It's Design of the Times

I was incredibly excited when I saw that one of the chapters for this week's reading was about the matter of "the design of learning environments". I was expecting the chapter to (finally!) deal with something where I have some expertise. Alas, it was not to be.

The chapter starts with tremendous promise. As it says, "(S)chools have undergone major changes in the past century". (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000.) It goes on to say that, a century ago, "(T)he challenge of providing mass education was seen by many as analogous to mass production in factories," and to propose that this paradigm led to notions of efficiency, standardization and ("scientific") management of education. (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000.)

I absolutely concur with all of those propositions. But I was subsequently profoundly disappointed that the chapter did not then deal with what I was expecting and hoping that it would, at least in part, which is the actual physical design of schools and learning environments. So with your indulgence, please let me devote the remainder of this post to my thoughts in this area, which I believe is fundamentally critical to "transforming teaching and learning"!

I am not an architect by vocation--but I was married to one for 20 years, so I am somewhat of an amateur "architect" by avocation. I also did post-graduate study in architectural history and theory (the incomplete PhD which will haunt me the rest of my born days). Just before the turn of the 20th century, the American architect Louis Sullivan (generally considered the "father" of both the skyscraper and architectural "modernism") coined the phrase "form follows function". Without getting into great, gory detail, the expression is essentially self-explanatory. The architectural form of something should flow and follow from the function of that thing--whatever it may be. The form of an individual room should derive from its function, the form of a group of rooms should do the same, and so on until you have a finished building--the form of which should, then, be fundamentally driven by, ideally suited to, and a physical embodiment of its function. (Coincidentally and/or ironically, Sullivan went on to do much of his professional work within the emerging paradigm(s) of mass production, standardization, and "scientific management" that so deeply infused much of early 20th century thought.)

I have long maintained that the present-day "school" as we currently construct and recognize it is virtually indistinguishable--physically--from a prison. They both tend to be rather bland and generic buildings. They are both typically low-rise, flat-roofed structures. They are typically placed in isolation, sitting like an island on a large piece of land, which is easily observed and monitored. They are both (very unfortunately in the case of schools) frequently surrounded by (ugly) chain link fence. In some schools, even more unfortunately, their surroundings even dictate that said fence is topped with razor wire. And in some schools, there are armed guards and people must pass through metal detectors to enter. In both institutions--and it's important to think of them as institutions--security is extremely important. (Granted, in the case of one security is intended to keep bad guys out while the intent of the other is to keep them in--but security is security.) School, like prisons, even go into occasional "lockdowns". I could go on with the analogy, but I'm sure you get the point--and might never look at school building the same as you did before.

Is a facility which so closely resembles a prison really the best possible "design" of an ideal learning environment? Obviously not. I would also argue that while learning goals have indeed changed tremendously in the past 100 years, the design of schools has not kept up. Schools re, I would suggest, still designed (and operated) as "factories". If the function of schools has changed so dramatically, why hasn't the form changed equally dramatically?

I absolutely agree with Bransford et al that learning environments should be "learner centered, knowledge centered, assessment centered, and community centered". (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000.) I also absolutely agree with their positions, from the chapter on technology, that schools, the design of learning environments, and technology should "increase connections between schools and the communities" and "make connections between students' in-school and out-of-school activities", and do "function in a social environment". (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000.) I truly applaud absolutely everyone who works to try to make that happen within a physical environment which is not designed for any such thing.

From my point of view, the first and most fundamentally important thing that must take place in order to truly "transform teaching and learning" is to radically rethink and redesign the physical (and institutional and social) "learning environments" within which teaching and learning are happening. Unless we (the great collective we) change the form of our schools, present and future functions will never be able to reach their full potential. This is where I see the greatest challenge in the design of learning environments--and it is the area in which I would most like to find myself working in the future!

Citation:
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, & School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.