Database

Francis, R. and Raftery, J. (2009) ‘Blended Learning Landscapes’, Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-6

Page 1 – Introduction: 1. Rise in student population and change in teaching methodology to flexible distributed learning (FDL) has resulted in a shift in course delivery, space design, and space use.

2. Despite the student intake rise, this has not resulted in an increase of funding and teaching space, thus virtual learning environments (VLE) have been created as another metaphorical ‘space’ in which to learn.

3. So, how has the ‘learning landscape’ changed and what can be expected from learning spaces in the future?

Page 1 – Designing Learning Space: 4. Focus on ‘[…] flexible, learner-centric spaces supporting a range of learning models.’ For example, the Reinvention Centres at Warwick and Oxford Brookes are spaces which facilitate undergraduate research and provide a link between real and virtual learning environments.

Page 2: 5. VLEs have their own pedagogy known as ‘Modes of Engagement’ to ensure they are as effective and useful to the learning experience as formal teaching.

6. These ‘Modes of Engagement’ include; course administration and student support; blended learning to build upon learning in the classroom; a fully online module.

Page 3 – Learner Collaboration: 7. VLEs increase student collaboration and interaction, thus this then needs to be reflected in the physical learning environment by making it easier for group work and presentations to be carried out.

8. Successful VLEs involve a lot of student communication in an informal ‘café’ setting. Hence, this relaxed, social learning model is desirable for ‘real’ learning environments, as seen with Warwick’s Learning Grid, Stanford Learning Lab, Wallenberg Hall, and University of Chicago’s USITE.

Page 4 – Key Characteristics of Blended Learning Environments: 9. Key characteristics include: student ownership of space – responsibility and open access; regulation – allow noise, food etc, yet provide swipe card security; layout and equipment – openness and accessibility, flexible furniture and technology points; up to date I.T learning technology; and support – co-location with other student services and advisors.

Research Significance: Principles behind and evidence for new learning spaces allows us to examine both the physical changes in architecture and metaphorical changes in power relations within education institutions; from a regimented, segregated and teacher owned environment to an open, flexible and student owned virtual and real landscape.

Laura Evans

Sarah Shalgosky Interview Summary

1. Story at Warwick – Curator of the University

Mead GalleryIn charge of art collection, 800 works across campus, also part of TEACHING LEARNING AND RESEARCH.1993 start date – stalled career, period of longevity, know the history of the university, what it STANDS for and what the university NEEDS in terms of reflecting its values as an institution and what is demanded by and of students.

2. History of art at Warwick – change, phases of development etc No idea that it wanted or needed art as part of its university

PHASE 1 - Eugene Rosenberg – key architect in early design of the university, style = designing large institutional buildings – always had an art collection in each building design, furniture chosen = modernist chairs, mass produced Scandinavian design, large abstract art paintings, pop work e.g ‘Special K’, commercial imagery – new consumption of university students etc – university as MODERN, CUTTING EDGE, new ideas and ideals.Discourse of abstract paintings – existentialism ‘BUYING INTELLECTUAL PAINTINGS FOR AN INTELLECTUAL PLACE’ (4:58)Seven unis founded at the same time – opening of H.E to working class = new wave of student grants, new ‘people’ becoming intellectuals, anxiety towards this new conception of university education, art used to respond to the MODERN needs of the new students.

PHASE 2 – Syrill Barret? Member of philosophy department late 60s-70s. £200 a year for art – prints, wanted to continue the ‘modern’ art feel, bought on secondary market rather than from artists themselves as Rosenberg did. Continuing the vibrant, intellectual, forward thinking, and dynamic ‘Warwick environment’.

PHASE 3 – First uni curator, catalogued uni art, ‘past is past, stories of art history are an ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT ANYWAY’ – so is this the role of art at Warwick, to artificially construct an intellectual environment with modern ideals and approaches using its architecture/art?Small budget for art – could only afford young and new art pieces – again does this reflect what Warwick stands for?? ‘Young’ and revolutionary thinking regarding education and teaching, research, the clientele of students, learning environment etc??

PHASE 4 – Sarah Shalgosky and Brian Follett, new vice chancellor, ‘HOW ART COULD ANIMATE THE SPACES’, budget increased to £10, 000, were able to buy significant art pieces by significant artists, then won lottery, £150,000 on art then, installed 4 major works of art 1. Cosmic Wallpaper – Ramphal 2. Maths institute 3. Business School4. David Bachelor for uni house. NEW BUILDINGS GIVEN NEW ART – is this significant? Forward thinking university? Imposing ideals of student and uni from the beginning of a space’s life?Spaces important for work, e,g uni house 3 storey art… ART part of PUBLIC ART, Warwick is NOT a museum, what is public art? ‘IT ADDRESSES THE PLACE IT’S IN’.Input of students informs the art e.g sociology and cosmic art, Deep Purple history – studying systems, map of life, this is how sociologists make sense of the world etc. ART REFLECTS SUBJECT DISCIPLINE, central to reflecting the intellectual world that the art is placed in.

PHASE 5 – Nigel thrift - Changing perception of art as interior decoration, wanted art to make an ‘INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTION’ to the university itself, art representative of academic pursuit, form of RESEARCH, art reflective of Warwick’s commitment to research based learning perhaps??Artists put into research collectives here at Warwick now, working with departments etc e.g Olivia Plender? Art not secondary to academic research but more complimentary.

3. Curriculum and Art 1960s – Art separate from the ‘business’ of the teaching of the university, more indicative of the ideals of the institution, freedom, access, modern approach to learning, opportunity etcNOW – Central to the academic work itself, art as a process of idea generation and research = ideal of teaching and learning at Warwick, what the university student should STRIVE TO BE – a researcher! Importance of FUNDING – artists have similar ownership of ideas as intellectuals, but disseminate these ideals in a different way to academics = architecture wider illustration of this, different way of disseminating ideals? Funding bodies encouraging this use of art. ‘FUNDING FOLLOWS FORM OR FORM FOLLOWS FUNDING’ – true of architecture, pedagogy, and spaces throughout history?? Labour government policies at beginning of millennium regarding art in educational institutions = ‘ART WAS A UTILITARIAN DEVICE TO DELIVER SOCIAL COHESION,’ Warwick attempting to distance itself from this idea, wants art to actually contribute to academia – Warwick always been quite REBELLIOUS?? Link back to student riots etc. Art is people working through ideas and putting their findings into the public arena – exactly the same as academics!

4. In one statement what does art mean to Warwick University

‘DEVELOPMENT OF IDEAS’ – new ideals of teaching, learning, the student, challenging government policy, and this has been the case from the 1960s to today!

Notes by Laura Evans