What partnerships might be possible in your own community to create an “alternative” makerspace? What learnings might be had from observing existing spaces, talking with educators about the limits of those traditional models, and the potential of designing something that lies outside the schooling environment, in a common, shared, community space?
We actually have a pretty cool makerspace at the Fayetteville Free Library in Fayetteville NY called the Fab Lab. It has 3-D printers (and 3-D printing classes), sewing machines, laser and vinyl cutters, etc. I often frequent this library while babysitting for a professor in the area and they even have a “Little Makers” space in the children’s section!
In addition, FFL often host events called “Human Libraries”, where visitors are invited to engage in dialogue with people they might not otherwise want or have the opportunity to interact with. The people who agree to be “on loan” come from a variety of cultural backgrounds, age groups, etc.
With that being said, Fayetteville has a bit more money than Syracuse does, and the library is well know for partnering with university students and pioneering innovation in the area. I think there is an opportunity for the library to collaborate with Syracuse libraries that are less innovative to share some of their makerspace expertise, and wealth of resources.
My first blog post for INF536 was meek, mild and decidedly self-conscious. An excerpt from said post reads as follows:
I’m feeling slightly intimidated as I don’t have access/authority to redesign a library or classroom space but I’m hoping this forces me to be more creative, and yields some interesting results. Until then, see you on the forum!
At the writing of my initial blog post, I did not feel that my background in entrepreneurship, librarianship and social media qualified me to analyze or discuss learning spaces and design in a public digital space with my fellow classmates.
The digital learning space we were required to interact in for the entirety of INF536 seemed daunting at first. We were encouraged from Day 1 to share almost everything we wrote or worked on, a practice that tends to make me uneasy in both physical and digital spaces. I noted that digital spaces that have been carved out for learning enable my shyness, and natural tendency to fine-tune and perfect what I’m going to say before I say it. In physical learning spaces, I’m not afforded the luxury of spell-check, or rereading my answer before it comes out of my mouth. The necessity for less self-editing and more mistakes often yields some of the most creative results. With that being said, I find that people are more intentional with their thoughts and words in digital learning spaces, an aspect of online learning that I appreciate and value.
The more I wrote and shared, the more comfortable I became, in part due to Tim Brown’s idea that anyone can (and probably should) think like a designer (Brown, 2009). Everyone has something to contribute, and some of the best ideas originate from companies and people that do not design in the way that they were “trained” to, but who think outside the box, take risks, make mistakes and embrace failure. It became exceedingly hard to read about embracing failure and messy first drafts (namely prototyping) and still act like a perfectionist when it came to presenting my work and train of thought to the class. A key theme I noticed in all reading, and videos throughout the semester was that innovative design usually originates in business or learning environments where individuals are given the space and flexibility to act, think, react and behave a little chaotically (Catmull, 2014).
Suddenly, I began to notice parallels and interconnections between entrepreneurship, librarianship, social media and design thinking. A main interconnection/parallel was how all four things are rooted firmly in servicing an identified need. I noticed as well, many connections between being an online community manager, and managing/designing a digital space for learning. Each subsequent blog post I wrote for class felt easier to write and to post. I grew less afraid of publically failing and branched out to try new things (Crowder, 2014). As the weeks progressed, I discovered that although I do not have a background in teaching or design architecture, I still had the capacity to not only think like a designer but apply design thinking to almost every aspect of my professional life.
With design, as well as social media, librarianship and entrepreneurship, I realized how important it is to listen to the needs of your target audience (Brown, 2009). I have learned how little you actually need in order to be disruptively innovative (Leadbeater & Wong, 2010). You can repurpose materials you have lying around, or create awe-inspiring spaces using nothing but imagination and a big helping hand from nature, like John Hardy’s Green School. (Tobias, 2011.) I’ve learned the value of immersive experiences and empathy in the world of designing spaces for learning (Brown, 2009). I sincerely hope to hone the skills I’ve picked up in INF536, see opportunities to implement learning spaces in non-traditional places, continuously wrestle with the importance of a balanced relationship between space and pedagogy, and ultimately never stop thinking like a designer.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Business.
