The present article reports the findings of the first cycle of a design-based research project that traced teachers’ perceptions of digitally-infused school spaces and educational activities within the construction process of a new general upper-secondary school building in Finland. The new building is to represent the City of Helsinki’s vision of a sustainable future, in which creating safe and sound learning environments for children and adolescents is central in putting the real estate strategy in action (City of Helsinki,
2021). School buildings should be repaired or replaced with new buildings to meet the climate goals in terms of quality, schedule and finances, and carbon footprints. One solution in meeting these requirements that encompassed this investigation is a life span model. In the model, the City of Helsinki owns the forthcoming building, whereas a private construction company is responsible for the subsequent maintenance as a service provider several years after the construction, and for deployment.
Designing school buildings is an interdisciplinary process requiring reciprocal understanding between the participating stakeholders, including educators, architects, interior designers, and constructors (Tse et al.,
2019). We aimed to contribute to the multifaceted participatory process by developing a methodological framework for tracing the interdependence between school spaces, digital instruments, and teachers’ practices and, thereby, to create practice-oriented knowledge for supporting the interdisciplinary design efforts of innovative learning environments (ILEs). ILEs are today’s disruptive interventions in the educational field (Imms,
2016; OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development],
2013). Flexibility, diversity and increased openness characterize these contemporary learning environments, which have various designations, such as open, flexible, and innovative learning environments or spaces. We adopt the OECD’s (
2013) term ILE, because it emphasizes learners’ individuality, sets collaboration central in promoting cross-curricular and inter-organizational activities, and accentuates the enormous reshaping potential of technologies. ILEs also aim to endorse the shift in educational activities from teacher to digitally-infused learner and learning-centricity. Learning-centricity, in Finnish general upper-secondary schools in the recently-introduced core curriculum (EDUFI,
2019) inter alia in cross-curricular activities, involves individual learning trajectories and educational practices that build on the learners’ knowledge and their active role. Additional to subject specific knowledge, the educational goals are to advance learners’ wellbeing, interaction, interdisciplinary, and creativity abilities as well as societal, ethical, environmental, global and cultural skills. These holistic skills and collaborative activities challenge not only subject-specific teaching traditions but also prevailing learning environments; closed classrooms and corridors with insufficient collaboration facilities and digital instruments dominate many schools. Therefore, the multidisciplinary stakeholders engaged in designing new learning environments need to share a common understanding of the pursued educational goals and practices in achieving those goals.
For the learning environments field, the visualized knowledge that the method creates serves as an input, on one hand, to the multidisciplinary stakeholders to design learning environments from the point of view of educational activities. The novel method exposes school spaces’ correspondence to educational needs from teachers’ perspective, which consolidates on the design of learning environments that are suitable for educational activities. That is to say, knowledge is created in visual and human interpretable format for input to the multidisciplinary stakeholders who collaborate in designing learning environments and need to understand the digitally-mediated socio-pedagogic activities occurring in school spaces. On the other hand, the created visualizations disclose cultivation needs in a school’s operational culture to transform toward a learning-centric collaborative school culture. The created knowledge is input to educational leaders to identify the needs and to direct support for those socio-pedagogic activities that should be strengthened in achieving the educational transformation process to take full benefit of ILEs when occupied. The entanglement of school architectures and educational activities has been given little attention in research, although knowledge and understanding of this phenomenon would assist architects and educators in making better decisions around the design and use of school spaces (Deppeler & Aikens,
2020; Gislason,
2010). In the following, we examine the research on designing school spaces, along with the sociomaterial intertwining of school spaces and technologies with social activities.
How space and technologies shape school culture
School is an institution, but also a community and network of people with the fundamental goal of equipping students for the digital future (Hakkarainen et al.,
2004; Korhonen et al.,
2014). A school’s organizational culture guides how the school community works toward attaining goals, and it is comprised of artifacts (organizational structures and processes), shared beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions (Schein,
2017). We consider schools as holistic learning ecosystems consisting of an operating culture, collaboration practices and networks, pedagogic practices, digital instruments, and learning environments that involve physical, virtual, and epistemic-social environments (Nardi,
1999; Nonaka & Konno,
1998). Whereas political and educational rules, programs, and procedures, such as legislation and the national curriculum, direct structural changes, cultural change in an organization requires altering prevailing practices, habits, and assumptions (DuFour & Fullan,
2013). Hence, fostering a collaborative culture is recognized as a promising strategy for advancing teaching and learning and fostering school improvements (Casey et al.,
2021; DuFour & Mattos,
2013). However, teachers’ collaboration culture varies between school communities and teachers’ informal subgroups (Meredith et al.,
2017). Therefore, although teachers’ collective intention might be to participate in designing school spaces, latent tensions (e.g. rigid habits, lack of skills, power relations, and attitudes) could hinder joint efforts in generating novelty and innovation.
In addition to being an institution and a community with an operational culture, a school is also a built environment, and the design of a school building influences the school’s culture and shapes the methods of teaching and learning (Reinius et al.,
2021; Stadler-Altmann,
2015). The users’ activities, in turn, reciprocally affect the further functional development of school spaces. Design solutions need to be owned by the users and supported with systems and behavioral change in order to work effectively (Higgins et al.,
2005). Environments and their inhabitants have a fundamentally strong relationship; humans shape their buildings through design practice and their organizations through management practice, and the buildings reciprocally shape the activities taking place in organizations (Daniels et al.,
2019). However, teachers tend to underestimate the effects of physical spaces on learning (Lei,
2010), and limited attention has been paid to materiality in learning (Fenwick,
2014) and the transition into new and more-innovative spaces (French et al.,
2020). Like physical school spaces, interwoven digitalization and pedagogic practices entail systemic transformations in schools’ operational cultures and collaboration practices (Pettersson,
2021). Digitalization creates more-flexible learning opportunities (Valtonen et al.,
2021) and empowers collaboration and learning on digital platforms and increases the amount of available online learning material. Digitalization and remote access, as well, enable learning and teaching that are independent of time and place, thus also improving opportunities for differentiated teaching and individual learning pathways. While old school buildings with isolated classrooms and limited digital facilities hinder achieving the full benefits of digitalization, ILEs aim to incorporate a diverse and flexible design and to favor the use of digital instruments in educational activities.
