A ‘practical tool’ for redesigning learning spaces?
9th May, 2008“Why do schools look the way they do? Why is there a chasm between widely acknowledged best practice principles and the actual design of a majority of school facilities? Why has the disconnect between learning research and learning places been so difficult to repair?”
These are some of the questions posed by American architects Prakash Nair and Randall Fielding – who call themselves both School Architects and ‘Change Agents for Education’. Nair and Fielding’s take on the built environment is that it’s not only the place of learning but also ‘the psyche of learning’, impacting people’s emotions, relationships and behaviours and ultimately the teaching and learning methods that are employed.
Nair and Fielding feel that one of the biggest barriers to innovation in school design is the lack of a common design vocabulary that all school stakeholders can share. They’ve developed an approach and a resultant book called The Language of School Design: Design Patterns for 21st Century Schools.
Design Patterns for 21st Century Schools aims to create a graphic vocabulary for people redesigning their schools, to provide a common language for use between school leaders, students, architects and builders. While Nair and Fielding are keen emphasise that the reality of designing learning environments is a complex task, in order to create a usable tool the Patterns Language Method includes (as a starting point) 25 distinct patterns. These are organised according to six categories ranging from patterns that are over-arching and form ‘Parts of the Whole’ such as student display spaces, a welcoming entry and specialist subject areas to ‘High Performance’ which includes patterns referring to the quality of design and use of materials such as natural light, ventilation and full spectrum lighting. Other less obvious patterns include:
- Cave Space – places for individual study, reflection and quiet reading
- Watering Hole Space – places to learn from peers
- Campfire Space – places to learn from experts and storytellers
The Language of School Design is undoubtedly a great resource for ideas and to stimulate discussion around what is important for your own institution but it is also ‘sold’ as a practical tool and I wonder how practical a tool it really is. I find some of the language a bit problematic and feel that some of patterns are open to much more interpretation than others, some patterns are clear and distinctive; others seem very similar and it’s difficult to decipher the differences. I also wonder how long it would take a wide range of stakeholders to familiarise themselves with the 25 design patterns enough for them to be really useful…
Is it a tool and approach that schools embarking upon their BSF or PCP programmes — or colleges embarking on a re-build programme could use in their planning and design? How easily does the approach translate to a UK context? What sorts of adaptations would need to be made? Are the 25 patterns comprehensive enough, would we want to add more?
It’d be great to hear from you if you have used the Patterns Language Method in your own planning or design and any other thoughts will be much appreciated.
For online access to the 25 Patterns of Design, see: www.designshare.com/index.php/design-patterns
Andy Black
Avril Loveless
Alex Savage
Bob Harrison
Ben Williamson
Dan Sutch
Emma Agusita
Richard Sandford
Leon Cych
Leila Walker
Lyndsay Grant
Marisa Harlington
Martin Owen
Mary Ulicsak
Peter Humphreys
Rose Luckin
Simon White
Tash Lee
Tim Reader
Tim Rudd
Tim Rylands
Tony Wheeler
May 9th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
[…] Tash Lee (Learning Researcher van Futurelab) vraagt zich af of deze ”common language for use between school leaders, students, architects and builders” niet te veel ruimte laat voor interpretatieverschillen. En of beoogde gebruikers zich de taal ook snel (genoeg) eigen weten te maken. […]
May 10th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Interesting post. Working at a school site that is over 50 years old has created some interesting problems. I am sure most districts don’t speak the same language as described in your post
I was intrigued by this article on the Economist website. It seems that architecture is going through a change to meet the demands and needs of the 21st century.
“The fact that people are no longer tied to specific places for functions such as studying or learning, says Mr Mitchell, means that there is ‘a huge drop in demand for traditional, private, enclosed spaces’ such as offices or classrooms, and simultaneously ‘a huge rise in demand for semi-public spaces that can be informally appropriated to ad-hoc workspaces’”.
Could you imagine a school campus that looks like this?
“FRANK GEHRY, a celebrity architect, likes to cause aesthetic controversy, and his Stata Centre at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) did the trick. Opened in 2004 and housing MIT’s computer-science and philosophy departments behind its façade of bizarre angles and windows, it has become a new Cambridge landmark. But the building’s most radical innovation is on the inside. The entire structure was conceived with the nomadic lifestyles of modern students and faculty in mind. Stata, says William Mitchell, a professor of architecture and computer science at MIT who worked with Mr Gehry on the centre’s design, was conceived as a new kind of ‘hybrid space’”.
“This is best seen in the building’s ’student street’, an interior passage that twists and meanders through the complex and is open to the public 24 hours a day. It is dotted with nooks and crannies. Cafés and lounges are interspersed with work desks and whiteboards, and there is free Wi-Fi everywhere. Students, teachers and visitors are cramming for exams, flirting, napping, instant-messaging, researching, reading and discussing. No part of the student street is physically specialised for any of these activities. Instead, every bit of it can instantaneously become the venue for a seminar, a snack or romance.”
I can hear directors of Maintenance and Operations groaning now. I am sure janitors across the country are reaching for the Excedrin. Principals are readying for the ulcer from all the worry that this architecture design will create. Or, maybe, we could see past the potential problems and embrace the potential benefits of the architecture of our schools meeting the needs of the flexible, cooperative, collaborative, tech-savvy students of the 21st century.
May 11th, 2008 at 12:26 am
You know, it’s funny… when I was leaving my prison-building of a high school yesterday for the weekend, I was talking with another teacher who told me she just sent in her transfer papers to leave it after working there for only one year. I am also leaving the high school because I found it too inflexible to meet my part-timing needs. We both agreed the staff & students - individually - are great. But she complained of our school’s poor social relations, and I complained of the faculty’s inflexibility to adopt change. And we both agreed that many of the non-starting problems stem from the school’s 3-story; no-great-space; and many, many secret hovel architecture.
I’m pleased to see these gentleman writing about such an important topic because - before we consider any type of educational reform - we have to re-think how it’s going to be organized - starting with the architecture.
Hey, whether we use their words or not, good on ‘em. And thanks for writing this great article!
Regan Ross.
www.action-ed.com
www.civicmirror.com