Redevelopment Of a Learning Space — A Case Report

The redesigned auditorium.

Redevelopment of An Auditorium Space — A Case Report

Originally published at http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au.

Introduction:
This case report analyses the repurposing of a physical space located in an interactive science museum that provides educational programs for the public as well as school groups. An auditorium space was reconfigured to allow students to work together in small groups while engaging in problem solving activities. This move away from audience presentations or ‘shows’ was driven by a perceived pedagogical need to offer activity based educational experiences to visiting school groups. The space under consideration was originally designed to seat approximately 135 students in a theatre style setting. This re-design was conceived during discussions that challenged the entrenched views of museum based education. The repurposing of this auditorium space represents an attempt to increase the repertoire of learning experiences offered by this cultural institution by providing a more participatory experience. The case also provides a lens through which to interrogate how the intentional design of learning spaces may support good pedagogy and ultimately participation and engagement in strong learning.

CASE DEVELOPMENT

Conception: This project was conceived during strategic planning meetings that aimed at inspiring 21st-century learning experiences and relevant education content. Some museums are finding success in attracting an educational audience to engaging hands-on workshops. However, the museum site discussed in this case study was frustrated in offering similar programs in a building that was composed of spaces designed for offering learning experience to large groups seated in auditorium style theatrettes. The built pedagogy of the educational learning spaces at museums, including this one, support a delivery to the masses style of educational experience. The timetabling and staffing model also supported this style of educational experience. By reconfiguring this auditorium space to allow for student centred learning this project aimed to positively influence student learning and thereby build the museum’s reputation as an important pedagogical site. As will be discussed, the learning space that was delivered was not driven by a design process. Discussions focussed on problem solving how to quickly refurbish and begin new programming. The educators involved in this redesign did offer pedagogical reasons for a repurposing of the space. At the same time discussions were occurring on the benefits of a collaborative approach to design of learning spaces (Keily, 2014b). However, such a process was not adopted due to limitations in time frame and budget. The conclusion of this study provides general suggestions of how learning institutions including cultural institutions may engage in intentional design of learning spaces that keep in mind the end users educational experience.

Leadership and Management: A team of secondary teachers, employed by the museum, provided the professional impetus to ensure this refurbishment possibility was discussed at a management level. Thus the issue was discussed with a manager responsible for leading both public and educational programmes. This Public Programs Manager tabled these proposals to Management Meetings. In brief, a budget amount was allocated for the refurbishment of this learning space and a Project Manager appointed for a short tenure to drive the change. Educators were then notified of a time frame for delivery of this space. The space was stripped of theatre style chairs, new carpet was laid, museum decorations placed on the walls and an empty space delivered for re-purposing as a new ‘flexible’ learning space. New portable mesh stacking chairs were provided so that the auditorium could still seat large numbers of people, as required. Thus the space could serve as an auditorium but be quickly repurposed for education based programs.
There are a number of intriguing issues to explore in this case and learn from. How could the stakeholders in this case have been pushed and provoked by a design thinking approach?

Critical analyses

Introduction:
This redesign was driven by a pedagogical need to cater for a student centred approach to learning, typified by ‘A Reason For The Seasons’ (Keily, 2014a) and provides an example of how pedagogy is influencing learning in museums (Peck, 2013) and the advent of the participatory museum (Simon, 2010). However, the redesign resulted in a ‘convertible space’ (Dovery & Fisher, 2014) — a plan that can convert from one pedagogy to another. Such a space is seen to embody tensions between different pedagogies (Dovey & Fisher). This is an intriguing design result as the space could be interpreted as supporting centralised teaching and learning initiatives, traditionally viewed as ‘good practice’ in the museum sector (Foreman-Peck & Travers, 2014) — rather than acknowledging its clear ability to impact learning (Barrett, Zhang, Moffat, & Kobbacy, 2013). This case therefore provides a valuable lense through which to analyse how the change to space was conceived, led and managed.

