27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
A Posthuman Theoretical Model for Bildung: A Key Step Towards Improving Teaching for Bildung (as Powerful Knowings).
Paul Clucas, Jesper Sjöström
Malmö University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Clucas, Paul
Situated in relation to the recent use of the construct Powerful Knowings in Scandinavian and German didaktik, this paper develops a posthuman theoretical model for Bildung based on a diffractive reading through of two contemporary works: Iain McGilchrist’s “The master and his emissary - The divided brain and the making of the Western world” (2007) and Karen Barad’s “Meeting the universe halfway - Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning” (2009). The model’s development is seen as a key step in a larger project oriented towards improving teaching for Bildung (as Knowings) in science and technology education, but also, in relation to this, in opening for empirical investigations of both Bildung-oriented teacher praxis and student outcomes. In this way the model’s development may be of valuable importance with regard to with fundamental questions of Scandinavian and German didaktik (What is important to learn? How should it be taught, and Why?), as well the question of what Bildung and didaktik might mean for us in today’s increasingly complex societies.
As part of a response to the loss of a content discourse within educational research (see for example Biesta, 2009), as well as a need of a reorientation in school towards navigating today’s complexity and challenges stemming from the issues of socio-ecojustice and human impacts on the systems of the Earth, there is interest in science education research in the use of the construct Powerful Knowings (e.g. Carlgren, 2020; Yavuzkaya, Clucas and Sjöström, 2022). A question requiring further exploration in this regard is how science and technology educators (at all school levels) can more purposefully teach for Knowings in their science and technology teaching.
Powerful Knowings are linked to a situating of Young and colleagues’ (Young, 2013; Young and Muller, 2013) idea of powerful knowledge in relation to the Scandinavian and German didaktik educational tradition and Bildung (Carlgren, 2020). As a central element of the Scandinavian and German didaktik educational tradition (e.g., Sjöström and Eilks, 2018), Bildung emphasizes learning and change that takes place based in a perspective of humans as relating with and indivisible from ‘the whole of their context’ (e.g. von Humboldt, 2000; Kvamme, 2021). A central idea in this respect is of the Bildung person as someone who intentionally opens themselves to learning and change through their relating, and of becoming capable of responding responsibly and ethically to key issues associated with ‘the whole of their context’ (Kvamme, 2021). Crucially then, by situating powerful knowledge in relation to Bildung, Subject-Knowings are seen as powerful content knowledges that include embodied and relational dimensions (Yavuzkaya, Clucas and Sjöström, 2022).
Recently there has been an interest in developing a posthuman understanding of Bildung which more purposely seeks to broaden what is understood by ‘the whole of the person’s context’ to include all entities making up our world (Taylor, 2017). In this paper we seek to further develop Bildung as understood through posthumanism by drawing largely from a diffractive reading through of Karen Barad’s agential realist ontology (2007) and McGilchrist’s divided brain hypothesis (2009). The purpose of the larger project is to develop a framework that can be drawn from in guiding science and technology educators (at all school levels) in more purposefully teaching for Bildung (as Knowings) in their science and technology teaching.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedResearch design to develop model
As two ontological theoretical perspectives, both McGilchrist’s and Barad’s works draw from a view in which a substance ontology is seen as a dominant position in Western society and the cause of exclusions affecting both humans and non-humans. Further, both works build arguments that support a shift to a relational ontological position in order to address these exclusions. Importantly, we believe this idea connects both works to (posthuman) Bildung. Despite their commonalities, both works diverge however in terms of their disciplinary and epistemological anchoring. We believe this provides a fruitful space for performing a ‘diffractive reading through’ (Barad, 2007). As a post-qualitative methodology, ‘diffractive reading through’ seeks to generate something completely new by bringing two works into a conversation with one another (ibid).
McGilchrist’s divided brain hypothesis. McGilchrist (2009) describes the two hemispheres of the brain as giving rise to two divergent ‘personalities’. The first, that of the left hemisphere, is mastery focused. The second, that of the right hemisphere, is relationship focused. McGilchrist suggests that the right hemisphere should have primacy, but that since the Enlightenment the left has taken the role of primacy (ibid). Hence, rather than living primarily in a relating with the world, as in right brain primacy, Western culture today is characterised by a brain activation primarily oriented to living in the world as it is represented (ibid).
