1) The document describes a graduate course in archaeology that utilized an innovative learning environment called Wallenberg Hall at Stanford University to accelerate innovations in teaching and learning. 2) Wallenberg Hall features state-of-the-art classrooms and collaboration spaces designed to support collaborative meaning-making and knowledge building through digital tools and artifacts. 3) The archaeology course made use of these new technologies and spaces to provide students with hands-on experience in archaeological modeling and data analysis through project-based learning and collaborative exploration of digital artifacts.

1. Accelerating Innovations in Teaching and
Learning
Claudia Engel, Reinhold Steinbeck
Academic Computing, Stanford University; Stanford Center for
Innovations in Learning (SCIL)

2. Accelerating Innovations in Teaching and Learning!!!!!!2
Two central features of many of the concepts and practices that come
out of the learning sciences are the co-construction of meaning in a
collaborative discourse, and making thinking visible through artifacts
(Driscoll, 2002). New Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT) have great potential to change the very nature of learning
conversations by supporting artifact-based knowledge building using
representational systems such as models or visualizations, by making
artifacts jointly visible as the topic of discourse through large displays, by
layering different forms of media (i.e. drawing/annotations on top of a web
page screen), and by providing a rich history of representational systems.
These innovations open the way toward entirely new kinds of thinking and
reasoning, new representational forms, and new social practices.
Bringing these innovations to life in everyday teaching and learning
within a higher educational setting is one of the biggest current challenges
in academic educational development (MacDonald and Wisdom 2002). In
our approach we focus on two major enabling components within this
process: environment and facilitator.
In this chapter, we will present a new state-of-the-art learning space at
Stanford University, Wallenberg Hall, which serves as a new center for
digital media, learning, teaching, and scholarship. We use a graduate
course in archeology as a case study to illustrate the opportunities and
challenges of bringing students and faculty members into this technology-
rich learning environment and reflect on the role of the Academic
Technology Specialist as a facilitator in this process.
Enabling Component 1: Environment
Wallenberg Hall – Bridging Multidisciplinary Research with
Educational Practice
Wallenberg Hall is the home of the Stanford Center for Innovations in
Learning (SCIL), an independent research lab that brings together faculty,
scholars, and students in an effort to link scientific understanding with
educational practice. Wallenberg Hall was designed to provide learning
spaces for university classes and state-of-the-art facilities for research in
learning, design and technology, and education. By exploring how
technology and the learning spaces affect teaching and learning,
Wallenberg Hall can serve as the conduit for a tide of new knowledge on

3. Accelerating Innovations in Teaching and Learning!!!!!!3
teaching and learning that will travel from laboratory to the classroom and
back again (Abb 1).
Abb. 1. Wallenberg Hall as a 'Live Laboratory' and 'Incubator' for linking
scientific research with educational practice, where research informs practice, and
vice versa.
High-Performance Learning Environments (HPLEs)
Five state-of-the-art learning spaces occupy the first floor. There are
four classrooms with capacities up to 30 students, and the Peter
Wallenberg Learning Theater that can accommodate larger classes. These
spaces can be used individually or in varying combinations to support a
diverse array of learning activities. The main features of these High
Performance Learning Environments were designed to support students
and faculty members in their collaborative meaning-making activities and
to visualize their thinking. The technologies used in the HPLEs are
designed to facilitate students' abilities in working productively in learning
teams and to provide more integral uses of capturing, annotating,
presenting, and discussing learning processes (Abb 2).

4. Accelerating Innovations in Teaching and Learning!!!!!!4
Abb. 2. Approach A: In a traditional instructor-centered classroom, faculty
connect with a wired computer through a smart panel to the Webster board to
project their material. Approach B: In the HPLE everyone is wirelessly connected
to workstations, laptops, and the Webster board, thus decentralizing control and
enabling sharing across and beyond the physical learning space.
Some of the innovations used extensively in these learning
environments include:
• Lightweight, moveable tables that can be folded up easily and chairs
that facilitate multiple modes of working together in a quickly
configurable environment.

