To research this project, the key is to analyze the different ways students interact with outdoor study spaces. This information can be found by analyzing papers that study outdoor spaces. These papers can analyze either specific student reactions to existing outdoor spaces or the different approaches to planning a space. Thereby, the initial research approach is to gather papers about outdoor study spaces and collect what each paper says about effective study spaces. This will allow one to have a definitive collection of the attributes that create suitable outdoor study spaces and the approaches of design that encourage these conditions. Following this contextualization, this paper will use Georgia Tech as a case study. Specifically, 2 study locations, with outdoor and indoor spaces, will be observed from the Georgia Tech Campus. The observations will consist of being in the study spaces and taking notes of the outdoor and indoor areas each for half an hour. These observations will allow one to analyze how both types of study spaces are used and how they compare. Subsequently, one will be able to analyze how the information from the research papers is illustrated at Georgia Tech.
Literature Review
The academic papers providing contextualization for outdoor study spaces have two applications. Firstly, outdoor study spaces can be applied to guided learning; this allows teachers and instructors to use the outdoors to teach specific concepts. For example, “Designing an outdoor learning environment for and with a primary school community: a case study in Bangladesh” by Matlub Khan, studies how a schoolyard could be designed. Notably, this paper interviews students, parents, and teachers to gain insight into what could be used to bring the classroom outside. Khan justifies this paper by highlighting how “children showed improved achievement in cognitive and affective domains when nature is used” (Khan 96). Khan concludes that even children prioritize an outdoor area where they can interact with nature through gardens, ponds, and outdoor classes. Namely, the paper demonstrates that children’s perspective is universal and should be consulted when designing outdoor areas. One can see the specific priorities of children in Khan’s data:
Similarly, Kadri Mettis further expands upon designing outdoor spaces through their paper on hybrid learning spaces. In this research, Mettis analyzes the effectiveness of a space through the criteria of Bloom’s revised taxonomy: “Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating” (Mettis 501). This methodology applies a recurring approach to studying study spaces. Namely, numerous papers approach studying a space by identifying specific criteria to look for. Thus, while Mettis’ paper does not apply to the study spaces of college, its approach to analyzing these areas helps set a precedent within the field.
Secondly, beyond the design of outdoor classrooms, there is a second application of outdoor spaces and education: the informal study space. The informal study space is generally defined as “non-discipline specific spaces frequented by both staff and students for self-directed learning activities” (Harrop 59). While the mindset from an outdoor classroom can be used to analyze all study spaces, papers specifically focused on these informal areas are even more insightful. One such paper is Debora Harrop’s paper on the behaviors, attitudes, and preferences in informal learning spaces. Like the Mettis paper, Harrop introduces specific criteria to analyze the spaces. Those criteria encompass Learning Theory, Placemaking, Architecture, Combining Physical Objects, and Abstract Subjects (Harrop 60 – 61). To study these spaces, based on these criteria, this paper did observational sweeps of study spaces. These sweeps recorded the “number of spaces in a pre-defined area, number of spaces in use, type of furniture in use, whether learners were working individually or in groups (and respective group size), resources used by learns [laptops, books, etc.] … whether refreshments were visible and decibel readings (Happop 63 – 64). This paper concludes that study spaces were most in use around 1 pm. Additionally, the research paper found 9 attributes students used to pick their study spaces: destination, identity, conversations, community, retreat, timely, human factors, resources, and refreshments. Holistically, the paper concludes that while this research provides insight into how students choose their study spaces, it does not explain how students weigh these attributes to select their work area.
Another paper that analyzes these informal learning spaces was written by Unah Okopi. Namely, this study evaluates the student’s perception of outdoor learning space. This is achieved through a questionnaire completed by 240 students. In the end, the paper concludes that the most significant things to students are: safety in the daytime, cleanliness, and orderliness (Okopi 481). The questionnaire also illustrates that students often use these spaces: awaiting lectures and meeting friends (Okopi 482). In the end, Unah Okopi recommends an urgent need “to upgrade and implement sustainable outdoor learning environment that supports learning and social activities” (Okopi 484). The final paper to analyze was written by Matthew Riddle. This paper, like numerous others, asses the design principles developed in the SKG Project: Comfort, Aesthetics, Flow, Equity, Blending, Affordances, and Repurposing. Riddle’s observations lead him to conclude that “current practice too often ignores student perspectives and reproduces a physical environment that is familiar but less suitable for active learning” (Riddle 5).
Through these papers, one can see the framework of how study spaces are discussed in the academic field. This framework enables one to map out how a study of informal spaces could be completed and which attributes of the space are most important to observe.
Methodology
For this study of informal spaces, the framework developed in the literature review has been applied to two study spaces at the Georgia Institute of Technology. These study spaces were analyzed from 12 to 2 pm, with the author observing characteristics reflected in previous papers. Namely, observations are made about food, groups or individual studies, technology being used, seats being occupied, and the overall noise level. These attributes were chosen as they reflect what the previous papers determined were important. Thus, the data from these observations allow the current academic field to be applied to a particular set of buildings.
However, due to this paper’s scale and resources, some limitations will occur in data collection. Firstly, the observation of sounds was done by hand, and no devices were available to measure decibels. Secondly, at the time of observation, the temperature outside was approximately 55 degrees Farhnheight. Thus, while many students were still working outside, one could see a change in the popularity of these outdoor areas in conjunction with the weather. Finally, due to time constraints, observations of each building were only taken once for 30 minutes. This and the limited number of areas observed create an overarching limit for how many the strength of trends are found in data.