INTRODUCTION

The stories that, in the form of parody, show that certain work environments in appearance and organization have remained virtually unchanged for decades are quite well known. Schools and classrooms are a repeated example. Seymour Papert, in his book The children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer, narrates the famous anecdote of a group of friends - surgeons and teachers - from the early 20th century who, wishing to see how much their profession would have changed in the future, travel back in time only to realize that surgeons would be unable to perform their work due to the great technological advances in this area, while teachers, in general terms, could perform their work without major problems (^{PAPERT, 1993}).

Similarly, Time magazine, in an article entitled How to bring our schools out of the 20th century, picks up on this story by relating what it would be like for a time traveler, using the character of Rip Van Winkle, if he were to move from the early years of the 20th century to our era. The text narrates that, at first, he would be surprised by the number of innovations present today: airports, hospitals, shopping malls, technological devices, etcetera. However, upon entering a classroom he would remark: "this is a school, we used to have them in 1906, only at that time the blackboards were green" (^{WALLIS; STEPTOE, 2006}, p. 50).

Undoubtedly, the above comparatives shed matter for analysis of various kinds, although the latent pointing suggests that the classroom is a type of model made in the last century and that it operates with certain characteristics that need to be transformed as the educational demands of the twenty-first century evolve. For example, ^{Castro (2015}) mentions that school spaces and architectures are a representation where pedagogical and political ideas are condensed and reflected, although in the same way, others are hidden and overlooked.

It is worth remembering that, with the massification of education in the first decades of the last century, the classroom as a primordial educational space was the result of the socio-cultural contexts where it emerged: a moment that had to meet the growing access of the school population and the application of a specific curriculum program through standardized techniques to make time and space more efficient. Consequently, today's school is heir to the educational and communicative practices that survive in the classroom. And without going any further, the simplest concept of the classroom, although at the same time the most symbolic and culturally charged, is the one that designates it as the main and most important place for learning (^{BROWN, 2005}).

Today, the criticism of the classroom space is that its structure, design and organization have installed a series of outdated practices, which need to be reevaluated. According to ^{Scolari (2011}), there is a gap between a dynamic and hyper-informed extracurricular reality and the slow and mono mediated times of the school institution. For his part, ^{Silva (2008}) argues that a communicational environment similar to that of television prevails in classrooms, that is, based on pedagogies of transmission, individual and contemplative reception. The metaphor is simple, the school is a space that works like the traditional or analogous media: models of communication and interaction with a single interlocutor (teacher) speaking to passive audiences (students). We could say, then, that the type of classroom organization and design infers a teaching mode with characteristics such as: a) uniformity, which is expressed in the way students are arranged to learn the same contents at the same time; b) unidirectionality, whose particularity lies in a linear communication and a single sender, and c) centrality, placed on the figure of the teacher as the protagonist of the learning process (^{SILVA, 2008}; ^{APARICI; SILVA, 2012 CORREA; DE PABLOS, 2009}).

In this context, it is possible to see that the classroom is the scenario where certain pedagogical and communicative methods with industrial reminiscences are carried out. As ^{Dussel (2010}) states, historically the school pedagogical organization:

[...] was structured on the basis of the frontal method, that is, a front-centered arrangement, with a point of attention on the adult figure and on a visual technology such as the blackboard, the poster or the religious image, which ordered the exchanges while establishing an asymmetrical and radial relationship between the teacher/adult and the students/children (^{DUSSEL, 2010}, p. 17).

The demand today lies in an unavoidable revision of the classroom to make its space work in favor of an educational practice that does not restrict students to watch, listen and remain silent - as an impassive audience - but rather serves as a catalyst for didactic, communicative and interactive innovations. This is articulated, in parallel, with the perspectives of the use and appropriation of digital technologies in education, which are intended to be factors for the dissemination and collective generation of knowledge through interactive and networked forms of communication and learning.

