Showing posts with label Stephen Heppell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen Heppell. Show all posts

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Open learning spaces…and the smaller spaces within



As we get close to finalising the design for our school’s second stage build much of the attention is on the nature of the smaller spaces within. We know that our new hubs will accommodate three teachers and up to 90 learners but exactly what is the nature of the smaller spaces within? What size should they be? And should they have doors?

Currently within each learning hub we have one larger space that can be closed down - it’s equivalent in size to a traditional classroom (about 64 square metres) – as well a couple of smaller (11 sq m) breakout spaces. They both have glass sliding doors and good acoustic separation.

The ability to close the doors for a while is important for some children. One of our youngest students, referring to a small glazed breakout space, reported that “I like to go to the small room because it is quiet. Another suggested that, I like this space because it can shut its doors and it will be quiet”.

However a couple of our older students made an interesting observation:
Student 1 - I like the quiet room because it’s easier to work in there because there’s no noise
CB – Which one’s the quiet room for you?
Student 1 - The one with the books in it - the library. The Google room’s cool too because it’s a big area and you can close it off.
Student 2 – But it’s annoying when there are millions of people in there
CB – Do you think it’s important that you have spaces that you can close off?
Student 1 – Yes because if you’re going to be noisy, if you were doing a film or something, you can close it off so that people don’t get distracted by our learning. And it’s also good if you want to have quiet and so you can block off all the noise.

So these two students considered a space that they referred to as a quiet room to hold dual purposes. Firstly that it was a place to find quiet, and secondly a place that you could close down in order that it was quiet for everyone else.

The Professional Learning Group has recently toured a couple of business environments in order to draw some comparisons with the types of spaces we are designing for schools. Both the bank and the architects that we’ve visited have an emphasis on open, collaborative and highly interactive spaces. There are hot desk stations, settings for teams, presentation spaces as well as food based spaces; the coffee bar, the shared kitchen, and outdoor seating.

These are the sort of spaces that Jonah Lehrer refers to in Imagine: How creativity works, when he talks about the Pixar Animation Studios. They are the places of the incidental encounters, casual conversations, the places for connections to be made, networks to be broadened. They are Ray Oldenburg’s ‘third places’ - spaces that bring together diverse talents and view points. Not that all the conversations that are going to go on there will be of high significance, just that some of the are. What characterises these spaces is the openness, accessibility and proximity for all.

But although there was an emphasis on collaboration and openness in the places we visited, both environments still had a need for closing down spaces at times – to hold client meetings, for team meetings, presentations, phone calls, interviews and confidential conversations - and so had rooms set aside for just that purpose.

It’s a point that Fayard and Weeks (2011) make in discussing the transition from private office work environments to open, shared spaces. They discuss that even though there are positive behavioural effects of the redesigns there is also counter evidence to suggest that opening up the space may actually inhibit casual conversations and encounters. “Though it may seem counterintuitive, research shows that informal interactions won’t flourish if people can’t avoid interacting when they wish to” (p. 105). Herman Miller Inc’s recent paper on collaboration makes a similar point. “Smaller rooms and alcoves a little off the beaten path can provide a person with the peace and quiet needed to synthesise a large amount of information and write a report” (p. 5)

Shift that thinking into a school context and what does it suggest? Well it’s about students having access to some spaces that can be closed down, while at the same time having the affordance of visibility. I like the notion of having a ‘room within a room’ that Stephen Heppell refers to - and I like the way he frames it - “agile little spaces-within-spaces that have proved so popular with children and teachers alike - they offer a space for mutuality, for an intimacy of collaboration, for serious study and focused conversations, for peace & quiet sometimes, for focus and of course, with always one side open and an eye line in, for safety too.”

And I think that our children have discovered this for themselves. When you walk into a learning hub and observe they have rearranged furniture, or sit behind a teaching station, or a couch, or nestle into a corner or up against a window, or on a stage block, more often than not they have created their own spaces that purpose their own learning. When asked to design potential new environments, the idea of creating nooks and crannies was a common theme among children. Take this model for example.


When asked about the zig-zag wall, the two children who’d built it talked about the little spaces that it created – small environments our architect might describe as ‘worlds’. Corners it seems to our children are important places for learning.