5. Accelerating Innovations in Teaching and Learning!!!!!!5
• Rear projection, large screens (Webster Boards1
) that enable simple
displays as well as more complex, interactive exercises engaging all
students in the classroom.
• Flat-screen, mobile “collaboration stations” that enable students to work
in small groups, to transfer documents seamlessly from their laptops,
and to create, share, and edit work collaboratively.
• "iRoom" software which enables students to co-develop computer-based
documents, models, or artifacts in real time from their respective
devices without connecting to any complex operating systems. At the
center of the iRoom software are two applications that support file
sharing and shared control across the devices:
1. "PointRight" allows users control of the large Webster board displays
and collaboration stations so that multiple students can work on a
single document, presentation, or model.
2. "MultiBrowse" enables file sharing through a Web browser across the
HPLEs and lets a user select a computer or a Webster Board to which
s/he wants to send a file.
• Lightweight, portable whiteboards (known as “huddleboards”) that can
be used for small group collaboration or presentations. Contents can be
captured and converted to digital images using the CopyCam camera
and then stored on the course web site or printed.
Enabling Component 2: Facilitator
The Stanford Academic Technology Specialist Program
The Academic Technology Specialist (ATS) Program at Stanford
University was implemented in 1996 with the goal of providing academic
technology support for faculty. It currently employs a total over 20
1
Webster Boards (brand name) are commercially available touch-sensitive
interactive whiteboards.

6. Accelerating Innovations in Teaching and Learning!!!!!!6
Academic Technology Specialists who work to improve teaching, learning,
and research by implementing and developing new technologies. They
provide faculty and staff with department-level consulting on the effective
uses of information technology for education. In contrast to the traditional
approach of a centralized “technology center,” each ATS is placed within
programs or departments in order to provide individualized, discipline-
specific support. S/he is part of the culture and community of the
department, and works to integrate technology projects into the academic
agenda of the department and to develop individualized relationships with
the faculty members.
ATSs typically have an advanced degree in an academic discipline as
well as expertise in technology. Being a member of the academic as well
as the ICT community, an ATS is in the unique position to bridge two
traditionally separated and very different cultures, a factor which
constitutes an important prerequisite in the process of mutual
transformation of pedagogy and technology.
Within their respective departments and programs, ATSs have the
explicit mission of understanding the individual needs of faculty and their
students and of exploring and expanding the potential of technology to
serve as a tool for improving learning, teaching, and research. To this end,
they actively cultivate partnerships with faculty, staff, students, libraries,
outside vendors, scholarly organizations, and others interested in the
intersection of technology and academic work. They participate in
university-wide technology initiatives, engage in technology-oriented
research, and openly pursue opportunities to expand and enhance their own
understanding of pedagogy, curriculum design, and the beneficial
relationships that can exist between technology and education.
The following case study describes an attempt to integrate faculty
development, educational practice, and research on learning and
technologies. It is a collaborative project between a professor of
archeology in the Department of Anthropological Sciences and that
department's ATS. It takes place in an HPLE in Wallenberg Hall (Engel
and Rick 2003).
Case Study: A Graduate Course in Archaeology
The course is titled "Models and Imaging in Archaeological

7. Accelerating Innovations in Teaching and Learning!!!!!!7
Computing." Its purpose is to provide students with hands-on experience in
archaeological modeling and in the use of advanced computing
technologies and software.
The idea of models is key to this course, models being representations of
reality that usually have a claim to being understandable on a better or
more practical level than the actual subject of study. Models are visual, and
are a combination of objective evidence and interpretive overlay.
Two main questions are addressed that result from this evidence:
1. How do we go about the process of using and manipulating digital
data to create and display models?
2. How do we argue, test, and convince using digital products? When do
we know that we, or others, are "correct" when using graphic-based
evidence?
Instructional Approach
The goals of this course included providing students with the
opportunity to acquire the skills needed to effectively manage
archaeological computational imaging and modeling tools, as well as to
engage them in the creative process of data modeling and the analytical
process of data interpretation. To meet these goals, our approach included
the following components:
• Project-based learning: Students worked on projects that covered the
complete sequence of stages involved in archeological research,
including the capturing of data "in the field," the visualization and
modeling of an archaeological site, the representation of that site in
appropriate formats, and the analysis of the outcomes. This approach
provided a hands-on experience that was as close as possible to real-
life archaeology research.
• Collaborative exploration and data analysis: In sharing and
comparing their models and discussing different perspectives with
their peers, students had the opportunity to develop critical thinking
skills through the interpretation of artifacts and historical sites;

