What Does Architecture Tell Us About Learning?

Over the last 20+ years my firm has worked with large groups to accelerate and enhance their ability to learn and collaborate. This work results in increasing the productivity of the group - often accomplishing weeks, months, or years worth of work in a matter of days. To aide us in accomplishing these results we use a creative physical environment that allows information to move along with the people (most everything in the environment has wheels!).

The idea that human interaction can be enhanced by the environment is something we take for granted. It is so much a part of what we do we often forget that this way of thinking and working is not common for much of the world. 

The concept that work environments can contribute to or inhibit the productivity of the people in those environments is not new.  What might be new however is the idea that the people that work in the environment could/should participate in the design process - to determine the environment within which they will work.

From an article in Education Week by Frank Kelly:

Buildings are among the most telling artifacts of what we believe, what we value, and what we think. Western Europe’s great cathedrals built in the 12th to 16th centuries leave no doubt about what was most important in their time. While our society in the 21st century is far more diverse, our buildings will speak just as clearly to future generations—including the kids who attend our schools.

What do our school buildings say about what we think is really important? What do schools being built in 2008 around Frederick W. Taylor’s and William Wirt’s ideas from 1908 say to kids about their futures? What do schools that mimic the architecture of other centuries say to the children within them working on digital devices? Are our school buildings saying what we want to convey to teachers and students?

Schools are inherently about the future. We design school facilities to house the education of students for their futures, and we plan those facilities to last for decades. Our challenge is heightened by the most rapid change in all of human history—Moore’s Law, which defines the exponential growth in digital technology, is quickening the pace of change in every aspect of our society. In planning new or renovated school facilities, educators and architects are “futurists’’—the question is whether we recognize and fulfill the responsibility thrust upon us.

What does the architecture of our school buildings tell us about the activities that take place in them? How do those buildings influence learning (positively or negatively)? How can we re-conceive the physical environment so it encourages and enables the type of learning required for success in the 21st Century?

In the 70's I came upon a book that contained photographs of the architecture - buildings - of schools, hospitals, and prisons. I haven't been able to find that book but I did find some photos that might give an idea of what this book showed. 

School, Hospital, or Prison? When looking at the pictures that follow, which one is a school, a hospital, or a prison?

What does this say about the way we think about the activities that take place in each of these buildings? 

In a recent NY Times article entitled, Technology Reshapes America's Classrooms, it suggested the activities in the 'school of the future' will be different from the activities that take place in the current schools. But what does the building look like? Have they considered the physical environment when developing this new school? Were teachers involved in the design process to 're-think' the way they interacted with young people, the type of learning taking place and how the physical environment might enable this?

Here's a short quote from that article:

Education experts say her school, the Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School in Boston, offers a glimpse into the future.

It has no textbooks. Students receive laptops at the start of each day, returning them at the end. Teachers and students maintain blogs. Staff and parents chat on instant messaging software. Assignments are submitted through electronic "drop boxes" on the school's Web site.

"The dog ate my homework" is no excuse here.

The experiment at Frederick began two years ago at cost of about $2 million, but last year was the first in which all 7th and 8th grade students received laptops. Classwork is done in Google Inc's free applications like Google Docs, or Apple's iMovie and specialized educational software like FASTT Math.

"Why would we ever buy a book when we can buy a computer? Textbooks are often obsolete before they are even printed," said Debra Socia, principal of the school in Dorchester, a tough Boston district prone to crime and poor schools.

We won't really see different types of knowledge, behaviors and skills being learned in our schools until we see the types of environments that learning takes place in re-thought and re-designed.

Answers: the pictures above from top to bottom are   1) hospital   2) prison   3) hospital   4) hospital   5) prison   6) school   7) school - (the label on this was 'school for blacks')

Do Schools Kill Creativity

Do Schools Kill Creativity?

To me, this is a rhetorical question but I believe there are people in the world that might not think so. There are many people in the world that have no desire or see no need to change the public school system - except maybe to 'get back to the basics' (which are reading, writing, and arithmetic). 

Human beings have a natural capacity to learn, to change, to grow, to improve and to create. These natural tendencies are systematically drummed out of people that attend public school. 

Why? Because the school system wasn't set up to encourage creativity or encourage growth and improvement. The school system was set up to support the industrial revolution and produce people that could follow rules and stay within the lines.

The hierarchy of subjects taught in schools is designed to put the creative elements at the bottom (or not at all). The schooling process values 'academics' and much of the natural capacities that people have.

