elea%2E2011%2E8%2E3%2E197

E–Learning and Digital Media
Volume 8 Number 3 2011
www.wwwords.co.uk/ELEA

Spatial Conditions: an unheeded
medium in teaching and learning
TINA BERING KEIDING
Danish School of Education in Aarhus,
Aarhus University, Denmark

ABSTRACT This article addresses spatiality as an educational category by asking how spatiality
influences students’ experiences of interactions in project-based teaching. It examines students’
experiences with two different spatial conditions - namely, separate rooms, each accommodating a
single group, or a much larger open space hosting multiple groups. It concludes that students’
experiences of the two types of spatiality provide very different contexts for interaction and learning.
The advantages of separate rooms for multiple groups arise from their affordance of spontaneous
inspiration, feedback and learning, but they present challenges regarding the handling of complexity.
Single-group rooms support focus in discussions, but prevent members of one group from drawing
inspiration from others. Deconstruction of students’ utterances about their interaction with students
from other groups indicates that the experience of knowing each other, belonging to and being a part
of the community appears to be the factor which makes a difference in students’ engaging in

professional interactions. The findings suggest that the multiple-group room assists in the development
of competencies in the areas of networking, professional interaction and learning.

Introduction
Project-based teaching in general plays a significant role in higher education, particularly where the
development of professional skills and innovation is a priority (Frey, 1984). However, different
types of project-based teaching (individual/group-based; of short as well as of long duration) can be
identified in almost any higher education context.
A survey reveals that different institutions offer different spatial conditions for project work
(Horst & Misfeld, 2010). At some universities, projects seem to be restricted to public areas,
designed more or less exclusively for educational activities (e.g. lounges and canteens). At other
universities, the idea of project-based teaching and learning strongly colours the spatial
environment. One example is provided by the Faculties of Engineering, Science and Medicine at
Aalborg University in Denmark, where this method is seen as a central means for developing
collaborative and learning competencies in all educational programmes (Framework Provisions,
2007). This premise is strongly reflected in the design of the buildings in which, generally speaking,
each project group is assigned a private room (Study Guide, 2008). The buildings are, so to speak,
‘firmly programmed’ to provide what are considered to be optimal conditions for project-based
teaching. However, the head of the Department of Computer Science, among others, has
expressed concern that the closed rooms may very well afford good conditions for internal group

interactions but, all the same, they make interactions and knowledge-sharing across project groups
almost non-existent and are counterproductive for the development of competencies concerning
professional collaboration in wider settings than the single project. In the Architecture & Design
programmes, project groups are placed in shared and open spaces on principle. An exception is the
common first and second semesters during which a building that only accommodates individual
197

http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2011.8.3.197

Tina Bering Keiding
group rooms is used. Hans Kiib, the former head of the study board and the main architect behind
the educational programme, regrets this: ‘Our first-year students are put in closed rooms, which
means that the transparent learning environment, initiating learning from observation of what and
how others do, is absent.’ On the other hand, research indicates that people who work in open
offices do not experience more support and feedback from colleagues than those working in cell
offices (e.g. Pejtersen, 2006).
The apparent disagreement as to whether open offices afford more dynamic and learningconducive environments than cell offices generated the first of the two research questions
addressed in this article: Are spatial conditions experienced as making a difference for student
learning in project-based teaching? An affirmative answer prompted a second question asking after
the possible social mechanisms behind these experiences.

Analytical Strategy
This section presents the empirical approach and the theoretical framework used in reflections on
empirical findings.
Two Types of Spatial Conditions
The research concerns project-based teaching in two types of spatial conditions: the multiple group
room (MGR) and the single group room (SGR).
MGR is a semi-open space in which several project groups have their own working space
separated by flexible partition walls. Working spaces are placed along the outer walls, leaving an
open square in the middle (Figures 1a and 1b). SGR houses a single group and is separated from
other areas by solid walls and a door. Both rooms adjoin a narrow corridor (Figures 2a and 2b).
Due to the increased number of students in the Architecture & Design programme at Aalborg
University during the academic year of 2007/08, not all groups could be hosted in individual
rooms. As a consequence, the groups were assigned their own room (SGR) or placed in an open
space office (MGR) by drawing lots. This situation offered a unique opportunity to compare
student experiences with the two types of spatial conditions under circumstances in which all other
conditions could be assumed to be similar.
The main differences between the two types of spatial conditions relate to the outer
surroundings (open square versus narrow corridor) and to differences in boundaries (partition walls
and no doors versus solid walls and doors) (Figures 1a, 2a). The inner surroundings with respect to
physical conditions are very similar (Figures 1b, 2b).

Figure 1a. Outer surroundings in MGR.

198

Spatial Conditions

Figure 1b. Inner surroundings in MGR.

Figure 2a. Outer surroundings in SGR.