Since the last decade there has been a noticeable increase in articles, papers, books and even journalistic articles that address the issue of educational spaces. As a result, there has been a constant call: it is necessary to change, innovate or expand the classroom. We would say then that there are prolegomena in the study of the school space, which are carried out mainly from pedagogical, historical, sociological and architectural approaches. Within this context, it makes sense to incorporate essential fundamentals of communication, to the extent that such spaces are promoted as alternatives that improve aspects such as interaction, participation, collaboration, dialogue and with an almost inevitable presence of digital technologies.

It is also prudent to note that a common denominator underlies recent studies on the educational space: any transformation that takes place in the classroom entails a change in the practices that take place in it. In the publication Designing Spaces for Effective Learning: A Guide to 21st Century Learning Space Design, a reasoning along these lines is established: "Spaces are themselves agents of change. A modified space will change practice" (JISC, 2006, p. 30). In other words, when we speak of educational spaces, we are faced with a phenomenon that seeks to coin alternative forms to those of traditional classrooms and thus encourage educational practices aimed at improving teaching and learning processes. In such a way that the intentionality of innovating or transforming an educational space, such as classrooms, will invariably affect communicative practices due to the fact that interactions are modified, the hierarchies of educational agents are moved, participation and collaboration are stimulated. It is natural to understand that the latter evokes the interpretative frameworks of educational communication or educommunication.

It is true that universities all over the world have expressed very varied ideas about the renewal of their educational spaces, although certain types that have been gaining notoriety are on the horizon. Thus, this paper reflects on and analyzes some empirical experiences on educational spaces in different institutions under the epistemological lens of educational communication, which is noticeably absent in the discussion of this phenomenon. Through a broad-spectrum documentary study (articles, videos, reports) it is possible to offer arguments to reason about the value of the communicative field that is required in the research of this subject.

Thus, the aim of this text is to achieve a theoretical systematization and build an analytical scheme of educational spaces from the communication approach through a review of empirical experiences in schools. To this end, the analysis of four types of educational spaces is considered: active learning classroom, future classroom lab, classroom of the future and learning architectures. What is of interest is to observe how different notions of the communicative field are manifested in these cases and, with this, to add new approaches that contribute to the understanding of this topic.

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE NEW EDUCATIONAL SPACES

It is true that educational communication is the area that has focused most on studying the way in which the media (analog and digital) have been introduced into the school and, of course, the classroom is one of its main areas of work. Although, perhaps, this same field has not given due attention to the issue of educational spaces as a whole, being a subject that seeks to expand the physical, cultural and communicative approaches of the so-called traditional classrooms.

And while in Latin American regions the issue of educational spaces is usually linked to the purely aesthetic or equipment, in other regions, for example, it has been raised as an institutional task of gradual transformation. Without going any further, ^{Kariippanon, Cliff, Lancaster, Okely and Parrish (2019}) point out that in Australia, at least 25% of classrooms can no longer be classified as traditional and boast a feature that adjudicates them as new educational spaces or learning spaces for new generations.

However, talking about educational spaces is a rather open topic in educational discourse, but there are already defined lines of action in empirical projects that have become relevant in recent years. The aim of these projects is to innovate or reconvert the classroom and create spaces capable of promoting active learning, supporting collaborative work as a formal practice, providing a personalized and inclusive environment, as well as being flexible to the changing needs of educational scenarios (^{BROOKS, 2011}).

The book edited by ^{Oblinger (2006}) is a reference for this topic, since in his publication Learning Spaces the theoretical relevance of spaces in current educational times is glimpsed. This approach promotes a field of study that emphasizes:

In our understanding, an educational space can be defined as a catalyst of pedagogical practices (linked to active, collaborative, constructivist learning processes); communicative practices (linked to dialogic processes, exchange, conversations) and interaction practices (linked to the appropriation of digital technologies to have a networked ecosystem). It is in higher education where the design of spaces that modify the common denominator of the classroom has been most explored, although interventions have recently taken place in elementary and secondary education.

