Impact of Clicks on Bricks:
VET facilities planning
in an information age
Final Report
Prepared by:
Jan Whitaker,
JLWhitaker Associates
March, 2002
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)
The new learning technologies (NLTs ) do impact the physical facilities of the vocational education and training efforts in Australia in a variety of ways. The review of the literature conducted as part of this project has shown that, despite differences in the educational models and stages of development around the world, there are some common effects that technology enhanced, supported or fully delivered off-site programs have on the range of activities that take place in our institutions . The search conferences conducted with Australian VET professionals have shown that the people involved in creating and managing these programs can collectively identify those impacts. The resulting documents from the literature review and the search conferences present the themes in several layers of detail that can be used by institutional planners , teachers and managers to think more specifically about their work in terms of their physical environments and the tools they can and do use for teaching and learning .
This summary report is intended to bring together the themes discovered in both the literature review and seven search conferences, involving approximately 150 VET stakeholders contributing over 5000 comments and concepts. It is the final report to synthesise the underpinning principles with
current research into the potential impact of new technologies on the design and future use of physical facilities in vocational education and training . Much greater detail can be found in the literature review and report of best practice principles and guidelines.
New learning technologies (NLTs ) as a subset of information and communication technologies (ICTs) come in many forms such as computers , video, scanners, digital sound devices, and of course, the internet . Examples can be found of applications of all of these devices in education , some at experimental stages and some well embedded in the educational process at all levels. The degree within specific institutions will vary from place to place, but it would be difficult to argue against the point that NLTs are providing new and exciting opportunities for accessing, creating, and delivering a richer learning experience (Ryland, 1998).
The reasons for the expansion of the use of technologies in education are many. They include responsiveness to the ‘information economy ' (Quinn, 2001) and need for technology skills in the workplace; a recognition of the benefits through the use of the new learning technologies to provide accessibility to education and training ‘anywhere, anytime and anyplace' (TAFE frontiers, 2001); and more recently the inclusion of the same technologies in on-campus programs to provide access to information and communications opportunities for students attending programs in classrooms .
Societally, the evidence has shown that the Internet and its associated access equipment [personal computers and modems ] are no longer arcane, techno-geek, and feared black boxes only available to scientists in white coats in research labs. The 1999 data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that in Australia, computers are used by 76% of businesses and the internet is used by 56% (ABS 1, 2000). The internet use figure for 1999 is a huge increase over 1997/98 data which stood at 29% of businesses. This is particularly important to understand in the VET sector which prepares the workforce of the present and future.
Similar growth has been seen in households generally. Couples with dependents have computer access in 70% of cases, with internet access at 35% (ABS 2, 2000). Adult use of the internet is also higher amongst the younger age groups, 72% for 18-24 y.o., employed (54%) versus not employed (19%), and metropolitan based (45%) versus other areas (33%). In 1999, 30% of the 18-24 y.o. were accessing the internet from a TAFE or other tertiary institution . Alternatively, 79% of working age adults (25-54 y.o.) accessing the net are doing so from work.
One could assume then that large numbers of VET consumers into the future will be expecting, needing, and already using new technologies in their lives. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the VET institutes will be using these same techniques and equipment as well as teaching about them as part of the curriculum in most employment areas (Chaffee, 2001; Morgan, 2000; Ryland, 1998). All trends are up, although the rate of growth is less than in more recent times. The ubiquitous computing concept may be reaching the end of the growth spurt and moving in to marginal or slower growth.
As skills are more developed in learners their comfort with using the tools for new applications will be higher. The days of teaching ‘computer basics' or ‘word processing' will diminish with opportunities to spend time more productively on content of substance in the work skills/knowledge of the training program (Morgan, 2000). Similarly as teachers develop their skills in using the technologies to support the educational process, through experiences in online course delivery, preparing materials using standard computer software such as word processing and graphics, or managing their student data, their efficiencies will increase as well. The sophistication and expectations of both learners and teachers will increase, putting pressure on institutes to provide the right type of educational environments to use the tools well (OECD, 2000; Twigg, 1999).