Latent Attitudes and Assumptions:

Management:
Key decision makers and their influence on the final design have not been explicitly identified. This suggests low understanding of the interconnected nature of teams that collaborate to design learning spaces. In this project who were the decision makers, decision-takers, decision-shapers and decision influencers (Blyth & Worthington, 2010). What tensions existed between these stakeholders? The assumptions that these stakeholders had about learning spaces remain unknown.
Decisions may have been founded on an assumptions that efficient management is the key to solving complex problems (Sachs, 2001) — a scenario where “management is given the room and autonomy to manage and other groups accept their authority” (Sachs, 2001 p. 151); a culture of hierarchy (Brown, 2009). These are powerful attitudes that needed exploring as management strategies can radically affect the building solution adopted (Blyth & Worthington, 2010). In wicked design projects (Buchanan, 1992) many ambiguities exist and different people make different assumptions when ambiguities exist (Blyth & Worthington, 2010). Dangers lie in assumptions where one stakeholder interprets something differently from another (Blyth & Worthington, 2010).
Blyth & Worthington also state that a variety of agendas and conflicting ideas will come into play and shape the outcome. The opinions of the people who eventually inhabit the space have not been sought. Some argue that lack of input from these key stakeholders is the root cause in the failure of some large-scale building projects (Harrison, 2010). If input is sought from students it must be non-tokenistic and sustained (Flutter, 2006). What are the attitudes and assumptions that students hold towards their learning spaces?

Pedagogy
The remodelled space still includes a stage at the front, lighting that illuminates a small stage and a screen for projection of information. The argument for this was to keep the space multi-functional but questions persist if this layout nods to old museum pedagogies: learning by looking or ‘learning at a glance’, that have a strong pedigree in museums (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007). Were such assumptions held by the managers of this project? What is known is that the redesigned space is attempting to support a number of different types of pedagogies at odds with each other.

The design brief
No formal design brief was constructed. Also, museum educators did not assist with designing a formal brief. This suggests that attitudes towards the briefing process were of a short meeting process at which a stakeholder is given instructions and asked to deliver a solution (Byth & Worthington, 2010). This appears efficient but the longer spent on the briefing and initial design the more effective the outcome (Blyth & Worthington). The briefing process adopted did not allow for exploration of any assumptions made about space, pedagogy or how pedagogy can be embodied into the designed space.

The brief is often seen as the classic starting point of any project and if designed correctly has the possibility of allowing for exploration and discovery (Brown, 2009); whilst identifying and communicating the intangible needs of the organisation (Blyth & Worthington). The use of the brief to explore latent attitudes and assumptions was overlooked.

Museums
Exploring assumptions and attitudes towards the role of the museum is valid. Traditionally museums are seen as repositories for objects, with a responsibility to maintain collections in perpetuity (Welsh, 2004). However, in a world emerging from a digital revolution the place of cultural heritage organisations is unclear and in flux (Peacock, 2008). The original layout of the auditorium supported a museum where authorities distribute content to visitors (Simon, 2007) for visitors to consume (Simon, 2010). The dominant view of pedagogy was therefore pedagogy of content delivery. This contrast to emerging ideas that a high quality museum education experience inspires and motivates while communicating a well defined learning ethos (Foreman-Peck, 2012). This points to a need to challenge latent attitudes so as to develop a strong educational and design ethos to direct the redesign process.

Learning Spaces
Understanding that pedagogy and improved learning outcomes is central to learning-centred environments is important. In this case what were the latent attitudes towards space and how it contributes to the learning in the museum sector? The built environment can be used to reflect the culture of an organisation through the way space is designed (Blyth & Worthington, 2010). If the museum is striving to be seen as an important pedagogical site then the assumptions towards design of educational spaces required deep thought. Museum architecture is capable of achieving all sorts of impacts and is known for its role in lifelong learning and social inclusion agendas (Fleming, 2005).

Pragmatism and Status Quo vs. Experimental Space

Creativity and innovation at work, include the processes, outcomes and products of attempts to introduce new and improved ways of doing (Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014). This project resulted in a familiar learning space — reminiscent of a traditional classroom: status quo instead of innovation. This may be seen as a typical outcome for commercial learning operations that opt for multi-functional spaces — rarely designed with learning at their core (McIntosh, 2014).
Museums working alongside experienced educators have the potential to create powerful learning environments. So, to understand a status quo space design the concept of homophily is worth mentioning, Homophily describes the social phenomenon of people who are brought together, influence each other and in the process become alike. The very place they mix influences them to become alike (Kadushin, 2012). A lack of knowledge of design thinking (Razzouk & Shute, 212) coupled with the occurrence of homophily in the workplace may explain the status quo solution to this design challenge — people working together and thinking the same; unable to break boundaries of familiarity. This redevelopment resulted in a design that was familiar as stakeholders explored the ‘knowledge space’ of design, relying on prior known knowledge. It is known that individuals tend to design space for old patterns of work (Blyth & Worthington, 2010). The ‘concept space’ (Hatcheul & Weil, 2003) was not explored and therefore creativity and innovation were excluded.

