ACEL/CEFPI (Darwin) Conference Workshop Summary
Conference workshop summary: 'Casting a critical eye on the learning environments of the future'
Date: 26 September 2009
Location: Darwin Convention Centre
Presenters: Ben Cleveland, Ken Woodman
Conference: Australian Council for Educational Leaders (ACEL) in conjunction with the Council for Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI) Australasian Conference.
Overview of workshop
The objective of the workshop was to bring together design professionals (architects) and educators (teachers and school principals) to discuss issues pertaining to the design and use of school learning environments. In line with the ACEL Conference’s key focus areas, the workshop identified with the theme, ‘Creating the Future, Challenging the Past: Excellence in Learning, Teaching and Leadership’. The key aspects addressed were, ‘Student Learning’, ‘Culture and Change’, ‘Setting Vision and Strategy’ and ‘Excellence in Pedagogy’.
Workshop abstract
The design of school learning environments may have a significant impact on teaching practices and student learning. Rarely do educators and architects have the opportunity to meet and discuss important issues related to the design and use of school spaces. Calling on research currently being conducted within the Smart Green Schools ARC Linkage Project based at The University of Melbourne, the workshop aimed to engage delegates in an exploration of the future of school learning environments. Discussion focused on the critique of a middle school model. Delegates were asked to respond to the model and discuss the following questions: What are the educational pluses, minuses and interesting points of this model? What are the architectural pluses, minuses and interesting points of this model? How can school spaces be improved to support learning?
Outline of workshop proceedings
General Introduction
- Introduced the workshop theme and outlined the presenter’s backgrounds and current PhD research projects - conducted at The University of Melbourne, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, as part of the Smart Green Schools ARC Linkage Project.
Introduction to session topic
- Introduced delegates to the session topic – ‘The future of school learning environments’.
- Outlined the key objective of the workshop - to facilitate discourse between architects and educators regarding the relationships between learning environments and teaching/learning.
- Provided an ouline of how the session would run
- Critique of a middle school model
- Raising questions to invigorate debate
- Valuing the expertise of the participants.
The middle school model
The middle school model for critique was presented (see below).
Figure 1: The middle school model
- Delegates were asked to form mixed profession groups i.e. architects mixed with educators.
- A3 copies of the model and ‘Plus Minus Interesting’ (PMI) sheets (see appendix 1) were distributed and delegates were asked to consider the following questions as part of their discussion:
- What are the educational pluses, minuses and interesting points of this model?
- What are the architectural pluses, minuses and interesting points of this model?
- Delegates were invited to record the issues raised during their conversations on the PMI forms and draw on the plans.
Group discussions
Delegates vigorously debated/critiqued the model for 25 minutes.
Feedback
Each group (informal - 3-5 delegates) was asked to report back to the whole assembly commenting on one item from their discussion. Feedback from each group typically highlighted negative issues associated with the design of the model.
A comprehensive outline of the issues recorded on the PMI forms is given below.
Origins of the model
The model was revealed to be from the 1970s. This information was received to the audible surprise of the assembly.
- 1970 Open Plan Design - Western Australian Government Primary School
- Source: Angus, M.J., Evans, K.W. and Parkin B. (1975) An observational study of selected pupil and teacher behaviour in open plan and conventional design classrooms. West Perth, W.A. Education Dept. of Western Australia.
Figure 2: 1970 Open Plan Design - Western Australian Government Primary School
Concluding comments from presenters
- Asked the assembly, ‘How can school spaces be improved to support learning?’
- Suggested that continued discourse between architects and educators is required if ‘space’ is to be developed as a powerful tool for education in the 21st Century.
- Noted that the workshop discussions will be uploaded onto the Smart Green Schools website – address provided.
- Highlighted the Talking Spaces Symposium, to be run Oct 29-31 by the Smart Green Schools Project at The University of Melbourne.
Delegate responses to the middle school model that was provided for critique
NB. The points listed below were transcribed directly from the PMI sheets and plan diagrams that were completed by delegates at the conference. At this point in time there has been no attempt to interpret the issues raised. It is anticipated that a document will be produced in the near future that will examine the issues listed below.
Educational pluses
- Focus on 21st century pedagogy
- Challenge to privatised practice; de-privatised practice
- Student centred open learning potential; Personalised learning; Facilitates integrated learning
- Accommodates a variety of learning styles
- Collaborative learning possibilities
- Collaborative teaching: extremely organised teachers
- Sharing expertise; shared space good
- Teaching area for all students in learning space
- Zoning possibilities; operable walls enable directed learning
- Flexibility in teaching modes; Flexibility; Multiple functions; Different learning areas; Learning space - sliding doors excellent; Movable walls
- Practical area -close to outdoor (mentioned twice)
- Acoustic area (mentioned twice)
- Quiet areas/retreat spaces (x4)
- Furniture; Flexible table configuration
- Indoor and outdoor learning; Veranda
- Close to toilets - internal and external entrances
- Flexible IT; wireless laptops
- Accountability
- Interesting ideas; Dynamic
Educational minuses
- Are teachers ready to teach in this environment? Teacher training?
