Texts:1968 Architecture and Pedagogy: Difference between revisions

<blockquote>It is a far more just view of school instruction than that which commonly prevails, to regard it as an introduction to the art of self-education. It ought to be so planned and conducted, as to prepare the young to understand their powers and duties, — the objects of their creation, — the character of their maker, — the ways and means of promoting the best interests of their fellow beings and themselves, and to feel a desire to exert themselves in doing and learning more and more. All views of the subject less extensive and exalted than this, are inadequate, erroneous, and delusive. . . . Let every friend of our common schools, therefore, place before his eyes a higher standard than any which he finds adopted around him, and consider himself as having but just commenced his education when he leaves school, instead of having just completed it?<ref>Henry Barnard, “Education, A Business for Life,” <i>Connecticut Common School Journal,</i> Vol. 2, No. 4 (November, 1839), 55-56.</ref></blockquote>

<p>Architectural designs for schools are among the best sources, short of direct observation, for discovering what actually happens in a classroom. Any well-designed school should embody what is to go on within it. The designer takes into account the number, age, and character of the students and the instructional techniques the teacher will probably employ; hence the differences between individualized instruction, group recitation, the monitorial system, and departmentalized schooling are palpably exposed in the layout of classrooms adapted for their use.</p>

<p>Let us review our major points. Architecture differs from building in that the architect is primarily concerned with the cultural, rather than the physical, attributes of an edifice. In Barnard’s <i>School Architecture,</i> and in the standard conception of school design that has flourished ever since, the physical efficiency and comfort of the classroom has been the main concern. When Barnard wrote, the average schoolhouse was egregiously inefficient and uncomfortable, and it was generally condemned for spiritually degrading the child. Given this situation, the functional rationalization of the classroom was <i>architecturally </i>significant because the cultural function of the common school with respect to the reigning conception of self-education was to give efficient instruction to all in the rudiments of a spiritual life. The school had to impart certain intellectual skills and moral standards as efficiently as possible in order to send the pupil on the real business of education — self-culture — with a full preparation and without undue delay. As long as the school has this cultural function, operational efficiency will rightly be the main object of the school architect.</p>