You are on page 1of 33

A NEW, OUTRAGEOUS ARCHITECTURE FOR LEARNING "[People] forget that we made those rules.

We defined them as human beings and we at times as human beings have to redefine them." -- Robert Irwin, artist

Suzanne Lettrick Harvard University HGSE: HT 100 : Final Project April 25, 2010 TF: Charles Lang

SYNOPSIS: This study bridges many disciplines (i.e., neuroscience, architecture, psychology, health, education, and technology) to explore how human physiology and the brain is affected by its environment; how humans construct knowledge by engaging with their environment; and how technology has added new dimensions to the traditional ideas of space that we must consider when thinking about learning environments for the 21st century. Since it is clear that environment affects the human brain and physiology in many ways and sculpts the brain as a result, it is important for humans to determine how to utilize architecture in order to promote desired learning outcomes. This study synthesizes information from the aforementioned disciplines as well as the 21st Century Learning Goals in order to create a new, dynamic, outrageous architecture for education. This new architecture for learning comprehensively bridges the physical, virtual, and cyber realms of learning in order to meet the needs of the "whole" student.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the new "outrageous" (H u n k i n s , 1 9 9 4 ) form of architecture for learning that takes into account the neuroscience of learning, the neuroscience of architecture, and the learning goals for the 21st century? For the sake of this project, something "outrageous" goes "beyond...the limits of what is usual" (, 2011). LITERATURE REVIEW Twenty-first Century Skills Those in the field of education cannot avoid hearing about forms of learning that students are supposed to magically internalize in order to meet the twenty-first century's specialized demands. Experts have summarized the long list of what, exactly, these skills would entail, including s o c i a l a n d c r o s s - c u l t u r a l s k i l l s , learning how to learn, critical thinking, information and digital media literacy, global awareness, selfdirection, collaboration, creativity, innovation, problem finding and solving in authentic settings, and engaging with community ( Suarez-Orozco and Baolian Qin-Hillard, 2004; Rotherham and Willingham, 2009; T r i l l i n g , & F a d e l , 2 0 0 9 ) . The 21st century also asks students to possess different types of minds, including those that are disciplined, synthesizing, creating, respectful, and ethical (Gardner, 2007). In 2011, however, there's not much difference in the means of learning today than in how schools taught young people when systemized schooling began. A large part of this problem stems from the fact that the architecture of learning itself--embodying the learning arenas, the tools of education, and connection to the general community--has not significantly changed. American schools aren't exactly frozen in time, but considering the pace of change in other areas of life, our ... schools tend to feel like throwbacks. Kids spend much of the day as their great-grandparents once did: sitting in rows,

listening to teachers lecture, scribbling notes by hand, reading from textbooks that are out of date by the time they are printed. A yawning chasm (with an emphasis on yawning) separates the world inside the schoolhouse from the world outside (Wallis, 2006). I argue that it is the architecture of a space that determines the pedagogical philosophy, and the resulting activities occur in accordance with its structure and ecosystem. It is through the architecture of a space that proactive learners are inspired to construct knowledge given the demographics, questions, vision, and technologies that are unique only to the 21st century and beyond. As Neidich (2006) conveys, "Each new generation has a living brain that has been wired and configured by its own existence within the mutating cultural landscapes in which it lives" (p. 228). The architecture of learning in the next generation will "wire and configure" the learners of that generation. This is why it is time for a new outrageous architecture for learning, an architecture that would inspire and promulgate new ways of thinking, especially if we are to address problems of the most pressing kind and answer questions that have never obtained solutions. As Einstein said, "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. The neuroscience of learning: How environment specifically affects human physiology and the brain Any assumptions about the type of architecture best suited to house a learning environment for the future, must begin with a look at how the brain is influenced by its environment and how this "symbiosis" influences the learning process. There are many theories regarding how the brain creates knowledge, and how the environment is related to this activity. Karmiloff-Smith (1992) in her book Beyond Modularity, hypothesizes a more neutral bridge factoring in both of the two prevailing,

though more extreme theories: innate (Fodor) and constructivist (Piaget). KarmiloffSmith champions the view that the human brain does possess neural biases that are indeed triggered by one's engagement with his or her internal and external environment, and that this catalyst culture occurs throughout life. She posits, The modularization thesis allows us to speculate that, although there are maturationally constrained attention biases and domain-specific predispositions that channel the infant's early development, this endowment interacts richly with, and is in return affected by, the environmental input" (p. 5). Karmiloff-Smith also infers that unless the environment engages the brain in various ways, these biases will lie dormant: "Whatever innate component we invoke, it becomes part of our biological potential only through interaction with the environment; is latent until it receives input...." (p. 10) This process of the internal and external environment affecting the development-down to the cellular level--of an individual organism, is called epigenesis. Writer and artist, Warren Neidich, in his 2006 essay "The Neurobiopolitics of Global Consciousness" explains this process further by utilizing the findings of neuroscientist Jean Pierre Changeux and the biologist/Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman. Neidich writes, "The conditions of the developing brain, just like the conditions of the world, create specific environments that affect populations of neurons in specific ways that have crucial consequences for its neural architecture" (p. 11). Neidich illustrates how Edelman's Theory of Neuronal Group Selection provides three precepts illustrating that epigenisis occurs during many stages of a human's life. First, in Edelman's Development stage, the "primary repertoire" changes occur at the embryonic level of development. This is when the genotype engages with, and as a result, modifies in reaction to the

