Conference Agenda

A shift is apparent in design of school building over the last decades, from the traditional 20th century „bell and cell“ (Nair et al, 2005) design towards more open and flexible learning spaces. This is the case in Iceland and is well documented by Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir and Torfi Hjartarson (2016, 2018, 2021) and reflect paradigm changes from traditional 19th- and 20th-century design forms, based on conventional classrooms along corridors, towards open and flexible learning spaces designed for teamwork and more student-centred approaches. This development has not always been clear-cut nor free of difficulties, but most schools or school extensions built in this century have been designed to accommodate open and flexible approaches in school practices. A similar trend has been apparent in other parts of the world, including Sweden (Frelin & Grannäs, 2021), Finland (Niemi, 2021), Australia (Kariippanon et al. 2020), and many other countries OECD, 2013), often involving considerable challenges for school leaders, teachers, and students (Woolner & Stadler-Altmann, 2021). Several studies have focused on investigating the link between school design and pedagogy, but little known about if and how school design have impact on student learning. This study is a first step in effort to better understand these impacts. The objectives of this study are to analyse student perception towards some aspects of teaching and learning in ILE classrooms in Nordic schools and compare it to student perception in more conventional classroom settings.

What counts as an innovative learning space is debatable and can be viewed from many perspectives (Bradbeer et al 2019). The term of an innovative physical learning environment (ILE) has, however, gain popularity in the literature about an environment that is different from the traditional “grammar of schooling”, with classrooms of similar sizes lined up along corridors. It is a design forms as open and flexible learning spaces of different size designed for different purposes. Two or more teachers share the responsibility of a group of students, refereed to here as team teaching. Team teaching is a common practice and is a promising condition for a professional learning community (PLC) as it promotes teacher collaboration, job satisfaction and professional dialogue (e.g. Hargreaves, 2019). Not much is known on effects on student, however, Kariippanon et al (2018) noted positive changes in student engagement and wellbeing as they moved from traditional classroom settings to ILE arrangements in Australian schools.

A recent review of the literature (Duthilleul, et al 2021) leads to the conclusion that the physical environment does affect processes of teaching and learning and could be assumed to have an impact, for better or worse, on student learning (Byer, 2021). There is however a broad agreement in the literature that potential positive effects of ILE on student learning or well-being is only possible if other factors of the schoolwork aligned with the ideology behind the design (e.g. Gislason, 2010; Woolner et al, 2018; French et al. 2020; Frelin et al, 2021; Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir, et al 2016, 2021). An innovative learning space would always incorporate innovative pedagogies that aims for better learning outcomes and more competent students (Bradbeer et al. 2019; Frelin & Grannas, 2021). Therefore, studies on physical learning spaces should always include investigation of potential influences on teaching practices and student learning and well-being.

The research question is: How, do students in ILE classrooms perceive the teaching practice differently from students in traditional classrooms?

Lot of public and private institutions and organizations are facing explanations to understand the new social and individual needs in learning and teaching at all stages of education derived of COVID-19. Some of them have published reports on youth (Injuve, 2020), on employment (ILO, 2022), on training systems (Cedefop, 2020; DOUE, 2020), among others. However, there are no many studies to understand the emergence of new social and individual needs in the context of second chance training programs (Portela-Pruaño et al., 2022) to re-engage young people in training, education and employment.

The Second Chance Schools scheme was proposed by the European Commission (2001) in November 1995 to combat exclusion. The projects concerned were intended “to provide new education and training opportunities to young excluded people who lacked the skills and qualifications to enter further training or the job market” (European Commission, 2001, p.8). Expressions of interest began to appear, strongly in some countries than others, and the Second Chance Schools scheme became as a reality in different countries. It is appropriate to recall that it was not a European incursion into education systems, nor the imposition of a particular model. Therefore, the particularities of each school were to depend to a large extend on local and national circumstances but some general rules.

In Spain, the Spanish Association of Second Chance Schools (E2O) is responsible of a large part of these re-engage programs thanks to the 45 accredited schools as E2O. Training for employment and the return to formal training constitute the offer that second chance schools plan to promote the social inclusion of young people in vulnerable situations (Merino et al., 2022). In the context of actual societal crisis, it is necessary to know what characterizes the curriculum, the didactics, and the demand profile of second chance schools.

Our objective will be to analyze organizational matters which focuses on the design of a curriculum (are E2O able to adapt the curriculum to respond adequately to the characteristics of their students?), on the conceptions of didactics and teaching practices in E2O scenarios (what are the interventions principle of second chance schools to answer individual needs in learning?) and on the profile of second chance schools' students (what characterize the profile of E2O students?).

Research that seeks to describe how inclusive teaching can be conducted needs to take students' perspectives as a starting point, Kiki Messiou argues that it’s “a manifestation of being inclusive” (Messiou, 2006, p. 9). Furthermore, Messiou and Mel Ainscow (2017) argues that “students’ views can add a distinctive perspective for developing changes in learning and teaching that go well beyond traditional views of effective practice” (ibid, p.5). Hence, they state that students’ perspectives can lead to changes in understandings and practices which in turn can help to facilitate the development of more inclusive approaches in schools (ibid). In line with this argument, students' experiences of inclusive teaching constitute the starting point of this current dissertation project.

Within the field of inclusive education inclusion can be defined as “broad” or “narrow” (Ainscow, et. al, 2020). A narrow perspective focus on inclusion of specific student groups i.e. students in need of special support, in mainstream school education. A broad view, on the other hand, focuses on how schools make use of pluralism among students in a school for all (ibid). This study connects to this broader view. Ainscow & Messiou (2017) state that a broad understanding of inclusion presupposes that the school eliminates exclusionary processes which depend on ethnicity, social class, religion, gender and perceived abilities (ibid). Accordingly, this can be described as an intersectional perspective on inclusion, based on how several forms of inequalities and discrimination are connected over time and in different contexts (UNESCO, 2019).

Inclusive education is in this current dissertation project understood through the lens of didactics. Alexander von Oettingen (2010), who bases his ideas within the continental general didactic tradition (Allgemeine Pädagogik), state that "without didactics there is no opportunity for participation or emancipation because life itself does not teach, it socializes" (ibid, p. 137, my translation). von Oettingen describes school as an artificial place where students can take a step away from "reality" and go beyond taken for granted ideas regarding themselves and the world. Students might be limited by social prejudice and discrimination in everyday life, but through general didactics in teaching students can be offered an inclusive situation in school. Oettingen’s ideas has inspired to the idea that inclusive education needs to be described and understood in didactic terms.

In this study, to be able to study inclusive education from a student perspective, phenomenology is used. According to Edmund Husserl phenomenology is about going "back to the things themselves" (Husserl, 1969). The basic idea within this philosophical way of thinking is that the world can only be understood if it is described on the premises of the things, how they appear pre-reflective, in themselves. The ontological starting point is that the world is lived and that it appears to humans through and within their direct experiences, in actual situations, in an environment which includes other human beings. The epistemological consequence of such an ontology is that the world can be understood only through human experience (Bengtsson, 1998).

To conclude, the aim of the current dissertation project is to describe teachers’ inclusive teaching with a phenomenological approach, from students’ perspectives and to use general didactic theories to analyze these descriptions. The scope is relevant to European educational research as it provides an opportunity to discuss and formulate the work regarding diversity in education and educational research with a “critical edge” (Ainscow & Messiou, 2017) and with didactical language. Hence my ambition is to explore how teachers in teaching can work in new ways and with their professional didactic language for societal change.