As we moved through the school to begin consulting with the more senior
students (years 5-8), there was a noticeable progression in thinking about
learning environments. This wasn’t entirely surprising given the age of the
children perhaps but it did exemplify a deep engagement with the role of the
built environment in their learning.
What was noticeable in the students’ designs was, in general, a greater
sense of proportionality and a stronger sense of realistic expectations. What
was noticeable in their thinking was a growing depth of understanding about the
relationship between the space and their learning, and in a growing level of
self-awareness of their own use of space.
The consultation with
students in Learning Hub Three was designed along similar lines to Hub Two. As
well as analysing existing spaces there was also the opportunity to design
potential spaces. As with previously, a number of individuals and groups were
interviewed regarding their design thinking.
Initial work was done
with Hub Three students gathering data about like and dislikes in the existing
spaces. Groups of children took a series of photos of places they liked and
disliked, added these to a plan of the hub, along with ‘Like’ or “Dislike’
symbols. They then annotated the plans with their own observations and
justifications. The older students were perhaps more willing to be critical of
things that they didn’t feel worked so well, for example acoustically, but
reflected that it was often the way they chose to use the space rather than the
space itself that was the issue.
One group commented
that:
I like the library because it is good for learning and reading (picture
of library breakout room).
I like this because it is good to store stuff (picture of cupboards
on left hand side of hub).
I like this because it’s cool and comfy (picture of the couch).
I like this because it is a good learning space (picture of
whiteboard at front of room)
Too many windows! More curtains for lockdowns (picture of breakout room
windows).
I dislike this it’s too messy and we never use it (picture of store
room).
Students were invited
to put together designs for possible hubs. These were completed either
individually or collaboratively. Some students opted to create
Three-Dimensional representations of learning spaces using Minecraft (discussed
in an earlier post), and now reported in IT News and Crown Fibre Holdings.
A number of students
were interviewed about their own designs and thinking. These highlighted a
number of aspects including students’ deep understanding of the nature of the
space and how it can impact on their learning; reflections on sound, colour and
light; the nature of withdrawal rooms and how they are used.
Take this excerpt for
example; a couple of students who earlier this year had been learning about the
difference between left and right brain learning were able to apply this to
their own design.
L- … with walls we can have different colours which are beneficial to learning.
J- For example we are doing light green walls and carpets and things
like that.
CB- So what’s a good colour which is beneficial?
J- Green is the best one for learning. When we did this we brought quite a bit of
what we were learning in, so we had skylights and things like that, so having
things which give natural light.
CB- So you have brought in some things which you already talked
about as being part of your brain learning?
J- and instead of blue that’s meant to be purple (pointing to
design), The bean bag thing, purple, purple is very good for imagination so
this is pretty much the reading room and it’s got a curved bookcase, and you’ve
got purple beanbags so your imagination’s growing as you read, very good for
right hand side.
L- And we’ve got this room which is left brain learning.
CB – So you’ve got a right brain learning space and a left brain
learning
J- But you do need to cross them over so this one has got the
element of the other, its not just left, its got a squiggly wall for some
creativity, and the curvedness and this one is also, rather than just being
creativeness it’s got the doors and things like that, elements which make it
quite left. A room where you can get down to work in a nice area and have
meetings there.
L- We also have plants, and we want plants placed around the room.
J- Particularly the plan was to have some lilies, and computers,
they draw away the static from the computers which is bad for the computers and
bad for you, but the lilies draw it into them, when you’ve been working on a
computer for too long you can be distracted in your learning, so it takes away
that. We did like the element of openness; we’d quite like a couple more of
these solid walls and being able to see right through”
One of the themes to
come up in dialogue with Learning Hub Three students was around the idea of
different levels. A number of children drew small sunken areas, and others,
stairs with a landing that could be used as a seating area and learning space
(Labarre, 2012). It has been interesting to observe students using different
furniture settings in the hub. When given the opportunity to have an additional
two tables, the older students (as well as Hub One students) opted for taller
stools around taller (900mm) tables.
The provision of
quieter spaces was a recurring theme. There were a number of comments about
acoustics, and a feeling for a small number of students that spaces were, at
times noisy. Some spoke about having a quieter and darker space to work in
where they could avoid distraction. This was along the ideas of a ‘room within
a room’ theme that Stephen Heppell (2012) refers to.
The idea of being
able to access other learning hubs was raised, particularly in reference to
more specialist areas for learning. Students talked about having different
specialist areas in different hubs; not every hub for example would need a
green-screen or cooking area.
Hub Three students
considered increased flow to easily accessible outside learning spaces
important. There was a sense that being on the second storey made that more
difficult, and was possibly a lost opportunity.
Students were
intrigued the idea of a wall that they could sit in to read. They had seen some
images of these (Labarre, 2012) and liked the separation but also the
visibility that the wall enabled.
- Split levels- raised with steps to landing area (stairs could accommodate tote trays
- Quiet spaces
- Kitchen area and sink
- Idea of room within a room
- Access to outside spaces for learning
- Space for plants inside
- Dividing wall that we can sit in to read
- Access to other hubs to enable collaboration
- Skylights giving natural light
- Wall and floor coverings to reflect colours that are beneficial for learning
- A more closed space for those who are more easily distracted
References:
Heppell, S. (2012). Rooms
within rooms. Retrieved from http://rubble.heppell.net/rooms_in_rooms/
Labarre, S. (2012). School
Without Walls Fosters A Free-Wheeling Theory Of Learning. Retrieved from http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665867/school-without-walls-fosters-a-free-wheeling-theory-of-learning#9
