AccScience Publishing / DP / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/dp.4131
Submit to DP
Cite this article
178
Download
1230
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
REVIEW

Five concepts to consider when designing future schools

Craig Deed1*
Show Less
1 School of Education, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
DP 2024, 1(1), 4131 https://doi.org/10.36922/dp.4131
Submitted: 3 July 2024 | Accepted: 29 July 2024 | Published: 20 August 2024
© 2024 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Download PDF
Cite
XML
Abstract

This paper presents a review of concepts that have implications for the design of future schools. These concepts have both educational and design meanings and applications, and these are examined here specifically in relation to their design application. A brief review of school design trends is outlined, followed by a semi-systematic review of literature that combines both future education pedagogical trends and related school design implications. Five concepts are identified and considered: context, culture, and place; community ecosystem; personalized experience; flexibility; and agency. The conclusion summarizes the considerations for future school design. These design concepts are important as the built school context provides a basis for how teachers and students frame their perceptions of where, when, and how they can teach and learn. Built environments may be symbolic of a construct that represents the school’s education vision and practice. The concepts explicated here are relational, connecting design ideas to the social practices of teachers and students that are by nature complex and unstable, but with an assumption that these practices can be afforded and prompted through considered design.

Graphical abstract
Keywords
Learning environment
School design
Pedagogy
Student experience
Design affordances
Future schools
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
References
  1. Boyd R. The Boyer Lectures - Artificial Australia. United Kingdom: Australian Broadcasting Commission, Ambassador Press; 1967.

 

  1. Woodfield R, editor. The Essential Gombrich: Selected Writings on Art and Culture. United States: Phaidon Press; 1996.

 

  1. Snyder H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2019;104:333-339. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

 

  1. Beichner RJ. History and evolution of active learning spaces. New Dir Teach Learn. 2014;2014(137):9-16. doi: 10.1002/tl.20081

 

  1. Lippman PC, Matthews E. Re-imagining the open classroom. In: Alterator S, Deed C, editors. School Space and its Occupation. Netherlands: Brill; 2018. p. 63-85. doi: 10.1163/9789004379664_006

 

  1. Whitescarver K, Cossentino J. Montessori and the mainstream: A century of reform on the margins. Teach Coll Rec. 2008;110(12):2571-2600. doi: 10.1177/016146810811001204

 

  1. Cuban L. The open classroom: Were schools without walls just another fad? Education Next. 2004;4(2):68-71.

 

  1. Ogata AF. Debating and designing the postwar American schoolhouse. In: Darian-Smith K, Willis J, editors. Designing Schools: Space, Place and Pedagogy. London: Routledge; 2016. p. 71-83. doi: 10.4324/9781315714998

 

  1. Brunetti FA, Cohen EG, Meyer JW, Molnar SR. Studies of team teaching in the open-space school. Interchange. 1972;3:85-101. doi: 10.1007/BF02186057

 

  1. Murphy JT. “But aren’t we extinct?”: Inhabited reform and instructional visibility in an open space school 40 years later. Teach Coll Rec. 2020;122(9):1-44. doi: 10.1177/016146812012200901

 

  1. Rosén Rasmussen L. Building pedagogies. A historical study of teachers’ spatial work in new school architecture. Educ Inq. 2021;12(3):225-248. doi: 10.1080/20004508.2020.1857495

 

  1. Imms W, Cleveland B, Fisher K. Evaluating Learning Environments: Snapshots of Emerging Issues, Methods and Knowledge. Berlin: Springer; 2016.

 

  1. Fisher K, Dovey K. Plans and pedagogies: School design as socio-spatial assemblage. In: Fisher K, editor. The Translational Design of Schools. Netherlands: Brill; 2016. p. 157-177.

 

  1. Charteris J, Smardon D, Nelson E. Innovative learning environments and new materialism: A conjunctural analysis of pedagogic spaces. Des Educ Pedagogy. 2017;49(8):28-41. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2017.1298035

 

  1. Imms W. Innovative learning spaces: Catalysts/agents for change, or “just another fad”? In: Alterator S, Deed C, editors. School Space and its Occupation. Netherlands: Brill; 2018. p. 107-118.

