THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.5. Learning Space Development for engaged practice
Architectural education today, shaped and structured along historically developed pedagogies such as the Beaux Arts, the Bauhaus and the British system have specific implications for learning space development. The central position of the studio in the Beaux-Arts, and the workshop in the Bauhaus tradition have maintained their relevance to this day. The British work-based learning model of the mid-18th century has been less evident since the adoption of the formal system of architectural education which started at the Architectural Association and Liverpool University in the 19th century (Howarth 1959). Each of these systems were defined by learning spaces that reflected their respective pedagogic approaches and educational philosophies.
The 21stcentury is very different in that learning may be facilitated in formal spaces such as the studio or workshop, or may happen in informal and coincidental spaces such as circulation spaces, social spaces, indoors or outdoors and even in virtual space; learning may even occur within the global context in instant time due to the advances in IT and social media. The technological advances and the rapid expansion and accessibility of social media and networking platforms afford even more opportunity for learning. The South African architectural education system is rather conservative and still relies heavily on traditional learning spaces such as the design studio, classroom, workshop and to a lesser extent, practice or work-based learning spaces. How then can historic traditions be transformed in order to develop learner-centred, collaborative learning environments that are inclusive of difference, while also exploiting the opportunities offered by rapid advances in information technology and software development?
This section of the research seeks to scrutinise learning space development within the broad domains of formal learning spaces such as the classroom or studio, as well as informal and social learning spaces, virtual learning spaces and work-based learning spaces. Learning from the built environment consciously, semi-consciously and even unconsciously through active and passive interaction can form part of a holistic learning paradigm. The neo-humanist notion of education as a function of culture and society (Bussey 2008) and its position on integration of disciplines and practice, the construction of knowledge and knowledge transfer for the advancement of society will be used as a basis to evaluate learning space development leading towards the understanding of holistic human-centred learning environments.
71 | P a g e Kolb and Kolb (2009) make reference to constructivist learning spaces as inclusive of multiple learning styles which are based on synergistic transactions between person and environment.
This type of learning environment is centred on the definition of relevant learning problems and scenarios in relation to the socio-spatial context, which is useful to responsive architectural pedagogy. Problems situated in real-life contexts engage many domains in order to resolve the problem, thereby encouraging collaboration and ultimately reinforcing learning. Lave and Wenger (in Kolb & Kolb 2009) refer to situated learning theory, drawing on Vygotsky’s approach to learning, defining it as a transaction between person and the social environment.
Here, the social context in which learning occurs is vital to the efficacy of learning.
It is therefore postulated that in order for effective and relevant learning to occur there has to be effective engagement between the learner as the individual person and his/her environment.
The environmental context is not static, but rather fluid and indeterminate. While pedagogic approaches affect learning spaces, it is argued that learning spaces similarly influence pedagogy and learning. Synergistic interaction with the environment naturally generates instances of conflict, contradiction and debate, which in turn generates knowledge through negotiation and consensus. While architectural education impacts the quality of the environment, the environment in turn informs the quality of architectural education – a synergistic spatial system. Oblinger (2006) refers to spaces as agents for change and affirms that spaces will change practice. How then could learning spaces be designed in order to accommodate a much more fluid, interactive and collaborative learning paradigm?
Brown and Long (2006) refer to trends in the design of learning space that respond to a learning paradigm defined by collaboration through social interaction, while incorporating the technological advances of the twenty-first century. According to Brown and Long, three major trends inform learning space design, namely design based on learning principles that support active and social learning strategies, human-centred design and ‘ownership’ of diverse devices that enrich learning (Brown & Long 2006).
Learning space that is inclusive of the non-physical space such as virtual space may also serve as the new social space in contemporary society. This has significant impact on the definition of learning space and questions the structure of traditional architectural learning spaces.
According to Brown and Long (2006) learning space extends beyond the classroom to the whole campus wherein learning can occur anywhere, at any time.
72 | P a g e One example is social networking, which is a characteristic form of interaction among the current generation of young adults. Such interaction occurs in every possible form, including the physical and virtual, made possible by technological devices and applications. Educational institutions expend valuable capital and human resources on functions, such as the development and maintenance of buildings, time-tabling and student housing which could possibly be alleviated by blending formal education with active and social pedagogies. Oblinger (2006) confirms that many students today prefer active, participatory and experiential learning however, this is not generally supported by the learning spaces they inhabit. Oblinger (2006) further states that students today are much more drawn to social interaction and find great value in establishing connections with other people. However, they establish and maintain these connections or networks through non-traditional means, as students generally prefer active learning such as using social networking technology while simultaneously conversing over coffee. In this way the students of this generation are able to network simultaneously with many social connections in instant time. Technology has fundamentally transformed the way people communicate and social connection is highly valued, which has implicitly broken down the brick silos characteristic of traditional formal learning environments. This has sparked the opportunity for the development of alternate pedagogies and practice.
