Pedagogy and Facilities

8/6/2019 Pedagogy and Facilities

1/99

Innovative Pedagogyand SchoolFacilities

The story of the MET School in Rhode Island:

a drama, history, doctoral thesis, and design manifesto.Elliot Washor

DesignShare.com


2/99

i

Copyright 2003DesignShare.com and Elliot Washor

DesignShare.com and Elliot Washor grant the holder of this publication limitedpermission to print and/or copy selections of this copyrighted publication for

nonprofit and educational use, provided that reprints or excerpts include astatement that the material is copied from

Innovative Pedagogy and School Facilities

2003 DesignShare.com and Elliot Washor.All rights reserved.

Acknowledgments

This document is based on a dissertation entitled Translating Innovative PedagogicalDesigns Into School Facilities Designs, submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education, Johnson & Wales University,Providence, Rhode Island, Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership

The people who helped me with this project contributed their time, thoughtfulnessand energy into making an academic work into something real for children andcommunities. Few who walk the school grounds will know the contributions of thesededicated people. Thanks to Charlie Mojkowski, my advisor and friend who made thisdissertation happen and made me see what I needed to see. Thanks to Seymour Sarason,one of my life long mentors for signing on. Thanks to Laura Westberg and Brian Millsfor their countless hours of time in making the - Metropolitan Regional Career andTechnical Center, The Met (a public, four-year high school that integrates academic andapplied learning) a reality. Thanks to Melody Williams, who just did it, wheneversomething needed to get done. Thanks, Dennis Littky, my life long mentor and friend, forhis encouragement. Thanks to my family for their patience. And finally, thanks toCincinnatus and Frederick Olmsted for having walked here before and left the footprintsfor me to see.

DesignShare.com is thankful for copyediting by Susan Lee Meisel andillustrations by Berliner & Associates, Concordia LLC, and Mahlum Architects.

Cover Art: Collage of MET Exterior view by Concordia LLC and photo of HighSchool for Recording Arts (Hip Hop High) by Randall Fielding.


3/99

ii

Table of

Contents

Page

Acknowledgments..

List of Tables.List of Figures

List of Photographs and Illustrations List of Appendices

Abstract..

i

iiiiv

iviv

v

I. INTRODUCTIONStatement of the Problem.Research Objectives and Questions..Definition of Terms.Background of the Study..Methods and Procedures.Limitations and Delimitations .

Actions to Result from the Research

1123356

6

II. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH AND LITERATURE...School Facilities Design..Learning EnvironmentsInterest and MotivationCareer and Technical Schools...Small SchoolsSummary of the Literature Review

771015171921

III. RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY...

Research Design.Data SourcesInstruments..Data Collection.Data AnalysisLimitations and Delimitations.

IV. FINDINGS......................................................................................History of the Met Design...Group One: Unique Design SchoolsGroup Two: Met Design Schools..A Special Case: The New Rhode Island Training School

Political Forces..Social Forces.Economic Forces..Principles and Practices: Design Accommodation.Innovation vs. TraditionAccommodation..Impediments and Facilitators

24

242425252626

2728353740

43515560656872


4/99

iii

V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.Summary of LiteratureSummary of Principal Findings.DiscussionThe Mental Model

Language and IdeasPolitical..No Backsliding.Design ProcessEconomicsRecommendations..Integrated Design Process.Actions Resulting from the Research

REFERENCES...........................................................................................

List of Tables

Table 1: Timeline of Major Events.

Table 2: Innovative School Site..

Table 3: Forces at Work: Political, Social, and Economic.

Table 4: Committee Members.

Table 5: Pro-rating of Bond Funds..

Table 6: Design Elements Included or Excluded from the Project

Table 7: Chart of Design Innovations..

Table 8: Chart of School Facilities Design Processes..

Table 9: Facilitators and Impediments to Translation

Table 10: Alignment and Non-Alignment.

Table 11: Facilitators and Impediments

7575768080

8182828284868787

89

29

42

43

47

56

58

68

73

77

79

80


5/99

iv

List of Figures

Figure 1: Educational Facilities Design: Relationships BetweenConstructs.

Figure 2: Interaction of Forces at Work and Tensions Impacting theTranslation Process.

Figure 3: Forces at Work in the Translation Process.

Figure 4: Roles and Relationships of Constituents Involved inDecision-Making on the Met Facilities Project.

Figure 5: Roles and Relationships of Constituents Involved inDecision-Making Groups.

Figure 6: Tensions Between the Program and Facilities PrinciplesPractices

List of Photographs and Illustrations

High Tech High -- Los Angeles

Truman High School .

Birds Eye View of the Met Campus .

The Metropolitan Regional Career and Technical Center.

MET East Small School

MET West Small School

List of Appendices

A. National Architects and Designers Consulted

B Interview Questions

23

27

43

46

53

60

4

36

61

62

63

64

93

93


6/99

v

Abstract

Several forces are converging to place school facilities designparticularly highschool facilities designat the center of national attention: 1) a resurgence of interest in highschool reform, particularly focused on personalizing learning; 2) the growing number ofalternatives to traditional high schools; 3) a crumbling physical infrastructure; and 4) a

recognition that the prevailing physical characteristics of high schools serve as substantialimpediments to fundamental reform.

When form follows function prevails as a design principle and the function is shiftingfundamentally to address such concepts as meeting student interests, school facilities will needto accommodate different learning styles and contexts. Each set of stakeholders, however, willsee the concept differently and imagine a different physical space. What are the forces at workand the tensions impacting these innovative school designs? How can we document and makesense of the process of translating innovative pedagogical designs into facilities designs?

This research examines the translation of innovative and complex school reformmodels, based upon nontraditional pedagogical models, into school facilities designs. Thisresearch identifies key factors facilitating and impeding the translation process. In addition, theresearch examines the dynamics of relationships between the numerous constituencies involved

in the design process to understand how these relationships affect the translation process. Aqualitative approach using in-depth case studies of a high schools facilities design process wasemployed. Interviews, analysis of the minutes of design and construction meetings,observation of the design process, and an analysis of the design drawings were used.

The research found three major forces at work. Several recommendations are made foraddressing these issues. The results will improve educators understanding of school facilitiesdesign processes and recommend approaches educators need to take in order to assure that theirpedagogical designs get translated appropriately into physical designs. The research will alsoaffirm the importance of the development of hypotheses for investigating specific forces andvariables more precisely and intensively. Such research will support improved facilitiesplanning for new schools and future plans to enhance student learning.


7/99

1 DesignShare.com Innovative Pedagogy and School Facilities

I. INTRODUCTION

Several forces are converging to place schoolfacilities design-- particularly high school facilitiesdesign--at the center of national attention. Theseforces include: 1) a resurgence of interest in high

school reform, particularly focused on personalizinglearning (Littky & Allen, 1999); 2) the burgeoningnumber of alternatives to traditional high schools(Nathan, 1998) 3) a crumbling physical infrastructure(Moore & Lackney, 1994); and 4) a recognition thatthe prevailing physical characteristics of high schoolsserve as substantial impediments to fundamentalreform (Copa, 2000).

Currently $20 billion is spent annually on theconstruction of new schools (Nair, 2002). According toWhat If, a report funded by the James IrvineFoundation in California, these facilities are "dinosaurs

the day they open" (Bingler, 1999). One key factorcontributing to the perception of these schools as"dinosaurs" is their large size plus their inabilityaccommodate any redesign of a curriculum and createan environment that matches the new design. Researchon small schools points to the benefits of developingsmall intimate settings for all schools and in particularhigh schools (Breaking Ranks, 1996; Klonsky, 1995).In October of 1998, the U.S. Department of Educationand the White House Millennium Council cosponsoreda conference on school design that came up with thefollowing design principles for educational facilities: Enhance teaching and learning and accommodate

all learners.

Serve as centers of community. Involve all stakeholders in the planning/design

process. Provide for health, safety and security. Make effective use of all available resources. Allow for flexibility and adaptability to changing

needs.These principles underscore the critical need to

design schools that enhance teaching and learning forall students. A national survey of teachers, principals,and assistant principals found that 96 percent thoughtschool design was an important part of a good learningenvironment (Shapiro, 1998). Not only is it importantto design schools that are small, safe, and flexible; it isalso essential for school facilities to contribute toimproving education. The facilities design mustenhance learning, where form follows function.

