Putting “structure within the space”: spatially un/responsive pedagogic practices in open-plan learning environments

Abstract

Non-traditional open-plan schools and classrooms are currently enjoying a resurgence in Australia, with proponents arguing for the necessity of educational spaces that more readily accommodate the needs of 21 st century learners. However, these learning environments can pose considerable pedagogic challenges for teachers who must balance the ethos of spaces designed to facilitate autonomous and flexible student learning, while simultaneously managing the complexities of shared space and resources, decreased staff-student ratios, and highly variable student responses to learning in open-plan settings. This paper draws on observational and interview data from an Australian study of three primary schools operating in open-plan spaces. Informed by cultural theories of spatial practice, we argue that the ways in which teachers conceptualise and operationalize notions of 'structure' is pivotal to the responsiveness of pedagogic approaches within openplan spaces.

The Impact of School Infrastructure on Learning: A Synthesis of the Evidence

“…The most obvious aspect of the relationship between pedagogy and space is layout, in particular cellular classrooms versus flexible or open configurations. This is a complex issue , which has been explored in several studies that were not conclusive about the impact of flexibility on pupils' achievements nor about the value of either open plan or cellular layouts Saltmarsh et al 2015;Stone 2001). However, a study ( Scott-Webber et al 2013) was recently conducted in four uS universities using an instrument called active Learning post Occupancy Evaluation Tool.…”

Structural change from physical foundations: The role of the environment in enacting school change

“…That this is changing is suggested by a number of researchers now exploring the evolution of teaching and learning practices in altered settings (e.g. Imms and Byers 2017;Saltmarsh et al 2015;Campbell et al 2013;Alterator and Deed 2013) and proposing new ways to understand the dynamic relationship between educational space and activities (e.g. Cleveland and Fisher 2014;Dovey and Fisher 2014;Boys 2011).…”

“…Considering social and material structures as intimately interlinked also coheres with the overlapping of organisational, social and material aspects of the learning environment proposed by Gislason, the articulation of learning space as created by ''a range of dynamics…discursive, material and social'' (Mulcahy et al 2015, p. 591) and the empirical work of other researchers (e.g. Saltmarsh et al 2015;McGregor 2003). This inherent entwining is important given that Gislason's work includes seminal findings about the need for these elements to be in coherence rather than conflict for a learning environment to be successful (see Gislason 2015).…”

“…This relationship of the school environment to practices has suggested to some educators and school leaders that changing the physical setting is an effective way of initiating or supporting change (e.g. Saltmarsh et al 2015;Mulcahy et al 2015;Briggs 2001). Yet the results of such environmentally-led change are mixed.…”

Learning spaces and pedagogic change: envisioned, enacted and experienced

“…Significant pedagogic issues are raised here and relate to other reported experiences and previous research (Saltmarsh et al 2015;Woolner et al 2014). In comparison with the patterns that formed in the school leader and student data sets, there is greater variability in the responses made by teachers to using new designs of learning environments and effecting change.…”