Impact of Clicks on Bricks:
Principles for VET facilities planning
in an information age
Prepared by:
Jan Whitaker,
JLWhitaker Associates
John Murphy,
John Murphy and Associates Pty Ltd
Alex Caldwell,
Domain Consulting Pty Ltd
Phoebe Palmieri,
Phoebe Palmieri Pty Ltd
November, 2001
In partial fulfilment of Engagement Number: 0101599
Department of Public Works and Services , PMG/Programs/Education Facilities Research Group for NSW Department of Education and Training (TAFE)
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
ACE Adult and Community Education
AM Asset Management
AMP Asset Mangement Plan
CAL Computer Aided Learning
CCUMC Consortium of College and University Media Centers
CTL Centre for Teaching and Learning
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
ICIA International Communications Industries Association
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IT Information Technology
LAN Local Area Network
OECD Organisation For Economic Cooperation and Development
OH&S Occupational Health and Safety
PBL Problem Based Learning
PEB Programme on Educational Buildings (an OECD initiative)
SCUP Society for College and University Planning
SDL Self Directed Learning
TAFE Technical And Further Education
UPS uninterrupted power supply
VDT video display terminal
VET Vocational Education and Training
WAN Wide Area Network
“Technology is everywhere. Its use in the classroom makes me feel good about my education and also teaches me things I will need to know when I enter the workforce.”
“It is undeniably the future. To ignore it would be disastrous to anyone's career. Learning interactively now prepares us for our future.”
—Students, Middle Tennessee State University
(Draude and Brace 1999)
Education is in the midst of a revolution, but not the first one (Erhmann, 1999). There have been other revolutions in education brought about by technology. There was the reading and writing revolution in Plato's day where, once knowledge and information were recorded, students could process and contemplate it independently of their teachers. The printing press revived this revolution many centuries later. The second major revolution was what Erhmann calls the campus revolution, where learners and teachers came together to a common place to achieve an economy of scale, to create an opportunity to be exposed to a broader range of ideas and to interact with more people. The technological revolution we are seeing today is an attempt to capture the benefits of both of those prior revolutions: improved access to learning through documentation; and quality learning experiences through human interchange.
David S. Pottruck, president and co-Chief Executive Officer of Charles Schwab & Co., coined the term “click and mortar” in 1999 to describe the integration of the conventional physically located businesses - mainly in the retail field - and on-line businesses. Pottruck was attempting to elucidate how a considered approach to integrating these two different delivery chains could lead to future business success.
Similarly, educational institutions throughout the world are asking these same questions: What effect does introducing new information and communication technology (ICT) have on our built environments? Should we be thinking differently? Should we be approaching problems and needs differently? Are there more options for us to do things ‘smarter'?
This report examines the impact of new technologies on vocational educational facilities. It reviews the changes taking place in the wider social, technological and economic environments, specific issues and approaches to technology and physical facilities and assets documented in the literature across all educational sectors, and asset management changes as a result of incorporating more ICT in the teaching and learning process. The report also includes an extensive resource listing of information discovered during the conduct of this review.
One challenge in preparing this report was the balance of competing interests of the stakeholders. Since expertise is different between education as a profession and facilities design and management as a profession, the depth of understanding between the two groups may also vary. In some circles the teaching discipline is called a ‘soft' area whereas the physical nature of buildings is ‘hard', with the ability to measure accurately and consistently. Teaching and learning includes different sensitivities to human development, trial and error, and approximations. This report is an attempt to expose the concerns of each to the other for a goal of improved cooperation and understanding for better educational environments.
What does the future hold for VET facilities and planning? Comments from the experts suggest more change, more options, more interest in expanding what has been learned through experimentation throughout institutions, and more demand for education from the public as lifelong learning and re-skilling in response to increases in economic change.
Ryland describes the futures thus: “Colleges should expect continued high levels of investment in infrastructure, with the constant introduction of new technologies offering new and compelling advantages. Even when all faculty, staff, and students have their own networked computers, budgets must anticipate the need to refresh those systems, at least every three years for hardware and every year or two for software. Careful institution-wide planning can help match varying needs with the appropriate level of computing and communication capability, allowing implementation of a program whereby as systems are replaced, the old systems recycle down to users with lower levels of need” (Ryland, 1998).
Predicting the future is always risky, but if one looks out far enough, the memory of the original prediction is less likely to have a “told you so” result. For their January 2000 issue, the T.H.E. Journal canvassed educators in America to respond to the question: What important issues in educational technology will help shape the next millennium? These are some of the predictions:
· an individualised, personal learning plan for each and every student, designed and supervised by the student, with help, as needed, from parents and teachers
· sensory prosthetic devices for disabled people
· direct brain wave input to computers by the year 2020
· the effectiveness of its (educational technology) adaptation to social, scientific and political change
· the human communication environment will deal with the symbiosis of human and machine
· change from the current learning paradigm — information transfer — to a new paradigm potentially called Tutorial Learning, which engages each learner in an individualised path of learning. With the old paradigm, technology is only a tack-on, not essential. Learning in the new paradigm will be impossible without the technology.
One of the big questions is how will institutions afford the continued demand for resources to support the technology infusion and replacement in the sped up cycle? To help answer that question, Klingenstein (1998) identifies the following decision making questions:
“How important is virtual learning to the institution's role and mission? It is clear that not all schools will find it strategically or economically appropriate to pursue virtual learning; indeed, many may be adversely effected by the virtual worlds to come.
“What investments should be made? The inventory of technological needs described above is long and costly. Foci and priorities are essential. One rule of thumb is that those pieces that are also germane to the broader academic enterprise, such as authentication and Web/e-mail/video servers, are clear wins. Tolerance to volatility may affect when and how the monies are spent. The leading edge is always more expensive and frequently leaves avatars with implementations that are inconsistent with final standards.
“Where will the funding come from? While virtual learning is often, and perhaps inappropriately, touted as a cost saver, for now much of the infrastructure is not in place at many institutions, so it will mean spending more than saving dollars. Return on investment will not be immediate. It would appear that the savings are not going to be nearly as dominating as anticipated until we have better tools for interactions between faculty and students that are less consumptive of faculty time. It may also be the case that twenty-five students is always going to be the optimum number for a “community of learners,” regardless of the technology tools available. On the other hand, there is great promise for decreasing costs in areas where human interaction is not required. For example, in the area of student registration, it should be possible to reduce the cost per transaction dramatically” (Klingenstein, 1998).
The key findings from the review yielded these main concepts:
· The importance of relationships and leveraging - community infrastructure, commercial relationships and roll-out of technology, workplace change
· Education is not done in isolation - programs and technology and the physical environment must be integrated
· Expectations from the student consumer are that VET providers will match the general community technology capabilities
· Physical space and technology must be part of the strategic planning process of the organisation - guided by programmatic concerns, not driven by the technology or the space
· Physical facilities are part of the larger system; planning and implementing them require involvement by a range of people with different skills: facilities designers and managers, technology specialists, teaching professionals, and provider management, supported by external expertise where there is missing knowledge in the organisation
· Physical facilities need to be examined at several levels of category: the Institutional view of distributed spaces across large geographic separations, campus view on a co-located plot of land, building level often with multiple functions within the building, room level with different types of teaching/learning/support activities, and sub-room level where specific activities and relationships may be needed in a section of that space, e.g. teaching station vs. student station vs. demonstration area. plus non-campus delivery in community spaces such as libraries and learning centres as well as workplace training environments
· Tools and information are readily available and free on the Internet to support this planning
· VET members are not writing much about this area of infusion of technology into the physical environment, but schools and universities are
· There is a move from either/or thinking to both/and thinking - blending, hybrid, infusion of technology in traditional teaching and learning as well as focussing on remote delivery
· Traditional teaching and learning capabilities are not disappearing and must be catered for as well as the new and emerging
· Facilities still need to support the human interactions of teaching and learning - eye contact, conversation, various groupings of students and teachers
· Space needs to be provided for individual activities as well as various sizes of groups - for development, teaching and learning, and management - with appropriate technology access in each
· The spaces and their technologies must be reliable and in working order
· Teachers want to control their environments as part of their professional responsibility
· Flexibility and modularity are high on the design requirement list
· Investments must continue to be protected from theft, vandalism - cost of replacement is high in technology enhanced environments
· Wireless technology is opening up more flexibility
· Portable personal devices that connect via wireless networks will provide the ubiquitous access that has been promised, but cables will be needed to connect to the outside world in the short term in Australia
· When new technologies are being considered, the physical space and building aspects are often not part of the analysis undertaken at the beginning of the process (Jamieson et al, 2000).
· Technology is continuing to develop with implementation in teaching and learning also changing. Continued assessment of the building and other facilities is required to maintain a functional environment.
This report is a work in progress and a snapshot of a particular point in time. It addresses the following aspects of the impact of new technologies on educational facilities, particularly in Vocational Education and Training (VET) and tertiary education:
· The changes in society and educational delivery today and how they place new and different demands on the physical infrastructure and buildings of our institutions
· The design, construction, and management decisions that are being modified as new technologies and teaching methods are being introduced
· the optimum approach to the introduction of information and communications technology (ICT), including online access to content, in VET providers
· the particular constraints which arise when installing ICT in existing buildings, especially older buildings
· the special needs of providers in rural and remote areas
· the appropriate balance in the application of resources to technology versus building construction
· the impact of the new ICT systems on asset management
The report comprises a number of sections. Part 1 describes the methodology for creating the review. Part 2 addresses what is happening in the larger environment. We consider the world of work and commerce, the changes in the importance of technology to society, demographics of the Australian scene, e-learning, and general planning and design considerations. Part 3 examines the infrastructure and physical facilities issues, looking at technology infrastructure, teaching and learning delivery and support, and some attention to administrative and common spaces. Part 4 examines asset management and planning, with specific attention to areas where ICT impacts that part of facilities management. Appendices identify resource collections and the references to articles cited in this report for further review by the reader. Included are case studies, guidelines, key reference websites, organisations, and discussion lists.
The report was written by a research team led by Jan Whitaker, JLWhitaker Associates, who concentrated on the overall report and the teaching and learning, adminstration, and common spaces as well as the resource listing. John Murphy concentrated on the technology infrastructure, Alex Caldwell developed the asset management section, and Phoebe Palmieri was a critical reader for gaps in our thinking in the VET environment.
One of the challenges for the team was to write this report in such a way to meet the needs of different audiences. The people who are involved in making decisions about teaching and learning facilities bring a variety of perspectives and levels of expertise to the exchange.
This report is addressed both to facilities planners and managers and to those who teach and manage within those new environments. It provides an overview of the important technological and pedagogical changes that are happening in vocational education and training today, and about which facilities planners and managers need to be aware. It also covers elements of facilities planning, construction and management which teachers and administrators may not think about on a regular basis.
We have attempted to provide a link between the knowledge space of educators and facilities professionals in order to bring their understanding a little closer together so that the planning, development and operation of teaching and learning facilities are better for our learners and communities.
Many data collections were searched for relevant material for this report. The majority of them were available online and enable direct access to the original material. The main ones used are listed in the Resources section of this report. These collections are continually being expanded and it is advisable to periodically review them for new additions. One of the most important sites was the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, http://www.edfacilities.org .
The appropriate language to find materials in any area is always a challenge. In this case the key terms used to find materials included various combinations of:
· Buildings - facilities, construction, design
· Education - vocational, community college, higher education
· Technology - flexible, infrastructure, planning
· Training - corporate, workplace
Some terms yielded rich results that then led to other materials, revealing gems and stones. Others resulted in either unrelated information or nothing. This may change over time as more is written on this subject in education, and in particular, in vocational education and training.
Searches for materials need to have limits on the time periods that will be included. Our methodology established a starting point of 1999, but also includes information prior to that point. It is only recently that enough experience and research has become available to develop reliable and cogent concepts as opposed to opinion. Results are being reported now, based on research and project funding in the mid-1990s. Since the overall purpose of the project is to look to the future of facilities, this report focuses on materials that document experience in web-based teaching and expanded telecommunications options, which developed in the mid-1990s, and other technologies emerging through this delivery method.
Another challenge in writing this report was finding materials that document the design and development of facilities for the VET environment, particularly with an Australian focus. Because they are relatively scarce, it was decided to include materials from schools and university environments, which are more widely documented. While the educational environments differ, the overall design principles and what can be learned across the sectors is valuable to those working in VET.
This report is not an audit of facilities in Australia to date. Learning whom is doing what, and where, in the VET sector would be a significant effort and would yield valuable information regarding the current state of affairs in VET facilities.
What we haven't covered in depth and, in some instances, not at all include:
· international education - students coming to Australia or programs delivered overseas
· workplace training facilities
· much about Australian situations
· much about VET specific situations
· staffing requirements and implications when technology use increases
· accommodation (housing) for resident students
· VET in schools.
Either these areas were not discussed in the publications discovered or the information found was not directly related to the issues of facilities. EdNA Online was searched specifically, but with little success, for Australian materials on the terms: building technology, facilities technology, education buildings, workplace training facilities, private provider facilities, and private provider technology. This means that either the writings exist but are not easily accessible, or they do not exist at all. There are huge opportunities for what is being learned about these areas in VET to be written about and shared. However, vocational education staff members are thought not to write about their activities as often as others do in higher education. This lack of discoverable materials makes exchanges about topics such as this one challenging.
Vocational education and training (VET) efforts are integral to the economic and social environment. What is happening in the external environment, that is the fabric of the society, is critical to an understanding of what directions and responses should be taken by VET institutions to be relevant to the needs of their communities.
Quinn (2001) points out that the major economic trends in the world scene with the most impact on education are:
· the shift from a “materials” to a “services and knowledge” base economy: from tangibles (products) to intangibles (information and process)
· disaggregation and globalisation of technology and economic activity
· the “preeminence” of intellectual effort, technology, and software as the basis of economic activity over capital and physical products as economic drivers
· the speed of obsolescence of past physical plant, knowledge constructs, and governance structures by the knowledge explosion
· the need for new education, social control, economic, knowledge and wealth distribution to support long-term growth.
Quinn identifies the impact of each of these major changes on higher education, many of which are very sophisticated aspects of institutional strategic planning and management. Like other organisations when confronted with new technology options, Quinn suggests that educational institutions will go through the following stages:
· identification of new economies of scale through consolidation of efforts into larger institutions
· new economies of scope through lowered or leveraged investments in technologies that assist in serving multiple market niches
· increased complexity handled by the new technologies at lower costs
· new service concepts and alliances
· disintermediation and redecentralisation as the technologies become powerful enough to support the sophisticated and complex processes.
Based on the concepts above, one could determine that technology provides opportunities and challenges, but at the same time comes with solutions to both. The ultimate outcome is a redefining and repositioning of the core services of the VET provider to meet the demands of the changing customer bases: learners/workers, societal communities of interest, and business.
The use of IT among Australian businesses has continued to rise. As Table 1 shows, in the period from 1997-1998 to 1999-2000, Internet access almost doubled whilst the implementation of a Web page by businesses almost tripled (ABS 1, 2000). Few comparable international statistics are available, with the exception of Canada that exhibits similar figures.
Table 1. Australian business use of computers and the Internet
|
Year |
Use computers |
Access the Internet |
Have web site or home page |
|
|
49% |
- |
- |
|
|
63% |
29% |
6% |
|
|
76% |
56% |
16% |
(ABS 1, 2000)
Growth in the use of a Web site or home page was greatest in businesses with 5-19 employees, increasing from 8% of businesses at the end of June 1998 to 24% at June 2000.
Among the various types of businesses, computer use was highest in the property and business services industries – see Table 2.
Table 2. Computer Usage - June 2000
|
Industry type |
Use computers |
|
Property and business services |
88% |
|
Electricity, gas and water supply |
85% |
|
Health and community services |
83% |
|
Wholesale trade |
83% |
|
Mining |
82% |
|
Cultural and recreational services |
81% |
|
Finance and insurance |
81% |
|
Manufacturing |
79% |
(ABS 1, 2000)
Both Internet access and website use was highest in the electricity, gas and water supply industries, which are, however, relatively few in number — see Tables 3 and 4. Perhaps not surprisingly, these industries were also the most intensive users of the Internet — see Table 6.
Table 3. Businesses with Internet access - June 2000
|
Industry type |
Internet access |
|
Electricity, gas and water supply |
79% |
|
Property and business services |
76% |
|
Mining |
70% |
|
Cultural and recreational services |
63% |
|
Wholesale trade |
62% |
|
Manufacturing |
60% |
|
Health and community services |
57% |
(ABS 1, 2000)
Table 4. Major Australian businesses using computers and the Intenet - June 2000
|
Industry type |
Web site or home page |
|
Electricity, gas and water supply |
56% |
|
Mining |
30% |
|
Cultural and recreational services |
26% |
|
Manufacturing |
23% |
|
Wholesale trade |
22% |
|
Property and business services |
19% |
|
Finance and insurance |
19% |
(ABS 1, 2000)
There was greater use of these technologies in capital cities, as shown in Table 5, although the difference is not great.
Table 5. Regional differences in Internet usage - June 2000
|
Industry location |
Use computers |
Internet access |
Web site or home page |
|
Capital cities |
77% |
58% |
18% |
|
Other areas |
74% |
52% |
13% |
(ABS 1, 2000)
Table 6. Use of the Internet to support business processes - June 2000
|
Industry type |
Internet business active |
|
Electricity, gas and water supply |
73% |
|
Property and business services |
63% |
|
Mining |
57% |
|
Finance and insurance |
57% |
|
Cultural and recreational services |
53% |
|
Wholesale trade |
51% |
|
Manufacturing |
50% |
|
All industries |
46% |
(ABS 1, 2000)
A different group of industries was the most prevalent in receiving sales income from orders for goods and services over the Internet. (The statistics do not depend on how the goods are actually delivered or paid for.) The major users are listed in Table 7. Among all businesses, the business activities used by businesses via the Internet are shown in Table 8.
Table 7. Businesses using the Internet for ordering goods and services - June 2000
|
Industry type |
Internet commerce active |
|
Wholesale trade |
11% |
|
Accommodation, cafes and restaurants |
9% |
|
Property and business services |
8% |
|
Manufacturing |
8% |
|
Transport and storage |
8% |
|
Communication services |
7% |
|
Cultural and recreational services |
6% |
|
Finance and insurance |
5% |
|
Retail trade |
5% |
|
All industries |
6% |
(ABS 1, 2000)
Table 8. Overall business use of the Internet - June 2000
|
Activity |
Percentage of businesses |
|
Email |
91% |
|
Information searches |
85% |
|
Accessing government services |
44% |
|
Banking |
36% |
|
Marketing and promotion |
27% |
|
Ordering goods and services from other organisations |
18% |
|
Purchasing information online |
15% |
|
Receiving orders for goods and services from customers |
15% |
|
Providing after sales service |
11% |
|
Accessing membership services and loyalty programs |
11% |
(ABS 1, 2000)
In terms of the significance of Internet commerce, the total value of sales/orders for the year ending 30 June 2000 was $5.1billion or 0.4% of total sales/orders in that period, comprising mainly Business to Business (B2B) transactions. Businesses used their Web sites for various purposes. The most common are ranked in Table 9.
Table 9. Most common Web page uses - June 2000
|
Function |
Percentage of businesses |
|
Company information |
88% |
|
Advertising of own goods and services |
79% |
|
Links to other Web sites |
37% |
|
Obtaining customer feedback |
36% |
|
Online ordering |
14% |
(ABS 1, 2000)
The location of the Web sites of Australian businesses is shown, under two classifications, in Table 10.
Table 10. Location of Web sites - June 2000
|
Location of Web site |
Percentage of businesses |
|
On own server |
24% |
|
On parent or related entity's Web site |
27% |
|
On other server |
57% |
|
|
|
|
In Australia |
95% |
|
Overseas |
10% |
(ABS 1, 2000)
The major reason businesses did not take up ICT was because they did not consider it was suited to the nature of the business. But, importantly, lack of skills or appropriate training were significant reasons cited and were the second most important barrier for the entry technology of computer use. The frequencies for the various technologies are given in Table 11.
Table 11. Barriers to the use of ICT by Australian businesses - June 2000
|
|
Percentage citing barrier for each technology |
|
|
Computer use |
Internet access |
Web site of home page |
|
Barrier cited |
|
|
|
|
Not suited to the nature of the business |
|
54% |
53% |
|
Lack of skills or appropriate training |
37% |
23% |
18% |
|
Lack of interest |
21% |
26% |
22% |
|
Costs are too high |
24% |
19% |
14% |
(ABS 1, 2000)
Taking the most advanced technology, the factors cited by businesses which limited the further development of their Web sites included lack of skills as a significant contributor - see Table 12.
Table 12. Percentages of businesses with Web sites
citing particular barriers to further development - June 2000
|
Factor |
Percentage |
|
Cost |
33% |
|
Low use of Internet by customers or suppliers |
26% |
|
Lack of skills |
24% |
|
Security concerns |
15% |
|
Quality and reliability of Internet infrastructure |
10% |
(ABS 1, 2000)
Some insight might be gained into the future directions of Australian industry – and therefore the likely areas of employment where the application of ICT may be in demand – by examining the major areas of current research and development (R&D). The underlying assumption is that current business research will lead to product innovation and commercialisation more or less uniformly across the various sectors. This will in turn indicate likely areas for future training against which to assess the impact of technology on the physical infrastructure.
In the financial year 1998-1999, R&D expenditure by business (ABS 2, 2000) was as shown in Table 13.
Table 13. Business research and development expenditure - 1998-1999
|
Socio-economic objective |
Research and Development Expenditure
$M |
|
Manufacturing |
1,784 |
|
Information and communication services |
819 |
|
Mineral resources |
375 |
|
Energy resources |
154 |
|
Health |
134 |
(ABS 2, 2000)
As would be expected, the human resources employed followed a broadly similar pattern:
Table 14. Human resource employed in Research and Development - 1998-1999
|
Socio-economic objective |
Human Resources
Person-years |
|
Manufacturing |
11,604 |
|
Information and communication services |
5,299 |
|
Health |
898 |
|
Mineral resources |
882 |
|
Commercial services |
604 |
|
Energy supply |
559 |
(ABS 2, 2000)
In terms of the field of research, the following pattern emerged:
Table 15. Resources versus field of research - 1998-1999
|
Field of Research |
Research and Development Expenditure
$M |
Human Resources
Person-years |
|
|
1,382 |
9,221 |
|
|
1,130 |
6,002 |
|
|
780 |
4,715 |
|
|
211 |
1.293 |
(ABS 2, 2000)
The ABS survey of employment within the ICT sector, summarised in Table 16, indicates the dominance of the communications and computer services industries (ABS 3, 2000).
Table 16. Employment in the Australian ICT industry - June 1999
|
ICT Sector |
Employees |
|
|
74,467 |
|
Computer services |
74,395 |
|
Wholesale business machines and electric and electronic equipment |
35,948 |
|
Wholesale computers |
27,212 |
|
Manufacturing |
19,517 |
(ABS 3, 2000)
Moreover, the communication services industry had the highest proportional increase in income (20.5%), assets (12.6%), and number of businesses (9.8%) over the period 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 (ABS 4, 2000). However, these trends may have significantly decreased since the collapse of the capital market in the dot.com and technology sectors.
The farming industry is one sector where computer utilisation and Internet access are exhibiting strong growth from a low base. At the end of March 1999, 49% of farms owned or used a computer. This represents 26% growth over the figure from the previous year (ABS 5, 2000). The proportion of farms using the Internet was 18%, representing a growth of 65%.
The degree to which current and potential learners and teachers have adopted ICT is relevant when determining the facilities required on campus and their consequent impact on the infrastructure.
Half of Australian households have home computer access; penetration is particularly high in households with young children (ABS 4, 2000). Relevant statistics are given in Table 17.
Table 17. Households with computer access
|
|
Proportion of households with computer access. |
|
Category |
1998 |
1999 |
|
Couple with dependants |
67% |
70% |
|
Households with children under 18 years |
64% |
66% |
|
|
|
|
|
Metropolitan areas |
48% |
52% |
|
Other areas |
38% |
41% |
|
|
|
|
|
Total households |
45% |
48% |
(ABS 4, 2000)
Penetration is also higher in the metropolitan areas compared to regional areas. Internet access exhibited similar general trends—see Table 18.
Table 18. Households with Internet access
|
|
Proportion of households with Internet access. |
|
Category |
1998 |
1999 |
|
Couple with dependants |
23% |
35% |
|
Households with children under 18 years |
22% |
31% |
|
|
|
|
|
Metropolitan areas |
19% |
26% |
|
Other areas |
11% |
15% |
|
|
|
|
|
Total households |
16% |
22% |
(ABS 4, 2000)
Internet access appears to depend on the existing underlying computer penetration, rather than household composition. Of those households that have computers, those with children under 18 were just as likely to have Internet access as those without.
Access of the Internet by adults shows a striking dependence on age (ABS 4, 2000) and employment status, as illustrated by Table 19. “Over half the Internet users in 1999 were aged 18 to 34 years while only one in every twelve users were aged 55 years or over.” (ABS 4, 2000).
Table 19. Adult use of the Internet
|
|
Proportion of adults |
|
Age group
Years |
1998 |
1999 |
|
|
58% |
72% |
|
|
46% |
56% |
|
|
36% |
46% |
|
|
27% |
36% |
|
|
13% |
22% |
|
|
2% |
6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16% |
19% |
|
|
41% |
54% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35% |
45% |
|
|
25% |
33% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
32% |
41% |
(ABS 4, 2000)
The age dependence shown in Table 19 means that students belong to an age group that is, on average, more computer and Internet aware than that to which most teachers are likely to belong.
Clearly the greater usage by employed persons will at least partially be due to the access to the Internet that they may have at work. The following table describes in more detail the locations at which people access the Internet.
Table 20. Location of Internet usage - 1999
|
|
Proportion of adults |
|
Age group
Years |
Home |
Work |
Neighbour or friend's home |
TAFE or other tertiary institution |
Public library |
Shops, stores, telecafes |
|
|
27% |
19% |
32% |
30% |
14% |
5% |
|
|
22% |
31% |
20% |
8% |
7% |
4% |
|
|
23% |
26% |
11% |
5% |
6% |
2% |
|
|
18% |
22% |
6% |
3% |
4% |
1% |
|
|
11% |
9% |
3% |
2% |
2% |
- |
|
|
4% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8% |
n. a. |
6% |
6% |
4% |
1% |
|
|
24% |
30% |
15% |
9% |
6% |
3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21% |
22% |
13% |
9% |
6% |
2% |
|
|
12% |
15% |
10% |
5% |
5% |
2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18% |
20% |
12% |
8% |
6% |
2% |
(ABS 4, 2000)
The relatively high proportion of adults in the student age range who access the Internet at a VET provider or tertiary institution forms a demographic base for the introduction of ICT in VET. Employed adults access the Internet at these locations more frequently than adults who are not employed.
“The most popular site of access was at home for adults aged 55 years or over, at work for adults aged 35 to 54 years and at sites other than home or work for adults aged 18 to 34 years” (ABS 4, 2000).
The higher the qualification, the more likely an adult is an Internet user. Adults who have access to the Internet at work are more likely to access it at home. Details are shown in Table 21.
Table 21. Internet access by occupation and qualification - 1999
|
|
Home |
Work |
Other sites |
Any site |
|
Occupation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
35% |
51% |
29% |
69% |
|
Clerk, sales and personal services |
20% |
29% |
30% |
55% |
|
Trades person, machinery operator, labourer |
15% |
10% |
25% |
38% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Qualifications |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11% |
9% |
18% |
28% |
|
|
11% |
11% |
18% |
31% |
|
|
15% |
18% |
22% |
41% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18% |
20% |
23% |
41% |
(ABS 4, 2000)
Relatively small proportions of workers could access their employer's computer system through a modem or work remotely from home as shown in Table 22.
Table 22. Teleworking - 1999
|
|
Proportion of employed adults |
|
Age group
Years |
Able to access employer's computer system |
Telework |
|
|
4% |
2% |
|
|
8% |
6% |
|
|
7% |
6% |
|
|
6% |
5% |
|
|
4% |
3% |
|
|
2% |
6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8% |
6% |
|
|
4% |
3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6% |
5% |
(ABS 4, 2000)
The data on teleworking in Table 22 has implications for the demand for remote online learning.
The Australian economy is highly affected by changes in technology and the trend for these changes is increased use and continual change. This means that the students attending our institutions must have a basic understanding of technology as applied to communication, management, and manufacturing. They need some skills and knowledge common to all sectors as well as specialities specific to their chosen field of work.
According to Chaffee, “we cannot fulfil our obligation to prepare students for a successful life in the Knowledge Age, when nearly all jobs require technological competence, unless we provide them with technology-enriched learning…. For example, future accountants need full access to accounting software as they learn the profession” (Chaffee, 2001).
It is through the example of the daily experiences in our schools and vocational education and training institutions that students develop not only the skills, but also their attitudes toward using technology in their working lives. “Facilities that blend in-person teaching and learning with technology-enhanced delivery (prepare) students for the high-tech industries of the information age” (Morgan, 2000).
In addition to the impact that the technology has as a tool to perform work, access information and communicate, it also affects the approaches that learners take to the process of learning. Information and knowledge is changing too quickly for learners to rely on their memories alone. The information explosion and information overload has led them to focus also on the process of finding information when needed. “Today's learners have less interest in gaining mastery of a predetermined volume of content (much of which will soon be obsolete as new content is generated) than they have in learning work-related skills that will measurably enhance their employment and earning prospects, and learning how to work collaboratively, find needed information, think critically, and use technology in their work” (Ryland, 1998).