The concept of weak ties becomes important in seeking innovation. Weak ties are those social connections (nodes) that are infrequent, less close and less intimate (Kadushin, 2012). They are vital for the flow of information, ideas and innovation into a network. The manner in which this case was conceived, led and managed did not seek connections that had the potential of bringing fresh ideas to the design process. A more novel and perhaps user centred design solution may have been achieved by actively seeking to bring other creatives into the design process. Collaboration to encourage deeper thinking about how spaces are designed and used for learning (Keily, 2014) was not sought out in this instance. Therefore this re-design overlooked community consultation. Importantly student input, which may lead to innovative design solutions (Izadpanahi, Yu, Elkadi & Ang, 2012), was also overlooked.
Perhaps led by the idea of managerial professionalism (Sachs, 2010) this redesign project excluded constituencies of students and members of the community on whose behalf decisions have been made. In the wider design and education communities co-design projects, exemplified by ‘Kids In Design’ (Izadpanahi et al, 2012), are being designed to improve student learning while assisting with design. Izadpanahi concluded that children’s creativity will potentially generate innovative design solutions. The manner in which this case was managed also excluded joint explorations of pedagogy and space as discussed in the blog post ‘How might we collaborate to design’ (Keily, 2014). In summary, to seek innovation requires intent to disrupt zones of familiarity and learn from others. “When we are at our best we reach out to people who are not like us” (TEDTalks, 2014).

Exterior pressures and design constraints

Exterior pressures and design constraints were not explored during the conception stage of this project. The creation of museum space cannot be disassociated from the prevailing climate — characterised by a drive for inclusiveness (Fleming, 2005). The first stage of the design process is often about discovering important constraints and establishing a framework for evaluating them. A good designer will resolve these constraints (Brown, 2009). Brown mentions what he calls ‘changing externalities’. This author suggests that companies (and people) must adapt to external pressures via bottom-up experimentation and guidance from above (Brown, p.76).
As mentioned, design protocols suggest that these pressures and constraints should be identified in a collaborative manner during the process of conceiving and leading a project.
The original auditorium space represented a built pedagogy already in situ — that is, the space had a pre-designed purpose that directed how teaching and learning should take place in this space. This built pedagogy may have constrained the process of redesign. However, it is also important to note that the best design — the process that converts ideas into form (Kuratko, Goldsworthy and Hornsby, 2012) — is often carried out within quite severe constraints (Brown, 2009). Without constraints design cannot happen as these constraints provide inspiration (Kuratko et al. 2012). Thus the original space could have been viewed as an inspiration for a creative solution, especially with a design mindset where designers are very solution focussed (Razzouk & Shute, 2012).
The emergence of the knowledge society points us toward a participatory culture (Vartiainen, 2013). This includes child centred teaching philosophies and discovery learning strategies (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007). In the museum sector this is represented by a shift from thinking about the museum and its educational delivery towards a growing attention on how learning can be facilitated. A move away from a so-called “content fetish” (Gee, 2005). These are subtle but vital moves from ‘teaching’ to ‘learning — thinking about the visitor’s perspective (Hooper-Greenhill). With regard to the design of space there is a repositioning of museums as flexible spaces, open to change and responsive to visitor needs (MacLeod, 2005). This case study illustrates a real word reaction to these external forces and the ongoing evolution of museums and pedagogical theories (Zana, 2005).

Tensions arise as museums attempt to make meaningful alignment with the school curriculum (Foreman-Peck, 2012); yet another external pressure. Museums in Victoria are may be involved in school partnerships programs (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2014) and receive funding to develop meaningful educational programs. These external curriculum initiatives have driven this reported change, as the museum at the centre of this case was required to develop student centred learning activities.

