MAKING MEANING
An educational report and current trends are investigated to understand the design problem and ways in which they may have implications for identifying a design solution within the learning space.
Introduction
A hub is defined as ‘the effective centre of an activity, region, or network’(Soanes & Stevenson, 2004). My ‘swamp’ is known as ‘The Hub’; however, it does not currently live up to the definition given. It is a repurposed, multi-purpose space, supposedly for building community between staff, families and students. The Hub does not presently have the desired design or functionality to fulfil its purpose and potential. It has become a ‘whatever’ space as it is one of the few available spaces for the Upper Primary and the school community to utilise. Having toured and mapped the space, the design problem identified is a lack of organisation and functionality of the space. There are too many undefined zones, causing there to be no real ownership of any parts of the space. This critical commentary investigates the ‘AITSL Australian Professional Standards for Teachers’ to discover the connections and disconnections with the current educational trends of collaborative partnerships in the education process and how this understanding can help with possible design solutions.
Wider Educational Context
The ‘Australian Professional Standards for Teachers’ (AITSL, 2011) outlines the elements of what high quality and effective teaching looks like in order to ‘improve educational outcomes for students’. The standards are separated into three domains, each essential for effective teaching practice. These are Professional Knowledge, Professional Practice and Professional Engagement.
Within each of these domains, several standards outline the expectations for teachers. The standards are designed to create a common language for teachers, organisations and the general public. Whilst there is no direct reference to learning spaces within the AITSL Standards, there are some references made to inclusive learning environments to cater for a variety of student needs as well as ways to support student engagement (Standards 1.5 and 4.1 AITSL, (2011)). These standards highlight the consideration required to ensure that all students are supported, and one way of achieving this is creating different ‘spaces’ to cater for different needs.
Space (either natural or built) shapes human behaviour and social interactions (Lefebvre & Nicholson-Smith, 1991). Furthermore, Piaget and Vygotsky both recognise a constructivist theory by which ‘learners engage in the social construction of knowledge’ (Gagnon & Collay, 2001). When considering this notion it could be asked, ‘In what ways can a learning space enhance interaction between students and the wider community (e.g. families and teacher assistants) to achieve greater outcomes?’ Could this be achieved through building stronger collaborative partnerships with parents that positively influence a child’s educational and social development? (Lueder, 2000). Standard 4.1 – ‘Support student participation’, (AITSL, 2011) relates to the development of productive and inclusive learning environments that explore new ways to engage learners. It can be argued that this standard supports the idea of utilising space to enhance student learning. With this in mind and considering the context of my ‘swamp’, this commentary will investigate the educational influence of community and parent collaboration in the learning process.
Both the ‘Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians’ (MDEGYA) and the ‘AITSL Australian Professional Standards for Teachers’ address the involvement of collaborative community partnerships in the education process; however, this analysis will focus on the AITSL Standards. For the purpose of this discussion, community engagement is defined as, ‘mutually determined educational agendas, shared power and authority over education with an understanding that parents, too, possess knowledge that contributes to teaching and learning’ (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005). AITSL Standard 3 – ‘Plan for and implement effective teaching and learning’, includes a focus area that refers to engaging parents/carers in the educative process and wider school activities (AITSL, 2011). Dodd (1996) suggests that many parents challenge 21st century learning and teaching approaches due to a lack of understanding, highlighting the importance of educating them around these new strategies. The author continues to explain that engaging parents in the learning process, and encouraging their involvement in other school activities reduces the amount of ‘car park talk’ and dissatisfaction with the schooling system. In addition, AITSL Standard 7.3 – encourages teachers to identify and build on opportunities that engage parents/carers in both the progress of their children’s learning and in the educational priorities of the school (AITSL, 2011). This standard opens the door for inviting parents to be engaged in the learning process. So how can the wider school community become engaged in the learning process, and how can a ‘space’ contribute to this engagement?