During the 1990s when the internet became more accessible to educational institutions and the world wide web was harnessed for direct access to and distribution of information (Creighton and Buchanan, 2001), a first step in utilising these two developments in tertiary education was through the model of distance education . The programs were ‘experiments', ‘trials' and ‘pilots'. They were often suspect in relation to the traditional methods of teaching and learning in lecture theatres, classrooms , and hands-on practical laboratories which were catered for in the organising of the institutions and its services. ‘Virtual' educational programs may not have carried the same legitimacy for awarding qualifications. Things are changing as more programs become available and are seen to have value while still being different from the traditional.
The next phase of development is leading to perhaps the greatest impact on the buildings and facilities of the institution. As the numbers of teachers and the learners increase who find the benefits of the NLTs in the virtual and experimental programs , it is a natural expectation that these same people will want to use the same tools in their ‘traditional' teaching and learning environments (Morgan, 2000; Schoomer, 2000). Termed ‘hybrid' or ‘blended' learning programs, the edges are blurring between what is done ‘at a distance' with technology as the means, and what is done and when it is done in a classroom (or library or learning centre or workplace) with the same technologies (Gilbert and Grayum, 2000). The barriers of time and place are being broken down by the NLTs, not only for distance education programs, but also for the ‘on campus ' learning experience (Green, 2000; Hagel, 2001; Louis, 2000; Norris, 1998).
This reverse effect on the traditional is impacting how people are looking at the educational experience. The traditional is being deconstructed into its component parts and reconstructed into different combinations of learning activities, information, materials , tools and demonstration of skills /knowledge attainment (Jilk, 2001). It is as if the technologies have become the catalyst for a renaissance in education , with new explorers, new approaches, and new outcomes. These explorations are bound to put pressure on the physical environments that we currently use and those designed for the future.
The technology ‘environment' is changing, but perhaps not as drastically as in the 1970s through the 90s. Miniaturisation is continuing, but the extent of miniaturisation has reached the atomic level and would not have much further to go. Chips run faster still with each new generation, but perhaps without the practical increase in functionality for meeting common daily demands. Bandwidth for communication is still an issue in terms of affordability, with costs in Australia sometimes increasing rather than decreasing, as previously expected as a result of competition. “Convergence ” as a concept, i.e. combining capabilities into single devices, comes and goes in the marketplace. Handheld devices are becoming more common place. Wireless networking is presented as probably the most important change on the horizon, supporting ‘anywhere' computing access options with less reliance on hardwired connections (Coburn, 1999).
We have lived through the dot.com expansion and implosion. Still the numbers of internet users and ‘publishers' continue to increase and put their information on the web. E-books have had mixed reception with some of the early marketers retreating in recent times. The software producers and governments are now focussing on methods to control intellectual property. Copyright and associated legislation are becoming more restrictive and punitive for non-compliance. New software distribution models have been trialed with no indication that a standard is emerging in that regard.
Each of these potentials, adjustments, comings and goings in the technology scene could and do have effects on the technology choices that are made for teaching and learning applications. Resourcing, managing, equipping, providing infrastructure, and staffing are areas that are continually challenged as the technology marketplace shifts and develops (Klingenstein, 1998).
Asset Management Advancement
Asset planning and management is also going through changes (Fox, 1998; OECD, 2001). Life cycle management is a key element of the processes involved. Technologies are providing support to the management of complex environments, with indications of integration with other enterprise management software packages specifically supporting educational institutions . Integration of information among the various management information systems will provide space utilisation direction for facilities planning into the future based on data rather than hopes or feelings.
The involvement and partnership with communities in educational ‘enterprise zones' and for delivery of programs where the learners live and work is an on-going trend (Hamaty and Lines, 1999; OECD, 2000; SCUP, 1998). This includes community facilities and workplaces. Some spaces are suitable for educational delivery and come with adequate technologies. Others require careful planning and consideration of equipping, scheduling, and supporting the facility (O'Donoghue and Graham, 1998).
Similarly in some states, incorporation of VET programs within other educational organisations such as schools and universities provides leveraging of capital development and operation costs of facilities , including NLTs .
As part of the search conference activities, we asked the participants to consider assumptions about technology and facilities that they experience in their operating environments. They were asked to identify which of those assumptions should be questioned rather than taken as true at face value. These challenged assumptions are areas that could be viewed as gaps in the understanding or ability of the institutions to address the impacts of the NLTs on their operations and facilities.
