This was the first official day of the focus session. I’d call it a full day.

8:00 welcome and introductions, followed by a brief presentation to define “learning space” for the discussions and presentations to follow. Like all definitions, it was useful both to focus the discussion and to give us something to kick against when we wanted to move toward complexity and nuance in our thinking. Then an 80-minute small group discussion on what is important in learning spaces and what space characteristics enable learning, in which I learned several inspiring things, most prominently that environmental psychologists have a name for the quality of an environment that arouses expectations without satisfying them in any predictable way: they call it “mystery,” and I’d argue (and did, after Scott taught us that term) that all good learning spaces have to have some of that quality of mystery. We also talked about multiple focal points of attention, the perennial problem of the instructor station (where does it go? how much “command presence” must it/should it have? etc.) and even more philosophically about how students might customize their learning space to reflect a sense of joint ownership and authorship. The latter is an example of how my recent experiences in cyberspace have inspired me to think about analogous items in physical space.

After Betty, Jeannie, Arthur, Scott, and I had batted around these questions for the time alloted, there was a break, and then we were back for a brief presentation on “what is a design principle?” This question was especially intriguing as it focused not on design specifics but on what kind of “behaviors” (not the word I’d choose, but I digress) we want to encourage/enable within the space. This distinction is like the one that informs the effort I and my staff are always making with faculty when we ask them to tell us what they want to happen, not to specify the tool. I’ve been in enough design work to see that it’s a real challenge to stay focused on what activities and outcomes one desires when all the talk turns to podiums and projectors and “smart” classrooms.

But wait: there’ s more. A 90-minute presentation followed, with case studies from MIT and the University of Arizona on lessons learned in major learning space projects. The recent MIT “Stata Center” project was one example. The very long-a’borning Instructional Innovation Facility at Arizona was another. In both cases, especially for Arizona, some sense of crisis led to an urgent re-examination of teaching, learning, and curriculum–and innovation was the result. Although I’m sure it’s not always the case, in these instances the “Field Of Dreams” principle seemed to operate: if you build it, they will come. The corollary is that they will try everything they can to halt construction until it’s too late (but even then they’ll try), for it’s nearly impossible to imagine what the innovation will be like until the facility is actually built. Visionary leadership (and the readiness to have your head handed to you on a platter, and without a nice dance to precede it, either) is a vital part of the undertaking, although such leadership alone isn’t anything like enough to make the project work. My discussion group envisioned a learning space “sandbox” that would be reconfigurable to try out different approaches to design and function, and I learned about the late, lamented “Building 20” at MIT that was torn down so the Stata Center could be built. A bit ironic, that….

I’ll save for later the summary of the marvelous synthesis Dan Gilbert (I think it was) gave us regarding his experience of UVA and MIT, although I confess that it was a little hard to hear that comparison going in MIT’s favor. The Stata Center is quite innovative, no doubt about it, but there’s more even today to admire about UVA’s architecture than Gilbert would admit. Perhaps his enthusiasm for MIT led him to overstate his case.

Lunch (at last). Then back to work. An hour on Future Learning Spaces. Seventy-five minutes on Technology Convergence and the Future of Learning Spaces. A short break. Then a fine ninety minutes from Jose Mestre (Physics, MIT) on Using Learning Spaces to Encourage Deeper Learning, based on the latest edition of How People Learn. Much food for thought there, and some things to challenge . I’ll summarize Jose’s presentation later as well.

By the time we got out, I was full of ideas and energy, actually a little TOO much energy for the reception that followed, so I beat feet up Mass. Ave to check out the used vinyl/CD shops. Made quite the major haul at Looney Tunes, including a Dutch pressing of Focus 3, an original double-eye Columbia pressing of Chicago II, an Lp of madrigals by Thomas Weelkes (Ian Partidge on tenor–sublime!), an Lp of madrigals by poor mad(?) Gesualdo, and a used CD of BBC sessions by XTC. At the Harvard Book Store I found a remaindered copy of Gjertrud Schnackenberg’s Supernatural Love: Collected Poems. A steak sub at Cinderellas, some ice cream from Toscanini’s, and so to bed, dear reader. Tomorrow, more lessons learned, and more questions raised. But tomorrow is another day.