Keywords

The United Nations has made societies’ commitment to the sustainable development of our planet its main objective, marking 2030 with a total of 17 Goals for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015). However, the concept of sustainable development was already defined and valued more than 30 years ago.

In the first place, the initial proposal from the Teoría del Desarrollo a Escala Humana (Max Neef, 2006; Max Neef et al., 1986) affirmed a person’s fundamental needs to be invariable and finite at all times and places. This theory lists four ontological needs (i.e., living, being, having, and doing) and nine more axiological needs (protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity, freedom, and subsistence) as the potential needs for improving humans’ living conditions. What varies over time and in different cultural, political, and economic systems is how these are satisfied: the means of satisfaction. Thus, social and economic evolution is proposed based on people’s needs.

A year later under the auspices of the United Nations, the Brundtland Commission Report (1987) described the concept of sustainable development as that which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the capacity of future generations to meet their own needs. Thus, this report added sustainable development to the concept of fundamental need, which described in four dimensions: society, culture, economy, and environment. As Morin (1980) stated, these systems are not independent of each other but rather have an eco-organization of synergies among them.

In this way, sustainability is a necessary characteristic of environmental, economic, and social balance in pursuit of globally improving the quality of life. In this sense, the concept of sustainability refers to environmental quality, social justice, and equitable economy (Aznar & Ulls, 2009). Sustainable development also refers to the processes for achieving this objective. In this way, sustainable development extends the values of human-scale development from present to future generations in such a way that it combines the needs of the human species with the needs for the conservation of biodiversity.

Currently, the possibility of achieving sustainable development is linked to the fourth industrial revolution, also known as the Green New Deal (Rifkin, 2019).

Education for Sustainable Development

In 2002, the United Nations General Assembly promulgated Resolution No. 57/254 under the title “United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development,” inspired by the Earth Charter (2002) among others. It presents the role of education as fundamental for achieving the values of sustainability in present and future societies. During the decade between 2005–2014, UNESCO aimed to implement the resolution to achieve its objectives: a globalized education for sustainable development (ESD).Footnote 1 This educational proposal seeks to train people in the principal cognitive, methodological, and attitudinal competencies for being able to internalize sustainability values and epistemological principles. In this way, the proposal attempts to incorporate the criteria of commitment and awareness into the school and university curricula with issues such as climate change, biodiversity, or sustainable consumption (Aznar & Ulls, 2009). At the same time, ESD promotes participatory pedagogical models that encourage student motivation and the acquisition of critical thinking. These objectives were once again reinforced in the new roadmap drawn up by UNESCO in 2014 at the end of the decade under “UNESCO Education Strategy 2014–2021” to give continuity to the achievements and promote actions that reinforce creativity and responsible citizenship among students (UNESCO, 2014). In 2015, all United Nations Member States approved the 17 Goals for Sustainable Development as part of the 2030 Agenda (UN, 2015), which establishes a plan to achieve these Goals within 15 years. Goal 4 focuses on ensuring inclusive, equitable, and quality education and on promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all. Sub-Goal 4.7 mentions the need for ESD and Sub-Goal 4.a mentions the need to build and adapt educational facilities that take into account the needs of children and people with disabilities and gender differences and offer safe, non-violent, inclusive, and effective learning environments for all (UN, 2015).

Goal 4 is about improving the quality of teaching and respecting diversity,Footnote 2 through pedagogical and curricular innovation on one hand and through the renovation of educational systems that reinforce teachers in the use of interactive methodologies and capacity development on the other. Therefore, the need to promote pedagogies that respect individual capacities and potential is underlined by attending to people’s different cognitive and emotional needs and abilities. It requires a mostly extended integral transformation of the current traditional education systemFootnote 3 (Larrañaga, 2012). Revisions also involve adapting schools and their spatial quality (a question on which this chapter focuses) to allow the described practical innovation; to be respectful of diversity; and to facilitate new communication possibilities, learning, and sharing the knowledge that ICTs provide. All this comes to define the New School, and its relationship with sustainable development as is understood in this chapter.

