NLII 2004 Conference

1. Process for Designing Learning Spaces NLII 2004 Conference Case Study: The MIT Learning Lab for Complex Systems • Massachusetts Institute of Technology • Edward F. Crawley • Phillip Long • Cambridge Seven Associates, Inc. • Steve Imrich

2. MAIN MESSAGES • Our significant changes in engineering education demanded significant changes in the learning space. • Learning space is a product. We used an integrated product team to develop this product. • We identified a variety of learning modes and then facilitated them with varied, flexible spaces. • We let community happen!

3. Desired Attributes of an Engineering Graduate Understanding of fundamentals Understanding of design & manufacturing process Possess a multi-disciplinary system perspective Good communication skills High ethical standards, etc. THE NEED • Underlying Need • Educate students who: • Understand how to conceive- design-implement-operate • Complex value-added engineering systems • In a modern team-based engineering environment We have adopted CDIO as the engineering context of our education

4. VISION – EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY We envision an education that stresses the fundamentals, set in the context of Conceiving — Designing — Implementing — Operatingsystems and products: A curriculum organised around the disciplines, but with CDIO activities highly interwoven. With disciplines mutually supporting and interacting. Rich with student projects complemented by internships in industry. Featuring active, experiential, and group learning. Set in both the classroom and a modern learning workshop/ laboratory, networked with the outside world. Constantly improved through robust assessment/evaluation process.

5. APPROACH TO LEARNING ENVIRONMENT • A new model for undergraduate engineering education is being evolved • This model can be significantly supported and enhanced by a new type of informal learning environment • We developed a new system engineering based, learning-focused process to create our new learning environment • The learning environment will be used in may modes, it must be flexible and adapt to these as they evolve

6. A NEW PROCESS • The new learning environment can be viewed as a product that must be developed • The client is expert in product/system development • The architect is expert in space development • We synthesized the process of architecture and product development in the conceive/design phase for the new lab

7. TRADITIONAL BUILDING PROCESS • Request from department to the university • Formal approval by university • University project manager hires architects and construction company • Architect elicits needs of the department in programming phase • Design performed by architects, focusing on offices, labs, classrooms, building systems, driven by space needs • Periodic reviews with representatives of department and university A sequential process with up and over communications, driven by less than complete and consistent requirements centered on the change of space

8. CHANGING THE PROCESS • Department appoints a full time project engineer with departmental and domain expertise • System engineering identifies needs, goals, visions, concepts and design requirements, then the architects are hired • Formal approval by the university • Create an integrated product team of all necessary stakeholders (ClientArchitectBuilder) to resolve design questions in real-time • Designing flexible learning spaces, driven by a holistic focus on learning An integrative process with direct communications, driven by a more holistic and informed view of the expected outcome — substantial improvements in education

9. • Integrated Product Team • System Engineering • Learning Focus CURRICULUM Met? TEACHING & LEARNING GOALS WORKSHOP/ LABS ASSESSMENT DESIGN NEEDS IMPLEMENT OPERATE STRATEGY DRIVES PROCESS Met?

10. INTEGRATED PRODUCT TEAM MIT Industry Resource Development Industrial Relations FUNDRAISING Aero/Astro Fundraising Team Provost DESIGN VP President Engineering Team Dean IMPLEMENTATION Technology Team IS, AV, Networks Contractor Architects Planning, Safety Facilities

11. Learning Environment Design Space Equipment Operations CONCEIVE-DESIGN PROCESS Learning Modes Literature Scholarship Bench- marking Needs, Goals CDIO Vision Requirements Concept Fragments Systems Engineering Themes Prototypes

12. WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT LEARNING AND ENVIRONMENT • Every student learns all the time • Learning occurring Inside/outside of class: every setting a learning opportunity • Direct experience decisively shapes individual understanding • Brain’s activity is in direct proportion to its engagement with stimulating environments • Concrete experiences solidify understanding of abstract concepts • Individuals learn by establishing and reworking patterns, relationships, and connections • Different learning styles must be supported • Change in environment is stimulating

13. Large Systems Mode (MEng, SDM) -Year scale -Design intensive -Dedicated space -Product thrust -Close connectivity to outside Design Project Mode (16.82,83,89) -Large scale project -Term length -Virtual design -Dedicated space -Breakout / report-back space Class Lab Mode -Occasional use -Week duration -Storable Tinkering Mode -Occasional -Temporary work space Outreach Mode -Weekly -Accommodate visits, lectures, presentations 62X/UROP Mode -Desktop project -1 to 2 terms -Student developed Research Design Support Mode -In and out capability -Temporary design space use by team -Weeks to months Grad Thesis Mode -1+ years -Equipment needs -Dedicated space -In and out capability Teaching in Labs -Occasional -Presentation area -Demonstrations Large Student Project Mode -Large scale project -Dedicated space -Large components -After hours Linked Projects Mode -Connectivity (multidisciplinary) -Term or less -Multi use lab experiments -Joint labs/designs Income Generating External Mode -Ongoing -In and out testing -Days/weeks -Dedicated space 12 of 21 Modes DETAILED MODES

14. MODES AS A DESIGN TOOL Requirements Space Services Staff Operations $ Modes Equipment Learning Science Pedagogy and Curriculum 1 2 . . . N Prioritize Total Design Requirements for Architects

15. Large Systems Mode (MEng, SDM) -Year scale -Design intensive -Dedicated space -Product thrust -Close connectivity to outside Design Project Mode (16.82,83,89) -Large scale project -Term length -Virtual design -Dedicated space -Breakout / report-back space Class Lab Mode -Occasional use -Week duration -Storable Tinkering Mode -Occasional -Temporary work space Outreach Mode -Weekly -Accommodate visits, lectures, presentations 62X/UROP Mode -Desktop project -1 to 2 terms -Student developed Research Design Support Mode -In and out capability -Temporary design space use by team -Weeks to months Grad Thesis Mode -1+ years -Equipment needs -Dedicated space -In and out capability Teaching in Labs -Occasional -Presentation area -Demonstrations Large Student Project Mode -Large scale project -Dedicated space -Large components -After hours Linked Projects Mode -Connectivity (multidisciplinary) -Term or less -Multi use lab experiments -Joint labs/designs Income Generating External Mode -Ongoing -In and out testing -Days/weeks -Dedicated space 12 of 21 Modes ACTUAL MODAL SCORING

16. EDUCATION MODES Knowledge Discovery Community Building Reinforcing Disciplinary Knowledge System Building

17. IMMERSIVE SETTINGS…The ‘Hangar’

18. THANK YOU • Multi-Media Classrooms • New Case Study Environments • Hands-on Laboratories • ‘Library’ Operations Area • Student Studio Space • Flexible Group Work Areas • Circulation • Social Spaces • Interactive exhibits • Special Immersive Settings • Questions …