The Future of Learning by buildordie

THE FUTURE OF

Open. Engaging. Connected. Blended. Scattered. Customized. The future of learning will embody these qualities. By highlighting the spatial possibilities of these concepts, we posit that, in the future of learning, there is still a place for place.

OVERVIEW forward paradigms learning theories school typologies architecture + the brain

LEARNING LEXICON

open engaging connected blended scattered customized

CASE STUDIES

04 06 14 20 24 34 36 52 64 80 94 114

chicago

126 128

san francisco

144

san diego

182

earl shapiro hall / starter school altschool / d.school / autodesk gallery / exploratorium / marin country day school salk institute / high tech high

The future is already here. It’s just not evenly distributed yet.

FOR WRD THE FUTURE OF LEARNING

The words of William Gibson—speculative fiction writer and coiner of the term “cyberspace”—serve as a pithy precursor to this next installment of our Future of the Future project, The Future of Learning. Gibson contends that the future is not a wholesale reimagining of the past, but a gradual melding of ideas old and new. Indeed, many of the future trends that emerged from our research originated decades ago, with early 20thcentury reformists or progressive-era teaching methods. Other trends are more recent phenomena emerging from technological change or economic necessity. The danger in predicting the future lies not only in being wrong, but in appearing foolish. Much futurist speculation not only fails to pan out, but seems laughable in retrospect. Think of Disney’s Tomorrowland fantasies and its predictions of flying cars and food capsules that have yet to be fulfilled. Transfixed by the wonders of technology, we often ignore the wider changes afoot. As futurist Roy Amara once said, “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.”

For instance, the Gutenberg Press was lauded soon after its invention for putting books and Bibles into the hands of millions. But the true transformative power of the printing press would only become evident in retrospect: undermining the authority of the Catholic Church by sparking the Reformation, facilitating the rise of modern science by enabling the rapid publication of ideas.1 How, then, do we filter out the short-term noise of our day-to-day present, and instead chart a smooth curve into the future? How can we perceive the long-term trends that today’s transient technologies are anticipating? Perhaps by testing this simple truth: that the ideas driving the future of learning already occupy the margins of our current thinking. Mapping the future, then, may be less about invention and more about identification, less about creating wholly new models for learning and more about focusing on the best of our most current, forward-thinking ones.

“We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.”

To see into the future, we just have to look around.

1 John Naughton, “Thanks, Gutenberg - but we’re too pressed for time to read”, The Observer January 26 2008, http:/www.theguardian.com/ media/2008/jan/27/internet.pressandpublishing.

LEARNING PARADIGMS Three major paradigms—Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism—underlie the learning theories of the 20th century, and another—Connectivism—proposes to reconcile our most current understanding of the mind with the networked nature of 21st century society. Adapted from: Katie Lepi, “A Simple Guide to 4 Complex Learning Theories,” http://www. edudemic.com/a-simple-guide-to-4-complex-learning-theories/.

JOHN B. WATSON IVAN PAVLOV B.F. SKINNER

JEAN PIAGET LEV VYGOTSKY JEROME BRUNER

THE MIND IS A BLACK BOX

THE MIND IS A COMPUTER

BEHAVIORISM

COGNITIVISM

“Give me a child and I’ll shape him into anything.” -B. F. Skinner

“Learners are encouraged to discover facts and relationships for themselves.” -Jerome Bruner

UNDERSTAND / REMEMBER

CREATE / EVALUATE

REACTING TO EXTERNAL STIMULI

ACQUIRING AND STORING INFORMATION

OBSERVABLE, FOCUSED ON BEHAVIOR

STRUCTURED, COMPUTATIONAL

REWARD/PUNISHMENT

EXISTING SCHEMA/EXPERIENCE

HARDWIRING OF REPEATED EXPERIENCE

ENCODING, STORAGE, RETRIEVAL

STIMULUS/RESPONSE

IMITATION OF KNOWER

THE MIND CONSTRUCTS REALITY

CONSTRUCTIVISM “Failure is instructive. The person who really thinks learns quite as much from his failures as from his successes.” -John Dewey

ANALYZE / APPLY CONSTRUCTING SUBJECTIVE REALITY SOCIAL, PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT, PARTICIPATION REMIXING PRIOR KNOWLEDGE SOCIALIZATION

IN TERN ET

JOHN DEWEY MARIA MONTESSORI PAULO FREIRE

PETER VAILL STEPHEN DOWNES GEORGE SIEMENS

THE MIND IS A NETWORK

CONNECTIVISM “The pipe is more important than the content within the pipe.” -George Siemens

RECOGNIZE / CONNECT CONNECTING NODES OF INFORMATION NETWORKED, SOCIAL, TECH-ENHANCED DIVERSITY OF NETWORK MEMORY EXISTS IN NETWORKS CONNECTING / ADDING NODES

CON NEC TIV ISM LEARNING THEORY OF THE FUTURE

First articulated in 2005 by writers and researchers George Siemens (Connectivism: Learning as Network Creation) and Stephen Downes (An Introduction to Connective Knowledge), Connectivism is proposed as a learning theory for the digital age. It builds upon previous learning theories—behaviorism, cognitivism, and especially constructivism—but provides an updated framework for understanding learning in the Internet age. Connectivism contends that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and that learning is one’s ability to build and bridge those networks. Connectivism treats knowledge not as a thing to be acquired or transmitted, but as a capacity to filter relevant information, make decisions, and generate new “nodes” of knowledge. Siemens asserts that Connectivism’s power lies in it’s ability to talk about learning at multiple levels—biological, conceptual, and interactive—using the same language of networks and connections: “Learning biologically is about connection forming. At the conceptual level of knowledge development, it is about connecting and bringing concepts in relation to others. At the physical and external level, it is about social and technological interactions and connections.”1 Rather than merely serving as a lens for viewing learning, Connectivism provides a framework for designing pedagogy and learning experiences, Siemens says. Downes translates Connectivism theory into four major teaching and learning practices which together form a cyclical process: Aggregation (the gathering of a diversity of source material and references); Remixing (drawing connections among this diversity of ideas); Repurposing (creating new forms of knowledge from the aggregated and remixed material); and Feeding Forward (sharing one’s work with a broader learning community).

This last step, sharing knowledge, is perhaps Connectivism’s most significant departure from previous learning theories. As Internet apps become more powerful and people become more connected via the World Wide Web, learning will increasingly entail knowledge creation, not just knowledge consumption. It’s the Wikipedia model of learning: user-generated, crowd-edited, vast, remote, never finished. As Downes describes Connectivism’s view of learning, “Knowledge is not something we can package neatly in a sentence and pass along as though it were a finished product. It is complicated, distributed, mixed with other concepts, looks differently to different people, is inexpressible, tacit, mutually understood but never articulated.”2

“Knowledge is not something we can package neatly in a sentence and pass along as though it were a finished product.” -Stephen Downes

Today, the status of Connectivism as a truly novel and transformative theory of learning—rather than a slight spin on older models—is hotly debated among theorists and educators. But there can be little doubt that Connectivism captures the cultural zeitgeist of the Internet Age, and that it will shape conversations about learning into the foreseeable future.

1 George Siemens, “Thoughts on Connectivism”, eLearnspace Blog April 25 2014, http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/page/2. 2 Downes, Stephen, “‘Connectivism’ and Connective Knowledge,” The Huffington Post Education Blog January 5 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-downes/ connectivism-and-connecti_b_804653.html.

CON CEPT UAL LEARNING FOR A NEW AGE OF WORK

While there are many competing ideas regarding the purpose of education—from creating a learned citizenry to igniting a passion for learning—certainly one goal of education is to prepare students for employment. So what kind of work should learning prepare us for? What kinds of future jobs will be available to today’s students? In their insightful 2013 report, “Dancing with Robots,” Frank Levy and Richard Murnane detail how technology is changing the employment landscape of the U.S. Specifically, computers are replacing people in fields that involve rulesbased logic and pattern recognition. But computers are still unsuitable for certain types of human work at both the low and high ends of the skills spectrum—like moving furniture or writing a legal brief. Levy and Murnane predict robust future demand for occupations that involve solving unstructured problems, working with new information, and performing non-routine manual tasks, while jobs that involve routine cognitive and manual tasks will be increasingly computerized and outsourced to improve efficiency. To prepare students for the new world of work—of abundant information and unstructured problems—Levy and Murnane emphasize the importance of building foundational skills and knowledge that are flexible and transferable.1 Daniel H. Pink explores a similar theme in his book, A Whole New Mind. Here, Pink argues that today’s world values right-brain sensibilities—like creativity, empathy, pattern recognition, and meaning making—just as much as the

left-brain competencies—like logic and linear thinking— that ruled the old economy. The new Conceptual Age, he argues, is succeeding the Information Age, and demands a new set of skills that favors designers, artists, inventors, storytellers, and big-picture thinkers.2 Given the realities of the new economy—one characterized by increasing computerization and outsourcing—how should learning adapt to give students the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in the workplace? Like everything in life, the answer isn’t neat and tidy. But the world is full of innovative educators testing new ways of learning. Our research is an attempt to reveal a cross-section of these efforts across all ages and aspects of education—from kindergarten to college, from conceptual ideas to completed buildings—to chart the future of learning.

“The nation’s challenge is to develop job-relevant knowledge and learn efficiently over a lifetime.”

1 Frank Levy and Richard J. Murnane, “Dancing with Robots: Human Skills for Computerized Work,” Third Way, June 1 2013, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/714/Dancing-With- Robots.pdf. 2 Daniel H. Pink, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future, New York: Penguin, 2006, p. 1-4

TECH NOL OGY TECHNOLOGY WILL SAVE US?

Discussions about the future of learning are often laced with breathless pronouncements that “technology will change everything.” But the truth is much trickier, and digital Luddites often have instructive points to consider. For one thing, change is slow. Technology has been promising to transform learning for over 100 years, since the rise of radio inspired reformers to harness it for educational purposes. Later it was television that held the key to knowledge, with the U.K.’s Open University transmitting lessons to students in the 1970s.1 But neither innovation ever truly caught on at a large scale, and even today, computers and the Internet are only beginning to influence the form and format of mainstream learning. Some remain cautious about the use of new technologies in the classroom. “New technologies do not represent a silver bullet,” says Daniel Willingham, a cognitive scientist who applies mind research to the classroom. “Just using a new gadget does not guarantee student learning. Laboratory research also indicates something more subtle: new technologies may be effective or not depending on the material and on characteristics of the student.”2 Research bears this out. For instance, the use of laptops in the classroom has been shown to increase distraction and inhibit learning. A 2013 study showed that students who used laptops for multitasking during a lecture—and even students who were merely in view of a multitasking peer— performed worse on a test compared to those who did not.3 Laptop note taking not only increases distraction, but may also be less effective than writing longhand. Even when laptops are only used for taking notes, they may still hinder learning by promoting shallower processing. A recent study concluded that laptop note takers performed worse on tests measuring conceptual knowledge than students who wrote notes in longhand. The researchers say that laptop note takers tend to transcribe lectures verbatim instead of reframing them in their own words, which can inhibit learning.4

Some efforts to integrate technology into schools have been downright disastrous. The School of the Future is instructive in its failure to deliver on its grand promises of reforming education through technology. The Microsoft-backed Philadelphia school launched in a state-of-the-art building with wireless access, put a laptop in every child’s hands, and relied heavily on an online learning portal designed by Microsoft. But the online portal proved buggy; students didn’t know how to operate their laptops and were afraid to take them home for fear of theft; high turnover in leadership positions hurt morale; and teachers struggled to adapt their pedagogy to the project-based curriculum. Lacking the leadership and support to match their teaching methods to the school’s high-tech vision, teachers began to slowly revert back to familiar modes of instruction, and The School of the Future began to resemble the traditional schools it sought to replace.5

“New technologies do not represent a silver bullet. Just using a new gadget does not guarantee student learning.”

Surely, The School of the Future’s failures are not an indictment of all experiments in educational technology. But these examples do show that technology itself is not sufficient to promote learning, and that the human component of educational design will always be the most important factor in the success of new learning models.

1 Nathan Heller, “Laptop U,” The New Yorker May 20 2013, accessed July 17 2014, http://www. newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/20/130520fa_fact_heller?currentPage=all. 2 Daniel T. Willingham, “Have Technology and Multitasking Rewired How Students Learn?” American Educator Summer 2010, accessed July 16 2014, http://www.aft.org/pdfs/ americaneducator/summer2010/Willingham.pdf. 3 Faria Sana, Tina Weston, and Nicholas J. Cepeda, “Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers,” Computers & Education 62, March 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003. 4 Pam A Mueller and Daniel M. Oppenheimer, “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking,” Psychological Science April 23 2014, doi: 10.1177/0956797614524581. 5 Meris Stansbury, “School of the Future: Lessons in failure,” eSchool News June 1 2009, accessed July 17 2014, http://www.eschoolnews.com/2009/06/01/school-of-the-futurelessons-in-failure.

RELEVANT THEORIES (abridged) Educators and theorists rely on a host of psychological, cognitive, and learning theories to frame their understanding of learning. Learning is such a multifaceted phenomenon. It requires an understanding of knowledge formation, human development, social interaction, motivational factors, and human perception.

IDENTITY

MOTIVATION

INTELLIGENCE

8 Stages of Development3

Self-Determination Theory4

CHC Theory1

Infant (Hope) Trust vs. Mistrust Toddler (Will) Autonomy vs. Shame

Proposes three conditions that support human motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Pre-Schooler (Purpose) Initiative vs. Guilt

Maslowâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hierarchy2

School-Age (Confidence) Industry vs. Inferiority Adolescent (Fidelity) Identity vs. Confusion Young Adult (Love) Intimacy vs. Isolation Middle-Age (Care) Generativity vs. Stagnation Older Adult (Wisdom) Integrity vs. Despair

Self-Actualization Esteem Belongingness Safety Physiological

Entity vs. Incremental2

ARCS Model4

Proposes that people hold one of two opposing views of self:

Proposes four steps for promoting motivation in learning:

Entity Intelligence is fixed and stable Incremental Intelligence is fluid and changeable

Suggests that humans are directed toward meeting five needs, in ascending order:

Attention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction

The theory underlying most IQ tests, CHC posits two kinds of intelligence: Fluid The ability to solve new problems using reasoning Crystallized Knowledge-based ability, dependant on education and acculturation

Multiple Intelligences1 Gardner proposes eight kinds of intelligence in an attempt to broaden its definition: Linguistic Logical-Mathematical Spatial Bodily-Kinesthetic Musical Interpersonal Intrapersonal Naturalistic

LEARNING

SYSTEMS

PERCEPTION

Pedagogy / Andragogy6

ANT Theory2

Affordance Theory2

Contrasts the notion of pedagogy (from the Greek “child-leading”) with andradogy (”man-leading”).

Describes learning as being dependent on the multiple “actors” in a network:

Bloom’s Taxonomy2

Individuals Tools Environment Culture Organizational structure

Says that affordances, or clues, in the environment indicate possibilities for action (buttons for pushing, levers for pulling), with good design making these affordances more explicit.

An oft-referenecd hierarchy that classifies thinking according to six levels of increasing complexity. Bloom’s Taxonomy was recently updated to reflect 21st century ideas about learning. Old:

Evaluation Synthesis Analysis Application Comprehension Knowledge

New:

Creating Evaluating Analyzing Applying Understanding Remembering

Distributed Cognition2 DCog posits that knowledge is distributed across objects, individuals, and tools in the environment, not constructed in one’s head. The mind is in the world, as opposed to the world being in the mind.

1 James C. Kaufman, Scott Barry Kaufman and Jonathan A. Plucker, “Contemporary Theories of Intelligence,” in The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology, ed. Daniel Reisberg, (Oxford: June 2013), doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195375745.013.0051. 2 Learning-Theories.com, accessed July 9 2014, http://www.learning-theories.com/. 3 “Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development,” accessed July 9 2014, AllPsych Online, http://allpsych.com/psychology101/social_ development.html. 4 “Theory Overview,” Self Determination Theory, accessed July 9 2014, http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/theory/. 5 John Keller, “ARCS Categories,” ARCS Model.com, last modified September 17 2013, http://www.arcsmodel.com/. 6 Geraldine Holmes and Michele Abington-Cooper, “Pedagogy vs. Andragogy: A False Dichotomy?” The Journal of Technology Studies, Summer/Fall 2000, http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/Summer-Fall-2000/holmes.html.

LIFE LONG LEAR NING PEDAGOGY VS. ANDRAGOGY

While most are familiar with the term “pedagogy” to describe a method or practice of teaching, the term “andragogy” is more obscure. Defined by educator Malcolm Knowles as “the art and science of helping adults learn,” andragogy proposes that there are key differences between child and adult learning. Though presented as opposites, it is perhaps more helpful to view pedagogy and andragogy as two ends of the same continuum. Knowles identified six principles that characterize adult learning: adults are internally motivated and self-directed; they bring life experience and knowledge to learning experiences; they are goal-oriented; they seek relevance; they are practical; they like to be respected. Knowles was also influential in proclaiming the value of “informal education,” pointing to associations and clubs as important instruments for learning.1

One trend that emerges from the pedagogy/andragogy comparison is that today’s progressive learning models—for students of any age—seem to be moving toward the right of the continuum. Educators are emphasizing so-called andragogical principles at the earliest stages of a learner’s development. Self-direction, real-world application, goal setting, and student autonomy are all important tenets of contemporary primary and secondary education. As child, adolescent, and adult theories of learning begin to blend and merge, so too will the distinctions between child, adolescent, and adult learning environments begin to erode. Already we can see similarities between contemporary office environments and early childhood classrooms: the open floor plans, the bright colors, the variety of work surfaces, the whimsical furniture. Which is the school and which is the office? In adopting the spatial forms of the modern office, today’s progressive schools are trying to prepare students for the workplaces of the future. But these similarities between school and office environments are also reflective of a broader cultural shift suggesting a new way of thinking about how we learn and work.

1 Mark K. Smith, “Malcolm Knowles, Informal Adult Education, Self-Direction and Andragogy”, The Encyclopedia of Informal Education, 2002, www.infed.org/thinkers/et-knowl.htm.

Pedagogy Learner Teacherdependent, instructor evaluations Experience Little experience as resource for learning Readiness Students told what they need to learn to advance

Orientation Learning is the process of acquiring prescribed subject matter; content sequenced in logical units Motivation External pressures: competition for grades, consequences of failure

Andragogy Self-directed, self-evaluations

Rich experiences and knowledge to draw from Learners assess gaps between where they are and where they want to be Learning must be relevant to reallife: performing a task, solving a problem, life/ work situations

Internal motivations: self-esteem, recognition, better quality of life, selfconfidence, selfactualization

Adapted from: http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2013/05/awesomechart-on-pedagogy-vs-andragogy.html

EXPO NEN TIAL COMPOUNDING KNOWLEDGE

A large body of research across a range of fields reveals an important truth about learning: it’s exponential, not linear. Knowledge doesn’t just accumulate, it compounds. Early development of fundamental knowledge and skills is thus a key precursor to successful lifelong learning. Learning disparities between rich and poor can begin from birth. A famous study by Betty Hart and Todd Risley documented that children of parents with professional jobs hear their parents speak an average of 11 million words, while children of working parents hear six million words. Children with parents on welfare hear only three million words, on average.1 These early vocabulary gaps persist and compound, impeding learning throughout a child’s lifetime. “Building a store of knowledge works like compound interest,” says cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham. “It grows exponentially. For that reason, the earlier that students add to their database of knowledge the better.”2 E.D. Hirsch strikes a similar tone in his takedown of the notion that “you can always look it up online”: “The Internet has placed a wealth of information at our fingertips. But to be able to use that information—to absorb it, to add to our knowledge—we must already possess a storehouse of knowledge. That is the paradox disclosed by cognitive research.”3

The idea that early learning can lead to exponential returns down the road also holds true with educational interventions like preschool. Numerous studies suggest that investments in early learning and development, like Head Start and Pre-K programs, is more efficient than investments later in life, and can produce lasting improvements across a range of foundational skills: cognitive, social, persistence, attention, self-regulation, and executive function.4

“Building a store of knowledge works like compound interest. It grows exponentially.”

1 Betty Hart and Todd Risley, Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children, Baltimore: Brookes, 1998. 2 Daniel T. Willingham, “Knowledge in the Classroom,” American Educator, Spring 2006, http:// www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2006/willinghamsb.cfm. 3 E.D. Hirsch, Jr, “‘You Can Always look It Up’...Or Can You?” American Educator, Spring 2000, http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2000/LookItUpSpring2000.pdf. 4 Hirokazu Yoshikawa et al., “Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education,” October 2013, http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Evidence%20Base%20on%20 Preschool%20Education%20FINAL.pdf.

millions of words heard

3 6 11 welfare

working class

professional

SCHOOL TYPOLOGIES A number of school typologies have emerged in the American education system over the past century. From the oneroom schoolhouses that dotted the rural countryside to contemporary urban schools that incorporate community services into their programming, the pedagogical philosophies and educational missions of schools are embodied in their spatial arrangements and physical forms.

HOUSE

- single-room school house - everyone has access - teacher knows everything students will learn

CAMPUS

- increased number of buildings - buildings divided by specialty - core knowledge enriched by specialists

COMMUNITY CENTER

- sectionally varied - strategically placed social spaces - interior and exterior planned public spaces - community services integrated into school

INSTITUTION

- stacked classrooms on a double-loaded corridor - institutional scale - everyone learns the same thing within a regulated structure

FINGER PLAN

- uniform ground-level organization - group activities encased by a building - increased building footprint - core knowledge enriched by specialists

ONE RM SKL HSE REINVENTING THE ONE-ROOM SCHOOLHOUSE

The one-room schoolhouse was a preindustrial, predominantly rural typology that typified the American educational experience before the 20th century. This iconic typology dates back to the Colonial era, and had students of all ages learning in a single classroom with a single teacher. At one time there were over 150,000 such schools nationwide. But as the country became increasingly urbanized and education more standardized, most oneroom schoolhouses closed their doors.1 While the one-room schoolhouse might seem hopelessly outdated, many features of these early rural school models actually have currency in today’s most progressive classrooms. Many teachers proclaim that the “microschool”—the modern incarnation of the one-room schoolhouse—can foster innovative, personalized learning experiences, enable close relationships among students and teachers, and provide a great environment for experimentation in education.1 Nineteenth-century one-room schoolhouses featured students of many ages and skills levels working on a variety of lessons in a single classroom. Teachers rotated about the classroom, offering some students individual attention while other students learned independently. Older students often helped younger ones. Today, we might call this self-directed and peer-supported learning, and many experts say it’s the best way for children to learn. “I am convinced that the one-room schoolhouse model meets the needs of individual students in a way that our modern schools typically do not,” says Bethany M. Baxter, a teacher and education consultant. She sees the model as a great way to allow for individualized learning that promotes mastery-based progression. She thinks modern technology can help too, making it easier for teachers to take advantage of an abundance of online resources to devise customized lesson plans.2

Indeed, some schools are leveraging technology to get the benefits of bigness while remaining small and studentcentered. One example is San Francisco’s AltSchool, which employs a team of software engineers to design learning platforms that help teachers customize student lesson plans and share best practices. They hope technology can help them grow into a connected network of small, local schools focused on continual experimentation and improvement.

