Learning Spaces PLG shaping up for 2013

Following the success of The Open Learning Spaces Professional Learning Group this year we're getting organised for next 2013. There has been a real surge of interest in Modern Learning Environments (MLE) and the group is proving a valuable forum for visiting schools, sharing ideas and engaging in discussion. This year we've visited three schools and finished off with a session at the Westpac Bank (pictured). Next year is shaping up to be an exciting one with opportunities to collaborate with CEFPI, to visit another high school, as well as a focus on converting existing spaces into MLE.

The first session will be on Thursday 28th February at Jasmax and will be combined with a CEFPI group meeting. There will be an opportunity to look around the spaces as well as presentations from an educator, an architect, and a leading NZ researcher in learning environments.

Following on a month later on Thursday 28th March is a visit to the Hobsonville Point Primary School, the latest to open in Auckland.

Also on the calendar for Thursday June 6th is a workshop at the National Library focusing on the role of the library as a space in 21st C learning environments.

More meetings are planned for later on in the year. Dates, details and registration will be on the PLG website in the new year. If you have any questions, feedback or ideas for the PLG, these are very welcome - just email.

Valuing the voices: The design process begins

Right now it's just covered in grass, but there’s a tangible air of excitement at the moment as talk turns to our school’s second build and what new learning hubs might look like. A steadily climbing role has meant that there is a need for new learning spaces mid next year, somewhat ahead of schedule, and being a place that highly values the collaborative process, there is no lack of interest in being part of the process. This grass, over the next twelve months is set to be transformed!

But what does that collaborative process need to look like and who needs to be part of it. In essence, ‘whose voice are we valuing?’

It seems that there are a number of key stakeholders that need to be part of the consultation process- the teachers, the students, the parents and the leadership in the form of the Principal’s team and the Board of Trustees.

To date we’ve begun working with the teaching staff and the students. We’ve asked the teachers questions such as:

“How would you change the current hubs if you could?”

“If you could start from scratch, what might they look like?”

“How many break-out rooms, and what size should they be?”

“What types of learning settings do we have/ not have?”

And we’ve begun to engage with a student group, and have asked similar questions:

“What do you like/ dislike about the present learning hubs?”

“What would you design that would be an improvement?”

Next on the horizon is the first of a number of meetings with the community. It’s a crucially important group to bring with us on the journey and there’s certainly no shortage of parent interest.

In a sense this is the start of a knowledge building phase. It’s about understanding how teachers and students are utilizing the current spaces, hearing about the parts that work well or not as the case may be, appreciating where improvements might be made and what they might look like, and to give teachers time to reflect on the opportunities and challenges presented by open learning spaces. If, for example, we value collaboration, then how can we ensure that the spaces lend themselves to it?

The theme of participation in the design process is one that Woolner (2010), explores extensively. She argues that there is considerable evidence that engaging involvement from all stakeholders is a necessary part of the building or redesigning process, and one that should result in an environment that will fit the desired outcomes. The process itself she suggests is a complex one. There are issues of whose voice is being heard, of relative positions of power and exclusion, of contemporary knowledge of learning and teaching and of not simply defaulting to what we’ve always known, the issue of language, and of who, ultimately,  actually gets to make the decisions.

In my view the important consideration is that the process truly values the voices of all participants; that it’s not simply a case of ticking the boxes and just acknowledging that we have ‘consulted’. As Woolner puts it “…the key to real participation lies in an ongoing, respectful and genuine dialogue, involving a wide range of people and ideas” (p. 77).

We know we’re in for an exciting journey…watch this space.

Reference

Woolner, P. (2010). The design of learning spaces. London: Continuum.

Eveline Lowe School: A design prototype

Continuing to look at early open-plan schools, a second example, taken from Pamela Wollner’s book (2010) is Eveline Lowe Primary School in Southwark, London. It was constructed in 1966 and built on the ideas of Finmere School. It developed the open-plan idea further and for a much bigger urban school and was “intended that the school should act as a prototype to be emulated across the UK” (Woolner, 2010, p.9). According to Woolner, this did eventuate as school building took off in the 60s and 70s, to the extent that by the mid 70s the architectural assumption was that open plan was the norm for primary schools.