199

Tina Bering Keiding

Figure 2b. Inner surroundings in SGR.

Theoretical Framework
The research draws theoretically on concepts from the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann’s
systems theory (Luhmann, 1990, 1995a,b,c, 2002a,b,c) and on research in which his general

concepts are transposed into theories of teaching and learning (Keiding, 2005, 2007a,b, 2008a,b). A
few key words are needed in sketching out Luhmann’s interpretation of systems theory. Beyond
the concept of systems, this includes the concepts of self-reference, functional closeness and
structural coupling, and the concepts of observation and learning.
Luhmann’s systems theory belongs to the so-called second generation of systems theory,
which is devoted to the understanding of the evolution and dynamics of complex units (systems).
The key concepts are the notions of self-referentiality and autopoietic reproduction; the latter was
developed by the biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. Claiming that systems are
self-referential and operate autopoietically means that they, in their operations, refer to their
previous operations, and through these reiterative processes produce themselves and the elements
of which they consist (e.g. Maturana & Varela, 1987).
The concepts of self-referentiality and autopoietic reproduction do not imply that systems are
isolated or independent from the environment (Luhmann, 2002a, p. 101). Within this framework,
systems are closed at the level of operation but cognitively open. They can observe and use the
information thereby gained as a point of departure for new internal operations.
Observations are described as operations or acts by which something – and not anything else
– is distinguished and indicated, as a point for new operations:
200

Spatial Conditions

Observations are asymmetric (or symmetry-breaking) operations. They use distinctions as forms
and take forms as boundaries, separating an inner side (the Gestalt) and an outer side. The inner
side is the indicated side, the marked side. From here one has to start the next operation. The
inner side has connective value. (Luhmann, 2002a, p. 101)

In this sense, observations create objects and phenomena, which the system can use for subsequent
operations. One distinguishes from other vehicles one car which apparently has no intention to
stop at the red light, and one decides to stop until it has passed. From this perspective, observation
does not ‘transmit’ information from the environment into the system. It allows for the observing
system to produce information about its environment, but the information refers to the system and
how it has observed its environment, not to the environment in itself. What students learn from
teaching depends on how they, in the act of observation, ‘connect’ to teaching and how the
information gained from the observation is interpreted and incorporated into their individual
cognitive structures.
This interpretation of systems theory has strong epistemological implications - what a system
knows and learns refers to the structures of the system and how it has observed its environment
(e.g. Luhmann, 2002a). Luhmann distinguishes between three principle types of autopoietic
systems: living systems (i.e. cells, brains and organisms); systems of consciousness (i.e. minds); and
systems of communication or social systems (i.e. society, organizations and interactions).
Communication in modern society, Luhmann explains, tends to be functionally differentiated into

sub-systems such as politics, economics, science, religion, and - particularly relevant to this article education. Each functional system differentiates itself from its environment (i.e. the rest of society)
by a unique coding of its communication. Communication in the economic system is, for instance,
organized around the code of gain/loss, whereas communication in the educational system is
organized around the code of better/worse knowledge. The processes of differentiation are
understood by Luhmann as an answer to increasing societal complexity:
The system becomes more dependent on certain properties or processes in the environment –
namely those relevant for input or for registering output – and, conversely, less dependent on
other aspects of the environment. It can achieve more sensitivity, more clarity in perceiving the
environment, and more indifference, all at once. (Luhmann, 1995a, p. 204)

The gradient of complexity is always declining across the border between environment and system
(Luhmann, 1995a, pp. 23ff.). Social interaction and the physical environment are more complex
than a psychic system can observe, and the complexity of the psychic system is higher than
anything that can be addressed in a specific social system.
With regard to social systems, Luhmann’s systems theory represents a radical break with
theorizing that went before it, in that it takes communication rather than the human individual as
its central category. It understands social systems - be they society as a whole, or its functional
systems, organizations or interaction systems – not in terms of individuals and their agency (or lack
thereof), but in terms of the self-referential process of communication. Human beings, as
aggregates of a living body and a psychic system, are seen as systems in the environment of social

systems. On the one hand they are fundamental for the existence of social systems; on the other
hand, they are not the ‘cause’ or point of reference for the dynamics and structures of social
systems. ‘Of course, we do not maintain that there can be social systems without consciousness.
But subjectness, the availability of consciousness, its underlying everything else, is assumed to be
the environment of social systems, not their self-reference’ (Luhmann, 1995a, p. 170).
The attribution of human beings to the environment of social systems has produced strong
reactions and accusations of ‘anti-humanism’. That discussion falls outside the scope of this
contribution. However, a few remarks must be made on Luhmann’s own reply to the critique:
If one views human beings as part of the environment of society (instead of as part of society
itself), this changes the premises of all the traditional questions, including those of classical
humanism. It does not mean that the being is estimated as less important than traditionally.
Anyone who thinks so (and such an understanding either explicitly or implicitly underlies all
polemics against this proposal) has not understood the paradigm change in systems theory.
(Luhmann, 1995a, p. 212)

