under these conditions, how can
anyone be expected to thrive?
it's not about opening or closing the doors, I don't think, so much as it
is about what the doors do - what kind of institution is structured in such
a way that the majority of its participants only feel secure when they are
locked alone in a square room?
Ok, well it seems that a majority of teachers (from what I've been reading)
feel like they can't do anything they want to do unless they are behind a
door, locked up in their little box. I completely agree that this is a
political thing, subject to external controls like the school boards and
other administrations. But why do we make assumptions about how a school
should be structured rather than trying to find new ways to enhance the
learning environment? As usual, I am still always thinking about the
architectural design of the school. How do we begin to question what is
happening today in schools and start to breakdown many presumptions that are
made about learning? I think this follows along the same lines as something
Diane mentioned last week, asking how does one break apart existing
institutions and restructure them to a new level.
Someone else has also asked why new, innovative ideas and ways of teaching
about our world necessarily need to be done in cooperation with another
colleague. Being an architecture student, it often seems essential for me to
engage with fellow classmates or colleagues because it seems the best way to
learn, and many times you find things out about a design that you may have
never realized before. So why wouldn't teachers be able to do the same thing?
sharing a classroom to explore new teaching methods and become innovative
teachers. Is it still all politics? Would it ever be possible for a drastic
change in the Learning Institution to occur rapidly? What would it take?
--Steve
-- Stephen Van Hoose 5th Year B.A. Architecture Student Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute School of Architecture Troy, NY mail: vanhos who-is-at rpi.edu web address: http://www.rpi.edu/~vanhos