The New School

This chapter introduces and describes the main features of the New School and the modes of learning from the Education for Sustainable Development. This chapter does not question, analyze, or compare them. It creates a framework for subsequent research that will attempt to objectify the consideration of spatial design as a facilitator of dynamics. That is why building the didactic profile of the New School is necessary from its most representative characteristics.

The twenty-first century has revealed the need to train people for a different purpose. Traditional teaching educates students in technical knowledge. The transformation that our planet is undergoing (Rifkin, 2019) has the relevant consequence of educating students in other competencies called soft skills (Schulz, 2008). Soft skills prepare people for real transformation scenarios in which they will have to face new problems and needs, for which sustainable development is essential. New pedagogical dynamics as project-based learning accompanies this new focus (Dewey, 2000).

One precursor of this new focus is the NGO Design for Change, which develops a pedagogical framework that provides tools for facing challenges to change the world (Ashoka, n.d.). In addition, different pedagogical proposals at various latitudes (Brown, 2009; Gray, 2015; Hernando, n.d.; High Tech High, n.d.; Immordino-Yang, 2015; OWP/P Architects, VS Furtniture, Bruce Mau Design, 2010; Secretaría de Innovación y Calidad Educativa, 2017; The LEGO Foundation, 2017; Wilson et al., 2013) have developed the following characteristics that can be qualified as coincident to the learning modes that the New School proposes: learning through projects, student autonomy, learning through competences, diversity in dynamics and activities (group and individual), collaborative processes, promoting creativity, play and motivation as learning resources, and the need to activate all senses.

Space Considerations in Education

Attending, again, to the human-scale development theory (Max Neef, 2006; Max Neef et al., 1986), the architecture participates as a satisfactory means of attaining certain fundamental individual needs. In this theory, dwellings satisfy the combined condition for protection and living; meeting spaces achieve part of the combined need of affection and being; public recreational spaces, environments, and landscapes achieve the leisure-living duo; and the areas of formative interaction such as schools, colleges, and universities fulfill the combined goal for understanding and being.

This statement requires considering architectural space in social processes as something fundamental. The sociology of space as developed in the urban sphere (Gehl, 2011; Leal, 1997; Sennett, 1996) establishes that any social restructuring entails a revision of spatial qualities.

The sociology of spatial attributes (Leal, 1997) assumes space to organize our perceptions of social phenomena and to have a structuring character. However, despite the different nuances that various authors have developed in this field (Castells, 1996, 2009; Giddens, 1991; Gottdiener, 1994; Harvey, 1989; Kern, 1983; Leal, 1997; Lefebvre, 1976; Sennett, 1996; Simmel, 1908), space from the perspective of sociology is not conceived as something physical. It is a relational conception of social interactions. In other words, space is not accepted as an absolute reality but rather in its relationship with the temporal dimension.

Perkins (1957) observed that the architect who plans a school center would not have to think about future users of the building. He would have to think about the work that the building should help undertake with the full development of each students’ potential at the center. Designers may be able to contribute to achieving educators’ objectives by creating an educational environment as a tool for the teacher and an expression of the school’s educational approach. They may be able to develop a state of mind that helps the student in each learning task and may be able to make the school a place the student wants to enter, an exciting and inspiring setting.

Recent studies on neuroeducation (Mora, 2013) that assume a holistic approach on the psychology of space (Moles & Rohmer, 1998) have established a direct relationship between the spatial qualities (topological, functional, material, and morphological) and learning. The designed space can be considered as a physical reality able to facilitate ESD. From the point of view of spatial quality, this premise elevates the relationships among educational space, school space, and pedagogical action. Thus, the research tries to qualify the sociological approaches of spatial attributes and the psychology of space to detect the design criteria for school space that can accompany the development of ESD. In other words, the main objective of this chapter is to identify criteria for designing reactive spaces and to facilitate a pedagogical model that promotes ESD.Footnote 4

Methodology

The presented research uses an inductive methodology that works with a specific analysis tool: the Mirregan-Todorov Method for Architectural Criticism (Miranda, 1999). This work uses the fourth stage of this method, which has already been proven and recognized (Amann, 2015, 2016), to set the evaluation criteria of the sample. This phase is known as poetic criticism and carries with it the previous stages of description, analysis, and interpretation.

