If learning takes place when one is a bit outside of one's comfort zone, is it our job as architects concerned with pedagogy to create just a teensy-weensy bit of un-comfort/surprise/wonder in the users of our buildings?
On the other hand, are there times when one would specifically avoid "un-comforting" with architecture to achieve a different sort of (pedagogical) goal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Learning happens at the threshold of one foot in the old and one foot in the new. The two planes however are moving apart. If they move apart too quickly, our gut reaction is to lerch back to the platform we are currently on. But if it is moving away at a comfortable rate, we can decide to hop over to the new plane.
The zones are the old and the new not discomfort and comfort.
An individual's aptitude, skill and confidence affects how comfortable the rate of transition between planes will be. The role of the teacher is to gauge an individual's rate and maximize learning.
Growth is continually deciding to hop each time due to external or internal encouragement.
I agree with what you are saying, Angelo, and here's an attempt to combine your example with my question: how can a place play the dynamic role of the teacher as you describe it?
Post a Comment