INFORMAL INTERACTION SPACES AND STUDENTCENTRED LEARNING IN ARCHITECTURAL SCHOOLS

Abstract

In architectural education, informal interaction spaces play a significant role in experiential learning, allowing adult learners more flexibility and freedom. In India, the significance of these spaces has been heightened by the National Education Policy (NEP 2020) formulated by the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India, which aligns with the activities promoted in educational institutes' informal interaction spaces. This research paper explores the role of informal interaction spaces in enhancing student-centered learning in architecture schools, presenting best practices for their design and utilization. The study employs mixed research methods, including literature review, case studies, and interviews, to gather perspectives from learners and instructors. The case study reveals a strong positive correlation between the percentage of informal interaction space and the learning outcomes of students. In addition to identifying challenges in informal interaction spaces, including interference and design issues, the literature study and respondents' views associate the cross-cultural discussions happening in these spaces with academic learning, life skill enhancement, and the development of collaboration skills, establishing their significance in facilitating effective and student-centered pedagogy. Varied preferences of respondents regarding design criteria to be adopted in designing informal interaction spaces emphasize the need for adaptable designs that cater to diverse student needs regarding placement, visual connection, and amenities. The conclusions underscore the multifaceted impact of these spaces, providing valuable insights for their refinement and contributing to ongoing discourse in architectural education.

Headnote

Abstract. In architectural education, informal interaction spaces play a significant role in experiential learning, allowing adult learners more flexibility and freedom. In India, the significance of these spaces has been heightened by the National Education Policy (NEP 2020) formulated by the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India, which aligns with the activities promoted in educational institutes' informal interaction spaces. This research paper explores the role of informal interaction spaces in enhancing student-centered learning in architecture schools, presenting best practices for their design and utilization. The study employs mixed research methods, including literature review, case studies, and interviews, to gather perspectives from learners and instructors. The case study reveals a strong positive correlation between the percentage of informal interaction space and the learning outcomes of students. In addition to identifying challenges in informal interaction spaces, including interference and design issues, the literature study and respondents' views associate the cross-cultural discussions happening in these spaces with academic learning, life skill enhancement, and the development of collaboration skills, establishing their significance in facilitating effective and student-centered pedagogy. Varied preferences of respondents regarding design criteria to be adopted in designing informal interaction spaces emphasize the need for adaptable designs that cater to diverse student needs regarding placement, visual connection, and amenities. The conclusions underscore the multifaceted impact of these spaces, providing valuable insights for their refinement and contributing to ongoing discourse in architectural education.

Keywords: architectural design, relational spaces, educational environments

1. Introduction

Informal interaction spaces can be understood as incidental spaces created while accommodating the area program in a design. It is rarely outlined in the formal design brief and is often determined on an ad hoc basis by its users. Informal spaces in educational institutes also qualify in Foucault's definition of other spaces. According to Foucault, we now belong to the epoch of simultaneity, juxtaposition, near and far, side-by-side, dispersed and informal. Informal interaction spaces which are the inseparable components of designed realms; be it the individual buildings or precincts are one of the many spatial constructs that accommodate this epoch (Hatz, 2018). The presence of actively used informal interaction spaces is an absolute necessity for architecture schools, as these are the places where creativity thrives and the subjective and objective realms merge leading to magnificence in architecture., Informal interaction spaces when active, translate to places of modern heterotopia where the obvious exists with hidden and multiple interpretations lead to various creative ideologies.

1.1. Aim of research

With the above perspective, this paper aims to present deeper insights into the role of informal interaction spaces in improving student-centric learning and outline the best practices to design them adequately to facilitate student-centric learning in schools of architecture.

1.2. Significance of research

On investigating the nature of architectural education, informal interaction spaces emerge as incubators. Over time, the role of informal interaction spaces in aiding student-centered learning for achieving course outcomes particular to the architecture curriculum has increasingly been acknowledged and validated through the works of different theorists and scholars. Since architectural education is not limited to a predefined body of knowledge, bringing the external world into the students' consciousness is very necessary for achieving the intended course outcomes. This unique pedagogical requirement of architectural education needs an informal territorial infrastructure to anchor its informal practices in the organization of formal space. But, despite their huge contribution to the teaching-learning process, while institutional campuses are conceived, the informal spaces usually do not form a part of the design brief given by the clients to the architects leading to their complete oblivion from area programs. Additionally, the accrediting bodies evaluating the standard of course and its delivery do not give any weightage to the learning acquired in informal spaces and through informal interactive modes. Under these circumstances, it becomes necessary to understand the rationale behind the construction and development of informal interaction spaces and strategies to enrich them as this can facilitate their inclusion in the design process at the onset. Making adequate provisions for high-quality informal interaction spaces in the formal planning agenda has immense potential to augment the teaching-learning process by magnifying the spatial capabilities of the built infrastructure.