A complex of large systems makes up a designed spatial object. Five stand out among these that are necessary or sufficient: topology or geometry, program or function, material or construction, morphology or shape, and context or conditions. This study also includes the educational context subsystem. These systems are not autonomous but interactive. These synergies and frictions between systems are what determine the character of a designed spatial object (Amann, 2015), in this case a school.

Poetic criticism delves into these interactions by extrapolating binary comparisons between systems and then returns to the complex vision of the totality.

This methodology has already been applied to the same objective with representative results. The present research takes that as a basis (Amann, 2016) for enabling a comparison. This comparison qualifies the process of the spatial evolution of educational spaces that have been attempted in ESDs over the last decade.

Selecting Interactions and Evaluation Criteria

A complete poetic criticism would lead to 30 interactions resulting from the combination of the aforementioned spatial systems with one another. This study develops only the systems that respond to the research objectives; these are taken as evaluation criteria of the research sample.

Topology System

This system studies the space dimensions (i.e., number of students, movement possibilities, flexibility of the space, isolation possibilities, and versatility to engage different environments), the arrangement of its elements (i.e., how many elements it has, how they are positioned, are the elements fixed/mobile, can they be transformed, are they manipulable, do they have axes [relationship between the position of the teacher and students, relationship of students’ position to one another, position of the door related to the elements]), and their scale.

Function System

This system studies the uses of space (i.e., is it used for unidirectional, bidirectional, or multidirectional communication; is it participatory, collaborative, individual, or group oriented; does it promote autonomous learning; does it use ICT), the functional flows (i.e., are they dynamic or static, is the space versatile, do the circulations respond to routine schemes), the available furniture elements (i.e., tables, chairs, cabinets, recreational elements, corners, and sports elements), and how they work (i.e., are they static/fixed, dynamic/malleable; do they allow evolution; are they manipulable in terms of age, do they open, and are they adaptable).

Material System

This system studies lighting (i.e., is it natural/artificial, what is its intensity/color/arrangement), environmental health conditions (i.e., humidity/temperature conditions, natural/artificial ventilation), and the finishing materials (i.e., textures, warmth, substance, and recycled/recyclable).

Morphology System

This system studies the space’s shape (i.e., does it have angles or curves, is it open/closed, regular/irregular), color (i.e., monochrome/polychrome, is the color white predominant, does it have a thematic range), and aesthetic quality.

Context System

This system studies the educational model (i.e., educational context subsystems); its cultural, social, and economic conditions; and boundary conditions.

Research Sample

In order to identify the criteria for the spatial design of New School educational centers that promote ESD development, this research selects three international schools representing these education models (i.e., participatory and interactive pedagogies that promote individual motivation, autonomy, critical thinking, creativity, responsible citizenship, respect for diversity, emotional abilities, and cognitive potential; the inclusion of sustainability values; and the use of ICT) as the sample. These schools were built during the 2010–2020 decade, which is within the framework of the objectives of UNESCO and the UN on developing ESD (UN, 2002, 2015; UNESCO, 2014).

The case selection follows three criteria that favor the methodology: (a) schools at different educational levels; (b) schools at different latitudes and from different cultures; and (c) schools that attempt pedagogical models following the New School and the values of ESD.

Additionally, the study works on specific and updated sources (Casqueiro, 2014; Dillon et al., 2016; Dudek, 2007; Dwight et al., 2016; Nair, 2014; Nedved & Zámečníková, 2014; Perkins & Kliment, 2001; School Buildings and Design Unit, 2003; Verstegen, 2008; Wright & Beard, 2006). The sample cases are as follows.Footnote 5

Vittra School Brotorp

Location: Brotorp, Sweden. Founded: 2012. Educational stage: Elementary School and Middle School. Pedagogical model: Swedish Educational System. Designer: Rosan Bosch.

Ramat Chen Arts & Science Elementary School

Location: Ramat Gan, Israel. Founded: 2014. Educational stage: Elementary School. Pedagogical model: Ramat Gan Educational System. Designer: Sarit Shani Hay.

West Academy of Beijing (WAB)

Location: Beijing, China. Founded: 2019. Educational stage: Secondary and High School. Pedagogical model: FLoW21 (WAB, n.d.). Designer: Rosan Bosch.