In the ICT area, there were several common challengeable assumptions across the seven sessions.
· Access and Adequacy - can these be achieved and is the technology infrastructure in place in Australian communities to meet demand?
· Attitude and choice - are decision makers making appropriate choices in the application of NLTs as integrated delivery tools in institutions ?
· Change in ICT - can the change needed in organisations keep up with the change of technology in a rational and predictable way?
· Cost - are costs of learning technology acquisition, implementation and operation fully recognised and the returns promised realistic when the long term costs are taken into account?
· Effectiveness - do we know enough to make determinations about the effectiveness of the technologies for learning or are we still operating on marketing ‘hype' and hope?
· Learners - do learners have the required discipline to manage their own learning through the new technologies?
· Skills - do the teachers and learners across the range of age groups and study areas have the needed skills for applying the NLTs specifically for teaching and learning rather than the standard word processing and calculating applications?
· Social Contact - what is the contribution of social skills development and its effects on learning , with or without technology ?
· Teaching preparation - is the time available in the workday for teachers to transfer their activities to the new teaching models and develop their skill sets to do so? Are there places for them to prepare as well as deliver?
· Support - are the national models/strategies and institutional implementations of the NLTs adequately addressing the support needed for success?
· Attitude and Choices - It is a common assumption that there is a competition between bricks/buildings and technology options. Upon what factors should an integration of the two be pursued?
· Cost - As with the NLT challenges, the adequacy of the funding provided beyond the acquisition phase is questioned, as well as the competition for funding between the bricks and mortar and the infrastructure and equipment . Funding models are also out of step in many organisations, with funds for capital development of buildings often being unsupported with equipment and operating funds.
· Design - Is adequate attention being paid to the range of possibilities for balancing environmental concerns, the function of the spaces and the realistic expectations for computer access?
· Flexibility - What is a realistic expectation for affordable and timely flexibility within facilities that incorporate NLTs ? Daily? Weekly? By the term?
· Planning - Will the needs for buildings in the future decrease? How adequate are the planning methodologies in place to address the changing views of facility use in terms of consultation, data on current utilisation and capacity, and timeframes? Are educational program plans taken into account adequately when planning the built environments to house them?
· Social Contact and Culture - What is the actual effect of attending programs in buildings versus through NLTs ?
· Utilisation - What are reasonable expectations for building utilisation targets and in what combinations? What is known about current use patterns and capacity?
By examining the questions raised in the challenged assumptions, the trends found in the literature and identified by the participants, and using the scenarios of four VET environments (Metropolitan, Rural/Regional, Workplace and Community) as frameworks for strategy discussions, the project yielded the following general and four categories of specific principles /impacts related to planning, design , technology and management. These points are easy to state, but should be seen as ideals to aim for, tempered with what is reasonable and achievable.
A key impact of technology on the physical facilities is the need for involvement of more and different people in the process in all stages, from planning through to usage. These include a range of stakeholders including teachers , support staff, specialists in facilities and technology, and the administration of the institute. In some cases, even student views are taken into account. This expanded involvement exposes differences in priorities, culture and knowledge specialities in each professional field.
Another impact is the relationship of the ‘time to/for implementation' variables. Technology changes quickly but buildings are built to last over longer time periods. Additionally, technology can be relatively quickly put in or taken out, whereas buildings have much longer planning, approval and build times. This difference in response time can set up challenges requiring careful management of expectations amongst the stakeholders.
The requirements for flexibility and adaptability are important impacts of NLTs on facilities today. Programmatic changes as well as the rate of change in technologies combine to increase the need for flexible and adaptable facilities to house those programs and tools.
There is a greater complexity as a result. This complexity impacts the sophistication required to ‘get things right', on time and on budget. More infrastructure is required in terms of utilities and communications, for all aspects of the organisation. Spaces are multi-functional. Four walls, a set of desks in rows, and a display space are no longer adequate teaching environments.
