Space Codes in Architectural Teaching and Learning

7/26/2019 Space Codes in Architectural Teaching and Learning

1/32

1

(Space Codes In Architectural Teaching And Learning)

(Andrea, Pera Vieira)(Faculty of Architecture of University of Porto FAUP, Centro de Estudos de

Arquitectura e Urbanismo CEAU)([email protected])

(Mrio, Krger)(Department of Architecture from Faculty of Science and Technology, University ofCoimbra DARQ | Centre for Social Studies CES)([email protected])

Abstract

This paper is focused on studying the role of physical educational space in

architectural teaching and learning behaviours and activities beyond formal

classroom schedules. It seeks to understand how the architecture school

buildings in Portugal, although typologically very distinct, answer similar

functions and how their layout and configurative space properties promote

and enhance a social and informational interface that is essential to learning

activities. Through the case studies, it is argued that space configuration

stands as a pedagogical device, which includes a set of rules for the

regulation of pedagogical interactions and communications between students

revealing hierarchies of social groups.

With this in mind, three case studies were chosen for this research, mainly

because they have a similar pedagogical curriculum based on the enduring

influence of Oporto school of architecture: the Faculty of Architecture of Porto

University (FAUPorto) designed by lvaro Siza; the Department of

Architecture at School of Arts in the Faculty of Sciences and Technologies of

Coimbra University (DAUCoimbra); and the School of Architecture in Minho

University (SAUMinho), designed by Tvora.

Initially the paper presents the case studies and analyses the relationships

between their spatial layout and patterns of space usage and appropriation.

Additionally, due to the specificity of the educational context, the study makes

reference to Basil Bernsteins pedagogical theory (1973), focused in patternsof knowledge transmission and acquisition (Peatross, Peponis, 1984). The


2/32

2

collected data informs on how students, teachers and others use academic

spaces for socialisation and non-formal learning activities. The conclusions

are based on correlations analysis between axial and visual integration with

the collected data. The results suggest that spatial layout and distribution of

these school buildings moderate patterns of movement, use and the

potentials for encounters and subsequently interactions between them.

The study concludes that spatial configuration is a significant factor for the

occurrence of both formal and incidental interactions among students,

identifying a significant cluster of spaces with better correlation between

higher integration values and higher occupancy and interaction rate between

students: common spaces located along the major hallways. We recognize onthese clusters a hidden pedagogy that establishes a new frame of learning

spaces, reordering the hierarchy of the active learning spaces system and

therefore instituting specific Learning Space Codes in Architectural Schools

based on Sizas pedagogical influence.

Keywords: Social Logic of Space, Co-Presence Patterns,Occupation/Movement Indices, Learning Environments, Hidden Pedagogy of

Space, Architectural Schools.

1. Introduction

Programmatic distribution of space was often considered a proper indicator

for space usage in studies of university spaces (see Bullock et al., 1968).

However, social transformations and technological innovation encouraged the

rising of new ways of working and socializing almost without functional space

layout constraints challenging to rethink patterns of space usage in

educational environments by considering the diversity of behaviours where

socialisation plays a central role in learning practices.

Learning is now understood as a decentralized process that occurs almost

any time and anywhere (Hillier, Pen, 1991), where social interactions in


3/32

3

communities of practice promote learning developments (Wegner, 1998)

supported by reflection in action (Schn, 1987). This emergent context

appeals for a different understanding about the role of space in learning

processes, where it is needed to take into account the complementary system

of spaces, where temporary learning events and informal knowledge-sharing

scenarios occur. Several studies emphasize the importance of informal

learning in our schools, which certainly is associated with socialisation,

knowledge acquisition and development of new skills (Schn, 1985, 1987;

Schugurensky, 2010; Webber, 2004). The idea that learning involves a

deepening process of participation in a Community of Practice has acquired a

significant importance. The term "Communities of Practice" refers to groups of

people who share a common interest and, through regular interaction,

develop learning practices, participating in a process of collective learning in

the area of human knowledge (Wegner, 1998). This is also associated to the

idea of Collaborative learning, based in small groups interaction, where

students socialize, discuss and reflect (Dillenbourg, 1999). Moreover, the

concept of learning by reflection in action is intimately linked to the

architecture practice (Schn, 1987). We may say that social interactions, in

Communities of Practice, increases the learning process supported by the

reflection in action and this can be observed on the learning of architecture.

But how is this related to space?

Within this concern, there has been, in recent years, a significant amount of

debate regarding the importance of space on learning: JISC, EDUCASE and

more recently the OECD-CELE project (Centre for Effective Learning

Environments) represent some of the most significant groups, placing their

concerns on the qualities of the learning spaces. Additionally, several authors

works complement the discussion (Baepler et al., 2014; Boys, 2011; Brown,

2003,2005; Crook, 2012; Dudek, 2000; Fisher, 2005, 2006; Grummon, 2009;

Heitor, 2005, 2009, 2012, 2013; Hertzberger, 2005, 2008; Hunley and

Schaller 2009; Johnson and Lomas, 2005; Lippman, 2010; Long and

Ehrmann, 2009; Malcolm, 2003; Monahan, 2002; Monahan, 2002; Oblinger,

2005; Sanoff, 2001; Sawyer, 2009; Schneider, 2002; Scott-Webber, 2004;