Results

The results from applying poetic criticism to the studied sample are presented in a total of six subsections taking into account the axes of interaction between the previously established systems. The interpretation of the results allows each case to advance the design criteria for a reactive space of the pedagogical model (EDS).

Design Criteria for a Reactive Space in the Pedagogical Model (EDS)

Design Criteria from Studying the Interactions Between the Educational Context-Topology Systems (see Table 1)

Table 1 Sample of the results from the interaction between the educational context-topology systems
Full size table

All spaces are potential spaces for learning. In this sense, spaces are also projected. Spatial structures are as flexible as possible because the entire space is considered space for pedagogy. Learning does not just happen in the classroom. This fact appears strongly in the circulation spaces that become an extension of the class, as referenced when talking about learning streets (Hertzberger, 2008).

The scale of the elements is with respect to the scale of the student. Changes are perceived in the design linked to the EDS pedagogical models. The interior design, very inclusive, suits the proportions of the space to the age of the users. It also adapts the scale and ergonomics of the furniture. Meanwhile, the dimensions and heights of the windows, doors, sinks, mirrors, shelves, and switches enhance students’ initiative, participation, and autonomy.

The need for a larger development surface that allows movement. The promotion of learning through creative play, social interaction, and natural expression requires a large space that allows movement. It is about fostering a broader catalog of places and corners, some for collective activities and others in which concentration and individual learning are possible. Educational models consistent with ESD promote collaborative work in both large and small groups for cognitive development. Therefore, the need exists to design spaces that can accommodate activities such as dialogue and criticism, negotiation, approachability, and problem-solving. In this way, designers increase the dimension of the classroom and the fluidity of the communal spaces. The traditional one-chair-and-table-for-each model is replaced by the flexible learning environment that allows diversity, movement, and opportunities with the aim of developing twenty-first-century skills.

Design Criteria from Studying the Interactions Between the Educational Context-Function Systems (see Table 2)

Table 2 Sample of the results from the interactions between the educational context-function systems
Full size table

Adapting the spatial program to the educational model and specific contextual needs. The internal usage structure is where the interaction between a specific pedagogical system and the spatial quality of the designed space is detected. In the case studies analyzed, spatial diversity refers to complex educational uses that work on different forms of learning. In this sense, the interaction between the educational context and function is essential. Designers develop spaces that enable a specific form of the learning experience. The traditional teaching model supports its passive way of learning using a space designed with a rigid and orderly structure, while the educational model of the New School relies on a flexible environment at the programmatic level for its development. This flexibility does not refer to an open-space plan but to a collective space where teachers and students choose where, when, and how they learn. A rigid space does not limit pedagogy anymore. The appearance of a series of landscapes for learning or new uses can be defined that respond to the educational needs of ESD:

  • Landscape for oratory. The spatial design allows a student or teacher to address a group and share their ideas.

  • Landscape for introspection. The spatial design allows individual concentration and reflection.

  • Landscape for the collaborative process. The spatial design allows work in small groups to develop a collaborative exploration.

  • Landscape for the unexpected. The spatial design allows the succession of unexpected and variable activities that inspire and motivate the learning moment.

  • Landscape for movement. The spatial design integrates movement as a principal factor in the learning activity.

Design Criteria from Studying the Interactions Between the Educational Context-Material Systems (see Table 3)

Table 3 Sample of results from the interaction between the educational context-material systems
Full size table

The physical characteristics of the materials as an element of stimulation. Space design can combine light, color, textures, sound, smell, and temperature to achieve a microclimate conducive to learning, one that is stimulating, surprising, comfortable, and familiar. The environment that arises from a school’s central-space design can be added as a pedagogical tool, adapting both to the pedagogical model and to each teaching figure. The New School seeks to stimulate the five senses (The LEGO Foundation, 2017). Traditional learning uses only the senses of sight and hearing. However, putting the rest of the senses at the service of education gets the whole brain working. The better a student can synchronize their senses on a moment of attention, the better they learn. In this way, students move through space using all their senses, because a changing environment invites them at the level of stimuli to move differently and activates the senses. Thus, using natural light whenever possible is mandatory. Additionally, changes in lighting can indicate spaces that have different activities. Meanwhile, designers use sound-absorbing materials to minimize or help adapt to the impact of noise. According to the psychology of color and sensory activation, the use of chromatics is fundamental. Lastly, the tactility of the materials invites the student to interact in a variety of ways (some textures are suitable for rest and reflection while others activate movement).