Eveline Lowe school was built on an L-shaped plan arranged into four areas, each with plenty of open space. Bennett et al (1980) explain that the teaching spaces were contained learning bays, interest areas, workshop spaces and home bases where groups of children could work with teachers. What is interesting too is that it was noted by the Plowden Report (England, 1967) as a space that would allow teachers to “‘cooperate more easily’ and to provide for ‘flexibility of organization and individual learning’” (Cited in Bennett et al, 1980).

In questioning the relative success of Eveline Lowe School in comparison with subsequent open-plan schools, Woloner (2010) suggests that it benefitted from being an original, “with later copies becoming increasingly formulaic, ill-considered and lazily implemented” (p. 10). She also makes the important point that the building took up a much larger area than the majority of schools built over that period. How much space we should be providing per student is a valid consideration.

Interestingly Eveline Lowe School (reported in e-architect) has undergone substantial changes in the last couple of years. Selected as a pre-cursor to the Schools for the Future programme, it has recently expanded to accommodate more children and modernized whilst still respecting its design philosophy and open-plan arrangement. The original buildings, since listed, have been left intact and refurbished. It’s interesting to view old and new together.

References

Bennett, N., Andreae, J. et al. (1980). Open Plan Schools. Windsor: Schools Council

England, Central Advisory Council for Education (1967). Children and their Primary Schools: A report of the Central Advisory Council for Education, England. London

Woolner, P (2010). The design of Learning Spaces. London: Continuum

Image of Eveline Lowe School interior retrieved from www.20thcenturylondon.org.uk

Image of exterior of old Eveline Lowe School retrieved from www.london-se1.co.uk

Image of exterior of new Eveline Lowe School retrieved from www.lengard.co.uk

Finmere School: Landmark of open-plan

Pamela Woolner’s book, The Design of Learning Spaces (2010) sets out to consider current issues in the design of new learning environments from an educational rather than architectural perspective. It’s an interesting starting point for me to begin looking into the emergence of the open plan school movement as it provides some concrete examples of early adopting schools in the UK. The four schools she uses as examples were all, for one reason or other, considered landmark buildings. What Woolner has set out to analyse more thoroughly is how these schools have stood the test of time as the relationship between education and architecture changes.

One of these schools, Finmere School in rural Oxfordshire was built in 1959. It was the first to utilize folding partitions to divide and open space, with the classroom itself divided into areas for different learning activities (Woolner, 2010). Although only a two classroom and hall school it was, according to Pearson (1972) one that would “set the course of primary school design for at least a decade”, and one that is referred to frequently in open plan literature (Bennett et al. 1980).

Finmere School was designed less with architectural aims and more with educational influences in mind (Woolner, 2010). Teaching and learning had seen considerable changes since pre war school buildings were constructed and there was a need for designs to alter. Bennett et al (1980) reflects on the fact that the early 1960s had seen increased emphasis on project learning, creativity, centres of interest and of arrangements in the environment that allowed children to work on their own or in small groups. This put new demands on the classroom and teachers were requiring more flexible environments that traditional spaces were unable to offer. “Open planning was simply a natural response to the way primary teachers were already organising their classrooms (p. 19).

The design of Finmere was based on thinking aimed at supporting this more child-centred approach to teaching and learning and was clearly progressive at the time. Being a rural school teaching a population of fifty children from five to eleven meant that there was a real need to be able to group and regroup children and at times to have children of different age groups learning together (Woolner, 1980). The design therefore represented a practical solution to the learning needs of the children and also the teachers’ needs.

How well has it stood the test of time? Woolner collected information from the current head teacher who commented that they “no longer open up the concertina doors and work in an ‘open-plan’ way. Teachers found the noise level too high when working in this way and also behaviour issues increased” (p.8.) Notable too was a more recent move back towards whole-class teaching in UK primary schools and the need to find wall space for interactive white boards.