Taylor, 2009; and others). Also many examples of researches, following theSpace Syntax methods, have shown that spatial structures can promote the


4/32

4

production of patterns of co-presence through movement (Hillier and Penn,

1991), furthermore, proximity between people contributes to interaction

(Backhouse and Drew, 1992). Therefore, spatial configuration enables the

production of casual contacts needed for the generation of new ideas and

knowledge diffusion (Penn et al., 1999) (Heitor et al., 2005, 2009, 2012, 2013)

(Sailer, 2011). Space Syntax methods provide an accurate framework for

space-use analysis, allowing to formulate the hypothesis that proximity, co-

presence and encounters in space potentially establish an important factor for

knowledge acquisition and dissemination. Regarding this argument, some

authors have been developing studies in this field, both in campus scale

(Greene and Penn 1997), as well in school building scale, addressing their

analysis to organization, flexibility and adaptability of academic spaces (Heitor

et al., 2013, 2012, 2015); evaluation of mobility flows on academic spaces

(Heitor et al., 2007, 2009); and the influence of spatial layouts on students

behaviour (Pasalar, 2004).

Due to the specificity of the learning context (Dillenbourg, 1999; Schn,1985;

1987; Schugurensky, 2010; Webber, 2004; Wegner, 1998), both the

acquisition of knowledge and socialisation are linked to pedagogical

principles, therefore to support the study on the relation between academic

space and learning behaviours, a pedagogical theory focused in patterns of

knowledge transmission and acquisition needs to be referred. Basil

Bernsteins theory, Class, Codes and Control (Bernstein, 1973), can be

presented as a starting point for the analysis of the social functions of

architecture in learning spaces (Peatross and Peponis, 1995), particularly

their work concerning the definition of rules for the distribution and the

recontextualization of knowledge transition (Bernstein, 1973), where

organisation of space and time are considered as fundamental to the way

pedagogical principles operate (Morais, 2002). For instance, educational

physical space can become a producer of social control, while a subdivided

spatial layout acts as a control mechanism, allowing a clear distinction

between activities and fragmentation of groups of people, providing explicitly

restricted relationships and interactions. On the other hand, the lack of spatial

barriers (open space) gives the opportunity and encourages socialinteractions, promoting flexible groups for studying. Peatross and Peponis


5/32

5

(1995) complement Bernsteins ideas considering the space not only as a

dependent variable that reflects pedagogical principles, but also as an

independent variable capable of generating its own pedagogical purposes.

In the past, university spaces, as well as libraries, auditoriums or classrooms,

were clearly understood as the remaining learning spaces of learning/teaching

institutions. However, over the years, continuing social and technological

changes have occurred that were traduced in, beside other things, a massive

implementation of new technologies and curriculum changes, resulting in

transformations of peoples study and work habits (Capille and Psarra, 2013).

Therefore, its needed to rethink academic spaces, assuming that learning is

acquired by multiple activities, including socialisation (Pasalar, 2004). In fact,

nowadays, common circulation, atriums, gathering spaces, or the more public

spaces from universities, cant be understood as simple passages or

connections between different classrooms or other academic spaces, since

they have achieved another role in the everyday life of the school.

Thus, our study is focused in spaces for informal learning activities and

temporary learning events, like informal knowledge-sharing scenarios, that

take place in architecture schools (Schn, 1987). With a focus on how space

shapes social relations and practices in three architecture schools, and how

informal social interactions change the nature, use and experience of space,

we propose to look over architecture schools common spaces as interfaces

for supporting learning and studying activities, providing a way for co-

presence and gathering between their inhabitants and visitors. We want to

understand how these interfaces are hierarchized, by understanding how their

partitions are used and appropriated in learning related activities. The three

case studies constitute three public schools of architecture in Portugal, based

on the pedagogical parallel beginning and having a similar pedagogical

curriculum: the Faculty of Architecture of Oporto University (FAUPorto)

designed by lvaro Siza; the Department of Architecture at School of Arts in

the Faculty of Sciences and Technologies of Coimbra University

(DAUCoimbra); and the School of Architecture in Minho University

(SAUMinho), designed by Tvora.


6/32

6

2. Methodology And The Three Schools of Architecture in Portugal

Architectonic Programme

Following the introduction on the three case studies, the paper examines the

interior space layout of FAUPorto, DAUCoimbra and SAUMinho, using the

following methods:

1. Distribution of functions in the building using justified-graphs (software:

yEd Graph Editor3.14);

2. Spatial analysis of the layout using VGA analysis, convex analysis and

axial analysis (software: UCL DepthmapX 0.30);

3. Data collection obtained through snapshot observation (Al-Sayed et

al., 2014, pp.41) of different types of occupation, movement flows

within a sample of spaces (10% most integrated, 10% median

integrated, 10% most segregated) from the common space system of

the buildings (atriums, corridors, galleries, gathering spaces). Each

space, was observed for 5 or 3.5 minutes on 6 different intervals,

during 5 week days, corresponding to a total of 30 observations per

space;

4. Statistical analyses of spatial variables with use.

The three schools of architecture in study (FAUPorto, DAUCoimbra and

SAUMinho) have very distinct characteristics at the morphologic level:

FAUPorto defines itself as a fragmented set of different volumes, united by

interior common areas and public outdoor spaces. DAUCoimbra building is

like a unique volume that surrounds an interior square patio, which acts as the

core of the spatial system; SAUMinho adopts a linear spatial model, defined

by a floor-plan built by two axis that make an L shape (with the spaces that

are distributed along a path that defines itself as a street, gives the systematic

distribution to all subsequent internal spaces that are intersected with it).

