Beyond appearances, the pedagogical effects of the architectural quality of institutions

Architecture as a condition of pedagogical hospitality and readiness to learn

In adult education, space is never neutral. It acts as a silent third party, either supporting or hindering our readiness to learn.

Adults come to training with an already dense professional, physical and emotional history. Their relationship with the place quickly conditions their commitment, confidence and ability to engage in reflective work. High architectural quality can thus be understood as a form of pedagogical hospitality, in the sense that it makes it possible to welcome bodies, rhythms and vulnerabilities.

Research into learning environments shows the converging effects of

• natural light,
• controlled acoustics and
• air quality

on attention, emotional regulation and the reduction of cognitive fatigue (Barrett et al., 2015; Musset, 2012).

For adults, often engaged in intensive training or alternating with a demanding professional activity, these dimensions play a direct part in the sustainability of the learning effort. The presence of outdoor views, warm materials or indoor vegetation acts as a regulating factor, in line with work on the restorative effects of natural environments (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).

From this perspective, certain approaches derived from feng shui can be mobilized, not as prescriptive prescriptions but as tools for sensitively reading ambiences. The attention paid to circulation, orientation and the balance between exhibition and retreat spaces resonates with contemporary work on architectural ambiences (Amphoux, Thibaud & Chelkoff, 2004).

These approaches invite us to consider training as a situated experience, involving the body and perceptions, and not as a simple transmission of content.

Modularity, real-world use and active adult education

The second dimension of high architectural quality in adult training concerns the ability of spaces to adapt to real-life pedagogical uses.

The pedagogies used with adults - analysis of practices, action research, co-development, experiential learning - rely on fine-tuned alternation between action, distancing, verbalization and collective elaboration of meaning. Rigid spaces designed for frontal pedagogy quickly come into tension with these dynamics.

Work on learning spaces emphasizes the value of modular, rapidly reconfigurable spaces, enabling fluid transitions between individual work, small groups and plenary sessions (Oblinger, 2006; Temple, 2008).

Cnesco (2017) insists that educational architecture gains in relevance when it is thought through from the actual practices of trainers and learners. In adult training, this adaptability supports autonomy, responsibility and the ability to learn together, central dimensions of learning (Carré, 2005).

Here again, certain notions derived from feng shui - fluidity, circulation, legibility of places - can enrich reflection, as long as they are put into dialogue with proven frameworks. They encourage attention to the way in which groups move, gather or disperse, and to the way in which space can support collective dynamics without constraining them. Architecture thus becomes a discreet support for facilitation, in the sense that it makes possible a variety of pedagogical configurations without over-prescription.

Architecture, environment and the meaning of lifelong learning

Finally, architectural quality in adult education is part of a broader relationship with the environment, understood as a set of relationships between people, places, practices and values.

Numerous contemporary training programs are taking advantage of hybrid locations: third-party premises, training centers open to the surrounding area, spaces incorporating gardens, workshops or conviviality areas. These architectural choices reflect a profound change in the way training is conceived, with training increasingly seen as a transformative experience rather than simply the acquisition of skills.

Participative approaches involving trainers, learners and local players in the design or layout of spaces reinforce the coherence between pedagogical and architectural projects (Sanoff, 2007). They foster ownership of the site and a sense of belonging, recognized as a key factor in perseverance in adult training (Bourgeois & Nizet, 2005). Architecture thus becomes the bearer of social and political meaning: it tells of a certain way of conceiving the relationship to knowledge, to the collective and to the living.

In this context, the reasoned integration of symbolic references such as feng shui can help reopen a dialogue between technical rationality and attention to the sensory. Without taking the place of scientific and regulatory requirements, these approaches remind us that training facilities are part of an ecology of learning, where well-being, meaning and the relationship with the environment play a structuring role in the desire for lifelong learning.

References

Amphoux, P., Thibaud, J.-P., & Chelkoff, G. (2004). Ambiances en débat. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes. https://shs. hal.science/halshs-01295544

Barrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y., & Barrett, L. (2015). The impact of classroom design on pupils' learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. Building and Environment, 89, 118-133.

Bourgeois, É., & Nizet, J. (2005). Apprentissage et formation des adultes. Paris : PUF.

Carré, P. (2005). L'apprenance: vers un nouveau rapport au savoir. Paris : Dunod.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Musset, M. (2012). From school architecture to learning spaces: to the joy of learning? Dossier d'actualité Veille et Analyses, 75. ENS de Lyon.

Cnesco. (2027). School architecture. https://www. cnesco.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/171005_Architecture-scolaire_VF.pdf

Oblinger, D. G. (Ed.). (2006). Learning spaces. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.

Sanoff, H. (2007). School building assessment methods. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.

Temple, P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: An under-researched topic. London Review of Education, 6(3), 229-241.