Free-Movement Schools
Introduction
Our world is a beautiful culmination of movement. Just as groups migrated across the globe and languages burgeoned, split, and grew, our considerations of life and our relationship with the world has formed and reformed over and over again. As conceptualization of reality alters, so does the manifestation of thought. Educational reforms demonstrate this attempt to move along with modern understandings. However, incremental change is not enough. The connected, globalized modern world demands a new, diverse, and innovative approach to education, communication, and collaboration. Schools must evolve to reflect the needs of the modern era. Traditional learning environments rely upon standardized content which students must master and does not provide space for students to become involved in the self-determining knowledge production. Completely re-engineering space in the classroom and the school allows for free-movement of students, teachers, administrators, and information, renders revision of knowledge acquisition--from transference to co-production. Opening the physical space of the school, creates an ideal learning environment for student-led inquiry with a more open and interactive community of learners and fosters intellectual curiosity and creativity.
The 21st Century Classroom
Although various definitions of the 21st Century Classroom percolate among educational theorists, many components remain consistent, including technology integration, teacher facilitation, self-reflection, creative expression, collaboration, and problem- methodology (Donovan et al., 2014). Free-movement schools integrate these components in addition to curiosity, inquiry- and project-based learning, hands-on environments, and transparent assessment. Schools might claim to provide opportunities for a 21st educational experience, but traditional classrooms with closed-door policies and dependency on standards and formalized testing do not provide learners with an environment conducive for authentic collaboration, creative expression, problem-solving methodologies, etc.
There is a difference between open education classrooms and open space schools, as defined by Carol S. Weinstein (1979) in her research article “The physical environment of the school: A review of the research.” Open education encompasses environments that allow for children to actively explore an aesthetically-rich environment, thereby allowing children to become their own agents of learning. An open space school, however, refers to the physical structure of the building, and in particular, the lack of interior walls. Free-movement schools interweave elements of both open space schools and open education in order to generate a communal and collaborative approach toward education. Large, open spaces impress upon learners their responsibility and freedom in selecting the courses they wish to pursue (Deed, 2014).
Unlike conventional schools, where students are mostly grouped by age-level, free-movement schools emphasize interest and skill seminars above age-based groupings. Students and teachers work together to create curriculum. Learners may hold open-panel discussion regarding projects that interest them. Other students and teachers may attend and express interest, concerns, and suggestions. Interested parties participate with facilitators in developing a course description and mission states, objectives, roles, and responsibilities. Teachers and students alike are encouraged to submit potential seminar subjects and interest-level and feasibility determine whether or not an idea manifests into an educational opportunity. Students must obtain permission to attend the seminar, which is based on teacher assessment of both student skill and maturity. Projects can last for varying lengths of time, depending on the activity’s particular needs. Assessments by facilitators and learners occur throughout the project’s timeline. As students self-direct during student-inquiry and project-based learning, creative expression, reflection, and curiosity naturally arise during engagement.
Authentic Learning Environments
In addition to communal education spaces, large portions of the school are highly aesthetically inspiring and include bright and colorful objects, germane educational artifacts, local community visitors and guest lecturers and various technological devices (Smith, 2013). Learners and facilitators utilize hands-on learning and interaction to augment the knowledge production. As Ken A. Graetz (2006) asserts in his article “The psychology of learning environments,” learners are affected by their environment--both emotionally and intellectually. Dewey (1938) in Education and Experience emphasizes positive learning experiences as critical to encourage student engagement. Therefore, when learners have positive interactions with their learning environments, their curiosity and willingness to engage increases.
Students are encouraged to take authorship in their own knowledge production and in the development of their school identity. An active learning environment allows for students to seek out the experience that interests them, therefore, their self-motivated educative direction represents an authentic learning experience, one in which they are invested in the learning process and with what can later be done with that knowledge. In “Designing for learning: An active learning approach” (2005), Jeffrey D. Coelho allows that active learning approaches can come in many different forms, but emphasizes that actual movement is essential. Students should be using their bodies and brains to interact with material and activities. This level of engagement illustrates to learners that they have an investment, ownership in their own education.
Differentiation for students arises naturally, as students have input in identifying subject area and activities. Student-led inquiry and project-based learning ensures that students can interact with material according to their varying skill and knowledge level. Students work as a team, so a built-in scaffolding structure confers student development by challenging students and stretching them above their initial starting points.
Adaptability
In free-movement schools, facilitators and learners must practice self-reflection and be flexible enough in their own thinking in order to effectively collaborate with other learners and facilitators. Respect is essential in listening to comprehend. Facilitators are accustomed to maintaining authority over students, but in free-movement schools, unbalanced power dynamics are not acceptable because they contradict an environment that promotes inclusive learning. Learners engage education as means to contribute to their local community and come to understand the idea of a collective consciousness that promotes world citizenry. Movement toward solutions requires a unified approach, and free-movement education stresses educational approaches that generate the connection between schools and local and global communities.
Conclusion
As we continue to move forward in the 21st century, learning environments and appropriate instruction will be one of the most important elements of education reform. Free-movement schools employ open physical and educational structures which encourage student-directed education and knowledge production. As students learn to take responsibility for their own education, they gain agency, allowing them to mature into creative, motivated, and critically-thinking voices in our highly connected global community. The 21st century classroom requires students and instructors to collaborate, contributing to collective consciousness, and learning to work together to co-create a global community that must unite in order to solve the problems which our entire planet faces.
References
Coelho, J. D. (2005). Designing for learning: An active learning approach. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 16(6), 10-12.
Deed, C., Lesko, T. M., and Lovejoy, V. (2014). Teacher adaptation to personalized learning spaces. Teacher Development, 18(3), 369-
383.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Free Press.
Donovan, L., Green, T. D., and Mason, C. (2014). Examining the 21st century classroom: Developing an innovation configuration map. J.
Educational Computing Research, 50(2), 161-178.
Graetz, K. A. (2006). The psychology of learning environments. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(6), 60-74.
Smith, T. J. (2013). Designing learning environments to promote student learning: Ergonomics in all but name. Work, 44(1), 39-60.
Weinstein, C. S. (1979). The physical environment of the school: A review of the
research. Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 577-610.
Deed, C., Lesko, T. M., and Lovejoy, V. (2014). Teacher adaptation to personalized learning spaces. Teacher Development, 18(3), 369-
383.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Free Press.
Donovan, L., Green, T. D., and Mason, C. (2014). Examining the 21st century classroom: Developing an innovation configuration map. J.
Educational Computing Research, 50(2), 161-178.
Graetz, K. A. (2006). The psychology of learning environments. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(6), 60-74.
Smith, T. J. (2013). Designing learning environments to promote student learning: Ergonomics in all but name. Work, 44(1), 39-60.
Weinstein, C. S. (1979). The physical environment of the school: A review of the
research. Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 577-610.