ABSTRACT: Using archival research and content analysis of photos, Burke examines how the head teacher at Prestolee Elementary school in Lancashire - E. F. O’Neil - used both pedagogy and school building design to promote a positive learning experience based on ‘freedom’ and ‘learning through doing’. 

Page 264:1. O’Neill’s aim was to develop the innate characteristics of children at play in order to maximise their educational potential. Thus, rather than pedagogy and the built environment imposing their conception of learning upon children, O’Neill’s vision was to harness pupils’ in-built skills by catering to their needs.L.E: This is similar to the ‘user-centred’ design principles of David and Mary Medd. 

Page 265: ‘The Thrill of the Classroom’2. O’Neill – no college qualifications, refused to physically punish children, adopted the philosophy of ‘learning through doing’. However, this practical approach to education was not permitted during the formal school day by the government at this time (1910-20), and so O’Neill had to practice his experimental teaching methodology after school.

3. Early 20^th Century pedagogy – focus on the material and physical conditions of teaching spaces. Dewey (1897) My Pedagogic Creed; ‘[…] education as a process of living rather than a preparation for life […]’ – the argument that the formalism of education system stifled children’s creativity and educational potential.

4. Other key names in 20^th Century pedagogy – Maria Montessori, Holmes and Hawker – 1914 British Montessori Society, set up first conference on ‘New Ideals in Education’ which supported the ideal of the built environment promoting freedom. 

Page 266: ‘Challenging the Classroom’ 5. ‘The classroom predicates the arrangement of bodies in space around notions of authority and deference.’ O’Neill wanted to break free of these artificial distinctions of power through active, practical learning.L.E: This is obviously still a popular principle today, with great emphasis being placed on undergraduate research to support the ‘learning through doing’ approach, rather than relying on the ‘spoonfeeding’ method employed by some tutors.

6. Evidence for an official challenge against the classroom made by the Board of Education in 1898, arguing the classroom was not conducive to the modern industrial world and should therefore be replaced by workshops where student interaction was encouraged. Dewey and Parkhurst described this as ‘active learning’.L.E: Doesn’t this sound a lot like the ‘social learning’ environments that Oxford Brookes and Warwick are attempting to create today??? 

Page 267: 7. ‘Active learning’ promoted through freedom. Restrictive classroom emblematic of hierarchical education system e.g O’Neill outlines the ‘Punch and Judy’ and ‘Chalk and Talk’ teaching styles that render children passive ‘absorbers’.

8. Restrictive classroom also representative of social hierarchy of outside world e.g w/c children receive orders from m/c teachers. This is an example of social reproduction for a capitalist society – shouldn’t education challenge this and promote social mobility? Has this successfully been confronted by modern pedagogy?

9. Classroom environment characterised materially by the physical division of children from the teacher and the separation of different stages of the learning process; and atmospherically with classroom activities based on fear and humiliation, with the tutor as dictator. 

Page 268 – ‘Let Teachers be Spacious’ 10. ‘Let teachers be spacious’- i.e allow tutors to reorganise the built environment to challenge and ‘emancipate’ children from the established dictatorial pedagogy of the classroom.

11. E.g O’Neill used the school hall in Prestolee as an open plan learning space, with subjects and their resources placed on different tables. This allowed children access to their own method of learning in an environment where subjects were not separated, thus promoting interdisciplinary and interaction based ‘active learning’.L.E: Using Allen’s (2003) definition of power being a mobilisation of resources, O’Neill clearly recognised the importance of giving students ownership of their own learning via open access to resources such as books, and therefore moving away from teachers as all powerful dictators, to tutors as facilitators/providers of resources, empowering children to use them and learn as they see fit. 

Page 270 – ‘The Experiment in Practice’12. At Prestolee, there was emphasis on the responsibility of children for their own learning and the maintenance of the built environment, shown by a loose and fluid timetable that students could negotiate with tutors.