Equally, the three case studies constitute a ternary collection with very distinct

timelines: Coimbras building has a long and influent history that alternates

along the time as a school building and an hospital, from the sixteenth century

until today; FAUPorto was built from the necessity to transfer the architectural

studies from the Beaux Arts School in Oporto to a new building, that was

constructed within two distinct phases (1986,1996); SAUMinho is the mostrecent, built in 2000.


7/32

7

Figure 1: Global perspectives and layouts plans of the three case studies: a)

DAUCoimbra; b) FAUPorto; c) SAUMinho.

DAUCoimbras history arises from 1568 to the present day. The original

building had a classic school typology, as a Jesuit high school building with a

square plan organised around a cloister. Due to its various occupations over

time (alternating between school, hospital, and museum), the building lost its

original architectural physiognomy. In our days the architecture school

occupies the first floor.

Designed by the architect Siza Vieira, FAUPorto was built in two distinct

phases. Carlos Ramos Pavilion, 1986, has a U shaped form, characterised by

a high exterior opacity contrasting with its internal glass facade turned to the

internal trapezoidal courtyard, and it is also identified by the ample and


8/32

8

continuous interior space, like a big artistic studio. The second phase of the

project corresponds to large facilities amplification with the construction of

new buildings. The program for these new set of buildings is distributed over

two main areas, which organise themselves around a triangular piazza. One

of the areas is more compact and is mainly occupied by supportive spaces

(administration, cafeteria, library, storage, dressing rooms!), some

classrooms and the auditorium. The other area is established by four towers

where most of the internal productive spaces (classrooms and teachers

offices) are located, standing as a spatial model based on individual and

closed ateliers.

SAUMinho (2000) was designed by the architects F. Tvora and B. Tvora,

with the purpose to materialise an idiosyncratic way for the teaching of

architecture. The building has been planned as an L shaped linear

composition, emphasising the idea of learning streets (Hertzberger, 2008),

and giving the systematic distribution to subsequent internal spaces: living

spaces, auditoriums, library, offices, laboratories, classrooms and

administrative areas.

Although these three schools present different morphological layouts, the

curricula is similar in all of them, since DAUCoimbra and ESAUMinho can be

considered institutional offsprings of FAUPorto and identical users /graduate

students of architecture. Therefore, the main question is whether or not, these

spaces present analogous use of space or show different patterns on the

relationship between space and use.

3. Architectonic Space Layout Functions Distribution

Buildings are interfaces of human activities, hosting a variety of different types

of actions of their users. In Social Logic of Space theory, the users of space

are classified as: inhabitants who remain and control the rules for the usage

of the space; visitors whose right to use and remain on the space exists but

is not strong enough to change the rules of the space usage (Hansen, 1998).

On architectural schools cases, we can consider inhabitants grouped as

academic (professors and researchers) and non-academic (technics and


9/32

9

administrative employees) and the students as visitors. It is still possible to

define another type of users, concerning the outside persons who

occasionally visit the space the strangers.

For the analysis and classification of spaces according to the generic

characteristics, the function and the supporting activities, we associate the

spatial classification on Architectonic Programming Applied to Complex

Buildings (Krger, 1992).

Within this classification, complex buildings, as universities, sustain both

programmed and non-programmed activities. The programmed activities

consist on the events that happen within a specified schedule or work routine

(teaching, investigation or administration). All other activities that do not follow

a specific schedule are considered to be non-programmed. On this study,

programmed activities spaces are classrooms, auditoriums, teachers offices

and administrative spaces. Typically the library, cafeteria, common spaces (as

atriums and corridors) are considered to host non-programmed activities. At

the same time, a building has spaces that can be classified either as

productive or supportive spaces. The productive spaces host the primary

activities, the function for what the space exists (teaching, learning, and

investigation) and the supportive spaces are used for non-programmed

events and to host actions to support the secondary activities, i.e. those who

are not related to the main function of the space, but maintain a direct relation

with it.

PRODUCTIVE

SPACES

PROGRAMMED ACTIVITIES

PRIMARY ACTIVITIES!(take place in classrooms,auditoriums, teachers offices,

research spaces)

NON PROGRAMMED ACTIVITIESPRIMARY ACTIVITIES!(take place in library)


10/32

10

SUPPORTIVE

SPACES


SECONDARY ACTIVITIES!(take place in administration,informatics supportive services,operator, security, bookstore andstationary design spaces)

NON PROGRAMMED ACTIVITIES

SECONDARY ACTIVITIES !(take place in stairs, lifts and ramps,toilets, storage spaces, dressingrooms)

Table1: Interpretation of the spatial classification on Architectonic Programming

Applied to Complex Buildings(Krger, 1992) in schools of architecture.