Informal interaction spaces also emerge as potent tools for achieving the objectives of the National Education Policy formulated by the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India in 2020. According to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, formulated by the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India, the ultimate aim of education must be to develop good human beings with the capacity to carry out rational action justified through the ethical thought process. The NEP 2020 envisages producing lifelong learners who possess the qualities of compassion, courage, scientific temper, ethical grounding, empathy, and high moral values, creative imagination, are engaged and productive and are willing to work to develop an equitable, inclusive, and plural society as mandated by the Indian constitution. NEP 2020 further describes a good educational institution as a place where the physical infrastructure and environment welcome every student, and support a safe and stimulating environment by offering targeted learning experiences. A few of the fundamental principles that guide NEP 2020 are: providing individualistic support to each student by recognizing, identifying, and fostering his or her unique capabilities, ensuring holistic development of learners through providing them with the flexibility to choose what to learn and when to learn, merging binaries like arts and sciences, curricular and extra-curricular activities, vocational and academic streams and integrating learning across all domains. NEP 2020 also urges the academic community to encourage conceptual understanding, original research and thought processes, creativity, critical thinking, and innovation among learners rather than rote learning (Kumawat and Sharma, 2021; Sudradjat, 2012). Promoting multilingualism and life skills such as communication, cooperation, teamwork, resilience and respect for diversity and local context are other significant mandates of NEP 2020 (Kumar, 2022; Rani, 2022). The informal interaction spaces that double up as spaces of creative learning in educational institutions, particularly in architecture schools augment the pedagogical approach outlined above by acting as active settings capable of enhancing student engagement and participation. The chief strategies through which the pedagogical outcomes are strengthened through interaction spaces are brainstorming sessions, informal discussions, team meetings, etc. which are an integral part of architectural aptitude building. In architectural schools, even formal teaching spaces like studios, workshops, and exhibition halls where design juries are held translate to informal interaction spaces on certain days and times making these more effective and better in achieving the course outcomes.

2. Materialsand methods

The following section describes the literature study and methodology of the research:

2.1. Scope and limitations

The scope of the detailed study of informal interaction spaces is related to the context of architectural schools. The case studies and survey respondents are limited by their attribution to a particular geographical context of India and the analysis also responds to NEP 2020 mandated by the Government of India. Once validated, the recommendations of this research paper are expected to apply to wider contexts after appropriate realignment.

2.2. Literature study

The literature study presented below outlines the definition and characteristics of informal interaction spaces, previous research on the role of informal interaction spaces in enhancing student-centered learning, and the benefits of informal interaction spaces in architecture schools. It then lists the best practices for designing and utilizing informal interaction spaces in architectural schools.

2.2.7. Student-centered learning: key attributes and importance for schools of architecture

Educational approaches, teachinglearning pedagogy, and other academic support facilitations that promote emphasis upon personalized needs, aspirations, backgrounds, and aptitudes of the learners, whether individual or group, are called student-centered learning approaches. This has implications in both formal and informal interaction spaces on campus, though informal spaces add more value to it because of their informality which enhances student engagement, motivation, and participation (Keiler, 2018). As stated by Katie MartinReflection Model, and Personalization, learning can happen anywhere, anytime in a collaborative manner and is best manifested in informal interaction spaces. Student-centered learning in schools of architecture is crucial for providing students with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in the profession. This approach recognizes that architecture students have different learning styles and preferences and that effective teaching must be tailored to meet the needs of each student. Research has found that student-centered learning in schools of architecture is associated with a range of positive outcomes, such as higher levels of academic achievement, greater engagement in learning, and improved well-being and mental health. Therefore, promoting student-centered learning is a key goal for many schools of architecture (Ozdemir and Onal, 2020; Wong, 2023).

2.2 .2. Informal interaction spaces: definitions and characteristics

(i) Informal interaction spaces- various conceptions: Spaces that are not intended to be but are practically frequented by learners and instructors for academic interactions vital to student-centered learning within the built and unbuilt spaces of an educational campus are called informal interaction spaces (Peng et al., 2022). Here, contact with the environment and people promulgate spontaneous and often involuntary learning which is often not structured, unsystematic, and open to multiple cognitive interpretations (Zairul, 2020). These spaces academically evolve unexpectedly and in an unplanned manner over time as they are naturally adopted by both learners and instructors due to the additional perks, they provide beyond the classroom confines (Fig. 1). They gain even more importance in schools of architecture considering the creative nature of the course that mandates free thinking and flexibility as key factors for true achievement of its course outcomes primarily through the student-centric learning pedagogy (Sangra and Wheeler, 2013). This radical paradigm in teaching learning pedagogy shifts the focus from instructors to the learners, the former acting as mere facilitators and motivators. Informal interaction spaces encourage students to learn and express themselves by providing greater flexibility for adult learners. Conversation, social interaction, teamwork, and mentoring are highly aided by the spatial and emotional structuring of such spaces for informal learning (Dunlosky et al., 2013).

(ii) Informal interaction spaces-the desirable characteristics:

As per various literature, the presence of the following attributes makes informal interaction spaces efficient contributors to student-centric learning pedagogy (Deed and Alterator, 2007):

Location: The location means the place on the campus where learners prefer to interact. It generally depends on the type of learning activity taken up, duration of the activity and time available in between classes, nearness of the space to other allied spaces, convenience, and sometimes even personal requirements and choices.

