Skip to main content

Towards smart learning spaces in Catalan schools: teachers’ perceptions of change

Abstract

Moving towards Smart Learning Spaces (SLS) requires reconsideration of the school environment using a multi-dimensional approach that considers pedagogical, environmental and technological aspects. However, learning spaces have not changed that much. New designs and remodelling of educational contexts rarely are evidence-based and rarely incorporate teachers’ insights, knowledge and perceptions of environments in which learning occurs. This paper explores the perceptions of and attitudes towards change of teachers working in preschool, primary and compulsory secondary education in Catalonia regarding SLS. To achieve this, a survey was carried out with 847 students. After checking the instrument’s validity and reliability, univariate and bivariate analysis were followed by two-step cluster analysis. Teachers had a limited perception of their classrooms’ actual suitability as SLS, which impedes further pedagogical reflection about change. Irrespective of actual classrooms conditions, three groups of teachers with different degrees of favourableness towards SLS were identified. These profiles bring to light contradictory perceptions regarding both constructivist, student-centred pedagogical assemblages involving environmental changes and certain conceptions and control practices that are more typical of traditional teaching styles. Recommendations can inform the decision-making of management teams and teachers about re-conceptualizing the learning space and their interventions in schools.

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

References

  • Akomolafe, C. O. (2011). Managing innovations in educational system in Nigeria: A focus on creating and sustenance of culture of innovation. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 2(1), 47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Blackwell.

  • Ayre, J., Bakos, A., Bannister, D., Blamire, R., Brekke, S. O., Cabezas, S. G., et al. (2014). Designing the future classroom. European Schoolnet (EUN Partnership AISBL).

  • Baeta, P., & Pedro, N. (2018). Future classrooms vs. regular classrooms: Comparative analysis of established pedagogical dynamics. In EDULEARN18—The 10th annual international conference on education and new learning technologies (pp. 8198–8204). Palma de Mallorca. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2018.1912

  • Bannister, D. (2017). Guidelines on exploring and adapting learning spaces in schools. Brussels, Belgium: European Schoolnet (EUN Partnership AISBL).

  • Barrett, P., Barrett, L., & Zhang, Y. (2015a). Teachers’ views of their primary school classrooms. Intelligent Buildings International, 8(3), 176–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Davies, F., & Barrett, L. (2015b). Clever classrooms. Summary report of the HEAD project (holistic evidence and design). Engine House.

  • Bautista, G., & Borges, F. (2013). Smart classrooms: Innovation in formal learning spaces to transform learning experiences. Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Learning Technology, 15(3), 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bautista, G., Escofet, A., & López, M. (2019). Diseño y validación de un instrumento para medir las dimensiones ambiental, pedagógica y digital del aula. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 24(83), 1055–2075.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benade, L. (2017). Is the classroom obsolete in the twenty-first century? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(8), 796–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J. L., & Van Lê, K. (2019). Teacher professional identity as multidimensional: Mapping its components and examining their associations with general pedagogical beliefs. Educational Studies, 45(2), 163–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.

  • Brown, H. (2009). Incentives in U.S. charter schools: For-profit and nonprofit choices. Journal of School Choice, 2(4), 415–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582150802618675.

  • Brown, M., Cevetello, J., Dugdale, S., Finkelstein, A., Holeton, R., Long, P., & Meyers, C. (2017). Learning space rating system. EDUCAUSE.

  • Byers, T. (2016). Development of an observation metric for linking pedagogy, technology and space. In LEaRN (Ed.), Informing education theory, design and practice through learning environment evaluation (pp. 11–17). University of Melbourne.

  • Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2016). Evaluating the change in space in a technology-enabled primary years setting. In K. Fisher (Ed.), The translational design of schools (advances in learning environments research series) (pp. 215–236). Sense.

  • Byers, T., Mahat, M., Liu, K., Knock, A., & Imms, W. (2018). A systematic review of the effects of learning environments on student learning outcomes. University of Melbourne.

  • Cabanellas, I., & Eslava, C. (2005). Territorios de la infancia. Diálogos entre pedagogía y arquitectura. Graó.

  • Casanova, D., Di Napoli, R., & Leijon, M. (2018). Which space? Whose space? An experience in involving students and teachers in space design. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(4), 488–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G.-D., Nurkhamid, Wang, C.-Y., Yang, S.-H., Lu, W.-Y., & Chang, C.-K. (2013). Digital learning playground: Supporting authentic learning experiences in the classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(2), 172–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, B. W., & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literatures. Learning Environments Research, 17(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Erlbaum.

  • Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frias-Navarro, D. (2019). Apuntes de consistencia interna de las puntuaciones de un instrumento de medida. Universidad de Valencia.

  • Goodyear, V. A., & Casey, A. (2013). Innovation with change: Developing a community of practice to help teachers move beyond the “honeymoon” of pedagogical renovation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(2), 186–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, R. X., Dobson, T., & Petrina, S. (2008). Digital natives, digital immigrants: An analysis of age and ICT competency in teacher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational factors in teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 967–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Murphy, D. (2017). Type and use of innovative learning environments in Australasian schools (ILETC Survey No. 1). University of Melbourne, LEaRN.

  • Kho, A., Zimmer, R., & Buddin, R. (2020). The economics of charter schools. In S. Bradley & C. Green (Eds.), The economics of education (pp. 531–542). Elsevier.

  • Loewenthal, K. M. (1996). An introduction to psychological tests and scales. UCL Press Limited.

  • Mahat, M., Bradbeer, C., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2018). Innovative learning environments and teacher change: Defining key concepts. University of Melbourne.

  • Marchand, G. C., Nardi, N. M., Reynolds, D., & Pamoukov, S. (2014). The impact of the classroom built environment on student perceptions and learning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S. H. (2002). The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of teachers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1–2), 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Celorrio, X. (2016). Innovación y reestructuración educativa en españa: Las escuelas del nuevo siglo. In A. Blanco & A. Chueca (Eds.), Informe España (pp. 44–83). Universidad Pontificia Comillas.

  • Massey, D. (1994). Place, space and gender. Polity Press.

  • Meister, D., & Ahrens, P. (2011). Resisting plateauing: Four veteran teachers’ stories. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 770–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahya, D., Cleveland, B., & Aberton, H. (2015). Learning spaces and pedagogic change: Envisioned, enacted and experienced. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 23(4), 575–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair, P., & Fielding, R. (2005). The language of school design: Design patterns for 21st century schools. DesignShare.

  • Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

  • Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Learning spaces. EDUCAUSE.

  • OECD. (2011). Designing for education: Compendium of exemplary educational facilities. OECD Publishing.

  • OECD. (2015). Schooling redesigned: Towards innovative learning systems. OECD Publishing.

  • OECD. (2017). Framework for a module on the physical learning environment—Revised edition. OECD Publishing.

  • Phillipson, A., Riel, A., & Leger, A. B. (2018). Between knowing and learning: New instructors’ experiences in active learning classrooms. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support student creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills & Creativity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanoff, H. (1978). Designing with community participation. McGraw Hill.

  • Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: What works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, B. (2001). Teachers’ opinions about interior design and learning. Schoolfacilities.com.

  • UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a common goal? OECD.

  • Voigt, C., Hofer, M., & Schön, S. (2018). Innovation management in schools: Barriers and enablers to making as educative practice. In MKWI 2018—Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI) (pp. 833–844).

  • Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2015). Challenges confronting career-changing beginning teachers: A qualitative study of professional scientists becoming science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(2), 163–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, A. (2015). Confusing messages: Is the modern learning environment an example of idealized curricula or disruptive innovation? In Mapping learning environment evaluation across the design and education landscape: An international symposium for research higher degree students (pp. 73–79). Australian Council for Educational Research.

  • Winter, J. C. F., & Dodou, D. (2010). Five-point Likert items: t test versus Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 15(11), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T. W., & Fu, Y. (2016). The SAGE handbook of survey methodology. Sage Publications.

  • Woolner, P., Hall, E., Higgins, S., McCaughey, C., & Wall, K. (2007). A sound foundation? What we know about the impact of environments on learning and the implications for building schools for the future. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 47–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolner, P., McCarter, S., Wall, K., & Higgins, S. (2012). Changed learning through changed space: When can a participatory approach to the learning environment challenge preconceptions and alter practice? Improving Schools, 15(1), 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, A. A. (2008). The role of nonprofits in educational technology innovation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by RecerCaixa Programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelina Sánchez-Martí.

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

Bautista Pérez, G., Rubio Hurtado, M.J. & Sánchez-Martí, A. Towards smart learning spaces in Catalan schools: teachers’ perceptions of change. Learning Environ Res 25, 199–215 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09357-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09357-y

Keywords

  • Classroom design
  • School innovation
  • Smart learning spaces
  • Teachers’ perceptions