201

Tina Bering Keiding
This article deals with both social and psychic systems - psychic systems as the consciousness of
students who experience social interaction under two different spatial conditions. Project groups

and more informal, often spontaneous, interaction between students from different project groups
are considered as social systems, and are accordingly based on communication. However, social
systems are only observed indirectly through students’ observation of their experiences with social
interaction and group processes in two different spatial settings (i.e. the analytical unit is students’
psychic system). This will be further elaborated in the descriptions of the empirical method.
Information generated through observation may, in some cases, confirm expectations and, in other
situations, trigger new learning. In neither case, however, do observation and learning processes
transmit anything from the outside into the observing system. External events can stimulate selfreferential learning processes, but they do not steer or determine the system’s operation. A psychic
system thinks what it thinks and social systems, be they project groups or informal interactions,
communicate what they communicate regardless of the processes - for instance, approval or
disapproval - occurring internally in other systems. The meaning and significance of any event
occurring in a system is defined in the system, not by the environment. Whether a student finds an
utterance from the group next door interesting or disturbing depends on the actual internal state of
the observing system (i.e. the student’s psychic system). And whether a group finds a suggestion
offered by a group member or a student from another group worth further consideration depends
on the group as a social system and its actual state of communication, not on the information in
itself.
The actual meaning is selected from a horizon of possibilities, and the selection
simultaneously produces a new horizon of meaningful possibilities for new expectations or actions.
Meaning may be broken down analytically into three dimensions: the fact dimension; the temporal

dimension; and the social dimension (Luhmann, 1995a, p. 75). What, when and who, in other
words, are constitutive of the horizon of meaning. The three dimensions of meaning are used as
guiding differences in order to come closer to student experiences of and expectations for
interaction in MGR and SGR.
The theoretical concepts have implications for our understanding of how spatial conditions
might influence learning and communication. Due to physical differences, SGR and MGR offer
different opportunities for observing the members, products and communication of other groups.
In SGR, communication occurring within other groups cannot be heard; their models are not
immediately observable. In MGR, both are almost unavoidable. However, spatiality also emerges
as a contingent horizon of meaning depending on how it is interpreted and experienced by the
students. This means that the influence of spatiality on learning experiences and social interaction
cannot be deduced directly from physical appearances and conditions. For instance, the experience
of difficulties with engaging in interaction may lead both to a withdrawal from future attempts (‘it
does not help anyway’) and to more intensive efforts (‘I must overcome this’).
Consequently, the relation between spatial conditions and student interaction and experience
must be conceptualized as affordances, rather than in terms of causalities. This means that how
expectations influence interaction, and vice versa, must be described empirically. Expectations and
interpretations do not emerge out of the blue. They are shaped – but, again, not causally
determined – by the horizon of meaning created from previous experiences. For instance, entering
a classroom most likely activates experiences and behaviours from previous participation in

classroom interactions, which, in interplay with the actual situation, outline a horizon of
expectations for interaction and behaviours (e.g. Bateson, 2000; Keiding & Laursen, 2005).
In this sense, spatial conditions can, within a social system, be described as medium for
communication (Luhmann, 1995a, pp. 160ff.). These conditions allow – just like any other medium
used in teaching and learning (e.g. books, assignments, programmes, etc.) – for the formation and
manifestation of expectations about what and how interaction and learning should take place. And,
like any other medium, they can reinforce or weaken the intended meaning of interaction,
depending on how they are interpreted by specific observers. Media might be selected to meet one
expectation and, simultaneously, bring along unintended and, sometimes, unwanted side effects.
An example is provided by the observation that individual group rooms offer good conditions for
some dimensions of the learning processes – for instance, concentration and composure – but,
simultaneously, hinder the development of competencies regarding formal and informal
professional networking and knowledge-sharing. Side effects or by-products in the sense of ‘what
202