Catmull, E. (2014, April). Inside the Pixar braintrust, Fast Company. Retrieved from: http://www.fastcompany.com/3027135/lessons-learned/inside-the-pixar-braintrust
Crowder, E. (2014). Blog task 4: creative coffee morning. Retrieved from: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/lizcrowder/2014/09/20/blog-task-4-creative-coffee-morning/
Tobias, R. (2011, May 31) A day at the Green School. TED.com. Retrieved from: http://blog.ted.com/2011/05/31/a-day-at-the-green-school-in-bali/
- The Structure of Ill-Structured Problems by Herbert A. Simon
- A New Approach to Innovative Design: An Introduction to C-K Theory by Armand Hatchuel & Benoit Weil
- Conceptual Blockbusting: A pleasurable guide to better problem solving by James L. Adams
- 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization by Vijay Kumar
- Designing Spaces for Effective Learning: A guide to 21st century learning space design by JISC
- Designing for adaptation: the school as socio-spatial assemblage by Kim Dovey and Kenn Fisher
Popular learning pedagogies today lean towards constructivism (Hua Liu & Matthews, 2005), a distinct shift from more traditional behaviorist and cognitivist pedagogies (Dovey & Fisher, 2014). This constructivism applies to both how teachers and other education professionals facilitate learning in their environments, as well as how learning spaces are being designed. For instance, current popular design theories and practices seem to agree that designed spaces (for learning or otherwise) should be innovative in nature. However, a key discord between existing literature on design is that there does not seem to be a universal consensus on the specifics of innovative design. Dovey and Fisher remark quite aptly, “it is significant that there is no sense of convergence on any ideal architecture for the new pedagogies as there is for the old.” (Dovey & Fisher, 2014.)
In the literature selected above, two authors stand out on opposite ends of the design theory spectrum; Herbert Simon and Armand Hatchuel. Simon views design as a problem (or series of problems both ill-structured and well-structured) to be solved while Hatchuel depicts design as a project.
Simon’s design theory involves bounded rationality (meaning that decision making is limited by an individual’s existing knowledge or memory, time constraints and the cognitive limitations of the mind), as well as satisficing—seeking a satisfactory, or “good enough” solution as opposed to an/the optimal one (Simon, 1973). Simon says, “The whole design, then, begins to acquire structure by being decomposed into various problems of component design, and by evoking, as the design progresses, all kinds of requirements to be applied in testing the design of its components. During any given short period of time, the architect will find himself working on a problem which, perhaps beginning in an ill structured state, soon converts itself through evocation from memory into a well structured problem.” (Pople, 1982; Simon, 1973; Webster, 2010.)
On the other end of the spectrum, Hatchuel’s design theory (C-K theory) is both a design theory and a theory of design reasoning. According to Hatchuel and Weil, design includes problem solving but should not be reduced to just solving a problem; Design theory is an open-ended process, and a project. Problem solving alone does not leave room for innovation (Dorst & Overveld; Hatchuel & Weil, 2003). In keeping with C-K theory, a brief is designed as a concept, through the introduction of a formal distinction between concept and knowledge spaces, followed by a characterization of the space between concept (C) and knowledge (K) (Bassiti & Ajhoun, 2013).
Two authors whose design practices aren’t directly related to learning spaces but seem to be influenced by Simon and Hatchuel respectively are John L. Adams (author of Conceptual Blockbusting: A pleasurable guide to better problem solving) and Vijay Kumar (author of 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization).
Adams is of the mindset that design “problems” exist, however the problems need to be properly isolated in order to be solved and consequently for innovation to occur. (Adams, 1976.) Adams’ logic is as follows:
Problem statements are often liberally laced with answers. The answers may be well thought out or poorly conceived. They may be right or wrong. A problem statement to an architect such as ‘put a latch on that door between the kitchen and the dining room so that the door can be opened extremely easily’ implies that the answer to kitchen/dining room access is a door, rather than no door, a redefinition of space or a redefinition of the food preparation/eating function.” (p. 15)
Kumar 2012 does not write explicitly from a problem-solving standpoint. Kumar starts by saying that less that 4 percent of the innovation projects undertaken by businesses are proven successful. The remaining 96 percent of the projects fail (Kumar, 2012). Kumar then goes on to describe four key principles for successful innovation: Build innovations around experience; think of innovations as systems; cultivate an innovation culture; and adopt a disciplined innovation process (Kumar, 2012). Kumar’s design methods rely heavily on process and experience, turning design from an art into a science, reminiscent (to this author) of Hatchuel & Weil and the C-K theory.
