research proposal msc major thesis - wur

Thesis

“The needs of a 21st century learning environment:

A focus on new ways of learning in university buildings”

Fig. 1: Word cloud new way of learning (http://stevevosloo.com/2008/11/)

Name: Kirsten van der Vaart

Student number: 890716 850 010

Study: MSc Management, Economics and Consumer Studies

Specialization: Facility Management

Chair group: MST, Management studies

Course : MST – 80433

Number of credits: 33 ECTS

Advisor: Herman Kok

1st

examinator: Herman Kok

2nd examinator: Mark Mobach

Start date: 9th

of January 2012

Finish date: 28th

of June 2012

Kirsten van der Vaart

2

Abstract

Changes in the learning environment within universities is an on-going process, full of new developments and

innovations in the fields of education, technologies and the space students learn in. The increasing integration

of communication and information technologies, together with the shift to a more student-centred, web-based

and problem based learning approaches, is changing the way teaching and learning is experienced within

universities. Traditionally learning spaces suggested a physical place and space in which learning take place, in

this century new spaces of value and knowledge, like the virtual world, are emerging as a base of researchers

and learners. Knowledge is no longer restricted within the boundaries of the universities, the universities

become partners in learning and research rather than sole providers. Universities reputations, networks and

spaces are a driving force for research and attractiveness to students. Rapid change to education practice and

technologies is requiring universities to constantly rethink the suitability of the space and its design - the space

design against the needs of learners. The balance between the life of the building, design, education and

technology is a weighty consideration. This research aims to investigate the possibilities for universities in the

Netherlands to improve the adjustments of the education, technologies and the spatial aspects of a 21st

century learning space. By literature research, a key issue checklist, interviews at three Dutch universities &

experts and observations, data is gathered on which the following conclusions were drawn. Problem-based

and student-centred methods are adjusted in the educational world of universities, while web-based teaching

methods are under developed. Technologies in the learning space need audio-visual and virtual improvements

and the spatial environment of universities need flexibility nowadays. Classrooms exist traditionally of a

chalkboard and school desks, the learners and teachers of this century needs flexible furniture, a mix of social-

and curricula activities and need technologies in their learning space. To organise a 21st

century learning space,

information of the stakeholders, a structured organisation within the university and sustainable investments

are needed additional aspects to make a university fit in such learning spaces.

Keywords: 21st

century, learning space, universities, new ways of learning, educational innovations, Mlearning.


3

Acknowledgement This MSc report represents my experience and knowledge I have gained during my masterstudy in

Management studies, with the specialization in Facility Management at the Wageningen University. This

reports shows a view of the adjustments of (three) universities in the Netherlands towards a fit of a 21st

century learning spaces and provides a key issue checklist for other universities in the Netherlands to validate

their adjustment to a 21st century learning environment.

This report is achieved with the help of various persons I would like to thank. At first I would like to thank the

interviewees; Mrs M. Drewes, teamleader facilities of the Ravelijn building at the university of Twente, Mrs L.

Zeeuwen, location manager of the Forum building at the university of Wageningen and Mrs M. Peeters, policy

employee Real Estate of the university of Tilburg, for inviting me at the universities and provide me from the

information that forms the base of my empirical research. At second I would like to thank the experts who

shared their expertise with me about the fields of education and technologies, Mr E. Bomas & Mr F. Evers of

Kennisnet and Mr W. van ‘t Hoog, expert in the field of spatial and design of university buildings at Hevo, to

come to my conclusions and implications.

I would like to thank Mr O. Omta and Mr M. Mobach for sharing their knowledge of innovations in facility

management and scientific feedback of my thesis. In particular I would like to thank my supervisor, Mr H. Kok

at the Wageningen university, for sharing his knowledge of 21st century learning environments, articles, the

feedback and the support of the process which helped me to achieve my final thesis. Further, I would like to

thank my family and friends for their help and support during this process.



4

Management summary

Since the 11

th century until 2012 important changes are happened in the educational, technological and spatial

aspects of universities. The most important educational changes are; from religion based teaching, where focus

was teacher-centred – to a student-centred focus where problem-based learning is leading. These changes are

related to the technological aspects, because the introduction of computers, internet and new methods of

(digital) communicating led to an technological impact in educational methods. Where first universities where

meant as a physical place for learning, a virtual teaching world becomes more important. Students can work at

home and communicate with classmates and teachers via new communicating technologies, this enables the

students to study and work (e.g. group assignments) whenever and wherever they want. Consequently, this

leads to changes in the spatial usage. Nowadays, learning happen outside the classrooms more than ever.

The increasing integration of communication and information technologies, together with the shift to more

student-centred, problem-based and web-based learning approaches, is changing the way teaching and

learning is experienced within universities (Jamieson, 2003). All developments pointed to a shift in the use of

the educational learning space. An investigation to the spatial and technological interventions that are needed

to overcome this shift is interesting for universities in the Netherlands to keep innovative. Implementing new

learning spaces like; a learning cafe, flexible teaching spaces and new technologies in learning centres shown

positive educate related results at 15 universities in the United Kingdom (UK). Building technological capability

across education will lead to better institutional management, reducing costs, research excellence, create a

(digital) student journey and contribute to a sustainable future. This lead to the central research question:

“What technological-spatial interventions can and do Dutch universities commit to make their learning

environment fit to a 21st

century learning space?”

In order to answer the research question, a literature review is conducted to get a clear vision of the

educational, technological and spatial aspects of traditional buildings and of the new ways of learning in a 21st

century learning space. This research results in three core variables; education, technologies and spatial

aspects and three additional variables; stakeholders, organisation and the sustainable aspects of a 21st

century

learning space. These core and additional aspects forms a base of a key issue checklist that is used to check the

adjustment of the learning environment within three universities in the Netherlands (the universities of;

Twente, Wageningen and Tilburg). Besides the key issue checklist, observation and in-depth interviews gave

insight to the level of adjustment of the current learning environments within the investigated universities.

Afterwards an interview and information is gathered from experts in the field of education & technologies and

the spatial environment of universities.

Based on the results the following most important conclusions are presented. The three universities score

relatively high on the educational aspect of the checklist (average of 66,7%) but do not make optimal use of the

technologies (an average of 47,5%). The university of Twente provides live streaming of classes, while

Wageningen university recently started with recording classes (students can look back afterwards) and Tilburg

university do not provide any audio-visual recording facilities. Teachers at the university of Tilburg are afraid of

a low attendance rate if classes were recorded, while results of the Wageningen university show no difference

in attendance and students are satisfied with this service. Web-based teaching methods, such as flipped-

classrooms, are coming up, so universities need to improve their audio-visual services.

A conclusion that is drawn from the spatial aspects in the research is; there is a shortage of flexible workspaces,

quiet study areas and group work spaces within the universities. Nowadays, students mix social activities with

curricula activities and need spaces to communicate and work together or study alone. None of the

investigated university buildings consists of a learning café or spaces which consists of different activities. The

universities score relatively low with a mean of 46,9% at the spatial aspect of the checklist.

Overall, in this research we can conclude that Wageningen university (66,2% in total of the checklist) and the


5

university of Twente (64,4% in total of the checklist) adapted some of the adjustments of a 21st

century

learning space and the university of Tilburg did this only slightly (36,8% of the total checklist). The experts of

Kennisnet have doubts about the purpose of the adjustments that where made within the universities.

According to Mr Evers; “The adjustments that were made to the investigated universities, where probably done

with the idea of ‘we got some money left for it, so let’s do this adjustment’, but not with the purpose to invest

in the learning environment”’. Kennisnet notice that many universities adjust some ideas of a 21st

century

learning space, but mostly with the intention to save costs and to provide a ‘nice building’, not for the need of

the students. At primary schools this focus is changing towards more 21st

century learning environments, while

universities stay behind.

To make a learning environment within universities fit to a 21st

century learning space, universities need to

create flexible workspaces for students; a learning café, small spaces for group work, spaces with multiple

purposes at the same time, quiet study areas and shared offices (non-stop-shop). These spatial interventions

need to be combined with the technology in the learning space; electronic whiteboards, live streaming (and

recording) of classes, Mlearning, enough power points, use of technologies in the class by teachers and web-

based learning. Important for the technological aspects are; a transparent intranet with the needed

possibilities ( e.g. online; library (e-books), agenda of study advisors/teachers and easy access to the needed

information students need) and the adjustment of all stakeholders within a university and their environment.

To adjust the three variables; education, spatial and technology in the learning space, a well-balanced

combination between these three variables is needed to provide a 21st

century learning space environment.

Therefore awareness of the need of adjustment must be present. Awareness can be enlarged by considering

the additional variables; stakeholders, organisation and sustainability, to create a ‘balanced’ 21st

century

learning environment.


6

Table of contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Management summary .................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 8

1.1 Background information ........................................................................................................................ 8

1.2 Definition ............................................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Conceptual research design .................................................................................................................. 9

1.3 Research framework.............................................................................................................................. 9

1.4 Learning spaces framework ................................................................................................................. 11

1.4.1 Applying the learning spaces framework ............................................................................................ 11

2. Technical research design ...................................................................................................................... 12

2.1 Research strategy ................................................................................................................................ 12

2.1.1Theoretical framework ......................................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Research material ................................................................................................................................ 13

2.3 Research design ................................................................................................................................... 14

2.4 Reliability and validity .......................................................................................................................... 14

3. Traditional university buildings .............................................................................................................. 16

3.1 Educational aspects ............................................................................................................................. 16

3.1.1 Current teaching aspects ..................................................................................................................... 17

3.2 Technological aspects .......................................................................................................................... 18

3.2.1 Current technologies in education ...................................................................................................... 19

3.3 Spatial aspects ..................................................................................................................................... 21

3.3.1 Current spatial aspects ........................................................................................................................ 22

3.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 24

4. 21st

century learning spaces ................................................................................................................... 24

4.1 Educational aspects ............................................................................................................................. 25

4.2 Technological aspects ........................................................................................................................... 27

4.2 Spatial aspects ..................................................................................................................................... 30

4.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 34

5. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 36

5.1 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................... 36

5.2 Selection of universities, buildings and persons .................................................................................. 37

5.3 Universities .......................................................................................................................................... 38


7

5.3.1. University of Twente (Enschede) ........................................................................................................ 38

5.3.2. University of Wageningen .................................................................................................................. 39

5.3.3 University of Tilburg ............................................................................................................................ 39

5.4 Results checklist .................................................................................................................................... 40

5.4.1. Description of the results ................................................................................................................... 42

5.5 Results of the interviews of the universities ......................................................................................... 44

5.5.1 Results of the interview of the university of Twente .......................................................................... 44

5.5.2 Results of the interview of the university of Wageningen .................................................................. 45

5.5.3 Results of the university of Tilburg ...................................................................................................... 46

5.6 Variance analyses ................................................................................................................................. 47

5.7 Results of the interviews with the experts ........................................................................................... 48

5.7.1 Results experts view on the educational and technological aspects .................................................. 48

5.7.2 Results experts view spatial ................................................................................................................ 49

6. Conclusion and discussion ...................................................................................................................... 50

7. Managerial implications ........................................................................................................................ 53

7.1 Further research ...................................................................................................................................... 54


8

1. Introduction

This report is a research proposal that forms the base for the major thesis for the chair group Management Studies (MST), course code MST – 80433.

This chapter contains background information of the topic (1.1), a problem analyses (1.2), the conceptual research design (1.3), learning spaces framework (1.4) and the application of the framework (1.4.1)

1.1 Background information The form and functions of the constructed university environment, particularly classrooms and other places of

learning within it, have remained largely unchanged for several centuries. However, the increasing integration

of communication and information technologies, together with the shift to more student-centred and problem-

based learning approaches, is changing the way teaching and learning is experienced within universities

(Jamieson, 2003). “Learning is changing in the 21st century” (JISC, 2006). Technologies used in learning such as

interactive whiteboards, personal learning environments wireless network and mobile devices, plus the

internet and high quality digital learning resources – and the ability to access many of these from home and the

workplace – are altering the experiences and aspirations of learners (JISC, 2006). Traditionally, ‘learning spaces’

has suggested a physical place and space in which learning takes place. However, the increasing prevalence of

digital technologies in educational environments has caused a redefinition of the concept of a learning space to

include virtual, remote and online communities – along with the physical environments – in which students

learn (The group of Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009). The internet and mobile technology has also

helped to redefine where, and consequently, when, learning takes place (Brown, 2005). Rapid change to

education practice and technologies is requiring educators to constantly rethink the suitability of the space and

its design - the space design against the needs of learners. The balance between the life of the building and

better design is an important consideration. The balance is based on Space, Technology and Pedagogy and is a

challenge for education providers to adjust this in their learning environment (MCEETYA, 2008).

All developments pointed to a shift in the educational learning space. A collective term for all these kinds of

educational innovations is called ‘new ways of learning’ (Schuddeboom, 2011). According to Hilhorst (2009)

“The new ways of learning is an umbrella term where everyone has different meanings about and contains a

broad scale of ingredients, such as ICT, pedagogy, technology and learning methods”. Because of this ‘broad

scale of ingredients’ interesting issues with respect to technology and spatial use in learning spaces are rising.

1.2 Definition The questions that raise from this background information are; to which extent do universities adjust their

design of the buildings on this ‘new ways of learning’ that fits in a 21st

century learning space? How do

universities adjust new technologies in buildings (infrastructure)? What spatial interventions are interesting for

universities in the 21st

century learning space? What is the need and the purpose to adjust the physical learning

space within universities?

An investigation to the spatial and technological interventions that are needed to overcome this shift is

interesting for universities in the Netherlands to keep innovative. Such outcomes are hardly surprising the

priority of many higher education institutions undertaking new building projects has been to create

architectural icons, with the intention of attracting students in an increasingly competitive educational market

place (Edwards, 2000; Bickle, 2001)

Implementing new learning spaces like; a learning cafe, flexible teaching spaces and new technologies in

learning centres shown positive educate related results at 15 universities in the United Kingdom (UK).

According to the ‘Joint Information Systems Committee’ (JISC)(2006) building technological capability across

education will lead to better institutional management, reducing costs, research excellence, create a (digital)

student journey and contribute to a sustainable future. The question that raises from here is; to what do


9

universities in the Netherlands adjusting their learning spaces to a 21st century building?

Dealing with the consequences of implementing new ways of learning with respect to buildings is a real

challenge for universities. This is an interesting problem with regard to the design of a university, it also

contributes to the development of the learners knowledge what will help the learners in their future career.

Building technological capability in universities is an important aspect to adjust in learning environments (JISC,

2006). This lead to the central research question:




In order to answer the research question, a literature review will be conducted to get a clear vision of the

educational, technological and spatial aspects of traditional buildings and of the new ways of learning. After the

literature review, in-depth interviews with universities in the Netherlands and experts will be used to find out

to which extent the Dutch universities are fit for the 21st

century learning environment. Based on the results of

this research, recommendations and a checklist will be presented so that universities can use them as a

reference when constructing new learning environments. Further explanation of the research design and

methods can be found in chapter 2.

1.2 Conceptual research design The conceptual design deals with determining the topic of the research project. It consists of the research

objective, research questions and research framework (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010).

Research objective:

To give recommendations for universities in the Netherlands how they can adjust new ways of learning in their

learning environment based on literature and information of experts and other universities.

Research question




The specific research questions that are developed to answer by literature and empirical study are:

Q1.1 What is are the characteristics of a traditional university buildings design?

Q1.2 What are the characteristics of 21st

century learning space with regard to the technological and

spatial environment?

Q1.3 Is there a need to adapt the learning space environment in universities for (new) students?

Q1.4 What educational interventions are needed to adapt in a 21st

century learning space?

Q1.5 What spatial interventions are needed to adapt to a 21st


Q1.6 What technological interventions are needed to a 21st


Q1.7 To what extent do universities currently have adapted their learning environments to a 21st


The research strategy in section 2.1 and the theoretical framework in section 2.1.1 discuss these specific

research questions further.

1.3 Research framework The information that is needed is represented in a research framework. The framework shows the a schematic

representation of the research objective and includes the appropriate steps that need to be taken to achieve

the objective (Verschuren, Doorewaard, 2010). The results of the literature topics will be obtained through


10

literature study. These results are used to build a theoretical framework, together with the methodology it is

the bases of the empirical study. In the empirical study, the results from literature are tested by a key issue

checklist and interviews with (facility) managers of universities and experts. The results from literature and

empirical study will be analysed and give an answer to the main research questions. As last will the gathered

and analysed information be used to give recommendations to universities and a standard key issue checklist

will be available for other universities.

Research Framework

Literature study

- Educational, technological

and spatial aspects about

traditional university

buildings and the new

ways of learning in 21st

century spaces

Theoretical Framework

Methodological Framework

- Research design

- Reliability and validity

- Data collection method

- Operationalization method

- Research planning

Empirical study

- Interviews with universities in the Netherlands

- Key issues checklist within universities

- Interviews with experts

Analyses literature and

empirical study

Recommendations for

Universities

Key issue checklist

Methodology

Empirical

Final

Literature

Fig. 2.

Research

Framework


11

1.4 Learning spaces framework For this study we adapted the “Learning spaces framework” of the Ministerial Council on Education,

Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2008) , that identifies the strong relationship between 21st

century learning spaces, digital pedagogy and

digital technology that enhances effective e-

learning in terms of new knowledge gained by

learners.(MCEETYA, 2008).

1.4.1 Applying the learning spaces framework

To use the learning spaces framework (MCEETYA,

2008) for this research, an adjustment in the model

must be made. In our model we identify a

relationship between the technological and spatial

aspects of the learning environment that affect

education and the interaction between student and

learner.

Technological aspects are strong related to the

spatial aspects of university buildings. The

technological aspect is important to investigate because of the degree of adjustment of new technologies

(internet, computers, whiteboard, digital tablets) in universities. These new technologies make it i.e. possible

for learners to study in- or outside the university and whenever they want (Brown, 2005). The physical learning

space move more towards a virtual learning space (Temple, 2007), this movement affects the spatial design of

universities related with the use of technologies.

Multiple investigation is done at the educational aspect of 21st

century learning spaces, this is a base for the

technical and spatial design of the universities. The learner is the object who can give concrete results if an

adjusted learning space will affect their learning outcomes. The aspect teacher is added in the framework at

the same level of importance as the learner and educational aspect. Teachers are the ones who need to

communicate new ways of learning to the learners, but first will learn to understand and deal with it by

themselves. The learners and the teachers are the end users of the 21st

century learning environment. To apply

the learning spaces framework we developed a new framework for this research.

Fig. 4. Learning spaces framework 2012

Fig. 3. Learning spaces framework (MCEETYA, 2008)

Stakeholders (Teachers,

students, staff)

Technological Spatial

Educational


12

2. Technical research design

This chapter contains the research strategy and theoretical framework (2.1, 2.1.1), research material (2.2), research design (2.3), reliability and validity (2.4)

The technical research design consists of three parts: the research strategy, research material and the research

planning. The three parts together give an answer to how the research project is carried out and how the

required data is gathered (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010).

2.1 Research strategy The research strategy serves as a guide throughout the research, in this way relevant material can be gathered

and processed into valid answers to the research questions (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010). This research

will look in-depth to problem presented in chapter one. A qualitative approach is used to gather data, for this

reason this study aims at gaining in-depth information and a personal view of new ways of learning in 21st

century learning spaces.

Fig. 5. Research strategy

2.1.1Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework shows a base of the study in the report. The first section ‘Traditional buildings’, is

related to the specific research question Q1.1 of the literature study. In this question the research variables;

educational, technological and spatial information about traditional university buildings are gathered. Search

terms for these questions are: space use, design, learning environment, technologies (in education), facilities,

organisational change and (dis)advantages of traditional university buildings are investigated.

The second section “21st

century learning spaces”, is related to the specific research questions Q1.2 and Q1.3 of

the literature study. In this question the research variables; educational, technological and spatial information

about traditional university buildings are gathered. Search terms for these questions are: space use, design,

new way of working, organisational change, learning environment, technologies (in education), facilities and

(dis)advantages of new ways of learning are investigated.

The third section “Current situation universities” is related to specific research question Q1.7 of the empirical

study. This question can be answered after interviews and empirical research of the selected universities. The

universities will be investigated through the results of questions Q1.1, Q1.2 and Q1.3 that are answered in the

first two sections. After analysing the current situation of the universities, experts are interviewed in the last

section “Interventions”. This section answer question Q1.4, Q1.5, Q1.6, Q1.7 and answer the main research

question by gathering information of the research variables; educational, technological, spatial interventions

that universities should take in their current situation. All the four sections are needed to answer research

questions.

Literature study

Questions: Q1.1, 1.2, Q1.3

Empirical study

Questions: 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7

Answer to the

Research question


13

- Educational aspects

- Technological

aspects

- Spatial aspects

- Educational aspects

- Technological

aspects

- Spatial aspects

- Educational

- Technological

- Spatial

21st

century learning spaces Traditional buildings

Interventions Q1.1 Q1.2, Q1.3

Q1.4, Q1.5, Q1.6 main

research question

Current situation universities

Q1.7

- Level of adjustment of new

ways of learning

Fig.6. Theoretical framework


14

2.2 Research material The research materials are the sources that are used in this research to answer the research questions.

- Scientific literature is used in the literature research, these are books about research methodology.

- Scientific articles published in journals like: Journal of Facilities Management, Journal of EDUCAUSE,

the journal of Academic Librarianship, Journal of computers and education are used.

- Professional literature; from universities or for example Facility Management Magazine is used.

- Interviews in the empirical research will be held with (facility) managers/decision-makers of

universities and experts about the objective. Why these parties are interviewed is further explained in

the methodology.

Terms that will be searched for in these sources of information are: Facility Management, architecture,

educational, technologies, (21st

century) learning spaces.

2.3 Research design In this research first theory will be presented by doing a literature study about traditional university buildings

and 21st

century learning spaces, afterwards this theory will be tested by doing interviews with managers and

experts in the empirical research to get a full insight in the case. In the empirical research 3 universities in the

Netherlands will be investigated and experts in this field (see 5.2 for the individuals) are approached. For this

reason a case study design is suitable for this research. Verschuren & Doorewaard (2010) describe case studies

as a research strategy in which the researcher tries to gain a profound and full insight into one or several

objects or processes that are restricted in time and space. The multiple case study design is based on studying

various units within identifiable cases (universities), this is called an embedded approach (de Vaus, 2001)

The research is about the different kind of interventions universities need to overcome to increase their

adjustment of the new ways of learning in a 21st

century learning space. This means that the study is interested

in the exploration of this phenomenon on its own. For this reason the research is descriptive (exploratory)

because it studies ‘what’ is going on and not ‘why’ it is going on (explanatory research). The approach of the

study, which is in line with the understanding of interventions of the adjustment about new ways of learning

with respect to the learning environment, is a descriptive approach. Descriptive in this sense means that the

case study research presents a detailed account of the phenomenon which is functional to present information

about the area of the research (de Vaus, 2001). The analysis of the data is prospective, it is pointing to the

present with the intention that expectations and decisions are based on the current analyses. The type of case

study is ‘evaluative’. Evaluative studies involve description, explanation and judgement (Merriam, 1988), but

the primary purpose is to use the data to evaluate the value of interventions to a 21st

century learning space.

The description has the purpose of achieving a better understanding of the present status of the universities in

the Netherlands.

2.4 Reliability and validity Case study designs cannot provide a basis for making statistically valid generalizations beyond that particular

case. In this research the cases are the universities in the Netherlands, they will be investigated at the same

research variables and checklists, what will give a high external validity.

The reliability of the empirical research is ensured by in-depth interviews. Through this interview technique the

opinion of the interviewees and the degree of how the new ways of learning are adapted in their learning

space, will be researched in-depth. It is therefore likely that the questions for the interviewees are structured

the same when the interviews are repeated. The opinions of the interviewees will likely differ, also to what

Purpose Approach Process Type of case study

Intrinsic & exploratory Descriptive Prospective Evaluative


15

extent the university have been adjusted to the a 21st

century learning space. Therefore is chosen not to

generalize the results at first, but analyse every interviewee separate. The interviews are recorded and written

out in transcripts in the annex.

Besides in-depth interviews a key issue checklist is used. After the literature study a checklist is constructed of

the research variables: technological and spatial key issues. These checklists are filled in during a visit at the

universities by interviewing and observation in and around the university building. The results of the key issues

checklist can be used to see in which degree the universities currently have been adapted to new ways of

learning in a 21st

century learning space. To increase the validity of the research, these checklist will be the

same for every university and will be measured at an dichotomous scale ‘yes ’and ‘no’. To ensure reliable

answers the issues in the checklist are divided in two groups; core aspects and additional aspect. The core

aspects have a weight of 2 and the aspects of the additional checklist have a weight of 1.This is done because

the core aspects are more important than the additional aspects. To use this method standardisation is applied

and it facilitates the results, what give objective answers.

The in-depth interviews with the universities and the checklists are analysed by the transcripts and the score of

the checklists. Each case (university) is analysed separate by checking the answers of the interview(s) and of

the checklist, to see to which extent both methods are align. The answers of the interviews are presented by a

person of the university, while the checklist is answered by the person of the university and the researcher.

Both answers are measured and analysed by comparing. After these analyses, interviews with experts are held.

The purpose of these in-depth interviews is to check the results of the interviews with the universities and the

checklists and the experts will give an advise for every university in their field of research. Each case is

discussed separately. By doing these last interviews with the experts we try to raise the reliability of the

research.

Eventually the results of the analyses and the results of the interviews with the experts are analysed result in a

report per case to which extent the university adjusted new ways of learning and what interventions they need

to overcome to provide a needed 21st

century learning space. The key issue checklist is the main result of the

research for other universities. This checklist is an extended version of the checklist of MCEETYA(2008). The

checklist is extended by literature study and tested in real life situations. Also experts are asked to give their

opinion on the checklist, to ensure the reliability and validity so it can be adapted for other universities.

The internal validity is being ensured through the research is set-up. Extensive literature research is conducted

on; new ways of learning, 21st

century learning spaces, technologies in education and buildings, learning spaces

and traditional university buildings. Empirical research is used to verify the importance of these elements and

to investigate the interventions a university should take to align on a 21st



16

3. Traditional university buildings This chapter answers the first specific research question: Q1.1 What is are the characteristics of a traditional

university buildings design? The conclusion of this chapter presents the educational, technological and spatial

aspects that traditional universities have. The conclusion of this chapter, combined with the conclusion of

chapter 4, is used to build a checklist and a theoretical framework to understand the different aspects of

traditional buildings and 21st

century learning spaces and how they are related. The framework is used in the

empirical research to determine what empirical information is needed to answer the general research

question.

3.1 Educational aspects History of teaching

The definition of traditional education varies greatly with geography and by historical period. “The chief

business of traditional education is to transmit to a next generation those skills, facts, and standards of moral

and social conduct that adults deem to be necessary for the next generation's material and social success

(Dewey, 1938)”. As beneficiaries of this scheme, which educational progressivist “John Dewey” (1859-1952)

described as being "imposed from above and from outside, the students are expected to docilely and

obediently receive and believe these fixed answers. Teachers are the instruments by which this knowledge is

communicated and these standards of behaviour are enforced”.

Historically, the primary educational technique of traditional education was simple oral recitation. A typical

approach was that students sat quietly at their places and listened to one individual after another recite his or

her lesson, until each had been called upon. The teacher's primary activity was assigning and listening to these

recitations; students studied at home (Beck, 2009). A test might be given at the end of a unit, and the process,

was repeated. In addition to its overemphasis on verbal answers, reliance on rote memorization (memorization

with no effort at understanding the meaning), and disconnected, unrelated assignments, it was also an

extremely inefficient use of students' and teachers' time. It insisted that all students be taught the same

materials at the same point; students that did not learn quickly enough failed, rather than being allowed to

succeed at their natural speeds. This approach, which had been imported from Europe, dominated American

education until the end of the 19th century, when the reform movement imported progressive education

techniques from Europe (Beck, 2009). Progressive education is a pedagogical movement that began in the late

nineteenth century and has persisted in various forms to the present. More recently, it has been viewed as an

alternative to the test-oriented instruction legislated by the “No Child Left Behind” educational funding act

(Osterbeek & Webbink, 2004).

The term "progressive" was engaged to distinguish this education from the traditional curriculum of the 19th

century, which was rooted in classical preparation for the university and strongly differentiated by

socioeconomic level (Beck, 2009). A continuing motivation of progressive reformers has been to reduce cost to

students and society. From the ancient times until the 1800s, one goal was to reduce the expense of a classical

(traditional) education. Ideally, traditional education is undertaken with a highly-educated full-time (extremely

expensive) personal tutor. This was available for only to the most wealthy. Encyclopaedias, public libraries and

grammar schools are examples of innovations intended to lower the cost of a classical education (Fort, 2006).

The reformation led to a higher accessibility to universities in also the less wealthy social classes.

National

In the Netherlands an important educational reform was “the Mammoth Law”, this law was introduced in

1968. Its aim was to bring about a more integrated system of secondary education by promoting a system that

would be based on achievement and not on social class (Fort, 2006), the accessibility increased. Plug (2001)

exploits the Mammoth law (1968) to assess the returns on education in the Netherlands. His findings suggest

that the reform positively affects the educational attainment of both men and women in the sample. The next

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curriculum


17

educational reform in 1975 in the Netherlands led to more structure in the educational system. From 1975

onwards, all three-year educational programs in the Netherlands were extended to four years and compulsory

schooling leaving age was increased by one year, from 15 to 16. Osterbeek & Webbink (2004)

The discussion on the structure of Dutch higher education and universities dates back to the end of the Second

World War. Many commissions spoke out concerns about “over education”. Until the early eighties not much

changed and the standard duration of university education was five years. In August 1982 the duration of a

university study changed to four years. The main reason for this reform was a financial one and had nothing to

do with over education. Increasing enrolment had put pressure on the budget for higher education. The Dutch

Minister Pais of education and science solved this problem by shorten the duration of studies. In this way costs

were reduced without restricting enrolment. In general studies reduced many parts of the curriculum, ‘key

elements’ survived and ‘voluntarily’ elements were brought back in duration (Webbink, 2004).

The reform intended to change university education in a so-called two-stage-structure. The first stage consisted

of the standard university degree of four years that included a propaedeutic exam after one year. The second

stage was meant as preparation for scientific research. The duration of this stage should be no more than 2

years. This second part of the reform was in fact never implemented. In 1984 the new Minister Deetman

introduced a new system for PhD students, the so-called AIO-system with duration of four years (Webbink,

2004)

3.1.1 Current teaching aspects Learning methods in the last decades shifted to different ways of learning. Nowadays, many researchers and experts in the field of education are elaborating on the right teaching method and further educational reform.

The change from traditional to problem-based learning curriculum the last decades is the method that had the

most attention. According to McParland, Noble and Livingston (2004), problem-based learning is a method that

is often characterized by the use of patient problems as a context for students to acquire knowledge and learn

problem-solving skills. In this method students create knowledge and understanding through learning activities

built around intellectual inquiry and a high degree of engagement with meaningful tasks (McGrath (2003).

Projects are designed to allow students with a variety of different learning styles to demonstrate their acquired

knowledge. Therefore, a well-designed project-based learning activity is one which addresses different student

learning styles within this method and which does not assume that all students can demonstrate their

knowledge in a single, standard way (Sun associates, 1997). Bruner (1996), complements that the value of

social interaction, believing that learning is a dynamic process in which learners construct knowledge based on

their existing knowledge. He argues for a broad based ‘culture of learning’ beyond the narrow confines of

traditional schooling. Increasingly the pedagogic value of broadening the ‘culture of learning’ in formal

education is being recognized, with an increased focus on ‘student-centered’ learning method instead of a

‘teacher-centered’ method (Greenwood et al, 2007; Obligner, 2006; Barr & Tagg, 1995). In addition, students

expect more, and therefore universities and colleges competing for students are providing a range of learning

opportunities to cater to a wider range of learning styles and learning desires (Toynbee Wilson, 2002).

