9/7/2009 Designing Learning Spaces for Instruct…

Viewpoint

Designing Learning Spaces for Instruction, not Control

By Ruth Reynard
06/03/09

What is amazing to me is that most classrooms and even some virtual learning spaces are still designed with
a type of learning in mind that is constrained, fixed and teacher-driven. That is, most classrooms still suffer
from what I call "the fireplace" syndrome in which something has to be fixed to a wall (a blackboard, a white
board, a projection screen, a smart board, etc.) and usually fronted by some sort of teacher desk or
podium.

This can also be the case virtually according to how the design and flow of content and interaction takes
place for the student and who controls the access to course content and instructional choice.

In a "fixed" instructional setting, the expectations are clear, and students all know which way to face and
from which location/source information and instructions will flow. The remainder of the seating or online
responses take place accordingly with no allowance for flexibility or the kind of multilayered instruction that
is currently possible through the technology now available to us.

Granted, some colleges and universities have more technology budget than others, but new technology has
been with us long enough for teachers, even in those kinds of limited situations, to be experimental and
experiential (as in the Dewey sense) with the learning environments. For those teachers who do have access
to a technology budget, why are their teaching spaces still so reminiscent of the past? Why are these spaces
still so fixed while students are being encouraged to use technology that is not fixed but is mobile? And when
everyone is being challenged to do more with less, why do we not see more multipurpose learning spaces,
particularly in physical buildings where space is often limited?

Instruction First
Never before has it been more possible for educators to put instruction front and center of learning space
design (i.e. physical classrooms and virtual spaces) than now. Never before has collaboration with students
and peers and with the world been more possible than now. Yet we still educate with strict control of space.
It seems ridiculous even to think of learning spaces as confined now that students can connect with the world

thejournal.com/…/Designing-Learning-… 1/5
9/7/2009 Designing Learning Spaces for Instruct…
and glean content from everywhere.

Teachers are a vital part of the process, of course, but only one part. There are literally masses of
information available on any subject area along with direct communication, real and asynchronous, with just
about anyone anywhere in the world where there is Internet access. So why are students still taught with a
sense of restrictions? Of course, some forms of testing still demand a certainty of information, but that surely
should be the starting rather than the ending point. As educators, we don't want to focus on developing test
takers and rote repeaters of information; we aim to develop individuals who can think for themselves, find
new information, work with others toward a unified goal, and utilize all resources available to them in their
endeavors.

For instruction to move front and center of the process, teachers should
Major Characteristics
walk into (physically and virtually) any learning space as a collaborator in
of Free Design
that environment, aware that learning must take place, and thinking about
connection and networking rather than lecture and silence. Additionally, if
instruction were really to become front and center of learning space design, Customization of
students would be as responsible as the instructor or the school janitor for instructional space
how the room is set up based on the work that is to take place rather than (nothing preset and,
the work that was to take place yesterday, last week, or back on the 1950s. therefore, specific to
Teachers and students would not know exactly where the process would go the instructional
but would be excited to be involved together in such a constructive purposes of the class);
endeavor. Classroom or learning space management (or control) becomes Heightened interaction
less of a focus than learning management and facilitation. with content, peers,
teacher;
Free Design Concept Capture capabilities of
So what does the physical or virtual set up of learning space have to do with software and,
students feeling empowered and involved? The reality is that environments therefore, increased
are important when it comes to influencing perceptions and expectations distribution and
(Nancy Van Note Chism, Deborah J. Bickford, 2002). ongoing use of
resources;
Chism and Bickford cite Blackett and Stanfield (1994) as offering the Self-directed student
following basic list to keep in mind when designing an instructional space: access to resources
Plan for the full range of teaching modalities; plan for change and flexibility; outside of the class
and focus on the exchange of ideas and the acquisition of knowledge. The session.
authors also cite Jilk (1998), who adds the following to the list of desirable
qualities for a collaborative learning space:

Strong identification with the institution;

Integration within the wider community to take advantage of community-based resources;
Flexibility or adaptability;
Interaction support (creating a sense of smallness to foster work on common goals);
Access to technology; and
Support for research and service, as well as for teaching.

thejournal.com/…/Designing-Learning-… 2/5
9/7/2009 Designing Learning Spaces for Instruct…

I would add the following to the list above:

Support capture of interactions and collaborations and

Increase rather than decrease mobility.