prenatal space. Even before birth, environment is playing a role in sculpting the biological development of the individual. In the second tenet of Edelman's Group Selection theory, known as Experiential Selection, epigenesis continues after birth through the entire lifespan of an organism. The firing of neurons in response to all and various forms of environmental stimulus determines which neurons will grow and which ones will be pruned away thereby sculpting the unique "brain-print" of the individual. This is "linked to what is referred to as neural plasticity, the ability of neurons and their synapses and dendrites to adapt and change as a result of experience" (Neidich, 2006, p. 224). Experience via environmental engagement is the main impetus for life long change at the neural and physiological level. Not only does pruning occur due to cells engaging with their internal environment resulting in change to internal brain structures, internal development is also affected when individuals engage with their external environment via social learning. Research by cognitive psychologists, such as Lev Vygotsky, illustrate this point. Vygotsky's theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978), in particular, emphasizes the importance of learners working together in their environment. He states that learning "creates the Zone of Proximal Development; that is, learning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in cooperation with his peers" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90). The interaction of learners constructing knowledge together in their environment creates an important zone for developmental growth that doesn't seem to occur in isolation, according to Vygotsky.

Other studies show that enriched environments also create optimal spaces for the developing mind. Many studies on mice have illustrated that their engagement levels while immersed in enriched or complex environments "increased the overall quality of functioning of the brain" (National Research Council, 1999, p. 107). In another study (1997), increased numbers of neurons in the dente gyrus were found in mice living in enriched environments. The dente gyrus is thought to aid the hippocampal region with memory and learning (G. Kempermann, H.G. Kuhn, and F. H. Gage, 1997). Recent research on humans reveals that enriched environments are especially effective for enhancing certain qualities in students necessary for learning, such as memory, attitude, and overall cognitive health (Sternberg, 2010). It seems that there is a connection, therefore, between learners engaging together in enriched environments and these same learners' priming their minds for the process of learning. C.W. du Toit, from South Africa, took into account how the physical environment also affects the metaphysical brain, the mind. The relationship between the physical and the non-physical in both the environment and in the brain is a concept that must be understood in order to finally realize the new form of architecture most compatible with the active, learning, dynamic mind-brain of humans. Two tenets are important to think about at this point. First, something that is not physical can still be "real", and second, the physical and non-physical aspects of the brain are both affected by one's environment. C W du Toit (2002) introduces the idea that though our physical brain is affected by input from environmental stimulus, this is just one component of the changes caused by this interaction: Neural impulses normally follow certain pathways to produce the perceptions associated with our five senses and the movements of our muscles associated

with the motor systems of the brain. But neural impulses can also travel a fundamentally different path through the same labyrinth of neural circuits. In this rare mode, senses, time, and movement lose their usual perceptual boundaries (du Toit, 2002, p. 1018). Du Toit sees the importance in delineating the different spheres of influence in order to illustrate the full effect that the interaction of environment and brain has on the whole person. First, Du Toit effectively builds the argument that though something cannot be seen, it can still exist. He says, Consciousness is a property of the physical brain. Consciousness, however, is not physical but real which means that not only physical entities are real. If this were not the case, consciousness would be an illusion. Physical and nonphysical entities are thus related in a peculiar way (du Toit, 2002, p. 1021). Not only are both parts of the physical (neurons, dendrites) and the non-physical (mind, consciousness) brain important to "keep together" when addressing how the environment affects the human being; it's also important to keep in mind this idea of the whole of something being composed of its physical and non-physical aspects, particularly when we talk later about designs for the architecture of learning. Du Toit (2002) reminds us that, the problem lies in the isolation of brain and mind. No form of life can be isolated from its environment. In the case of humans, the brain is adapted to serve a highly complex form of life in a complicated and ever-changing environment. Mind represents a 'conscious buffer' between a physically supported organism and the creative interaction with its environment (Du Toit, 2002, p. 1023). Du Toit shares that the brain is designed to engage with the specific types of environment in which it is immersed. He identifies the distinct roles that the mind, the organism itself, and the environment play as engagement occurs. The neuroscience of architecture and space: Foundational qualities of the environment that affect human physiology and the brain In her book, The Science of Place and Well-being (2010), medical doctor and researcher Esther Sternberg compiled research from neurology, biology, and cognitive

