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/

Herman Miller Inc. (2012). What it takes to collaborate, from http://www.hermanmiller.com/content/hermanmiller/english/research/research-summaries/what-it-takes-to-collaborate.html

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.

Towards the Second Build: Minecraft, right brain thinking and 'rooms within rooms'

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. 

Existing spaces

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).

Possible Spaces

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.

Emerging Themes

• 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

Towards the Second Build: Consultation and conversations

Our consultation process and living our norm of ‘Value the Voices’ has continued with our year 2, 3 and 4 students. A team of teachers in Learning Hub Two worked alongside children in a number of different ways. Some students focused on existing spaces and how they felt about them, others on potential new spaces and what they would like to see. Data was gathered using drawings, photographs, models and conversations.

How do you sincerely listen to a large group of students and for it not to become token consultation? Working with a group of close to seventy students produces a staggering mass of data- some great learning for us around student voice and how to get the most from it, and personally as well, just about to launch into a research project.

The important thing seemed to us to extract key themes that were raised by a number of children, whilst still hanging onto the individuality and creativity that individuals brought along. So a number of students were interviewed afterwards either individually or in small groups. In general these interviews were carried out with children who contributed elements that in essence added something new, without being unrealistic (more about this soon!).

Existing spaces

Initial learning was done with Hub Two students gathering data about like and dislikes in the existing spaces. Armed with cameras, small groups of children took a series of photos of places they liked and disliked around our hub, glued these to a plan, added ‘Like’ or “Dislike’ symbols, and were then invited to comment and justify their decisions. In general students focused on the positive aspects of their spaces and were quite pragmatic about furniture, layout and facilities such as sinks, bathrooms and Comments often referred to elements within the space such as computers or furniture rather than the space itself.

One group commented that:

I like it because the table is mobile (picture of the back of the X4 teaching station).

I like this space because I can concentrate when I’m learning (picture of beanbags in the breakout room).

I like this space because it’s quiet most of the time (picture of the shield table at the end of the hub).

I like this space because it can shut its doors and it will be quiet (picture of breakout room).

I like this space because I can get supplies from here, that are organized in tote-trays (picture of tote-trays).

I don’t like this place because it is not tidy (book shelves)

Another group commented that:

I like this because it tells you what you are doing (picture of Literacy Tumble on the wall).

I like this because it tells you what stage you are in (picture of Reading progressions on the wall).

I like this because it tells the teacher who’s here (picture of guardian group roll).

I like seeing our pictures (picture of wall mounted TV).

I like this because it shows our clay and you can look at it (picture of clay artwork display on table).

Other common features that children commented on and liked were:

·      Coloured ‘welcome couch’

·      Large space where the entire hub could meet

·      That there was lots of space- easy to find somewhere to learn

·      Spaces behind furniture where children could sit

·      Wall mounted TV

·      Corners where they could sit and learn

·      Coloured glass

Possible Spaces

Students were invited to put together designs for possible hubs. These were completed either individually or collaboratively. Some chose to draw and others built possible spaces using construction materials. Both of these were used as a basis for conversation, much of which was captured on video. A number of students participated in collecting video data, where they explained in greater detail what was involved in their design. They were also able to respond to questions about why they had included certain elements and what their thinking was.

Interestingly the learning spaces that children drew were mainly rectangular and often with small rooms coming off the main area. Children have really adopted the concept of working alongside teachers in a more central space and then moving out to learn more independently. Children often drew multiple small rooms as components of the larger space, often with designated purposes. One students design for example includes a larger space and then a number of smaller spaces to be used for: science, private learning and music. Another’s included a designated maths room, a reading space and a teacher’s room. Did teachers need their own room we asked “they might need their own space but would have to keep it tidy!” came the response.

There was a strong sense of purposeful spaces resonating with this group of children, for example science or specific facilities for cooking. When asked if this space would be exclusively for the use by their learning hub children commented that it would be ok for another hub to use the space too, and for them to have an alternatively purposed shared area.

The pragmatism continues into bathrooms. A number of children drew what they described as ‘private toilets’ accessible only by students in that particular hub. When questioned further about these they described wanting the toilets close so that ‘if I got really into my learning and was busting to go to the toilet, I could get there quickly’. In general the point was that proximity not exclusivity was the key. The toilets would be ok outside, as long as they were close (It is possible that children considered that the new hubs would have to utilise existing toilets).

Children commented on the small breakout rooms being quiet places where they could concentrate. They were able to close the doors and work undisturbed. This raises the question of how many breakout spaces a hub might need and how many need to be closeable.

Sinks and wet space areas were a common theme in the drawings, frequently appearing in the corners or ends of the hub. It was felt that the wet space certainly needed to be larger than existing lino areas and positioned away from the main thoroughfare.

A number of children commented on the desirability for more that one level within the space, with either a drop down or a rise up. One commented on the ‘Staircase to nowhere’ idea of a set of stairs with a small landing on them, one on a mezzanine level, another on a sunken area.

Bag storage was initially an issue at school and was solved with the aid of a project involving a team of students and a design expert. Some children commented that it would be better to have the bags indoors, out of the wind and rain.

Emerging Themes: The main themes to emerge from Hub Two students were:

·      A space large enough for the entire hub to meet.

·      Toilets in close proximity

·      Internal bag storage

·      Sinks and wet spaces away from the centre of the room

·      Inclusion of ‘quiet spaces’

·      Purposeful spaces that could be shared with other hubs

·      More than one level

·      Corners and spaces behind furniture- idea of ‘secret spaces’

The consultation continues…