The facilities educators create for the newpedagogies will need to be very different from those in

the past. What happens, however, when form followsfunction and the function is a shifting, sometimesamorphous concept such as meeting student interests ordeveloping student projects? How do we build afacility that supports student work in outdoor settings?Each set of the stakeholders will see the conceptdifferently and imagine a different physical space for

its support. What and who are the impediments to thesechanges? How do educators, policymakers, architects,and construction specialists negotiate new educationalfacilities that reflect programmatic innovation with abroad constituency of groups?

Statement of the Problem

The principle of form follows functionprevails in designing high school facilities. Mostschool structures parallel their program designs that arefocused on subjects, periods, classes, and so forth. Theprevailing facilities design is part of the DNA of high

schools. The image that architects and communitymembers have of high schools is hard-wired as well.Despite the program design sessions that architectsemploy with educators, facilities design occurs withina narrowly constrained paradigm of learning, learners,and learning environments (Bingler, 1999; Copa, 1999;Fielding, 1999).

The education industry is currently developinginnovative alternatives to the prevailing system(Nathan, 2000). As these new school reform modelsemerge, it is likely that pressures will increase for thedevelopment of a new paradigm for high school

facilities themselves. Truly fundamental andinnovative high school reforms will be at dissonancewith traditional school facilities design. Structures thatare large, compartmentalized, all-inclusive, andisolated from the community will not support suchreforms. The facilities that educators create for the newpedagogies they want will need to be very differentfrom those of the past. School facilities built in the lastone hundred years reflect a factory model of education(Washor, 1996). In these facilities, students wereinstructed and directed to regurgitate facts rather thantaught to use their minds well and solve problems that

do not have canned answers. It was therefore relativelyeasy to create space that was inflexible and used for thesole purpose of delivering the same information toeach student period after period (Copa, 2000; Fielding,1999, May).

How can we document and make sense of theprocess of translating innovative pedagogical designsinto facilities designs? Can we derive principles andguidelines for designing school buildings that are


8/99


consistent with contemporary knowledge aboutlearners, learning, and learning environments?This research addresses these and related questions byexamining the design and construction of an innovativehigh school.

The Metropolitan Regional Career and TechnicalCenter (the Met) is a public, four-year high school that

integrates academic and applied learning. The Met ismanaged by The Big Picture Company, a nonprofitorganization. The researcher is co-director and co-founder of The Big Picture Company andsuperintendent, as well as co-founder and co-director,of the Met Schools. The Met is a small school thatcombines classroom learning with real worldinternships; it engages teachers, mentors, and familymembers to create personalized learning plans for eachstudent, and it uses comprehensive assessment tools tomeasure students performance (Steinberg, 1998).

The Met educates one student at a time,

involving students in real work with activities outsidethe school. Each student is a member of a fourteen-student advisory group led by the same teacher for allof the students four years at the Met. The curriculumgoals address empirical, social, and quantitativereasoning, as well as communication and personalqualities. Students follow their own learning plans toreach these goals, focused on their own interests andpassions. They must demonstrate theiraccomplishments and capabilities through multipledemonstrations, including exhibitions and portfolios.

The Met enrolled its first class of freshmen in

the fall of 1996. Currently located at two campuses inProvidence, the Met will grow to a projectedenrollment of 660 students by 2002 and will be housedin eight small schools with a shared commons. Thedesign and construction of the Mets facilities iscurrently under way.

The Mets learning signature of educating onestudent at a time in a community of learners is welloutside the mainstream and is likely to remain so forsome time. Nevertheless, the Big Picture Company, thenonprofit educational organization that developed theprogrammatic and physical design for the Met for theRhode Island Department of Education, has received a$4 million grant from the Gates Foundation to supportthe creation of additional Met-like schools throughoutthe country. As Big Picture seeks to advise others, itwill be important to include, in its package of technicalassistance and support, guidelines for facilities design.Such advice and guidelines require a thoroughunderstanding of the facilities design process asapplied to highly innovative pedagogical designs.Without such an understanding, it is possible that those

who wish to replicate the Met design will createfacilities that actually impede their goals.

Research Objectives and Questions

School buildings rarely reflect state-of-the-artpedagogical designs (Bingler, 1999; Copa, 1999;Fielding, 1999, May). Although much has been learned

over the last ten to fifteen years about learners,learning, and learning environments, theseunderstandings seldom influence the design of schoolbuildings.

The research is addressed to these majorquestions and several subsidiary questions:

Research Question 1: What are the forces atwork in translating an innovative pedagogical andorganizational school design into a facilities design?

Three specific questions are examined as theyrelate to this major research question:

1.1 What are the key factors that

support or impede the translationprocess?

1.2 What are the dynamics of therelationships between thenumerous constituencies involvedin the process for designing andconstructing schools and how dothese dynamics affect thetranslation process?

1.3 What aspects of the Met programpedagogical design are viewed asessential by those constituencies?

Research Question 2: How do prevailingprinciples and practices of school facilities designaccommodate the translation of innovative pedagogicaland organizational school designs?

Three specific questions are examined as theyrelated to this major research question:

2.1 How does the Mets programdesign align with prevailing ideasof school architecture andconstruction?

2.2 How well do prevailing schoolfacilities design processes

accommodate the essential Metprogram design components?2.3 What aspects of prevailing school

facilities design processes impedeor facilitate the translationprocess?

These questions guided the development ofspecific interview questions and the identification ofpatterns and themes in the field notes and analysis ofrelevant documents.


9/99


Definition of Terms

Innovative.New to a situation, context, orenvironment. In this research, the term was used tomean both new and non-traditional. The Met design, asis the case of many alternative schools, is in sharpcontrast to traditional models of schools and schooling.Pedagogical design. The design of student learning

opportunities and environments was based onliterature, research, and best practice.

Background of the Study

Designing a school facility where theeducational practices personalize and promote bothone-student-at-a-time learning and build a communityof learners is the key focus of the Met. This researchwill add to the scant body of materials presentlyavailable through data collection, design, andconstruction of the Mets new facility.

Five areas of research exist for both the

theoretical and conceptual framework of researchingand designing a small school facility that support thepursuit of student interest (interest-based learning).They are:

1. Interest and Motivation2. Small Schools3. School to Career4. Educational Design5. Learning Environments

Interest and MotivationThe notion of using student interest has its

theoretical roots with many philosophers and researchstudies. In Jamess (1890), Deweys (1896), andMontessoris (1966) work, student interest is the firstand foremost place to start education. Grubb (1995),Csikszentmihalyi (1988), Cremin (1975), Sarason(1972), refer to Deweys work on the pursuit of studentinterest as the practice in schools that would educateyouth in a way that produces an educated citizenry.The research in educational psychology and neurology(Caine, 1998), (Wilson, 1998), (Hillman, 1996) pointto the pursuit of student interest as a key factor in long-term, lifelong learning. Wilson (1998, p. 292) argues

that schools should be places where students use theirinterests through hands-on experiences. He states"Almost all children who prove to be successful long-term learners initiate a series of successfulprofessional apprenticeships before reaching theirteens. This is the ideal time for apprenticeship: theunique adult-child relationship, usually outside theimmediate family, in which the childs imaginationattaches to mature goals and to a mentor whos caring

both about the child and about the activity can haveenormous long-range consequences."

The National Educational Longitudinal Study(1998) and the Valedictorian Study (Arnold, 1995)further point out the deficiencies in our schools that arecontent driven and turn out students who may evenlearn to do well in schools but cant transfer school

learning to learning in the world outside of school. Inall of this work, it is difficult to point to actual designsof what a school facility looks like that carries outinterest-based learning, nor are there school facilitiesthat are pointed to as examples of places where thepursuit of ones interest is a practice.

In many instances (Bloom, 1985) wherestudents have identified talents that could be nurturedin our schools, our schools fail our most creative, thosewho are potentially our most creative, and our mostpromising because they dont provide the necessaryprograms or learning environments for them to

succeed.