Designing school spaces requires multidisciplinary collaboration between educators, architects, IT specialists, and many other experts; educational activities and school spaces are inseparable, and users’ active participation in design is crucial for a building-in-construction to become suitable for educational activities (Daniels et al.,
2019; Frelin & Grannäs,
2021; Tse et al.,
2019). Although research on school buildings and environments is growing, it is limited in the educational field in Nordic countries and mostly addresses the Australian, UK, and U.S. contexts (Frelin et al.,
2021). Frelin at al. (
2021) identified research efforts covering the common themes of school architecture and design, policy processes, participatory design, transition to the new building, novel learning environments, and innovative or flexible learning spaces, as well as the relation between the built environment and student learning, including technology enhancement. In this study, we consider the design of ILEs as a participatory process involving the interdisciplinary community (educators, students, architects, and builders), which strives to ensure that, throughout the construction process, school spaces meet the school community’s pedagogic needs. For this process, we present a practice-oriented method to create spatial-wise knowledge about educational activities from teachers’ perspective. The method acknowledges that the collaborating non-educators understand educational activities that occur in school spaces and teachers’ expectation of the school culture, thereby consolidating the design activities of learning environments from the point of view of educational activities. Efforts have been made to create process models for co-designing school buildings (Frelin & Grannäs,
2021; Könings et al.,
2017) and framing school design by combining the staff culture, student milieu, ecology, and organization aspects (Gislason,
2010). Frelin and Grannäs’s (
2021) analytical model plotted stakeholders’ influence in the design and building process, in the phases of educational vision, concept design, space design, interior design, and technical design and construction. Könings et al. (
2017) introduced an interdisciplinary model of practice for participatory school building design in education, illustrating how different stakeholders can participate in the process phases of plan, experiment, realize, and use. The present investigation captures teachers’ practices and perceptions of school spaces in relation to educational practices and school culture for those external to the school community to understand the school’s operational environment and culture when designing new learning environments. Next, we discuss the ontological premises of the material and social interdependence of school spaces, digital instruments, and educational activities.
Sociomaterial approach to designing school buildings
Designing learning environments on the basis of educational activities and digital mediation entails sociomateriality. We approach the social and material aspects as equally balanced and adopt a sociomaterial approach that is conceived as post-humanist, seeking to decenter the human (Orlikowski,
2007). Fundamentally, sociomateriality interprets human and nonhuman elements as ontologically inseparable and aims to understand “the constitutive entanglement of the social and the material in everyday organizational life” (Orlikowski,
2007, p. 1435). Sociomateriality perceives the distinction between humans and artifacts only analytically (Orlikowski,
2007) and reflects Law’s (
2004, p. 83) idea that “thoroughgoing relational materiality. Materials — and so realities — are treated as relational products. They do not exist in and of themselves.” In educational research, materiality tends to be separated from human subjects, considered only as background context or tools that humans use, and thus overlooking relational materiality (Decuypere & Simons,
2016; Fenwick et al.,
2011). However, as Fenwick et al., (
2011) highlight, materiality embodies the effects of dynamic connections and activities emerging through nonhuman and human interactions, gatherings, and everyday practices rather than simply representing discrete objects with properties. In the educational-space axis, we reflect on relational materiality as an inherent social (human interaction) and material (physical learning spaces, digital instruments, and infrastructures) entanglement. According to Decuypere and Simons (
2016), relational thinking conceives of materiality in an even broader context (e.g. the district welfare or education policies of a region comprising assemblages that shape educational practices). For example, in Finland, national legislation obligates general upper-secondary schools to collaborate with higher education institutes (Finnish Act on General Upper Secondary Education, 714/2018, 8§). Thus, designing learning environments outreaches the walls of a single building, entangling digital mediation and educational activities within and beyond a school community.
School communities have a variety of (in)formal groups and collaboration practices attached to their educational activities. To expose the prevailing and emerging social phenomena related to learning environments and digitalization, we need methods capable of analyzing the individual educational activities that take place in the school spaces. Although efforts have been made to understand, for instance, social practices (Decuypere,
2020,
2021; Decuypere & Simons,
2016) and sociomaterial entanglement in empirical organizational research (Moura & Bispo,
2020), methodological discussion of the possibilities of conducting sociomaterial-based studies is limited (Moura & Bispo,
2020). In increasing the knowledge of multidimensional, sociomaterially entangled phenomena, the topological approach appears to be a promising analytical tool (e.g. Decuypere,
2021; Lamb & Ross,
2021). Regarding the presentation of sociomaterial entanglement, Decuypere and Simons (
2016, p. 372) argue that “visualizations might play a crucial role” in understanding and investigating the relationality of school spaces, technology, and educational practices in the context of their use. New practice-oriented methodologies, therefore, are needed to increase understanding of the sociomaterial entanglement of pedagogy, place, people, theory, design, and practice (Carvalho & Yeoman,
2018; Cecez-Kecmanovic et al.,
2014; Deppeler & Aikens,
2020) in order to design school spaces suitable for educational activities. In addressing the entanglement of digitally-mediated school spaces and educational activities in this study, we drew on relational sociomateriality (Decuypere & Simons,
2016; Fenwick et al.,
2011; Moura & Bispo,
2020; Orlikowski,
2007).