The analysis of the three case studies begins with the study on how the space

layout is hierarchized by functions, using the above classification (Krger,

1992) and j-graphs. Plans and graphs are coloured according to the

programmatic classification (table1): spaces that host programmed activities

(teaching, investigation and administration) and non-programmed activities,

as well as internal production spaces that host primary activities and the

supportive spaces:


11/32

11

Figure 2:DAUCoimbra spaces classification according Krger (1992): a) plan; b)

justified graph.

The programmatic distribution of the DAUCoimbra, show us a detached

program organization, where almost 2/3 of total area is dedicated to the

classrooms assigned as productive spaces. These spaces are mainly

concentrated on the north, south and west sides of the building. The

supportive spaces are located in the east wing of the building library and

computers room. The j-graph analysis reveals the cloister galleries that

represent a d-type space, located at one step from the entrance, and

connecting to all the other system spaces, improving the probabilities of

reencounters and co-presence.

FAUPorto and SAUMinho have a very different situation than Coimbra,

because they were, since their origin, designed as contemporary buildings to

host architecture schools. However, even on those cases, we can notice

some internal changes of the building, where the spaces are adapted to new

functions according to the needs of the school and its inhabitants. For

example, on FAUPorto, several classrooms, originally designed to provide

theoretical support to the practical lessons are, currently, being used as

teachers offices, with the same happening to some storage rooms. These

examples suggest that the initial space layout distribution of functions in the

building, designed and thought by the architect, can be adapted to host new

functions and uses, despite preserving their original layout.


12/32

12

Figure 3: SAUMinho spaces classification according Krger (1992): a) plan; b)justified graph.

SAMinho is a linear building structured with two perpendicular axis x axisand y axis (fig3a). These two axis introduce a strong division of the building in

terms of programme: mostly of productive spaces (classrooms, seminars,

workshops, laboratories and teachers offices) which are located in the y axis

and, it is on the x axis that stands the large productive spaces (auditoriums,

amphitheatres, library), side by side with the supportive spaces

(administrative area, cafeteria and access to the interior courtyard).


13/32

13

Figure 4: FAUPorto spaces classification according Krger (1992): a) plan; b)correspondent graph; c) justified graph.


14/32

14

Looking at the programmatic distribution in FAUPorto its possible to identify a

strong dispersion on the program by each different floor. However, by

analysing each volume separately, we can say that theres a clear well-

defined programmatic division. The northern body corresponds to the large

productive spaces (auditoriums, amphitheatres, library and museum) and

supportive spaces. The set of the southern four towers is almost occupied by

two small-scale productive spaces (classrooms and teachers offices). It

should be noted that this set of separated multiple volumes (towers) is

subdivided to the level of use which it is assigned, i.e., towers are separated

by academic years and the respective classes by floors.

FAUPorto programmatic distribution plans reveal that a distributive structure

of functions is significantly linked to the building form. It is possible to identify

a clear division of building program in two main components: a social and

institutional component of the program (management, secretariat, museum,

auditoriums and library) organised in the interior space of the northern

volume; and an academic component, mainly located within small spaces in

the four towers. This finding is reinforced by graph on organisational program

structure in FAUPorto (fig4b), where it is possible to clearly distinguish a

distribution of red vertices in almost half of the graph, concentrated mainly in

four partitions of the graph, corresponding to the southern part of the building.

The justified graph (fig4.c) also shows a clear supremacy of the atrium and

gallery in the ground floor that internally connects the different parts of the

building; these two spaces link all the volumes, i.e internally, everything goes

through this space, and that in its absence the building turns literally into five

(north volume and the four towers).

Observing all the programmatic classes on plans and j-graphs from

DAUCoimbra, FAUPorto and SAUMinho, it is clear that productive spaces

dominate over the supportive spaces, representing 2/3 of the total area. It is

possible to recognise a seemingly big difference in terms of programmatic

organization, but a closer observation reveals some parallels in organisational

strategy. Fundamentally, in the three schools, there is an horizontal floor

division that structures space by dividing it into big clusters, corresponding to

productive spaces for primary programmed activities and supportive spacesfor secondary programmed activities, segregating two social categories, the


15/32

15

academics (teachers as habitants and students as visitors) from the

administrative staff.

4. Space Codes: Space And Use In Teaching And Learning

Architecture

This section focuses on the spatial analysis of the layout using VGA analysis,

convex analysis and axial analysis, related to patterns of occupation and

movement in the three schools, observing the activities and flows in the space

through snapshot observation and gate counts method, within a sample of

spaces (10% most integrated, 10% median integrated, 10% most segregated)

from common spaces of the buildings (atriums, corridors, galleries, gathering

spaces). The following static activities were identified: 1) formal learning

activities: studying and working; 2) informal learning activities: sketching,

reading, group discussion; 3) socialisation activities; 4) others: relaxing,

eating, talking on the phone, using the ATM;

Figure 5:DAUCoimbra global integration maps: a) Global Integration convex map;

b) Global Integration axial map; c) Global Integration VGA map.


