Conference Agenda

Facing an uncertain future, there are many reasons to embrace, and indeed develop, participatory approaches to planning and decision-making. In this symposium, we present three papers from separate projects, addressing different local concerns in a range of countries and contexts, but all support the participation of people who might otherwise be overlooked in understanding and developing educational settings. Moving from a focus on the classroom, to the school and then the city itself, we share an understanding of these spaces as undeniably physical and material, but with these more tangible aspects intertwined with, and made meaningful through, their social and cultural features.

The papers present methods and approaches that have succeeded in including children and young people, teachers and other school staff in place-based and spatial decisions. We demonstrate how, through these processes, people develop relationships that reduce feelings of uncertainty and build a greater sense of communal belonging and empowerment. The results of these initiatives include not only tangible changes to space and places, but also enhanced understandings of the contribution community-members of all ages, backgrounds and roles can make. Such collaborative approaches have the potential to create landscapes of collaborative democratic decision making, turning spaces of learning within and beyond the school into welcoming, inclusive places of belonging, caring and community.

Yet, in this symposium, we intend to look beyond immediate or local successes. We question what these experiences reveal about the relationship between such participatory approaches and the wider landscape of democracy, which itself appears under threat in these uncertain times. In the examples we present, local participation and wider democracy appear productively entwined (Percy-Smith, 2015), each contributing positively to the development of the other. We return to Arnstein (1969) and Hart’s Ladders of Participation to interrogate our own experiences.

Arnstein (1969) and Hart (1992) show how low levels of participation can reveal an absence of democracy. A Ladder of Participation model helps expose situations where those involved are fed a story of involvement while subject to ‘manipulation’ (Arnstein, 1969: 217). However, our research shows how we must also consider what is happening at the higher levels of participation in these models, and why it is happening.

Our findings illustrate how more equitable participatory processes seem sometimes to depend on the pre-existence of more democratic approaches in areas such as governance, pedagogy and curriculum. Yet, on other occasions, the participatory activity itself impacts positively on the development of democratic processes and places. Our research thus highlights the importance of focusing on the process of participatory decision-making, as well as the outcomes (Harris and Goodall, 2007). Reciprocal learning between professionals and those often excluded from place and space based decision making processes is a powerful tool in the development of place-making as a more relational, collaborative endeavour.

Thus, even when higher levels of participation in particular projects are achieved, perhaps supported by local democratic systems, there is a need to recognise the larger eco-systems at play and how these policies and practices may disempower not only the participants but also the organisers of the participatory activities.

Many researchers and practitioners working with educational systems will have experienced such issues, where our interests in research or engagement must be balanced, and may be in tension with, other expectations and intentions based on ‘thin consumer driven and overly individualistic forms’ of democracy (Apple, 2013, p.49) rather than “thick” collective forms of democracy based on consensus and community. We will draw on the diverse experiences presented in our paper to explore the challenges presented by such contested conceptualisations of democracy (Foner, 1998) and participation, and how these might be navigated.

The importance of good indoor environmental qualities (IEQ) for wellbeing and learning in schools is well-researched, though mostly framed, measured, and treated technically (e.g., Haverinen‐Shaughnessy et al., 2011; Minelli et al., 2022). Less explored is the relation between pedagogical practices, physical school spaces, and IEQ and how these are intertwined and potentially improved through teacher training and collaboration (Bøjer & Rasmussen, 2024). In this paper, we do a close examination of a small but exemplary project, where a recreation centre teacher, through minor physical and pedagogical interventions developed in collaboration with colleagues, transforms a malfunctioning computer space with bad acoustics and air quality into an engaging, inclusive, and caring space for both teachers and students. The analysis will draw on socio-spatial perspectives of space and educational practice for an analysis of how aspects of IEQ (acoustics and air flow) and materiality (computers, walls, and chairs on wheels) entangle with the pedagogical practices and organisations of the room (Carvalho & Yeoman, 2018; Lai et al. 2020; Mulcahy et al., 2015). Moreover, it is framed by a literature review conducted in the research project (Bøjer & Rasmussen, 2024). The analysis will exemplify how IEQ may be considered and supported pedagogically through teacher training, which would offer a more collaborative and participatory alternative to the dominant technical approach to IEQ in schools. The paper is grounded in a Danish action research project connected to a new supplementary teacher training program aiming to educate teachers in matters of pedagogy, space, and IEQ and their interrelations. The paper will be based on qualitative data including visual and written material from presentations and reports about the teacher projects, observations and interviews with teachers, and quantitative IEQ measurement. The project demonstrates the interrelated link between pedagogy, space, and IEQ and how thinking about and working with this interplay as collaborative, interwoven and interdependent can empower the teachers and thus create better and more democratic learning environments. Today, IEQ is mainly controlled by the school’s technical personnel, thus being unapproachable by teachers and students. Enhanced spatial competencies provides the teacher with more agency to (re)think space and IEQ pedagogically and make the required changes to secure a more aligned and democratic learning environment.

Bøjer, B. & Rasmussen, L. R. (2024). The interplay between pedagogical practices, physical spaces, and indoor environmental quality in schools: A scoping study. (Manuscript submitted for publication). Carvalho, L. & Yeoman, P. (2018) Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces: Connecting theory, design and practice. British educational research journal 44(6), p.1120-1137 DOI: 10.1002/berj.3483 Haverinen‐Shaughnessy, U., Moschandreas, D., & Shaughnessy, R. (2011). Association between substandard classroom ventilation rates and students’ academic achievement. Indoor Air, 21(2), 121-131. Lai, C., Huang, Y. X., & Lam, T. (2020). Teachers' socio-spatial practice in innovative learning environments. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(4), 521-538. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1736003 Minelli, G., Puglisi, G. E., & Astolfi, A. (2022). Acoustical parameters for learning in classroom: A review. Building and environment, 208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108582 Mulcahy, D., Cleveland, B., & Aberton, H. (2015). Learning spaces and pedagogic change: Envisioned, enacted and experienced. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 23(4), 575–595. DOI: 10.1080/14681366.2015.1055128

The life of a school involves complex interactions of a diversity of people, acting sometimes as individuals and sometimes as groups, within a physical space. The connection between physical school settings and the activities that take place is not simple (Blackmore et al., 2011; Duthilleul et al., 2021), with the totality of the educational environment depending on organisational and social aspects, as well as physical and material resources, and the relationships and interactions these all support (Gislason, 2010; Woolner et al., 2022). This is why collaborative investigation of school space, its use and design, can be beneficial. By raising awareness of the physical environment and sharing experiences of their activities within it, school communities can develop shared understandings that can improve cohesion and contribute to ideas for the future (Parnell, 2015). Using shared experiences of physical spaces to generate ideas is clearly suitable, drawing as it does on the practice of site visits in architecture, but research and practice also demonstrates the success of desk-based visual-spatial methods, using plans and images of school space (Woolner et al., 2010). In this paper I will present methods developed through the CoReD project (project ref.: 2019-1-UK01-KA201-061954, 2019-22, https://www.ncl.ac.uk/cored/ ) to support such participatory approaches to understanding and developing school spaces. These activities, moving within spaces or discussing images, enable experiences to be shared and support the development of knowledge of the setting, perhaps opening minds to the potential of the specific site. Through considering the use of the methods (Bøjer and Woolner, 2024; Coelho, 2022; Sigurðardóttir et al., 2021), in a range of educational contexts, I will explore how the methods facilitate progress from initial recognition and articulation of experiences to the development of shared ideas. I will then begin to consider the external circumstances that are needed to support the participatory design process through these stages. A key issue is what, if anything, in the material and social setting changes as a result of the collaborative approach. In relation to outcomes, it is notable that these processes occur within the constraints of existing structures, cultures and funding within the school and across the wider society.

Blackmore, J.et al.(2011) Research into the Connection between Built Learning Spaces and Student Outcomes, Melbourne, Victoria. Bøjer,B and Woolner, P.(2024) Creating ‘perfect’ new learning spaces: collaboration to align design and use In: AR. Costa and R. Cooper (Ed) Design for Education. Coelho,C.et al.(2022). Survey on Student School Spaces: An Inclusive Design Tool for a Better School. Buildings, 12, 392. Duthilleul, Y: Woolner,P: Whelan, A.(2021) Constructing Education: An Opportunity Not to Be Missed. Paris: Council of Europe Development Bank, Thematic Reviews Series. Gislason, N.(2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environments Research, 13, 127–145. Parnell, R.(2015) Co-creative Adventures in School Design. In P. Woolner (Ed) School Design Together, London: Routledge 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, 503 Woolner, P., Hall,E., Clark,J., Tiplady,L., Thomas,U. and Wall,K.(2010). Pictures are necessary but not sufficient: using a range of visual methods to engage users about school design Learning Environments Research 13(1) 1-22. Woolner, P., Thomas,U. and Charteris,J.(2022). The risks of standardised school building design: Beyond aligning the parts of a learning environment, European Education Research Journal, 21(4): 627–644

Following the global pandemic, there has been increasing recognition of the levels of uncertainty facing children and young people and the urgent need for our national and local governments to become more responsive to the interests of the young, as demonstrated by initiatives such as the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child (2021). Drawing on findings from a 45-month international comparative research study, funded by the Leverhulme Trust, this paper suggests that although it is children and young people’s fundamental right to participate in matters that affect them (UN, 1989) this is often overlooked. The study indicates that policy making with children and young people at local and national level require the creation of spaces and places of belonging and collaborative, democratic decision making for our youngest citizens in their schools and local communities and shows how a Relational Toolkit can help. The research took place across four case studies; learning spaces from Barcelona, Berlin, New York and Rio de Janeiro. The case studies come from diverse spaces and places, yet all their approaches clearly illustrate the belief that education is place making and vice versa, with a deliberate blurring of the boundaries between formal spaces of education and the students’ daily lives and experiences in their wider community. Their approaches show the potential for children and young people as expert decision makers and collaborators for fairer places. The study uses relational theory (Holland et al, 1998, Warren et al, 2009) to better understand participant identities and the associated notions of power and positionality that emerge in times of uncertainty in urban education contexts. This paper highlights how socio-educational relationships can generate the type of ‘relational goods’ (interpersonal trust, emotional support, care and social influence) (Cordelli, 2015) required for more reciprocal relationships between policymakers, communities and children and young people. One of the key findings of the research was the need to develop decision making spaces and places where children and young people have a feeling of “communal being-ness” (Studdert, 2005, p.5) now in the places where they live. As a result, the Relational Toolkit was developed. Using evaluation activities based on identifying relational outcomes, and a Ladder of Engagement adapted from the work of Arnstein (1969) and Hart (1992), the Toolkit deliberately challenges traditional conceptualisations of children and young people as future citizens and instead repositions them as power-full (Ralls et al, 2022) Citizens of Now.

Arnstein, S., (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–24 Cordelli, C. (2015), Justice as Fairness and Relational Resources. J Polit Philos, 23: 86–110 European Commission (2021) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: EU strategy on the rights of the child Brussels, 24.3.2021 COM(2021) 142. Hart, R. (1992) Children’s Participation: From Tokenism To Citizenship. Florence: UNICEF Holland D., Lachicotte W. Jr., Skinner D., & Cain C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural Worlds. Cambridge:H.U.P. Ralls D, Lahana L, Towers B, Johnson L. (2022) Reimagining Education in a Pandemic: Children and Young People as Powerful Educators. In: Turok-Squire R, ed. COVID-19 and Education in the Global North: Storytelling and Alternative Pedagogies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-35 Studdert, D. (2005) Conceptualising community; beyond the state and the individual, London: Palgrave Macmillan United Nations Children’s Fund UK. (1989). The United Nations convention on the rights of the child Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C. H., and Uy, P. S. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based, relational approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2209-2254