Stanford Graduate School of Business Study Room Design Project

Stanford Graduate School of Business Study Room Design Project

EDUC 303X: Designing Learning Spaces

Lynn, Hiro, and Claudia

June 6, 2008

Design Rationale

For our design project, we were given the task of designing study rooms for the new GSB campus being built, the Knight Management Center. Currently, study rooms reside in the Schwab residential center and Jackson library, but these study rooms are not fully equipped nor designed to promote the student experience: tables and chairs are hard to move around, lighting isn’t adequate, and the provided PC desktop that’s on a small, single person desk in each room isn’t conducive for the group work the study rooms are predominately used for. Since the new GSB campus is still in its design phase, it is a prime opportunity for us to analyze the current study room facilities and improve upon them.

Study rooms are seen as spaces for learning, so our biggest challenge was to make them into learning spaces. Currently, the learning is in the hands of the students who use the study rooms. They bring in their materials and group mates and work together in order to better understand a class topic or complete a project. Although the way the study rooms are now being used is legitimate, this type of collaborative work could be accomplished in any given space that provides some quite area to work. Our main design goal was thus to create some sort of learning that the study room could provide. In order to figure this out, we discussed the potential learning that could happen in a study room in addition to the studying students would obviously be doing in there. One source of inspiration for this task was the book A Whole New Mindthat one member of our team read.

In the book, the author, Daniel H. Pink, describes the importance of cultivating the right side of the brain – the side that focuses on things such as creative thinking, looking at the bigger picture, and interpreting emotional content. Pink argues that developing these skills is just as important, if not more important, as the traditionally valued left hemisphere skills of analytical thinking and attention to detail. These left-brain skills reflect more of a “knowledge worker’s” skill set, one who has the ability to “acquire and to apply theoretical and analytic knowledge”, i.e. left hemisphere skills. In today’s society however, right-brain skills are just as valued. Pink summarizes these skills in two groups: high concept,which he describes as “the ability to create artistic and emotional beauty, to detect patterns and opportunities, to craft a satisfying narrative, and to combine seemingly unrelated ideas into a novel invention” (51) and high touch,“the ability to empathize, to understand the subtleties of human interaction, to find joy in one's self and to elicit it in others, and to stretch beyond the quotidian in pursuit of purpose and meaning” (52).Theseright-brain attributes were seemingly neglected in the current study room design. Given that the new campus is priding itself as a modern and nurturing environment for students to succeed in, it is only natural for the study rooms to also reflect this same idea. The learning we aim to create in our study room redesign is thus the learning of two right-brain skills important for both current and future GSB students, group collaboration and creative thinking, which are best learned by being nurtured into being through an environment that promotes their practice.

Design Process

Our design process can be divided into five overarching phases:

1. Investigation of current study rooms
2. Brainstorm of ideas for preliminary design
3. Incorporation of user interview feedback and learning theory
4. Revision of design plan based on visit to another learning space (Y2E2)
5. Final redesign based on instructor feedback and group reflection

Although our process wasn’t as clear-cut as these phases make it out to be, the flow of our idea and design refinement generally followed this type of progression throughout the project.

Phase 1: Investigation of current study rooms

When we first heard about our study room design project, we knew that the first step was to look at the current study rooms GSB students used. We met with our contact, Bryan McCann, an Instructional Technology Manager at GSB, in order to learn more about the new campus project. Bryan was immensely helpful during our meeting with him. He gave us a lot of information about not only the project, such as the campus blue prints and concept drawings,but the GSB students and technologyas well. Since he has worked with all the technology GSB provides, he was able to tell us about the current technologies study rooms contain and what types of technologies have been tested before. This technology perspective resonated with us as LDTers, and was particularly insightful in relation to the students. Bryan had conducted an informal survey about laptop use amongst GSB students and found that almost all GSB students, maybe 98%, have their own laptop.

In addition to being a helpful source of background information, Bryan was able to give us a tour of the Jackson Library study rooms, one of the two main study room facilities available on the GSB campus. The other facility, Schwab Residential center, we visited on another occasion through a contact Bryan provided for us. During both visits, we took notes and photos of the study rooms, noting possible improvements we could incorporate into our design. Overall, we found that current study rooms needed better lighting, more flexible furniture, more group work supportive technology, and a better means of reserving their use.