Spatial Conditions
might be learned besides the intended learning outcomes’ are known as the concept of ‘the hidden
curriculum’ (e.g., Jackson, 1968). The concept of the hidden curriculum stems from a critical
position regarding what schooling teaches students ‘behind their back’ - for instance, a strong
inclination towards competition and individual performances, or loss of self-determination and selfdependence as a consequence of individual testing and ranking. The same idea – namely, that both
social systems and human individuals in the learning process (e.g. designing a teapot) learn about
the context of the learning process - is fundamental in Gregory Bateson’s theory of logical
categories of learning and communication (Bateson, 2000). He describes this learning about the
context and the conditions of interaction (the rules of the game, so to speak) as ‘learning how to
interpret signals’, and sees it as fundamental for managing and participating social interaction.
Context learning, in other words, provides the learning system with a frame (i.e. a context) which
enables it to interpret and select what, based on experiences, can be expected to be relevant actions
in a new social situation.
With Bateson, this learning about the context is widely unattended by the learning system,
whose attention mainly is on the core subject of the learning process, whatever it might be.
Context learning, so to speak, develops along with the learning of the main topic, which makes the
concept of co-learning relevant. In this sense, Bateson’s concept of context learning resembles the
learning processes described in relation to the hidden curriculum. On the other hand, Bateson
clearly addresses context learning, or co-learning, from a functionalist perspective rather than from
a critical position. To avoid any implicit and unwanted tendencies towards a critical and normative
interpretation, I use the concept of co-learning in describing ‘what also might be learning’ from
interaction in different spatial conditions.
Empirical Method
The aim of the research is to explore spatiality as an educational category; more specifically, it is to
inquire as to whether different spatial conditions seem to create different contexts for social
interaction, with an emphasis on learning and knowledge-sharing. The perspective is currently
limited to students’ experiences. Whether different spatial conditions have an impact on observed
learning outcomes and project quality is not addressed in this study.
The empirical observations are based on students’ descriptions of their experiences with
project-based teaching in the two types of spatial conditions described above (MGR and SGR).
Students’ experiences are seen as psychic events (e.g. as thoughts, sensations, impressions,
imaginations, and consequently as merely non-linguistic forms). They refer to the single
individual’s psychic system and how it has observed, interpreted and experienced social interaction
in different spatial conditions (i.e. the analytical unit is the students’ psychic system).
Psychic system experiences cannot be observed directly but must be interpreted on the basis
of communicative forms (utterances) (e.g. Luhmann, 2002b). In contrast to psychic systems,
communication, especially in recorded interviews and questionnaires, is based largely on linguistic
utterances. Accordingly, interviews and questionnaires transform experiences as non-linguistic
psychic elements into linguistic forms. This transformation cannot be seen as a neutral preservation
of meaning from one medium to another, but adds itself as a layer of interpretation to the empirical
process (Keiding, 2010a).
Interviews and questionnaires provide specific conditions for social interaction. Not
everything observed in the student’s psychic system is considered relevant as information, and not
everything that is conditionally relevant can be uttered in an interview or in questionnaires.
Consequently, the utterances reveal what students chose to express and how they chose to express
themselves, and are linguistic reconstructions of a complex of experiences as psychic events, not
their experiences as a whole. In this sense, the interviews and questionnaires are seen as
complexity-reducing processes which select, interpret and transform experiences as psychic events
into events in a social system - in this case, the interaction between students and researcher.
Students’ reflections on their experiences are gathered from questionnaires and brief
interviews. They are asked to report their experiences with MGR and SGR through pre-defined
guiding differences – namely, advantages and disadvantages in relation to MGR and SGR, whether
they have had any impression of other projects, and whether these impressions have influenced
203

Tina Bering Keiding
their own project. Utterances from interviews and questionnaires were examined in accordance
with what was indicated within each guiding difference. Indications were subsequently categorized
thematically. The categories were generated from the utterances. The utterance ‘it might be
difficult to get some peace when you have to discuss something important in the group’ was, for
instance, categorized as ‘noise and disturbances’ within the guiding difference ‘disadvantages OF?
MGR’.
In the second phase, utterances were categorized using the three dimensions of meaning (fact
dimension, temporality, and social dimension) (Luhmann, 1995a). Within each dimension of
meaning, utterances were grouped thematically. The utterance ‘it was not relevant for our project,
but you may [get inspiration, TBK] if you are interested in others’ projects’ was assigned to the ‘fact
dimension’ and categorized as ‘no inspiration due to differences in fact dimension’.
Quotations are identified by ‘Q’ (for questionnaire) followed by the number of the
questionnaire (e.g. Q28, for questionnaire number 28), or by ‘I’ (for interview) followed by group
number and date (e.g. I333-2007.11.20. for the interview with group 333 from 20 November 2007).
All quotations are translated by the author.
The data were generated in the last part of first semester in the academic year of 2007/08. At
this point, students had completed their first project and were well into the third month of their
second project. At the beginning of the second project, students had formed new groups and had
been assigned rooms by drawing lots. Of a total of 15 groups, 7 were placed in MGR and 8 in
SGR. Of a total of 130 students, 50 agreed to participate in the research project, a size which allows
for the identification of significant differences within the population. The design, however, does
not allow for generalizations beyond the population.
Findings on Advantages and Disadvantages
The most frequently marked advantages in MGR (38 of 50 students) fall into the category
‘inspiration and opportunities for help from other groups’. One student, who carried out his first
project in SGR, puts it as follows: ‘I am in MGR, which is far more inspiring and spirited.… It is
inspiring just to hear single words or themes from the neighbor group, to pass by their models, etc.’
(Q48). A recurring theme in the responses on MGR is that it is easier to find inspiration and that
inspiration occurs almost spontaneously. The previous quotation mentions ‘hearing single words’
and ‘passing by’. Another student writes, ‘You can hardly avoid being influenced or getting good
ideas from what you experience from other groups’ (Q50).
It is possible to identify two sources of inspiration. One, illustrated by the previous
quotations, concerns random and unforeseen inspiration from the unplanned and spontaneous
observation by students of social and physical surroundings. The other type of inspiration occurs in
more planned and focused interactions in which projects are discussed and commented on by
members of other groups in more formalized settings; for example: ‘it is good to expose your ideas
to other groups in order to have them assessed by someone from outside’ (Q42). The difference
can also be described by saying that, in the first case, inspiration arises spontaneously, whereas it is
deliberately sought out in the other case. Despite the widespread appreciation of the possibilities
for inspiration and feedback, a few students mention that this simultaneously challenges them and
their project: ‘You can also say that it [i.e. easy access to inspiration, TBK] puts a strain on your
trust in yourself sometimes’ (Q48).
The main disadvantages in MGR fall into the category ‘noise and disturbances’ (21 of 50
students). The disadvantages regarding noise vary in description from ‘it might play a role’ (Q6) to
‘more noise than in SGR’ to ‘too much noise’ (Q46). Five students indicate that they appreciate the
presence of the other groups and the ‘humming of creativity in MGR’ (Q40). Of a total of 50, as
many as 34 students report that they prefer MGR, which indicates that advantages regarding
inspiration and professional interaction are valued more highly than disadvantages related to noise.
The most frequently marked advantages in SGR fall into the category ‘noise and disturbances’
or, more precisely, the absence of noise/less noise (19 of 50 students). Eight students elaborate by
saying that less noise and fewer disturbances make it easier to concentrate and to keep focus: ‘It is
easier to keep focus on the project because you can close the door and avoid being distracted by
other groups’ (Q8).
204

Spatial Conditions
The major disadvantages in SGR relate to the category ‘inspiration’. Of 50 students, 24 indicate
‘lack of inspiration’ or even ‘isolation’ as a disadvantage in SGR. For example, ‘It [i.e. the project,
TBK] becomes more of a one-track process without the informal visits. We end up with a closed
door to preclude input, help and just being together with the other groups. We “get stuck” in the
group room, not intensively seeking information and dropping in on other groups’ (Q28).
Some students in SGR try to deal with the absence of immediate access to inspiration by
deliberately contacting other groups and by reaching agreements on open-door policies. One
student reports, ‘We do not talk much with other groups and you do not enter if the door is closed.
We have tried to make an agreement that the door should be closed no more than one hour a day,
but people do not stick to it. That’s too bad, because it makes it difficult to get inspiration from
others’ (Q51). Another student placed in SGR says, ‘I think we are more aware of what we miss by
not sitting in the big room. We reach out and can, therefore, have some of the advantages and still
close the door when needed’ (Q20). Nine of the 13 students who indicated that they prefer SGR
also indicated ‘access to inspiration from other students than the group members’ as the main
advantage in MGR.
Looking across the answers, ‘inspiration’ reveals itself as a recurrent topic. But how can
mutually closed systems inspire each other? In order to understand this, one must take a closer look
at the concepts of observation and learning. As previously mentioned, autopoietic systems can
observe their environment and use observations as the starting point for new operations, including
learning processes. Observation and learning processes might either take their point of departure as
the learning individual actively seeking new information, or be triggered by the environment,
which, by its mere appearance, attracts the attention of the learner. In systems theory one often
describes this non-causal influence of the environment on a system in terms of ‘irritation’, thereby
emphasizing that the environment might affect the system in a non-determining way.
When students describe their social and physical environment as inspiring, they, within
Luhmann’s theoretical framework, indicate that observation of the environment irritates or
stimulates their psychic system in ways that they find fruitful for their professional learning
processes.
Social Mechanisms for Inspirational Interaction
So far, from a student perspective, it is clear that MGR affords better conditions for mutual
inspiration and interaction than SGR. The next step is to take a closer look at the descriptions to
investigate significant dimensions for the emergence of inspirational interaction. This is done by
the categorization of utterances on inspiration into the three dimensions of meaning: the factual,
the temporal, and the social. Do students and projects from other groups afford inspiration because
they converge on common issues and solutions? Is synchronicity and being in the same phase
important? Or are personal relations a major criterion for inspiring interaction? How do enhanced
access or limited access, respectively, to other students and their projects make a difference in
interaction?
Observing Interaction – fact dimension
In general, students stress that fruitful inspiration is related to gaining ‘new eyes on the project’ or
taking ‘a look from outside’. Both perspectives are expressed in condensed form when a student
said, ‘You get good ideas from observing what other groups are doing. And because people drop by
and comment on what we are doing, you get eyes from outside on your project’ (Q34).
Common problems of and solutions to projects and individual tasks do not seem to be a
prerequisite for the experience of relevant inspiration and feedback from other students and their
projects. Actually, not one single student indicates ‘common issues’ as important for inspiring
interaction and feedback. Neither do the empirical findings indicate that the problems and content
of projects merge across groups. One informant might refer to differences in content in the
broadest sense as a hindrance for inspiration when he stresses differences in interest as the main
reason for a lack of inspiration from other students and their projects: ‘It was not relevant for our
project, but you may [find inspiration] if you are interested in others’ projects’ (Q27). Hence, no
205