Finmere School was clearly revolutionary at the time and was partially responsible for setting the trend for open-plan classroom spaces in the 1960s. It’s a valuable exercise to dig back into the literature on schools such as this one in order to understand the thinking of the time that was influencing school design.

References

Bennett, N., Andreae, J. et al. (1980). Open Plan Schools. Windsor: Schools Council

Pearson, E. (1972). Trends in school design. Macmillan (for the Anglo-American Primary Education Project)

Woolner, P (2010). The design of Learning Spaces. London: Continuum

Image of Finmere School retrieved from http://shelswellparishes.info/finmere/finmerehistory/history/schools/new_school.htm

It might get loud in here

Ok so the title’s not an original, in fact borrowed from a gem of a documentary screened on Rialto the other night. But not to be flippant, it’s a sentiment shared by teachers and parents alike. And certainly in an open plan space with upwards of 120 children in it noise could most certainly be an issue. It came up in the recent PLG meeting. Parents, when entering a new open learning space for the first time asked, “How are my children going to learn with the noise level?” The children in question had come from a traditional ‘single cell’ classroom setting and the assumption was that given the space and the quantity of children in it, that it would most certainly be a loud one. It’s certainly a question worth addressing.

A first foray into the research brings up a fairy new read. Pamela Woolner in The Design of Learning Spaces draws attention to the concerns of poor acoustics in schools and the interference of noise. She refers to a number of studies, some focused on internal noise and others on external, with both laboratory and field based research. In looking at schools with a lot of external noise, for example those in close proximity to motorways or on a flight path, the detrimental effect it can have on children’s memory (Hygge, 2003) and cognitive functioning (Lercher et al, 2003), certainly seems tangible. One study suggested that in the situation when teachers have to pause due to bursts of external noise, the loss in teaching time could be as high as 11% (Rivlin & Weinstein, 1984).

In terms of open learning spaces it’s more likely the noise within that is of primary concern as it was for some of the parents walking through the door of my colleague’s brand new open space. Woolner (2010) cites research suggesting that for children in noisy environments, reading, speech perception and language acquisition can be impaired by noisy surroundings (Evans & Maxwell, 1997). ‘Noise annoyance’ and links to people’s mood is also raised as a concern (Boman & Enmarker, 2004).

It’s not only in classrooms that it’s a concern either. The Daily Mail ran a story in March 2010 reporting that excessive noise, constant distractions and lack of privacy was contributing to a 20% drop in productivity in poorly designed open plan office spaces. Yet a recent walk I took around a downtown Auckland bank’s new open office space suggested that it was the ability to ‘hot seat’, to interact and to collaborate with colleagues that made the space such a success. When asked about noise the message was clear; when you’re working in an open office environment people self-moderate their talking and the noise they’re making. Do children have the same self awareness in a classroom space?

Excessive noise then, according to Woolner’s review certainly does have a detrimental effect on learning, whether it’s external or internal, whether it’s directly effecting thinking or just being plain annoying or distracting.

For me there are obvious implications in terms of the design and acoustic design process when planning a new open learning space.  I wonder too though if we need to think in terms of the cultural norms that are set up within them. What are the expectations of noise in functioning open learning spaces? Do children learning in them self-moderate their own noise level?

I’m interested in how teachers working in open learning spaces have addressed the noise issue. Are parental and teacher concerns about noise levels really warranted? Does it really get loud in here?

References

Boman, E & Enmarker, I. (2004). ‘Factors affecting pupils’ noise annoyance in schools: the building and testing of models. Environment and Behavior, 36(2), 207-228

Hygge, S. (2003) Classroom experiments on the effects of different noise sources and sound levels on long-term recall and recognition in children. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 895-914

Lercher, P., Evans, G.W. and Meis, M (2003) Ambient noise and cognitoev process among primary schoolchildren. Environment and Behavior, 35(6), 725-735

Rivlin, L.G. and Weinstein, C.S. (1984) Educational issues, school settings, and environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 347-364

Woolner, P (2010). The design of Learning Spaces. London: Continuum