Kumar’s 101 design methods aside, there is incredible discord in the selected literature about methods for applying design thinking to spaces for learning. Two pieces of literature that delve deeper into design methods specific to learning spaces are Designing Spaces for Effective Learning: A guide to 21st century learning space design by JISC, and Designing for adaptation: the school as socio-spatial assemblage by Kim Dovey and Kenn Fisher. A close reading of the literature shows that implementation is often tricky in designing spaces specifically for learning. There are myriad standards and specifications to be met on academic (EngageNY, 2011), bureaucratic and architectural levels (School Construction Authority, 2011).
As an example, if teachers are tied up with the design of learning spaces (arguably as they should be), it becomes harder for them to focus on immediate academic necessities. In addition, it is difficult to ensure buy-in from all levels of stakeholders including upper management, and teachers. Regular dialog among management and staff as the design ideas are in the ideation and implementation phases are suggested methods to facilitate cooperation across the board (Bhutiani & Danaher, 2013), but that seems an oversimplified answer to a complex question.
According to a JISC eSpaces Study at the University of Birmingham, “Organisations all face pressure to deliver higher standards of education, to greater numbers of students, with tight financial restrictions, but still need to provide facilities that will attract students in a competitive market.” (JISC, 2006.) Organizations do need to achieve all of the above in order to stay competitive, but with no universal learning design theory, and vastly differing theories and practices abounding, what is a learning institution to do?
It should be noted that none of the selected authors address the idea of the potential difficulty in expecting students to adapt to new, innovative learning environments if the designers of said learning environments aren’t practicing what they preach. Teachers and educational professionals should not necessarily champion an open, flexible way of learning to facilitate all kinds of students, and a new way of thinking that is tied into the very design of a learning space, if they’re holding on to standards or constraints in part for fear of bureaucratic repercussions.
Design theory discord aside, a trendy concept in designing spaces for learning is the idea of an open classroom or learning space (JISC, 2006; Dovey & Fisher, 2014). Open learning spaces are flexible, often previously underutilized spaces that are redesigned to attract a variety of learners. Conceived to foster an environment of both individuality as well as collaboration (JISC, 2006), these spaces usually seem to favor the latter.
The Syracuse Center of Excellence in downtown Syracuse, NY is a prime example of what this concept looks like in practice. According to their website, the Syracuse Center of Excellence is an innovation hub created to spur economic development in the Upstate New York region. The organization engages with individuals at hundreds of regional companies and institutions in an attempt to address challenges in clean and renewable energy, indoor environmental quality (IEQ), and water resources. (SyracuseCoE, 2014.)
SyracuseCoE Headquarters is a LEED Platinum certified smart building that is touted as being a “testbed for innovation” (SyracuseCoE, 2011). Other notable design features include a Total Indoor Environmental Quality [TIEQ] Lab, a green roof, a geothermal system, lighting and control systems, natural and personal ventilation systems, advanced building heat recovery and reuse systems, air quality monitoring of outside air and controls for improving air indoors, an urban ecosystem observatory tower, rain water capture and reuse and much more.
SyracuseCoE has used a variety of design methods from the selected literature in the design of their building, including an open floor plan with no separate offices for upper management, and a rotating desk plan where desks are not designated to specific individuals. Instead, employees sit where they prefer, whether at a desk, in the lobby, on the green roof, etc. In addition, a lot of the office and lab space remains empty for most of the year and is designed to facilitate the needs of partners, students and individuals affiliated with the organization that need a place for learning, experimentation and exploration (SyracuseCoE, 2014).
While all of this open space sounds not only innovative for an organization, but also ideal for all parties involved, Dovey and Fisher claim, “The most open of plans are often not the most adaptable because they constrain choice.” (Dovey & Fisher, 2014) Due to the open nature of the SyracuseCoE headquarters, sound carries and makes for a rather cacophonous atmosphere, often times negating the benefits of creating an open office. There are also very few places to retreat for individuals who do not feel that open offices or environments are conducive to their style of learning. The fact that the entire office is open, does in fact, as Dovey and Fisher claim, constrain choice.
Minimal changes could improve the accessibility of open learning environments for all learning styles. For instance, the University of Strathclyde made open plans work for students in its computer workstation area by creating a barrier within the open space. The university incorporated a presentation area into its open space design that gave students a place to peer review their work and ideas. “The realisation of the design takes place in the rapid prototyping room – a separate room but with a transparent partition to provide sound insulation but still allow activities there to be integrated into other stages of the process.” (JISC, 2006.)
