(Space Codes In Architectural Teaching And Learning)

(Andrea, Pera Vieira)

(Faculty of Architecture of University of Porto FAUP, Centro de Estudos de
Arquitectura e Urbanismo CEAU)
(andrea.vieira@arq.up.com)
(Mrio, Krger)
(Department of Architecture from Faculty of Science and Technology, University of
Coimbra DARQ | Centre for Social Studies CES)
(kruger@ci.uc.pt)

Abstract
This paper is focused on studying the role of physical educational space in
architectural teaching and learning behaviours and activities beyond formal
classroom schedules. It seeks to understand how the architecture school
buildings in Portugal, although typologically very distinct, answer similar
functions and how their layout and configurative space properties promote
and enhance a social and informational interface that is essential to learning
activities. Through the case studies, it is argued that space configuration
stands as a pedagogical device, which includes a set of rules for the
regulation of pedagogical interactions and communications between students
revealing hierarchies of social groups.
With this in mind, three case studies were chosen for this research, mainly
because they have a similar pedagogical curriculum based on the enduring
influence of Oporto school of architecture: the Faculty of Architecture of Porto
University (FAUPorto) designed by lvaro Siza; the Department of
Architecture at School of Arts in the Faculty of Sciences and Technologies of
Coimbra University (DAUCoimbra); and the School of Architecture in Minho
University (SAUMinho), designed by Tvora.
Initially the paper presents the case studies and analyses the relationships
between their spatial layout and patterns of space usage and appropriation.
Additionally, due to the specificity of the educational context, the study makes
reference to Basil Bernsteins pedagogical theory (1973), focused in patterns
of knowledge transmission and acquisition (Peatross, Peponis, 1984). The
1

collected data informs on how students, teachers and others use academic
spaces for socialisation and non-formal learning activities. The conclusions
are based on correlations analysis between axial and visual integration with
the collected data. The results suggest that spatial layout and distribution of
these school buildings moderate patterns of movement, use and the
potentials for encounters and subsequently interactions between them.
The study concludes that spatial configuration is a significant factor for the
occurrence of both formal and incidental interactions among students,
identifying a significant cluster of spaces with better correlation between
higher integration values and higher occupancy and interaction rate between
students: common spaces located along the major hallways. We recognize on
these clusters a hidden pedagogy that establishes a new frame of learning
spaces, reordering the hierarchy of the active learning spaces system and
therefore instituting specific Learning Space Codes in Architectural Schools
based on Sizas pedagogical influence.

Keywords:

Social

Logic

of

Space,

Co-Presence

Patterns,

Occupation/Movement Indices, Learning Environments, Hidden Pedagogy of

Space, Architectural Schools.

1.

Introduction

Programmatic distribution of space was often considered a proper indicator

for space usage in studies of university spaces (see Bullock et al., 1968).
However, social transformations and technological innovation encouraged the
rising of new ways of working and socializing almost without functional space
layout constraints challenging to rethink patterns of space usage in
educational environments by considering the diversity of behaviours where
socialisation plays a central role in learning practices.
Learning is now understood as a decentralized process that occurs almost
any time and anywhere (Hillier, Pen, 1991), where social interactions in

communities of practice promote learning developments (Wegner, 1998)

supported by reflection in action (Schn, 1987). This emergent context
appeals for a different understanding about the role of space in learning
processes, where it is needed to take into account the complementary system
of spaces, where temporary learning events and informal knowledge-sharing
scenarios occur. Several studies emphasize the importance of informal
learning in our schools, which certainly is associated with socialisation,
knowledge acquisition and development of new skills (Schn, 1985, 1987;
Schugurensky, 2010; Webber, 2004). The idea that learning involves a
deepening process of participation in a Community of Practice has acquired a
significant importance. The term "Communities of Practice" refers to groups of
people who share a common interest and, through regular interaction,
develop learning practices, participating in a process of collective learning in
the area of human knowledge (Wegner, 1998). This is also associated to the
idea of Collaborative learning, based in small groups interaction, where
students socialize, discuss and reflect (Dillenbourg, 1999). Moreover, the
concept of learning by reflection in action is intimately linked to the
architecture practice (Schn, 1987). We may say that social interactions, in
Communities of Practice, increases the learning process supported by the
reflection in action and this can be observed on the learning of architecture.
But how is this related to space?
Within this concern, there has been, in recent years, a significant amount of
debate regarding the importance of space on learning: JISC, EDUCASE and
more recently the OECD-CELE project (Centre for Effective Learning
Environments) represent some of the most significant groups, placing their
concerns on the qualities of the learning spaces. Additionally, several authors
works complement the discussion (Baepler et al., 2014; Boys, 2011; Brown,
2003,2005; Crook, 2012; Dudek, 2000; Fisher, 2005, 2006; Grummon, 2009;
Heitor, 2005, 2009, 2012, 2013; Hertzberger, 2005, 2008; Hunley and
Schaller 2009; Johnson and Lomas, 2005; Lippman, 2010; Long and
Ehrmann, 2009; Malcolm, 2003; Monahan, 2002; Monahan, 2002; Oblinger,
2005; Sanoff, 2001; Sawyer, 2009; Schneider, 2002; Scott-Webber, 2004;
Taylor, 2009; and others). Also many examples of researches, following the
Space Syntax methods, have shown that spatial structures can promote the
3