Character: The character of the spaces defines their aura and the feelings they evoke. Mostly they are used in a certain way for which they were not originally planned but eventually fit into the slot due to their location, layout, and suitability as per the learner's needs thus facilitating a sense of ownership and responsibility.

Dialogue: This attribute emphasizes the importance of informal interaction spaces in fostering partnership and mutual communication which are vital for student-centered learning. These spaces should be robust enough to encourage the assembly of a range of group sizes and types to enhance the vitality of the space (Zhang, 2022).

Fraternity: This emphasizes social interplay and a sense of shared motive among the stakeholders in various informal interaction spaces that are designed to facilitate collaborations whether through planned or unplanned conversations. Learners with common goals benefit from the mutual motivation and the supportive environment provided by such spaces.

Haven: This explains that informal interaction spaces should be designed to provide for the occasional need for undisturbed private havens whether for individuals or group settings so that learning can take place with minimal distractions.

Timely: This refers to the ease of access and extended opening hours of informal interaction spaces beyond the college timings according to the learners' academic and non-academic schedules so that they can utilize them to the fullest extent.

Human Attributes: This defines the anthropometric and ergonomic appropriateness of the spaces concerning learning processes. This includes working area size, seating options, light, nature, availability of Internet and Technology Support Systems, and food and refreshments.

(iii) Types of Informal Interaction Spaces:

Informal interaction spaces exist in many forms in different educational institutes, but generally, they can be classified into the following types (Webster, 2008):

Hub activity spaces: They are secluded zones needed by an individual or a small group of learners for new skill development and conceptual clarity exercises, especially a space that is nearby yet defines a focus area within or near a formal learning area. They may be provided in the following ways:

Self-reflection niches: These are selfexploratory spaces where learners contemplate their learnings to reinforce their conceptual clarity or just recharge their minds. They are effective as it makes the learner with special needs stand out from the rest, still being a part of the entire class. They can be located near formal areas like classrooms, studios, etc (Fig. 2).

Serene spots: They are ideal private spots that give emotional outlets for the learners to recollect their thoughts. Ideally, they should be provided away from formal learning areas with individual seating arrangements that are designed for comfort and acoustic seclusion in a biophilic way (Fig. 3).

Collaborative spaces: These spaces train learners towards group activities and collaboration whether at intra or interschool levels. This calls for IT-enabled flexible seating arrangements in different shapes and sizes (Fig. 4).

Active interaction spaces: They are active collaboration areas for small to large homogenous or heterogeneous congregations over formal, non-formal, or informal agendas that directly or indirectly enable the learner's creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.

They may be provided in the form of cafeterias (Fig. 5) and small eat joints, connectors (Fig. 6), interactive and informal design studios (Fig. 7), podiums, squares, staircases, and their landings, etc. (Fig. 8).

These spaces beyond the classrooms help to break the mental block of students performing in formal classrooms thus helping them unwind and rejuvenate for new challenges and better academic performance. They can be designed as spaces to pause for independent learnerinstructor interactions beyond the classroom confines in between classes (Fig. 9).

Social conglomerations: These are interactive areas for socializing and showcasing learners' unique attributes that could be curricular, co-curricular, or extracurricular in both online and offline modes. These may be provided in the form of E-learning labs (Fig. 10), exhibition spaces (Fig. 11), learning cafes, and outdoor learning spaces (Fig. 12).

Mentorship spaces: Mentoring for learners' socio-gratification and emotional assurance is vital for the learning process as it enables them to understand their capabilities and explore probable opportunities and the support personnel and infrastructure needed for the same. These may be provided in various ways as career counseling areas (Fig. 13) and areas for socio-emotional counseling (Fig. 14) which are a cope-mechanism against overstimulation and sensory overload of learners, where they pour out their thoughts in front of their instructors to get positive gratifications and encouragement.

2.2.3. Role of informal interaction spaces in enhancing student-centered learning: previous research findings

Informal interaction spaces have been recognized as important elements in enhancing student-centered learning in schools of Architecture. Studentcentered learning as opined by Morieson (2018) is a continual process that occurs anywhere and anytime, thus emphasizing the importance of informal learning spaces in educational buildings.

The success of informal learning spaces is influenced by specific design characteristics, including comfort, flexibility, functionality, spatial hierarchy, openness, and additional support facilities (Morieson et al., 2018). These elements are crucial and should be regarded as guiding parameters when planning the spatial design of informal learning spaces in institutional campuses. (Wu et al., 2021). Lofty's study (2022) emphasizes the intentional design's influence on enhancing the viability of informal learning spaces. They highlight that student-preferred spaces prioritize comfort, convenience, and community. Comfort encompasses factors like furniture arrangement, air quality, lighting, cleanliness, and facilities. Convenience relates to the proximity of the space to classes, food areas, and discussion spots. Community is defined as spaces offering privacy and frequented by students for specific activities (Lofty et al., 2020).