In addition to constraints and boundaries within an open space plan, JISC denotes alternative space design options to facilitate various types of learning styles including flexible furniture, wider doorways, audiovisual cues and changes in furniture layout which can help learners navigate around a building and “adjust their behaviour according to the purpose of the space” (JISC, 2006).
Is the open classroom/learning space idea an ill-structured solution to an ill-structured problem? Is it the solution to a well-structured problem? Or is it a temporary pit stop on the designing spaces for learning journey toward meeting the ever-evolving needs of learners well into the future? Dovey and Fisher say that the more convertible and fluid the learning space is designed to be, the more complex said space ultimately becomes as “different spaces are added to the cluster in a variety of spatial relationships (separation, openability, interpenetration).” (Dovey & Fisher, 2014.) In light of this, it is proposed that there be a blend of separation, openability and interpretation in designing spaces for learning as a whole; a marriage of standards and flexibility; a collaboration between all levels of stakeholders. The overlap of separate spaces described by Dovey and Fisher seems to yield the best results, as exhibited by the University of Strathclyde example above.
The theme that runs like a spine throughout the literature analyzed in this paper is the fact that innovation is integral to designing spaces. Although the literature differs on methods of implementation, innovation in design does not seem possible without room for trial and error, creativity and flexibility all the while maintaining a sense of boundaries and constraints. Innovative design also needs to be measurably successful in order to bypass organizational push back and facilitate buy-in from all stakeholders.
In the literature selected for this critique, and in using practical, real life examples such as the University of Strathclyde and the Syracuse Center of Excellence, design theory currently seems more akin to C-K theory as proposed by Hatchuel and Weil, than bounded rationality as proposed by Simon. The literature and real life examples that were influenced by C-K theory allowed for a degree of innovation that literature involving design practice influenced by Simon is lacking. Much of the literature, most notably Dovey and Fisher’s Designing for adaptation: the school as socio-spatial assemblage, read like a design brief.
Understandably, there are gaps in the above outline and analysis due to the sample size of the literature critiqued. The literature predominantly discusses substantive design changes, which are not always the answer. A design project or problem does not always require monumental structural changes, for instance, “evolution” is sometimes touted as an alternative to “revolution” (Blueprint for Innovation, 2013). Reminiscent of Adams’ focus on the isolation of a problem, if a design project or problem is properly isolated, there may be no need to make huge structural changes in order to effectively design spaces for learning.
The distinction between revolution and evolution is key, especially when organizational considerations (budget justification, limited budget, lack of support from key internal and external stakeholders) are involved. Evolution is a much easier sell than revolution, and revolution can and will happen incrementally in the form of evolution over time. Designing Spaces for Effective Learning: A guide to 21st century learning space design says it best:
We cannot anticipate future technological or pedagogic developments, but can ensure that designs will accommodate change. Investment in higher specification mobile rather than fixed technologies, wireless as well as wired networks, even bespoke furniture, may be justified when the space can support a range of purposes, and be relatively easily reconfigured. It is also probable that institutions will aim increasingly for fewer but better quality teaching spaces, with increased space per seat: large group or dispersed group teaching is already being supported by video streaming and video conferencing. Cameras in teaching spaces can offer that flexibility. (JISC, 2006).
What does innovative design theory look like in the future? How about design practice? Which pedagogy, if any, will one day steal the popularity of constructivism in the classroom? While the answers to these questions cannot be known, it is suggested that designers of learning spaces be fluid and design flexibly, existing in the present without abandoning design theories and practices of old that might just require redefinition in order to support the current learning environment. This outlook will allow students of generations both present and future, to continue learning as pedagogies, standards and practices fickly, and inevitably change.
Adams, J. (1976). Conceptual blockbusting: A pleasurable guide to better problem solving. New York: W. W Norton & Company, Inc.
Ajhoun, R., & Bassiti, L. (2013). International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 4(6), 551. doi:10.7763/IJIMT.2013.V4.460
Bhutiani, A., & Danaher, A. (2013). Blueprint for innovation. FTI Journal, September 1, 2014.
Dorst, K., & Overveld, K. (2009). Typologies of design practice. In A. Meijers (Ed.), The handbook philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (9th ed., pp. 455). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014).
Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43-63. doi:10.1080/13602365.2014.882376
Hua Liu, C., & Matthews, R. (2005).
Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. Adelaide University). International Education Journal, 6(3), 386-399.
JISC e-Learning Programme. (2006). Designing spaces for effective learning: A guide to 21st century learning space design. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council.
