A shift is apparent in design of school building over the last decades, from the traditional 20th century „bell and cell“ (Nair et al, 2005) design towards more open and flexible learning spaces. This is the case in Iceland and is well documented by Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir and Torfi Hjartarson (2016, 2018, 2021) and reflect paradigm changes from traditional 19th- and 20th-century design forms, based on conventional classrooms along corridors, towards open and flexible learning spaces designed for teamwork and more student-centred approaches. This development has not always been clear-cut nor free of difficulties, but most schools or school extensions built in this century have been designed to accommodate open and flexible approaches in school practices. A similar trend has been apparent in other parts of the world, including Sweden (Frelin & Grannäs, 2021), Finland (Niemi, 2021), Australia (Kariippanon et al. 2020), and many other countries OECD, 2013), often involving considerable challenges for school leaders, teachers, and students (Woolner & Stadler-Altmann, 2021). Several studies have focused on investigating the link between school design and pedagogy, but little known about if and how school design have impact on student learning. This study is a first step in effort to better understand these impacts. The objectives of this study are to analyse student perception towards some aspects of teaching and learning in ILE classrooms in Nordic schools and compare it to student perception in more conventional classroom settings. 

What counts as an innovative learning space is debatable and can be viewed from many perspectives (Bradbeer et al 2019). The term of an innovative physical learning environment (ILE) has, however, gain popularity in the literature about an environment that is different from the traditional “grammar of schooling”, with classrooms of similar sizes lined up along corridors. It is a design forms as open and flexible learning spaces of different size designed for different purposes. Two or more teachers share the responsibility of a group of students, refereed to here as team teaching. Team teaching is a common practice and is a promising condition for a professional learning community (PLC) as it promotes teacher collaboration, job satisfaction and professional dialogue (e.g. Hargreaves, 2019). Not much is known on effects on student, however, Kariippanon et al (2018) noted positive changes in student engagement and wellbeing as they moved from traditional classroom settings to ILE arrangements in Australian schools.  

A recent review of the literature (Duthilleul, et al 2021) leads to the conclusion that the physical environment does affect processes of teaching and learning and could be assumed to have an impact, for better or worse, on student learning (Byer, 2021). There is however a broad agreement in the literature that potential positive effects of ILE on student learning or well-being is only possible if other factors of the schoolwork aligned with the ideology behind the design (e.g. Gislason, 2010; Woolner et al, 2018; French et al. 2020; Frelin et al, 2021; Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir, et al 2016, 2021). An innovative learning space would always incorporate innovative pedagogies that aims for better learning outcomes and more competent students (Bradbeer et al. 2019; Frelin & Grannas, 2021). Therefore, studies on physical learning spaces should always include investigation of potential influences on teaching practices and student learning and well-being.

The research question is: How, do students in ILE classrooms perceive the teaching practice differently from students in traditional classrooms?

This study is linked with QUINT centre (Quality in Nordic Teaching) and relied on data that was collected among 8th graders in ten schools in each of the Nordic country (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland). Two schools in each country can be categorised as ILE schools with open plan classrooms, or ten schools out of the one hundred. Twelve lessons in Math , LA and Social Science in each school were videorecorded, four in each subject. The recordings are used to confirm that the layout of the classrooms can categorises as ILE. The data used in this study is students’ responses from the Tripod survey. Seven components of instructional practice are measured in the survey (care, control, clarity, challenge, captive, confer and consolidate) developed by Ferguson (2010). The purpose is to assess to what extent the students experience the classroom environment as supportive for their intellectual growth and wellbeing. The students were asked to state the frequency of different actions or activities in the classroom (38 statements) that indicate their interest and engagement and their perceptions of teaching on a five-point ordinal scale: never, rarely, sometimes, often, always. The survey was translated in applicable language and adapted by members of the QUINT centre. Students in three classrooms in each school (in Math, Language Art and Social Science), approx. 60 students (approx. 6000 students in the whole dataset). The students are groped in two groups, students in the eight ILE schools and students in the other schools. The outcomes are compared by using Independent sample t-test.

This is a work in progress, as data are collected but not fully analysed. There are no previous research results that allow us to predict outcomes. A difference between the two groups should though be expected regarding confer. That is a component meant to measure, in five statements, student perceptions of their own involvement in decision making about task and to what extent that teachers respect student’s opinions. These are most often the main reasons for flexible classroom design and should be reflected in student responses. We would be surprised to see difference in care as the statements concern teachers attitude and behaviour. The results will be used to dig deeper into the video recordings of the lessons to gain clearer picture of teaching approaches and communications within the classrooms. Most countries in Europe are experimenting with school design in some way, trying to move away from the traditional “cell and bell” scheme and creating something that can count as an innovative learning environment. It is essential for authorities and educationalist in these countries and learn about possible impact on student learning. This study will contribute into this gap.

Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir. (2018). Student-centred classroom environments in upper secondary school: Students’ ideas about good spaces for learning vs. actual arrangements. In Benade, L. & Jackson, M. (eds). Transforming Education: Design & Governance in Global Contexts, pp 183–197. Springer https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-10-5678-9 Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir, Torfi Hjartarson & Aðalsteinn Snorrason. (2021). Pedagogical Walks through Open and Sheltered Spaces: A Post-Occupancy Evaluation of an Innovative Learning Environment. Buildings, 11(11), 503. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11110503 Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir og Torfi Hjartarson, T. (2016). The idea and reality of an innovative school. From inventive design to established practice in a new school building. Improving schools, 19(1), 62–79. doi:10.1177/1365480215612173 Bradbeer, C.; Mahat, M.; Byers, T.; Imms, W. A (2019). Systematic Review of the Effects of Innovative Learning Environments on Teacher Mind Frames; University of Melbourne: Melborne, Australia, http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/reports. Byers, T.; Mahat, M.; Liu, K.; Knock, A.; Imms, W. A Systematic Review of the Effects of Learning Environments on Student Learning Outcomes; Innovative Learning Environments and Teachers Change, University of Melbourne: Melbourne, Australia, 2018. Available online: http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/reports (accessed on 25 August 2021). Duthilleul, Y., Woolner, P. og Whelan, A. (2021). Constructing education: An opportunity not to be missed. Council of Europe Development Bank. France. https://coebank.org/media/documents/Constructing_Education.pdf Ferguson, R. (2010). Student perceptions of teaching effectiveness. Discussion brief. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Teacher Effectiveness and the Achievement Gap Initiative, Harvard University. Frelin, A. & Grannäs, J. (2021). Designing and building robust innovative learning environments. Buildings 11, 345. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11080345. Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environment Research, 13, 127–145. Hargreaves, A. (2019). Teacher collaboration: 30 years of research on its nature, forms, limitations and effects. Teachers and Teaching, 25/5, 603–621 https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1639499 Kariippanon, K.E.; Cliff, D.P.; Okely, A.D.; Parrish, A.M. (2020). The ‘why’ and ‘how’ of flexible learning spaces: A complex adaptive systems analysis. Journal of Educational Change 21, 569–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09364-0. OECD. Innovative Learning Environment. (2013). OECD: Paris, France. Nair, P., & Fielding, R. (2005). The Language of School Design: Design Patterns for 21st Century Schools. DesignShare.com: Prakash Nair & Randall Fielding Niemi, K. (2021). The best guess for the future? Teachers’ adaptation to open and flexible learning environments in Finland. Education Inquiry, 12,(3) 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2020.1816371. Woolner, P. & Stadler-Altmann, U. (2021). Openness-flexibility-transition. Nordic prospects for changes in the school learning environment. Education Inquiry, 12, 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.1957331