Designing and Building Robust Innovative Learning Environments

Abstract

Prior research shows that creating innovative learning spaces that work well for pupils and teachers is a challenge which implicates different stakeholders. The aim of this article is to inquire into how educational visions evolve and are expressed through the different phases of two school design processes as well as visualize how stakeholders’ roles in the processes result in innovative learning environments and practices that work well. The data consists of photographs from school visits, briefs, and interviews. The material is analyzed with a particular focus on educational vision, organization, and working methods. An analytical model showing the stakeholders’ levels of participation at each stage is revised and developed. The results indicate four common themes: Continuity (several stakeholders involved in more than one phase); Preparation (processes were long-term, continuous, and iterative, with future users testing and evaluating prototypes and other innovative interior design elements to be used in the new spaces); Alignment (early and extensive considerations of the school’s organization and working methods); and Participation (multi-professional teams with representation of a pedagogical perspective at the higher levels of participation). From this, it can be concluded that achieving robust, innovative learning environments involves stakeholders’ regard to the aspects of knowledge, education, organization, and economy.

Pedagogical Walks through Open and Sheltered Spaces: A Post-Occupancy Evaluation of an Innovative Learning Environment

“…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 [6]. A similar trend has been apparent in other parts of the world, including Sweden [7], Finland [8], Australia [9], and many other countries [10], often involving considerable challenges for school leaders, teachers, and students [11]. Stapaskoli, a compulsory school designed by ARKÍS and inaugurated in 2020, is the subject of this study and a current case reflecting this national and international development.…”

“…What counts as an innovative learning space is debatable and can be viewed from many perspectives, a physical point of view, of course, but also pedagogical, psychosocial, or perhaps technical angle [18]. We tend to classify as innovative any deviation from the traditional grammar of schooling, with classrooms of similar sizes lined up along corridors [7], and regard such design forms as open and flexible learning spaces, designed for collaboration and aiming to meet students with varied needs in optimal ways (see e.g., [5]). Bradbeer and associates [18] concluded, after reviewing twelve studies, that an innovative learning space would always be laid out to incorporate innovative pedagogies that aim to induce better learning outcomes and more competent students.…”

“…The last step includes the integration of spatial affordances and pedagogy, which calls for a purposeful interaction between teachers working together. Teacher agency and collaboration, obviously, are of the utmost importance in this process of adaption [7,8,20].…”

“…Australian teachers [21] reported a shift in pedagogy towards an increasingly student-centered approach as they changed their traditional classrooms into flexible learning spaces, while a case study in Iceland [5] showed how teachers of younger students adapted more easily to an open and flexible learning environment than teachers at a senior level. Researchers do, however, in spite of such evidence, seem to agree that more is needed to illuminate to what extent and in what ways physical changes in school buildings affect educational practices [7,12,16,17]. Giving teachers ample time and opportunities to prepare, adapt, and reflect upon their preferences and practices in different phases of a construction project, preferably in some context with academic research, is, therefore, essential.…”

“…The second theme is focused on the creation of constraints that make it harder for staff members to fall back to conventional ways of working. The third theme emphasizes structures that embrace new and different processes but maintain, at the same time, ties to older and more familiar procedures to bridge old and new behavior (see also [7,18]). Finally, there is the need for an accountability system to ensure that the new space is used as expected and new methods are firmly incorporated into the school culture.…”