(i) Architectural education, especially in the design studio, benefits from a combination of formal and informal studies. Informal learning, facilitated by practical experiences and collaborative interactions in spaces like studios and lounges, enhances contextual understanding and nurtures design thinking skills (Simanjuntak, 2022). Informal discussions contribute to the development of vital life skills, including communication and teamwork. Various research studies highlight the significance of informal interaction spaces, such as studios and critique areas, in promoting studentcentered learning within schools of architecture (Kuyrukcu and Kuyrukcu, 2015; Priya et al., 2020). According to Ibrahim and Fadzil (2013), a welldesigned educational campus with an emphasis on informal learning spaces improves students' involvement in the learning process which ultimately helps in better achievement of course outcomes. According to them, when teaching-learning is not confined to the classroom's formal setup, then the entire campus turns into an open area for learning that equips students with co-curricular and life skills in addition to curricula that help them in the future (Ibrahim and Fadzil, 2013).

(ii) Learning successful collaboration and teamwork skills constitutes a major learning outcome while imparting architectural education. Access to informal interaction spaces encourages architecture students to actively participate in collaborative problemsolving and group discussions. In relaxed settings, these interactions foster the development of crucial design skills like creativity, innovation, and critical thinking. Consequently, informal learning spaces play a pivotal role in enhancing collaboration and teamwork among architecture students, contributing to the overall quality and strength of their design ideas and concepts (Alitajer and Zareihajiabadi, 2016).

(iii) Informal interaction spaces in architecture schools cultivate a sense of community and belonging, positively impacting student well-being. The "Belonging Project" which is an innovative teaching-learning model, adopted at the School of Media and Communication at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia has reported that a sense of belonging and collaborative skills are fostered by informal student spaces and this becomes more effective if student's opinions are actively considered while designing (Morieson etal., 2018).

(iii) Research has found that informal interaction spaces can help promote a more inclusive and equitable learning environment in schools of architecture. By providing opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds to interact with one another, these spaces can help break down social barriers and promote understanding and empathy among different groups (Yau etal., 2023).

(iv) Field visits reported that when students were offered experiential learning in informal settings, marked improvement in creativity, expression of ideas, and sketching technique was noticed (Ertkin and Soygenis, 2014). A balance of tech-equipped informal spaces along and formal classroom setups is necessary to acuminate the creative skills of students (Reinius et al., 2021).

(iv) Informal interaction spaces act as a personalized study area for students, thus enabling the manifestation of individual talent. The study undertaken by Cox (2017) documents the process of evolution of libraries from spaces to store books to resourcerich conducive spaces for collaborative personalized study (Cox, 2017; Kumar and Bhatt, 2015).

The above-mentioned studies establish informal learning spaces as strong pedagogical tools. These spaces need not be compulsorily marked as learning spaces in design schemes, but they should be designed in a way that the learners automatically adapt to their learning purpose once they enter them. (Fouad and Sailor, 2019). Informal interaction spaces are a vital aspect of any educational building and should be deliberately considered during the building planning stage to make them more effective in the teaching-learning process, else they must be retrofitted to become befitting for their purpose of student-centered learning (Adedayo et al., 2018).

To summarize, informal interaction spaces play a crucial role in enhancing student-centered learning in architecture schools, particularly in the design studio. These spaces, such as studios, critique spaces, and student lounges, facilitate practical, hands-on experiences, collaborative discussions, mentor interactions, contextual understanding, and design thinking skills. Research indicates that these spaces contribute to the development of essential life skills like communication and problemsolving. They also promote a sense of community, mental well-being, and inclusivity among architecture students. A balanced campus design with techequipped informal spaces is deemed essential for effective architectural education. The role of informal spaces in student-centered learning extends beyond formal classrooms, providing opportunities for continuous learning and improved creativity. Studies demonstrate that the success of these spaces hinges on attributes like comfort, flexibility, functionality, spatial hierarchy, openness, and support facilities. Deliberate consideration of informal spaces during the planning stage or retrofitting existing spaces is essential for their effectiveness in the teaching-learning process.

2.3. Research design and approach

This paper adopts an exploratory research methodology. An extensive literature study is undertaken to augment the existing knowledge repository on informal learning spaces with particular reference to architecture schools. Critical inferences regarding the role of informal learning spaces in achieving the objectives of student-centered learning are drawn from the literature study. Primary surveys consisting of case study visits and interviews are conducted to triangulate the findings from the literature study.

2.3.2. Sampling and data collection methods

Both secondary and primary data are collected to meet the research objectives. A sample size of 50 respondents from two categories (the students and teachers) who are the major stakeholders in student-centered learning are selected through random probability sampling. Responses are gathered through face-to-face interviews, google forms, and expert opinions and analyzed to establish the importance of informal interaction spaces in architectural schools. The paper concludes with recommendations and strategies concerning modalities for inclusion of the informal interaction spaces in architectural schools to aid in achieving the educational objectives of various courses in line with NEP 2020.