Here's a short video that makes an argument for the reinvention of schools and for rethinking the fundamental principles we have for school and schooling. He says our task is to educate the whole being of children. 

Schooling vs Education

I've been remembering - and thinking about - the fact that words and language have a lot of power. There are studies and entire bodies of knowledge about the power of words and the connection between words and mental images and mental models. 

For many years I have considered the system of public schools in this country to be an 'education system.' It wasn't until recently when I really understood the roots of the free public school system that I understood that the network of teachers and schools in this country was not intended to be an education system - but a schooling system. 

Does it matter? What's the difference between schooling and education? 

In many dictionary definitions for school and schooling the use of the word education finds its way into the text. In the following definitions from the web I have purposefully chosen a number of the sentences that do not refer to education. This may shed some light on this subject - or it may tend to annoy people. But let's look anyway.

Form the Free Dictionary: 

school·ing (skooling) n.

1. Instruction or training given at school.
   
2. Education obtained through experience or exposure: Her tumultuous childhood was a unique schooling.
   
3. The training of a horse or a horse and rider in equitation.
   

From Webster:

Schooling \School"ing\, n.

Discipline; reproof; reprimand; as, he gave his son a good schooling. --Sir W. Scott.

School \School\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Schooled}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Schooling}.]
To tutor; to chide and admonish; to reprove; to subject to systematic discipline; to train.

 

From Wikipedia:

Education encompasses teaching and learning specific skills, and also something less tangible but more profound: the imparting of knowledge, positive judgment and well-developed wisdom. Education has as one of its fundamental aspects the imparting of culture from generation to generation (see socialization). Education means 'to draw out', facilitating realization of self-potential and latent talents of an individual. It is an application of pedagogy, a body of theoretical and applied research relating to teaching and learning and draws on many disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, computer science, linguistics, neuroscience, sociology —often more profound than they realize—though family teaching may function very informally.

In my mind understanding the difference between schooling and educating is important. One reason this is important is because the system of schooling uses discipline and extrinsic motivation as a modality and a methodology - to "motivate" young people to learn. The formation of the free public school system in the United States was intended to provide the bare minimum for the poor to become good citizens.

A system of education uses intrinsic motivation and the natural desire of humans to learn and improve. A system based on internal motivation will support a person to achieve their full potential (move towards achieving their full potential) while a system of schooling will be satisfied with a minimum standard.

A system of schooling will intend to control and use discipline when students become noisy or out of control. A system of education will be based on relationships and respect. Discipline will be something one does because it is in their best interest and not because it is enforced from outside.

From Wikipedia on Schooling: 

Schools and their teachers have always been under pressure — for instance, pressure to cover the curriculum, to perform well in comparison to other schools, and to avoid the stigma of being "soft" or "spoiling" toward students. Forms of discipline, such as control over when students will and will not speak, and normalized behaviour, such as raising one's hand to speak, are imposed in the name of greater efficiency. Practitoners of critical pedagogy point out that such disciplinary measures have no positive effect on student learning; indeed, some would argue that disciplinary practices actually detract from learning since they undermine students' individual dignity and sense of self-worth, the latter occupying a more primary role in students' hierarchy of needs.

I think one of the reasons people involved in the public schooling system experience frustration when they attempt to make changes or improve is because there is confusion between what is schooling and what is education. I believe some of this confusion is caused because there is often overlapping and contradictory goals and objectives in each 'system.' 

Anyone engaged in a process of improvements would do themselves well by understanding these distinctions and clarifying their own goals and objectives relative to each system.

Improve, Change or Redesign Schools?

I find there are lots of reasons to be thinking about changing and/or improving the school system in the US. Here are just a few (quoted from the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development web site on educating the whole child):

Today 6,000 talented young people will drop out of school.

Today over 9 million children do not have health insurance.

Today 12 young people will commit suicide.

Today 960 children will be victims of a violent crime.

Today only 11 states require credits in a foreign language for students to graduate.

Today African American students are 14 percent of those in school, but only 7 percent of those taking Advanced Placement exams.

Today two-thirds of high school students will be bored in at least one class.

Today 15 million students who need mentors do not have them.

These statistics should make any educator think. Not only should they think about 'what' they are doing but they should think about 'why' they are doing it. I wonder what good, well intentioned people that are involved in the schooling system say to each other or to themselves when they see the results that this system produces. Do they honestly think we are doing good? Do they think this system as it is currently conceived and operating is something worth continuing?