13. Also emphasis on the building of practical objects which children could actually use; students encouraged to disassemble school furniture to create an environment which they had built themselves according to their own needs. This established a sense of ownership for their learning space.

14. Teacher and pupil division at Prestolee became blurred as the focus was on communal responsibility. 

Page 272 – ‘The Evolution of a New System over Time’15. Prestolee prided itself on the freedom of time, space, and learning, with children in control of their own education. E.g interview with 13 year old Muriel Kidd, a pupil at Prestolee, illustrates how students were encouraged to independently research what they didn’t understand, and were given the opportunity to study for up to 12 hours a day if they so wished.

16. This system was criticised by the LEA, meaning the school had to introduce some formal teaching of key subjects. However, pupils were permitted to interact and help one another in a non-classroom setting. 

Page 273 – ‘The Outdoor Environment’17. At Prestolee there was no division between inside and outside, work and play, boys and girls. This fluidity was designed to promote freedom and research based learning e.g Sawyer (1944) ‘Do things, make things, notice things, arrange things, and only then reason about things.’L.E: Therefore, the built environment of the institution should make this research driven learning possible. For example, the Reinvention Centre at Warwick provides the floor space, computer technology, and presentation resources to make Sawyer’s vision a reality.

18. As a result of this open spaces approach, O’Neill challenged the idea that the LEA and Board of Education should define the curriculum. Prestolee illustrated that it could be shaped by the children’s own activities and interests.L.E: This is very similar to the ‘reflexive learning’ pedagogy of today. 

Page 274: Conclusion - 19. Pedagogy of freedom and active learning embedded in a flexible built environment based on minimal supervision.

20. Prestolee experiment ended with the Education Reform Act of 1944 which abolished elementary schools.

21. Excellent summarising quote to illustrate how architecture and pedagogy are inexplicably interlinked; ‘[…] one teacher’s (O’Neill) appreciation of the significance of the built environment and the material context of the school, combined with a view of the child as innovator, constructor and researcher of his/her own world, could act as a powerful pedagogical instrument.’ Research Leads – look into:Dewey (1897) – My Pedagogic Creed.British Montessori Society.‘New Ideals in Education’ conference and its history.Education legislation from 1900s to present today which may have influenced the built school environment.     

Laura Evans

ABSTRACT: Introduction to the journal of the European Education Research Association (EERA), which focuses on the visual history of education in order to open up research opportunities exploring how the material environment has influenced educational experience. 

Page 490: 1. EERA’s key belief is that pedagogy and the design of indoor and outdoor learning spaces (including aesthetics, materials and function) are interlinked and central to a positive educational experience. 

Page 491: 2. Although it is agreed the built environment can be used as a key pedagogical tool, in what way should it be used? How does the built environment facilitate the study of children’s behaviour? How does design education and the use of the school environment create future consumers? 

Page 492: 3. ‘Walls, canteens, corridors, desks and doors do not only act as containers of the school child; they act also as spaces for resistance and sites of contested desires.’ L.E: Therefore, it is not only specifically classroom space within an institution which needs to be considered. Moreover, pupil perception of the built environment must also be researched. 

Page 493: 4. 1937 Exhibition of Materials for Use in Elementary Schools. L.E: What influence did this have on the furniture of the classroom?

5. Educational institutions based on the ‘inverse panopticon’, or a ‘two way visualisation device of discipline and control’. This means the needs and desires of teachers and students are always in opposition with each other i.e surveillance vs. freedom. L.E: See Paechter (2004) notes for more information on the architecture of the school as ‘panoptic’. 

Page 494: 6. Must note the importance of colour, symbols, and school emblems in the ‘visual landscape’ of the school. 

Research Leads - look into: EERA work on learning spaces and pedagogy. 1937 Exhibition of Materials for Use in Elementary Schools.  

Laura Evans

ABSTRACT: Burke examines the significance of dining hall design and the control/delivery of school meals in the reinforcement of class division, pupil inferiority and indeed pedagogy in general. 