The most important difference in the educational environment, compared to decades ago, is the method of

communication. Since people start using technologies daily, communication is changed. Earlier, teachers taught

by blackboard and crayons, in this century technologies as interactive whiteboards that are connected to

computers are used to teach (JISC, 2006). Wireless networks, personal learning environments and the ability to

access many of these from home and workplace are altering the experiences an aspirations of teachers, which

led to a different approach of teaching and learning methods (JISC, 2006).

Summary In the begin of the 19th century teachers where seen as instruments who provide knowledge by speaking in

front of a class, while students sat quietly and listened to one individual who recites his or her lesson (Dewey,

1938 and Beck, 2009). Learners act on rote memorization (memorization with no effort at understanding the


18

meaning), and disconnected, unrelated assignments, it was also an extremely inefficient use of students' and

teachers' time. It also insisted that all students be taught the same materials at the same point; students that

did not learn quickly enough failed (Beck 2009). At the end of the 19th century progressive education, a

pedagogical movement has started. By contrast, progressive education finds its roots in present experience

like; hands-on learning, critical thinking, social skills and personal development. In the Netherlands these

educational reformation led to the Mammoth law (1968). This law moved towards a comprehensive system by

bringing more about integration within secondary education, but without abolishing the hierarchy of different

types of secondary education. This educational reform led to positive educational attainment, teaching become

more student-centred. In 1982 there was another educational reformation, the government decided to shorten

studies at the universities from 5 to 4 years, because of financial benefits (Webbink, 2004). The reform

intended to change university education in a so-called two-stage-structure; at first a standard university degree

and a second stage which involved scientific research. The second stage is never implemented, but changed

towards a new system for PhD students.

In this decade, researchers elaborating that there is a shift the last decades from ‘teacher-centred’ to ‘student-

centred’, which lead to more group work and problem-based learning methods. The physical place of learning

and studying is changed from classroom to everywhere outside the classroom, social interaction became more

important. Besides the social interaction, the methods of communication also became an important change,

due to technologies.

3.2 Technological aspects In this section we discuss the technological aspects of traditional and current university buildings. Also we

elaborate on the technological trends in universities all over the world. In chapter 4.2 these new technologies

will be discussed further.

Technologies in universities can be defined as “the application of scientific and other organized knowledge to

practical tasks by organizations consisting of people and machines” (Open University, 1978). We define

technologies within universities as an aspect that concerns; the ability and accessibility to internet (computers,

Wi-Fi), teaching materials (electronic whiteboards and other additional technological devices), infrastructure

(communication through email, web-portals, website, intranet), social systems (technology always involves

people), hardware (technical design, machinery). Educational technology in practice is defined by Richey

(2008),as, “a practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using and managing

appropriate technological processes and resources

History of technologies in education

The history of “Educational technology, can be traced back to the time when tribal priests systemized bodies of

knowledge and early cultures invented pictographs or sign writing to record and transmit information”

(Saettler, 1990). In ancient Greece, the Elder Sophist used the term “techne” to refer the process of applying

practical art of instruction. They formulated cognitive rules, systematically analysed subject matter designed

instructional technologies and devised effective instructional materials. During the Middle Age, Pierre Abelard

introduced a technology of instruction which was really a new method of structuring and presenting materials

that helped set the style of scholastic education. Later on modern instructional technology was presented by

illustrated textbooks for children studying Latin & Sciences. John Dewey formulated scientific theory for

learning and scientific methods, what results in the advent of effective technological development in the 19th

century. This development includes the production of textbooks, use of blackboards and improvements in

writing implements like pen and ink. Photography was invented, giving a way to movement called “visual

instruction”. By 1920, visual media became widely accepted. Then came the publication of audio-visual media

texts. In 1926, educational films were used as instructional media and in 1927, programmed learning through a

machine which tested and confirming learning tasks was developed. Five years later, the first instructional

television program was aired at the State University of Iowa (TCET,2010)


19

During World War II, the U.S. government encouraged the implementation of technology of instruction for

military training programs. This gave impetus to a system approach to instruction to include: micro-teaching,

individualised instruction, language- and behavioural laboratories, computer assisted instructed and among

others. The first generation of the computer started in 1943. This computer was used to produce in WWII

balistic firing tables for the U.S. Defense Department. After this first generation, the computer development

went quick forward. Federal funds supported many large-scale projects in mainframe computer-assisted

instruction (CAI) in schools, colleges and universities through the middel of the 70’s. (TCET,2010)

In 1975 the first personal computer was developed and in the 80’s the first laptops arrived. In 1990 the HTML-

coding and World-Wide Web (WWW) was developed by Tim Berners- Lee, he made it possible to connect

computers all over the world. All these technological advances were making their entrance in the educational

world. The biggest challenge for the public educational system has been how to prepare schools physically and

train teachers effectively for its use in the classroom. Nowadays, it is normal to use computers daily during

their school/home work. The society learned that computer-based materials are just one component of

resources available to the educational system and to integrate technology as a tool to advance learning in the

content areas adds effectiveness of other resources and teachers created activities. This awareness in the

educational environment led to a new definition of the learning space, it is continu changing. Roblyer (2000),

deifined the educational technology as; “A combination of the processess and tools involved in addressing

educational needs and problems, with an emphasis on applying the most current tools: computers and their

related technologies.” The International Technology Education Assocation (2010), elaborates that schools

should prepare students for work force learning about technology as used in the “real world” is essential.

(TCET,2010)

3.2.1 Current technologies in education

Technological methods

Today, the prevailing paradigm in the regular school system is computer-mediated communication method

(CMC), where the primary form of interaction is between students and instructors, mediated by the computer

(Tremblay, 2010). There are two major approaches to using media and technology in schools and universities.

First, students can learn “from” media and technology, and second, they can learn “with” media and

technology. Learning “from” media and technology is often referred to in terms such as instructional television,

computer-based instruction, or integrated learning systems. Learning “with” technology is referred to in terms

such as cognitive tools and constructivist learning environments (Reeves, 1998)

Integrated learning systems (ILS), a learning ‘from’ method, utilize computer networks to combine

comprehensive educational “courseware” with centralized management tools. This method is used by 9 million

students in 13,000 schools around the world. Perceived advantages of integrated learning systems are the

centralized management network, basis analysis techniques for individualizations of lesson materials for

students, limited logistic problems because of maintenance by centralized servers, tutorials, standardized

assessments and interface between students and teachers across subjects and grades (Bailey, 1993 Becker,

1992, Reeves, 1998)

As computers have become more and more common in education, researchers have begun to explore the

impact of software as cognitive tools in schools and universities (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996). Computers as

cognitive tools, a learning ‘with’ method, represent quite a different approach from media and technology as

methods for educational purpose. Computer-based cognitive tools have been intentionally adapted or

developed to function as intellectual partners to enable and facilitate critical thinking and higher order learning

(Reevey, 1998). In the cognitive tools approach, information is not encoded in educational communications

which are then used to transmit knowledge to students. Indeed, with cognitive tools, the need for formal

instructional systems design processes are reduced. Instead of specialists such as instructional designers

shaping students' learning via prescribed communications and interactions, media and technology are given


20

directly to learners to use for representing and expressing what they know. Reevey (1998) stated: “Learners

themselves function as designers using media and technology as tools for analysing the world, accessing and

interpreting information, organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to others.”

Technology in practice Bradwell (2009) stated that “technology is at the heart of the institutional change within universities.”

Universities are now just one source among many for ideas, knowledge and innovation. That seems to threaten

their core position and role, but in this new world of learning and research, there are also great opportunities.

Universities are often at the leading edge in the use of technology for research, but academics have been much

slower to develop technology within the teaching function of their own universities (Daniel,1998).

Technologies and new forms of communication had influence on learning and teaching processes, practices

have already been incorporated and become natural parts of the student experience. Now we take reading on-

screen for granted, and in the developed world most reading is probably already electronic (Kasdorf, 2003).

This shift to computer screens, it is possible to claim, is already a shift of knowledge, learning and human

engagement (Zandvliet & Fraser, 2005). Similarly, Kress argues that this “new media age” the screen has

replaced the book as the dominant medium of communication modes (image, audio, video). Nowadays,

laptops are used in the similar way as books, students are not bounded to space anymore. Lipincott (2006),

observed that today’s students mix academic and social activities while using technologies; sending emails, play

computer games, writing papers, accessing assignments, upload videos or making use of social media networks

are a mix of ordinary activities of students at one moment. Some see their multitasking as a troublesome lack

of ability to concentrate, but it is a logical strategy for students who grew up in a world with media in many

formats at their fingertips 24 hours a day.

Nowadays, also in classrooms technological devices and methods playing an important role. Examples of these

various types of technologies are computers in the classrooms, class website, class blogs and wikis (online

group discussions), wireless classroom microphones, mobile devices (clickers, smartphones) (Trambley, 2010),

interactive whiteboards, online media (streamed video websites), digital games and podcasts. Although

podcasts are a relatively new phenomenon in classrooms, especially on college campuses, studies have shown

the differences in effectiveness between a live lecture versus podcast are minor in terms of the education of

the student (Biocchi, 2011). The use of these (new) technologies within teaching methods, make distance

learning possible.

Summary

The history of “Educational technology, can be traced back to the time when tribal priests systemized bodies of

knowledge and early cultures invented pictographs or sign writing to record and transmit information”

(Saettler, 1990). In ancient Greece, they used the term “techne” to refer the process of applying practical art of

instruction. During the Middle Age instruction for technologies are developed which was really a new method

of structuring and presenting materials that helped set the style of scholastic education. In the 19th

century

effective technological developments where made including includes the production of textbooks, use of

blackboards and improvements in writing implements like pen and ink. Photography was invented, giving a way

to movement called “visual instruction”. In the 20th

century, visual media, audio-visual media texts, educational

films and programmed learning through a machine was developed. In the WWII the government encouraged

the development of computers, to produce firing tables. Federal funds supported many large-scale projects in

mainframe computer-assisted instruction (CAI) in schools, colleges and universities through the middel of the

70’s (TCET,2010). In 1975 the first personal computer was developed and in the 80’s the first laptops arrived. In

1990 the HTML-coding and World-Wide Web (WWW) was developed by Tim Berners- Lee, he made it possible

to connect computers all over the world.

Today, the prevailing paradigm in the regular school system is computer-mediated communication method


21

(CMC), where the primary form of interaction is between students and instructors, mediated by the computer

(Tremblay, 2010). Integrated learning systems (ILS) are used nowadays to utilize computer networks to

combine comprehensive educational “courseware” with centralized management tools. As computers have

become more and more common in education, researchers have begun to explore the impact of software as

cognitive tools in schools and universities (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996). Universities are often at the leading edge

in the use of technology for research, but academics have been much slower to develop technology within the

teaching function of their own universities (Daniel,1998). Technologies and new forms of communication had

influence on learning and teaching processes, practices have already been incorporated and become natural

parts of the student experience. Now we take reading on-screen for granted, and in the developed world most

reading is probably already electronic (Kasdorf, 2003). Lipincott (2006), observed that today’s students mix

academic and social activities while using technologies, what is a logical strategy for students who grew up in a

world with media in many formats at their fingertips 24 hours a day. Nowadays, also in classrooms

technological devices and methods playing an important role. The use of these (new) technological devices

within teaching methods, make distance learning possible.

3.3 Spatial aspects

History of university buildings

Universities initially emerged as institutions in Paris and Bologna at the end of the 11th

century. They evolved

from the cathedral schools and continued the tradition of the preservation of knowledge that had previously

been the responsibility of cloisters. In the 12th

century, when university blossomed up, the structure and

education was still based on a cloister. Later on in the 13th

century closed block designs were altered in the first

universities in England, this model was used worldwide (Altbach , 1998). These universities developed to meet

the new needs of urban society for professional training, such as medicine and civil law, and had no permanent

buildings. They operated from existing buildings, usually no larger than the size of a city block. Where

necessary, universities were divided among several unconnected buildings located in different parts of the city.

As the number of students increased and more fields of study were added, it became necessary to build

buildings to house university activities at one location. The creation of permanent structures marked the

establishment of the university as an independent institution (Cobban, 1992).

The university remained relatively unchanged from the Middle Ages until the late 18th

and early 19th

centuries,

when religion lost its dominant force and the European universities became institutions of modern learning and

research. The Morril Act of 1862 changed the mission of higher education by creating universities who provide

practical education for the new industrial society. Jefferson developed a more open an spatial model evolved in

America, instead of the cloistered character of European colleges. He developed pavilions with living spaces

upstairs and classrooms downstairs, the old Latin term ‘campus’ was used again. From the end of the 19th

century in Britain, architects and their educational clients began to understand the need to provide buildings

that met defined educational needs: modernism had arrived. From this point onwards, we may begin to think

of university spaces as engaging learners and teachers in the social processes that constitute learning (Temple,

2007)

At the beginning of the 20th

century, universities blossomed throughout the world. Their organizational

structures changed as additional fields of knowledge gave rise to the division of universities into different

faculties and departments. However, in contrast to earlier periods when higher education remained largely a

private enterprise in most countries, World War I strengthened the ties between the university and the state.

During the WWI the state increased its financial support; in return academics provided research in support of

the war effort. Universities no longer conducted research for their own sake, but tried to develop applied

research for the benefit of society. In the WWII there has been an increasing demand for higher education and


22

the need for educated workers was raised. This resulted in a worldwide expansion of universities and the

number of students was growing (Temple, 2007). Later on in the 20th

century the facilities within and around

the universities changed to an increasingly complex organization, Kerr (1990) used the term “multiversity” for

these complex universities. The designers radically changed their minds and designed new single large and

concentrated buildings “megastructures” (Banham, 1978), but it never worked out well because of the large

size and the inflexibility of the building, expansion or interchange of the activities was not possible. This model

was there for abandoned in the late 90s. (Hashimshony & Haina, 2006)

3.3.1 Current spatial aspects

Campus architecture is now seen as a means of delivering an institutional strategy (Kenny, Dumont & Kenney,

2006) and as an important marketing tool in increasingly market-oriented higher education systems (Edwards,

2000). The ‘iconic’ building seems now to be feature of every current campus master-planning project. When

the English ‘polytechnics’ gained university status in 1992, one possible difficulty was thought to be that these

buildings are not look like universities; environmentally, they remain a leap away from a university campus

culture, because buildings and purposes were seen here as being interdependent. New universities might not

function as old universities did, because they did not look like them (Price, 1992).

Around the world, the vast majority of university buildings are simply functional standard units, constructed to

the designs and standards of other comparable buildings of their place and time: they have no grand message

to send (Temple, 2007). More recent thinking on “flexible” learning spaces – spaces in which different groups

may be undertaking different activities simultaneously and which lend themselves to a variety of uses (Chism,

2006; JISC, 2006) – campus and building design can be used to facilitate learning, particularly informal learning.

On the basis that much effective learning takes places as a result of interactions between students, designs

need to provide a variety of spaces in which they can work and socialise together (Kuh et al., 2005). However,

cost-driven pressures in higher education to maximise space utilisation may have the unintended effect of

reducing the opportunities for informal learning (Temple, 2007).

It has been proposed that the physical form of the university is important in supporting its integrated nature,

intellectually and socially, and that it is according to Temple & Barnett (2007); “the preservation and

development of this integrated form, with its dense network of connections, that provides the management

and planning challenges in higher education and which supports institutional effectiveness”. Physical space and

intellectual space (for teaching, learning, and research) may, then, be connected through the operation of

social networks. There is an interplay between the type of science carried out and the social and physical

organisation within which it takes place: “space is not intellectually neutral” (Temple, 2007).

Kornberger & Clegg (2003) suggest that spatial arrangements importantly affect the ways in which

organisations operate, and that an “architecture of complexity” should be sought. They argue for “generative”

buildings, ones designed by, or at least with, the people who live or work in them. They contrast these with

“monumental” buildings, ones imposed on their inhabitants by outsiders. Kornberger & Clegg propose that

such buildings should be designed with “heterotopia” in mind. Heterotopia is defined by this researchers as: “A

space for experimentation and temptation, where discussions about existing orders of things and discourses

can happen, a place where one can hear voices that are not normally heard, where one could restructure an

organization’s image of reality”. According to Temple this sounds as a promising agenda for learning space

design, but other than some suggestions these authors do not offer a clear view what a heterotopia building

look or feel like. A recent development of creating flexible areas within the University of Sussex, contributed to

tensions among academic staff, with complaints about working in ‘a call centre-type environment’ (Baty, 2007)

Libraries have received the most consideration the last decades regarding their changing roles in enabling

learning. The library has traditionally been thought of as being at the heart of a university – and often placed

their physically. Despite the growth of on-line services, the demand of physical libraries is reduced (King, 2000).

Particularly in teaching-oriented universities, the learning resource centre places the emphasis on space and


23

computer-based access, rather than on books and shelves. Universities now need to think of providing an

exciting and flexible space in which students can study at their own pace and time, while using a variety of

learning styles’(Edwards, 2000). In an experiment of JISC (2006) they reported that today’s students mix

academic and social activities, especially on computers, this emerged universities to adjust their traditional

academic libraries to more computer-based space.

Brown & Lippincott (2003), focus on the places and spaces where students can collaborate. More learning is

taking place outside of the class time than ever before. With an increased emphasis on collaboration and group

projects, students are learning in small groups outside the classroom. Often they need spaces equipped with

access to network connections as well as spaces that facilitate group interaction. The may seek these spaces in

dorms, libraries, computing centers and in campus coffee bars. Effective learning takes place as a result of

interactions between students, designs need to provide a variety of spaces for them to work and socialize in

together (Kuh et al., 2005).

There is a general agreement amongst academics about the value of social learning opportunities which has led

to a more varied curriculum and the promotion of a range of different types of learning activities both inside

and outside of formal classroom contact time, and has been shown to make up the bulk of the university

educational experience and methods (Boyer, 1987). Also McConnell & Alexander (2012) confirms that most

learning happens in more informal environments, what results in positive learning outcomes.

Summary

In the 11th

century the first universities blossomed up, where for centuries the education was based on a

cloister and where religion was the main subject of education. The university remained relatively unchanged

from the Middle Ages until the late 18th

and early 19th

centuries, when religion lost its dominant force and the

European universities became institutions of modern learning and research. In the 20th

century the World War I

changed the aim of the universities, because the states increased their financial support ; in return academics

provided research in support of the war effort. Universities no longer conducted research for their own sake,

but tried to develop applied research for the benefit of society. In the WWII there has been an increasing

demand for higher education and the need for educated workers was raised. This resulted in a worldwide

expansion of universities and the number of students was growing (Temple, 2007). Since that time different

buildings design where experimented, but not with great results. Many researchers argue about the impact of

the spatial design of universities, to which extent the space is related to education? According to Temple (2007)

it is surely the case that, around the world, the vast majority of university buildings are simply functional

standard units, constructed to the designs and standards of other comparable buildings of their place and time:

they have no grand message to send. While Chism (2006) and JISC (2006) more recent thinking on “flexible”

learning spaces – spaces in which different groups may be undertaking different activities simultaneously and

which lend themselves to a variety of uses – has suggested how campus and building design can be used to

facilitate learning, particularly informal learning. While Kornberger & Clegg (2003) argue the importance of

“generative” buildings, ones designed by, or at least with, the people who live or work in them. They contrast

these with “monumental” buildings, ones imposed on their inhabitants by outsiders. King (2000) comments on

the heart of the internal spatial design of universities that libraries have received the most consideration the

last decades regarding their changing roles in enabling learning. Particularly in teaching-oriented universities,

the learning resource centre places the emphasis on space and computer-based access, rather than books on

shelves. Universities now need to think of providing an exciting and flexible space in which students can study

at their own pace and time, while using a variety of learning styles’(Edwards, 2000). Universities acknowledge

the shift from learning within classrooms, to anywhere like, dorms, libraries and campus coffee bars, but the

practical adjustments are difficult to make. The university of Sussex developed ‘flexible’ learning spaces, but

ended with complaints about working in ‘a call centre-type environment’ (Baty, 2007). The universities need to

find a balance in the use of space in- and outside the classrooms, McConnell & Alexander (2012) confirms most

learning happens in more informal environments, what results in positive learning outcomes.


24

3.4 Conclusion This chapter answers the first specific research question: Q1.1 What is a traditional university buildings design?

Since the 11th

century until 2012 important changes are happened in the educational, technological and spatial

aspects of universities. The most important educational changes are; from religion based teaching, where focus

was teacher-centred – to a student-centred focus where problem-based learning is leading. These changes are

related to the technological aspects, because the introduction of computers, internet and new methods of

(digital) communicating led to an technological impact in educational methods. Where first universities where

meant as a physical place for learning, a virtual teaching world becomes more important. Students can work at

home and communicate with classmates and teachers via new communicating technologies, this enables the

students to study and work (e.g. group assignments) whenever and wherever they want. Consequently, this

leads to changes in the spatial usage. Nowadays, learning happen outside the classrooms more than ever.

All these changes lead to a reformation of universities. Decreased funding of the government and an increased

diversity of students compliments these incremental changes within universities. Therefore we conclude that;

many factors influence the design of a (traditional) university. Also building design and teaching methods of

universities are diverse in a more web-based or student-centred method and a classic or modern design.

Student-centred learning and new technologies changed the use of the spatial design of universities. More

flexible, social and virtual spaces are created (e.g. libraries, campus coffee bars and computer areas) or need to

be created with a balanced design between the virtual world and the physical place of a university.

4. 21st century learning spaces This chapter will answer the research questions: Q1.2 What are the characteristics of new ways of learning with

regard to the built environment? And the third: Q1.3 Is there a need to adapt new ways of learning to stay

attractive for (new) students?

At first we define what a 21st century learning environment is according to the literature and why universities

need to adapt new aspects in their learning environment. Later on we discuss the several aspects that are

involved with a 21st


According to the Partnerships for 21st

century skills, new learning spaces are synergistic system of systems that:

- Creates learning practices, human support and physical environments that will support the teaching

and learning of 21st century skill outcomes

- Supports professional learning communities that enable educators to collaborate, share best

practices, and integrate 21st century skills into classroom practice

- Enables students to learn in relevant, real world 21st century contexts (e.g., through project-based or

other applied work)

- Allows equitable access to quality learning tools, technologies, and resources

- Provides 21st century architectural and interior designs for group, team, and individual learning.

- Supports expanded community and international involvement in learning, both face-to-face and

online

Such an environment fosters learning tailored to the needs and wants of the individual. This sort of learning

occurs anytime and anyplace, when and where the learner desires. It takes place in a context of relevance, “just

in time,” rather than “just in case.” And such learning offers “just what I need” – that is, the opportunity to

acquire knowledge and skills through learning strategies that are personalized and adapted to the learners own

learning styles and preferences.

If we look to the criticism about the current learning environments; universities are alert to the need for

renewal (Daniel, 1998, Bradwell, 2009, and Foster, 2000), They are aware of the criticisms frequently levelled

at the higher education that does not accommodate the volume and variety of student demand; universities do


25

not give value for money; teaching methods are inflexible; the quality of higher education is haphazard; and

the sense of academic community is disappearing. Daniel (1998) also stated that technology, which has already

made a dramatic impact in most areas of human endeavour, is a key to renewal of higher education. In this

chapter we elaborate on new educational, technological and spatial trends of the future of universities.

4.1 Educational aspects Nowadays, the traditional teaching and learning on campus takes place within specific physical settings that are

integral to the process. The traditional, teacher-centred and didactic instruction of universities has been

embedded in the constructed environment of the campus, particularly the lecture theatres and other formal

classrooms. However, these same facilities now threaten to impede the implementation of more student-

centred and flexible learning approaches being introduced in higher education worldwide (Temple, 2007).

The increasing integration of communication and information technologies (CITs), together with the shift to

more student-centred and flexible learning approaches, is changing the way teaching and learning is

experienced within universities. These changes affect the teacher’s role, increase students’ responsibility for

own learning, alter the ways students interact and communicate, and shape the demands and expectations of

what the on-campus experience should be. (Jamieson, 2003).

To create a 21st

century learning environment some important aspects and trends needs to be elaborated to

adjust on new ways of learning. Here these aspects and trends are presented.

Students The number of part-time students who undertake distance learning, is likely to grow significantly in the

foreseeable future (Slater, 2005), in 2009 two out of five students are studying part-time. Part-time

enrolments will continue to increase as a result of assumed increase in the population aged 30-39 years

(Bradwell, 2009). Not only the number of part-time students will grow, also the number of fulltime students

will expand worldwide. For the national sake, in 2020 universities and higher education in the Netherlands will

probably grow with 25 to 40% more students (part- and fulltime students) compared to 2007 (VSNU, 2011). We

are likely to see an increase in the class mix of the student population along with changing birth rates among

different social classes and the possibilities to study abroad are more flexible. A major factor will be the rising

numbers of international students, this will bring additional demands beyond teaching. Universities need to

think of the diversity of students and their way of teaching, requiring what same have called a ‘learner need’

approach (Bradwell, 2009). Teaching becomes more individual to meet the diversity among students and to

develop skills. 21st century skills become important to be successful in future work. Although there are various

opinions about these skills, Pink (2006) mentioned: information and media literacy skills, communication skills,

critical and systems thinking, problem identification, formulation and solution, creativity and intellectual

curiosity, interpersonal and collaborative skills, self-direction, accountability and adaptability and social

responsibility as important skills. Students skills and needs are broaden which means that a reaction of

teachers cannot fail to appear.

Teachers

The role of the teacher change towards facilitator and motivator who should arrange that students can learn.

Furthermore they become planners, coaches and managers, participants and guides who manage students and

provide help whenever needed. Teachers should be able to actively integrate ICT in their lessons to increase

attractiveness and active learning (Cox, 2011). “New information technologies will allow the teacher to use new

educational methods and give learners more independence. One of the teacher’s fundamental roles is to guide

and to survey the learning process”. Teachers should be able to convert the enormous amount of information

available on the web to knowledge and learning materials for students. Wheeler (2001) mentioned three

reasons why the role of teachers must change: (1) new technologies; (2) current methods or means become

obsolete (think of overhead projectors or chalkboards) and (3) current forms of assessments become

superfluous. The future function of teachers does not only consist out of knowledge transfer but also on


26

organizing and arranging that students can learn.

Learning method

According to Marmot Associates (2006), lecture based teaching methods have become unfashionable. In their

research problem-based teaching based methods are more affective for students to achieve 21st

century skills.

Not only problem based teaching methods become more important, web-based instruction learning is at least

as effective as lecture based teaching methods (Astleitner, 2003).

The student of today arrives at a university, whether direct from school or after some years out of school,

having already assimilated the internet and connectivity into their everyday lives, that demands new learning

and teaching techniques (Bradwell, 2009). Nowadays, technologies are even available at primary schools. In the

Netherlands the concept of a “Steve Jobsschool” is introduced at primary schools. The concept of this school is;

children and parents are not bounded to restricted times, the parents decide when their child go to school.

Teaching will not happen in classical settings, but children will use their iPads (touchscreen tablets) to get

access to their learning materials and do their schoolwork somewhere in the building. Teachers are there to

stimulate and support the children (Brasser, 2012). At primary schools web-based teaching is already

introduced, to follow this method at higher education a better affiliation is made between the three levels of

schools. In the future students do not know other methods than learning with technologies. Another aspect of

new learning methods is the attention to the role of active, independent and self-directed learning, earlier

noticed as student-centred learning methods (Simon et al., 2000). The process to focus more at the needs of

the students has started decades ago, while this decade the student-centred method receive more attention.

The reason for this attention is the broadening acceptance of the internet and the emergence of various

technological developments. The student-centred method is a method that still need physical attendance of

teachers and students, while the methods problem- and web based centred teaching methods are made it

possible to learn outside the physical location at any place and time. To develop a well-balanced student-

centred learning method, Keefe & Jenkins (2000), stated aspects that are necessary:

A dual teacher role of coach and adviser;

Diagnosis of relevant student learning characteristics which include developmental level; cognitive/learning style and prior knowledge/skills;

Culture of collegiality in school characterized by constructivist environment and

Collaborative learning arrangements;

Interactive learning environment characterized by small school or small class sizes; thoughtful conversation; active learning activities and authentic student achievement, personalized learning;

Flexible scheduling and pacing, but with adequate structure and

Authentic assessment

Teachers have a large and responsible role in personalized education and can make the concept a success or

disaster (Kearney, 1991 and Waldeck, 2007). Students are more positive and learn better in small settings

where they know others more personal than larger groups in which they feel anonymous (Kuh, et al., 2005). It

is important to find a balance between the physical student-centred method and the less physical attended

problem- and web based teaching method. Blended learning methods are methods that mix face-to-face

contact with technological aspects. Blended learning might seem a threat to universities (since both can be

done outside universities), but it can also emphasize their importance. The noise of information and knowledge

needs filtering; students need guidance and expertise; student-centred learning. The students need the ‘brand

value’ of institutions and the validation they provide. (Temple, 2007)


27

Summary

The increasing integration of communication and information technologies (CITs), together with the shift to

more student-centred and flexible learning approaches, is changing the way teaching and learning is

experienced within universities. These changes affect the teacher’s role, increase students’ responsibility for

own learning, alter the ways students interact and communicate, and shape the demands and expectations of

what the on-campus experience should be. (Jamieson, 2003). Not only the roles of the stakeholders are

changing, the population of students on universities change too. We are likely to see an increase in the class

mix of the student population along with changing birth rates among different social classes and the

possibilities to study abroad are more flexible. The number of part-time students who undertake distance

learning, is likely to grow significantly in the foreseeable future (Slater, 2005).

Teaching becomes more individual to meet the diversity among students and to develop skills. 21st century

skills become important to be successful in future work. The role of the teacher change towards facilitator and

motivator who should arrange that students can learn. Furthermore they become planners, coaches and

managers, participants and guides who manage students and provide help whenever needed. The reason why

the role of teachers must change: (1) new technologies; (2) current methods or means become obsolete (think

of overhead projectors or chalkboards) and (3) current forms of assessments become superfluous. The future

function of teachers does not only consist out of knowledge transfer but also on organizing and arranging that

students can learn. Another change is noticed in the teaching methods; lecture teaching methods have become

unfashionable (Marmot Associates, 2006). Research problem-based teaching based methods are more

affective for students to achieve 21st

century skills. Not only problem based teaching methods become more

important, web-based instruction learning is at least as effective as lecture based teaching methods (Astleitner,

2003).At primary schools web-based teaching is already introduced, to follow this method at higher education

a better affiliation is made between the three levels of schools. To develop a well-balanced student-centred

learning method, Keefe & Jenkins (2000), stated aspects that are necessary: A dual teacher role of coach and

adviser; Diagnosis of relevant student learning characteristics which include developmental level;

cognitive/learning style and prior knowledge/skills; Culture of collegiality in school characterized by

constructivist environment and Collaborative learning arrangements; Interactive learning environment

characterized by small school or small class sizes; thoughtful conversation; active learning activities and

authentic student achievement, personalized learning; Flexible scheduling and pacing, but with adequate

structure and Authentic assessment. Teachers have a large and responsible role in personalized education and

can make the concept a success or disaster (Kearney, 1991 and Waldeck, 2007).

4.2 Technological aspects As we presented earlier there is much attention for technologies in education of students, this section will go

deeper into the technological aspects in the learning environment.

The current interest in technologies in educational environment is a relatively upcoming phenomenon,

especially fuelled by developments in the Internet since the WWW was created in 1992.

Embedding of technologies

Technology can help, for in most aspects of education, people now assume that more and better technologies

during studies means higher quality. Better technology usually means greater cost-effectiveness as well

(Bradwell, 2009; Daniel, 1998). This must be a central purpose of academic renewal for the 21st

century. It is

the most difficult challenge of renewal for universities to accept, for two main reasons. First, there has indeed

been a good correlation between available resources and the rankings of universities in quality assessment

exercises, a web-based teaching system. The second factor that makes academics reluctant to give priority to


28

cost-effectiveness is the monumental function of universities. The noble ideals of the academy have always

attracted the support of the wealthy: kings, queens, bishops, merchants and industrialists, who wanted their

memories to live on in the names of campus buildings and professorial titles (Daniel, 1998). Daniel (1998),

discuss the item of technologies of being physical attended at a university and the two factors that influence

technologies of universities, he states; “The e-university would largely replace the physical campus – or at least,

by the way of meeting future growth in demand for higher education – with distance learning of various kinds

superseding face-to-face learning and the balance between the resources and image of a university”. JISC

(2006) elaborates on the embedding of technology into learning and teaching spaces that it is likely to be an

evolutionary process rather than a revolutionary one, physical attendance become less in the future. To be

careful of the resources a university contains, considering technological requirements at the early stages of

planning will ensure that maximum benefit can be obtained from the investment. Starting by establishing

pedagogic aims, then review the design and the technological infrastructure in the whole institution to ensure

that the aims can be achieved.