 

  1. Wilson BG, Myers KM. Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In: Jonassen DH, Land SM, editors. Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. United States: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2000. p. 57-88. doi: 10.4324/9781410602901

 

  1. Gomez K, Lee US. Situated cognition and learning environments: Implications for teachers on-and offline in the new digital media age. Interact Learn Environ. 2015;23(5):634-652. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2013.817438

 

  1. Greeno JG. The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. Am Psychol. 1998;53(1):5. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.53.1.5

 

  1. Vermeir K, Kelchtermans G, März V. Implementing artifacts: An interactive frame analysis of innovative educational practices. Teach Teach Educ. 2017;63:116-125. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.002

 

  1. Lewicka M. Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? J Environ Psychol. 2011;31(3):207-230. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001

 

  1. Relph E. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion Limited; 1976.

 

  1. Barsalou LW. Grounded cognition. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59(1):617-645. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639

 

  1. Shapiro L. Embodied Cognition. London: Routledge; 2019. doi: 10.4324/9781315180380

 

  1. Sfard A. Metaphors in education. In: Daniels H, Lauder H, Porter J, editors. Educational Theories, Cultures and Learning. London: Routledge; 2011. p. 39-49.

 

  1. Soccio P. A new post occupancy evaluation tool for assessing the indoor environment quality of learning environments. In: Imms W, Cleveland B, Fisher K, editors. Evaluating Learning Environments. Netherlands: Brill; 2016. p. 195-210.

 

  1. Uline CL, Wolsey TD, Tschannen-Moran M, Lin CD. Improving the physical and social environment of school: A question of equity. J Sch Leadersh. 2010;20(5):597-632. doi: 10.1177/105268461002000504

 

  1. Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological Systems Theory. United States: American Psychological Association; 2000.

 

  1. Williams MK. John Dewey in the 21st century. J Inq Action Educ. 2017;9(1):7.

 

  1. Aldrich H. Organizations and Environments. United States: Stanford University Press; 2008.

 

  1. Jacobson M, Wilensky U. Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. J Learn Sci. 2006;15(1):11-34. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4

 

  1. DEWR. Workforce of the Future - Rethinking Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow; 2024. Available from: https://www.dewr. gov.au/skills-organisations/workforce-future-event-series/ workforce-future-rethinking-skills-jobs-tomorrow [Last accessed on 2024 Jun 27].

 

  1. Bearman M, Ryan J, Ajjawi R. Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: A critical literature review. High Educ. 2023;86(2):369-385. doi: 10.1007/s10734-022-00937-2

 

  1. Chen L, Chen P, Lin Z. Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access. 2020;8:75264-75278. doi: 10.1109/access.2020.2988510

 

  1. Yan L, Sha L, Zhao L, et al. Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review. Br J Educ Technol. 2024;55(1):90-112. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13241

 

  1. Kabudi T, Pappas I, Olsen DH. AI-enabled adaptive learning systems: A systematic mapping of the literature. Comput Educ Artif Intell. 2021;2:100017. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100017

 

  1. Moorhouse BL, Yeo MA, Wan Y. Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world’s top-ranking universities. Comput Educ Open. 2023;5:100151. doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151

 

  1. Cope B, Kalantzis M, Searsmith D. Artificial intelligence for education: Knowledge and its assessment in AI-enabled learning ecologies. Educ Philos Theor. 2021;53(12):1229-1245. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1728732

 

  1. Yannier N, Hudson SE, Koedinger KR. Active learning is about more than hands-on: A mixed-reality AI system to support STEM education. Int J Artif Intell Educ. 2020;30:74-96. doi: 10.1007/s40593-019-00191-1

 

  1. Prain V, Cox P, Deed C, et al. Personalised learning: Lessons to be learnt. Br Educ Res J. 2013;39(4):654-676. doi: 10.1080/01411926.2012.669748

 

  1. Prain V, Cox P, Deed C, et al, editors. Characterising personalising learning. In: Personalising Learning in Open- Plan Schools. Berlin: Springer; 2015. p. 3-25.

 

  1. Stefanou CR, Perencevich KC, DiCintio M, Turner JC. Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educ Psychol. 2004;39(2):97-110. doi: 10.1207/s1532695ep3902_2

 

  1. Lindner KT, Alnahdi GH, Wahl S, Schwab S. Perceived differentiation and personalization teaching approaches in inclusive classrooms: Perspectives of students and teachers. Front Educ. 2019;4:58. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00058

 

  1. Coleman J. Well‐being in schools: Empirical measure, or politician’s dream? Oxf Rev Educ. 2009;35(3):281-292. doi: 10.1080/03054980902934548

 

  1. Konu A, Rimpelä M. Well-being in schools: A conceptual model. Health Promot Int. 2002;17(1):79-87. doi: 101093/heapro/17.1.79

 

  1. Durlak JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD, Schellinger KB. The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of school‐based universal interventions. Child Dev. 2011;82(1):405-432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

 

  1. Deppeler J, Aikens K. Responsible innovation in school design-a systematic review. J Responsible Innov. 2020;7(3):573-597. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2020.1809782

 

  1. Morgan J. Critical pedagogy: The spaces that make the difference. Pedagogy Cult Soc. 2000;8(3):273-289. doi: 10.1080/14681360000200094