Using the physical characteristics of materials as an element of action. Educational models that represent ESD values and criteria operate with multiple forms of exploration and representation. These pedagogies integrate visual arts as an instrument for cognitive, linguistic, and social development. To enable this active form of learning, space (i.e., its furniture and equipment) must be capable of hosting activities such as theater, music, painting, construction, and sports. This conditioning factor also directly affects the need to design environments with versatile and specialized surfaces.

Linking design strategies to technological development and sustainability. Learning incorporates ICT naturally. The design of the space integrates technology usage as a context and learning resource from a humanistic perspective. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, this condition acquires increasing importance due to education incorporating the mixed face-to-face, virtual online formats at high speed.

Linking design strategies to environmental sustainability. The research was unable to prove this condition, instead of adding it as an inherent duty to ESD. Design strategies of the New School must promote the use of materials with a sustainable path, both in the manufacturing and assembly process as well as in their useful life and versatility. The sustainable development of the planet will thus be integrated not only in students’ education but also in the space developed for it.

Design Criteria from Studying the Interactions Between the Educational Context-Morphology Systems (see Table 4)

Table 4 Sample of the results from the interactions between the educational context-morphology systems
Full size table

The morphology of the interior design of the school becomes a landscape for learning. As already mentioned, pedagogies following the New School and the EDS model require new learning spaces that the traditional educational model does not contemplate. The new, more advanced models seek to create a total-learning space. In order to achieve this, both the layout and content of the school space become protagonists of this change. School architecture can be a learning landscape. In this space, each element formalizes a pedagogical stimulus, and the interior and exterior of the classrooms create strong connections. Sometimes even the limits between the class and the circulation area disappear or become transitional spaces that host other activities (See the series of Landscape sub-headings and the Design Criteria from Studying the Interactions Between the Educational Context-Function Systems section previously in this chapter).

Design Criteria from Studying the Interactions Between the Topology-Function Systems (see Table 5)

Table 5 Sample of results from the interactions between the topology-function systems
Full size table

New ways of learning lead to modified usage of certain spaces and elements. The circulation space or corridor becomes a space for relationships (i.e., a learning street; Hertzberger, 2008) and a space for both collective and individual work. In this way, learning continues outside the classroom. To enable this action, the design of the communal circulation space has great importance in design projects for school spaces that develop a pedagogical model following the values and criteria of the New School and ESD. However, these spaces acquire more dimension. Meanwhile, designers plan topology in detail; they no longer have to design a linear structure but can develop more stimulating, more organic geometries. In addition, the projects include both materials and furniture that promote the activities proposed in each case. However, learning streets are not the only spatial structure that modifies its use. Sometimes precisely interrupting the continuity of the relationship space, steps are secondly found to be a transition space, as opposed to stairs that join separate floors of the building. This topological element is not new, but its function is. Recent school architectures use these slopes as a meeting place for equals to encourage children to understand this space as an element of rest and not just as a circulation structure. The design uses generous dimensions, diverse geometries, and warm materials such as wood or textiles that help create an environment of comfort. Designers propose these spaces for activities such as public speaking, the development of free work, or social exchange.

Design Criteria from Studying the Interactions Between the Context-Function Systems

Understanding schools as a sociocultural facility. This criterion is closely related to the sociocultural and economic contexts, which is essential to include in this list due to its correspondence with the development of ESD values and criteria. This criterion proposes the school center as a facility that provides service not only to the students but also to the community. Incorporating cultural facilities for the neighborhood can stimulate the integration, inclusion, and respect for diversity that ESD promulgates in addition to the capacities and values ​​of its specific use. In this sense, this design criterion is presented as a desirable condition.

General Design Criteria from a Complex View

In the previous points, the research listed possible criteria for designing reactive school spaces in educational models related to the values of the New School and ESD. These criteria are inferred from the study of synergies between pairs of systems that make up a school architecture. Next, the research will return to the complex vision of the totality to highlight two essential criteria.

Multifunctional spaces structure the school center. The space for the New School and EDS is versatile in its dimensions and proportions; in other words, they are suitable for adaptation. To achieve this, the plan is designed flexibly and openly, and designers use multipurpose material for its construction, cladding, and surfaces, as well as furniture elements. Thus, the spaces are organized with light structures that allow mobility and transformation in different situations and ways of learning. In addition to this ephemeral condition of the spatial organization, the design adds adaptive lighting and acoustic conditions linked to the criteria of sustainability and energy saving.

Designing spatial conditions of the school to attract attention and be an active element of the learning process. As Hertzberger (2008) stated, space design can set spatial units of appropriate dimensions to accommodate proper types of relationships among users. In this sense, how space is articulated is a decisive design factor. For example, this condition determines whether the created space will be suitable for the activity of a single large group or if it will be suitable for use by several different and smaller groups, or even individually. The more articulated the space, the smaller the spatial unit. And the more focal points there are, the more activities can be exercised simultaneously by different groups of users. Several elements allow the construction of an articulated and balanced space: the ramps and steps, the focal points, doubled heights, and crossed views, the control of light and acoustics, or the arrangement of materials. These all influence the use of space.

Applying poetic criticism to the design of school centers has led to the following general conclusions. A correlation exists between the educational model and the school space that hosts it, and the interaction between the educational context and spatial design occurs bidirectionally. Thus, the development of a specific educational model requires an accordant school space, and its construction results in promoting diverse stimuli for learning. This implies that establishing reactive design criteria of the corresponding pedagogical model for a designed space appears possible. When applied to the case of the New School, a series of qualities can be indicated for the reality of the school space that, by themselves, will positively accompany the development of pedagogies following the values ​​and criteria of the New School and ESD.

Discussion

The results provided by this research establish that a careful interaction between education and the design of spaces leads to the development of school centers that strengthen the pedagogical proposals of contemporary, innovative, and advanced educational models that reflect the title of the New School. Space designs follow an ESD in which the main conditions stimulate students’ creativity, critical thinking, autonomy, and cognitive and emotional capacities, as well as participatory and collective actions in balance with the moments of individual reflection and education in sustainable developmental values.

A correlation can be established in the relationship between the pedagogical model and the spatial quality of the educational space. In this sense, the research achieves the objective of identifying design criteria for a designed space that activates pedagogical models related to ESD.

Learning spaces/landscapes can be indicated as being able to activate the occurrence of learning. The design of these spaces is principal in each student’s learning experience. That is also why these spatial landscapes must be dynamic and flexible with respect to the diverse and specific needs of each student and learning stage.

This research confirms that learning spaces can become active promoters of the educational journey as part of the ecosystem of the educational model, leaving behind the traditional structures of one-way pedagogy. Physical spaces can be designed and adapted to support a contemporary pedagogy, focusing above all on the development of skills.

Limitations of the Study

The strength of these conclusions in turn becomes the limitations of the work. Thus, the point of the discussion appears. The values and criteria of ESD speak of sustainability, creativity, diversity, interactivity, and participation. These are values that, according to the results obtained in this work, are directly translated into flexible, versatile, and multifunctional design spaces. Nonetheless, normative conditions can be specified for New School designs. The design criteria are necessarily open and flexible precisely because the educational model with which it seeks correspondence is also open and flexible. The design criteria do not condition the space when they don’t establish a space without preconditions in the sense of avoiding any structure that stiffens it. The possibility of establishing a series of design criteria for the construction of educational spaces seems to set a correlation between the physical reality of a place and its specific educational function. This work indicates that a spatial design is an element that activates a response in the user. Space requires the user to be activated and thus needs to be perceived. Therefore, its role is to be a reactive element that consciously influences users’ perceptions.

Conclusions

The obtained results show that, in the New School context, both students and teachers understand the space from new potentialities that look for innovative interactions. Learning does not occur linearly. Therefore, the educational place considers complexity and richness to support learning experience and understanding. School and its spatial design become a place for experimentation, perception, exploration, and non-hierarchical relationships. The spatial environment induces functions that facilitate movement and promote the efficient execution of tasks.