The value of metaphor?

Went to visit the Public Gallery recently in West Bromwich, both to see the fully interactive exhibition areas and the - as yet undesigned - new Learning Space. The interior is an extraordinary layering of open pods linked via a ramp (you go to the top and then circulate down), interweaved with a Ben Kelly designed set of tree structures with giant computer screen leaves. Visitors to the gallery accumulate personalised data as they journey through the spaces (on an interactive tag they carry), finishing up with the opportunity to translate their collected images into a self-created souvenir. It is not all up and running yet, so still too early to say what kind of impact this environment is going to make on its participants. In the meantime the gallery is exploring what kind of learning space would support and develop its activities.

Zoe Partington-Sollinger, Head of Learning and Tom Hamilton (from InQbate) have together been developing ideas through a workshop, now being discussed with the architect and others. At this stage metaphors seem key - ideas around 'camping' currently to the fore. Other participatory processes, such as the work Woods Bagot did with the University of Melbourne earlier this year, also seem to find metaphors useful - there ideas about cafes, sandpits and gardens. What is nice about these notions is they can help to break away from functional or behaviourist analyses of space; but what is problematic is how they actually translate into spaces that support creative learning.

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.

Spaces in-between the Conversational Framework

Laurillard's Conversational Framework has rightly had a strong impact on our understanding of how teaching and learning 'works'. But, increasingly, research about learning is exploring the spaces in-between this framework. Researchers are beginning to examine the emotional/non-verbal aspects of learning as a conversational process; what we each bring to it in terms of hopes, desires, beliefs and confidence, and how this may affect students differently, depending on their backgrounds and attitudes. What if knowledge is also contested, as well as understood/mastered by the student through guidance from the tutor? Or contested between tutors?

Ideas about threshold concepts (or sticking places) also potentially challenge the smoothness of the Laurillard conversational flow; what if we actually learn in jumps and starts, if there is something we just dont 'get' however well it is explained? Does this change the shape of the framework or merely alters how it operates as a process of conversations through time? And of course - what is the impact of the conceptual, physical and virtual spaces on the conversation? The Conversational Framework is a key starting point, but it raises as many questions as it answers.

Sites of exchange

Updating links to the blog today, I can see myself constantly drawn to sites which seem to be really exploiting web 2.0 not just for social networking-as-gossip but for active social exchange and engagement. These are based on newer understandings, building on the wisdom of crowds concept central to Web 2.0. Interestingly the SITES OF EXCHANGE websites now listed on the sidebar use phrases like civic media (MIT Media Lab), distributed creativity (Re-public) and public authoring (proboscis).

These sites enable individuals and groups to work together, to provide peer support (Horsesmouth) and to undertake creative exchange through real world and virtual interactions (SFZero and Institute of Infinitely Small Things). In short, they are creative spaces, where ideas are shared, explored, transformed and re-made as processes and/or products.

Just as importantly, there is a move to more equal and reciprocal relationships between participants - rather than, say as often assumed between tutor and learner . This suggests some potential not just for virtual learning spaces but also for how to re-think face-to-face learning and teaching. It conceptualises a space where people learn from each other, based on a rcognition and sharing of expertise; and where not just information is exchanged, but also creative actions.

Click here for more on the wisdom of crowds (but note Wikipedia warning)
Image from Inspired Learning Spaces blog (see sidebar) July 21 2008

What counts as a 'good' learning space?

As reported in the newspapers yesterday, despite £35bn spent by the government on revamping educational buildings across the UK, "a new generation of mediocre schools" is in danger of being produced. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) has reported that the design quality of many of these new learning spaces is not satisfactory.

What does this mean about spaces for learning at university and college level? Well, first, we need to look hard at what criteria CABE are developing for judging what exactly is a good learning space for secondary school children. For example, they say:

The best designs are getting it right, with plenty of natural light and ventilation; lively and stimulating spaces for learning; generous, atriums and pleasant spaces for pupils to dine and relax; toilets designed to deter bullying; and easy routes to move quickly around the school.

Interestingly, I feel that debates in higher education tend to conceptualise space in different ways to this; and that these differences would be worth unravelling a bit...

Second, we need to consider why these newly built learning spaces are been deemed non-satisfactory. Some would say it is the PFI procurement process; others will blame the architects and others the lack of adequate briefing or understanding by schools themselves. So - what can we learn - how can we not only imagine but also sucessfully realise better learning spaces in and beyond university campuses?

See CABE report "Threshold needed to halt poor school design">
Image: Michael Tippett Special Education Needs school, the first BSF school in London, 2008. Designed by Marks Barfield Architects

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

Why Spaces for Learning in Art and Design?

Learning Spaces is a bit of a buzz topic right now. In the physical world the UK has the Building Schools for the Future programme re-designing secondary schools and a considerable amount of new and refurbished building is also going on in further and higher education. At the same time, the increasing ubiquity of new kinds of non-physical spaces - such as social networking and virtual worlds like Second Life - is leading people (including educationalists) to ask whether people are, could be, or should be learning differently these days.

For me, coming from an architectural background but with a lot of experience in both e-learning and art/design education, it feels like this subject is developing fast. But it remains limited because we are not thinking through the difficulties in connecting across the different perspectives of architects, academics and pedagogic theorists (let alone estates managers or students). So whilst some very interesting buildings and spaces for learning in art and design now exist, we have to ask whether - and how - these really enhance students' creativity, engagement and performance. We have to ask what are the actual relationships between social networking online, virtual environments and improving learning. And we have to ask hard questions about why pedagogic theories and new e-learning approaches continue to fail to appeal to the great majority of art and design tutors.

Image: from 'Own Room' project, exploring the minimum conditions for creativity - Access and Foundation into Architecture and Interiors, London Metropolitan University, 2001.