Barad’s agential realism. Barad’s (2007) agential realism marks a stepping away from a substance ontology towards a relational ontology (Murris, 2018). As such, objects and subjects are no longer seen as distinct entities with specific properties/characteristics, but as a part of ‘phenomena’, which are entities in entanglement whereby entanglements are viewed as preceding entities’ coming into existence (Lenz Taguchi, 2012). At the center of Barad’s theory is their ethico-onto-epistemology which points to entities coming to be and know simultaneously in entanglement, and to an innate ethics amongst phenomena (2007).
Diffractive analysis
The materials for analysis are active performative agents in continual (re-)becoming (Magnusson, 2021). I – as a subject – am a part of the world, continually (re-)becoming as a part of a multitude of entanglements that are (re-)worlding me in the Anthropocene, with one entanglement being Bildung. This entanglement underlies the marks left on my body as it (re-)becomes through diffraction (Barad, 2007). I am attentive to differences being made, to how one text adds something new to the other (ibid).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsResults reveal a multi-step framework (to be illustrated in figures that will be presented at the conference). Note that although the results draw primarily from the diffractive reading through, additional perspectives have also been valuable. In our conference presentation we will provide a full description of all literature contributing to the model as well as literature supporting ideas postulated by the model.
Regarding guiding science and technology educators (at all school levels) in more purposefully teaching for Knowings, we think two ideas postulated by the framework, that of ‘powerful artefacts’ (as material entities in entanglement (Barad, 2007) embodying Subject-Knowings) and ‘interdependence resonating’ (describing an embodied awareness (Fogel, 2009) for being ontologically bound to other entities (Barad, 2007)), might be valuable. As phenomena embodying a relational ontology, ‘powerful artefacts’ are material-discursive practices that describe a crafting of humans and non-humans in mutuality. ‘Powerful artefacts’, in their generation, exist within a relational ontological space. That is, they open to humans re-becoming in entanglement with non-humans in a manner that opens to an ethico-onto-epistemological awareness in humans as ‘interdependence resonating’. In a posthuman Bildung perspective (Taylor, 2017) this means that ‘powerful artefacts’ are the material-discursive outcomes of a posthuman Bildung that also embody the capacity to guide other humans towards relationships for posthuman Bildung.
As practices in science and technology education, ‘powerful artefacts’ might be viewed therefore as relational ontological spaces that involve a crafting in mutuality (between human and non-humans) that open to students coming to know science and technology knowledges as ethical and relational knowledges, that is, as Knowings. We think therefore that ‘powerful artefacts’ and ‘interdependence resonating’ are ideas that can guide science and technology educators (at all school levels), among many others, in more purposefully teaching for Knowings in their teaching.
ReferencesBarad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational. Assessment Evaluation and Accountability. 21, 33–46.
Carlgren, I. (2020). Powerful knowns and powerful knowings. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52, 323–336.
Fogel, A. (2009). The psychophysiology of self-awareness. W. W. Norton.
Kvamme, O. A. (2021). Rethinking bildung in the anthropocene: the case of wolfgang klafki. HTS Teologiese Studies. 77(3), a6807.
Lenz Taguchi, H. (2012). A diffractive and Deleuzian approach to analysing interview data. Feminist Theory, 13, 265–281.
Magnusson, l. O. (2021). Visual research material and diffractive readings – a relational research story. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 34,(3), 183–196.
McGilchrist, Iain (2009). The Master and his Emissary: The divided brain and the making of the western world. Yale University Press.
Murris, K. (2018). Posthuman Child and the Diffractive Teacher: Decolonizing the Nature/Culture Binary. In A. Cutter-Mackenzie et al. (Eds.), Research Handbook on Childhoodnature, (pp 1-25). Springer.
Sjöström, J., and Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science education based on the concept of Bildung. In Y. Dori, Z. Mevarech, and D. Baker (Eds.) Cognition, Metacognition, and Culture in STEM Education: Learning, Teaching and Assessment, (pp 65–88). Springer.
Taylor, C. A. (2017). Is a posthumanist Bildung possible? Reclaiming the promise of Bildung for contemporary higher education. Higher Education, 74, 419–435.
von Humboldt, W. (2000). Theory of Bildung. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, and K. Riquarts (Eds.) Teaching As A Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik Tradition, (pp 57–61). Routledge.
Yavuzkaya, M., Clucas, P. & Sjöström, J. (2022). ChemoKnowings as Part of 21st Century Bildung and Subject Didaktik, Frontiers in Education, 7, 869156.
Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: a knowledge- based approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45,101–118.
Young, M., and Muller, J. (2013). On the powers of powerful knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 1, 229–250.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Participation of Industrial Actors in the Didactic Transposition of Educational Content
Maria Andrée1, Lena Hansson2
1Stockholm University, Sweden; 2University of Kristianstad, Sweden
Presenting Author: Andrée, Maria;
Hansson, Lena
In this study, we target the role and the work of science teachers when encountering teaching resources produced by industry and offered to schools to support science and technology teaching. The project is set in the intersection of curriculum studies, educational policy and didactics and focuses on industry-produced teaching resources offered to schools by companies and business organizations in various areas of science and technology.
There are many examples of such teaching resources across Europe. In Sweden, examples include textbooks produced by the forest industry on forests and forestry or on plastics by the petrochemical industry, as well as lesson plans with films and student worksheets by the meat industry on antibiotics. Similarly, Parvin and Stephenson (2004) conclude that there is a long tradition of industrial engagement in the UK involving the manufacturing industry and the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. To date, previous research on science and technology education has pointed to that teaching might benefit from industry collaboration e.g., in terms of increased student motivation and challenging stereotypic images of science, technology, and industry (e.g. Henriksen et al., 2015; Loukomies, 2013).
However, when industrial actors engage in education, they also act to influence the transposition of the educational content (cf. Chevellard, 2007). According to Chevellard (2007, p. 32) a core to the theory of didactic transposition is that “it considers knowledge as a changing reality, which adapts to its institutional habitat where it occupies a more or less narrow niche”. In other words, the content of education is not merely defined and set in curricula and syllabuses but set in praxis, in a dialectic of persons and institutions. Rather, what constitutes knowledge or content of a school subject is what has “gained epistemic recognition from some culturally dominant institutions” (op cit, p.133).
In the Swedish context, there is a range of industrial education initiatives including school programmes, competitions, festivals and other event-based initiatives (cf. Teknikdelegationen, 2010). It has been estimated that about 40% of the STEM initiatives in Sweden are in some way financed by industry and the private sector (op cit). In the production of teaching resources industry actors seek to influence what is considered knowledge; what is considered true and valuable. In doing so, the industrial actors become part of the local governing of education (Robertson et al., 2012; Giroux, 2019). In Canada, Eaton & Day (2020) show how the oil industry influences the messages communicated in science teaching on climate and climate change. Thus, when teachers incorporate and make use of such resources this will impact the students’ encounters with the school subjects. In decentralized school systems, such as the ones in the Nordic countries, classroom practices become particularly vulnerable to such external influences (Carlgren, 2009).
The aim of this presentation is to discuss the interests of industry actors in education and how teachers can navigate such interests in the didactic transposition of knowledge in education. This presentation synthesizes a three-year project on the participation of industry actors in science and technology education where the following research questions have been investigated:
-
What are the rationales used by industry actors to account for why they engage in science and technology education?
-
To which extent are these rationales mirrored as interests in the teaching resources offered by the industry to schools?
-
And, how do teachers approach the evaluation of teaching resources offered by the industry?
In the presentation we will present the main points of three sub-studies and engage in a meta-reflection regarding how the combined results may contribute to the understanding of the processes of didactic transposition and the role of different actors.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe project is based on three sets of data: (I) Web pages where industrial actors (companies as well as business organizations) describe their engagement in school activities in Sweden. (II) A case study of webinars where industry actors meet with students in webinars. The topic of webinars was career in the petrochemical industry and the target-group was students in secondary school. The webinar series was organized by Scientix - an organization aiming to promote and support a Europe-wide collaboration among STEM teachers - in collaboration with STEM Alliance and the European Petrochemical Association (EPCA). The analyzed data included screen recordings of the webinars (including video, voice and text messages) published on the Scientix webpage, and documentation associated with the webinars on the Scientix web page., (III) Focus groups with 20 science and technology teachers who teach science and technology in Swedish compulsory schools.
The analyses of data varied across the three substudies: (I) In the analysis of web pages, we looked for patterns in the descriptions of and rationales for the industrial STEM initiatives using a theoretical framework of interpretative repertoires (Potter, 1998). We focussed on the variations in the ways in which the industrial actors accounted for their engagement in single STEM initiatives as well as across accounts of different initiatives by different actors. (II) In the analysis of the Scientix case-study, we conducted a qualitative thematic analysis (Braun & Clark, 2006) concerning companion meanings (Östman, 1998) about the relations between the petrochemical industry, society and the environment that were communicated to students in the webinars. (III) In the analysis of the focus groups we have used an ecological model of teacher agency (Priestley, Biesta, & Robinson, 2015) to scrutinize how the teachers negotiate the usability of the industry resources.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWhen industry actors describe why they engage in science and technology education, they draw on discursive repertoires which allow them to speak to an audience of both shareholders and teachers, e.g., increasing students’ interest and knowledge, but also economically oriented discourses, e.g., securing competent labor and improving the public image of the industry (Andrée & Hansson, 2020). In the industry-student webinars the main message to students is that the petrochemical industry is pivotal for handling environmental problems and maintaining modern life. Thus, the meetings clearly serve the industry interests. In addition, the results from the focus groups show that there is no consensus among teachers regarding the relevance and legitimacy of taking biases into account in their evaluations of teaching resources (Andrée & Hansson, 2022). Thus, the risks in relation to objectivity are not always evident to the teachers, even though teachers, on a collective level, engage in complex didactic analysis taking steering documents, teaching traditions, correctness, and potential biases into account (Andrée & Hansson, 2021).
The results contribute to highlighting the complexity of didactic transposition when it involves different actors, networks and interactions in the transpositive work (cf. Chevellard & Bosch, 2020). The results show the role of industrial actors in these processes with consequences for which perspectives become integrated parts of the school subjects taught. In conclusion, the results point to the necessity of strengthening teacher agency including their ability for didactic analysis.
Since the process of didactic transposition involves decisions on inclusion and exclusion of content and values that are to be taught, issues concerned with external actors and their influences on the didactic transposition should be raised in policy discussions as well as in teacher education.
ReferencesAndrée, M. & Hansson, L. (2020). Industrial actors and their rationales for engaging in STEM education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(4), 551-576.
Andrée, M. & Hansson, L. (2021). Industry, science education and teacher agency: a discourse analysis of teachers’ evaluations of industry-produced teaching resources. Science Education, 105(2), 353-383.
Andrée, M., & Hansson, L. (2022). Teachers’ negotiations of bias in relation to teaching resources offered to schools by industrial actors. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 8(1), 52-64.
Andrée, M., & Hansson, L. (2023). Inviting the petrochemical industry to the STEM classroom: messages about industry–society–environment in webinars, Environmental Education Research, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2023.2168623.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101.
Carlgren, I. (2009). The Swedish comprehensive school—Lost in transition? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 12(4), 633–649.
Chevellard (2007). Readjusting Didactics to a Changing Epistemology. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 131-134.
Chevallard, Y., & Bosch, M. (2020). Didactic transposition in mathematics education. Encyclopedia of mathematics education, 214-218.
Eaton, E., & Day, N. (2020). “Petro-Pedagogy: Fossil Fuel Interests and the Obstruction of Climate Justice in Public Education.” Environmental Education Research, 26(4), 457–473.
Giroux, H. (2019). Toward a pedagogy of educated hope under Casino capitalism. Pedagogía Y Saberes, 50, 147–151.
Potter, J. (1998). Discursive social psychology: From attitudes to evaluative practices. European Review of Social Psychology, 9(1), 233–266.
Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency. An ecological approach. Bloomsbury.
Robertson, S., Mundy, K., Verger, A., & Menashy, F. (Eds.). (2012). Public private partnerships in education: New actors and modes of governance in a globalizing world. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Östman, L. (1998). “How companion Meanings are Expressed by Science Education Discourse.” In D. Roberts and L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of Meaning in Science Curriculum, (pp. 5–12). New York: Teachers College Press.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Using the Typology of Teacher Power and Control (TTPC) to Explore Emergent Practice in a New Innovative Learning Environment
Peter Bergström, Annika Wiklund-Engblom, Maria Lindfors
Umeå University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Bergström, Peter;
Wiklund-Engblom, Annika
This paper reports on a school development project of an innovative learning environment (ILE). Staff and pupils from two traditionally build corridor schools have merged into a new build school, whose architecture is described as new, innovative, modern, and flexible (OECD, 2017). Instead of having one classroom with a standardised size of 60m2, the ILE consists of different rooms both regarding size and furniture. Another change was that teachers had to be prepared to go from the traditional practice of individually teaching a class with approx. 25 students to the practice of team teaching with 2-5 teachers teaching a whole grade with approx. 60-100 students. The narrative of the project focused on the shift from teacher-centred teaching to student-centred learning, which in previous research have been a challenge due to well established teacher-centred methods (Cardellino & Woolner, 2019; Sigurdadottir & Hjartson, 2016; Gislason, 2010).
The present research project started two years before the teachers moved into the new ILE. During these two years, school leaders prepared teachers for the new practice. Among these preparatory activities, one core activity consisted of prototype ILE classrooms where teachers could practice student-centred learning methods. In our research, the materiality of the new classroom and teachers’ played-out practice are operationalised as two dimensions (Bergström & Wiklund-Engblom, 2022; Bergström, 2019). The first, a vertical dimension, concerns preconditions of the physical learning environment embodied through the arrangement of desks, use of teachers’ and students’ areas, relations between learning resources, and selection of software applications. The second, a horizontal dimension, includes teachers’ communication in practice pertaining to their selection of content, sequence, pace, and speech space (cf. Bernstein, 2000). The combination of the two dimensions creates a theoretical framework for an ecology of teacher practice as an “emergent phenomenon” (Carvalho & Yeoman, 2018, p. 5). This is an illustrative metaphor for the practice that emerge in teacher preparation for teaching in an ILE.
The aim of this study is to examine and unpack emergent and varying practices in the prototype classrooms with regard to the two dimensions. The following research questions were asked: 1) What variations in teachers played-out practice emerge from teachers’ organisation of the classroom space and communication in practice? 2) How can the teachers’ reasoning further explain the variation of these emergent ILE practices?
Theory
One outcome of our prior studies is the development of a new theory-driven analysing tool, the Typology of Teacher Power and Control (TTPC) (e.g., Bergström & Wiklund-Engblom, 2022, Bergström, 2019), constructed from Bernstein’s (2000) theory of power and control. In the vertical dimension of the TTPC-typology, Bernstein’s relative concept of classification is used to analyse how power emerge from the relationship between objects in the classroom. In short, strong classification keeps things apart, which indicates a strong symbolic power relationship. The opposite is true for weak classification. For example, desks in rows keep students apart and indicates a strong classification and teachers’ power. In the horizontal dimension of the TTPC-typology, Bernstein’s relative concept of framing is used to analyse how control emerge from teachers’ communication in practice. Framing is also a relative concept on a scale from strong to weak. Stronger framing indicates that the teacher has more control in the communication, while weaker framing indicates increased student control. Framing is operationalised as the variation of selection, sequence, pacing, evaluation, and teacher-student and student-student communication. Hence, the concepts of framing and classification represent the two dimensions, which construct a two-dimensional matrix illustrating the emerging teaching practices in the prototype classrooms.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe adhere to a convergent mixed methods design where two types of data (classroom observations and retrospective teacher interviews) were integrated through several steps of analysis, data transformation, and integration (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Bazeley and Kemp, 2012). The rationale for the approach is that observational data, representing objective, formative data, shows the reality of the classroom activities, while the teacher interview data, representing subjective, formative data, provides insights into how teachers’ beliefs and attitudes relate to the choices made in their teaching practice (Bergström & Wiklund-Engblom, 2022). Thus, the use of both observational data and interview data aims for an integration analysis in which conclusions are drawn based on a broader explanation of the variations found in the emergent teacher practice.
The classroom observations were conducted from three prototype learning environments in School A, B, and C. School A is a grade 6-9 school where teachers (N=4) were observed during five lessons. School B is a grade 1-6 school where teachers (N=3) were observed during five lessons. School C is a grade 1-6 school where teachers (N=2) were observed during four lessons. During the observations, the teachers’ communication was recorded and field notes and photographs were taken. The recorded material ranges between 20 and 60 minutes. The retrospective interviews (N=10) comprise nine individual teacher interviews and one group interview with the two teachers at School C. These semi-structured interviews included two themes: the physical learning space and teachers’ communication in practice.
The audio recordings from both the classroom observations and teacher interviews were transcribed verbatim.
In the first main step, the transcripts and the fieldnotes from the classroom observations were analysed using the TTPC typology as it specifically targets variations in teacher-centred teaching and student-centred learning, i.e., to what extent teachers maintain or distribute power and control in played-out practice. Furthermore, in addition to exploring how typologies vary, we also explore why this could be based on the interview data. Accordingly, an integrative analysis was conducted with the TTPC clusters and teacher interviews by using crosstab queries in the QSR NVivo software.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings will be presented in two phases pertaining to the two research questions. Firstly, the results regarding variations in teachers played-out practice, are based on a quantification of the observational data and teacher audio recordings. Thereafter, a quantitative analysis using the TTPC framework identified clusters of teacher practice. The preliminary analysis indicate three clusters: i) teacher power and control, ii) mixed distribution of power and control, and iii) student power and control. These clusters are plotted in the TTPC-matrix as a visual summary where each teachers’ emergent practice can be identified. In these preliminary findings, we can see that only one teacher is found in the first cluster pertaining to teacher power and control. This cluster is defined by a strong distinction between a majority of the seven subcategories of the classroom organisation. Hence, this teacher had refurnished the classroom space back to a traditional classroom setting. Furthermore, the teachers’ communication was based on strong control in all six control categories. Moreover, the preliminary analysis indicates that the majority of the teachers are located in the second cluster pertaining to mixed distribution of power and control. Such practice is defined by a blurred distinction between the categories of classroom organisation, as well as the categories of teacher control in their communication.
Secondly, in our aim to answer the second research question, the interview data will be analysed using thematic analysis. We expect to find themes related to the physical learning space of the prototype classrooms and other themes on influencing factors regarding teachers’ communication. We expect to find connections between teacher beliefs and choices made in their played-out practice by using both types of data in an integrative analysis.
ReferencesBazeley, P., & Kemp, L. (2012). Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 55-72. Doi: 10.1177/1558689811419514
Bergström, P., & Engblom-Wiklund, A. (2022). Who’s got the power? Unpacking three typologies of teacher practice in one-to-one computing classrooms in Finland. 178 (March). Doi:10:1016/j.compedu.2021.104396
Bergström, P. (2019). Illustrating and analysing power and control relations in Finnish one-to-one computing classrooms: teacher practices in Grades 7–9. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. 14 (3–4)
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Cardellino, P. & Woolner, P. (2019). Designing for transformation: A case study of open learning spaces and educational change. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, DOI: 10.1080/14681366.2019.1649297
Carvalho, L., & Yeoman, P. (2018). Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces: Connecting theory, design and practice. Brittish Educational Research Journal. doi:10.1002/berj.3483
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA SAGE.
Gislason N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environment Research. 13 127–145.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Research, 33, 14-26. Doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014
OECD. (2017). The OECD Handbook for Innovative Learning Environments. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264277274-en
Sigurðardóttir, A. K., & Hjartarson, T. (2016). The idea and reality of an innovative school: From inventive design to established practice in a new school building. Improving schools, 19, 62 – 79.
|
