A Responsive Approach to the Design of Learning Environments

by Peter C. Lippman, Assoc. AIA, with Curtis J. Gibbs
Contributions by MaryAnn Sorensen Allacci


This article is the final piece of a three-part series by Peter Lippman on the design of learning environments. Previously published via past issues of CAEnet, you may review Part I and Part II here:
Part I: What Are Small Schools, Small Learning Communities and Learning Communities of Practice
Part II: Pattern Language Developed for Learning Communities of Practice


For the last eight months, I have been struggling to write this final part to a three-part series for describing the concept of Learning Communities of Practice (Part I) and a Pattern Language Developed for Learning Communities of Practice (Part II). When I completed Part II, I knew the final installment would extend the ideas formulated in it. However, I have decided that this is not enough. Whereas this article will build on the ideas formulated in Part II, it is being written to encourage the design professional to question their process and approach to the design of learning environments. Given that, this article will:
(1) summarize PartsI and II;
(2) extend the ideas developed in Part II; and
(3) conclude by describing a responsive approach to the design of learning environments.


Summary of What Are Small Schools, Small Learning Communities and Learning Communities of Practice (Part I)

Part I, What are Small Schools, Small Learning Communities and Learning Communities of Practice differentiated the concept of small school from small learning communities and prescribed the concept of “learning communities of practice” to describe learning environments as the place where a number of small learning communities may be housed. The small school was described as a place that would educate as many as nine students. Furthermore the connotation for school is a place where the teacher as the expert on all things distributes information to students. Whereas the school is a place where information is distributed, the milieu of the small learning community (SLC) may be described as student-centered. In this environment students are encouraged to become fully engaged in activities so that they may appropriate knowledge as they develop both formal and informal skills. The teacher becomes a facilitator who in all ways is available to guide the engagements.

SLCs are places students become engaged in authentic activities where they are being encouraged to develop practical skills where the intention is to be able to transfer these abilities to other settings. To encourage engagements, small learning communities are planned around specific themes such as architecture, technology, aerospace, etc. Furthermore, the maximum number of students that may be housed in the SLC should be closer to 200 (Small Learning Communities: A Report of the Blue Print Planning Committee). When the learning environment is organized around a variety of SLCs, students are learning and mastering skills that are specific to an area of practice. Even though students may be acquiring similar knowledge, the manner, language, and activities in which they are engaged are unique to that specific practice community. Given this, I contend that learning communities which are learner-centered, have a population over 200 students, and are organized around a variety of small learning communities may be described as Learning Communities of Practice (Lippman, 2006).


Summary for Pattern Language Developed for Learning Communities of Practice (Part II)

Building on the concepts promoted in Part I, Pattern Language Developed for Learning Communities of Practice (LCP) was evaluated in relationship to the concepts purported by Wenger in his book, Communities of Practice (1998). Wenger described Communities of Practice as places where people develop identities for themselves from meaningful activities through activities in which they are engaged in developing practical skills that are specific to the community in which they work, play, and learn (1998). While Wenger evaluates these concepts and alludes to the physical environment, the role of how the physical setting mediates learning is limited. Given this, one goal of Part II is to build on the ideas of Wenger and guide the interested designer to integrate this knowledge in the creation of learning environments.

Another goal of Part II is to propose a theoretical approach for designing learning environments. Building on Wenger’s concepts on the situated nature of learning, Christopher Alexander’s notions of a Pattern Language (1997) was advanced. Building on the Jungian perspective of the collective unconscious that is common to all humans (Huffman, Vernoy, & Vernoy, 1995), design patterns emerge that originate from everyday activities that occur in the built environment. While these elements may exist independently, these building blocks are also hierarchical, can be generalized across and between settings, and may be modified. By understanding the intended activities that are to ensue in the physical environment, these building blocks can be structured to create a viable Pattern Language (Alexander, 1977). Whereas Alexander’s concepts build on a Jungian perspective, the research to support this concept is limited. However, by connecting Wenger’s ideas with Alexander’s perspectives, I have described patterns that are grounded in how the physical environment can be designed to encourage individuals’ peripheral, guided, and full engagements for acquiring knowledge. Furthermore, Primary and Secondary Patterns were developed that build on literature and research on the learner, learning, and the places where people learn.