Another couple designed this sunken amphitheatre with group dialogue and discussion in mind:

On a recent trip to Melbourne University I came across this ‘room within a room’. It’s open, visible and whilst not acoustically separated from the larger environment it is part of, there was a sense of purposeful separation. The lines delineated by the carpet too added to the concept.


This couch area too, at the architect office, despite being right in the middle of the practice, forms it’s own little world for people to meet and discuss, and learn. Strangely enough and despite its centrality it affords  a surprising amount of noise insulation from the general murmur of work and keyboards around it.


As we move into finalising our hub designs, when we think about the spaces within, it’s about exploring a balance between open spaces where shared teaching, collaboration and group work can go on, and at the same time providing a couple of smaller breakout spaces which can be acoustically separated. Teachers have commented that we probably need two closeable spaces; one for a larger group of students (although not as large as a classroom), and another one for small groups. The visible nature of spaces with large glass doors is seen as a real positive too.

Also though its important to look at creating other spaces, alcoves and worlds within the larger one; perhaps through the use of the corners, nooks and crannies, hinging screens and staircases that are so popular with our learners. Over the next few weeks the designs will continue to evolve and we'll be going to our teachers and students for some all to critical feedback.

References

Fayard, A.-L., & Weeks, J. (2011). Who Moved My Cube? Harvard Business Review(July-August 2011).

Heppell, S. (2012). Rooms within rooms, from http://rubble.heppell.net/rooms_in_rooms/


Lehrer, J. (2012). Imagine: How creativity works. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place : cafés, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. New York : Paragon House, 1989.

Monday, February 27, 2012

Open learning spaces: What do our new students have to say?

With a few weeks of term one completed it’s been high time to gather some of our new student’s early impressions of their open learning spaces. I headed for Hub 3; It’s home to about 55 year 4-8 students.

I was interested in a couple of points; Firstly, what they identified as the main differences between their new learning hub space and the spaces they used to learn in; and secondly what they thought the impact of the space would have on their learning.

The amount of space came up quickly in student’s responses to the first question. They talked of the learning hubs being “open and big”, and they spoke of coming from schools that felt “really squashed” and of classrooms being “quite tight and under pressure”. “At my old class we had set places- you sit here, you sit here, you sit here. But here it’s nice and comfortable.”

This idea of comfort cropped up regularly; One suggested that, “On the first day of school when I stepped into the class I felt really comfortable and there were a lot of students there which made me more comfortable.” This notion of our learning spaces being comfortable is a common thread. As adults, where do we choose to learn? Will we make sure we’re comfortable first? I remember hearing Stephen Heppell suggest that if you ask children to bring in from home the seat that they’d prefer to sit on when reading, none of them would bring in an old wooden kitchen chair. Instead they’d bring bean bags, the couch, an arm chair, or their bed.

The students talked of choice in terms of having some selection over where they learned:
“I sometimes prefer some places to others. Sometimes I like the places with the light. Sometimes I prefer places that are a bit quieter. It depends on what work I'm doing. If it's really hard work sometimes I just go to a quiet place.”
“I just usually go anywhere. I don't really mind how loud, or how much people are talking. Sometimes I need a quiet space so I go to a quiet room". “Who makes that decision?” "Me".
“It's more open. Everything was set (at my old school) and there wasn't much choice. Here there are more people to help you. More people that know more information about what you're learning about.”

This theme of the people produced the most dialogue. More often than not students talked about their relationship with other learners. This is where the new students felt was the real impact of the learning hubs.

“The hubs are much bigger and you get to learn with more kids. Older kids can help you learn instead of just kids your own age.”
“If you’re in the pit, it’s a lot more useful to sit with other people so they can help you.”
“It makes me feel like I can ask more people without being told we've got to do this.”
“I feel I can ask more people, there are so many more people to ask”
“You get to see other people's ways of learning and I think you get a big choice, big opportunity to see if they're learning is quite good, you could use it, could choose to make it your way of learning.”
“Well it makes a difference because you can sit with people who are suitable to your learning environment, like they're helpful, and they'll listen to your questions.”
“Sometimes the teacher chooses where we go but I’m alright with that because everywhere we go there are people that can help you, friends everywhere.”

As a means of evaluating a learning space’s success gaining student voice in terms of satisfaction is a powerful tool. It’s one of a number of evaluative methods that can help to analyse the effectiveness of learning spaces identified by Bligh & Pearshouse (2011). Other methods include an outcomes model looking at evaluating changes in learning outcomes, a scenario provision model which looks at the relationship between the provision of the space in relation to judgements of activities within it, and a brand model evaluating spaces’ contribution to institutional image. No one evaluative model is going to give us all the answers that we’re after, So it’s a matter of triangulating models to gain a fuller picture.

The analysis tools that Bligh & Pearshouse are looking at are very much based on the higher education sector but there are some key concepts that are the same across all contexts. One point that they make about the satisfaction model is that there are many other factors that influence student satisfaction above and beyond properties of space. Also that “students may lack the confidence to project their ‘voice’ with regard to spatial experiences, and may need support to do so” (p. 9).

When I look back at what our students said about their learning space- the comfort, the choice and the relationships, it seems clear that they are able to project their ‘voice’. In fact, and as somewhat of a surprise, one group ended by suggesting that in fact the space doesn't matter, it's the people in it. Space they added “is an additional bonus.”
Student voice is an important voice and it’s one that we will return to over the course of the year.

References

Bligh, V., & Pearshouse, I. (2011). Doing Learning Space Evaluations. In A. Boddington & J. Boys (Eds.), Re-Shaping learning: A Critical Reader: The future of learning spaces in post-compulsory education. Rotterdam: Sense.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Stephen Heppell on the future of education



Stephen Heppell, in this latest offering from Edtalks shares his thought on what the future of education might look like. He discusses how online learning spaces he was developing fifteen years ago have essentially become prototypes for what the physical buildings now need to look like. They offer students the chance to work with each other, to talk with others globally, to have peer support and affirmation, to exhibit and celebrate their learning, and to be totally absorbed and immersed in the environment. Stephen believes that “'structures and strictures of education will be swept aside by the engagement, seduction, delight, passion and astonishment of a new learning world”. It’s an exciting prospect.

Stephen is a real visionary and it was great to be able to hear him talk at this year’s Ulearn conference. I’m always struck by his passion, energy and firm belief in keeping the learners at the very heart of what he does. The video is well worth a look.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Stephen Heppell’s rule of three


Stephen Heppell is somewhat of a guru when it comes to learning space design and the move to what he terms agile learning environments. In this interview with Trung Le (education designer and involved in The Third Teacher project), he answers the question, “What should the third millennium school look like?”. I like his simple rule of three.

“I have a simple rule of three for third millennium learning spaces:

• No more than three walls so that there is never full enclosure and the space is multifaceted rather than just open.

• No fewer than three points of focus so that the "stand-and-deliver" model gives way to increasingly varied groups learning and presenting together (which by the way requires a radical rethinking of furniture).

• Ability to accommodate three teachers/adults with their children. The old standard size of about 30 students in a box robbed children of so many effective practices; these larger spaces allow for better alternatives.”

Stephen Heppell is going to be at this years Ulearn conference in Rotorua, NZ. I’m looking forward to what he has to say.


Reference

Le, T. (2010). The End of Education Is the Dawn of Learning. Retrieved from http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662358/the-end-of-education-is-the-dawn-of-learning

Sunday, September 4, 2011

The third teacher


This is an inspiring read! Put together by a team of architects and designers it explores the link between school environments and how children learn. It includes 79 ideas that form great starting points for schools thinking about new learning spaces. These include thinking about furniture, community engagement, outdoor environments, agile classroom spaces, lighting and acoustics. Stephen Heppell suggests that it will help to give schools and children a language to help articulate ideas about learning environments. “Children looking around their schools can’t articulate what’s wrong, they haven’t got a vocabulary, they don’t know any other experience” (p. 242). There are lots of ideas here that will certainly get schools and children talking about the spaces they’re learning in. There's a useful website that accompanies the book too.

Reference

OWS/P Architects, VS Furniture, & Bruce Mau Design. (2010). The Third Teacher. New York: Abrams.