They must. The aim of the current system must be something they feel comfortable with and can say in some rational fashion that we are moving towards achieving. As stated in a previous post the aim of the current system, whether consciously stated or unconsciously practiced, is to 'school the population in the basics so they can be good citizens and reduce crime.'

I'm a student of Dr. Deming's theory of management. He advocated continual, never ending improvement. If the school system we have had any interest in improvement would we be experiencing these kinds of statistics? Since the school system is not continually improving by definition we can say that teachers, administrators and the system itself are NOT LEARNING.

Isn't it fascinating that there is this entire system that is supposedly designed for 'learning' that is engaging millions of people and demonstrates no learning as a consequence of the activities of the system. Doesn't that make one think? It gets me to think about what is really going on?

This post is inspired by some articles from the ASCD about teaching the whole child. Most of what I've read I would whole heartily agree with and support.

This article (link below) asks the question about whether we should really be teaching people to think. The fact that this question is being asked would lead me to believe (or confirm my belief) that thinking is NOT a priority in the current system.

Cover the Material—Or Teach Students to Think?
Marion Brady

To move beyond rote memorization and use a full range of thinking skills, students need to tackle issues straight out of the complex world in which they live.

So here's today's project, kids. Get in small groups and put together flowcharts tracing the possible long-range consequences of a new state energy conservation law that says you can't use any kind of motorized vehicle to travel less than one mile."

This article goes on to advocate connecting the learning experience to the real world:

Real and Rigorous
A focus on real-world issues can alter the entire culture of a school or school system. It enables students and teachers to experience the "meatiness" of the direct study of reality. It's unfailingly relevant. It shows respect for students, who become more than mere candidates for the next higher grade. It levels the playing field by not privileging those with superior symbol manipulation skills. It disregards the arbitrary, artificial boundaries of the academic disciplines. It's easily applicable to the wider world. And it shifts the emphasis from cover-the-material memory work to a full range of thinking skills.

From another article in the same issue of the ASCD magazine, the author is suggesting we need to have a thinking discipline.

What the Future Requires
Today, the information revolution and the ubiquity of search engines have rendered having information much less valuable than knowing how to think with information in novel situations. To thrive in contemporary societies, young people must develop the capacity to think like experts. They must also be able to integrate disciplinary perspectives to understand new phenomena in such fields as medicine, bioethics, climate science, and economic development. In doing so, the disciplined mind resists oversimplification and prepares students to embrace the complexity of the modern world.

Personally I find these arguments to be both encouraging and deeply troubling.

I am encouraged that some educators are advocating for a real, rigorous and connected experience in the learning process. I am troubled that this argument will go no where in the current system.

Here's another argument which I find both encouraging and troubling. There is a movement building that would have the current system changed to put the focus on 21st Century Skills instead of the basics. 

Voters urge teaching of 21st-century skills
Poll suggests 'back-to-basics' approach to education is not enough for nation's citizens By Meris Stansbury, Assistant Editor, eSchool News 
The majority of U.S. voters believe schools are not preparing students to compete in the new global economy. In yet another sign that momentum is building for the teaching of so-called "21st-century skills" in the nation's classrooms, results of a new poll indicate that voters overwhelmingly agree: The skills students need to succeed in the workplace of today are notably different from what they needed 20 years ago.

I'm encouraged that people are aware of the fact we need young people to have a different set of skills and knowledge in order to be successful in the 21st Century. I'm discouraged because changing the 'what' of schooling is just like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. The ship is going down if we don't change the 'why' and the 'how' as well. Just changing what is taught will only get us more of the same types of statistics listed above.

The current system must be re-conceived and re-thought in order for these kinds of ideas to be useful. I am getting more cynical in my old age. I believe the current system does not want young people to think and doesn't hold thinking as an outcome worth attaining. I am advocating for real thoughtful engagement in rethinking the system of schooling and creating a purpose and an aim worth achieving in this, the 21st Century.

Educating Native Americans

It's still hard for me to imagine with everything we know about how the brain works and how learning happens that we as a society would continue to perpetuate the model of public education we have today. I know there are pockets of people all over the country doing engaging, experiential, project and brain based learning activities. However the majority of the education that is taking place in this country is NOT education at all - but schooling.

