A
workshop held in February, 2005 discussed the implications of neuroscience for the design of K-6 classroom architecture (Kindergarten - 6th grade, that is). The workshop seemed to be an interesting foray into interdisciplinary practices... but the term "
neuroscience" as it seems to be used here kills me! The article describing the workshop's results does seem to engage issues of social, developmental, and organizational psychology, and certainly pedagogy. But neuroscience? I am not so sure...
»
»
Read More
"Childrenís Brains Are the Key to Well-Designed Classrooms" says the article written by John P. Eberhard. I do agree that architects should pay more attention to the MINDS of children when designing classrooms for them (and their teachers)... but I wonder if neuroscience is the actual key. The physical activities of the brain are not necessarily what make the mind work after all. I cite John Bruer's
rather convincing argument that neuroscience might not have any direct impact on education. Therefore, need architects really look to it to define the physical environment for education? Should we pay more attention to pedagogical models and teacher feedback and leave the brains to the people who study it?
Mind you all, that I applaud the efforts and the ideals of the group! In fact the article cites many interesting hypotheses and makes an interesting case I just think that using the term "
neuroscience" might be a bit too off-topic to have a direct impact on architecture. I think that the academiy's name may misrepresent their intentions
The group's website, which Eberhard is the founding President of, can be found
here.
Thoughts?
These would be really tangible interfaces...
Robot device mimics human touch