16/32

16

Figure 6:SAUMinho global integration maps: a) Global Integration convex map; b)

Global Integration axial map; c) Global Integration VGA map.


17/32

17

Figure 7: FAUPorto global integration maps: a) Global Integration convex map; b)Global Integration VGA map; c) Global Integration VGA Map.

Although these three examples are, apparently, very different in terms of their

building morphology, they all respond to the similar function: hosting schools

of architecture with similar academic inbreeding. Paradoxically, from this

evidence, we hypothesise that there are hidden spatial features that bring

these three buildings together converging towards the idea of schoolness.

The axial maps for these three schools of architecture were built as the least

number of the longest axial lines covering all convex spaces (fewest line

maps from Depthmap). For the analysis of axial maps we adopted the usual

colour scheme of integration (from red, orange and yellow to represent the

spaces of higher integration values and green, blue to cyan for the smaller

integration values).


18/32

18

On the DAUCoimbra convex and axial map it is possible to identify the core

as a continuous set of lines, assuming the shape of a ring around the central

courtyard, clustered in that area corresponding to a singular organisation

rising from the core to peripheral spaces through a radial structure, from the

highest integrated spaces to the moderately integrated spaces in the system.

In other words, the space configuration is structured radially from an

organisational centre (the core), which is mainly formed by cloister galleries

and contiguous spaces, to the most peripheral spaces corresponding to the

classrooms. The most segregated areas are the supportive spaces for

secondary activities like kitchens, storerooms, toilets and administrative

spaces.

Analysing the FAUPorto convex and axial map, it is possible to point out a set

of highly integrated lines on the main and first floor, which correspond to the

main corridors and atriums. However, the integration values decrease as the

spaces move away from this main system. This becomes clearer with the

increase of height in the southern towers, which shows pronounced

integration decay. In fact, the areas in the same floor but in different volumes

(north and south) have a notable distinct difference of integration values, like

the library and surrounding areas in the 3rd floor of northern volume and the

other spaces in the towers floors. The core is fragmented and is spread over

several floors. It includes atriums and galleries, located in the main floor and

north volume. The gallery and atrium in the main floor correspond to the most

integrated spaces, making the connection between the southern and northern

buildings. The gallery serves directly the majority of the teachers offices,

providing also individual lockers for students, accentuating the possibilities of

co-presence interactions in a typical circulation space.

The global integration axial map from SAUMinho reveals the further integrated

areas as equivalent to the main circulation system, with L-shaped axis from

which all the areas are organised in three floors. We can see that the core

comes down to the central corridor, adjacent to every other spaces and

covering the entire buildings length. Practically the totality of classroom

spaces are moderately integrated. The lower integration spaces correspond to

the supportive spaces for secondary programed activities. This hierarchysuggests a strong division of the functional programme into the social, the


19/32

19

academic and the staff areas, unlike what happens in FAUPorto. This fact

doesnt mean a separation of social categories of people, since the L axis

suggests a higher probability of accidental encounters.

It should be noticed that the libraries of these schools correspond to

moderately low or low integrated spaces in the systems, enhancing the

segregation of those spaces as a sense of concentration and intimacy in

relation to the all system. However, in a level of local integration, this pattern

changes significantly, the libraries spaces appear better integrated with

respect to radius 3.

The analysis of global integration, in the three case studies, reveals a set of

highly integrated lines corresponding to the main public spaces, defining its

dominant importance as visual and movement axis. Note that, in the three

buildings, as we move away from this main system, the values of global

integration decrease, reinforcing the importance of those structuring spaces

as productive spaces for primary non programmed activities.

We can observe in DAUCoimbra that spatial structure has a strong potential

to generate new relations between inhabitants and visitors, with a central

square for synchronisation of relations between inhabitants and visitors. This

idea is weaker in SAUMinho, nevertheless it relies on an L shaped axis, which

extends across the building. In FAUPorto we realize that the spatial structure

exists to preserve the programmed social interaction, decreasing the chances

of its users meeting in only one place ground floor atrium and main gallery,

distributing users by a set of spaces pulverised through all the buildings.

At the same time, the analysis of local measures shows evidence that all the

three spatial systems are dominated by the main spaces already identified

before. The dependence of the system relatively to these spaces is evident,

but in DAUCoimbra we can identify a hegemonic space. All this means that,

due to its spatial organisation arrangement, DAUCoimbra presents a higher

potential for the meeting of users, which is not so strong in SAUMinho, and

even weaker in FAUPorto. In DAUCoimbra we can witness a synchroniser

interface for the relations between inhabitants and visitors, that lays in the

central courtyard which is a visually continuous space limited by the core of

the spatial system.


20/32

20

a)

b)

c)

Figure 8:Intelligibility scatter plots: a) DAUCoimbra; b) SAUMinho; c) FAUPorto.

The intelligibility study shows some new interesting aspects on the layout

structure of each building. A previous study on DAUCoimbra building over the

time revealed a reduction of the intelligibility values, due to the morphological

adaptation from a school to an hospital. Furthermore, it was noteworthy that

when school function was reinstated in the building with new alterations in

order to restore the identity of the morphology building, the intelligibility values

increased again.