Small SchoolsThere is abundant research on small schools

versus large schools and the benefit of small schools(Cotton, 1994). The research on small schoolscontinues to point to their benefit in urban areas(Klonsky, 1995). Although this research addresses thethemes or predispositions of many of the small schoolsin terms of their philosophy and pedagogy, rarely has aschool facility been built around these learningsignatures (Lawton, 1999). Some examples of

buildings designed and built around learning signaturesare:

The Fannie Lou Hamer School, New York City,built around a Habits of Mind theme (Washor,1996)

The School for Environmental Studies, AppleValley, MN, environmental theme

The Eagle Rock School, Estes Park, CO, care-taking, ecology and service themes

High Tech High, San Diego (Pearlman, 2002)Educational Leadership around personalization,real world learning, and intellectual capital.

Even in these schools, research is scant as tohow these learning signatures are translated intophysical designs. What were the compromises andimpediments to translating these learning signaturesinto educational facilities? Was the vision of themembers of the design team in each of these buildingprojects aligned with the programmatic design?

In the area of vocational and technicaleducation, the National Center for RestructuringVocational Education has been working with the


10/99


Council of Educational Facility Planners to look atchanging school facilities for career and technicaleducation. Although the New Urban High SchoolProject, funded by the United States Department ofEducation, examined a series of vocational highschools that were selected based on their innovativeschool reform programs, there was little discussion in

their programmatic principles or design plansregarding what a school facility should look like(Riordan, 1998).

Vocational, career, and technical schools havetraditionally had features of their programmatic designas part of their physical design. The issues at many ofthese schools are that although they have programs thatinterest students, the practices many times disconnectacademic work and maintain so much control that theexperiences themselves tend to fall far short of theirpotential.

Recently,

the director of theNew Urban HighSchools project,Larry Rosenstock,started High TechHigh, a charterschool in San Diegothat encompassesthe designprinciples of theNew Urban HighSchool. This

schools thematicand eclecticapproach to practiceincludes interest-based internships,and project-basedlearning in a personalized environment. This design isreflective of their philosophy and practice. The schoolopened in September 2000, but how much of theirfacilities design is really responding to their philosophyand school culture?

School to CareerSchool to Career with its emphasis on

workforce development programs use the resources ofthe worksites and attempts linkages back at school, butthere is the constant concern that schools are notequipped well enough to connect student work beingdone in the workplace with the work back at school(Riordan, 1998). In most cases, their practices ofconnecting academic and thematic education are onlymarginally connected, and we end up with schools thathave not done much to redesign their existing space.

Recently, Peter McWalters, Commissioner ofEducation, submitted his findings on the breakdown ofcost per pupil of all the career and technical schools inRhode Island. This presentation showed that the careerand technical schools budgets separated academiclearning from career and technical and in essence wereseparate programs with little integration between

academic and career and technical (Capital TV -Education Budget Hearings, 2000). In conclusion,there are two separately existing spaces to educatestudents, one for academic, and one for career andtechnical.

Educational DesignIn the area of educational design and learning

environments, there is little research on school designand its effects on teaching and learning (Lawton,

1999). George H. Copa,professor of education at

Oregon State University,expects results in June2003 from a study he isconducting on how theinnovative designs at analternative high school inSt. Louis, MO, and theSchool of EnvironmentalStudies affect learning.

For a study, TheCenter for WorkforceDevelopment at The

Education DevelopmentCenter in Newton, MA,observed and collecteddata at the MotorolaCorporation and SiemensPower and Transmission

and Distribution. Their findings have implications forschools regarding how people learn in corporatecultures. Their findings conclude that people learn bestin one on one and small-group settings and thatfacilities need to be designed to foster such meetings.(Stamps, 1998).

Copas (1999) study also recommends openingnew schools to the community. Family engagement atthe high school level is one such priority. What is thespace that is needed that engages families around theirstudents? They will need to have meetings andsee theirchildren perform.

Learning EnvironmentsIf students interests are engaged and learning

environments exist both inside and outside the schoolbuilding, the technology is the glue that will hold this

High Tech High-Los Angeles, Berliner & AssociatesDesignShare 2003 Citation Award Winner, plans at:

http://www.designshare.com/Awards/2003


11/99


together (Schank, 1999). How can putting computers inschools increase students interest in their projectsoutside the school building, and how can it supporttheir work when they are back at school?

The notion that school design must remainflexible and yet accommodate school programs is aperplexing problem. Space has been multipurpose for

years, but there is also the type of flexibility that needsto be imposed that allows a school to change its spaceto accommodate new programmatic designs. In thepast, when flexible walls have been installed, therehave been little changes made to the physical design.

All of the above theoretical and conceptualframeworks are connected to the development ofcomplex pedagogical designs. Few have taken on thetask of translating these designs into physical designs,and when they have, research is slim as to whether theyhave been successful in what they have sought to do.They show that there is a pressing need for research on

the design, development, and connection of a schoolsfacilities to their actual programs. This proposedresearch will not only help other schools using the Metas a model but will be "an oasis in a desert," wherethere is a resurgence of energy around student interest,innovative educational programs, and a school facility.

Montessoris (Montessori, 1966) learningenvironment aligns with form follows function, wherestudents use their hands and minds in a variety ofdifferent areas of the room specifically designed forlanguage, math, and sensory exploration. Heredifferent classroom tools are put in specific places

for specific uses for math, language, and movement.The spaces reflect the practices in which students areengaged around their interests. What do these spaceslook like compared with other educational designs?

Roger Schank (1999) points out that schoolsneed three environments to provide for learning. Theyare focused work, collaborative work (social), andhands-on project work. These spaces can be eitherinside or outside of a school. He comments that thereare very few schools he has been able to identify thatfollow his model.

Both Schank and the Mets philosophy entertain a

different notion of what space outside of a communitymight become as part of the learning environment of aschool. For example, when parents enter onto the sceneof learning in meaningful ways, the space of a facilitymust also flex and change. At the Met, spaces areneeded for private meetings around learning planswhere parents are now part of a learning plan team(Littky, 2000). The issue of space and programs are tooimmense and complicated to resolve as new learningenvironments.

Methods and ProceduresThis qualitative research employed a case

study design as its major methodology (Yin, 1994).The study investigated from several perspectives theschool facilities design process employed to design thenew Met school. Such a methodology is most

appropriate for describing, understanding, andexplaining a phenomenon (Merriam, 1998).Qualitative researchers are interested in understandingthe meaning people have constructed, that is, how theymake sense of their world and the experiences theyhave in the world. (Merriam, 1998, p.6).

The case study employed several data sourcesand methodologies addressed to the major researchquestions that included people, events, and documents.Methodologies included literature reviews, interviews,participant observation, and document analysis.

The research was conducted in two stages.

Stage 1 included a detailed literature review andanalysis, which was ongoing throughout the researchand integrated into data analysis. Also in this stage, theresearcher interviewed and consulted with severalnational architects and school facilities designers inorder to identify specific variables of interest related tothe major research questions. The outcome of stageone activities was a specific list of variables that wereused to identify probes within the major questions.

Stage 2 employed in-depth interviews,participant observations, and document reviews.Interviews were conducted in waves followed by

analysis, and additional interviews of key informantscontinued until data saturation was achieved. Keyinformant groups included architects, educators,parents, and government officials. Observation notesand document analyses were conducted to triangulateon key variables that emerge. The researcher collectedextensive information from all design meetingsconducted through March 2002. There data wasanalyzed using appropriate quantitative methodologies(Miles & Huberman, 1994). The analysis converged ona small set of dimensions that appeared to bestilluminate the dynamics of the design process andprovided the most explanatory power to support highinternal validity and to support limited externalvalidity.

Several events were documented:1. Facilities Meetings2. Minority Business and Women Business

Enterprise meetings3. Community meetings4. Construction Meetings


12/99


The researcher used personal journals to recalland analyze observations about meetings and designiterations. All stakeholders were interviewed with a setof questions. The stakeholders included staff from theDepartment of Administration, the Department ofEducation, the architectural firm Concordia, staff,students, and parents at the Met, and Minority Business

Enterprise. The researcher took the necessary license toprobe when responses triggered a further elaboration ofanswers.

The researcher collected and analyzed datafrom the minutes of the facilities meetings to identifydecisions made about the facilities design that eitherincorporated, or failed to incorporate, the keyprogrammatic features. The researcher conducted acontent analysis of the minutes of community meetingsand charettes, reviewed the design plans, and reviewedthe entire Met project.

Data collection included interviews with other

educators and architects who believed their programstranslated complex pedagogical designs into facilities.Their programmatic signatures were identified andthey described the physical features of these learningsignatures. What were the manifestations of theirprogram? What were the problems they had intranslating these designs and with whom?