Tina Bering Keiding
indication can be found that mutual inspiration is related to the merging of, imitation of, or
convergence of projects in the fact dimension. On the contrary, students stick to their own ideas
and use information and feedback selectively: ‘It [i.e. the project, TBK] might become more
versatile, but at the same time you have to stick to your own, so that the project retains its identity’
(Q2).
A number of students claim that the ongoing interaction and inspiration introduce a
competitive dimension and raise the level of ambition and the quality of projects: ‘Our group spirit
was strengthened by observing that our project was considerably better than that of the group next
to us, who worked on the same issue. I think that the competitive dimension is important. You
compare with the others. You see that there are different ways of doing things’ (Q32).
Summarizing the fact dimension, inspiration experienced in MGR can be related to enhanced
complexity and different perspectives. MGR offers an opportunity for students to sharpen their
understanding as well as their project in two ways: either by reflecting their knowledge and
solutions within a horizon of other possibilities created solely from spontaneous observation of
other projects, or by engaging directly in interaction oriented towards the discussion of and
provision of feedback on the projects. In both cases, observation might confirm their own approach
or be used as a point of departure for new learning.
Observing Interaction – temporal dimension
The temporal dimension addresses whether inspiration from other projects relates to some degree
of synchronicity between the new information and the student’s own project. One student
confirms this by saying that feedback from others did not influence the project because ‘we were
somewhere else in our project and, due to limitations in time, we felt that we did not have the time
for major changes’ (Q29).
One of the most frequently marked disadvantages in MGR relates to the interruption of both
individual concentration and discussions in the group. As I see it, interruption is closely related to a
question of timing or, rather, ‘bad timing’. Designating a comment or question as an interruption is
not a judgment concerning the content of the statement (fact dimension) but relates to the fact that
it occurs at the wrong moment. Negative judgments about quality in the fact dimension would
contain adjectives such as ‘irrelevant’ or ‘rubbish’ rather than describing utterances as
interruptions.
Accordingly, temporality seems to play a significant role in whether a given issue in
interaction (fact dimension) is observed as inspiration or disturbance. New issues and ideas are
more likely to be inspiring if they appear at ‘the right time’ as seen from the learner’s point of view,
either because the learner is open to inspiration in advance or because the information (fact
dimension) affects interest and, simultaneously, changes the timing from ‘wrong’ to ‘right’.
Observing Interaction – social dimension
In both MGR and SGR, informants generally refer to their fellow students by using the rather
neutral distinction ‘others/us’, thereby generally indicating whether a given statement concerns
the student’s own group or another group. However, other distinctions are also used in utterances
categorized in the social dimension.
Beyond the ‘others/us’ distinction, the most frequently used distinctions regarding the social
dimension are ‘know/do not know’ (8 of 50 informants) and ‘part of community/not part of
community’ (23 of 50 informants). In all cases, the negative side of the distinction (do not know,
not part of community) refers to experiences with SGR. One student placed in SGR expresses
herself as follows: ‘Once again, we will be left outside.… We do not have the same opportunities to
get to know them and, consequently, we will not engage in professional discussions’ (Q24). And a
student in MGR says: ‘We do not know the groups in SGR, but small signs on the door show who
they are’ (I302h-20/11). In contrast, a student says about MGR: ‘It is a good way to get to know
other students. MGR is almost one group room itself. Consequently, you “dare” to ask for an advice
and get inspiration for the group’ (Q21).