8. Accelerating Innovations in Teaching and Learning!!!!!!8
• Creative visualization: The mere process of creating models from the
accumulated data can often lead to additional discoveries. Creating a
representation using virtual reality can provoke new and interesting
questions, which serve to guide future research.
Opportunities of Wallenberg Hall
While archeologists must learn to construct sites and artifacts in three
dimensions, students usually do not practice the professional use of high-
end digital archaeology technologies. The Wallenberg Hall HPLE
provided an environment equipped with a rich set of resources that enabled
students to have the unique opportunity to simulate a research project that
is data- and computing-intensive, as well as prepare them for the
complexity of their future work as archaeology researchers.
The space was perceived as an “archaeology research station.” Data
were brought in by taking measurements of real spaces. Webster Board
screens served as workspaces where students developed and shared their
models and compared different data representations. The flexibility of the
equipment allowed students to easily switch back and forth between small
and large group activities.
This environment provided an ideal opportunity to support the core
purpose of the class, namely, to work with archaeological evidence. As the
faculty put it: "When we start putting digital programs, images, models
together, we are actually making arguments. We are actually trying to say,
'This is what we think what things looked like in the past.' … So, in a
context like this [i.e., Wallenberg Hall], we can actually simulate the type
of argument that would be appearing. … We can take a time-out and say,
'Ok, now what are you really saying there? … By moving through your
model in this way, what are you trying to argue?"
Role of the ATS
The role of the Academic Technology Specialist during the class can be
summarized as "enabling" in the sense of providing basic support to run
the class. This support includes training for the instructor and students;
immediate troubleshooting of equipment issue; and acquisition,
configuration, installation, and testing of hardware and software. However,
in the case study course, she also provided guidance to the professor and

9. Accelerating Innovations in Teaching and Learning!!!!!!9
students and generated experimental situations that potentially could lead
to innovation. Examples of this include: the purposeful change of the
initial room setup that forced the group to experiment with different
configurations; continuous interaction and debriefing throughout the
course with the instructor on events occurring in the class; and modeling
the various uses of the equipment.
Putting it all Together: Accelerating Innovations
Based on our observations of the use of the HPLE during the course, the
following factors appear to be crucial to the process of innovation.
1. Appropriation and Creativity
Even though we provided the instructor as well as the students with an
introduction to the learning environment and its technologies, a certain
amount of time is required (in our case, about three weeks) to adapt to the
new environment. As the course progressed, the more traditional class
structure started to break apart. Technology started to become more
transparent, and students worked together and individually. When a
problem surfaced, students regrouped and held discussions. When students
worked in groups, everyone walked around, sat, talked, pointed, and
kneeled. Furniture was moved around more freely than in traditional
settings.
More importantly, it also appeared as if students developed a greater
sense of ownership of the learning environment over time. For example,
students began to configure the look and feel of the desktops with
background images they chose. The feeling of ownership probably evolved
as they became more familiar with the equipment and as they increasingly
put their own materials and files on "their" computers.
The sense of ownership, together with students' increased ability to use
the equipment, eventually resulted in the creation of new ideas about how
to use the technology. For example, students took advantage of the
Webster Board and pens and invented a technique to digitize information
from scanned maps.

