Teacher
Adaptations to an Open Area Teaching and Learning Environment
M. Costa
Vancouver, British Columbia
Social Justice
and Teaching
As teachers,
we advocate for our students (Fairbairn, 2003). We seek
help for students who are victims of poverty, neglect and
abuse. We campaign for the rights of special needs students,
and we fight against racism, discrimination, and prejudice
in schools by encouraging students to explore, understand,
and value human diversity. We raise funds for special school
projects, and we tailor our instructional programs to the
needs of our students.
We coach student
teams, we support student clubs, and we promote and organize
student concerts and plays so that students can discover,
develop, and nurture their interests and talents. We supervise
student playgrounds and we plan field trips to places that
excite and inspire our students. We buy school materials
to support curricular programs and we work hard to make
schools effective and compassionate learning places for
all students.
We treasure the
experiences and knowledge that our students bring to school
and we change our educational practices as we learn from
them. We strive for an educational system that emphasizes
equality, fairness and social justice for all (Fairbairn,
2003). We know that our students’ success in school
depends on teachers advocating for them.
As teachers,
our main goal is to have all students fully participate
in learning environments that are shaped to meet their emotional,
intellectual and social needs. This is a challenging task
that requires teachers to translate the best in educational
research and practice into real classroom settings (Taylor,
2003). The aim is to create learning environments that can
enliven and inspire students of all interests and abilities.
Learning environments
normally require schools and classrooms to have physical
layouts capable of supporting student learning, curriculum
programs, and a variety of pedagogies (Taylor, 2003). Learning
environments usually need a wide range of learning spaces,
clearly defined for their specific purposes within a school,
so that teachers can take advantage of the different learning
styles of their students and deliver meaningful and authentic
learning (Taylor, 2003). Small enclosed learning spaces,
for example, can provide privacy and intimacy to some students
and invite others to engage in thinking skills that demand
quiet reflection and analysis. Alternatively, large open
learning spaces can lure students into group activities
where they can develop social skills and acquire a sense
of belonging and community. The physical layout of schools
and classrooms is intertwined with the structure and function
of the learning environments (Taylor, 2003).
Open Area
Concept—Literature Review
Open area school
design was controversial when it first appeared, and the
debate that has continued since over its worth is reflected
in the various research reports and literature reviews included
in the appended bibliography. It is noteworthy that research
in this area was conducted and published within a relatively
short time span. The majority of available texts and research
reports date from 1970 to 1975. After 1979, there appears
to have been very little published on the topic of open
area schools. This cessation of published material probably
corresponds to the fall from favour that the open area approach
experienced then.
Most research on open area learning has
been typically written from the viewpoint of proponents
of open area design. Often, the voice of teachers has been
forgotten in the final analysis of data and, consequently,
some false conclusions have resulted (George, 1975). For
example, in a study conducted by Kyzar (1971), sound levels
in open area schools were investigated because teachers
believed that the noise level was interfering with teaching
(George, 1975). Kyzar measured and compared the noise levels
in open area schools and conventional schools, and he found
that the noise level varied from a low of 65 decibels in
conventional schools to a high of 70 decibels in open area
schools. He concluded, therefore, that there was no significant
difference in the noise level (George, 1975). Unfortunately,
Kyzar was not aware that sound in a contained classroom
is more controllable than it is in an open area, and a simple
comparison of decibel readings does not provide a basis
for concluding that open area teachers were imagining things,
which was his final conclusion.
Attempts were also made to compare contained
classrooms and open areas in terms of mobility of students.
In one study, Edwards (1973) compared the pupil-to-pupil
and pupil-to-teacher interactions in contained classrooms
with those found in open-area schools. Observers, standing
at the back of the classroom, made little ticks on a chart
when a certain student was engaged in specific categories
of behaviour. The study concluded that student interactions
with other students in open areas were more frequent than
in contained classrooms. However, had the researchers discussed
their findings with teachers, they may have discovered that
student interactions more directly relate to the philosophy
of the teacher and the school than to the shape or size
of the classroom.
All too often, comparisons between schools
with open area areas and schools with conventional classrooms
suffer from uncontrollable, controlled for, or unforeseen
proliferation of extraneous variables, such as location
of schools, nature of student populations, and philosophies
of teachers.
Introduction
to the Research Site
The elementary
school studied in this project was built as an open area
school in the 1970’s at the request of the local community.
Therefore, no inside walls were ever built to create a clear
delineation and differentiation of learning spaces within
the large open area or to define clear hallways for the
movement of students, teachers, parents, and visitors. The
community adopted an open educational pedagogy since the
new school was thought of as a smaller community within
the larger local community. The belief was that the open
plan classroom would allow for flexible groupings, independent
movement of students, and shared teaching and learning spaces
throughout the school building. However, more than twenty
years later, the commitment to an open area school has faltered.
Principals and teachers who started the project in the 1970’s
have since left, and interest in open education has declined
among many parents. The school district stopped construction
of open area schools, having experimented with the concept
through the late 1960’s and into the mid 1970’s.
The
elementary school is located in a lively, bustling area
of the city. The peculiar combination of health food stores,
espresso bars, small ethnic restaurants, shops, and community
services makes this community a vibrant and caring place
in which to live and raise a family. One of the city’s
first innovative medical clinics is nestled in among the
street’s restaurants, coffee bars and shops. The community
complex provides a wide variety of services, facilities,
and educational programs for infants, young children, teenagers,
young adults, parents, and senior citizens. The elementary
school is an integral component of the community complex,
enjoying easy access to its many and various programs and
facilities.
The
school is a study in contrasts. It is a component of a well-known
Community Services Centre, yet the interior still appears
unfinished to staff and visitors. It is an elementary school,
yet the internal design of the learning environment seems
to provide some noisy and visually challenging situations
for learning. It is a learning environment for children
ages five to thirteen, yet the physical setting of the school
appears to be mostly pavement and concrete. It is an open
area school, yet the floor space is divided by an assortment
of makeshift screens into separate teaching areas.
The
true art of teaching is molding the physical environment
and imagining the pedagogies that will make the
act of learning a successful experience for every student
at school. This is a school where the contrasts have led
to the best in educational practice and authentic learning,
and where the contrasts have greatly defined the meaning
and value of teaching as an art.
Some of the visual and spatial characteristics
of the open area design might appear to present the school
with certain challenging effects. Some of the physical aspects
of the school building that seem striking at first sight
are: windowless interiors, unusual ceiling patterns, low
ceilings, peculiar angles and unexpected walls and windows
(sometimes transparent, sometimes opaque), and narrow passageways
leading off into the distance.
Occasionally, “walls” are made
up of cabinets with teaching materials arranged along the
tops. Between the lights and the ceiling is a unique combination
of air ducts, aluminum-coloured fire sprinkler pipes, electrical
conductors, computer network and telephone cables, and water
pipes. There seems to be no apparent pattern in the school
when one surveys the building superficially, and occasionally,
one who is new to the school might find it difficult to
feel a sense of location or direction in this assortment
of partitions.
Goal of the Project
When the school was built in the 1970’s,
the open area design was chosen because the belief, at the
time, was that open learning spaces would foster student
initiative and independence, nurture student interpersonal
skills, and create flexible teaching and learning spaces
throughout the building. However, the nature of the instructional
responsibilities of teachers are such today that the open
space configuration of the school seems to make it more
difficult to meet those goals. The aim of this action research
project is to analyze the pedagogical solutions advanced
by teachers to create boundaries and separations between
learning areas in the school in order to eliminate noise
and visual distractions, define learning spaces, and create
a sense of structure.
Data Collection
Data were collected through interviews,
as well as through a series of observations, discussions,
and photographic studies of the building. Four teachers,
who had taught primary and intermediate classes, as well
as in open and contained classrooms, were interviewed. Teachers
were asked to identify the ways in which the interior of
their current school had been altered in order to implement
successful programs of instruction based on their experience
in teaching in previous schools with conventional classrooms
and hallways. They were also asked to reflect on the changes
to the school since its original construction, and to give
their views as to how and why the changes came about.