The scatter plots of Intelligibility shows that DAUCoimbra (0.765023601) has

the highest inteligibility values, while SAUMinho (0.59252639) and FAUPorto

(0.452526396) has an inteligiblility relatively low, with weak correlation

between global and local values.


21/32

21

The collected data on the use of space is obtained by snapshot and

movement trace methods, where each space was observed in 6 different

intervals during 5 week days, corresponding to a total of 30 observations per

space; the above table synthesises the collected data:

DAUCoimbra FAUPorto SAUMinho

Inhabitants Teachers 4,52% 5,74% 3,73%

Faculty staff 1,51% 4,38% 0,50%

Visitors Students 87,57% 88,16% 93,28%

Strangers Strangers 6,40% 1,72% 2,49%

PositionStatic 35,97% 25,93% 28,11%

Movement 64,03% 74,07% 71,89%

StaticPosition

Standing 10,73% 10,27% 15,80%

Sitting 18,36% 10,09% 12,31%

Undefined (ex: incase of movement)

70,90% 79,63% 71,89%

SittingPosition

Stairs or window sill 4,90% 0,15% 12,44%

Portable furniture 10,26% 9,09% 1,49%

Fixed furniture 84,84% 0,83% 86,07%

Use

Eating 8,47% 4,91% 1,87%

Studing and working 6,21% 1,51% 0.87%

Informal learningactivities: sketching,reading, groupdiscussion.

9.32% 8,91% 6.97%

Relaxing 11,49% 5,95% 2,24%

Other 20.81% 4,00% 16.17%

Meeting /Socialisation

64,50% 74,57% 71.89%

Table 2: Percentages of collected data about the space usage in DAUCoimbra,

FAUPorto and SAUMinho.


22/32

22

Figure 9: Statistical correlations between usage and syntactic measures in

DAUCoimbra: 1st line - relation to global integration; 2nd line - relation to local

integration r3; 3rd line - relation to visual integration; 4th line - relation to visual

connectivity.


23/32

23

Figure 10: Statistical correlations between usage and syntactic measures in

SAUminho: 1st line - relation to global integration; 2nd line - relation local integration

r3; 3rdline - relation to visual integration; 4thline - relation to visual connectivity.

Figure 11: Statistical correlations between usage and syntactic measures inFAUPorto: 1stline - relation to global integration; 2ndline relation to local integration

r3; 3rdline - relation to visual integration; 4thline - relation to visual connectivity.

The analysis of scatter plots shows statistical correlations between usage and

syntactic measures revealing that in DAUCoimbra interaction takes place

practically in all common areas where movement follows a pattern: most of

the movement is registered in the main galleries (corresponding to the mostintegrated circulation areas); static people and movement are positivity related

with integration (local, global and visual) and also to connectivity. Its stands

that visual measures are weaker linked to uses than the convex or axial

measures. This can be explained by the high intelligibility of the all system. In

fact, DAUCoimbra has a nuclear space, the cloister and the surrounding

galleries that synchronise most of static uses and movements within the

system of common spaces and this is traduced, in the scatter plots, by

maximum outliners points with higher values. We could say that encounters


24/32

24

relations are further dependent from convex or linear properties of space

linked to possibilities of movement than visual properties highlighting some

kind of invisible school.

The collected data revealed that in FAUPorto: 25% of all activities took place

in the most integrated spaces: the main gallery in the ground floor, and the

corresponding atrium, as well as the atrium in first floor. Some of most

segregated spaces with the lowest convex, linear and visual global measures;

but with median local values, have no usage records. Local and global

syntactic measures of spaces have a weak correlation to how people use the

space. This can relay on the fact that FAUPorto system has a low intelligibility,

mostly consequence of the strong fragmentation of the building, segmenting

students by year and activities.

Nevertheless, as the results attest, this feature turns out to strengthen the

central role that highest integrated common settings in the building have, like

catalyst of students casual encounters within different classes and curricular

years.

In SAUMinho scatter plots present peculiar results, despite the weak

correlation between usage and special measures we can realise that this

relation is almost always positive, with the exception of visual integration. One

possible explanation for the negative index between usage and visual

integration may relay on the spatial layout structure, totally established by two

perpendicular axes, forming the horizontal circulation system of spaces.

Within this spatial distribution, all the spaces from these two axes have similar

values of visual integration, so we may say that in SAUMinho visual

integration is not a proper measure to explain the possibilities of movement or

encounters between users. In SAUMinho, by analysing the remain scatter

plots, we can realize that, although the relationship between usage and

syntactic measures is reasonably positive it is not strong, which leads us to

presume that, as in Porto, SAUMinho spatial structure does not have impact

on the everyday life of the school.


25/32

25

5. Conclusions: Space as The Hidden Pedagogy

Within previous analysis, it is possible to assume that students conduct

diverse types of learning activities on common areas of the schools (atriums,

galleries, corridors, cafeteria), therefore, spaces that originally are intended to

be just links between the main academic areas, frequently provide areas for

students to cross, to sit and to meet, where they can encounter and interact

with each other. In the three case studies its possible to identify the system of

circulation spaces, within the building, as the most global or local integrated

spaces that can promote frequent casual interactions. The most segregated

areas in the three case studies were mostly the library and classrooms,

endorsing that school buildings should be able to provide students both

private spaces, where they can focus on formal learning activities (segregated

spaces) and public social settings (integrated spaces), enabling students

encounters.

