Place and Space In Education

Schools have been one of the main elements in the socialisation of children from very early on in the development of State-based education in Australia. They have been seen as a key part of enabling a child to grow to an adult who fits in with his or her society and community. Creativity has been regarded as an important part of that socialisation and it has been an implicit part of educational curricula from at least the early twentieth century, often expressed as being an integral part of a child's development. Modern curricula are based upon the concept of child-centred education and take the concept of creativity further, packaging it with "critical thinking", an essential skill for children to be able to contribute to modern innovative enterprises. The new Australian curriculum dating from 2008 specifies that all subjects should be taught in such a way as to develop critical and creative thinking in students, no matter what speciality is being taught, so as to equip children to take a fulfilling place in an ever-changing world. As high-school teachers in Australia undertake teacher training only after they have completed a specialist degree they, as specialists, are able to adapt the curriculum to the needs of their particular students, incorporating creativity where the opportunity arises. This paper include some examples where teachers have developed students' creativity in different subject areas.

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 era – is 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 ...

English Literature as a subject challenges the traditional notion of accuracy and demands negotiation between teachers and learners. It is a discipline that requires discussion, innovation and enquiry. Therefore, teaching and learning English Literature requires an environment that facilitates and accommodates engaging pedagogies as opposed to classrooms which exercise authority. Studies have shown that engaging pedagogies are enhanced within classrooms that are designed to encourage modern pedagogic practices. However, an often-overlooked area of Sri Lankan schools is the effect classroom design has on learning and teaching. This in particular affects English Literature due to its engaging pedagogic practices. This study aims to evaluate and understand classroom designs that help maintain engaging pedagogies for English Literature and the effect classroom design has on student learning. Data for the present study were collected through a lesson observation as well as semi-structured interviews of learners and a teacher of Advanced Level English Literature. Additionally, the school library was observed and discussed to understand the effects of learning environments on student learning. Through deductive data analysis, this study analyses features that contribute to the culture of learning required for Advanced Level English Literature. The implications of this study highlight that classroom design and culture promote learner thinking and collaboration. These factors enhance the learning experience of English Literature as they instill democratic values among learners and encourage learner participation.

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 era – is 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 ...

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 era – is 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 ...

The school building design is liable to regulations that aim at the space creation through two targets. The first one is the materialization of the pedagogical and social directions of the education, while the second refers to the adjustment of the educational environment to the student.
As the research in Greece shows, the design frame of the school space is characterized by out of date architectural and pedagogical stereotypes that prevent school’s educational upgrading. According to an architectural aspect, the problem lies in the dominance of the mono-functional space characteristics, that neither have space flexibility, nor are in relation with the student’s interests and imagination. In that way, they provide institutional elements to the school space, that form an educational environment “for the child” with criteria especially for “what has to do” instead of “what is” the child.
An answer to that problem is an approach of school’s space design that is adjusted to student himself and considers him as an active participant of the educational process. That is the User approach (the “U” approach) that takes into consideration the cognitive and psychosocial demands of the educational process and also the age characteristics and the interests of the student. The dynamic that arises from the User’s approach incorporates these elements to the architectural design giving emphasis on the flexibility and transformability of space. So, the dynamic of the presence of the student-participant in the educational process is attended by the architectural characteristics of the school space and the dynamic of how the child is using it.
This approach is materialized through the method of the Pedagogical Space Design, which uses criteria of arrangement and use of the school space that are based on the correlation  between the child’s characteristics and those of the cooperative teaching and learning. The implementation of this method to schools in Greece and Cyprus gives an alternative about the creation of children's spaces in the educational environment.

Following the wider theoretical framework of social semiotics, it could be argued that the present historical juncture and its diverse parameters, as well as the social protagonists' agency, are reflected in the construction of school time and space, whose significance has only recently been acknowledged in education. This paper approaches Greek classroom space not as a fixed container of human action and pedagogies but as a multimodal 'text', and explores its ongoing reconstructions through the discussion of an indicative example. Its analysis demonstrates the dynamic and constant interplay between classroom space and the discourses, strategies and identities of the social protagonists (teacher and students). An important observation emanating from our analysis is that in the pedagogic discourses employed by the teacher there is continual hybridization, co-articulated with student attempts to appropriate or distance themselves from institutional school discourse. This mixing of discourses helps interpret the constant fluidity and multiplicity of classroom space.

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 era – is 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.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore philosophies of progressive education circulating in
Australia in the period immediately following the expansion of secondary schools in the 1960s.
It examines the rise of the alternative and community school movement of the 1970s, focusing on
initiatives within the Victorian government school sector. It aims to better understand the realisation
of progressive education in the design and spatial arrangements of schools, with specific reference
to the re-making of school and community relations and new norms of the student-subject of
alternative schooling.
Design/methodology/approach – It combines historical analysis of educational ideas and reforms,
focusing largely on the ideas of practitioners and networks of educators, and is guided by an interest in
the importance of school space and place in mediating educational change and aspirations. It draws
on published writings and reports from teachers and commentators in the 1970s, publications from
the Victorian Department of Education, media discussions, internal and published documentation
on specific schools and oral history interviews with former teachers and principals who worked at
alternative schools.
Findings – It shows the different realisation of radical aims in the set up of two schools, against
a backdrop of wider innovations in state education, looking specifically at the imagined effects of
re-arranging the physical and symbolic space of schooling.
Originality/value – Its value lies in offering the beginnings of a history of 1970s educational
progressivism. It brings forward a focus on the spatial dimensions of radical schooling, and moves
from characterisation of a mood of change to illuminate the complexities of these ideas in the
contrasting ambitions and design of two signature community schools.
Keywords Australia, Identity, Educational innovation, Progressive education, Heterotopia, 1970s,
Community schooling, Educational experiment, Open plan, School space