Lauren Soluk, graduate student in DISE , shares an opinion piece on the importance of designing institutional spaces that promote creativity.
Many of us have heard Sir Ken Robinson’s TED Talk, Schools Kill Creativity (if you have not, I urge you to watch it here). He argues that schools are educating people out of their creativity capacities and as a student, I would agree with this statement. That said, I am not here to write about the perils of schools or how to fix them because that topic is much to extreme to cover in less then 500 words. Instead, I want to consider a small change in institutional design that might help to spark the creativity movement in higher education. Today, I am going to write about space.
In recent years, there has been a shift in learning pedagogy for teaching practices to follow student-centred, constructivist methods[1]. Constructivist methods, and more specifically, social constructivist methods advocate that knowledge is constructed through the active participation of individuals and crowds. If we compare what we know now about learning to our current institutional infrastructure, one is bound to recognize that they do not parallel each other. Institutional classrooms were, and many still are, built for passive learning in a lecture format. There needs to be a change.
Space can be created and manipulated to foster innovative and creating thinking. For example, consider Google’s office in Zurich, Switzerland (see image at left). Rather than having standard cubicles for their staff, Google has opted for a more creative “office.” While I recognize that it is nearly impossible to have a space similar to this one in a university setting, I urge institutional designers to use this image as a springboard for creative classroom and learning commons designs.
Long & Crawley[2] have offered an alternative design method to the traditional approach to space design. They have developed the CDIO process (conceive, design, implement, operate), in which the learning environment is not viewed as space that needs to be redesigned but rather a “product” which needs to be developed. Following this CDIO process, we can ask the questions, “What kind of a space will produce creative and innovate thinking? What kind of space will support social constructivist learning pedagogy?”
From the Institute of Design at Stanford University, Scott Doorley and Witthoft brought readers a book entitled, Make Space, which was designed to set the stage for creative collaboration. Doorly and Witthoft provide tools (e.g. furniture and wall designs), situations and scenarios that can inspire thinking, case study examples, and a design template for how to build collaborative environments[3]. They introduce readers to design concepts such as Cul-de-sacs (spots to gather, linger, and chat), the peanut gallery (where spectators can drop in and out without disturbing people), T-walls for writing, and foam cubes for sitting .All of these concepts combined, and others, can blend to form collaborative and innovate learning environments.
So, with all of this information on how space can inspire and foster creative and innovative thinking, it is time for institutions to step up and put student learning first; let us take a step towards re-designing institutional space that supports active, student-centred and constructivist learning pedagogy (and maybe even dispose of the dismal lecture hall, for good!).
For further reading:
Doorley, S. & Witthoft, S. (2012). Make space. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
OWP/P Architects, VS Furniture and Bruce Mau Design. (2010). The third teacher. China:Abrams.
Moore, A.H., Watson, E. & Fowler, S.B (2007) Active learning and technology: Designing change for faculty, students and institutions. EDUCAUSE Review, 42 (5), 42-61. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/active-learning-and-technology-designing-change-faculty-students-and-institutions
Lomas, C.P. & Johnson, C. (2005). Design of the learning space: Learning design and Principles. EDUCAUSE Review, 40 (4), 16-28. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0540.pdf.
Lippincott, J. K. (2009). Learning spaces: Involving faculty to improve pedagogy. EDUCAUSE Review, 44 (2), 16-25. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0921.pdf.
Long, P. D., & Ehrmann, S. C. (2005). Future of the learning space, breaking out of the box. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(4), 42-58. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0542.pdf .
Wedge, C. & Kearns, T.D. (2005). Creation of the learning space: Catalysts for envisioning and navigating the design process. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(4), 32-38. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0541.pdf.
Brown, M. (2005). Learning space design theory and practice. EDUCAUSE review, 40(4), 30. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0544.pdf.
Teaching and Learning Services. (2013). Teaching and learning spaces. Retrieved from http://www.mcgill.ca/tls/spaces.
References
Doorley, S. & Witthoft, S. (2012). Make space. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lomas, C.P. & Johnson, C. (2005). Design of the learning space: Learning design and Principles. EDUCAUSE Review, 40 (4), 16-28. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0540.pdf.
Long, P. D., & Ehrmann, S. C. (2005). Future of the learning space, breaking out of the box. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(4), 42-58. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0542.pdf.
I am an Instructional Technologist at the Centre for Teaching and Learning at Mohawk College in Hamilton, Ontario. There, I provide direct support to faculty for technology integration into their curriculum design.
A recent graduate from McGill University, I hold a Masters of Arts in Education and Society, with a direct focus on Twitter and Education.
Outside of work, my priorities consist of family, friends, food, and outside living - in that order!
Twitter: @LaurenSoluk
You must log in to post a comment.