production of patterns of co-presence through movement (Hillier and Penn,

1991), furthermore, proximity between people contributes to interaction
(Backhouse and Drew, 1992). Therefore, spatial configuration enables the
production of casual contacts needed for the generation of new ideas and
knowledge diffusion (Penn et al., 1999) (Heitor et al., 2005, 2009, 2012, 2013)
(Sailer, 2011). Space Syntax methods provide an accurate framework for
space-use analysis, allowing to formulate the hypothesis that proximity, copresence and encounters in space potentially establish an important factor for
knowledge acquisition and dissemination. Regarding this argument, some
authors have been developing studies in this field, both in campus scale
(Greene and Penn 1997), as well in school building scale, addressing their
analysis to organization, flexibility and adaptability of academic spaces (Heitor
et al., 2013, 2012, 2015); evaluation of mobility flows on academic spaces
(Heitor et al., 2007, 2009); and the influence of spatial layouts on students
behaviour (Pasalar, 2004).
Due to the specificity of the learning context (Dillenbourg, 1999; Schn,1985;
1987; Schugurensky, 2010; Webber, 2004; Wegner, 1998), both the
acquisition of knowledge and socialisation are linked to pedagogical
principles, therefore to support the study on the relation between academic
space and learning behaviours, a pedagogical theory focused in patterns of
knowledge transmission and acquisition needs to be referred. Basil
Bernsteins theory, Class, Codes and Control (Bernstein, 1973), can be
presented as a starting point for the analysis of the social functions of
architecture in learning spaces (Peatross and Peponis, 1995), particularly
their work concerning the definition of rules for the distribution and the
recontextualization

of

knowledge

transition

(Bernstein,

1973),

where

organisation of space and time are considered as fundamental to the way

pedagogical principles operate (Morais, 2002). For instance, educational
physical space can become a producer of social control, while a subdivided
spatial layout acts as a control mechanism, allowing a clear distinction
between activities and fragmentation of groups of people, providing explicitly
restricted relationships and interactions. On the other hand, the lack of spatial
barriers (open space) gives the opportunity and encourages social
interactions, promoting flexible groups for studying. Peatross and Peponis
4

(1995) complement Bernsteins ideas considering the space not only as a

dependent variable that reflects pedagogical principles, but also as an
independent variable capable of generating its own pedagogical purposes.
In the past, university spaces, as well as libraries, auditoriums or classrooms,
were clearly understood as the remaining learning spaces of learning/teaching
institutions. However, over the years, continuing social and technological
changes have occurred that were traduced in, beside other things, a massive
implementation of new technologies and curriculum changes, resulting in
transformations of peoples study and work habits (Capille and Psarra, 2013).
Therefore, its needed to rethink academic spaces, assuming that learning is
acquired by multiple activities, including socialisation (Pasalar, 2004). In fact,
nowadays, common circulation, atriums, gathering spaces, or the more public
spaces from universities, cant be understood

as simple passages or

connections between different classrooms or other academic spaces, since

they have achieved another role in the everyday life of the school.
Thus, our study is focused in spaces for informal learning activities and
temporary learning events, like informal knowledge-sharing scenarios, that
take place in architecture schools (Schn, 1987). With a focus on how space
shapes social relations and practices in three architecture schools, and how
informal social interactions change the nature, use and experience of space,
we propose to look over architecture schools common spaces as interfaces
for supporting learning and studying activities, providing a way for copresence and gathering between their inhabitants and visitors. We want to
understand how these interfaces are hierarchized, by understanding how their
partitions are used and appropriated in learning related activities. The three
case studies constitute three public schools of architecture in Portugal, based
on the pedagogical parallel beginning and having a similar pedagogical
curriculum: the Faculty of Architecture of Oporto University (FAUPorto)
designed by lvaro Siza; the Department of Architecture at School of Arts in
the

Faculty

of

Sciences

and

Technologies

of

Coimbra

University

(DAUCoimbra); and the School of Architecture in Minho University

(SAUMinho), designed by Tvora.

2.