Limitations and DelimitationsThe use of multiple methodologies and

multiple data sources that focused on a select set ofvariables produced strong internal validity. The

potential for bias inherent in participant observationwas balanced by interviews and document analyses toensure a robust triangulation on the variables ofinterest.

As in most qualitative research, externalvalidity was limited to the match between theparticular research setting and other external settings.While the Met design is highly innovative and atypical,its particulars do not compromise substantially theability to generalize to other situations in whichfacilities are designed to accommodate highlyinnovative educational designs. It is up to the reader todecide if the political, organizational, financial, social,and educational circumstances are sufficiently similarto justify generalizability to other settings. The analysisyielded valuable insights and recommendationsregarding the facilities design process to those chargedwith designing facilities that support high schoolreform.

Actions to Result from This ResearchThe Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

awarded the Big Picture Company $4 million to start

twelve Met-like schools in twelve cities around thecountry. The results of this study were utilized in thedesign process and in influencing the design of thesefuture schools. Beyond this immediate need, there is agrowing sense from the work of reform efforts--likethe Big Picture Companys, The Centers forCollaborative Education in New York and Boston, and

The United States Department of Educations SmallLearning Communities Grants--that research onfacilities design and new practices to help designfuture facilities will need major overhaul in the comingyears.


13/99


II. Review and Analysis of Research andLiterature

In a recent commentary in Education Week,Prakash Nair, international planner and architect, statedthat America spends more than $20 billion annually tobuild and renovate schools with little thought as towhether these funds are supporting or improving

learning (Nair, 2002). He points out that most facilitiesprojects focus on creating safe, clean, and comfortableschools but they do not focus on how they improvelearning.

The images he ascribes to schools as beingplaces to "warehouse children" (p.60) are juxtaposedagainst an education and construction industry in thebusiness of school construction that is "literallydesigned to weed out any potential for a completelycreative solution (p.60)." This is why so many schoolslook alike and design doesn't change.

The problem of translating pedagogical

designs into facilities has political, economic, andsocial forces at play that work hard to keep schoolbuildings as they have been for the last 100 years. Thespecialty areas involved in school design, construction,and education have been regulated so much that thebest of intentions are constantly being met with failureto produce schools with better learning environments.

This review seeks to find evidence in theresearch regarding the ways in which complexpedagogical designs get transformed into facilitiesdesigns. Facilities design is examined from theperspective of architects, educational researchers,

psychologists, and school practitioners. Theseperspectives encompass five major areas of educationalresearch and literature that are closely connected todesign elements in the Metropolitan Regional Careerand Technical Center (The Met):1. School Facilities Design2. Learning Environments3. Interest and Motivation4. Career and Technical Education5. Small Schools

The review was organized in this manner tofacilitate an understanding of the existence and extentof dissonance or agreement among and between theseperspectives for translating pedagogical designs intofacilities designs. The summary of the review placesthe context of the analysis in relation to the Met andguides the identification of specific research questions.

School Facilities Design"We shape our dwellings and afterwards ourdwellings shape us."Winston Churchill

In a 1995New York Times article, RecordCost Cited to Rebuild Nations Schools,Applebomereported on the state of school buildings. The articlediscussed Illinois Senator Carol Mosely-Brauns battlefor federal funding to rebuild the nations schools at anestimated cost of $112 billion. Mosely-Braun asked,"Are we providing the physical environment for

education our children need as they go into the nextcentury? The answer is a resounding no. (Applebome,1995, p.1). The article reported that the United StatesDepartment of Education spent $20 million in 1995 torenovate its headquarters, while turning down $100million earmarked for school renovations. Applebomecited data from the American Association of SchoolAdministrators indicating that of all the nationsschools, almost a third were built before the 1950s andforty-three percent were built in the 1950s and 1960s.Virtually all of these facilities are due for replacementbecause of their poor condition or because their

configuration and technological capabilities areinadequate for the demands of current education.Applebome reported that issues of class size,

standards and assessment, and teacher salaries are indirect competition for funds to build and renovateschools. He quoted Jeff Schneider, political analyst forthe National Education Association, as stating, "Butmerely having a brand new building with lots of stuffdoes not guarantee high achievement. That has more todo with the decision making around each child andtheir education" (p.1). This comment remains asimportant today as it was in 1995. Indeed, the comment

may be even more important today because schools arebeing built, as the research shows, with little evidencethat architects, politicians, educators, and researchersunderstand that facilities design decisions should bemade around each child and each childs education.

By mid-December 2000, the emphasis onschool construction had changed dramatically. BothHouses of Congress passed a year-end budgetagreement that included major increases in schoolconstruction. Outgoing Education Secretary Rileyurged the passing of a United States House ofRepresentatives bill sponsored by RepresentativesCharles Rangel (D-NY) and Nancy Johnson (R-CT)containing a proposal to allocate $24 billion forinterest-free school construction bonds. Although thebill did not pass, the school construction business isbooming with no slowdown in sight. Reports are thatschool construction could top $300 billion during thenext decade. Some experts are reporting that multi-million dollar projects are attracting no bidders becauseof the high level of activity in the school constructionbusiness. David Soleau, President of Flansburgh &Associates, Incorporated, a Boston architectural firm


14/99


specializing in school construction, states that drivingthis increase in construction is the fact that there aremore kids now in school than in the 1950's and 1960'sand all those kids have to sit somewhere" (Singer,2001, p. 56).

Is increasing seating capacity driving thedesign of schools? Or, as Schneider says, does design

have more to do with decision making around eachchild and his or her education? What are the realpolitical, economic, and social forces at work that stopthe design of schools from focusing on each child?

The educational research on the effects ofschool design on teaching and learning reachesconflicting conclusions. Lawton (1999) reports thatthere is little research on school design and its effectson teaching and learning. Conversely, Lackney (1993)reports on a number of empirical studies researchingthe explicit relationships between facilitycharacteristics and educational outcomes.

In a series of articles in The New York Times,Ted Fiske (1990) reported that certain designcharacteristics, such as school size, classroom size andlocation, and the provision of secluded study spaces,all make substantial differences in learning outcomes.In particular, school size and classroom size made adifference in academic achievement. The discrepancyregarding whether there is scant research or ampleempirical evidence may lie in the interpretation of whatconstitutes research on school design and innovativeschool design.

One can easily find research on the topic of

environmental concerns and school design. DiNocola(1996) reports that in the 1980s the prevalence ofasthma grew by 60 percent. Today asthma is theleading cause of school absenteeism. Thirty-onepercent of public schools in the United States werebuilt before World War II. These schools have a lifespan of about fifty years. Another 43 percent of publicschools were constructed during the 1950s and 1960s;the life span of these schools is about thirty years. Inaddition to having poor air circulation, these buildingshave many exposed hazardous chemicals as thebuildings deteriorate. Such chemicals cause a healthhazard to young children who are even moresusceptible than adults to respiratory infection and leadpoisoning. Although drawing from an environmentalstandpoint, DiNocola reaches the same conclusion: Thenation's schools are in need of $112 billion in repair.Yet, year after year proposals from federal, state, andlocal governments are, for the most part, turned down(DiNocola, 1996).

There is also evidence that, in addition tohealth issues, school design is affected by otherenvironmental factors that have little to do with

pedagogical reasons for design changes, but rather forhow healthy facilities can impact learning. InA PatternLanguage, architect Christopher Alexander (1977)describes the messages buildings communicate aboutthe function they perform and the way their designinfluences human behavior. He describes the backlashof over thirty years of building windows for reasons of

security, outside noise, high maintenance costs, and theintroduction of air conditioning. Alexander alsodiscusses the fact that the open classroom conceptcreated pods with windows, but constructioncompanies and architects designed the same schoolswith fewer windows to save on costs. Theymisunderstood the concept and looked for economicsavings.

Lackney (1993) points our that the openclassroom design failed, not because of its function,but because architects built the schools modeled afterthe British Open System without telling American

educators who were never adequately trained in theopen system concept. The Americans kept on teachingas they always had in rooms made for a differentpurpose. Then, Americans claimed the architecture didnot work. This case exemplifies a disconnectionbetween training and professional development, not apoor design.