Given the brain research and the knowledge that all people learn in their own unique ways, it is no wonder there are so many young people 'failing' this current system. It would be too simplistic on my part to suggest the solution is simply that many of those failing the system simply learn in a different manner and the educators working with them haven't taken the time to find that style and work with it.

I just read an article about a conference held in South Dakota in which the topic/focus was strategies for teaching Native Americans. As one might imagine some people argued for a strict disciplined approach to academics while others argued for a more culturally sensitive approach.

I had been thinking a lot about educating native peoples - even before I read this article. My intuition has been that putting native people in a classroom, sitting them in rows, forcing them to sit still and then pushing content at them is just wrong. This 'style' or 'method' of teaching/learning does not take into consideration the cultural background let alone the learning style of the learners.

It appears to me that the way this subject (educating native people) is being approached is a perfect example of forcing a way of working (learning) onto people instead of designing a system that works for the people in it. I can imagine, if we really cared about the education of Native People, that we would design something completely different from what we see today.

Here is the article:

Varied Strategies Sought for Native American Students
Some focus on culture while others emphasize strict academic approach in raising achievement.
By Mary Ann Zehr - Rapid City, S.D.
Educators working to improve the performance of Native American students are struggling to find the right balance between core academics and attention to native culture as a way to help engage and motivate children, according to those at a multistate gathering on the topic here last week.

Where did summer break come from?

Do you know why schools have a summer break? I didn't know this until today. Before 1870 school was not mandatory and the school year was between 240 and 260 days long in different states. But enrollment was low and children missed about half the year for various reasons. So some smart people got together and wondered if school was too long (and if students that did go to school the whole time would burn out). So they eliminated the summer quarter. Why summer? They eliminated the summer quarter for the following three reason: 1) Poorly ventilated school buildings were nearly unbearable during heat waves. 2) Community leaders fretted that hot, crowded environments facilitated the spread of disease. 3) Wealthy urbanites traditionally vacationed during the hottest months, and middle-class school administrators were following in their footsteps.

So now what should we do? Things have changed and some countries go to school up to 243 days per year. What do you think?

As I've said before the issue is not necessarily time - but method (or process). Much of what is wrong with the way school works today is the same as what was wrong 100 years ago. People learn in different ways and having one way (sit and get) doesn't work. AND, sitting in a chair for 4 to 6 hours per day isn't healthy. Humans must have different input and engage all parts of themselves in order to have energy and take in new information.

Here's the article about summer vacation:

Do Kids Need a Summer Vacation?Why our schoolchildren get to take three months off. By Juliet Lapidos Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2007, at 4:09 PM ET

Are summers without school healthy for kids?

Most American school kids are about three weeks in to their three-month summer vacation. Yet working adults (the Explainer included) spend the better part of June, July, and August toiling away as usual. Why do kids enjoy such generous summer breaks?

Staying Even is Falling Behind

In an article by former Michigan State Superintendent of Schools he says that Michigan schools are not preparing young people for the 21st Century. As a respected educator I hope he is listened to (and it's interesting to me he is using language that sounds a lot like a consultant - which he is!)...

As Michigan attempts to catch up with the 21st Century, this state must realize that our children have to compete with the children of the world, not just those from adjacent school districts or states. It is imperative that policy makers and educators address the fact that in a hyper-competitive, entrepreneurial, information age, the old way of providing education must be altered -- and sooner rather than later. Michigan's students must be the recipients of an agile system of education and public policies that effect substantive change.

Further on he says,

In a rapidly changing world, staying even is falling behind.

These are well articulated and clear challenges for education - and also one of the clear arguments for there being NO ONE RIGHT ANSWER for public education in this country.

One of the strategies our firm advocates as a viable strategy for enterprises to use to 'catch up' or 'stay even' is to increase their own capacity to learn. The faster an organization can learn the more capable they are in dealing with/adapting in a world of rapid change.

There are several viable strategies to consider to increase the capacity of an organization to learn. One of these strategies is to have many experiments taking place simultaneously to enable the organization to learn fast. Another way of saying that is to develop a capability to do rapid prototyping. Quick cycles of testing theories (plan, do, study, act).

Another strategy organizations can use is to do things in parallel instead of doing them in a serial fashion (doing things at the same time instead of one after the other). This strategy is not an easy one for older, western educated managers to learn but it's really important to help shrink life cycles for product development, strategy development and innovation.

Click here to read the entire article by the former Michigan State Superintendent of Schools.