It is worth mentioning that ^{Radcliffe (2009}) proposed a referential framework for the design of these new environments, arguing that space, pedagogy and technology are the three guiding principles from which this phenomenon should be approached. He emphasizes that this triad should guide the changes required in classrooms, and that innovation should observe social changes, the patterns of younger generations, emerging technologies, as well as student-centered learning models (^{RADCLIFFE, 2009}). The framework proposed by the author (Illustration 1) suggests not a particular model or design of space, but rather a reference for decision-makers, teachers and educational authorities to consider when building a project of these characteristics.

Source: ^{RADCLIFFE, 2009}.

Figure 1 Reference framework for the design and evaluation of Pedagogy-Space-Technology (PST) learning spaces. 

A reformulation of the previous scheme can be seen in Hernández Gutiérrez (2015) where the dimension of communication is added, since it is understood that every educational space is a communicative space and, therefore, the intentionality of innovating the classroom tries to:

Thus, in Illustration 2 it can be seen that the study of educational spaces is situated in a perspective that takes into account the physical connotation (i.e., the classroom space -including other places in the school center-) as an object of study where the relationship and interconnection that such environments provide in the pedagogical, communicative and didactic practice, supported by the use of digital technologies, is analyzed.

Source: ^{HERNÁNDEZ GUTIÉRREZ, 2015}.

Illustration 2 Study dimensions of educational spaces. 

THE PANORAMA OF EDUCATIONAL SPACES

At this point, it is important to affirm that the study of educational spaces invites us to reevaluate the role played by certain types of classrooms and their physical environment in order to propose alternative ways to innovate their organization. Accordingly, Gabriel Rshaid emphasizes that most of the current classrooms or classrooms are not designed to deploy pedagogies designed for the needs of the 21st century, since, emphasizes the author: "Anyone who walks through a classroom can notice that there are things about the physical space used for teaching that need to be changed" (^{RSHAID, 2011}, chapter 7, para. 1). In this sense, the criticism falls on the dynamics that have been generated, where lectures, immobile chairs facing the front where the teacher is located and activities that evoke the transmission of information in a unidirectional manner predominate. Referring to this typology, there are more and more voices that warn that if we want to promote more active and participatory methods of teaching and learning, it will be necessary to think seriously about altering and innovating this educational space.

It is true that encompassing the new classroom prototypes or models is an arduous task that disrupts several areas of study. Therefore, methodologically, the writing of this paper has a conceptual delimitation, which is located in the identification of projects whose objective is the intervention, modification or innovation of the classroom to provide a new educational space. The analyses presented here come from a wide specialized bibliography, since they are the results of research that has been published in academic journals, chapters and books. There is even a scientific journal focused on the subject (see Journal of Learning Spaces of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro). In addition, there is a wide range of video materials where it is possible to observe interviews, reports and chronicles, which favors the approach for the qualitative analysis. Thus, based on the empirical experiences that have been explored, it is possible to make a classification in which designs based on: a) active learning; b) learning zones; c) technology with interactive interface; and d) learning architectures stand out.

EDUCATIONAL SPACES TODAY: A REFLECTION FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATION.

As has been noted, in recent times there has been a flourishing of empirical projects of educational spaces, which in turn would demand more than ever to subtract theoretical contributions from the communicative field. In this sense, the first communicative argument that stands out in the experiences of this phenomenon is related to the type of communication model that prevails in the classroom, which, in turn, determines the organization and educational practices within the classroom. For example, Cano and Lledó (1990, in ^{GAMBOA, 2015}), for almost three decades ago, noted that the relevance of educational spaces implies thinking about an active spatial organization with underlying principles such as: fluid interaction capable of uniting the group; adequate contact with diverse materials and activities for cognitive, affective and social learning processes; capacity outwards, transcending the classroom walls and diversifying the possible scenarios, and inwards, with areas suitable for deploying specific actions, and with communication with cooperative and collaborative characteristics where everyone is a sender and receiver.