10. Accelerating Innovations in Teaching and Learning!!!!!!10
2. Transformation of Practice
The technology environment that in its design is geared toward
supporting collaboration, student interaction, and active involvement
challenged the traditional (lecturing) teaching style of the faculty member.
He became aware of the opportunities the environment provided, and at the
same time students took a more active role in their learning. For example,
at the beginning of the course, students opened up the laptops with the
projects they had been working on, shared a particular problem on the big
screen, and asked for advice. This change in instructor and student roles
eventually led to changes in the way the class was taught. As the instructor
pointed out to the ATS after class one day: "See, … I can stop lecturing!”
Conclusions
It becomes evident from our experiences that it is not sufficient to think
of the technology itself as the innovation. This would ignore the fact that
innovation is a process that occurs and when new behaviors, practices,
ideas are created. Thus, innovation works through the users of the
technology. We prefer to think of learning environments as "labs" where
experiments happen and new ideas are being created. As our experience
from this and other classes show, students and instructors start to invent
new ways of using the equipment once they are exposed to this new
learning environment.
While the ATS provided as much feedback as possible to the faculty
member and made suggestions regarding classroom practices, these efforts
are certainly limited by subjectivity and time constraints. Even though the
question of the effect of new technologies and practices on learning is at
the core of their adoption, collecting data that would address this question
typically does not occur because of the time-consuming nature of such
research. One of the interesting challenges ahead will be to move toward
continuous, integrated assessment by all stakeholders. Such assessment
should be an integral part of the teaching-learning practices, technologies,
and the environments to support this process (similar to the approach
which has been proposed by action research; Zuber-Skerrit 1991). Notable
and promising progress has been made in that regard in the research about
portfolios (Barrett 2001).
Sharing information about the effects of certain practices enables
instructors to make better-informed decisions about their technologies and

11. Accelerating Innovations in Teaching and Learning!!!!!!11
teaching. Some of the existing possible approaches to sharing information
are to build a community of practitioners, to insist on the design of a
reflective process (Sabelli and Dede, 2001), or to recognize the value of a
scholarship of teaching and learning (McKinney 2003, Shulman 1999). It
is important to remember, however, that it is not sufficient to know "what
works and what doesn't." "Recipes" need to go with a rationale, which
includes information and a critical reflection about conditions and context.
What doesn't work in one place could work under different circumstances,
and it is important to understand the implications to really be able to learn
from others' experiences.
Finally, we should mention that in our example the process of
innovation is following an "incubator approach." We typically are working
with a small number of innovators and early adopters (Rogers, 1995)
among the faculty in an environment with ample resources and with
extensive support and handholding. These pilot experiences are eventually
meant to be transferred to a broader audience and to be disseminated more
widely. However, this poses its own set of challenges.
References
Barrett, Helen C. (2001) "ICT Support for Electronic Portfolios and Alternative
Assessment: The State of the Art" Published in the Proceedings of the World
Conference on Computers in Education, Kluwer Publishers.
Driscoll, M. P. How People Learn (and What Technology Might Have To Do with
It). ERIC Digest. Available From: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information &
Technology, Syracuse University, NY
Engel, C., Rick, J. (2003). Models and Imaging in Archaeological Computing.
Syllabus Conference 2003, Stanford CA, July 28, 2003.
Macdonald, R. and Wisdom, J. (Eds.) (2002). Academic and Educational
Development: Research, Evaluation and Changing Practice in Higher
Education.London: Kogan Page.
McKinney, K. (2003): The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Past Lessons,
Current Challenges, and Future Visions. In: Catherine M. Wehlburg, Editor:
To Improve the Academy, Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and
Organizational Development, Vol 22. Anker Publishing Company, Bolton,
Mass.
Sabelli, N., & Dede, C (2001). Integrating Educational Research and Practice:
Reconceptualizing Goals and Policies: "How to make what works, work for
us?" http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/ss_research/cdpapers/policy.pdf

12. Accelerating Innovations in Teaching and Learning!!!!!!12
Shulman, L.S. (1999). Visions of the possible: Models for campus support of the
scholarship of teaching and learning. Retrieved Nov 21, 2003, from
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/docs/Visions.htm
Zuber-Skerritt, O. ed. (1991). Action Research for Change and Development.
Avebury, UK
About the Authors
Claudia Engel is the Academic Technology Specialist (ATS) for the
Departments of Anthropological Sciences and Cultural and Social
Anthropology at Stanford University. Her particular interest lies in the
design of environments and practices to support collaboration in globally
distributed, cross-cultural teams. She can be reached at
cengel@stanford.edu.
Reinhold Steinbeck directs the International Programs of the Stanford
Center for Innovations in Learning (SCIL). His recent research has focused
on the design and evaluation of a comprehensive distance learning
program between Stanford University and ten regional universities in
Russia.
The authors gratefully acknowledge Roy Pea, John Nash, Dan Gilbert,
and Bob Smith for their contributions to this article.