Redesigning Pedagogies and Learning Spaces

• In Event: Spatialized Pedagogies, Innovative Learning Environments, and School Redesign: Researchers, Teachers, and Students Coproducing Knowledge

Abstract

In major school building programs in Australia (Building Futures, Building Education Revolution) and UK (Building Schools of the Future schools have been designed based on sound architectural and pedagogical principles (Higgins et al 2005, Tanner 2009). But there is little research as to the connections between flexible learning spaces, pedagogical practices and student learning (Authors 2011). This paper explores relationships between the material, the social and the aesthetic; what the research tells us about learning space redesign and learning outcomes; and how teachers and leaders are working in redesigned built environments integrating mobile technologies.
Space is not neutral but is socially constituted and in turn space constitutes social relationships that underpin pedagogy (Gulson and Symes 2010, Soja 1989, Massey 1994). Schools work in multiple entangled (Nespor 1997) environments frame by socio-geographical location, policy, institutional cultures and classroom practices that inform the pedagogical relationships between teachers and students as ‘pedagogical practices are linked to broader societal and policy changes’ (Lingard 2007, p.248).
The paper discusses a framework of analysis that identified four temporal dimensions to re-designing built learning spaces: design, transition, consolidation, and sustainability/evaluation These case studies are illustrative of local schools’ interpretations of students' learning needs and how they redesigned schools, teaching and learning in ways that bring together spatial, aesthetic, structural, symbolic, cultural and material modalities pedagogically (Authors 2006).
This framework informed the analysis of twelve case studies across a range of locations and student populations in Victoria, Australia, that developed from a Deakin University /Department of Education and Early Childhood Development partnership in the OECD's Innovative Learning Environments project which involves countries in Asia-Pacific, North America and Europe (Blackmore et al 2011a, b). The research considered the benefits, challenges and unintended consequences of new learning space design in relation to pedagogy, school organization and student learning outcomes. The schools self nominated based on the ILE definition (Dumont 2010); ie. learner-centred; well-designed and structured around inquiry; profoundly personalized; inclusive; and social (group learning). Data collection over three day ‘spot’ studies included collecting curriculum and policy documents, interviews with leaders, facilitators and community stakeholders, focus groups with teachers and learners, direct observation of resource and space, visual methodologies to elicit student voice, and videoed principal tours.
While problematizing the notion of innovation, themes that emerged are first, that the actors -the practitioners, learners, designers, leaders and spaces- need to be engaged in participative redesign around pedagogical practices (Fisher 2010, Holloway and Valentine 2000). Second, teachers and schools need to experiment pedagogically and alter organizational processes before accessing new spaces so that default pedagogies are not a final resort in new ILE (McNeil 2009, McLaughlin and Talbert 2010, Lieberman and Miller 2008, Hammerness et al 2006). Third, schools were undergoing processes of serial redesign in order to sustain innovative in ways that produce sustained and sustainable differences to student learning (Author 2009). Key findings relate to a recurring pattern of collaborative and flexible teaching, professional learning and leadership in order to create internal stability and professional peer accountability.

Authors

• Deb Bateman, Deakin University

• Jillian Anne Blackmore, Professor, Deakin University

• Joanne O'Mara, Deakin University