A study by the Heshong Mahone Group for theCalifornia Board for Energy Efficiency and Pacific Gasand Electric (Kennedy, 1999) found that there was astatistically compelling connection between daylighting and student performance. Students in rooms

with more light progressed more quickly than studentsin less naturally lit rooms. In Capistrano, Californiaschools, students progressed 15 percent more quicklyin math and 23 percent more quickly in reading. TheHeshong Mahone Group concludes that putting morewindows in schools will not increase their cost orreduce their energy efficiency because new materials,such as tempered glass, laminated glass, and blinds,help save energy. The question is: Why are the resultsof studies on the affects of these innovative materialsnot used? The answer may be that these groups ofarchitects and educational researchers rarely talk to oneanother. The language of their fields is different and noone takes the time to translate across professions.

A schools location has been found to have animpact on learning but not through translatingpedagogy into facility design. Gary Evans (Evans etal., 1991), inNew Directions in Health PsychologyAssessment, concluded there are significant increasesin students blood pressure associated with schoolsbeing located near noisy urban streets. Exposure totraffic noise at elementary schools also has beenassociated with deficits in mental concentration (Evans


15/99


et al., 1991). The research done on school environmentand learning and on architectural design is conclusiveenough that such environmental conditions are nowknown to lead to significant and substantial differencesin learning achievement (Moore & Lackney, 1993)But, as Moore and Lackney (Moore & Lackney, 1993)point out, "there are still ways as yet to be determined

in which architects can give form to emergingeducational concepts" (p.104).Moore and Lackney propose two means by

which school design can do the work of giving form toemerging educational concepts:

1. Translate the empirical researchliterature on the effects of school buildingson educational performance into research-based design guidelines, patterns, ordesign principles. Then, work toimplement those design guidelines in newand renovated building projects.

2. Extrapolate from educational reformideas or the experience of reflectiveeducators in order to give ideasarchitectural form.

Moore and Lackney conclude that it is clearthat physical environment has been unappreciated forits supportive role in student learning. Their conclusionis that the physical environment can be a major reformelement. In the end, the relationships among thephysical environment, pedagogical, psychological, andsocial variables have yet to be explored to any greatextent by educational researchers, child development

researchers, or environment-behavior researchers.Nair (Nair, 2002) points out that in the tenyears since Moore and Lackney's research little haschanged. The educators stay concerned with practiceand the architects with innovative constructive designtechniques. usually borrowed from other public andprivate projects (Lackney, 1996).

There is a small group of architects who dounderstand the dilemma of translating pedagogicaldesigns into facilities. These architects have developeddesign processes for translating complex pedagogiesinto facilities. They also envision schools that lookvery different from the schools we have today.Architect William Day(http://www.kbdplanning.com/vision.html, 2000)writes:

For the most part a new look at school planning and design simply does nothave the full attention of eithereducators or architects. Precious littlehas been done over the past twenty-five years to reflect on therelationships of good school design to

educational program effectiveness.Very little effort is being given byeither educators or architects on themany design decisions, which aresponsible architect has to make inthe course of designing, renovating, orexpanding a school building. To this

end, educators need to become moredesigners and reflectors of theirenvironment and architects need tolisten better and ask if theirarchitecture matched the schoolpractices.

Day refers to all the issues of educationalinnovators: accommodating learning styles, use oftechnology in lieu of a text-based environment,changing room configurations from rows of seats tolearning centers, community access to schools, team

teaching, nooks for independent student work, privateareas for meetings with teachers, real-world learning,and learning as an active process where students createwhat they are learning. Although Day does not point toany places where his notions about what schools willlook like have a programmatic or a physicalmanifestation, he is clear about how such schoolsmight look different from today's schools.

George Copa, Professor of Education atOregon State University, at a conference in Amsterdamon design concluded that, "architects should design forcoherence, taking into account elements such as

organization, partnerships, technology finance, andfuture expectations(Copa, 2000, p.3). In an earlierstudy, Copa (1999) makes a recommendation to opennew schools to the community. He cites familyengagement at the high school level as a priority andasks what space is needed to engage families aroundtheir students. Among other items, space allocation forfamily engagement meetings needs to include space forlearning plan meetings, assessment of student learning,the planning of family events, and health and humanservices support. While numerous foundations andorganizations such as the Casey Foundation, TheMetropolitan Life Foundation, and the National PublicEducation Fund support research to developprogrammatic design, there is scant evidenceof designed space for these family programs beyondhaving a room in which parents may conference withstaff and meet one another.

Architect and school designer Prakash Nair(2000) looks at school design through the lens of 15trends occurring in the field of education that arerelated to educational technology:

Ubiquitous computing


16/99


Wireless networking and robust Internet access Technology-intensive teaching and learning Emphasis on informal learning (less than 25

percent of all learning occurs within the classroom)

De-emphasis of classroom Food court vs. cafeteria Shared common areas

Imaginative furniture design Team teaching, non-chronological grouping, and

interdisciplinary curricula

Students creating products for business Emphasis on service learning (meaning?) Computer labs replaced by distance learning

electronic studios

More high-tech production facilities New learning partnerships with other schools and

universities

Parent and community education programs inschools

A traditional educator would, most likely,inevitably agree with every one of these trends,especially the use of technology. Yet, even whentechnology is used, there is still a great debate abouthow innovative its use is in schools, or whether it isused to deliver the same materials over computernetworks with students at computer stations instead oftaking instruction from a teacher. How all these trendsare made manifest as program and design is still a largeissue with no supportive research and few practicalexamples. Indeed, Nair does not mention how thesetrends are designed into new or existing schools,what the problems are in creating these schools, orwhere one can see these designs in a school setting.

Lackney's research (1996) points out a numberof significant findings for schools under the categoryof public buildings. In his study on public vs. privatebuilding projects, he draws the following twoconclusions:1. Operating within a complex process leads to a

complex project that requires more time and highercosts. In four out of five cases, public projects took80% longer to design, 101% longer to construct,and cost 11% more.

2. "Top-line factors" significantly influence PublicSector decision-making procedures resulting in aproject that is more complex that requires moretime and higher costs but has greater publicaccountability (Lackney, 1993). In other words,bureaucratic oversight and public process affecttime and costs.

Furthermore, Lackney found that "state" workdid not offer much opportunity for large profits but

were "bread and butter" kinds of jobs that providedstability in a firm's practice. Lackney points out thatthe public may be paying more for durability andconformity to societal goals. What is given up for theseattributes is flexibility in design and a faster rate ofconstruction.

Given these findings and given the cost and

time an innovative school design might take and therisk that the innovative design might not ever be usedagain, there is not much incentive for an architect or abuilder to pursue innovation. This process may be adetermining factor in squashing innovation.

Three themes emerge from a review ofresearch and literature on school facilities design. First,facilities designs have been shown to have an impacton learning. Second, these designs have been shown tohave an impact on students and others who work in theschools. Third, there have been few innovations inschool facilities design. All three of these themes were

examined in this research. The latter theme is notcomprehensible given the first two themes. The factorsand forces at work halting the innovations are clearlyentrenched in education, architecture, construction, andgovernment.

Learning Environments

"Reform the environment: stop trying to reformpeople. They will reform themselves if theenvironment is right."Buckminster Fuller

A review of the literature and research onlearning environments with regard to lighting, noise,air quality, and spatial distance between students andteachers leads to mostly common-sense solutions todesigning schools. The research recommends anabundance of natural lighting (Hathaway, 1995;Hathaway, 1993; & Ott, 1976), lower noise levels fromstreets, airports, and trains (Bronzaft & McCarthy,1975; Christie & Glickman, 1980; Cohen, Krantz,Evans & Stokols, 1980; & Evans, & Maxwell, 1997).Furthermore, there is a collection of research (Caine,1994) that reviews discrete issues in room temperature,chair design, and time of school day.

Sarason (1971) refers to another type of studyon the classroom-learning environment that soundssimple but turns out on analysis to reveal amazinglycomplex issues. Schwebel (1969) studied how teachersseat students in classrooms. His results revealedunwritten and seldom stated rules of student seating inclassrooms that as Sarason concludes: "The relativelyunimportant problem of seating within it [has] all theconstitutional issues raised" in his book (p.225).