In regular space setup, we instinctively know that the "fireplace" is set in place for a reason, and we need to
pay attention to that location, since it's from that location that all important information will flow.

Interaction Flow in a Conventional Classroom

This illustrates the conventional classroom setup most general classrooms use. The instructor/podium and
the fixed board direct the students' attention and also make it more difficult for the instructor to move that
attention beyond those confines.

In this conventional scenario, instructors must organize students into pairs or groups for heightened
interactivity and report back to the whole class, although, essentially, students remain individualized in the
learning context. Usually, these "instructor-centered" distributions depend on the instructor for all interactivity
and distribution of work. Additionally, in this scenario, students are less likely to become autonomous and
self-directed learners (a vital focus in all education) and remain dependent on their instructor to provide next
steps and needed information.

Teachers, then, who are interested in developing autonomous critical thinkers have to work extra hard to
change those perceptions and create more collaborative environments in order to increase interaction. Once
the learning time has ended, however, the space is placed back in the regular format, and students "settle
down" into the usual flow of things.

With new technology, students can be connected anytime and anywhere, and any space can become a
learning environment. So a formal structure is unnecessary, and meeting points, points of input, connection
thejournal.com/…/Designing-Learning-… 3/5
9/7/2009 Designing Learning Spaces for Instruct…
points, and application points become more important.

Interaction Flow in a Free Design Classroom

Each of these elements is outlined with a dotted line to illustrate its flexibility of position. There is no
preset focus here on a board or a teacher but on the entire class as a community of learners. Also,
learning stations are supportive of autonomous learning within a collective group as each student is also
networked and wirelessly connected to the next.

Additionally, the arrows are double-faced to illustrate that the flow is reciprocal and is as dependent
upon student input as content or instructor input. Added to this, the interaction can now be captured and
distributed beyond each class meeting and is accessible to students for further work and discussion
outside of class.

I have coined the phrase "free design" to capture the idea that learning spaces should not be constrained
anymore but be free to support the learning that is taking place and be unconstrained and flexible in time and
connectivity so that various groupings, learning partners, and projects can be configured and facilitated
within one class setting. Additionally, those connections become driven by need rather than preset by the
teacher. Therefore nothing is fixed, but everything is moveable and open. Nothing is teacher-controlled, but
everything is open to student participation and involvement. Everything is wireless and moveable. Desks are
moveable. Projections screens are on every wall surface. Computers are fully networked and not teacher-
controlled. Learning is captured and distributed beyond the time it took place so that it can be continually
accessed and built upon by other students, even in other classes. Free design means that not only is
instruction first, but perceptions are not influenced in any preset manner but are totally open to the influence
thejournal.com/…/Designing-Learning-… 4/5
9/7/2009 Designing Learning Spaces for Instruct…
of the learning process and the dynamics of direct communication and interaction.

So while we are implementing more new technologies that are flexible and mobile, it is important for us to
examine the learning spaces within which students use that technology. Do we seem to be conflicted or
caught between two worlds? As long as we retain the idea that the flow of information is from the teacher
while students are the receivers of this information, we will never maximize the potential of new technology
that can support students being front and center of the process and continuous participants in their own and
the collaborative learning of the group. Teachers must begin to really understand that learning can now be
continuous and without boundaries, and learning environments should look like we believe it.

References

Blackett, A., and Stanfield, B. "A Planner's Guide to Tomorrow's Classrooms," Planning for Higher
Education, Spring 1994, 22, 25-31.

Chism, Nancy Van Note; Bickford, Deborah J. New Directions for Teaching & Learning; Winter2002
Issue 92, p91, 7p

Jilk, B. A. "Designing a Model for the College Campus of the Future," AI Architect, Apr. 1998.

About the Author

Ruth Reynard is the dean of faculty services for Career Education Corp. She can be reached at
rreynard@careered.com.

thejournal.com/…/Designing-Learning-… 5/5