F.R.E.E.
Free Range Learning in Elementary Education Cuningham Group | North Park Elementary | University of Minnesota
An ongoing project for the understanding, development and discovery of how school architecture informs teaching and learning in elementary education. A collaborative study at North Park Elementary, 5575 Fillmore Street NE, Fridley, MN 55432
University of Minnesota
Cuningham Group
John Comazzi, Director, B.S. Degree Program (Major in Architecture) Associate Professor of Architecture Adjunct Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture
Meg Parsons, AIA Principal, Cuningham Group Architects John Pfluger, AIA Principal, Cuningham Group Architects
Renee Cheng, AIA Professor, School of Architecture Associate Dean for Research, College of Design Director, Master of Science in Architecture, Research Practices
LEARNING STUDIOS
University of Minnesota MSRP Dan DeVeau, Researcher 3rd Year, Masters of Architecture Student University of Minnesota School of Architecture Wendy Friedmeyer, Researcher Ph. D. Student and Assistant to the Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Programs | College of Liberal Arts
North Park Elementary Jeff Cacek, Principal, North Park Tanya Sturm, Dean of Students, North Park Wilder Research Foundation Prepared by: Kristin Dillon, June 2014
Matthew Tracey, Researcher Previous project intern Masters of Architecture Student/Graduate 2013 University of Minnesota School of Architecture
2
? Goals
Design
Learning
Goals: 1. Understand to what architectural capacity the designed learning studios at North Park play a role in linking curriculum goals to real-time learning. 2. Develop a methodology (graphically and systematically) to use with future projects and clients.
3
North Park Elementary 10%
• K- 5 School • 1 of 5 Schools in the Columbia Heights School district • Average 85-89 students per grade
23% 28%
39%
White Black Hispanic Indian, Asian, Others
86%
Free and/or Reduced Lunch
4
What are the goals and
how do we get there?
4c’s : Critical Thinking Creativity Communication Collaboration
“It became obvious that without a flexible, collaborative space there would always be a missing piece to this puzzle. Hence, the Learning Studio was born.” Jeff Cacek, Principal, North Park Elementary
5
Design Timeline
Charrette • May 30. Charrette • June 5. Charettte
Charrette
Master Plan
Charrette
• April 26. Design Charrette
March 5. Master Plan submittal by CGA June 28. 1st Master Plan meeting July 25. 2nd Master Plan meeting
• May 9. 1st design charrette • May 27. 2nd design charrette
2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
• Construction of 2nd Grade Studio July-Sept. 1
• Construction of 3rd Grade Studio July-Sept. 1
• Construction of 4th Grade Studio July-Sept. 1
2016 0
2015 0
2014 0
2013 0
2012 0
We are here.
6
Evaluation Timeline
Phase 1A MSRP Evaluation
Phase 2A Phase 2B MSRP Evaluation MSRP Evaluation
Phase 1B Independent Evaluation
Previous Phase of Research • Matt Tracey • Fall 2013- Spring 2014
Independent Research conducted by Wilder • June 2014
Previous Phase • Dan DeVeau • Fall 2014
Current Phase • Dan DeVeau/ Wendy F. • Spring 2015
2016 0
2015 0
2014 0
2013 0
2012 0
We are here.
Phase 3 MSRP Evaluation 2nd Grade
3rd Grade
4th Grade
• Construction of 2nd Grade Studio July-Sept. 1
• Construction of 3rd Grade Studio July-Sept. 1
• Construction of 4th Grade Studio July-Sept. 1
Formal analysis and convergence of curriculum and space mapping. (Publication)
7
Phases Phase 1: • Evaluation - Matt Tracey | Initial data collection and interviews of teachers students • Evaluation - Wilder Research | Independent evaluation of 4C’s and Learning Studios
Students
“Most students (96%) reported that they have learned things that make them feel good about themselves and they are proud of the work they have done in school.” “Most students (91%) reported that they learned a variety of ways to solve problems during the most recent school year.”
Teachers
“Several teachers said that the learning studio environment has changed their entire approach to and philosophy about education.” “The biggest shift that teachers have identified is that they are now more comfortable giving their students choices and opportunities to take ownership over their learning.”