The Patterns for Promoting Learning

Building on the literature and research, I contend that the physical environment must be designed to support the variety of activities that occur during the course of an academic year as well as the diverse ways in which people learn and master skills. Given this, Six Primary Design Patterns and Four Secondary Patterns were identified. Whereas the Primary Design Patterns are the building blocks that bring into being the milieu of the learning environment, the Secondary Patterns are the elements which are integrated throughout the setting that promote, reinforce, extend, and connect opportunities and possibilities for learning.

The Primary Design Patterns are:
Pattern #1: The Home (L-Shaped Classroom), originally described in Part II as The House
Pattern #2: The Porch
Pattern #3: The Street
Pattern #4: The Neighborhood
Pattern #5: Community Centers—Administration, Gymnasiums, Laboratories, Media Centers, etc. (Lippman, 2007a)
Pattern #6: The Main Entrance – This Pattern was not identified in Part II (Lippman, 2007b).

The Secondary Patterns may be used in each of the primary design patterns and include:
Pattern A: Fixed Features
Pattern B: Socio-Historical Resources
Pattern C: Transparency (Lippman, 2007a & 2007b)
Pattern D: Ceiling Heights

In Part II, Primary Pattern #1 along with Secondary Patterns A and B were described. Before examining the remaining patterns, a brief summary of the patterns indicated above will be provided. After providing the summary, I will proceed to re-evaluate Patterns A and B, and then analyze Pattern C and D. Given this, an understanding of how the learning environment may be layered with these elements to promote opportunities for learning. With this understanding, the Primary Patterns will be perceived as settings that are composed of various elements that come together to mediate knowledge acquisition.


Pattern #1: The Home (The L-Shaped Classroom)
The term home will be used in lieu of house. The reason for this change is that the notion house refers to building type, whereas the concept of home refers to a place. This connotation places refers to a place that provides refuge and prospect (Hildebrand, 1991). Individuals not only find safety and security within this place but they also, from the confines of the walls, may view out to the world beyond. Building on this notion, the home is the primary place where individuals develop knowledge, perceptions, and cognitions about the world in which they live. The home is also a place where various activities can occur at different times of a day, week, month, and year by the diverse people who inhabit it. Finally, the activities that take place in the home are as diverse as the people who live there, since they can involve formal and informal activities.

The L-Shaped Classroom (Fig.1) was introduced in Part II as a pattern that is flexible, integrated and has variable-in-size places that afford opportunities for creating different zones for learning (Dyck, 1994; Lippman, 2004). Furthermore, the L-Shape classroom was used at the Crow Island School in Winnetka, Illinois by Perkins Wheeler, and Will, with Eero and Elio, Saarinen (1940), The Montessori School in Delft by Herman Hertzberger (1963), and the Mills Road Elementary School, Jamestown, North Carolina, by Adams Group (2002).























Fig. 1. Pattern #1 - The House



Secondary Pattern: Fixed Features, Soci-Historical Elements, Transparency, and Ceiling Heights

Pattern A: Fixed Features
Fixed Features may include corner areas, built-in cabinets with countertops and sinks, wall cabinets, overhead projectors, recessed ceiling pojection screens, white boards, cubbies, built-in seating, to name a few. Given that learning occurs independently as well as with others, the physical environment must be planned to consider the elements that encourage the mastering of skills as people work through the problems-at-hand. Fixed Features are distinct elements that are planned into the environment to afford specific activities to occur. While these features are planned as distinct elements to support the intended activities of the social and physical environments, these components are not separate from but rather must be designed in realtionship to, the socio-historical resources and tools either found in as well as brought to the home.

Another way of thnking about the Fixed Features is that each is a part of the physical environment and are used to define zones in the setting to simulate learning. By defining a zone for particular transactions to occur, an activity setting is created (Tharp & Gallimore, 1997). An activity setting may be defined as a zone with sub-zones in the setting that require little adult supervision, where students develop interpersonal, intrapersonal, mathematical, kinesthetic, and spatial skills working on specific problems (Weillhausen & Keiff, 2000). Finally, these zones encourage students to either work with the tools found within the home, porch, neighborhood, street, or centers as well as provide their own resources so that they may work through the problems-at-hand.