The study on the usage of space made possible to notice that the common

circulation areas happen to be the essential set of spaces for informal learning

activities, therefore we can say that they are in fact Productive Spaces. With

this in mind we can identify a subdivision on productive spacesadding a new

class: productive spaces of non-programmed activities. In this way, we fit on

the productive spaces of non-programmed activities group the gathering and

meeting spaces from the spatial system, like the atriums, galleries, corridors

and cafeteria. The productive spaces for non-programmed activities can be

both interior and exterior, like the patios, entrance halls or gardens, where

inhabitants and visitors can socialise and exchange knowledge.


26/32

26

PRODUCTIVE

SPACES


PRIMARY ACTIVITIES !(take place in classrooms,auditoriums, teachers offices,research spaces)

NON PROGRAMMED

ACTIVITIES

PRIMARY ACTIVITIES !(take place in library)

SECONDARY ACTIVITIES !(take place in group gatheringand meeting spaces, atriums,corridors, cafeteria)

SUPPORTIVE

SPACES


SECONDARY ACTIVITIES !(take place in administration,informatics supportive services,operator, security, bookstoreand stationary design spaces)

NON PROGRAMMED

ACTIVITIES

SECONDARY ACTIVITIES !(take place in stairs, lifts andramps, toilets, storage spaces,dressing rooms)

Table 3: Reinterpretation of the spatial classification on Architectonic Programming

Applied to Complex Buildings (Krger, 1992) in schools of architecture.

The study concludes that space configurative properties on school buildings,

in particular the system of productive spaces for non-programmed activities,are an important component of both informal and incidental interactions

between students.

Through the research on how space configuration can affect social interaction

and therefore learning activities, we may say that space structure turns out to

deliver new roles and identities to space, questioning and transgressing the

function label order, established by programmatic distribution, causing that

supportive spaces for non programmed activitiesactually stand asproductivespaces.


27/32

27

In that sense, we may say that space, in these architecture schools, stands as

a pedagogical device, like a distinct invisible pedagogy (Bernstein,1973)

relying also on productive spaces for non-programmed activities as active

learning spaces.

This work showed three distinct space organizations, responding to similar

educational systems, which have different performance in usage. Similar

teaching models turns out to subsist in different spatial systems, leading to the

conclusion, in these cases, that the curricula is invariant to space.

References

Ainsworth, H., and Eaton, S. (2010), "Formal, Non-formal and Informal

Learning in the Sciences".

Al-Sayed,K.; Turner, A. Hillier, B. Lida, S. (2014), Space Syntax

Methodology , Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, UCL, London, 2nd

Edition.

Baepler, P., Brooks, D., Walker, J. (2014), Active Learning Spaces: New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, Number 137. John Wiley & Sons.

Bernstein, B. (1973), Class code and control Vol. III. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul.

Boys, J. (2010), Towards creative learning spaces: Re-thinking the

architecture of post-compulsory education. Routledge.

Brown, B. and Lippincott, J. (2003). Learning spaces: more than meets the

eye. EDUCAUSE quarterly, 26(1), 14-17.

Brown, M. (2005), Learning Spaces, chapter 12 of Educating the Net

Generation, ed. Diana G. Oblinger and James L. Oblinger (Boulder, Colo.:

EDUCAUSE, 2005), e-book, available at http://www.educause.

edu/LearningSpaces/6072, 2005.


28/32

28

Bullock, N., Dickens, P., Steadman, P. (1968), A theoretical basis for

university planning. No. 1. Cambridge University School of Architecture,(Land

Use & Built Form Studies).

Capille, C., Psarra, S. (2013), Space and planned informality: Strong and

weak program categorization in public learning environments. In: YO Kim,

Park HT, Seo KW (eds.),Proceedings of the Ninth International Space Syntax

Symposium, Sejong University,Seoul, Korea, pp. 009:1-22.

Crook, C., and Mitchell, G. (2012), Ambience in social learning: Student

engagement with new designs for learning spaces. Cambridge Journal of

Education, 42(2), 121-139.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999), "What do you mean by collaborative learning?"

Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. (1999): 1-

19.

Dudek, M. (2000), Architecture of Schools: The New Learning Environments.

Oxford: Architectural Press.

Dudek, M. (2000), Architecture of schools: the new learning environments.

Routledge.

Fisher, K. (2001), Building Better Outcomes: The impact of school

infrastructure on student outcomes and behaviour Schooling Issues Digest,

Department of Education, Science and Training.

Fisher, K. (2005), Research into identifying effective learning environments.

Evaluating quality in educational facilities, 9.

Fisher, K. (2006), The new learning environment: Hybrid designs for hybrid

learning. Education futures Public, 2.


29/32

29

Greene, M., & Penn, A. (1997), Socio-spatial analysis of four university

campuses: the implications of spatial configuration on creation and

transmission of knowledge.