Methodology And The Three Schools of Architecture in Portugal

Architectonic Programme
Following the introduction on the three case studies, the paper examines the
interior space layout of FAUPorto, DAUCoimbra and SAUMinho, using the
following methods:
1. Distribution of functions in the building using justified-graphs (software:
yEd Graph Editor3.14);
2. Spatial analysis of the layout using VGA analysis, convex analysis and
axial analysis (software: UCL DepthmapX 0.30);
3. Data collection obtained through snapshot observation (Al-Sayed et
al., 2014, pp.41) of different types of occupation, movement flows
within a sample of spaces (10% most integrated, 10% median
integrated, 10% most segregated) from the common space system of
the buildings (atriums, corridors, galleries, gathering spaces). Each
space, was observed for 5 or 3.5 minutes on 6 different intervals,
during 5 week days, corresponding to a total of 30 observations per
space;
4. Statistical analyses of spatial variables with use.
The three schools of architecture in study (FAUPorto, DAUCoimbra and
SAUMinho) have very distinct characteristics at the morphologic level:
FAUPorto defines itself as a fragmented set of different volumes, united by
interior common areas and public outdoor spaces. DAUCoimbra building is
like a unique volume that surrounds an interior square patio, which acts as the
core of the spatial system; SAUMinho adopts a linear spatial model, defined
by a floor-plan built by two axis that make an L shape (with the spaces that
are distributed along a path that defines itself as a street, gives the systematic
distribution to all subsequent internal spaces that are intersected with it).
Equally, the three case studies constitute a ternary collection with very distinct
timelines: Coimbras building has a long and influent history that alternates
along the time as a school building and an hospital, from the sixteenth century
until today; FAUPorto was built from the necessity to transfer the architectural
studies from the Beaux Arts School in Oporto to a new building, that was
constructed within two distinct phases (1986,1996); SAUMinho is the most
recent, built in 2000.
6

Figure 1: Global perspectives and layouts plans of the three case studies: a)
DAUCoimbra; b) FAUPorto; c) SAUMinho.

DAUCoimbras history arises from 1568 to the present day. The original
building had a classic school typology, as a Jesuit high school building with a
square plan organised around a cloister. Due to its various occupations over
time (alternating between school, hospital, and museum), the building lost its
original architectural physiognomy. In our days the architecture school
occupies the first floor.
Designed by the architect Siza Vieira, FAUPorto was built in two distinct
phases. Carlos Ramos Pavilion, 1986, has a U shaped form, characterised by
a high exterior opacity contrasting with its internal glass facade turned to the
internal trapezoidal courtyard, and it is also identified by the ample and

continuous interior space, like a big artistic studio. The second phase of the
project corresponds to large facilities amplification with the construction of
new buildings. The program for these new set of buildings is distributed over
two main areas, which organise themselves around a triangular piazza. One
of the areas is more compact and is mainly occupied by supportive spaces
(administration,

cafeteria,

library,

storage,

dressing

rooms),

some

classrooms and the auditorium. The other area is established by four towers
where most of the internal productive spaces (classrooms and teachers
offices) are located, standing as a spatial model based on individual and
closed ateliers.
SAUMinho (2000) was designed by the architects F. Tvora and B. Tvora,
with the purpose to materialise an idiosyncratic way for the teaching of
architecture. The building has been planned as an L shaped linear
composition, emphasising the idea of learning streets (Hertzberger, 2008),
and giving the systematic distribution to subsequent internal spaces: living
spaces,

auditoriums,

library,

offices,

laboratories,

classrooms

and

administrative areas.
Although these three schools present different morphological layouts, the
curricula is similar in all of them, since DAUCoimbra and ESAUMinho can be
considered institutional offsprings of FAUPorto and identical users /graduate
students of architecture. Therefore, the main question is whether or not, these
spaces present analogous use of space or show different patterns on the
relationship between space and use.

3.

Architectonic Space Layout Functions Distribution

Buildings are interfaces of human activities, hosting a variety of different types

of actions of their users. In Social Logic of Space theory, the users of space
are classified as: inhabitants who remain and control the rules for the usage
of the space; visitors whose right to use and remain on the space exists but
is not strong enough to change the rules of the space usage (Hansen, 1998).
On architectural schools cases, we can consider inhabitants grouped as
academic (professors and researchers) and non-academic (technics and

administrative employees) and the students as visitors. It is still possible to

define another type of users, concerning the outside persons who
occasionally visit the space the strangers.
For the analysis and classification of spaces according to the generic
characteristics, the function and the supporting activities, we associate the
spatial classification on Architectonic Programming Applied to Complex
Buildings (Krger, 1992).
Within this classification, complex buildings, as universities, sustain both
programmed and non-programmed activities. The programmed activities
consist on the events that happen within a specified schedule or work routine
(teaching, investigation or administration). All other activities that do not follow
a specific schedule are considered to be non-programmed. On this study,
programmed activities spaces are classrooms, auditoriums, teachers offices
and administrative spaces. Typically the library, cafeteria, common spaces (as
atriums and corridors) are considered to host non-programmed activities. At
the same time, a building has spaces that can be classified either as
productive or supportive spaces. The productive spaces host the primary
activities, the function for what the space exists (teaching, learning, and
investigation) and the supportive spaces are used for non-programmed
events and to host actions to support the secondary activities, i.e. those who
are not related to the main function of the space, but maintain a direct relation
with it.
PRIMARY ACTIVITIES n
PROGRAMMED ACTIVITIES

PRODUCTIVE

(take place in classrooms,

auditoriums, teachers offices,
research spaces)

SPACES
NON PROGRAMMED ACTIVITIES

PRIMARY ACTIVITIES n
(take place in library)

SECONDARY ACTIVITIES n
PROGRAMMED ACTIVITIES

SUPPORTIVE

(take place in administration,

informatics supportive services,
operator, security, bookstore and
stationary design spaces)

SPACES
SECONDARY ACTIVITIES
NON PROGRAMMED ACTIVITIES

(take place in stairs, lifts and ramps,

toilets, storage spaces, dressing
rooms)

Table1: Interpretation of the spatial classification on Architectonic Programming

Applied to Complex Buildings (Krger, 1992) in schools of architecture.

The analysis of the three case studies begins with the study on how the space
layout is hierarchized by functions, using the above classification (Krger,
1992) and j-graphs. Plans and graphs are coloured according to the
programmatic classification (table1): spaces that host programmed activities
(teaching, investigation and administration) and non-programmed activities,
as well as internal production spaces that host primary activities and the
supportive spaces:

10

Figure 2: DAUCoimbra spaces classification according Krger (1992): a) plan; b)

justified graph.

The programmatic distribution of the DAUCoimbra, show us a detached

program organization, where almost 2/3 of total area is dedicated to the
classrooms assigned as productive spaces. These spaces are mainly
concentrated on the north, south and west sides of the building. The
supportive spaces are located in the east wing of the building library and
computers room. The j-graph analysis reveals the cloister galleries that
represent a d-type space, located at one step from the entrance, and
connecting to all the other system spaces, improving the probabilities of
reencounters and co-presence.
FAUPorto and SAUMinho have a very different situation than Coimbra,
because they were, since their origin, designed as contemporary buildings to
host architecture schools. However, even on those cases, we can notice
some internal changes of the building, where the spaces are adapted to new
functions according to the needs of the school and its inhabitants. For
example, on FAUPorto, several classrooms, originally designed to provide
theoretical support to the practical lessons are, currently, being used as
teachers offices, with the same happening to some storage rooms. These
examples suggest that the initial space layout distribution of functions in the
building, designed and thought by the architect, can be adapted to host new
functions and uses, despite preserving their original layout.

11

Figure 3: SAUMinho spaces classification according Krger (1992): a) plan; b)

justified graph.

SAMinho is a linear building structured with two perpendicular axis x axis

and y axis (fig3a). These two axis introduce a strong division of the building in
terms of programme: mostly of productive spaces (classrooms, seminars,
workshops, laboratories and teachers offices) which are located in the y axis
and, it is on the x axis that stands the large productive spaces (auditoriums,
amphitheatres,

library),

side

by

side

with

the

supportive

(administrative area, cafeteria and access to the interior courtyard).

12

spaces

Figure 4: FAUPorto spaces classification according Krger (1992): a) plan; b)

correspondent graph; c) justified graph.

13

Looking at the programmatic distribution in FAUPorto its possible to identify a

strong dispersion on the program by each different floor. However, by
analysing each volume separately, we can say that theres a clear welldefined programmatic division. The northern body corresponds to the large
productive spaces (auditoriums, amphitheatres, library and museum) and
supportive spaces. The set of the southern four towers is almost occupied by
two small-scale productive spaces (classrooms and teachers offices).

It

should be noted that this set of separated multiple volumes (towers) is

subdivided to the level of use which it is assigned, i.e., towers are separated
by academic years and the respective classes by floors.
FAUPorto programmatic distribution plans reveal that a distributive structure
of functions is significantly linked to the building form. It is possible to identify
a clear division of building program in two main components: a social and
institutional component of the program (management, secretariat, museum,
auditoriums and library) organised in the interior space of the northern
volume; and an academic component, mainly located within small spaces in
the four towers. This finding is reinforced by graph on organisational program
structure in FAUPorto (fig4b), where it is possible to clearly distinguish a
distribution of red vertices in almost half of the graph, concentrated mainly in
four partitions of the graph, corresponding to the southern part of the building.
The justified graph (fig4.c) also shows a clear supremacy of the atrium and
gallery in the ground floor that internally connects the different parts of the
building; these two spaces link all the volumes, i.e internally, everything goes
through this space, and that in its absence the building turns literally into five
(north volume and the four towers).
Observing all the programmatic classes on plans and j-graphs from
DAUCoimbra, FAUPorto and SAUMinho, it is clear that productive spaces
dominate over the supportive spaces, representing 2/3 of the total area. It is
possible to recognise a seemingly big difference in terms of programmatic
organization, but a closer observation reveals some parallels in organisational
strategy. Fundamentally, in the three schools, there is an horizontal floor
division that structures space by dividing it into big clusters, corresponding to
productive spaces for primary programmed activities and supportive spaces
for secondary programmed activities, segregating two social categories, the
14

academics (teachers as habitants and students as visitors) from the

administrative staff.

4.

Space Codes: Space And Use In Teaching And Learning

Architecture
This section focuses on the spatial analysis of the layout using VGA analysis,
convex analysis and axial analysis, related to patterns of occupation and
movement in the three schools, observing the activities and flows in the space
through snapshot observation and gate counts method, within a sample of
spaces (10% most integrated, 10% median integrated, 10% most segregated)
from common spaces of the buildings (atriums, corridors, galleries, gathering
spaces). The following static activities were identified: 1) formal learning
activities: studying and working; 2) informal learning activities: sketching,
reading, group discussion; 3) socialisation activities; 4) others: relaxing,
eating, talking on the phone, using the ATM;

Figure 5: DAUCoimbra global integration maps: a) Global Integration convex map;

b) Global Integration axial map; c) Global Integration VGA map.

