17 SES 16, Up North and Down Under: Cases of inclusion/exclusion in innovative learning environments across hemispheres
School building quality correlates with student outcomes, supporting a moral argument for improving the quality of schools serving disadvantaged communities (Maxwell, 2016). However, the relationship between settings and education is complex, with no ideal environment or simple causal connection between space and learning (Weinstein, 1979; Woolner et al. 2007; Uline et al., 2009). Participatory design may address this disconnect through creating a tailored setting while enhancing school culture and inclusion (Parnell et al., 2008; Woolner, 2015). Our case study in this paper is a UK primary school serving an economically deprived area where a new building (opened 2011), designed through a participatory process, has facilitated change and enabled children from this community to be more fully included in education as they move into secondary school. The school is located in an area that has experienced deindustrialisation and significant decline. The neighbourhood presents some challenging demographics, centred on high levels of unemployment and poverty. Reflecting this, the school has above average proportions of disadvantaged and disabled pupils, with student learning outcomes previously low compared to other schools. However, learning outcomes have now improved with many more children achieving at the expected levels for the end of primary education. The design of the school was intended to create a welcoming, inspiring and secure environment making the most flexible use of all the available space. The resulting building is recognised locally for a distinctive design, externally and internally. The layout is based on interlinked spaces that can be opened up or closed off. This design is notable since research evidence has accumulated of problems with open plan (Rivlin & Rothenberg, 1976; Bennett et al., 1980). Although the design can positively contribute to social climate within the school (Gislason, 2010), pupils can also be distracted (Gislason, 2010; Campbell et al., 2013), with noise being a particular problem. In this school the openness is vital to the educational ethos and is used successfully, through reconfiguring the spaces, to support a range of teaching and learning activities. Children move between areas and activities in a calm, well-organised fashion that suggests positive attitudes, and the open settings foster a sense of community among pupils and staff. This school demonstrates how collaboratively designing a beautiful yet innovative building can avoid some of the shortcomings of open plan and facilitate a leap in educational inclusion, engagement and success
Bennett, N., Andreae, J., Hegarty, P., & Wade, B. (1980). Open plan schools. Windsor, United Kingdom: NFER. Campbell, M., Saltmarsh, S., Chapman, A., & Drew, C. (2013). Issues of teacher professional learning within ‘non-traditional’ classroom environments, Improving Schools 16(3), 209-222. Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and learning environment: a framework for school design research, Learning Environment Research 13(2), 127-145. Maxwell, L.E. (2016). School building condition, social climate, student attendance and academic achievement: A mediation model. Journal of Environmental Psychology 46, 206-216. Parnell, R., Cave, V. & Torrington, J. (2008). School design: opportunities through collaboration. CoDesign 4(4), 211-224. Uline, C. L., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Wolsey, T.D. (2009). The walls still speak: The stories occupants tell. Journal of Educational Administration 47, 400-426. Weinstein, C. (1979). The physical environment of the school: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research 49, 577–610. Woolner, P. (2015) (Ed.) School design together. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge Woolner, P., Hall, E., Wall, K., Higgins, S., & McCaughey, C. (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.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.