Kumar, V. (2012). 101 design methods : A structured approach for driving innovation in your organization (1st ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.
New york state P-12 common core learning standards. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.engageny.org/resource/new-york-state-p-12-common-core-learning-standards
Pople, H. E., Jr. “Heuristic Methods for Imposing Structure on Ill-Structured Problems: The Structuring of Medical Diagnostics.” Chapter 5 in Szolovits, P. (Ed.) Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. 1982.
School construction authority design standards. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.nycsca.org/Business/WorkingWithTheSCA/Design/Pages/DesignStandards.aspx
Simon, H. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.
Syracuse center of excellence: Headquarters building. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.syracusecoe.org/coe/sub1.html?skuvar=16
Syracuse center of excellence: Home page. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.syracusecoe.org/coe/
Webster, C. (2010, July 15).
Herbert Simon’s well- vs. ill-structured problems, adaptive case management, and clinical groupware. Retrieved from http://chuckwebster.com/2010/07/ehr-workflow/herbert-simon-well-vs-ill-structured-problems-adaptive-case-management-clinical-groupware
I decided that in the spirit of creativity and making this project my own, I would branch out and try an event that was a little less coffee morning and a little more bowling night. Using the above poster as a marketing device, I was able to convince 8 people (a pretty small turnout, I know) to come join me at AMF Strike n’ Spare Lanes in Syracuse, NY.
We had cheap, terrible beer (PBR was on special), bowled and discussed all things creative. One incredibly exciting outcome of the evening was that we collectively decided we wanted make creative sessions a monthly thing, at various venues. Next up is brunch at a favorite local restaurant called Alto Cinco. I realized that while I can’t always change the physical space of a place to meet my creatively inclined needs, and to help inspire ideas in others, I CAN ensure that I change the environment to facilitate the same sort of positive/creative learning outcome.
A few of the people who showed up for the event had backgrounds in early childhood development, and are studying to be School Media librarians so a discussion about creative redesigning of traditional spaces seemed to really resonate with them. Although many people were wary about being captured in photos/videos, I was able to capture a short video of the lovely Jessica Regitano, who was particularly excited about the Vittra School in Stockholm that did away with traditional classrooms and embraced open space, permeable borders and abstract landmarks (Chan, 2012). For those of you who haven’t heard about this school, or need a refresher the architects at Rosan Bach who are responsible for the innovative design had this to say to help clarify the space: “Instead of classical divisions with chairs and tables, a giant iceberg for example serves as cinema, platform, and room for relaxation, and sets the frame for many different types of learning, while flexible laboratories make it possible to work hands-on with themes and projects.” (Chan, 2012.)
And now, a word from Jessica:
The informality of this type of event and the fact that I had a key role in organizing made me super nervous. I also feel that it caused me to hold back some of my creative energy both in the event planning and actual execution. When I organize another one next month, I plan to let my imagination run wild. A key benefit to the informal creative bowling night was that everyone was on a level playing field (no one was standing up front and lecturing or presenting) and thus was easier for all attendees to offer up their thoughts and ideas without fear of a “wrong answer”, if you will. The planning of this event also caused me to realize that you don’t always need money, speakers or a fancy venue to host a successful event. Sometime, all you have to do is ask. All in all, a pretty fun experience and one that I definitely want to keep up with outside the confines of INF536!
Chan, K. (2012). Stockholm’s school without classrooms. Retrieved from http://architizer.com/blog/vittra/
Syracuse Hancock International Airport Observation
Traffic (foot and vehicle) in both directions, although more congested at the drop-off area. Airport employees/security guards hurry people along brusquely. They continue to reiterate that cars should not park in front, even to unpack the car and say goodbye to passengers. They encourage people to pay for parking in an airport parking lot far removed from the main building. People seem tired, hurried and cranky.
Upon entering the airport, I am greeted by copious amounts of empty space, haphazardly arranged potted plants, thin gray carpeting and a stray piece of furniture every couple of feet. Lighting is harsh and fluorescent. The environment feels slapdash and makes me somewhat uneasy. There is a long row of rental car vendors to my left and a few DIY check-in kiosks and a check-in counter to my right. The employees of the rental car vendors don’t smile or say anything as I walk past, although they are staring directly at me. The DIY check-in kiosks are all broken, and no airport employees are currently at or near the check-in desk. Directional signage is relatively non-existent as far as I can tell. Due to lack of proper signage it seems that people are moving from one check-in desk to the next, lugging their bags along with them. Again, people seem tired and increasingly more frustrated.