It is worth noting, in the first instance, that one of the elements present in the study of educational spaces involves the redefinition of the basic model of emission-message-reception, a process that up to now is still in force in the ways of conducting and organizing the classroom. In this regard, ^{Scolari (2011}) argues that education is heir to a mono media model: centered on the book; with the role of the teacher as a mediator of knowledge, and with a specific discursive order to carry out the teaching and learning process. In the same vein, we can speak of the existence of a transmissive pedagogy characterized as a teaching practice with a unidirectional sense, and which has much in common with the traditional media (^{SILVA, 2008}; ^{APARICI; SILVA, 2012}).

The idea of the single speaker in the classroom or the enthronement of the teacher as the center of learning are preconceptions that need to be reformed in learning spaces. ^{Silva (2008}) suggests that for the construction of the classroom as a space in which the teacher can guarantee collective confrontation and collaborative learning, it is necessary to modify the conventional communication model of passive reception and consumption of preconstructed knowledge for students. We speak, therefore, of a communication produced by both, since there are no speakers, but interlocutors. Linked to the above, an example worth mentioning is that of the Institute of Design at Stanford University, where, according to ^{Doorley and Witthoft (2012}), classrooms have the quality of not distinguishing or differentiating between who is teaching and who is learning, since they seek to establish a status of equality in the institution between teachers and students.

Consequently, it is reiterated the comparison made of the conventional classroom with traditional media, where an invariability of the communicational model is attributed, since the structure, layout and organization are sustained in a linear and centralized mode. Thus, it has become evident that there is a gap between this "analog" space (the classroom) and the forms of culture that are emerging in the digital era, despite the fact that education is a field that has benefited from digital technologies. Hence, strictly speaking, the architecture of the classroom is the antithesis of the architecture of the network, since while the former moves under linear parameters of communication, the latter obeys hypertextual, hyper medial and continuous interaction forms. Therefore, making the classroom more flexible implies a break with its current communicative design to give way to new figures that reorient educational practices.

Following ^{Silva (2008}), it can be said that the language of the classroom is that of an analog medium, with all the communicative load that this entails. In a comparison between a traditional classroom and an analog media, we can interpret that in both cases, students and audience are predominantly situated as receivers. On the other hand, the role of the teacher evokes the centrality of the teaching process by acting as a transmitter of unidirectional messages in an act derived from the notion of the professorship; that reserved and exclusive place from where the teacher gives lessons to his students.

In short, as long as there is a single idea about how the classroom should look and be, we are replicating a type of scenario where a communicative model that is not very interactive prevails, which evidences the need to open this study horizon for educational communication approaches. Returning to the words of Rshaid:

The use, design and configuration of space within the school constitute personal and unique decisions for each educational community. But what clearly emerges is that a 21st century pedagogy can only be developed and implemented in spaces that need to be reconfigured beyond the industrial model of teacher-facing desks. And, returning to a primary tenet of architecture, in this context of education, function pursues form (^{RSHAID, 2011}, chapter 7, section 18, para. 2).

Let us also note, then, that the approaches for educational spaces point towards an articulation with the surrounding reality, that is, with the so-called digital culture. It is at this point where a second argumentation of the communicative field emerges, which is a signaling to form ecosystems thought and linked to the modes and practices that happen in the real world of young people.

The examples cited above confer an important potential to the use of digital technologies. Although it should be clarified that they do not do so from a position of inclusion (programs of this type have been carried out in classrooms for decades), but in the search for environments that enable and facilitate a type of ecology to promote and support educational practices. Now, thinking about educational spaces articulated with digital culture, above all, implies a concurrence of the notions of appropriation and interaction. As defined by ^{Crovi (2017}), in digital culture new modes of socialization, identities, behaviors and coexistence emerge that are sustained in the appropriation of digital resources, as well as in the deployment of interactions in continuous transfers from social networks to the everyday world and vice versa. This is why studies on educational spaces speak of an evolution that takes advantage of the potential of cyberculture in dynamics orchestrated towards appropriation, interaction and dialogue.

^{Deuze (2006}) has expressed that digital culture can be seen as an emerging set of values, practices and expectations regarding the way people interact (or should interact) within today's society. As such, a digital culture cannot exist without society having proceeded to its conformation and functioning. For this reason, in educational spaces, elements consistent with digital culture are emphasized, since they have a character: a) mediated by instruments and signs, which are culturally defined; b) social, due to the relationships that are linked to the historical context, and c) communicative, due to the participation of subjects in collectivities through social interaction (physically and virtually). Somehow, in the design observed in the proposals for new educational spaces, connecting links are woven between school culture and out-of-school culture to confer modes of interaction capable of activating relational processes among subjects. Although at the beginning of the text it was mentioned that classrooms would seem to be historically immutable structures, let us remember that the school space "is a specific spatial context, in permanent movement and configuration, in relation to that context, its history and the subjects that inhabit it" (^{CASTRO, 2015}, p. 211).

Therefore, revisiting the classroom to transform it is a broad task that, among other things, must consider a flexible organization; of methods capable of executing active and participatory pedagogical practices, and where the environment allows symmetrical, dialogic communication processes with varying degrees and types of interaction. It is therefore a reconceptualization to manage an educational and communicative space that allows extending interaction, facilitating modes of communication and collaboration, formulating new roles, influencing pedagogical and didactic methods, in short, proposing a new learning space. Gamboa comments that "if there is a place within the school that should be distinguished for offering flexibility in terms of the arrangement and arrangement of the furniture it contains, of the tools it offers, and even of the space to which one has access, it is the classroom" (^{GAMBOA, 2017}, p. 167).

With all of the above, it has been intended to emphasize that the theme of educational spaces from the perspective of communication is not only an aesthetic revisionism of the classroom or the inclusion of digital technologies. The elements that are present in the empirical projects mentioned above contain unavoidable communicative aspects, so that, with the contributions of authors and concepts mentioned in this area of study, it is feasible to expand and enrich the theoretical and practical framework of this phenomenon. Many of the principles that are sought with the transformation of the classroom have to do with the ability to move the student away from a passive and receptive posture; to provide a space for participatory and collaborative flows; to take significant advantage of technological media and digital environments; to establish relationships of interaction and collective learning; to encourage critical and reflective thinking, in short, to provide a liberating educational space, emphasizing that all of the above are axioms of educational communication. Kaplún asserted: "Tell me what communication you practice and I will tell you what education you advocate" (^{KAPLÚN, 1998}, p. 220), to which we could suggest and add: tell me what educational spaces you design and I will tell you what communication and education you promote.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

There is a perceived deficit in the field of communication (especially educational communication) within the studies, research and empirical projects of educational spaces. This is in spite of the fact that there are sufficient arguments to warn that notions linked to this field underlie the design of such spaces. For example, in the projects of spaces described above, there is talk of establishing a more horizontal organization; encouraging collaborative and social learning; promoting the use of active methodologies and diversifying interactions (group, with digital technologies, in networks, etc.). In view of this, it is feasible to point out that such premises correspond to the lines of study of educational communication.

It can be stated that an educational space is, above all, a communicative space whose cognitive, social and cultural demands require a revision of the prevailing communicative model, which in many cases is anchored to models of the past century, with pedagogies based on transmission, memorization and passive reception. Consequently, it is prudent to say that such educational and communicative practices do not meet all the expectations and challenges that the school is called upon to face in the 21st century.

Educational spaces are exploring ways to adapt to the current context and connect with the forms that unfold in the digital culture. This is the basis for considering that the configuration of school spaces is seeking to transcend the instrumental part of technology inclusion or the individual-machine interaction towards environments that are an important part of the processes of social appropriation of technologies, and to assign new meanings to the processes of interaction and knowledge generation in students.

Recovering the notions of communication in general, as well as educational communication in particular, for the study of educational spaces is a principle of theoretical congruence that can help against the inevitable attacks that the educational sector constantly suffers from commercial, technocentric and instrumental visions. Therefore, it is substantial to add communicative approaches to broaden the debate when discussing and futurizing the classroom and all its possible innovations. In this way, we will have more theoretical anchors (together with the existing ones) to locate the true essence of educational action.