- Contradiction between contemporary thinking in education and tightening the testing landscape
- No pedagogical change to teacher-student interaction, just smaller zones; Learning/education purpose not clear
- Yr 9s don't need practical areas
- May not be relevant to middle school and senior school
- Unable to have 100 kids together
- Cluttered; Disjointed quiet areas; Fixed walls in the middle of room
- Entry/Exits too small; Restriction on indoor/outdoor flow; Entrance points relating to security issues and policy?
- Supervision - lines of sight to Quiet Areas (mentioned three times); Acoustic Withdrawal could be a blank box - no sight lines; Doors should be glass (Internal)
- Toilets - too large, opportunities for bullying; Toilets near an outside area
- Limited storage (mentioned four times) and configuration
- Limited display walls (mentioned three times)
- Teacher's station/office?
- No indoor/outdoor
- Acoustic challenges of 50 to 100 kids (mentioned twice)
- How often is the flexibility used?
- Quiet area - perception of being naughty!
- No obvious screens for data protection
- Better to have specialist music rooms
Educational interesting points
- Will the fall back be ’building’ barricades (as in the 70s open space units)?
- Teacher education programs must address collaborative teaching models
- Same sort of space for Yr 5 and Yr 9?; Design ‘as is’ best for Yr 5 – Yr 7, not Yr 8 – Yr 9
- Relationship of teacher/student in learning centre/space
- Using paraprofessionals
- Where are the teacher spaces? (mentioned 3 times)
- Lack of a teacher administration point eg roll marking, assessing point, ’office work’
- Need space to ‘instruct’ whole group; Space for 100 but where/why could 100 gather at once
- Cost of most effective resources eg acoustic features; Could divide the acoustic area
- Why are sinks in classrooms?
- No designated IT point. What is IT provision? Very important. How to leverage; Laptops/notebooks/wireless?
- Specialist music room/art very important
- Mobile white board?
- Lockers?/bags are an issue
- Cater for students with learning difficulties?
- Angry parent issues – security
- Acoustics? How does noise insulation work? Different types of teaching approaches
- Outdoor veranda could be for boys
Architectural pluses
- Environment presents a challenge to traditional practice
- Would like to see it introduced at Yr 3 level
- Flexibility (mentioned four times); Flexible for different groups; Flexibility in larger open space becomes smaller discreet classrooms; Movable walls (mentioned twice); Multiple options for spaces;
- Furniture; Flexible table configuration
- Practical areas extended?
- Quiet areas
- Resources at fingertips; Storage areas
- Wet area attached to outside; separate wet areas
- Indoor ablutions
- Veranda
- Wireless could be positive - assumed wireless: Flexible IT
- Air condition - more effective
Architectural minuses
- Operable walls allow space to become closed back up; Large open space that may not have many ways of dividing off
- Rigidly defined ‘boundaries’; Shape – rectangle? boxy; Fixed walls –inflexible?; Hassle of movable walls and functioning; Open plan inhibited by services location
- No large groups space e.g. unit meetings; group assembly
- Space for 100 kids in one area
- Lack of connection inside and outside; Lack of large open doorways eg French/bi-fold; Poor connection to outdoor area. Badly positioned: can't be used well for breakout
- Duplicated spaces that make inefficient use of the foot print - consolidate storage etc; Combine store rooms; Limited storage (mentioned three times)
- Too many wet areas; Combine one wet area (mentioned twice); Hard to access wet areas
- Toilet space excessive?; Urinal; Toilets need to be accessed one way male, one way female -for supervision by staff and parents expectations
- Large cross paths of circulation;
- Badly positioned blocking corner/light
- Teacher prep/office area (mentioned three times)
- Are the practical areas all that practical?
- Definable teaching walls for interactive white boards - where are they?
- Display walls?
- Acoustic considerations
Architectural interesting points
- Levels of enclosure for each teaching area; Shapes of spaces; Small space is blended into large/open; Doors either open or closed in this type of building?
- Practical areas need a review regarding noise and visual distraction; Do sinks need to be in all spaces?; Greater number than ‘normal’ of plumbing points (sinks/toilets etc)
- Where do they meet in a large group?
- Indoor/outdoor links
- Natural light?
- Booking of quiet areas and practical areas
- Special needs students - need to cater!
Other items shown on plans/PMI sheets
- Orientation (mentioned twice); North? Environmental planning?
- Passive heating/cooling?
- Relationship to outside?
- Poor configurations of adjacent stores
- Combine practical areas; Practical area too fixed - what is flexible?
- Island wet area limits group dynamics; Too many sinks
- Shared acoustic withdrawal area good; Acoustic withdrawal area - Why?
- Poor relationship with outside; Outside area?
- Plant (building services) location
- Cleaners
- No large group (70) potential
- Quiet area too restrictive – vision (mentioned twice), doors, size, proportion, use of doors to form spaces
- Disabled pupils toilet facilities
- Single access to toilet facilities lobby
- Rolling storage; Bags?
- Services on outside
- Too fussy; Too rigid; Not flexible
- Air?
- Display; Projection area
- Doors? Big foyer!
- Teachers/combination
- Stops creativity; Restrictive; Out of touch with usage.