Conclusion
Museums are used to functioning in a climate where the focus is on delivery to targets rather than on researching, reflecting and justifying (Foreman-Peck, 2013). This thinking can be applied to this case where the space was quickly redesigned so as to protect footfall. The well used auditorium allowed this museum to reach cost effective targets and yet by compromising participatory experiences. Commercial operations such as museums tend to focus on ‘Footfall’ that lead to a focus on broad generic learning outcomes (Hooper-Greenhill, 2007); as is well demonstrated by this case analysis. The resulting space is a convertible space but this should be viewed as a status quo design compromise. The wicked design problem (Buchanan, 1992) that should have been explored was not to simply house a repertoire of learning activities but allow pedagogy and space to work together intentionally (Scott-Webber, 2012) whilst also embodying (Skolnick, 2005) in its built pedagogy an educational ethos that promotes the discovery and learning of science.

Recommendations

The key decision makers and their roles need to be ascertained at the outset of the project.

It is vital to decide what stakeholders should be involved and their input will be (Blyth & Worthington, 2010).

Those involved in the project should not simply offer advice but be involved in each stage of the project inspiration, ideation and implementation (Brown, 2009). Such an approach is well grounded in design thinking.

Adopt a Design Thinking Approach to problem solving. This will allow for:
* Creativity: Creativity is a set of thinking skills that help bring novel, acceptable ideas into the world
* Innovation: The extended process of providing the artefact of design to a larger audience. (Kuratko, Goldsworthy & Hornsby, 2012) . In this case the artefact is a new learning space.

Construct a design brief. Brown (2009) declares that this is the classic starting point of any project. Briefing is a collaborative process (Blyth & Worthington, 2014) that gives a framework from which to begin. A correctly constructed brief will not provide a set of instructions but allow for serendipity in the design process (Brown, 2009).

Recognise that each set of stakeholders will see the concept differently and imagine a different physical space. (Washor, 2003)

Clearly define and articulate the goals and priorities for the project (Blyth & Worthington, 2014). Thus the pedagogical ethos of the learning space needs to be identified and articulated. This should be supported by a clearly stated pedagogical ethos of the museum.

To bring innovation into the design process and overcome the phenomenon of homophily (Kudashin, 2012) external stakeholders should be involved. The recommendation is to utilise a co-design process that calls upon all stakeholders including designers, educators and students. This has the potential to disrupt zones of familiarity and lead to deeper thinking about how learning spaces are designed (Keily, 2014b)

Acknowledge that design thinking needs to be practised by the design team and clients — including educators and students. (Brown, 2009)

This case did not involve customer interaction and this is highly recommended in any design process. At the heart of design thinking are the elements of insight, observation and empathy (Brown, 2009). Ideas will be generated via observation of the end user. For this reason a co-design component is once again recommended so that the learning space is designed with the end user in mind.

As per concepts of design thinking bring into the project the “three spaces of innovation”: inspiration, ideation, and implementation.” (Brown, 2009, p.36). According to this author, ideation is the process of generating, developing and testing of ideas. Implementation is the process that leads to the final artefact, in this case the designed learning space. Inspiration comes from the problem, in this case the need for a space to inspire 21st century learning of science.

Identify clearly the important design constraints in terms of feasibility — what is functionally feasible, viability — what will be contribute to a sustainable business model and desirability — what makes sense to the key stakeholders (including the end users) (Brown, 2009).

The style of pedagogy that the museum was committed to was not fully identified. In a society saturated with information, a shift to constructivist, personalised approaches to learning has occurred and the post-museum is invoked as a model of participatory pedagogy (Watermeyer, 2012). In the way that this design project was conceived led and managed did not explicitly discuss pedagogical strategies. Thus a strong recommendation is to begin discussions that bring these ideas to the fore. This can be assisted through the design brief or external professional development (Keily, 2014b)

Shift from a culture of hierarchy to one of risk taking and innovation.

An approach to innovative design is provided by Hatchuel & Weil, B. (2003). Such an approach is recommended so as to identify the unknowns of the design process. A status quo learning space was designed, possibly because stakeholders could not visualise how a new space should look. By exploring the concept space of design and using divergent thinking a creative solution may have emerged.

Initiate discussion informed by research such as that by Barrett, Zhang, Moffat, & Kobbacy (2013) that develop an understanding that pedagogy and improved learning outcomes is central to learning-centred environments.

Explore metaphors such as The Seven Spaces of Learning (McIntosh, 2011) in an attempt to design learning spaces that have not thought of before.

References

Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.

Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J., & Kobbacy, K. (2013). A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, 59, 678–689.