206

Spatial Conditions
The experience of not knowing other students and being left outside or even excluded from
the community versus knowing and being a part of the community influences students’ impulses to
take the initiative for interaction. A common theme is that it is easier to interact professionally in
the social climate of MGR: ‘Partition’ (Q18). A few students elaborate, saying that one is more
daring in asking for help (Q21) and not inhibited in interaction (Q26). Seven students report on
SGR in terms that indicate that the door is viewed as a demarcation line between public and private
spheres: ‘I rarely looked into other one-group rooms, because you almost break into a private
room by opening the door’ (Q23). And: ‘in SGR it seemed completely wrong to enter the room of
another group, so I did not know what they were engaged in. In the big room, we meet each other
spontaneously’ (Q34). The privacy indicated is also revealed in the interviews when students use
the term ‘guest’ (I333-2007.11.20, I341-2007.11.20) or ‘stranger’ (I302h-2007.11.20) to describe a
person who enters an SGR. In contrast, students and groups in MGR are generally designated as
‘neighbors’.
Accordingly, students in SGR not only face physical barriers which prevent them from
spontaneously and informally overhearing and observing other groups, but also experience mental
and social barriers that make them hesitate to take the initiative for interaction.
Reflections on Findings
The findings are discussed in the light of the two guiding questions: Are spatial conditions
experienced as making a difference for student learning in project-based teaching? What can be said
about the systems’ mechanisms behind these experiences?
MGR and SGR as Contexts for Learning
The major difference between MGR and SGR concerns physical and social surroundings outside a
group’s private working area. The inner surroundings are, from a physical point of view, quite
similar.
In MGR, oral communication from other projects can be overheard, and spontaneous
interactions may occur simply through being present in the room. Furthermore, the working
spaces contain project schedules, programmes and models, which can be observed directly when a
student leaves her/his own working area. Both are described as inspiring and stimulating
opportunities for learning.
In SGR, communication in other projects cannot be heard. Furthermore, when they leave
their room, students enter a narrow corridor containing no project-related information and very
little that is encouraging the emergence of spontaneous, informal meetings. If the doors to the
other rooms are closed, students have no opportunity whatsoever to observe other projects
spontaneously. Accordingly, SGR makes it highly unlikely that students become engaged in
unforeseen learning situations. This alleviates information overload and reduces complexity, and
thus SGR helps both students and their projects to target and stabilize learning processes. When
students mention that it is easier to maintain focus in SGR, they seem to refer both to fewer direct
interruptions and to enhanced focus on the project due to reduced complexity in the surroundings.
Inspiration from other groups is highly valued by the informants. Regarding MGR, the issue is
addressed from a perspective of accessibility and affordance, whereas in relation to SGR, it is
addressed from a perspective of isolation and absence. Inspiration and feedback are experienced as
both contributing to individual learning and enhancing the quality of the project. However, the
impact on learning can be neither confirmed nor disproved, since the research deals exclusively
with students’ descriptions of their experiences. Although students in SGR strive to overcome the
lack of access to spontaneous inspiration and the risk of isolation by visiting other groups and by
making agreements on open-door policies, it seems difficult to realize these things in practice. The
SGR is, for better or for worse, experienced as a private sphere, where students from other groups
enter more like guests or intruders than as fellow students and learning partners.
As a context for learning, MGR offers a higher complexity in the outer surroundings due to a
higher frequency of social situations and physical items, which may serve as information and be
used as inspiration for learning processes by individuals and in projects. At the same time, the
207

Tina Bering Keiding
almost unavoidable observation of other projects’ communication, schedules, models, and
drawings in MGR challenges both students and their projects. In MGR, students face a constant
challenge to deal with and reduce complexity. They must decide whether to engage in learning or
not, and subsequently whether new individual learning should be introduced in their own project
or not. Finally, they must contribute to their projects’ ongoing reflection on new issues: should a
new idea be integrated into the project or rejected? Reflection takes time, and in environments in
which students continuously observe new perspectives and ideas, it might be harder and take
longer for students and projects to target their learning processes and to stick to previous decisions
(e.g. Keiding, 2008a).
SGR challenges students to actively seek information that helps them move beyond existing
knowledge – for example, by arranging formal meetings or by deliberately ‘crossing borders’ to
private rooms. If students in SGR do not actively seek new information or get new impressions
from visitors, they are likely to use primarily self-generated information. In such cases, students
might create a closed loop of knowledge in which they merely confirm each other rather than
challenging and expanding their knowledge. The student who talks about one-track projects
addresses this risk.
The findings contradict findings from other research saying that people who work in open
offices do not experience more support and feedback from colleagues than people who work in cell
offices (e.g. Pejtersen, 2006). Drawing on Luhmann’s concepts of functional differentiation and
conditioning, it can be suggested that projects carried out within the social system of education
differ fundamentally from tasks carried out in other systems (e.g. Luhmann, 2002c). The
educational system is, as mentioned, organized around the code better/worse knowledge. This
means that single students and the groups, as psychic and social systems, respectively, use this code
as a frame for both external observations and internal reflections. Accordingly, they can be
expected to engage in processes which they, from their self-referential point of view, judge as
relevant for growth of ‘better knowledge’, and, correspondingly, to avoid involvement in processes
which they consider counterproductive for ‘better knowledge’. They can, in other words, be
expected to frame themselves as learning systems. This does not mean that students and projects
always code themselves as learning systems, it only means that a major part of the interaction in
this study, consistent with the code of the educational system, appears to be coded as having an
educational purpose and that both students and project groups have a strong inclination towards
observations and interactions which they consider fruitful for development of valuable knowledge.
In contrast, the professional interactions described in Pejtersen (2006) seem to be framed as
work/production processes. What appears as an adequate action in the educational system – for
instance, spending time seeking and discussing new knowledge – may appear irrelevant or even
inappropriate in the context of production, if the task can be handled without new learning. This
difference in framing may be one reason why students in this research project value the
opportunity for feedback and learning from fellow students. They might simply ‘be in it for the
learning’, whereas learning in work situations might be limited to particular occasions (e.g. Keiding
& Laursen 2005, pp. 142ff.). This assumption is supported empirically in Keiding & Laursen, 2008.
Another explanation could be that projects in the Architecture & Design program produce
manifest and tangible products – namely, models and drawings which, due to their non-evanescent
character, can be observed and used as a source of inspiration whenever the system is ready to
learn. Tangible forms, so to speak, offer a stable environment for learning which is less susceptible
to timing and synchronicity between the information offered and the operations of the learning
system, be it a single student or a group. Students, however, also emphasize the spontaneous and
unforeseen inspiration from overhearing discussions in other groups and informal interactions.
This appreciation of evanescent events indicates that experiences of mutual inspiration do not
relate exclusively to presence of tangible products.
With respect to co-learning, findings indicate that students in MGR might learn to handle a
higher load of subject-matter complexity and to reflect upon and select information using both
their individual learning and the project as point of reference. Dealing with complexity in relation
to learning is an important dimension of ‘learning competencies’, which is a general aim in higher
education (Commission of the European Communities, 2006).