The engaged pedagogic approach, facilitated by advances in IT, presents a challenge to the past paradigm defined by teacher-focused learning spaces that have become increasingly incongruent to the needs and aspirations of contemporary learners. Van Note Chism’s argument (in Oblinger 2006) supports that of Brown and Long (2006) in that he confirms that learning happens everywhere and, furthermore, that human beings, wherever they may be, have the capacity to learn through their experiences and reflections. He makes further reference to Torin Monahan who used the term “built pedagogy” in order to define the architectural embodiment of educational philosophy. The design and layout of class rooms define the pedagogic approaches of those rooms. A class room of rows of desks orientated to the front of the room towards a board or lecture podium suggests a teaching-oriented pedagogy (Figure 3.3.(a) while clusters of desks with students facing each other suggest a collaborative-learning oriented pedagogy (Figure 3.3.(b)).
73 | P a g e Figure 3.5. (a). Teaching-oriented learning space (www.cob.niu.edu)
Figure 3.5.(b). Learning-oriented learning space (www.cob.tonybates.ca)
Bickford and Wright (in Oblinger 2006) refer to “community” as the “hidden context” for learning and posit that community should be a critical consideration in the design of physical and virtual learning spaces as ‘community’ catalyses deep learning. Bickford and Wright (in Oblinger 2006) argue that a community paradigm is necessary for the design of learning spaces in order to emphasise social interaction and student engagement in learning, just as the learning paradigm focuses on the importance of collaborative learning. Bickford and Wright (in
74 | P a g e Oblinger 2006) have tabulated the relationship between pedagogies that foster community against the implications for learning environment design (Table 3.1.)
Pedagogical approaches that foster community
Example Implications for Learning Environment
Design
Students experience a community-friendly learning environment from the
beginning of the first class.
Community-centric ambience of physical and virtual spaces should be readily discerned by faculty and students, from room lighting and decoration to learning management system usability.
Faculty and students learn about each other and from each other.
Mechanism for learning each other’s names available in and out of the classroom. Students and instructor(s) post interests, photos and
backgrounds on course Web site.
Students participate in discussion in class.
Classroom “front” is deemphasized (removing the lectern, for example) to create open, discussion-friendly space. Choice and placement of furniture allows students to see and hear each other.
Active learning activities in class use cooperative techniques.
Students are seated in proximity to each other but with flexibility for movement and space between chairs for instructor mobility.
Team-based projects are conducted outside class and culminate in student-led presentations.
.
Room technology enhancements and lighting controls should be immediately intuitive to student presenters
In-class activities are augmented by completing a significant fraction of course expectations online.
Courses use a learning management system that provides delivery of course materials online and enables exchange of messages, threaded discussions, announcements, homework assignments, quizzes, and grades.
Classroom visitors, such as civic leaders or alumni, can broaden classroom community and enrich discussion.
Rooms are easy for visitors to find and have extra seating and tables of adequate quality so as to send a positive image of the institution. Time in class can be used to make meaning out of the material rather than conduct
“housekeeping” tasks.
Video or telephone conference-based technologies enable discussion with experts in the field from inaccessible locations, such as overseas.
Conferencing equipment is placed in room, with remote or on-site technical management and setup.
In-class integration of study skills and best practices nurture collaboration and improve student learning.
Space redesign should be connected to faculty development efforts that focus on learning-centered pedagogies.
Student-faculty interactions can occur immediately before and after a class.
Broad pathways (not corridors) connect classrooms, with ample
75 | P a g e room for discussion and whiteboard
use during class changes without impeding traffic flow.
Students meet with faculty in office spaces that are easy to find and conducive to dialogue.
Building signage is clear and in keeping with universal design principles, to be accessible to all.
Faculty office suites are large enough for meetings, with sufficient seating and board space.
Table 3.1.: Pedagogical approaches that foster learning community (Bickford & Wright in Oblinger 2006:4.12)
The above discussion reaffirms the value of active and social learner-centred learning environments that would deepen learning and establish contextual relevance thereof. Active and social pedagogies foster face-to-face engagement and sharing between students, while utilising space more efficiently. The ethos of constructivist learning is based on learner/human- centredness in which knowledge is more about learning principles and the application thereof in real life contexts, rather than the mere accumulation of information. Human-centred design, therefore, implies a paradigm shift from the information commons to the learning commons (Brown & Long 2006), in which ‘commons’ in this context refers to a range of integrated resources that affect or belong to the whole learning community. Learning spaces thus extend beyond the classroom and the teacher and become socially contextualised into a wider community of practice (Kolb & Kolb in Armstrong & Fukami 2008). Human centred commons is not just focused on finding information, but applying information in productive ways to deepen, strengthen and construct knowledge (Brown & Long 2006).
Learning space development has been interpreted in a much broader context which includes formal, informal, experiential and virtual space. The realm of cognitive space adds another layer of complexity in the definition of learning parameters by factoring in intra-personal and interpersonal learning. It has been established that engaged pedagogy requires the inculcation of balance between the individual and the collective, and the integration of local nuances within the global knowledge context. Neo-humanism is therefore proposed an approach towards the development of an alternate pedagogic model defined by engaged practice.
76 | P a g e