72- 15,180 BROWN, Marion Edna, 1921- DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR LEARNING CENTERS. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1971 Education, general University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan (tp copyright by Marion Bdna Brown 1972 DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR LEARNING CENTERS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by MARION EDNA BROWN, B«A#, M.R.E, The Ohio State University 1971 Approved by Adviser Department of Adult Education PLEASE NOTE: Some pages have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To my committee, Professors William D. Dowling, my adviser, Elsie Alberty and John C. BeHand for afford­ ing me the opportunities to pursue my study with freedom to learn throughout the process, • To Professors I. Keith Tyler and John Ohliger who provided guidance and direction when my study began, . To St. Paul School of Theology, Kansas City, Missouri for the leave of absence which made the study opportunity possible, . To The Ohio State University for the grant of the Dissertation Fellowship in 1971, • And to my Mother and small group of faithful friends who said ONWARD - My deepest gratitude for encouragement and expression of joy of 'our' accomplishment. ii VITA October 27, 1921. • • • • Born - Nashville, Tennessee 1946..................... B.A., Taylor University Upland, Indiana 1946-1948 ............... Teacher of Bible, Public Schools, Plymouth, Indiana 1948-1950 M.R.E., Asbury Seminary Wilmore, Kentucky 1950-1952 Director of Religious Educa­ tion, Portsmouth, Ohio 1952-1958 . ......... Director of Religious Educa­ tion, Columbus, Ohio 1958-1967 ............... Associate Secretary, Methodist Interboard Council, Columbus Ohio 1967-1970 ............... Assistant Professor, Religious Education, St. Paul School of Theology, Kansas City, Missouri 1970-1971 ............... Research Associate, Center for Adult Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. On leave of absence from St. Paul School of Theology for study. PUBLICATIONS Series of eight articles, "Oounseling Teacher” - Elementary Teacher. United Methodist Church. 1968-1970. •'Focus Section,” Church School, Vol. 14, No. 1 (September, 1971), pp. 17-24. iii FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field - Adult Education. Professors William D. Dowling, John Ohliger. Minor Field - Educational Technology and Communication. Professors Elsie Alberty, John C. Belland, Sidney Eboch, Franklin H. Knower, I. Keith Tyler iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................... ii VITA................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES...................................... vii LIST OF F I G U R E S .......................................viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION............................... 1 Background of the Problem ............. 4 A Call for a New Concept............... 16 Research Design • 20 II. CONTEMPORARY STATE OF THE ARTS AS RELATED TO LEARNING CENTERS............... 26 Review of the Literature Related to Learning Oenters 27 Summary of Review. ......... 49 What Learning Model Is Productive for Learning Center Design?......... 50 Why Should the Learning Center Be Designed for Individualization?. • • 70 How Can the Learning Center Provide an Human Learning Environment? . 82 How Can Persons Responsible for Learning Centers Ascertain Whether the Center Is Fulfilling Its Goals?. •••••••••••• •• 95 Summary ........... ..•••••••• 110 III. PERSONAL INTERVIEWS AND VISITS TO LEARNING CENTERS .......................... 112 Description of Sites Visited and Data Gathered from Interviews. 115 v CONTENTS (continued) CHAPTER Page III. (continued) Responses to Key Questions. •••••• 138 Summary 147 IV. DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR A LEARNING CENTER. • 149 Systems Approach to Organization and Design ............. •*••••.. 149 Conceptual Model for a Learning Center ••••••• ............. • 151 Design Principles for Learning Centers. 155 Summary ••••••••..•••••• 183 V. A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO DESIGNING A LEARNING CENTER...................... 185 System Identification 189 Problem Analysis. ................. 204 Problem Design. •••••••••••• 210 Project Implementation. •••••••• 216 Project Evaluation. ..•••••••. 218 Summary 219 VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................ 221 Evolution of the Learning Center. 221 Prior Questions ••••••• ........ 222 Conceptual Model for a Learning Center 224 Procedural Model for Operationalizing Learning Centers •••••••••• 228 Recommendations 231 APPENDIX * 1. CRITERIA OF EXCELLENCE.................... 234 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................... 