Justification of the Concept of Mobile Educational Spaces: a Study on Typology and Sustainability

• Authors: Julija Aleksić , Saja Kosanović , Dragan Komatina , Eva Vaništa Lazarević
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The overall human progress continuously stimulates the transformation of the notion of architecture and enhances the development of new architectural forms. In line with the thesis that only sustainable architecture allows the fulfilment of contemporary requirements to full extent, this paper explores the variety of developed mobile educational spaces, classifies them into types and analyses their sustainability aspects. The analysis aims to define the cases and needs to which mobile educational spaces respond best, i.e. according to which their utilization is justifiable. The results open a new research debate on the relationship between sustainability and the duration of utilization.

Keywords

EN

Typology of mobile educational spaces; social-pedagogical- physical interrelations; ecological considerations; economic sustainability

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Architecture and Urban Planning
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 10
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 55-59

Dates

published

2015-12-01

online

2016-02-03

Contributors

author

Julija Aleksić

• University of Priština

author

Saja Kosanović

• University of Priština

author

Dragan Komatina

• University of Montenegro

author

Eva Vaništa Lazarević

• University of Belgrade

References

• 1. Leander, K., Philips, N., Headrick Taylor, K. The changing social spaces of learning : Mapping new nobilities. Review of Research in Education, Vol.34. Nashville, 2010 [online, cited 22.08.2014]. http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/departments/tl/teaching_and_learning_research/space_learning_mobility/Leander_social_spaces.pdf DOI: 10.3102/0091732X09358129[Crossref]
• 2. Taylor, A. Linking Architecture and Education : Sustainable Design for Learning Environments. Albuquerque: UNM Press, 2009. 471 p.
• 3. Kronenburg, R. Architecture in motion : the history and development of portable building. London, New York: Routledge, 2013. 328 p.
• 4. Kronenburg, R. Flexible : Architecture that responds to change. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd, 2007. 240 p.
• 5. Pit, M., Steller, K., Streng, G. Parasitic architecture [online, cited 24.07.2014] http://www.gerjanstreng.eu/files/T02%20essay%20parasitic%20architecture.pdf
• 6. Marini, S. Parasitical architecture [online]. Domus [cited 25.08.2014] http://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2010/05/10/parasitical-architecture.html
• 7. BMW Guggenheim Lab Berlin : Pfefferberg Complex [online]. Open Buildings [cited 27.08.2014]. http://openbuildings.com/buildings/bmw-guggenheim-lab-berlin-pfefferberg-complex-profile-43968
• 8. Buchmeier, M.,Slawik, H., Tinney, S., Bergmann, J. [editors] Container Atlas : A Practical Guide to Container Architecture. Berlin: Gestalten, 2010. 256 p.
• 9. Sprout spaces vs. cheap classroom trailers [online]. Modular Classrooms [cited 27.08.2014] http://www.modularclassrooms.org/sprout-spaces-vscheap-classroom-trailers/
• 10. Chan T. C. Do portable classrooms impact teaching and learning? Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 47/3. Kennesaw, 2009. pp. 290-304.[Crossref]
• 11. Moldakhmetova, A. Flexible architecture : from mobility to adaptability/ An interview with Robert Kronenburg [online]. Future Urbanism [cited 27.08.2014] http://futureurbanism.strelka.com/interview/from-mobility-to-adaptability/
• 12. Aleksić, J., Mihajlović,V., Jovanović, T. Cost-benefit analysis of shipping container emergency shelters : the case study of the Republic of Serbia. Actual Problems of Economics, Vol. 8 (158). Kiev, 2014. p. 56-66.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/aup-2015-0008