17/99


Although these issues affect learning in anyschool environment, they do not specifically impact therealm of school design for translating innovativepedagogy into facilities. The focus of this literaturereview is specifically on translating innovativepedagogy into facilities, but there are educators whodid more intentionally look at the learning environment

and design school space based on their pedagogy.In the late nineteenth and the early twentiethcenturies, there were many educational progressiveswho took an interest in the learning environments asthey set up their schools. Maria Montessori (1966)designed school space in her classrooms that reflectform following function in a whole school designphilosophy. Classroom space was designed to reflectthe Montessori philosophy of education as student-centered learning that connects mind, spirit, and hand.Stations were created for hands-on exploration, math,writing, and the arts. This environment was designed to

allow students to explore and discover on their own.Materials were either specifically designed byMontessori or recommended for use with students. Tothis day, they exist in Montessori Schools.

When he was superintendent of schools in thelate 1800's, Francis Parker's vision for learning wasalso a child-centered approach to learning that becameknown as the Quincy System. Student interest andmotivation were key to this system. Students wereactive learners as they learned by doing and expressedthemselves through the arts. They moved through thesystem by demonstrating their performance through

exhibitions and long-term projects. Students had smallclasses and an advisory system where they were knownwell by their teachers. Staff designed and revised thecurriculum to reflect student interests and needs topromote engagement. This system reflected Parker'sknowledge of studio-based learning from schools ofarchitecture in France - Beaux Arts and Germany -Bauhaus (Lackney, 1999). Most of the architecture inthe schools was from a different era, and rooms werestill regular classrooms and auditoriums. In most casesalready, existing space in schools was used. Althoughthe pedagogy was innovative and the relationshipsbetween student and teacher were very important, thefacilities design did not reflect these educationalpractices.

John Dewey at the Laboratory School inChicago was also influenced byBauhaus and the studio approach. William Wirt, afollower of Dewey's progressive approach, designedHorace Mann High School in Gary, Indiana. Wirtredesigned the learning environment around anexperiential mode of learning. The school had adjacentparks, zoos, and a farm where students harvested crops.

Activity-based learning and the school's role in thecommunity were emphasized (Ed Week, 1999). AtHorace Mann, students used the auditorium forpresentations of their work, and at night, theauditorium was used to present students work to theirfamilies.

The Reggio Emilia preschools also have

developed their own learning environments. Thefounders of these preschools believe that "the school'senvironment is the third teacher and is crucial to theearly childhood program (Giudici & Rinaldi 2001,p.59). There are over thirty of these schools in the areaaround Reggio, Italy, and a growing numberinternationally. At the Reggio preschools, staffmembers have designed their learning environmentsaround two mottoes: "nothing without joy" and"students learning from one another in groups" (p.59).The staffs at Reggio have designed their own furniturefor each of the rooms in the school. They have

specifications for inside space for their children'sdining room, art studios, and outside garden space.Their schools are filled with an abundance of high-quality art materials to allow students to design andconstruct their work. There is ample space in each areato display student work both in its original form as afull project, as well as photos and art on walls. Studentworkspaces are designed for small groups of studentsto work on projects with space enough for staff togather around to document student learning.Staff members also have meeting rooms where theycan discuss their documentation of student

work (Edwards, Gandini & Forman, 1998) (Katz &Cesarone, 1994).Reggio schools have successfully translated

their philosophy into facilities design. They have beenthoughtful in their approach and understand the valueof a facility that supports their work and theirchildren's work. The Reggio schools stop at the end ofkindergarten. There is no indication that they will everattempt to go further with their philosophy intoelementary or high school. The school system of Italyafter kindergarten is completely based on rigidstandards for each grade. The practices of the Italiansystem are completely different in pedagogy fromReggio Emilia.

At the Apple Valley two-year alternative highschool, School of Environmental Studies at theMinnesota Zoo, the learning signature isinterdisciplinary and theme-based study. This schoolhas four hundred eleventh and twelfth graders. It isenvironmentally responsible in design and operation.The materials used in construction are environmentallysound with as little disruption of the naturalenvironment as possible. The school has a workspace


18/99


for each student, project areas, and rich technology.There are large group meeting areas, as well as areaswhere small groups of students can meet aroundprojects (Copa, 1999). This school was designed as amagnet and has not been replicated. Given itssuccessful practice, one needs to ask why not?

Over the past ten years, innovative ideas about

learning environments have been put forward byeducational designers (Copa 1992, Fielding, 1999, Jilk1994 & Schank 2000). Most of these ideas deal withdeveloping innovative learning environments at highschools and use terms such as learner-focused andlearner-centered environments as opposed to termssuch as tracking and ability-grouping environment,even though most work, even if it is problem based, isstill delivered through courses and classes. Copa(1992) put forward a design for the New Vision for theComprehensive High School that included thefollowing design features:

Guaranteeing a set of learner outcomes linkedclosely to future life roles and responsibilities for

all students

Learning expectations, which include bothknowing and applying learning in life situations,using authentic assessment

Multiple ways to learn that are responsive tolearning styles and interests

Integration of high-level academic education andmodern vocational education for all students

Partnerships with parents and families, business,industry and labor, community-based

organizations, and other schools to diversifylearning settings and improve learningeffectiveness

Special character or focus to the school that givescoherence and spirit to learning

Operation as a learning community that paysattention to caring, attachments, and expectationsoften requiring the subdivision of large schoolsinto smaller units.

Alignment and unification of the components ofthe school in the interests of quality and efficiency

Decision making that is consistent with overall

aims yet is located close to the problem at hand Partnership with the larger community as a way to

make learning up to date and meaningful (p.16)

Copa (Jilk & Copa, 1997) employs a DesignDown Process that helps schools develop learningsignatures, learner outcomes, learning organizations,decision-making, learning partnerships - with parentsand families, community-based organizations, businessand industry, other schools, staff and staff

development, and learning technology. Thesepartnerships vary with the learning signature andlearner outcomes of the school. The Design-DownProcess is what brings the communities needs intofocus. All of these processes are intended to create newlearning environment designs based on innovativepedagogies. These spaces include open areas; small

cubicles designed for five to ten participants, largergathering places, and a number of individual andindependent learning places. The School forEnvironmental Studies is an example of a school thatused Copa's process. The question is why has only oneschool like this one been built with this process? Howstrong are the forces of the status quo that keep morefrom being built using this process and what are they?Is the process getting the results it was intended to get?Is there something wrong with designing down, or isthere something wrong with the system?

At the Eagle Rock School in Estes Park,

Colorado a school nestled in Rocky MountainsNational Park, the buildings have been constructeddirectly into the slope of the mountains and are thesame color as the soil. The buildings are designed inthis manner to honor the environment, which is one ofthe main tenets of the school. The outdoors is aclassroom.

The school encompasses 640 acres of forests,meadows and rockypeaks. The campus is 140 acres, with the remainingland in a conservation easement to protect it fromfuture development. There are twenty-one buildings

totaling nearly 100,000 square feet. The facilities areconstrued as a learning village made up of laboratories,workshops, seminar-style classrooms and a library; ahuman performance center incorporating a gymnasium,pool, stage, exercise room and climbing wall; a lodgewith dining facilities and a hearth area; living quartersfor students and faculty; and an administration buildingand professional development center. This professionaldevelopment center features a reception area with afireplace, comfortable seating, library, and kitchen; alarge seminar room; two smaller seminar rooms; twocasitas that each sleeps four people; and a bunkhousethat sleeps sixteen people.

The center of each student's experience atEagle Rock School is life in the learning community.Academics, social interaction, governance, culturalactivities, service projects, and outdoor education areintegrated into a living and learning environment. Thedistinction between in-school and out-of-school isblurred because learning takes place throughout theday. The school encourages a sense of belonging,ownership, and pride by involving students in schooldecision-making and service projects in the school and


19/99


surrounding communities. This sense of community isdeveloped with the hope that it is carried along witheach student when they move on from Eagle RockSchool.

All students at Eagle Rock do the WildernessExperience, a 21-day challenge that integrates outdooradventure with service and academics. Students are

transformed by this experience, and then are ready totransition into the rigorous academic challenges ofEagle Rock.Other learning signatures of the Eagle Rock curriculuminclude:

Service integrated into all learning experiences. Reading, thinking skills, writing, and speaking

incorporated into all learning experiences.

Demonstrations of presentations of learning atregular intervals.

Immersion experiences in the arts. Hands-on, project-oriented learning activities.