208

Spatial Conditions
Dimensions of Meaning
Categorizing the descriptions of interaction in the three dimensions of meaning indicates that each
dimension plays a different role in the student experience of environments conductive to learning.
The fact dimension appears to be of minor importance. This might be related to the fact that the
projects all have a common curriculum. They are conditionally framed by common learning
objectives, common themes, identical time horizons, and similar levels of knowledge among
students. This type of conditioning is likely to be a general condition in the educational system.
Consequently, educational projects in general might have favourable conditions for mutual
inspiration and feedback with respect to the subject-matter dimension Utterances related to the
temporal dimension indicate that timing plays a significant role in decisions on whether particular
information is deemed inspiring or disturbing. Partly independent of the fact dimension,
information is more likely to be designated ‘inspiring’ if it occurs at the right time, and ‘uninspiring’
or ‘disturbing’ if it occurs at the wrong time.
Drawing on Gregory Bateson’s concept of context markers (Bateson, 2000, p. 289), one might
say that ‘timing’ serves as a significant context marker to indicate whether an event is experienced
disturbing (information X at the wrong time) or inspiring (information X at the right time).
Between these two poles, time seems subordinate to the fact dimension. If the information catches
the attention of the student, the time may suddenly become ‘right for learning’. Students address
this situation when they talk about ‘unforeseen’ and ‘spontaneous’ inspiration.
Regarding co-learning, findings related to the temporal dimension indicate that students not
only learn to reflect on information regarding subject-matter relevance (fact dimension) but also
learn to reflect on and evaluate information with respect to the temporal phases of the project.
Since not everything can be learned or dealt with at the same time, this dimension of co-learning
might be supportive for the development of learning competencies and project competencies.
Project competencies are fundamental not only in the educational system; many jobs have the
character of projects, since they must be completed within a limited span of time and,
simultaneously, operate in semi-open horizons with respect to solutions, content and knowledge
(Keiding, 2008a; Keiding & Laursen, 2008).
Disregarding the significance of the fact dimension and timing, the social dimension appears
to be most decisive for the emergence of inspirational interaction. The most frequently used
distinctions, when students describe the differences between SGR and MGR, concern
‘knowing/not knowing other students’ and ‘being part of/not being part of the community’. Not
knowing other students and the experience of not being part of or even of being excluded from the
community seem to comprise a highly efficient gatekeeper for mutual inspiration in SGR. That
students hesitate to call on groups in SGR relates not to the fact or the temporal dimension, but to
a sense of intruding into a private area. In SGR, the experience is that one has to be invited to enter
a room – for instance, by an open door - whereas students in MGR feel free to drop in on their
neighbours at almost any time.
Regarding physical barriers, as compared with MGR, SGR does not display differences that
could not, at least to some extent, be handled by open doors, for instance. The main barrier is the
discomfort of entering other rooms. Students hesitate to call on other groups because they
experience themselves as strangers entering a private room, and, consequently, they exclude
themselves from engaging in professional inter