Overview
D5.3 differs from other deliverables of the SENSE.STEAM research project as it is neither a research or methodology report nor a policy recommendation document. It is conceptualised as a source of inspiration for educational practitioners. The underlying thinking for this toolkit is based on the findings from the labs, but it is our deliberate intention to expand on some of the aspects of STEAM spaces and, therefore, use external inspirations in parallel to the findings from the STEAM labs. While not every principle suggested in the toolkit has been tested in the labs, all ideas for the “experiments” are drawn from the intense discussions with stakeholders and facilitators.
The toolkit is divided into three parts.
- Module 1 explains how the research consortium deals with the term “space”.
- Module 2 highlights the relevance of the subject.
- Module 3 is a list of 10 “Experiments” that serve as inspiration for educational
practitioners
Further Reading
We recommend browsing the toolkit in full here
Questions to the IAB
1. One of our central hypotheses regarding space is that space is a complex system without clear causation. We know that spatial context matters, but “space is not a machine,” and there are no golden rules here. Therefore, we suggested a semi-structured dialogue that guides users and facilitators in empowering them to use existing spaces better and gain a more profound understanding of their needs. The structure consists of 4 categories (Environmental Control, Spatial Configuration, Function and Appearance) and a list of questions they should reflect on.
Do you think this balances subjective context and objective guidance well? Is this too loose? Or is the structure too artificial for practitioners?
2. Another base assumption is categorising spaces into “supportive spaces” that enable STEAM pedagogies and “explorative spaces” where participants engage in active spatial thinking to explore complexity and ambiguity as an educational goal in its own right. It is understood that these represent two aspects that are embedded in any physical learning environment.
Do you think this is appropriate? What other categories would you come up with?
3. To illustrate this, we developed a set of “spatial experiments”. It contains simple ones like “going out into nature” or more complex ones like using the physical environment as a 3-dimensional knowledge container. These experiments represent a broad range but are not comprehensive and should replace typical, more systematic “design guides.”, which exist in abundance for STEAM spaces.
Do you think this is the right way to implement some of our research into practice?