Conference Agenda

The design and research of Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs) have received considerable attention, particularly since 2013, when the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published a major report on the topic. ILEs can be defined as the merging of innovative technologies and spaces with innovative teaching and learning practices (Mahat et al., 2018). ILEs are typically characterised by open and flexible environments (Frelin et al., 2025) within the continuum proposed by Dovey and Fisher (2014), ranging from closed classrooms with corridors (type A) or street spaces (type B); classrooms with flexible walls (type C) or flexible walls adjoining street space (type D); to open-plan environments with adjoining rooms and street spaces (type E).

Learning environments (LEs) are expected to foster educational quality, equity, and inclusion (Kyriakides et al., 2019). In addition to influencing academic performance, LE design affects the wellbeing of the whole school community (Mäkelä & Leinonen, 2021). Furthermore, the sustainability crisis urges the extension of human, physical, psychological, social, and socioeconomic wellbeing towards planetary wellbeing and ecological, social, economic, and cultural sustainability in LE design (Mäkelä et al., 2025).

This double symposium presents multiple international and European studies focusing on LEs that foster innovation, sustainablity, academic excellence, wellbeing, and inclusion in a balanced manner:

1. We first present the Australian-led international Innovative Learning Environments and Student Experience (ILESE) research, involving participants from 19 countries worldwide, with a particular focus on European contributions.

2. This is followed by a multidisciplinary, multisite case study conducted in Nordic and Latin American educational, cultural, and geographical contexts. Results from photo documentation of spaces fostering the teaching and learning of transversal competences in Finland and Uruguay are presented.

3. Next, the focus shifts to a Nordic perspective on the impact of LE design on teaching, learning, and wellbeing. Supported by analyses of floor and furniture plans, photo documentation techniques were employed in case study schools in Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland.

4. We then narrow the focus to Finland to reflect on how general learning space layout typologies have evolved in Finnish school buildings.

5. The next presentation puts together Nordic (Norway) and Mediterranean (Spain) teachers’ perceptions of transforming school spaces and pedagogies.

6. We continue exploring Southern European perspectives, beginning with Portugal. The presentation analyses a co-design approach to renewing a modernist heritage school to meet contemporary educational needs.

7. Then we will visit Italy, where pre-school teachers’ discussions of the design and potential changes to their rooms to enhance children’s free play and pedagogical work were analysed as part of the European CoReD project.

8. Finally, we reflect on current policies and system needs related to innovative and sustainable LEs across Europe. The concluding presentation focuses on results from the first phase of the ongoing “Collaborative Learning Communities for Redesigning Primary Education Towards Innovative and Sustainable Learning Environments” (ISLE) project, involving participants from Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Spain, and Sweden.

An internationally growing body of research on LE design, including the studies presented in this symposium, highlights the need for transdisciplinary collaboration between educational and architectural researchers and practitioners in the research-based LE design that merge innovative technologies and spaces with innovative teaching and learning practices, foster wellbeing, and ensure that LEs are environmentally, culturally, economically, and socially sustainable. The studies presented in the symposium also confirm that changes in the space design do not automatically lead to changes in teaching practices (Baars et al., 2023; Brøns, 2021). Educators need environmental or spatial awareness and competencies—i.e., the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to design and use versatile and adaptable, technology-enhanced physical spaces to support teaching, learning, and wellbeing (Bøjer & Woolner, 2024).

This presentation reports on the Innovative Learning Environments and Student Experience (ILESE) project, and Europe’s role in its development. Initiated in 2021 by Australia’s Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN) collaborating with 120 industry, university and school partners across 21 countries, its objectives are critical also for European contexts; creating an accessible evidentiary database (ARGO) about what learning space designs work (or do not work) for all students regardless of capacities. ARGO allows complex analyses guiding infrastructure development and supporting schools’ effective use of learning spaces. Conducted across three Phases, the 1.5 year Scoping Study involved >250 learning space experts from industry, educational policy and practice, and academics, representing 21 countries. A parallel but quarantined n=35 Delphi Study cross-checked findings (Morris et al., 2023). A clear consensus emerged around the key research priorities for the future of LE design and use. There is a pressing need for: (1) robust LE evaluation, providing empirical evidence of their effectiveness; (2) understanding how LEs support 21st century skills and affective learning outcomes (e.g. collaboration, emotional development); (3) ensuring all learners—regardless of ability or background—can fully participate and benefit from the design of inclusive LEs; (4) focusing on learner engagement (participation) as a critical indicator of successful LE design, and (5) recognising that LEs must support academic achievement but also holistic development of learners; their overall wellbeing and mental health (Imms et al., 2023). Phase 2 translated these priorities into a validated research framework capable of capturing learners' lived experiences in all types of LEs. Central was development of the LEs and Student Participation Survey (LEaPS), adapted for an LE context from the Health Sciences Framework of Participation Related Constructs (Imms et al., 2016). A Pilot in 20 schools in 10 countries tested data collection strategies, ethical considerations, and accuracy of multilingual translations. A confirmatory factor analysis validated the tool’s psychometric properties. Phase 2 solidified a network of partner investigators across academic institutions worldwide. Phase 3 is now under development with recruitment of international Partner Organizations and submission of large-scale supporting grant applications. This presentation focuses on ILESE’s European contributions from five European countries (Finland, Iceland, Italy, Portugal and Spain) including selected school reports. European representation in the ILESE has proved invaluable ensuring international validity of ILESE. Critical was universities' support across Finland, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, the UK (Scotland and England) and Denmark. These partners ensured ILESE remained highly relevant to European needs.