Character development as a theme that interweavesthrough all learning experiences.

Academic advisories during which adults on thecampus work with a small group of students ontheir academic progress.

Upon arrival, students must scale Eagle Rock,which is a formidable climb that is as tricky as anynovice ropes course. The buildings have been designedto reflect the small intimate scale of the school. EagleRock has small seminar rooms for book and projectdiscussions, computer stations with Internet access,and rooms for public student exhibitions called

"presentations of learning,The landscape and the inside space reflect the

rigor of school life. In the lodge/cafeteria, there isample space for the whole school to gather for dailymeetings and meals. When the American HondaCorporation funded the design and construction of theschool, the corporation insisted on some specificationsfor the interior space for staff and students. The officespace for staff was set up like any corporate Hondaoffice with no one having a corner office or privateroom space. All offices have 36-inch system walls.According to Lois Easton, Director at Curriculum at

Eagle Rock, this is one of the few non-negotiable itemsof the architecture. This office design is the look of thecorporate culture at Honda, and in order to give theschool the "look and feel" of Honda this designelement was insisted upon.

There is research that supports quality learningin many of the design elements in schools that haveattempted to translate their pedagogical designs intolearning environments. Schools utilizing small spacesin their innovative pedagogical designs are supported

by research that finds that smaller clusters lead toincreased use of learning materials (Weistein, 1981)and to increased substantive, content questions (EvansLowell, 1979). Moore and Lackney (1993) found thatarchitecturally well-defined behavior settings, incontrast with partially and poorly articulated settings,contribute to a significantly greater degree of

engagement with learning activities, more teacherinvolvement with children, less teacher interruptions,and more exploratory behavior, social interaction, andcooperative behaviors among children. Furthermore,after analyzing the results of the National LongitudinalStudy of Adolescent Health, Fletcher (2002 p.103)found that "students who attend small schools are lesslikely than others to engage in risky behavior such asdrug use, violence or early sexual activity, largelybecause they feel better connected to their teachersand one another." The study did not refer to any designelements common to the schools except they were

considered small. This is the first study that points toschool size as a factor of student health and behavior.A further look at the research in the corporate

world yields findings that support those of Copa (1992,1999) and Jilk (1994), and of how to rethink learningenvironments and design processes. The Center forWorkforce Development at the EducationDevelopment Center (EDC) in Newton, MA, studiedthe corporate environment at the Motorola Corporationand Seimens (Stamps, 1998). Their findings haveimplications for schools regarding how people learn incorporate cultures. These findings conclude that people

learn best in one-to-one and small-group settings andthat facilities need to be designed to foster suchmeetings.

Roger Schank's latest work at the Institute forLearning Sciences (ILS) proclaims, "Classrooms areout! No more classrooms! Don't build them!"(Fielding, 1999). Like the work at EDC, Schank's workhas been spawned from his research in the corporateworld about how people learn. His ideas regardinglearning activities and cycles were tested and refinedwhile developing training programs for privateindustry. Anderson Consulting is an internationalleader in business consulting and spends over $200million each year on training its project managers.While Schank was teaching at Yale University,Anderson offered him $30 million to develop aprogram to "fix computer learning" (Fielding, 1999)According to Schank, this offer did not interest him.Instead, he told Anderson he wanted to "fix education"(Fielding, 1999). The ILS found that what was wrongwith corporate training programs was that they weremodeled after school and university learning models.The ILS steered Anderson away from the traditional


20/99


classroom model and towards a "virtual learning"model. (Fielding, 1999).

Schank wants to see schools eliminateclassrooms as the central learning environment. Hebelieves students time should be divided equallybetween computer work, talking with others, andmaking something; none of these activities requires a

formal classroom. Schank emphasizes the act of doingsomething, as the best way for learning to occur, andhe thinks that computer simulations that engagestudents through experience-- allow them to grapplewith failure and develop emotional connections withthe experience-- are the best solution for studentlearning. Schank believes that virtual universities viathe Internet will eventually be in direct competitionwith the existing secondary and university system, thuscreating a virtual learning environment, (Fielding,1999; Schank 2003) identified these environmentalimplications from his work:

Computer-based learning is best suited to anindividual workstation not a

classroom.

Talking or social learning lends itself to small,coffee shop-like spaces, where learners can gatherinformally.

Learning by "doing" can happen in a wide varietyof environments, including gardens, science labs,technical shops, and dance studios.

Environments for computer learning, sociallearning, and active learning by "doing," need notbe located on school grounds.

Museums, hospitals, businesses, parks, and privatehomes are all environments, which can supportlearning.

Furthermore, the move to design office space hasfocused around a trend toward customization, givingworkers more privacy, personalization, and a mix ofautonomy and interaction. This movement is pittedagainst a still strong Taylorist legacy to design officespace in the factory model that treats workers asautomatons. The new spaces meeting the needs of 21st

century workers are:

Dens for informal working spaces where tasks areshort term and intense

Cells for individual work that require littleinteraction

Clubs for teams occupying space on an as-neededbasis using a wide range of facilities (Gary, 2001)

Finally, Schrage (2000) studied architect FrankGehry, and found that his fame as an architect is notabout his ability to draw, but about his ability to unite

all the different players including the architect,engineer, contractor, and owner with one modelingsystem. The major innovation in the translation of anidea to a design is the inclusive process.

This research into corporate America presentswhat corporations want in the workplace. The researchindicates that these innovative corporations are on the

same path as innovative schools to develop similarlearning ecologies and design processes. The otherinteresting commonality is that, when business worldstudies, such as those undertaken at EDC and ILS,engage the world of corporate learning, they have asimilar issue of translating their pedagogies or culturesinto learning environments. In many cases, there iscrossover in what is adapted as a learning environmentat schools and corporations. Both designers andeducators may run the risk of being corrupted by thelarger system when translation is carried out and thereform does not take hold. The economic, political, and

social forces at work can be aversive to change evenafter the design innovation has been built. The trainingand culture to use the innovation needs to be in place inorder for the new mental model to root itself (Senge,1994).

Herb Childress's (2000) ethnographic study,Landscapes of Betrayal, Landscapes of Joy,demonstrates how our buildings and landscapes (andthe institutions that shape them) systematicallyshortchange our kids, eliminating opportunities forchallenge and growth and encouraging their passivity.Childress followed 12 teenagers attending the same

high school in California for a year examining theplaces where the kids were devoted and worked theirhardest and were at their best. Childress makes athirteen points that exemplify how much of our schoolspace and the lives of teenagers are compromised bythe adult world. Although he does not offer solutions,his list does suggest what shape and functionlandscapes of "joy" would represent (Childress, 2001,p. 300-310).

Modernist idea #1: Kids and adults should beseparate.Existential idea #1: Kids and adults should beintegrated, with teenagers welcome in the adultworld.

Modernist idea #2: Children are the passivereceivers of education and services.Existential idea #2: Real learning involves anactive search for experience and knowledge.

Modernist idea #3: We live in a national andglobal economy, and mobility is inevitable.


21/99


Existential idea #3: The local is of deep andlasting importance.

Modernist idea #4: Conflicts are decided infavor of those who have the resources toprevail.Existential idea #4: Conflicts are decided in

favor of the person or group with fewerresources to buffer any ill effects.

Modernist idea #5: Economies of scale aresensible in all areas of life.Existential idea #5: Small and many arebeautiful.

Modernist #6: People are, most centrally,consumers.Existential idea #6: People are, most centrally,citizens.

Modernist idea #7: Objective, consistent, andencompassing rules and codes are the basis forinteraction.Existential idea #7: Negotiated agreements areboth achievable and desirable.

Modernist idea #8: Social classes and theirneighborhoods should be separate.Existential idea #8: Social classes should claimtheir own spaces, but should also come intoregular contact with each other as citizens and

equals.

Modernist idea #9: Business, services, andresidences should be separate.Existential idea #9: Zoning should be primarilyby scale of development rather than by type.

Modernist idea #10: Countryside is a necessaryrefuge from undesirable city living.Existential idea #10: Countryside and city lifeboth contribute to a complex, satisfyinglandscape.

Modernist idea #11: High densities of peopleare unsafe and unhealthy.Existential idea #11: Concentration of peoplecan encourage social connection and publicsafety.