Phase 2A: • Evaluation - Dan DeVeau | Movement/cluster mapping • Methodology and Framework • 2nd and 4th grade space analysis
Phase 2B: • Evaluation - Dan DeVeau / Wendy Friedmeyer • Updated Methodology to reflect incorporating curriculum • 3rd grade space analysis
8
Evaluation Methodologies Phase 2A: • Methodology and Framework
Time
Layout
Surfaces
Groups
Movement
Surfaces
Movement Time Groups
Curriculum
Activities
Phase 2B: •Readjusted Methodology
Layout
9
Evaluation Methodologies Phase 2A: • Methodology and Framework
evaluation. Notes:
_______________ : date _____________: subject
Diagrams:
Photos:
Phase 2B: • Integrate curriculum in real time
10
2nd Grade Previous: Media Center Built: 2012 4200 sq. ft. 5 Spaces Students: 86 Teachers: 8 (3 EA)
11
3rd Grade Previous: 4 Classrooms Built: 2013 3500 sq. ft. 3 Spaces Students: 89 Teachers: 7 (2 EA)
12
4th Grade Previous: 4 Classrooms Built: 2014 3500 sq. ft. 4 Spaces Students: 89 Teachers: 5 (1 EA)
13
2nd | 3rd | 4th Grade Layout Analysis
G G
A B
B 2nd
B
A
B
3rd
B
A
B
G
4th 14
2nd | 3rd | 4th Grade Perceived
4200 sq. 4000 3500
3500 sq.
3500 sq.
3rd Grade
4th Grade
3600 sq.
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2nd Grade
Standard Classroom
15
Phase 2A | 2nd and 4th Grade Evaluation Evaluation:
Task/Activity Type: • Recitation Tasks: Large group activities where all students are working on the same task. • Small Group Tasks: Medium to small group activities where students work in groups on same or different tasks • Individual Tasks: Students are working individually on a particular task.
Groups: Teachers: Regardless of specialty (I.e., Main teacher, secondary, educational assistant, etc.) Large Group: > 20 + Students in recitation type task. Medium Group: 5-20 Students in either recitation or class-task. Small Group: 2-5 Students in class-task Individual
16
2nd Grade - MRI’s
4hr 10:40
10:55
11:05
11:11
12:45
1:00
1:02
1:10
1:20
1:25
1:30
Teachers
Large Group >20+ Medium Group 5-20 Small Group 2-5 Individual 1
17
2nd Grade - Movement | Groups
Teachers
Large Group >20+ Medium Group 5-20 Small Group 2-5 Individual 1
18
2nd Grade - Movement | Groups - by time
Teachers
Large Group >20+ Medium Group 5-20 Small Group 2-5 Individual 1
19
2nd Grade - Movement | Groups
Teachers
Students
Teachers
Large Group >20+ Medium Group 5-20 Small Group 2-5 Individual 1
20
4th Grade - Movement | Groups | Time
21
4th Grade - MRIs
10:12
10:18
10:39
10:45
10:49
11:10
11:20
11:35
Large Group >20+ Medium Group 5-20 Small Group 2-5 Individual 1
22
4th Grade - Movement | Groups
Large Group >20+ Medium Group 5-20 Small Group 2-5 Individual 1
23
4th Grade - Movement | Groups - by time
Large Group >20+ Medium Group 5-20 Small Group 2-5 Individual 1
24
Time
Layout
Surfaces
Activities
Movement
Groups
What, why, how are students using surfaces in their learning studio? Can we observe what furniture is used and why? Group related, activity related? Duration? Does ownership over a particular surface promote learning with respect to the 4C’s?
25
4th Grade - Surface | Task
Plastic Chair
Small table
Wood Table/Bench
Round chair
Floor
Round chair
Plastic stool
Large table
Cloth Bench
26
4th grade - Surface | Task
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Surface:
Surface:
Surface:
Surface:
Task: (Multi-task)
Task: Group game (Class Task)
Task: (Multi-task)
Task: Group game (Class Task)
1
3
4
2
Observed : 4 students were recorded for two hours - 2 boys and 2 girls. Students were picked at random and were not from any specific class within the 4th grade.