Photographs of teacher adaptations to the
open area were analyzed. The photographs and initial findings
were later presented to the five research participants for
their reactions, suggestions, and further input. Several
informal conversations also took place with former teachers,
parents, and management staff from the school. The aim was
to collect data by observing the school environment through
the eyes and voices of the people working in the school.
Findings
Teachers in the study felt that the absence
of walls and doors in the school made it a little bit more
problematic for students to listen to each other and to
the teacher. As well as auditory distractions, the open
area design seemed to present students with some visual
distractions, as classes and groups of children moved through
the building — crowding and tight proximities between
classes made this situation more challenging. As a result,
teachers have improvised with furniture placement and make-shift
screens to try to section off areas for specific kinds of
instruction and to block off any noise and distractions
within these areas. The partitions erected by the school
district, after the School Accreditation process, have also
greatly minimized auditory and visual distractions and given
students a sense of privacy.
Even though the open area school was promoted
as fostering spontaneous and flexible uses of space, the
arrangement of electrical outlets makes it difficult to
actually be flexible. The electrical plugs mounted into
the concrete floor of the building’s open area and
columns limit some of the options available for placement
of student furniture. Some student movement and foot traffic
tend to make some of the floor-mounted receptacles inaccessible
in some areas of the school. The structural brown wood columns,
spread throughout the open area, are used for mounting additional
receptacles, but sometimes the receptacles, do not work
because gravity pulls the cords down. However, the school
district has closed, repositioned, and added a few more
receptacles in some learning spaces in order to provide
teachers with some more flexibility in furniture arrangements.
The designers of the building did not foresee
the degree to which the process of schooling would become
dependent on network connections and the provision of electrical
power to computers, tape recorders, radios, and overhead
projectors. The building is being adapted to include these
functions. In the meantime, teachers have used some creative
solutions in order to connect classroom computers to the
Internet. This has included using lighting fixtures and
beams to support and guide the cables to the classrooms.
In addition, there are some physical features
to the open area design, such as the large wood structural
columns spread throughout the building that seem to defy
adaptation but are ingeniously included in teachers’
instructional practices and activities. These columns may
appear in the middle of a hallway, in the middle of a doorway,
or in the middle of teaching areas. They are often decorated
with students’ work or used to affix gentle reminders
about school expectations. Some columns are decorated as
trees and others as Greek columns depending on the unit
being taught in class. The columns prompt teachers to arrange
student furniture in such a way that the columns become
an integral part of teaching and learning.
The nature of the interior of the building
has prompted teachers to explore instructional practices
and activities that can successfully intertwine the physical
layout of the school with curricular programs and the needs
of students. The lack of visible physical structure and
the absence of implicit boundaries has led teachers to embody
pedagogical philosophies that successfully create a sense
of order throughout the school.
For example, for the morning schedule,
teachers have implemented a school-wide program of direct
skill instruction in literacy, using a structured reading
program. This program addresses the needs of the students,
and eliminates noise and visual distractions. Also, curricular
programs that require direct teaching, quiet reflection
and analysis, as well as independence from students, are
delivered in the morning. In addition, teachers learn each
other’s timetables, and they plan noisier activities
for the afternoon. By designing and implementing programs
that are able to simultaneously combine the needs and abilities
of students and eliminate noise and distractions throughout
the school, teachers have been able to impose order, structure,
and boundaries in the school.
Conclusions
Open area design might be overwhelming
to some students due to its vastness (Monahan, 2002). Since
the open space lacks implicit structure in the form of walls
and hallways, there appears to be no clear and quick indication
on how to generate specific spaces within the large open
space for the different kinds of learning (Monahan, 2002).
However, screens and partitions can be used to create a
sense of direction, privacy, and intimacy. In addition,
classroom identity and pedagogies can be developed and implemented
with the intention of not only supporting learning but also
of delivering a rhythm that provides students with a sense
of structure, order, and calmness in the school (Monahan,
2002).
This is the true art of teaching. Silence
is not the key, and there is no attempt to imply that silence
equals learning or that walls and rows of desks bolted to
the floor imply structure and order. However, at times,
some students might gravitate toward learning spaces that
can facilitate exploration, discovery, as well as sharing
and thinking in a more private and intimate learning setting.