“The one-room schoolhouse model meets the needs of individual students in a way that our modern schools typically do not.”

Like many things in life, the old is suddenly new again.

1 Anya Kamenetz, “The Return of the One-Room Schoolhouse,” nprEd Blog, July 2 2014, accessed July 9 2014, http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/07/02/326196530/the-return-of-the- one-room-schoolhouse. 2 Bethany M. Baxter, “Returning to the One-Room Schoolhouse,” The Technology Source, September/October 2000, accessed July 9 2014, http://technologysource.org/article/return ing_to_the_oneroom_schoolhouse/.

ARCI TECT U R E & THE BRAIN A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO SPACE

A number of contemporary researchers are shedding a scientific light on how the physical environment influences learning. Kenneth Tanner of the University of Georgia has explored the implications of circulation patterns, natural light, and views on learning outcomes.1 Similarly, Peter Barrett of the University of Salford identifies the variables of naturalness, individualization, and stimulation as key factors in the design of effective learning environments.2 This scientific approach to the design of learning environments is a continuation of the research of behavioral scientists of the 1960s. Those psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists proposed models to inform efforts in human-centered design. But a new generation of brainbased research tools is giving us a more accurate and nuanced view of how people engage the world. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) allows neuroscientists to monitor blood flow to specific regions of the brain, illuminating how the brain responds to certain stimuli. Computational models of neural networks are

beginning to shed light on the mechanics of information processing. New interdisciplinary research alliances in “neuroaesthetics” and “neuroarthistory” have been proposed as a way to explore the brain’s interaction with art and design.3 These advances in our understanding of the human brain promises to change the way we think about architecture and urban design. One organization exploring the relationship of design and the brain is the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture in San Diego, which aims to “link neuroscience research to a growing understanding of human responses to the built environment.”4 Dr. Tom Albright, Director of the Vision Center Laboratory at the Salk Institute and member of ANFA, believes that fostering discussions between architects and neuroscientists could lead to better learning environments down the line. “The hope is that some day we can elaborate a taxonomy of ways in which an understanding of the brain might be useful information to take into account when designing an environment,” he said in our interview.5

“The hope is that some day we can elaborate a taxonomy of ways in which an understanding of the brain might be useful information to take into account when designing an environment.”

Though these efforts are still in their infancy, they promise to transform how we design environments for learning. As our understanding of the human mind deepens, integrating neuroscience and architecture will become increasingly important. 1 C. Kenneth Tanner, “Effects of school design on student outcomes,” Journal of Educational Administration 47.3 (2009) pp. 381-99, doi: 10.1108/09578230910955809. 2 Peter Barrett and Yufan Zhang, “Optimal Learning Spaces: Design Implications for Primary Schools,” October 2009, http://www.oecd.org/education/innovation-education/ centreforeffectivelearningenvironmentscele/43834191.pdf. 3 Harry Francis Mallgrave, The Architect’s Brain: Neuroscience, Creativity, and Architecture (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), pp. 2-3. 4 “Our Mission,” Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture web site, accessed August 4 2014, http://www.anfarch.org. 5 Tom Albright, interview by Tad Jameyfield and Ben Penlesky, July 25 2014.

DR. TOM ALBRIGHT SALK INSTITUTE

LA JOLLA, CA 26

“If we know enough about the brain, we ought to be able to use that information to guide the design of human environments.” We spoke with Dr. Tom Albright, Professor and Director of the Vision Center Laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, about his research on visual perception and its relation to architecture. Can you tell us about the group you’re involved with, the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture? Basically, the idea is that if we know enough about the brain, we ought to be able to use that information to guide the design of human environments. And this is not a new idea, at least in broad concept. The idea that if you knew enough about human behavior and the things that cause human behavior, that you ought to take those into account when you design environments—good architects do that all the time. There actually is an interesting history of this. In ancient India the Hindu societies produced these things called vedas, and vedas are just texts about philosophy and practice of certain areas of life. There’s a veda written about architecture. It’s called the Vastu veda, and it describes ways in which you could design a dwelling that would optimize the environment for the mental state of the person who lives there. Much of it was sort of mystical, because this was thousands of years ago. But today, reaching that goal is augmented by the modern field of neuroscience. That is, there are things that we actually can measure about the brain, things we understand about how the brain develops and how it works that can be taken into account when you’re designing an environment. When you’re practicing architecture and you’re designing spaces, there’s a whole bunch of things that you naturally take into account: site, weather, the client’s aesthetic preferences, materials, budget, and so on. But the idea here is that another important factor is human biology. And architects take into account human biology all the time in an implicit way. We design buildings to suit the human body. We have air flow systems, we have windows because people like light. And so this is just another feature of biology. We have a brain, and it would be nice if we had some systematic way to take into account what the brain does and how it affects behavior in designing human environments. What are some ways of organizing this? So one way has to do with sensory systems, because architecture is a sensory experience. It’s primarily a visual experience, though there are other sensory factors as well, but vision is the dominant one. So when you walk into the space, there’s a sort of overwhelming visual experience. The research in my laboratory is directed in understanding how the visual system works, which is my route into this topic. We can understand how an environment that’s man-made activates the visual system, and then we can ask questions about the emotional response to that.

As Le Corbusier said, ‘The purpose of architecture is to move us.’ So what is it about the space that moves us? What elicits that strong emotional response? And it’s almost universal. Oftentimes people tell me when they see the Salk Institute from the outside, on the north and south, it looks a little bit like a prison because of the heavy concrete. But certainly when you come in through the east gate, it’s pretty impressive, and everybody feels that way. What does the brain have to do with wayfinding? There’s a lot known now about parts of the brain that are involved in memory, particularly spatial memory, how we find our way around. There’s a lot of research done with a part of the brain known as the hippocampus, which is critical for memory. The subjects in these experiments are for the most part rodents—rats and mice. And if you monitor the activity of cells in the hippocampus while these animals are navigating through a space, you find that there’s a very selected pattern. That is to say that the hippocampus creates a map. I just bought a Roomba Vacuum Cleaner, and apparently the Roomba creates a map of the space. It figures out where stuff is, so over time it bumps into stuff less because it knows where stuff is. And that’s basically what happens in your hippocampus. You develop a map of space as the result of being exposed to the space. And there’s a lot of variation across individuals. It’s a cognitive spatial map. We have a lot of types of cognitive maps. We have maps of time and maps of space, maps of concepts. The hope is that by understanding the constraints on those maps, we learn their limitations, ultimately understanding what the brain can and can’t do. So if you build an environment that taps into some feature that the brain is sensitive to, then you’re going to have an effect. But if you add in features to the environment that the brain has no sensitivity to, it’s just going to miss the mark. Can you elaborate on what some of those features might be? For example, there’s a lot known about how your visual system is organized and about the limits of your visual perceptual ability. If you add features to a building that from a certain distance are simply not resolvable by your visual system, then there’s no way that it’s going to have any aesthetic affect. It’s not going to activate your visual system because the pattern is beyond the limits of your resolution. And you could say, well, we don’t really need neuroscience to tell us that because you could just look at it. You could just look down the hall and say, ‘Well I can’t resolve that, so why put it into the building as an aesthetic feature?’ The thinking is that there are more subtle aspects of visual processing or memory that we haven’t fully understood yet that may be relevant to these issues.

“If you build an environment that taps into some feature that the brain is sensitive to, then you’re going to have an effect.”

Sometimes people come to me and they say, ‘Can you give us a prescription of how to design a better building based on current neuroscience?’ And we’re not at that point yet. The hope is that by starting this conversation, conversations like the one that we’re having now—between people who have a background in the sciences and people who have a background in architecture—that we come up with ideas, that we find a common language to communicate in. And we’ve identified a number of areas of architecture where this might be particularly relevant, and education one of the most obvious.

There’s a fellow who I’ve known for a while, Peter Barrett, a faculty of the University of Salford in Manchester, who did a very nice study. He went around to a bunch of public schools in Britain and measured a whole bunch of things: physical characteristics of the environment, amount of light present, windows, the compass direction in which the windows faced, the airflow, carbon dioxide levels in the room, the ambient noise, the reflectivity of the noise off the walls, and so on. And he measured even subtler things like ownership. Kids like to feel they have ownership of stuff. It makes them feel empowered, gives them confidence. And so if you put kids in an environment in which they have a space that’s theirs, it’s satisfying to them. And it turns out they do better academically if they know that they have ownership. The beauty of this study is that, because these kids are given these standardized tests several times a year, they have a measure of academic performance. It turns out that there’s a handful of things that are highly correlated with ownership and academic performance. So there you have a simple, empirical measure of the things in the environment that improves academic performance What about clutter versus the absence of clutter? This is a big issue. This is the first thing that occurred to me when I started thinking about this, because one of the things that I study in my laboratory is the brain basis of visual attention. So if there’s a lot of clutter on the walls it’s very hard for kids to focus. And there’s a lot of neuroscience research that demonstrates that that’s true, and moreover, demonstrates why that’s true. It’s reinforcing to these kids to see their work on the walls, and that’s the reason why it’s there. But at the same time, if you’re trying to plan a lesson and study mathematics and you see all this crap on the walls, it’s a tremendous distraction. Early on when I started thinking about this I had the idea that technology is really the solution to this. There’s this famous novel by Ray Bradbury, Farenheight 451. In the fireman’s apartment, the walls are these great big video screens, and so you can basically put up anything on the walls that you want. By the push of a button you can change what’s on the walls, so you could make all the clutter go away at the appropriate time. When you need the classroom to be sort of a blank slate for focusing on the lesson at hand, you can remove the stuff, but you can put it back at a later time when it is supposed to be reinforcing to the kids. That will probably happen at some point, but right now that’s a technology that’s just beyond the means of schools. Simpler things could be done. For example, you could have sliding walls so you could obscure the stuff on the walls at the appropriate time by sliding panels. But I really think that is a big issue, and it ties in nicely with all the things that we know from neuroscience about the brain basis of attention. There is what’s commonly referred to as a minimum window of attention. There’s an affect that’s referred to as the crowding effect, in which individual items in a visual display are within a small enough window of space that it’s very hard to attend to any one of the items. So if you’re at a sporting event and there’s a whole bunch of people in a crowd and you’re trying to pick out a particular person, it becomes extremely difficult if the crowd is spaced really closely together. And the same is true of stuff on the wall in a classroom. The spacing of stuff is going to, in a very precise way, dictate the degree to which you can actually attend to and resolve things. Are there any trends in how learning environments are designed that you think have a solid basis in science? Are there others that you view as ridiculous, or not really supported by the science?

The general problem is that these variations in classroom design and pedagogical approaches are so multidimensional that it’s sort of hard to point to anything in particular. But there is a trend which I’m sure you’re aware of to have what’s commonly called active learning. They do this at High Tech High. And I think for a whole lot of obvious reasons that this is the way to learn. You can ask a surgeon. You can’t learn surgery by reading a book. You learn surgery by actually doing it. You learn to ski by doing it. If someone tells you how to ski, it’s useless. You have to actually try to do it. And I think the same is true for learning just about anything. If you’re sitting around a table discussing history and you’re engaging with other people in conversation about it, you’re going to learn a lot more than if somebody is just listing things on the board. The best way to do it is to actively engage with other people. We’ve raised a whole generation of people who just don’t know how to do anything with their hands. And I think that limits your cognitive flexibility if you don’t know how to do stuff with your hands. But also there are opportunities for kids to work together, to negotiate, to discuss, and to problem solve. I think problem solving is really the foundation of learning, and the pedagogical approaches in this country over the last 50 years have sort of lost sight of that. But I think it’s coming back. And it’s not strictly neuroscience. There’s a lot of cognitive science—which is distinguished from neuroscience because it doesn’t involve any monitoring of the squishy stuff inside your head—that stands behind those new ways of teaching kids. The trouble is that it’s just expensive. It’s a lot more expensive to give kids the space where they can work and have people that sort of coordinate them. Because they are kids after all, so they have to have some structure and focus. It just requires more labor. Plus, at the end of the day there’s this big mess to clean up. Whereas if you just put kids in a row in a class and you just tell them stuff, you know exactly how much it’s going to cost. You have one person who tells 30 kids about all the facts of history and there’s no mess at the end of the day. Maybe it’s also less predictable, harder to measure? Yeah, I think it is less predictable, and that scares people. In my son’s school, some kids need way more structure. A good example of this is this place [the Salk Institute]. This environment is basically a learning environment for adults. You might call it a continuing education environment. That’s what scientists do, continually educate ourselves. There are no structural walls on the interior of this building. That’s the way this building is designed. Each floor is 16,000 square feet of undifferentiated space, except for stud walls that you can put up anywhere you want. These concrete slabs, the one above us and the one we’re standing on, are suspended by these towers on the outside. And this was by design; it’s one of the genius features of this building. It gives you enormous flexibility, but one of the other things it gives you is the ability to not have strict boundaries between laboratories. So as you walk down the hall, the laboratories just run from one end to another. And the benefit of that for science is that the people working in different laboratories run into one another all the time. If you go across to UCSD and go into a typical laboratory building, the halls are wasted space. They’re not really used. The buildings off of those hallways are laboratories, but the laboratories have no opportunity for people to run into one another naturally. And in this environment, they do. There are not many real halls in this building. You can think of the six or eight different laboratories on this floor as little collaborative groups. And new science, the exciting areas of science today, are formed when the sparks fly at the boundaries between those groups. So a postdoc in my lab goes to the coffee machine and runs into a graduate student from the lab next door, and they realize that they’re actually studying similar things using different techniques. And they start to build upon this, and

all the sudden a collaboration forms out of that. For me, this is the best type of learning environment, one in which you have focused groups, but the potential for interactions between different groups on a larger scale. And I think in the field of primary and secondary education, people are starting to realize that. They’re starting to understand that this is a good model for education. It’s just a little bit harder to implement because of the cost.

“This is the best type of learning environment, one in which you have focused groups, but the potential for interactions between different groups.”

this kind of cross pollination and collaboration?

The other problem is that there are huge variations in personality. Some people like walls, they like private space. So you have to be sensitive to that with kids. Though if you start early enough, I think kids will probably adapt. I mean, you put kids into first grade in this kind of environment, the kind we’ve just been talking about, and then just continue that, they’ll probably thrive. So is undifferentiated open space the best way to achieve

Well there was this trend in the 70s of just building these big boxes to house public schools. And it failed miserably. There were no windows typically, and there was a noise problem. But there are ways to avoid those issues. I mean, you might want to have some ways of delimiting space, but not in the standard ways where there’s one classroom here, one classroom there, they’re all bounded by concrete walls and doors. There may be something of an intermediate approach like what we have here at the Salk Institute. For example, I bought a very fancy coffee machine and put it in the room down the hall. It makes all the people who work in my lab really happy. And you know, the machine costs a couple thousand dollars, but that’s nothing compared to the increase in productivity and the general positive attitude that I have. I think a lot of people are catching on to the notion that there’s a lot of relation between the sciences and aesthetics. I mean, you can extend the same arguments to art more generally. What makes a good painting? Why is one painting more beautiful than another? And we don’t really know, but we now know that we have the tools to approach those kinds of questions. Are there any long term studies that look at this type of environment? I don’t know of any long term studies looking at the progression over time. If you think deeply about this you realize that, yeah, it is kind of crude. I mean, they’re just simply going around to a bunch of existing facilities and measuring stuff and looking at the correlation of that with academic performance. But nobody’s done anything better than that, so that’s a start. And of course what you’d really like to do is to manipulate something and look at the outcome. But that’s a problem with architecture; to do an experiment is really expensive. You build a building and that’s an experiment. And what if it fails? Do you go and tear down the building and build another one? So there’s a long turn around. It’s like these experiments in the 1970s with these big boxes. Over time we realized that that’s not working, and a lot of these places were just torn down, or rebuilt, or remodeled. But that’s expensive and takes time.

Are there any cutting edge, projective ideas in neuroscience that maybe haven’t been verified but that are exciting to you? Something I got really excited about recently is this professor at UCSD who studies social networks. And not social networks online, but the real social networks between people, the nature of the people that you’re connected with socially. And there’s huge databases on this now, because it’s really easy to get people to go online and identify the people they’re friends with. All sorts of interesting phenomena occur. It turns out that, up to several degrees of separation between you and somebody else, there are correlations between behaviors. So when you say person A is your friend, and person A says person B is their friend, B is not necessarily your friend but B is connected to you through person A. So you can go several steps away like that, and there are correlations between behaviors up to several steps away. And so what exactly does that mean? There are observations like, if you smoke, there’s a very good chance that somebody who is connected—three steps away, four steps away—is also a smoker. And it even applies to clinical things. Like if you have some kind of medical problem, there’s a very good chance that somebody who’s four steps away has the same medical problem. I’m thinking that if we knew what those social networks were, we could use this information to guide the design of urban spaces, urban environments. If you live in any big city, there’s a whole lot of people together, and they have to interact in certain ways. City flows can be designed to facilitate certain kinds of outcomes, to get people to work, to be productive, to live. If you knew something about the social networks, you might be able to take that information and implement it in the design of spaces. And I have to acknowledge that this is sort of a fuzzy idea in my head at the moment. But it seems like these are the kinds of things that we are going to know a lot about in the future, and it may be information that can be usefully used, perhaps even in education. So that’s just one idea.

“There are a lot of things in our lives that affect the way we behave that we’re completely unaware of.”

You ever see this book, it’s called Drunk Tank Pink? It’s very relevant to this topic. There was an effort on the part of the Canadian government to address problems of hyperactivity of kids in school, because it was interfering with education. And so they did this ingenious thing: they decided to try putting different colors of paint on the walls just to see what would happen. And they found that if they painted the walls pink, in sort of a bubble gum pink, that the kids were actually calmer. They did a real experiment. And so some local government got word of this and they decided to try this. Because a big problem is that you collect people who’ve broken the law, and you put them in the drunk tank in jail until you have a chance to either charge them with a crime or let them go. And you can imagine that they’re kind of difficult. You’ve got a bunch of people in the same room, and they’re aggressive. So they thought, well let’s try putting the pink paint on the walls. And apparently it significantly reduces the amount of aggressive interactions between the people in the drunk tank. So the book is about what controls human behavior. And there’s a whole bunch of stuff that we have an intuition about how it controls human behavior. But there are a lot of other things in our lives that affect the way we behave that we’re completely unaware of.

KEY WO RDS A LEARNING LEXICON

Connected. Open. Customized. Scattered. Blended. Engaging. These are terms educators and theorists are using to describe the vanguard of learning. Consequently, we established this learning lexicon as a framework to organize our research, to serve as a common vocabulary to talk about all types of learning across all age groups. Certainly other words could be added to the conversation, but we wish to provoke, not to exhaust. In some cases these words describe a particular approach to curriculum or pedagogy. For example, a Google search of “blended learning” yields over two million results, most referring to a teaching model that combines in-class and online instruction. Click one of these links and you will likely find an article attempting to pin down what, exactly, blended learning is and what it is not. But Blended doesn’t have to be so bland. While others are concerned with defining what blended learning is, we want to suggest what Blended learning could be. How can the notion of Blended apply to other questions about learning? How can Blended inform our ideas about space and program? What other connotations can we conjure? We want to liberate these words from their narrow definitions, to establish several wide-angle lenses through which we can observe the future landscape of learning. We acknowledge the overlap among some of these terms, the fuzziness of our definitions. But we contend that the power of these terms lies not in their rigidity and precision, but rather in their flexibility and breadth. The future happens fast. Today’s fads are tomorrow’s flubs. But by expanding the definitions of our learning lexicon, perhaps the words we use to describe education today can retain their currency and drive conversations about learning well into the future.

Open Engaging Connected Blended Scattered Customized 35

OPEN

adjective \’ō-pən, -pəm\

1. having no enclosing or confining barrier : accessible on all or nearly all sides 2. a.) being in a position or adjustment to permit passage : not shut or locked b.) having a barrier (as a door) so adjusted as to allow passage 3. completely free from concealment : exposed to general view or knowledge

“Open,” Merriam-Webster, accessed July 9 2014, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open.

OP EN REDEFINED

DENSITY PLAN PURE FAD FURNISHED VISIBILITY COURSES

Open means visibility, articulating space through architectural means, free of crowdedness, and the nature of technology’s effects on education.

Open is shared, not proprietary. It is continuously tweaked and improved. Open is unfettered, free from regulation or authority. It recognizes all contributors and encourages participation. Open is not restricted to a particular group of players. Open invites amateur and professionals alike to contribute as equals. Open suggests transparency, both physical and metaphorical. Open spaces let in natural light and air, they don’t feel closed or confined. Open is outdoors, a big window, a courtyard. Open isn’t overcrowded. It gives

learners space to explore, to play, to learn. Open is exposed to view or knowledge, vulnerable to question or critique. Open Classrooms help teachers improve their methods, invite parents to participate, involve students in the assessment process. Open is undecided, up for consideration. Open is ambiguous, tough to measure. Open is responsive to new ideas, willing to hear, to accept.

Open is accessible, not closed off. Open increases access to learning, to credentials, to opportunity.

OPEN : DENSITY 25 ft

12 ft

4 ft 1.5 ft

54 ft2 45 ft2 35 ft2 > 3.5 ft

< 3.5 ft

High-density classrooms create excessive stimulation, stress, and arousal; drain available resources; cause interference; and reduce privacy and control. The benefit of open space in low-density learning environments is supported by a number of studies. Randy White’s summary of research on early childhood classrooms reveals that children in high density environments are more prone to behavior and aggression problems; are more competitive; have reduced activity levels; engage in less play; have fewer positive social interactions; engage in more solitary play; and have higher stress levels. The research further suggests that early childhood classrooms should provide 45 to 54 square feet per child, significantly more than the 35 square foot standard.1 Additionally, research by Robert Sommer suggests that highdensity classrooms create excessive stimulation, stress, and arousal; drain available resources; cause interference; and reduce privacy and control.2 More recent research from Kenneth Tanner suggests that overcrowding could be harmful to students, and that the ability to move freely about one’s school is correlated with higher standardized test scores.2 This research builds off theories from the field of proxemics— the study of people’s use of space—which proposed the concept of the personal reaction bubble describing the approximate radii of intimate, personal, social, and public space around a person. Building on this research, environmental psychologist Robert Sommer completed many influential studies on small-group ecology, personal space, and social distance. He found that effective social interactions occur within a seven foot diameter between participants.3

1 Randy White, “The Impact of Density and the Definition and Ratio of Activity Centers on Children in Childcare Classrooms,” White Hutchinson Leisure and Learning Group, accessed July 11 2014, http://www.whitehutchinson.com/children/articles/ratio.shtml. 2 C. Kenneth Tanner, “Effects of School Design on Student Outcomes,” Journal of Educational Administration 47, no. 3 (2009) 381-99, doi: 10.1108/09578230910955809. 3 C. Kenneth Tanner, “Explaining Relationships Among Student Outcomes and the School’s Physical Environment,” Journal of Advanced Academics 2008, doi: 10.4219/jaa-2008-812.

