Where is the theory?

Have been working (with my colleague Anne Boddington) on editing a collection of research papers about learning spaces, this time bringing together educationalists with designers and estate managers, and also others from areas like anthropology, computer science and museum education.

What has been interesting is how all the contributors are looking for ways - theoretically and methodologically - that do not reduce the incredible complexity of thinking about learning and space; and at the same time offer the potential for saying something rigorous and useful, which can take debates forward.

This is very exciting for me, that so many people are addressing questions of theory and practice simultaneously, and from a broad range of perspectives. Some overlapping influences are Henri Lefebrve's The Production of Space, Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory and Etienne Wenger's Communities of Practice work. Of course, what is also interesting is what different disciplines take from these authors, and the range of conclusions the various contributors have drawn.

The forthcoming book is called Reshaping Learning: A Critical Reader. The future of learning spaces in post-compulsory education and will be published by Sense in July this year. Contributors include Ronald Barnett, Paul Temple, Maggi Savin-Baden and Etienne Wenger.

NOW AVAILABLE FROM SENSE PUBLISHERS - CLICK HERE!

The 'shape' of online learning resources

I have been thinking a bit lately about how online learning resources are changing - in terms of what and how these are provided. Some time ago, I explored 'distributed creativity' , that is, websites that are increasingly blurring boundaries between teaching and learning, and quite often shift easily backwards and forwards across virtual and material spaces (see sidebar for a list - other suggestions always welcome).

Now, I keep finding examples which are offering more specialist learning resources, centred around not just materials but also tools, networking and other services. The Urban Design London Learning Space , for example, offers "a basic introduction to the theories, tricks and tools you can use to help create well-designed places.

• We'll explain the words we can use to define the qualities of well-designed places
• We'll describe processes and tools you can use to achieve good design
• We'll talk about the theories and policies you can use to deliver good design
• We'll help you learn by using pictures, stories, examples and activities"

which you can also develop through face-to-face courses. I have also been asked to be participate in a series of parallel workshops across over 70 universities globally, organised by Madrid Design Net. This is part of plans to develop new ideas for the urban development of Madrid, by both importing and exporting suggestions from other cities. It is based on a set of themes, a designed 'kit' and a structured workshop programme, supported by a website for sharing possibilities worldwide.

These kinds of resources suggest an increasing maturity in well-thought out and managed materials and activities online. Both are much more than either putting lecture notes on the web, or just 'sharing' through a blog/social network. They are serious and well-designed resources. Interestingly, in both cases the developments don't come from a university setting alone, but from a partnership with (and sponsorship from) other private and public organisations.

What really matters, though, is to see if they can get over the problem - particularly in post-compulsory education - of take-up; that is, will such resources and tools actually get used by a big enough constituency to make the amount of development work worth while?

The formal large lecture problem

Have recently been re-reading a research paper by Boyle and Nicol from the Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde, on using electronic ‘classroom communication systems’ (CCS) to improve teaching and learning for large, lecture-based groups. What Boyle and Nicol point out is that - whatever the preference for small-group, informal and interactive learning – the reality is of larger student cohorts and fewer staff. In that context, where the large lecture is not going to go away, they suggest that a CCS can improve the quality of learning.

If you have used such a system, you will know that it is basically enables participants in a large lecture setting to respond to a multiple choice question via an electronic handheld device, with total results then immediately displayed to the whole class as some form of bar chart. The experience is an odd one, since it feels a bit like being in some sort of TV quiz show, but the effects can be powerful. Boyle and Nicol evaluated the introduction of CCS into mechanical engineering courses at Strathclyde, aimed at dealing with lecturers problems with mass-lecturing; described as “weak conceptual understanding, insufficient interaction and discussion and low levels of motivation.” (p.2)

Via a couple of variations - one based on peer and the other class-wide discussion – lectures were re-framed to ask key concept questions, with students first providing their individual responses via the CCS and then discussing both their own understanding and the whole group feedback with each other. Overall the students were strongly supportive that such techniques improved their understanding, interaction and motivation compared to traditional lectures. Teachers were able to quickly gauge how well the class understood concepts under discussion, and had a mechanism whereby students could compare their own progress to the overall distribution, which - together with group discussion - helped more students to ‘get’ the key concepts.

There are two points to add here. First, as Boyle and Nicol discuss, the bigger issue becomes less about the technology and much more about the design of the teaching and learning process. Lecture writing becomes must more a matter of developing a sequence of test construction, and the management of student interaction. So, again, we need to make more explicit and have ways of debating underlying pedagogic practices.

The second point is that such a study underlines the complexity of thinking about the design of learning spaces. This technology at least partially shifts the relationships between (presumed active) teacher and (presumed passive) students in a lecture theatre setting, without the space having to change at all. Or rather, it is the conceptual/social space which is changed in this case, not the physical one.

Space and sustainability

Last week the government unveiled their plans to reduce greenhouse admissions in the UK by 34%. Universities are already looking at how to reduce carbon and how to embed sustainability across what they do: in the curriculum, in estates planning and management and through related activities (for example, the University of Brighton recently won funding for as part of the edible campus network). This is not just altruism - the government has also said that from 2011, some of the funding that institutions receive will be linked to how well they reduce carbon emissions.

So, sustainability is becoming increasing interlocked with learning spaces. As the Guardian reported recently (Let's have a heated debate July 21 2009), this is not just about the physical issues of building and energy costs - although these are crucially important - but also about the next generation of students. The article quotes Iain Patton, executive director of Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges, saying " No matter how large a university carbon footprint is, it is nothing compared to the impact of its graduates when they leave and enter homes and workplaces. If we miss this, we really do miss the larger picture. When at university, we have the responsibility to ensure learners are exposed to knowledge and values which they can take on with them as informed, responsible citizens. Every aspect of our campuses, buildings, teaching and leadership must be oriented to achieve this."

Image: Agnes Denes, Wheatfield – A Confrontation, 1982. Two acres of wheat planted and harvested in Battery Park Landfill, downtown Manhattan. Commissioned by Public Art Fund, New York City. Photo: Agnes Denes - currently on show as part of Radical Nature exhibition, Barbican, London.

A forest of educational concepts!

Seem to keep having discussions recently with art and design practitioners and teachers about the 'problem' of educational language. There is a perceived surfeit of pedagogic terms which fail to offer -it seems - much purchase with their interests in, and experiences of, teaching art and design subjects. How important or useful is it to know about constructivist models, experiental learning, resource-based learning, problem-based learning, learning styles, deep and surface learning, threshold concepts or action learning sets?

Will return to this issue. Meanwhile, came across Jame Atherton's website(s) which offers a very wide ranging and informative introduction into the whole subject.

Following "Space to Think"

The University of the Arts London (UAL) held a one day conference called "Space to Think" on 2nd July 2008 at the Chelsea School of Art and Design. This event explored the pedagogic, design and development issues around making good learning spaces for art and design; using the examples of the recently completed Chelsea School (next to Tate Britain in London) and the planned new Central Saint Martin (CSM) building at Kings Cross.

These were fascinating topics and many participants that day felt we had only had time to scratch the surface. UAL is planning to host an annual event - in the meantime, we thought that CETLD and this SPACES FOR LEARNING blog could act as a place for comments and debate to develop; for people at that event and elsewhere to network, for knowledge to be shared; and for core resources on learning spaces in art and design to be accumulated.

Download the "Space to Think" conference outline >
Image: Chelsea School of Art and Design refurbishment by architects Allies and Morrison