices, corridors and service areas (63 %).
One major difference between teaching and research laboratories is that the teaching laboratories typically are large rooms intended for 20-40 students. At the older universities, teaching laboratories are located in separate buildings whereas they are placed in connection with the research laboratories in more recent universities. In terms of the physical framework, the teaching and research laboratories can be divided into three basic types, which appear repeatedly in the survey. A closer look at the archetypes helps give a general idea of what the challenges are and how to tackle them.
Type 1
The oldest laboratories typically built during the 1960s or earlier have a long central corridor with two rows of equally large cubicles on either side of the corridor, in which the laboratories and offices are located. Researchers typically have their own office, whereas assistants and PhD students have workstations in the actual laboratory. Often, the only access to the laboratories and offices is from the corridor. 15 % of the surveyed laboratories are of type 1.
This structure is not particularly flexible and does not support collaboration and multidisciplinary work. Shared facilities such as large meeting rooms and recreational areas have not been taken into account. The small uniform cubicles separated by a corridor make it difficult to create large, inter-connected laboratories and recreational areas across the corridor in connection with renovations. One advantage of this type of building is that it is often possible to move partitions and change the size of the cubicles.
Type 2
Laboratories of this type typically date back to the 1970s and 1980s and have a long corridor with offices on both sides. The corridor has been asymmetrically placed and room sizes vary. There are small cubicles for offices on one side of the corridor and larger cubicles for laboratories on the other side. It is estimated that 45 % of the surveyed laboratories are of this type. This type presents similar problems as type 1 with a lack of flexibility. A special problem with type 2 is that the buildings involved are often relatively small.
Type 3
In more recent buildings built from the 1970s onwards, the laboratories have been placed around two parallel corridors. 20 % of the surveyed laboratories are of this type.
Access is typically from the corridor or via an internal, secondary corridor leading from one laboratory to another. This creates a better flow in the building and can help prevent contamination, as the researchers are not forced to use corridors in unclassified areas. The secondary corridors can also help support communication and multidisciplinary work.
More recent types present some of the same problems as the previous types with a lack of flexibility. Also in these buildings, the fitting out can be restricted by the location of load-bearing structures in the relatively rigid design. The advantage of this type of building is its relative depth, which makes it possible to create a variety of small and large rooms. It is possible to do away with one of the central corridors and create deep laboratories or lecture halls. However, to do that, the buildings must have large windows to allow daylight to enter the centre of the building.
Future focus areas
The purpose of the survey is to assess the need for modernisation in Danish university laboratories. It therefore examines technical aspects such as how worn the wall surfaces and the furniture of the rooms are, how old the installations are and whether the buildings contain any asbestos. The survey looks at whether the buildings regenerate heat from the ventilation systems and the number of storeys of each building. The survey therefore does not reveal whether the buildings have been fitted out appropriately, whether the fitting out is suitable for the work carried out or whether there is still a need for the function in question. Neither does the survey look at the risk classification level of the laboratories in relation to the type of research being carried out.
The survey and the analysis have not yet been finalised but already point to several important focus areas such as structural layout, installations, surfaces and the division between teaching and research laboratories.
A fundamental problem in many buildings is the low ceiling height and insufficient room for new equipment. This makes it both difficult and costly to modernise the areas.
Many of the installations are old and worn and the ventilation systems do not have heat recovery facilities. There is therefore a potential for energy savings. Some surfaces and furniture items are also worn down. The planning must look at how the requirements of the Danish Working Environment Authority regarding classification and working environment can be incorporated into future modernisations.
The survey also points out that many teaching laboratories are no longer sufficiently well fitted out and equipped to support the teaching. This has the unfortunate consequence that research laboratories that are not equipped for teaching are used for teaching purposes. This indicates that there is a need to upgrade many of the teaching laboratories to prevent research laboratories from being used for teaching. Alternatively, new research laboratories and some of the existing research laboratories can be fitted out for teaching purposes in the future.
Challenges
The survey indicates a number of challenges in the work with laboratories in the coming years. If multidisciplinary work as well as academic and social interaction are to be core values, laboratory planning must be done differently in the future. Instead of using the building and a fixed structure as the starting point, man and collaboration must be at the centre of the planning process.
Lene SchaumburgThe laboratories of the future – a visualisation model
How can you plan future laboratories so they meet new requirements to e.g. flexibility and environment as well as collaboration and teaching methods? A visualisation model sketches a scenario and can also serve as a checklist for the functions and contexts that should be taken into account in the initial work to plan the laboratory areas of the future
As part of its ‘Project Campus’ survey of laboratory conditions at Danish universities, the Danish University and Property Agency has held workshops for researchers and consultants to discuss the problems relating to laboratory construction and develop new solutions. The development work has not yet been finalised but the workshops have so far resulted in a model that incorporates the functions and contexts that must be part of the initial work to design the laboratories of the future.
The model has five levels and is a visualisation of the many factors to be taken into account in the design of laboratories – whether modernisations or new buildings. The model forms part of an idea catalogue, which is the result of the development work.
From atoms to living organisms
Traditionally, the planning of a building starts from the top with general structures, construction principles and main supplies, and the individual workstation is only taken into account at a late stage of the process. By working from the bottom up, the practices of the users become central to the planning process.
The workplace. The laboratory furniture should be flexible and adapted to the individual user – Plug and Play.
The arena is the central place in the laboratory unit where new knowledge surfaces. It can quickly be redesigned and restructured to accommodate new multidisciplinary projects with modular furniture, specialised equipment and meeting places
Traditionally, the planning of a building starts from the top with general structures, construction principles and main supplies, and the individual workstation is only taken into account at a late stage of the process. By working from the bottom up, the practices of the users become central to the planning process.
The model involves five levels covering everything from laboratory furniture to the entire university. The five levels are: ‘the workstation’, ‘the arena’, ‘the unit’, ‘the centre’ and ‘the university’.
Several ‘workstations’ can be put together in the ‘arena’ like a fractal structure, which begins with the tiniest atoms that through mutation become one large, living organism. The ‘arena’, combined with support functions and laboratories, becomes a ‘unit’, which in turn becomes a ‘centre’ and then an entire ‘university’.
The model should be used from the bottom up and a similar process should be completed from the top down in which general functions as well as urban and architectural considerations are outlined. The two models should subsequently be combined.
01 The workstation
It should be possible to adapt the individual workstation in the laboratory to the changing needs and physiology of the individual researcher or student. In addition to a height-adjustable desk, the workstation consists of shared basic equipment (fume cupboards, scales, etc.). The workstation is allocated to a specific subject area and should be fitted out accordingly.
Traditionally, the reconstruction or redesign of a laboratory begins with a project involving the individual building components: installations, furniture and surfaces. Each laboratory is fitted out in accordance with the specific wishes of the users. The need for more versatile use and rapid conversion favours a departure from the traditional subject-based planning to be replaced by work aimed at configuring consistent equipment and installation systems, the so-called Plug and Play systems.
02 The arena
Projects can be planned on a multidisciplinary basis, but discoveries can also happen more or less accidentally when researchers with different backgrounds inspire each other and discover new perspectives.
The arena is a central place in the research unit where new knowledge is created and shared with others. In the past, research took place in small, closed laboratories where the individual researcher carefully guarded his project. The laboratories of the future will consist of an arena where researchers work and display their knowledge and experiments. Here, they can expect to receive comments and suggestions for changes, new approaches or new projects on an ongoing basis. Research will become transparent.
Results must be exhibited and communicated. An arena can, for instance, comprise a mock set-up behind glass walls. The mock set-up must remain in place during the six months’ duration of the research project. Not far from the mock set-up, a group of researchers are having a video conference with participants in Japan and the USA.
The arena can be used by researchers and students from different subject areas. It is fitted out with the described laboratory furniture, special set-ups or specialised and expensive equipment that can be used by many different researchers, and also has room for social gatherings. The room may be large and open or it may be sub-divided for different processes, typically shielded by glass walls.
