The conference has finished, and you might have already read some of my reflections in my weekly newsletter. In this post, I wanted to explore those ideas in a little more depth and share a few other insights from Day 3 of the Transitions19 conference in Melbourne.
(You can also read my day one and two reflections)
The conference was exploring three questions:
- What are innovative learning environments (ILE)?
- How do they function?
- How do we know what impact they can have on our teaching and student learning?
(These would be a great set of questions to start a discussion in a PLC or staff meeting.)
I notice that my reflection and critique from the conference is evenly focused on the content and the experience itself. I need to share what I know about designing and facilitating learning experiences more openly.
Jayne Heath, the Principal from the Australian Science and Maths School, shared they have been on the journey for over 17 years. I wanted to know from Jayne what she wishes she knew back then? And how she thinks we might better capture and share the lessons learned? Schools, leaders and teachers should not be isolated in their projects as there is lots of experience to share.
The conference as an experiment
A great insight I took away was from Colin Campbell about the increase in our cognitive load from high ambient noise levels. There was a noisy air system in one of the conference spaces which served as a good prop.
Colin also measured the sound levels of each area during the conference (part of the research vibe of the event) and presented these back to the audience. Here is an excellent reading about cognitive load from CESE in NSW.
I enjoyed learning more about how the conference spaces and the way we used them held some insights. Environmental factors such as acoustics and temperature play an essential role.
Previously I have been critical of a conference on learning spaces ironically not applying what they were espousing. This conference still suffered a little from that, more on this later in the post, but the insights gathered from how we used the space was fascinating.
We were asked to consider five sets of typologies of learning environments judging the spaces we were in during our workshops.
Space / Acoustics / Furniture / Pedagogy / Technology
Click through the images below.
Looking back at the modes of learning in the Pedagogy set makes me wonder whether we are too general with this group. Is it me or are these not actually pedagogies?
Take Dialogic Pedagogy – learning through talk. This pedagogy could exist within each of the other modes apart from the independent setting. I want to explore more of this in the future – so parking this for now. Needless to say, it seems like a gap.
The longer conference format
Over three whole days, we had plenty of opportunities to meet, speak and chat with lots of different people. The “coffee break” probably defines my conference experiences over the years.
With a more extended programme, I was able to meet new people and revisit conversations we started on the first day. I was also able to think out loud with some emerging professional connections.
The length of the conference allowed for new connections that might not have been made had it been shorter.
The flexibility of the conference space
I enjoyed seeing how the environment we were in at Studio 5 in Melbourne University, adapted for the final day of the conference. The large gathering space for the whole group had transformed back to a smaller group teaching area.
You can see the whole group layout here, with a large screen and lots of different seating in a rough round.
And you can see the same space changed to a learning space with small group tables and multiple screens.
The number of different layouts space can change into, and the ease it can be changed should be something we explore more. It might be a new metric we start to consider – how many different ways this space can adapt over time.
This reminds me of this time-lapse from Stanford University’s d.school studio space. See if you can spot how many different ways space is configured — a flexible learning space in action.
The map is not the territory
Korzybski introduced and popularized the idea that the map is not the territory. In other words, the description of the thing is not the thing itself. The model is not reality. The abstraction is not the abstracted. edThis has enormous practical consequences.
(The Map is Not the Territory – Farnam Street)
When it comes to the typologies we have for learning environments – see above – the value of using them may well be shortlived. They instigate thinking and provoke reflection about what we have and where we might go. But the vast intricacy and nuance of each learning context soon make them a little redundant.
As I mentioned before I think the precision is a little lacking too when we look at the Pedagogies set — too much abstraction, perhaps.
This was borne out in a way through the experience of the conference. In the large space, the whole conference was arranged in the round. But the approach to presenting in that space had barely changed. We had a spatial layout that allowed us to see each other and interact – but we didn’t get the chance to do that.
Across nearly all of the whole group presentations, the pedagogy was surprisingly singular. Sharing ideas through story, presenting and talking through slides. I think I was only asked to discuss an idea once with someone next to me.
Find a Door That Fits Us Both
The research into the impact of learning spaces on teachers and student outcomes is an ongoing journey, and we heard of the history over the last twelve years of projects. But I have been pondering on why teachers and school leaders still find the domain of learning environments research more difficult to access.
Our fluency and literacy, when it comes to the research into teaching and learning, are seemingly pretty strong. There is still work to do – only yesterday I saw something in a school about the neuromyth “learning styles”. Certainly stronger than a decade ago. But is this true of research into learning environments?
I think this is attributed to the lack of quality studies into innovative learning environments – hence the intense focus on research and emerging insights. However, I believe it is the second-order effect of this. Teachers are not creating commentary about the science we can access. There are not enough blogs and teacher discussions into what is working and what doesn’t.
It is fine to have PhDs creating a body of emerging knowledge, but we also need a broader ecology of social commentary! You can tell I have been at a research conference for too long! We need more practitioners (educators and designers) talking about the studies out there and sharing that thinking. The lack of that behaviour is what makes learning spaces research distinct from the science of teaching and learning.
Final Takeaways
- We do not share the same pedagogical language.
- Modelling how spaces can flex to different layouts and learning modes is a powerful way to learn.
- The dialogue “below the line” or on a digital space is a critical conference space to consider.
- Teachers have latent spatial competency and understanding of affordances of space.
- Prototyping needs to be an ongoing part of the design process, not just a single stage.
- More of us need to share our understanding of learning environments.
- The journey into researching the impact of learning environments has been a long one and continues now into looking at Community and the impact on student outcomes.
- Ambient acoustic levels increase our cognitive load.
- There was hardly any reference to the outdoors and biophilic design.
- What are innovative learning environments for students with complex needs?
You can see my thinking from day one and day two. There are some future posts I want to follow up with – especially around the precision of our pedagogical language.
Thanks for exploring these reflections – in the comments below please share any questions or thoughts you have.