Heitor, T. and Tom, A. (2009), Can Mobility Flow Analysis Improve Informal

Learning Processes in Traditional Educational establishments?. In

Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium (pp. 1-13).

Heitor, T. (2005), Potential Problems and Challenges in Defining International

Design Principles for Schools, in Papers from OECD/PEB Experts group

Meetings on Evaluating Quality in Educational Facilities, OECD, Lisbon.

Heitor, T., and Pinto, R. (2012), Thinking Critically Towards Excellence In

School Buildings Using Space Syntax As A Catalyst For Change. In

Proceedings of the 8th International Space Syntax Symposium.

Heitor, T., Both, K., Medeiros, V. (2013), Spaces for knowledge: Strategies in

academic library planning and design. Proceedings of the Ninth International

Space Syntax Symposium, Seoul: Sejong University Press.

Heitor, T., Tom, A., Dimas, P., Silva, J. (2007), Measurability,

Representation and Interpretation of Spatial Usage in Knowledge-Sharing

Environments-A Descriptive Model Based on WiFi Technologies. In BMI (pp.

43-61).

Hertzberger, H. (2005), Lessons for students in architecture. Rotterdam: 010

Publishers, 2005.

Hertzberger, H. (2008), Space and learning: lessons in architecture 3. 010

Publishers, 2008.

Hillier, B. (1996), Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of

Architecture (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).


30/32

30

Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984), The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Hillier, B. and Penn, A. (1991), "Visible colleges: structure and randomness in

the place of discovery." Science in context 4.01 (1991): 23-50.

Hillier, B., Hanson, J., Peponis, J. (1984), "What do we mean by building

function?." (1984): 61-72.

Krger, M. (1987). "Projecto e Anlise de Edifcios Complexos", III Encontro

Nacional sobre "Ensino de Projecto Arquitectnico-Tecnologia e Projecto

Arquitectnico, Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade Federal do Rio

Grande do Sul, em Porto Alegre.

Krger, M. (1992), Caracterizao e Programao de Edifcios Complexos",

Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Universidade

Tcnica de Lisboa. April 1992 (Publication N 78).

Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of practice. Retrieved June, 9,

2008.

Lippman, P. (2002), Understanding activity settings in relationship to the

design of learning environments. CAE Net Quarterly Newsletter. AIA

Committee on Architecture for Education.

Malcolm B., and Lippincott, J. (2003). Learning spaces: more than meets the

eye. EDUCAUSE quarterly, 26(1), 14-17.

Monahan, T. (2002) "Flexible Space & Built Pedagogy: Emerging IT

Embodiments. Inventio 4 (1): 1-19.

Moore, G., and Lackney, J. (1994). Educational Facilities for the Twenty-First

Century: Research Analysis and Design Patterns. Milwaukee: WisconsinUniversity. School of Architecture and Urban Planning.


31/32

31

Morais, A. (2002). Basil Bernstein at the micro level of the classroom. British

Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4), 559-569.

Morais, A. (2002). Basil Bernstein at the micro level of the classroom. British

Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4), 559-569.

Oblinger, D. (2005). Leading the transition from classrooms to learning

spaces. Educause Quarterly, 1(7-12).

OECD (2001). Designs for Learning: 55 Exemplary Educational Facilities.

Paris: OECD Publishing.

Pasalar, C. (2004). The effects of spatial layouts on students' interactions in

middle schools: multiple case analysis.

Peatross, F., and Peponis, J. (1995), "Space, education, and socialisation."

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 12.4 (1995): 366-385.

Sailer, K. (2011). Creativity as social and spatial process. Facilities, 29 (1/2),

6-18.

Sanoff, H. (2001). School Building Assessment Methods. Washington, D.C.:

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.

Schaller, M. and Hunley, S. (2009). Assessment: The Key to Creating Spaces

that Promote Learning. Educause Review, 44(2), 26.

Schneider, M. (2002). Do School Spaces Affect Academic Outcomes?

Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Spaces.

Schn, D. (1987), Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design

for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco (1987).


32/32

Schugurensky, D. (2000), The Forms of Informal Learning: Towards a

Conceptualization of the Field. Retrieved October 15, 2010.

Scott - Webber, L. (2004). In sync: Environmental behavior research and the

design of learning spaces. Michigan: The Society for College and University

Planning.

Steadman, P. (1976), Graph-theoretic representation of architectural

arrangement. The architecture of form, 94-115..

Taylor, A. (2009). Linking architecture and education: Sustainable design for

learning environments. UNM Press.

Turner, A. (2001), Depthmap. A program to perform visibility graph analysis.

In: Peponis, J., Wineman, J. and Bafna, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Third

International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta, U.S.A: Georgia Institute of

Technology, paper 31, p.1-9.

Varoudis T. (2012), 'depthmapX Multi-Platform Spatial Network Analysis

Software, Version 0.30 OpenSource, http://varoudis.github.io/depthmapX/

Vaughan, L. (2001), Space Syntax Observation Manual. Space Syntax Ltd,

London.

Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.

Cambridge university press.

Wenger, E. (2000), Communities of practice and social learning systems.

Organization, 7(2), 225-246.

Documents

Space Codes in Architectural Teaching and Learning