The commercial world is often one of the first places to examine the benefits of new methods and technologies, much earlier in fact than the education sector. The same is the case with electronic or
'e'-everything. It therefore makes sense to learn from the experiences of similar developments in related industries. The retail industry is one example where 'clicks and bricks' has been examined and exploited, with varying results. The initial introduction of online competition required conventional stores to emulate the entrants and adopt online technology. “We'd rather cannibalise ourselves than have someone else come and do it” (Stuart, 2000). But business fundamentals apply even in the online world: the high cost of running award winning web sites is one instance of the costs that need to be contained in a highly competitive environment.
The initial hyperbole of the obsolescence of conventional bricks and mortar stores in the online era has been replaced by a more mature view: online stores are now going full circle, adding bricks and mortar to web presence (Stuart, 2000).
One of the lessons learned in the e-commerce world is that the successful clicks and mortar business should be seamless to the customer. To maximise performance:
· Everything must work perfectly
· The store should know the customer's preferred channels. In the VET context, providers need to be aware of the preferred learning technologies of individual students
· Strong customer call centres are required to provide excellent customer service
· Superior data mining applications need to be installed to furnish current and accurate product and customer information.
Synergies will then appear between the online and physical components of the operation. While information provided online usually advertises the availability of goods at the physical store, in the case of one retailer the web remains the company's main retail channel; stores are simply for customer convenience and to steer them to the site.
There are many lessons to be learned from the business world, where companies are finally beginning to recognise the competitive advantage of leveraging their physical locations through their online initiatives (resulting in “clicks and mortar” or “clicks and bricks”) (Creighton and Buchanan, 2001).
The necessity to provide vocational education and training in a cost-effective manner, and the evolution of an increasingly competitive environment, requires providers to adopt a sound business approach to the provision of services. When considering the deployment of both physical and online infrastructure, it is essential that providers focus on the primary business they are addressing. In the US “ colleges are … not in the campus business but in the education business” (Creighton and Buchanan, 2001).
Citing a United Kingdom Green Paper, Marcus Evan (2001) has observed that lifelong learning and workplace training are key components in the modern development of business, large or small. According to a US Conference Board Survey, “a quarter of the CEOs surveyed identified the shortage of key skills as a challenge facing their organisations. The Conference Board tracked some of the workplace education programmes and found that these were instrumental in turning skills into profit. … With technology advancing on a daily basis few workplaces are exempt from the impact of these technologies. From simple to complicated technology, a training programme that introduces the benefits and “how to” aspect of technology can help workers become more productive more quickly” (Evans, 2001).
Corporate training departments are responding to these changes in the economic and social environments and are examining how technology can be exploited to support them. In 1998, the American Society for Training and Development published the 1998 Learning Technology
Research Report. In this report, the authors restate principles of special relevance to training from Don Tapscott in The Digital Economy:
· Increasingly, work and learning are becoming the same thing.
· Learning is becoming a lifelong challenge.
· The new media can transform education, creating a working-learning infrastructure for the digital economy.
The ASTD report goes on to identify four key developments in learning technologies to support these principles. Each development is described in detail and expert opinions are given regarding the potential impact:
· The Internet – communication and linkage
· Intelligent Tutoring Systems – addressing individual needs and differences
· Object-based Learning – organisation and access to information and instruction components
· Voice Recognition Technology – new options for user interface
The authors close with:
“Although classroom training will remain a necessary vehicle for creating learning, it will increasingly be augmented with, and in some cases replaced by, electronic means of learning.”
A recent survey was sponsored by TAFE Frontier in Victoria and Online Learning Australia to examine the state of online training in Australia, the first of its kind to be conducted in here. In the course of their conduct of that survey about online learning, they also collected some important findings about the general state of training in public and private organisations in this country. The response distribution of the survey was 73% private sector, 27% government sector (TAFE frontiers, 2001).
§ 38% of the respondents indicated they would be increasing their training expenditures in the following year (2002), with the likelihood to be higher in the private sector, of which 83% were in wholesale trade, 66% in agriculture, 57% in construction, and 50% in accommodation, transport & storage, education, health & community services.
§ Those private sector groups indicating a decrease in their training expenditures were: utilities (33%), transport and storage (19%), finance and insurance (17%), and culture and recreational (14%)
§ Plans to use online systems in training delivery is set to more than double over their current practices, with driving factors nominated highest as cost, accessibility, speed, consistency, and improved learning outcomes.
§ Those moving toward online delivery or already using it most often describe a whole of organisation view to operation and planning as opposed to a department or smaller unit level, and see it as part of the strategic issue of the organisation
§ There is a mix of internal development and operation versus external contracting for provision of the programs, with TAFE and educational institution being lower on the list of those external agencies that would be sought out for assistance in developing and delivering the programs.
This mix of factors shows that private and public agencies in Australia are increasing their training and that the growth is in online delivery, including multi-media and teleconferencing methods. Students who come from VET programs that already have developed the ability to learn using these methods will be a step ahead for continuing their learning in the private sector training programs, a lifelong learning benefit. Some work is to be done to develop the relationships of TAFE and educational institutions with the workplace, and to 'sell' their ability and knowledge in online and technology supported learning.
VET facilities in Australia
VET providers are as varied in themselves as the education sector is generally. There are the TAFE Institutes in the States and Territories providing educational access in urban, suburban, regional and rural settings. There are private providers with publicly accessible commercial training programs, providers embedded in specific companies and industries, and group training companies.
VET is taking place in community settings (e.g. neighbourhood houses in cooperation with ACE), and learning centres that may be owned by TAFE or jointly owned/run with other sectors (e.g. Learning Network Queensland that is predominantly higher education). There is VET in schools and VET in universities.
VET providers may have multiple campuses ranging from large, modern, high-tech to very small, run-down with poor technology infrastructure. Staff may have several workplaces – different campuses but also training in the workplace for enterprise clients which has implications for the quantity and kind of spaces they need.
If you can imagine a setting for vocational education and training, there is probably at least one if not multiple examples of that somewhere in this country. This diversity in itself is a challenge for developing coherent views about the implications of technology on educational facilities. And it is this variety that makes for such a rich opportunity for using the technologies to enhance the educational process.
VET is experiencing difficult funding consistency. Choices must be made in times of tight resources where the environment includes long travel times to campuses, trade-offs of technology versus or in conjunction with physical facility solutions, and a great need to plan with all these trade-offs in mind.
By incorporating new technology, features can be introduced that improve the quality of teaching and learning. Information and communication technology (ICT) allows access to new media and content. Most strikingly, the Worldwide Web constitutes a vast resource of information to inform the learner about a wide variety of topics, particularly in technical areas. There are, moreover, ingenious ways to use the Web to enhance the learning experience (Creighton and Buchanan, 2001).
ICT may more effectively communicate information involved in teaching and learning. For example, the use of video allows the student to repeat difficult or complex portions of a lecture or demonstration to increase their comprehension of the material presented. Similarly, videoconferencing technology can be used to enable a guest lecturer or demonstrator to present material on which he or she is an expert or has particular experience. These techniques can increase the time spent in meaningful discussion. In addition, instructor time can be utilised more efficiently, and less accommodation may be required for teaching staff.
ICT also enables information (in the format of documents like this report, worksheets, or designs) to be shared between students in the same space, different buildings within the same institute or elsewhere. It therefore fosters project working, collaborative working and team teaching—all of which can be independent of location.
Computers can redefine not only how you teach but what you teach (Nair, 2000). The use of ICT may be more appropriate to the actual subject content, such as courses in information technology or media production techniques where the ability to use computers and electronic presentation technology is a core skill to be acquired. The use of video technology can allow manual activities to be displayed to remote students in a much more understandable way than the study of static printed diagrams. If interactivity is added, simulation of physical work activities can be used as a cost-effective instructional tool. Going further, the actual installation of ICT is itself a source of practical knowledge which can be incorporated into the curriculum. In summary, it is necessary to go beyond infrastructure and facilities and seek to integrate technologies fully into teaching practice (Louis, 2000), seeking innovative ways of enhancing instruction and learning.
In addition to the qualitative aspects of ICT capability, the introduction of ICT has quantitative implications. As enrolment demand grows, or at least fluctuates, ICT can be deployed to ensure overall targets and commitments are met. For example, learning can be offered via ICT for access within provider facilities and for off-site access in the form of online courses for remote learners. This strategy reduces the need for additional bricks and mortar and therefore can result in significant cost savings. The key driver of these savings is the substitution of learning via physical attendance at the institute, by online learning from home or the workplace, at least part of the time. In assessing the overall effectiveness of this strategy, it is necessary to account for any additional costs incurred at the remote locations.
The new technology should not widen the gap between privileged and underprivileged students (Louis, 2000). Rather, the deployment of ICT can improve access by economically, geographically or physically disadvantaged groups. In order to achieve equity of access within provider facilities, ICT should be widely available throughout appropriate buildings, rather than in dedicated computer rooms. Of course, ICT can also be used to link different provider facilities, thereby facilitating access by achieving economies of scale, especially in rural areas where resources are spread thinly.
The potential for after-hours use of provider facilities by the local community is also relevant to the deployment of ICT. In some cases, it may make sense to incorporate community technology centres into provider facilities. It might be necessary to adjust the capabilities of the equipment to recognise the skills base of the users.
The use of ICT enables providers to respond more effectively to rapid changes in market demand and move into new fields; corporate training would be a relevant example. In a similar manner, ICT can be used to counter the entry of other commercial competitors into the market. However, in implementing counter-strategies it is important not to divert or prejudice the existing goals and objectives of the institute. It is also advisable to conduct a thorough strategic analysis to understand the sources of the provider's competitive advantage in the new area of business.
Change is a common theme when technology is the topic: the implications of change, how to handle the changes in an organisation; and the benefits and challenges that accompany the ‘new' circumstances. Introducing technology into teaching and learning is no different from other considerations of change. What is different about ‘change' in today's world?
Strategies to bring about change to teaching and learning through the integration of technology need to recognise that the environment itself is changing. Jilk (2001) has pointed out that there have been shifts in the world that impact any educational design process, including facilities design. These shifts are movements:
· from an industrial age to an information age
· from national society to global society
· from minority/majority focus to diversity focus
· from linear change to waves of change
· from resource growth to resource stability
· from some wanting education to all wanting education (Jilk, 2001).