psychology to highlight inputs from the environment that affect people physically, mentally, and emotionally. These features must be taken into account when contemplating a new architecture for learning, since they could actually either provide for, or hinder the meeting of, humans' basic needs. This is as per Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. (See appendix #1.) Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs In Maslow's 1943 paper on a "Theory of Motivation", Maslow posited that all human beings must first satiate their basic or deficiency needs in order to be in a place to want to learn. For example, if a student is hungry, sick, tired, oppressed, feeling threatened or in an environment where it is difficult to be calm or focused, he or she, according to Maslow (Martin and Loomis, 2007), will not be able to meet the higher "growth needs" (p. 72) encompassing the "need to know and understand", and related skills such as the ability to think critically and creatively, which are 21st century skills for learning (Rotherham and Willingham, 2009). With this in mind, notice how the research below highlights the connection between a human's environment and how it meets or doesn't help meet these basic needs. These foundational environmental features help satisfy a human's physiological and safety needs (Maslow, 1943) promoting the level of hierarchy of needs that must be reached in order for 21st century learning to occur. They should, therefore, be factored into any architecture for learning that possesses the ultimate goal of motivating students in this way. Nature When it comes to types of environments, research shows (R.S. Ulrich, 1984) that environments incorporating nature induce the body to heal. In his study of recovering gall

bladder surgery patients, Ulrich observed that patients who were given rooms with views of groves of trees recovered almost a full day sooner than patients whose view was that of a brick wall. The patients with the view of nature also seemed to require less pain medication. Modernist architects such as Neutra and Aalto also "were explicit about the health benefits of well-planned architecture and about the importance of nature and natural views on health and healing" (Sternberg, 2010, p. 5). Sunlight Another feature in the environment that affects human physiology is sunlight. For example, an 1877 Royal Society of London paper proved that sunlight kills bacteria. Sunlight, since it contains vitamin D, also strengthens the immune system. "...Full spectrum sunlight can also change the heart rhythm in people with ...seasonal affective disorder" (Sternberg, p. 48). Interestingly, circadian rhythm, a basic physiological function, works off of hormones that are completely in sync with sunlight. "The hormones and nerve chemicals released from various centers in the brain ebb and flow naturally, in sync with the ebb and flow of light and dark" (Sternberg, p. 46). Melatonin, another hormone, "responds to rhythms of light" (p. 47) too affecting sleep and wake regulation in humans. Sound Sternberg analyzed several studies regarding the connection between noise and stress. She said, for example, that the decibel level reached when a motorcycle passes by "increases heart rate, blood pressure, and other measures of stress" (p. 218). A stressful environment inhibits the motivation to learn in that it "slows healing, predisposes the body to more severe and more frequent infections, and compounds the effects of illness"

(Sternberg, p. 227). Eberhard (2008) produced evidence showing that "excessive background noise and reverberation can affect the achievement and educational performance of children" (p. 62) and hinder reading skills. An environment designed for learning must take into account the effect of sound. "One approach," Eberhard said, "might be to 'tune' a classroom to enhance the teacher's voice or the students' voices" (Eberhard, p. 63). Sight Researchers conducted several studies on various aspects of sight that are useful. Apparently colors with longer wavelengths are stimulating and colors with shorter wavelengths are calming (Sternberg, 2010). The brain responds to patterns too. Researcher and professor of cardiology, Ary Goldberger (1996), revealed that patterns, especially fractals, "are intrinsically satisfying to the human mind" (Sternberg, 2010, p. 35). Davis (2004) corroborated saying that "the brain takes similarities and makes all of them rules.... Seeing a pattern is good for us, because it shapes our memory and makes our thinking more economical" (Davis, 2004, p. 12). The brain connects new knowledge to the old by determining the common bridge or pattern in the information (Piaget, 1950/2001). Warren Neidich (2006) in The NeuroBiopolitics of Global Consciousness added that "...aspects in our environment compete for our brain's attention. Some components are more "phatic" (or attention grabbing) than others" (p. 232). Research confirmed that patterns, as well as environmental elements with levels of contrast, are phatic. The brain intrinsically pays attention to these elements. Beauty and its power to inspire unique forms of thinking

Jonas Salk believed in the connection between beauty in an environment and creativity. He felt it was the light and "spiritual aura" (Sternberg, 2010, p. 21) of the town of Assisi, Italy that inspired him to invent the Polio vaccine. In honor of his revelation, Salk commissioned the architect Louis Kahn to design The Salk Institute in La Jolla, California. Salk requested that the Institute provide a welcoming and inspiring environment for scientific research. Kahn flooded the laboratories with daylight. He built all four outer walls of the laboratory levels out of large, double-strength glass panes, producing an open, airy work environment" ("Salk Architecture"). (See appendix #2.) To Salk, natural lighting, fresh air, nature, and specific locations highlighting these features inspired beauty, triggering his (and he hoped others') levels of creativity, problem solving, and critical thinking skills, all skills deemed important for 21st century learning. "The new frontier in architecture and urban design," Sternberg said, "must take into account the needs of our emotions and the strengths and limitations of our brain's ability to synthesize the signals we receive through each of our senses. It must do this at every level..." (2010, p. 293). The research presented highlights the neurological and physiological givens that must act as a foundation when any architecture for learning is created. These ideas, however, are not new. What must be freshly realized, though, is that in order for students to actually reach the higher level learning goals proposed by 21st century learning theorists, society must be more willing and insistent on meeting learners most basic needs (Maslow, 1943). As seen, environment--both manmade and naturally occurring--has the potential to assist or to hinder a student's progress in this regard. Researchers and Educators discuss learning spaces of the future