15

Figure 6: SAUMinho global integration maps: a) Global Integration convex map; b)

Global Integration axial map; c) Global Integration VGA map.

16

Figure 7: FAUPorto global integration maps: a) Global Integration convex map; b)

Global Integration VGA map; c) Global Integration VGA Map.

Although these three examples are, apparently, very different in terms of their
building morphology, they all respond to the similar function: hosting schools
of architecture with similar academic inbreeding. Paradoxically, from this
evidence, we hypothesise that there are hidden spatial features that bring
these three buildings together converging towards the idea of schoolness.
The axial maps for these three schools of architecture were built as the least
number of the longest axial lines covering all convex spaces (fewest line
maps from Depthmap). For the analysis of axial maps we adopted the usual
colour scheme of integration (from red, orange and yellow to represent the
spaces of higher integration values and green, blue to cyan for the smaller
integration values).

17

On the DAUCoimbra convex and axial map it is possible to identify the core
as a continuous set of lines, assuming the shape of a ring around the central
courtyard, clustered in that area corresponding to a singular organisation
rising from the core to peripheral spaces through a radial structure, from the
highest integrated spaces to the moderately integrated spaces in the system.
In other words, the space configuration is structured radially from an
organisational centre (the core), which is mainly formed by cloister galleries
and contiguous spaces, to the most peripheral spaces corresponding to the
classrooms. The most segregated areas are the supportive spaces for
secondary activities like kitchens, storerooms, toilets and administrative
spaces.
Analysing the FAUPorto convex and axial map, it is possible to point out a set
of highly integrated lines on the main and first floor, which correspond to the
main corridors and atriums. However, the integration values decrease as the
spaces move away from this main system. This becomes clearer with the
increase of height in the southern towers, which shows pronounced
integration decay. In fact, the areas in the same floor but in different volumes
(north and south) have a notable distinct difference of integration values, like
the library and surrounding areas in the 3rd floor of northern volume and the
other spaces in the towers floors. The core is fragmented and is spread over
several floors. It includes atriums and galleries, located in the main floor and
north volume. The gallery and atrium in the main floor correspond to the most
integrated spaces, making the connection between the southern and northern
buildings. The gallery serves directly the majority of the teachers offices,
providing also individual lockers for students, accentuating the possibilities of
co-presence interactions in a typical circulation space.
The global integration axial map from SAUMinho reveals the further integrated
areas as equivalent to the main circulation system, with L-shaped axis from
which all the areas are organised in three floors. We can see that the core
comes down to the central corridor, adjacent to every other spaces and
covering the entire buildings length. Practically the totality of classroom
spaces are moderately integrated. The lower integration spaces correspond to
the supportive spaces for secondary programed activities. This hierarchy
suggests a strong division of the functional programme into the social, the
18

academic and the staff areas, unlike what happens in FAUPorto. This fact
doesnt mean a separation of social categories of people, since the L axis
suggests a higher probability of accidental encounters.
It should be noticed that the libraries of these schools correspond to
moderately low or low integrated spaces in the systems, enhancing the
segregation of those spaces as a sense of concentration and intimacy in
relation to the all system. However, in a level of local integration, this pattern
changes significantly, the libraries spaces appear better integrated with
respect to radius 3.
The analysis of global integration, in the three case studies, reveals a set of
highly integrated lines corresponding to the main public spaces, defining its
dominant importance as visual and movement axis. Note that, in the three
buildings, as we move away from this main system, the values of global
integration decrease, reinforcing the importance of those structuring spaces
as productive spaces for primary non programmed activities.
We can observe in DAUCoimbra that spatial structure has a strong potential
to generate new relations between inhabitants and visitors, with a central
square for synchronisation of relations between inhabitants and visitors. This
idea is weaker in SAUMinho, nevertheless it relies on an L shaped axis, which
extends across the building. In FAUPorto we realize that the spatial structure
exists to preserve the programmed social interaction, decreasing the chances
of its users meeting in only one place ground floor atrium and main gallery,
distributing users by a set of spaces pulverised through all the buildings.
At the same time, the analysis of local measures shows evidence that all the
three spatial systems are dominated by the main spaces already identified
before. The dependence of the system relatively to these spaces is evident,
but in DAUCoimbra we can identify a hegemonic space. All this means that,
due to its spatial organisation arrangement, DAUCoimbra presents a higher
potential for the meeting of users, which is not so strong in SAUMinho, and
even weaker in FAUPorto. In DAUCoimbra we can witness a synchroniser
interface for the relations between inhabitants and visitors, that lays in the
central courtyard which is a visually continuous space limited by the core of
the spatial system.

19

a)

b)

c)
Figure 8: Intelligibility scatter plots: a) DAUCoimbra; b) SAUMinho; c) FAUPorto.

The intelligibility study shows some new interesting aspects on the layout
structure of each building. A previous study on DAUCoimbra building over the
time revealed a reduction of the intelligibility values, due to the morphological
adaptation from a school to an hospital. Furthermore, it was noteworthy that
when school function was reinstated in the building with new alterations in
order to restore the identity of the morphology building, the intelligibility values
increased again.
The scatter plots of Intelligibility shows that DAUCoimbra (0.765023601) has
the highest inteligibility values, while SAUMinho (0.59252639) and FAUPorto
(0.452526396) has an inteligiblility relatively low, with weak correlation
between global and local values.