Phase 2: Brainstorm of ideas for preliminary design

After getting a good feel of the current study rooms, we brainstormed ideas for what would make for a better study room. During these beginning brainstorming sessions, we tried not to worry about real world constraints as much and tried to be as creative as possible. Some examples of the ideas we had were different themed study rooms, like a Japanese study room that featured a tatami mat and pillows students could sit on, a circular table made out of a stack of paper that study groups could write on, and accordion-like walls that could open and close to open or divide the study spaces as needed. Though our brainstorming continued throughout the entire process until we came up with our final design, this first bit of idea generation was more free form and unconstrained. While some of our ideas we let go as too far-fetched, we were surprised to hear during our final presentation that some weren’t as out there as we had thought.

Phase 3: Incorporation of user interview feedback and learning theory

Having some initial ideas of our study room definitely helped when we started incorporating the findings from our user interviews into our preliminary design plans. We interviewed a couple GSB students. We found it was difficult to set up a time to meet because GSB students are very busy! During the interviews, we questioned their typical day, study life, group work situation, concerns for study rooms, and so forth. From these discussions, the biggest thing we learned was the realization that GSB students’ ideas for learning spaces were quite different from our ideas as LDT students. We believe that a learning space should be for creating a new idea by collaborating with cohorts, but one GSB student we interviewed, saw learning spaces as working spaces, a place where work gets done efficiently and simply. We didn’t find all GSB students to share this extreme sentiment though, so we tried to find some middle ground between efficiency and creativity in our design plans.

One way we were able to find a balance was to consider the learning theories behind our design. Montessori’s theory of “auto-education” was one such theory that applied to our design rationale since it describes how an environment should be designed to stimulate and encourage learning by providing the necessary resources for learners. In this way, we would be able to accommodate those students who want a simple environment where work gets done quickly in addition to the students that want a more in depth group interaction that focuses less on efficiency and more on creativity and cooperation by providing the necessary equipment for each task without forcing it upon the students. For instance, we could provide the capability of video conferencing and whiteboards in each study room, but it is entirely up to the study group whether they will use either material. The current study rooms also provide materials for students to choose to use or not, but the problem with their set up is that the interaction wasn’t fully thought out. For example, in each study room there is a desktop PC provided that consists of a large monitor that could be seen by multiple people comfortably. Unfortunately, the group work this monitor could facilitate is hindered since the PC is situated on a small, single person desk that is stuck in one corner of the room. Even if a study group wanted to use the computer, the set up does not help the interaction and instead hurts it.

At this point in our design process, we still had a lot to tinker with in our initial study room ideas that we played with when we developed our persona and scenario. Through our scenario, we were able to really visualize the type of interactions we wanted to facilitate in our study room design, but we still didn’t have a complete study room design just yet. We were somewhat stuck as to where to go after creating this scenario but thankfully, we were able to get more inspiration after our visit to the Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy building and through our use of Google SketchUp.

Phase 4: Revision of design plan based on visit to another learning space (Y2E2)

For our learning space field trip, our group decided to go see the Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy building on campus. We were curious to see what a green building was like, especially one we didn’t know existed right here on campus. This field trip turned out to be not only an interesting exploration of a new space, but also a new source of ideas for our study room. We were really taken by the natural lighting and abundance of glass walls throughout the building, two characteristics we wanted to adopt for our own design plan. We also were very interested to see what the study room areas in the Y2E2 building were like, so we made sure to go by these spaces. Each room we saw had these long whiteboards that spanned the entire length of the wall, and each study rooms had not just one whiteboard but two on parallel walls. It was great to see the study areas being used by student groups, so we got to see some interaction in a room we felt was more along the lines of what we hoped to create as opposed to the current facilities in the GSB. The use of easily movable chairs and tables was key since we saw that some groups had moved furniture around depending on where the group was focused: either on a whiteboard or the laptops on the table. One of the conference rooms also had an accordion-like glass wall that we were intrigued by and still considered in our design plan.