In 2004, researchers and educators came together to discuss findings related to spaces that promote students' well being in school (Davis, 2004). One researcher stressed that "positive emotion matters in learning because negative emotions shut down the prefrontal cortex and hence the ability to learn" (p. 20). Though clearly the executive function tasks of the prefrontal cortex don't "shut down", positive emotions or feelings of engagement, according to this researcher and others (Diamond, A., 2010; Csikzentmihalyi, 1991) do facilitate a more effective learning experience. Strategies that highlight positive emotion include creating environments where students feel like a part of a team, where they feel safe and like they belong, and where they feel that their work is valuable in the real world. This research group (Davis, 2004) determined that new technology, such as virtual experiences in learning spaces, could promote the feeling of safety in students since students could practice new concepts and take assessments in individualized ways that could protect them from the embarrassment of failing in front of others. The research team concluded that the goal of learning (and the pathway to a positive learning environment) is for students to understand new material. They highlighted the importance of students identifying patterns in new material. To facilitate the recognition of patterns, some encouraged the use of new technologies and the option to practice new, abstract concepts in real world situations or settings. Researchers and Architects discuss learning spaces of the future During the summer of 2010, Dr. Lackney--Doctor of Architecture and a Recognized Educational Facility Professional--organized a workshop for neuroscientists and architects to discuss scientific discoveries regarding brain development and

knowledge construction and about designing physical spaces of learning for the future. Architects gave suggestions for school designs that would incorporate the current findings. Several of the recommendations for future schools aligned with the Davis (2004) group's suggestions for enhancing wellness in learning. First, the architects advised that the learning spaces of the future should support social learning, in the form of collaboration and team building. Architecture of this sort would include breakout regions that would turn into living room-like zones for discussion. It would include tables and alcoves as well for similar interaction. Second, the architects recommended that the space assist students in taking ownership of, or in connecting with, their space of learning. This would include providing students with "teaching architecture" where final project display features could be formatted or manipulated by the students. It would also provide sections of architecture, beyond the locker or desk, which students could personalize in order to express their territoriality and to add to their sense of belonging. Third, the architects ascertained through the research the need for architecture of future schools to stand on the concept of "place making" and optimal learning environments. As Sternberg (2010) observed, "When we experience our environment, we not only perceive the physical elements in it, but we also try to make sense of the story it tells" (Sternberg, p. 132). The architects in this group mentioned that, "design must be approached in a holistic, systemic way, comprising not only the physical setting, but also the social, organizational, pedagogical, and emotional environments that are integral to the experience of place" (Lackney, 2010). One way to do this is to exhibit symbols throughout the learning space that unifies the student body under a common philosophy

of learning. The final suggestion for design related to wellness and corroborated Salk's ideas mentioned earlier, that of seamlessly melding the interior space with nature and the exterior of the physical space. This feature, architects explained, would encourage physical movement between the inside and outside of a space, thereby engaging an individual's motor cortex to promote oxygenation of the brain (Lackney, 2010). Several other recommendations from this meeting aligned with neurological and/or biological research. First, since research (see above) shows that the brain pays attention to variety and contrast, architects at this meeting (Lackney, 2010) recommended designing interiors to provide an enriched range of perimeter shapes, colors, and textures; they also recommended adding spaces that induce different types of engagement, such as reflection, collaboration, and play. Second, the architects determined that learning spaces of the future must provide integrated and comprehensive access to information, settings, technology, and nonphysical spaces in which learning can take place. They suggested that learners must have immediate access between learning settings to "encourage rapid development" and "cross fertilization" of ideas "generated in a learning episode" (Lackney, 2010). Another suggestion was that the "community-at-large" operate at the "optimal learning environment". They envisioned a learning space that "finds ways to utilize all urban and natural environments as the primary learning setting" (Lackney, 2010). They also recommended that the "school as fortress of learning needs to be challenged and conceptualized as a resource-rich learning center that supplements lifelong learning" (Lackney, 2010). Ideally, the learning spaces of the future take into account "technology, distance learning, community and business partnerships, [and]

