Conference Program

Preparing teachers for complex, collaborative practice requires environments that render teaching and learning visible, improvable, and collectively owned. Research shows spatial configuration shapes encounter and co-presence (Hillier & Hanson, 1984; Gehl, 2011) and that active, dialogic pedagogies improve outcomes (Freeman et al., 2014; Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014). Grounded in progressive and situated learning traditions—experience, participation, and iterative design (Dewey, 1938; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Brown & Duguid, 1991)—this contribution presents a deployable framework that uses experimental architecture, biophilic infrastructures, and curated objects/displays to catalyze pedagogical experimentation in teacher and pedagogue education.

We operationalize six principles.

1) Visibility with care—curated transparency (glazing, permeable screens, writable surfaces) makes processes observable while protecting privacy and psychological safety, aligning with evidence on space, movement, and co-presence. Documentation walls and “learning galleries” situate the environment as a third teacher (Malaguzzi, 1998).

2) Adaptability via a kit-of-parts—mobile partitions, lightweight furniture, and infrastructural spines enable sub-hour transitions across seminar, studio, micro‑teaching, critique, and gallery modes (Hertzberger, 2008; Nair & Fielding, 2005; Oblinger, 2006).

3) Embedded capture and feedback—discreet audio/video with clip marking and annotation stations support high-impact, evidence-informed debriefs (Hattie, 2009).

4) Activity zoning and acoustic ecology—differentiated zones (quiet nooks, open studios, coaching alcoves) and treatments sustain parallel activities without interference (Fisher, 2005; OECD, 2017).

5) Governance as pedagogy—daily stand-ups, rotating stewardship, and equitable booking democratize space use and build professional agency (Stoll et al., 2006; Biesta, 2010).

6) Biophilic and green infrastructures—courtyards, planted atria, and indoor biophilia provide restorative, instruction-ready spaces linked to attention and stress recovery (Kuhnert & Ngo, 2022), implemented via evidence-informed patterns (Browning, Ryan, & Clancy, 2014) with inclusive planting and IAQ safeguards (Wells, 2000).

Objects and Displays as Pedagogical Mediators: Tangible artifacts function as cognitive and boundary objects that anchor abstract ideas and bridge communities (Norman, 1991). Process boards, exemplars, and visible rubrics support metacognition and assessment for learning, augmented with scannable links to micro‑video and portfolios (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011).

Implementation: A living-lab model progresses from a minimal viable studio through co-design sprints that generate and test “pattern cards,” scaling into a program-wide pattern language and cyclical reviews (Sanders & Stappers, 2008; Mulgan, 2014; Kolb, 1984). Inside–outside gradients prioritize outdoor classrooms and green courtyards as first-class learning zones.

Evaluation and Ethics: Mixed methods triangulate space-use analytics (heat maps, dwell times, setup/reconfiguration metrics), interaction analysis (turn-taking, wait time, proximity networks), and indicators of professional growth (self-efficacy, feedback literacy, authentic performance), interpreted via theory-informed rubrics to avoid simplistic “furniture effects” (Jamieson, 2003; Imms, Cleveland, & Fisher, 2016). Universal design ensures accessibility and sensory wellbeing (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014).

Significance: The model aligns architectural and educational logics under a shared ethos of inquiry, offering a portable blueprint—principles, patterns, workflows, and evaluation instruments—adaptable to diverse contexts and resources. By making space, green infrastructure, and curated objects/displays central to practice and reflection, teacher education becomes continuous design research, fostering equitable participation, attention restoration, and feedback-rich cultures.