OPEN : PLAN (PURE)

“Its expansive size allows individual classes to be held simultaneously without disruption while maintaining creative interaction between faculty and students.”1 Mies’ modernist masterpiece sets the standard for open learning space. His concept of universal space was fully realized in an expansive, column-free space that was at once boundless and yet highly rational. The plan is perfectly symmetrical, aligned to a grid. Translucent sandblasted glass near the base of the enclosure filters light and blocks out distractions, while clear glass above allows views to the trees and sky, creating a peaceful, contemplative atmosphere for learning. Though the triumph of Crown Hall is it’s column-free interior— achieved by hanging the roof from deep exterior beams—in some ways the building’s exterior is more telling. As a “temple to learning,” Crown Hall invites comparison to the classic Greek temple, with its symmetry, proportionality, and plinth. This suggests that it’s meant to be viewed from the outside, in the round, that it contains within its walls a sacred and forbidden knowledge. This notion seems directly opposed to the ideas behind current embodiments of open plan learning spaces—such as Vittra Telefonplan and High Tech High—which privilege the interior environment over the exterior expression. These contemporary buildings often have unassuming facades, and are commonly readapted warehouses with large spans but little architectural articulation. The important stuff happens inside, not outside. Crown Hall’s austerity and rigidity also contrasts with a contemporary preference for whimsey and customization. Mies’ original vision called for a clean, ordered environment, with partitions neatly arrayed and papers cleared from desks every night. The space embodied the Bauhaus ideal of efficiency and mass production. But today the chaos of studios and critiques disrupts this cool, contemplative atmosphere, and a startup aesthetic is penetrating academic environments. Perhaps it is a sign of Crown Hall’s versatility that it has been recently renovated to partly reflect this cultural shift: the Dean’s office was moved from the basement to the main level, perhaps in an attempt to soften the hierarchy of the school. Though derived more from architectural philosophy than learning theory, Crown Hall’s universal space would influence educational environments thereafter. Rather than merely revering this modernist icon, it is probably more instructive to see how the rigid, ordered ideal of Crown Hall has been reinterpreted over the years to create more useful, private, and human spaces for learning. 1 “S.R. Crown Hall: The Story”, Mies van der Rohe Society, 2012, accessed July 3 2014, http:// www.miessociety.org/legacy/projects/crown-hallv/#1.

OPEN : PLAN (FAD)

“What is most striking is that there are no desks for pupils or teachers. Instead, the room is arranged as a workshop.” Larry Cuban, “Whatever Happened to Open Classrooms?”Education Next, Spring 2004, accessed July 2 2014 http://educationnext.org/files.

“The open-plan classroom movement showed that purely physical design solutions that are not owned by their users or supported with effective systems and behaviour change will not work.” Open Classrooms promised to transform K-12 education in the 1970s. The Open Classroom movement quickly gained hold in American schools, but died out just as fast. The failure of the Open Classroom to fully restructure American education illustrates the importance of aligning pedagogy with learning environment and the danger of conflating classroom appearance with educational philosophy. The concept of Open Classrooms, in import from Britain, was reflective of the social, political, and cultural changes of the 60s and 70s that questioned tradition and authority, including how classrooms were arranged and how students were taught. In embracing the Open Classroom, thousands of elementary schools tore down their walls. Movable dividers were deployed to reconfigure these new open spaces for large- and small-group projects. Students of all ages shared the same space. Parents visiting their child’s classroom would find a large, open space with subtly subdivided learning areas, quite different than the discrete boxes along a double-loaded corridor that they remembered from their school days. But pedagogical change lagged far behind this radical reconfiguration of physical space. many teachers clung to their old methods of instruction, failing to fully adopt the open educational approach of active, self-directed learning through a variety of media. Many classrooms remained teacher-centered rather than student-centered. By the 80s the cultural tides had already turned against Open Classrooms, and schools soon rebuilt their walls. But perhaps it wasn’t the Open Classrooms themselves that were to blame, but rather a misunderstanding of the complexities of the Open Classroom, an unwillingness of administrators and parents to give teachers time to change. The legacy of Open Classrooms can still be seen in typical classrooms today. Many teacher employ hybrid models of teaching, encouraging active student involvement and cross-disciplinary projects. Though Open Classrooms are sometimes dismissed as a fad, educational reformists still champion many of the ideals of the open education movement, ideals which are reappearing in popular consciousness to shape the future of learning. Steve Higgins et al., “The Impact of School Environments: A Literature Review,” February 2005, accessed on July 2 2014, http://www.cfbt.com/PDF/91085.pdf.

OPEN : PLAN (FURNISHED)

http://www.archdaily.com/202358/vittra-telefonplan-rosan-bosch/

http://www.sfbrightworks.org/brightworks-life/our-home/

“It’s a school that respects you as a person, as an individual.”

A new era of open classrooms could be seen as an adaptation of two educational archetypes from earlier in the century: the rural one-room schoolhouse and the Open Classrooms of the 1970s. These new models strike a balance between compartmentalized classrooms and open space. The Vittra Telefonplan School in Stockholm, designed by Rosan Bosch, epitomizes the thoughtfully populated open plan learning environment. Informed by the Vittra School’s pedagogical principles—’the wateringhole,’ the ‘show-off,’ the ‘cave,’ the ‘campfire,’ and the ‘laboratory’—Telefonplan organizes the building’s open plan with a collection of whimsical furniture-like objects.1 A domestic example of this open plan approach can be found in San Francisco’s Brightworks school. The former warehouse with 18-foot ceilings adapts and adjusts to accommodate the three “learning arcs” that students engage in every year. Interior furnishings denote specialized zones: meeting spaces, an art studio, a science lab, a workshop, a library, a fabrication lab, and a kitchen and dining room for lunch and community gatherings.2 Rather than the bland mass-produced room dividers and movable chalkboards of 1970s Open Classrooms, these furnishings allow for a variety of habitation experiences. Stadium seats accommodate public performances, climbable couches enable group work, and reading nooks invite solo studying. These interior interventions not only subdivide the learning space into overlapping zones, but they also give each zone a unique character. By creating special experiences and suggesting different modes of inhabitation, these furnishings give the school a human element, tempering and softening what would otherwise be an industrialized, warehouse environment. As Bosch says of Vittra Telefonplan, “It’s a school that respects you as a person, as an individual.”3

1 “Vittra Telefonplan / Rosan Bosch,” ArchDaily, January 30 2012, accessed August 6 2014, http:// www.archdaily.com/?p=202358. 2 “Our Home,” Brightworks website, accessed August 6 2014, http://www.sfbrightworks.org/ brightworks-life/our-home. 3 Bosch, Rosan, “Designing for a Better World Starts at School,” TEDx Indianapolis, 2013, accessed July 2 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5mpeEa_VZo.

OPEN : VISIBILITY

Openness can also mean visibility between spaces, which benefits students by putting learning on display and allowing for periodic renewal and refocusing. At High Tech High, the administration emphasizes the value of making learning visible to other students to promote informal learning experiences, create community, and build excitement around education. This former warehouse was transformed into an open, transparent learning space that promotes peer learning and sharing. Classroom walls are mostly glass, allowing natural light to filter into interior spaces from skylights and windows. This transparency also allows students to see into adjacent classrooms, to watch other students working, and to see their projects on display. Visibility also offers positive distractions in classroom spaces. Contrary to popular assumptions, the ability to see nature or other students engaged in different activities can actually benefit students. In his book Environmental Psychology for Design, Dak Kopec explains Rachel and Stephen Kaplan’s findings on Attention Restoration Theory, which suggest the need for visible transparency. They say that “directed attention” is mentally strenuous and can cause mental fatigue over time. But by allowing students to involuntarily observe interesting stimuli in their immediate environment, open learning environments promote “effortless attention,” which is restorative and stimulating to bored minds.1

1 David Alan Kopec, Environmental Psychology for Design, New York: Fairchild, 2006.

OPEN : COURSES

A 2013 study from San Jose State University compared pass rates of students who took math courses face-to-face versus students who took the same courses online: ENTRY-LEVEL MATH

COLLEGE ALGEBRA

STATISTICS

Face-to-Face 48.9%

Face-to-Face 76%

Face-to-Face 74.6%

Udacity 29.8%

Udacity 50%

Udacity 54.3%

“How do you foster meaningful discussion in a class containing tens of thousands? ” 50

Massive Open Online Courses, or MOOCs, are a hot topic in the world of education. A breakdown of the four words that constitute the MOOC acronym can help define how this learning model differs from other forms of online education. Massive: Because they are offered online, MOOCs can attract massive numbers of students—tens or hundreds of thousands. Some say that this model can open up education to a wider audience who might not be able to afford traditional routes to learning, while others lament the impersonal, faceless nature of the courses that such massive enrollments create. Open: MOOCs are open in two important senses: they are free, and they have no admissions requirements. Students don’t need to be enrolled in a university. Anybody with Internet access can participate. Online: These classes are entirely online, as opposed to some blended models of online and face-to-face learning employed by some universities. Courses: These are full courses with multiple lessons, not the single, a la carte lessons provided by resources like the Khan Academy. Course providers like Udacity, edX, and Coursera have emerged as the three major players in the MOOC landscape. But MOOCs are not without their problems. For one, they are not all that successful. For example, Udacity classes have a completion rate of less than 10 percent.1 Some MOOC advocates, including Sebastian Thrun, cofounder of Udacity, believe that for this reason, MOOCs will be more widely used for professional development than higher education, since students who already possess a higher degree seem to do best with the MOOC format. Others argue that MOOCs can’t teach the kinds of non-cognitive skills that are required to be successful in the classroom. Even some MOOC providers recognize this shortfall. “There are studies that suggest that 80 percent of your income are due to non-cognitive skills: teamwork, ethics, the ability to regulate anxiety,” says Coursera founder Andrew Ng. “One thing that Coursera doesn’t do well is teach non-cognitive skills. By contrast, universities do a much better job.”2 Additionally, the people behind the first MOOCs—George Siemens and Stephen Downes—argue that most MOOCs fail to truly transform learning for the 21st century. Their original intention was to make education open in the sense that content could be freely distributed for re-use. But the most popular MOOC providers do not have open licensing, and limit the use of their materials off of their sites.3 Moreover, most MOOCs follow a Behaviorist format instead of a Connectivist format, according to Tony Bates, an education researcher. The teaching methods of most MOOCs follow “a very old and outdated behaviorist pedagogy, relying on information transmission, computer marked assignments, and peer assessment,” Bates writes. “But it is extremely difficult if not impossible to teach higher order skills of critical thinking, creative thinking, and original thinking using behaviorist pedagogy, the very skills that are needed in a knowledge-based society.”4

1 Rosanna Tamburri, “An interview with Canadian MOOC pioneer George Siemens,” University Affairs, February 12 2014, accessed August 8 2014, http://www.universityaffairs.ca/an-interview-with-canadian-mooc-pioneer-george-siemens.aspx. 2 Emma Green, “What MOOCs Can’t Teach,” The Atlantic, December 16 2013, http://www.theatlantic.com/education/ archive/2013/12/what-moocs-cant-teach/282402. 3 Robert McGuire, “The Best MOOC Provider: A Review of Coursera, Udacity and Edx,” SkilledUp, accessed August 8 2014, http://www.skilledup.com/blog/the-best-mooc-provider-a-review-of-coursera-udacity-and-edx. 4 Tony Bates, “What’s right and what’s wrong about Coursera-style MOOCs,” August 5 2012, accessed August 8 2014, http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/05/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-about-coursera-style-moocs/.

ENGAGING

/en’gāj/ verb 1 occupy, attract, or involve (someone’s interest or attention) 2 participate or become involved in 3 establish a meaningful contact or connection with

“Engage,” Oxford American College Dictionary, accessed August 5 2014, http://www.oxforddictionaries. com/us/definition/american_english/engage.

ENG AG ING REDEFINED

GAMES & PLAY ACTIVE CLASSROOMS INDUSTRY CREATIVITY

Engaging defines learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; involvement through playful activities, self driven curricula, and more collaborative efforts with the professional world. Engaged learners retain more information and find practical purpose for their knowledge. Engaging suggests passion born from intense investment in a cause. Engaged learners are inspired to provoke change: social, environmental, political. Engaging in real causes gives meaning to the learning process. Engagment is in the application, the transfer of theory to practice, using ideas from the classroom in the real world.

Engaged learning emerges from an internalized drive, motivation, or objective. The engaged learner has clear goals in mind: to achieve a credential, to break into a new field, to advance a career, to earn more money. Effective learning requires that all components be fully engagedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;curious students, passionate teachers, exciting technology, and interesting problems. Engaged learning is sustaining and lifelong.

ENGAGING : GAMES + PLAY

“Play is the answer to how anything new comes about.” “Suiza: Nace Jean Piaget.” Efemérides de Hoy, accessed July 22, 2014, http://encontrarte.aporrea.org/efemerides/e3418.html.

- Jean Piaget

The idea that games support learning is as old as learning itself. From the Socratic method of verbal play to Middle Age chess as a lesson in war strategy to early 19th-century kindergartens, play has always been central to learning.

“You know the saying: If you love your job, you will never work a day in your life. We are striving to have kids who never go to school a day in their lives.”

- PlayMaker School

In the mid-20th century, play-based learning gained the support of academic research. The psychologist Jean Piaget contended that moral judgement in children was evident in their understanding of the rules of a game. Later, the rise of personal computers in the 1980s saw the development of new kinds of games for learning. These arcade- and console-inspired games incorporated narrative and visual elements, and were mostly targeted toward children. Increased commercialization of learning games in the 1990s gave way to a new form of game-based learning advocated by proponents like Seymour Papert, one that rejected the skill-and-drill methods of early computer games and instead fostered tinkering, authoring, and construction among players.1 Today, academic researchers commonly define play as voluntary, intrinsically motivating (pleasurable), active (often physically), and imaginative.2 In his book What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, researcher James Paul Gee asserts that video games really can promote good learning insofar as they foster identity, interaction, production, risk taking, customization, agency, and challenge. Several schools are experimenting with new education models that promote playful learning experiences. One such institution is PlayMaker School in Los Angeles, which combines high-tech, low-tech, and no-tech games that actively engage students in learning. The school serves as a testing ground for gamebased learning programs designed by the GameDesk Institute. Their learning spaces are open and decentralized, encouraging teachers to move about the room rather than lecture from the front. The school features specialized rooms like a Maker Space, Adventure Room, and DreamLab which support different types of technology and learning experiences, from whiteboard walls for brainstorming to a motion capture system for embodied learning.3 A similar experiment in game-based learning is happening at ChicagoQuest, a project of the Institute of Play. Here, each trimester is divided into “missions,” each with several “quests” that engage students in specific learning goals. “We’re trying to get these kids to think outside of the box, be critical thinkers and these big idea thinkers,” says Don Labonte, a teacher at Chicago Quest. “But, they’re coming from ... old schools that have drilled this academia into them, almost taken the fun and curiosity out of learning. And what we’re trying to do here is really put that back in and create spaces where kids can have fun, and kids can be curious, and kids can make mistakes.”4 1 “History of Games and Learning,” Institute of Play, accessed July 16 2014, http://www. instituteofplay.org/about/context/history-of-games-learning/. 2 Lloyd P. Rieber, “Seriously Considering Play; Designing Interactive Learning Environments Based on the Blending of Microworlds, Simulations, and Games,” Educational Technology Research and Development, 44:2 (1996) 43-58, accessed July 16 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30221022. 3 “PlayMaker at New Roads School Parent Primer,” accessed July 16 2014, http://www.playmaker. org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/playmaker_primer.pdf. 4 Charlie Hall, “ChicagoQuest: Teaching with Games in Chicago’s Cabrini-Green”, Polygon, June 12 2013, http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/6/12/4405756/chicagoquest.

ENGAGING : ACTIVE CLASSROOMS

“We found that in the active learning classrooms, the instructor actually behaved differently than he or she did in the traditional lecture halls.”

-J.D. Walker, University of Minnesota

http://ceci.mit.edu/projects/3d_visualization/teal_classroom.html

Engaging learning may owe as much to the instructional environment as to instructional methods. The notion of the teacher as a “Sage on the Stage” has long been challenged by Constructivist theories, which characterize the teacher as a “Guide on the Side.” Recently, these pedagogical principles have been put to the test in classroom environments specifically designed to promote more active, engaged student learning. Research on Active Learning Classrooms suggests that these technology-enhanced spaces—configured with round discussion tables, laptop access, display screens, microphones, and marker boards—can improve student learning outcomes and increase student satisfaction regardless of the instructor’s pedagogical approach. Also called Technology Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) Classrooms, these spaces help create a decentralized, active learning environment, which improves student interaction, engagement, and problem-solving.1 J.D. Walker of the University of Minnesota, author of several studies on ALCs, even suggests that these Active Learning Classrooms can influence the behavior of teachers and students: “We found that in the active learning classrooms, the instructor actually behaved differently than he or she did in the traditional lecture halls,” Walker says. “Even though they were trying to do exactly the same things, they lectured more in the lecture halls. They spent more time consulting with student groups in the active learning classrooms.”2

1 J.D. Walker et al, “Pedagogy and Space: Empirical Research on New Learning Environments,” EDUCAUSE Quarterly, December 15 2011, http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/pedagogy-and- space-empirical-research-new-learning-environments. 2 J.D. Walker, interview with Jeremy Hobson, Here and Now, May 8 2014, http://hereandnow.wbur. org/2014/05/08/active-learning-classrooms.

ENGAGING : INDUSTRY

“These students work on projects for major corporations. This is the future of education.”

The future of learning is connecting school and industry, creating partnerships that give students a chance to interact with professionals and apply their ideas to the real world. One high-profile joint venture still in its early phases of development is Cornell Tech’s Roosevelt Island Technology Campus. Plans for the new campus (scheduled to open its first buildings in 2017) include a corporate center to be shared with technology companies that will work with students from the university.1 This kind of school and industry partnership is already happening at Blue Valley’s Center for Advanced Professional Studies in Overland Park, Kansas, an innovative high school that promotes an entrepreneurial approach to education. Their new facility even features a “corporate boardroom” that supports the profession-based learning approach. The school receives support and funding from local business, but has also drawn mentors from big names like Google and Apple. “These students work on projects for major corporations, presenting proposals that are evaluated by industry leaders,” says one of these industry partners in the CAPS brochure. “This is the future of education.”2 Another fledgling partnership is in the works at 30 Weeks, a project that connects established New York City design schools like Parsons, Pratt, and The Cooper Union with education company Hyper Island and tech giant Google to offer a learning experience focused on design and entrepreneurship. The effort combines elements of a school and a business incubator to give students a chance to learn from industry leaders as they develop their ideas for a business start-up.3

1 Sonali Basak, “Cornell Tech Seeking NYC Education, Business Partners,” Bloomberg, May 28 2014, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-28/cornell-s-nyc-tech-campus-seeking-education- business-partners.html. 2 Annie Sorensenc, “High School Program “Accelerates” Entrepreneurial, Real-World Education,” Silicon Prairie News, February 8 2013, http://www.siliconprairienews.com/2013/02/kc-high-school- program-accelerates-entrepreneurial-real-world-education. 3 Mark Wilson, “30 Weeks, An Experimental New Design School, Backed By Google,” Fast Company, June 9 2014, http://www.fastcodesign.com/3031619/30weeks-an-experimental-new-design-school- backed-by-google.

ENGAGING : CREATIVITY

“We need to teach new skills of online public self-curation.This means adding an activist maker component to the analytical skills we humanists traditionally teach.”

Learning in the future will increasingly focus on the creative, right-brain processes that businesses are discovering are a key for innovation. Knowledge creation is increasingly multidisciplinary, process-based, and collaborative, requiring the development of creative critical thinking skills to evaluate the quality of information and develop strategies for synthesis. Creativity will be increasingly important in fields not traditionally regarded as creative—fields like math and science. The digital age will provide more opportunities for learners to not only download vast quantities of information from around the world, but also upload their own content and share their ideas and creations with people across the globe. Cathy N. Davidson argues that these new opportunities afforded by the Internet demand a paradigm shift in the way we educate students. “We need to teach new skills of online public self-curation,” she writes in “Why Higher Education Demands a Paradigm Shift.” “This means teaching the skills of self-representation and self-publication as professional and preprofessional forms of communication. This means adding an activist maker component to the analytical skills we humanists traditionally teach.” She argues that our modes of instruction must prepare students not merely for “critical thinking,” but for “creative contribution.”1 Indeed, the importance of fostering creativity is not just a feel-good notion, but an economic necessity, as demonstrated by a recent study of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates from Michigan State. This research concluded that arts and crafts education is significantly correlated with producing inventions and founding companies, and that STEM students are far more likely to have extensive arts and crafts skills than the average student.2

1 Cathy N. Davidson, “Why Higher Education Demands a Paradigm Shift,” Public Culture 26:1, Duke University Press 2013, doi: 10.1215/08992363-2346313. 2 Rex LaMore et al., “Arts and Crafts: Critical to Economic Innovation,” Economic Development Quarterly, 2013 27: 221, doi: 10.1177/089124213486186.

CONNECTED

adjective \kə’nekt ed\ 1. joined or linked together 2. having the parts or elements logically linked together 3. having social, professional, or commercial relationships Merriam-Webster. “connected.” Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/connected (accessed July 9, 2014).

CON NEC TED REDEFINED

COGNITION KNOWLEDGE SPACES CAMPUS

Connected describes cognitive processes, knowledge networks, and the learning spaces of the future. Connection occurs across distances small and wide, among collaborators across the globe and between teacher and student in the classroom. Connectivism Theory posits new ways of describing, creating, and sharing information, with a web of nodes and connections constituting the substance of knowledge and the medium through which it travels. Connected suggests communication, a link that joins people together to converse and collaborate. The Internet, our latest and most powerful form of communication, promises to transform the way we learn through those connections.

Connection creates personal relationships—among learners, between students and teachers— which acknowledges the social aspect of learning. Connected is one-onone, it’s small schools and smaller classrooms. Even with the rise of tech-centered education, evidence still suggests that strong personal connections can make all the difference in successful learning. Connection implies partnership— social, professional, commercial— that can open new learning opportunities for students and increase their chances of success. Connection is architectural, too. Connecting spaces in section, linking inside and outside—these tactics of making space can promote connection among the people who use it.

CONNECTED : COGNITION

“How does one get a rich understanding? By relating what you are reading to other material that you already know.”