The school has benefited tremendously from
the support of the school district in the form of funding
and additional staffing. A few years ago, the school district
erected partitions which greatly helped minimize noise and
visual distractions and provided a sense of physical structure
to the interior of the building. The partitions also created
private and intimate learning spaces for students.
Moreover, the school district has continuously
provided additional teachers and teacher specialists to
the school, facilitating the implementation of programs,
lowering class size, and allowing flexibility in the placement
of students each year. In addition, the school district
has provided funds which have greatly facilitated the development
and choice of programs by teachers. Hence, it is a school
that is continuously and successfully making efforts, with
the help of the school district and community, to adapt
to new realities in educational research and the changes
in student population.
Epilogue
Every school day, the school district,
the school’s administrator, and staff collectively
transform this open area school into a place of learning
where students feel welcome, valued, and challenged intellectually.
A school is more than a physical environment. It is a living
learning environment that depends on its teachers to be
able to search out, explore, and adapt new teaching practices
that can transform any physical environment into an effective,
stimulating, and compassionate learning environment. Advocating
for students relies on us being able to reach them through
our educational practices and philosophies, and when that
does not happen, it requires us to learn from our students
and our environment and allow them to change our core philosophies.
Resources
Allan, D. I. (1979). Program Openness and
Conceptual Level: Some relationships in Open Area and Self-Contained
Classrooms: Interim Report. Vancouver, British Columbia:
Educational Research Institute of British Columbia.
Canadian Education Association. (1973).
Open-Area Schools: Report of a CEA Study. Toronto,
Ontario: The Canadian Education Association.
Canadian Education Association. Sample
Floor Plans of Open-Area School and Open-Area Additions
to Conventional Schools in Canada. Toronto, Ontario: The
Canadian Education Association.
Clague, Michel. (1988). Creating the Britannia
Centre. Vancouver, British Columbia: Britannia Community
Services Centre.
Dobson, Lee. (1973). Performances of Pupils:
Informal vs. Formal Classes. Research Report 74-10. Vancouver
Board of School Trustees, Department of Planning and Evaluation.
Edwards, Peter. (July, 1973) An Interaction-Network
Instrument to assess Pupil Interaction and Movement On Open
Area Learning Situations. Research Report 73-15. Vancouver,
British Columbia : Vancouver Board of School Trustees, Department
of Planning and Evaluation.
Fairbairn, Steve. (2002). What is social
justice to me. Social justice in every classroom, http://www.bctf.ca
George, Paul S. (1975) Ten years of open
space schools: A review of the research. Gainesville, Florida:
The Florida Educational Research and Development Council.
Hersom, N. L., MacKay, D. A. (1971). A
Study of Open Area Schools in the Edmonton Public School
District. Edmonton, Alberta: Edmonton Public School Board.
Kennedy, T., Kerstan, U., Kovacs, K. (2001).
Britannia Elementary School Renovation Project. Vancouver,
British Columbia.
McRae, B.C., (1970). The Effect of Open
Area Instruction on Reading Achievement. Vancouver, British
Columbia: Vancouver Board of School Trustees, Research and
Standards Division, Department of Research and Special Services.
Metropolitan Toronto School Board. (1973).
SEF: Hints For Survival in Open Plan Schools. Toronto, Ontario:
Metropolitan Toronto School Board.
Monahan, Tonin. (2002). Flexible Space
& Built Pedagogy: Emerging IT Embodiments (1). Inventio—Creative
Thinking about Learning and Teaching. Spring 2002, 4(1).
http//www.doiiit.gmu.edu
Musella, Donald., Sellinger, Alphonse.,
Arikado, Marjorie. (1975). Open Concept Programs in Open
Area Schools. Toronto, Ontario: The Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.
Taylor, Anne. (2003). Programming and Design
of Schools Within the context of Community. http:www.designshare.com.
White, Virginia. (1972). The Open Area
School. Vancouver, British Columbia: Centre for Continuing
Education, University of British Columbia.