Imms, C., Granlund, M., Wilson, P., Steenbergen, B., Rosenbaum, P. & Gordon, A. (2016). Participation, both a means and an end: a conceptual analysis of processes and outcomes in childhood disability. Developmental Medicine and & Child Neurology https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13237 Imms, W. et al.(2023). What should be the focus of next generation learning spaces research? An international cross-sector response. The ILESE Scoping Study White Paper. LEaRN, The University of Melbourne. Morris, J. E., Imms, W., & Bradbeer, C. (2023). Gaps and priorities in future learning spaces research: A cross-sector Delphi response. LEaRN, The University of Melbourne.

21st-century schools are expected to promote a broad set of transversal competences, including collaboration, communication, digital literacy, and active citizenship (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016; ANEP, 2022; Voogt et al., 2013). These competences are increasingly recognised as essential for navigating complex societal challenges. At best, learning environment design (LED) can actively support the teaching and learning of these skills, and physical spaces themselves may function as tools that facilitate competence development (Mäkelä & Leinonen, 2021). This study investigated the potential of LED to afford, or offer “action possibilities” (Young & Cleveland, 2022), for supporting transversal competences. Through a cross-cultural lens, we conducted photo documentation (Fülling et al., 2024) during site visits to a total of 38 Finnish and Uruguayan schools. The schools were selected by a team of educational and architectural experts, based on their intentional design—or later modification—to support transversal teaching and learning goals. The selection included a variety of building ages, from newly constructed to century-old schools, and included both public and private institutions. A structured framework for LED that fosters transversal competences was used to guide the photo documentation process. Following the visits, the multidisciplinary research team collaboratively identified good practices from a shared visual database. The most illustrative examples were selected through several thematic workshops. In this presentation, we will share a curated selection of photographs illustrating LED affordances across key spatial typologies. These include spaces that promote collaboration and encounters between learners, educators, and the wider community. In both countries, we observed rich examples of environments supporting learning by doing, such as well-equipped art, craft, and science laboratories. Teaching kitchens were found in both contexts, though more systematically present in Finnish schools due to curricular differences. Spaces supporting cultural competence, expression, and multiliteracy—including areas for performance, exhibitions, and digital learning—were common across cases. Both formal and informal spaces for autonomous work were documented, with Uruguay offering more outdoor possibilities due to its climate. Furthermore, we identified environments that promote wellbeing, health, and safety, as well as those fostering environmental competences and sustainability. These included design elements enhancing nature connectedness and long-term adaptability. Multifunctionality and spatial flexibility were observed in both newer and older buildings. Future research could deepen this work by examining how educators use these spatial affordances in practice. From an architectural viewpoint, further analysis of floor plans is needed to understand how different space typologies interconnect and support transversal competences.

ANEP (2022) Marco Curricular Nacional, Administración Nacional de Educación Pública. Finnish National Board of Education (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Publications 2016, 5. Fülling, J., Hering, L., & Kulke, E. (2024). Mapping and photo documentation. Handbook of Qualitative and Visual Methods in Spatial Research, 7, 263. Mäkelä, T., & Leinonen, T. (2021). Design Framework and Principles for Learning Environment Co-Design: Synthesis from Literature and Three Empirical Studies. Buildings, 11(12), 581. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings11120581 Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and Schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of computer assisted learning, 29(5), 403-413. Young, F., & Cleveland, B. (2022). Affordances, architecture and the action possibilities of learning environments: A critical review of the literature and future directions. Buildings, 12(1), 76.