It should be possible to quickly clear the arena or restructure it for new projects. The arena is therefore also based on the Plug and Play principle in which cables link basic installations to connection points.
03 The laboratory unit
The ‘arena’ is surrounded by laboratories with basic installation, support laboratories, rooms with appliances, offices, workstations and rooms for in-depth study. These rooms combine to form a ‘laboratory unit’. The focus of attention in this unit is directed towards the many different activities in the arena.
The unit surrounds the arena and contains laboratories with basic installations, support laboratories, rooms with appliances, offices, workstations as well as rooms for in-depth study.
The centre consists of a number of units. It is transparent and welcoming and gives an optimum overview of current projects. The interspace between the units contains rooms for social interaction as well as nature.
The university consists of a number of centres. The interspace between the centres contains the large common social meeting places, nature and the city.
The laboratory unit may consist of 20-40 researchers, assistants, students and administrators. The individual subject areas have specific requirements to basic equipment, e.g. chemists generally need provision for safe work in fume cupboards. Biologists who work with genetically modified material have special requirements to the work surfaces, which must be easy to clean, and in some cases LAF benches are required to protect the product or safety benches to protect the staff. Researchers from many subject areas need to be able to place scales on stable surfaces with local exhaust systems. In addition, the researchers need support functions such as laboratory dishwashers, cold rooms and darkrooms.
However, a laboratory is not an 8.00 am – 5.00 pm workplace but a facility that is open around the clock. The subject-specific basic design should therefore be available in the unit, but to utilise the laboratory capacity and its equipment to the maximum, the equipment should not be dedicated to individual users. The researcher or the student books a workstation or an experiment. This is a kind of New Ways of Working principle for laboratories, in which there are no private workrooms and the activity instead defines where each person works.
04 The centre
Depending on the size and subject area, the ‘centre’ may contain 20-30 laboratory units. Projects are completed across these units. Experience shows that the student drop-out rate is lower if the students are closely associated with the research environment and take part in new and exciting activities.
The centre is very transparent and welcoming and everyone has an optimum overview of current projects. At the same time, the centre has small rooms and lounges for in-depth study or relaxation.
Depending on the urban location of the centre, the surrounding landscape can be in the immediate vicinity of the building or even incorporated in it. The technical and social intensity is counterbalanced – an oasis for in-depth study or peace and quiet.
05 The university
University centres can be spread out over several campus areas or be combined to form one central ‘university’. The number of centres that make up a university can vary depending on its geographical location, the number of fields of study, its history, etc.
The location of the centres and their special equipment is planned strategically, taking into account the campus as a whole. The opening hours, daily rhythms and activity zones at the centre influence the way you experience the academic activities and life on campus as a whole.
Between the five levels
There is an ‘interspace’ between each of the five levels. This is perhaps one of the key terms for the interior design of the laboratory of the future. The interspace is a place where different subject areas meet and new knowledge is created. It is where researchers and students meet regardless of their subject and position. The interspaces do not create distance – they unify. Multidisciplinary and social functions are placed in these interspaces
The functions placed in the interspace depend on the functional level. At arena level, the functions may include kitchens with coffee machines where informal contact takes place. At unit level, they may involve project areas with furniture that support collaboration and exchange. At centre level, they may involve main offices with ICT equipment or informal meeting places for researchers. At university level, the interspaces are used for the university’s infrastructure such as service facilities, eating places, centralised student centres, sports facilities and accommodation for teachers, researchers and students.
The future
Tomorrow’s complex challenges to laboratories will require careful planning. The many existing, antiquated laboratory areas must be turned into living organisms in the form of up-to-date laboratory centres. The centres must be based on forward-looking values that can attract and retain researchers and teachers on a par with the best universities in the world.
Lene Schaumburg The section on laboratories is based on material from a survey commissioned by the Danish University and Property Agency, carried out in collaboration with Cowi, NNEpharmaplan, RH Arkitekter and Dalux. The section was edited by Mikala Holme Samsøe.