Pattern B: Socio-Historical Resources
The Socio-Historical Resources (Wenger, 1998) or tools are not permanent or fixed elements, but rather may be brought to the home by the the teachers to organize the setting or the students to work through specific tasks. Furthermore, the Socio-Historic Resources may include smart boards, blocks, microscopes, water tables, sand tables, tables, chairs, desks, and bookcases, which may be arranged and rearranged routinely by the facilitator to facilitate individual, one-to-one, small group, and large group activities (Lippman, 2004). The tools that students may bring to the setting so that they may work on the specific tasks-at-hand may include computer tablets, laptop computers, books, pencils, and pens. Given that the Socio-Historic Resources may be arranged and re-arranged in the various settings, and given that students may provide their own tools to work through assigned problems, the physical environment must be understood as a flexible setting that can be organized sociopetally and sociofugally depending on the intended activity (Osmond, 1966).

Pattern C: Transparency
Transparency refers to the windows found on the exterior of the building, windows built into the partitions, sidelights as part of the door frame, and the glazing within the doors. These elements provide daylight into the overall setting. Furthermore, the current research on day lighting in schools indicates that students’ health, physical development, and academic performance has improved (NREL, 2000; Heschong Mahone Group, 1999). Furthermore, windows connect students and faculty to the natural conditions of the world outside (Allacci & Lippman, 2007). By connecting people to the natural conditions of the outside world, they are able to evaluate the current circumstances that will affect them and prepare themselves. This may occur by just knowing what to wear in the case of a rainstorm.

Sidelights and interior windows may be constructed as part of the door and partition wall systems. While the doors and walls separate Primary Patterns, the sidelights and interior widows allow natural light to filter into the overall physical environment. By integrating these elements throughout the facility, interior places are provided with day lighting which reinforce the notion that any and all places in the educational facility are for learning. Additionally, this pattern affords prospect (Hildebrand, 1991) where students from other homes and neighborhoods gain opportunities to see the activities of other students in a particular home or center. By allowing individuals to see what and how others are engaged, the scaffolding of behavior for sharing information and for encouraging students and teachers to become familiar with another may occur (Massengale, 2006, Cotton, 1996).

With the integration of this pattern, an informal security system is achieved. Since the glazing connects individuals visually between spaces, the users of the facility will minimally have the opportunity to transact with one another peripherally. While individuals may not fully know one another, from their peripheral transactions they will be at least familiar with who belongs in the facility and who does not. Most importantly, this knowledge offers a security system that does not break down due to faulty circuiting or power failures. With the integration of glazing throughout the facility, eyes are in always viewing the learning zone from the homes and centers, to the areas in-between, the porch and streets.

Pattern D: Ceiling Heights
The change in ceiling heights can inform people about how they are to transact in their environments (Alexander, 1997). With this information, individuals determine the size of their personal space. Personal space may be defined as an invisible bubble that surrounds each person (Hall, 1966). This invisible bubble expands and contracts depending on the situations in which individuals find themselves. As all situations take place within social and physical environments, a personal space is influenced by the size of the setting and the people who inhabit a place. Walking alone in an open corridor that extends over 200 feet is quite different than walking through that same corridor when it is fully occupied by students. In the open corridor an individual’s personal space may expand given that one might feel unsure of why no one is around, whereas in the occupied corridor the bubble surrounding the individual will contract since the width of corridor limits the distance people will have between one another.

Building on this notion, lowering ceiling heights at specific locations in the Home, at the Porch, in the Neighborhood, in the Streets, and the Centers, may create a sense of refuge and prospect (Hildebrand, 1991). Students may feel a sense of security while at the same time can perceive their surroundings. By creating these zones, students and teachers may be encouraged to contract their personal space so that they may work closely with one another, especially when they are fully engaged in the activity at hand.
Similarly to Pattern A, Fixed Features, Pattern D can be used to define zones or activity settings for particular transactions to occur (Tharp & Gallimore, 1997). Whereas Pattern A has been described from a planning perspective, Pattern D must be understood as Sectional Fixed Features. Lowering or raising ceiling heights at certain locations in the facility may be used to encourage either individual, one-to-one engagements, small group, or large group engagements to take place. Given this, a cross section through the building not only indicates where a change Ceiling Heights occur, but most importantly should be layered to consider how people can move from being peripherally engaged when their personal space is greatest in expanse to full engagement with others when personal space has contracted to stimulate interactions with others. Once again, the integration of this pattern is dependent on how each place in the learning is intended to be used as well as on what the potential activities may take place.