These shifts have had an impact on the rate at which we must manage our planning.
“In the past, we planned for two years for programs we expected to last for five. Our next generation of learning products and experiences will have more in common with the patterns and cadences of software development than with traditional curriculum development. These products involve rapidly developed prototypes that anticipate new learner needs, then continuously improve themselves in response to evaluative feedback. Five years from inception, an expeditionary learning experience will be dramatically different than when first introduced. It will have spawned waves of derivative products, services, and experiences” (Norris, 1998).
Strategic approaches vary in other ways. We see pilot projects across entire systems, the ‘Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom' model, characterised by individual faculty initiatives. The goal is that these numerous experiments would provide knowledge in order “to create a sustained, strategic push toward an ‘e-campus' – a campus that harnesses the best attributes of a physical campus and the greatest strength of technology” (Creighton and Buchanan, 2001). Alternatively, Erhmann (1997) states in his realistic evaluation of employment of new technology in education: “ If such strategies (for campus deployment) emerge from independent choices made by faculty members and students, the cumulative effect can be significant and yet still remain invisible. (Unfortunately, the converse can also be true. We may be convinced that we have implemented a new strategy of teaching across the curriculum, and yet be kidding ourselves.) As usual, there is no substitute for opening our eyes and looking.”
It is important for those charged with building and managing facilities to be aware of the type or types of approaches that are being used in their organisation. Pilots may not bear fruit. External change may move the goal posts and lead to new opportunities or decisions. The requests presented today may not be the needs of the future, even in the near term.
“Traditional strategic planning methods work for building dormitories, but they do not work for building information technology. IT strategic planning must be adaptive to change and must be able to change continuously as new developments in technology arise” (Fox, 1998). If Fox is correct, there may be conflict between the change paradigms employed by diverse groups and interests within institutions. Facilities developers and managers may have a different mind-set from the IT professionals. Both may be right from their own perspectives, but not from the perspective of the collective needs of the institution. How, then, can they achieve balance?
Fox also argues that “This learning infrastructure does not necessarily require more money, but it does require genuine strategic thinking. The current planning strategies are not outcome based. Productivity must be measured, and the strategic planning process for technology must allow self correction and adaptation to new directions in technology” (Fox, 1998). Although the comment about not needing money may not be substantiated by other findings, the emphasis on adjustment of the planning process itself in response to the new circumstances outlined by Jilk (2001) is certainly valid.
According to Twigg (1999), only by changing the questions that are being asked and being prepared to consider a redesign of the system will technology be applied and integrated in an affordable and sustainable way.
“Containing costs—and making use of new technologies to help contain costs—requires a fundamental shift in thinking. It requires one to challenge the fundamental assumption of the current instructional model: that faculty members meeting with groups of students at regularly scheduled times and places is the only way to achieve effective student learning. Rather than focus on how to provide more effective and efficient teaching, colleges and universities must focus on how to produce more effective and efficient student learning. Faculty are only one of many resources that are important to student learning. Once learning becomes the central focus, the important question is how best to use all available resources—including faculty time and technology—to achieve certain learning objectives” (Twigg, 1999).
Fox agrees: “This debate regarding strategic planning for technology is not innovation versus tradition, but adaptation versus stagnation” (Fox, 1998). The affordability and sustainability of institutions is dependent upon openness to taking a hard look at how planning and design is done.
Another way to think about change is transformation – moving from one state to another in perception, function or actuality. In her paper, “Conditions for Transformation: Infrastructure Is Not the Issue,” Carole Barone (2001) summarises Twelve Campus Conditions for Transformation, most of which are procedural, attitudinal, and organisational rather than technological. She states, “…the only way to transform gracefully is to ensure that the process is institution-wide.” A key aspect is that the people in the institution are ready to change. A tool for determining that readiness has been developed and can be accessed at Conceptual Framework for Distributed Education and the Institutional Readiness Topology (see http://www.educause.edu/ready/ ).
Even when a change in thinking occurs, and new facilities using the latest technologies are infused into the program, results can vary within and among institutions. Uniformity is not assured. Across the Tasman, Brimblecombe (2000) observes that
“Every polytechnic and institute of technology in New Zealand is making some use of new information technology and Internet-related concepts such as e-mail, discussion list servers, browsers, web pages, chat, intranets and associated new media forms are now recognised throughout the sector. However observation indicates that current developments incorporating effective use of new information technology and media to support course delivery and provide learning opportunities are still somewhat uneven. In addition, at management level some institutions may still not view such use of new technology as crucial in a strategic sense, or have a visible plan to manage its long-term development” (Brimblecombe, 2000).
This does not mean that the work should be put in the “too hard basket”. It does mean that expectations need to be managed as well as the process itself.
In the university sector, questions are being asked about the sustainability of multi-mode delivery, where technology-delivered options are being provided at the same time as traditional face to face lectures (Hagel, 2001). The comparison made is the traditional distance education with the traditional campus based programs. Hagel argues that “universities need to start making the hard choices so that their resources and capabilities are focused on achieving defendable product-market positions.” Should a similar debate be held in the VET sector as well? Yes it should. Remembering that it's not only about ‘product-market positions' but about education, current research indicates that both students and teachers consider that some face to face group contact is desirable—and is even essential in the early stages of study— for students inexperienced in e-learning and for students with low literacy/ study skills.
“Winston Churchill is reported to have observed that ‘We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us'”. (Jamieson et al 2000)
The new technologies and their associated environments are influencing a re-examination of the pedagogy that is taking place in our institutions. This examination has “…become the catalyst for fundamentally rethinking how the on-campus teaching and learning process is conducted. Critical questions concerning the pedagogical process, architectural assumptions and the role of educational technologies need to be addressed” (Jamieson et al, 2000).
Deconstructing the educational process exposes the assumptions upon which it is based. The RMIT Faculty of the Constructed Environment has developed a model that deconstructs the components of their program by: mode of engagement of the learners; the facilities available/required; and the subjects. It then reconstructs them into a range of flexible delivery/access options, putting the teaching staff in the middle of the process to determine the specifics in each category (Hough, McNaught and van Schaik, 1998). Bester (1999) describes a similar analysis of the new pedagogy requirements in open learning and community based settings in South Africa.
As the educational paradigm is revealed and rethought, the administrative support structures that are required to support the types of learning environments needed are also open for consideration.
“Learning environments cannot evolve without the adaptation of practical educational applications strengthened by strong administrative systems. To achieve this, there should be a philosophy in higher education of delivering computing services as a public utility, such as electrical services or telephones. In order to accomplish this philosophy, in order to make decisions that will create a collaborative learning environment, the two sides of education must meet: the fiscal and managerial must meet with the academic and philosophical” (Fox, 1998).
One of the philosophical shifts being made is to student-centred programs, away from programs designed around the teacher or content. Student-centred (or learning-centred) designs give greater attention to individual learning styles in format and pace, as well as interest, need and order. Learning is a more active process, rather than passive listening and restatement of information from lectures. Activities are often problem-based and unique. These considerations are increasing the need for flexibility within our institutes (SCUP, 1998).
It is a challenge to move to that level of flexibility. Blending face to face and technology enhanced is one approach that is taken to move through and accommodate the changes in the institution.
“Blended learning provides a model for gradual design and implementation of Web-enhanced environments, addressing the campus theme of enriching education through technologies. Its success as a strategy for change stems from its pedagogical value in interactive student learning, as well as its alignment with the campus mission and student needs in an information age of advanced telecommunications” (Morgan, 2000).
To accomplish this blend, the entire instructional process is reconsidered:
“These arrangements in turn affect the processes involved in conducting each aspect of the interchange: preparation of inputs [instructional materials], access to the inputs during the teaching and learning process [access during the teaching process in traditional environments, access to the same and extended information/ideas during follow-up and practice activities outside the traditional classroom], modification and addition of new information/creations by the learners in subsequent meetings and for assessment purposes, that is, the outputs of the learning activity” (Butler, 2001).
To support the teachers in this shift, new services are required to enable teachers to meet the new needs. “As the tools systematically replace older forms, the center (for teaching and learning) can show how the tools might replace or complement previous methods and how they can generate new uses” (Marcinkiewicz, 2001).
Eventually, the effects on students and their activities are incorporated into the process as well. “The changes in teaching practices highlight the needs of students introduced to this new technology supported environment, including forming a project, evaluating online information sources, and preparing reports for presentation using modern technologies.” (Chaffee, 2001). Comprehensive help desk support is essential, by telephone as well as on the web. This may increase numbers of technical staff and have implications for facilities planning.
Butler (2001) reports this change from blending on a volunteer basis followed by a requirement of all students in subsequent subjects.
“My original intent was to encourage student-centered learning in my large class. But traditional methods of doing this took too much time, and my department was not able to fund more student assistants. Had I not found ways to use modern technology to achieve these goals, I would have been forced to abandon my plans” (Butler, 2001).
Norris (1998) identifies “four elements that will revolutionise our capacity to engage in perpetual learning:
· “a new breed of fused-use facilities,
· ubiquitous information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure,
· new “expeditionary” approaches to program development, and
· the emergence of a new generation of “learning agents” serving individuals and organisations (Norris, 1998).
In his paper about the philosophical change from a “teaching” focus to the “learning” college, Terry O'Banion, Executive Director of the League for Innovation in the Community College, states that “the ubiquitous application of information technology to every facet of the educational enterprise will create monumental change that gives the appearance of a revolution” (O'Banion, 1998).
Jamieson (2000) lists seven design principles to support reaching the new learning philosophy:
New Design Principles:
Principle 1: Design space for multiple uses concurrently and consecutively
Principle 2: Design to maximise the inherent flexibility within each space
Principle 3: Design to make use of the vertical dimension in facilities
Principle 4: Design to integrate previously discrete campus functions
Principle 5: Design features and functions to maximise teacher & student control
Principle 6: Design to maximise alignment of different curricula activities
As these design principles are put into practice and new facilities are available, no longer will teachers and students encounter barriers when incorporating the new learning paradigms, and hopefully they can expect a result of “success breeds success”.
The Flexible Learning Framework is an acknowledgment by the VET sector that we no longer live in a world of static boxes, either in our organisations, our spaces, or our information. The speed at which new knowledge and information is generated, new products come on the market, and therefore changes are made to our curriculum and methods is increasing. Flexibility and modularity in our physical spaces are important concepts when designing for today and tomorrow.
The instructional environments and roles of teachers are changing. These changes impact on the physical spaces in which they are working.
“To some degree, teachers will move from being composers to being conductors, assembling materials and motivating students more than writing new scores from scratch. While this disaggregation of education allows consumers to pick a variety of learning experiences and customise course timing, content, and interface, it also makes packaging, continuity, and assessment difficult. It is important that higher education institutions preserve their critical role in programmatic sequencing of courses and assessment, even as their other “middleman” role of overall educational broker is reduced” (Klingenstein, 1998).
The forms and sizes of student learning groups are changing. An OECD report (Louis, 2000) has observed that the flexibility is across the education program generally, and the facilities must be able to accommodate that variability.
“Another point worth stressing is the importance of adaptable, modular space, in particular to facilitate working in small groups and providing individual tutoring for some students; this will also encourage teamwork on the part of teaching staff. For while the new ICTs will not “do away” with teaching, the challenge for the school is to go beyond infrastructure and facilities and seek to integrate these technologies fully into teaching practice; emphasis on the flexibility of school buildings is not enough, there must be sufficient scope for innovation, and for an effective appraisal of the impact of these technologies, the essential aim being quality” (Louis, 2000).
As ad hoc needs arise in the teaching and learning exchange, so must our facilities be able to be easily shifted to take advantage of the moment. The flexibility of those facilities must be quickly accommodated multiple times within the teaching day. “Flexibility or adaptability to support the creation and direction of just-in-time learning design based on learners' needs and context for learning; meeting the challenge of cost effectiveness will mean that learning spaces should adapt to different needs several times each day” (Jilk, 2001).
Institutions are also acknowledging the importance of considering individual learning styles when designing instructional programs. Consistent practice is not always evident: there are practical constraints. A provider can't afford to offer half a dozen different learning modes in any one course, so it is likely to choose the one that suits the students best – or that the provider sees as most advantageous for itself in some way. The combination of student learning styles crossed with curricular needs, such as ‘hands on' subjects as opposed to information or cognitive skill development, means that facilities must take into account more than one variable at a time. “If students learn differently—and common wisdom and research on cognitive styles strongly support this assumption—then it follows that students are likely to increase their learning if their different learning styles are accounted for in the instructional process. Colleges can better address the variety of learning styles by offering more options in the way instruction is provided” (O'Banion, 1998).
Flexibility also applies to the ability of a provider to provide access to learning programs and supporting information for students wherever they are located throughout the institution and outside it – at work, at home, at learning centres etc. “For example, unlike corporate workers, who tend to stay at a single computer all day, many of our workers (students) will work at several different computers during the course of their day. This creates a mobility requirement for services such as authentication and customisation that we in higher education will likely need to address ourselves. Similarly, our directory services requirements, as public institutions, have aspects that differ from the corporate sector…” (Klingenstein, 1998). If the technologies are in place to allow the movement of students from workstation to workstation, then the facilities designers should take this into account in their design and asset management decisions.
Strategic relationships with other groups with different interests to the institution's mission are cited as important to planning. We must be more collaborative in our planning efforts, as Jilk (2001) describes it “integrating curriculum partnerships, broker services, seamless learning, labor and management, student and faculty.” Creighton and Buchanan (2001) argue that “consortial relationships, outsourcing, partnerships with for-profit providers, and well-conceived spin-offs of particular activities will all be increasingly common as institutions seek to utilise their resources to maximum effect.”
In describing the partnership relationships in their experiences at Sinclair Community College in Ohio, Coburn (1999) explains that introducing new technology-enhanced facilities can enhance partnerships formed for other purposes. “Other less visible innovations include the many partnerships that have contributed to the building and its functions. First, and always still under development, are partnerships with major local employers such as General Motors and Dayton Power and Light. As Sifferlen notes, today's less-abstract learners need “authentic learning experiences closely aligned to the workplace.” CIL (the Center for Interactive Learning) is seen as integral in retraining employees to shift from one job to another.”
Coburn also describes how the development of the new facility provided opportunities to develop new partnerships for different purposes but which benefited both the building project and their own needs. “Other partnerships have influenced the building itself. For example, Anderson says that Sinclair is partnering with the nearby University of Dayton for an ongoing study of how lighting affects learning. And furniture manufacturer Steelcase has been a partner in designing and providing flexible, movable furnishings that accommodate both individual and group learning.”
Mawson Lakes Technology Park in South Australia http://www.techpark.sa.gov.au/idx_over.htm is an example of business, educational facilities and associated amenities being developed together. The educational institutions are the University of Adelaide and secondary colleges, but no VET providers. The focus of the park is on technology and the associated services are “Advanced IT infrastructure and a cluster of IT companies and IT Research Institutes. … Fibre optic communication loops are installed at Technology Park Mawson Lakes with data transfer capability ultimately to 155 megabits per second; and are being linked with the adjacent University campus and newly constructed college.” Not only are the commercial and educational facilities supported with technology, but “there is broad-band cabling to Mawson Lakes homes, pre-wiring of homes, and wiring to facilitate future remote metering of all utilities.” This level of integration of work, home and school, with a similar technology infrastructure is something to take note of when thinking about workplace training in the future. Should VET providers start joining in these types of projects?
A similar project is underway in New South Wales. Called ac3, http://www.ac3.com.au/, the website information suggests that the focus of the services is access to high performance computing. The description of the project states: “ac3 is a partnership between the NSW Government, Australian Technology Park (ATP), the University of NSW, the University of Sydney, The University of Technology Sydney, TAFE, and industry partners including IBM, NEC, and SGI.” In fact the TAFE Commission of NSW is a founding partner. Information suggests that graduates from the various educational institutions will be available for work with the commercial ventures associated with this project and the Australian Technology Park. Unfortunately no further information is provided about the specific activities of relevance to VET.
Both of these ventures demonstrate the collaborative efforts that are happening in this country for economic development in the technology and technology-intense sectors.
Nonetheless, caution should be taken in developing external partnerships. An OECD student roundtable recognised the important contribution that relationships with business can provide for access to hardware and software but did not want to support a mono-culture or commercial monopoly as they were concerned about the predominance of English language cultures and the Microsoft product line (OECD, 2000).
In order for systems development techniques to be successful, developers must utilise a team approach to development using a leadership style similar to the one Paul Bryant, an American college football coach, described (Fox, 1998):
If anything goes bad, I did it
If anything goes semi-good, then we did it
If anything goes real good, then you did it
That's all it takes to get people to win football games for you.
-Paul “Bear” Bryant
Successful projects use teams. Planners, designers and managers of education facilities need to involve users and technical experts. “The first step is to form a team of decision makers that has a range of expertise – a team that includes both educators and information systems (IS) experts who will work closely with the design professional” (McDavitt, 1999).
The Seminole campus of St Petersburg Junior College in South Florida is creating a “Centre for Excellence in Teaching, Learning and Technology.” In doing so, the College provides “an infrastructure of administrators, technical experts and a team of support staff, to help designers create the vision of enhancing education with technology” (Morgan, 2000).
Educational systems design includes teaching staff, student administration staff, library staff, student counsellors, financial services, facilities managers, and teaching department secretaries, who all have a stake in the workability of the system and different insights into its components.
Speaking of IT systems, but equally appropriate for consideration in the literal term of “building” systems, Fox (1998) says “In building systems in higher education, users must be a part of the distributed team that creates the system. Planning is crucial, and teams should cross organisational boundaries.”
Jamieson et al (2000) argue that one of the keys to success is the involvement of the users of the facilities in their design, both for integrating into existing facilities and for developing new ones. “In either case, teachers and students rarely, in the authors' experience, have meaningful input into the design of facilities” (Jamieson et al, 2000). The results have been ‘battery-hen' style designs as one example. Projects that have relied solely on architectural expertise have been designed to support traditional facilities with which those experts have been most familiar. Jamieson contends that:
· current practices of design are hampered by the fact that teaching is not a standard, definable activity,
· facilities development organisations “tend to be separated from the ultimate building inhabitants by a builder, a project manager and a facility manager, a separation that makes the re-negotiation of architecture-pedagogy assumptions quite difficult,” and
Teachers need thinking and talking space to foster creativity. In other words: people are who are organisationally and culturally separated find it difficult to come to common definitions of what is needed.
“Staff and students would need to have the right to shape their places of teaching and learning in much the same way as they shape the curriculum. The financial, occupational health safety and welfare, technological, staffing, research, energy, services and administrative devolution to academic departments which has occurred in the past decade would need to expand to include the design and management of the built environments in which all of these activities are carried out” (Jamieson et al, 2000).
Campus communities have cultures and ways of doing things, which should influence facilities planning processes. For example, planning processes for a classroom renovation project undertaken by the Western Washington University included the following requirements in their planning processes:
1. We had to quickly develop policies and procedures that would allow academic and administrative planners to work together seamlessly on a large renovation project, when little precedent existed for this on campus.
2. We had to develop a consensus on both the classrooms to be renovated and the levels and types of technology to be included.
3. Our faculty senate requested that we make major changes in our classroom scheduling policies prior to completing the renovations.
4. Faculty members continually requested that we undertake initiatives for training faculty in the use of the new classrooms, while no training programs had yet been planned (Gilbert and Grayum, 2000).
These involvements can have a huge impact on the timing, pace and coordination of many components of a project that must be accounted for in project schedules.
Commenting on development of a common vision, Gilbert and Grayum (2000) point out that: “We also knew that this vision needed to be closely tied to documented faculty needs. A vision without strong faculty support would be little better than no vision at all.” They equally acknowledged that the vision might vary among the different teachers involved. They attempted to overcome the variances by involving teachers in the next detail level of design through a simple survey (including which classrooms would be upgraded and what features would be incorporated), widely publishing and celebrating the faculty contributions and, finally, relying on that information to inform the planning decisions taken. The administration was then asked to approve the results as representing the directions of the institution.
