Theoretical Approaches to Researching Learning Spaces

Abstract

Contemporary learning environment designs bring to life schools featuring loose fitting, flexible layouts that upset the stable certainty of the four-walled classroom. This article presents the argument that adopting a theoretical approach to researching the role of spatiality and space in relation to innovative building design in education will enable insights otherwise not possible, and, in the process, enhance the available store of knowledge and understanding. A review of a sample of published research that considers innovative learning environment design suggests that robust theoretical approaches are eschewed in favour of instrumental research often concerned with the role played by building fabric or with psychosocial responses to the surrounding learning environment. To adopt an alternative, theoretical perspective that privileges the concept of ‘space’ in education, it is first important to understand developments in spatiality. Exemplifying one such theoretical approach to questions of spatiality in education, Lefebvre’s spatial theory is applied to the recent development of FLS and ILE in New Zealand, though several optional theoretical approaches to spatiality are suggested as open to education researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    In keeping with my research interventions to date, the built environment where teachers and students work is referred to as ‘Flexible Learning Space/s’ (FLS), and ‘Innovative Learning Environment’ (ILE) is used to denote a whole school that is built in flexible, non-traditional style.

References

  1. Alansari, M., & Rubie-Davies, C. (2020). What about the tertiary climate? Reflecting on five decades of class climate research. Learning Environments Research, 23(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09288-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baydar, G., Komesli, M., Yılmaz, A., & Kılınç, K. (2018). Digitizing Lefebvre’s spatial triad. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 33(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqw061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Benade, L. (2017a). Being a teacher in the 21st Century: A critical New Zealand study. Singapore: Springer Nature.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benade, L. (2017b). Is the classroom obsolete in the twenty-first century? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(8), 796–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1269631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Benade, L. (2019a). Innovative educational facilities’ design: Why it matters to education and educators. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Benade, L. (2019b). Pedagogy in flexible learning spaces. In M. Hill & M. Thrupp (Eds.), The professional practice of teaching in New Zealand (6th ed., pp. 213–235). Melbourne: Cengage.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Benade, L., Bertelsen, E., & Lewis, L. (2018). Reimagining and reshaping spaces of learning: Constituting innovative and creative lifelong learners. In L. Benade & M. Jackson (Eds.), Transforming education: Design & governance in global contexts (pp. 33–54). Singapore: Springer Nature.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O'Mara, J., & Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes: Literature Review. Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Retrieved from https://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/publ/research/publ/blackmore_learning_spaces.pdf.

  9. Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2018). Evaluating teacher and student spatial transition from a traditional classroom to an innovative learning environment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell, L. (2020). Teaching in an inspiring learning space: An investigation of the extent to which one school’s innovative learning environment has impacted on teachers’ pedagogy and practice. Research Papers in Education, 35(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1568526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carvalho, L., & Yeoman, P. (2018). Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces: Connecting theory, design and practice. British Educational Research Journal, 44(6), 1120–1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chapman, A., Randell-Moon, H., Campbell, M., & Drew, C. (2014). Students in space: Student practices in non-traditional classrooms. Global Studies of Childhood, 4(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.2304/gsch.2014.4.1.39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Charteris, J., & Smardon, D. (2018). "Professional learning on steroids”: Implications for teacher learning through spatialised practice in New Generation Learning Environments. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n12.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Charteris, J., & Smardon, D. (2019). Dimensions of agency in New Generation Learning Spaces: Developing assessment capability. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2019v44n7.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Charteris, J., Smardon, D., & Nelson, E. (2017). Innovative learning environments and new materialism: A conjunctural analysis of pedagogic spaces. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(8), 808–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1298035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Daniels, H., Tse, H. M., Stables, A., & Cox, S. (2017). Design as a social practice: The design of new build schools. Oxford Review of Education, 43(6), 767–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1360176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Elden, S. (2004a). Between Marx and Heidegger: Politics, philosophy and Lefebvre’s The Production of Space. Antipode, 34(1), 86–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Elden, S. (2004b). Understanding Henri Lefebvre. Continuum.

  19. Foucault, M. (2008). Of other spaces: Utopias and heterotopias (L. De Cauter & M. Dehaene, Trans.). In M. Dehaene & L. De Cauter (Eds.), Heterotopia and the city: Public space in a postcivil society (pp. 13–29). London: Routledge.

  20. Gulson, K. N., & Symes, C. (2007). Knowing one’s place: Space, theory, education. Critical Studies in Education, 48(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480601123750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hipkins, C. (2018). Towards a comprehensive reform of school property. Cabinet Paper. Retrieved 18 April 2020 from https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/information-releases/issue-specific-releases/cabinet-paper-towards-a-comprehensive-reform-of-school-property/.