Primary Patterns: The Porch, The Neighborhood, The Street, and The Centers Beyond the Home

Building on the research of Jamieson (2003a), learning and the mastering of skills extends beyond the home. Furthermore, Lippman’s research on the classroom environment (1995) indicates that the areas outside the home should be designed to promote the diverse ways in which people participate to acquire knowledge for themselves. Whereas the home is structured by a facilitator to encourage specific learning activities, the areas outside the classroom should be understood as shared places. The design of these shared places should be layered to afford opportunities for individual activities, as well as small and large group interactions. Additionally, these spaces should be designed so that the appropriate tools and information are in close proximity. Lastly, these spaces should be designed to stimulate the flow of activity between the porch, neighborhood, street, and centers.

Pattern #2: The Porch
The Porch is a transitional area between the home, neighborhood, and centers of the larger educational community. Not only does it serve as a transition area between patterns but, most importantly, it must be understood as an activity setting which must be designed to promote opportunities for learning (Fig 2). This pattern should be considered an extension of the home, neighborhood, and centers where students have the opportunity to be engaged individually and with others.














Fig. 2. Pattern #2 – The Porch


Furthermore, the porch may be designed with the following Secondary Patterns: Fixed Features (Pattern A), Socio-Historic Resources (Pattern B), Transparency (Pattern C), and Ceiling Heights (Pattern D). The patterns may take on the form of an alcove or niche adjacent to the home, within the neighborhood, or within the centers with fixed features such as built-in countertops, cubbies/locker areas, and/or built-in seating. Given that the purpose of this pattern is to extend learning, socio-historical resources may be brought into these places. Whereas furniture and tools may be brought by various users of the community to this area from the home, another porch, or other places in the facility, the porch reinforces the notion that learning is not static, but rather takes place and flows throughout the learning facility (Dyck, 2002). Since the furniture and tools can be moved to this area at certain moments during the day, this pattern affords flexibility. It may expand from being used for individual and one-to-one activities, to becoming a place for small groupings. While the fixed features (Pattern A) differentiate the zones, the socio-historic resources and the tools (Pattern B) are devices found in or brought to this pattern which are used by the social environment to connect the different activity settings for engagement (Lippman, 2002b).


Pattern #3: Neighborhoods Within the Learning Environments
As described in Part II, Learning Communities of Practice are autonomous structures that are composed of Small Learning Communities (SLC). Since SLCs may be organized around specific themes (Massengale, 2006) as well as grade levels, the areas in which they occupy in the facility should be described as a Neighborhood. Building on this concept, Neighborhoods might be designed around a cluster of homes around a central place. By clustering no fewer than three homes and no more than five homes of twenty-five students, the neighborhood may be comprised of 75 to 125 students (Figs. 3, 4, & 5). The concept for the central place is that it is to be shared amongst and between the homes. This is another space that needs to be layered not only horizontally but also vertically. As the Porch serves as a transition between the classroom and neighborhood, the neighborhood links the home and porch to the streets of the learning environment. Hence, this pattern should be understood as being integrated with and extending from the homes, porches, and the streets (Figs. 4 & 5).




















Fig. 3. Pattern #3– Possible Neighborhood Configurations



Conceptually this pattern is organized to support individual, one-to-one, small group, and large group activities. Not only is this place designed to encourage cooperative learning to occur between the different classrooms, but also to support separate learning activities that originate from the home setting. Given that this space encourages a variety of activities that can occur simultaneously, the designer must approach this pattern with care. Similar to the home, it must be conceptualized to promote and not disrupt the diverse ways in which people learn (Brill, 2002; Scott-Weber, 2004).


