In the VET environment, education is happening in all types of places, hence the examination of the various scenarios. This variety brings into play several impacts:
· coordination with other groups who may be the owners of those facilities rather than the institution,
· lack of adequate infrastructure, particularly telecommunications, in the non-metropolitan delivery areas,
· learning in the workplace where it may be necessary for the institution to work in partnership to provide required facilities including learning technologies or connectivity to them, and
· learning in the home which may lead to different types of on-campus support units such as call centres or materials distribution points for students studying remotely.
The new learning technologies also bring a dimension of communication and infrastructure support that differs from face-to-face, ‘chalk and talk' teaching. Communication channels may range from electronic mail to video conferencing inside and outside of the classroom. The infrastructure, such as bandwidth and number of channels, may require the facilities and planning groups to work more intensely with new and exotic types of communication systems.
It is also important to understand that the technologies themselves are pervasive and multipurpose in the institutions . Not only must classrooms be facilitated, but also administrative offices, teacher offices, learning support units, and in some institutes, also the boarding facilities for students (Jamieson et al, 2000; Marcinkiewicz, 2001). The tools are used for development, delivery and administration of programs , and hopefully even for planning input and modelling.
Lastly, the expectations of all stakeholders are higher for many reasons. Technology can set up tensions and change anxieties because of the newness of it all. The fact that technologies often require some level of specialist support adds stress to the teaching and learning process. On the plus side, the contributions that come in terms of new capabilities and involvement of students in their own learning processes can be rewarding enough to make the demands worthwhile meeting.
In the words of students in a US university, “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.”
Turning to some of the specific principles and impacts, the planning area included four main points:
Needs based - scanning internal and external
Needs can be viewed from the institution's perspective and from that of the external community. Another way to put this is a shift to market driven planning. The match of the internal ability to meet those needs with the changes that will occur in terms of new programs needed or no longer needed for a specific community, or change occurring within existing programs, should be examined on an on-going basis for changes in technology use and the physical facilities requirements.
Strategic - program and goal driven
Planning should be led by program, goals and outcomes, and with a consideration of short, medium and long term objectives (Marcinkiewicz, 2001). The values and emphasis of the organisation should be explicitly stated in order to determine if the technology and facilities choices conform to the larger aspects of the institution rather than driving them. It is easy to focus on tangible elements, but more important to understand the purpose and value support to programs that are expected from those tangible facilities and tools.
Systemic - institutionally and procedurally
Planning should be systemic. The full organisation, its communities of interest (McDavitt, 1999), and its abilities to perform, including its operational procedures should be included in the planning process. As an example, if a new technology enhanced facility is being planned, what are the technical support processes and staff that will also be required? What are the on-going resources needed? What are the professional development and training requirements for teachers and learners and staff?
Consultative - multiple stakeholders
Lastly in terms of planning, it should be consultative of the range of stakeholders, with ample time for creativity and input as well as needs identification in the short, medium and long term as much as possible. Stakeholders will extend to potentially long term relationships with technology and communication suppliers (Creighton and Buchanan, 2001; Jilk, 2001; Ryland, 1998).
Turning to design principles , five main themes emerged.
Accessibility
Designs should provide for high levels of accessibility for a range of types of people and their capabilities. Entry points, furniture heights, placement of powerpoints are some physical design aspects of accessibility. In another sense, facilities must be accessible at appropriate times to meet learner needs. This might include providing multipurpose facilities, such as open computer labs, as well as specific use spaces such as computer equipped classrooms .
Sustainability
The technology enabled facilities must be sustainable, mostly from a financial sense, but also in terms of staffing requirements and larger environmental aspects. It would do no good to put in a proprietary technology that is not supportable with spare parts or technical expertise when needed. Sustainability is also often measured in terms of environmental considerations such as energy consumption, for example, heating and cooling as well as electricity to support hardware.
Manageability/Supportability
Designs must also take into account the manageability of the facilities . How will the facility be managed, by specialist staff or by teachers themselves? If specialist staff will be managing the technology and facilities, are they expected to be located near the space? Can they assist remotely? Are there stages of management that range from self-management through to centralised decision making for perhaps activities such as scheduling events?
Flexibility
Flexibility as a design consideration will assist with better facility use. Designs should optimise flexibility to allow for different programs and teaching methods. Is there space for bringing in books and writing materials as well as the computer stations on the desktops? Can teachers easily move around in the space? Is there a place for small group work as well as large group activities and still have access to support hardware and software (Jilk, 2001; Louis, 2000)?