27
4th grade - Surface | Task “John”
Surface:
• Engaging in creativity (block building) and critical thinking • Struggle to build pyramid due to surface he was using
Task: Building (Multi-task)
Surface:
Task: Building (Multi-Task)
• Moved surface but engaged in same task • Continuation of engagement by moving to new location in room • Surface flexibility - continued engagement in task
28
4th grade - Surface | Task “John”
Surface:
• Task changed from building blocks to listening to teacher • Use of surface in non-traditional manner
Task: Recitation
Surface:
• Time influenced use of surface (comfort) • Extending engagement due to surface ownership with surface • Choice and ownership prolonged task engagement
Task: Recitation
29
Phase 2A 2nd and 4th Grade Observations Observed : “John” • Student utilizes 2700 sq. ft (or equivalent 3 standard classrooms) to engage in task over a period of 2 hours • Student preformed two tasks (Individual, Recitation) • Used three surfaces • Location and type of furniture is large determinant in success of activity • The type of activity is largest factor for choice in group size 2hr
30
Phase 2A 2nd and 4th Grade Observations - Partitions Observed :
• Contrary to initial layout analysis, Alpha, Beta, Gamma spaces do not ultimately determine how the spaces are used. • Instead, spaces can be more indicative of their use when considering informal and formal partition walls / furniture • 2nd grade space meets the needs of 4 “standard classrooms”
G
1
A
G
B 3
B Initial observations
DIRT Wall and Formal Partitions
Short Term Use in “cohorts”
31
Phase 2A 2nd and 4th Grade Observations - Partitions Observed :
• Contrary to initial layout analysis, Alpha, Beta, Gamma spaces do not ultimately determine how the spaces are used. • Instead, spaces can be more indicative of their use when considering informal and formal partition walls / furniture • 4th grade space meets the needs of 4 “standard classrooms”
B
A
B
G
Initial observations
DIRT Wall and Formal Partitions
1 Short Term Use in “cohorts”
2
3
4 32
Phase 2A 2nd and 4th Grade Observations - Partitions Observed :
• Although these spatial areas form, over a longer period of time, students move between cohorts and build ownership over the entire studio.
1
2
3
2
1
2
3
1
3
4
4
3
1
2
33
Phase 2A 2nd and 4th Grade Observations - Screens Observed :
• ‘Recitation’ type tasks often happen around vertical projection screens • The location of these screens (teacher centered model) have the potential to further define cohorts
1
2
3
4
34
Phase 2A 2nd and 4th Grade Observations - Cohorts Observed :
• 4th Grade studio functioned as three cohorts, rather than adopting the spatial analysis model • Interior gamma space might not allow for a fully functioning cohort • 4 or 5 Teachers
4
B
A
B
G
35
Phase 2A 2nd and 4th Grade Observations - Teacher Collaboration Observed :
• Allow for more individualized learning and use of the space as quieter room • Space encourages collaboration between teachers and the adoption of a non-equivalent cohort distribution • Reducing studio into 3 cohorts, it allows a teacher to facilitate and identify more personalized learning situations
B
A
B
G
36
Phase 2A 2nd and 4th Grade Observations - Cohorts Observed :
• 2nd grade learning studio functions as three cohorts (designed to capacity) • “3” cohorts are distinctly defined by partition wall and vertical project screens
1
2
3
G A
G
B B 37
Phase 2A 2nd and 4th Grade Observations - Teacher Collaboration Observed :
• Uneven distribution of teachers (8 teachers / 2 or 3 per “cohort”) allows for collaboration between teachers • 1 teacher can teach large group while another facilitates
G A
G
B B 38
Phase 2A 2nd and 4th Grade Observations - Curriculum Observed :
• Spaces are very flexible (can accommodate large group and individual type tasks) • Changes in groups and movement between spaces is usually determined by curriculum 11:10
11:20
11:35
10:55
Specialties
Math
Writing
11:05
Writing
11:11
Writing v2
Test
39
What have we/do we need to learn? 1. Partitions • Dirt walls and informal partitions (furniture/marker boards) help define short-term cohorts. • Initial space analysis is helpful to test theories on how space is being used. Can give quick insights into more broad spatial hierarchies that teachers may form. 2. Projection Screens • Larger recitation type tasks still happen in learning (it is not all individualized). As a result, projection screens can further form cohorts and be used to identify personalized spaces for teachers and students.