Morgan observes that “For academic integrity, faculty-driven design is essential to innovation in the academic community. Blended learning is both an individual as well as a shared collective vision (emphasis added). For administrators, it offers a solution to reduce the demand for physical space while meeting the institutional goal of enriching education with technology. For students, it brings the new convenience of online asynchronous learning and leads to a technological literacy needed in the information” (Morgan, 2000).
The OECD student roundtable report also indicates the importance of user involvement: “It is important to take the educational purpose of school buildings into consideration from the outset; here, close dialogue with future users is a way of carefully integrating pedagogical requirements” (OECD, 2000).
One of Marcinkiewicz's criteria for success is to “Empower faculty members by having them participate in instructional technology decisions, plan and conduct training sessions, and lead by example” (Marcinkiewicz, 2001). Ryland also points out that “While this process can benefit from guidance by a chief information technology officer, it must involve all sectors of the campus community, especially faculty, as a participative, cross-campus process” (Ryland, 1998). This should not be limited just to teaching staff. Others in the organisation should contribute to the planning process to explore what their stake is in good design and identify to which parts of the process they can usefully contribute.
The technology experts need to be part of the team as well as academics and administrators. “When designing facilities, be sure instructional technology staff has input before space layout is completed (for example, seminar rooms don't work well if there is one group of students encircling a table, and a second group behind them). Architects seem to lack sensitivity to functional IT requirements” (Schoomer, 2000).
Relationships among people within institutions also need to change. As Fox (1998) states,
“This restructuring of the IT organisation requires a metatonia - a shift of mind - because, while a change in infrastructure can facilitate the potential of the information age, only the people in the organisation can transform potential into reality. It requires a shift in the minds of university leadership, of the IT leadership and staff, and of the IT customers which include faculty, staff, and students. This metatonia will require them to look at the organisation in a new and different way as interdependent groups, departments and individuals rather than isolated areas of structure” (Fox 1998).
Just as users should be involved in decisions about technology and facilities, administrators and leaders must take responsibility for the overall strategy. Barone (2001) states “For institutions of higher education to adapt to these new learning styles without polarising the campus between traditional and virtual extremes, leaders must take direct responsibility for translating the emerging reality into institutional terms.” She goes on later to say, “This new style of higher education leadership must accept responsibility for linking infrastructure to academic strategy within the unique value system, culture, and worldview of a given institution.”
Students should also be able to participate in the process. The insight they can bring is illustrated by the findings from a recent exercise conducted by the OECD CERI project (OECD, 2000) which asked students to participate in online discussions, followed by a roundtable meeting, about the use of technology in education. The findings are summarised as follows:
· First, it is people, and the way they develop relationships with each other and with computers, rather than the flow of electrons within the computers, that determine whether technology is used well. Much of the discussion focused on relationships between students and teachers, and among students themselves.
· Second, there is great potential for teaching and learning methods to be changed fundamentally by ICT. But the students did not think that this had yet happened, with computers mainly being used to do old things better rather than something fundamentally new. The students wanted to move things forward, but insofar as they had revolutionary ideas about education, they were Mensheviks rather than Bolsheviks: the consensus was for gradual change, taking care to develop teacher and learner roles in ways that would work, rather than overthrowing all that had come before.
· Third, the places or context in which learning occurs – whether in the classroom, the computer lab, at home or in the community – affect profoundly the process of learning with computers. Students had found, as much through the development of practice as from any conscious policy, that certain types of computer-based learning thrive at home, and other types at school, and that habits have developed accordingly.
· Fourth, local cultures must be linked strongly into the use of computer-based resources. Although it had not been a major part of their brief, many students put a strong emphasis on resisting the domination of monocultures and monopolies in the light of globalisation: most particularly, they wanted to be slaves neither to the English language, nor to the American culture, still less to a company with a dominant market position, such as Microsoft.
· Fifth, the way in which technologies themselves are developed and accessed continues to be of prime importance, even though in the four ways listed above the problem cannot be seen as purely technological. Even as technological competence continues to advance, so do expectations of them, and there is a lag insofar as the technologies often do not work for students as they had hoped. Sometimes this is also linked to a resourcing lag. These consumers, as for any product, will not be impressed by the design of educational technology, however imaginative, if it does not work as advertised.
The Principal of a TAFE Institute or education facilities manager can play an important role during installation of ICT and extensive civil works (Brenner, 2000). At a practical level, principals can provide information sessions for students and teachers to advise them about the installation process, the progress of the work, safety rules and other issues, which might include:
· Security. If alarm systems are disabled during, for example power cabling installation there may be increased risk of theft, vandalism or fire.
· The need to reschedule activities because of the presence of noise, dust etc.
· The benefit of early detection of water ingress before damage to furniture or electronic equipment occurs.
From a strategic level, the leadership and example set by principals can facilitate better involvement of all stakeholders in the facilities planning process. Indeed, it is a key responsibility of top level management to make these opportunities available so that the outcomes meet the needs of those delivering the programs to students.
Education facilities managers have a responsibility to listen and respond professionally to the input received from the teaching staff and learners, while doing their professional tasks in regard to designing, developing, implementing and maintaining the teaching and learning environments. The new component brought by ICT in this general approach is the incorporation of the technology expertise from in-house staff and vendors of technology services and equipment. Communication among these groups is essential for a successful on-going teaching and learning environment.
Just as not all facilities are alike, so too is there variation in the attitudes that are brought to discussions about technology in education from teachers, students and administrators. Some are extreme supporters with ideas that technology based educational delivery will replace the traditional, others are of a totally opposite view and some are neutral, taking the best of both options. (Creighton and Buchanan 2001)
As mentioned elsewhere in this report, the cultural differences and values of the various groups will impact the attitudes that are brought as well. All may be committed to educational quality, but how and to what benchmark may differ. Fox suggests that the way to address these differences is through developing “trust; trust, in turn, requires common beliefs and values” (Fox, 1998). And if not totally common, at least identification where subset commonalities lie.
Student attitudes toward the impact of technology on their learning are quite positive – as long as the technology works. They get frustrated and disillusioned when servers are down; software versions are incompatible, etc. Chaffee (2001) reports extremely positive student attitudes and high utilisation of computing with perceived benefits for their learning where universal access to networked computing resources exists. She also reports overall benefits to the institutions in faculty/student relations, a stronger focus on teaching and learning values and outcomes, better access and equity with regard to information, development of business partnerships and economic development activities resulting in “internships, scholarships, and opportunities for individual work experience…”, and more frequent hardware and software upgrades.
In a recent audit of the Victorian equipment and facilities in VET education, students and teachers varied in their satisfaction levels (Auditor General, 2001). Students and graduates were satisfied with the equipment as “just adequate”, but teachers were not to the same level of satisfaction. Students indicated difficulties with access to equipment. Teachers indicated the need for more frequent upgrades. They also discovered that there was a lack of adequate numbers of printers, specialist software such as desktop publishing, and a need to upgrade operating systems to the next level.
Morgan (2000) reports for his students participating in a web-enhanced course at the St Petersburg Junior College, “Most students surveyed preferred blended or distance learning to traditional classes. Only 5% of the students surveyed prefer traditional methods of learning after taking a class using blended delivery.”
The belief that a computer literate generation will automatically adopt and thrive in a technology-rich educational environment is, we believe, proven a myth (Poindexter and Basu, 2000). This was found in an Information Systems class using laptops during class. “… peers helped each other learn new skills and overcome computer anxieties.”
Students have high expectations. The technology must be available to meet what is expected of them in their learning and it must work. In the OECD student roundtable it was concluded that, “As students understand better what ICT could do, their impatience with limited facilities grows” (OECD, 2000).
Because the impact of technology on the built educational environment is a relatively new area of research and analysis, it is critical that ideas continue to be exchanged. One venue for this exchange on an international level that is getting results is the Programme for Educational Buildings (PEB) convened by the OECD. “The approach of PEB is by no means a vision “imposed” from above; it builds upon contributions from the countries and institutions participating in the Programme, since PEB is a forum for discussion and exchange serving all the stakeholders, be they Member countries, local authorities or research institutions. The idea is to draw upon experiments and innovations by all concerned, if only to avoid making similar mistakes” (Louis, 2000).
Other organisations and forums for exchanging ideas are: CCUMC ( http://www.indiana.edu/~ccumc/ ), the Society for College and University Planning (http://www.scup.org ) and ICIA/INFOCOM ( http://www.icia.org/ ). ICIA offers a certification program in facility design and installation (Schoomer, 2000).
Australia has a wide range of geographic service areas – from remote outback communities, to islands, to regional towns and villages, to large urban centres. Sharing information with people in a similar geographic situation outside of our own country may be of more value than exchanging with other Australians dealing with a hugely dissimilar set of circumstances. For example, the standards for classroom technology integration in Jamaica may be a closer match with some of the islander and outback communities than with their mainland urban Australian counterparts. The Jamaican standards address issues of dust, insects, and water/rain control entry through poorly sealing doors; glare control on windows resulting from tropical sun; installation of an adequate air conditioning system; and proper cleaning services where dust is a problem (Baboolal, 2000). It is not necessary to get far from metropolitan areas to encounter this in Australia either – try the Mallee of Victoria or south central Queensland.
Some environments have limitations that make technology infusion more challenging, but it is often these same environments that can benefit most from the capabilities brought by the technology. Delivery in places such as the Torres Strait Islands or off-shore islands of mainland may look to the Maldives for a comparable set of circumstances. For example, in the Maldives, video productions for English language training serve isolated people living on the country's scattered atolls. Desk-top video is seen as a low-cost, high-tech alternative to support their programs. By adding state-of-the art desk-top video editing technology to existing computers, they provide a technology that is less expensive than traditional video production methods.
Another challenge is to share ideas within the institution in the face of organisational fragmentation.
