Amsterdam Watershed
Part 3 - Meaning of Learning, Classroom Size, Consciousness in Learning,
Architect's Role, Educational Leadership
"Creating single purpose
spaces (math classroom, circulation corridor) is a barrier architecture,
not an enabling architecture." Bruce Jilk
Q Lia Burgers: As the meaning of
learning is changing from passive to active, from static to dynamic,
from inside oriented to outside, to lifelong learning and to global
learning, is it still necessary to create educational systems that are
surrounded by institutional walls and barriers?
Bruce Jilk: First a slight change in the
question by asking "As the means of learning," which
is what I think was intended. To discuss the "meaning" of
learning would take us to a totally different level. Then the question
asks if these changes (or expansions) are challenging the institution
of education in regards to its perceived isolation.
One of the fundamental attributes
of a knowledge society is the significance of connections or relationships
among its elements. There is overwhelming evidence [8]
of the convergence between the corporate world and the education world.
The same is true for the home world. Any "walls" or "barriers"
need to be examined to ensure they enable and not inhibit these connections.
These are
extremely challenging times for the traditional institutions of education.
We live in a culture of choice and there are many new providers. While
growth in traditional schools and colleges parallels the population
growth, growth in non-traditional providers is expanding at about
the rate of 40 percentper year [9].
In my experience the institution of education is responding to this
challenge. It is are collaborating with the new providers and
even absorbing them in its world. Bottom line: no more isolation.
Q
Charles H. Boney, Jr., AIA:
The typical classrooms we observed in Amsterdam were 20 to
50 percent smaller than U.S. classrooms. (For example, the elementary
school with two stories of apartments above it had classrooms of 600-700
square feet; in the U.S. we would have had 950-1,100.) There
were few ancillary spaces, but they made great use of corridor space
for computers and book storage. Do you think our American
bias toward single-purpose spaces (i.e., corridors must always be
corridors, and learning only occurs in the classroom) inhibits the
educational opportunities in our buildings?
Bruce
Jilk: The
classroom is primarily a teaching environment and, as a design, has
little to do with learning. Here learning is a byproduct. Learning
environments (spaces designed with learning as the primary goal) will
be multifunctional. They need to support formal learning, informal
learning, and resource learning. I call these the learning threads.
The learning environment is a fabric made up of these threads. Creating single-purpose spaces (math classroom, circulation
corridor) is a barrier architecture, not an enabling architecture.
Q
Charles Boney: We saw many well-maintained schools on our tours. Is this typical
of The Netherlands, or did we just see the newest schools where
maintenance issues have not become apparent?
Bruce
Jilk:
I have been in new schools (Baku) that badly needed maintenance and
old schools (Singapore) that were pristine. We can find the same variation
across the United States. So the question is primarily a cultural
one and this makes any short answer quite difficult. I will offer
one observation. Countries (or states or communities) where society
sees the "big picture" and takes a "long view"
(such as The Netherlands) will nurture their resources more carefully.
It's no accident that the most striking design at Expo 2000 was the
Dutch pavilion. They have, in effect, designed their whole country.
William
DeJong: I would agree with
Bruce in that space needs to be designed to support the various forms
of learning that need to occur. However, your question regarding
the size of the spaces and the use of corridors raises an interesting
question. The United States has a very unique and often inhibiting
set of building codes. Zoning laws prohibit apartment units
and a school from being in the same building and likewise force single-purpose
spaces. Storage and computers in a corridor is a fire marshal's
pet peeve (and at times correctly so). Also, the restrictive
exiting requirements have been detrimental to more open spaces.
We need a much more holistic approach. We need to review
some of these barriers; there are other ways to address safety issues.
I'm not an architect, but in many ways codes are driving design.
If you have a classroom that is 600 to 700 square feet and
are using the corridor for storage and computers, you, in essence,
are using 900 to1,000 square feet of space.
Q Prakash Nair:
Do you subscribe to the traditional notion of learning as a conscious,
independent activity or do you believe that learning is really a
"byproduct" or an accidental outcome of some other primary
activity?
Bruce Jilk: First
I need to adjust the question. Learning can be a conscious activity
but not independent. Learning always has context, even if we focus
on what goes on in the mind. Also the learning that goes on in the
traditional classroom is mostly a byproduct of teaching, but not necessarily
accidental. So I think the question is: Is learning a conscious activity
or experiential? I would clearly say it is both.
Q Prakash Nair:
If the latter is true, do you believe that our schools, which are
set up as primary "learning places," miss the mark altogether?
In other words, have schools and school facilities as we know them
become anachronisms in modern society, or will they remain viable
in the future with some periodic tweaking?
Bruce Jilk: As I've said earlier,
schools in modern society are teaching environments, and as places
to teach they hit the mark quite well. I've framed the discussion
around the terms industrial society and knowledge society.
This question frames the discussion around the terms modern society
and, by implication, postmodern society. It will be constructive
if we follow the latter terminology for a moment.
