As the two main CETLD learning spaces researchers, Hilary and I have been talking a lot recently about what is already available, in terms of appropriate conceptual frameworks, research methods and taxonomies. Hilary has been reviewing the many good practice case studies of contemporary learning spaces in post-compulsory education. There are lots of interesting examples but also some on-going problems: potential citation distortion (where the same examples are referenced again and again without much checking on the validity of the data proffered); difficulties of finding out what is happening across the sector, intersecting with varying degrees of promotion by individual universities and projects; and – because of the recent focus on technology-rich and informal learning spaces – a tendency to ignore (or fail to effectively classify/compare and contrast) the range of developments taking place across the variety of learning spaces from lecture theatres, to labs, to studios to research centres.

In the latter area, for example, Woods Bagot have done an interesting ‘study tour’ of advanced learning institutes, aimed at bringing together researchers from different disciplines; of which the MIT Stata Center (pictured above), designed by Frank Gehry Associates, is probably one of the most famous/infamous.

These are very relevant to CETLD because it brings together HE institutions with non-university partners. Who, for example, is analysing and comparing museum education spaces with HE versions? Well, us I hope!

Towards a working definition of learning spaces?

When I started research into learning spaces in post-compulsory education I found little not framed by the 'commonsense' notion that we should be moving from formal (passive, boring) to informal (active, exciting) spaces in both physical design and teaching and learning methods.

Just how changes in spaces and changes in learning were connected remain under-explored; as do the complexities of why and how to implement any effective improvements.

More recently, with some serious attempts to re-think evaluation methods for example, it feels like we are beginning to see the need for both better theory and practices. So it was great to read - for the first time in my experience - a researcher examining what might make a working definition of the concept learning spaces (in her case using the term 'learning landscapes'). I don't know if I agree with Angela Thody (researcher for the University of Lincoln's Learning Landscapes project) attempt, but it offers a very useful start to help thinking and debate:

University learning landscapes are conceptually holistic, loosely-coupled interconnections of all formal and informal, on- and off-campus, virtual and physical facilities, sites and services and how stakeholders use them. A learning landscapes approach is distinguished from mere site management by academics’ and governors’ conscious decisions to manipulate all the traditional and innovative facilities so they are continually and ubiquitously available, collaborative opportunities to enhance learning. Preparations for this approach require understandings of why universities are still wanted, mapping of how they are now used and a belief that all elements of university environments have to justify their roles in learning. (Thody 2008(1):13)

And the image is from architect Sarah Wigglesworth, who is one of many contemporary architects very interested in finding ways of working with architectural space as a process - inseparable from the activities that go on in it.