  22. Imms, B. C., & Fisher, K. (Eds.). (2016). Evaluating learning environments. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Imms, W. (2016). New generation leaning environments: How can we find out if what works is working? In W. Imms, B. Cleveland, & K. Fisher (Eds.), Evaluating learning environments (pp. 21–34). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jenlink, P. M. (2007). Creating public spaces and practiced places for democracy, discourse, and the emergence of civil society. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 20(5), 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-007-9077-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Krueger, P. (2010). It’s not just a method! The epistemic and political work of young people’s lifeworlds at the school–prison nexus. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13(3), 383–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2010.500846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Malden: Blackwell.

  27. Massey, D. (1984/1995). Spatial divisions of labour: Social structures and the geography of production (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

  28. Massey, D. (1985). New directions in space. In D. Gregory & J. Urry (Eds.), Social relations and spatial structures (pp. 9–19). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Massey, D. (1992). Politics and space/time. New Left Review, 192, 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McGregor, J. (2004). Spatiality and the place of the material in schools. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 12(3), 347–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McPherson, A., & Saltmarsh, S. (2017). Bodies and affect in non-traditional learning spaces. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(8), 832–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1252904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Merrifield, A. (2006). Henri Lefebvre: A critical introduction. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ministry of Education. (2011). The New Zealand school property strategy 2011–2021. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. http://gdsindexnz.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/The-New-Zealand-School-Property-Strategy-2011-2021.pdf.

  34. Ministry of Education. (2015). Designing schools in New Zealand: Requirements and Guidelines. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Primary-Secondary/Property/Design/Design-guidance/DSNZ-version-1-0-20151014.pdf.

  35. Ministry of Education. (2020). Designing learning environments. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. http://www.education.govt.nz/school/property-and-transport/projects-and-design/design/designing-learning-environments/#relationship.

  36. Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space & built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mulcahy, D., & Morrison, C. (2017). Re/assembling ‘innovative’ learning environments: Affective practice and its politics. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(8), 749–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1278354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nair, P. (2014). Blueprint for tomorrow: Redesigning schools for student-centered learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nelson, E., & Johnson, L. (2019). ILEs as social assemblages: Implications for initial teacher education. In W. Imms & M. Mahat. (Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium: Transitions19 One journey, many pathways (pp. 89–98). Retrieved from https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/237432/Transitions2019_web.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

  40. Newton, C. (2009). Disciplinary dilemmas: Learning spaces as a discussion between designers and educators. Critical & Creative Thinking, 17(2), 7–27.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Niemi, K. (2020). The best guess for the future? Teachers’ adaptation to open and flexible learning environments in Finland. Education Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2020.1816371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rasmussen, L. R. (2019). Disassembling the in-between? Refigurations of the Danish school corridor 1950–2019. Paedagogica Historica. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2019.1669680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Reh, S., & Temel, R. (2014). Observing the doings of built spaces. Attempts of an ethnography of materiality. Historical Social Research, 39(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.39.2014.2.167-180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Saltmarsh, S., Chapman, A., Campbell, M., & Drew, C. (2015). Putting “structure within the space”: Spatially un/responsive pedagogic practices in open-plan learning environments. Educational Review, 67(3), 315–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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 I. Grosvenor & L. R. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making education: Material school design and educational governance (pp. 71–91). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Smith, N. (1990). Uneven development: Nature, capital and the production of space. New York: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Soja, E. W. (1985). The spatiality of social life: Towards a transformative retheorisation. In D. Gregory & J. Urry (Eds.), Social relations and spatial structures (pp. 90–127). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. Brooklyn: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Soja, E. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Stables, A. (2014). The semiotics of organisational landscape: School as design. In I. S. A. Semetsky (Ed.), Edusemiotics (pp. 116–127). New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Stewart, G., & Benade, L. (2020). Spatial biculturalism for schools in Aotearoa New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 55(1), 129–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-020-00169-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Watkins, C. (2005). Representations of space, spatial practices and spaces of representation: An application of Lefebvre’s spatial triad. Culture and Organization, 11(3), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759550500203318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wood, A. (2017). A school’s lived architecture: the politics and ethics of flexible learning spaces [Doctoral thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University]. e-space Manchester Metropolitan University's Research Repository. https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/618818/.

  55. Wood, A. (2019, June 10). City schools as meeting places [Webblog]. https://architectureandeducation.org/2019/06/10/city-schools-as-meeting-places/.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leon Benade.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Benade, L. Theoretical Approaches to Researching Learning Spaces. NZ J Educ Stud (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-020-00191-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Spatiality
  • Learning environments
  • ILE
  • Flexible learning spaces
  • Educational innovation
  • Lefebvre