While the Y2E2 building definitely helped generate more ideas, our design really found traction when we prototyped it in Google SketchUp. It was there that our initial idea of tables that could connect or disconnect from one another to form new table sizes took the form of colorful Lego tables. It was also where our idea of the accordion wall was dropped since we couldn’t see it working out especially with the reservation system idea we had toyed around with in our scenario. Google sketchUp was thus a great tool for us to not only visualize but also expand on our ideas. It generally represented them well, except for the translucent glass walls we wanted where students could have natural light go in, but wouldn’t be distracted by the ability to look at all the other study groups around them.

Phase 5: Final redesign based on instructor feedback and group reflection

After completing our Google SketchUp prototype, we definitely felt we were a lot closer to having a final design. Having the model to work from made it easier to see what we still were lacking and what ideas we could expand upon. For example, the models of the chairs we had looked a bit old fashioned according to some of our feedback, so we searched for a more modern, light looking chair with wheels and found a better-suited model. We also were advised to add more people into our space, which actually proved to be a good way for us to make our design look finished. With the addition of people, we had to add laptops on the tables from which they were working off of. We also added in our projector idea into the space along with the whiteboard markers for the glass walls since we couldn’t have our students just working from their laptops. Some of the projections simulated video conferencing, so we were able to better visualize the other elements we were still lacking in our first Google SketchUp iteration. I’m sure if we were to do another iteration based off of our current model, we’d revise it even further, especially with some of the feedback we received during our final presentation. For instance, our original idea of different themed study rooms could be something we revisit in a new iteration because it actually could be a better experience for regular study groups to switch up the study room environment instead of having the usual bland and identical layout. We could also play with the idea someone else gave us about Lego chairs, which was definitely something we hadn’t thought of. Overall though, we were quite content with how our design turned out at the end of our design process.

Assessment Plan

It seems to be quite difficult to measure how the users’ performance improved by introducing the new study rooms in the new GSB building. However, we believe that the following plans could work for the assessment of our project.

1) Compare the number of users after the renewal with previous ones.

Assuming that the degree of users’ satisfaction is increasing after the introduction of the new study rooms, more students are expected to use them in comparison to the time when students used to use previous study rooms, such as in Jackson Libraries, and Schwab Residential Center. In other words, more rooms should be used. However, since the number of rooms in the new GSB building is totally different in the buildings mentioned above that students previously used, we are planning to compare the occupancy rate (the number of occupied rooms/the total number of rooms) in a given period. This research is conducted quantitatively as the following method:

Length of research:one month (before renewal) and one month (after renewal)

Procedure:

A. Before the new GSB building opens

We recognize that the study rooms in the current buildings don’t have reservation systems, and don’t take the record of room usage. Therefore, we should ask the room users to leave the following information when they use the study rooms in a given period:

-starting time & finish time

-number of students who used the room together

B. After the new GSB building opens

Since we are supposed to introduce an online-based reservation system in the new building, all information should be gathered automatically. Therefore, the comparison the difference between the above A and B will not be difficult so much.

Assumptions:

a) The occupancy rate (the number of occupied rooms/the total number of rooms) of B should be higher than that of A.

b) Comparison could be difficult but the total number of users of B shouldbe more than A considering many more attractive features of the new GSB building.

2) Analysisof the degree of students’ satisfaction after introduction of new study rooms.

We will analyze how students’ impression or motivation is changed after the introduction of new study rooms by the following three research methods.

1. Online based survey (Quantitative research)

Number of samples:100 students for online based survey

Procedure: One month later, after the new study rooms open, we will send online based survey forms to the users of the new rooms, and ask them to fill it in. Anticipated questions will be a) How do you like the new study room? b) Do you think the new study rooms motivate you to study? c) Do you think the learning environment is better than before? d) Do you think the new rooms contribute to accelerate the collaboration among learners? e) Do you think the new rooms are helpful for producing better ideas or solutions?

Assumptions: Since we assume that the degree of users’ satisfaction will be increased after the introduction of new study rooms, positive responses are expected as for all a) – e) questions.