My domain of research is ‘Assessment’ in regards to the evaluation of physical university environments for learning. Inherent in my exploration is the need to understand three variables – firstly, who will be assessed (the user of the space, be it student or instructor or administrator); secondly, the method and manner of assessment, and lastly, the spatial qualities to be rated. The following discussion concerns the latter, but rather than focus on the sense of security and physical comfort of the space, which is commonly a focus of the evaluation, I will explore the design intent and the appropriateness of the environment in regard to the prevailing philosophy of education and architecture.
Although it is commonly understood through architectural education and practice that designed spaces are the solidification of intention, also, there is a sense that humans adjust to a space and the degree of personal adaption may dilute the direction encouraged by the designer. Regardless, architecture as an art form always expresses something - the newly-built always comments on the existing environment in terms of what indigenous elements it chooses or refuses to integrate, how important it perceives itself to be, how much it chooses to aid the patron through its structure and the hierarchy it gives to particular spaces, how responsive it chooses to be to cultural concerns, and in many others ways. But, it's easy to obscure, in these anthropomorphic terms, the intention of university administrators, department heads or lead professors that expose their agenda in what and how and at whose expense they choose to build. Indeed, architectural design can spawn social and cultural change as much as a cathedral interior can inspire its congregation.
Appropriateness in the design of environments for learning was often based on tradition. Long before the establishment of Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1861 as the nation’s first institution for training architects, the custom of building higher education facilities for permanence and instilling a classical aesthetic for the classroom environment was the predominant convention for classroom design. But, in the first quarter of the twentieth century, different criteria for the design of learning spaces were emerging to oppose classicism.
When Frederick (2007) declared, “All design endeavors express the zeitgeist”, he not only surmised that the spirit of the age was embodied in the architecture, but the biases as well. He goes on to postulate “parallel (although not identical) trends tend to occur in literature, religion, science, architecture, art and other creative enterprises.” Although historians disagree on historical eras in western civilization, Frederick (2007 ibid) summarizes the previous period and describes it as “Modern era: a favoring of truths revealed by the scientific method”. Arguably, this European and Western periodization is thought to span from the end of the Middle Ages to the mid-twentieth century. He adds “ The Post-modern era: an inclination to hold that truth as relative or impossible to know” is the current time. Beck (1993) concurs with this summary of Post-modern ideals and its pervasiveness throughout the arts and adds that “it features the challenging of convention” including “the mixing of styles”.
If one concedes that pedagogy and architecture are influenced by the “prevailing ethos” as Frederick (ibid) puts it, then determining the parameters for assessing the built environment may also be transitive. At the start of professional architectural training on the design of educational facilities in America, classical style and ornamentation was pervasive to the degree that, at the start of the twentieth century, engineer John R. Freeman remarked that contemporary work was ”preoccupied with aesthetics”, and “rarely thought through the question of use and function”. This classicism was not borne of the original intent of the Middle Ages, but rather as a modern reaction to the classical time. Currently, the “Form follows Function” 19th century maxim prevails today as the cornerstone of architectural design and the standard to which the built environment is often assessed. Therefore, should congruence of the built environment to the pedagogy be a tenet in assessing the appropriateness of the classroom? Brian Edwards (2000) put the onus on the administration when he remarked that, “Universities have the most unique challenge of relating the built fabric to academic discourse” (pg. vii). Hence, I will review parallel theories in education and architectural design to see how they relate to the assessment of the spatial qualities of the classroom to be evaluated.
In education, tenets of the Modern era can be found in the positivist view of learning. Hein (2002) outlines an orthogonal continuum of knowledge and learning in which one quadrant labeled ‘didactic-expository’ represents “the most traditional view” of education. The epistemology of this view is that knowledge is derived from a scientific method apart from the experiences of the learner and the theory of learning is that advancement occurs incrementally. Adjacent to that domain is the ‘discovery’ quadrant which shares epistemology but characterizes the learner as active. Positivism falls between these two domains, tending most likely to ‘discovery’. Endres (1997) says positivism “aims at the discovery of law-like generalizations that can function as premises in deductive explanations and predictions.” In regards to the theory of knowledge, Peca (2000), in her historical study of positivism in education, summarizes the premise as “objective reality exists which can only be known objectively”. She concurs that the goals of positivism is to improve civilization through the use of scientific method to discover natural laws.
When Beck (1997) describes contemporary education in the Post-modern era, he advises that it “does not represent a single point of view. There are progressive postmodernists and conservative ones, postmodernists of “resistance” and postmodernists of “reaction,” strongly reform-minded postmodernists and others who concentrate on pricking bubbles. There are bleeding hearts and loose cannons. There is constant debate among so-called postmodernists about how a true postmodernist should approach life and inquiry and hence what qualifies as postmodernism”. He does acknowledge however, that “it has such features as the challenging of convention, the mixing of styles, tolerance of ambiguity, emphasis on diversity, acceptance (indeed celebration) of innovation and change, and stress on the constructedness of reality”. Hein’s (2002) description of constructivism is congruous with tenets of the post-modern era. Learners create their truths from the world around them and although the knowledge can be wholly personal, there is a universality of shared perceptions. Constructivist teaching methodologies may employ independent work, cooperative learning and group lecture within the same lesson plan. Beck’s (1997) discussion of Post-modern education includes a democratic philosophy with a student-instructor relationship that is dialogical and downplays the role and authority of the professor. Dr. Hein also acknowledges, “shifting power, even in a constructivist methodology can be palatable”.
