Conference Agenda

This paper examines the interplay between education and learning environments as a key condition for sustainable school architecture (Kahvecioğlu & Selçuk 2023) and future-oriented pedagogy (Sigurðardóttir & Hjartarson, 2016, Fadel et al. 2017, Montag Stiftung Jugend und Gesellschaft 2025).

Drawing on five case studies from the project All-Day Education and Learning Environment (Kricke & Pampe 2024), it brings together conceptual reflections and practice-based insights to explore how existing school spaces can be adapted to support inclusive all-day education.

Education Meets Architecture is internationally relevant as many countries rethink how learning environments can better support future-orientated pedagogy. All‑day education, as explored in the All-Day Education and Learning Environment project, is a global reform trend that demands new spatial concepts for wellbeing and varied learning activities (Charteris et al. 2025). The project also highlights the necessity of developing climate‑responsible solutions that work within existing building stock, as sustainable transformation has become an international priority (see e.g. Psathiti & Charalambous 2025). Its interdisciplinary, evidence‑based approach offers transferable insights for school rehabilitation efforts worldwide. The case studies demonstrate spatial usage concepts that incorporate not only formal but also non-formal learning, positioning school spaces as socio‑educational environments that bridge classroom-based and out‑of‑school learning processes (Montag Stiftung Jugend und Gesellschaft 2023, 2024 a-d).

The German All-Day Support Act (Ganztagsförderungsgesetz) grants every primary school child the legal right to all-day care and education from 2026 onwards. While this policy significantly increases demand, all-day schooling in Germany is still largely characterised by a structural separation between morning instruction (formal education) and afternoon care (non-formal education). This division is mirrored in spatial arrangements and organisational responsibilities, resulting in underused spaces and limiting opportunities for shared use, multiprofessional collaboration, and efficient spatial utilisation. Consequently, municipalities face a growing demand for additional space that is neither financially viable nor practically feasible.

The project addresses this challenge by supporting primary schools in developing integrated usage concepts that overcome the additive separation of “school” and “care” in pedagogical, organisational, and spatial terms.

The case studies focus on following research question: How can existing school buildings be sustainably transformed towards future-orientated education—through coordinated pedagogical and organisational development?

Physical school spaces have increasingly been recognized as significant factors influencing pedagogical practices in secondary education. While considerable attention has been directed toward the physical design of school spaces, less is known about how teachers organise their practice when environmental conditions change. This study examines if and how innovative configurations of lighting and furniture affect teachers' organisation of instruction in Swedish language arts classrooms at grade 9 level.

The paper is produced within a larger research project addressing the question: How can innovative configurations of lighting and furniture make learning environments more user-friendly and supportive of innovative pedagogy? Working with two industry partner organisations (lighting and furniture) the project sought information on two phenomena; the effect of these variables on student perceptions of communication, critical thinking, collaboration, and creative thinking (what has been referred to as the 4Cs). These foci are seen to be drivers of Swedish graduates’ entrepreneurial skills post-schooling.

The second phenomenon was teacher practices in such re-configured spaces. This is the topic for this paper. Specifically, we investigate possible patterns of change in instructional organisation across different environmental conditions, focusing on the distribution of different whole-class, group work and individual work activities. Of interest to the overall project is the complex interaction between these two foci and implications for Swedish industries.

The study was conducted in two Swedish secondary schools with four teachers and six grade 9 classes during one academic year. The instructional content followed the Swedish national curriculum for Swedish language arts, which includes five main content areas: reading and writing; speaking, listening and dialogue; texts; language use; and information search and source criticism. During the study period, teachers covered content such as literary reading and analysis, writing book reviews, text types, grammar exercises, national tests preparation, film analysis, Swedish language history, and literature discussions. This paper begins the task of understanding how spatial arrangements impact student and teacher practices in these studies.

Physical school space has increasingly been examined as a condition shaping how teaching is organised in everyday classroom practice. Research shows that material arrangements in classrooms influence instructional routines, interaction patterns, and teachers’ possibilities for structuring lessons, even when changes are introduced within otherwise conventional school settings (Dovey & Fisher 2014; Woolner et al. 2018).

Previous studies indicate that spatial and material configurations affect how teaching activities are combined and sequenced, including shifts between whole-class instruction, group work, and individual tasks (Frelin & Grannäs, 2022). From this perspective, what matters is not spatial change in itself, but whether specific material arrangements support teachers’ ongoing work of organising instruction in relation to subject content and classroom dynamics (Grannäs et al. 2025). Research focusing on teachers’ practices suggests that alterations to classroom environments may prompt reflection on established instructional routines and make alternative ways of organising teaching more visible (Alterator & Craig Deed 2013; Sigurðardóttir & Hjartarson, 2016). At the same time, several studies caution against assuming direct or uniform effects. Material changes often introduce additional organisational demands, requiring teachers to make continuous judgements about structure, pacing, and control (Frelin & Grannäs, 2022; Frelin et al. 2025).

Accordingly, scholars argue that spatial interventions should be analysed in relation to how teachers interpret and work with new material conditions in practice, rather than evaluated against abstract design intentions (Woolner et al. 2018; Young & Cleveland, 2022). There remains a need for more empirical studies that examine what actually matters when classroom space is altered and how such changes shape the organising of teaching in specific subject contexts.