home-based learning" (Lackney, 2010). The outrageous architecture of learning for the future embodied in this paper operates as a full extension of this full "access" premise. Two Key Ingredients to determining the new architecture of learning In order to utilize this and the other recommendations to conceptualize a new and outrageous architecture for learning via 21st century skills, however, a designer must take into account two distinct catalysts that propel the need for a brand new form of architecture for learning at this time: 1) the new definition of space as a result of innovative technologies, and 2) the global transformations sculpting our society. New dimensions of space as a result of innovative technologies (i.e., cyberspace and virtual reality) It is clear that traditional architecture, perceived in three-dimensional forms, affects the physiology, brain, and therefore the knowledge-construction capacity of learners. It is also clear, subsequently, that the powers that be must carefully select this physical form and the space it creates to ensure that the environment for learning does indeed engage 21st century minds. At the crux of the new architecture for learning is the first salient feature that no other culture before now has ever had the opportunity, challenge, or responsibility to incorporate: the vastly unique and ubiquitous technologies- such as the internet, virtual reality, smart phones, and social networking platforms-which, when used separately or in aggregate, create an inherently new space and ecology of learning, that of emergence and complexity, through which learning can root. Before such technologies existed, local and global entities were considered separate. You could not be in one and in the other at the same time. One needed to travel physically from the local to the global. Now, via technology, global and local regions are much easier to

traverse without having to travel in a physical sense. Neidich explains, "Linked together, these technologies create parallel systems of temporality that simultaneously manifest in time and space" (2006, p. 231). He adds that these "powerful information and communication technologies, such as the internet, undermine serial, extensive ideas of time and space" (p. 230). Not only do these new technologies "undermine... ideas of time and space" they change the way in which a learner is asked to engage in time and space; it is this fact that must be understood: According to information cartographers Martin Dodge and Robert Kitchen, intensive technologies disrupt traditional forms of cultural and social interactions in critical ways: they promote a mode of global culturization at the expense of local customs and traditions; they facilitate what has been termed incidental outsiderness, meaning that people live in multiple locations; and they create an alternative sense of identity, one that is fluid, mobile and disembodied. Thus, community that had formerly been dictated by factors of presence and place is now formulated on the basis of interests rather than on locations (Neidich, 2006, p. 230). Several hugely significant changes occur in the learning zone when concepts such as space, time, and physicality are broadened as a result of these innovations. Piecing together knowledge about neuroscience, learning, and architecture's affect on the brain and mind without taking into account and incorporating the new nonphysical spaces that are created by way of this technology, is like engaging and paying attention only to the parts of the brain that are physical. When this happens, the whole space, just like the whole person, is dismissed. However, The result [of incorporating these new dimensions] is a grand tapestry of time and space that has resulted in new combinatory possibilities and, by extension, new possibilities for thought and relativity. As these nested relations redefine objects and images, they create landscapes of meaning; these visual ensembles are sampled and processed by the intensive brain (Neidich, 2006, p. 231). Even these new dimensions, though not physical, are also "sampled and processed" by the brain. More than merely seeing these technologies as tools (or as some

see them, as distractions) in learning, we need to understand that these technologies, and the "states" that humans possess when engaging with them, affect individuals' learning spaces as well as their mind-brains. It is these new spaces that must now also be incorporated when designing the new architecture of learning. ...The importance of a medium (seen as a bodily extension) is not just a matter of a limb or anatomical system being physically extended (as in the manner-astool sense). It is also a matter of altering the ratio between the range of human senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell), and this has implications for our mental functions (having ideas, perceptions, emotions, experiences, etc.) (Lister, Martin et al., 2003, p. 78). As du Toit (2002) aptly summarized, "the role of the environment cannot be overemphasized" (p. 1027). The many dimensions of environment make significant and wide-ranging impacts on the brain and on learning. These changes in space and time also challenge Bronfenbrenner's ecology of influence on learners. In 1977, when Toward an Experimental Ecology was published, Bronfenbrenner wrote that the "ecological environment is conceived topologically as a nested arrangement of structures, each contained within the next [italics included]" with the individual at the heart (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 2). These structures included the microsystem (i.e., the home, school, and workplace), the mesosystem (i.e., interactions between microsystem entities, such as school, family, church, camp, and workplace), the exosystem (i.e., the media, neighborhood, and/or government at the local through to the national levels), and the macrosystem (i.e., the learner's culture and subculture and affiliated rules/laws). One of Bronfenbrenner's goals was to show that all four of these ecosystems affect an individual's development and, as a result, an individual's development must be "assessed" in light of these ecosystems. Two points must be made here:

1) Today-- though not the case in 1977 when Bronfenbrenner published this work-- an individual's ecological environment includes another structure, the global ecology. This new environment was added due to technology's ability to meld the individual's "local" positioning with that of the global (see Appendix 3 for this addition). 2) Since Bronfenbrenner indicated that these environments are important lenses through which to study an individual's development, I argue that these environments -from home to neighborhood to state to global zones-- are the ones through which individuals should engage with information and with others, and construct knowledge. The new architecture for learning must ideally immerse the proactive learner within all of these environments--regardless of whether the bridge is physical, virtual, or cyber-based. 21st Century Goals in light of pressing global transformations sculpting our society This new space/time geography and how humans operate in it, creates and will continue to promulgate dramatic shifts within our global societies. Learners whether leaders or regular citizens must internalize new strategies for dealing with these shifts that result in changes in demographics, policy, communications, diplomacy, and information handling, as well as how we as humans perceive ourselves. ...Youth in school today, whether in Bali, Beijing, Beirut, Berlin, Boston, or Buenos Aires, will encounter a vastly different world from that of our grandparents [and parents]. Throughout most human... history, the vectors that organized and gave meaning to human lives and human imaginaries were structured primarily by local geography and topology, local kinship and social organization, local worldviews and religions. ... Today the world is another place. While human lives continue to be lived in local realities, these realities are increasingly being challenged and integrated into larger global networks of relationships. ... These global transformations, we believe, will require youth to develop new skills that are far ahead of what most educational systems can now deliver. .... Education will need both rethinking and restructuring if schooling is to best prepare the children and youth of the world to engage globalization's new challenges, opportunities, and costs (Suarez-Orozco and Baolian Qin-Hillard, 2004, p. 2).