The human brain contains about 10 billion neurons, each connected to other neurons through about 10,000 synapses Learning is all about connections, even at a microscopic scale. The human brain contains about 10 billion neurons, each connected to other neurons through about 10,000 synapses. At the cognitive level, connecting is also about relating cause and effect, the concrete and the abstract, the known and the unknown, the factual and the conceptual. Connecting to stories Cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham explains the power of stories as a demonstration of the mind’s preference for causal connections. “Causality is so powerful a cue to recall that subjects will use it even in expository prose...In one study, subjects who listened to passages from a history textbook later recalled the events described not in the order that they heard them, but in the order of causation.”1 That is, the causal connections between historical events serve as memory cues for students when they are trying to recall a lesson. Connecting to prior knowledge Similarly, Willingham explains that the familiar reading comprehension strategy of connecting a text to prior knowledge can only take students so far. That is, it doesn’t help to tell students to relate a new reading to their background knowledge if they don’t have the background knowledge to begin with. “How does one get a rich understanding? By relating what you are reading to other material that you already know,” Willingham explains. But a student’s ability to connect with prior knowledge is only as strong as his existing knowledge base. Therefore, to build relevant background knowledge, students must be exposed to numerous high quality books, films, and conversations in order to absorb new vocabulary and knowledge.2 Connecting to the familiar In relation to math instruction, Willingham asserts that a student’s familiarity with an example is more important than its mere concreteness. That is, breaking a cookie in half to teach students about fractions is more effective than asking them to imagine a book broken in half. Students are familiar with broken cookies, but they have probably never seen a broken book. It is this familiarity that can help students connect a concrete example with an abstract concept.3 1 Daniel T. Willingham, “The Privileged Status of Story,” American Educator, Summer 2004, accessed July 14 2014, http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/summer2004/willingham.cfm. 2 —, “The Usefulness of Brief Instruction in Reading Comprehension Strategies,” American Educator Winter 2006/07, accessed July 14 2014, http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter0607/ CogSci.pdf. 3 —, “Is It True That Some People Just Can’t Do Math?” American Educator, Winter 2009/10, accessed July 14 2014, http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter2009/willingham.pdf.

CONNECTED : KNOWLEDGE

“The Internet has had the fastest and the most geographically extensive effect on how we make, exchange, share, correct, and publish our ideas.” Connected describes the learners and educators of the future. It describes how knowledge is created, verified, and disseminated. No longer cloistered in the medieval university or harbored in the minds of scholars, knowledge today is more fluid, distributed, accessible, and connected than ever. The notion of “crowdsourcing” has rapidly gained favor and proven itself as a legitimate, and indeed powerful means of generating knowledge. Participatory learning is happening all around us. Every day, people make decisions about what purchases to make and what restaurants to visit based on the anonymous, voluntary contributions of people from around the world. The rise of information technologies like the Internet and mobile devices enables a new level of connection and sharing among people from all acrosse the world. And this type of connected, participatory learning is happening in academic arenas as well. Since 2008, volunteer gamers have been participating in the online game Foldit, helping researchers from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the University of Washington explore a problem in biology known as protein folding. “Our ultimate goal is to have ordinary people play the game and eventually be candidates for winning the Nobel Prize,” says Zoran Popovic, a computer scientist and engineer from the University of Washington who is involved with the project.1 The Foldit project is connecting thousands of minds across space and time to collaborate on a scientific project that could have huge benefits for mankind. But this kind of connected learning is challenging traditional notions about who produces knowledge. As Cathy Davidson writes, all this participatory learning is calling into question long-held assumptions about authorship and credibility. “The Internet has had the fastest and the most geographically extensive effect on every aspect of knowledge making and all of the arrangements of life around how we make, exchange, share, correct, and publish our ideas,” Davidson writes. “It has also shifted both the perception and the reality of who makes knowledge, how it is authorized and legitimated.”2

1 Cornelia Dean, “If You Have a Problem, Ask Everyone,” New York Times, July 22 2008, http://www. nytimes.com/2008/07/22/science/22inno.html?pagewanted=all. 2 Cathy N. Davidson and David Theo Goldberg, The Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009), accessed online at https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/ free_download/9780262513593_Future_of_Learning.pdf.

CONNECTED : SPACES

“Movement between rooms is as important as the rooms themselves.”

Connected applies to the importance of walkways and paths that connect buildings or rooms. In his influential design guide A Pattern Language, Christopher Alexander suggests that corridors and passages should be avoided in favor of using public rooms and common spaces for movement and circulation. He also recommends that paths be broken up by “goals” such as benches, water fountains, plants, windows, and thresholds, occurring no more than 100 feet apart.1 More recently, C. Kenneth Tanner of the University of Georgia’s School Design and Planning Laboratory, put to the test Alexander’s claim that “movement between rooms is as important as the rooms themselves.”2 Tanner’s study set up parameters to measure movement and circulation patterns on a sliding scale, hypothesizing that certain patterns would have positive effects on learning. Among other factors, these include paths that place major activity centers at the extremes, comfortable passages with clear orientation and signage, and obvious reference points to paths and other buildings. He found that well-designed movement and circulation patterns—the connective tissue of physical environments—do indeed influence test scores, with the most significant effects evident in reading comprehension, language arts, mathematics, and science scores.3 These findings give further support to the notion that the physical environment can affect learning outcomes, and that even space often regarded as “leftover” should be carefully considered by designers.

1 Christopher Alexander, Sara Ishikawa, and Murray Silverstein, A Pattern Language, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 588. 2 Ibid., 628. 3 C. Kenneth Tanner, “Effects of School Design on Student Outcomes,” Journal of Educational Administration 47.3, 2009, doi: 10.1108/09578230910955809.

CONNECTED : CAMPUS

“A hundred years ago, we wanted to keep the bad world out. But now we really see this intersection of ideas. How do we reveal the life of the mind?”

ALICIA MURASAKI UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

CHICAGO, IL 74

We spoke with Alicia Murasaki, Assistant Vice President for Campus Design and Sustainability at the University of Chicago, about connecting a campus to the broader community, connecting new buildings to historical precedents, and connecting students to learning. Can you tell us about your role at the University of Chicago? One of the things I generally like about my work is I get to work at multiple scales. So when we have a handrail detail that might go in every building that’s of a historic nature, or a light fixture or a bench that we’re selecting, I get to participate in that decision and I get that immediate satisfaction. And I also get to think about the campus 50 years from now. Where should we grow? Where should we be dense? Where should we not grow and preserve open space. What guidance should we be giving design teams so that every project is not just an amazing building, but enhances the total campus? How do you keep that lens to make sure that we’re not doing something that’s good for us in the short term but maybe not in the long term? So I really enjoy that part of my job. How do you bridge the traditional elements of campus to new, updated ideas for learning spaces? Well one of the things that I love about our campus is that our buildings are not designed in a historicist manner. If you look at the Logan Center for the Arts, you’re not going to mistake it for a Collegiate Gothic building on the main quadrangle. But it has the proportions and scale of some of those buildings. It has the materiality of some of those buildings. It also has some of the design intention of those older buildings. So I’m not going to say it’s a modern Collegiate Gothic, because I don’t really think it is. I think it’s a contemporary interpretation of those design principles. Because [the Logan Center] is sited on the southern edge of our campus, we thought a lot about how this place signals that it’s of the University of Chicago, but also open to the community. So if you look at the building, there are two entrances—one facing south and one facing north, to the campus. If you look at the tower, there are public spaces that look both to the campus and to the community. The building has two fronts, really. Then you can look at it from a proportion and massing point of view. If you asked an architect, ‘Would you design a building that has lots of public spaces for large gatherings in a tower?’ they would say ‘No, that’s ridiculous’. It’s a very inefficient use of space, right? You want to put all the big spaces on the ground floor so you don’t have to have giant elevators and giant stairwells. But we had this idea that this visually needed to connect to the campus. So the tower is the same scale and proportion as Rockefeller Chapel Tower. Two towers that—across the Midway Plaisance, an amazing Olmsted landscape—they talk to each other. You can see Rockefeller tower from Logan. You can see Logan from

the north side of the campus. So that’s a really important architectural connector for the campus. There’s this visual connection. The other thing is, when you’re up in the tower, there are open spaces that face out into the community. So you can see the entire south side, because there’s not that many tall buildings. You can see the city grid going for miles to the south. It’s pretty amazing. So we think very long and hard about those principles, connecting back to the campus. We use limestone cladding on Logan. It’s a very different way to use limestone than in the historic quadrangle. One of the things I love about the inside of Logan—that is very much in keeping with other University of Chicago Collegiate Gothic buildings—is that you have this scale inside of compressed space to grand space. Typically you come into a lobby or stair landing or gathering space that has a lower ceiling. It has a much more horizontal, compressed feel. And then you step into a grand space—the lobby to the auditorium, for example, or the gallery space. And that’s very similar to how the Collegiate Gothic entrances work. You come into a vestibule that’s enclosed, there’s a lot of detail work at eye level. And then you come out and you’re in a grand staircase lobby. So I think our architects get attuned to that. We talk to them about those things. We make those project goals. Are there any current projects that you can tell us about? So the William Eckhardt Research Center is in construction. One of the ideas in that building is revealing what’s inside. If you look at the main quadrangle, it was designed and conceived as a way to keep the outside world out, and to create an inner sanctum, a place of the mind. The buildings are very much an ensemble. It’s a wall to the street with specific penetrations that connect you from the academic, the life of ideas and the mind, to the city grid. With the William Eckert Research Center, we’ve flipped that. We said, we want to show people what’s inside this building. And what’s inside that building are scientists who will be studying how to engineer molecules. I’m not sure that you could see that without some assistance! And they will be studying how the cosmos works—quarks and black matter and things that are unseeable to the naked eye. How do you reveal that in the building?

“New discoveries happen at the borders of things.”

And so there’s some very simple ways of doing that. That facade of the building has facets and angles formed so that it will draw light as far into the building as possible. Also, the corridors and public spaces—like cafes and lobbies—they are facing Ellis Avenue so that people will see stuff that’s going on as they walk by the building. It’s very different than when you walk by the main quadrangle. So I think that’s a building that shows an evolution of thinking. A hundred years ago, we wanted to keep the bad world out. But now we really see this intersection of ideas, the carefully planned accidental interactions. How do we reveal that? How do we reveal the life of the mind? How do we invite people in to bring ideas that aren’t just in the sciences, but maybe from the humanities, or from biological sciences or economics, that could intersect and create a new science or a new approach?

So interconnectedness is a very important part of developing a campus? Very much so. We can’t predict where the next breakthrough will be, or what the idea will be, or who it will be. But what we do know is that new discoveries happen at the borders of things. It’s usually not the people who are in the middle of a theory driving that theory. So how can a building or a campus encourage those things? How do you make places where different kinds of people want be at different times of day and different times of the year? It’s a fascinating problem. Have you seen any new architectural types that have evolved out of this friction at the borders? One thing that I know we’ve been paying attention to is, in the programming phase, figuring out the spaces between, the spaces that don’t have a specific use. In traditional programming, you sort of defined everything. ‘We will eat, we will study, and we will have shows in this space.’ But now we’re starting to ask, ‘Where could you go to do something that we don’t know you’re going to do?’ So in Earl Shapiro Hall, we have those innovation labs. From a design point of view, maybe the location of it is more important than the actual details. How do you place those spaces where they will be used and not become storage rooms?

“Where could you go to do something that we don’t know you’re going to do?”

When you think about the campus, it’s often spaces that are between buildings, or don’t belong to one building or another. How do you place those and make them inviting? Sometimes they’re a destination, and sometimes they’re a pause on a path. They can all work. That is one of the toughest questions that we struggle to solve. Can you tell us about the importance of openness on a college campus? I think with openness, scale is a really important issue. We’ve all been to open spaces that are too big, and everyone just sticks to the edges, or you scurry through the middle quickly. And we’ve all been to spaces that feel uncomfortable in some other way. I think Mansueto Library is a great example of openness in many ways. The furniture dictates where you go. But the architecture creates this feeling of watching as well as being watched. I have to say, that reading room opened at 7 a.m. on a Monday, and I walked by at 9 a.m. and it was filled! I mean, the first day! How did people find out? How does the design for Mansueto Library fit into the larger campus? Well it boiled down to a really simple question: How do you put an addition on an object building in a campus full of ensemble buildings? I think the brief said ‘nothing underground’. And Helmut [Jahn] proposed everything underground, which is Helmut’s way. But it’s actually a brilliant move, because you can’t add onto an object easily. So he created another object that is of such completely opposite character [to Regenstein Library]—it’s rounded instead of rectilinear, it’s low-slung, rising out of the earth versus vertical. On so many levels, it’s a really interesting campus planning idea. So I think that’s a wonderful building. It’s not perfect, but it’s very sustainable in that all the books are kept at the humidity and temperature that books need to be kept at. And the people are kept at the humidity and temperature that people

need to be kept at. And it was a pretty bold move from a planning point of view to keep an additional 3.5 million volumes on campus when other universities have moved their physical books off campus. Do you take any cues from the workplace when thinking about campus buildings? There’s two parts to that answer. So, higher education is a world unto itself. If you think about the people, tenured faculty members have a job for life. They negotiate their salary up front. They don’t have the same pressures to meet a quota and hit a target that the corporate world has. But people crave status and recognition. And they have things that they need to work. So often at institutions of higher education, space becomes a currency and status, and it signals your place in the world. If I’m in a wet bench lab performing experiments, my work space needs are very different than if I am a linguist writing a book about eastern European languages. We just don’t need the same things. So we have a difficult time translating a lot of the workplace stuff for our faculty.

“The face-to-face contact is still critical. And the architecture needs to support that.”

For our staff, it’s a different story. We obviously look to what other people are doing. How do we attract the best and brightest? And then for students, I think we look a lot more to current trends in the workplace, because that’s what they’re used to. They’re working on things where they’re collaborating. They’re working on things all hours of the day and night. They are much more technology savvy. So we do, for some of the student spaces, look a lot more heavily into what workplaces are doing. We look at what high schools and middle schools are doing, because that’s where those students come from, and we need to create environments where they’re comfortable and can study and do the work they need to do. From the architecture point of view, I think that it’s very important to focus on design and not focus on someone who has done the same project 15 times before. So one of the things that VDTA brought to the Lab School Project was a fresh eye. They’re great designers. Even though they might not have designed that exact program before, they brought something fresh to it with all their experience from office buildings, day cares, restaurants, hotels. So I think it’s important that you think about the cross pollination—not just the owner looking to Harvard or Apple, but also the design team bringing fresh thinking and the best of other project types or other clients or other places to the project at hand. We hear a lot of how higher education is facing numerous crises. How is the University of Chicago addressing those calls for transforming higher education?

Well there are a couple things that I see in the mainstream media that are crises. One crisis is the financial crisis. Can a young person afford to finish university with $300,000 in debt. That’s not unreasonable, right? I think Harvard is like $60,000 or $70,000 a year, and you need to eat and buy books on top of that for four years. And let’s say you go to graduate school. You could start out as a recent graduate and have half a million dollars in debt that you have to pay off. That’s tough. So this relates to architecture in that we need to be doing the very best we can to have buildings that have the appropriate upfront costs, but even more

importantly, the long-term operating costs—lower energy use, easy to maintain. All of those things are important so that the building is not contributing to a drag on the university’s finances. Then there’s this other idea of the transformation of the university experience. To make education more available to more people. Do we move to online courses? Why even go to a campus? I don’t know if that’s a crisis, but I certainly think that it’s a really important question that we answer. So how do you make spaces that can support a MOOC? The University of Chicago has taken a very definite stance that you cannot achieve a degree without actually studying on our campus. Because meeting people who are doing different things, talking to people who have different ideas and approaches—those are an important, critical part of the way the University of Chicago sees itself. And you’re not going to get that in the same way as doing an online course. It’s not to say that we don’t think those are appropriate. We have rooms that you can use for live webcasting, for satellite uplinks, for reporting easily, for interactive discussion with remote participants. So we need the technology and the spaces to do those things. But we don’t envision that that will be the only way people will learn here. The face-to-face contact is still critical. To be part of an intellectual community is still critical. And the architecture needs to support that as well. Are there any lessons that you’ve learn from challenges, or from things that haven’t worked out as you envisioned? Absolutely. So I didn’t learn this at the University of Chicago, but rather over my career in design: every project cannot fulfill every idea. You can overburden an answer with too much stuff. We have some principles that we keep in mind for every decision we make when it comes to our campus. We need to be good stewards. It’s not just sustainability or energy use or use of resources. It’s also about creating a building that will last 100 years, not go out of style and need to be torn down in 20 years, and that you can use for a variety of functions. It’s about the intersection of ideas, the exchange of ideas, making spaces that will support life of the mind. It needs to be of the University of Chicago. So it shouldn’t look like it belongs at Stanford or downtown Chicago. It should be our place.

“I have found that people who teach are much more open to learn.”

I think for me personally, what has guided my design approach is that I really think that architecture is about the people that use it. I am attracted to architecture because it is both an art and a requirement. Not that I don’t enjoy beautiful objects that you look at and you can experience in an aesthetic way. But I aspire to have both. I think architecture comes alive with people. And I love the surprise and the joy when someone discovers something that the original designer didn’t foresee. Anything else you think architects should keep in mind when designing for learning? I think one of the joys about designing for places of learning is that it’s in our DNA to ask questions, to debate, to explore. So I have found, in my career, that people who teach are much more open to learn. I think architects have an opportunity to really learn something together, to teach someone who’s receptive. It doesn’t seem like educators are so set in their ways.

BLENDED

adjective \’blend-ed\ 1. to combine or associate so that the separate constituents or the line of demarcation cannot be distinguished 2. to prepare by thoroughly intermingling different varieties or grades

Merriam-Webster. “blended.” Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/blended (accessed July 9, 2014).

BLE ND ED REDEFINED

LEARNING TEACHING PROGRAM CLASSROOM DISCIPLINES

Blending mixes different learning styles, architectural programs, and disciplines to produce new ideas. Blended is an education buzzword, a combination of different forms of learning: in-class and online, face-toface and technology-mediated, individually and in groups. Blending produces hybrids, suggesting birth and creation, Blended differs from Connected new models of learning, new areas of study, new ideas about in its sense of unity. Whereas space. connected elements retain their individuality, blending Blending is architectural. blurs all boundaries. Architects have always Blending depends on proximity. been tasked with blending different functional elements Connections can bridge together within a cohesive great distances, but blending design. In designing for the requires propinquity, a future, it is often the most nearness that enables overlap novel and unexpected cases and cross-fertilization. of blending that produce the most interesting learning environments. To blend is to combine, to mix and intermingle so that once disparate parts become indistinguishable. Blending is combining elements into an integrated whole to produce harmony.

10 TRENDS IN

BLENDED

1. THE STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 2. SOARING NUMBERS OF DIGITAL THINKERS 3. BUILDING HIGHER ORDER THINKING SKILLS 4. REALIZING BENEFITS FOR BOTH TEACHERS AND STUDENTS 5. A FRAMEWORK FOR DATA- DRIVEN DECISION-MAKING IN EDUCATION 84

LEARNING 6. PERSONALIZE LEARNING ACCOMPANIES BY A LEAN, BLENDED APPRACH 7. PRODUCTIVE GAMIFICATION 8. THE MOBILE WORLD IS WHERE LEARNERS LIVE NOW 9. STUDENTS PERSONAL ACCESS TO MOBILE DEVICES 10. MORE BROADBAND, PLEASE! “Blended Learning Innovations: 10 Major Trends - DreamBox Learning,” DreamBox Learning, accessed July 10 2014, http://www.dreambox.com/white-papers/blended-learning-innovations-10-major-trends.

BLENDED : LEARNING

2 LEARNING

Blended learning is a combination of different learning methods— part technological, part social, part information. Instruction is initiated by teachers, students, or devices.

TECHNOLOGY/ DEVICE Students use digital devices to do specific tasks that do not require a teacher to lead, but rather monitor the students

According to the Clayton Christensen Institute, which studies blended learning strategies as a “disruptive innovation,” blended learning is a formal education program in which a student learns:

2) at least in part in a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home;

FACE TO FACE

Teachers speak to students in a traditional way. This can occur oneon-one or in a teacher-lead group lectures

COLLABORATIVE

During group activities, students lead their learning process by interacting with other students under the supervision of the teacher

1) at least in part through online learning, with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace;

3) and the modalities along each student’s learning path within a course or subject are connected to provide an integrated learning experience.1

This highly integrated approach to learning blends traditional teaching methods with new technology devices and web applications such as Blackboard or Leapfrog. Blending attempts to offer a variety of methods of delivering information to a variety of student types. Other blended methods are not necessarily reliant on technology, but still employ a variety of techniques to facilitate learning. Two common models are the Station Rotation model and the Flexible (Flex) model.2 Station Rotation offers more control to the teacher, as they move students in 15- to 20-minute rotations to different learning stations tailored specifically to different activities, such as individual work, group work, or face-to-face instruction. The Flex model allows students to freely migrate to each zone based on the task at hand. Possible station activities include reading, writing, computer and other media use, teacher instruction, student reflection, and group discussion. Blended learning gives students a way to become educated on their own watch, granting students a degree of control their time, pace, path, and place of learning.3 Although different models exist, the blended components need to be appropriately balanced. Face-to-face, student-led exercises, individual work, and virtual time must be distributed in a strategic and beneficial manner to serve specific student types. Blended learning is flexible and is designed for a variety of student types and environments. 1 “Blended Learning Comments,” Clayton Christensen Institute, accessed July 21 2014, http://www. christenseninstitute.org/key-concepts/blended-learning-2/ (accessed July 21, 2014). 2 C. Perrier, “The Global History Educator RSS,” July 5 2013, accessed August 6 2014. 3 Heather Staker and Michael B. Horn, “Classifying K–12 Blended Learning,” accessed July 21 2014, http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Classifying-K-12- blended-learning2.pdf.

BLENDED : TEACHING

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The teacher is still very important; however, the role changes. In short, this change could be described as a teacher moving from a lecturer to a facilitator, explainer to intervener, generalist to specialist and thus from content focus to content skills and mind-set focus.â&#x20AC;?

“Keeping track of what’s happening and classroom monitoring has been a struggle.” Blended teaching strategies can pose new challenges involving noise, disruption, and control. Mr. Yeung, an individualized learning specialist for Rocketship Mateo Sheedy Elementary in San Jose, describes the intensity of Blended Learning Environments. “Keeping track of what’s happening and classroom monitoring has been a struggle,” Yeung says. Teachers must also become comfortable in a new environment, becoming adept at using real-time data that records student progress and tolerating noisy levels of activity in the classroom. Heather Staker and Michael Horn1 describe the five skills that teachers will need to master to become blended learning experts: Comfort with ‘Chaos’ Being able to handle unknowns and varying activity inside the classroom. Student-Learning Data Analysis and Decision Making Handling real-time data, versus weekly or bi-weekly student learning outcomes Targeted Learning Opportunities The ability to hone in specifically to one or several students of different or similar learning styles on specific subjects. Specialization Team teaching and differentiated roles such as a “coach” or “data-driven” teacher types will evolve as blended learning gains traction in classrooms Technological Prowess Need to be able to navigate and quickly identify specific technologies for students and other teachers to get information Despite technological advances, the world still needs teachers for tomorrow. Peter West writes, “The teacher is still very important; however, the role changes. In short, this change could be described as a teacher moving from a lecturer to a facilitator, explainer to intervener, generalist to specialist and thus from content focus to content skills and mind-set focus.”2 1. Peter West, “Teachers still needed with self-paced blended learning,” eSchool News, accessed July 21 2014, http://www.eschoolnews.com/2014/02/28/teachers-blended-learning-342. 2. Michael Horn and Heather Staker, “5 Skills for Blended-Learning Teachers,” THE Journal, accessed July 21 2014, http://thejournal.com/articles/2012/10/04/5-skills-for-blended-learning-teachers. aspx.