Before the commencement of the first formal training for architects in America at the conclusion of the civil war, the predominate movement in building design was highly influenced by European sensibilities. During this Modern era, homage was paid to the much earlier Classical (Greek) era, which Frederick (2007) described as valuing “order, rationality and democracy”. Formal orders were replete with prescribed ornamentation.
Functionalism as embodied in the Louis Sullivan phrase “Form follows function” was a reaction to the purported overuse of decoration at the expense of the ‘efficiency of the space. It is important to note, however, that iconic Modern architects of the period such as Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe are likened to functionalists only to the extent that their buildings were radical simplifications of previous styles and lacked ornamentation.
Architecture of the Modern era is generally characterized as rejecting historical forms and eliminated excess detailing toward a more machine-like interpretation of buildings. The scientific bent in contemporary culture was noted that at the end of the era. Scherr (2001) remarks “a ‘positivist’ approach was pursued based in scientific method, in which design was generated by programmatic and behavioral analysis, problem-solving methodologies, and other oriented, functional approaches”.
Architecture in the post-modern era was a reaction to the austere Modern design. The Columbia Encyclopedia states “Ornament, once banished by modernism, has returned, often in the form of overtly historical revivalism, although it has just as often been reinterpreted in high-tech materials. This has resulted in a stylistic eclecticism on the contemporary scene”. The constructivist movement in architecture, while present in the Post-modern era, began in the later part of Modern times and was largely a social political movement supporting communism through the use of new technologies in building. Indeed, Elam (2001) summarized Constructivist ideals in design as abstractions of the human profile “into simple geometric shapes of the mechanical machine age.” While one might extrapolate eclecticism in post-modern architecture as an acknowledgement that the ‘truth’ is a subjective interpretation, it is perhaps safer to conceded that we are barely over a half-century into the Post-modern era and the overall direction of these times are yet to be revealed in architecture.
When evaluating the spatial qualities of a room (the shape, layout and the conduciveness of the built-in learning technology), one cannot separate its appropriateness from the intended use. It is reasonable to many that congruence be the ideal. Within the zeitgeist of an era, educational theory and architectural design seem to follow the same melody, albeit at different tempos. Within a traditional classroom layout of a Classical interpretation that supports professorial control, the architecture becomes a player in highlighting cultural incongruity, especially in constructivist pedagogy. But the reality is that “Teaching and learning activities still take place in spaces unable to accommodate different pedagogical models”, as Elmasry (2007) states, so there is a lot of effective teaching occurring in poorly designed or inappropriate spaces. Should the classroom evaluation be dependant, not on the physical qualities of the room, but rather the expertise of the teacher? It is important to note that ideas of congruency are not universally accepted. Hauf, Koppes, Green, Gassman, Haviland (1966) in their research on designing new college facilities remarked “Proper design of these spaces [for learning] does not depend on the dictates of a specific educational philosophy. Educational philosophies will be considered, but only in respect to their common influences on design. There will be no attempt to urge specific philosophies”.
Within one’s perception of their physical classroom space there is a determination as to whether the environment supports or impairs the learning process. Classroom assessments compile a multitude of data about the space and offer an overall rating. Perhaps the answer to whether there is a congruency between the educational philosophy and the architectural design or the classroom form and the pedagogy rests not in determining the spatial qualities to be rated, but in a thorough method of assessment, which provides for ample data to divine the contribution of the architectural design to learning.
References
Edwards, B. (2000). University Architecture. London and New York: Spon Press
Strange, C. & Banning, J.(2001). Educating by Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Elmasry, S. (2007) Integration Patterns of Learning Technologies, Page 15.
Heim, G. (2002) The challenge of constructivist teaching, Passion and Pedegogy: Relation, Creation and transformation in Teaching, Ed. Elijah Mirochnik, Debora C. Sherman , NY: Peter Lang
Frederick, M. (2007) 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School, pg 83, Boston: MIT Press.
Hauf, H. & Koppes, W. & Green, A. & Gassman, M. & Haviland, D. (1966). New spaces for learning: Designing college facilities to utilize instructional aids and media. New York: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Endres, B. (1997). Ethics and the Critical Theory of Education. Canada : EPS/ Philosophy of Education Society yearbook essay.
Beck, C. (1993). Postmodernism, pedagogy, and philosophy of education. Canada : EPS/Philosophy of Education Society yearbook essay.
Peca, K. (2000). Positivism in education: Philosophical, research and organizational assumptions. Opinion paper, Educational Resources Informational Center
Scherr, R. (2001). The grid: Form and process in architectural design. Page 11. New York, Verona, Bucharest: USA books.
Elam, K (2001) Geometry of design: Studies in proportion and composition, pg 48. New York: Princeton Architectural Press
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. (2008) Modern architecture. New York: Columbia University Press.
(COPYRIGHT © 2008 MIKAEL POWELL. All Rights Reserved)