While critics say that humans have always needed to learn the skills that today are labeled twenty-first learning goals, "what's actually new is the extent to which changes in our economy and the world mean that collective and individual success depends on having such skills" (Rotherham, A. J. and Willingham, D., 2009, p. 16). The canvas on which we've engaged via these skills in even the recent past is vastly different from the canvas that our current generation and the ones following must engage upon. It is these global transformations brought about by ubiquitous and permeating technologies that have finally forced these skills into this timely position of relevance. Physical and non-physical counterparts--including all ecological environments of influence--which provide for the drawing out of specific 21st century skills from among the world's citizens, must therefore be selected for and honed via the new architecture of learning for the future. As Hunkins (1994) challenges, We need to do more than restructure the schools; we need to reinvent our schools. We need to engage in outrageous thinking about learning environments. The new outrageous form of architecture for learning presented here is envisioned to do just that. So, What is the NEW OUTRAGEOUS form of architecture for learning? The overarching concepts for the new architecture (below) emerge from the above research showing how environments affect learners and how learners construct knowledge. They also derive from Bronfenbrenner's ecological spheres of influence, making students not passive receivers of influence from all of these realms (including the global realm), but active engagers and learners in each of the realms. These ecological realms or environments do affect the learner, as Bronfenbrenner showed; therefore, the learner should also engage with these realms to learn from them. They emerge, too, in

response to the urgent request for learners to internalize and utilize 21st century skills featured above. Finally, they emerge as a result of nine months spent reading all types of interesting material and engaging with all manners of interesting minds, as well as the important time spent reflecting on all of these things in many different ways. The New Outrageous Architecture of Learning OVERARCHING CONCEPTS This space for learning is a public space, but it is not a school. Learners do not go there to learn the structured and specific content required by the school district or the government. Their home school would still provide this service (if it is even required decades from now). It is a public space so all people would have the opportunity and freedom to learn from and connect to information and learning mechanisms via its infrastructure. It would not remind people of a school when they look at it or enter it. The interiors would not remind people of classrooms. The space is a learning HUB, like the HUB of a wheel. It is a HUB because it is the "home base" for self-motivated learners who wish to have a starting point, touch-stone point, and/or end point in order to learn/solve problems/create via the "outside" or real world (i.e., neighborhood, city, state, nation, and global communities). The spokes are the real world connections (obtained via face-to-face interactions, internet and social media use, mobile recording units, virtual reality portals or other form of interaction) in order to promote real world learning, real world connecting, real world problem solving, and real world creating. The architecture

itself (via technology and its comprehensive design) literally connects the real world with this HUB of learning. This new architecture for learning comprehensively and inherently connects the physical, virtual, real world, and cyber realms of learning in order to meet the immediate needs of the "whole" learner. The technology for learning, connecting, informing, and working is embedded within the HUB's architecture. It is easily updated and of the highest quality. This architecture would provide an inspiring space for learners to engage 21st century skills if their schools do not have the technology, architecture, enough skilled staff, or aesthetics to promote this form of real world learning on their own campuses. Learners would engage with community members (local, national, or global) within this architecture in order to learn about social and global issues and to explore concepts via interviews, observations, and other forms of data gathering mechanisms. Learners would also engage with people in other countries on real world problem solving issues via specialized technology within the HUB itself, such as virtual spaces and in Skype-like conference rooms. The HUB connects remote learners in the real world via all forms of technology, such as recording devices, Internet, Skype, smart phones, Google, iPad, and various apps. Learners will be able to explore their own chosen topics within the many forms of community through which this HUB is connected (i.e., all of the Bronfenbrenner

environments) with the assistance of many forms of experts (i.e., human and technological) as well as their peers (both local and global). The HUB is home to real world educational modalities with a focus on No Walls learning (Lettrick, journal entry, January 2011) allowing students to engage with the physical world in order to extract information from it. This includes learning philosophies and connection advocates provided via Open City Labs (Dimenstein, 2011), GLEAN (Lettrick, 2010), and GAIN, the Global Apprenticeship Integration Network for students (Lettrick and Wolfson, 2011). This learning HUB facilitates direct connections with local museums, theaters, experts in the community and world, and other public resources via a technological and fine-tuned sorting application (sponsors and designers needed!) that provides learners with knowledge regarding locations in the community that elicit information about their chosen themes (Lettrick, journal entry, November 2010). The HUB would also utilize an index-based search engine (J. Taysom, personal communication, April 22, 2010), so learners would have the most effective online sorting mechanism through which they could learn about their theme-based topics. Within a HUB's host city, students would move to other public spaces, interview settings, or other learning locations via free access to public transportation (Roach, 2011) during the learning zone hours. Learners from one HUB could connect with learners in HUBs around the world for democratic and collaborative forms of learning about various global themes.