BLENDED : PROGRAM

All photos: http://www.archdaily.com/189411/the-gary-comer-youth-center-john-ronan-architects

auditorium

drill team

“Ideally, nonschool and school learning opportunities could be based in one of the principle environments in which young people find themselves: their school.” Programmatic overlap within a single space is employed by architects to articulate new and exciting spaces where unexpected interactions can occur. These blended environments can push together existing programs or suggest entirely new ones. Designing spaces to accommodate a blend of uses is also an economic imperative as schools look to squeeze the most out of the shrinking dollars in their budgets. Additionally, designing spaces that can accommodate a variety of uses ensures their longevity and sustainability. Allowing different programs to blend in a single space can also allow for students to easily take breaks from their learning for attention renewal and mental rejuvenation. The Attention Restoration Theory developed by Rachel and Stephen Kaplan suggests students need time to regain attention through a distracting source.2 The architectural answer to this issue has typically manifested in windows or open space types that free a student from the classroom, but spaces could also be designed to allow occasional mind resting by considering their views, adjacencies, and alternative programming possibilities.

basketball

Blended programming can also refer to the co-location of different services within a single building (think OMA’s proposal to place a clinic for the homeless in the Seattle Public Library). The Community School model places a variety of family- and youth-oriented services—like health care, social services, family support services, and after-school programs—at a central access point in the school building, creating powerful synergies that affect what students both during and after school hours. An increasing number of Community Schools are advocating the co-location of services, and a growing body of research is lending validity to this practice. A report by Grossman and Vang suggests that this strategy can improve students’ and parents’ connections and involvement with their schools, prevent high-risk behaviors, increase student tendencies to complete homework, and lead to significant gains in math and reading scores.2 Thus supporting the whole child, including their health and family needs, can indirectly support learning, especially for underserved and underrepresented students.

1 David Alan Kopec, Environmental Psychology for Design, New York: Fairchild, 2006. 2 Jean Baldwin Growwman and Zoua M. Vang, “The Case for School-Based Integration of Services,” 2009, accessed August 7 2014, http://www.ilcommunityschools.org/docs/Case%20for%20 Integration%20of%20Services%20-%20PPV.pdf.

BLENDED : DISCIPLINES

“One of the things you can do... is break down the walls between disciplines. “What we do now...is frog-march kids from math to social studies to biology to English, and we never say, ‘Woah, there’s some connections here!’”

The future of learning will see the blending of disciplines to create new forms of knowledge. This interdisciplinary approach is a growing phenomenon at colleges and universities, and is being implemented at lower grade levels through project- and inquiry-based learning techniques. Interdisciplinarity is the combining of academic disciplines into one activity or project. This blending of knowledge can yield new schools of thought, help solve intractable or neglected problems, and spawn new professions and academic fields. It’s an idea that’s gaining traction in higher education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of interdisciplinary bachelor’s degrees awarded annually in the U.S. rose from 7,000 in 1973 to 30,000 in 2005. And between 2005 and 2010, interdisciplinary degrees increased another 38 percent, making them among the fastest-growing majors.1 Some institutions of learning that are leading the interdisciplinary charge include MIT’s Media Lab, which espouses an “anitdisciplinary” culture2, and Stanford’s d.school, which believes that “dynamic and contrasting points of view encourage students to see the open-ended nature of innovation and to trust themselves to find their own way forward.”3 The idea of blending disciplines has also gained a foothold in popular consciousness. Author Daniel Pink’s book A Whole New Mind proposes that a the workplace of the future will require a holistic point of view, an ability to synthesize different sources of information. He thinks these skills should be emphasized at the earliest stages of learning. “One of the things you can do...is break down the walls between disciplines,” says Pink. “What we do now...is frogmarch kids from math to social studies to biology to English, and we never say, ‘Woah, there’s some connections here!’”4

1 “Most Popular Majors,” National Center for Education Statistics, 2013, accessed August 8 2014, http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37. 2 “Quick Facts,” MIT Media Lab web site, accessed August 8 2014, http://www.media.mit.edu/about. 3 “Radical Collaboration,” Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford web site, accessed August 8 2014, http://dschool.stanford.edu/our-point-of-view/#radical-collaboration. 4 Daniel Pink, “Interdisciplinary Learning,” video interview by KET, 2010, accessed August 8 2014, http://www.ket.org/education/video/ksenb/kdanp_000111.htm.

SCATTERED

verb \’skatər\ 1. distributed or occurring at widely spaced and usually irregular intervals 2. dispersed; disorganized

Merriam-Webster. “scattered.” Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/scattered (accessed July 9, 2014).

SCA TTE RED REDEFINED

SCHOOLS LEARNING ATTENTION TIMELINES WALLS EXPERIENCES SCHOOL YEAR

Scattered describes the distractedness of today’s learners, the distribution of learning over time, and the fragmented knowledge of the 21st century. Scattered is separated, divided into pieces. Scattered is both spatial and temporal, describing learning across great distances and long stretches of time. Scattered describes a mental state, the increasing distractedness of today’s students who live in a world of constant stimulation and instant gratification. Scattered connotes irregularity, a lack of order, a randomness that perfectly describes the new paradigm in lifelong learning.

Learning will be spread out across one’s lifetime rather than packed into the early years of one’s life. Learning is no longer preparation, but a continuous, career-long process. Scattered is distributed, fragmented, divided among many. Scattered describes how knowledge, authorship, and credibility are changing in the 21st century. Scattered is the unorganized crowds that create, disseminate, and correct information, changing how we think about authority and expertise.

SCATTERED : SCHOOLS

AltSchool in San Francisco is one of a growing number of “hyper-local micro-schools” that favor small, scattered school locations over large, consolidated campuses

Scattered is the opposite of consolidated. It’s small and distributed instead of big and condensed. Research suggests that smaller learning environments can positively affect student behavior and performance.

HAYES VALLEY

K-1 + UPPER ELEMENTARY

1 SOMA

MIDDLE SCHOOL

DOGPATCH

K-1

BUCHANAN

K-1 + UPPER ELEMENTARY

While there is no agreement on ideal school size, many research reviews suggest a range of 300-400 students for elementary schools and 400-800 students for secondary schools. Studies that focus on the social and emotional aspects of learning generally conclude that schools should be smaller than 500, while those looking only at test scores say somewhat larger schools can still be effective.1 In general, smaller schools are associated with decreased violence and behavior problems, including truancy, vandalism, aggression, theft, substance abuse, and gang participation. Smaller schools also support positive behaviors, like better attendance and higher rates of participation in extracurriculars. Smallness can also promote positive organizational structures, creating close-knit, flexible communities where people know each other. Students feel a better sense of engagement and belonging in small schools. Parents and teachers forge better relationships. Communication between staff is easier. Teachers are better able to learn from each other.1 Some innovative schools are taking the smaller-is-better approach to heart. This small, distributed vision is shared by a growing number of “hyper-local micro-schools” like Brightworks and AltSchool (both of San Francsisco), Brooklyn Apple Academy, and Action Academy (of Austin). These small, neighborhood schools enroll a few to a few students to a few dozon. They differ from previous experiments in small learning communities in that they are leveraging the power of the Internet to act as small nodes of learning in a larger connected network.2 But the trend toward smaller learning communities may manifest itself in different ways in mainstream education. In fact, school enrollments are likely to remain stable in the years ahead, according to a report by the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Instead, schools may respond to calls for smaller learning communities by adopting “small-within-large” or “school-within-school” approaches. This strategy splits up big schools into smaller learning communities, leveraging the economies of scale of large institutions while creating a more intimate, personalized atmosphere for learning.3 Schools may also become smaller by offering more opportunities for virtual learning. Off-campus learning would scatter student populations, reducing the need for physical space and resources as learning becomes increasingly virtual and distributed.3 1 “Are Small Schools Better?” WestEd Policy Brief, October 2001, http://www.wested.org/online_ pubs/po-01-03.pdf. 2 Anya Kamenetz, “The Return of the One-Room Schoolhouse,” NPR, July 2 2014, http://www.npr.org/ blogs/ed/2014/07/02/326196530/the-return-of-the-one-room-schoolhouse. 3 Kenneth R. Stevenson, “Educational Trends Shaping School Planning, Design, Construction, Funding and Operation,” National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, September 2010, http:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539457.pdf.

SCATTERED : LEARNING

KEPPELâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S EXPERIMENT Geoffry Keppel had college students learn pairs of nonsense syllables and adjectives (lum-happy). The students were divided into two sample groups who would study the list eight times. One group studied eight times in one day while the other studied the list two times on each of four successive days. Below are the results:

PAIRS RECALLED

5.9

2.1

5.5 5.0

MASSED

DISTRIBUTED TYPE OF LEARNING

100

ONE DAY DELAY ONE WEEK DELAY

“There is a mountain of evidence suggesting that spacing study time leads to better memory of the material.”

-Daniel Willingham, Cognitive Scientist Scattered appears at all scales of learning, from new models of higher education to the invisible processes of the human brain. At the cognitive level, scattering practice has been shown to be an effective way of learning for long-term retention. The notion of scattered learning has been explored since the first scientific studies of human memory in the 1880s. These first experiments by Hermann Ebbinghaus, later upheld by Geoffrey Keppel in the 1960s, determined that “distributed” practice is more effective than “massed” practice. That is, scattering learning across several study sessions is more effective than “cramming” for the same amount of time in a single study session.1 The benefits of scattered practice are also apparent in the long term. Studies show that material studied for less than a year will be forgotten after four years without further practice. But if material is studied over three or four years, it may be retained for up to 50 years after the last practice session.2

1 Daniel T. Willingham, “Allocating Student Study Time: ‘Massed’ versus ‘Distributed’ Practice,” American Educator Summer 2002, http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/summer2002/ willingham.cfm. 2 —, “Practice Makes Perfect - But Only If You Practice Beyond the Point of Perfection,” American Educator Spring 2004, http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2004/willingham.cfm.

http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/98/161598-050-BE0EF112.jpg

101

MULTITASKING

SCATTERED : ATTENTION

P E R C E PT I O N R E A L I T Y Multitasking is a misnomer. Though people think they can simultaneously perform separate tasks, they are actually engaged in rapid task switching, which is taxing on the brain and can inhibit learning.3

102

“Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” Scattered describes the minds of young children, who are especially prone to swinging and fidgeting. Research suggests that a lack of “postural control” induces children to move and shift positions more than older students, which can rob them of the attentional resources and processing power needed to focus on learning. The authors of one study suggest that teachers encourage the development of their students’ perceptual-motor skills in order to improve their postural control. This can only be done through play and movement, lending further support to the idea that physical activity is crucial to learning.1 But scattered can also refer to the distracted student of the Internet age, much lamented by voices such as Nicholas Carr in his 2008 article for The Atlantic, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” “The Net seems to be...chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation,” Carr writes. “My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.”2 He sounds a common refrain of the digital age, that technology has made students scatterbrained, unable to focus for long periods of time or engage in the kind of sustained study that leads to deep understanding.

1 Dinah S. Reilly, Paul van Donkelaar, Sandy Saavedra, and Marjorie H. Woollacott, “Interaction Between the Development of Postural Control and the Executive Function of Attention,” PubMed Central 2008, accessed July 15 2014, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586927. 2 Nicholas Carr, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” The Atlantic July 1 2008, http://www.theatlantic.com/ magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/. 3 Daniel T. Willingham, “Have Technology and Multitasking Rewired How Students Learn?” American Educator, Summer 2010, http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2010/Willingham.pdf.

103

SCATTERED : TIMELINES

TRADITIONAL: 4 YRS AGES 18-22

OPEN LOOP: 6 YRS OVER LIFETIME

104

OPEN LOOP: 6

Scattered will describe the learning timelines of the future. People of the Boomer generation held, on average, over 11 jobs between the ages of 18 and 46, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and many predict that job changes and career switches will only continue to increase among subsequent generations.1

25-35

INCREASE

To survive in this increasingly volatile employment market, people will incorporate scattered learning opportunities throughout their lives in response to changing jobs and interests. Indeed, the National Center for Education Statistics predicts that the greatest growth in postsecondary enrollment over the next decade will come from adult learners aged 25-35 (20 percent increase) and those 35 and older (23 percent increase).2 College is shifting from the domain of the 18-22 crowd to a more multi-generational learning experience.

35+

INCREASE

Recognizing the trend of scattered higher education, the Stanford D.School’s “Open Loop University” model proposes replacing the traditional four-year college stint with six years of learning scattered over a lifetime. Students would alternate formal, on-campus learning with “gap” years for internships, volunteering, or working. Students are transformed from alumni to populi, who routinely “loop back” into the university for further formal learning or to collaborate with students and faculty.

1 “Number of jobs held, labor market activity, and earnings growth among the youngest baby boomers: results from a longitudinal survey,” press release, National Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 25 2012, accessed July 14 2014, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf. 2 William J. Hussar and Tabith M. Bailey, “Projections of Education Statistics to 2022,” National Center for Education Statistics, February 2014, accessed July 14 2014, http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2014/2014051.pdf Opposite: “Open Loop University,” Stanford 2025, accessed July 15 2014, http://www.stanford2025.com/ open-loop-university.

105

SCATTERED : WALLS

106

“I want to throw myself over those scalloped borders and cute cartoon stuff and scream to teachers, ‘Don’t buy this, it’s visually damaging for children!’” Scattered can also describe a problem with classroom design: the overuse of color and decoration that can promote distraction and inhibit learning. Adding color to the classroom is one way to create a more stimulating learning environment. But more is not necessarily better. A recent study by Carnegie Mellon researchers concluded that students taught in a highly decorated classroom were more easily distracted and produced lower test scores than students taught in a less stimulating environment. The researchers did not recommend absolute austerity in designing classrooms spaces, but encouraged restraint.1 Patricia Tarr, an early childhood education researcher at the University of Calgary issued similar advice in her 2004 paper “Consider the Walls.” She advises teachers to think beyond decorating and consider how walls can be used as part of an effective educational environment. She especially laments the overuse of off-the-shelf decorative borders and posters, which she says can detract from students’ own work. “I want to throw myself over those scalloped borders and cute cartoon stuff and scream to teachers, ‘Don’t buy this, it’s visually damaging for children!’” says Tarr. Rather, she promotes understated, neutral wall designs that highlight student work and enable them to focus on learning.2 1 Jan Hoffman, “Rethinking the Colorful Kindergarten CLassroom,” New York Times Well Blog June 9 2014, accessed July 15 2014, http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/rethinking-the-colorful- kindergarten-classroom/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.

Photos: Psychological Science

2 Patricia Tarr, “Consider the Walls,” Young Children May 2004, accessed July 15 2014, http://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200405/ConsidertheWalls.pdf.

107

SCATTERED : EXPERIENCE

KNOWLEDGE DOMAINS

PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE GRAPH

NURSING

82%

COMPUTER SCIENCE

65%

LANDSCAPING

38%

“What is needed in education is something like a Personal Learner Knowledge Graph: a clear profile of what a learner knows. It doesn’t matter where the learner learned things—work, volunteering, hobbies, personal interest, formal schooling, etc. What matters is that learners are aware of what they know and how this is related to the course content/curriculum.”3 -George Siemens 108

“People are finding themselves taking a smattering of credits and programs and life experiences, and would like to find a way for those to count.”

Students are bringing scattered learning experiences to higher education, changing the way universities think about credentialing. Sometimes called “buffet” or “a-la-carte” education, this trend sees students parlaying a variety of experiences into college degrees—from Advanced Placement credits to online classes to military and work experience. Recent surveys of universities and college students bear out this trend. 1.3 million high school students took courses for college credit in 2010-2011, up 67 percent since 2003. Over 6 million, or nearly one-third, of all college students are taking at least one course online, and onlines learning is growing five times faster than higher education in general.1 More than half of all colleges award at least some credit for military and career experience. And 37 million adults have almost, but not quite enough, college credits to get [a university degree].”2 “People are finding themselves taking a smattering of credits and programs and life experiences, and would like to find a way for those to count,” says Ramin Sedehi, Director of Higher Education Consulting for Berkeley Research Group.2 In an effort to support this stitching together of scattered learning experiences, some companies, organizations, and government agencies, from Microsoft to NASA, are developing digital “badges” to track a learner’s experience and skills in addition to formal credentials. This approach echoes George Siemen’s call for “Personal Learner Knowledge Graphs,” which emphasize the skills students gain from a range of experiences—work, volunteering, hobbies, personal interests, formal schooling—over the content knowledge they receive through formal education.3

1 I. Elaine Allen and Jeff Seaman, Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States 2011, November 2011, http://www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/blank-center/global-research/ Documents/going-the-distance.pdf. 2 Jon Marcus, “Conventional college route shifts to “education buffet,” The Hechinger Report May 1 2013, http://hechingerreport.org/content/conventional-college-route-shifts-to-education- buffet_11900/. 3 George Siemens, “Personal Learner Knowledge Graph,” eLearnspace Blog May 6 2014, accessed July 14 2014, http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2014/05/06/personal-learner-knowledge-graph/. Opposite: “Learner Knowledge Graph,” http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2014/05/06/personallearner-knowledge-graph.

109

SCATTERED : SCHOOL YEAR typical school year

vs.

45 - 15 schedule

110

long summer break

Scattering also describes the distribution of learning experiences throughout the calendar year to improve learning retention. The “summer slide” refers to the learning loss suffered by students over the traditional three-month summer break, a phenomenon noted by researchers for over 100 years. All students slip by about one month in math skills over the summer. Low-income students lose up to three months in reading comprehension compared with middle-income students. A Johns Hopkins University study concluded that, while all students progressed similarly during the academic year, only disadvantaged students fell back during summer recess. By the time students reach high school, the summer slide can account for about two-thirds of the achievement gap separating high- and low-income groups.1 One response to this worrisome reality is to scatter the academic calendar. Proponents of year-round education say that doing away with the traditional nine-month academic calendar mitigates the summer slide, uses school buildings more efficiently, and improves remediation efforts. The most popular year-round school plan is the 45-15 plan, where students attend school for 45 days and then get 15 days off. Other popular plans include the 60-20 and 90-30 plans.

multiple little breaks

Another variant is multi-tracking, which has groups of students attending school at different times with different vacations. This enables schools to accommodate more students than the buildings would normally allow.2

1 David Von Drehle, “The Case Against Summer Vacation,” Time, July 22 2010, http://content.time. com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2005863,00.html. 2 “Research Spotlight on Year-Round Education,” National Education Association, accessed July 14 2014, http://www.nea.org/tools/17057.htm.

111

CUSTOMIZED

112

adjective \’kəstə,mīzd\ 1. to build, fit, or alter according to individual specifications

“Customize,” Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/customized.

113

CUS TOM IZED REDEFINED

114

STANDARDS OWNERSHIP CLASSROOMS COLLEGES

Customized learning is about rethinking standardization, flexible classrooms, and fostering ownership of space. Customized is not standardized. Customized responds to the needs of the individual, acknowledging that all learners are uniquely skilled and motivated. Customized is personal. Customized rejects efficiency and seeks efficacy. Customized dispels the notion that standardized tests are the best way to measure learning. Customized explores multiple forms of assessment, ones that cater to studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; strengths and address their weaknesses. Customized fits. Customized is comfortable. Customized adapts to different needs: a chair that adjusts, a couch you can climb on, a cozy nook, or an amorphous tabletop.

Customized is bottom-up, not top-down. Customized is created or modified by users, not imposed or mandated by authority. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s children populating their classroom with their own drawings and projects, not a teacher decorating with off-the-shelf kits. Customized meets students where they are. It promotes mastery, advancing students when they are ready. Customized also allows for remediation, giving learners extra time with difficult concepts.

115

CUSTOMIZED : STANDARDS

http://s3.amazonaws.com/static.texastribune.org/media/images/TestTakers_jpg_800x1000_q100.jpg

116

“Human intelligence is so multifaceted, so complex, so varied, that no standardized testing system can be expected to capture it.” Customized is rejecting standardization, acknowledging that people have many modes of ability unrelated to raw IQ. One of the first to reconsider standard theories of intelligence was psychologist Howard Gardner, who proposed his theory of Multiple Intelligences in the 1980s. For Gardner, intelligence is more than just an innate cognitive capacity easily measured by intelligence tests. Rather, he views intelligence as skills for solving life’s problems and the ability to accomplish things that are valued by society. His eight identified intelligences— linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic—are present in all people to different degrees, so that everyone has a unique intelligence profile. Thirty years later, universities are applying this notion to shaping their freshman cohorts. Today, over 800 colleges and universities in the U.S. have test-optional admissions policies that do not require students to submit ACT or SAT scores. “Human intelligence is so multifaceted, so complex, so varied, that no standardized testing system can be expected to capture it,” says William Hiss, the author of a study on test-optional policies at U.S. colleges and former dean of admissions at Bates College, one of the nation’s first test-optional schools.1 This rejection of standardized tests is just one aspect of a growing trend toward acknowledging the complexities of individual learners.

1 “College Applicants Sweat the SATs. Perhaps They Shouldn’t,” NPR, February 18 2014, accessed July 15 2014, http://www.npr.org/2014/02/18/277059528/college-applicants-sweat-the-sats- perhaps-they-shouldn-t.

117

CUSTOMIZED : OWNERSHIP

118

“If you treat kids with respect, if you treat them like adults, if you enter them into the adult world, they will behave like adults.” A customized learning environment can instill a sense of ownership and responsibility among the learners who use the space. Patricia Tarr of the University of Calgary, in her 2004 paper “Consider the Walls,” suggests that rather than plastering classroom walls with off-the-shelf decorations, teachers should involve children in creating and selecting work to put on display to give them ownership of their environment.1 Similarly, the collaborative, self-driven learning model of High Tech High, a collection of innovative schools around San Diego, is supported by thoughtful facilities that support ownership of space among students. Students are treated as adults, are given the opportunity to move freely about the school, even share the same bathrooms with their teachers. The building is also a showcase for student work, allowing them to document and display their learning. “If you treat kids with respect, if you treat them like adults, if you enter them into the adult world, they will behave like adults,” says Larry Rosenstock, CEO of High Tech High. “As Voltaire said, ‘Suspicion invites treachery.’ So it’s basically founded on respect.”2 YOUmedia Chicago—an effort from the Chicago Public Library and the Digital Youth Network—is a teens-only learning space that gives high school students access to digital technologies within a purposefully designed learning environment. YOUmedia’s design philosophy stresses the importance of creating “teen-owned” space, which adults are only allowed to enter briefly. This encourages teens to take responsibility and create their own culture of learning.3

1 Patricia Tarr, “Consider the Walls,” Young Children, May 2004, accessed July 15 2014, http://www. naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200405/ConsidertheWalls.pdf. 2 “Project Based Learning at HTH,” Buck Institute for Education YouTube Channel, October 2 2009, accessed July 16 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfP53Alnbhk. 3 “YOUmedia Design,” YOUmedia Chicago, accessed July 16 2014, http://youmediachicago.org/10- philosophy/pages/66-youmedia-design.

