What can space really do in the ways of learning?
First and foremost, space can inhibit learning. This side of the coin is easier to imagine that using space to cultivate learning and therefore is a good place to start. Stanford and its facilities, especially Wallenberg Hall, have spoiled me. However my numerous visits to various school sites around the Bay area has kept me grounded in the notion that keeping learning spaces at a minimum level of safety and operation is often the goal. When thought of in terms of Maslow’s hierarchy, most spaces satisfy only the lower rungs – physiological and safety needs.
Daniel: An interesting starting point – looking at how spaces limit learning or simply minimally provide for it. I wonder: what factors limit learning in a space? Can a very simple space be limiting because it doesn’t provide enough “material” or affordances? Can a complex space be limiting because it overwhelms? I’m wondering if a space designer needs to consciously support all the levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. Can minimal spaces support self-actualization? You might say that a Zen temple is a minimalist space that supports learning self-actualization. Of course, this notion of limitation may depend so much on the space’s inhabitants. One person will go nuts in a Zen temple, another will learn inner peace. How can we anticipate which kinds of learners match up to which spaces? How to know if a given learner will be limited by, or excel in, a given space?