237 Vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1« Responses to Key Questions Regarding Learning Center Concept* •••••••• 139 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1, Nature of Creative Inquiry, •••••••• 63 2, Components of Creative Inquiry, 64 3, Learning Concept for Learning Center, • , , 65 4, The Relation of Evaluation to Decision- Making ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 101 5, Detail of Decision-Making Process • • , • • 102 6, Types of Decisions, ••«•*, .«•••« 104 7, Work Breakdown for Generalized Approach to Evaluation Design ,,,,,,,,,, 107 8, Geographical Locations of Centers Studied , 113 9, Department of Communication Services, Brigham Young University 118 10, Division of Instructional Services, Brigham Young University ••«•,,,. 119 11, Conceptual Model for Learning Center, a , • 152 12, Learning Center Concept ••••••••,, 154 13, Overview of Procedural Model, ••«,«•• 188 14, Breakout of Phase I, ,,*••••«•,« 190 15, Breakout of Phase II, , , , ••««,,,« 205 16, Breakout of Phase III ...........,,,, 211 17, Breakout of Phases IV and V,,,,,,,, 217 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Schooling has been mistaken for education for so long that in the thinking of some these terms are synonomous. A sharp distinction is occurring, however, as innovation in education is forcing a redefinition of teaching, learn­ ing, schooling, and education. Educational technology is replacing some of the tasks the teacher assumed: thus the role of the teacher and student is requiring new thought. "Electronic media, including programmed materials, will not replace teachers but will help replace them, enable them to play the important role of guide, counselor, moti­ vator, briefer of an exploring party, organizer integrator, critical questioner, intellectual gadfly— do the things that only a live and lively teacher can do in personal face-to-face communication."^ "The business of education is to invest experience with meaning and organize it in a way which will expand the individual's capacity for further learning. Develop­ ments in educational technology are amplifying and ^Edgar Dale, "New Media: Men and Machines," Audio Visual Media, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Summer, 1969), p. 35. 1 2 accelerating this process#" Accordingly, the role of technology is twofold. One aim is liberation of man, calling him to control technology rather than be controlled# The other aim is for the liberated person to be able to dominate the material in such a way that it becomes a medium for his creative self- expression and self-actualization# Earl J. McGrath, former U. S# Commissioner of Educa­ tion, made the following statement during a symposium in March, 1971: My conception of the principle functions of the learning center embraces the idea of personalized opportunities geared to the interests, abilities, and schedules of each student. Because of the faculty's increasing concern with, and knowledge of, the individual student, and the wide range of optional facilities in the learning center, each learner can be considered a special c a s e #3 The symposium, in which one hundred and fifty persons participated, was held at Oklahoma Christian College in Oklahoma City. The question, "What are we learning about learning centers?" was being examined by persons with interest and experience in educational technology. O Robert W# W&gner, "Machines, Media, and Meaning," Audio Visual Media# Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer, 1967), p. 12# 3 Earl J# McGrath, "The Learning Center in the Seventies," Marshall Gunzelman (ed.), What Are We Learning About Learning Centers? (Oklahoma City. Oklahoma: Eagle Msara","T97Tf, p.- To.— 3 Mr. McGrath referred to Future Shock, by Alvin Toffler, as it is related to the learning center concept: Computers. • • make it easier for the school to cope with independent study, with a wider range of course offerings and more varied extra­ curricular activities. More important, computer assisted instruction, programmed instruction, and other such techniques, despite popular mis­ conceptions, radically enhance the possibility of diversity in the classroom. They permit each student to advance at his own purely personal pace. They permit him to follow a custom-cut path toward knowledge, rather than a. rigid syllabus as in the traditional industrial era classroom.4 The idea of the learning center, or learning labora­ tory as it has been referred to in some literature, has been in operation in various forms, Winnetka Public Schools, among others, have been experimenting with the concept as they have integrated libraries and instructional materials centers into a learning laboratory. "We see the learning laboratory as a place for excursion and extension of the mind and spirit of the child, not normally attain­ able in the conventional classroom."5 "We believe that self-instruction, self-motivation, and independent inquiry are characteristics of education to be strongly supported and enhanced by teachers and the