Page 571-2: 1. Description of the historical, hierarchical dining hall; all of the school ate together, and was based on the principle of ‘family service’, which involved the ideal domestic setting being recreated by a member of staff acting as ‘parent’ for each table of children. Food was used to structure the school day and was also associated with punishment and reward. 

Page 573: 2. The ‘edible landscapes of the school’ often forgotten as not seen as part of formal learning. But they are essential to the learning experience in the memories of present and past students. Thus, the symbolic and built environment is an important pedagogic device. 

Page 574: 3. The ‘edible landscape of the school’ has changed over time and been influenced by new legislation and the changing culture of schooling. For instance, the introduction of mass schooling promoted the shaping of children’s bodies and minds, and so food became a pedagogic concern, and emblematic of the hierarchy and power of a newly emerging bourgeoisie as seen in other institutions such as the prison and workhouse.

4. Other legislation includes the 1906 Education (Free School Meals) Act, which was taken on by some LEAs as a way to control pupil eating behaviour by replacing w/c bad habits of consumption with ‘correct’ m/c habits = social reproduction! Therefore, school food and the dining hall were synonymous with social control. 

Page 576: 5. The dining hall was constructed as a ‘social behaviour laboratory’ for social education encouraging responsibility and good health i.e not just provision of food but how to eat and what to eat; ‘[…] the edible landscape of the school can be seen to have been a territory of contested desires and intentions, a battleground between the perceived needs of the adult and the child and an exhibition space for the product of educational endeavour or experimentation.’ 

Page 577: 6. Dining halls were used as symbolic uses of space to illustrate ‘modernization, progress, and quality in education provision’. Use of the hall for all group activities suggests unity yet hierarchy; e.g the raised platforms for teachers to use is representative of the external social hierarchy. 

Page 578: 7. ‘But the content of the meal was not the sole concern. The social, aesthetic and educational opportunities offered by the edible landscape of school were subject to specific design objectives.’ What were these design objectives? To promote freedom and relaxation as well as good habits such as cleanliness.

8. Therefore, dining halls needed to be spaces with attractive and useful objects so children too ownership of them to engender responsibility, e.g at Prestolee Elementary school, a milk bar was designed, built, decorated and operated by the pupils themselves! 

Page 581: 9. 1944 Education Act – provision of dining halls compulsory in secondary schools and large primary schools. Yet, this legislation did not adhere to the ‘aesthetic ideal’ and was more regimented, with set tables and dinner rotas to encourage discipline using time and space. 

Page 584: 10. Changing foods = changing landscapes e.g the rise in frozen and pre-packed food meant gardening at home and at school was no longer necessary, but in the 1930s gardening was seen as essential to children’s education and health. Thus, with changing food, the curriculum and value of certain subjects changed, such as the devaluation of horticulture as a past time for those of low intelligence.

 Page 585: 11. Another change includes the privatisation of the school meals service in the 1980s, which led to fast food, and in turn the deskilling of children in cooking. This is known as the ‘McDonaldisation’ of the child.

12. Now the child and ‘edible landscape of school’ are treated as consumers and markets respectively, rather than as part of a social health education. 

Research Leads – look into: The design of non-classroom spaces in educational institutions and examine their effect on the overall educational experience, e.g Café Library at Warwick. Education legislation from 1900s to present today which may have influenced the built school environment.

Laura Evans

N.B This article is a review of Allen’s (2003) Lost Geographies of Power. 

Page 467 – Introduction: 1. Allen’s (2003) argues that power is ‘spatial’ i.e is exercised through the manipulation of the physical environment, whereas other writers such as Weber and Foucault have argued space is a ‘supportive feature’ of power relations rather than intrinsic to its workings and definition.

2. Allen is particularly interested in the issues of proximity and reach. L.E: Can the theory of proximity and reach be applied to the classroom? Students are packed into a small space of regimented desks, whilst the tutor has a separate desk area and space at the front of the room to operate. Thus, those with less space and in a closer proximity to one another are in an inferior position to those who do; in other words the pupils are inferior to their teacher. 