119

CUSTOMIZED : CLASSROOMS

All photos: http://www.archdaily.com/202358/vittra-telefonplan-rosan-bosch/

“What’s the most flexible thing in this room? It’s not the table, and it’s not the wall. It’s you!” 120

Customized can mean many things when it comes to classroom design. Indeed, there are at least three distinct measures of customization: mobility, fit, and versatility. Customization is probably most commonly associated with mobility. Think chairs, tables, and whiteboards on wheels, easily moved and reconfigured. This desire for movabile furnishings was popularized with the Open Classrooms of the 1970s and is enjoying a resurgence today. Customized can also mean fit, an ergonomic profile, something designed for ease of use, comfort, or safety. The notion of fit is especially important in designing for children, whose smaller bodies must be considered in determining the heights of chairs and desks and the placement of windows and door knobs. The colorful, imaginative custom furnishings of the Vittra Telefonplan school in Stockholm are examples of customization as versatility. Here, creative objects like padded stairs, amorphous tables, and an organic “sitting island” define the interior space and enable students to assume a variety of positions. Learners can rock in their chairs, lounge with their laptops, or lie down with a book. They can find privacy to concentrate, or gather to learn as a group. Vittra Telefonplan’s lead architect, Rosan Bosch, relates her philosophy in designing its versatile interiors: “Often when I talk about flexibility with people, they ask me, ‘Try to create a very flexible school. We want to have chairs with wheels and tables with wheels and foldable walls.’ I would return the question and ask, ‘What’s the most flexible thing in this room? It’s not the table, and it’s not the wall. It’s you!’”1

1 Bosch, Rosan, “Designing for a Better World Starts at School”, TEDx Indianapolis, 2013, accessed July 2 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5mpeEa_VZo.

121

CUSTOMIZED : COLLEGES

â&#x20AC;&#x153;This is how every college and university ought to be spending its time: accentuating its distinctions and ridding itself of underachieving programs.â&#x20AC;?

122

Customized also describes the future of many colleges and universities faced with falling enrollments in certain disciplines and rising costs for delivering degrees. Many analysts, including Martin Van Der Werf, speculate that institutions of higher education will begin to narrow and customize their course offerings to become more efficient and distinctive, reversing the “department store” approach that universities adopted over the past century.1 “This is how every college and university ought to be spending its time: accentuating its distinctions and ridding itself of underachieving programs, or reinvigorating those underachieving programs by combining them into imaginative and useful interdisciplinary programs,” Van Der Werf says in his blog, The College of 2020.1 The college of the future, then, might have fewer academic departments and more interdisciplinary crossover. It may allow its students to take online courses from other universities, leveraging the depth and strength of other programs while similarly offering its own courses up to students at rival institutions. This trend may call for a change in the allocation of physical resources on campuses, where some departments die, others expand, and all are increasingly merged and blurred in the name of interdisciplinarity.

1 Martin Van Der Werf, “Colleges are Cracked Mirror Images of One Another,” The College of 2020 Blog, January 10 2014, accessed July 14 2014, http://collegeof2020.com/colleges-are-cracked- mirror-images-of-one-another.

123

CASE STUDIES The following case studies embody the six core concepts that will define learning environments of the future. These examples cover a wide geographic range—from Chicago to California—and a broad spectrum of learning environments, from primary schools through adult education. Despite their obvious differences, these case studies all reflect the same broad shifts in how learning will be defined in the 21st century.

SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL AUTODESK GALLERY EXPLORATORIUM ALTSCHOOL STANFORD D.SCHOOL

SAN DIEGO HIGH TECH HIGH SALK INSTITUTE

CHICAGO

EARL SHAPIRO HALL STARTER SCHOOL

2 3

EARL SHAPIRO HALL

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAB SCHOOLS

CHICAGO, IL 126

Earl Shapiro Hall is 128,000SF structure for children in nursery school through second grade that includes 34 classrooms on two levels as well as a third-level library, gymnasium, and enclosed outdoor play area. The school is part of the University of Chicago’s Laboratory Schools, a private, coeducational day school founded by John Dewey in 1896 that builds on his philosophy of learning by doing. An extensive research program initiated the project beginning with the design team’s immersion in the daily activity in the life of the school. The facility embodies the teaching philosophies of Reggio Emilia, which grew from Dewey’s principles, placing the child within a larger learning community. Among the building’s innovations in this regard is the incorporation of outdoor spaces and learning labs adjacent to the classrooms so that students can move fluidly between academic and physical activities. The ground floor contains nursery school and kindergarten classrooms, each with easy access to its own outdoor play space as well as to a shared courtyard and learning lab at the building’s center. The second floor houses first and second grade classes, with a green roof play area blending live plantings and artificial turf. All classrooms are designed to be flexible and to encourage interaction with adjacent classrooms and shared breakout rooms.

127

128

Clockwise from top left: 1. Earl Shapiro Hall (as seen from Stony Island Avenue) engages the street and embraces the urban fabric of South Chicago. 2. Transparency is a key element to the design of Earl Shapiro Hall. The front courtyard outdoor space is shown in adjacent to the learning lab space which is also visible from the inner outdoor courtyard space. 3. The louver fin system utilizes the Fibonacci Sequence in its patterning. The design not only provides a rhythmic aesthetic to the facade, but also shades the building from harsh summer and winter sun angles. 4. The library cantelievers toward Jefferson Park beyond, further emphasizing the connection to a learning community.

129

OPEN COURTYARDS

Outdoor courtyards glazed on the north and south ends allow users to see through the entire building, encouraging serendipitous connections and spontaneous learning.

OPEN TO THE PARK

Earl Shapiro Hall opens up to Jackson Park to the east, making views to the park a prominent feature of the design. The hovering library connects to the Museum of Science and Industry nearby, creating a sense of an academic community.

1 2 ENGAGING ADMINISTRATION

Adminstrators have a prime view of the park as well as students and visitors entering the space.

130

CONNECTED TO UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

The site, located off campus, connects to the nearby main campus of the University of Chicago and participates in the community of Hyde Park.

BLENDING INSIDE AND OUTSIDE

Open spaces both inside and outside bleed together on all floors, bringing natural light deep into the building as well as providing an outlet for children to go outside of the classroom.

BLENDED LEARNING LABS

The learning labs, placed strategically between classrooms, allow for impromptu class sessions and planned activities by all classes. The learning lab’s flexible nature makes the space adaptable to a variety of needs of teachers and students alike.

4 4 5

SCATTERED OUTDOOR SPACES

Outside of each classroom in Earl Shapiro Hall lies an adjacent outdoor space. This adjacency provides students with immediate access to the outdoors, allowing students to break up their day by going outside to their “front porch.”

CUSTOMIZED CLASSROOMS

Classrooms are equipped with movable furniture, sinks, and soft carpeted floor areas that allow classrooms to be adapted to different teachers and different classes.

131

6 STARTER SCHOOL

HIGH TECH ENTREPRENEURSHIP

CHICAGO, IL 132

3 5

4 Starter School is for people who want to learn to develop software and build companies. Their nine-month, fulltime program teaches students the programming and entrepreneurial skills needed to build their own web applications and businesses. Their aim is to produce visionaries, not code monkeys, to help people “become the designer of the machine itself” instead of “being a cog in a wheel.”1 Starter School is an offshoot of The Starter League (formerly Code Academy), which offers short-term classes for beginners looking to develop coding skills. Starter School specifically focuses on beginners. No coding experience is necessary to enroll or be successful, they claim. Starter School is representative of an emerging type of continuing education that teaches programming skills, design-thinking, and entrepreneurship in a fast-paced program. Similar ventures have launched recently, including General Assembly—with locations throughout the US—and Google’s 30 Weeks—which will begin classes in September 2014. Generally, these programs are non-accredited, but their appeal comes from the chance for students to launch new products, businesses, or careers by learning directly from industry leaders. For non-professional industries like software development, where credentials mean less than vision and tenacity, this model of learning could gain traction, potentially changing how mainstream colleges and universities operate their programs of study. 1 “Why is building a product so important?” Starter School FAQ, accessed July 31, 2014, www. starterschool.com/faq.

133

ENGAGED SELF-DIRECTION

Starter School’s no-grade policy encourages self-direction and engagement. Promoting self-critique encourages students to take pride in their work. Students push themselves further when they aren’t merely completing a checklist for an assignment. When a project becomes a reflection of the student, they are more likely to put in the time and effort to make it work.

2 3

OPEN SPACES

The open learning spaces and startup atmosphere of Starter School’s new location project an image of innovation, encouraging sharing and interaction among students. As with many open plans, natural light and transparency between spaces is maximized while acoustic disturbance remains a problem.

134

CONNECTED COLLABORATION

Rather than having students engage in solitary programming, Starter School actively connects students through collaborative learning. With their pair programming sessions, one student types while the other one talks through the solution. They also have students working in groups of four to eight, and building one-on-one relationships with mentors in the field. These social learning strategies allow students to learn from each other, teach each other, and connect with industry professionals.

CUSTOMIZED CURRICULUM By focusing on their students’ ambitions, Starter School customizes the learning experience to suit students’ needs. The curriculum is designed to help students build their own companies, to take an idea from vision to reality by giving learners the skills to develop their visions. The short program length—only nine months from start to finish— reflects their aim to quickly give students the skills they need to launch products. With its fast pace and focus on practical application, Starter School embodies the engaging learning experience of the future.

BLENDED BUSINESS

Starter School reflects a growing trend of learning institutions that blend education and entrepreneurship, giving students both the business sense and the baseline technical skills necessary to start their own companies. This hybridized mission is reflected in their learning space, a mashup of tech startup and computer lab.

SCATTERED BACKGROUNDS

Starter School’s admissions policy acknowledges the scattered experiences their students bring to learning. They rely less on credentials and more on ambition. Their target student is actually the beginner programmer, someone with little or no coding experience. Students are typically 22 - 30 years old, but they also have students in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. They draw learners from around the world and from diverse backgrounds, from college dropouts to empty nesters. For students, the Starter School experience is just another nontraditional stop on their journey of lifelong learning.

135

CAITY MORAN STARTER SCHOOL

CHICAGO, IL 136

“No matter how much you learn, you’re always going to encounter errors. That’s what we focus on— getting our students to come into contact with a problem and figure out how to solve it.” We toured Starter School’s new space in Chicago’s West Loop and spoke with Marketing Director Caity Moran about their approach to learning. You mentioned Sprout Social had previously built out this space. What attracted you to this existing space? It’s a pretty open layout. It’s a pretty open floor plan, which is nice for us. We were able to take what was here and really make the space work for us, and not have to do very much building to get it to all work out. Are there any things you would have done differently, or do you have a wish list of things that you’d like? We’d like things like more whiteboards. We wanted to do whiteboards, but we went with the chalkboard wall because, overall, it was less expensive for what we were trying to do in that room. And it would be great if there was a way to go in between the two spaces without having to go [up or down the stairs]. But it works out well, too, because it kind of separates the two spaces as far as where people can go and work. So the alumni can’t just come and hang out up here and take up the spaces for the students. And it would be good to soundproof more of the space. We took out all of the soundproofing because we just didn’t have money for it within the budget. For some reason you can hear everything in the kitchen anywhere in the space. It echoes! Even if you’re talking quietly in there. So it would be good to do something about that. A lot of the conference rooms—you can hear everything outside of them. So soundproofing those rooms would be nice. One of the main things that we’d like to do still is build a better podium. There weren’t any good podiums available that did all of the things we want. And even the things that came close, then it would be, like, $3,000 for a podium! You read a lot these days about decentralizing classrooms—maybe eliminating the podium—to encourage collaboration among the students themselves. Is that something you’re doing? Yeah. We sit in pairs and we do pair programming. Part of the reason we need a podium is because they have to use the laptop, and sometimes they’ll have notes on their laptop, or the teacher is typing while getting feedback from students. So you’re just pair programming with the person next to you. And once you go through a problem, you’ll go through it as a class and talk about your solutions. We use Macs here in the classroom, and all of them have the AirPlay function. So any time during that type of presentation, the student could then show their portion of the code that they were working on, kind of share it with the class.

137

All of our desks are organized either with two people, or groups of four or eight people sitting across from each other. We do a lot of group projects and hack-athon weekends. It’s almost never individual work. Even just by design—the students don’t have a computer per person. It’s one computer per two people. A lot of times we’ll have two keyboards and two mouses that go to one computer, and they’ll do pair programming. So it’s basically one person driving, typing, and the other person is talking through what they’re doing to find the solution. And it’s a really great learning process as far as coding goes, because at any given time there’s always somebody who knows more than another person. And they’re able to feed off each other. So the person who knows less should always be the one talking through the solution—sometimes typing and sometimes not— but making sure that they’re getting that logic down. Are there other types of settings where learning happens? So most of our classes are between 12 and 25 or 30 students. Some of them are larger. And then sometimes we’ll bring in somebody and do a guest lecture session—have it be a little more auditorium-style rather than lab-style. But then we also do mentorship. So maybe it’s office hours with instructors, or one-on-one mentorship. With Starter School, we’d have five or six mentors come in, and students would pair with them or work with them on whatever they needed. And it could be anything from a JavaScript error to the whole user experience of their program or an entrepreneurship thing. This model of non-degreegranting, entrepreneurial continuing education—it seems like we’re seeing a lot of that these days. How does Starter School fits into that? We don’t think degrees are bad. We’re really just a way for people who don’t know what they know to try and get an understanding of what they know. And we would give out degrees if we could, but we don’t like the accreditation process. In some sense, I understand why it is the way it is. But every time we change a lesson plan, or add a teacher, or change our idea about the curriculum—all of that has to be submitted for review. And the person reviewing this doesn’t necessarily know about what we’re teaching or how our classroom runs. So to have them making decisions on whether we’re making the best decisions for our students is a little antiquated. And also, how long those types of things take, and the administrative time that it takes to do those things—it takes away from what we can do for our students. So it just hasn’t been a huge priority for us. We’ve done a lot of things with the state to make sure we can operate as a school, and we’ll continue to do those things. We’d like to be accredited in the sense that students can have that to show employers what they’ve accomplished. But I think whether it’s that specific accreditation process or another process—

138

the way that things are going, with how many different boot camps and schools like this that there are out there—there will be some sort of process that will lend a little bit more credibility. We truly believe that anybody who has the passion and persistence can learn this. It takes a lot of work. One of our Starter School students who was there for the first three months last year, she was like, ‘I have kids and a husband, and a full-time job. I worked through grad school full-time getting my PhD, and this was more full-time than any of that!’ Learning this type of thing is more of a commitment than most people know. You don’t learn to program in three months. But you can learn the basics and the thought process and the problem-solving skills and what you need to get yourself through.

“We truly believe that anybody who has the passion and persistence can learn this. It takes a lot of work.”

Because these languages— they’re not dead. They’re growing, changing, evolving. There’s new versions of Ruby out almost all the time. You’ll have to update things. It’s a living, breathing language. No matter how much you learn, you’re always going to encounter errors, and you’ll have to figure out how to get through that. And that’s what we focus on—getting our students to come into contact with a problem and figure out how to solve it.

I’ve heard a couple of developers speak on this, about how people think that you just go to work and you churn out code and it all works, and you just build things. No! Like 90 percent of the time you’re whiteboarding, problem-solving, figuring out if this is the best way to solve this problem. And every time you come to an error you have to figure out if what you’re doing is the right way. It’s not just doing your ABCs. And most fields aren’t. How do you measure student success? Can a student fail? We don’t have grades or anything like that. Sometimes there are students who just stop coming to class. And our classes are small enough—the teachers aren’t teaching hundreds of students at a time—that they get to know the different students. So when they stop showing up, we try to figure out why, if there’s anything we can do. But learning in general is interesting because you get what you give. Most of our students are paying for these classes on their own. And it’s a little bit different. You’re not getting a degree so you’re not taking multiple courses. You’re choosing every class that you take. You have this personal investment, you chose to take this specific course. And then you paid a lot of money to do it. Nothing that we teach can you just absorb during class. All of this needs to be practiced outside of class—ten, 15, 20 hours a week even. So that alone kind of weeds people out pretty quickly. So you really encourage self-directed learning? One of our students—we asked them about homework and grades and stuff—and he said something like, when he’s the one judging his own work, his standard is higher than getting an A. When there’s some standard that somebody else

139

has set, then you’re trying to get where you think that standard is. But when the standard is, Are you proud of this web site that you built? Are you proud of this work that you did? It’s a different level. Because it’s not like, Oh, this was for an assignment. Because even if these things are for an assignment, it’s like, I built this. If you don’t necessarily have parameters like that—where you check off these five boxes and then you get an A—then you have to be proud of it because you’re proud of it, not because it meets somebody else’s standard. We’ve talked a lot about students. What is it like to teach here? I don’t teach, but I have mentored and worked very closely with all of our instructors. And the thing that I notice about our teachers—and comparing them to other teachers I’ve had—is that all of our teachers, even if they’re full-time teachers, they also practice what they teach. In school I had teachers who were in marketing or HTML or CSS who only taught. Those classes versus the classes of part-time teachers who taught but then also still, you know, practiced what they were doing—the level of passion and relevance in those classes was completely different. And I think that’s really true to how our classes are. All of our teachers are practicing and learning as they’re teaching.

“Having those standards be the standards that you set makes you want to do the best job that you can do.”

And I think the self-direction and setting their own bar is similar for the teachers. I had lunch with one of our instructors the other day who was talking about the CPS class that he’s doing, and he was saying he’s probably put in a lot more work than he has for almost any other class he’s done. But it’s a representation of him and his teaching. And having those standards be the standards that you set, versus ones that somebody else sets for you, is just really motivating and makes you want to do the best job that you can do. And I think that our teachers connect with our students a lot more than most other places. So the feeling of responsibility towards everyone, wanting to make sure that they learn—it seems a lot higher than a lot of other places. Where do you see Starter School in five or ten years? Is it the same basic model, or are you looking to expand into a younger demographic or integrate into businesses more? So the students in there right now are in high school. We have a middle school program this summer as well. And we work with the Chicago Public School System to do teacher training. I think we had 20 or 30 teachers this summer. So we definitely do things outside our bread-and-butter classes. But as far as where we’ll be, I don’t know. But it will be dealing with beginner-focused, passionate people. Those things will definitely stay the same, because it’s really core to who we are as a company. We’ve moved from the three-month classes to this longer nine-month program because we realized that we have alumni who are taking multiple classes, trying to build companies. And those were really the ideal people for us, as far as who we want to teach and how we want to make an impact on the world, and how we help people make their impact. So I think that those types of values will always be the same for our company.

140

141

4 3

ALTSCHOOL K-8 MICRO-SCHOOL

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 142

5 6

AltSchool is a Bay Area network of micro-schools that seeks to combine “the best of the very small and the very big,” in the words of founder and CEO Max Ventilla. For the 2014-2015 school year, AltSchool will operate four locations with ten classrooms, divided into Lower Elementary (Pre-K - 1st grade), Upper Elementary (2nd - 5th grade), and Middle School (6th 8th grade). Ventilla says that AltSchool aims to prepare students for 2030, the year today’s kindergarteners will graduate from high school. They want to create problem seekers, not problem solvers—reflecting their approach to inquiry-based learning. The impetus to create a new kind of school—a sort of hyper-networked Montessori—came from Ventilla’s quest to find a school for his own child. “It didn’t feel great that the best schools didn’t look much different than the school I went to 30 years ago,” Ventilla says. AltSchool’s process is founded on three core principles: it’s personalized to the whole child; it incorporates a network of custom learning labs; and it engages in continuous evaluation and innovation. This last principle is based in Ventilla’s belief that only serious investment can improve education. He claims that today, less than one percent of school budgets are devoted to research and development, reflecting a serious lack of investment in improving our education system.

143

ENGAGING STUDENTS

AltSchool engages students by fostering interdisciplinary learning across all core subjects. Lesson plans are often developed with student input, giving children a sense of ownership and contribution. Carolyn Wilson, AltSchool’s Head Teacher, shared one anecdote about a field trip that was sparked by a child’s desire to visit an ice cream shop. The teacher was able to weave in lessons on science and math—like exploring how smaller ice crystals produce a smoother texture, and using prices and quantities sold to teach multiplication. The result is a curriculum that engages students in real-world problems and draws upon a variety of skills and knowledge.

OPEN OPERATIONS

AltSchool fosters openness in its operations by promoting autonomy among its teachers. Teachers are treated as professionals. They work year round, and they continuously seek to be better through processes that promote design thinking. These practices allow teachers to “be reflective in real time,” according to Carolyn Wilson, AltSchool Head Teacher.

144

CONNECTED WITH TECHNOLOGY

AltSchool connects its students, teachers, and micro-schools to each other through technology, leveraging the large number of people in their network to improve learning. As Ventilla describes it, technology is “not just putting children in front of a screen.” Rather, it’s used to personalize learning, to capture learning, to bridge time and place, and to create community. AltSchool employs a large team of software engineers to develop applications for their network of schools. Wilson believes that by enabling teachers to share best practices, this technology can help “minimize the effects of bad teaching moments while maximizing the effects of good teaching moments.”

BLENDED CLASSROOMS

CUSTOMIZED CURRICULUM

This approach of mixing ages also exposes children to a more diverse community of peers with a range of ages and abilities. Children can learn from others who have attained a higher level of understanding, and tutor those who aren’t as far along.

Their student Playlist is a customized tool that gives students a plan for learning. Using iPads as the user interface, these Playlists are created by teachers each week. Students use them to track their own activities and learning objectives. These tools help teachers customize student learning while fostering self-direction and accountability.

AltSchool believes that their technology-driven approach enables them to personalize student learning in new ways.

AltSchool employs a blended approach to grouping its students into classrooms. “At AltSchool, we like to say, ‘there is no such thing as a third grader,’” says Wilson. Rather than grouping students strictly by grade level and advancing them according to the traditional 9-month academic calendar, students are grouped into classrooms based on their ages.

5 6 SCATTERED LOCATIONS

AltSchool has a different approach to school facilities, rejecting the sprawling megacampuses that some K-8 schools have adopted in favor of a micro-school model. Instead of building expensive labs or gyms, AltSchool uses community resources to facilitate learning. They invite professionals into the classroom and go on field trips. They utilize neighborhood facilities—like yoga studios, gyms, science institutions, museums, and parks—for everything from PE to science classes. According to Wilson, this approach allows the school to remain child-centered, not programcentered; learning is driven by what’s best for students, not by class or facilities schedules.