The appearance of this engagement will vary from teacher to teacher; however, utilising parent volunteers in the classroom is a common practice (Barnard, 2004; Ferguson, 2001) which is the consideration for my learning space ‘The Hub’. Furthermore, ‘Lifelong learners’ is a common phrase in the education world today and can be achieved in two ways, either by teaching strategies that engage students and motivate them to achieve or through encouraging adult participation (Martin, Tett, & Kay, 1999). The authors continue to recognise that each community member brings their own traditions and values to the education process, and for these collaborative partnerships to be successful, clear agreements and expectations need to be set. Martin et al. (1999) suggest five considerations for effective partnerships:
By engaging the community (including parents and teaching assistants) in the education process, not only are students able to receive extra support in small groups or one-to-one, but a sense of partnership is created between the community and the teacher.
Implications
If I reconsider the AITSL Standards below in conjunction with the five considerations of Martin et al. (1999), there is a strong case for creating well-designed learning spaces to enhance collaborative partnerships and engagement with parents. The implications for my learning space are many and varied. In considering a design solution, I will need to focus directly on the exact purpose intended for the use of the learning space to ensure all stakeholders are valued.
AITSL Standards
Standard 1.5 - Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities
Standard 3.7 - Engage parents/carers in the educative process
Standard 4.1 - Support student participation
Standard 7.3 - Engage with the parents/carers
(AITSL, 2011)
As mentioned previously, the AITSL Standards do not make direct reference to particulars of learning spaces and their design. Perhaps this omission is to allow creativity and flexibility for individual teachers, or has the importance of learning space design been overlooked?
My ‘Hub’ is an underutilised space where there is opportunity to create withdrawal space for students to receive the parent or teacher assistant support they need. When considering the potential design solutions for my space, I cannot glean clear direction from these AITSL Standards, apart from involving parents and creating spaces that ‘meet the specific learning needs of students across a full range of abilities’ (Standard 1.5 (AITSL,2011)). To feel comfortable to invite parents into the space I need to consider what makes a space inviting. Oberg (1999) discusses the links between feeling valued and achievement by creating an atmosphere of respect and placing the focus on what can be done, rather than what cannot. My hub space does not create a sense of value or comfort for any of its stakeholders, which will be a consideration in my design solution.
When considering the various needs of students using my learning space, the focus is on those that need a quiet learning environment away from the ‘hustle and bustle’ of the classroom. ‘The Hub’ is a place that can be utilised in this way, however, does not currently provide a functional layout for this to be achieved. Orr (1993) suggests that learning spaces have their own ‘hidden curriculum’ that are empowered by the design and layout of the architecture. The architectural framing is already in place in ‘The Hub’, however, the functionality of the architecture has been lost. When creating a design solution, I will need to reassess the space as a whole, and look at ways in which to find that ‘hidden curriculum’ opportunity within the space. The space requires zones and defined spaces for different purposes with the main focus being a place to engage and involve the parent community.
Conclusion
Where to from here? What are the next steps in creating a collaborative space that engages the community? In considering the AITSL Australian Professional Standards for Teachers and the importance of engaging the community in the education process (Dodd, 1996; Lueder, 2000; Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005), it is evident that ‘The Hub’ needs to be re-designed and include designated spaces/zones for different purposes to instil a sense of value for each stakeholder. The aesthetics within the space need to be addressed to inspire learning as well as create an inviting atmosphere. The proposed design plan and solution will provide new opportunities for community engagement and collaboration.
References
AITSL, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved 28th August, from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards
Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Children and youth services review, 26(1), 39-62.
Dodd, A. W. (1996). Involving Parents, Avoiding Gridlock. Educational Leadership, 53(7), 44-47.
Ferguson, D. L. (2001). Designing personalized learning for every student: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Gagnon, G. W., & Collay, M. (2001). Designing for learning: Six elements in constructivist classrooms: Corwin Press.
Lefebvre, H., & Nicholson-Smith, D. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lueder, D. (2000). Creating partnerships with parents: An educator's guide: R&L Education.
Martin, J., Tett, L., & Kay, H. (1999). Developing collaborative partnerships: limits and possibilities for schools, parents and community education. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 9(1), 59-75.
Oberg, D. (1999). School libraries: inviting spaces for learning. School Libraries in Canada, 19(1), 4.
Orr, D. W. (1993). Architecture as pedagogy. Conservation Biology, 7(2), 226-228.
Pushor, D., & Ruitenberg, C. (2005). Parent engagement and leadership: Dr. Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching.
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
A hub is defined as ‘the effective centre of an activity, region, or network’(Soanes & Stevenson, 2004). My ‘swamp’ is known as ‘The Hub’; however, it does not currently live up to the definition given. It is a repurposed, multi-purpose space, supposedly for building community between staff, families and students. The Hub does not presently have the desired design or functionality to fulfil its purpose and potential. It has become a ‘whatever’ space as it is one of the few available spaces for the Upper Primary and the school community to utilise. Having toured and mapped the space, the design problem identified is a lack of organisation and functionality of the space. There are too many undefined zones, causing there to be no real ownership of any parts of the space. This critical commentary investigates the ‘AITSL Australian Professional Standards for Teachers’ to discover the connections and disconnections with the current educational trends of collaborative partnerships in the education process and how this understanding can help with possible design solutions.
Wider Educational Context
The ‘Australian Professional Standards for Teachers’ (AITSL, 2011) outlines the elements of what high quality and effective teaching looks like in order to ‘improve educational outcomes for students’. The standards are separated into three domains, each essential for effective teaching practice. These are Professional Knowledge, Professional Practice and Professional Engagement.
Within each of these domains, several standards outline the expectations for teachers. The standards are designed to create a common language for teachers, organisations and the general public. Whilst there is no direct reference to learning spaces within the AITSL Standards, there are some references made to inclusive learning environments to cater for a variety of student needs as well as ways to support student engagement (Standards 1.5 and 4.1 AITSL, (2011)). These standards highlight the consideration required to ensure that all students are supported, and one way of achieving this is creating different ‘spaces’ to cater for different needs.
Space (either natural or built) shapes human behaviour and social interactions (Lefebvre & Nicholson-Smith, 1991). Furthermore, Piaget and Vygotsky both recognise a constructivist theory by which ‘learners engage in the social construction of knowledge’ (Gagnon & Collay, 2001). When considering this notion it could be asked, ‘In what ways can a learning space enhance interaction between students and the wider community (e.g. families and teacher assistants) to achieve greater outcomes?’ Could this be achieved through building stronger collaborative partnerships with parents that positively influence a child’s educational and social development? (Lueder, 2000). Standard 4.1 – ‘Support student participation’, (AITSL, 2011) relates to the development of productive and inclusive learning environments that explore new ways to engage learners. It can be argued that this standard supports the idea of utilising space to enhance student learning. With this in mind and considering the context of my ‘swamp’, this commentary will investigate the educational influence of community and parent collaboration in the learning process.
Both the ‘Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians’ (MDEGYA) and the ‘AITSL Australian Professional Standards for Teachers’ address the involvement of collaborative community partnerships in the education process; however, this analysis will focus on the AITSL Standards. For the purpose of this discussion, community engagement is defined as, ‘mutually determined educational agendas, shared power and authority over education with an understanding that parents, too, possess knowledge that contributes to teaching and learning’ (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005). AITSL Standard 3 – ‘Plan for and implement effective teaching and learning’, includes a focus area that refers to engaging parents/carers in the educative process and wider school activities (AITSL, 2011). Dodd (1996) suggests that many parents challenge 21st century learning and teaching approaches due to a lack of understanding, highlighting the importance of educating them around these new strategies. The author continues to explain that engaging parents in the learning process, and encouraging their involvement in other school activities reduces the amount of ‘car park talk’ and dissatisfaction with the schooling system. In addition, AITSL Standard 7.3 – encourages teachers to identify and build on opportunities that engage parents/carers in both the progress of their children’s learning and in the educational priorities of the school (AITSL, 2011). This standard opens the door for inviting parents to be engaged in the learning process. So how can the wider school community become engaged in the learning process, and how can a ‘space’ contribute to this engagement?
The appearance of this engagement will vary from teacher to teacher; however, utilising parent volunteers in the classroom is a common practice (Barnard, 2004; Ferguson, 2001) which is the consideration for my learning space ‘The Hub’. Furthermore, ‘Lifelong learners’ is a common phrase in the education world today and can be achieved in two ways, either by teaching strategies that engage students and motivate them to achieve or through encouraging adult participation (Martin, Tett, & Kay, 1999). The authors continue to recognise that each community member brings their own traditions and values to the education process, and for these collaborative partnerships to be successful, clear agreements and expectations need to be set. Martin et al. (1999) suggest five considerations for effective partnerships:
- Inclusiveness – recognising the contributions individuals can make
- Recognising social as well as academic goals – both parents and children are recognised as having social needs that require development
- Raising expectations through education achievement – joint learning process and recognising that children are impacted by parental involvement
- Involving local people in decision-making – involving families in the development of partnerships
- Democratic participation and active citizenship – enhancing capacity and creating intrinsic value in both students and parents through active participation in the learning process
By engaging the community (including parents and teaching assistants) in the education process, not only are students able to receive extra support in small groups or one-to-one, but a sense of partnership is created between the community and the teacher.
