The Location (Place) of Learning
Cees Willems, Jim Dyck & Lyn Dyck, facilitators

“There has been a long-term trend to create places for learning that neglect the other dimensions of life. It has become apparent in recent years that these “citadels” fall short. The cognitive aspects are possibly fulfilled, but other needs (i.e., social, emotional) are unmet. What should be done to serve a learner’s needs more holistically, and what impact does this have on the place of learning?”

Three workshops were conducted to explore the issue of location of learning. The first session began by looking at current understanding of the nature of the learner and learning in the U.S. and in the Netherlands from the human development perspective.  We addressed the question, “What is essential to a learning experience?”

In the second session, we briefly investigated the role of environment in learning and addressed the question, “What are the essential elements of a teaching and learning setting?”

After reviewing definitions and characteristics of “Sustainably Built Environments,” small groups defined the learning experience. Characteristics presented were: Health, Adaptability, Resource Stewardship, Energy Efficiency, Comfort, Spirit, Space Efficiency, Respect, Durability, and Harmony with Place. The purpose of this exercise was to apply principles of sustainability to learning theory and practice.

The following topics were listed by one group that chose the characteristic of Respect.  The overlapping of the characteristics is evident in this list.

·        Cooperation (as opposed to competition)

·        Understanding their needs  (learner centered)

·        People must not adjust to the building (building adjusts to multifaceted learning experiences)

·        Building as an expression of the community and place (need for real community-based planning and design process)

·        Meaningful (integrated across disciplines and based on real world, hands-on experience - useful)

·        Health and spirit as source of life (uplifting – respectful of the learner

·        Nonspecific spaces (changeable, dynamic, empowering)

At this point, we were ready to learn about the “Broad School” in the Netherlands. This more holistic approach acknowledges the importance of integrating human and social services into the learning setting. Although the Broad School is similar to the School at the Center movement in the United States, it was clear that this theory is actually practiced in the Netherlands.

We began Session III investigating the role of learning in livable communities. The notion of livable communities is based on a new model where learning is integrated into every aspect of community. Our exercise was to create a new integrated community facility model in contrast to an old model that was based on separate and isolated domains.

1. Old Model

Community

=

Community Facilities

Set of separate isolated domains

2. New Model
Learning is the "glue" of livable communities. Quality of relationships advance as we move from information to knowledge to understanding.

=

?

Integrated, shared, multi-disciplinary, collective, interdependent.

The purpose of this activity was not only to help us look at learning as an integrative process, but also to synthesize the work of the previous sessions.

FINDINGS:
In our discussions, we acknowledged that factors such as money, politics, culture, and time affect facility location. More importantly, we realized that learning was not necessarily facility based. Although the school facility has a significant role, community-based learning is integrated into the physical community: where we work, play, live, shop, and even worship. Physical and electronic connections are essential to an effective learning infrastructure.

The following diagram is our attempt to model a dynamic, integrated, community-based learning setting. The purpose of this model is to provide an initial framework that communities might use to ensure they are responsive to their own unique needs and opportunities. The right planning process starts with asking the right questions.

                                          Facility Model

The key issues are access to and access by. Access to includes the issues of what and how; what learning resources for what learning experiences and how relates to issues of physical and electronic connections.

Access by requires defining the target populations). This certainly includes those in the actual physical community, but might also include virtual learning communities. Many are beginning to believe that “Learning” is becoming a most viable export. So the issue of determining “by whom” is significant and should be a decision that is reevaluated frequently.

Our focus on location of a learning facility concluded with three related general principles:

1. A learning facility should incorporate mixed-use and joint-use, and should provide learning experiences that are integrated across disciplines and within the community

2. A school facility should be the hub of a community learning network

3. A school facility should be a clearinghouse for learning resources accessed by all learners.

Our findings definitely call to question the standard facility solution that is based on the isolated educational citadel. Physical isolation is contrary to community-based and integrated learning experiences. Real learning experiences require meaningful involvement in the real community, the real world.

Text and Diagrams by Jim Dyck