Abstract
Emerging research shows teachers and architects perceive higher numbers of affordances for learning in innovative learning environments (ILEs) than in traditional classrooms. Yet, offering ILEs alone will not bring about significant changes to teacher practices nor students’ learning experiences. Supporting teachers to perceive and utilise spaces that offer multiple activity settings, such as afforded by ILEs, is important in eliciting pedagogical change. This research explored the development of strategies intended to support teachers to actualise the affordances of ILEs, i.e. take advantage of new learning spaces for effective teaching and learning. An innovative methodological pairing of Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Co-design was employed to explore teachers’ instructional practice development in relation to new learning spaces. The study uncovered insights into current and future practices, where teacher participants planned, enacted, and reflected upon their pedagogical strategies. It was found that empowering teachers to actualise ILE affordances involved generating communities of practice that provided them with the ‘time and space’ to collectively develop their practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
adapted from Nixon et al. (2016)
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
The spatial qualities of learning spaces included those identified by Young et al. (2019).
References
Barry, A., Born, G., & Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society, 37(1), 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701760841.
Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes. (Vol. 22). Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Brogden, M. (2007). Plowden and primary school buildings: A story of innovation without change. [Conference proceedings]. Forum, 49(1), 55–66.
Cleveland, B. (2011). Engaging spaces: Innovative learning environments, pedagogies and student engagement in the middle years of school. PhD Thesis, The University of Melbourne.
Cleveland, B. (2018). Innovative learning environments as complex adaptive systems: Enabling middle years’ education. In B. Lofland, & J. M (Eds.), Transforming education, (pp. 55–78). Singapore: Springer.
Cleveland, B., & Woodman, K. (2009). Learning from past experiences: School building design in the 1970s and today. In C. Newton & K. Fisher (Eds.), TAKE 8 learning spaces: The transformation of educational spaces for the 21st century. (pp. 58–67). Australian Institute of Architects.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. (4th ed.). Routledge.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. . Routledge.
Cotterell, J. L. (1984). Effects of school architectural design on student and teacher anxiety. Environment & Behavior, 16(4), 455–479.
Deed, C., & Lesko, T. (2015). Unwalling the classroom: Teacher reaction and adaptation. Learning Environments Research, 18(2), 217–231.
Denscombe, M. (2014). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects. . Open University Press.
Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2014.882376.
Dweck, C. (2012). Mindset: How you can fulfil your potential. . Constable & Robinson.
French, R., Imms, W., & Mahat, M. (2019). Case studies on the transition from traditional classrooms to innovative learning environments: Emerging strategies for success. Improving Schools, 23(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480219894408.
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning. . Pear Press.
Gibson, E., & Pick, A. (2003). An ecological approach to perceptual learning and development. . Oxford University Press.
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. . Houghton-Mifflin.
Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environ Research, 13(2), 127–145.
Halpin, D. (2007). Utopian spaces of “robust hope": The architecture and nature of progressive learning environments. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660701447205.
Imms, W., Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2016). Evaluating learning environments: Snapshots of emerging issues, methods and knowledge (Advances in learning environments research). . Sense Publishers.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. (3rd ed., pp. 559–604). SAGE Publications.
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. . Springer.
Klein, J. T. (2015). Interdisciplining digital humanities: Boundary work in an emerging field (Digital humanities (Ann Arbor, Mich.)). USA: University of Michigan Press.
Kyttä, M. (2002). Affordances of children’s environments in the context of cities, small towns, suburbs and rural villages in Finland and Belarus. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0249.
Kyttä, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00073-2.
Lackney, J. (2008). Teacher environmental competence in elementary school environments. Children Youth and Environments, 18(2), 133–159.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Learning in doing). . Cambridge University Press.
Lindberg, A., & Lyytinen, K. (2013). Towards a theory of affordance ecologies. In F. de Vaujany & N. Mitev (Eds.), Materiality and space. Technology, work and globalization. (pp. 41–61). Palgrave Macmillan.
Mahat, M., Bradbeer, C., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2018). Innovative learning environments and teacher change: Defining key concepts. In LEaRN (Ed.). Melbourne.
Mattingly, D. (2016). Learning principles distilled from the research literature (pp. 1–2). Online: Columbia University.
Melo, A. T., et al. (2018). Abducting. In C. Lury, R. Fensham, A. Heller-Nicholas, S. Lammes, A. Last, & M. Michael (Eds.), Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods. (pp. 90–94). Routledge.
Mulcahy, D., Cleveland, B., & Aberton, H. (2015). Learning spaces and pedagogic change: Envisioned, enacted and experienced. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 23, 575–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2015.1055128.
Newton, C. (2009). Disciplinary dilemmas: Learning spaces as a discussion between designers and educators. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy in Education, 17(2), 7–27.
OECD. (2013). Innovative learning environments (Educational Research and Innovation). . OECD Publishing.
Paniagua, A., & Istance, D. (2018). Teachers as designers of learning environments: The importance of innovative pedagogies. . OECD Publishing.
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2015). Design thinking research: Making design thinking foundational. . Springer.
Rivlin, L. G., & Rothenberg, M. (1975). Design implications of space use and physical arrangements in open education classes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Environmental Design Research Association, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
Sanders, E.B.-N., Sanders, L., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial design toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. . BIS Publishers.
Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Introduction to communities of practice. https://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/.
Woolner, P., Clark, C., Laing, K., Thomas, U., & Tiplady, L. (2012). Changing spaces: Preparing students and teachers for a new learning environment. Children, Youth and Environments, 22(1), 52–74.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980601094693.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. . SAGE Publications.
Young, F., Cleveland, B., & Imms, W. (2019). The affordances of innovative learning environments for deep learning: educators’ and architects’ perceptions. The Australian Educational Researcher, 47(4), 693–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00354-y.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: semi-structured interview questions
Appendix: semi-structured interview questions
School A | School B | |
|---|---|---|
Research question | ● How can we prepare ourselves to effectively use our proposed new learning spaces? | ● How can we enhance our use of our new prototype learning space for student deep learning? |
Semi-structured interview questions – Round 1 | ● What do you find exciting or daunting about the proposed refurbishments to your school? | ● What do you find exciting or daunting about the proposed new Year 7/8 & library building? |
● What do you hope to be able to do in these spaces that you can’t do now? ● Do you expect to teach differently in the new learning spaces? | Do you expect to teach any differently in the proposed new Year 7/8 & library building? | |
● What types of spaces do you teach in now? How do you think these spaces enable or constrain your teaching? | ● What are your experiences of teaching in the prototype learning space? ● Have you taught differently than you would in other parts of the school? ● Do you find the space constraining in any way? | |
How do you think your past experience will inform your future teaching practice? | ||
Semi-structured interview questions—Round 2 | ● Were there any particular moments during the research process that raised your awareness around space as a teaching resource to enable learning activities and support you in your practice? ● What did you find difficult in the process? ● What did you find most effective in the process? ● Are there any insights, techniques, discussions from the PAR/Co-design process which you think has or will help you in transitioning to the new building/using the prototype learning space? ● What support structures were/are required to enable this transition? ● Have you (or will you) continue to trial and test practice beyond PAR process? | |
● Did you consider trialling something related to planning lessons together or Team Teaching? | ● Are you using the prototype learning space differently than prior to the first workshop in August? | |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Young, F., Tuckwell, D. & Cleveland, B. Actualising the affordances of innovative learning environments through co-creating practice change with teachers. Aust. Educ. Res. 49, 805–826 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00447-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00447-7