Implications
If I reconsider the AITSL Standards below in conjunction with the five considerations of Martin et al. (1999), there is a strong case for creating well-designed learning spaces to enhance collaborative partnerships and engagement with parents. The implications for my learning space are many and varied. In considering a design solution, I will need to focus directly on the exact purpose intended for the use of the learning space to ensure all stakeholders are valued.
AITSL Standards
Standard 1.5 - Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities
Standard 3.7 - Engage parents/carers in the educative process
Standard 4.1 - Support student participation
Standard 7.3 - Engage with the parents/carers
(AITSL, 2011)
As mentioned previously, the AITSL Standards do not make direct reference to particulars of learning spaces and their design. Perhaps this omission is to allow creativity and flexibility for individual teachers, or has the importance of learning space design been overlooked?
My ‘Hub’ is an underutilised space where there is opportunity to create withdrawal space for students to receive the parent or teacher assistant support they need. When considering the potential design solutions for my space, I cannot glean clear direction from these AITSL Standards, apart from involving parents and creating spaces that ‘meet the specific learning needs of students across a full range of abilities’ (Standard 1.5 (AITSL,2011)). To feel comfortable to invite parents into the space I need to consider what makes a space inviting. Oberg (1999) discusses the links between feeling valued and achievement by creating an atmosphere of respect and placing the focus on what can be done, rather than what cannot. My hub space does not create a sense of value or comfort for any of its stakeholders, which will be a consideration in my design solution.
When considering the various needs of students using my learning space, the focus is on those that need a quiet learning environment away from the ‘hustle and bustle’ of the classroom. ‘The Hub’ is a place that can be utilised in this way, however, does not currently provide a functional layout for this to be achieved. Orr (1993) suggests that learning spaces have their own ‘hidden curriculum’ that are empowered by the design and layout of the architecture. The architectural framing is already in place in ‘The Hub’, however, the functionality of the architecture has been lost. When creating a design solution, I will need to reassess the space as a whole, and look at ways in which to find that ‘hidden curriculum’ opportunity within the space. The space requires zones and defined spaces for different purposes with the main focus being a place to engage and involve the parent community.
Conclusion
Where to from here? What are the next steps in creating a collaborative space that engages the community? In considering the AITSL Australian Professional Standards for Teachers and the importance of engaging the community in the education process (Dodd, 1996; Lueder, 2000; Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005), it is evident that ‘The Hub’ needs to be re-designed and include designated spaces/zones for different purposes to instil a sense of value for each stakeholder. The aesthetics within the space need to be addressed to inspire learning as well as create an inviting atmosphere. The proposed design plan and solution will provide new opportunities for community engagement and collaboration.
References
AITSL, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved 28th August, from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards
Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Children and youth services review, 26(1), 39-62.
Dodd, A. W. (1996). Involving Parents, Avoiding Gridlock. Educational Leadership, 53(7), 44-47.
Ferguson, D. L. (2001). Designing personalized learning for every student: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Gagnon, G. W., & Collay, M. (2001). Designing for learning: Six elements in constructivist classrooms: Corwin Press.
Lefebvre, H., & Nicholson-Smith, D. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lueder, D. (2000). Creating partnerships with parents: An educator's guide: R&L Education.
Martin, J., Tett, L., & Kay, H. (1999). Developing collaborative partnerships: limits and possibilities for schools, parents and community education. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 9(1), 59-75.
Oberg, D. (1999). School libraries: inviting spaces for learning. School Libraries in Canada, 19(1), 4.
Orr, D. W. (1993). Architecture as pedagogy. Conservation Biology, 7(2), 226-228.
Pushor, D., & Ruitenberg, C. (2005). Parent engagement and leadership: Dr. Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching.
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.