Pedagogical bodies & technological spaces

Learning Commons (LC) as an emerging concept

The concept of Learning Commons (LC) has emerged or grown out of the changes that are occurring to North American university libraries in the last decade (Keating & Gabb, 2005, Beatty & Mountifield 2006). As Internet technologies became the norm for information retaining, searching and sharing in the mid 90s, university libraries are incorporating more and more information technologies (IT) into their operation and services. The idea of Information Commons (IC) was first introduced as a new framework and new thinking of how academic libraries could be run and operate, and what sort of services they could provide as a result of the IT development in the higher education arena.

Beagle was among the first to conceptualize an IC as a possible new model of academic libraries in his 1999 article “Conceptualizing an Information Commons”. And he later developed the IC concept further and wrote a working paper “From Information Commons to Learning Commons” (2004) to distinguish what he saw as a developmental stage difference between IC and LC. Other scholars such as Willis and Remy also recognized the changes and saw the same developmental trajectory not only to the changing nature and practices of university libraries, but to higher education teaching and learning in general. In short, the concept of LC was being introduced as something different than the earlier notion of IC, and often is viewed as the next developmental stage following the IC (Remy 2004).

According to Beagle (1999) Information Commons is a parallel structure of physical space and digital environment which make up the academic libraries and their services today. Both Beagle and Remy saw the development of IC as a result of the shift from the traditional organization and use of printed materials to digital resources and services in the higher education arena. Beagle had developed the conceptual framework of IC from the point of view of academic library management, services and design issues. Specifically, he was concerned with technology or IT management within the new form of library structure and service. IC’s focus was on library delivery and service of which Beagle remarked later as still a library-centric perspective. Following his original conceptual framework of technology management, Beagle has developed the concept of Learning Commons as the final stage or transformation from IC. LC denotes a campus wide change as a result of the technology infusion within a higher education institution. And the key characteristics of LC was the shift of focus from technology and information delivery to teaching and learning, and collaboration. As Remy has it, the mission of LC is to facilitate learning. One example of LC as brining more student support and pulling resources from other faculties and staff, such as the inclusion of language and writing support services.

Learning Commons as a physical construct

According to Beatty (2005), who does not make the distinction of IC and LC, Information Commons started to appear around the early 1990s, located within libraries. Beatty and her colleagues did a scan of 100 ICs in North America and narrowed down 36 ICs based on the number of computers exceeding 100 pieces within such spaces. They identified three kinds of existing IC set ups. According to Beatty, the most basic set up was computer based labs, with or without library reference assistance. The second was the integrated set up where both technical/computer and reference/research support services are installed. The third is considered to be a evolving type, an entire building devoted to the IC, often including collaborative units from the library, IT sevices, educaitonal services, writing centers and various student services working under one roof. In their later paper, Beatty and Mountifield further conceptualize the 3 physical models of IC into three different service type models: 1. technology based service model 2. service delivery models & 3. IC building service model (2006). They tend to agree with Beagle on the conceptual framework of LC as a future model of IC and envision that faculty members and students will have ‘an enriched suite of services and toolsets with which to work together in a collaborative setting’ (p.233).

Learning Commons as a learning environment

Beagle, Beatty, Bennet, Keating & Gabb, Schmidt & Kaufman and many others are starting to talk about the ‘pedagogical roles’ of IC and LC right around 2004, and the discussion are being carried to present day. Many of them observe that the early forms and functions of IC has been constantly changing and shifting from providing information-centric technology services and a place to learn e-literacy, to the focus of collaborative learning of today’s university education experience (Beagle, 2004, Beatty & Mountifield, 2006, Schmidt & Kaufman 2007). There was the mentioning of Prensky’s idea of the ‘digital native’ being the characteristics of the 21 st century students who ‘do not know a world without technology’ (2001). And the notion of learner-centered approaches and socio-cultrual learning (Vygotsky) to the development of new learning spaces are being brought to the center of the LC discussion. Keating and Gabb also wrote their paper based on the similar idea of autonomous learning which is a kind of self-access approach to supporting learning.

Bennett from Yale (2007) puts the questions about what sort of learning people would like to see happening in a space, as the foremost concern when thinking about and designing learning spaces such as the library. Like Beagle, he is looking at learning spaces from the management and planning perspective, but for Bennett learning was always the ‘unambiguous first pirorty’ (p.23), and the guiding principal through out the planning and development. He too sees collaborative learning & learning communities figure prominently in today’s university education, but he also emphasize the importance of acquiring an understanding of the learning culture within an institution to increase the likelyhood of true productivity of new learning spaces of those institutions.