2.3.1. Primary data collection

Primary data is collected through case studies and interviews. A case Study of Piloo Mody College of Architecture, Cuttack, Orissa, India was conducted for primary data collection. For conducting the interviews random probability sampling was used for choosing key respondents belonging to two different groups; i.e., the first group being the teachers (R-1) and 2nd being students (R-2) of Piloo Mody College of Architecture, Cuttack located in the state of Orissa in India. A mix of structured and unstructured questionnaires was used which were administered face-to-face and electronically through google forms. Responses of 30 participants each from the R-1 and R-2 groups were recorded.

2.3.2. Secondary data collection

Case studies of architecture colleges across India; namely School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi (Fig. 15); CEPT University, Ahmedabad (Fig. 16); Sir J. J. College of Architecture, Mumbai; Rachna Sansad's Academy of Architecture, Mumbai; School of Architecture and Planning, Anna University Chennai and BMS College of Architecture, Bengaluru was conducted using secondary sources.

3. Results

The following section describes the findings from secondary and primary case studies and interviews:

3.1. Findings from secondary case studies

Role of Interaction Spaces in Colleges of Architecture: In architecture schools, the learner is pivotal in designing their projects, actively participating, leading their activities, exploring their areas of interest, and structuring their course themselves. This non-conventional approach calls for non-conventional spatial arrangements that facilitate learning anywhere and at any time. They come in different shapes and sizes in both built and unbuilt spaces scattered throughout the campus; ranging from the informal arrangement of desks in circles or small groups within the formal classrooms to semiformal spaces like studios, libraries, and workshops, the informal spaces like corridors, lobbies, bridges, podiums, and cafeterias and even include the non-essential areas like alcoves, niches, sills/bays of windows, spaces between book stacks, benches under tree shades, gazebos, water features to name a few.

School of Planning and Architecture (SPA) in Delhi has successfully implemented informal interaction spaces to promote student-centered learning. The school's campus includes a range of informal interaction spaces, such as open-air amphitheaters, design studios, and shared spaces. The open-air amphitheater is used for informal discussions and presentations, the student lounge serves as a hub for informal discussions and networking while the design studios have flexible seating arrangements and movable furniture to facilitate group work and peer learning. The shared spaces and outdoor gathering spaces provide opportunities for socialization and networking among students.

Sir JJ College of Architecture in Mumbai also has a student lounge, design studios, and outdoor gathering spaces which encourage collaboration and interaction among students and faculty.

CEPT University, Ahmedabad, Rachana Sansad Academy of Architecture, Mumbai School of Architecture and Planning, Anna University, Chennai; School of Architecture, BMS College of Architecture, Bengaluru all have informal interaction spaces belonging to the abovementioned types.

The informal interaction spaces of the above-mentioned institutions have been credited with improving student engagement, promoting creativity and innovation among students, and fostering a sense of community and belonging. These case studies from the Indian context highlight the importance of designing and utilizing informal interaction spaces to promote studentcentered learning in schools of architecture. By providing opportunities for collaboration, interaction, and socialization, these spaces can help architecture students develop important skills and foster a sense of community and belonging.

3.2. Findings from the primary case study

Piloo Mody College of Architecture (PMCA), a leading architectural college in eastern India has been taken up as the primary case study for this research. PMCA is a part of the Ajay Binay Institute of Technology (ABIT) institutional campus. It is located in Cuttack, a city in the eastern state Orissa of India (Fig. 17).

Students and teachers were interviewed to identify the interaction spaces in PMCA based on their experience and activities happening in these spaces (Table 1 and Fig. 18).

Analyzing the spaces identified by both R1 and R2 groups of respondents at Piloo Mody College of Architecture we conclude that 72.38% of the total built-up falls into the category of informal interaction spaces.

3.3. Findings from interviews

The interview responses were used to conclude the following:

3.3.1. Different aspects of interaction spaces: the users' perspective

In order to understand the users' perspective on different aspects of interaction spaces, an interview was conducted, during which the respondents specified their level of agreement to statements presented on a five-point scale: (1) Strongly disagree; (2) Disagree; (3) Neither agree nor disagree; (4) Agree; (5) Strongly agree. Table 2 lists the percentage of respondents that 'agree 'or 'strongly agree' with the statements presented, interview responses were collected through Likert scales corresponding to scales 4 and 5.

3.3.2. Findings: teachers' perception of informal interaction spaces (analyzing responses from R-1 category respondents)

On analyzing responses received from R1 1 respondents, the following were concluded:

(i) 38% of respondents among teachers agree that 50-75% of students are positively impacted by interaction in informal spaces for enhancing learning. This signifies the importance of these spaces for achieving learning outcomes (Fig. 19).

(ii) 91% of R-1 respondents are comfortable dealing with studentcentric teaching-learning pedagogy in informal interaction spaces (Fig. 20).

They also acknowledge that communication among various years of students and different sections that happen in informal interaction spaces helps in widening the knowledge base of students and learning more about job opportunities. They identify the following as major challenges for student-centric teachi ng-learni ng pedagogy in informal interaction spaces; interference of other teachers, lack of specificity regarding contents, improper location, layout and design (which includes seating, activities, microclimate, landscape, visual environment), lack of regulations regarding time management and control over students, misuse of informal spaces for personal benefits (timely completion of course content gets disturbed), indiscipline and breach of protocol between students and teachers and risk of students getting too informal with the teachers, difficulty in creating an inclusive environment, difficulty in technical tool use and getting the students back to the formal classroom for next class of other subjects.

