Teaching does, as every other interaction, take place somewhere. It is in other words surrounded by specific spatial conditions. A look inside educational institutions across Europe reveals a well established tradition for a spatial pattern, which one might call ‘1-teacher, 1-class, 1-room’. However, introduction of new technologies and new architectural ideas has in some cases been taken as point of departure for rethinking and reformulating spatial conditions, often conceptualized as ‘open learning environments’; and ‘transparency’. The objective of the main research project is to develop spatiality as didactical category in view to understand and describe how spatial conditions might influence teaching and learning and from here offer programs for didactical as well as architectural reflection on spatiality in relation to education and its participants. The research question in addressed in this presentation is, if and how differences in spatial conditions make a difference in students’ experience of interaction between fellow students from other projects. The theoretical glance is found in the concept of social and psychic systems as formulated by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann. Further it draws on authors’ previous use and empirical development of the theoretical concepts. Systems are with Luhmann described as self-referential, observing and learning units. Describing systems as self-referential mean that they refer to and produce themselves from themselves. They are functionally closed, but coupled to and able to observe their environment, systems in their environment and themselves and to use the generated information in learning processes and as point for departure for future events. Students are in this paper conceptualized as psychic systems, analytically neglecting that they as human beings also have a body. Social systems in the specific case refers to what Luhmann designates interactions systems. Spatial conditions may be observed by students and generate information, which together with other observations and expectations might influence their learning processes and how they participate in teaching. However, due to the self-referential operation mode, no causal relations can be made between spatial conditions and students’ observations and between students’ observations and their participation in interaction. Psychic and social systems operate in the medium meaning. Meaning can analytically be decomposed into three differences, or dimensions of meaning: the fact dimension; the temporal dimension and the social dimension. These three dimensions of meaning are used as guiding difference in order to come closer to how different spatial conditions appears to influence students experience of and expectations to interaction.

The study concerns a single case study on students placed in two different spatial contexts: Single-Group-Room (SGR) and Multiple-Group-Room (MGR). In SGR each group has their own room, whereas MGR is an open-space office. The point of observation is students and their experiences. Within the theoretical concept students’ experiences can not be observed directly, but must be observed from communicative forms. Information is produced from questionnaires and interviews asking students to reflect on advantages and disadvantages regarding SGR and MGR; their impression of other projects and the impact on their own project. The analytical procedure follows 3 steps. 1: Students’ descriptions of formal and informal interaction with other students are identified and categorized through the guiding differences: Fact dimension, temporality and social dimension. 2: For each guiding differences observations are grouped in thematic differences. 3: Differences in thematic differences – if any – are correlated to differences in spatial conditions.

MGR is experienced to afford better opportunities for inspiration than SGR. The dimensions of fact and temporality (what and when) do play a role for students’ experiences of access to inspiring interaction. However, social dimension emerge as the difference, which makes a difference, in relation to interaction. In MGR students feel free to engage in interaction because they experience themselves as a part of a community. In contrast students in SGR hesitate to enter another room, as they experience themselves intruding a private area. The findings indicate that spatiality can and should be seen as an active media in teaching and learning processes. The distinction between public and private areas, which is quite influent in SGR, indicates that territoriality can be one fruitful concept for understanding spatiality as a media in formation of teaching and learning processes. Further, concepts of self-exclusion/self-inclusion appear fruitful to describe students’ participation in interaction.