It’s all in the design.

Leaders & tech

Instructional designers recognise the importance of focusing on the pedagogy, on the learner, not the teacher. The left column is the easier bit, but often educators forget why they’re doing what they doing. Is it just to use a nifty new tool? Good instructional design brings the learner back to the centre, and make the interactions that are planned for most effective. Richard Culatta has a hefty amount of criticism for online courses that upload enormous amounts of content without considering how it will be perceived and absorbed by the learner – the moral equivalent of writing notes on the board and expecting students to copy them indiscriminately. He wants to know how we include interactions in these new environments that are about the learners and their interaction with one another, and not just with the teacher or the content. The value is building the social interaction in the classroom, because that’s where the deep learning is.

Culatta, R. (2009). Designing online learning. YouTube. Retrieved  from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv-_GCFdLdo

Debbie Morrison’s view on instructional design, focusing on the importance of good planning for online learning spaces is interesting, given her belief that that the classroom walls somehow created boundaries for instruction and learning.This paints a grim picture of what teachers have done in the past. She is trying to say that online learning spaces can’t be treated as a free-for-all and that pedagogical purpose and design is paramount.

https://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/why-online-courses-really-need-an-instructional-design-strategy/

Jon Bergmann, one of the original proponents of the flipped classroom, underlines the importance of the design that needs to go into the learning experience.

Screen Shot 2015-05-20 at 10.11.50 pm

http://edtechreview.in/trends-insights/insights/902-ten-questions-you-should-ask-before-you-flip-your-classroom?utm_content=bufferbffde&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

 

Reinventing senior education…just not too much

In line with the thinking of the Principal, the Head of the Senior School (HSS) was keen to have a space suited to young adult learning, one that provided the space for them to become more self-managing. The HSS saw Years 11 and 12 as a time of transition into tertiary studies, and coupled with the new timetable which provided “flex” lessons once a cycle, saw the new spaces as transformational. Students were expected to become more responsible for their use of time at school and the open collaborative space concept was integral to this. The HSS found students wanted to replicate what they had in the former senior school quarters – a precinct that was theirs, to which they had aspired since entering the school. Too much change would change what they were to inherit – an interesting concept! The HSS perceived their ideas to be on the whole, very conservative. As the principal had said, they only could reproduce what they knew, and they were fiercely possessive of the precinct.

Students who were consulted at the design stage were, according to all members of the design team to whom I spoke (a very common thread), extremely conservative, resistant to any innovative ideas such as glass walls, and wanted everything painted beige or white. When shown glass walls they wanted blinds. The principal and HSS were “underwhelmed” when attempting to get students involved in the aesthetic aspects of the build. A compromise was made with the glass walls of the classroom, with decals covering approximately one third of the wall. The teachers who were to have offices in the building were even more resistant, citing privacy issues. The Principal offered all departments the opportunity to move into the classrooms as home rooms, but only one took it up. That department wanted to move out of the current office space they had, and this was the perfect opportunity.

Teachers using the classrooms have been ambivalent. Pleasing aspects include the smart new furniture, the lovely social environment, the view and the majesty of the building itself. It has grandeur, said one English teacher. At the same time many members of the staff, the English staff particularly, felt they weren’t consulted enough and their opinion was not valued. Negatives included the lift being locked and the key accessible only from one person, the windows which don’t open as the heating and cooling are completely automatic, no matter how cold/ hot the actual people are, brilliant IT but limited access as the AV person is part-time, and there are no available devices as we are moving to a BYOD programme next year. The steps are too narrow to the first floor, it is too noisy as the sound carries through the void, and students are easily distracted in the learning commons.

 

 

Making the building sing

An interview with the former Principal of the school revealed that the construction of the new Senior School building coincided with the Building the Education Revolution (BER) funding of 2009. With the BER money taking care of the Junior School extensions that had been planned, the school leadership decided to rethink the Senior School renovation. We are a country school, said the principal, but we need to think like a city school.  In his opinion and that of the College Board, there was growing discomfort with the late 1980s style of classrooms which were no longer suitable for 21st Century learning. The contrast with the new modern and functional Junior School (built in 2008) with its light and airy learning spaces was considerable, thus providing the impetus for reconceiving the design of the Senior School. The principal wanted an industrial feel, a warehouse type barn, in a building that would have a light touch down the hill on which it was to be situated. He envisaged the Junior School (JS), a beacon of innovation on one side of the school, and the Senior School (SS) physically bookending the College. We had the cash, he said, and he intended to change the game a bit, to supercharge the the concept of senior school. He wanted the building to make a statement, high on the hill, looking outwards not inwards. It also was set on the highest point of the school, the last point before the students leave secondary schooling.