(iii) While commenting on desirable design aspects of informal interaction spaces, R-1 category respondents suggest that such spaces should be spacious, airy, lighted, and partially covered with landscaping. Seating, activities, microclimate, locations, landscape, visual qualities, etc. must be considered while designing these spaces. Nature and organic form-driven design must be adopted to make thoughts flow organically in calm minds. Informal interactive spaces must be designed considering climatic factors and privacy from external disturbances. Regimental and archaic furniture should be replaced with ergonomic youth-centric furniture. Students should also have a well-designed cafe and chillout zone with a controlled degree of visual transparency and seating options. Sizes of such spaces must be derived keeping college capacity in mind. Natural and artificial Shading can be provided in open spaces to encourage design discussion. These spaces should use vibrant colors radiating energy and enthusiasm.

(iv) While commenting on desirable locational aspects of informal interaction spaces, R1 category respondents suggest they should be placed outside the academic block but not very far from it, and away from the staff-centric spaces and noisy areas. Interactive spaces may be placed near landscaped areas and in building fringe areas but monitoring and control mechanisms with teachers and management at the helm are required. A place with fewer distractions and a noncentral location may be ideal for informal interactions. Regular Maintenance, and cleaning should be carried out and management should encourage the use of such spaces for more and more hands-on activities.

3.2.7. Findings: Students' perception of informal interaction spaces (analyzing responses from R-2 category respondents)

On analyzing responses received from R2 2 respondents, the following were concluded:

69% of respondents from the R-2 category agree that interaction spaces motivate them to learn better (Fig. 21) whereas 86% of respondents agree that interaction spaces play a major role in teaching collaboration skills (Fig. 22).

(i) Though 60-75% of students agree that centrally placed interaction places and those spaces that are visually connected to other spaces in college are used more by students, a sizeable number of students also disagree with these. So, variations in the placement of informal interaction spaces and level of visual connection are necessary to cater to all students. Interaction spaces that have charging points and strong Wi-Fi connections are preferred by 60% of students, but the other 40% say that this does not matter as they rarely use electronic devices in informal interactions. Students cannot associate informal discussion with learning in many instances.

(ii) R2 respondents were of the view that in order to improve the informal interaction spaces as learning aids, they should be designed with better connectivity with other spaces but at the same time seclusion for privacy and better interaction are needed in these places. These spaces must incorporate good climate control and visually pleasing measures. Open-shaded areas with multiple engaging activities are very efficient for creating informal interaction. A sufficient number of seats following standard measurements of anthropometry and ergonomics must be provided. The majority of respondents opined that designing informal spaces in and around the college is important as it helps in learning from visual and practical examples, and helps an individual grow on a personal level and as a team. The design should be universally accessible, safe, and userfriendly.

(iii) According to one respondent "There should be enough informal interaction space provided for students as being an architecture student it is very important to interact with other students and faculties. Interaction in class is one thing but when having a conversation with others outside the class is very important as different students will help in the design and planning of other co-curricular activities. It should be kept in mind that space should be easily supervised by faculty members to prevent any illegal act which includes ragging" while another says," More stairs (kind of open-air theatre) instead of benches".

4. Discussions

After considering the inferences of the literature review and interview analysis, the informal interaction spaces have been found to enhance student-centered learning in schools of architecture by ensuring the following:

Collaboration: Informal interaction spaces provide opportunities for students to collaborate with faculty members. Collaboration allows students to share ideas, receive feedback, and learn from each other's strengths and weaknesses.

Experiential learning: Informal interaction spaces provide opportunities for students to engage in hands-on, experiential learning. For example, students can work on design projects, construct models, and experiment with different materials and techniques.

Flexibility: Informal interaction spaces are flexible, allowing students to work in different configurations and adapt to changing needs. This flexibility promotes creativity and innovation and encourages students to take ownership of their learning.

Community building: Informal interaction spaces help to build a sense of community among students, faculty, and staff. This sense of community promotes a supportive and inclusive learning environment, where students feel comfortable taking risks and challenging themselves.

Informal learning: Informal interaction spaces provide opportunities for students to engage in informal learning, such as mentoring, peer-to-peer learning, and self-directed learning. This type of learning complements formal classroom instruction and helps students to develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

Enhancement of Life skills: Informal interaction spaces train the students better for life skill acquisition by facilitating unsupervised social interaction among peers and with seniors and teachers.

5. Conclusions

The research findings present a comprehensive understanding of the role of informal interaction spaces in architectural education, shedding light on both positive impacts and challenges associated with their implementation. As per the responses provided by the students and teachers, 72.38% of the total built-up area in PMCA falls into the category of informal interaction spaces. This finding is in alignment with the fact a very large number of teachers agree that 50-75% of students' learning outcomes are significantly enhanced by interaction in informal spaces. Furthermore, the majority of teachers (91%) in PMCA have expressed that they can comfortably impart studentcentric teaching in informal spaces which emphasizes the need for inclusion of such spaces in institutes. The interview responses enable inferring of a positive correlation between informal interaction spaces and enhanced learning outcomes thus suggesting their pivotal role in shaping the educational journey of architecture students.