The design of the HUB must remind learners that their knowledge and information comes from the real world. This design must inspire and encourage learners to obtain information from the physical world whenever possible. The design must also remind all learners that they have a right to access this knowledge.

The HUB operates like a machine. Learners engage WITH the architecture to construct their own knowledge. (To understand this component, think of some of the features in Tony Stark's lab in the movie Iron Man.)

It is a place where school groups with teaching facilitators, independent groups of learners, or individuals can utilize all aspects of the space and its "outside" connections in order to facilitate learning about a topic in a real world way.

It's also a space that would enable the learner to educate the public in thoughtful, aesthetic, and high quality ways about topics learned via the HUB's resources.

The proto type would ideally be built in San Francisco. Ideally, and over time, there would be a HUB of this sort in every city/town on the planet.

This new architecture of learning actually is the currently-becoming-obsolete library with more solid bridges between the schools, museums, and other public spaces in order to facilitate immediate, integrated, and accessible information for all types of learners. The word "library" would be replaced by another word connoting connection.

A newer, more dynamic form of "librarian" would be the director of this new learning space, though their work would be vastly different from that of traditional librarians. Instead of the term "librarian" they would be information

experts and connection consultants on a different and higher level that facilitates a state of emergence and transdisciplinary learning crossing divides and bridging information, geography, cultures, and space. Journalists and other gatherers of information advise and mentor learners full time in the HUB. Technology specialists, design/art specialists, and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) experts consult full time as part of the services provided at the HUB. All learners from public schools, private schools, home schools, and charter schools would have access to the HUB. It would also be accessible to independent learners and others not enrolled in school, such as researchers, educators, journalists, filmmakers, designers, advocates, as well as all community members. INTERIORS The HUB interior would promote variety in space, perimeters, textures, group v. individual zones, tones of colors, and types of learning zones (i.e., labs, workshops, studios, editing facilities, communication zones, virtual zones, play zones, audio/visual/virtual learning zones, whatever you imagine.) Universal Design for Learning (Rose, D., Meyer, A., Strangman, N. & Rappolt, G., 2002) or UDL components would be incorporated into the architecture itself. Interior spaces would promote multiple zones for educating the public about what learners are discovering (i.e., gallery, theater, multimedia hall, audio theater, NING...a Facebook type of platform with more creative options). Other features: Significant views of nature and the real world; copious amounts of natural lighting, and natural beauty.

Visual representations of new Architecture for Learning concepts Two different types of renderers submitted drawings in order to give visual form to these concepts. 1. One renderer is an illustrator for young adult literature. He is based in South Carolina. See Robert Lettrick's bio in appendix #4. 2. One renderer is an architect based in New York City. See Ashley Couch's bio in appendix #5. Both sets of renderings stem from my research-based, imagined concepts above. Both sets of renderings are included. These experts were asked to use the above concepts as their foundation, but could creatively extend these parameters. The illustrator chose to render a component of an interior space. The architect rendered the connection between learning in the cyber, virtual, and physical realms from a local and global standpoint, as requested. These illustrations are not meant to go together, though they could. High school students at a design school in Pennsylvania have also agreed to render their own versions of this new architecture of learning project, but their teacher recently asked that they be given more time (beyond this due date), since spring break deterred them from finishing in time. These renderings, unfortunately, will arrive after the April 27 exhibit. I plan on adding their renderings to the GLEAN website, so others can begin thinking about the new architecture for learning. Conclusion The new outrageous architecture for learning sees the world of learning in the traditional (and ubiquitous) sense as a small fraction of what learning could and should be in the twenty-first century and beyond. Given the ways humans learn and engage with

their all-encompassing environment-- especially given the new dimensions of time and space for learning via technology--, and given the global problems that we as a human race must solve and questions we must answer, it is imperative that humans start seeing the architecture for learning with new eyes. Instead of "rebuilding the ancient ruins and restoring the places long devastated" (Isaiah 61:4) as humans have done with educational spaces, they must open their eyes to an architecture beyond what could be seen (the physical) to one that includes the unseen (virtual and cyber bridges of information). Until we provide whole spaces of learning in this way--through which all humans, given their range of potentialities, might engage and construct knowledge--the new and yet to be new global demands would likely continue to be difficult, if not impossible to meet. This new architecture for learning must be "outrageous" and ideally far removed from the "limits of what is usual", because, as Einstein states, "If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." This NEW, OUTRAGEOUS ARCHITECTURE FOR LEARNING above all must be built with the purpose of providing hope-- in the form of freedom to learn, to engage, and to create--to the entire human race. REFERENCES Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513531.
Csikzentmihalyi,M.(1991).Flow:Thepsychologyofoptimalexperience.Chapter4.New York:HarperPerennial.