Open to future change - ‘future proof'
Lastly, spaces need to be designed to allow for future changes. Because of the speed of change in the technologies, what is here today, or even by the time the building comes online, will be changing to other potentials and capabilities.
There were four guiding principles with regard to technology , three of which would already apply to good facilities planning and management and one new idea (Downes, 2000).
Adequacy
The concept of adequacy relates to number and capability. The ratio of workstations to students is always going to be a moving target, but perhaps adequate numbers are “enough” as defined locally is the closest we can get. This must be coordinated with the program needs, the number of students to be involved, the number of teachers relying on the technologies, and the support access requirements.
Adequacy can also relate to capability. Is it the right technology choice for the teaching and learning task?
Location adequacy is also important. For example, is access adequate for teachers to prepare materials outside of classroom?
Functionality
The technology must also be functional to the purpose. This is particularly important with regard to different learning objectives and fields of study. Some programs are more visual, some more interactive, and some more verbal. Do the technologies selected and the facilities in which they will be used provide the right characteristics to meet those objectives? Does it have a capture capability for storage and review at later dates? Does it provide proper remote access for off-campus learners as well as on campus in functional spaces?
Reliability
The technology and support facilities must operate reliably (Louis, 2000). Technology has a higher failure potential than the traditional chalkboard. The critical nature of the teaching and learning activities heightens the effect of unreliable technologies. If students are connecting by telephone to your local computer centre as the sole means of accessing their program of study, the connection and your computer centre must be reasonably reliable in their operations. As mentioned previously, spare parts or spare devices can assist in meeting reliability requirements. Similarly, data backup is essential.
Interoperability [external and internal]
Finally, the new characteristic that comes with technologies is the aspect of interoperability. This may be considered both with regard to external connections, such as to workplace learning or homes, but also internally amongst different campuses or with government offices for such things as reporting and receipt of departmental information. A common example encountered in education is the Microsoft/Macintosh debate about what computers to put in labs. Any proprietary solution on offer must be considered with regard to the interoperability with other agencies, legacy systems [in order to retrieve historical information], and the installed base of the key users.
The last major impact category is management.
Affordability
The technology and facilities must be affordable. A clear business model needs to be outlined in terms of the capital, recurrent, and replacement costs of ownership (Meeks, 1999). A comment made in some search conferences was the competition for already inadequate resources when technologies enter the mix. Realistic choices will need to be made amongst the competing interests and not ignored in the planning, development and management processes.
Controlabiity/managability
All facilities , with or without technology , must be managed (Bremmer, 2000). Facilities with technology adds a new dimension to the management process, with new elements to consider such as connections to outside service providers, outsourcing perhaps, new types of staff, etc. (Olsen, 2001)
Coordinated [external and internal]
In most circumstances, coordination amongst a range of people and interests will be needed. Some spaces previously assigned to a single department or faculty may now be shared. Special programs may need to have preferenced timetabling for specific facilities , with unclaimed times available to other groups, for example rooms equipped for videoconferencing. External coordination may occur when using shared community facilities or services such as communication networks.
Utilised
Finally, an interesting principle that emerged from our search conferences was the need to increase utilisation of the facilities that are constructed. Ownership issues may need to be reviewed in light of investments made in technology capabilities with increased multipurpose uses than in the past culture of the institute.
In summary, the major technology impacts drawn from the trends, challenged assumptions, and principles above, are:
· A more structured business planning process should be implemented which incorporates clear identification of user needs, quantified financial analysis and the appropriate mix of clicks/NLTs and bricks/facilities to maximise net present value of both.
· Facilities and ICT planning must be conducted at various levels, from specific places in a room to building to campus to community, for function, impact, and sustainability.
· The physical environment needs to be designed to invite the acquisition and support of the necessary ICT skills and applications by teachers and learners.
· Building spaces and network access infrastructure need to be flexible in responding to the rapid evolution of user needs in a dynamic training and employment environment.
· Buildings, ICT and network architecture need to be designed to facilitate access by students who are not able to obtain access using their own resources.