The majority of students have underscored the significance of informal interaction spaces for motivating them to learn and helping them develop crucial collaboration skills which are highly valued within architectural pedagogy. 69% express that these spaces motivate learning and 86% recognize their pivotal role in teaching collaboration skills. The variations in preferences regarding placement, visual connection, and amenities within these spaces highlighted the need for adaptable designs to cater to diverse student needs. Students have also iterated the importance of better connectivity and seclusion, incorporating climate control, visually pleasing elements, and Wi-Fi provision for enhanced effectiveness of informal interaction spaces as learning spaces. The majority of respondents from both categories have opined that universally accessible, safe, and user-friendly informal spaces in and around the college, not only help the attainment of course outcomes but act as crucial venues for personal and team growth.

Despite these positive aspects, challenges such as interference, lack of specificity, and issues with location and design are identified, underlining the need for strategic improvements. Recommendations from teachers emphasize the importance of welldesigned, spacious, and landscaped informal spaces with ergonomic furniture. A nature-driven design approach is suggested to facilitate organic thought flow, considering climatic factors and ensuring privacy. These design elements aim to enhance student engagement and create a vibrant, inclusive learning environment within the institution. Overcoming challenges related to interference and design intricacies is imperative for realizing the full potential of centric pedagogy these spaces. Addressing layout, regulations, and location issues can significantly enhance their effectiveness. The diverse needs of students underscore the importance of flexible and inclusive design considerations that accommodate various preferences, ensuring these spaces cater to a broad spectrum of learning styles. Ensuring proper supervision and maintenance is crucial for preventing misuse and sustaining the functionality of these spaces over time.

In conclusion, the synthesis of findings and interpretation from the literature study, case study, and interviews underscores the multifaceted impact of informal interaction spaces on architectural education. The identified challenges and preferences provide valuable insights for refining the design and utilization of these spaces, emphasizing the need for adaptability, inclusivity, and a thoughtful balance between connectivity and seclusion. The evidence-based conclusions drawn from this study contribute to the ongoing discourse on the design and effectiveness of informal interaction spaces in architecture schools.

6. Recommendations

Informal interaction spaces are essential in promoting a sense of community, encouraging collaboration, and fostering creativity in schools of architecture. Following are a few recommendations for enhancing the design and effectiveness of these spaces:

(i) Strategic Design Improvements: Implement well-thought-out and strategic design improvements in informal interaction spaces. This includes creating spacious, landscaped areas with ergonomic furniture. Adopt a naturedriven design approach that considers climatic factors, ensuring a balance between connectivity and seclusion.

(ii) Flexibility and Inclusivity: Emphasize flexibility and inclusivity in the design considerations for informal spaces. Acknowledge the diverse preferences of students regarding placement, visual connection, and amenities. Create adaptable designs that cater to various learning styles, promoting a more inclusive educational environment.

(iii) Supervision and Maintenance: Prioritize proper supervision and maintenance of informal interaction spaces. Develop a comprehensive plan for regular monitoring, addressing potential issues promptly. This ensures the prevention of misuse and sustains the functionality of these spaces over time.

(iv) Balancing Connectivity and Seclusion: Focus on achieving a thoughtful balance between connectivity and seclusion within informal spaces. Consider incorporating elements such as better connectivity, Wi-Fi provision, and visually pleasing elements, while also addressing the need for seclusion. This balance is crucial for creating a conducive learning environment.

(v) User-Centric Approach: Adopt a user-centric approach in the design and utilization of informal spaces. Pay attention to student preferences and needs, considering factors like climate control, visual aesthetics, and amenities. Engage students in the design process to ensure the spaces align with their expectations and contribute positively to their educational experience.

(vi) Addressing Interference and Design Challenges: Develop strategies to overcome challenges related to interference and design intricacies. This may involve revisiting the layout, implementing specific regulations, and carefully selecting appropriate locations for these spaces. Addressing these challenges will significantly enhance the effectiveness of student-centric pedagogy in informal interaction spaces.

Implementing these recommendations will contribute to creating vibrant, inclusive, and effective informal interaction spaces within architecture schools. By prioritizing adaptability, inclusivity, and a balance between connectivity and seclusion, institutions can provide students with environments that foster collaboration, motivation, and enhanced learning outcomes.

7. Acknowledgements

We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to the management and students of ABIT-PMCA and Apeejay School of Architecture and Planning, Apeejay Institute of Technology for their support and encouragement throughout our research and case study. A special thanks to our student Jayabrata Halder, for giving his creative touch to our study findings through the sketches/illustrations. Last, but not least, we would like to thank all our respondents for taking the time to meticulously respond to our survey questions, which helped us to successfully conclude our research.