Davis, C. (2004). A report of the learning sciences and brain research. Proceedings of the Emotions, Learning, and Education Seminar. Retrieved from Della Chiesa, B., Christoph, V., & Hinton, C. (2009). How many brains does it take to build a new light: Knowledge management challenges of a transdisciplinary project. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3 (1), 17-26.

Diamond,A.(2010).Theevidencebaseforimprovingschooloutcomesbyaddressing thewholechildandbyaddressingskillsandattitudes,notjustcontent.Early EducationandDevelopment,21(5),780793.

Dimenstein, G. (2011). Open city labs: the city in your hands. Retrieved from Du Toit, C .W. (2002). The metaphysical mind in its physical environment: Religious implications of neuroscience, in Du Toit, C W (ed.), Brain, mind and soul: Unifying the human self, 1-27. Pretoria: Research Institute for Theology and Religion, University of South Africa. Eberhard, J.P. (2008). Brain landscape: the coexistence of neuroscience and architecture. New York: Oxford University Press. Gardner, H.R. (2007). Five minds for the future. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Goldberger, A.L. (1996). "Fractals and the birth of Gothic: Reflections on the biologic basis of creativity." Modern Psychiatry, 1 (2): 99-104. Heylighen, F. (1989). "Self-Organization, Emergence and the Architecture of Complexity", in: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on System Science, (AFCET, Paris), p. 23-32. Hunkins, F. "Reinventing Learning Spaces." May 1994. Address. Retrieved from Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond Modularity. Cambridge: MIT Press. (pp. 1-12, 1529) Kempermann, G., Kuhn, H.G., & Gage, F.H. (1997). "More hippocampal neurons in adult mice living in enriched environment." Nature, 3 April: 386, 493-495. Lackney, J.A. (2010, August). Design guidelines, brain-based learning research. Retrieved from Lettrick, S. (2010). The global education and action network (glean). Retrieved from Lettrick, S. and Wolfson, D. (2011). Global apprenticeship integration network for students: Analysis of a new social business venture. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Educational Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship in Comparative Perspective class.

Marcos Novak, "Liquid Architectures in Cyberspace" in Cyberspace: First Steps, Ed. Michael Benedikt (MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts / London, England, 1993), pp. 248-251 Martin, D.M., & Joomis, K. (2007). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Building teachers: A constructivist approach to introducing education (pp. 72-75). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Retrieved from h t t p :// .pdf Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370396. An excerpt retrieved from National Research Council. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. J. Bransford, A. Brown, & R. Cocking (Eds.). Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. Chapter 5, Mind and Brain Neidich, W. The neurobiopolitics of global consciousness. Sarai Reader 2006: Turbulence. Retrieved from Outrageous. (2011). Published by Britannica Network. Retrieved April 24, 2010, from Pepe, A. (2010). Replication data for: Structure and Evolution of Scientific Collaboration Networks in a Modern Research Collaboratory. Retrieved from V2 [Version]

Roach, C. (2011). Edutopias: the utopian geography of education [Case 1: Brazil], Harvard Design School, Department of Urban Planning and Design. Rose, D., Meyer, A., Strangman, N. & Rappolt, G. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. ASCD. Rotherham, A. J. and Willingham, D. (2009). 21st century skills: The challenges ahead. Educational Leadership, 67 (1), 16-21. Salk architecture. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Smithson, R. (1979). The writings of Robert Smithson. New York: New York University Press. Sternberg, E.M. (2010). Healing spaces: the science of place and well-being. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Surez-Orozco, M. & Qin-Hilliard, D.B. (2004). Globalization: Culture and education in the new millennium. Berkeley and London: University of California Press. Taysom, J., personal communication, April 22, 2011. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ulrich, R.S. (1984). "View through a window may influence recovery from surgery." Science, 224 (4647): 420-421. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wallis, C. (2006). How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20th Century. Time. Retrieved March 30, 2011, from,9171,156848 0,00.html APPENDIX: #1. Maslow's Hierarchy of Basic Needs aslow-Hierarchy-of-Needs-Motivation-Theory.jpg 2. Louis Kahn design, The Salk Institute, La Jolla, CA #3. Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory (including "global") #4. Robert Lettrick, writer/illustrator, biography Robert Lettrick received his M.A. in sequential art at Savannah College of Art and Design in Georgia. He interned in the editorial bullpen of Marvel Comics, which led to penciling assignments at Marvel Comics, Marvel Films and Harris Publications. In 2003 Robert changed his focus from comic books to children's literature; during 2009-2011 he wrote and illustrated two novels for young people. Robert is currently represented by the Strothman Literary Agency in Boston, MA. #5. Ashley Couch, architect, biography: