Conference Agenda

Space matters to education. Physical spaces and material resources affect how teachers teach and students learn. Reflecting the diversity of users and uses, relations between school premises and education have proven extremely complex, with few direct causal links between physical elements and learning (Woolner et al., 2007). Spaces, nevertheless, facilitate or constrain activities and behaviour (Sigurðardóttir & Hjartarson, 2011; Stadler-Altmann, 2016), reflect educational cultures and often entrench educational values. Design and redesign, accordingly, may serve to enhance the alignment between space and pedagogy (Frelin & Grannäs, 2021), reflect new values and encourage innovative practices (Woolner et al., 2018).

Enthusiasm surrounds innovative learning environments or ILEs (OECD, 2013). The evidence base has been recognised by significant decision-makers, such as municipal bodies, national governments, the OECD and the World Bank (Grannäs & Stavem, 2021), and mandates for open, flexible school facilities are manifested (Sigurðardóttir & Hjartarson, 2011). The potential contribution of educational practitioners and their pupils to the adaption and redesign of conventional and innovative facilities, however, is often neglected (Bøjer, 2019: 45). A participatory approach to developing school space is frequently recommended (Blackmore et al., 2011), but uncertainties remain about how to carry it out.

One of the keys to successful alignment of practice, culture and school facilities, is to ignite awareness and initiative among practitioners and learners regarding their everyday physical environment and its possibilities. Although experience shows that designs for schools, cannot simply be transported between nations, approaches to planning and designing can be exported and used successfully in contrasting contexts (Woolner & Cardellino, 2021). Our ongoing research collaboration, DRAPES, and, specifically, our recent Erasmus+ project Collaborative ReDesign of Schools or CoReD (https://www.ncl.ac.uk/cored/), aimed to do just that, bringing together values, needs and pedagogical intentions when planning physical changes in schools or adjusting the arrangement and application of existing spaces. Guidance and tools were needed for school users to contribute to the design and redesign of their physical learning environments. The aim of this symposium is to share experiences gained from our research and development of six analytic tools for collaborative and participatory reflections on educational settings and redesign of schools, focusing particularly on how tools, initially developed in one European country (Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom), were adapted and used in differing national and school contexts, deepening our understanding of how each tool can be applied in diverse ways and settings.

Our overall goal has been to give practitioners the means to engage effectively with their own settings and practices to improve the fit between teaching, learning and space, as well as communicate our results to a global audience. The key idea has been to develop tools sufficiently structured for practitioners to pick up and use, but flexible enough to adjust for different design stages and educational settings. Fully developed, user-friendly tools, with instructions in six languages, are now maintained on a project website, supported by 26 case studies as well as cross context syntheses of how the tools work best and elaborated principles and guides for collaborative redesign of educational settings. The presentations report sections of these efforts including case studies, cross case synthesis and conclusive guidelines for tools developed and tested in the project. We also seek to problematise the successes noted of the tools, questioning how they function as supports for thinking, and enablers of collaborative discussion of design by specialists in education rather than architecture. We also consider these collaborations within the limits that wider national and political contexts put upon the opportunities for practitioners to take control of the design and use of school space.

Class observation is a main instrument for understanding teaching and learning processes in schools when the results of observations are analysed and reflected based on the theory of teaching and learning (cf. Helmke 2012; Meyer 2010). In particular, to understand the relationship between pedagogical activity and architectural space design, these questions need to be considered: - How do teachers use space for teaching? (cf. Stadler-Altmann 2016, 2019) - How do pupils use their rooms for learning? (see Woolner & Stadler-Altmann 2021; Stadler-Altmann 2015) The tool Cartographic Observation can be used to graphically illustrate lesson observations. This allows the movement patterns of teachers and students to become visible. At the same time, the interactions between teachers and students are recorded to document what happened in class. This combination provides a different view of classroom activities and is therefore of interest to both educational scientists and architectural designers. In our presentation we will introduce Cartographic Observation (Horne Martin 2002) as a research tool and explain how this tool was used in the CoReD research project. Therefore, we will use case studies from Italy and Portugal. The case studies have been conducted in pre-schools on the one hand and in basic schools on the other. Consequently, in addition to the international comparison, an analysis can also be made between the tool’s use in different educational institutions and respective pedagogical contexts. Additionally, results can also conclude on the tool’s ability to be implemented with lessons from different subjects, and with students from a wide age range. By comparing the tool’s use and outcomes in these case studies, we can show the benefits of the instrument. We will also describe possible applications in pedagogical practice and open further research perspectives on the basis of our research results. The comparison of the analyses from the perspective of educational science and architecture is particularly attractive.

Helmke, A. (2012), Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität. Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts. 4. Aufl., Seelze: Kallmeyer. Horne Martin, S. (2002) ‘The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of teachers’, Journal of Environmental Psychology 22: 139-156. Meyer, H. (2026), Was ist guter Unterricht? 15. Aufl., Berlin: Cornelsen Stadler-Altmann, U. (2019), Pedagogical Research in regard to School Design Processes. A fragmentary overview developing pedagogical inspired principles for both planning and designing school buildings, in: Weyland, B.; Stadler-Altmann, U.; Galletti, A.; Prey, K., SCUOLE IN MOVIMENTO. Progettare insieme tra pedagogia, architettura e design, Franco Angeli Open Access, pp. 14-23. Stadler-Altmann, U. (2016) (Hrsg.), Lernumgebungen. Erziehungswissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf Schulgebäude und Klassenzimmer [Learning Environments. Educational perspectives on school buildings and classrooms – bilingual publication], Opladen, Berlin, Toronto: Barbara Budrich. Stadler-Altmann, U. (2015), The Influence of School and Classroom Space on Education, in: C. Rubie-Davies, J. M. Stephens, & P. Watson (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Social Psychology of the Classroom, London: Routledge, p. 252-262. Woolner, P.; Stadler-Altmann, U. (2021), Openness – Flexibility – Transition. Nordic prospects for changes in the school learning environment, in: Education Inquiry. DOI 10.1080/20004508.2021.1957331

The building of new schools in the city of Stockholm is and will be extensive. The new schools are built with innovative learning environments, featuring configurations of spaces in various sizes, with requirements for flexibility but also cost efficiency. Because new knowledge is required about how these innovative learning environments function, a large-scale post-occupancy evaluation study was carried out using the pedagogical walk-through tool, with focus on the inhabitants and the aim to revise the municipal school building program. A selection of students and mainly teaching staff in four newly built schools participated. The focus was on the physical environment and its strengths and weaknesses in relation to the pedagogical practice. Four previously identified key locations were investigated: team learning spaces, entrances, dining rooms and sports halls. Twelve pedagogical walk-throughs were carried out with a total of 51 adults and 31 students. Each walk-through took about two hours, and the participants initially filled out an individual assessment protocol based on possible activities in each space, positive and negative impressions, and suggestions for improvements. The individual assessment was followed by a focus group conversation that was recorded. The data analyses were informed by previous research studies, and the collected individual and group statements sorted into six categories: Flexibility, flow, interior design, sound environment, social environment, and visual environment. Important strengths and weaknesses regarding the physical learning environment and conditions for the environment to function well were identified. Spatial relationships, for instance, and in particular, the placement of doors, were considered important. Most or all spaces were intended as learning spaces and the need for social spaces for students had been underestimated, especially for older students. Different configurations of space, furniture, lighting, and technology were seen as more or less flexible, but careful consideration of the organization of flow of students and materials deemed especially important in these innovative learning environments, to avoid problems that make pedagogical practices harder to carry out. The results will inform future school building processes in Sweden and elsewhere.

Frelin, A., & Grannäs, J. (2021). Designing and Building Robust Innovative Learning Environments. Buildings, 11(8), 345. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11080345 Frelin, A., & Grannäs, J. (2022). Nya lärmiljöer: Från vision till pedagogisk verksamhet i två innovativa skolor. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner. Frelin, A., Grannäs, J., Sundholm, M., & Van de Meulebrouck, T. (2022). Pedagogisk utvärdering av skolmiljöer. Gåturer i fyra skolbyggnader i Stockholms stad. Gävle University Press. 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(1), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480215612173 Sigurðardóttir, A. K., Hjartarson, T., & Snorrason, A. (2021). Pedagogical Walks through Open and Sheltered Spaces: A Post-Occupancy Evaluation of an Innovative Learning Environment. Buildings, 11(11), 503. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11110503 Woolner, P. (2018). Collaborative Re-design: Working with School Communities to Understand and Improve their Learning Environments. In R. Ellis & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Spaces of teaching and learning: Integrating perspectives on research and practice. (pp. 153–172). Springer. Woolner, P., & Cardellino, P. (2022). Learning Environment Design and Use. Buildings, 12(5), 666. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12050666

Survey on Students School Spaces (S3S) is a tool that aims to redesign and re-rehabilitate school spaces through an inclusive process, by integrating student feedback in the co-design of learning environments (Coelho et al., 2022). Acknowledging the need to align school and pedagogy, S3S was developed for the alignment between student use and appropriation and their school spaces. This is achieved by a bipartite procedure of an initial students’ online survey and a subsequent focus group in the form of an on-site walkthrough of students within the mentioned spaces (S3S’s tutorials and materials: https://www.ncl.ac.uk/cored/tools/school-spaces). The survey reaches a more extensive array of students who use the school premises, and the walkthrough can detail more specific circumstances of student’s occupation of these spaces. The tool can, ultimately, provide information and ideas on students’ feelings, experience and activities that can feedforward physical changes in the school, by means of a bottom-up and participatory design process. S3S was implemented in three ssettings – Eugénio de Castro School and Rainha Santa Isabel School in Portugal, and Ponteland High School in the UK, three schools with very different conditions, construction dates and building types. In Portugal, the intention was to co-design adaptations to premises (built in 1972 and 1999) that were recognised to have limitations due to both age and design. In some contrast, the UK school was newly constructed and S3S was chosen by senior leadership as a means to conduct a student-focused post occupancy evaluation. Overall, the use of S3S in these schools proved that it is user-friend and flexible and can be adjusted to each school’s needs and expectations. Even though it was largely motivated by the school leaders, it can be mediated by teachers and/or students, according to the schools’ communities and their dynamics. As we will show, it can consider small or large-scale rehabilitations, either with moveable or more permanent physical improvements. We will also consider how the opportunity provided to students by S3S can be limited by constraints, evident in the case studies, including the control by teachers of the process and delays at the municipal level in implementing refurbishments. Yet, set against these limitations, we report actual changes that have occurred in these schools, or that are anticipated in the future, validating the tool as an enabler of co-redesign, perhaps in seemingly minor ways, and a catalyst for a more profound sense of ownership and empowerment of students.

Coelho, C. (2017). Life within architecture from design process to space use. Adaptability in school buildings today – A methodological approach. PhD Thesis. Departamento de Arquitetura da Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia. Universidade de Coimbra. Coelho, C.; Cordeiro, A.; Alcoforado, L.; Moniz, G.C. Survey on Student School Spaces: An Inclusive Design Tool for a Better School. Buildings 2022, 12, 392. https://doi.org/10.3390/ buildings12040392