Blyth, A., & Worthington, J. (2010). Managing the brief for better design. New York: Routledge.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. HarperCollins e-books.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (2014). Strategic partnerships program. Retrieved from: http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/partnerships/pages/spppartnerships.aspx

Doust, T. (2010). How intuitive design in schools can be achieved by engaging with the consumer. OECD Publishing.

Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: the school as socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43–63.

Fleming, D. (2005). Creative space. In S. Macleod, (Ed.), (2005). Reshaping Museum Space. (pp. 53–62). New York: Routledge.

Flutter, J. (2006). ‘This place could help you learn’: student participation in creating better school environments. Educational review, 58(2), 183–193.

Foreman-Peck, L., & Travers, K. (2013). What is distinctive about museum pedagogy and how can museums best support learning in schools? An action research inquiry into the practice of three regional museums. Educational Action Research, 21(1), 28–41.

Gee, J. P. (2005). What would a state of the art instructional video game look like. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(6), 159.

Greenhill, E. H. (1992). Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. Routledge.

Harrison, B. (2010, March 3) Pupils not heard in BSF process. — Futurelab survey Merlin John Online. Retrieved from: http://www.agent4change.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=569:pupils-not-heard-in-bsf-process-futurelab-survey&catid=51:bsfpcp&Itemid=172

Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2003). A new approach of innovative design: An introduction to C-K theory. Retrieved from http://www.designsociety.org/download-publication/24204/a_new_approach_of_innovative_design_an_introduction_to_c-k_theory

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance. New York: Routledge.

Izadpanahi, P., Xu, L., Elkadi, H., & Ang, S. (2012). Kids in design: designing creative schools with children. In ICDC 2012: Proceedings of The 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity (pp. 1–7). Design Society.

Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. Oxford University Press.

Keily, S. (2014a). Coffee, creativity and design. [Blog Post]. Retrieved from http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/austeach/2014/09/20/coffee/

Keily, S. (2014b). How might we collaborate to (re)design? [Blog Post]. Retrieved from http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/austeach/2014/10/03/redesign/

Kuratko, D., Goldsworthy, M., & Hornsby, G. (2012). The design-thinking process in innovation acceleration : transforming organizational thinking. (pp.103–123). Boston : Pearson

Leonard, R. (2007). Spaces for learning: Richard Leonard urges architects to embrace the new education pedagogies and to “use the physical environment as a major reform element”. Architecture Australia, 96(5), 59–66.

Macleod, S. (Ed.), (2005). Reshaping Museum Space. New York: Routledge.

McIntosh, E. (2011) Seven Spaces of Technology in School Environments. Retreived from http://youtu.be/r2SXj526-yw

McIntosh, E. (2014). Module 8: Experimental spaces. Retrieved from Charles Sturt University website: http://digital.csu.edu.au/inf536/module-8-experimental-spaces/

Museum Victoria (2014). Museum victoria strategic plan 2013–2018. Retrieved from
http://museumvictoria.com.au/pages/1711/mv_strategic_plan_2013-18.pdf

Peacock, D. (2008). Making ways for change: Museums, disruptive technologies and organisational change. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(4), 333–351.

Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, September, 82 (3), 330–348

Sachs, J. (2001). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of education policy, 16(2), 149–161.

Scott-Webber, L. (2012). Institutions, educators and designers: Wake up! Planning for Higher Education, 41(1)

Simon, N. (2007). Discourse in the blogosphere: What museums can learn from Web 2.0. Museums & Social Issues, 2(2), 257–274.

Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Retreived from http://www.participatorymuseum.org/

Skolnick, L. H. (2005). Towards a new museum architecture. In S. Macleod (Ed.), (2005). Reshaping Museum Space. (pp. 118–130). New York: Routledge.

TedTalks (2013). Maria Bezaitis: The surprising need for strangeness. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/os69gEFXUW4

Vartiainen, H. (2013). Principles for Design-Oriented Pedagogy for Learning from and with Museum Objects. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(5), 841–862

Washor, E. (2003). Innovative pedagogy and school facilities. DesignShare. com. Retrieved February, 3, 2007.

Watermeyer, R. (2012). A conceptualisation of the post-museum as pedagogical space. JCOM: Journal of Science Communication, 11, 1–8.

Welsh, P. H. (2005). Re-configuring museums. Museum management and curatorship, 20(2), 103–130.

Zana, B. (2005). History of the museums, the mediators and scientific education. Jcom, 4, 4.