 

  1. Page A, Anderson J, Charteris J. Including students with disabilities in innovative learning environments: A model for inclusive practices. Int J Inclusive Educ. 2023;27(14):1696-1711. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2021.1984792

 

  1. Benade L. Flexible learning spaces: Inclusive by design? N Z J Educ Stud. 2019;54(1):53-68. doi: 10.1007/s40841-019-00129-6

 

  1. Shvarts A, Bakker A. The early history of the scaffolding metaphor: Bernstein, Luria, Vygotsky, and before. Mind Cult Act. 2019;26(1):4-23. doi: 10.1080/10749039.2019.1574306

 

  1. Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G. The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1976;17(2):89-100. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

 

  1. Hod Y. Future learning spaces in schools: Concepts and designs from the learning sciences. J Form Des Learn. 2017;1(2):99-109. doi: 10.1007/s41686-017-0012-9

 

  1. Hertzberger H. Space and Learning: Lessons in Architecture 3. Vol. 3. Rotterdam: Nai010 Publishers; 2008.

 

  1. Figlio D, Loeb S. School accountability. Handb Econ Educ. 2011;3:383-421.

 

  1. Conley S, Enomoto EK. Routines in school organizations: Creating stability and change. J Educ Admin. 2005;43(1):9-21. doi: 10.1108/09578230510577263

 

  1. Deed C. Teaching and space: Five propositions. In: Alterator S, Deed C, editors. School Space and its Occupation. Netherlands: Brill; 2018. p. 13-26. doi: 10.1163/9789004379664_003

 

  1. Ribler G, Bossen A, Blasse N. School as space: Spatial alterations, teaching, social motives, and practices. Stud Paedogogica. 2014;19(4):145. doi: 10.5817/sp2014-4-7

 

  1. Deed C, Cardellino P, Matthews E, Southall A. A qualitative exploration of cardboard architecture in post-pandemic schools. Int J Educ Res Open. 2022;3:100186. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100186

 

  1. Deed C, Edwards D, Morse M, Townsend R. Translational participation: Student spatial perceptions. In: School Space and its Occupation. Netherlands: Brill; 2018. p. 171-185.

 

  1. Palincsar AS. Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annu Rev Psychol. 1998;49(1):345-375.

 

  1. Brannen J, Nilsen A. Individualisation, choice and structure: A discussion of current trends in sociological analysis. Sociol Rev. 2005;53(3):412-428. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00559.x

 

  1. Biesta G, Lawy R, Kelly N. Understanding young people’s citizenship learning in everyday life: The role of contexts, relationships and dispositions. Educ Citizenship Soc Justice. 2009;4(1):5-24. doi: 10.1177/1746197908099374

 

  1. Southall A, Deed C, Matthews EA, Cardellino P. Out of the Box: Lessons from the COVID-19 school lockdowns for future learning environments. In: Lippman PC, Matthews E, editors. Creating Dynamic Places for Learning: An Evidence Based Design Approach. Berlin: Springer; 2023. p. 117-142. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-8749-6_7

 

  1. Goller M, Paloniemi S, editors. Agency at work, learning and professional development: An introduction. In: Agency at Work: An Agentic Perspective on Professional Learning and Development. Berlin: Springer; 2017. p. 1-14. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-60943-0_1

 

  1. Eraut M. Informal learning in the workplace. Stud Contin Educ. 2004;26(2):247-273. doi: 10.1080/158037042000225245

 

  1. Ballard DH, Kit D, Rothkopf CA, Sullivan B. A hierarchical modular architecture for embodied cognition. Multisens Res. 2013;26(1-2):177-204. doi: 10.1163/22134808-00002432

 

  1. Cook VA, Hemming PJ. Education Spaces: Embodied Dimensions and Dynamics. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis; 2011.

 

  1. Malpas J. Putting space in place: Philosophical topography and relational geography. Environ Plann D Soc Space. 2012;30(2):226-242. doi: 10.1068/d20810

 

  1. Woolner P, Thomas U, Tiplady L. Structural change from physical foundations: The role of the environment in enacting school change. J Educ Change. 2018;19:223-242. doi: 10.1007/s10833-017-9317-4

 

  1. Deed C, Lesko T. Unwalling’the classroom: Teacher reaction and adaptation. Learn Environ Res. 2015;18:217-231. doi: 10.1007/s10984-015-9181-6

 

  1. Halpin D. Utopian spaces of “robust hope”: The architecture and nature of progressive learning environments. Asia‐Pac J Teach Educ. 2007;35(3):243-255. doi: 10.1080/13598660701447283
Share
Back to top
Design+, Electronic ISSN: 3060-8953 Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept