 |
| Photo credit: DLR Group |
It
is argued here that flexibility is just one component of designing to support
intended behaviors, and the design community perhaps interprets the word
differently than the education community.
Designing
for flexibility is often the ‘go to’ for classroom solutions. A general
understanding is that a flexible design “adapts to new situations,” and when
incorporating it one is attempting to have a one-size-fits all solution set up
for a variety of teaching practices. It suggests if a flexible solution is used,
all design issues are solved, and teaching practices are made easy no matter
how one delivers one’s practice. Design solutions must support the users’ needs
and intended behaviors —that’s a given. But do designers and educators speak
the same language and have the same inference regarding terms? Let’s examine
the design and teaching practices continuums along with what we know about how
we learn, and then provide some linkages in terms of language and solutions.
How
we learn is being studied ever more intensely by brain scientists than ever
before. We know so much more about how we learn, what it takes to stay focused
and why engagement in one’s learning is key to overall student success
according to research findings[1],[2],[3].
That evidence indicates sitting still is not conducive to learning. We need to
move to learn and we need to stand to stay focused longer. Research further
argues it is OK for the mind to drift; in fact it must, as focusing for too
long is just not possible. Our brains can truly focus for about 10-15 minutes
and then need a break. Postural change helps us all particularly when we are
working on computers and focusing or working on a particular problem; standing
up, sitting down and lying down should all be considered.
And
the more we can connect students emotionally to the learning tasks/problems kinesthetically [through our senses] the more information is retained. As
advanced learning designs supporting active learning increase and classrooms
are replaced with ‘learning suites and maker spaces,’ we have the opportunity
to challenge and invent a new language, bridging the perceived gap between
design’s language and the educator’s. Thus, this article presents the 3 F’s, or
F3 – Fixed, Flexible and Fluid. The information shared here is an
attempt to bridge a perceived gap in language between a design language and a
teaching practice language. F3’s are explained first from a design
solution perspective and then from a teaching strategy one.
This
article suggests design solutions work within a continuum of F3 –
Fixed, Flexible and Fluid. It is this continuum that needs
further explanation and understanding.
FIXED represents all of
those items physically built into the infrastructure of a building. In other
words, if you turned a building upside down those items would not fall out.
Examples include cabinetry, bolted down seating, and of course the building’s
entire structure and infrastructure.
FLEXIBLE may translate into
several design opportunities. Solutions are often categories as items with
castors, fairly lightweight tables easily moved, and items that are
‘wrenchable,’ but all with predictable and set patterns for alteration. An
example of wrenchable might be an open office cubicle situation. It can be
moved, but not easily, but it is not built into the building. The challenge
with ‘flexible’ is that most often furnishings are heavy, or awkward and thus
not easily reconfigured. So, guess what? They don’t get reconfigured. In fact,
these flexible places become more fixed just for the fact that items are not
easy to move.
FLUID in the design
sense might translate to a swivel seat on a chair, a clicker that allows for a
digital screen to be changed, and lights/temperature changed with the flick of
a control — perhaps like a Google home devise. Little movement or rearrangement
is required in a fluid situation, and all are not predictable. Where students
choose to move in a chair with wheels is not necessarily in a specific pattern.
If these examples illustrate a ‘design language’ for educators to interpret,
how might designers interpret the educators’ needs with a variety of teaching
practices?
Teaching
practices have a continuum of sorts as well from the very traditional lecture
to a simultaneous, multi-modal strategy, to a fully operational
tinker/maker/production space as some of the most creative. Each of these
practices elicits strategies and places that must support them. Types of
strategies might also include problem-based, project-based, inquiry-based, etc.
approaches to deliver content. A lecture as we have come to understand it is
teacher-centric. The teacher comes in prepared to share knowledge and may utilize
a projector and screen to support a visual connection to the content
accompanying the verbal one. Often we think of the design solutions as fixed
seating, or tiered lecture halls. Here students should be in active listening
mode, perhaps taking notes, but nothing more is typically expected.
In
the second practice described, it could be likened to a one-room schoolhouse,
or more student-focused. Thus, in a simultaneous, multi-modal strategy,
multiple learning activity situations, and content delivery approaches are
going on at the same time and in fact some students may be leading certain
components while the educator leads others. One-to-one, peer-to-peer and small
group to whole group situations strategies are incorporated. Here the educator
is more of the ‘guide on the side’ acting as a facilitator allowing students to
discover on their own in a pre-planned and purposeful strategy(ies). Multiple
types of postures, equipment, technologies and places within a room(s) are
needed to orchestrate these situations successfully — a fluid solution is best
here. For example, the simplest and most impactful furniture solution for fluid
connection is a swivel chair. The individual does not have to reconfigure
anything and can simply and easily move slightly or swivel entirely without
getting out of one’s seat. He/she can connect to others, or see content
wherever it might be presented.
The
third scenario, or a creative space, acts in much the same way as the
multimodal ones, is still student-centric, however depending upon the type and
more importantly the equipment required; a balance must be struck between
students being on their own and the educator directing their discovery. This
type of pedagogical practice is more likened to an apprentice / master one. As
equipment and access to tools are most often needed, this type of space may be
designed supporting a fixed to flexible solutions.
This
article has explored the language given to F3, or fixed, flexible
and fluid, in an attempt to align design language to the language of teaching
strategies. The bottom line is both design and pedagogy solutions need all
three F’s; essential for appropriate advanced learning solutions. However, we
seem to have a design predisposition to the fixed and the flexible ones. It is
further argued here to be truly active as an educator and to have students
actively engage in their learning processes, we need to push the boundaries of
fluid. Easy access and ability to follow content wherever it may be displayed,
shared, talked about could be a new driver. As active learning practices
increase in more advanced learning places, it is ever more important to allow
for fluid and quick transitions from individual work to small group work and
back again.
“Dr. Lennie” is a leading thinker on the evolution of what we know
about learning, the learner and the learning place has pioneered research
strategies addressing how the built environment impacts student engagement
factors and learner success, and has designed future-focused, evidence-based
design applications for 20+ years. Currently, she is the Owner / Principal of
INSYNC: Education Research + Design. She is also acting as the Education
Research Leader for DLR Group’s K12 Education Practice. She was formerly the
founding Director of Education Environments Globally for Steelcase Education;
tenured, full-professor and chair of two design schools; Director of the iLAB
Research Center, Radford University; professional interior designer, author,
published researcher, national and international speaker.
[1]Scott-Webber, L., Konyndyk, R., French, R., Lembke, J.,
& Kinney, T. (2017). Spatial design makes a difference in student academic
engagement levels: A pilot study for grades 9-12. European Scientific Journal. 13(16), ISSN: 1857-7881 Doi:
10.19044/esj.2017.v13n16p5.
[2]
Kilbourne, J., Scott-Webber, L., & Kapitula,
L.R. (2017). An activity-permissible
classroom: Impacts of an evidence-based design solution on student engagement
and movement in an elementary school classroom. Children, Youth and Environments 27(1): 112-134.
[3]
Nissim, Y., Weissblueth, E., Scott-Webber, L.
& Amar, S. (2016). The effect of a new stimulating learning environment on
pre-service teachers’ motivation and 21st century skills. Journal of Education and Learning: Vol. 5,
No. 3. pp. 29-39. Doi:10.5539/jel.v5n3p29.
No comments:
Post a Comment