145

PAUL FRANCE ALTSCHOOL

SAN FRANSISCO, CA 146

http://blog.altschool.com/teacher-spotlight-paul-france

“By asking kids what they want out of their learning environment, it will invest them in the environment and invest them in the learning.” We spoke with Paul France, an Upper Elementary teacher at AltSchool’s Fort Mason location, about his approach to teaching in the new micro-school. You’ll be teaching in a brand new location in the fall. Can you talk about the process of designing your classroom? The intention with the kids is to make an authentic and relevant learning experience. Learning comes from interacting. What some people say is the problem with current education practice is that it’s this lecture style, where the teacher is this all-knowing being. And it’s a unidirectional flow of information from teacher to student. One of the reasons students are not invested in the curriculum is because they have trouble seeing themselves in it. When someone is just talking to you all day, you see yourself as a receiver of that and you don’t see yourself in it. So by posing this problem to the kids—by asking them what they want out of their learning environment—it will invest them in the environment and invest them in the learning. And sometimes they won’t even realize that they’re learning, but they will be learning. If you want to go down the math route, it deals with area, scale, addition, subtraction, measurement—they’re going to have to know all these things to be able to build their own space. If they’re literally building things, like tables or lofts, or if they’re ordering things online, they’re going to have to measure their spaces. And then you can talk about form versus function. What form do we want our classroom to take, and for what purpose? Then you can talk about the social-emotional aspect. How are we going to work as a community to make sure that everyone’s needs are met? How are we going to talk with each other and empathize with each other? This approach to learning is called a constructivist approach—children are building their own experience, building their own reality, and then the teacher is just responding to whatever needs arise in the classroom. Do you envision this as an on-going process, with each new cohort of students participating in designing their learning environment? I hope the process doesn’t end, that it’s a cumulative activity. Of course we’re not going to throw out everything we did the year before. But I’m hoping this idea of seeing a need and having an idea will continue. That’s the whole design-thinking approach. You have a need, you tinker around, you build some ideas, and then you constantly improve those ideas. So while we’ll never start from scratch again, I hope the classroom will evolve over time. Whether that’s over the course of three months or five years, I would hope that new students who come to our classroom would build on the work of their predecessors.

147

How do you plan for that student-driven design activity? That’s where it gets more intricate. It’s very tempting to set up a framework or flow map—if the kid says this, then I will do this. And that’s impossible to do. It involves a lot of work on the front end that’s mostly done in vain. And it’s not really what’s best for kids. So what my teaching partner and I are doing right now, to make sure there is some structure in the process, is we have a theme of community in mind—how communities form and respond to change and fulfill their needs with ideas. Since we have that theme in place—and it’s really broad and overarching, something that all students can find a place in—we can also find a place for various types of curriculum within that theme. I think the most easily connected idea is social studies, because we can study civilizations or cities or ethnicities or minorities. But then you can branch that into the science standards and look at communities in terms of ecosystems. And then you can stretch it out more broadly and look at a machine. How do the parts of a machine work together? How is the machine built and how does it fulfill a need?

“The classroom should be a really dynamic space. It should be student-driven.”

And from there you can tie in pretty much any basic skill—reading, writing, math, interpersonal communication, problem solving. All of those things can find a relevant, authentic purpose through that higher theme of community. How do you see this approach coming alive in a space? What do you think your future classroom will look like? That’s a really hard question to answer because the classroom should be a really dynamic space. It should be student-driven. And I think the beauty of being a teacher of young kids is that the possibilities in their minds are absolutely endless. So we’re probably going to have some crazy stuff in that room that I never would have dreamed of. Having said that, I see a room that has a lot of moving parts, with nothing that is static. With a traditional classroom, you see rows of desks and a lot of things affixed to other things. I see a lot of things moving. So I see tables with wheels on it, because then you can arrange them for any purpose. And I also see every inch of the space finding some sort of use. So I want the kids to be able to write on everything. So maybe that means putting chalk paint or whiteboards on the walls. Or making the windows spaces where they can come up with ideas and write things down and leave them up overnight. And I also see lots of materials. Libraries of materials. Whether it’s art supplies or books or musical instruments—whatever media you might be able to create in. Because you never know what different kids might need to use to communicate. I see lots of levels within a classroom. We talked about putting some lofts in the classroom so that there are places where kids can read, or crawl under, or crawl on top of, so they have little spaces for privacy throughout the room. What does all this freedom for students mean for you as a teacher? How do you manage having multiple things going on in one space? I think management is one of the hardest things about being a teacher. I personally believe in that idea of investment, that the kids need to be invested in the space and in the community that you built. You’re always going to have the

148

kids that are pushing and trying to disrupt the homeostasis of the environment. But if you set a clear enough vision with the kids, and if they are invested in setting that vision and they are invested in their team, you would be surprised at how little of a problem that is. It’s interesting to hear about AltSchool’s approach to using community facilities for different learning experiences—going to yoga studios or parks for PE class, for instance. What do you see as the benefits and downsides to this approach. In my mind, the benefits go to money first. Programming is so expensive. You want to give kids these really rich experiences where they can choose their own adventure, but every program adds another layer of cost to their schooling. So I think one of the most obvious benefits is that it helps bring costs down. The other benefit is that by bringing the community into the classroom you’re increasing the chances that a child can find himself in the broader community. Say a kid is interested in karate. If I were to go to my director of education and explained the need for that sort of program, they would find a way to make it happen. Whereas that wouldn’t normally be possible if you had to have the program in school. It makes more sense, logistically, to go to that external site. It’s also really great for authentic interaction. The kids learn that the community is a really valuable place that they can rely on, that they’re a part of. It teaches this interdependence—I need you, you need me. I think that’s a really great thing to teach kids at a young age. In terms of struggles, travel time is one thing we’re going to have to be creative about. Some things are really far away, and I’m going to have to think about how to turn that 30 minutes of travel time into a learning experience. I could also see costs getting to be a problem if we’re not careful. And not having all those programs readily available is a downside. But I also think we don’t need them all the time.

“The kids learn that the community is a really valuable place that they can rely on.”

149

4 2 3 1 STANFORD D.SCHOOL INTERDISCIPLINARY DESIGN SCHOOL

STANFORD, CA 150

6 5

The d.school at Stanford University (officially the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design) is an interdisciplinary school that offers classes in human-centered, iterative design thinking. It was founded in Stanfordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School of Engineering in 2005 to help prepare students to tackle the complex challenges of todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s world. Open to graduate students from any department on campus, the d.school does not offer majors or grant degrees, but rather promotes collaboration among students in engineering, the arts, medicine, education, law, and the social sciences. The d.school has occupied a space in Building 550 since 2010, after five years of near-constant movement around campus. The design of this new space draws on many prototypes for how to promote collaborative team learning, creating an environment where students are encouraged to move and change things. The d.school seeks to democratize design by involving students from a variety of fields and breaking down the design process into discrete steps. They promote a process of design thinking that has students observe, brainstorm, synthesize, prototype, and implementâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;rapidly and repeatedly. They focus on helping students become innovators, rather than on creating any particular innovation. The d.school is a leader in the designthinking movement, and a model of the sort of collaborative, interdisciplinary education that will characterize the future of learning.

151

ENGAGING MATERIALS

Crude material expression of OSB are easily movable and can take a beating. Students can freely pin up their work and move these surfaces to define space, prompting them to become engaged in their environment.

3 2

OPEN COLLABORATION

The upper level of the d.school includes flexible studio spaces that can open and close based on the projects happening. Mobile furniture, storage, and partitions can increase or decrease the openness of the space.

152

CONNECTED TO STANFORD

The architecture of the campus, a combination of Spanish Mission, Romanesque, Art Deco, and Modernist, can be clearly felt throughout the hollowed-out d.school. The exposed structure and wall treatments reference the other university buildings, providing a connection to the larger campus.

BLENDED STUDIOS

CUSTOMIZED CURRICULUM

Studios at the d.school have a constant stream of different disciplines filtering in and out, creating a scene of blended learning across fields linked by a designbased process.

Mobility enables customization at the d.school. Customizable furniture such as these storage lockers can be moved from studio to studio and rolled into a variety of configurations.

4 5

SCATTERED TOOLS

Scattered at the d.school means different students working at different times. It also means tools, furniture, paper, and projects that scatter the space. It rarely looks the same the next day due to its highly malleable nature and collaborative process.

153

1 AUTODESK GALLERY SOFTWARE SHOWROOM

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 154

The Autodesk Gallery is a fascinating mashup of museum and marketing tool, heralding a new place type where consumers, employees, and the public converge to learn. Often likened to an Exploratorium for adults, the Gallery “celebrates the creative process and shows how people are using new technology to imagine, design, and create a better world.” The Gallery highlights customer projects that have used Autodesk software in a significant way. Autodesk has three Gallery locations—Boston, Portland, and San Francisco. But while the Boston and Portland locations cater mainly to their corporate clients, the San Francisco location serves as a highly public face for the company. Located at One Market Street in downtown San Francisco, the Gallery opens its doors twice per week for public tours, and once per month for larger events. In between, the Gallery hosts in-house training sessions and meetings with corporate clients. Thus, the Gallery serves a variety of needs: as a marketing tool to build Autodesk’s public image, a place for consumers to learn about the company’s software, a corporate training facility, a showcase to woo new customers, and a venue to build business relationships.

155

ENGAGING PRODUCTS

http://andersonanderson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/9-autodesk.jpg

The Gallery engages visitors with Autodesk and its products by appealing to a sense of wonder and a desire to learn. The exhibits are well designed and informative, with many featuring captivating imagery or physical models that demand to be touched. Many exhibits also incorporate iPads that feature â&#x20AC;&#x153;lightâ&#x20AC;? versions of the Autodesk programs on display, giving visitors a fun, non-intimidating entry point into exploring the software.

3 2

OPEN PLAN

The open floor plan is appropriate to the program. The gallery is laid out at the periphery of the floor plate, with more semi-private conference rooms and work spaces tucked into the interior. Ample glazing at the edges brings in natural light and provides views that are well-connected to the city streets just a few feet below.

156

http://haasundergrad.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/6a00d8341caed853ef01156fa457d4970c-800wi.jpg

CONNECTED FIELDS

The Autodesk Gallery highlights projects from a number of fields, connecting to consumers with a wide range of interests. Reflecting the rise in cross-disciplinary learning, the Gallery exhibits a variety of projects, from architecture and engineering, to automotive and manufacturing, to media and entertainment, to arts and sciences. These displays illustrate the exciting possibilities of connecting disparate disciplines.

CUSTOMIZED SOFTWARE

BLENDED MARKETING

Rather than offering customized learning experiences directly to visitors, the Autodesk Gallery highlights the company’s success at developing customized solutions for their customers. For instance, the IDEA Studio is an effort to bring students and professors to Autodesk headquarters to help customize software for solving unique problems.

The Autodesk Gallery blends learning and branding, offering an exciting glimpse into the future of education and advertising. This blending is facilitated by the nature of Autodesk’s products. Computer software is dramatically different than other consumer or corporate products in that using it requires a high degree of skill and knowledge.

SCATTERED CONTRIBUTIONS

The Gallery is successful largely because it doesn’t come across as heavy-handed corporate bragging. These are not primarily displays of the awesome power of Autodesk software. Rather, the Gallery is a collection of projects from a scattered network of creative clients. The displays highlight the projects’ big ideas more than the role of Autodesk’s software.

157

1 EXPLORATORIUM INTERACTIVE MUSEUM

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 158

3 6 5 2

The Exploratorium is a highly interactive museum that encourages children to explore how the world worksâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;from science to art to human perception. Established in San Francisco in 1969 and originally housed in the Palace of Fine Arts, the museum relocated to their new home on Pier 15 in 2013. Their use of hands-on exhibits to encourage manipulation, experimentation, and play reflects a constructivist, childcentered view of learning. Their new space incorporates a host of green design features, which reflects their mission to promote scientific understanding and stewardship of the environment. The Exploratorium also uses its new location to engage visitors with the biological diversity and natural processes of the Bay. Some exhibits track tidal movements, and others highlight the microorganisms that call the San Francisco Bay home. Recently, the Exploratorium has started to incorporate digital technology into their exhibits by harnessing big data sets to illuminate large-scale ecological processes, like mapping deforestation or tracking traffic movements. Exploratorium staff design, create, and maintain all the exhibits in their in-house, on-view workshop. The museum also offers outreach services to educators and other museums. Their goal is to spread their gospel of hands-on hacking and self-discovery as an effective mode of learning. Their approach has been influential in the world of exhibit design and helped spark the rise of maker culture.

159

OPEN KNOWLEDGE SHARING

The Exploratorium publishes its own exhibits in cookbooks that allow makers to replicate their creations. They also share their knowledge of exhibit design with other museums. This transparency promotes a democratic knowledge bank of techniques and instructions to promote learning.

ENGAGING INSTITUTIONS

The Exploratorium reaches out to scientists, cartographers, NASA, universities, and many more private and public institutions produce new exhibits and programs for teachers and learners.

2 1 2

ENGAGED EXHIBITS

The Exploratorium engages learners through playing, teaching, and tinkering. The museum embodies the belief that learning is a highly personal experience. Visitors are encouraged to manipulate exhibits themselves. They promote learning by teaching with their Explainer program, which hires high school students to work the museum floor and answer questions. They celebrate when children find their own unexpected ways to use the exhibits. By adopting a homespun, non-standardized aesthetic for their exhibits, they hope to inspire visitors to go home and tinker on their own projects.

160

CONNECTED TECHNOLOGIES

Internet-connected technologies harness big data sets to teach visitors scientific concepts. An array of sensors around the building track real time data from the surrounding bay and display the information in interactive exhibits. Laser-cut acrylic and water-filled tubes measuring tidal changes, giving visitors a visual and tactile impression of the changes happening outside.

BLENDED PROGRAM

Exhibitions, circulation, employee offices, research space, support space, and participatory learning all brush up against each other intentionally. The loose fit programming strategy allows for serendipitous interactions and constant opportunities for learning.

CUSTOMIZED CURRICULUM

The auditorium boasts a custom audio system that can support everything from a full orchestra symphony to a solo performance. The acoustic environment can be controlled with the click of a button, accommodating a variety of activities and performances tailored to their acoustic needs.

6 5 SCATTERED EXHIBITIONS

Exhibition spaces are scattered, sometimes in pieces, throughout the Exploratorium. Exhibits are constantly evolving, rotating, and being updated by a team of in-house builders in front of a live audience of museum visitors.

CUSTOMIZED TO SITE

The Exploratorium analyzes its very location with sophisticated technology measuring wind speeds and population data, and also with a collection of maps and books referencing the San Fransisco coastline.

161

RON HIPSCHMAN EXPLORATORIUM

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 162

“Artists and scientists are both engaged in doing the same job: describing nature. By having both, you get a better description.” We spoke with Ron Hipschman, a long-time Exploratorium employee, as he gave us a tour of the museum’s new home on San Francisco’s Pier 15. How did you get your start with the Exploratorium? I started off when I was in high school here at the Exploratorium. Our original director, Frank Oppenheimer—who’s the brother of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the bomb (that made Frank the uncle of the bomb)—he sent letters out to all the high schools asking for students to come down and build a project, maybe an exhibit. And I said, ‘That’s cool! I’ve been there! I want to do that!’ Because I had worked at the other museum in the city here, the California Academy of Sciences—Renzo Piano. You know, they decided to go with a starchitect, and we decided not to go with a starchitect. What do you think that says about the Exploratorium? We worked with EHDD here in the city, and they were great, really wonderful to work with. And we worked together on the building. They were very concerned with what we need. As it turns out, they got a lot of kudos for the building, even though it isn’t a visual stunner, because we actually got LEED Platinum. I mean, you don’t do that without good architects and good people working with you. Don’t get me wrong, I think that the Academy is a stunning building. It’s really amazing, and I think they’re a LEED Gold building. They worked really hard on that too. So it’s sort of two different visions of how you go about designing a building? It’s the sort of thing like, he didn’t want any carpeting at all even in the planetarium. But you need soundproofing, things like that. He even had control over the stuff that the staff wore on the floor. They had to wear those black polo shirts for two years. It’s a little too much for me. We’re very anarchistic here. When Frank was alive, when he was the director, we used to say that the Exploratorium was an anarchy and Frank was the anarch! You could do things that Frank didn’t want to do, as long as you could argue with him—which we did. There are a lot of things that he didn’t think would work and we said, ‘No, we’re going to do that anyway.’ And he said, ‘Ok, go for it, make it work.’ That’s my sense upon meeting the staff here, that you’re all very self-driven and taking on a lot of different roles. We do. I’ve built exhibits, I’ve written books, I’ve taught classes, I’ve worked with instrumentation on our roof, I give public talks, I teach with the Explainers. I do a

163

lot of things here and that’s kind of fun. I meet with people like you to spread the word, the gospel of Frank, as it were. Do you think that helps the Exploratorium to be more successful? We think so. We kind of built the museum for us. We’re pretty crazy, curious people, and we think that other people are that way too. It’s just that maybe they’ve never been presented with the kind of opportunities that we were lucky enough to have back in the original days of the museum. I have never seen a more impassioned staff than this place here. Everyone cares so bloody much about this place. We like to communicate that to other people, and we hope that other museums look at us as an example of a place to teach and learn. And it’s kind of like Abbie Hoffman; he wrote Steal This Book. Well, we kind of do it as, ‘steal this museum.’ We don’t have many secrets. We tell people how to build our exhibits. If you really need our help, we’ll actually come in and build exhibits for you. But we’ll tell you how to build exhibits too. We publish free Cookbooks that tell you how to build our exhibits, 200 of our exhibits. We have teacher training programs here. It is definitely kind of an AbbieHoffman-steal-this-museum kind of situation.

“If you build everything out of maple, you don’t want to modify them. But that’s not how we work here. This is a research place.”

Ron explains that the galleries will soon be renamed and color-coded to ease wayfinding. No exhibit in the museum is considered finished, and that includes things like wayfinding. It’s always a prototype. You’ll notice that some of our exhibits look kind of prototype-y. That’s intentional. Because if your exhibits look prototype-y, you don’t care about drilling an extra hole in the table. No one cares. If you build everything out of maple, with maple edging and beautiful birdseye maple tabletops, you don’t want to modify them. But that’s not how we work here. This is a research place. We’re always researching what we’re doing. It’s real science. Wernher von Braun said, “Research is what I’m doing when I don’t know what I’m doing.” Well, here we are! Ron walks us into the Exploratorium’s workshop, which is open to public view, protected only by a low fence. I don’t know if I ever mentioned that we build all of our own exhibits. So this is where the magic happens. And you’ll notice that we don’t put it away where you can’t see it. It’s right out in front, with a low fence. We want people to be able to lean over and say, ‘Hey, whatcha doing? What’s that tool you’re using?’ The whole shop isn’t here. We couldn’t put the wood shop out in the open because the wood shop makes a lot of dust. Anything that makes smoke, or anything that makes fumes, we have to keep those off the floor because it’s all fresh air. We walk in the Tinkering Studio, where visitors can partake in hands-on learning with the help of the museum’s Explainers. In the Tinkering Studio we do a lot of taking apart. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Make magazine? We work a lot with those guys. We’re always at the Maker Faire. We have been since the first one. And that’s kind of what we do here, except we do it with the public.

164

These are our Explainers. They’re more facilitators, but that doesn’t work very well. They really don’t walk around explaining everything. They help people. They can explain things. They can do demos. They are our floor staff during the day. They are high school students that we hire. Yes, they get paid! We don’t put people like me out on the floor. We entrust it to our high school students, who are the most amazing group I have ever worked with. We don’t hire them because they’re science geeks. But they love the place like we do. It’s a great job. We hire some at-risk kids. We hire across the spectrum, really. So it’s a really good program for us, and it’s a good program for them. It’s very mutual, I think. In your opinion, what would the classroom of the future look like? Would it be something like this? Well, we have had classes here. But it’s actually much more expensive for us to bring in students to this place than it is to bring teachers in. If we bring teachers in and teach them how to teach science, we get a multiplier effect. We also work at the district level, about bringing inquiry-based learning into the schools. What can teachers learn from this place? We have resources online. We also sell a series of books. I mentioned the books that we publish that tell you how to build exhibits—we call those Cookbooks, with each recipe being one exhibit. And we have the teachers come to us and they say, ‘You know, the Cookbooks are ok, but we don’t have lathes and milling machines and drill presses and band saws in our classroom. We need to build this stuff out of simpler materials, and stuff that’s available to kids, and to us in our kitchens and our garages.’ So we invited a couple teachers to come in over a couple of summers and write up not full recipes for exhibits, but rather, snacks, light recipes, things where they could do what we’re doing here but in the classroom, with simple materials. And so those are published as the Snackbooks. We have Cookbooks and Snackbooks. And then we have other exploration guides that are useful to teachers and parents. We cater to the home school community here as well. It’s an obvious place to come for home schooling. And we will talk to parents and actually do some home schooling here. We also have two very large programs where we train teachers. One is called the Teacher Institute. We train teachers here how to use Snacks and how to build stuff, teaching them to build things for their classroom, or getting students to build those same things. And that deals with teachers from middle to high school. We have them here for three weeks during the summer. And then we have weekend refreshers during the school year. We have the Institute for Inquiry. That deals with more the district level, how to get inquiry-based learning into your school district. So those people are all up there in this cluster right here. So we have stuff that you don’t see.

165

We also have another program where we help other science museums start. So we don’t just build exhibits for science museums, because we want these museums to survive. So we’ll go in early on and we’ll teach them about exhibits, we’ll teach them how to build a shop of their own, we’ll teach them how to build exhibits so they last—that’s important. We may help them with their first starter set, but we want them to be able to maintain and build new stuff after we’re gone. We try to help other science museums, soup to nuts. What could architects learn from this space? There’s a lot of things. If you look at the space, it’s very informal. We’ve made a lot of interesting choices along with the architects. You notice our walls? They’re plywood. They’re just naked plywood. We didn’t even paint it. Because if we paint it, then it becomes a fancy wall and you hesitate about putting nails in it and hanging stuff on it and it’s there for a long time and you have to replace it. With a naked plywood wall—it’s kind of attractive I think, in a sense—but you can hammer into it and no one cares. And if it really gets nasty, you replace it with another piece of plywood. So those are the choices that we made here.

“We want people to look at our exhibits and go, ‘Oh! I could do that!”

I would hope everyone would have the same experience we had with our architects, which is really working closely with them and really creating something together. We got to move into a building that was ours. And we were here a lot. We were continuously working with the architects. It’s our home. It’s not somebody else’s home that we moved into. So it was less of a surprise. There was less of a break-in period. We could make the place really ugly really quick because we started off ugly, which is what we wanted.