Modernist idea #12: Home and land ownershipis the key to community.Existential idea #12: Easy social contact is thekey to community.

Modernist idea #13: Places should closely fittheir specialized functions.Existential idea #13: Environments should beeasily converted to new and multiple uses.

Childress finds that the inventory of spaces

in American high schools has been the same forgenerations. They include classrooms, hallways,lockers, toilets, gym, auditorium, cafeteria, band room,janitor's room, and labs for science, fields, parking, andnowadays a computer lab. Once the numbers ofstudents are known, we can apply this to ArchitecturalGraphic Standards or state guidelines. "The list ofspaces and its associated geometric and financialarithmetic is what the design is based upon, what theschool district expects and the architects provide. It canbe done in its most basic form in half a day (p. 214).His notion is that living with and accepting a certain

mental model and beliefs for what a school is make theensuing experience almost inevitable. We thereforeshortchange our kids, refuse to construct anythinginnovative and through our landscapes betray ourchildren and deprive them of places they truly canenjoy (p.214).

Interest and Motivation

"No topic has received more attention frompedagogical writers than that of interest."William James

In the field of interest and motivation, theunpublished work of Art Powell (unpublished) is themost extensive and expansive the researcher hasreviewed. In a review of Powell's text and theaccompanying bibliography, there is little specificinformation on school design that is developedexplicitly around interest and motivation. Powellcarefully constructs his definition of interest as thoseinterests that endure and are intellectually powerful. Heis not talking about cultivating the interest of being abaseball fan or watching television as an intellectualpursuit. He is interested in the arts, athletics, science,literary, and applied disciplines not as an estrangementfrom intellect but, rather, as interests that have anaffinity to intellect. Powell also analyzes the differencebetween intrinsic and extrinsic interests andmotivations. Learning environment factors, such as arichness and availability of materials and tools, smallnumbers of students in classes, the use of mentors, andexperiences on the outside of school, appear in manyof the references (Bloom, 1985; Cremin,1961; Dewey,1913; 1975; Sarason, 1990).


22/99


Many of the studies on interest and motivationreviewed actually point to a negative influence of thetraditional school environment on the development andpursuit of both intrinsic and extrinsic interest ( Bloom,1985; Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde & Whalen, 1993).Cremin (1975) discusses how schools should be morelike community centers that support the interests of

students both during the school day and after school.The school should be more connected to thecommunity and to the family. He believes that aschool's facilities should remain open to thecommunity day and night. Cremin makes no mentionof whether there are rooms set aside for thesecommunity activities or if these rooms are reutilizedfor different activities at different times of the day.

The student-to-teacher ratio in Dewey'sLaboratory School in Chicago was 7:1 (Cremin, 1988).This ratio allowed teachers to engage each studentaround that students interest. It was noted by Cremin

(1988) that the school received support from many ofDewey's influential friends in Chicago. Furthermore,most of Deweys students came from well-educatedfamilies (Cremin, 1988). Zilversmit(1993) points outthat most of Dewey's pre-occupation was with thequality of the teachers at the school and not the designof the school or the classroom.

Eliot was focused on students finding, "theirnatural bent, or preference" (Eliot, 1898, p.11).Education helped students discover what they weregood at through their interest (Hawkins, 1972). Thesepractices were developed at Harvard by Eliot through

his elective system. This system allowed students totake a variety of courses. Eliot wanted to see theexpansion of the elective system into high schools, butfelt these electives should be the type usuallyassociated with the liberal arts. Eliot wanted to providestudents with choice. He wanted to gradually exposehigh school students to the liberal arts, and then offerstudents more choice about what they wished to studymore seriously.

Eliot took a hard stand on tracking studentsinto commercial or vocational avenues. He believedthat these tracks sorted students for life, long beforetheir "capacities and possibilities" could be discovered(Eliot, 1961 [1899], pp. 123-134). To Eliot reducingpupil-teacher ratios was a way for teachers to havemore time to get to know individual pupils andunderstand who they are. Discovering the "gift orcapacity" of each student, he once wrote, "should beheld one of the most important parts of the teacher'swork" (Krug, 1964, pp. 109, 127).

Interest did not really equate to environmentbut more too developing personal relationships in aclassroom or lab. References about the school or

classroom design hindering or enhancing learning donot appear.

Csikszentmihalyi (1993) discusses activities inwhich people operate in the zone-- a phrase heinvented that describes a state of enjoyment peopleexperience when doing things they like to do.According to his research, adults reported that one of

the times they are in the zone is while reading (25percent of adults reported being in the zone when theyread), but this does not mean that schools should onlycreate environments in which students should read.Csikszentmihalyi (1993, p. 148) agrees that learningshould be interesting and should appeal to studentinterests. . But he warns that student interests are toooften "simplistic and superficial," and he concludes ona note his colleagues would surely endorse: "Weeducators still have much to learn about how to makelearning intrinsically rewarding" (page 148).

Csikszentmihalyi et al., (1993), and Arnold

(1994) suggest that intellectual talent and interestscontinue to develop when children leave the householdand join groups or are coached. Parents play asupportive role in enabling and encouraging theseinterests. Much of the talent development researchemphasizes the environmental factors that areresponsible for such development of talent. Theliterature focuses on what can be done to arouse,nurture, and reinforce talents or interests and aboutwhat education can do. Specifically, the literature isprimarily about contributions of the home, on the onehand, and schools and teachers, on the other (Powell,

unpublished).Bloom (1985) and Winner (1996) believe thatschools are weaker influences than families ondeveloping student interest and talent. Their findingsshow that schools make little positive difference ininterest and talent development. Most students developserious interests and talents outside of school evenwhen the same students like and do well in school.Their findings also show that individual tutoring is farsuperior to class instruction. Bloom's work (1985) onvery talented individuals demonstrates the importanceof the tutoring and coaching on developing talent.Students studying to be classical musicians, Olympiccaliber athletes, or scientific researchers often establishintense tutorial relations with teachers who havenational reputations. Many of these teachers andcoaches work outside the regular school and universitysystem. Wilson (1997) and Hillman (1996) continuallypoint out that many children pick an interest and amentor before their adolescence. Csikszentmihalyi(1993) adds that mass education "interferes with thecultivation of unique skills" (p. 149). Through hisbeeper methodology, he discovered "that talented


23/99


student, inside school classes, was generallyuninterested in the substance of the classes and moreinterested in daydreaming, talking with friends, orfalling asleep" (p. 180).

These studies conclude that the structure ofschool does not cater to individual interests, andneither does its physical environment. The

organizational space is the classroom and the class, notthe individuals with their own personal tools or space.Students are using learning environments outside ofschool to develop their interests and talents.

InPublic Education Cremin (1977), points outthat schools should not get all of the blame whenstudents don't learn, but they shouldn't get all of thecredit for learning either. In fact, Cremin's case studies(1988) of Americans showed how rarely schools hadan impact on the lives of these people, many of whomwere avid readers. This interest in learning andreading, according to Cremin, almost always started in

the home. The research on interest suggests thatschools are actually having a negative impact ontalented students and on developing student interest inmatters that such schools normally receive credit fordeveloping, such as reading interest. The environmentthat schools establish and the practices and pedagogiesin place are not conducive to the development ofinterests or talent. This fact is manifested in theprogrammatic, pedagogical, and physical design ofschools. Although schools may have pools, labs, andart studios, there is little opportunity for tutorial orindependent work during the school day when student

and faculty schedules are organized around classes.Motivational psychologist Deci (1991) is notinterested in the environmental component, nor does hebelieve that schools can be places in which enduringinterests are developed. He argues that, in mostsettings, a teacher does not have the capacity to delveinto individual interests of children under availableenvironmental conditions. What he does believe is thatstudents should be given a wide range of choices aboutwhat should be learned and an abundance of parentaland peer support. Deci argues that "enduring interests"develop as a function of three critical factors: innatecapacities, financial support, and interpersonalcontexts. He states, "People tend to have strongerpreferences (or dispositional interests) for activities atwhich they are more competent or have greaterpotential" (p.330). The environmental factor issimilarly evident. Available opportunities, such as thepossibilities contained in one's family, culture, orgeographic position, make certain interests more likelyand others less likely.

Powells (unpublished) work points out thatmost motivational and interest dri

Pedagogy and Facilities

Documents

Transcript of Pedagogy and Facilities