Open and flexible LEs have been a prominent trend in school design internationally for over two decades, and are widely reflected in Nordic schools (Grannäs & Stavem, 2021; Niemi, 2021; Sigurðardóttir & Hjartarson, 2018). Open spaces are thought to facilitate cross-curricular collaboration, encounters, gatherings, and performances, which can enhance both learning and wellbeing. At the same time, acoustically and visually enclosed spaces are necessary for focused, autonomous work and for withdrawal and safety. A flexible design that enables the opening and closing of spaces potentially accommodates varying everyday pedagogical and wellbeing needs (Gislason, 2010; Kariippanon et al., 2019; Mäkelä & Leinonen, 2022). This study investigates the potential affordances (Young & Cleveland, 2022) of open, enclosed, and flexible spaces for teaching, learning, and wellbeing in Nordic schools. Educational and architectural researchers, together with municipal representatives and private consultants, purposefully selected one case study school for an on-site visit in each Nordic country, representing either recent construction or renovation, except for Denmark, where a school built in 2001 was chosen as an early exemplar of open-plan design. The data corpus includes floor plans, furniture plans, and photo documentation (Fülling et al., 2024). Floor plans were categorised according to Dovey and Fisher’s (2014) typology, ranging from traditional classrooms with corridors to open-plan spaces with adjoining areas. The on-site visits focused on the spatial affordances enabled by interior design and furniture, and photographs were systematically documented in a database, categorised as (a) open, (b) enclosed, and (c) flexible spaces. Representative images from each school were collaboratively selected for the final analysis. The methodological approach will be discussed. The visits showed many similarities in Nordic school architecture. Findings indicate that all schools contained open, enclosed, and flexible spaces with potential affordances to support teaching, learning, and wellbeing. Most schools included traditional classrooms with breakout areas. Finnish and Norwegian schools also featured flexible walls that could be opened or closed. Furniture configurations still commonly reflected teacher-led large-group instruction, but also allowed small-group and individual learning. “Public-together” spaces appeared more prevalent than “private-alone” spaces in all schools, but particularly in the Danish open-plan school. Photo documentation confirmed that all schools provided opportunities for collaboration, gatherings, performance, autonomous work, and withdrawal. Potential affordances do not, however, automatically translate into actual usage, underlining the importance of future observational and interview studies to understand how - and whether - these spaces are used as intended to foster teaching, learning, and wellbeing.

Fülling, J., et al.(2024). Mapping and photo documentation. Handbook of Qualitative and Visual Methods in Spatial Research, 7. Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural Design and the Learning Environment: a framework for school design Research. Learning Environment Research, 13. Grannäs, J., Stavem, S.M. (2021). Transitions through remodelling teaching and learning environments. Education Inquiry, 12(3). Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: the school as a socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of Architecture, 19(1). Kariippanon, K. et al.(2019). The ‘why’ and ‘how’ of flexible learning spaces: A complex adaptive systems analysis. J of Educational Change. Mäkelä, T., & Leinonen, T. (2021). Design Framework and Principles for Learning Environment Co-Design: Synthesis from Literature and Three Empirical Studies. Buildings, 11(12). Niemi, K. (2021). ‘The best guess for the future?’Teachers’ adaptation to open and flexible learning environments in Finland. Education Inquiry, 12(3). Sigurðardóttir, A. K., & Hjartarson, T. (2018). Design Features of Icelandic School Buildings: How Do They Reflect Changes in Educational Governance and Daily School Practice? In Making Education: Material School Design and Educational Governance. Young, F., & Cleveland, B. (2022). Affordances, architecture and the action possibilities of learning environments: A critical review of the literature and future directions. Buildings, 12(1).

Finnish school building typologies for general learning spaces have evolved alongside the national curriculum, reflecting learner-centred pedagogy, versatile working methods, and differentiated instruction. Learning space design is expected to support curricular aims, yet national design guidelines remain limited. Research on Finnish learning space typologies is also scarce, particularly regarding how different spaces function in practice (Leinonen & Kuuskorpi, 2022). This qualitative study addressed this gap by examining how curricular priorities are supported within general learning spaces. Using an interdisciplinary architectural and educational approach, it aimed to inform school building design and renovation. In this presentation, we present typological characteristics of contemporary Finnish school buildings and explore the reasons behind their spatial diversity. We exemplify how national curricular aims are translated into varied spatial solutions through local interpretations, design processes, and contextual factors. The study investigated the building layout typologies of 15 schools, including both new and renovated buildings, distributed geographically all over Finland. General learning spaces were analysed using the typology classification tool developed by Dovey and Fisher (2014), with four schools selected for deeper analysis. Building layouts were compared with functional requirements and pedagogical plans. Teacher interviews and survey data were used to assess the alignment between intended and actual space use. The thematic analysis revealed that multiple space typologies often coexisted within the same building, alongside inconsistencies in the naming of similar learning spaces. Floor area per student varied considerably across schools. Teachers participating in the study recognised the significance of learning spaces in supporting teaching and learning, particularly multidisciplinary learning units. Adaptable furnishing and ease of modification were considered essential. In their view, versatile spatial structures enabled a broader range of teaching methods, while shared spaces, differentiation areas, flexibility, and spatial quality contributed to overall effectiveness. However, support and training for using spaces pedagogically were considered to have been limited. The study concludes that well-functioning learning spaces require careful planning grounded in pedagogical aims and active user involvement (see also Fisher & Dovey, 2016; Byers et al., 2014). Clear national design guidelines and research-based typological models are needed to support diverse, flexible, and pedagogically effective and inclusive school buildings, as well as ongoing evaluation of spatial usability during and after implementation.

Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2014). Making the case for space: The effect of learning spaces on teaching and learning. Curriculum and Teaching, 29(1), 5-19. Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: the school as a socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43-63. Fisher, K., & Dovey, K. (2016). Plans and pedagogies: School design as socio-spatial assemblage. In The translational design of schools: An evidence-based approach to aligning pedagogy and learning environments (pp. 159-177). Rotterdam: SensePublishers Lehtonen, Sari & Kuuskorpi, Marko. 2022. Towards Typological and Spatial Diversities - Learning from the typological solutions of the Finnish comprehensive public-school buildings. Architectural Research in Finland, vol.6, no.1.