Although the increase in web-based teaching methods represents challenges of organisational and

technological change which involve all parties within a university (e.g. academic staff, support staff,

administrative and management staff) the introduction of ICT into learning and teaching carries with it

different emphases for each party within the university. As the educational landscape changes through

widening participation, the increased use of ICT and continuing financial, the wider institutional context of the

provision of information services becomes increasingly relevant (Foster et al., 2000)

Teaching with technologies

In education, especially, the advent of the computing age has brought with it a radical disruption of the

pedagogical foundations of teachers' work. The use of computer technology and the growing access to

educational resources through the Internet are requiring educators to rethink how they teach and to help

students to prepare for life and work in the coming decades. Educators are beginning to make progress, but

there still are many obstacles to be overcome before schools effectively can prepare the majority of students

for the technological world of the 21st century. It is clear that teachers must be educated more thoroughly

about technology, the impact throughout society, and about how it can be used in teaching. Most teachers are

not adequately prepared yet to make use of exciting new educational technologies because neither their

teacher education programs nor their schools have provided sufficient time or incentives for them to learn.

Universities have learned, though, that technology training will be an on-going necessity. New technology

applications such as web-based conferencing and help-desks can either allow them to create communities of

practice where they can seek out technical assistance and moral support. This process of learning how to teach

the teachers (and the teachers of teachers) helps to implement professional development programs in

educational technology for teachers (Smith, 1999)

Mlearning

Advances in computer technology, intelligent user interfaces, context modelling applications and recent

developments in the field of wireless communications, including Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, wireless LAN and the global

wireless technologies such as GPS, GPRS, 3G and satellite systems have created a wide array of new

possibilities for technology in universities. When these technologies started to be used in conjunction with

mobile computers a new learning paradigm, mobile learning, emerged. Mobile learning, or m-learning, has

been defined as learning that takes place via such wireless devices as mobile phones, personal digital assistants

(PDAs), or laptop computers. When considering mobility from the learner’s point of view rather than the

technology’s, it can be argued that mobile learning goes on everywhere – for example, students revising for

exams on the bus to school, doctors updating their medical knowledge while on hospital rounds, language

students improving their language skills while travelling abroad. All these instances of formal or informal

learning have been taking place while people are on the move. A definition of mobile learning should therefore

be widened to include: Any sort of learning that happens when the learner is not at a fixed, predetermined


29

location, or learning that happens when the learner takes advantage of the learning opportunities offered by

mobile technologies. Mlearning can be used to enhance current instructional activities or to enable new

activities. The mode of use depends a lot on the nature of the software application and on the teacher’s

intentions. To integrate mobile technologies in the classroom, teachers need to research available software

and peripherals and find applications that are appropriate for their classes (Lehner, 2002, Soloway, 2002,

Smith, 2003, BECTA, 2003). With mobile technologies, teaching and classroom management/administration

need no longer be two unconnected tasks: the teacher has instant, dynamic access to student data and can

respond flexibly to patterns that are revealed minute-by-minute (Lehner 2002, BECTA, 2003).

Mlearning is not only used in 21st century learning spaces, but also in the work related environment. In the

Netherlands several companies introduced, ‘new ways of working’, this way of working is based on four main

pillars; (1) employees make their own choice on where and when to work; (2) output-oriented leadership; (3)

encouraging unlimited access and connectivity to knowledge, experience and information and (4) a flexible

relationship between manager and employee (Baane, et al., 2010). The use of mobile technologies make it

possible to work everywhere and whenever the employees want. Literature about pros and cons of new ways

of working is scarce. However, some companies did research to the advantages of the new ways of working in

their own organization and found: higher satisfaction of employees and customers, improved perceived

performance of employees, improved cooperation between employees, better use of available knowledge,

sustainable entrepreneurship by the organization, a lower absenteeism and savings on housing, travelling, ICT

and cleaning (Baane, et al., 2010). Advantages for society are a decrease of CO2 emission and e.g. less road

maintenance because employees travel less by car (are not obligatory to work at the office). New ways of

working gives an incentive for the economy due to rivalry and innovation (a higher percentage of women who

are working and less absenteeism). Downsides are costs for unoccupied workplace, risks of unacceptable

workplaces at home and a declining balance between work and private life which might increase incidences of

burn outs or other physical illnesses. When Mlearning is used at the education level, graduates have knowledge

of this phenomenon and are likely to adjust easily in equivalent work situations.

Summary

Embedding of technology into learning and teaching spaces it is likely to be an evolutionary process rather than

a revolutionary one, physical attendance become less in the future. To be careful of the resources a university

contains, considering technological requirements at the early stages of planning will ensure that maximum

benefit can be obtained from the investment. Starting by establishing pedagogic aims, then review the design

and the technological infrastructure in the whole institution to ensure that the aims can be achieved (JISC,

2006). In education, the advent of the computing age has brought with it a radical disruption of the

pedagogical foundations of teachers' work. The use of computer technology and the growing access to

educational resources through the Internet are requiring educators to rethink how they teach and to help

students to prepare for life and work in the coming decades. Educators are beginning to make progress, but

there still are many obstacles to be overcome before schools effectively can prepare the majority of students

for the technological world of the 21st century.

Nowadays we use mobile devices every day, to use mobile devices in the learning space, the term; Mlearning is

defined. A definition of mobile learning include: Any sort of learning that happens when the learner is not at a

fixed, predetermined location, or learning that happens when the learner takes advantage of the learning

opportunities offered by mobile technologies. Mlearning can be used to enhance current instructional activities

or to enable new activities. Mlearning is not only used in 21st century learning spaces, but also in the work

related environment. In the Netherlands several companies introduced, ‘new ways of working’, this way of

working is based on four main pillars; (1) employees make their own choice on where and when to work; (2)

output-oriented leadership; (3) encouraging unlimited access and connectivity to knowledge, experience and

information and (4) a flexible relationship between manager and employee (Baane, et al., 2010). The use of

mobile technologies make it possible to work everywhere and whenever the employees want. When Mlearning


30

is used at the education level, graduates have knowledge of this phenomenon and are likely to adjust easily in

equivalent work situations.

4.2 Spatial aspects New spaces of value and knowledge, like the virtual world, are emerging as resources are channelled to looser

groups of researchers and learners, groups which do not need the associated set-up and overhead costs of

large institutional environments. Knowledge is no longer restricted within the boundaries of universities and

higher education facilities. These institutions no longer have a monopoly on where good ideas come from, nor

of how information and knowledge is used and where it is accessed. This does not mean that we can do

without such institutions. They, too, have to be open to new spaces of learning and research. They have an

important role in helping such spaces flourish. Universities are becoming partners in learning and research

rather than sole providers. People need their resources, they look to their expertise and their recognition to

validate learning. Their reputations, networks and spaces are a driving force for research and collaboration.

Universities will not disappear, either into the virtual world or out of existence. They are present in new places,

in new ways (Bradwell, 2009). Learning spaces in higher education has not historically attracted a great deal of

attention from learners or researchers: teaching and learning in higher education has, implicitly, generally been

considered as taking place independently of the spaces in which it was located (Keohane, 2006). In the last

decade learners and researchers notice the need of adjusted teaching spaces because of the accessibility of

technologies in the teaching spaces. University boards notice the need of spatial renewals through the

innovations at the educational market, this market become more competitive and it is important to provide an

innovative learning space to be attractive for students (Edwards, 2000; Bickle, 2001). Nowadays, the

technical/administrative specialism of university space planning is concerned with determining the appropriate

amount of space to be provided for defined academic, administrative and other purposes, and maximizing its

use once provided, by using various space management techniques (Abramson and Burnap, 2006, SMP 2006).

As currently the average cost of space in higher education – taking into account, capital, depreciation,

maintenance and operating costs – is nearly 200 dollar per M2 (SMP, 2006), achieving the most effective use of

this valuable resource must be clearly a key management task in all higher education institutions, especially

while funding become more problematic for universities. Flexibility in design is sought in new or remodelled

specialist spaces, to allow new scientific or other curriculum approaches to be implemented readily (Temple,

2008)

The design of new learning spaces

Discussions of the student-centred approach have naturally tended to focus on issues of pedagogy, the

curriculum and related matters, rather than on the physical environment. As we already acknowledged the

needs and demands of students also changed and the wider variety of social and educational backgrounds,

some researchers found that these new approaches should carry out in the design. In particular, teaching and

learning should drive design, rather than vice versa (Jamieson et al., 2000, Jamieson, 2003). There are

opportunities when new building or remodelling takes place to provide learning spaces that seem likely to

improve the experience of learning and teaching by applying intelligent design, probably at minimal extra cost

(Temple, 2007). This is now already seen in new lecture theatre designs, where curved spaces can bring the

lecturer and audience closer together, and where the use of swivelling seats can allow the lecturer to move

from a large-group session, to multiple small-group sessions and back to a large group (JISC, 2006). Seven types

of learning spaces could be identified in higher education;

- Group teaching and learning, where flexible furniture arrangements were needed to accommodate

groups of varying sizes, using varying layouts, preferably in square rather than rectangular rooms.

(SFC, 2006)

- Simulated environments, where practical learning can take place in technological subjects, requiring

space for observation as well as for performing the task in hand.

- Immersive environments, such as highly interactive virtual environments (HIVE), with advanced ICT,


31

possible in many subjects but more likely to be found in scientific or technological ones.

- Peer-to-peer environments, where informal learning can take place, in cyber cafes.

- Clusters, where student group work can take place, for example in learning centres

- Individual work, in quiet areas

- External work, areas outside the building suitable for individual or small group activity (SFC, 2006).

The SFC study did not consider the lecture theatre as a modern learning space. However, despite the many

doubts surrounding the traditional lecture as an effective means of learning, another study also proves that still

staff and students think new modern lecture theatres are need to be built (Barnett and Temple, 2006). The

popularity of lecture theatre designs is probably because of the traditional pedagogic practices, “old self-

understandings and sets of values live within the new” (Barnett, 2000).

The popularity of lecture theatre designs is probably because of the traditional pedagogic practices, “old self-

understandings and sets of values live within the new” (Barnett, 2000). Especially the setting of the lecture

theatres had great attention, more creative designs (horseshoe-shaped layouts and better eye contact, for

example), and easier to use technology. These improvements may partly account for the lecture’s continues

popularity (SMG, 2006). These types are leasing to demands for more flexible and highly-serviced spaces, and

the blurring of the boundary between academic and social areas, buts seems unlikely to diminish the overall

net demand for space. Increased student load and more problem based learning methods are likely to require

more small-group work, and therefore more small rooms, for groups of 10-25 people (SMG, 2006)

Academic offices are also about to change, individual academic offices in most universities were provided on

the assumption that they would be used for tutorial teaching of perhaps two to four students at a time.

However, tutorial groups are often instructed in the classrooms, or smaller group work rooms. Where new

building or major remodelling takes place, the individual academic office may be replaced with a shared office

for perhaps three to six staff, or even flexible work spaces will exist. There then needs to be a set of

conveniently-located small, medium-sized rooms or open plant spaces, which can be used for meetings and

small-group teaching (SMG, 2006). To relocate all separate administrative offices to a single, large open- plan

office, can lead to space reduction of one-third and provide a ‘one-stop-shop’ for students (SMG, 2006)

The changing physical design features on their own may not be enough to achieve improved learning

outcomes: a change in the whole pattern of university organisation may be needed to make the new learning

spaces work properly (JISC, 2006, Temple, 2007). Further research of Jamieson et al. (2003) led to several

guidelines to improve the university space use by activities.

- Design space for multiple uses concurrently an consecutively: New learning environments need to

allow for multi-functionality, this includes both teacher –and student centred approaches, as well as

formal scheduled classes and informal student use. Formal locations need to accommodate informal

requirements

- Design to maximise the inherent flexibility within each space: Because of the need of multi-

functionality within a class session, it must be possible to quickly reorganise the available site for a

particular activity.

- Design to make use of the vertical dimension in facilities: Instead of only focussing on the function and

fit of the floor space, make use of the walls and ceilings (sound absorbing).

- Design to integrate campus functions: The availability of facilities that provide access to food and

drink, communal areas for informal interaction, and comfortable furnishing would help to merge

social interaction and individual activities. Focus also on outdoor classrooms, verandas, arcades.

- Design features and functions to maximise teacher and student control: Reliance on centrally provided

technical support.

- Design to maximise alignment of different curricula activities: The diverse range of faculties,

disciplines, curricula and non-academic activities evident on a university campus requires a variety of


32

learning settings, both formal and informal. All disciplines need to be separately interrogated to

determine how the learning objectives are currently achieved.

- Design to maximise student access to, and use and ownership of, the learning environment: Student –

centred methods require facilities which are available at all times. The propensity for institutional and

standardised architecture should be avoided, encourage critical thinking and development of

individuals. If faculties placed at a central place, students will use these spaces often, a sense of

ownership and responsibility can exist (Jamieson et al., 2003)

Another study present that learning, what still is one of the core aspects in universities, takes best place in

quiet, comfortable, temperature controlled, well-lit spaces, natural colours (beige, off-white, yellow) and

certain scents can aid problem solving (DfES, 2002). The need for these spaces and designs need to be

considered in a 21st century learning space.

Learners and teachers

Recent studies tried to find evidence from the end-users of the impact of the physical environment in

universities. Some findings of Flutters research (2006) are: students like a reasonable basic level of

maintenance – cleanliness, decoration, repairing broken windows and so on. Student and researchers do not

search or demand for new designs or facilities within the universities, but when they are adjusted finding

resulted positive, these two factors led to improved educational outcomes. Flutters (2006), found that

students demands according social meeting places are changed. Nowadays, students mix their social life with

their learning activities, with or without technologies (e.g. laptops, mobile phones), the need for social meeting

spaces is raised. An earlier research presents that 80% of the students time on campus is spent informally

outside scheduled classes. Current on-campus teaching facilities are under-utilised when not scheduled for

formal classes, leaving students to work in libraries or cafes not generally designed for large numbers of

students working collaboratively. This is a situation that is both pedagogically and economically untenable

(Radloff, 1998)

Most students place emphasis on the teaching abilities and subject expertise of the staff, tutorial support,

library and ICT facilities, social connections and other matters directly related in students’ mind to teaching and

learning, rather than on physical facilities (Wiers-Jenssen et al., 2002). It seems that the academic researchers

and teachers are tends to highlight perceived needs in the physical environment more than learners do. This

may because staff members spend a larger proportion of their lives in these spaces than any given student, and

may have higher expectations, based on their former experiences. To the staff, the buildings are a type of

home; to students, they are merely places to come to for limited periods for a specific purpose (Bean, 2005)

Technologies and space

The rapid change of technologies led to a new space use within universities. The spread of wireless networking

has led to further change: one account suggest that “What we’re starting to see is the emergence of spaces

that are designed around human rather than technological needs. Nowadays, spaces become pleasant and

have a nice ambience to them, and you can just use your wireless laptop there, but the space is not built

around that because it can have multiple functions. Technology has not made large demands on learning space

designs, wireless enabled laptops and wireless networks means that any university space, inside or outside, can

now quite easily be used for ICT-based learning method. Although for some spaces there will be special

demands for display screens, cabling and so on, this will be a small part of the total demand. Flexibility in space

design, allowing adaption to new uses at reasonable cost, will be more useful than spaces designed expressly

for technologies. (Temple, 2007)

Sustainability

Environmental sustainability has become a significant feature in university buildings, teaching and research in

recent years: around the world, new courses have been developed and a large number of university research

units have been created in this field. Since 2005 sustainability became a hot topic in the world of building


33

designs. Insofar as sustainability issues will require architects and designers give greater attention to reducing

energy demands in new buildings by providing natural light and ventilation, and minimizing the requirements

for mechanical heating and cooling systems. As is proposed in several sustainable guideline reports, then

impacts on learning spaces are likely to by entirely beneficial. Sustainable design and operational practices may

also provide examples of the campus being a tangible expression of institutional values: this may in turn,

contribute to a more cohesive and effective learning community (Temple, 2007).

Historically, research, and action within American colleges and universities have reflected the national public

conversation. As Kerr (2001) articulates, “As society goes, so goes the university; but also, as the university

goes, so goes society” (p. 194). Kerr’s statement suggests an obligation on the university’s behalf to carefully

heed the national public dialogue in order to examine it, but it also suggests the university’s critical role in

leading change. The social and public purpose of higher education has been a historical pillar of the American

university’s mission (King & Mayhew, 2004; Zemsky, Wegner, & Massy, 2005; Merkel & Litten, 2007). Many

higher education institutions have already recognized that they must play a role in creating a more sustainable

future. The Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF), which includes over 350

universities, issued the following statement about the centrality of sustainability in higher education: “We

believe that the success of higher education in the 21st century will be judged by our ability to put forward a

bold agenda that makes sustainability and the environment a cornerstone of academic practice” (Report and

Declaration of the Presidents Conference, 1990). Over the past two decades, over 1,000 university leaders,

presidents, and vice chancellors have committed their institutions to change toward sustainability. Beyond

public purpose, many institutional benefits exist in pursuing sustainability. Blackburn (2007) highlighted the

following benefits: strategic positioning as an ethical institution; bolstering relations with the community;

enhancing students’; prospects as employers are increasingly interested in sustainability; attracting students,

private donors, and government funders who care about sustainability; and cost-savings through waste

reduction by collecting separate and energy conservation.

Many institutions have only engaged in small and incremental steps on their path toward sustainability.

Despite the enormous efficiencies that can be garnered from adopting a more sustainable culture, few colleges

and universities have achieved such a culture (Sharp, 2002). For example, many institutions start the

sustainability journey with waste reduction or energy efficiency improvements, but then do not move beyond

this low-hanging fruit (Senge, 2008). A more comprehensive approach may be needed started at renovations

our at the start of new building plans.

Summary

Universities are becoming partners in learning and research rather than sole providers. Universities

reputations, networks and spaces are a driving force for research and collaboration. Universities will not

disappear, either into the virtual world or out of existence. They are present in new places, in new ways

(Bradwell, 2009). To find a balanced space layout of universities there are opportunities when new building or

remodeling takes place to provide learning spaces that seem likely to improve the experience of learning and

teaching by applying intelligent design, probably at minimal extra cost (Temple, 2007). Seven types of learning

spaces could be identified in higher education; Group teaching and learning spaces, simulated environments,

immersive environments, peer-to-peer environments, clusters, individual works spaces, external work spaces

outside the building (SFC, 2006). The changing physical design features on their own may not be enough to

achieve improved learning outcomes: a change in the whole pattern of university organization may be needed

to make the new learning spaces work properly (JISC, 2006, Temple, 2007). Several guidelines to improve the

university space use by activities are; Design space for multiple uses concurrently an consecutively, design to

maximize the inherent flexibility within each space, design to make use of the vertical dimension in facilities:,

design to integrate campus functions, design features and functions to maximize teacher and student control:,

design to maximize alignment of different curricula activities, design to maximize student access to, and use


34

and ownership of, the learning environment: (Jamieson et al., 2003)

Environmental sustainability has become a significant feature in university buildings, teaching and research in

recent years: around the world, new courses have been developed and a large number of university research

units have been created in this field. Since 2005 sustainability became a hot topic in the world of building

designs. Many higher education institutions have already recognized that they must play a role in creating a

more sustainable future. Beyond public purpose, many institutional benefits exist in pursuing sustainability.

Blackburn (2007) highlighted the following benefits: strategic positioning as an ethical institution; bolstering

relations with the community; enhancing students’; prospects as employers are increasingly interested in

sustainability; attracting students, private donors, and government funders who care about sustainability; and

cost-savings through waste reduction by collecting separate and energy conservation. Nowadays, many

institutions have only engaged in small and incremental steps on their path toward sustainability. Despite the

enormous efficiencies that can be garnered from adopting a more sustainable culture, few colleges and

universities have achieved such a culture (Sharp, 2002).

4.4 Conclusion This chapter answers the second and third specific research questions: Q1.2 What are the characteristics of

21st century learning space with regard to the technological and spatial environment? Q1.3 Is there a need to

adapt the learning space environment in universities for (new) students?

(Q1.2) Embedding technology in the learning space is an on-going process, happening all over the world in all

levels of studies. It starts by establishing pedagogic aims, then review the design and the technological

infrastructure in the whole institution to ensure that the aims can be achieved (JISC, 2006). At the beginning of

this decade we saw computers making it entrance into the university buildings. Space and organization was

needed to embed the computers and the technological knowledge. Nowadays, the use of computers in the

learning space has increased and also mobile devices make more and more its entrance, because of the

introduction of Wi-Fi. The use of mobile devices in the learning space, is often termed; Mlearning and is

defined as “Any sort of learning that happens when the learner is not at a fixed, predetermined location, or

learning that happens when the learner takes advantage of the learning opportunities offered by mobile

technologies”. The use of mobile devices has different demands than computers in the learning space.

Informal seating’s, learning cafes, workspaces outside the building and the ability to recharge mobile device are

needs. In common there is a need for spatial flexibility. Because of the technological accessibility, not only

spaces where students can work individually or in small groups need to be adjusted, also the classrooms and

offices of the staff need more attention (e.g. more technology in the classrooms and shared offices).

Classrooms need to be flexible, so different activities (with or without) technologies can be done e.g. group

work, individual places, creative spaces need to be created with movable furniture. Single offices need

attention too. Research proved the occupancy rate for the use of offices is low. Therefore flexible work

spaces, open plans or shared offices can be facilitated, it may save space and thus costs.

(Q1.3) Research showed that students (and teachers) do not demand for new designs of facilities within the

universities, but when they are adjusted students are often positive. It is also shown that students demands

according social meeting places are raised. Students spend 80% of their time on campus in an informal setting

outside classes. Traditional university building consists for the major part of classrooms and halls, so

adjustments for informal seating are needed.

University boards notice the need of spatial renewals through the innovations at the educational market. This

market becomes more competitive and it is important to provide an innovative learning space to be attractive

for students (Edwards, 2000; Bickle, 2001). As showed in 2006, the average cost of space in higher education is

nearly 200 dollar per M2 (SMP, 2006), achieving the most effective use of this valuable resource must be clearly

a key management task in all higher education institutions, especially while funding become more problematic


35

for universities.

Another reason that there is a need to adapt to a 21st

century learning space, is the attendance rate of

students. As showed earlier research, the population of the part time students will raise at universities, the

ability to study abroad is easier and due to the technologies students can study when and wherever they want.

It can be concluded that less students will visit the universities daily, less space is needed.


36

5. Methodology

This chapter contains data collection methods (5.1), the selection of universities, buildings and persons (5.2) a description of the selected universities can be found in section 5.3. In section 5.4 the results of the checklists of the universities are presented, the results of the associated interviews of the checklists are presented in section 5.5, the variance analyses is presented in 5.6, the view of the selected experts in section 5.7 and a conclusion can be found at the end of the chapter in section 5.8.

5.1 Data Collection A key issue checklist is the main resource in this research, combined with interviews with informants of the

universities. Individual people have been chosen as a kind of resource to acquire qualitative data from different

universities in the Netherlands and from experts (see section 5.2). Three kinds of accessing methods are used

to extract data from these resources, namely interviewing, questioning the checklist and observation.

Questioning is a suitable method to gain data about universities of which degree they adjust on new ways of

learning. To gain in-depth information about the university, individual face-to-face interviews are conducted

with a follow up of the checklist. With a semi-structured interview, in-depth information is provided on the

delineated subjects; spatial and technological aspects of the university building, of the literature research. By

semi-structured we mean, at first some general questions are asked, the answers to these questions lead to

new questions to clarify or further explain the interviewees point of view. To use semi-structured questions in-

depth information is gathered. The second part of the interview the checklist is used. Structured questions are

used for the checklist, to check the perception of the interviewee about information on the research variables

that found in literature. Questions related to the learning spaces are asked to clarify later on which

interventions the university should overcome. This will give a view how the university is aligned to the new

ways of learning and will help to answer the last four specific research questions and the main research

question.

The other technique to extract data from the universities is a key issue checklist. These checklists are filled in

during a visit at the universities, by interviewing the (facility) manager of the university and by observing in the

buildings. According to (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010) is ‘observation a design method to identify the

problems that can arise when people interact with products, services and environments’. Because observation

methods are not the main method to extract data, the method is used to add the expertise of the researchers

on the validity of the answers by the interviewee. The main part of the checklist will be answered by the

interviewee and can be checked by walking around the building (observing).

The results of the key issues checklist is used as the strength of the research to see in which degree the

universities current adjust on new ways of learning. By using the dichotomous method the information is

analysed in a quantitative way by measuring the results of the checklist in percentages. The method that is

used for this quantitative research is by putting weight on the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ variables. If the answer is ‘yes’ the

weight will be 1, and if the answer is ‘no’ the weight will be 0. The key issue checklist will have at least a

maximum score >65 and a minimum score of 0. The results of all the answers in the list will be added, this will

give an absolute result, i.e. 36 points. The score of adjustment to new ways of learning can be calculated in

percentages by: 36/65 x 100 = 55,4%. The research variables; educational, technological and spatial aspects are

the three main sections in this checklist. The second checklist consist of the additional aspects; stakeholders,

organisation and sustainability. The percentages will not only be measured in total, but also measured per

aspect. This give a view to which extent per aspect(s) adjust to the new ways of learning.

After completing the in-depth interviews with the universities and the observations, the results are analysed

and interviews with experts are held. The purpose of these interviews is to validate the results of the and to

elaborate on possible interventions.


37

5.2 Selection of universities, buildings and persons

Universities

The 14 universities in the Netherlands can be divided in certain types, these are: general, technical and

specialized universities. The universities of Leiden, Utrecht, Groningen, Nijmegen, Amsterdam (2x), Rotterdam,

Tilburg, Maastricht and Breukelen are broad, general universities; they provide the most general studies and

offered nearly the same studies. The universities of Delft, Eindhoven and Twente (Enschede) are the technical

universities; where the overall focus is on technologies. The university of Wageningen is a specialized

universities that focus on life science, food and environment (VSNU, 2011).

We focus on universities who provide studies in the field of social sciences, from all three types, to which

extent the universities in the different types adjust new ways of learning. By making this distinction a

comparison of the social sciences building(s) between the different types can be made. We set up conditions to

see if a university is suitable; there need to be a specific social science faculty and building, so the sample is the

same.

The universities of Tilburg and Twente (Enschede) are chosen by random sampling. The choice of the

specialized university is Wageningen, because this university the only specialized university in the Netherlands.

The (selected) universities are presented in table 1.

General universities Technical universities Specialized universities

Leiden

Utrecht

Groningen

Nijmegen

Amsterdam (VU)

Amsterdam (OU)

Rotterdam

Tilburg

Maastricht

*Breukelen

Delft

Eindhoven

Twente (Enschede)

Wageningen

Table 1: Universities

* The university Breukelen is ruled out in this research, because this university is an enterprise and have a

commercial point of view.

Buildings

The buildings that will be investigated in the checklist are chosen by faculty; social sciences. Some universities

will have more than one building were the social sciences faculties are established, for this reason the most

representative building will be investigated. The choice of the most representative building should be made by

the university itself. The reason for this is that universities will (probably) choose the building with the most

technological and spatial innovations. We found it interesting to search for the differences that the (facility)

managers of the universities have about their building, compared to the information found in literature study

(checked by key issue checklist). The chosen building will give a view to which extent the university adjusted

new ways of learning.

- Enschede: Ravelijn building


38

- Wageningen: Forum building

- Tilburg: Prisma building

In section 5.3 information of the university (buildings) are presented.

Persons

The persons who will be interviewed are divided in two groups. The first group are (facility) managers of

universities, who are selected by the universities. These resources are grouped as the interviewees within the

universities. The second group; experts, is a group that have their expertise in the field of education, spatial

and technological aspects.

Experts Interviewee university

- ir. W. van `t Hoog, Senior project manager at

Hevo. Expert in the field of spatial and design

of sustainable (university) buildings.

- Mr. E. Bomas, Senior Project Manager

Innovation at Kennisnet, together with Mr. F.

Evers, Program manager Primary education

at Kennisnet. They are experts in the fields of

innovative education and technologies within

education.

- Mr. M. Mobach (WUR), expert in the field of facility management.

- Mr. H.B. Kok (WUR), expert in the field of facility management.

- Wageningen, Mrs. L. Zeeuwen, location

manager of the Forum building

- Enschede, Mrs. M. Drewes, teamleader

facilities of the Ravelijn building

- Tilburg, Mrs, M. Peeters, policy employee

Real Estate of the campus Tilburg

Table 2: Experts and the field of the experts that will be interviewed

5.3 Universities As explained in section 5.2 universities are selected by type of university. In this section information is provided

about the three selected universities.

5.3.1. University of Twente (Enschede)

The building that is investigated at the university of Twente is the Ravelijn building. In this building the faculty

of management & governance is situated, a social science study. The plans for Ravelijn started in 2006, when

the university saw and exponential growth in student numbers. They start to build in 2008 and Ravelijn was

ready to use at the end of 2010. The architect of the university had a clear direction of the purpose of the

building, the theme was ‘to meet’, he expressed this in small offices (10m2) for the staff and in the middle of

every wing of the building he designed meeting rooms and informal settings, so that people get out of the

office to meet each other. The materials used for the design are stone, copper, wood and a lot of glass, the

colours used are grey, white and red. The building is placed in the middle of the campus and is reachable by

public transport, parking lots are further away to stimulate public transport or to come by bike. The building

consists of college rooms, meeting spaces (formal and informal), computer spaces, a small catering facility,

offices for staff- and academics and a front-office that serves for three other buildings.

http://www.linkedin.com/company/17145?trk=pro_other_cmpy


39

Fig. 7; impression of the university of Twente

5.3.2. University of Wageningen

The building that is investigated at the Wageningen university is the Forum building, that was finished in 2007.

In this building are 60-70% of the bachelor students situated with a social science study. Further there is also a

part of the college van Hall Larenstein and some biological spaces are provided at the top floors. The architect

was commissioned to build a monolith in a green landscape. He expressed this in a design that looks like a

castle. Around the ‘castle’, there are some ponds and the entrance has enormous columns what look like a

castle gate. Inside the building there are many open spaces, balconies and layers. The materials that are used

are glass, stone and a lot of wood and natural colours. The building consist of many facilities, according to Mrs.

Zeeuwen, location manager; ‘You can do whatever you like in this building, the only thing you can’t do, is

sleeping’. The buildings consist of many college rooms, meeting spaces, computer spaces, a large catering

facility, offices for staff (not for academics), a front-office, bookshop, cafe, bike shed (under the ground) and a

large library.

Fig. 8; impression of the university of Wageningen

5.3.3 University of Tilburg

The building that is investigated at the university of Tilburg is the Prisma building, that dates from the 70’s. A

few years ago, they combined the building next to Prisma with the existing Prisma building and they use it now

as one building for the social sciences. The buildings where build in the 70’s to serve as temporary buildings,

but ended as the base building for the social sciences. 2 years ago plans where finished to demolish the

buildings and build a complete new building. This plans stopped because of the economic crisis the university

suffered. The real estate managers took another look on the buildings and decided to make a plan to renovate

the oldest parts of the buildings. At this moment they are busy to replace the students temporary elsewhere on

the campus during the renovation, that will start soon. The building is surrounded by forest and is centred on

the university campus. In the building the catering facility is already renovated, but the other spaces are still

dated from the 70’s. The design of the building is overall a low-rise building, with one computer space, several

class rooms, staff offices and a catering facility. After they fused the buildings, the university removed the

front-office, because of needed space. According to Mrs M. Peeters, real estate employee, the building is not

representative and many complaints are coming in daily. There is no library situated in the building, because 2


40

years ago they renovate the central library, that is situated across the Prisma building.