· Building design and staff resource planning need to ensure that the future support needs of ICT are met.
· Continual assessment of buildings, ICT and other facilities is required to maintain a functional learning and operational environment to take advantage of the continuing changes in technology .
· Online discussions - The project website has begun ongoing dialogue about specific issues, new findings, and problem solving. Various themes and ideas from the project could be put forward as discussion topics on the website. Similarly, the concepts could be streams for discussion in the ANTA series of annual Net*Working conferences.
· Review of the principles and guidelines - The principles and guidelines should be seen as a first effort to document those aspects from the field and the literature. They will require revision at some stage based on experiences of their implementation in VET institutes. The revisions may be a result of the emerging opportunities or changes in the industry and institutions as they evolve and mature.
· Distribution of these principles and guidelines and information about the literature review resources/links - Distribution options include papers and conference presentations, articles for journals and news items in the usual ANTA and VET publications.
· Case studies of ‘best practice' examples in the various states/territories -Very few Australian case study examples were found during the literature search . It would be beneficial to build a collection of Australian stories that fit our own contexts of tertiary education .
· Testing of overseas tools and principles in the Australian higher education environment - Similarly, the tools and principles from overseas could benefit us if they were tested and reported in the Australian environment, and in different sectors such as VET .
· Follow-up with search conference participants regarding changes they have incorporated as a result of their involvement in the project - It would be interesting to revisit those who participated in the search conferences and ask them about the impact their participation in the project had on their work locally.
· Examination of the results of this work in conjunction with other Flexible Learning Framework projects, in particular the Technology Standards program. The two programs of facilities planning and technology inclusion should be integrated for a common general planning approach.
The Impact of Clicks on Bricks project has resulted in three major documents: an extensive review of the literature including a resource collection; a compilation of best practice principals, guidelines and self-check questions for facilities planning with attention toward the inclusion of new learning technologies; and this summary synthesis of the two components with future activities. The work is a best attempt at this point in time to unpack the large number of issues, concepts and themes involved in planning, designing, equipping and managing VET facilities today. There is no ‘correct answer' to the question of what are the impacts of ‘clicks on bricks', but many answers influenced by a huge range of circumstances, objectives, and resource variables. It is the responsibility of those in decision-making positions, in consultation with the stakeholders that they serve, to determine the ‘best' combination of facilities, technology and professional resources to meet the needs of those stakeholders. This project to identify the range of factors involved will hopefully assist those decision makers in meeting their responsibilities at such exciting and challenging times in vocational education and training in Australia and the world.
Project website:
Discussion Forums:
Papers:
ABS (1) 2000, Business Use of Information Technology 8129.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics , December 2000, http://www.abs.gov.au
ABS (2) 2000, Household Use of Information Technology 8129.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics , http://www.abs.gov.au
Bremmer, William A., 2000, A Principal's Guide to On-Site School Construction, National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, http://www.edfacilities.org
Chaffee, Ellen “Keeping Our Eyes on the Target: The “Other” Use of Technology in Education.” The Technology Source, January/February 2001. Available online at http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/default.asp?show=article&id=830
Coburn, J 1999, “The Center for Interactive Learning: An Incubator for Hatching Technology”, College Planning and Management, March 1999, http://www.cpmmag.com/archive/99_03/048.htm
Creighton J and Buchanan P, “Leadership: Toward the E-Campus: Using the Internet to Strengthen, Rather than Replace, the Campus Experience”, EDUCAUSEreview, March/April 2001, p 12-13, http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0125.pdf