“Technology is no longer a niche activity. But many universities and colleges are still organized (sic) as though technology were (sic) the preserve of a few experts and can be handled apart from the main academic concerns of the institution. The structure of the institution thus blocks its ability to make major improvements in teaching and learning with technology. This is one reason why hundreds of colleges and universities have begun Teaching, Learning, and Technology Roundtables: to share information and coordinate strategies as their institutions prepare to make major improvements in teaching and learning” (Ehrmann, 1999).
A similar concept at the individual level has been suggested by Green in his article, ‘Mark Hopkins and the Digital Log' (2001). In his review of the many implementation factors for successful planning and integration of technology into the classroom, he points out that visualisation of oneself using technology in teaching is important, but that many teachers have been unable to do so. He advises that only involving early adopters in the dialogue or idea exchange is not enough: teachers need to exchange ideas with others in circumstances similar to their own in order to begin to develop coherent thoughts about how they might imagine themselves using technology in their teaching. In addition, “we need to know that our institutions are building and sustaining the technology infrastructure…that will support both our efforts and our aspirations” (Green, 2001).
Another development, or perhaps re-development, is the examination of our educational institutions as part of a wider relationship with society. As lifelong learning becomes more ingrained in the social fabric, our institutions will be ‘owned' more continually by our communities. People will expect to be able to return to them throughout their lifetimes. Relationships with our communities will influence the designs of our buildings, the technologies that we put in them and the multi-dimensional applications of our learning spaces. If equity and access are truly part of the mission of VET, combining efforts with communities can go a long way to eliminating the have/have not gap.
OECD ministers of education set lifelong learning as a priority in the Organisation's work. They have described schools as “a major social asset and should become ‘community learning centres' offering a variety of programmes and learning methods to a diverse range of students, and remain open for long hours throughout the year”. PEB has successfully incorporated this broader mission for schools into its work. It has taken into account a whole range of elements relating to the provision of facilities for lifelong learning, including crèches and pre-school facilities, continuous adult training, commercial and industrial vocational training, as well as the needs of higher education (Louis, 2000).
As Jilk (2001) points out, to integrate our institutions “into the wider community as a source of useful learning products; the environment will need to strongly encourage integration of subject areas and institution- and community-based learning resources” (Jilk, 2001).
Primary and secondary schools are facing similar developments in community relationships. In America as in Australia, schools are making their buildings accessible to the community for a variety of community interest activities such as sport and continuing education (Hamaty and Lines, 1999). As a result, schools will be open for more hours and for more periods during the year. Facilities will have design considerations to cater for adults as well as younger people, with a continued attention to security and more sophisticated building controls and monitoring systems (Hamaty and Lines, 1999).
While most of the VET community focuses on the workplace as the primary alternative to educational training facilities, other more public facilities are also being developed. Called ‘activity extenders', many urban and suburban commercial and cultural environments are being used for expanding access to education in the community. Learner centred environments in local communities can provide a strong provider presence. Examples of the types of places being used today in local communities are (SCUP, 1998):
· extension centers located in malls and urban entertainment centers
· public libraries
· urban town centers that use experiential learning, discovery and culture as attractions and activity extenders
· museums
· zoos and parks.
OECD roundtable students also suggested that more should be made of community facilities as learning spaces, mentioning specifically resource centres in libraries, to overcome the ‘digital divide' of access. (OECD, 2000)
Virginia Tech offers an example of this. Setting out to see if technology could improve student performance in calculus, they created a new classroom concept called a Math Emporium, which eliminates the traditional credit-hour approach to courses. “To create the Emporium, Virginia Tech rented an empty supermarket and installed 500 computers across the floor, each equipped with software designed to teach levels of calculus. Students can visit the facility 24 hours a day. Professors make themselves available at the Emporium 70 hours a week and offer optional lectures. Students use the computers to work through exercises. Approximately 10 % of the students attend the optional lectures” (Fickes, 2000).
Technology supported multipurpose community learning centres are described in a South African setting in the 1999 paper by Bester, “Multi-Purpose Learning Centres In An Open Learning Environment In South Africa”. Although not fully implemented, field testing is being done and discussion and analysis conducted for a range of technologies in these community based facilities: narrow casting of satellite delivered materials, broadcasting of more general interest materials, Internet access, and computer aided instruction. Bester also identifies in his paper the technology support services that would make these places conducive to the educational needs in those communities.
Community based learning centres complete with required technologies are developing throughout the United Kingdom under the banner of Learndirect < http://www.learndirect.co.uk/personal/centres/ >. Some places where access is provided are sports clubs, leisure centres, churches, libraries, and railway stations. Staff are available in the centres to assist learners. The centre in Plymouth
< http://www.learndirect.co.uk/personal/centres/profiles/centralpc/ > provides access to technology for personal use as well as courses. “People can also bring in their own work to do like CVs', driving test CDRoms etc.” Another centre in Coventry, as well as others, provides crèche and onsite cafeteria services. The attention to the human needs demonstrates that technology and the learning process are part of life concerns, and other aspects of life need to be acknowledged and serviced as well.
An example of technology being incorporated in an Australian community learning centre is the achievement of Victoria University in providing support in a former commercial bank building in rural Victoria (Jamieson et al, 2000).
Ryland also suggests that “Community colleges should consider investment in facilities that can serve as community learning centers in which shared computer labs coexist with docking stations for laptop computers, food outlets, retail stores, libraries, meeting rooms, and study lounges. Such physical facilities can complement the strong links community colleges have (and should expand) with local business and industry” (Ryland, 1998).
Community facilities impact on campus based planning in several ways. Firstly, the students participating in programs may be using technology support in on and off campus locations. Accessibility to course information via telecommunications links between the physical locations may be critical for consistency of teaching and learning programs from the institution. Secondly, the synergies that could be gained by purchasing and supporting similar equipment in on and off-campus locations could reduce costs. Additionally, the support services needed to provide education in non-education community facilities may impact directly on the support required from campus professional staff if those services are not part of the lease agreement or use arrangements with the owner.
Buildings on our campuses are part of the wider built environment of our communities. Choices that are made in building can support sustainable development or add to the problems of environmental degradation. Facilities that use modern and environmentally aware design approaches set a good example for our communities. The OECD PEB program supports “sustainable development” and environmental conservation (Louis, 2000). This can come into play particularly with renovation decisions. The OECD report cites the example of Italy, “where some older, derelict buildings (factories, monasteries and even palaces) have been renovated with the dual aim of making them functional in terms of future use while respecting and developing their historic interest” (Louis, 2000). Although the Australian history isn't as long as Italy, some construction materials of more recent times are of heritage value and others may contain hazardous materials such as asbestos or lead paint due to the time of their construction.
Morgan points out that “New campuses may have different heritage values to adhere to, but in many developed countries, there are higher expectations that public institutions will adhere to good environmental management practices, particularly in new facilities” (Morgan, 2000).
When institutions have embarked on technology infusion projects, not all results were what had been expected. These are some examples of unanticipated effects.
· Impact on scheduling requirements during and after installation for the actual renovation, for training teachers to use the new systems, and ultimately to incorporate in teaching sessions (Gilbert and Grayum, 2000; Schoomer, 2000).
· Changes in organisational support groups:
“First, a new Center for Instructional Innovation (CII) had been created a year earlier, with a strong affiliation with both the Provost's Office and the Academic Technology department. The goal of the Center was to foster general instructional innovation on our campus, while working closely with the Academic Technology department on the integration of technology into our curriculum. Second, a new Director of Academic Technology had the opportunity in early 1999 to reorganize (sic) the Academic Technology department to better focus on both training and classroom support. A new Manager of Multimedia and Web Development position was subsequently created, focusing on instructional development and training issues. In addition, a new Classroom Services Manager position was created, establishing an active point of contact for communication with faculty members regarding classroom issues. Finally, all Academic Technology department functions (e.g. computer support, software services) were re-aligned to serve faculty classroom needs as a top priority.)” (Gilbert and Grayum, 2000).
· Increased support for technology use took place
“All of these organizational (sic) changes sent a message to our faculty that the effective integration of instructional technology into their teaching was an important strategic goal of the campus. This commitment was further emphasized (sic) by a dramatic expansion in the number of training and support opportunities for faculty related to the use of instructional technology.” (Gilbert and Grayum, 2000)
· Success breeds success
“The more often a class meets, the more successful was the adoption of technology, teamwork, and interactive learning.” (Poindexter and Basu, 2000).
Where to start? A service area with multiple teaching locations? A single campus? Buildings on the campus? The spaces between the buildings? Classrooms or other spaces within the buildings? The passages between the classrooms? The spaces within the classrooms? Each of these physical dimensions will be and are impacted by the technologies. At some stage in all facilities design, construction, and operation, questions will be asked and answered about the implications of technology at each of these levels. The crossovers and relationships among these layers or levels of analysis will influence the decisions taken.
There is a need to re-examine the decisions that are being made in these levels. Jamieson et al (2000) identify a plethora of poor decisions where the goals of more interaction, better teaching and learning, and ultimately better prepared graduates are not realised. “In general this practice (poorly conceived environments) has produced teaching and learning environments which are both inadequate and outdated on architectural and pedagogical grounds.” They go on to state: “The challenge facing predominantly on-campus institutions is to balance the development of an online teaching presence and the redesign of their existing built environments where teaching will continue to be transacted. This is both a matter of resource management and strategic educational planning.”
Not only is the level of analysis important, the paradigm through which that analysis is conducted is also critical. The traditional power relationships are being called into question, where students are moving to the centre of the process instead of the teacher or the content. The spaces must match those new paradigms and support those changes. “This traditional architectural-pedagogical paradigm informs many recent on-campus developments. The result is that while new campus developments present architecturally challenging building types, they continue to reinforce teacher-centred pedagogical practices” (Jamieson et al, 2000).
“The complexity of the new online teaching and learning environments is also apparent when students and teachers choose, or are required, to work in synchronous or asynchronous virtual teaching and learning spaces. Access to those technological environments may be made from a multitude of physical places (e.g. on-campus computer laboratory, on-campus office, home, student workplace, etc)” (Jamieson et al, 2000). The place or space can be almost anywhere. And planning and incorporation of the range of places and spaces must be part of physical as well as educational development and change.