Fig. 9; impression of the university of Tilburg

5.4 Results checklist In this section we present the results of the checklists that are used at the three universities. The key issue

checklist that is used is divided in two parts. The first part exists of the ‘core aspects’ and the second part exists

of the ‘additional aspects’ of new ways of learning. In section 1.4 the core research aspects where found as

educational, technological and spatial, to test these in practice a distinction between technology and

technology in the learning space is used. In the literature study we found literature about the additional side

aspects of new ways of learning and how to adjust this to a university in the 21st

century. These aspects are the

stakeholders; the people who use the building, organisation; how to manage new ways of learning and the last

aspect; sustainability; a trend that become more important, concerns the lifetime of a green environment. To

give a valid view, the core aspects are measured together with the additional aspects.

In the tables 3 and 4 the results of the core and additional checklists are presented.


41

Table 3: Results of the core checklist

Core ChecklistTwente Wageningen Tilburg

Educational

1. Student-centered and problem based teaching method 1 1 1

2. Stimulate and provide group work 1 1 1

3. Blended learning 1 1 1

4. Flexible scheduling 0 1 0

5. Provide all information and courses in English 0 1 0

6. Extracurricular courses in using specialized technologies for students 1 1 1

7. Provide courses in technologies for staff ? 1 1 1

8. Provide information for stakeholders about technologies? 1 1 1

9. The courses during a period are in the same building 0 0 0

10. Small classes for personalized education 0 0 0

Subscore % 60,0% 80,0% 60,0%

Spatial/design aspects

1. Flexible (movable) furniture in classrooms 0 0 1

2. Informal seatings in halls 1 1 1

3. Maximum use of natural l ight 1 1 0

4. Sound-absorbing materials 1 1 0

5. Specialised lightning considered for the activity in that area 1 1 0

6. Ability of partittions that are tackable 1 1 0

7. Shared offices for academics (for 3-6 persons) instead of single rooms 0 0 0

8. Shared offices for administrative activities instead of single rooms 1 1 1

9. Library that consists of quiet study areas and space for group work 0 0 0

10. Flexible workspaces 1 0 0

11. Quiet study areas 0 1 0

12. Areas outside the building suitable for learning activities 1 1 1

13. Learning cafe 0 0 0

14. Welcoming entrance 1 1 0

15. Small spaces that can be reserved for group work 0 0 0

16. Group work spaces provided with presentation devices 0 0 0

Subscore % 56,3% 56,3% 25,0%

Technology in the learning space

1. Make use of intranet (blackboard etc.) to provide course information 1 1 1

2. Use electronic books (e-books) 1 1 1

3. Use video conferencing via internet provided by the university 0 0 0

4. Digital l ibrary per faculty 0 0 0

5. Students producing knowledge online in databases 1 1 0

6. Class video- or audio recordings available online 1 1 0

7. Live streaming of classes via intranet 1 0 0

8. Use of electronic whiteboards in class 1 0 0

9. Use technologies for presentation during class 1 1 1

10. Digital connection to l ibrary 1 1 1

11. A calendar for teachers who are available online for questioning 0 0 0

12. A calendar for study advisors who are available online for information 0 1 0

13. Use of social media to give students feedback 1 1 1

14. Online examining 0 0 0

15. Online assessment (e.g. upload reports via intranet) 1 1 1

16. Integrated software system 1 1 0

Subscore % 69% 62,5% 37,5%

Technological aspects

1. Wireless internet available in and around the university 1 1 1

2. Link electronic devices to receive direct updates 0 0 1

3. Touchscreens provided in the building for information 0 0 0

4. Digital information provided on screens in halls 1 1 1

5. Recharging mobile devices in the library/classroom/learning cafe 0 0 0

6. Self-service book machines 0 0 0

Subscore % 33% 33% 50,0%


42

Table 4; results of the additional checklist

5.4.1. Description of the results

This chapter presents the results of the checklist in line with the 7 aspects of the core and additional checklists.

At first the results of the core checklists are presented below.

Education

The universities; Twente and Tilburg have the same score of 60% on this aspect, the university of Wageningen

scores 80%. All universities adapt the items; ‘Student centred learning methods’, ‘Group work is stimulated’,

‘Blended learning (face-to-face teaching combined with technologies)’ is adapted. At every university there is a

‘Possibility to follow extracurricular courses (e.g. Endnote or SPSS)’ and ‘Information and courses about

technologies for staff is provided by the universities’. None of the universities provide 75% of the classes of a

‘Course in one building’ and there are no ‘Small class sizes for personalized learning’. The items; ‘Provide all

information in English’ and ‘Flexible scheduling’ are only adjusted at the Wageningen university.

Spatial/design

At this aspect the universities of Wageningen and Twente results with both a score of 63,5% and the university

of Tilburg scores 25%. ‘Flexible (movable) furniture in classrooms’ is only adjusted in at the university of Tilburg.

In all universities there are at least three ‘Informal seating’s’. The university of Twente and Wageningen make

‘Maximum use of natural light in every room’, use ‘Sound-absorbing materials’, ‘Specialised lightning that can

be adjusted for the activity at that moment’ and ‘Tackable partitions’ to divide rooms in sub-spaces. The

universities do not make use for at least 80% of ‘Shared offices for academics’ (in the Forum building of

Wageningen university are no academic offices), but all universities ‘Share all administrative offices’. The

universities Twente and Tilburg do not consist of an library of the investigated buildings, both universities have

a central library on the campus. In these library multiple activities are possible. The Wageningen university do

Additional ChecklistTwente Wageningen Tilburg

Stakeholders

1. Stocktaking of demands and needs of students and teachers 1 1 1

2. Local communities make use of the university 1 1 0

3. Communicate with other universities to broaden study programs? 1 1 1

4. Parttime students 0 0 0

Subscore % 75% 75% 50%

Organisation

1. Plan for continuous sustainable ICT renewal 1 1 1

2. Include students in developing green/sustainable plans 1 1 1

3. Evaluate spatial renewals in the building by surveys 1 1 1

4. University provide information about funding and support online 1 1 1

5. Opening hours of the building at least from 8.00 until 20.00 hour 1 1 1

6. Library opening 24 hours a day 0 0 0

Subscore % 83% 83% 83%

Sustainability

1. Programmed systems to monitor water use 1 1 0

2. Programmed systems to monitor energy use 1 1 1

3. Sustainable investments 1 1 0

4. Recycling toners, cartridges, paper and hardware 1 1 1

5. Separate waste collection (plastic, paper, metal) 1 1 0

6. Recycle ICT-generated heat 0 0 0

7. Catering facil ity that serves sustainable food/drinks 0 0 0

Subscore % 83% 83% 28,6%

Total score % 64,6% 66,2% 36,9%


43

have a library within the investigated building, it only consists of quiet study areas. The university of Twente is

the only one of the three universities that consists of ‘Flexible workspaces’ and only Wageningen university

consists of ‘Quiet study areas. None of the universities consists of a ‘’Learning café’ (the university of Tilburg

has three learning café’s on the campus, but not in the Prisma building), ‘Small spaces that can be reserved for

group work’ and ‘Group workspaces provided with presentation devices’. The entrance of the universities of

Wageningen and Twente are welcoming and all universities consist of ‘Areas outside the building’, where

students can study or work (in groups).

Technology in the learning space

This aspect exists of 16 items concerning the technologies that are provided in the learning spaces of the

universities. The university of Twente results with the highest score of 69%, the second highest score is 62,5 %

for the Wageningen university and the university of Tilburg scores 37,5%. All universities score positive on the

items; ‘Make use of intranet to provide course information’, ‘Use electronic books (e-books)’, ‘Use technologies

for presentations during class’, ‘Digital connection to library’ and the possibility for ‘Online assessment’ is also

possible at all universities. None of the universities make (full) use of ‘Videoconferencing via internet provided

by the university’, a ‘Digital library per faculty’, ‘A calendar for teachers who are available online for

questioning’ and ‘Online examining’ is not possible. The universities of Twente and Wageningen use ‘Class

video- or audio recordings available online’, ‘Students producing knowledge online in a database’ and make use

of an ‘Integrated software system’. The university of Twente is the only university who use ‘Live streaming of

classes via intranet’ and use for more than 50% ‘Electronic whiteboards in class’. Wageningen university is the

only university who make use of ‘A calendar for study advisor who are available online for questioning’.

Technological aspects

At this aspect we tested the general technological aspects in within the universities. The university of Tilburg

results with the highest score of 50%, the universities of Twente and Wageningen score both 33%. All

universities make use of ‘Wireless internet’ and provide ‘Digital information on screens in the halls’. Only the

university of Tilburg make use of ‘linking electronic devices to receive direct updates’. None of the universities

make use of ‘Touchscreens in the building’, ‘A self-service book machine’ and there are no possibilities to ‘Load

mobile devices in at least two places; library, classrooms or learning café’. The universities of Twente and

Tilburg do not consists of a library nor a learning café in the building, this question is not valid in these cases.

The next three aspects are aspects of the additional checklist.

Stakeholders

This aspect consist only of 4 items, what results in a score of 75% for the universities of Twente and

Wageningen and a score of 50% for the university of Tilburg. All universities scored positive on the items;

‘Stocktaking of demands and needs of students and teachers’ and ‘Communicate with other universities to

broaden study programs’. None of the universities have possibilities for part time students and the universities

of Twente and Wageningen make use of ‘Local communities’ to expand their scientific knowledge.

Organisation

At this aspect all universities score 83% on the same items. These items are; ‘Continuous sustainable ICT

renewal’, ‘Include students in developing green/sustainable plans’, ‘Evaluate spatial renewals by surveys’,

‘Provide online information of funding and support’ and have ‘Opening hours of the building at least from 8.00

until 20.00 hour’. The only item where all universities score negative is about the ‘Library opening 24 hours a

day’.

Sustainability

At the last aspect of the additional checklist the universities of Twente and Wageningen score 83% and the

university of Tilburg score 28,6%. All universities use a ‘Programmed system to monitor energy use’ and

‘Recycle toners, cartridges and hardware’. The universities of Twente and Wageningen use a ‘Programmed


44

system to monitor the water use’, make ‘Sustainable investments’ and ‘Separate waste collection’. None of the

universities ‘Recycle ICT- generated heat’ and do not consist of a ‘Catering facility that serves for at least 50%

sustainable food/drinks’.

5.5 Results of the interviews of the universities

5.5.1 Results of the interview of the university of Twente

In this section we discuss the results of the interview, tour and the checklist of the university of Twente. The

interview was held with Mrs M. Drewes, teamleader facilities of the Ravelijn building at the university of

Twente.

The university saw an exponential growth in student numbers, for this reason the Ravelijn building is realized in

2010. As presented in section 5.3.1 the purpose and theme of the building was ‘to meet’. This results in a

design with small offices (10m2) and meeting rooms and informal seating’s in every wing of the building. The

materials within the building are based on the colours, feelings and products of the nature, this is done by light

from the ceiling and wooden frames. During the visit the grey colour and glass walls overruled the nature

colours.

After constructing the building, a problem was found, what results in climate problems. Research found out

that multiple leaks in the frontage of the buildings caused this problem. As Mrs M. Drewes stated: ‘After the

heat scan we noticed the problem was dramatic, heat flows are continue coming into the building, but leaves

even quicker. You can’t imagine how many heat we lose, we try to work on a solution now’. This problem was

detected by the system that monitor the energy use. The university is satisfied with the programme for

detecting the leak, but a solution is not found yet, while they are a university who focus on technics and

developed an own heat protected system together with the local community. The university focussing on

sustainability and try to use this all over the campus. They also use a programmed system to monitor the

energy use and sustainable investments are made in several fields, e.g. automatic light sensors. The university

developed a sort of ‘cold circle’, this circle store solar energy and will use it again to heat the buildings. For

every new investments sustainability will be included.

The educational teaching spaces are divided in two types of rooms; ‘pool’ -and ‘year’ rooms. The so-called

‘pool’ rooms can be reserved by teachers of different faculties and is done by a scheduler, the ‘year’ are rented

by the social science faculty. During the visit Mrs M. Drewes showed a special poolroom. Before the building

was designed the university asked the stakeholders about their wishes, the teachers demanded for horse-

shaped classrooms, so they construct two of these rooms. In practice, these horse-shaped rooms are not used

as they were supposed, teachers placed an extra table on the side and do not use the innovative setting.

Further, the building is not designed for every activity of students or teachers, but is designed as a part of the

campus. There is no library, quiet study places and the catering facility is small, students can go to one of the

other buildings on the campus visit these places. The purpose of this building is ‘to meet’ others, work in

groups and follow courses with a maximum size of 90 students. This year the facilities group noticed that the

major part of the offices of the staff and academics where empty most part of the day. They calculated the

hours of attendance and reorganised the offices, 110 academics and staff members are placed extra in the

offices. A part of the offices are shared, but the different groups within the faculties need to adjust, this is still

not done much. The facilities group decided not to let student rent small group work rooms. Mrs M. Drewes

states; ‘We know the students, by knowing I mean, they will rent the whole year some rooms, so there is still a

small number of rooms available. We also did not placed presentation devices in the group work rooms,

because they will break it’.

The university of Twente use multiple online technologies in the learning space. Over 50% of the courses will be

recorded and also more than 50% of the courses can be followed by live streaming via the universities intranet.

Everywhere on the campus is Wi-Fi internet available, authenticated and not authenticated and e-books are


45

promoted. The facilities group notice that there is more need for power points in the building, they are

discussing it at the moment, but at the moment the university will not realise this because of the high

investment cost.

5.5.2 Results of the interview of the university of Wageningen

In this section we discuss the results of the interview, tour and the checklist of the university of Wageningen.

The interview was held with Mrs L. Zeeuwen, location manager of the Forum building at the university of

Wageningen.

The university saw a growth in student numbers of the social sciences, explicitly the number of bachelor

students where growing. For this reasons the Forum building is realized in 2007. As presented in section 5.3.2

the purpose and theme of the building was to place a monolith building in a green landscape, a sort of castle.

Inside the building there are many open spaces, balconies and layers, with accents on natural materials and

stone. The building is a part of a campus, but provides almost all activities what the stakeholders need.

After constructing the building the university noticed details that needs adjustment. In the beginning the users

complains about the climate in the building. After the complaints Mrs L. Zeeuwen did research about this

subject and concluded that it is normal that the climate in the buildings is not optimal in the beginning, it takes

at least 3 years to have a good climate. After multiple complains the facility team was thinking about solutions

to improve the climate, when the plans were made, the complains stopped, so only small adjustments were

made. Another problem were complains about the heat in the computer rooms. Students did some research

about the heat in the rooms, it results that the measured norms were conform the rules. To serve and adjust

the PC rooms better, the facilities team removed the ‘older’ computer cases with new small cases. This results

in less heat and the complains stopped. Further, the university make use of a so-called ‘heat-cold’ storage,

together with energy saving lightning, this saves 70% of the energy use in the last 3 years.

The educational learning environment is based on meeting each other. There are multiple spaces to sit, eat and

learn. The building consists of two catering facilities and a library. The library will adjust their spaces to create

more study places. The university notice that there is more need for individual study places in the library,

students take more often their own laptops and search for places in the library with power points. The facilities

team already created more power points, but wants to create more study places by removing archive cabinets.

At first there were possibilities to work in groups, but they removed these spaces, because of the need for

more individual study places. Some rooms are adjustable for different activities, walls between computer

rooms can be removed, to give practical’s to bigger groups and some big college rooms can be used for theatre

performances. The facility teams provided partitions for multiple activities in one room, but this was not

helpful. They moved the partitions to the balconies, where open spaces are divided for group work spaces. The

balconies are situated in the middle of the building in an open atrium, this caused noise disturbance while

students working individual in silence. To use the partitions for the group work spaces, the problems were

solved. The university do not make use of movable or flexible furniture, according to Mrs L. Zeeuwen; ‘It is not

about the furniture you use, but about the materials where you can adapt the space to use it for multiple

activities, like partitions or extra beamers’. The university provides over 25% of quiet study places, but have

minimal rooms for group work. Students cannot reserve rooms for group work, because Mrs L. Zeeuwen thinks

this costs too much time. The administrative offices are shared, there are no offices for academics available in

the building, they are situated at the Leeuwenborch building.

The technologies within the universities are not optimal yet. There are possibilities for videoconferencing, only

at 4 computers in the building. Electronic whiteboards are used in some classrooms, but still minimal. Renting

of e-books is coming up and recently an online calendar of available study advisors in online. There are screens

in the hall to provide information and wireless internet is available around the building. There are no

touchscreens available and the possibilities to recharge mobile devices are not serving the needs. According to

Mrs. L. Zeeuwen it is not needed to provide more power points, she thinks there are enough, while literature


46

research show the increasing needs for this.

Further, the university include students to develop green and sustainable plans, this is in line with the

specialization of the university; life sciences. The students and researchers work often together with the local

community, an example of a project is; Food Valley, a weekend full of sustainable food innovations. The

university make use of programmed systems to monitor energy and water, separate waste and sustainable

investments are important for Wageningen university.

5.5.3 Results of the university of Tilburg

In this section we discuss the results of the interview, tour and the checklist of the university of Wageningen.

The interview was held with Mrs M. Peeters , policy employee real estate of the Tilburg campus and of the

Prisma building at the university of Tilburg.

As presented in section 5.3.3 the Prisma building dates from the 70’s and serves as a temporary building, but

ended as the base building for the social sciences. Demolishing plans were made 2 years ago, the plans stopped

because of the economic crisis. At this moment they are busy to replace the students temporary elsewhere on

the campus and renovation will start soon. The catering facility is already renovated and the building is fused

with another building to offer more space for students. According to Mrs M. Peeters, ‘the building is not

representative and many complaints are coming in daily’. Some other weaknesses of the building is pests,

climate and the maintenance, a strength of the building is the renovated catering facility and the green

environment around the building.

The university adapt student-centred, problem based teaching methods and blended learning, according to

Mrs M. Peeters, blended learning is not used optimal yet, the majority of the teachers still use chalkboards

during classes. There is a possibility to follow extracurricular classes and also information and courses about

technologies are available.

The design of the building is overall a low-rise building, with grey colours and daylight is used minimum. After

the combination of the two buildings, the front-office is removed, this results in a small and unwelcoming

entrance. There are informal seating’s realized in the halls and the catering facility and the major part of the

furniture is flexible. A learning café is not situated in the building, but can be found in three other places on the

campus. There is no library situated in the building, because there is one central library on the campus. This

library consist of places with different functions, quiet study places and group work spaces are created. In the

building are approximately 500 employees situated, who share offices together. There are no flexible

workspaces in the building, most of the student work in the computer room or at different buildings on the

campus. According to Mrs M. Peeters ‘the design of the building is old and needs renewal in the design’.

The technological service ‘SpiTs’ is situated in the Prisma building, they try to renew most of the technologies in

the building and around the campus. The internet is accessible via Wi-Fi all over the campus and the SpiTs

group is busy to make plans to record courses and put them online. For the new building they try to use the m2

efficient as possible by recording classes college rooms, this can minimize classroom sizes. According to Mrs M.

Peeters it is hard to pervade this idea in the mind of the teachers. We give acknowledgement to the teachers to

start with recording classes, but teachers give resistance to this idea. They think that students will not come to

the classes anymore and will lose the feeling of real teaching. The idea that there is a screen between student

and teacher is not accepted with the major part of the teachers. In some buildings at the university the SpiTs

group provided electronic whiteboards and use touchscreens for information. The university do have the

possibility to link mobile devices to receive updates of the university network.

During the first plans of the new building for the social sciences students are asked to investigate the needs and

demands of students. Some examples of the demands are; a place to meet, the design needs to be light and

open, clear routing, a central entrance, front-office, contact with the ‘green’ environment outside, sustainable,

multifunctional, informal meeting spaces, flexible furniture, enough power points, eat/drink and study at the


47

same space, ‘living room idea’, partitions to divide rooms and the possibility to follow classes at home

(Tubergen, 2010). These aspects are according literature demands of a 21st

century learning space and

according to Mrs M. Peeters; ‘the opposite of what we have now’.

The sustainability aspects are not implemented in all suggested elements of the checklist. There is no

programmed system to monitor water use and sustainable investments are not made. Toners, cartridges,

hardware, paper and plastic are recycled, only the metal is not collected separate. The university includes

students in developing green and sustainable plans, to use the scientific knowledge of the student in practice.

5.6 Variance analyses As we present earlier in this chapter, variances between the three universities is present. In this section we

discuss the variances of the different aspects in the universities.

Core checklist

The university of Wageningen scores the highest at the educational aspects. Compared to the other two

universities Wageningen offers flexible scheduling and all information and courses are in English. All

universities state that they are an international university, only one provide courses in English.

At the spatial and design aspects the variance between Twente/Wageningen is remarkable compared to Tilburg

university (25% compared to 56,3 % of the other two universities). During the interviews the interviewee of the

university of Tilburg showed that the building of the social sciences on the campus is very old, this results in the

lower score of this aspect. Another remarkable item is that Twente university is the only university who provide

flexible workspaces for staff and students, while all universities share all administrative offices already. The

Wageningen university is the only building that has a library and focussing on quiet study areas (over 25%),

group work is not available in the library, while the other universities offer different kind of space activities in

their central libraries. The universities of Twente and Tilburg make use of different functions all over the

campus, while Wageningen university try to provide all activities in one building.

Considering the technological aspects of the universities the university of Twente results in the highest score of

the technological aspects in the learning space (69%) and the university of Tilburg results in the highest score of

the general technological aspects (50%). Innovative is the live streaming of classes at the Twente university,

because none of the other universities provides live streaming, which is an upcoming trend. None of the

universities implemented the technologies complete, at most of the items the universities using pilots or

provide only the functions in small amounts (electronic whiteboards, video conferencing, touchscreens). None

of the universities use online agendas of teachers for students to ask questions, only Wageningen university

provides this for study advisors. The reason why Tilburg university have a higher score on the general

technological aspects is because the students can link their mobile devices to the university network to receive

updates. Notable is that the university do not use an integrated software system, this means students cannot

log in on every computer on the campus, even in the newer buildings. The scores of this aspects have the mean

of the lowest scores of the core checklist

Additional checklist

At the first aspect of this checklist the variance between the scores is not high. The university of Wageningen

and Twente make use of the local communities to share their knowledge and implement these to the society,

while the university of Tilburg do not have that strong connections with their community. At the second aspect

of the additional checklist; organisation, all universities score 83% at the same items. All universities are

opened at least 12 hours a day, none of the universities opens it library 24 hours a day. At the last aspect of this

checklist; sustainability, the results of Twente/Wageningen (both 83%) are remarkable higher than the

university of Tilburg (28,6%). The Tilburg university prepare plans for a new social sciences building, until that

time the investments, waste collecting and the water use are not organised sustainable.


48

5.7 Results of the interviews with the experts In this chapter the results of the experts are presented. The goal of the interview with the experts are to

receive the knowledge and their view on the 21st

century learning spaces, in the field of their expertise. The

educational and technological views are discussed by Mr F. Evers and Mr E. Bomas of Kennisnet and the view of

the spatial aspect is given by Mr W. Van ‘t Hoog, senior project manager at Hevo. All experts are approached by

email and asked to share their vision on the 21st

century learning space. After replying all interviewees received

an email with; the results of the investigated universities, a compact version of the research so far and

questions related to their field of research. The interviewees of Kennisnet where interested in a face-to-face

interview, which resulted in a brain storm session about the future. During this meeting no structured

questions were asked, new ideas presented by the interviewees the researcher related to the future of

universities. Mr van ‘t Hoog replied by email, with comments and advises at the checklist. In section 5.7.1 the

results of the educational and technological are given and in section 5.7.2 the results of the spatial aspect are

given.

5.7.1 Results experts view on the educational and technological aspects

In this section we discuss the views of the experts Mr E. Bomas and Mr F. Evers on the educational and

technological aspects. The purpose of the interview was to discuss the several innovations and learning

methods that are going on and how a 21st

century learning space will look like in 10 years.

The focus of Kennisnet is to function as a guide for primary schools, high schools and practical oriented studies,

how they can adjust new technologies in (new) learning methods. Last year they developed a so-called ‘21st

century skills’ format. This format is developed with students and experts in the field of education and

technologies, according to them the 21st

century skills that students need are:

- Communication

- Collaboration

- ICT knowledge

- Creativity

- Critical thinking

- Problem solving skills

- Social and cultural skills (incl. citizenship)

To possess these skills, the learning environment needs to be adjusted. According to Mr E. Bomas and Mr. F.

Evers, the ‘flipped-classroom’ method, is an ongoing process that is partly adapted in universities and can help

to develop these skills. The idea of the flipped classroom is to present the preparation for the courses online, so

during a class teachers expect already a base of knowledge of the students. The students can prepare in their

own time and in their own learning speed and teachers can check if students did prepare or not. During class

the tutorial part can be shortened and the teachers can focus more on the cognitive developments of the

students and the group work. This will give more space for questions and personalized attention of the

teachers.

Both interviewees acknowledge that at primary schools it is easier to change the learning environment then at

high schools. At the primary schools, the classes are smaller, teachers are less, more integration and the

content of the subjects are easier to combine. In high schools or in higher education they notice, that teachers

are more focused on their field of expertise and it is harder to integrate studies. Mr. E. Bomas, stated; ‘I think

that there are also possibilities to use more integration within universities, but it has to do with the creativity of

the school. At primary schools we go outside and learn in nature how trees grow, but this creativity can also be

adapted in higher education, to focus more on the research of the projects, problem-based learning’. Students

of nowadays need to be creative and independence. A good example of an innovation of Kennisnet is ‘learning-


49

analytics’. This innovative method concerns the developments of the students and marks at an exam become

less important. The idea is that technologies can help in developing the cognitive state of the students.

Computer programs are built for students to practice their subjects, if students do well exercises get more

difficult and the other way around. Teachers are able to see in this programs what the strengths and the

weaknesses are of the students. It can give a general view of the level of the students and it give the teacher

the possibilities to adapt their courses at the knowledge of the students. Technologies can help to adaptive and

personalized learning progress.

Problems that exists in these learning environments are the changing roles of the teachers and with the laws

and regulations. If students need to prepare more at home and teachers are function more as a coach, the base

of studies change. The hours teachers spend to present the materials online, are less than teaching a full day,

multiple discussions are going on this subject.

Mr. E. Bomas elaborates on some scenario’s in the future; ‘I think the focus of the place of university become

less important and the integration of universities all over the world gets more important. I see in 10 years an

integration between (inter) national universities, that students have the chance to follow online courses at any

university and that examination will be online and every student has a personalized learning path’. Mr. F. Evers

thinks a scenario where universities and higher education providers are integrated more. He see already an

integration of both levels, ‘popular professional oriented studies are already provided on universities.

Previously the norm of higher educated students in the Netherlands was 5%- 10%, now the government focus

on 50% of the people are higher educated. This is why the level of universities became lower and integrations

between the universities and higher education is already going on’. According to Mr. E. Bomas, studies need to

be more specialized, so students can learn a base knowledge, that can be expanded by a study while they are

working in a company. The disadvantage of this is when a company goes bankrupt, persons need start studying

again to specialize for another company.’

5.7.2 Results experts view spatial

In this section the results of the experts view on the spatial aspects are presented. Mr ir. W. van `t Hoog, Senior

project manager at Hevo. Expert in the field of spatial and design of sustainable (university) buildings, is

approached to give his view bout the spatial developments and about the investigated universities.

In common, Mr. van ‘t Hoog see not significant differences between the checklists and the interviews. He

presented his view of importance at the checklists at the different universities. The items of importance

according to Mr van ‘t Hoog are presented here.

High importance level

- Shared offices for academics (for 3-6 persons) instead of single rooms

- Flexible workspaces

- Quiet study areas

- Small spaces that can be reserved for group work

- Group work spaces provided with presentation devices

The weight of the presented importance items are taken into account in the discussion and conclusion.

Mr van ‘t Hoog expect that students of this century will work for the most time at home and log in on the

university network to follow online courses and namely for contact with the co-workers of the groups they

work in. According to Mr. van ‘t Hoog, students will still go the universities, but with a different purpose.

Students are coming to the university to have contact with their teachers one-on-one. An important issue is the

ability to reach the universities, students must be able to reach the university quickly from the city-centre. He

has his doubts about the campus ideas outside of the city, because it can ‘isolate’ students. The idea of the

Wageningen university to build a castle, where all facilities are included, have not he’s preferences. Mr van ‘t

Hoog argues; ‘It is probably better to integrate a city in the middle of a (big) city-centre, then to place a campus


50

somewhere outside the centre, because students are less flexible.’

6. Conclusion and discussion In this chapter we will conclude and discuss the results of the checklists , interviews, observations and

literature research. In these conclusions and discussions the questions Q1.4 What educational interventions are

needed to adapt in a 21st century learning space? Q1.5 What spatial interventions are needed to adapt to a

21st century learning space? Q1.6 What technological interventions are needed to a 21st century learning

space? Q1.7 To what extent do universities currently have adapted their learning environments to a 21st

century learning space? are answered.

After analysing all three universities by checklist, tour/observation and interview several conclusions can be

drawn from our findings. The total score of the university of Twente is 64,2%, Wageningen 66,2% and Tilburg

36,9% of a total of 100%. Before concluding the meaning of the results, a distinction between the universities

need to be made. The buildings of the universities of Twente and Wageningen are relatively new buildings

(2010,2007), whereas the building of the Tilburg university dates from the 70’s. Therefore the university of

Tilburg do not score high at the spatial/design aspect of the research (25%), it does not mean the scores on the

other aspects should be low either. In literature research we found that technology has not made many

demands on the size of renewal of learning space designs, but about the organization of the technological

adjustments in the learning space. Wireless enabled laptops and wireless networks means that any university

space, inside or outside, can now quite easily be used for ICT-based learning methods and the use of

technologies (Temple, 2007). Other results of the literature study show a need of specific design and spatial

needs to adapt on a 21st

century learning space, most of these spaces are areas who can use flexible for

different (technological driven) activities (e.g. provide open study spaces or classrooms based on technologies).

These needs are not certainly asked in the core checklist, so we can conclude that the older design of the

Prisma building at the university of Tilburg can be measured separately from the technological aspects in the

checklist. While concluding this, the scores of the university of Tilburg at the aspects; technology in the learning

space and technology are also relatively low (37,5% and 50%). For the results of the core checklists of the

university of Tilburg it means that they are only adapt their technological learning environment for 43,75%.

This result show that the possibility to adjust technologies in the learning space is not fully used, because the

adjustments on the checklist are predominantly answered with ‘no’. We showed that there is no relation

between the spatial and technological aspects and still results stay relatively low, which shows not enough

technological adjustments. Some interventions about technology in the learning space can be made, without

adjusting spatial aspect. If the university starts with audio-visual recording, live streaming and video

conferencing, technologies in the learning space will be upgraded already.

Not only the university of Tilburg can make small interventions towards audio-visual possibilities, also the

university of Wageningen do not use live streaming. During the interview at the university of Tilburg, Mrs M.

Peeters stated; “It is hard to pervade the idea of taping classes in the mind of teachers. Teachers think that

students will not come to classes anymore and that they will lose the feeling of real teaching “. These thoughts

may have a negative effect on recording classes. At the Wageningen university the teachers were also anxious

towards recording their classes, but in practice it works efficiently. Teachers thought students would attend the

classes more online than in real life, but the occupancy rate is the same as before the use of audio-visual.

Students experience these service positive. In the literature we found that live streaming of classes is already

integrated at several universities in the United Stated and the United Kingdom(JISC, 2006). Literature proves

this service is upcoming and will become more important in a 21st

century learning space. As the experts of

Kennisnet, Mr E. Bomas stated; ‘At primary schools web-based lectures are integrated and used more often,

we use the flipped-classroom. For young learners it is normal to prepare their classes at home via online

videos”. To let the teachers realize the effect of recording/live streaming classes, they can visit the

Wageningen university or university of Twente, to see the service in practice and to hear the experiences of


51

students. Practice experiences may help to change the mind-set of the teachers of the university of Tilburg. An

interesting intervention for all universities in the Netherlands, is to elaborate with each other and Kennisnet

about the future of web-based teaching, the possibilities, current use and trends.