3. Cohorts - Teacher distribution • Uneven distribution of space encourages teachers to “Team Up” and collaborate. 4. Curriculum • The model hasn’t been able to link scenarios where space facilitates education goals to learning. • The methodology gives insight into space pattens but not how curriculum and space relate.
? Goals
Classroom Design
Learning 40
Phase 2B 3rd Grade Analysis
Goals : • Continue space analysis of 3rd grade learning studio and compare patterns to research in Phase 2A • Adopt a model that integrates curriculum in real time • Identify scenarios where the 4c’s are present and leverage space mapping to alter or encourage those patterns
41
3rd Grade - MRIs 2hr Time period 9:50
10:18
10:35 *
10:50
11: 05*
11:15
*
11:20
Large Group >20+ Medium Group 5-20 Small Group 2-5 Individual 1
42
3rd Grade - Movement | Groups
Large Group >20+ Medium Group 5-20 Small Group 2-5 Individual 1 43
3rd Grade - MRI’s Curriculum
9:50
10:02
10:14
10:38 *
11:02 *
10:50
LBD - Reading
Math 9:50
10:26
10:15
11:14
*
11:26
11:38
11:50
Lunch
Writing 11:00
11:45
44
3rd Grade - Movement | Groups by time
Large Group >20+ Medium Group 5-20 Small Group 2-5 Individual 1 45
Phase 2B 3rd Grade Observations - Partitions Observed :
• Similar to 2nd and 4th grade; the 3rd Grade Alpha, Beta, Gamma spaces do not ultimately determine how the spaces are used. Revert to a ‘home base’ • Space use is largely determined by informal/formal partitions of space (most common around 900sf boundary)
B
A
B
Initial observations DIRT Wall
‘Movable marker board’ DIRT Wall and Formal Partitions
1
2
Short Term Use in “cohorts”
3
4
46
Phase 2B 3rd Grade Observations - Screens Observed:
• ‘Recitation’ type tasks often happen around vertical projection screens • The location of these screens (teacher centered model) has the potential to further define cohorts
1
2
3
4
47
Phase 2B 3rd Grade Observations - Cohorts Observed :
• Unlike 2nd and 4th grade, the 3rd grade space breakdown is unequal • As a result, dynamic overlaps happen in space between students that could encourage interaction between groups • However, Beta spaces on either side of the learning studio are not large enough for full cohorts to work (shift...)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
48
Phase 2B 3rd Grade Observations - Teacher collaboration Observed :
• 3rd grade teacher revert back to 4 cohort model • Less collaboration between teachers due to “4 cohort : 4 space” model
1
B
2
A
3
4
B
49
Phase 2B 2nd, 3rd and 4th Grade Observations
1
1 2
2
3
4
1
2
3
3
3rd Grade
4th Grade
2nd Grade
50
Phase 2B 3rd Grade - Curriculum Observed :
• Curriculum appears to have the largest impact on use of space and learning 9:50
10:02
10:14
10:38 *
11:02 *
10:50
LBD - Reading
Math 9:50
10:26
10:15
Teacher reversed the order of curriculum to discourage distraction from other classmates. Space accommodates individualized learning.
11:14
*
11:26
11:38
11:50
Lunch
Writing 11:00
11:45
51
Phase 2B 3rd Grade - Curriculum
9:50
10:02
Observed :
• Identify scenarios where the 4c’s are apparent • Curriculum; Creativity, Collaboration, Communication, Critical Thinking
Math - Critical Thinking; Use education analysis to determine what aspect of ‘critical thinking’ is trying to be taught during this activity.
Math 9:50
52
What have we/do we need to learn? • There are relationships between all aspects of classroom design and their effect on learning (no one model or data set can articulate the relationship) • The process is just as important as the results (teachers and students build ownership over their classrooms when they are given choices to change and implement their ideas in the learning studios) • Ownership creates opportunities for engagement and care. • A rapid prototype process encourages change, adaptation and autonomy.
Next steps? Phase 2B / 3 • Gather more comprehensive data on curriculum choice (lesson plans) • Integrate curriculum into research project - what influence does curriculum have over use of the space? (Partnership with Wendy Friedmeyer and CEHD Spring 2015) • Partner with independent research entity to gain more insight into learning studios.
53