The postmodern concept includes
the modern within it; it does not cast it out. It is the modern world
plus something more. And this is my point about schools. We will still
have some traditional schools (which will be forever "tweaked")
plus something more. Traditional schools will become only one of many
choices, not the only or even the primary option.
Q
Arnie Glassberg: What role can an
architect play in helping school boards move to an understanding of
the importance of school design to learning?
Bruce Jilk: First school boards (and
state governments) need to understand they are in the learning business,
not the teaching business. I know I'm repeating myself, but this goes
to the basic problem. Remember what happened to the railroads in the
U.S.? They thought they were in the railroad business (not the transportation
business). The decisions they made came from this perspective, were
self-serving, and, as a result, they ended up mostly out of business.
Likewise,
school boards (and teacher unions, textbook printers, school architects,
etc.) need to stop making self-serving actions and behave in the interest
of a learning society. Just as railroads did not go away, schools
and school boards will not go away. However, just as railroads have
competitors and a smaller market share, so will public school systems.
Architects will be of no help until they locate themselves in the
learning society. I doubt this will happen before their clients, the
school systems, make this shift.
Q
Arnie Glassberg: How can an architect,
as an outside party, highlight the importance of carefully
examining instructional practices (and their lack of success so far)
before beginning design?
Bruce Jilk: We need to move very carefully here. Architects are
not skilled in pedagogy. In the 1960s and 1970s architects seemed
to be taking the lead in school design and "got ahead" of
the educators. Although many good ideas came out of this, so did many
perceived failures. Ever since, school architects are suspect. Many
of the 1960s and 1970s architects are retired or dead, and because
there was more than a decade when very few schools were built in the
U.S., we now have a "service corps" that lacks this experience
and is therefore ready to repeat it.
On the other hand, as we move
into the knowledge era, society is shifting its values. One of these
shifts is from valuing products not only for their intrinsic qualities,
but also for their symbolic qualities (Nike shoes). Creativity is
basic to nurturing symbolic quality and creativity is inherent in
architectural education. Architects can contribute to the discussion
on instructional practice from this perspective. Until schools of
education develop a strong component of creativity in their curriculum,
architects may be the best resource.
William
DeJong: Architects
can be very constructive in helping school boards move to an understanding
of the importance of school design to learning. But we need
to be very careful here. Is the architect telling the client
what learning should take place or how students should learn?
That should be the client's job. The architect should be providing
design solutions to meet the objectives established by the client.
In the latter context it would be very appropriate for the architect
to assume the role of providing information to the client on how this
might be accomplished from a design perspective.
Many
times the school board has not built a building in many years and
may not be knowledgeable about all of the new design ideas and how
they might impact learning. But I would suggest the architect
be very careful not to assume the client's role and responsibility.
A
collaborative planning and design approach usually provides the school
board and the architect with the best of both worlds.
I
would agree with Bruce's caution. Even when the architect has
more knowledge than the client, the educator is still the client.
You should find ways to enlighten the client but in the final analysis
it is their decision.
Q Andy Simpson:
Knowing that new models are difficult at best to implement
given constraints of facilities management, staff reluctance, local
politics, and others, what is your best advice to educational leadership
(superintendents, board members, and instructors) for navigating the
current watershed?
Bruce Jilk: First I would advise people buy into and follow a
comprehensive process. I typically use the "Design Down"
process,[10]
but there are others. In addition: 1) be clear about the true purpose
of the endeavor; 2) involve representatives of all stakeholders; 3)
begin with the needs and expectations of the larger community; 4)
agree on what is special about the project; and 5) be honest about
the learner expectations.
Everyone has ownership
(not just the superintendent or architect) and you can never communicate
enough. Learn about other programs by visiting them. Although it is
a poor substitute, if you cannot make the visits, have representatives
from those programs come and visit the design/planning team.
Next, this effort needs
leadership (which can come from anywhere but is best if it comes from
the school system) and skilled facilitation (which can also come from
anywhere but is best if it comes from outside the school system).
Finally, it is essential
that everyone make decisions around what is best for the child/learner.
Watch
out for statements such as: “The school board won't approve,” “The
superintendent's job is at stake,” or “This is outside the union agreement.”
None of these are in the primary interest of the child.
William DeJong:
I couldn't agree with Bruce more. A participatory process is
essential. There are a number of good techniques to accomplish
this. We use what we call a "planning lab" approach.
It is a multiday, interdisciplinary approach and involves a broad-based
group of stakeholders. Too often I have seen projects become
the sum of the parts. I believe projects need to be developed
from the whole to the parts and back to the whole. They also
need to focus on the future and not planning in the rearview mirror.
This doesn't mean that we can't learn things from the past but it
needs to be focused on learning, students and the future. I
believe with the right process it doesn't take long to break the mold,
but it can't be done by just having meetings with teachers once a
week for an hour after school.
|