Watson (2007) from the UK perspective also observed the changing nature of university student’s learning modes, such as increasing collaborative student work e.g. problem based learning, project work, performance based assessments. And the emergence of Learning Cafe as a plausible model of LC, Watson believed was a result of the demand for a more sociable, and conversational learning space. It is a space beyond traditional lecture theatres, classrooms & libraries which are not particularly helpful to the interactive group work that students nowadays undertake. Boone also talked of the learning cafe in his paper titled “Monastery to marketplace, a paradigm shift” (2003) as the model of tomorrow’s acadmeic libraries of which he sees a synthesis of both traditional and new spaces for learning.

Similarly, a study done by a group of Swedish researchers on the efficacy of LC at the Swedish Creative University rationalized their study context being the demand on university to respond to the ‘different expectations and preferences of the Net Generation student population’ (Mirijamdotter, Somerville & Holst, 2006, p. 83)

To summarize, the majority of literature available from main stream sources on Learning Commons have been theorizing the emergence and development of LC in the larger context of changes that are occuring within the university libraries and the general higher education scenes in North America and Europe. Borrowing from Beatty and Mountifield’s words, two of the most influential contextual factors are thought to be the ‘advances in information technology and the changing student profile (p. 234). They in fact thought the changing student profile was due partly to the advancement of technology. These literatures also piece together a picture of the LC as a one stop service site and a space of ‘total’ learning experience of which everything desirable as what learning should be like is provided.

Other alternative concepts of Learning Spaces

David Kolb, poses the concern for not having enough ‘empty’ space to reflect and think in the midst of busy information online spaces (2000). When thinking about learning spaces, and the Web, he questions the ‘degree to which inhabitation can be or should be mediated by critical reflection. The idea of building physical and virtual spaces where people feel comfortable and ‘at home’ may in fact work against the learning experience ‘to live with full awareness of the precarious nature of our interpretative frameworks’ (p. 123). And that is to be aware of the embedded conventions and rules within these spaces. Kolb draws upon Heidegger’s philosophy in thinkng about a better design of learning spaces where spacial elements do not block ‘our understanding of the more basic ways in which things and places locate and define us, rather than being merely our tools or products’ (p.124). For Kolb what would not be desirable is online sites that are overly information-oriented. He contrasts that with the example of highly ritualized spaces such as courtrooms, concert halls and food arcades and suggest these places all have their own normative functions and behaviors, places where people speak or keep silent, look in one direction or talk socially. Kolk thinks that meaningful learning spaces should have such kinds of ritualistics effects so that various kinds of learning can take place.

But he also speaks of spaces where rules can be challenged, and people can be distracted from the dominant agenda. Unlike the traditional classroom where a sense of total control is exerted, and where teacher’s teaching agenda is the dominant discourse, the distracting classroom is in fact good for the group learnng activities. Kolk says ‘nosiy’ participation is good because it means people are responding, and the best is if they do so critically, ‘we need to encourage informal communication and side conversation into a learning mode, to be analytical or reflective about the ongoing central conversation…’ (p.129). Kolk observes that this kind of side commenting may take place during meals and face to face talks, but also happens as side chats in online discussions. He suggests that to design learning spaces that would encourage this kid of sociality will be a major challenge precisely because much of the spacial design concepts nowadays have an obession with making places a totally encompassing, dazzling, and complete in itself building. And Kolk quotes from the architect Michael Benedikt: ‘But totality and completeness are too often acheived at the espense of reality…much contemporary architecture lacks emptiness, by being quite literally full. Full, if not of people and goods and pushy displays, then of Design (1987, p.60).

Kolk, in the final part introduces the idea of Anne Cline who envisions places ‘free from aggresively righteous agendas…a contingent community, a sangha of silence (1998, p.130). He jokingly remarked that to suggest an online community of silence is almost a taboo idea, but not an impossible one. In the final remark, Kolk suggests that education should not provide opportunity to teach students skills to achieve their goals without making them also question their own goals and desires.

Having similar concerns yet with different metaphors, Jane McKie (2000) uses the total ‘tourist guide book’ as the metaphor of a kind of problematic learning experience where travelers may become already too ‘familiar’ with a place that they are yet to visit and gain experience. She suggest that online experinces such as navigating the Internet with too much direction may impoverish the experience. McKie thinks that we need to strike a balance between autonomy and gudiance in learning experiences because too much guidance (a pre-digested form of learning) can blunt the development of critical awarness. She speaks of the ‘total guide’ as a form of secondary text, ‘ one that can sometimes obscure awareness of the benefits of experiencing the terrain first-hand’ (p. 120).

Zahedi, an instructional designer brings in the cultural aspect into virtual learning space design, and particularly drawing exmaples from e-learning studies. Zahedi suggests that cultural diversity in today’s educational setting can be a constructive instructional challenge. He cited from a number of studies saying that students who study in a culturally diversed environment become ‘better critical thinkers, communicators, problem-solvers and team players’ (Sugar & Bonk, 1998). He raises the issue of whether to choose between making internationaized or localized e-learning environments, and suggests that the decision should base on the types of learners and target audience.