Universities are very dynamic environments when faculty are liberated to think about new educational and research possibilities. Space needs continuously arise.
Over the past few weeks, discussions on the so-called Master Plan of the university have begun. They have asked the question of what new academic initiatives might occupy new space and how that space needs to be configured.
It is a time of great innovation in US higher education. Many of the state universities, the backbone of the world’s finest ecology of higher education, have received year-after-year budget cuts. They are under direct threats. The option of tuition increases has either been eliminated by state legislative intervention or by weak demand from families strapped by flat salaries. Small private liberal arts colleges with limited endowments are also threatened; some are closing. Existential threats are spurs to innovation, and it is occurring at a very rapid rate.
Adoption of flipped courses is changing what students do inside classrooms. Intensive project-based learning has led to more use of laboratory or studio-based space. Blended courses with online components have led to more use of ad hoc small-group space, with integrated technology infrastructures. Learning management systems are designed to be digital one-stop shops for all materials students need to pursue a course. Ubiquitous Wi-Fi permits students to work in spaces that also act as social meeting space. The boundary between class and non-class, work and non-work, is blurring on campuses in the same way that it is blurring outside of universities.
Electronic portfolios of class work managed by students create integrated documentation of the progress of the student’s education. Social media platforms surrounding classes are fora for the intellectual exchanges supplementing class exercises – the 21st century mode of reflection and synthesis. Students are voluntarily supplementing the organized class learning with Kahn Academy and Lynda.com targeted educational videos. The Federal Government is seeking ways of certifying the learning accessible in coding academies and other focused learning centers.
On the research side, almost all major institutions that fund research are shifting to the big unsolved problems. Interdisciplinary teams increasingly spend time outside their faculty offices in shared space for these teams – a home for kindred souls who share common interests but different home disciplines. Sometimes the university teams are supplemented by researchers in partner organizations. New digital and computational approaches are arising in many fields.
Change is afoot.
In the midst of this we need to imagine the space needs of Georgetown 10 and 20 years hence. What space designs will meet the needs of our research teams working on key interdisciplinary problems? Should we plan for space occupied by Georgetown research partnering organizations? What space designs prompt the unplanned interactions of faculty with symbiotic scholarly interests? What space is best suited for the nurturing of interdisciplinary educational programs?
What is the needed mix of flexible group workspace and traditional classrooms with fixed desks and a lecture podium? What technology is needed for different group activities in the space they will occupy? What space will research-based learning need? How much time will students and faculty be off-campus, working together in experiential learning situations? What is the future of classes now taught in large lecture halls?
These are the kinds of questions we all need to address.
Several months ago, President DeGioia doubled-down on the role of place in the future of Georgetown. The decision renewed the commitment to deep formation of young minds that requires face-to-face interaction with faculty mentors and peers. This strength of Georgetown must be preserved in the future. But the space in which it is conducted must also reflect the use of new pedagogical designs and of new learning technologies that Georgetown faculty require. Over the coming weeks we’ll seek input from larger groups of faculty and staff on “the space of the future” at Georgetown.
This blog about space is very important and timely, as space is a short commodity on the Georgetown campus, and as the new Campus Plan is being prepared. Here are some of comments and observations which hopefully will prove helpful:
1. Compared with other peer universities Georgetown has fewer academic buildings and more dorms (due to the insistence of neighbors). I am glad that one or two new academic buildings are being considered in the new Campus Plan I believe faculty and academic administrators see the need for such infrastructure, but students and neighbors may not, and it would have to be explained to them. Mr. Morey also needs to be briefed on the urgent need for new and better academic infrastructure.
2. Practically all schools, departments and programs are experiencing a shortage of space. This shortage of space is in the form of certain types of classrooms, appropriate labs, academic and faculty offices, joint offices for graduate TAs, etc. and will be increasing acute if not addressed and become a major constraint for the further academic development of Georgetown. There could come a time when it will no longer be possible to hire additional faculty members or add new courses due to the shortage of offices and classrooms, or at least it would put GU at a disadvantage when recruiting tenure track faculty if it cannot provide them with individual offices. The proposed academic building(s) should in principle be made available to all the various academic sectors of the University: sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts. The Reiss building school be renovated and reconfigured as a matter of priority to meet the needs of the science fields.
3. New classrooms should be “technologically smart” with built-in projection and data-show facilities, especially if existing portable audio-visual equipments are outdated or in poor state of repair. They should provide the most flexibility possible, including tables that are not fixed but that can be reconfigured according to the teaching approach used, walls that are also movable so that classrooms can be expanded or made smaller as required, and possibly work stations for project work should be available. The registrar’s office should be able to identify what sizes and types of classrooms are in greatest demand, and are likely to be in short supply in the future. Foresight is needed to foresee the future needs in academic infrastructure. Regarding faculty offices, even if the main campus full-time faculty grows only by one percent a year, an additional 85 faculty offices at the minimum will be needed in ten years.
4. In view of the shortage of space on campus, any new building should be built up vertically to five or six stories. Also, some the space underground should be used. It is not ideal to have classrooms below the ground level, but it is possible as in the ICC. Also, space below the ground floor could be used for labs and for storage facilities, which I understand are also in short supply on campus.
5. If a new dorm is built at the insistence of neighbors, it could be a living-learning facility with a study/reading room, a classroom, a formal lounge, and possibly office space for student services and organizations. If such a dorm is built, the old Jesuit residence could be turned into an academic center, especially appropriate for the humanities departments which are close to it: Theology, Philosophy, English, and Classics. If this happens there would probably be some disappointment among students, as they like the JesRes, but the greater good of the University as an academic institution would have to be explained to them.