“The Future Classroom Is Not Defined by Tools, but by the Relationships It Enables” Intensive Course with JYU's participation in MOME, Hungary

“The future classroom is not defined by tools, but by the relationships it enables.”

“Why do we still design classrooms for sitting still, when learning itself is active, physical, and social?”

“Education today often prioritizes efficiency over engagement, leading to disengagement, lack of motivation, and a weakening sense of trust between students and teachers.”

These statements, developed and presented by student teams, offer a precise entry point into the Future Classroom course delivered at Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design (MOME) in February 2026. They function as diagnoses—articulations of tensions observed across contemporary educational systems.

Over the course of one intensive week, students from architecture, design, interaction design, and teacher education translated conceptual frameworks into spatial proposals—moving from critique to design.

From Diagnosis to Design

The student projects reveal a consistent shift in focus. Rather than beginning with technology or spatial novelty, they start with perceived misalignments in education.

One group articulated the issue as a breakdown of trust and engagement. Another questioned the persistence of passive learning structures. A third summarised their position in a single line:

“We don’t need smarter classrooms. We need more meaningful learning situations.”

This orientation shaped the design outcomes. Proposals did not prioritise technological sophistication. Instead, they explored how spatial arrangements, movement, and interaction patterns could support agency, collaboration, and attention.

Reframing the Classroom Through Convergence

These outcomes reflect the conceptual framing introduced at the beginning of the course. Drawing on Prof. Hong’s framework of convergence education, participants were asked to approach the classroom not as a fixed typology, but as a point of integration between multiple dimensions—knowledge, value, experience, thinking, method, and policy.

Within this perspective, the classroom becomes a site where fragmentation is either reproduced or challenged. As one team noted:

“Learning fails not because of content, but because the system separates what should be connected.”

This insight guided the transition from analysis to design. Students were not tasked with creating idealised future spaces, but with proposing environments that actively mediate between these dimensions.

Space as a Condition of Learning

The role of spatial design became particularly visible through the integration of architectural and sensory perspectives, supported by Prof. Püspök. His focus on lighting and atmosphere introduced an additional layer of analysis, which was further reinforced through feedback from Dóra Szentandrási.

Students began to consider how spatial conditions—light, layout, materiality—shape attention and interaction. One group described this shift explicitly:

“Space is not where learning happens. It is part of how learning happens.”

This repositioning moved design beyond form. It framed space as an active condition within the learning process.

From Collaborative Concepts to Team Actions

The course structure supported this progression. After initial framing, students moved quickly into collaborative work, forming interdisciplinary teams and developing early ideas. This was followed by a phase of focused research and problem definition, where key tensions were identified and articulated.

Midweek, the emphasis shifted to prototyping. Students translated their concepts into spatial scenarios—through sketches, layouts, and interaction models. Daily feedback loops—combining pedagogical, design, and architectural perspectives—ensured that ideas remained open to revision while gaining precision.

The resulting projects did not converge toward a single model. Instead, they sharpened around distinct positions.

Emerging Directions

Across the presentations, several directions became clear:

• A move away from hierarchical classroom structures toward more distributed and flexible environments
• An emphasis on embodiment, allowing for movement, variation, and physical engagement
• A focus on relational dynamics—between students, teachers, and learning tools
• A critical stance toward technology as a driver, positioning it instead as one element within a broader ecology

These directions are captured in another concise formulation:

“The challenge is not to design new spaces, but to redesign relationships.”

Learning Beyond Disciplinary Boundaries

From a pedagogical perspective, the course demonstrates the potential of transdisciplinary formats. Students were required to work across disciplinary boundaries, integrating perspectives from education, design, and technology.

This process did not eliminate differences between fields. It made them visible and productive. Students had to negotiate between conceptual frameworks and material constraints, between pedagogical intentions and spatial possibilities.

Toward an Integrated View of Learning Environments

The collaboration between JYU, KNUE, and MOME highlights how international partnerships can support this kind of work. Each institution contributes a distinct perspective—educational theory, systemic analysis, spatial design—none of which is sufficient in isolation.

At the same time, the involvement of MOME’s leadership, including Réka Matheidesz, signals that such initiatives are not limited to experimental teaching formats but are increasingly seen as strategic platforms for long-term institutional collaboration.

The course does not produce a definitive model of the future classroom. Instead, it establishes a working approach: to treat learning environments as integrated systems, shaped by the interaction of human, spatial, and technological factors.

In this context, the student statements that opened this text are not conclusions. They are starting points—indicators of where future work in both research and design might productively begin.