Page 468 – A Topographical Approach to Power; Allen’s 4 Key Points: 3. Key Point One: Power is not a separate entity waiting to be used. Those who seem to possess power are in fact those with the greatest access to resources, which in turn allows them to exercise power as they have greater command of knowledge and materials. However, when these resources are used collectively, power can be exercised for the greater good rather than as an oppressive force. L.E: E.g in an educational setting, the tutor appears to have exclusive access to resources and controls their use, dictating what students should use and when the resources should be employed, leaving teachers in a position of power. However, in higher education, students are given greater access to resources which they can pursue independently, essentially meaning college and university students have greater power over their education, but is this really the case? For instance, resources could also refer to the very furniture used within a classroom, which is normally positioned and designed to facilitate the desired pedagogy of the tutor, rather than enhance the learning experience for the students. Yet, the Reinvention Centre clearly challenges this with flexible and modular furniture, an idea also mirrored in the 1920s at Prestolee Elementary school (see Burke, 2005a).

4. Key Point Two: Power cannot be divorced from its effects i.e power exercised via mobilisation of resources cannot be considered ‘power’ unless it is implemented effectively. This is further evidence for ‘power’ being part of a process of human interaction (the process of resource movement) rather than an entity in itself. L.E: Thus, although the possession of resources and so power lies in the hands of the teacher, it does not always mean that the students acknowledge this, and may even resist it. Therefore, we must not view learning spaces as settings of pre-determined power relations, but instead observe and interview teachers and students as active agents in the negotiation of space and power relations. 

Page 469: 5. Key Point Three: The nature of power changes over space and time. L.E: In an educational setting, the classroom was initially employed as a pedagogic device to assert a dictatorship style of teaching, or power as a form of domination. Yet today, following changes in legislation and pedagogic trends, space is used by teachers to harness students’ abilities i.e power as manipulation.

6. Power is based on proximity and reach, or closeness and influence across geographical space. Allen (2003) argues this can be both physical and topographical i.e not just about spatial power relations, but relations in terms of associations with other people across the world. L.E: So, apply this to learning spaces, and this would mean that local classroom spatial power relations are reinforced by the fact this pedagogic power model is being used by many teachers within the same institution, and also across institutions in different parts of the country. In other words, the prevalence of the ‘ideal’ classroom architecture and furniture in turn reinforces its pedagogic power. 

Page 470: 7. Key Point Four: Power must be analysed as a product of its actual rather than intended effects. L.E: So, we cannot judge a learning space by its intention to reduce tutors’ power, but whether it actually does this e.g the Reinvention Centre. 

Page 470 – Applying this Conception of Power to Educational Sites: 8. Paechter (2004) goes on to apply these four principles to the design of school buildings, in particular Victorian board schools. These structures were characterised by: segregation of the sexes and year groups using separate entrances and staircases; classrooms built around a central hall; and windows low enough for adults to see into, but too high for children to see out.

9. This arrangement was based on the panoptic vision of architecture for public buildings in the early 1900s, which were designed to promote institutional power via segregation, surveillance, and the domination of inmates’ bodies. 

Page 471: 10. However, using the modern definition and legislation of education, the architectural panopticon of the 1900s is used in such a way to create spaces of independent learning for children with less surveillance. Thus, the same resource (the school building) has been mobilised in a different way to produce different pedagogic effects, proving that spatial power is not inherent in school architecture.

11. Yet, Paechter argues the ‘metaphorical panopticon’ still exists via the inspection process. The ‘performance panopticon’ forces teachers and students into the favoured teaching style and so power relations, of the inspector, due to inspectors’ power over resources i.e their ability to shut down the school. 

Research Significance: 1. Acknowledge that when examining educational spaces, the original and intended use of resources might not be its actual use today.

2. This not only supports the need to examine spaces and how they have evolved over time spatially, and thus in terms of power, but also highlights the importance of regarding students as active agents within these spatial power relations that might not always work; through interviews for example.

 Laura Evans