In recent years, educators and researchers have increasingly recognised that schools require a diversity of spaces to accommodate a broad range of pedagogical approaches and learning practices (Niemi, 2021). Versatile and varied spaces may be designed to support different student groupings, activities, and pedagogical approaches, even if uptake varies (Frelin, Grannäs, & Woolner, 2025). Contemporary schooling landscapes reflect the coexistence of traditional, industrial-era designs and buildings positioned as innovative and future-oriented, often within the same system or locality (Frelin, Grannäs, & Rönnlund, 2021). Research has demonstrated that physical learning environments influence schooling practices and that innovative designs can support or hinder pedagogical change and professional learning (Frelin & Grannäs, 2021; Woolner, Thomas, & Tiplady, 2018). At the same time, tensions between built environments and everyday practice may impede educational change (Sigurðardóttir & Hjartarson, 2016). This paper addresses these tensions by examining how teachers actively adapt their physical environments over time through processes of respatialisation.

The study is informed by socio-spatial theories that conceptualise space as relational, socially produced (Lefebvre, 2008; Soja, 1989), and continually in the process of becoming (Massey, 2005). Within this framing, school buildings are understood as material expressions of policy and pedagogical intent, or built policy (Wood, 2020). Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs) are frequently promoted as spatial manifestations of future-focused educational imaginaries emphasising flexibility, collaboration, and learner agency (Charteris, Smardon, & Page, 2018; Mahat et al., 2018). However, challenges in new learning spaces have persistently been framed as stemming from teachers’ reluctance to abandon privatised classroom practices, rather than from misalignments between architectural design and pedagogical realities (Grannäs & Stavem, 2021).

This paper advances respatialisation as a conceptual and empirical lens for understanding how such misalignments are addressed in practice. We define as the intentional modification of school spaces and material conditions. This includes changes to spatial organisation, movement, visibility, and barriers, as well as material elements such as acoustics, lighting, and storage, reflecting the interrelationship between space, materiality, and pedagogical practice (Mulcahy et al., 2015). The findings show that respatialisation is not a one-off corrective response but an ongoing and negotiated process through which leaders seek to align architectural design with evolving pedagogical aims, student needs, and professional practices. The analysis demonstrates how spatial configurations both enable and constrain participation, collaboration, and professional identity.

The paper argues that respatialisation is integral to sustaining the pedagogical aspirations underpinning ILEs. Flexible and reconfigurable spaces support collaborative and interdisciplinary learning and create conditions for deep learning characterised by engagement, purpose, and connection to real-world contexts (Young et al., 2020). The concept of respatialisation offers a valuable analytical lens for understanding how educational spaces are continually produced, adapted, and reworked in response to pedagogical, social, and material demands. Rather than treating school buildings as fixed outcomes of design, respatialisation foregrounds the ongoing processes through which space is enacted in practice. This perspective highlights the interdependence of spatial organisation, material conditions, and social relations, and recognises educators and leaders as active agents in aligning space with evolving educational purposes (Wenger, 1998). As such, respatialisation contributes a dynamic and relational understanding of learning environments that moves beyond architectural determinism toward practice-informed spatial change . Rather than framing it as resistance to innovation, respatialisation emerges as a critical mechanism through which practitioners exercise agency in enacting policy, responding to contextual change, and maintaining alignment between space and practice over time.

Educational accountability has become a defining feature of contemporary schooling, particularly under conditions shaped by neoliberal policy agendas and New Public Management, where performance, monitoring, and improvement are central organising principles (Ball, 2003; Christensen & Lægreid, 2011; Hardy, 2020). At the same time, newly built and redesigned school environments, conceptualised as innovative learning environments, are promoted as spatial and organisational responses to social transformation, intended to support collaboration, professional agency, and pedagogical innovation (Aotearoa New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2020). This paper examines how accountability is enacted in such environments, focusing on how school principals negotiate the competing demands of hierarchical accountability to systems and collegial accountability within professional communities. This paper conceptualises accountability not as a fixed managerial mechanism but as a set of practices that are socially, discursively, and materially constituted. Drawing on the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014; Kemmis, 2022), accountability is analysed as a form of ‘practice-changing practice’ (Kemmis, 2009): a suite of practices deliberately designed to render other practices (such as teaching, professional learning, and leading) more monitorable, malleable, and manageable.

The research contribution is based on unstructured interviews with 20 principals and deputy principals in Aotearoa New Zealand whose schools were newly established or had undergone major rebuilds to create innovative learning environments. Analysis focuses on leaders’ accounts of accountability practices and the socio-material conditions that enable and constrain them. Using the theory of practice architectures, accountability practices are examined through their sayings (discourses of appraisal, performance, inquiry, and standards), doings (monitoring routines, documentation, coaching conversations, inquiry cycles), and relatings (hierarchical oversight, collegial support, negotiated professional responsibility).

Findings show that principals consistently enact a ‘doubleness’ of accountability. On the one hand, hierarchical accountability practices (such as performance management, surveillance through data, documentation, and reporting to system authorities) reproduce asymmetrical power relations. On the other hand, principals deliberately cultivate collegial accountability practices, including collaborative inquiry, coaching conversations, distributed leadership structures, and peer-based critique, which foreground trust, professional judgement, and teacher agency (Charteris & Smardon, 2014, 2015; Hardy et al., 2020).

Importantly, the study demonstrates that newly built school environments can intensify accountability dynamics. Spatial openness, shared workspaces, digital platforms, and collective routines increase visibility and transparency, thereby strengthening monitoring and surveillance, while simultaneously enabling collaboration and mutual accountability. These accountability practices form interdependent ecologies of practice (Kemmis et al., 2014), linking leadership, professional learning, teaching, and evaluation. Such ecologies can either narrow educational work toward compliance and measurable outputs or support more democratic, collegial forms of professional responsibility. By analysing accountability as an embodied, distributed, and spatially situated practice, this paper contributes a practice-theoretical account of how educational space shapes and is shaped by accountability regimes. It offers conceptual resources for researchers and leaders seeking to balance hierarchical system imperatives with collegial professionalism in contexts of social transformation.