Fig. 4. Pattern #3—The Neighborhood: West Woods Upper Elementary School, Farmington CT (JCJ Architecture, 2002)


Neighborhoods should be planned following Secondary Patterns A, B, C and D. While this pattern should be designed with the Secondary Patterns, the design of the neighborhood takes on different forms when it is structured vertically or horizontally. In a vertical structure, the cluster may be organized by floor where each floor is a separate small learning community (Wasley, 2000; Cotton, 1996). With a horizontal structure, the Neighborhoods may extend from the Main Street and may also be designed as separate buildings. With this approach, the neighborhood should be separated from the Main Street with doors and sidelights. By separating the neighborhoods with doors, the Neighborhood is clearly defined and, most importantly, the activities that are intended to occur in the central places are not be interrupted by the transactions that typically ensue along the main street.

Pattern #4: The Streets
Because the horizontal and vertical circulation routes afford movement from place to place in the facility, these routes may be described as the Streets. Furthermore, in the learning environment there are at least two kinds of streets, the Main or Local Streets. (Fig. 5) The Main Streets may be understood as linking the entire educational facility (Fig. 6), branching off the Main Street are the Local Streets. The Local Streets unite the Neighborhoods and Centers. In a vertical structure, the Main Street may be a stair and each floor may be understood as branching off from it.

Fig. 5. Pattern #4—Main and Local Streets

Fig. 6. Pattern #4—Main Street: Wilbert Snow Elementary School, Middletown, CT (JCJ Architecture, 1996)



Furthermore, streets can serve as places where informal and formal learning take place (Scott-Weber, 2004; Lippman, 1995), and should be designed as places that extend and connect learning from the Home, Porch and Neighborhood. When the streets provide Fixed Features, Pattern A, which defines zones for learning, the facility becomes more efficient. No longer are these merely places that afford movement, but rather, like the Home and Neighborhood encourage the use of Socio-Historic Resources, Pattern B, so that students and teachers may have a choice in how they wish to engage in the setting. By possessing multiple functions that service the user, the street can afford opportunities for the various ways in which people learn and master skills (Lippman, 2002a). Not only should Pattern A and B be considered for the design of the street, but Patterns C and D should be considered as well.

Pattern #5: Community Centers
The administration areas, media center, music center, art center, laboratories, gymnasium, cafeteria, student and faculty lounges, music and art centers to name a few may be defined as the Community Centers of the Learning Environment. These are Neighborhoods. However, since these places provide unique and specialized learning opportunities which serve each member of the entire learning community and may also serve the members of the greater community outside the LCP, I am defining them as Community Centers (Fig 7.). Given that, these are shared places of the entire learning community, the centers should connect directly to the Main Streets, (Fig. 8).















Fig. 7. Pattern #5 – Centers: The Bedford Middle School, Westport, CT (JCJ Architecture, 2001)



Not only should the media centers, laboratories, cafeterias, music centers, art centers, and gymnasium be desinged as layered settings to support the diverse ways in which groups of people work, the administration area must also be understood as a leanring communty. While the functions of the adminstration are intended to support the people who guide the goals of the social enviroment, formal and informal learning opportunities occur routinely in these settings (Wenger, 1998). Building on ths idea, offices may be clustered and arranged around a common place (Brill, 2002). Along with considering Primary Pattern #3, Primary Pattern #2 and #4 along with Secondary Patterns A, B, C and D should be evaluated to determine if they are congruent with the needs and possibilities of the social environment.

















Fig. 8. Pattern #5 – Centers: West Woods Upper Elementary School, Farmington CT (JCJ Architecture, 2002)



Pattern #6: The Main Entrances
This pattern reflects the image of the learning and expresses to the community outside the facility the milieu of the learning environment (Kennedy & Moore, 1998). Given this, the entrances may be provided with an exterior and interior Porch (Primary Pattern #2). Furthermore, the Main Entrance must establish and reify the values, goals, and ethics of the education facility. These porches are the transition zones between the larger community beyond the educational facility and LCP. Furthermore, the interior porch connects to the Main Street (Primary Pattern #4). Finally, both the interior and exterior porches of the Main Entrance may be designed as activity settings with Fixed Features (Pattern A), and differentiated Ceiling Heights (Pattern D). By defining zones as part of the design for the Main Entrance, Socio-historic Resources (Pattern B) and tools may be brought to this space to promote opportunities for the appropriation of knowledge. Finally, the entrance should be Transparent (Pattern C) so that passers may view in, as well as allow the users of the place to look out in the world beyond (Fig. 9).



















Fig. 9. Pattern #6 – The Main Entrance: Wilbert Snow Elementary School, Middletown, CT (JCJ Architecture, 1996)



Conclusion

While this article provides primary and secondary patterns that are useful for thinking about the design of learning enviroments, the patterns examined require further development in terms of how the concepts of streets, neighborhoods and the specialized neighborhoods (community centers) may be integrated and designed to support the appropriation of knowledge. Not only should research such as post-occupancy evaluations be performed, but additional patterns to further the development of supportive learning environments are needed. Given that the patterns presented build on perspectives grounded in human-environments research, the groundwork has been established for an apporach to the design of learning that is neither reactive, resistant, nor reflexive, but rather is responsive.

The reactive, resistant, and reflexive approaches are each limted. A reactive approach rejects past paradigms where students are understood as empty vessels that must be filled with information. In place of the past paradigms, solutions that are proclaimed as progressive are provided. While these solutions are proclaimed as progressive they are not grounded in research, but rather are guided by the desinger’s set of values about what learning is and how it should occur (Lang, 1988).

Whereas the reactive approach is guided by the desinger’s own set of values, the designer who follows the resistant approach claims to know the literature on learning environments. Unfortunately, this designer is unable to apply what they have learned to inform their design, finds it difficult to incorporate the concepts from the literature and chooses not apply them, or disregards the literature completely leaving any discrepancy between the designer’s position and the product (Lang, 1988) . The result is the reproduction of educational facilities that replicate past paradigms that reifnorce and maintain the status quo of power (Ward, 1992).

The reflexive approach is a singular approach to design that is driven by an aesthetic of what architecture ought to be (Ward, 1992). The designer who follows the reflexive approach is guided by the big idea, typically the aesthetic and/or the integration of a device in the design (Lang, 1988). This device becomes a feature in the physical environment that is believed to positively influence knowledge acquisiton. For example, at a recent presentation that featured innovative school design, a library included artificial lighting that was designed around peoples’ circadian rhythms to enhance the learning experience. The ability to accommodate the circadian rhythms of all occupants, however, is questionable and is not likely grounded in established research.

Unlike the approaches examined above, the responsive approach requires a change in the current practice of architecture. This approach also reflects the most challenging aspect for designing learning environments, primarily because its success depends on every design team member’s commitment to, participation in, and understanding of, this fundamentally different process. The process requires rigorous analysis, passionate dialogue between all participants, and a working knowledge of the information available. Since no one person possesses all of this knowledge, the role of the team takes on great importance. As such, each team member must become engaged in more issues than those within their own discipline’s scope of understanding.

The design team will require knowledge of theories on how learning occurs. This begins with an understanding that learning is situated in time and a place (Altman, 1992). Furthermore, the design team must understand the role of the social environment and how the physical environment may be structured to support learning and assist the facilitators and students as they work through the tasks-at-hand. This necessitates that the design team examine the social patterns that emerge from the activities that occur in learning environments. By recognizing these patterns, they may be used to informing the designer on what physical patterns might be integrated into the settings which can inform, influence, and shape learning. While the positions of architects and architectural schools endorse the notion of the individual designer, the responsive approach embraces a collaborative endeavor where each member is respected and encouraged to develop knowledge about learning and share their leanings with one other. In order for a responsive approach to be embraced by the design professions, architects and the architecture schools will need to change. This change will only occur when designers understand the value for creating places that are not only aesthetically pleasing, but are also grounded in research where the physical environment is designed to support the variety of activities that take place routinely in the learning environment so that people may develop.



Peter C. Lippman of JCJ Architecture in New York, New York, is recognized nationally and internationally for his research on the design of learning environments. He has guest lectured at various design schools in New York City and published articles that have examined, described, and evaluated innovative concepts for the design of learning environments. Peter also teaches at the School of Architecture, Urban Design, and Landscape Architecture of CUNY.

Curtis J. Gibbs of Allison Ramsey Architects in South Carolina, has been working in the practice of architecture for the last ten years. Over these ten years, he has been researching issues pertaining to the design of schools along with researching, designing and constructing projects build on ideas of New Urbanism.

The authors would like to acknowledge MaryAnn Sorensen Allacci, PhD, for reviewing and contributing to this article.

Click here to view References for this article