Sidebar

Received: 6 August 2023 * Revised: 26 October 2023 * Accepted: 21 January 2024

References

REFERENCES

Adedayo O. F., Oyetola A. S., Anuno I. A. (2018), Student's Perception of Informal Interaction Spaces of faculty buildings in the Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria, Journal of Building Performance 9(1): 1-2.

Alitajer S., Zarei haj i a bad i F. (2016), The Effect of Built Environment on Students' Interactions in Informal Spaces of Architecture Schools, Two Case Studies in Iran, Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture and Urban Planning 21(1): 79-90.

Cox A. (2017), Space and embodiment in informal learning, The International Journal of Higher Education Research 75(1): 1077-1090.

Deed C., Alterator S. (2007), Informal learning spaces and their impact on learning in higher education: Framing new narratives of participation, Journal of Learning Spaces 6(3): 1-5.

Dunlosky J., Rawson k. A., Willingham D. T. (2013), Improving Students' Learning with Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions from Cognitive and Educational Psychology, Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14(1): 1458.

Ertkin E., Soygenis S. (2014), Learning by Experiencing the Space: Informal Learning Environments in Architecture Education. Bogaziki University, Journal of Education 31(1): 81-92.

Hatz G. (2018), Foucault's Concept of Heterotopia as an Episteme for Reading the Post-Modern City: The Viennese Example, Current Urban Studies 6(4): 455-482.

Ibrahim N., Fadzil N. H. (2013), Informal Setting for Learning on Campus: Usage and Preference, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 105(1): 344-351.

Keiler L. S. (2018), Teachers' Roles and Identities in student-centered Classrooms, International Journal of STEM Education 5(34): 1-20.

Kumar A., Bhatt R. K. (2015), A Study of Using Informal Learning Spaces at Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, Library Philosophy and Practice 1 (1): 1-19.

Kumar A. (2022), Importance Of National Education Policy-2020 In Imparting Education, Journal of Positive School Psychology 6(2): 65576561.

Kumawat H., Sharma M. (2021), Study of The Indian National Education Policy 2020 Towards Achieving Its Objectives, Elementary Education Online 20(2): 1050-1055.

Kuyrukcu Z., Kuyrukcu E. Y. (2015), An educational tool the importance of informal studies/studios in architectural design education: A workshop summary, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174(2): 2666-2673.

Lotfy M. W., Kamel S., Hassan D. K., Ezzeldin M. (2022), Academic libraries as informal learning spaces in an architectural educational environment, Ain Shams Engineering Journal 13(6): 781790.

Levenberg A., Caspi A. (2010), Comparing Perceived Formal and Informal Learning in Face-to-Face versus Online Environments, Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning 6(1): 323333.

Morieson L., Murray G., Wilson R., Clarke B. (2018), Belonging in Space: Informal Learning Spaces and The Student Experience, Journal of Learning Spaces 7(2): 12-22.

Ozdemir H., Onal G. K. (2020), The role of informal structures in architectural design education, Icontech International Journal 4(3): 11-29.

Peng L., Jin S., Deng Y., Gong Y. (2022), Students' Perceptions of Active Learning Classrooms from an Informal Learning Perspective: Building a Full-Time Sustainable Learning Environment in Higher Education, Sustainability 14(14): 8578-8588.

Priya R. S., Shabitha P., Radhakrishnan S. (2020), The collaborative and participatory design approach in architectural design studios, Social Sciences and Humanities Open 2(1): 133-148.

Rani R. (2022), National Education Policy2020: Issues and Challenges, Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science 10(2): 6-9.

Reinius H., Korhonen T., Hakkarainen K. (2021), The design of learning spaces matter perceived impact of the deskless school on learning and teaching, Learning Environments Research 24(1): 339-354.

Sangra A., Wheeler S. (2013), New Informal Ways of Learning: Or Are We Formalising the Informal, RUSC Universities and Knowledge Society Journal 10(1): 1-9.

Simanjuntak M., Martgrita M. M., Damanik Y. J., Pasaribu M. (2022), The Relevance of Learning Methods in Realising Student-Centred Transformative Learning, International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 21 (3): 359-378.

Sudradjat I. (2012), Foucault, the Other Spaces, and Human Behaviour, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 36(2): 28-34.

Webster H. (2008), Architectural Education after Schon: Cracks, Blurs, Boundaries, and Beyond, Journal for Education in the Built Environment 3(2): 63-74.

Wong S. C. (2023), Student-Centred Studio Environments: A Deep Dive into Architecture Students' Needs, International Journal of Current Science Research and Review 6(3): 1913-1921.

Wu X., Kou Z., Oldfield P., Heath T., Borsi K. (2021), Informal Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Student Preferences and Activities, Buildings 1 1 (6): 252-264.

Yau O. K., Chin D. C., Hsu C. H. (2023), Understanding and planning for informal learning space development: A case study in Hong Kong, Cogent Education 10(1): 1-18.

Zairul M. (2020), A thematic review on student-centred learning in the studio education, Journal of Critical Reviews 7(2): 504-51 1.

Zhang J., Ding D., Liu C., Luther M., Zhao J. (2022), Privacy and interaction preferences of students in informal learning spaces on university campus, Facilities 40(9): 638-655.