There is one line for security until you get closer to the front where it splits off into 2-3 checkpoints. Lighting is still harsh, maybe even more so than in the check-in area. People who didn’t say goodbye to friends/family/loved ones outside, are doing it now, albeit hurriedly, as no one but plane passengers are allowed beyond the security checkpoint. The security area has some informative signage, although the placement of said signage is at the front of the line. People seem to be scrambling to take out their laptops, and take off their shoes at the last second. They are also reorganizing their carry-on luggage, as well as scarfing down the last of whatever food they have on them. Perhaps as a result of the signage placement? The children seem impatient and whiny. They are crying a lot, or running around.
Terminal has places to eat, drink and sit as well as lots of empty, unused space. People seem a bit more relaxed here, as they settle in with their carry-ons and wait for their planes to arrive. Lots of people are reading physical books, or ereaders, using their laptops, or listening to music. Others are napping. Many kids are still running around, or crying while others sleep, or play games on digital devices.
Sketch of my observations (click to enlarge):
Comments on other blog posts:
1. Shannon’s blog post
2. Jo’s blog post
3. Margo’s blog post
I’ve been exploring the idea of capitalizing on unused/empty space in everyday places (in this specific instance, an airport) by turning them into non-traditional learning spaces.
My partner works at the Syracuse Airport, and talked about how there is a lot of unused or empty terminal space in the building.
At around the same time, my friend, classmate & colleague Anna shared an article with me about the first airport library near Amsterdam, at the Schiphol Airport in the Netherlands. In a 2010 New York Times article praising the innovative initiative, past President of the American Library Association (ALA) Roberta Stevens is quoted as saying, “We can’t cement ourselves into the past. We have to reflect the changes we see in our societies, and its clear that we are becoming more and more transient.” And thus, the idea of creating an airport library in Syracuse, NY or transforming empty space at the local airport into a learning space that benefits the people of the airport, and also provides marketing and outreach benefits to the libraries in this area was born.
Throughout the exploration of our required reading for the past few weeks, an integral framework to design thinking that stuck out to me was Tim Brown’s three stages; Feasibility, viability, and desirability (Brown, 2009).
Based on the subsequent success of libraries in other airports (including Schiphol, and five other libraries in the U.S–most recently Boise, Idaho) creating a digital or little free library in the Syracuse Airport seems to me a feasible, viable and desirable project.
I think that designing spaces for learning should involve a high level of strategy, and intentionality as well as a firm knowledge of what your target audience/demographic/community wants and needs. From layout, to signage, to furniture placement, almost everything can serve a learning purpose if the space is used to its full potential. For instance, according to Reuter, 2007 children said that finding books they like is the biggest barrier they face to reading. Theoretically, if library spaces for children were organized in an intuitive way that made relevant reading materials easier to find, this barrier to reading dissolves. As Brown, 2010 states, “A designer now must take the needs of the entire world, including the environment, into account.”
Along those same lines, I also think there should also be a dynamic interactivity between space and users of the space as opposed to a space being a static, monolithic thing.
Description of changes
A small pilot test of this design project would be the first step to change, in the way of a Little Free Library. The purpose of this pilot test would be to gauge overall interest of the airport customers’ in the service we’re hoping to provide (or to gauge desirability of the space redesign). Steps to implement the pilot project included:
1. Partnering with local libraries in the Syracuse area (or pulling from my own personal library) to put together a small collection of reading material for adults, teenagers and children.
2. Setting up pop-up little free libraries in the empty terminal spaces pictured above.
3. Observing those pop-up little free libraries, engaging with the airport customers using the little free libraries, and gathering valuable feedback to get started on next steps for a bigger, perhaps more digital airport library.
As the space redesign progresses, more updates will follow. Stay tuned!
Comments on other posts:
1. Patricia’s blog
2. Shannon’s blog
3. Rochelle’s blog
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation Harper Collins.
Clark, N. (2010). At schiphol, an unlikely sanctuary of books. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/arts/16iht-library.html
Prentice, G. (2014). Branching out: Boise library goes digital at the airport. Retrieved, 2014, Retrieved from http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/branching-out/Content?oid=3191173
Reuter, K. A.“Children selecting books in a library”: Extending models of information behavior to a recreational setting. (Doctorate, University of Maryland).