The Business Manager and the Principal visited shopping centres, Adelaide University’s Hub Central, UTS, UC, and the Microsoft offices in Sydney, as well as school and public libraries in Australia and New Zealand. Some were particularly informative for structural design, some for the fitout. The principal said he wanted the new SS to relate formal learning and study time, so the creation of a learning commons was central to the concept of the building. In his view, our city is a particularly inward-looking community (he used the term “to courtyard” in describing our cultural outlook), so this drove the thinking of an outward-looking construction, with mezzanines and open spaces. He wanted a redefinition of learning, a fundamental change in the metaphor for learning at the College, with open collaborative spaces. Students should learn to manage the transition from school to university style of learning, and he was aiming for a building and spaces that would help students to become more self-managing. He wanted to call the building “Viewpoint” for that reason, so that the learning that occurred within the building reflected the expression of ideas.

Changes in senior school leadership meant some of the more traditional offices in the building were designed with a different purpose in mind. Some of the school leaders at the beginning of the project were of the view that nothing needed changing, that you don’t change a successful model.The principal recognised there had to be compromises to get certain aspects of the design over the line and subsequent personnel changes were advantageous. The new Head of the senior school held similar views to the principal, and was able to drive the project with more enthusiasm than his predecessor. Their view was that the building made it necessary to have a different pedagogy, one that made the building sing, so the teaching and learning would do the same.

 

The Learning Commons

What I’ve found fascinating in the study of this course is the intersection between the physical spaces and learning. Does the space determine the culture or the culture the spaces? When students in the Learning Commons of the Senior School are accessing digital spaces such as online databases provided by the Library, are they using the Library? What does “using the Library” mean? If so, what input does the Library then have? If the conventional orthodoxy is that students come to the Library to access information, what does it mean when they access information from another space? Does it make information specialists redundant or just reimagined? Since the construction of the Senior School Learning Commons (SSLC) we have almost the same number of students coming to the Library as before. They tell me it’s because when they come, they know they are there to work. The open-plan design of the SSLC actually mitigates against the motivation to study. Students say it’s because the architects forgot to factor in the distracting smells of grilled cheese wafting from the kitchen downstairs through the void. Or the open-space distraction that occurs naturally when one student walks past another and begins a perfectly reasonable conversation about something entirely unrelated to study. This appears to require a high level of engagement with the work in order to remain focused.

Blog post #2 Observation – the staff common room

The staff common room is on the first floor, located centrally in the school. Access is up a stairway from the other common area, which contains the pigeonholes. The morning recess meeting is attended by approximately 80 staff.

Staff pass each other on the stairwell. The room is bright. There are windows all along the side, lined with timber chairs facing inwards.There are small tables in front of the chairs. In front of them are ottomans and glass coffee tables, it seems people find it difficult to access chairs.  Staff sit in groups.  Others are serving themselves drinks in the kitchen which is on the opposite side of the room. Movement is limited as the kitchen is only about 1.5 m wide, and people dodge each other to gain access to paper towels, cutlery, mugs and the makings of tea and coffee. Many people apologise, others just work around each other. Movement around the table with food is also limited. The room is warm and the noise level reasonable. The meeting begins as the activity continues but then calms. The sight lines to the person speaking are blocked for many people, due to the high kitchen benches. From under the window near the kitchen and from the top of the stairs it is almost impossible to see the speaker, who stands next to the front bench. The speaker swivels through 180 degrees to see as many people as possible while they speak. At the end, people file out past the tables, slowly, waiting for those coming up or going down the stairs. Some wait to talk to others, weaving around those still in other conversation, but most make for the exit down the stairs as quickly as possible. This is one of the few reasonably sized spaces in the school but it is used for about two hours a week, and for lunch for very few people.

SCR2

 

Comment on Monique’s post

http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/monique/2014/08/08/blog-task-2/#comment-15

Comment on Rochelle’s post

http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/rmasaoka/2014/08/08/childcare-observations-blog-post-2/

Comment on Jo’s post

http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/joquinlan/2014/08/08/improving-a-daily-routine/#comment-23