20

The collected data on the use of space is obtained by snapshot and

movement trace methods, where each space was observed in 6 different
intervals during 5 week days, corresponding to a total of 30 observations per
space; the above table synthesises the collected data:
DAUCoimbra

FAUPorto

SAUMinho

Inhabitants Teachers
Faculty staff

4,52%

5,74%

3,73%

1,51%

4,38%

0,50%

Visitors

Students

87,57%

88,16%

93,28%

Strangers

Strangers

6,40%

1,72%

2,49%

Static

35,97%

25,93%

28,11%

Movement

64,03%

74,07%

71,89%

Standing

10,73%

10,27%

15,80%

Sitting
Undefined (ex: in
case of movement)

18,36%

10,09%

12,31%

70,90%

79,63%

71,89%

Stairs or window sill

4,90%

0,15%

12,44%

Portable furniture

10,26%

9,09%

1,49%

Fixed furniture

84,84%

0,83%

86,07%

Eating

8,47%

4,91%

1,87%

Studing and working

Informal learning
activities: sketching,
reading, group
discussion.
Relaxing

6,21%

1,51%

0.87%

9.32%

8,91%

6.97%

11,49%

5,95%

2,24%

20.81%

4,00%

16.17%

64,50%

74,57%

71.89%

Position

Static
Position

Sitting
Position

Use

Other
Meeting /
Socialisation

Table 2: Percentages of collected data about the space usage in DAUCoimbra,

FAUPorto and SAUMinho.

21

Figure 9: Statistical correlations between usage and syntactic measures in

DAUCoimbra:

1st line - relation to global integration; 2nd line - relation to local

integration r3; 3rd line - relation to visual integration; 4th line - relation to visual
connectivity.

22

Figure 10: Statistical correlations between usage and syntactic measures in

SAUminho: 1st line - relation to global integration; 2nd line - relation local integration
r3; 3rd line - relation to visual integration; 4th line - relation to visual connectivity.

Figure 11: Statistical correlations between usage and syntactic measures in

FAUPorto: 1st line - relation to global integration; 2nd line relation to local integration
r3; 3rd line - relation to visual integration; 4th line - relation to visual connectivity.

The analysis of scatter plots shows statistical correlations between usage and
syntactic measures revealing that in DAUCoimbra interaction takes place
practically in all common areas where movement follows a pattern: most of
the movement is registered in the main galleries (corresponding to the most
integrated circulation areas); static people and movement are positivity related
with integration (local, global and visual) and also to connectivity. Its stands
that visual measures are weaker linked to uses than the convex or axial
measures. This can be explained by the high intelligibility of the all system. In
fact, DAUCoimbra has a nuclear space, the cloister and the surrounding
galleries that synchronise most of static uses and movements within the
system of common spaces and this is traduced, in the scatter plots, by
maximum outliners points with higher values. We could say that encounters

23

relations are further dependent from convex or linear properties of space

linked to possibilities of movement than visual properties highlighting some
kind of invisible school.
The collected data revealed that in FAUPorto: 25% of all activities took place
in the most integrated spaces: the main gallery in the ground floor, and the
corresponding atrium, as well as the atrium in first floor. Some of most
segregated spaces with the lowest convex, linear and visual global measures;
but with median local values, have no usage records. Local and global
syntactic measures of spaces have a weak correlation to how people use the
space. This can relay on the fact that FAUPorto system has a low intelligibility,
mostly consequence of the strong fragmentation of the building, segmenting
students by year and activities.
Nevertheless, as the results attest, this feature turns out to strengthen the
central role that highest integrated common settings in the building have, like
catalyst of students casual encounters within different classes and curricular
years.
In SAUMinho scatter plots present peculiar results, despite the weak
correlation between usage and special measures we can realise that this
relation is almost always positive, with the exception of visual integration. One
possible explanation for the negative index between usage and visual
integration may relay on the spatial layout structure, totally established by two
perpendicular axes, forming the horizontal circulation system of spaces.
Within this spatial distribution, all the spaces from these two axes have similar
values of visual integration, so we may say that in SAUMinho visual
integration is not a proper measure to explain the possibilities of movement or
encounters between users. In SAUMinho, by analysing the remain scatter
plots, we can realize that, although the relationship between usage and
syntactic measures is reasonably positive it is not strong, which leads us to
presume that, as in Porto, SAUMinho spatial structure does not have impact
on the everyday life of the school.

24

5.

Conclusions: Space as The Hidden Pedagogy

Within previous analysis, it is possible to assume that students conduct

diverse types of learning activities on common areas of the schools (atriums,
galleries, corridors, cafeteria), therefore, spaces that originally are intended to
be just links between the main academic areas, frequently provide areas for
students to cross, to sit and to meet, where they can encounter and interact
with each other. In the three case studies its possible to identify the system of
circulation spaces, within the building, as the most global or local integrated
spaces that can promote frequent casual interactions. The most segregated
areas in the three case studies were mostly the library and classrooms,
endorsing that school buildings should be able to provide students both
private spaces, where they can focus on formal learning activities (segregated
spaces) and public social settings (integrated spaces), enabling students
encounters.
The study on the usage of space made possible to notice that the common
circulation areas happen to be the essential set of spaces for informal learning
activities, therefore we can say that they are in fact Productive Spaces. With
this in mind we can identify a subdivision on productive spaces adding a new
class: productive spaces of non-programmed activities. In this way, we fit on
the productive spaces of non-programmed activities group the gathering and
meeting spaces from the spatial system, like the atriums, galleries, corridors
and cafeteria. The productive spaces for non-programmed activities can be
both interior and exterior, like the patios, entrance halls or gardens, where
inhabitants and visitors can socialise and exchange knowledge.

25

PROGRAMMED ACTIVITIES

PRIMARY ACTIVITIES n
(take place in classrooms,
auditoriums, teachers offices,
research spaces)

PRODUCTIVE
SPACES
NON PROGRAMMED
ACTIVITIES

PRIMARY ACTIVITIES n
(take place in library)
SECONDARY ACTIVITIES n
(take place in group gathering
and meeting spaces, atriums,
corridors, cafeteria)

PROGRAMMED ACTIVITIES

SECONDARY ACTIVITIES n
(take place in administration,
informatics supportive services,
operator, security, bookstore
and stationary design spaces)

NON PROGRAMMED

SECONDARY ACTIVITIES n
(take place in stairs, lifts and
ramps, toilets, storage spaces,
dressing rooms)

SUPPORTIVE
SPACES

ACTIVITIES

Table 3: Reinterpretation of the spatial classification on Architectonic Programming

Applied to Complex Buildings (Krger, 1992) in schools of architecture.

The study concludes that space configurative properties on school buildings,

in particular the system of productive spaces for non-programmed activities,
are an important component of both informal and incidental interactions
between students.
Through the research on how space configuration can affect social interaction
and therefore learning activities, we may say that space structure turns out to
deliver new roles and identities to space, questioning and transgressing the
function label order, established by programmatic distribution, causing that
supportive spaces for non programmed activities actually stand as productive
spaces.
26

In that sense, we may say that space, in these architecture schools, stands as
a pedagogical device, like a distinct invisible pedagogy (Bernstein,1973)
relying also on productive spaces for non-programmed activities as active
learning spaces.
This work showed three distinct space organizations, responding to similar
educational systems, which have different performance in usage. Similar
teaching models turns out to subsist in different spatial systems, leading to the
conclusion, in these cases, that the curricula is invariant to space.

References
Ainsworth, H., and Eaton, S. (2010), "Formal, Non-formal and Informal
Learning in the Sciences".
Al-Sayed,K.; Turner, A. Hillier, B. Lida, S. (2014), Space Syntax
Methodology , Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, UCL, London, 2nd
Edition.
Baepler, P., Brooks, D., Walker, J. (2014), Active Learning Spaces: New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, Number 137. John Wiley & Sons.
Bernstein, B. (1973), Class code and control Vol. III. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Boys, J. (2010), Towards creative learning spaces: Re-thinking the
architecture of post-compulsory education. Routledge.
Brown, B. and Lippincott, J. (2003). Learning spaces: more than meets the
eye. EDUCAUSE quarterly, 26(1), 14-17.
Brown, M. (2005), Learning Spaces, chapter 12 of Educating the Net
Generation, ed. Diana G. Oblinger and James L. Oblinger (Boulder, Colo.:
EDUCAUSE,

2005),

e-book,

available

edu/LearningSpaces/6072, 2005.

27

at

http://www.educause.

Bullock, N., Dickens, P., Steadman, P. (1968), A theoretical basis for

university planning. No. 1. Cambridge University School of Architecture,(Land
Use & Built Form Studies).
Capille, C., Psarra, S. (2013), Space and planned informality: Strong and
weak program categorization in public learning environments. In: YO Kim,
Park HT, Seo KW (eds.),Proceedings of the Ninth International Space Syntax
Symposium, Sejong University,Seoul, Korea, pp. 009:1-22.
Crook, C., and Mitchell, G. (2012), Ambience in social learning: Student
engagement with new designs for learning spaces. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 42(2), 121-139.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999), "What do you mean by collaborative learning?"
Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. (1999): 119.
Dudek, M. (2000), Architecture of Schools: The New Learning Environments.
Oxford: Architectural Press.
Dudek, M. (2000), Architecture of schools: the new learning environments.
Routledge.
Fisher, K. (2001), Building Better Outcomes: The impact of school
infrastructure on student outcomes and behaviour Schooling Issues Digest,
Department of Education, Science and Training.
Fisher, K. (2005), Research into identifying effective learning environments.
Evaluating quality in educational facilities, 9.
Fisher, K. (2006), The new learning environment: Hybrid designs for hybrid
learning. Education futures Public, 2.

28

Greene, M., & Penn, A. (1997), Socio-spatial analysis of four university

campuses: the implications of spatial configuration on creation and
transmission of knowledge.
Heitor, T. and Tom, A. (2009), Can Mobility Flow Analysis Improve Informal
Learning

Processes

in

Traditional

Educational

establishments?.

In

Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium (pp. 1-13).

Heitor, T. (2005), Potential Problems and Challenges in Defining International
Design Principles for Schools, in Papers from OECD/PEB Experts group
Meetings on Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities, OECD, Lisbon.
Heitor, T., and Pinto, R. (2012), Thinking Critically Towards Excellence In
School Buildings Using Space Syntax As A Catalyst For Change. In
Proceedings of the 8th International Space Syntax Symposium.
Heitor, T., Both, K., Medeiros, V. (2013), Spaces for knowledge: Strategies in
academic library planning and design. Proceedings of the Ninth International
Space Syntax Symposium, Seoul: Sejong University Press.
Heitor,

T.,

Tom,

A.,

Dimas,

P.,

Silva,

J.

(2007),

Measurability,

Representation and Interpretation of Spatial Usage in Knowledge-Sharing

Environments-A Descriptive Model Based on WiFi Technologies. In BMI (pp.
43-61).
Hertzberger, H. (2005), Lessons for students in architecture. Rotterdam: 010
Publishers, 2005.
Hertzberger, H. (2008), Space and learning: lessons in architecture 3. 010
Publishers, 2008.
Hillier, B. (1996), Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of
Architecture (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

29

Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984), The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Hillier, B. and Penn, A. (1991), "Visible colleges: structure and randomness in
the place of discovery." Science in context 4.01 (1991): 23-50.
Hillier, B., Hanson, J., Peponis, J. (1984), "What do we mean by building
function?." (1984): 61-72.
Krger, M. (1987). "Projecto e Anlise de Edifcios Complexos", III Encontro
Nacional sobre "Ensino de Projecto Arquitectnico-Tecnologia e Projecto
Arquitectnico, Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade Federal do Rio
Grande do Sul, em Porto Alegre.
Krger, M. (1992), Caracterizao e Programao de Edifcios Complexos",
Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Universidade
Tcnica de Lisboa. April 1992 (Publication N 78).
Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of practice. Retrieved June, 9,
2008.
Lippman, P. (2002), Understanding activity settings in relationship to the
design of learning environments. CAE Net Quarterly Newsletter. AIA
Committee on Architecture for Education.
Malcolm B., and Lippincott, J. (2003). Learning spaces: more than meets the
eye. EDUCAUSE quarterly, 26(1), 14-17.
Monahan, T. (2002) "Flexible Space & Built Pedagogy: Emerging IT
Embodiments. Inventio 4 (1): 1-19.
Moore, G., and Lackney, J. (1994). Educational Facilities for the Twenty-First
Century: Research Analysis and Design Patterns. Milwaukee: Wisconsin
University. School of Architecture and Urban Planning.
30

Morais, A. (2002). Basil Bernstein at the micro level of the classroom. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4), 559-569.
Morais, A. (2002). Basil Bernstein at the micro level of the classroom. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4), 559-569.
Oblinger, D. (2005). Leading the transition from classrooms to learning
spaces. Educause Quarterly, 1(7-12).
OECD (2001). Designs for Learning: 55 Exemplary Educational Facilities.
Paris: OECD Publishing.
Pasalar, C. (2004). The effects of spatial layouts on students' interactions in
middle schools: multiple case analysis.
Peatross, F., and Peponis, J. (1995), "Space, education, and socialisation."
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 12.4 (1995): 366-385.
Sailer, K. (2011). Creativity as social and spatial process. Facilities, 29 (1/2),
6-18.
Sanoff, H. (2001). School Building Assessment Methods. Washington, D.C.:
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Schaller, M. and Hunley, S. (2009). Assessment: The Key to Creating Spaces
that Promote Learning. Educause Review, 44(2), 26.
Schneider, M. (2002). Do School Spaces Affect Academic Outcomes?
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Spaces.
Schn, D. (1987), Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design
for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco (1987).

31

Schugurensky, D. (2000), The Forms of Informal Learning: Towards a

Conceptualization of the Field. Retrieved October 15, 2010.
Scott - Webber, L. (2004). In sync: Environmental behavior research and the
design of learning spaces. Michigan: The Society for College and University
Planning.
Steadman,

P.

(1976),

Graph-theoretic

representation

of

architectural

arrangement. The architecture of form, 94-115..

Taylor, A. (2009). Linking architecture and education: Sustainable design for
learning environments. UNM Press.
Turner, A. (2001), Depthmap. A program to perform visibility graph analysis.
In: Peponis, J., Wineman, J. and Bafna, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Third
International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta, U.S.A: Georgia Institute of
Technology, paper 31, p.1-9.
Varoudis T. (2012), 'depthmapX Multi-Platform Spatial Network Analysis
Software, Version 0.30 OpenSource, http://varoudis.github.io/depthmapX/
Vaughan, L. (2001), Space Syntax Observation Manual. Space Syntax Ltd,
London.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge university press.
Wenger, E. (2000), Communities of practice and social learning systems.
Organization, 7(2), 225-246.

32