In his reflection on designing the audio/visual (AV) systems for the Taylor Institute (TI) at the University of Calgary, D’Arcy Norman highlighted the most important design principles followed throughout the build: transparency and flexibility. The studio spaces in the TI needed to embrace and complement the grand, light-filled open areas while enabling inspiring, adaptable, collaborative, and digitally-enriched learning experiences.
However, AV integration faced hurdles due to the TI’s substantial use of glass partitions—some of which are movable. This constraint may have driven innovation that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred. The implemented solutions were portable, adaptable, and capable, yet their complex architecture led to challenging troubleshooting scenarios. While such issues may be rare, they have the potential to quickly disrupt a class or presentation.
A significant success D’Arcy highlighted was the strong sense of community fostered by the TI space itself—as well as by its open access during idle times—which encourages human connection, collaboration, and experimentation. The author noted how the space naturally cultivates fun activities and creative endeavours due to its design and accessibility.
In the eight years since the build completion, I wonder if the strict adherence to transparency has had unintended consequences. If private or sensitive information is shared in a studio, how is privacy accommodated? Are these studios conducive to students and instructors who may need a space for quiet reflection, individual learning, or confidential discussions?
Another consideration is student learning in transparent spaces. Research by Beckers et al. (2016) found that such environments can increase visual distractions, potentially impeding learning efforts. There are also psychological impacts of transparency. Students might struggle to concentrate when they feel they are being observed. This might be amplified in those who have social anxiety. Transparency as a design principle may require more rigorous evaluation when applied in educational settings.
A modern solution could preserve privacy without compromising the space’s design integrity. Switchable privacy film allows glass to toggle between clear and opaque at the push of a button. This could address privacy concerns while also reducing distractions during learning, further enhancing the TI’s functionality while respecting its core design principles.
References
Beckers, R., van der Voordt, T., & Dewulf, G. (2016). Learning space preferences of higher education students. Building and Environment, 104, 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.013
Norman, D. (2017, March 11). Lessons learned: AV systems design in the Taylor Institute. darcynorman.net. https://darcynorman.net/2017/03/11/lessons-learned-av-systems-design-in-the-taylor-institute/
Sedgwick, P., & Greenwood, N. (2015). Understanding the Hawthorne effect. Bmj, 351. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4672
Hey Stephen,
Your reflection on the Taylor Institute’s design raises important considerations about the long-term impact of transparency in educational spaces. While D’Arcy Norman’s emphasis on flexibility and openness has clearly fostered collaboration and innovation, your concerns about privacy and distraction are valid, especially as educational needs evolve.
The issue of privacy is particularly compelling. Transparency promotes engagement but can inadvertently hinder confidential discussions or moments of quiet reflection. Your suggestion of switchable privacy film is a forward-thinking solution that balances design integrity with functional adaptability allowing the space to maintain its openness while accommodating diverse learning needs.
Additionally, your reference to Beckers et al. (2016) highlights an often-overlooked challenge: visual distractions and psychological impacts. While openness can encourage interaction, it may also create cognitive overload, particularly for students with social anxiety or those who require a more controlled environment for deep focus.
Ultimately, your critique underscores the importance of continuous evaluation in learning space design. The TI’s success in fostering collaboration is clear, but as you point out, integrating adjustable transparency solutions could enhance its inclusivity without compromising its original vision. This approach would ensure that the space remains both dynamic and adaptable to diverse learning styles and needs.
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your post – I appreciated your thoughts on transparency. Callan also focused on this, and both your posts made me think about transparency in digital spaces. You say “Students might struggle to concentrate when they feel they are being observed. This might be amplified in those who have social anxiety. Transparency as a design principle may require more rigorous evaluation when applied in educational settings.” I think this is particularly salient for digital spaces, and in particular it makes me think about online exam invigilation and the increasing surveillance (from a variety of sources) on our digital spaces. You provide some strategies for balancing this in F2F settings – what might this look like in an online space?
Thank you for the feedback.
Balancing transparency, privacy, and learning effectiveness in both physical and digital spaces requires data-driven decision making. For environments like the TI’s glass classrooms, leaders should leverage learning analytics, user feedback, and student performance data to inform decisions. Learning analytics, like engagement metrics from access logs or learning management systems, can reveal how students interact with transparent spaces—for example, tracking time spent in glass classrooms during peak versus off-peak hours. Similarly, tracking time spent in these spaces versus similarly capable but less transparent spaces. These insights, combined with academic-performance comparisons (e.g., grades in glass-walled vs. traditional classrooms), could reveal correlations between environmental design and learning outcomes.
Feedback on the perceived effectiveness of the transparent spaces could be gathered through anonymous surveys. Asking students and instructors questions like “How does the glass-walled environment affect your ability to focus?” or “Have you avoided these spaces for confidential discussions?” would provide valuable data. For instance, if 60% of students report feeling overexposed while using glass studios—and grades in those spaces are 10% lower than in opaque rooms—a case can be made for interventions like switchable privacy film. Evaluation of success could be measured through post-intervention surveys and analysing metrics like modulation of group bookings in the modified spaces or how frequently the privacy film is being toggled.
In digital contexts, similar principles apply. Surveillance tools like LockDown Browser, which many students describe as stressful and invasive, demonstrate the tension between academic integrity and psychological safety. I’ve had students share how such software exacerbates exam anxiety—that they struggle to concentrate when they feel they are being observed. Like the TI’s glass walls, digital monitoring can be perceived as prioritising transparency over trust. I’ve refrained from using digital proctoring software and have instead opted for trust-based, asynchronous projects that iterate on prior skill building.
Transparency’s impact on learning may not be obvious. It must be measured, refined, and balanced. Friction can arise when this clashes with other priorities like interior design or academic integrity. By measuring user experiences, performance data, and behavioural analytics, leaders can advocate for environments that foster collaboration without sacrificing privacy or academic rigor, whether through accessible architecture or inclusive edtech solutions. The goal is not to avoid transparency but to ensure it serves those who use these environments, both physically and digitally.