Schooling systems could be perceived through three main dimensions: students, the learning process
and the built environment portrayed in the school building. Each dimension comprises different
parameters. This research has chosen to focus on the spatial affordances of the school buildings
specifically the affordances of ‘informal learning spaces’ for students’ activities including ‘self-directed
learning’. Informal learning spaces are continuously overlooked within existing research. They are the
spaces outside classrooms: assembly spaces, dining areas and circulation corridors, where students take
initiatives to construct their own knowledge through different activities: reading a book, doing
homework, revising for exams. These activities are defined as self-directed learning. The theoretical
framing of this paper brings together the Gibsonian concept of spatial affordances i.e. possible actions
that occur in the built environment with the systematic study of potentialities arising from configuration
according to Space Syntax. Informal learning spaces will be evaluated through Bernstein’s concept of
classification and framing. Classification is the degree of boundary, which applies to the curriculum,
school system and more importantly the space itself. Framing is the locus of control, i.e. who controls
the process of learning and its material, which also applies to spatial control.
The paper investigates the design of two school buildings in London to explore the key design features
that could impact the students’ learning. Using interviews with architects and a detailed space syntax
analysis, it highlights the potential of various school spaces to afford the students’ activity patterns.
The design process and the configurational analysis indicate that both schools show differential
potentialities for self-directed learning. The degree of classification and framing influences the spread
of activities, especially the ones initiated by the students: self-directed learning. School A seems to
afford a horizontal grid distribution of activities along the main spine and the central arcade (lowest
Visual Mean Depth spaces). School B has an overall vertical organisation scheme around five
circulation networks and five house assembly spaces. The spatial configuration seems to afford the
spread of students’ activities within the assembly spaces. The design of school A is argued to represent
weak classification (boundaries) and strong framing (control). There are weak boundaries within the
open plan arcade space and spine. Accordingly, self-directed learning would potentially spread
organically along the building within low VMD spaces, when students need to be seen, mix and study
together: assembly spaces, wide corridors and arcade; and within high VMD spaces when students need
to concentrate: multi-use lab and study rooms. Still, the school communicates strong framing, due to
the high degree of control within the classical design of the closed classrooms and studios. The design
of school B is the opposite case of strong classification but weak framing. The school maintains strong
boundaries between the five houses and their assembly spaces. Activities could flourish within each
house boundaries and its dining area according to the management’s rules of dividing the building
(strong classification). The open large learning platforms called ‘super-studios’ maintain low degrees
of control over the learning activities, thus communicate weak framing. Insights presented in this paper
lay the foundation for understanding the potentiality of the main design components inside the schools
(assembly spaces, dining rooms, circulation spaces) to induce and accommodate students’ self- directed
learning, thus to be considered by architects in future school building design