We want people to look at our exhibits and go, ‘Oh! I could do that!’ Well if you start with plexiglass and brass, you don’t get that feeling about it. People will still play with it and it still teaches the thing, but you don’t get people to go home and go to their garage and start playing. And that’s what we really want. There is an aesthetic to this. And Frank Oppenheimer, our founding director, was very much into aesthetics. He thought there was an aesthetic to raw plywood, to raw wood tables and things like that. And exposed structure? Especially exposed structure! In the original building we had a lot of this girder work showing. He wanted to paint the girders depending on their function. Is this a tension member or is this a compression member? You know? Really interesting stuff. You also notice that we don’t have a style. Whoever builds the exhibit determines the style of the exhibit. We don’t have a style guide. That can be kind of bland. You want people to have a new exciting experience with each exhibit. And that really helps by having all these different styles, that we don’t regulate it. We don’t have a separate set of designers and builders and maintainers. They’re not different people. The person who designs the exhibit is responsible for building the exhibit and is also responsible for maintaining the exhibit. This gives you continuity, and it also gives you an exhibit that lasts. Because the person builds it so that they don’t have to maintain it too often.

166

It seems like you’ve almost created an entertainment venue that also supports learning. Which is not our target. It happens to be that way. If you use that ‘e’ word with me I’ll have to slap you a little bit. You know which word I’m talking about? ‘Edutainment.’ People come and they ask us, ‘What are your ten most popular exhibits? Because we’re starting a museum.’ And I have to say to them, ‘What are you building? Are you building an amusement park? Are you building Disney Land? Or are you building a learning institution?’ Because the ten most popular exhibits is not the way you get a learning place. We have exhibits here that really are almost for teachers only. They’re good props, but they’re not particularly great exhibits. What is the Exploratorium saying about designing for learning? How can your model be applied to other learning environments? Learning is usually a pretty personal experience. And by the Exploratorium making you manipulate things yourself, you tend to learn a lot faster. That is one part of it. But also, we’ll get kids who come here on a school field trip and play with the exhibits and learn something about some of the exhibits. You know, we don’t feel they have to learn all 600. I haven’t learned all 600 and I’ve been here for 43 years. But they’ll bring their parents back to the museum a lot, and they become the teachers. And boy, I’ll tell you something, you learn a lot by teaching. I can only tell you that because I taught a long time. I learn a lot by teaching, probably more than I do by sitting in a class. So it’s a very active learning environment where you are in charge of your own learning, but it’s manipulation oriented. You have to play with the exhibits to learn things. And by doing that you start playing—not only here, but you hopefully play elsewhere. You play at home in the kitchen, or in the garage, or in the attic. You start taking things apart, learn how things work. I mean that’s what we’re really after. Frank Oppenheimer, before he did this museum, he was blacklisted after the McCarthy era—the House Un-American Activities Committee. And he was not allowed to do science, he was not allowed to teach. He was a brilliant physicist, but he had to become a rancher in Colorado. For ten years he was not allowed to do anything. He learned a lot ranching, turns out. And then he was allowed to start teaching at the local schoolhouse there. And he would take his students out to the junkyard, pick up old auto parts and take them apart in the classroom. Kids learned a lot that way. And he thought, ‘This is an interesting way to learn, I think the public can do this too.’

“Learning is usually a pretty personal experience. And by making you manipulate things yourself, you tend to learn a lot faster.”

And really the whole maker movement has come from this, too. The whole do-it-yourself movement. If-you-can’t-take-it-apart-you-don’t-own-it kind of movement. We believe in that, that you learn a lot by doing that kind of thing, actively engaged in playing. Playing is very important to us. It’s the way you learn things without realizing that you’re actually doing ‘ed-u-ma-ca-tion’. It’s not formal—it’s informal education. And that’s what we’re really all about here is informal education. Again, it’s play, play, play. That’s what we do. I mean, I get to play all day! It’s the best job in the world!

167

6 http://www.aiatopten.org/node/276

MARIN COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL K-8 SCHOOL

CORTE MADERA, CA 168

5 2

4 1

Marin Country Day School is a private K-8 school in operation since 1956. The school is divided into Lower (K-4) and Upper (5-8) divisions, each with its own identity. The campus fronts a nature preserve at the foot of Ring Mountain in Corte Madera, California (just north of San Francisco), providing an idyllic setting for learning. Their stated mission is to inspire children to develop a love of learning, to nurture in them a sense of respect, responsibility, and compassion, and to challenge students to envision and work toward a better world.1 The campus features many two-story, narrow-footprint buildings which shape outdoor promenades and courtyards. Open-air spaces contain student gardens, athletic fields, playgrounds, and natural habitats that promote experiential learning. This connection with the outdoors supports the school’s curriculum, with its focus on ecological literacy. This curriculum is reinforced in the recent renovations and additions to campus, in which architects from EHDD in San Francisco incorporated numerous green design features. The newly designed Learning Resource Center and courtyard earned Marin Country Day School an AIA COTE Top Ten Award in 2013.2

1 “Mission and Core Values,” Marin Country Day School web site, accessed August 4 2014, http:// www.mcds.org/page.cfm?p=288. 2 “Marin Country Day School Learning Resource Center and Courtyard,” accessed August 4 2014, http://www.aiatopten.org/node/276.

169

All images: http://www.aiatopten.org/node/276

170

Clockwise from top left: 1. The two-story Learning Resource Center doubles as an informal hangout spot where students can work on homework together after school hours. 2. Students circulate between buildings under covered walkways, throughout which the architects dispersed breakout spaces where students can gather to work outside. 3. Large trees populate the campus grounds between buildings. As one student proclaimed (according to Barbara Kraemer-Cook, Associate Head of School), â&#x20AC;&#x153;The trees are our hallways.â&#x20AC;?

171

OPEN CLASSROOM

The classrooms provide openness to the outdoors as well as a platform for various objects such as desks, shelving, floor mats, and toys to populate.

ENGAGING STUDENTS

The MCDS student body can gather and engage with one another for large group meetings such as weekly sessions, lunchtime, and award ceremonies in this large daylit space.

1 2 2

ENGAGING ADMINISTRATION

The MCDS adminstration wing attatches to the campus with its own courtyard. Practicing what you preach is a must for teachers at MCDS, as the sustainable features extend into the welcome center and adminstration offices.

172

CONNECTED TO SITE

Hallways are open to the great outdoors, connecting students and teachers to the surrounding Ring Mountains and the nearby bay.

CONNECTED TO THE EARTH

Students have classes and access to grade-level community gardens. Written into the curriculum, students can engage with the very plants and vegetables the will eventually eat for lunch when ripe.

BLENDED LIBRARY

Children and pre teens can cross paths in a library suited for all. Equipped with books, iPads, computer stations, and a real-time data collection screen monitoring energy consumption and collection, students of all types and ages can learn together under one roof.

4 3

5 SCATTERED SPACES

MCDS offers great breakout spaces to positively interupt the day. These spaces are used for socializing with peers, catching up on homework, playing a game of tag, or meeting before class.

6 CUSTOMIZED ART STUDIOS

The art studios provide a flexible, customizable environment with mobile furniture scaled appropriately for children aged six to eight.

173

MARIN COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL

LUCINDA LEE KATZ HEAD OF SCHOOL BARBARA KRAEMER-COOK ASSOCIATE HEAD OF SCHOOL ANN BORDEN INTERIM DIRECTOR OF ADMISSION & OUTLOOK

174

“Wherever you are, you should be learning.” We sat down with three Marin Country Day School administrators—Lucinda Lee Katz, Head of School; Barbara Kraemer-Cook, Associate Head of School; and Ann Borden, Interim Director of Admission and Outreach—to talk with them about what makes their school such a unique learning environment. Can you explain the mission of Marin Country Day School? How are you different from the typical K-8 school? Lucinda Lee Katz: We really take a lot of pride and care in ensuring that the students are equipped with respect, responsibility, and compassion. It’s in our grading system. We actually grade the kids on respect and responsibility, and compassion in kindergarten through eighth grade. But we also want to help make the world a better place, so it’s envisioning and helping to make the world a better place. You really want to solve real world problems, and you want to equip your kids to solve those problems. And you can’t solve problems if you don’t know how to collaborate. They need to know how to collaborate and work in teams, to take an idea and try a solution out, to fail and generate new ideas and keep pushing, to pick themselves up and keep working on the cycle of solving a problem. Another thing is this creative confidence part. Creative Confidence—it’s a book that was written by the two Kelley brothers who headed up the d.school at Stanford. Being creative, and then being confident to solve the problems—that’s something that’s very important. And so pushing through, and making use of failure, working in teams, perseverance—all of those are habits of mind. Barbara Kraemer-Cook: I hope you saw that we try to design the learning spaces in a way that really supports all that work. I think for me one of the fundamental things that we’re trying to accomplish here is to instill in kids a love of learning. You know the school’s founders really built the school to be a place where kids love coming every day, and I think we see that. I mean, they just spill off those busses and run out of those cars. And they really have a sense of ownership over the school, and it really is their place. And everything from having the art tables the correct size for young kids, and having the sinks at the correct height for young kids; I think all of those things support the idea that it is their school and that they can function independently in the environments. The way that the tables are clustered and those hangout spaces; again, we’re trying to build collaboration, we’re trying to help kids reach across difference and be able to work with one another, and we’re trying to have this space support those goals. LLK: The other new challenge for designing spaces is what I learned from the Google Garage. So you could go in and do whatever you wanted in there. There’s hammers, there’s saws, there’s buttons, there’s fabrics, there’s sewing machines. And people can do whatever! And then when they’re done with their

175

session, they come back and they have to line up those tables to the exact space. Because what they’re teaching you is that the creative process is a learning process that has a beginning, a middle, and an end, and that the space has, likewise, a starting point, then a creative point, and then a resolution. And so I think that we’re trying to create those kinds of spaces here. We actually just raised over $200,000 from the parents to put little maker spaces throughout the campus. And we’re going to learn from what we’re going to create in those maker spaces so that when we start designing our upper campus, all the little maker spaces will inform the big upper school maker spaces. Ann Borden: There are all these spaces that are big and open, but you also need some cozy places too. So you need the place to be messy and the place that’s orderly, and you need the place that’s big and open and open to possibility, and you need the cozy, quiet, intimate space. LLK: And then the next things we’re really going to be big on is integrating the arts. We’re very clear that the iPhone would not be so wonderful if it didn’t get a nice looking design put to it. So you can’t solve the world’s problems without design.

“You need the place to be messy and the place that’s orderly.”

So at the end of the year, our eighth graders design cars and design boats. So it’s a land and sea unit. Every year I’ve seen it become more and more elegant. In the first year, they just threw things together. And then this year some groups painted and named their cars. So the kids understand that you’ve got to learn the engineering and you’ve got to learn the math and science and technology, but if it doesn’t look pleasing you’ve cut off a portion of the population. So when you’re designing spaces, you want all of that. You don’t have to give up on anything. You want everything. And you just have to set pretty high standards.

You know, I look at what they’ve designed in the garden—it’s an aquaponics using fish remains—and it could be so much prettier. I’m telling you! It’s kind of ugly! If you ask me, I don’t want to go look! So if you have the coy, and goldfish, and then you had it go through something and it was beautifully laid out and it was like a pond like the Japanese style—that would be so attractive. You would attract the younger kids, the older kids. But right now it just looks like, ‘Yuck!’ to me. The plastic bins and the tubing, and so forth. BKC: Right, because that aquaponics is a good example of a prototype. But what’s the next iteration of that? That idea of iterating, of improving, is interesting. Are there any other examples of things that during the redesign you thought would be great but didn’t work out so well? Or other ideas you’d like to implement in the future? LLK: So this wasn’t part of the redesign, but this was an add-on, and that’s the new PE Pavilion. They have these beautiful side panels that can open up into Ring Mountain. They’ve never opened it up because the PE teachers don’t want the balls bouncing out; they want it closed. So the architects, that was their idea to have it open up and be beautiful and look at Ring Mountain. And it cuts right across the intent of physical education, because they want the balls contained in this space. Then they found this flooring that, when a kid runs and falls, they scrape their knees. So it was designed for the younger kids, but that didn’t work because the flooring is hard. The older kids don’t want to play in that space. So it’s now a gymnastics center.

176

BKC: And if you don’t open it up, it’s a heat box! LLK: And the sound is ridiculous. It bounces off and no teacher wants to teach in there. That is an example of a very poorly thought through project. BKC: It is true that the school schedule is driven by the gym. And it didn’t change anything. What it was supposed to accomplish in terms of the schedule is that you could have seventh grade and kindergarten having PE at the same time. But since now nobody wants to use the PE Pavilion for PE, it actually hasn’t changed the schedule at all. AB: That’s one thing that struck me as being very different about that space is that the process behind all the other renovations had been so elaborate and so collaborative and so thorough, talking to teachers, the users of the space. BKC: Oh yeah. Well like I was telling you about the second grade classrooms, we spent a long time—all the teachers and the architects together—talking about what kind of flooring we should use, and came up with that solution of half linoleum and half carpet, to accommodate what the kids do. Can you talk more about that process, how you seek input from various user groups? BKC: There was a lot of involvement of the users. So in the art room, you may have noticed, they have the cords hanging down, so if a pod of kids needs to use a hot glue gun you can just pull that down and stick it in. So that’s something that the art teachers came up with. They insisted on it, but the architects didn’t want it. LLK: They insisted on it, but the architects said no! ‘It’s ugly,’ they kept saying. And we said, ‘It’s functional!’ So we won on that one. But they won on a lot of other stuff. AB: Same with the frosted glass. The architects did not want to do the frosted glass. That was not part of their design, their vision. The transparency was so big for them. But if you’re being called into the Head of School’s office and you’re an eighth grader, you don’t want people looking in when you’re crying. So there was a little bit of tension between the form and the function. But largely the success that we did have was because there was so much attention to function first at the front end. So our research is on the future of learning. How do you see what you’re doing here as a model for the future of K-8 education? BKC: I think the incorporation of the outdoors—and obviously with our environment we’re lucky—but I feel like even if you’re in a city school, I think that’s something to look at. How are you involving your place in education? I think that some of our spaces that are more flexible, like the LRC—where you can wheel things out and wheel things in so that there are multi-use spaces—I think that is more the future.

177

One thing I would love to see that I don’t necessarily see here yet is classrooms without teacher desks, and without a front. I think we’re there in a couple classrooms where you’ve got a whiteboard on one side and projection on another side, but there’s still a clear front orientation. I’d love to see classrooms where there actually is no front orientation and no teacher desk, because I think it takes away that notion of, you know, the teacher’s at the center. AB: Our mission materials talk about people, place, and program. And place being in the middle makes sense because that’s what brings the people and the program together. That’s what enables them to function together. So place is really crucial. It’s not just that we have this beautiful campus, it’s that wherever you are… BKC: ...you can use your place. LLK: Wherever you are you should be learning. That really is important. Everywhere we go I would like to stimulate the student and the teacher to learning. And that’s hard. That’s to her point about not having the teacher desk at the front. It should be replaced with this concept of, wherever you are, you should be learning. So if a teacher sets up a classroom everything should be stimulating for a kid.

“Mindfulness is really important to design into spaces in the future.”

The other thing that I’m very clear about today, I actually feel as though the technology has distracted everyone from focusing on keeping their bodies healthy and on keeping their minds free of distraction. Those kids come from homes where the TV is on all the time, where they cannot shut off their devices, where they can’t go to sleep without playing a game. So I’m now offsetting that with mindfulness as a very important curricular skill. So you have to teach somebody. Mindfulness is not about a space, a place. It’s a mindset. But to free kids from distraction so that they can pull their minds in and slow it down and be more at peace inside—that’s really important. Mindfulness is really important to design into spaces in the future. BKC: In lower school we’ve experimented with quiet time in the classrooms. We recognize that some kids in our classrooms really are introverts, so a number of teachers have tried, just a couple times a week, 20 minutes of quiet time. And you can do anything. The only rule is that you have to be quiet. And it’s been amazing to watch the kids for whom that is just really hard! But there are a number of kids for whom, you know, they need that. It’s recharging them to rejoin. It seems like there’s an importance to balancing heavy activity and quiet activity. Do the furnishings and materials have an effect on how the seriousness or playfulness of the space encourages students to activate socially or power down individually? BKC: I think so, yeah. In a lot of our classrooms we have little power down stations where kids can go and sit in a beanbag chair. One of the teachers had these cubbies where kids could literally just go in there with a pillow or a beanbag and read, or sit and write in there. So I do think that providing kids with both of those kinds of spaces is really important. But I also think it’s being conscious of the way that you structure the time. So you can have the space and not use it, or not use it well. Likewise you can have a pretty open space and still create quiet opportunities for kids. So I think it’s space and just consciousness that kids need all of those opportunities.

178

Do you have spaces that are open but still quiet? AB: Well the kindergarten lofts are a really good example, because sometimes the kids will be up there, all quiet reading. You know, it’s silent up there. And sometimes there will be stages and they’re doing a performance and the kids downstairs are watching. So at one point it can be a space that’s removed, and at another opportunity it can be a space that’s interactive. LLK: I’m a real believer of aesthetics. Every time I walk down this hallway I notice that there is a black mark on the carpeting because somebody scuffed it. It’s not that it’s wrong. We’re a school, we’re going to see this. But it does jar me. So in my temperament, and my personality, the aesthetic is really important to me. It feeds me. In a classroom that’s too cluttered, when I walk into a classroom and I see things just piled up on top of another, I actually literally have to walk out. For some kids in that classroom, that’s horrible. And for other kids, they don’t even notice it. And you want to give as many kids as much access to feeling like they can be stimulated. BKC: Right, well, stimulated and independent. I think sometimes in classrooms that are too cluttered, kids don’t have access to the materials. And we’d rather have kids be able to open the cupboard and know where this kind of marker is, or have the low cubbies where everything is accessible to the kids, rather than the child having to go to the teacher to say, “Can you get the such-and-such down?” LLK: And you can tell when teachers put kid’s work really high, it’s not even meant for the kids to notice or see it. If you’re teaching five-year-olds, it should be at eye level. You should be able to have access to it. So I actually think that you could ruin a kid’s sense of efficacy and performance in a classroom when you don’t prepare the environment. So the Montessori schools are the best at that. They over prepare. They’re actually too restrictive. You want messy! But then you want everything to go back into a place. It’s like the Google Garage. You want that to happen.

179

4 3

SALK INSTITUTE

BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH FACILITY

SAN DIEGO, CA 180

6 5

The Salk Institute for Biological Studies is a private, non-profit research institution established by Jonas Salk in 1963. Salk desired to establish a world-leading research facility that enabled scientists from a variety of fields to work together on research that will benefit all of mankind. Designed by Louis Kahn, its flexible floor plan and outdoor spaces enable biologists, neuroscientists, and other professionals to work together on groundbreaking research. Mechanical spaces are housed on intermediate floors between the main work spaces, separating this service equipment from the people and allowing for work zones to be easily customized depending on the needs of the researchers. Strong connections to the outdoors, ample daylighting, and powerful views to the ocean create an inspiring atmosphere to work.

181

ENGAGED VIEWS

Teak clad window bays engage the researcher with clear views to the Pacific Ocean as well as hang gliders that float nearby.

1 OPEN TO THE SKY

Probably the most obvious feature of the Salk Institute is its open courtyard. This iconic feature solidifies the image of the Salk Institute and its mission.

182

CONNECTING PASSAGEWAYS

Lab spaces flow from one to the next on the inside, but the exterior central courtyard is the hallway to other spaces. The arrangement of spaces places the user in constant connection to the outside environment.

BLENDED GATHERING

CUSTOMIZED LABS

Lightwells punctuate the flanked lab wings, giving researchers a chance to break out of their lab environments. Acting as atria as well as a daylighting device, this blended program is both functional and socially mindful of the strenuous nature of research.

The lab spaces at the Salk Institute are liberated from interior partitions by a solid concrete exterior. Researchers rotate by project, leaving the spaces to be manipulated by the current research group.

6 5 SCATTERED STUDY

One of the Salk Instituteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s iconic architectural features, the study carrel, offers a unique breakout space to study. Scattered along the site, researchers can position themselves outside of the lab for a different learning environment.

183

HIGH TECH HIGH HIGH SCHOOL

SAN DIEGO, CA 184

4 2

6 High Tech High is a 5,200-student learning community split into 12 schools throughout the San Diego area—three elementary schools, four middle schools, and five high schools. The school fosters a learner-centered, project-based, design-thinking approach to education. Despite its name, High Tech High does not focus solely on producing tech-savvy students. Rather, their curriculum nurtures a holistic understanding of the world, integrating math, science, the arts, and technology in studentdesigned projects. Students are treated as mature learners capable of self-direction and self-control. Teachers act as facilitators of learning, serving as guides instead of lecturers. The Gary and Jerri-Ann Jacobs’ High Tech High was the first school to open in 2000, transforming an old military warehouse into an open, transparent learning environment. The building features studios, galleries, common spaces, specialty labs, and shared offices—a variety of learning spaces that resembles an office more than a school. This original building served as a template for the school’s future expansions, and as a model for other schools looking to adopt their innovative, studentcentered approach to learning.

185

ENGAGING STUDENTS

The faculty and administrators of High Tech High engage students in learning by treating them with respect, like adults. Transparency between spaces rejects the notion that kids will be automatically distracted by their peers. Common spaces encourage productive, collaborative student work.

OPEN VISIBILITY

High Tech Highâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s open floor plan, high ceilings, and transparency between classrooms promotes self-direction, peer learning, and sharing. Classroom walls are mostly glass, allowing natural light to filter into interior spaces from skylights and windows. This transparency allows natural light to filter into interior spaces from skylights and windows, and enables students to see into adjacent classrooms.

186

CONNECTED KNOWLEDGE

High Tech High practices the Connectivist learning tenet of Feeding Forward, sharing student and teacher work with the world via their web site. Sharing their projects, books, and videos with a broader community encourages students to consider a wider audience than just their fellow classmates or teachers.

CUSTOMIZED CONTROL

BLENDED LEARNING

High Tech High’s approach is one of blending, or as they call it, integrating. Their model calls for integrating students across social class, integrating the head and the hand in making and learning, integrating school and community, and integrating secondary and postsecondary education to give all children an equal opportunity for success.

http://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/WWW/DepartmentalContent/BBC/CharterSchools/Images/HTH.JPG?w=600&h=450&as=1

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XyJwYMzrI9Y/T42ysSJRs9I/AAAAAAAAABg/ Czjqq8QHa1w/s1600/118.JPG

High Tech High creates customized learning spaces that enable flexibility of use and promote ownership among students. Wireless access, reconfigurable furniture, lighting control, and movable walls create a flexible environment that adapts to different learning needs. Allowing teachers and students to decorate their own learning spaces and school galleries with projects promotes a high degree of ownership, further personalizing the learning process.

SCATTERED SCHOOLS

High Tech High chooses to scatter its schools instead of amassing a huge student body. Rather than simply growing in size to accommodate increasing demand, High Tech High has added new schools to its network to maintain the intimacy only possible in small learning communities. The process of “seeding” new schools also supports a process of evolving innovation, with new “mitochondrial” schools free to experiment with different ways of operating and share their successes and failures with other schools in the network.

187