Downes, S 2000, “Nine Rules for Good Technology.” The Technology Source, July/August 2000. Available online at http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/default.asp?show=article&id=787
Gilbert L and Grayum N 2000, Classroom Renovations and Campus Culture, CCUMC 2000 Annual Conference, Dallas Texas, http://www.indiana.edu/~ccumc/wwu.pdf
Green K, 2000, The 2000 National Survey of Information Technology in US Higher Education, self-published, http://www.campuscomputing.net/summaries/2000/index.html
Hagel, P 2001, Learning to Choose: Questioning the Use of Multiple Delivery Technologies by Australian Universities, http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/coffs00/papers/pauline_hagel.pdf
Hamaty, G and Lines, D 1999, “Planning for Schools of the Future: A building program is a golden opportunity to restructure schools to better meet the needs of students and educational programs ”, School Planning and Management, http://www.spmmag.com/articles/1999_05May/article0202.html
Jamieson P, Fisher K, Gilding T, Taylor P, Trevitt ACF, 2000, “Place and Space in the Design of New Learning Environments”, HERDSA (Higher Education Research and Development) Volume 19 Number 2 July 2000 pp221-237, http://www.oecd.org/els/pdfs/EDSPEBDOCA027.pdf
Jilk, Bruce A. Designing a Model for the College Campus of the Future, Committee on Architecture for Education, AIA April 1998, http://www.e-architect.com/pia/cae/col%5Ffutr.asp
Klingenstein K, 1998, “The Technical Realities of Virtual Learning: An Overview for the Non-Technologist”, CAUSE/EFFECT, Volume 21, Number 1, 1998, pp. 24-27, 32-34, 47, http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/cem9815.html
Louis, Francois 2000, Intelligent School - Towards the Scholastic Architecture of the Future, International Seminar in Milan, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/els/pdfs/EDSPEBDOCA032.pdf
Marcinkiewicz, Henryk “The Role of Centers of Teaching and Learning in Integrating Technology in Instruction.” The Technology Source, May/June 2001. Available online at http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/default.asp?show=article&id=863.
McDavitt T, 1999, “How Technology Influences Interior Design”, College Planning and Management, August 1999, http://www.cpmmag.com/archive/99_08/078.htm
Meeks, Glenn, 1999, “Planning Today for Tomorrow's Technology”, Design Share, http://www.designshare.com/Research/Meeks/MeeksTec
Morgan, Kevin R. 2000, Blended Learning: A Strategic Action Plan for a New Campus, Seminole, FL 33776, prepared for Dr. Tom Kabala, University of Central Florida, http://www.spjc.cc.fl.us/eagle/presentations/BlendedLearning.htm
Norris, Donald M. 1998, “Creating Tomorrow's Learner-Centered Environments—Today!”, The Agenda, PBS Adult Learning Service, USA, http://www.pbs.org/als/agenda/Articles/tman.html
O'Donoghue, John and Graham, Len, 1998, The Social and Technical Infrastructure for the Virtual University in Rural Areas, ASCILITE'98, http://cedir.uow.edu.au/ASCILITE98/asc98-pdf/odonoghue0169.pdf
OECD 2000: School technology through the eyes of its users, Report of a roundtable discussion on learning with information and communications technology, in schools and at home, Donald Hirsch rapporteur, 2000 http://www.oecd.org/els/pdfs/EDSPEBDOCA028.pdf
OECD 2001, Space Utilisation - Dare we use a pedagogical Measure, PEB Exchange, Programme on Educational Building, Case Study, http://www1.oecd.org/els/education /peb/newsletters.htm#38
Olsen, Florence, 2001, “Michigan's Departing Information Chief Backs Outsourcing”, The Chronicle of Higher Education Information Tech, http://www.chronicle.com/free/2001/08/2001081701t.htm
Quinn, Brian J, 2001, “Services and Technology: Revolutionizing Higher Education”, EDUCause Review, July/August 2001 p.28-36, http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0141.pdf
Ryland, Jane, 1998, Technology and the Future of the Community College, American Association of Community Colleges, http://www.aacc.nche.edu/initiatives/newexpeditions/White_Papers/technologywhite.htm
Schoomer, Elia (moderator), Electronic Classrooms and Buildings of the Future, Current Issues Roundtable, Educause 2000, http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EDU0074.pdf
SCUP 1998, Centers of Academic Technology, Creating Tomorrow's Learner-Centered Environments—Today!, http://www.scup.org/tomorrow/
TAFE frontiers, 2001, The Current Status of Online Learning in Australia, Draft Report,
http://tf-images.netspot.com.au/content/currentstatusonlinelearning.pdf
Twigg C, 1999, Improving Learning & Reducing Costs: Redesigning Large-Enrollment Courses, The Pew Learning and Technology Program, http://www.center.rpi.edu/PewSym/mono1.html
