Where I work we are in the process of designing (refurbishing) a building to move in to. It is possibly exciting. Part of this activity is to rethink what a teaching environment could be, and will be, in say, 30 years. Some of these spaces will be used for the sorts of computer based activities that I teach. A blended learning space. In spite of having a team of ‘experts’ the best they have come up with to date is a room with a single screen (so it has a front), and a sort of Ikea tear drop shaped table that 6 students can sit around. Why six? It is a small group size. Why a fixed table, to supply the electricity and the ethernet. This is a vision of the future firmly grounded in 1980. In response I’ve written and distributed the following memo. It took a few minutes of thinking and is something I would think of as a beginning, not an end. If I’m lucky it will end up as an end.
Problems.
1. The structure seems to predetermine group size.
2. The labs/teaching spaces that would seem to be most about the new mobile/porous educational environment (ubiquitous networking, laptops, high end infrastructure) are actually very nearly the most locked down teaching spaces in the new design. (Many of the other spaces will let you move tables for example, but not here?)
3. Appears to only have one idea of direction which would be a single projection screen. This seems very old fashioned and teacher centred.
An Idea
1 .Have at least 2 data projectors so that there is no ‘front’?
2. Have at least 2 data projectors so that the second could be used for other content, perhaps students using MSN to discuss the class? A live video feed from somewhere else? An academic in one institution could be on one screen and an academic from another on the second. Or students, (Vietnam on one, Hamilton on another.)
3. Instead of the tables have a room with a series of islands.
4. these islands are the same height as the tables in the room (they’re like breakfast benches).
5. each island has enough power and ethernet for, say, 6 computers
6. they are spread through the room, but as islands at table height they don’t obstruct the view
7. They might be shaped in some sensible way (think Lego) so that you could attach the tables in the room to islands as needed.
8. For example imagine a simple flower shape for each island. The tables could be similarly shaped so they can be used as tables anywhere in the room, or ‘docked’ as a second ‘petal’ (apologies, this isn’t quite what I mean but I think it is graphic enough to get the idea).
Advantages
9. Tables could or could not be attached to these islands.
10. The arrangements of tables that can be formed can be of differing sizes (one island might have two tables attached, another 4, as needed by the students/teaching requirements)
11. If the tables are of an appropriate shape then they can be highly modular so each island could have a cluster grow out of it, for example the edges may fit together so that not each table in a cluster would have to join the island (eg, table joins to island, second table fits into first table to form a wing out from the island since 4 students want to work in a row together).
12. It makes the room more malleable to different sized groups.
13. If the room were just being used for group work then the tables could be arranged anywhere, yet laptops and other devices could still be attached to the bench node thingies for power if needed.
I do want to reiterate the point that the room that in many ways is where the teaching around these porous activities would happen (the integration of the network into the space of teaching) appears to be highly constrained so that risk repeating the common mistake of making network access conform to the space rather than vice versa. The proposal above is a compromise as it provides the hardwired locations for the grid but does not lock students and teachers to this.
Tags:
Network Literacy,
teaching