If we look to the educational aspects of the checklist at the universities, only at the university of Wageningen

all information is provided in English, while all three stated on the website and during the interview that they

are an international oriented university. In literature study we found that more students go abroad, universities

will become more international oriented and the language need to be English. Also the experts of Kennisnet

foresee in the future more integration of following online courses between universities all over the world,

where also the mean language is English. These findings are in contrast with the results of the university of

Twente and Tilburg, where the majority of classes are given in Dutch. The investigated universities presents

they are an international oriented university, while they not use the main world language in the learning space.

This shows that the university of Twente and Tilburg are not developed to an international university, while

they present they are. These universities should not present that they are international. An intervention for the

universities of Twente and Tilburg can be; adjust all information and courses in English, to become an

international oriented university.

About the spatial aspects it is remarkably that all three universities share the offices for the administrative

functions, but academics do not share their offices (if they were situated in the building) and there is a lack of

flexible workspaces. We can conclude that universities start with sharing offices of the staff, but it does not

mean this is directly a move towards a 21st

century learning space. At the university of Twente they use shared

offices to place all staff members, because there is a lack of space and they noticed that not all offices are used

all day. It is not based on the theory of SMG (2006), to provide a non-stop-shop for students. We can conclude

that at the university of Twente shared offices are used to save costs and place all staff and not to provide a

service for students. An intervention the university of Twente should overcome is to place related services for

students together, it will improve the accessibility for students to gather information at one place.

As we saw in literature, it became normal to bring mobile devices into universities, none of the investigated

universities provide enough space or power points to use these mobile devices. If we look to the Forum

building of the Wageningen university, they already created some extra work spaces and power points, but in

the new building that is under construction, still not enough power points are created. According to Mrs L.

Zeeuwen, the need for this service will not be that high, while literature proves that there is a need. During the

interview, Mrs L. Zeeuwen stated that the university will create more study areas. An intervention the

university can overcome is to do an investigation about the needs of the number of power points and create

more. Also at the university of Twente there are less power points. According to literature it is important to

provide a learning space with enough technologies to make it possible to study, so also the university of

Twente should investigate the number of needs of power points.

The expert in the field of spatial university designs, Mr van ‘t Hoog, shows in his results the most importance

spatial aspects of the checklist within universities. The aspects with a high importance level are: shared offices

for academics, flexible work spaces, quiet study areas small spaces that can be reserved for group work and

group work spaces provided with presentation devices. Results are presented in table ?.

7. Shared offices for academics (for 3-6 persons) instead of single rooms 0 0 0

10. Flexible workspaces 1 0 0

11. Quiet study areas 0 1 0

15. Small spaces that can be reserved for group work 0 0 0

16. Group work spaces provided with presentation devices 0 0 0 Table: ? First column results of Twente, second; Wageningen, third; Tilburg

The scores on these items are relatively low. The university of Twente is the one that provides flexible


52

workspaces and the university of Wageningen is the one that focus on quiet study areas (20% - 25% of the

building). None of the investigated universities have the possibility for group work spaces, what is rated by the

expert as an important item. The experts of Kennisnet also suggested that an important item to adapt on a 21st

century learning space is flexible workspaces, where different activities can happen in one room. These should

contain; quiet study areas, spaces for group work and practice oriented areas. If we look at the literature

research multiple research confirm the need of flexible workspaces, an example of Temple (2007) “There are

opportunities when new building or remodelling takes place to provide learning spaces that seem likely to

improve the experience of learning and teaching by applying intelligent and flexible design, probably at

minimal extra cost “. These flexible spaces are needed to combine the curricula and non-curricula activities of

the students and staff. We can conclude that a 21st

century space needs multiple flexible workspaces in a

university building, while none of the investigated universities provide such spaces. An intervention for all three

investigated universities is; change traditional settings of rooms to more flexible workspaces. Practical

interventions can be; use partitions or replace solid walls to stackable walls if the rooms are small. Also open

spaces like the seating’s at catering facilities can be used to work flexible.

If we look to the sustainability aspects of the additional checklist we can conclude that all the universities of

Wageningen and Twente adjust sustainability more in their environment than Tilburg university (83%, 83% and

28,6% for Tilburg university). Sustainability is a common trend in the 21st

century learning environment, but is

worldwide not used optimal. In literature we found for example; “Many institutions start the sustainability

journey with waste reduction or energy efficiency improvements, but then do not move beyond this low-

hanging fruit”(Senge, 2008). Although the universities of Twente and Wageningen score relatively high on this

aspect, a more comprehensive approach may be needed. An intervention for these universities could be; reuse

ICT generated heat. Tilburg university may adjust sustainable aspects with starting renovations our at the start

of the new building plan (Senge, 2008). All three universities may improve their catering facility with

sustainable products.

Overall, in this research we can conclude that Wageningen university and the university of Twente adapted

some of the adjustments of a 21st

century learning space and the university of Tilburg did this only slightly. Now

we can discuss the purpose of the adjustments the universities made. According to Mr Evers; “The adjustments

that were made to the investigated universities, where probably done with the idea of ‘we got some money

left for it, so let’s do this adjustment’, but not with the purpose to invest in the learning environment”’.

Kennisnet notice that many universities adjust some ideas of a 21st

century learning space, but mostly with the

intention to save costs and to provide a ‘nice building’, not for the need of the students. At primary schools this

focus is changing towards more 21st

century learning environments, while universities stay behind. This

argument is confirmed within the relatively new buildings of the universities of Twente and Wageningen. Most

spaces within the buildings are designed for teaching or studying, but not for the mixed activities and needs of

the students (e.g. learning café, flexible workspaces). The Forum and Ravelijn building exists for major part of

the vision of the architects and of the board of the universities view; to have a good-looking building at minimal

costs to attract students. We can conclude that the mind-set of these universities are slightly moving towards

the change in the learning environment, especially changes at technologies in the learning spaces are

upcoming, but they are not adjusted yet to a 21st


These conclusions answers the specific research questions Q1.4 until Q1.7. The main reason question: “What

technological-spatial interventions can and do Dutch universities commit to make their learning environment fit

to a 21st

century learning space?” answer is derived from the results of the specific research questions. To

make a learning environment within universities fit to a 21st

century learning space, universities need to create

flexible workspaces for students; learning café, small spaces for group work, spaces with multiple purposes at

the same time, quiet study areas and shared offices (non-stop-shop). These spatial interventions need to be

combined with the technology in the learning space; electronic whiteboards, live streaming (and recording) of

classes, Mlearning, enough power points, use of technologies in the class by teachers and web-based learning.


53

Important for the technological aspects is a transparent intranet with the needed possibilities ( e.g. online;

library (e-books), agenda of study advisors/teachers and easy access to the needed information students need),

the adjustment of all stakeholders within a university and their environment.

7. Managerial implications In this chapter we go in-depth of the managerial implications of the needed interventions, what this research

mean for the universities in practice and in section 8.1 further research will be explained.

As already presented at the end of chapter 6, results show there is a need for flexible workspaces, combined

with innovative technologies and suitable web-based and student-centred teaching methods. To adjust the

three variables; education, spatial and technology in the learning space, a well-balanced combination between

these three variables is needed to provide a 21st

century learning space. In the investigated universities there is

some awareness and adjustment of the three variables. To create an environment that fits within a university

the awareness of the need of adjustment must be present. These awareness can be enlarged considering the

the additional variables; stakeholders, organisation and sustainability. These additional variables are needed to

apply the ‘balance’ between the three core variables; education, spatial and technology. Universities in the

Netherlands can use this research to improve their adjustments.

Awareness

At first universities needs a some stakeholders at the board of the university that are aware of the need of

adjustment of the learning space. To help changing the mind-set and to create the awareness of the board

members, results of this research (checklist, result investigated universities) and further research (e.g. JISC

(2006), Temple, (2007), Jamieson (2000,2003) or other sources from the reference list) can be used. The

‘stakeholders’ is the important variable at this phase, because they need to get the adjustment done. It is

useful to ask the stakeholders within the university (learners, teachers, staff) about their needs and to connect

with the local community for collaboration (sustainable projects) and general awareness in the environment of

the learning space.

Focus

If the awareness is present, the role of ‘organization’, will enlarge. To implement the awareness a group of

mixed stakeholders (teachers, students, experts in the fields of the core variables, facility managers, staff,

architects, constructors and the local community) needs to be established. They need to organize subgroups of;

educational, spatial and technological aspects and need to integrate their ideas and plans. To test how far

these variables are adjusted to a 21st

century learning space, the checklist in annex ? can be used to measure

the level of adjustment.

Education

At the educational aspect a focus is needed on methods; web-based teaching, student-centred teaching,

problem-based methods. The second focus needs to be on the stakeholders; more international students,

organise workshops for teachers (changing role teachers advisor/coach), change of student time and

network with universities and student organisations. Information: provide everything in English, online

information, share with local communities and other stakeholders. Integrate technologies in the education:

Mlearning, virtual learning environment, needed technologies educational software (information Kennisnet,

annex ? for interview). Spaces: adjustable spaces for teaching.

Technologies

Consider the needed technologies for the educational aspects: methods, materials and (online) information.

Provide in materials for audio-visual services, innovative teaching technologies (e.g. electronic whiteboards)

Wi-Fi network, accessibility of the network/intranet, Mlearning and adjustments for technologies in the spaces.

Develop, use and introduce sustainable technologies in- and outside the learning space (programmes to


54

monitor energy- and water use, generate ICT heat)

Spatial

Use the elements presented at the parts of this chapter about educational and technologies and create flexible

workspaces. Create a learning café, library (consist of different activities such as group work and quiet study

spaces), provide informal seating’s, provide spaces outside the university and of campus to function as study

space, share offices and create flexible workspaces (with enough power points in whole building). Several

guidelines to improve the university space use by activities are; Design space for multiple uses concurrently an

consecutively, design to maximize the inherent flexibility within each space, design to make use of the vertical

dimension in facilities:, design to integrate campus functions, design features and functions to maximize

teacher and student control:, design to maximize alignment of different curricula activities, design to maximize

student access to, and use and ownership of, the learning environment. Design spaces with durable materials

and sustainable technologies (automatic light sensors, stone floors, natural lightning), contract architect from

the beginning of the processes, to create the awareness and need of the function of a 21st

century learning

space.

Implications

Develop an integrated plan with the educational, technological and spatial needs. Create awareness of the plan

under all stakeholders and start with renewals in the core variables, make decisions (renovate/new building,

incremental/radical innovations) and start the plan to fit the learning environment in a 21st

century learning

space.

7.1 Further research We have done research at three out of the 14 universities situated in the Netherlands at the three different

types (general; Tilburg, technical; Twente, specialized Wageningen). To give an overall view of the fit of

universities in the Netherlands to a 21st

century learning environment, further research is needed. Research is

needed in more universities of the general and technical universities. Also the research is done qualitatively at

universities in the Netherlands, because there is a lack of literature of the adjustments to a 21st

century

learning environment in the Netherlands. Neither are there qualitative results about the adjustment of

universities, this needs further research.

This research can use as base to check the adjustment of a university. For further implementation of new ways

of learning in a 21st

century additional information about the research variables, university itself and

environment is needed.


55

Reference

Ackoff, R.L. & Greenberg, D (2008), Turning Learning Right Side Up: Putting Education Back on Track. Publishing as Prentice Hall, Upper Sadle River, New Jersey. Altbach, P.G. (1988). Forum Comparative Perspectives on Higher Education for the Twenty-first Century. Higher Education Policy 11 (4): 346-56 Astleinter, H. (2003) WEB-BASED INSTRUCTION AND LEARING: what do we know from experimental research? Towards the virtual university: international online perspectives.

Banham, R. (1976). Megastructure: Urban Futures of the Recent Past. London: Thames and Hudson

Barr, R.B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning. Change, 27(6), 13-25

Baty, P. (2007). ‘Open-plan risk to collegiality’. The times higher education supplement. March 16th

, p.2.

Beck, R.H. (2009). The Three R’s Plus: What Today’s Schools are Trying to Do and Why. U of Minnesota Press. Pp. 3-6.

BECTA (2003). What the research says about portable ICT devices in learning and teaching. 2003. Retrieved on

03-04-2012, from: http://www.becta.org.uk/research/reports/docs/wtrs_porticts.pdf

Bennet, S. (2006). First Questions for Designing Higher Education Learning Spaces. The Journal of Academic

Librarianship. Volume 33, number 1, 14-26

Bickle, P. (2001). Architecture Australia, 90, 48–51.

Biocchi, M. (2011). "Games in the Classroom". Gaming in the Classroom. http://educationtech.ca/2011/03/24/games-in-the-classroom/. Retrieved 24 March 2012.

Blackburn, W.R. (2007). The sustainability handbook. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. Bradwell, P. (2009). The edgeless university: Why higher education must embrace technology. Demos, London.

Brasser, B. (2012) Ipad-basisschool komt dichterbij. Published at the free newspaper; Metro Netherlands. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.metronieuws.nl/nieuws/ipad.../SrZlcA!boEtEQWVHHxH2/

Brown, M. (2005). “Learning Spaces”, in Educating the Net Generation, D. G. Oblinger and J. L. Oblinger, eds. Retrieved January 12, 2012, from http://www.educause.edu/LearningSpaces/6072

Brown M.B., Lippincott, J.K. (2003). Learning spaces: More than Meets the Eye. Educase quarterly, number 1, 2003.

Bruinsma, M. (2003), “Effectiveness of higher education: factors that determine outcome of “university education”, PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit, Groningen. Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Chism, N. (2006). Challenging traditional assumptions an rethinking learning spaces. In Learning spaces, ed. D. Oblinger. Washingon, DC: Educause

Cobban, A.B. (1992). Universities: 100-1500. In The Encyclopedia of Higher Education, eds. B.R. Clark and G.R. Neave, 1245-51. Oxford: Pergamon

Cox, A.M. (2011). Students’ Experience of University Space: An Exploratory Study. International Journal of

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Sheffield University. Volume 23, number 2. 197-207

Daniel, J. (1998). Mega-universities and knowledge media: technology strategies for higher education. London:

http://www.educause.edu/LearningSpaces/6072


56

Kogan Page.

Dearing R., (1996) Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (London, DfEE publications centre). Retrieved on 20

th of March 2012. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi. pp. 1–5.

Dronkers, J. (1993). Educational Reform in the Netherlands: Did It Change the Impact of Parental Occupation and Education? Sociology of Education, Vol 66, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), 262-277 DUO (2012) Wetsvoorstel “Studeren is investeren”. Retrieved on 20th of March 2012. http://www.ib-

groep.nl/particulieren/themas/overheidsplannen_voor_studiefinanciering.asp#Overzicht_maatregelen_wetsvo

orstel_‘Studeren_is_investeren’

Edwards, B. (2000). Uniersity architecture. London: Spon Press Filius, R. & Kresin, F. (2010). ICT als ondersteuning van onderwijs, opleiden en leren: wat staat ons te wachten?

In Handboek effectief opleiden. 58-89

Foster, J. (2000). "Virtual Universities – Institutional Issues for Information Professionals". Jonathan Foster, looks at the institutional implications of networked approaches to learning. Ariadne, issue 25, Sep 2000

Fort, M. (2006). Educational Reforms Across Europe: A Toolbox for Empirical Research. First edition. University

of Padova

Greenwood, P. M. (2007). Functional plasticity in cognitive aging: Review and hypothesis. Neuropsychology, 21, 657–673. JISC. (2006). Designing Spaces for Effective Learning – A Guide To 21

st Century Space Design. Retrieved January

11, 2012, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/learningspaces.pdf

Hashimshony, R. & Haina, J. (2006). Designing the University of the Future. Society for College and University

Planning (SCUP). Planning for Higher Education.

Hunley S. &Schaller M. (2009) Assessment: The Key to Creating Spaces That Promote Learning. EDUCAUSE

Review, vol. 44, no. 2 (March/April 2009): 26-36

Hutchinson, L. (2003) Clinical review ABC of learning and teaching. Educational environment. Published at 12

April, 2003.

Jamieson, P., Fisher, K., Gilding, T., Taylor, P., & Trevitt, A. (2000). Place and space in the design of new learning

environments. Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 221-236

Jamieson, P., (2003). ‘Designing more effective on-campus teaching and learning spaces: a role for academic

developers’. International Journal for Academic Development, 8, 119-33.

Jansen, E.P.W.A. (1996), “Curriculumorganisatie en studievoortgang” (“Curriculum organisation and study progress”), PhD thesis, GION, Groningen. Kearney, P. (1991) College Teacher Misbehaviors: What Students Don. Communication Quarterly39(4):309-24. Keefe, J.W., & Jenkins, J.M. (2000) Personalized instruction: Changing classroom practice. Larchmont: Eye On Education, Inc. Kerr, C. (1995). The Uses of the University. 4

th edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. 3th

edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/learningspaces.pdf


57

King, H. (2000). The academic library in the 21

st century – what need for a physical place? International

Association of Technological University Libraries (IATUL), Brisbane, Australia

King, P. & Mayhew, M. (2004). Theory and research on the development of moral reasoning among college students. Higher Educaton: Handbook of Theory and Research, 19, 375-440. Kok, H.B., Mobach, M.P., Omta, O.S.W.F. (2011) The added value of facility management in the educational

environment. FM in the educational environment. Journal of Facilities Management, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 249-265

Kuh, G., Kinzie. J., Schuh, J., Whitt. E. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bas

Lefebvre, H. (2010). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell

Lehner, F., H. Nösekabel, et al. (2002). Wireless E-Learning and Communication Environment - WELCOME at the

University of Regensburg. 2002. Retreived on 03-04-2012: http://www-

mobile.uniregensburg.de/freiedokumente/Submission/WELCOME.pdf

Lippincot, J. (2006). ‘Linking the information commoncs to learning’. In D. Oblinger (ed.), learning spaces.

Washington, DC: Educause

Marmot Associates (2006). Spaces for learning: A review of learning spaces in further and higher education.

Retrieved March 26th

, 2012. Hhtp://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/Resources/external-resources/sfc-spaces-for-

learning

MCEETYA (2008). Learning spaces framework. Learning in an online world. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (Australia and New Zealand). McConnell, J., & Alexander, K. (2012). A servicescape for learning: theoretical foundations and practical implications. 11

th EuroFM Research Symposium: Added Value delivered by FM.

McGrath, D. (2003). Artifacts and Understanding. Learning & Leading with Technology, Feb. 2003. Vol. 30, No. 5

McParlan, M., Noble, L.M., Livingston, G. (2004). The effectiveness of problem-based learning compared to traditional teaching in undergraduate psychiatry. Medical education 2004, 38; 859-867. Blackwell Publishing ltd.

Merkel, J. & Litten, L. (2007). The sustainability challenge. New Directions for Institutional Research, 134, 7-25.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. (Reissued in soft cover, 1991. Translated into Swedish and Korean.)

Milne, Andrew J. (2006). “Designing Blended Learning Space to the Student Experience.” Chapter 11 in Oblinger, D. (ed.). Learning Space Design. Retrieved January 23, 2012, from http://www.educause.edu/learningspacesch11

Monahan, T. (2002) “Flexible Space and Built Pedagogy: Emerging IT Embodiments,” Inventio, vol. 4, no. 1. More, J. (2005). Seven recommendations for creating sustainability education at the university level A guide for change agents. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 326-339. Emerald Group Publishing Limited National Academy of Education (2009). Standards, assessments and accountability. Education policy white paper.

Oblinger, D.G. (2006). Learning Spaces. Educause. Retrieved March 6th, 2012.


58

www.educause.edu/LearningSpaces O’Malley, C., Vavoula, G., Glew, J., Sharples, M., Lefrere, P. (2003) WP 4 – GUIDELINES FOR LEARNING/TEACHING/TUTORING IN A MOBILE ENVIRONMENT. MOBIlearn/UoN,UoB,OU/D4.1/1.0 Osterbeek, H. & Webbink D, (2004). Wage Effects of an Extra Year of Lower Vocational Education: Evidence from a Similtaneous Change of Compulsory School Leaving Age and Program Length. Unpublished, March 2004.

Partnership for 21st

century skills, (2009). 21st

century Learning Environments.

Pink, D.H. (2006) A whole new mind. United States of America: Riverhead Books. Plug, E. J. S.(2001) Season of Birth, Schooling and Earnings. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22:641– 660. Rees, W. (2003), “Impeding sustainability? The ecological footprint of higher education”, Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 88-98. Reeves, T. C. (1998). The Impact of Media and Technology in Schools

Richey, R.C. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT Definitions of the Field. TechTrends. 52(1) 24-25

Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of american educational technology. Englewood, CO; Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Schuddeboom, J. (2011), De Luie Leraar; Joost van Oort flipt de classroom. Retrieved January 13, 2012 http://jordenschuddeboom.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/joost-van-oort-flipt-de-classroom/ Senge, P. (2008). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. New York: Doubleday. Sharp, L. (2002). Green campuses: The road from little victories to systemic transformation. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 3(2), 128-145. Simons, R.J., van der Linden, A.A.M., van der Linden, J., & Duffy, T. (2000) New learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer academics publishers. Slater, J. (2005). Spent force or revolution in progress?: eLearning after the eUniveristy Oxford: Higher

education Policy Institute

Smith, L. (1999). The future of technology in teaching – teachers need to learn more about teaching computer

skills. USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), March 1999.

Smith, T. (2003). Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) in Education (CSD2724): Joint Information Systems Committee.

Soloway, E., Norris, C., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., and Marx, R. (2001). Log on education: Handheld devices are ready-at-hand. CACM 44(6), pg 15-20.

Sun associates (1997). A Project-Based Learning Activity About Project-Based Learning. Updated at 3-2-2012. Retrieved on 6 March 2012. http://www.sun-associates.com/lynn/pbl/pbl.html#3 TCET, (2010). History of educational technology by the Texas Center for Educational Technology. Rertrieved on 20 May 2012. http://www.tcet.unt.edu/weblibrary2/overview/?id=33&PHPSESSID=1f41402407f2621f9827509fa7a8d6e8 Temple, P. & Barnett R. (2007). Higher education space: Future directions. Planning for Higher education. 36(1),

http://www.educause.edu/LearningSpaces

http://jordenschuddeboom.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/joost-van-oort-flipt-de-classroom/

http://www.sun-associates.com/lynn/pbl/pbl.html#3

http://www.tcet.unt.edu/weblibrary2/overview/?id=33&PHPSESSID=1f41402407f2621f9827509fa7a8d6e8


59

5-15 Temple, P. (2007). Learning spaces for the 21

st century: A review of the Literature, Higher education Academy,

New York. Temple, P (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: an under-researched topic. London Review of Education, Routledge, London. Volume 6, number 3, November 2008, 229-241.

The United States Chamber of Commerce and the center for American Progress (2007). Joint Platform for Education Reform. Center for American Progress.

Toynbee Wilson, (2002). “HEFCE Strategic Plan 206-11”, Higher Education Funding Council, UK.

Tremblay, E. (2010) "Educating the Mobile Generation – using personal cell phones as audience response systems in post-secondary science teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 2010, 29(2), 217-227. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.". http://editlib.org/p/32314. Retrieved at 29-03-2012.

Vaus de, D. (2001). Research design in social research, SAGE Publications Ltd

Verschuren, P. & Doorewaard, H. (2010). Designing a research project. 2nd edition, Boom Lemma publishers.

VSNU (2011). Alle 14 universiteiten. Retrieved on 10th

of January 2012).

http://www.vsnu.nl/Universiteiten/Alle-universiteiten.htm

Waldeck, J. (2007). Answering the question: Student perceptions of personalized education and the construct’s

relationship to learning outcomes. Communication Education 56(4):409-432

Wheeler, S. (2001) Information and communication technologies and the changing role of the teacher. Journal of Educational Media 26(1):7-17.

Whiteside, A. and Fitzgerald, S. (2008). Designing Spaces for Active Learning. Retrieved January 23, 2012, from http://www.informedesign.umn.edu/_news/jan_v07r-pr.2.pdf

Wordcloud, http://stevevosloo.com/2008/11/

Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Third Edition, Applied Social Research Methods

Series, Vol 5

Zemsky, R., Wegner, G. & Massy, W. (2005). Remaking the American university: Marketsmart and mission-centered. Pitscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

http://editlib.org/p/32314


60

Annex 1: Key issue checklist

Checklist Tilburg University

Core aspects of a 21st century learning space

Education aspects Yes No

1. Student-centred and problem based teaching method Students are instructed to solve and study by themselves, instead of only learning from

books

2. Stimulate and provide group work Teachers are instructed to give at least one group work assignment during a course

3. Blended learning Face-to-face communication mixed with ICT during a course

4. Flexible scheduling Students have the choice in at least 75% of the periods to choose their courses

5. Provide all information and courses in English

6. Extracurricular courses in using specialized technologies for students At least one course in: how to use Endnote or the statistical program SPSS

7. Provide courses for teachers, librarians, researchers and other staff about technologies?

At least one course how to deal with the intranet and additional software

8. Provide information for teachers, librarians, researchers and other staff about technologies?

There is at least one channel (e.g. papers or intranet) how to use the technologies

within the university

9. The courses during a period are in the same building At least 75% of the courses are in the same building

10. Small classes for personalized education Classrooms or courses for maximum 30 students for at least one course in a period

Design/spatial aspects Yes No

1. Flexible (movable) furniture in classrooms Easily transferable furniture that is certificated

2. Informal seating’s in halls At least 3 lounge places in the building (e.g. couch or flexible chairs for relaxing)

3. Maximum use of natural light Every room has at least one side full of windows or ceiling windows


61

4. Sound-absorbing materials At floors, walls and ceilings (at least 2 of these items)

5. Specialised lightning considered for the activity in that area At least one example of an area or room in the building that can be shown

6. Ability of partitions that are tackable Sound absorbing panels available in open learning spaces

7. Shared offices for academics (for 3-6 persons) instead of single rooms At least 80% of the offices need to be shared

8. Shared offices for administrative activities instead of single rooms All administrative offices need to be shared with at least 2 persons

9. Library that consists of quiet study areas and space for group work At least 2 different activity spaces in the library

10. Flexible workspaces At least one area with flexible workspaces who can be used by staff and teachers

11. Quiet study areas At least a number of spaces for 10% of the number of students that officially are

located in the building

12. Areas outside the building suitable for individual or small group activities Show at least one spot outside that is suitable (e.g. pick nick tables)

13. Learning cafe where it is possible to eat/drink and learning, but also available for group work

Show the possibility for these activities in the café

14. Welcoming entrance The building has a front-office in the entrance, signs for routing are presented at the

front

15. Small spaces that can be reserved for group work At least a number of spaces for 10% of the number of students that officially are

located in the building, small spaces are at least for 4 persons.

16. Group work spaces provided with presentation devices (e.g. beamer, electronic whiteboard)

Technology in the learning space Yes No

1. Make use of intranet (blackboard etc.) to provide course information Every course need to have their own page on the intranet

2. Use electronic books (e-books) The university provides software and literature for e-books

3. Use video conferencing via internet provided by the university Video conferencing must be possible on every computer within the university


62

4. Digital library per faculty Share and upload knowledge by the university (reports, articles etc.) per faculty

5. Students producing knowledge online in databases At least 1 online channel

6. Class video- or audio recordings available online At least for 50% of a course

7. Live streaming of classes via intranet At least for 50% of a course

8. Use of electronic whiteboards in class At least for 50% of a course (e.g. during practical’s)

9. Use technologies for presentation during class At least the possibility to present on a beamer

10. Digital connection to library

(e.g. to reserve books, papers or extend loan duration)

11. A calendar for teachers who are available online for feedback and questions At least one teacher for a course

12. A calendar for study advisors who are available online for information and questions

At least one study advisor

13. Use of social media to give students feedback At least for internships or studies outside the university (e.g. facebook, msn, twitter,

skype or other social media programs)

14. Online examining The availability for students who follow an internship or course outside the university

15. Online assessment (e.g. upload reports via intranet) At least for every course

16. Integrated software system

Technological aspects Yes No

1. Wireless internet available in and around the university Authenticated

2. Link electronic devices (e.g. mobile to university network) to receive direct updates

3. Touchscreens provided in the building for information At least nearby the entrance

4. Digital information provided on screens in halls

5. Possibility for recharging mobile devices in the library, classroom and learning cafe

At least 1 power-point per 2 students in 2 of the named areas


63

6. Self-service book machines (a machine that is used in libraries to pick electronic the selected books out of the

digital catalogue)

Checklist

Additional aspects of a 21st century learning space

Stakeholders Yes No

1. Stocktaking of demands and needs of students and teachers (e.g. in technologies, education, spatial preferences)

2. Local communities make use of the university The knowledge of the research what is done in the university will be used in local

projects, give one example

3. Communicate with other universities (inter)national to broaden study programs of students?

At least one website page on the intranet must show the connection between

universities

4. Part-time students Students who follow only distance learning (no physical attendance)

Organisation Yes No

1. Plan for continuous sustainable ICT renewal At least every half year the plan will be discussed and renewed

2. Include students in developing green/sustainable plans At least include students with a study background that focus on sustainability

3. Evaluate spatial renewals in the building by surveys At least evaluate after a renewal with a survey among students and staff randomly

4. University provide information about funding and support online At least on website page on the university website provides information about funding

and support

5. Opening hours of the building at least from 8.00 until 20.00 hour Outside working hours is the building accessible with a university card

6. Library opening 24 hours a day Outside working hours is the library accessible with a university card

Sustainability

1. Programmed systems to monitor water use

2. Programmed systems to monitor energy use


64

3. Sustainable investments At least one example of sustainable investments (higher costs investment than not

sustainable investment)

4. Recycling toners, cartridges, paper and hardware At least 2 of the named items will be recycled

5. Separate waste collection (plastic, paper, metal) Show it

6. Recycle ICT-generated heat Show it

7. Catering facility that serves sustainable food/drinks At least 50% of the assortment needs to have sustainable certificates (e.g. Fair Trade,

Max Havelaar)


65

Annex 2: Interview University of Twente

Persoon: Mevr. Martine Drewes

Functie: Facilitair teamleider Universiteit Twente

Locatie: Ravelijn gebouw, Enschede

Tijd/data: 10.30 – 12.00 uur, 25 april 2012

1. Hoe lang bent u al werkzaam als facilitair teamleider?

2. Wat is uw achtergrond? (studie, werk)

3. Wanneer is dit gebouw opgeleverd?

4. Hoe lang heeft de bouw geduurd?

5. Hoe lang hebben de voorbereidingen geduurd? Welke partijen betrokken?

6. Wat waren de richtlijnen voor dit gebouw?

7. Welke faculteiten zitten hier gevestigd?

8. Hoeveel studenten zitten er in dit gebouw?

9. Voldoen de richtlijnen aan het gebruik in de praktijk? (constructief, technologisch, facilitair)

10. Sterktes van het gebouw?

11. Zwaktes van het gebouw?

Checklist introduceren en doorlopen met mevrouw Drewes, opmerkingen noteren, vragen om rondleiding.

MD: Toen ik binnenkwam was de functie als teamleider nog niet ontwikkeld, toen heb ik heel veel functies

gedaan zoals inkoop en verschillende projecten. Ondertussen groeide al wel de huismeesters door als

teamleiders, maar je merkte toch wel duidelijk een niveau verschil. Na een tijdje kwam er alsnog weer een

functie vrij als facilitair teamleider waarnaar ik heb gesolliciteerd, en daar ben ik toen voor aangenomen. En

afgelopen anderhalf jaar is de functie heel erg gegroeid, we zijn nu met 4 teamleiders over de hele campus. De

functie is veel meer ontwikkeld op tactisch niveau.

MD: Zelf heb ik ook facility management op Saxion in Deventer gevolgd. Ik wou eigenlijk niet in de facilitaire

wereld werken, maar toch vind ik het wel erg leuk. Ik heb nog getwijfeld om een master te volgen, maar ik zag

hier geen toegevoegde waarde in.

Kirsten: Introduceren van opdracht

Kirsten: Ik geloof dat de bouw in 2010 is opgeleverd?

