Personalising space and school redesign
11th May, 2008Personalisation as a concept in education has been kicking around for a few years now. However, it was a concept that was never explored or unpacked in enough detail.
It seems remiss that there has not been a re-examination of Personalisation in light of BSF and PCP.
I think the momentum and the wider theoretical underpinning was lost somewhat due to ministerial changes that occurred. However, personalisation should be a transformative concept that guides practice and developments in schools. It seems somewhat remiss that there has not been a re-examination of this concept in light of the BSF and Primary Capital Programmes.
It was an ideal opportunity to have the wider public debate about what personalisation really means and the impact it should have on the day-to-day practices and organisation of education, and ultimately, how this powerful concept might be utilised more effectively to help schools, pupils, parents, architects, construction companies and so forth think about the learning space design of the future.
Clearly many schools are engaging with the concept, as are a number of Government Departments and agencies but surely it should have been a prime orientating principle to be discussed from the outset of these programmes and on a national scale.
Worrying interpretations
I have seen some worrying ‘interpretations’ of personalisation, and often they only amount to more ways for pupils to navigate existing curricula content, or offer more flexibility for teachers in assessing pupils work. Whilst these aren’t necessarily bad things per se, they often tend to miss the broader point of embedding the concept in practice. Unfortunately there are even worse examples of ‘tick box’ personalisation delivery. So what does this concept mean in practice, how might or should it change our perception of what a space is for, how it is used and by whom, and what sort of technologies might be best incorporated into the vision?
I’m pretty sure if we explore this concept again, we wouldn’t be automatically be going down the fixed box in square and isolated suites, like a recent design for a new BSF school I saw. So — your views on how we might use this concept to inform planning and redesign?
Futurelab is always looking for ideas. Find out how you can 
Bob Harrison
Dan Sutch
Richard Sandford
Leon Cych
Martin Owen
Tim Reader
May 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I recognise the idea of tick box personalisation where we repackage the current offerings and rename it personalising the curriculum. We still seem to be making changes around the current education system even though it fails to serve everyone.
I think personalisation needs to begin with an approach to learning spaces that reviews group size, timetables, content and structures. I am meeting children who aren’t coping, aren’t turning up to school, aren’t behaving and we are trying to suppress these problems in order to squeeze them back into the current classroom boxes and current curriculum options. I don’t think it is working.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
[...] Personalising space and school redesign May 13, 2008 Filed under: Learning, Personalisation — supercollider @ 4:26 pm Tags: Personalisation Tim Rudd (Futurelab) writes in his blog about ‘tick box’ personalisation delivery where a new name is given to existing approaches. In fact in a recent personalisation training day the idea was that, “you are doing lots of this already”. Indeed we may be, but it isn’t having the transforming change that everyone hopes personalisation may offer. [...]
May 14th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Are we asking too much of our current educators to conceive two fundamental shifts at the same time. We have not built new schools for years so who knows what one looks like? personalisation is a great concept waiting for an application! As others have commented personalisation can be all things to all people. Ask people then to put this into a new ‘learning space’ is it no wonder that it becomes conceptual overload.
What is the answer.
I am convinced that this programme is all about people, space and curriculum (or business) If you want to change the space then you have to work on the curriculum and the people and so on.
I would start with the curriculum, as others would I’m sure, flex the curriculum as much as possible within current constraints, develop the people and build the spaces - sounds easy doesn’t it!
May 14th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I agree with the comments above. The BSF process involves major changes in learning environments. However, sometimes it seems as if decisions are being made on the look and feel of new buildings before teachers have had a chance to consider the pedagogical reasons for building it that way, or what possibilities may be open to them. I believe that the absolutely critical feature of a successful BSF project is effective change management. There are a lot of excellent designers out there, and a lot of teachers buzzing with ideas on how they would like the learning experience to be in the future. However, often the missing piece of the puzzle is skilled facilitation in the early stages of the project to bring the two together. I suspect that decisions are sometimes made within mostly financial constraints, or perhaps due to time pressures some key decisions must be made by a relatively small group. A strong change manager must be able to bring together all stakeholders, both visionary and those more cautious, and guide them towards discovery of the possibilities, and how teaching and learning could be in the future(for example considering different group sizes, timetabling etc as discussed by Gareth). Only when there are sound pedagogical goals in place should the design be brought into play, to complement this vision for learning. I believe that if stakeholders, especially teaching staff, are involved to this extent with effective change management then there is less likelihood of the “conceptual overload” which Peter quite rightly states as the case in many current projects. In any case, we don’t want to end up with lovely shiny new versions of what we already have, as that would be a criminal waste of opportunity.