Students in Space: Student Practices in Non-Traditional Classrooms

Abstract

The discourse of the non-traditional classroom has found itself fundamentally intertwined with the rationalities of creating learning relevant for the future-orientated twenty-first century. In such an imaginary the idea of the conventional classroom -with its four walls, blackboard, 'closed' door, teacher-centred pedagogy and student learning conceptualised through the logics of the industrial erais being renegotiated. This article focuses on an empirical examination of some of the changes to student classroom practice enabled by the material conditions of non-traditional learning spaces. In particular, it highlights the ways in which non-traditional learning spaces have become complex settings through which students negotiate increased learner autonomy, co-operative learning, acceptable classroom behaviour and fluid relations with teachers and peers. The article presents a discussion of the discourse of 'twenty-first-century learning' and focuses on non-traditional classrooms as an example of a localised expression of this discourse, supported by ethnographic data generated from field visits to three primary schools in Sydney, Australia to explore student practices enabled by such spaces. Non-traditional Classroom SpacesThe discourse of the non-traditional classroom has found itself fundamentally intertwined with the rationalities of creating learning relevant for the future-orientated twenty-first century. In such an imaginary the idea of the conventional classroom -with its four walls, blackboard, 'closed' door, teacher-centred pedagogy and student learning conceptualised through the logics of the industrial era -is being radically renegotiated. For example, a recent Australian state government initiative, 'Smart Classrooms', which funds the integration of information and communications technologies (ICT) into state schools, bases its policy directives on 'the demand for seamless movement between school, work, home and play' and a strategic need for education to serve as 'the launch pad for shifting from traditional to transformational ways of working and learning' (State of Queensland, Department of Education, Training and Employment, n.d., p. 2). This discourse of twenty-firstcentury learning, focused on global economic competitiveness and education as an ongoing economic resource, is reflected in a number of policy documents, including the Melbourne

Flexible Learning Spaces: Inclusive by Design?

“…As a result, these students may experience increased anxiety and display challenging behaviours (White, Scahill, & Ollendick, 2016, cited by Page & Davis, 2016. This position is supported by the findings of the New South Wales research of Chapman et al (2014):…”

“…Much more likely it is that the users will re-purpose and re-fashion what they can, and where they can, while also tailoring different practices in response to the dynamics of the space. Thus, students sitting under tables, as reported by Chapman, et al (2014), is not necessarily a sign of escape, terror or anxiety. My own observations in a number of primary (elementary) schools suggest this is simply an instance of children taking advantage of the flexibility of a non-regimented space.…”

“…This transformation is increasingly evident in new technology-rich flexible learning spaces, characterised by large open spaces, permeable boundaries and diverse furnishings emphasising student comfort health and flexibility. Open design encourages flexibility in learning and teaching (Chapman, Randell-Moon, Campbell & Drew, 2014), and allows collaborative, team teaching, with designers claiming significant educational benefits (Fisher, 2005;Nair, 2011;Tanner, 2009).…”

“…Through gathering data contributing to published studies (Benade, 2016;2017; I have noted options including dedicated 'safe' or 'happy' places for ASD students, the creative and flexible use of breakout spaces by teachers and students, and elements of building design that both provide a range of different spaces to suit different children, as well as the installation of a range of acoustic treatments, such as carpeting and generous fibre surfaces on walls. In reference to the suggestion above (noted by Chapman et al, 2014) that students may sit under tables, for example as a means of escape, Charteris, Smardon, & Page (2018) have had it suggested to them by their research participants that these are creative acts, which these researchers interpreted as appropriation and re-purposing of spaces to the students' advantage. The existence then, of conflicting evidence indicates that it is premature to state unequivocally that bespoke flexible learning spaces and the range of pedagogical practices they make possible are either inclusive, or actively exclude some occupants and users of those spaces.…”

The transformative educative prospects of flexible learning environments

“…Thus, an increasing number of New Zealand classrooms and schools present these new technology-rich flexible learning spaces, characterised by large open spaces, permeable boundaries and diverse furnishings emphasising student comfort health and flexibility. Open design encourages flexibility in learning and teaching (Chapman, Randell-Moon, Campbell & Drew, 2014), and allows collaborative, team teaching.…”