MD: Ja inderdaad eind 2010

Kirsten: Hoe lang heeft de bouw geduurd?

MD: Lastig te zeggen, want de sloop van het oude gebouw heeft langer geduurd, omdat er vleermuizen in het

oude gebouw zaten. Zelf was ik toen nog niet werkzaam hier, maar volgens mij zijn de plannen in 2006

gemaakt en is uiteindelijk het pand in 2008 gesloopt en is de bouw gestart.

MD: We hebben heel veel bouwplannen tegelijk gemaakt, dus het is moeilijk te zeggen hoe lang de plannen

voor Ravelijn heeft geduurd.

Kirsten: En welke bedrijven waren betrokken bij de nieuwbouw?

MD: De universiteit heeft een eigen vastgoed groep opgericht, Drienerlo vastgoedgroep, omdat er meerder


66

nieuwbouwplannen nodig waren, hebben we hier een apart bedrijf voor opgericht, om dit zo goed mogelijk te

laten verlopen. Dit bedrijf is begin dit jaar weer opgeheven en geïntegreerd in facilitaire diensten en het

vastgoed beheer.

Kirsten: En in deze vastgoed groep, welke partijen waren hierin betrokken? Was de facilitaire dienst hier ook al

in betrokken vanaf het begin, of pas later?

MD: In dit traject zijn wij als FM vrij laat ingestapt, in 2009 ben ik zelf in dit plan ingestapt en toen was het

facilitaire team nog maar net een paar maanden ingetreden, dus de bouw was al begonnen. Eigenlijk vind ik dat

we eerder aan de tafel moeten zitten qua functioneel gebouw, maar met techniek zaten we er wel eerder bij.

Kirsten: En waren er verder nog bepaalde richtlijnen opgesteld voor het ontwerp van dit gebouw?

MD: Jazeker, heel duidelijk; ontmoeten. De architect heeft samen met de faculteit overlegd. De kantoren zijn

daarom ook vrij klein gehouden, maximaal 10m2, zodat hier niet veel overlegd kan worden. Daarom is er in

elke vleugel en verdieping een middenstrook gebouwd, met daarin ontmoetingsplaatsen, voor zowel

vergaderingen als informele gesprekken, deze dienen ook als werkplekken voor studenten. Dit is gedaan om de

mensen uit de kantoren te krijgen en te ontmoeten. Alleen bepaalde kantoren voor hoogleraren en HR zijn

ingericht met een mogelijkheid om gesprekken te voeren, omdat dit nog wel eens gevoelige zaken betreft. Dat

zijn de uitzonderingen.

Kirsten: En qua design? Was dit ook het doel ontmoeten?

MD: Nou nee niet speciaal. De architect heeft dit ontwerp bedacht en hij houd erg van natuurtinten en kleuren.

Je kunt dit zien in de houten kozijnen, maar ook in het vele lichtinval, dat kan je straks tijdens de rondleiding

wel zien. In het middenstuk is veel koper en er is veel rust met grijs en rode kleuren en beton.

Kirsten: Welke faculteit zit hier precies?

MD: Faculteit management en bestuur, en deze faculteit is de laatste jaren erg gegroeid. Daarom zijn we nu

moeten uitwijken naar een ander gebouw. Daarom is er een bezettingsonderzoek gedaan en door nieuwe

normen kunnen er nu nieuwe werkplekken worden gecreëerd.

Kirsten: En als je verder kijkt naar het gebouw in de praktijk, zijn er daar nog problemen in? Qua geluid of

klimaat etc.?

MD: Er is een probleem in de bouw geconstateerd, we hebben al heel lang een klimaatprobleem. In de zomer

was het heel koud of juist weer heel heet, dus dat klopt niet. We hebben ruimtevoelers in elke ruimte voor

warmtes en dit was soms maar 3 graden. Nu blijkt dat er een lek in gevel is, we hebben een warmte scan

gemaakt van het gebouw en nu blijkt dat dit echt dramatisch is. De warmte stromen komen continue in het

gebouw maar verdwijnen ook weer, door een lekke gevel. Nu wordt er naar een oplossing gezocht om dit op te

lossen. Het is echt schrikbarend hoeveel warmte verloren gaat. Verder zijn er nog fouten in de vloeren, de

vloeren waren niet in de was gezet terwijl dit wel beloofd was, na het inhuizen kwamen we hier pas achter. In

de vakanties hebben we dit elke keer gedaan, maar het is zoveel extra werk. Ook het koper geeft problemen,

alles zie je erop, dit is een hel om schoon te maken.

Kirsten: Oke, dit waren de algemene vragen, graag zou ik nu verder willen gaan met de opgestelde checklist die

u heeft ontvangen. Vind u het goed als we deze nu doornemen?

MD: Qua, onderwijs weet ik niet zo heel veel. Ik weet wel dat er nu een nieuw onderwijssysteem wordt

bedacht, er komen bijvoorbeeld 4 blokken van 10 weken, dit geeft een hele impact in het gebruik. Zo wordt het

bindend studieadvies strenger en het projectonderwijs wordt steeds meer gestimuleerd. In 2013 gaan we

hiermee starten. Verder wordt er een pilot gedaan nu bij de faculteit biologie naar project gerelateerd


67

onderwijs.

Kirsten: Maar wordt er nu al project onderwijs toegepast?

MD: Dit verschilt heel erg per faculteit. In deze faculteit heb je ‘pool’ zalen en ‘jaargang’ zalen. De

poolgangzalen worden gereserveerd door de docenten, zij geven aan hoeveel tijd en zalen ze nodig hebben en

dit wordt algemeen ingeroosterd. De jaargang zalen zijn van de faculteit zelf, structureel huurt, deze zetten ze

zelf ook in. In die ruimtes zijn ook scheidingswanden zodat de docent langs kan lopen. Dus deze faculteit

gebruikt al redelijk probleem gestuurd leren, het grootste deel wel.

Kirsten: Wordt er verder groepswerk gestimuleerd?

MD: Ja de meeste vakken zijn zo ingericht?

Kirsten: Wordt er gebruik gemaakt van blended learning?

MD: Ja, er zijn 2 zalen waar computers aanwezig zijn en soms dienen de studenten laptops mee te nemen

tijdens lessen

Kirsten: En als je kijkt naar de roostering, hebben studenten de vrijheid om elk semester of periode hun eigen

vakken in te delen?

MD: Dat denk ik niet, volgens mij staan deze vast. (later via het informatiecentrum van de universiteit Twente

te horen gekregen dat dit inderdaad niet mogelijk is.)

Kirsten: Wordt alle informatie in het Engels aangeboden?

MD: Nee, volgens mij niet.

Kirsten: Want zijn de lessen hier ook voornamelijk in het Nederlands?

MD: Ja, het merendeel wel, de boeken zijn wel eens in het Engels, maar verder blijven we best veel lessen en

informatie verstrekken in het Nederlands. Ook in het nieuwe leermodel worden wel enkele bachelor brede

vakken aangeboden in het Engels, maar nog lang niet alle vakken.

Kirsten: Zijn er extra lessen aanwezig om SPPS of Endnote te volgen.

MD: Ja, ik weet dat deze aanwezig zijn

Kirsten: Zijn er verder ook nog lessen aanwezig voor medewerkers te leren omgaan met (nieuwe)

technologieën?

MD: Nou een voorbeeld is de digitale whiteboarden, toen we deze gingen introduceren hebben we de

medewerkers benaderd om een cursus te volgen hierin, maar hier is geen enkele medewerker op afgekomen.

Kirsten: Oke, dus eigenlijk worden er wel cursussen of lessen in gegeven maar wordt er geen gebruik van

gemaakt?

MD: Ja, dat klopt en dat is erg jammer. Maar verder kan op verzoek ook extra informatie worden verkregen.

Kirsten: Wordt er verder informatie verstrekt over de technologieën?

MD: Ja, op onze website van het facilitaire bureau hebben we een link waarin alle zalen staan weergegeven en

met welke apparatuur en faciliteiten waar deze zalen over beschikken. Verder is er in elke zaal een a4tje

aanwezig waarin duidelijke instructies van de apparatuur staat weergegeven, een soort handleiding en meest


68

voorkomende vragen. Tevens wordt er ook verwezen voor extra vragen naar het facilitaire bureau.

Kirsten: En tijdens lesperiodes, hebben studenten dan voor 75% lessen in dit gebouw of ook elders?

MD: Dat is lastig te zeggen, waarschijnlijk hebben ze in meerdere gebouwen les. De grootste zaal waar dit

gebouw over beschikt is voor 90 studenten, dus voor basis vakken kunnen ze hier al niet terecht. We hebben

natuurlijk hier een campus, dus daar wordt niet op gestuurd.

Kirsten: Zijn er ook kleine klassen aanwezig voor maximaal 30 studenten?

MD: Nee, dit zijn wel grotere klassen.

Kirsten: Oke, dan gaan we nu verder naar het volgende onderdeel, de ruimtelijke aspecten. Zoals de meubels

zijn deze makkelijk te verplaatsen en gecertificeerd bijvoorbeeld?

MD: Nee, deze meubels zijn al vrij oud, we hebben het grootste deel meegenomen uit de oude gebouwen.

Kirsten: Zijn er verder loungeplekken in het gebouw, minimaal 3?

MD: Jazeker, we hebben meerdere banken geplaatst in de hallen en straks tijdens de rondleiding zal je zien dat

we ook informele zitjes hebben ingericht met keukentjes, waar er gewerkt kan worden maar ook kan men hier

rustig zitten.

Kirsten: Oke helder, en wordt er verder gebruik gemaakt van maximale lichtinval?

MD: Jazeker, zoals je waarschijnlijk al hebt gezien is het hele dak van glas, waardoor het hele atrium al licht

vangt. Verder zitten de kantoren aan de zijkanten gevestigd, waardoor er altijd lichtinval aanwezig is. We

hebben alleen een zaal middenin, waar gaan lichtinval is, maar deze gaat verbouwd worden, omdat ook het

design niet helemaal naar wens is. Verder hebben we nog wel een paar ruimtes die licht ontvangen via het

atrium.

Kirsten: Oke, en wordt er verder nog gebruikt gemaakt van instelbare ventilatie of warmte per ruimte?

MD: Nou dit wordt wel gebruikt in de gespreksruimtes, niet in de zalen. De ventilatie is gebaseerd op een

aantal maximaal personen. Een probleem wat hierbij ontstond was bijvoorbeeld in de computerzalen. Deze

zalen waren oorspronkelijk niet gebouwd voor computers, maar pas na de bouw kwamen we erachter dat deze

hiervoor nodig waren. Maar nu wordt daar geklaagd over de warmte van de computers en in de zalen, maar dit

is ook logisch omdat die ruimtes hiervoor niet gebouwd zijn.

Kirsten: Is er verder in de bouw gebruik gemaakt van geluid-absorberende materialen, zoals voor de vloeren,

wanden of plafonds?

MD: Ja, dit zijn flexibele wanden en daar is op gerekend, ook de vloeren.

Kirsten: En wordt er verder gebruik gemaakt in een bepaalde ruimte van speciale lichten? Zoals een

theaterruimte bijvoorbeeld?

MD: Voor dit gebouw is het heel simpel, er zijn alleen maar collegezalen en kantoren. De lichten in de

collegezalen kunnen we gedimd worden, hier is wel rekening mee te houden.

Kirsten: Ik zag al dat er liften aanwezig waren in dit gebouw, hoeveel liften zijn er? En is er ook een roltrap?

MD: Nee, er is geen roltrap aanwezig, wel zijn er 4 liften in het gebouw.


69

Kirsten: Wordt er verder nog gebruik gemaakt van geluidswerende panelen om ruimten te scheiden?

MD: Ja, zoals in deze ruimtes is dit ook te zien, we kunnen de wanden eruit halen om grote zalen te maken.

Verder worden er ook nog kleine wandjes gebruikt om groepswerk te scheiden.

Kirsten: Worden de werkruimtes van de hoogleraren en academici gedeeld voor ongeveer 80% van de

ruimten?

MD: Dat is heel verschillend per vakgroep. We hebben nu met de verhuisbeweging een vlekkenplan gemaakt

per faculteit. We hebben gekeken naar het aantal werkuren van de personen, is dit boven 0,5 fte dan hebben

ze recht op een werkplek, daaronder niet. Zo hebben we onze m2 bepaalt en hebben we de vlekken per

afdeling verdeeld, daarna mogen de faculteiten spelen hoe ze de afdelingen inrichten.

Kirsten: Maar als je dan over het algemeen kijkt, zijn er dan nog veel kantoorruimtes apart voor academici

ingericht?

MD: Ja, dit gebeurd nog heel veel. Maar ook uitzonderlijk dat sommige hoogleraren het totaal niet uit maakt. Je

ziet wel heel veel ruimten van de promovendi gezamenlijk, maar de administratie deelt wel hun werkplekken,

dit ligt wel aan de vakgroepen zelf.

Kirsten: En als je kijkt naar de bieb, zijn daar dan 2 verschillende soorten activiteiten mogelijk zoals werken in

groepen en werken in stilte?

MD: Nou, in dit gebouw hebben we geen bibliotheek, maar in het gebouw hiernaast is een grote centrale

bibliotheek en daar zijn verschillende activiteiten mogelijk. Daar zijn stilteruimtes en open ruimtes, maar de

bibliotheek is dus gecentraliseerd, het campus idee.

Kirsten: Zijn er verder ook flexibele werkplekken waar medewerkers bijvoorbeeld hun laptop kunnen inpluggen

en kunnen werken?

MD: Nou, niet a la het nieuwe werken laat ik maar zeggen. Er zijn wel echt flexplekken, maar dat ligt weer aan

de vakgroepen. Maar binnen dit gebouw zijn er wel zeker flexplekken aanwezig.

Kirsten: Oke, zijn er verder nog stilteruimtes aanwezig in dit gebouw?

MD: Nee, deze zijn hier niet aanwezig, niet in dit gebouw. Dan moeten de studenten naar de bibliotheek.

Kirsten: Oke, zijn er buiten dit gebouw ook werkplekken zoals picknick tafels waar studenten aan kunnen

werken in groepswerk?

MD: Ja, er zijn zeer veel voorzieningen om buiten te zitten en waar ze neer kunnen ploffen om groepswerk uit

te kunnen oefenen, dit is verspreid over de hele campus en hebben ze ook Wi-Fi. We hebben hier blijkbaar de

snelste Wi-Fi van de wereld.

Kirsten: Is er een catering faciliteit aanwezig in dit gebouw?

MD: Ja, over 2 weken gaat deze in gebruik, op 7 mei.

Kirsten: Oke, is er verder ook een Learning café aanwezig, waar studenten kunnen eten/drinken maar ook

kunnen leren?

MD: Nee, dat is er wel in een ander gebouw in de Menza, dat is hier 100 meter vandaan.

Kirsten: De volgende vraag kan ik eigenlijk zelf al beantwoorden; ik zag namelijk al dat jullie een front-office


70

hier in het begin hebben en de bewegwijzering is duidelijk.

MD: Ja, klopt.

Kirsten: zijn ver verder nog kleine ruimtes die gereserveerd kunnen worden door studenten om in

groepsverband te werken?

MD: Nee, ze kunnen ze niet reserveren, maar er zijn wel ruimtes aanwezig. De medewerkers kunnen dit wel

reserveren, we hebben deze afweging gemaakt omdat we de studenten goed kennen. Met de studenten goed

kennen bedoel ik; ze reserveren dan het gehele jaar sommige ruimtes waardoor er minder beschikbaar zijn

voor de rest. Studieverenigingen mogen ook reserveren. Verder zijn er wel veel kleinere ruimtes aanwezig,

maar die kunnen niet gereserveerd worden.

Kirsten: Oke, in die groepsruimtes zijn daar beamers of andere elektronische presentatie middelen?

MD: Nee, zeker niet, dit hebben we bewust gedaan.

Kirsten: Waarom als ik vragen mag?

MD: Deze materialen zijn duur en zeer sloopgevoelig en dan zijn we erg druk met repareren.

Kirsten: Is er voor de studenten een intranet aanwezig?

MD: Ja, studenten halen volgens mij alle informatie van internet voor hun lessen etc.

Kirsten: Voorziet de universiteit in software en lesstof voor electronic books?

MD: Ja, dat wordt hier best veel gedaan. De bibliotheek stelt dit beschikbaar.

Kirsten: Is het mogelijk op elke computer op de universiteit om video-conferencing te gebruiken?

MD: Nou, op dit moment is het al wel mogelijk op sommige computers, maar we zijn bezig met een pilot onder

de medewerkers. Ik weet dat ze het verder willen uitbreiden, omdat het goed werkt.

Kirsten: Weet je of er verder nog een digitale bieb beschikbaar is per faculteit, waar studenten hun rapporten

of informatie kunnen uploaden?

MD: Hmm, die vraag vind ik lastig. Maar als ik erover nadenk weet ik vrijwel zeker dat dit niet per faculteit

verschillend is, maar dat er wel een algemene database bestaat.

Kirsten: Kunnen studenten ook hun informatie uploaden in een database?

MD: Ja, dit is wel mogelijk.

Kirsten: Weet je of de lessen worden opgenomen via video of audio, zodat studenten dit online terug kunnen

kijken?

MD: Ja, dit wordt al veel gedaan. Dit was eerst een pilot, maar nu wordt het echt veel gebruikt.

Kirsten: Weet je of er de mogelijkheid is om live lessen te volgen via intranet?

MD: Jazeker, dit kan bij alle opnames.

Kirsten: Weet je of er elektronische whiteboards worden gebruikt tijdens de lessen?


71

MD: Jazeker.

Kirsten: Zijn er elektronische middelen aanwezig in de leslokalen zodat er presentaties gegeven kunnen

worden? Beamers)

MD: Ja, dat is aanwezig. Ze kunnen zelfs nog projectors huren als ze willen.

Kirsten: Is er ook de mogelijkheid om via internet connectie te krijgen met de bieb, om bijvoorbeeld boeken te

bestellen of verlengen?

MD: Ja, dit kan. Wij als medewerkers kunnen dit ook.

Kirsten: Is er een gratis cursus aanwezig om je Engels te verbeteren?

MD: Dit durf ik niet te zeggen. Ik weet dat er wel cursussen aanwezig zijn, maar niet precies hoe en wat. Dit zou

je kunnen navragen bij het studie centrum of website.

Kirsten: Is er een kalender aanwezig waarin studenten online kunnen overleggen met hun docenten?

MD: Nou, dat lijkt me niet. Elke docent werkt volgens mij anders.

Kirsten: Is dit er voor studie adviseurs?

MD: Weet ik niet.

Kirsten: Wordt er gebruik gemaakt van social media om studenten feedback te geven? Bijvoorbeeld wanneer

studenten een langere tijd op stage zijn?

MD: Volgens mij niet. Misschien wel.

Kirsten: Is er de mogelijkheid om bij afwezigheid tentamens online te kunnen maken?

MD: Weet ik niet, volgens mij zou dit alleen op uitzondering kunnen.

Kirsten: Is er de mogelijkheid om online je documenten te uploaden voor assessments?

MD: Ja, dit is mogelijk.

Kirsten: Oke, dan wil ik nu graag verder gaan met het deel van de technologie. Ik had zelf al gemerkt dat er hier

draadloos netwerk, Wi-Fi, overal aanwezig is, maar is dit ook beveiligd?

MD: Het kan beide, je kan een guest account aanvragen.

Kirsten: Kun je ook je mobiel linken aan het intranet van de universiteit bijvoorbeeld om nieuwe updates te

ontvangen?

MD: Nee, dat is niet mogelijk.

Kirsten: Zijn er touchscreens aanwezig om informatie te verkrijgen?

MD: Nee, deze zijn er niet.

Kirsten: Zijn er beeldschermen in de hallen aanwezig die de studenten en bezoekers van informatie voorzien?

MD: Ja, in dit gebouw wel, niet in alle gebouwen.

Kirsten: Is er de mogelijkheid om je mobiele apparatuur op te laden in bijvoorbeeld een lesruimte, bieb of


72

Learning café?

MD: Ja, maar een basis. Geen 20 man kunnen hier tijdens colleges hun telefoon opladen bijvoorbeeld. Er zijn

wel stopcontacten in de muren, maar lang niet zoveel. We merken dat er steeds meer vraag naar komt en hier

lopen ook discussies over, maar dit is een te grote investering op dit moment om dit aan te passen. Er zijn wel

meer dan voorheen, maar nog niet genoeg.

Kirsten: Is er hardware aanwezig die documenten en informatie bewaard tijdens storingen en stroomuitval?

MD: Ja, als mensen op het netwerk wel. Op hun eigen laptops niet natuurlijk.

Kirsten: Wordt er al gebruik gemaakt van een self-service book machine? Dit is een machine die uit het

magazijn automatisch de ingevoerde boeken voor de persoon ophaalt?

MD: Nee, helaas niet. Het zou wel leuk zijn, haha.

Kirsten: Oke, dan wil ik nu graag verder gaan met het tweede deel van de checklist, de bijkomende aspecten.

Dit zijn de aspecten die te maken hebben met de drie pijlers: educatie, technologie en ruimte. Hierin worden

de aspecten; organisatie, de stakeholders en de duurzaamheid behandeld. Allereerst beginnen we met de

stakeholders. Voordat dit gebouw tot stand kwam, is er toen rekening gehouden met de wensen en eisen van

de eindgebruikers? Is hier onderzoek naar gedaan?

MD: Ja, die zijn zeker meegenomen in diverse werkgroepen. Waarschijnlijk is niet alles gerealiseerd maar wel

veel. Zoals een lagerhuis opstelling in een paar college zalen.

Kirsten: Wordt er gecommuniceerd en samengewerkt met de gemeente Enschede? Bijvoorbeeld projecten,

voor de gemeente?

MD: Ja, daar staan we bekend om. Ze werken samen met de gemeente voor een warmte kracht centrale. Een

ander voorbeeld is het facilitair bedrijf zelf. Een hoogleraar werkt samen met de gemeente om optimalisatie te

kunnen krijgen in facilitaire processen. Vooral binnen de universiteit wordt hier veel mee geëxperimenteerd. Er

is ook heel veel kennis op duurzaamheid gebied.

Kirsten: Wordt er contact onderhouden met internationale en nationale universiteiten om bijvoorbeeld lessen

of minor te volgen elders?

MD: Ja, er wordt wel mee samengewerkt, maar dit staat niet op de site.

Kirsten: Zijn er studentenorganisaties aanwezig, die studenten helpen in contact te komen met nationale of

internationale universiteiten om bijvoorbeeld een minor of stage te volgen?

MD: Jazeker, Integrand bijvoorbeeld.

Kirsten: Is er ook de mogelijkheid om parttime te studeren? Zodat er geen fysieke aanwezigheid van de student

hoeft te zijn?

MD: Er zijn wel een paar vormen van, maar ze moeten wel af en toe aanwezig zijn.

Kirsten: Is er een continue plan aanwezig om de ICT te vernieuwen?

MD: Ja, we zijn er continu mee bezig, ook door het nieuwe onderwijsmodel. De bewustwording hiervan is heel

groot. Misschien heeft het niet altijd evenveel vaart, maar zoals nu wordt het intranet vernieuwd.

Kirsten: Worden studenten betrokken bij plannen voor een groenere universiteit?


73

MD: Ja, we zijn er wel mee bezig. Een project is bijvoorbeeld de duurzame campus.

Kirsten: Worden ruimtelijke vernieuwingen getest door het houden van enquêtes of vragenlijsten?

MD: Ja, we doen elke 2 jaar een klanttevredenheidsonderzoek, dat geld dan voor alle gebouwen. Het is een on-

going onderwerp, vooral omdat het gebouw nog niet zo lang in gebruik is. Per gebouw krijgen we hier de

gegevens van aangeleverd.

Kirsten: Is er dagelijks een handyman aanwezig?

MD: Ja, de interne dienst is hier aanwezig

Kirsten: Geeft de universiteit informatie over de funding?

MD: Nou, we hebben hier een student union, dit is een studentenclub die ook een gebouw en sportvereniging

beheerd. Zij kijken naar het belang van de studenten. Ze opereren vanuit de universiteit en zijn zelfstandig.

Kirsten: Zijn de openingsuren van het gebouw van 8.00 tot 20.00 uur? Of tenminste 12 uur per dag geopend?

MD: Officieel van 8 tot 6, maar ze kunnen met de pas 24 uur per dag in het gebouw. Ze moeten dit dan wel op

aanvraag doen en ook duidelijk een handtekening voor zetten. Andere gebouwen zijn wel langer open, zoals

die bieb tot 10 uur, en nog een ander gebouw tot 12 uur.

Kirsten: Is de bieb 24 uur per dag geopend?

MD: Nee, helaas niet, dit zouden ze graag willen.

Kirsten: Zijn er programma’s aanwezig om het watergebruik te monitoren?

MD: Ja

Kirsten: Is dit ook aanwezig voor energie?

MD: Ja

Kirsten: Kun je een voorbeeld geven van een duurzame investering van dit gebouw?

MD: Ja, specifiek voor dit gebouw hebben we lichtsensoren in de ruimtes. Op de campus zelf wordt hier ook

veel mee gedaan, we hebben een koude cirkel, deze slaat de warmte op en deze warmte wordt weer opnieuw

gebruikt. Als er nu nieuwe projecten zijn, wordt er direct gekeken hoe duurzaam we dit kunnen doen.

Kirsten: Worden toners, cartridges, papier en hardware gerecycled?

MD: Ja, dit gaat via het chemisch afval. Deze processen gaan via externe bedrijven.

Kirsten: Wordt papier, plastic en blik apart ingezameld?

MD: Ja, alles wordt apart ingezameld en afgevoerd.

Kirsten: Wordt de warmte van pc’s gerecycled?

MD: Nou lastig, ik denk van niet.

Kirsten: Heeft de catering faciliteit in dit gebouw een duurzaam assortiment?

MD: Nou, we zijn er wel mee bezig zoals de koffie van Max Havelaar en recyclebare bekers, maar ik denk niet


74

dat het gehele assortiment voor 50% duurzaam is. Ik denk wel dat dit eraan zit te komen.

Annex 3: Interview Wageningen University

Persoon: Mevr. Ludy Zeeuwen

Functie: Hoofd- en locatiemanager Forum gebouw

Locatie: Forum gebouw, Wageningen universiteit

Tijd/data: 13.00 – 14.30 uur, 27 april 2012

1. Hoe lang bent u al werkzaam als hoofd- en locatie manager?

LZ: Ja, klopt ik ben locatiemanager. Daarbij horen alle faciliteiten, ik zorg dat het gebouw open is en dat alles

werkt en het ondersteunende personeel ook zijn werk hierin kunnen doen. Eigenlijk ben ik facilitair manager. Ik

ben hier werkzaam vanaf het begin, begin april 2007. Formeel zijn we per september in gebruik gegaan. Per

september 2006, ben ik al werkzaam officieel als locatiemanager.

2. Wat is uw achtergrond? (studie, werk)

LZ: Ik werkte eerst in een bibliotheek, met maar een klein stuk beheer.

3. Wanneer is dit gebouw opgeleverd?

LZ: In april begonnen we dat de zalen al waren ingericht. De oplevering was een paar maanden daarvoor.

4. Hoe lang heeft de bouw geduurd?

LZ: Ongeveer 3 jaar, ik zou het nog even nazoeken

5. Hoe lang hebben de voorbereidingen geduurd? Welke partijen betrokken?

LZ: Architect; Quist, bouwadviesbureau, wij als facilitair bureau onder leiding van een bouwpastoor en aan het

einde facilitair. April 2006 is mijn baas hierbij geweest. Verder waren er verschillende aannemers aanwezig. Zelf

zit ik nu ook al in het facilitaire team voor de nieuwbouw van Orion. Voor Wageningen was dit de eerste bouw

waar meerdere onderwijsrichtingen samenkwamen en Wageningen heeft nog nooit eerder zo’n groot gebouw

neergezet.

6. Wat waren de richtlijnen voor dit gebouw?

LZ: Ja, de architect heeft de opdracht gekregen om een monoliet gebouw neer te zetten in een landschap. Hij

dacht hierbij aan een kasteel, er kwam ook nog eens water omheen en de voorkant zijn eigenlijk 2 grote

toegangspoorten. Hij dacht er ook aan dat het kasteel eigenlijk het centrum is van de bedrijvigheid in een

omgeving. Want eigenlijk kan je hier alles doen, behalve slapen. Verder zijn er veel natuurlijke elementen

gebruikt, beton, glas en we hebben gewerkt met een greenkalk systematiek. Dit heeft te maken met het

besparen van energie en duurzaam bouwen. Zo maken we gebruik van een warmte- koude opslag, veel

gloeilampen, lichtinval, spaarknoppen op kranen en wc’s.

Kirsten: Dus eigenlijk al duurzaam bouwen?

LZ: Ja dat ook, maar het is ook goedkoper. We hebben nu binnen 3 jaar al 70% op energie bespaard, dus dit is

een grote besparing.


75

7. Welke faculteiten zitten hier gevestigd?

LZ: Nou niet echt faculteiten. Er zitten hier circa 60 a 70% van de bachelor studenten hier.

8. Hoeveel studenten zitten er in dit gebouw?

LZ: Gemiddeld zitten hier 2000 a 3000 studenten per week.

9. Voldoen de richtlijnen aan het gebruik in de praktijk? (constructief, technologisch, facilitair)

LZ: Nou het klimaat is erg lastig. Want in een nieuw gebouw, heeft het toch enkele jaren tijd nodig om het

klimaat goed in te regelen. Dit kost veel tijd. We hebben veel klachten over het klimaat gehad. Maar

uiteindelijk valt het mee. We hebben wel een probleem gehad, met de warmte in de computerzalen. We

hebben toen besloten dat we de schachten open wouden maken en daar de warmte uit weg laten geleiden,

maar eigenlijk toen we dit wouden doorzetten, hebben we geen klachten meer gehad, dus hebben we dit nog

even uitgesteld. Zoiets kost namelijk erg veel geld en tijd. We weten niet waarom we geen klachten meer

krijgen. Misschien omdat we dingen hebben bijgesteld en vervangen, of mensen zijn klacht moe.

Kirsten: Dit was echt de warmte van de computers?

LZ: Ja, inderdaad. We hebben in deze onderwijsvrije week, de kasten voor de computer vervangen en de kleine

kastjes toegepast. Volgend jaar kunnen we rond deze tijd weer meten. Maar volgens het Beta deel zitten we

nog goed volgens de normen. En volgens het Gamma deel merken we van de studenten dat alleen bij

binnenkomst de zalen warm zijn, maar dit kan ook komen door het harde fietsen. Ze willen over het algemeen

wel iets meer frisse lucht binnen hebben, maar de zalen zitten binnen in het gebouw, dus dit kan niet.

Kirsten: Oke, en verder dus geen echte problemen?

LZ: Nou in sommige zalen hadden we schuine vloeren, die hebben we als trappetjes gemaakt, dit zit fijner. Ook

hebben we flexibele tafeltjes gemaakt in de college zalen en we hebben ze dieper gemaakt en ook rekening

gehouden met de dikkere medemens. Ook was 1 grote zaal volgens de docenten te diep, hierin hebben we als

oplossing verhogingen in aangebracht.

Kirsten: En verder waren er geen facilitaire problemen? Liften of smalle gangen?

LZ: Nou niet echt, alleen dat volgens de studenten de liften te traag zijn. Maar we twijfelen hierover, want vaak

om 5 voor half 9 komt iedereen pas binnen, dus tja.. maar dit hangt toch wel samen met gedrag. We nemen

het wel in acht in Orion, het kan beter, maar het is geen grote probleem. Verder zouden we alleen nooit meer

kiezen voor zoveel witte muren, omdat dit geen succes is. We hebben vorig jaar alle muren opnieuw moeten

witten.

10. Sterktes van het gebouw?

LZ: De vormgeving. We merken tijdens voorlichtingsdagen dat studenten dit wel meenemen in een studie

keuze. Een ander feit is dat we veel bachelor onderwijs bij elkaar hebben, dat je elkaar kan ontmoeten. We

hebben nu 10 van de 16 studieverenigingen in huis, dit worden er 13 a 14, omdat we plek gaan vrij maken

dankzij Orion. Dit zorgt voor korte lijnen.

Kirsten: Dus het gebouw is eigenlijk best veel gericht op ontmoeten?

LZ: Jazeker, als je wil kan je hier elke dag van 8 tot half 11 zijn om je dingen te doen wat je wil. De bibliotheek

willen wel meer doen aan het ontmoeten. Ze zijn al wel veel bezig om dit te verbeteren. Ze willen eventueel

kasten eruit halen, om meer studie plekken te maken.


76

Kirsten: Maar er zijn nog best veel computerruimtes aanwezig in dit gebouw?

LZ: Ja, maar het kan nog meer. We merken dat de studieplekken om de bol in de bibliotheek juist steeds voller

zitten, waar geen pc’s staan, maar er is wel aansluiting voor pc’s etc. We hebben ook al meer stopcontacten

aangebracht. In Orion is de eis dat er voor 30% aan stopcontacten aanwezig moet zijn.

11. Zwaktes van het gebouw?

Hiervoor al benoemd.

Checklist introduceren en doorlopen met mevrouw Zeeuwen, opmerkingen noteren, vragen om rondleiding.

Interview

Kirsten: Wordt er nu al project onderwijs toegepast?

LZ: Ja dat gebeurd veel, maar ik weet hier niet veel van. Waarschijnlijk weet je dit zelf beter. Ik weet niet alles,

ik geef alleen wat opmerkingen over de vragen van dit onderdeel educatie is dat goed?

Kirsten: Ja hoor. Als je kijkt naar de roostering, hebben studenten de vrijheid om elk semester of periode hun

eigen vakken in te delen?

LZ: Ja dit kan.


LZ: Ja

Kirsten: Zijn er extra lessen aanwezig om SPPS of Endnote te volgen.

LZ: Ja, dit wordt bij de bibliotheek gedaan, zoals Endnote en information literacy.


technologieën?

LZ: Nou het wordt wel aangekondigd maar niet specifiek, bijna niemand let hier op. Maar het ligt er vooral aan

wat je eigen baas goed vind. Opleidingen wordt vooral gestimuleerd. Je kan altijd als medewerker op zoek gaan

naar verschillende cursussen.


LZ: Ja er zijn vluchtplannen, op elke docentendesk zit een sticker met hoe de beamer werkt en hoe de camera

werkt. Verder ligt er een a4tje, de ene kant van ICT en de andere kant van ons. We controleren in elke

onderwijsvrije periode of dit nog compleet.


LZ: Nou, 60% van het bachelor onderwijs vind het plaats. Maar als nog hebben we zalen in technotron, atlas

etc. Maar de studenten hebben inderdaad niet in hetzelfde gebouw les. Dit komt door de roostering, omdat we

elk jaar afhankelijk zijn van de aantallen. Als Orion er straks is, dan vinden voornamelijk de lessen hier plaats.

Eigenlijk willen we ook de Dreijen sluiten, maar doordat we een nieuwe grote groei verwachten kan dit

waarschijnlijk niet.

Kirsten: Oke, want Wageningen wordt steeds bekender toch?

LZ: Ja, het is een tijd slechter gegaan door de BSE en de varkensziekte etc. Maar daarna wou Wageningen af


77

van het landbouw imago en hebben ze de naam veranderd in ‘the university for life sciences’. Daarna is er veel

korte concrete reclames gemaakt in de krant en zijn de mobiele practica opgesteld. De ouders van de

studenten lezen dit voornamelijk en als studenten niet weten wat ze willen, zien ouders WUR voornamelijk als

goede universiteit.

Kirsten: Oke, dan gaan we nu verder naar het volgende onderdeel, de ruimtelijke aspecten. Zoals de meubels


LZ: Gedeeltelijk, de collegezalen zijn allemaal vast. Maar we hebben ook andere lokalen waar veel flexibele

meubels aanwezig zijn. In Orion, hebben we hier verder over nagedacht, dat een PC zaal kan switchen, niet

andersom.

Kirsten: Maar in verhouding wordt binnen het Forum dus nog niet zoveel flexibel meubilair toegepast?

LZ: Nee, eigenlijk niet. Maar, we missen het ook niet. Het gaat uiteindelijk niet zo om het meubilair, maar of je

de functie van de ruimte kan aanpassen.

Kirsten: Ja, daar gaat het ook een beetje om; kun je je meubilair aanpassen zodat de ruimte een andere functie

krijgt.

LZ: Nee, dat kan niet.


LZ: Ja, deze zijn er, we hebben Agra en Rodium, op de bruggen en bij de liften.

Kirsten: Oke helder, en wordt er verder gebruik gemaakt van maximale lichtinval?

LZ: Je kent het gebouw, dus je weet er is overal veel licht inval.

Kirsten: Oke, en wordt er verder nog gebruikt gemaakt van instelbare ventilatie of warmte per ruimte?

LZ: Nee, niet alle ruimten. Sommige wel.


wanden of plafonds?

LZ: Ja, in de verticale muren, zijn sommige voegen juist niet gevoegd, om het akoestiek te verbeteren. De

vloeren van natuursteen is natuurlijk lastig. Maar de muren en plafonds zijn dit wel.



LZ: Ja, dat is er wel. In C222, hadden we ooit bedacht dat hier ook de ruimte als theater gebruikt kan worden.

Hier is speciale theaterverlichting aangebracht. Ook de digitale en gewone borden kunnen worden aangepast.

Ook in de bibliotheek past het licht zich automatisch aan, aan de lichttoevoer van buiten. Hierdoor is het licht

goed afgestemd en wordt er energie bespaard.

Kirsten: Ik weet al dat er liften aanwezig zijn in dit gebouw en roltrappen.

LZ: Ja, dat klopt, 2 roltrappen en 3 liften, als enige in Wageningen.

Kirsten: Wordt er verder nog gebruik gemaakt van geluidswerende panelen om ruimten te scheiden?

LZ: Ja, we hebben verschillende. We hebben zalen met vouwwanden, de PC en practicumzalen. Ook de beamer


78

en de presentatiemiddelen kunnen worden aangepast, dat via 1 pc beide beamers geregeld kan worden.

Verder hebben we poster borden, geluidswerende wandjes. Ze zijn wel aangeschaft om groepsruimtes in

tweeën te delen, maar onderzoek wees uit dat dit niet hielp. Nu worden ze op de balkons gebruikt.

Kirsten: Worden de werkruimtes van de hoogleraren en academici gedeeld voor ongeveer 80% van de ruimten?

LZ: Die zitten hier niet. Alleen de docenten van Hall Larenstein. Deze werken allen in grote gezamenlijke

ruimten.

Kirsten: En voor de administratieve functies?

LZ: Ja, kijk maar om je heen. We delen kantoren voor de administratieve ruimten.



LZ: Ja, er zijn wel verschillende ruimtes. Maar eigenlijk zijn het alleen maar stilteplekken. Het waren

groepsplekken, maar deze zijn veranderd in extra stilteplekken. Naar mijn idee zijn er voldoende plekken waar

studenten buiten de bibliotheek kunnen studeren.

Kirsten: Maar zoals ik zelf weet is het altijd best rumoerig in de bibliotheek, waar ligt dit aan dan?

LZ: Nou, dat ligt aan die bol middenin. Deze zorgt onbewust voor veel geluidsruis in de bibliotheek. Maar het is

ook echt zonde dat onze ruimte beneden niet goed kunnen gebruiken. Je weet dat we hier beneden een grote

ruimte hebben, maar we kunnen er niets mee doen, optredens ofzo, want het geluid gaat het hele gebouw

door.

Kirsten: Ja, zo gauw je het gebouw ook binnenkomt, vind ik dat je al een rumoerig geluid hoort.

LZ: Ja, dat klopt. We kregen daarom ook klachten van de studenten die veel op de balkons werkten. Ze vonden

het te rumoerig, daardoor hebben we hier nu ACT groepen neergezet en deze hebben hier blijkbaar geen last

van. Maar we hebben ook onderzoek gedaan, hierin kwam naar voren wanneer we juist de rumoerige ruis

willen weghalen, we geluid moeten toevoegen.

Kirsten: Oke, en wat kan ik me daarbij voorstellen als ik mag vragen?

LZ: Nou je kunt er een box neerzetten, met muziek als zee geluiden bijvoorbeeld.


en kunnen werken?

LZ: Nee, dat hebben we niet. In het nieuwe FB gebouw, Actio, hebben we dat al wel toegepast, want daar

gebruikten we het nieuwe werken en dat doen we hier nog niet. Maar ik zie het hier ook niet zo snel gebeuren,

want dan moeten we gaan verbouwen. Misschien wel dat in de toekomst meer kasten verdwijnen.

Kirsten: Maar merken jullie hier bijvoorbeeld ook dat de ouderen meer moeite hebben in het Actio gebouw?

LZ: Nou, daar merken we eigenlijk geen verschil tussen jong en oud. Het gaat meer om de functie van deze

ruimten en de personen. Als ik bijvoorbeeld vertrouwelijke gesprekken wil voeren, dan moet ik ergens anders

naar toe, dat vind ik af en toe wel een nadeel. Maar in Actio, merken we niet dat het leeftijd gerelateerd is.

Kirsten: Oke, zijn er verder nog stilteruimtes aanwezig in dit gebouw?

LZ: Ja, dit zijn veel plekken binnen de bibliotheek. Dit is ongeveer 25% van het gebouw.


79

Kirsten: Dus deze 10% wordt wel behaald?

LZ: Jazeker, dit halen we makkelijk.

Kirsten: Oke, zijn er buiten dit gebouw ook werkplekken zoals picknick tafels waar studenten aan kunnen


LZ: Ja, we hebben buiten wel veel picknicktafels, dus dit kan. We zouden er graag nog meer bij willen hebben.


LZ: Ja, dat weet je.


kunnen leren?

LZ: Nee, dat hebben we niet. We hebben wel een soort grand café, maar dit wordt niet beschouwd als Learning

Café. En verder ja we hebben hier een front-office hier in het begin hebben en de bewegwijzering is duidelijk.

Kirsten: zijn ver verder nog kleine ruimtes die gereserveerd kunnen worden door studenten om in groepsverband

te werken?

LZ: Ja deze zijn er wel, maar niet zo veel. En deze gaat via de roostering. We hebben niet een aantal

groepsruimten, die vrij gebruikt voor groepen kunnen worden gebruikt.

Kirsten: Maar kunnen studenten dit reserveren?

LZ: Nou, dit is wel lastig. We doen dit eigenlijk niet, omdat we dan de gehele dag bezig zijn om ruimtes voor

studenten te zoeken. Als ze bij ons aan de balie komen dan kunnen ze in het rooster kijken wanneer en waar

een lokaaltje vrij is en die kunnen ze dan gebruiken. Maar reserveren willen we liever niet en doen we eigenlijk

niet, het kost teveel tijd.


LZ: Nee groepsruimten hebben alleen whiteboards en pc´s.


LZ: Ja, dat weet je, Black board.


LZ: Ja, dat kan hier in de bibliotheek. Je kan ze niet kopen, wel lenen. Maar dit is nog niet voor alles mogelijk,

het komt wel steeds meer in de bibliotheek.


LZ: We hebben het wel, we hebben er 4. IT wil het heel graag op elke pc, maar dat hebben we nu nog niet.

Kirsten: Weet je of er verder nog een digitale bieb beschikbaar is per faculteit, waar studenten hun rapporten of

informatie kunnen uploaden?

LZ: Nee, dit is algemeen.



80

LZ: Ja zeker, bij de bibliotheek is dit mogelijk.

Kirsten: Worden er verder lessen opgenomen via video of audio, zodat studenten dit online terug kunnen kijken?

LZ: Ja, dat kan zeker.

Kirsten: Ook voor 50% van de lessen

LZ: Nee, dat zeker niet.


LZ: Nee, dat kan niet.


LZ: Ja deze worden gebruikt, maar geen 50%.

Kirsten: Zijn er elektronische middelen aanwezig in de leslokalen zodat er presentaties gegeven kunnen worden?

(Beamers)

LZ: Ja, alle zalen hebben een beamer, behalve de groepsruimten.



LZ: Ja.


LZ: Het is er wel, maar niet gratis.


LZ: Nee, die hebben dit niet.


LZ: Ja, dit is net nieuw.



LZ: Ja, dat is wel mogelijk maar dit is ook meer afhankelijk van de student en studie adviseur.


LZ: Nee, dit kan niet.


LZ: Ja, dit kan via Blackboard en Eduweb.

Kirsten: Oke, dan wil ik nu graag verder gaan met het deel van de technologie. Ik weet dat er hier draadloos

netwerk, Wi-Fi, overal aanwezig is, maar is dit ook beveiligd?


81

LZ: Jazeker.


ontvangen?

LZ: Nee, dat is er niet.


LZ: Nee, wel infocasts. Narrow casting.


LZ: Jazeker.


Learning café?

LZ: We hebben het wel, maar zoveel halen we nog niet. Maar dit hebben we eigenlijk ook nog niet echt gedaan

voor Orion.


LZ: Ja, dat is er.

Kirsten: Oke, en wordt er verder gebruik gemaakt van een self service book machine

LZ: Nee, we hebben wel een transportsysteem. Ze worden opgehaald en bij de balie gebracht, maar dit is

verder niet echt te betalen.

Kirsten: Oke, dan wil ik nu graag verder gaan met het tweede deel van de checklist, de bijkomende ruimte.

Hierin worden de aspecten; organisatie, de stakeholders en de duurzaamheid behandeld. aspecten. Dit zijn de

aspecten die te maken hebben met de drie pijlers: educatie, technologie en Allereerst beginnen we met de

stakeholders. Voordat dit gebouw tot stand kwam, is er toen rekening gehouden met de wensen en eisen van de

eindgebruikers? Is hier onderzoek naar gedaan?

LZ: Ja, bij Forum is hier naar gekeken. We willen er vanaf dat elke leerstoelgroep of richting hun eigen gebouw

heeft. We hebben gesproken met de voorlichter van de docenten, hier is veel rekening mee gehouden.

Kirsten: Wordt er gecommuniceerd en samengewerkt met de gemeente Wageningen? Bijvoorbeeld projecten,

voor de gemeente?

LZ: Jazeker, food 4 u, was een soort project met de gemeente.

Kirsten: Wordt er contact onderhouden met internationale en nationale universiteiten om bijvoorbeeld lessen of

minor te volgen elders?

LZ: Ja, ongetwijfeld



LZ: Jazeker, Integrand, AIESEC.



82

hoeft te zijn?

LZ: Hmm, nou ik denk dat ze af en toe wel aanwezig moeten zijn.


LZ: Ja, in principe wel.


LZ: Jazeker, als je kijkt naar Orion, hebben we bijvoorbeeld ook studenten gevraagd, met een achtergrond

hierin natuurlijk, om mee te denken om energie te besparen.


LZ: Ja, we houden jaarlijks KTO´s.


LZ: Ja, de facilitaire dienst heeft hier huismeesters lopen.


LZ: Ja, op de website is hier wel het een en ander over te vinden.


LZ: Ja, we zijn elke dag nog langer open zelfs. Maar buiten kantooruren is het gebouw alleen toegankelijk met

je WUR pas. We zijn zelfs in het weekend open op zaterdag en zondagmiddag.


LZ: Nee, dat helaas niet. Digitaal natuurlijk wel, maar de bibliotheek is net zo lang geopend als het gebouw zelf.


LZ: Ja, deze zijn aanwezig. In het gebruik merk je het bijvoorbeeld al, dat er een automatische stop op de

kranen in de toiletten aanwezig zijn, dit bespaard veel water.


LZ: Ja, dat is er ook. Zoals ik in het begin al zei hebben we al 70% energie bespaard in 3 jaar tijd, door gebruik te

maken van warmte en koude opslag en ook door het gebruik van gloeilampen etcetera.


LZ: Zoals de natuurstenen vloer, deze aanschaf was duur, maar op langer termijn behalen we hier veel voordeel

mee, omdat deze wel 30 jaar meegaat. Verder zoals de antwoorden hiervoor, hebben natuurlijk ook veel geld

gekost, maar levert wel weer meer op.


LZ: Ja, dat wordt extern gedaan.



83

LZ: Ja, we scheiden alles hier.


LZ: Nee, dit is iets wat erg veel geld kost.


LZ: Nee, ze zijn er wel meer mee bezig, maar zoveel wordt nog niet gedaan.

Kirsten: Oke, dan waren dit de vragen, hartelijk dank voor uw antwoorden en informatie. Als het goed is had u

nog een informatieboekje over het Forum, heeft u deze nog voor mij?

LZ: Jazeker.


84

Annex 4: Interview Tilburg University

Persoon: Mevr. Marloes Peeters

Functie: Beleidsmedewerker van Real Estate Management

Locatie: Simon building, universiteit Tilburg

Tijd/data: 11.00 – 13.00 uur, 1 mei 2012

1. Kirsten: Hoe lang bent u al werkzaam als beleidsmedewerker Real Estate Management?

MP: Vanaf dat ik afgestudeerd ben. Eerst deed ik veel huisvesting, in 2006 werd ik projectleiding van de

huisvesting. Vanaf afgelopen maand ben ik pas officieel beleidsmedewerker en ik beheer de ruimtes van de

campus.

Kirsten: Wordt er nog nieuwbouw gepleegd?

MP: Nou, eigenlijk gaan we meer renoveren, er is nog veel te renoveren. We willen dat men efficiëntere

omgaat met de m2. We zijn nu in de fase om alles af te stemmen met het college van bestuur. Volgend jaar

komt hier meer uitsluitsel over.

2. Kirsten: Wat is uw achtergrond? (studie, werk)

MP: Facility management in Rotterdam. We zijn nu eigenlijk veel bezig met de m2, en niet met het onderwijs.

Daardoor mis je de aansluiting heel erg met onderwijs en fm.

3. Kirsten: Wanneer is dit gebouw opgeleverd?

MP: Nou dit gebouw is eigenlijk heel oud. We hebben 2 panden gecombineerd, het zijn eigenlijk 2 aparte

gebouwen. Dit zijn de gebouwen die het oudste zijn en die eigenlijk voor nood waren gebouwd. Dit stamt al uit

de jaren 70. We wouden de gebouwen eigenlijk slopen 2 jaar geleden, maar daar zijn we mee gestopt toen de

bezuinigingen kwamen. Daarna zijn we gaan kijken of het wel echt nodig is en of we niet een deel kunnen

renoveren. We maken nu een vlekkenplan, om te kijken of de studenten niet in een nieuwer gedeelte van het

gebouw kan en een deel in Tias. Dit gebouw is dus eigenlijk niet representatief, maar hier zitten ze wel

gehuisvest. We hebben verder geen collegezalen voor specifieke faculteiten, maar deze zitten over de hele

campus.

Kirsten: Maar volgens mij zit er ook nog een deel in het Cobbenhagengebouw als ik het goed las?

MP: Nou, dan is onze site niet goed up-to-date, want dit gebouw wordt nu gerenoveerd.

4. Kirsten: Wat waren de richtlijnen voor dit gebouw?

MP: Dat is al te lang geleden

5. Kirsten: Welke faculteiten zitten hier gevestigd?

MP: Social sciences

6. Kirsten: Sterktes van het gebouw?

MP: Ze vinden het algemeen wel fijn dat ze midden in het groen zitten, overal om het gebouw heen is bos. Er

zijn veel dieren, konijnen vogels etc. We hebben wel de hal en het restaurant laten opknappen, wat nu leuke


85

plekken zijn geworden.

7. Kirsten: Zwaktes van het gebouw?

MP: Onderhoud, klimaat, ongedierte. Ik zou je de plattegrond laten zien, hoe de campus en hoe het gebouw

eruit ziet. Het gebouw bestaat uit 6 vertakkingen laagbouw een deel hoogbouw en uit 2 delen. We zijn dus nu

aan het bekijken hoe we het kunnen renoveren, waarschijnlijk willen we de 6 vertakkingen slopen en

nieuwbouw plegen en de rest renoveren.

Kirsten: En zijn er al definitieve plannen voor de nieuwbouw?

MP: Nou niet speciaal. De bedoeling was 2014, maar we hopen dat we eerder kunnen starten met renovatie.

Kirsten: Hoeveel studenten zitten er dan?

MP: Studenten weet ik niet zo goed, er zijn wel 500 medewerkers.

Checklist introduceren en doorlopen met mevrouw Peeters opmerkingen noteren, vragen om rondleiding.

Kirsten: Oké, dit waren de algemene vragen, graag zou ik nu verder willen gaan met de opgestelde checklist die

u heeft ontvangen. Vind u het goed als we deze nu doornemen?

MP: Jazeker, ik had het al een beetje doorgenomen.

Kirsten: Wordt er nu al project onderwijs toegepast?

MP: Ja, dat doen ze wel veel hier. Ze werken ook meer in kleine groepen.

Kirsten: Wordt er verder groepswerk gestimuleerd?

MP: Ja, dat doen ze wel.

Kirsten: Wordt er gebruik gemaakt van blended learning?

MP: Nou, dat valt me heel erg tegen. Er worden nog heel veel schoolborden gebruikt.

Kirsten: En als je kijkt naar de roostering, hebben studenten de vrijheid om elk semester of periode hun eigen

vakken in te delen?

MP: Nee, dat kan niet.


MP: Nee, volgens mij niet.

Kirsten: Zijn er lessen in SPSS of Endnote?

MP: Ja in Endnote


technologieën?

MP: Ja, deze zijn er wel.



86

MP: Ja dat is er wel.


MP: Dat denk ik niet.

Kirsten: Zijn er ook kleine klassen aanwezig voor maximaal 30 studenten?

MP: Nee, volgens mij niet.

Kirsten: Oké, dan gaan we nu verder naar het volgende onderdeel, de ruimtelijke aspecten. Zoals de meubels


MP: Ja in Prisma is hier veel rekening mee gehouden.


MP: Ja, het restaurant, de hal en een pantry.

Kirsten: Oké helder, en wordt er verder gebruik gemaakt van maximale lichtinval?

MP: Nee, dat is absoluut niet zo. Een gedeelte wel.

Kirsten: Oké, en wordt er verder nog gebruikt gemaakt van instelbare ventilatie of warmte per ruimte?

MP: Nee, dit is heel erg.


wanden of plafonds?

MP: Nee, dit was een noodgebouw.

Kirsten: En wordt er wel gebruik gemaakt van geluid-absorberende scheidingswanden?

MP: Nee, net zoals het antwoord op de vorige vraag. Dit is ooit een noodgebouw geweest. Het meubilair is wel

dusdanig gerenoveerd, maar er zijn geen scheidingswandjes.



MP: Nee, dit is er niet.

Kirsten: Zijn er liften of roltrappen aanwezig?

MP: Nou er is 1 lift aanwezig, dus nee 2 wordt hier niet gehaald.

Kirsten: Worden de werkruimtes van de hoogleraren en academici gedeeld voor ongeveer 80% van de ruimten?

MP: Nee.

Kirsten: Maar wordt dit wel voor de nieuwbouw gedaan?

MP: Ja, hier wordt dan wel rekening mee gehouden, we hebben flexibele ruimtes.

Kirsten: En voor de administratieve functies?


87

MP: Nee, sommige wel, maar grotendeels niet.



MP: Nou we hebben 1 centrale bieb. Maar de algemene bibliotheek heeft wel verschillende ruimtes met

verschillende activiteiten.


en kunnen werken?

MP: Wel op de campus gedeeltelijk, maar niet in het Prisma gebouw. Dit is wel weer mogelijk in de bieb, want

daar hebben we stilteruimtes, groepsruimtes et cetera, voor allerlei verschillende activiteiten.

Kirsten: Oké, zijn er verder nog stilteruimtes aanwezig in dit gebouw?

MP: Nou in Prisma dus niet, maar bij de bibliotheek wel.

Kirsten: Dus deze 10% wordt wel behaald?

MP: In de bibliotheek zeker, maar niet in het Prisma gebouw. Maar mocht dit nodig zijn in de nieuwbouw dan

maken we dit. In de nieuwbouwplannen, zijn hier wel plekken voor gereserveerd.

Kirsten: Maar hoe werken studenten daar nu?

MP: Er is 1 computerzaal, waar de studenten gebruik van kunnen maken, maar ze gebruiken veel andere

gebouwen.

Kirsten: Oké, zijn er buiten dit gebouw ook werkplekken zoals picknick tafels waar studenten aan kunnen


MP: Ja, dit hebben we over de gehele campus


MP: Ja


kunnen leren?

MP: Niet in Prisma, maar wel in Goosens, Dante en het Monsieur gebouw.

Kirsten: Is er verder een front-office en goede bewegwijzering aanwezig?

MP: Nou vanaf dat we het 2e pand erbij hebben gevoegd is dit erg onduidelijk geworden. Het front-office is

eruit gesloopt, dus dit hebben we ook niet.

Kirsten: zijn ver verder nog kleine ruimtes die gereserveerd kunnen worden door studenten om in

groepsverband te werken?

MP: In het Prisma gebouw, zitten 4 of 5 kamers die ze kunnen reserveren. Maar dit geld niet voor 10%. Verder

over de campus kunnen ze ook geen lokalen reserveren. Maar we hebben hier ook eigenlijk geen vraag naar,

we hebben dit wel gerealiseerd in de bibliotheek maar deze kunnen niet worden gereserveerd. Maar daarom

zal deze vraag ook wel niet zo groot zijn. Want we hebben geluisterd naar de studenten een deel stilteruimte,

wat eerst in de hele bibliotheek was, maar ze wouden graag ook ruimtes waar je meer kan overleggen en in


88

groepswerk kan werken.


MP: Nee, dit is niet aanwezig, alleen wel wat computers.


MP: Ja.


MP: Ja, dat is ook sterk in opkomst, maar er is al vrij veel beschikbaar.


MP: Die is er wel, maar niet overal mogelijk.

Kirsten: Weet je of er verder nog een digitale bieb beschikbaar is per faculteit, waar studenten hun rapporten of

informatie kunnen uploaden?

MP: Nee, dat denk ik niet.


MP: Ja.

Kirsten: Worden er verder lessen opgenomen via video of audio, zodat studenten dit online terug kunnen kijken?

MP: We zijn er mee bezig, maar nog niet zo veel.

Kirsten: Voor 50% van de lessen?

MP: Nee


MP: Nee, dit kan nog niet. Kijk we zitten er voor de nieuwbouw wel over na te denken of we dit niet kunnen

doen. We willen de m2 zo efficiënt mogelijk gaan gebruiken, maar dit dringt vaak nog niet tot de docenten

door. Als we aangeven dat we veel lessen willen opnemen, zodat de zalen niet zo groot gemaakt hoeven te

worden, krijg je erg veel weerstand. Je merkt dat de docenten erg veel gevoel bij het lesgeven hebben, daarom

willen ze ook nog veel schoolborden en ze snappen niet dat je dit ook kan doen op een video. Het idee dat er

een scherm tussen student en docent zit, zien de docenten echt nog niet gebeuren.

Kirsten: En toch gebeurd het al wel veel in universiteiten

MP: Ja dat denk ik ook. Het is wel lastig natuurlijk omdat iedereen anders wil lesgeven en op hun manier willen

doen.

Kirsten: Maar verwacht je dat er dan minder studenten naar de lessen komen?

MP: Ja, dat denk ik wel.


MP: Ze worden wel eens op de campus gebruikt, maar niet in Prisma.


89

Kirsten: Zijn er elektronische middelen aanwezig in de leslokalen zodat er presentaties gegeven kunnen worden?

(Beamers)

MP: Ja.



MP: Ja


MP: Vanuit het talencentrum worden er wel veel taalcursussen aangeboden en deze zijn gratis.


MP: Dit betwijfel ik.


MP: Nee, alleen telefonisch of bij de student desk



MP: Dat is per faculteit verschillend, dat kan je wel navragen.


MP: Nee.


MP: Ja, dat kan.

Kirsten: Oké, dan wil ik nu graag verder gaan met het deel van de technologie. Ik zie dat er hier draadloos

netwerk, Wi-Fi, overal aanwezig is, maar is dit ook beveiligd?

MP: Ja.


ontvangen?

MP: Ja, dat kan.


MP: Nee, we zijn er wel mee bezig maar we hebben het nog niet.


MP: Ja.


Learning café?

MP: Ja, we hebben overal extra veel stopcontacten aangebracht. In het café en de bieb wel, in de collegezalen


90

bewust niet.


MP: Ja, dat is er wel en voor meer vragen kan je bij Spits terecht.

Kirsten: Oké, en wordt er verder gebruik gemaakt van een selfservice bookmachine

MP: Nee, wij hebben poppetjes daarvoor.

Kirsten: Oké, dan wil ik nu graag verder gaan met het tweede deel van de checklist, de bijkomende ruimte.

Hierin worden de aspecten; organisatie, de stakeholders en de duurzaamheid behandeld. aspecten. Dit zijn de

aspecten die te maken hebben met de drie pijlers: educatie, technologie en Allereerst beginnen we met de

stakeholders. Voordat dit gebouw tot stand kwam, is er toen rekening gehouden met de wensen en eisen van de

eindgebruikers? Is hier onderzoek naar gedaan?

MP: Ja, dat hebben we gedaan voor de nieuwbouw. In Prisma veranderen we nu helemaal niets meer, we

wachten totdat de sloop komt. We zeggen tegen de klanten als er een klacht komt: sorry, we kunnen er niets

aan doen.

Kirsten: Wordt er gecommuniceerd en samengewerkt met de gemeente Tilburg? Bijvoorbeeld projecten, voor

de gemeente?

MP: Ja, ook in de nieuwbouwplannen worden wel de wensen van studenten meegenomen. Maar verder delen

we de kennis eigenlijk nog niet genoeg. We luisteren wel naar hun meningen, maar we laten ons niet door ze

adviseren. Dat vind ik eigenlijk nog wel ver gaan.

Kirsten: Wordt er contact onderhouden met internationale en nationale universiteiten om bijvoorbeeld lessen of

minor te volgen elders?

MP: Weet ik niet, dat kan je navragen.



MP: Ja, dat hebben ze.


hoeft te zijn?

MP: Nee.


MP: Ja, daar hebben we Spits voor binnen Prisma. Ze kijken nu ook bijvoorbeeld heel erg hoe zij zichzelf

kenbaar kunnen maken en hoe ze de studenten beter kunnen ondersteunen. Hier gebruiken ze ook een

adviseur voor, maar er is waarschijnlijk wel geld tekort om alle plannen te realiseren.


MP: Ja, binnen verschillende activiteiten wel. Daar is ook een groep voor opgericht die betrokken zijn bij de

nieuwbouwplannen.



91

MP: Ja, een voorbeeld is, zoals de nieuwe catering faciliteit is geëvalueerd.


MP: Ja, we hebben huismeesters aanwezig.


MP: Ja, dat wordt volgens mij wel gedaan, dat kan je wel nakijken


MP: Ja, langer zelfs.


MP: Nee, maar wel tot ’s avonds half 11.

Bij het volgende onderdeel ‘sustainability’ zijn antwoorden gebruikt uit een toegestuurde mailing vanuit

mevrouw Peeters met aanvullende antwoorden


MP: Nee, op de gehele campus niet.


MP: Ja, dit hebben we per pand gedaan.


MP: Nou voor Prisma niet, maar voor de rest eigenlijk ook niet zo.


MP: Ja.


MP: Papier en blik wel, maar plastic niet.


MP: Nee, dit wordt niet gedaan.


MP: Nou, ze hebben 1 lijn wat wel fair trade is.

Kirsten: Oké, dan waren dit de vragen, hartelijk dank voor uw antwoorden en informatie.

MP: Ja en voor de open vragen kan je zo op de site kijken, hier staat veel info op, maar het studiecentrum helpt

je ook mee.

Kirsten: Maar ik merk dat er dus wel veel beperkingen zijn door geld, klopt dit?

MP: Ja, dat klopt. Dat is bij ons nu wel een groot probleem. Het is verder ook jammer dat de social sciences


92

daar zitten gevestigd, want dit gebouw is niet representatief.

Kirsten: Zijn er verder nog innovatieve dingen wat wel wordt gedaan?

MP: Ja, een learning café, en we hebben erg veel naar de studenten geluisterd, dat is ook erg sterk. In het

Goosens gebouw hebben we ook een learning center gebouwd wat erg goed is. We proberen als fm erop te

letten dat ze integrale software gebruiken. Maar nu wordt vaak per faculteit en per gebouw nog apart software

systeem gedaan.

Kirsten: Maar is er een integraal systeem?

MP: Nee, dat wordt dus niet gedaan en dat proberen wij echt te stimuleren. Bij de bieb wordt dit wel gedaan,

het begint dus wel te komen. Maar vooralsnog in Goosens wat ook nog maar een paar jaar geleden is

gerenoveerd, gebruiken ze nog geen integraal systeem, het is alleen beschikbaar voor die faculteiten. Maar we

proberen het wel erg te stimuleren, en ook het flexibele werktijden.

Kirsten: En zijn er verder nog andere behoeftes?

MP: We merken dat ook de studenten het nog lastig vinden om ruimtes te delen, vooral bij de

studieverenigingen merken we dit. Verder hebben studenten een rapport gemaakt over de ideeën voor de

nieuwbouw, deze zou ik je even toesturen. Zij geven daar ook duidelijk aan wat ze van Prisma nu vinden en wat

ze verwachten van het nieuwe gebouw. Je merkt ook erg, dat we vaak dingen creëren, waar naar wordt

gevraagd, maar wat eigenlijk helemaal niet nodig is. We doen nou ook onderzoek naar de bezettingsgraad van

de kamers van de academici, want vaak zijn ze niet aanwezig, we proberen hier nu een plan voor te bedenken.

Want willen we wel dat iedereen veel thuiswerkt? En als docenten echt veel diploma’s hebben, verdienen zij

ook geen eigen kamer? Dit zijn vraagstukken wat nu erg spelen, maar dit nemen we allemaal mee voor de

nieuwbouw.


93

Annex 5: Interview with Mr E. Bomas and Mr F. Evers

Organisatie: Kennisnet

Doel: visie vanuit experts op 21st century learning environments, om tot aanbevelingen te komen voor de

onderzochte universiteiten.

Datum/tijd: 4 juni 2012, 10.00 – 11.00 uur

Voorstellen, Frank en Erwin laten zien wat hun hebben ontwikkeld. Ze hebben een zogenaamde 21st century

skills map ontwikkelt voor het onderwijs, waarin de verwachte skills staan weergegeven van de leerlingen.

Kirsten: ‘Want als ik het goed begrijp richten jullie je voornamelijk op het primaire onderwijs (po), voortgezet

onderwijs (vo) en MBO?’

Frank: ‘Ja, dat klopt. Erwin en ik zijn voornamelijk bezig met het ontwikkelen van innovaties in educatie in het

po en vo. Maar we richten ons ook algemeen op innovaties in het onderwijs.’

Frank: ‘Maar het is ook al meer ingevoerd in het basisonderwijs, we hebben laatst een presentatie gegeven op

het vo, daar wordt meer gericht op vakgerichte inhoud, het traditionele onderwijs en op de vakgeleerde

docenten, zij zien 21st century skills meer als bijzaak. Maar in het po zie je toch dat innovaties beter worden

geaccepteerd. Daarin kunnen vakken beter worden geïntegreerd en zijn ruimdenkend. In het basis onderwijs

zijn sommige scholen specifiek bezig met de skills, in het vo zie je ook wel dat scholen vernieuwend onderwijs

gaan geven, zoals in een van de nieuwste scholen, met nieuwe concepten maar niet qua skills. Het komt wel

meer terug, omdat ze minder in klassen denken en veel dingen via laptops doen. Je ziet dus wel wat

ontwikkelingen in het vo, maar ik denk dat de ontwikkelingen in het po ook meer benoemd zijn.

Kirsten: Ik ben dan zelf bezig voor universiteiten, maar ik merk inderdaad dat het op de basisscholen al veel

meer begint, zoals de Steve Jobsschool. Ik vind het zelf bijvoorbeeld wel interessant in hoever we hier in gaan,

wat is jullie visie hierop?

Frank: ‘Nou de Steve Jobsschool is echt ontstaan uit het idee van; hoe kun je een school maken zonder dat je

daadwerkelijk een gebouw nodig hebt. Het oorspronkelijke idee is hiervan al heel lang bezig, er zitten 2 mensen

hier achter die ook daadwerkelijk een BRIN nummer proberen aan te vragen, zonder dat er ook daadwerkelijk

een adres is, wat eigenlijk een heel absurde situatie is. Want BRIN nummers bestaan er om een gebouw te

financieren.’

Kirsten: ‘Ja, dat is inderdaad dan wel een apart verschijnsel. Het is dan echt out of the box thinking. Vragen

naar de achtergrond van Erwin en Frank.

Erwin: ‘We zijn 10 jaar geleden echt een stichting geworden door de introductie van internet, docenten wisten

hier niet zo goed wat ze ermee aan moesten. Ze kwamen voornamelijk met vragen naar ons toe, terwijl de

laatste jaren wij juist erg aanbodgericht werken. Hierin kwamen eerst vooral veel vragen over de ICT, dus niet

alleen de educatie en sinds een jaar of 8 zijn we nu een officiële zelfstandige stichting. Maar we werken deels

vraaggestuurd, we hebben namelijk ook een functie om innovaties te ontwikkelen. Zelf werk ik hier nu 4 jaar

met een achtergrond van innovatie management en heb ook bij een elearning bedrijf gewerkt. Zelf heb ik ook

een opdracht gedaan tijdens mijn afstuderen over het creatief inrichten van ruimten. Verder heb ik vorig jaar

een project gedaan 21Learners. Hierin heb ik samen met een groep studenten gebrainstormd over wat nou

daadwerkelijk 21st century skills moeten zijn.


94

Kirsten: “Oke, dus daar is dit model waarschijnlijk ook uit voortgekomen?’

Erwin: ‘Ja inderdaad’

Frank: ‘Ja ik zal me ook even voorstellen, ik ben progamma manager bij de afdeling expertise ontwikkelingen en

ondertussen werk ik hier al 5 jaar. Ik heb eerst bij de afdeling primair onderwijs gewerkt, maar deze is

opgegaan in een andere afdeling, daar heb ik ondertussen wel een groot netwerk opgezet in het po, waardoor

we als organisatie een goede binding met het veld hebben. We hebben deze netwerken in verschillende lagen

benaderd, zowel in de praktijk maar als op bestuursniveau. Nu zit ik meer aan de kant van de expertise en

kennisontwikkelingen, mijn gebieden zijn voornamelijk ICT om in passend onderwijs in te zetten. Mijn vorige

baan was bij een uitgeverij. Verder ben ik bezig met de 21st century learning skills en media kennis.

Kirsten; ‘Nou klinkt allemaal interessant, leuke onderwerpen. Ik zal mezelf ook even voorstellen en master

thesis uitleggen, verwachtingen van interview duidelijk maken.

Erwin: ‘Oke helder, ik vond het inderdaad interessant om je onderwerp door te lezen en ben ook zeker

benieuwd naar je gehele literatuur onderzoek en totale scriptie.’

Kirsten: ‘Oke, ik zou jullie dan ook graag willen vragen wat jullie nu echt als innovatie in de learning

environments zien, wat er gebeurd en wat er gaat gebeuren, misschien over 10 jaar.’

Erwin: “Nou over innovaties kunnen Frank en ik wel een redelijk beeld schetsen, maar als je het daadwerkelijk

over gerichte innovaties binnen universiteiten hebt, dan kunnen we je niet helpen, maar algemene innovaties

spelen toch wel door in het hele onderwijs.’

Kirsten: ‘Nee, precies, een algemene visie is ook zeker interessant om te horen’.

Erwin: ‘Ik heb zelf bijvoorbeeld ook wel gestudeerd aan de universiteit van Delft, daar heb ik een heel creatieve

opleiding gedaan en verschillende aspecten daarvan zie ik nog steeds wel als effectieve en innovatieve ideeen.

Ik heb dat afstudeerproject over creativiteit gedaan, daar in heb ik onderzoek gedaan naar de verschillende

ruimtes en waar komen creatieve processen het beste tot hun recht. Zo ben ik bijvoorbeeld bij IDO terecht

gekomen in de VS, ik weet niet of je het kent, het is een bekend ontwikkelingsbureau voor bijvoorbeeld Apple

muizen etcetera. En zij hebben een hele filosofie op de ruimten en dat kwam erg duidelijk terug in mijn

afstudeerproject, dus daar kan ik wel wat over vertellen.

Frank: ‘Ja we kunnen zeker wel het een en ander over innovaties vertellen. Als je ook bijvoorbeeld kijkt naar de

antwoorden in je vragenlijst, dat geeft duidelijk weer dat er nergens echt duidelijk opnieuw wordt gedisingd.

Daarom zijn wij hier op aarde als kennisnet, hoe kunnen we doelstellingen en hoe kunnen we nieuwe

gebouwen veranderen. Maar daar denken we heel erg bij na hoe kunnen we nou optimaal gebruik maken van

het gebouw en de technologien, dat zie je dus niet terug uit de antwoorden. Het algemene beeld wat ik uit de

antwoorden van de checklists kan halen is van ‘oja, deze aspecten hebben we wel want daar hadden we

toevallig ooit eens geld voor’, we hebben een digibord, maar er niet bij nagedacht dat we hierbij ook lessen

kunnen delen. Of een ander voorbeeld: dat studenten daar ook zelf materialen voor zouden kunnen

ontwikkelen, de hele gedachte van samenwerken en ontwikkelen zit niet binnen de scholen, terwijl deze

technologien en toepassingen juist daar de mogelijkheid toe geven. En wat je daarin op dit moment ziet is de ;

flipped-classroom. Ik heb het idee aan de hand van jou vragen dat dit ook steeds meer gaat gebeuren op

universiteiten. Bij de flipped-classroom is het idee dat de instructies online beschikbaar worden gezet en dat

colleges online beschikbaar zijn, dus dat leerlingen eigenlijk het verhaal van de college al weten.

Kirsten: ‘Dus het flipped-classroom idee is eigenlijk dat door online voorbereiding thuis door de leerlingen, dat

ze al voorbereid zijn voor de les die gaat komen’?


95

Frank: ‘Ja precies, zodat je dan beter kan verdiepen.

Kirsten; ‘Maar waar komt het idee, de naam zeg maar van flipped-classroom dan vandaan?’

Frank; “Nou, het oude idee is dat je op school bent en instructie krijgt om mee aan de slag te gaan zonder

student. Nu flippen we het, zodat je thuis al voorbereid en juist in de klas verder gaat en verdiept in de stof.

Erwin: ‘Het grootste voordeel is dat je dus op je eigen tempo kan leren, je kan terugspoelen, zo vaak teruglezen

als je wilt en het doen wanneer je zelf wilt. De docent kan zien welke leerlingen wel of niet de filmpjes hebben

bekeken en gaan dan met de opdracht in de klas. De docent kan op deze manier veel gerichter instructies

geven, dus het is veel meer maatwerk wat dan mogelijk is.

Frank: ‘Ja en als je dit dus nou goed wilt realiseren dat moet je goed naar je fundamentele inrichting kijken. Je

moet bekijken wat je als school belangrijk vind en dat de mind set van de docenten hierin veranderd, want

sommige docenten denken van; ja dan neem ik een keer een les op en kan ik het 10x afspelen, is dat wel wat ik

wil. Dit is een andere manier van lesgeven. Het is dus niet zomaar een idee van ergens technologie in plaatsen,

maar dat je echt anders gaat nadenken met de hele school. En de grap hiervan is dat dit eigenlijk in elk

schoolgebouw kan, want de gebouwen die nu worden gebouwd gaan toch gauw 50 a 100 jaar mee en die zijn

allemaal de laatste 20 jaar gebouwd. Deze gebouwen gaan dus nog wel heel wat jaren mee, de scholen moeten

dus wel gaan kijken hoe ze dit gaan doen binnen de gebouwen en hoe ze dat kunnen realiseren.

Kirsten: Daar heb je dus veel flexibiliteit voor nodig.

Frank+Erwin: Ja zeker.

Kirsten: ‘Wat ik bijvoorbeeld zelf ook heb gemerkt tijdens de interviews met de universiteiten, bij de

nieuwbouw van het Ravelijn gebouw aan de universiteit van Twente, werd door de docenten gevraagd om een

college zaal met Lagerhuisopstelling. Dit om interactiever les te geven, meer discussies uit te lokken enzovoort.

De architect heeft hiervoor ook daadwerkelijk 2 zalen voor gebouwd, maar wat je dan in de praktijk ziet is dat

de docenten het toch niet zo een fijne manier vinden om les te geven en toch maar weer een tafeltje links

voorin de klas hebben geplaatst. Je merkt dus dat docenten graag mee willen gaan in interactieve vormen van

leren, maar dat toch het implementeren en het durven uitvoeren ervan niet wordt gedaan. In deze situatie is

het natuurlijk interessant om een manier te vinden hoe je deze mensen wel zover hierin kan krijgen, cursus

training etc.

Erwin; ‘Nee, dat is wel een grappig voorbeeld. Het begint natuurlijk niet met het realiseren van ruimten, maar

zoiets moet eerst duidelijk tussen de oren doordringen. Verder voordat ik het vergeet heb ik nog een leuk

voorbeeld van het Cor Laar college in Nijkerk. De onderbouw leert op een totaal andere manier, ze zitten niet

meer in klassen maar in grote ruimten, met veel ICT en waar echt vraag gestuurd leren wordt toegepast

worden. Hierin zie je duidelijk de verschillende activiteiten wat binnen deze ruimten plaatsvindt. Zo zijn er

plekken voor stilte en ruimten voor groepswerkplekken. Alles is heel erg open en waarin goed gefaciliteerd

wordt, hierin zie je dus goed hoe de filosofie van de school tot uiting wordt gebracht. Daar hebben we ook

filmpjes van op ons netwerk, dat is echt een school die hun filosofie echt doortrekt in hun gebouw. In een

andere school heb ik ook nog wel een leuk voorbeeld in het vo. Een van de natuurkunde docenten is erg bezig

met nieuwe leeromgevingen, hij richt zijn klassen daar ook duidelijk op in. Hij zet de voorbereidingen van de

lessen online als filmpjes en hij bekijkt voor elke les wie wel of niet de filmpjes hebben gekeken. En voor de

studenten die de informatie nog niet hebben bekeken, gaan in een groepje apart zitten om als nog voor te

bereiden op de werkopdrachten. De andere leerlingen gaan dan al aan de slag met experimenten of

opdrachten. Het is verder wel een normale school, maar deze docent wou er graag mee experimenteren.

Kirsten: Ja dat is inderdaad interessant. Als ik nu dit idee in het hogere onderwijs probeer te plaatsen zou dit

natuurlijk wel moeilijker gaan. Want universiteiten zijn veel massaler, meer studenten, geen vaste klassen,


96

daarin zou je niet goed kunnen checken als docent welke student heeft de informatie wel of niet gezien. Maar

ik denk wel dat hier iets voor de toekomst in zit en daar kunnen docenten het niveau van de lessen op

aanpassen.

Erwin: Jazeker, bij Col laar is dat dus echt duidelijk ook ruimtelijk vormgegeven, dat is echt leuk om te zien. Je

voelt ook meteen dat het een creatieve omgeving is, waar leerlingen leren op verschillende plekken, erg

varrierend.

Frank: ‘Een ander voorbeeld is bijvoorbeeld nog de witte ring. Zij hebben een concept bedacht, ze behandelen

per jaar 7 aspecten. Ze hebben hierin 3 stamgroepen gemaakt, er bestaan geen klassen meer, maar

leerpleinen, themaruimtes, laboratoria en restaurantpleintjes. Op deze plekken kunnen de kinderen eten

wanneer ze willen en hoeven niet meer te wachten tot pauzes. De witte ring gaat hier ook ver in.

Erwin: ‘Een collega van ons is naar een interessant project geweest in San Diego; hightechhigh, hier wordt veel

project/probleemgericht gewerkt, een soort van werkplaats, met verschillende ondersteuningen. Dat is

natuurlijk ook de filosofie van 21st century skilss, dat je pas echt leert als je problemen gaat aanpakken door

bijvoorbeeld een project te maken en dan tegen de werkelijke problemen aanloopt. Het is natuurlijk niet zo dat

je de kernvakken moet loslaten, maar je kan juist de vakken integreren. Een vb hiervan is, de mariaschool in

Boven-Leeuwen; zij doen onderzoekend leren, een bepaalde methodiek. Ze hebben bijvoorbeeld een project

als Sinterklaas; de vraag aan de leerlingen is dan om zelf onderzoek te gaan doen om de achtergrond hiervan te

achterhalen. Zo kijken ze naar geschiedenis en taalkundig, dit noemen ze OGO, onderzoek gericht onderwijs.

Kirsten:’Oke, interessant. Waar ik zelf ook nog aan zat te denken is dat de laatste tijd veel gefocused wordt op

samenwerken, zelfstandig-project gericht werken, maar dat er juist ook weer veel wordt gericht op de student

zelf. Dit is eigenlijk een aparte soort integratie, want studenten worden heel vrij gelaten maar er wordt ook

weer heel veel op de individuele student gericht, hoe denken jullie daar over?

Erwin: ‘Ja, dat snap ik. Het is eigenlijk student gerelateerd wanneer de studenten zelf de vragen kunnen stellen

en aan de slag kunnen gaan en ook hun vrijheid hebben in onderzoekswerk. Je merkt dat wanneer de

leerlingen in groepen werken, juist iedereen een rol heeft en daar de kwaliteiten van de leerlingen naar boven

komt. En hierbij kan de ICT in ondersteunen. Zo het collaar voorbeeld, ze doen een project, maar krijgen niet

een cijfer op het werk dat ze inleveren, maar reflecteren. Ze moeten telkens hun leerdoelen en bevindingen

van invullen en daar beoordeeld de docent ook op. Daardoor wordt het een breder beeld qua ontwikkeling.

Kirsten; ‘Oke dus in de nieuwe leervormen wordt er juist veel meer op de ontwikkeling van het kind gelet.’

Erwin: Ja precies, wat snapt een leerling wel of wat niet. Learning-analytics is hier een goed voorbeeld van. Als

je digitaal de ontwikkelingen en de interacties van de leerlingen bijhoudt, kan je een beter beeld schetsen. Zo

worden bijvoorbeeld rekenprogrammas gebruikt, waarin de leerlingen sommen moeten maken, hoe beter ze

worden hoe moeilijker de sommen worden. Dit registreerd en analyseerd de resultaten voor de docenten,

waardoor de docent direct de ontwikkelingen, sterktes en zwaktes van de leerling kan zien.

Kirsten: ‘Dit kan je dus eigenlijk ook doortrekken naar het lesgeven. Als de docent merkt dat een groot deel van

de kinderen moeite heeft met een bepaald onderdeel kan hij/zij hier wat meer in uitleggen, of weer aparte

groepjes maken.

Frank: ‘Als je dit nog breder trekt, kun je dus ook de docenten beoordelen. Je kan zien welke cijfers de

docenten geven of welke aanpak ze gebruiken,dit is voor docenten wel een spannende ontwikkeling, waardoor

het niveau kan worden bepaald en docenten kunnen feedback ontvangen.

Kirsten; ‘maar je kan natuurlijk ook veel meer zien wat het niveau is van de leerlingen, daarin kan je de lessen

op aanpassen. Verder had je het nog over een ontwikkeling; augmented reality?


97

Erwin: ‘Ja, dat is op het gebied van technologie, maar niet perse nieuw. Het gaat er meer om hoe je de

technologische middelen het beste kan gebruiken in de lessen. Gebruik maken van video’s, GPS, wiki’s erbij

betrekken om het onderwijs te verrijken. Het is niet een erg sterk voorbeeld. Zelf vind ik learning analytics of

adaptief lesmateriaal grotere ontwikkelingen.

Kirsten: ‘Maar als je door deze technologieën de verschillende niveaus kan beoordelen, dan krijg je natuurlijk

ook een grotere diversiteit binnen de leergroepen, dit zie je denk ik voornamelijk op het bo, omdat daar het

onderwijs nog niet gericht op het niveau is, wordt hier al iets mee gedaan?

Frank: ‘Nou niet helemaal, je merkt toch dat een groep of klas wel echt benaderd wordt in zijn geheel, de

ontwikkelingen om te werken met verschillende niveaus en groepen binnen de klassen is vooral nu bezig. De

ene groep heeft meer begeleiding nodig dan de andere. Er wordt wel meer gekeken, vooral nu het adaptieve

leren meer naar voren komt. Er wordt meer gekeken welke lesstof er het beste wij welke leerling past. Dit is

wel een ideaalbeeld van schoolbesturen. Optimaal onderwijs bieden waardoor de talenten van de leerlingen

ook optimaal tot uiting komen in plaats van de lesstof. Maar het is best lastig om dit alles toe te passen, want

de inspectie en de regelgeving geeft niet altijd mee. Want als een docent filmpjes online zet en minder lesgeeft,

dan worden de lesuren niet gehaald, de inspectie is hier nu druk mee bezig.

Kirsten: Ja ik snap dat dit gebeurd. Maar als je kijkt naar de ontwikkelingen dan houdt een docent zich dus

straks veel meer bezig met het de reflecties van de leerlingen dan het lesgeven, daarin gaan natuurlijk ook veel

uren zitten, maar dat is misschien lastiger te bewijzen.

Frank: Ja de rol van leraren veranderd veel meer als piloot of coach in plaats van iemand die erg begaan is met

kinderen. Hierin zijn nu veel discussies over. Het gaat er nog steeds om inzicht te krijgen in de ontwikkeling van

de kinderen en niet alleen maar in het staren naar computerschermen. Door de technologie kunnen docenten

juist veel meer inzicht krijgen in de leerlingen, waardoor gymleraren ook als Nederlands docent kan

functioneren.

Kirsten: Maar als ik denk aan het combineren van vakken voor docenten, moet ik zelf gauw denken aan een

Jenaplan school waar ik zelf ook op heb gezeten. Hier had ik alleen voor rekenen en Engels een andere docent,

verder werkte we eigenlijk erg zelfstandig. In het begin van de week kregen we weektaken die aan het einde

van de week af moeste zijn, en mijn docent was tegelijkertijd ook mijn gymleraar.

Erwin: ‘Oke, maar dit merkte we op het vo.’

Kirsten; ‘oke op die manier. Maar als ik eigenlijk nu een beetje kan samenvatten wordt er meer gedaan aan

nieuwe leermethodes op het po dan in het vo?

Frank: Niet zozeer meer, want we zien in alle beide richtingen veranderingen en ontwikkelingen.

Erwin: Je merkt gewoon in het vo dat het lastiger is omdat je daar te maken hebt met vak docenten.

Frank: in het po zie je de rol van docent veranderen, niet meer welke volgende opdracht de leerlingen maken,

want dat beslist de computer, maar juist het begeleiden van het proces. En wanneer grijp je in? Als leerlingen

achterblijven, je pleegt dan in een later stadium interventies. In po willen ze misschien meer gaan specialiseren

om meer vakkennis te hebben en in het vo is het juist andersom, met het zelfde doel; integreren. Ja en toch

denk ik dat de leerstof en sfeer binnen pos wat homogener en kleiner is dan het vo.

Kirsten: En wat zien jullie nog meer als ontwikkelingen over een paar jaar, ruimtelijk of technisch etc. misschien

ook meer richting universiteiten?

Erwin; Hmm ja, ik denk dat je toch wel gaat naar een meer open werkplaats gaat, ik denk dat een deel van de

klaslokalen vervalt. Ik denk dat het wel goed is dat scholen blijven bestaan als werkelijke plek, waar men zich


98

kan concentreren en kan studeren. Maar dat de school wel meer naar buiten moet gaan, waar het logisch is om

het op die bepaalde plek te doen.

Kirsten; Meer de leerruimte betrekken om de creativiteit te stimuleren?

Erwin: Ja precies, ik denk dat inderdaad meer aan een soort open werkplaats, met verschillende

ondersteuningen, zoals concentratieplekken.

Kirsten: Dus eigenlijk een soort brainstormruimtes bedenken?

Erwin: Ja een soort markt, met verschillende doelen en ideeen in groepen binnen 1 ruimte, dit wekt interesse

op, een soort kruisbestuiving. De leerlingen gaan bij elkaar shoppen, het zijn allemaal kleine oefeningetjes wat

resulteert in een integraal geheel. Bijvoorbeeld het uitwerken van ideeen op papier, daar wordt weer op taal

gelet. Ik denk dat daar leerlingen heel veel van leren, tenminste dat is mijn visie.

Kirsten: Ja die visie vind ik juist wel interessant de creativiteit stimuleren. Maar ik zit dan ook weer een

koppeling te maken naar het universitaire onderwijs, hoe kun je zo een praktijk gerichte methode ook laten

werken binnen een meer theoretisch gerichte leerweg? Zoals op de universiteit heb je nog meer vakgerichte

vakken.

Erwin: Hmm lastig,

Frank: Nou ik deed zelf toegepaste wiskunde. Ik merkte dat we daar in kleine groepen zaten en dat we daarin

zelf dingen konden aandragen. Dus meer interactie van ons, maar ook van de docenten doordat het onderwijs

gepersonaliseerd was ipv 500 man. Hier zaten we ook meer in kantoorruimtes, maar ook nog collegezalen.

Erwin: Ik denk dat dit ook wel nodig blijft. Een plek waar je kan leren moet beschikbaar blijven, collegezalen

zullen blijven bestaan.

Frank: Kijk het doen van onderzoeken is een heel belangrijke vaardigheid wat je op de uni onder de knie moet

krijgen. Door de aandacht op vakken binnen universiteiten, moet je natuurlijk ook nog je onderzoekend

vermogen uitbreiden, want je wil natuurlijk een kritische onderzoeker worden. Daar zie ik nog wel

mogelijkheden om te integreren binnen universiteiten. Daar is weinig aandacht voor volgens mij nu en dat

komt denk ik door de massaliteit. In kleinere groepen is integratie makkelijk.

Kirsten: Als ik dan zo kijk naar mijn eigen universiteit. Wij hebben juist erg flexibele roostering, leerlingen

kunnen zelf kiezen wanneer ze welke vakken volgen. Ik denk dat het voor docenten daarom ook wel erg lastig

is om een inschatting te maken van de klassen grootte, want dit gebeurd vaak pas een paar weken voordat het

nieuwe blok begint.

Erwin: Ja, inderdaad. Maar als ik nu nog weer even kijk naar over 10 jaar en nu. Ik denk dat we dan zeker

allemaal beschikken over een electronic device, waar je overal toegang op internet hebt. Verder stel ik me voor

dat ook op de universiteiten veel meer wordt gedaan aan weblectures, losse leerblokjes via Itunes. Dat je

eigenlijk alle informatie en leerstoffen van internet kan halen van alle universiteiten van de wereld. Dat je daar

ook colleges van kan volgen. Dat je veel meer naar een model gaat, waar alllerlei modules beschikbaar is. En

wat mooi zou zijn, is dat hier een zogenaamde taal is, dat je alsware als LEGO blokjes alles op elkaar kan

passen. Dat hier iedereen zijn eigen pad kiest, dat je vakken over de hele wereld kan volgen overal.

Frank: Ik denk dat je echte universiteiten krijgt. Je merkt ook op universiteiten dat de beroepsgerichte studies

steeds massaler en populairder worden. Ik denk dat hbo en universiteiten veel meer gaan fuseren. Dat je veel

meer beroepsgerichte opleidingen krijgt, dit is al redelijk gaande. Maar dat ook de gewone opleidingen blijven

bestaan. Je ziet bijvoorbeeld dat op veel hbo’s dat de minor wordt afgeschaft, ze willen weer naar de kerntaak

van de opleiding terug. De hbo’s zijn de laatste jaren echt uitgedijd, steeds meer leerlingen moeten de


99

mogelijkheid hebben om de universiteit te volgen.

Erwin: Ik heb nog een ander scenario. Ik vind een inspirerend voorbeeld het st. Johns college. Ze hebben daar

een heel breed curriculum. Het gaat er daar om dat mensen zelfstandig leren denken, niet om welk vak ze

doen. Ze beginnen vanaf de geschiedenis van de wiskunde, bij biologie gingen ze de bergen in. Het idee is

zelfstandig de hele ontwikkeling versneld doormaken. Ze hadden daarna een basis, maar daarna moesten ze

nog echt gaan studeren. Maar diegene die daar zijn afgestudeerd zijn uiteindelijk ook gewoon doktoren, of

werkt bij de NASA, ze hebben allen nog een master gedaan. Je ziet tegenwoordig veel meer beroepen van de

toekomst, maar deze weten we nog niet. Ik zie wel voor me dat we constant moeten blijven leren, de wereld

veranderd zo snel qua technologie dat je wel bij moet blijven. Maar zo gauw je bij een bedrijf gaat werken, heb

je toch altijd wel een interne opleiding nodig. Misschien heb je er meer aan als theoretische basis nodig, en dat

je daarna bij een bedrijf gaat werken en dat zij vervolgens weer in jou investeren. Want veel bedrijven zeuren

dat het niet goed aansluit, eigenlijk bedrijven universiteiten langzaam aan het overnemen, omdat zij ze willen

scholen aan de hand van hun leerprocessen. Dat is erg veranderlijk, maar ik denk dat dit beter binnen een

bedrijf gedaan kan worden. Maar het veraderlijke hiervan is natuurlijk wel weer, dat studenten erg specifiek

worden opgeleid en dat wanneer een bedrijf failliet gaat, je kennis te specifiek is. Maar dat zijn gewoon

scenario’s.

Kirsten: Oke, interessant. Wat ik me nog wel afvraag, denken jullie dat door de nieuwe technologieën,

studenten minder naar universiteiten gaan?

Erwin: Dat weet ik niet, durf ik niet te zeggen. Je ziet wel dat kenniswerk erg is toegenomen. Als je kijkt naar de

doelstellingen van Nederland, 50% moet tegenwoordig hoog opgeleid zijn, dan zie je toch wel dat

universiteiten en hogescholen onder druk worden gezet. Daardoor is langzaam maar zeker wel het niveau

gedaald.

Frank: Ja, precies, en daardoor krijg je nou denk ik ook die beweging dat universiteiten met hogescholen

fuseren.

Erwin: Je ziet wel dat daardoor het niveau is gedaan.

Frank: En dus krijg je university-colleges, zoals Nyenrode. Maar ik denk dat studenten nog wel naar de

universiteiten komen, maar met andere doelen, het gaat met om de interactie.

Erwin: Je komt niet meer naar school om met zn allen in een collegezaal te zitten, dat kan je thuis doen, want

dat kan je dan veel efficiënter doen.

Frank: Nou ik weet niet zozeer of dit efficiënter is, wanneer er tijdens een college een discussie ontstaat, leer je

hier veel van, en dat kan je op de online lessen vaak weer niet terugzien, waardoor je misschien wel een deel

voor je tentamen mist. Ik denk dat daar nog wel een soort oplossing voor gevonden dient te worden. Want

door discussies ga je kritisch denken en is meer dan kennisoverdracht.

Erwin: wat ik zelf nog wel als leuke ontwikkeling heb ervaren bij het st. Johns college is de ontwikkeling van

werken in groepen en geen cijfers krijgen. Studenten moesten elke keer essays schrijven voor punten, en daar

eerst over discussiëren. Wanneer studenten geen voorbereidingen hadden gedaan, konden ze ook niet

deelnemen aan de discussies, dus iedereen was verplicht om zich voor te bereiden.

Kirsten: dus eigenlijk zullen veel nieuwe leermethodes gebaseerd zijn op het pro-actieve karakter van de

student. Nu wordt er veel meer al van studenten al verwacht, op voorbereidingen.

Frank/Erwin: Ja dat is het zeker. Ken je verder het t-pack model?


100

Kirsten: Nee

Erwin: Oke, want dat is eigenlijk bijna hetzelfde model als jij hebt ontwikkeld maar dan vanuit het perspectief

van de docent.

research proposal msc major thesis - wur

Documents