Verified by 
In an earlier post (Environmental Psychology in the Field), I outlined a study I planned to complete at a local secondary school that was moving toward the learning commons model. I am pleased to say that the study is (mostly) complete and ended up involving two other schools, as well! As promised, this blog post will summarize some of the results and discuss a few thoughts I had during the process.
But first, a recap. A learning commons aims to encourage creative use of 21st century technology, as well as inspire occupant collaboration through modern physical design. Designs congruent with the learning commons model offer comfortable spaces to socialize, learn, participate, and create in a variety of ways. A learning commons also promotes access to virtual, synchronized learning options to support integrated service needs of the digital generation (Koechlin, Rosenfeld, & Loertscher, 2010; McMullen, 2007).
In my other post, I noted that much of the research on learning commons spaces seemed to have been undertaken mainly to understand how students are influenced by the design. My study was an attempt to fill a gap in the literature by asking whether the learning commons model affects collaborative relations among teachers, and between teachers and teacher librarians. After all, schools are also work environments for teachers and other staff members, right? Right!
I also wanted to help schools decide whether to alter or maintain learning commons design guidelines by asking which design elements are working well, which are not, and why? Teachers participated in two rounds of data collection in the form of a questionnaire. I also had the chance to formally walk through each learning commons (or, in the case of one of the schools, an existing library before renovations began) to take photographs and ask staff questions.
During the project, each school was at a different stage of renovation. For example, “School A” had fully completed alterations to their library before the study began. Even though it wasn’t possible to make “before and after” statements about how teachers felt about the new learning commons in this school, their responses about the space with respect to its design, and its impact on their professional relationships, were invaluable.
Unfortunately, teachers at School A did not report collaborating more often, or with greater perceived quality, with other teachers or with teacher librarians in the new learning commons. And, teachers using the new learning commons did not experience a significant increase in job satisfaction or engagement. In fact, the average response concerning collaboration, engagement, and job satisfaction was quite neutral.
Hmm.
These results don’t seem to jive with the predicted advantages of the learning commons model. My guess is that not enough time had passed between the completion of the learning commons and the first round of data collection (or the time between the first and second rounds of data collection). If another study is done at School A, it will be easier to understand how the space is impacting teachers at work. To me, these findings highlight important limitations to the model with respect to how it accommodates some of the professional needs of teachers.
In contrast, I was able to ask teachers at “School B” their attitudes about, and experiences in, their new learning commons at mid-renovation, and post-renovation stages. This made it easier to measure and understand changes to their opinions as the design progressed.
Generally, teachers at this school reacted positively to the new learning commons. Their responses about the number and quality of collaborations with teachers and teacher librarians increased significantly from mid-renovation to post-renovation. They also felt more positive about whether the completed learning commons could provide them with resources to teach more efficiently than at the mid-renovation stage. Indeed, the completed learning commons made teachers feel significantly more engaged at work, and more inspired to use technology in their classes than at the mid-renovation point.
That sounds more like it!
“School C” is the reason why the project is not yet complete. Not that this is a bad thing. It is the only school in the study that affords a true “before and after” research design because I was able to gather data from teachers concerning the school’s existing library. Once the renovations are complete later this year, I plan to obtain post-occupancy data and make comparisons. According to the preliminary results, there seems to be room for improvement.
So, to sum up, teachers working at School A reacted more negatively to their new learning commons than teachers at School B. School C will serve as a kind of tie-breaker in substantiating the benefits of the learning commons model. I realize each school has its own culture and limiting circumstances surrounding opportunities for collaboration with other teachers and teacher librarians. Schools also have different opportunities to utilize technology, resources, and so on (although, all schools in the study received a grant to make the changes to their libraries). Much of what makes a learning commons a success, I think, is discussions among teachers and teacher librarians about how to optimally function in a learning commons -- with each other, with students, and with the design. If a learning commons is different than a typical library, it follows that it ought to be used differently, too.
Stay tuned next month for what teachers had to say about the strengths and weaknesses of particular learning commons design features. This will highlight how practical a learning commons needs to be (and how popular the soft and comfortable features are)… naturally!
References:
Koechlin, C, Rosenfeld, E., & Ö Loertscher, D. V. (2010). Building the learning commons: A guide for school administrators and learning leadership teams. Salt Lake City, UT: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.
McMullen, S. (2007). The Learning Commons Model Determining Best Practices for Design, Implementation, and Service (Sabbatical Report).
