Uppeldi og menntun - 01.01.2013, Blaðsíða 29

Uppeldi og menntUn/icelandic JoUrnal of edUcation 22(1) 2013 29
helgi grÍmsson og anna KristÍn sigUrÐardóttir
corridors. It has become a common process to involve many community members
when designing a school. In this study, a close look is taken at four school buildings
that were designed and opened for use in the 21st century. Two main research ques-
tions lead this investigation; what pedagogical ideas underpinned the design process
in four schools and how well did they work during the first year in the new build-
ing. The four schools were chosen out of a sample of twenty schools from a large
scale study on teaching and learning in primary and lower secondary schools, entitled
Starfshættir í grunnskólum. This study relies partly on the same sample and partly on
the same database. Data was collected specifically for this study through interviews
with participants in the design process for each of the four schools; the principal, the
architect of the building and a representative from the local educational office. An
electronic questionnaire was carried out among all teachers in all twenty schools and
classroom observations were conducted in all twenty schools. The interview data was
analysed qualitatively for the four schools participating in this study, and quantitative
comparisons were made between each of the four schools and the other nineteen in
the sample, based on the survey data.
Results confirmed findings from previous studies, suggesting a paradigm shift
in school buildings as educational authorities and stakeholders emphasised open
approach and flexible learning environments that suited diverse and individualised
schoolwork. A variety of different stakeholders participated in the design process in
three of the four schools. It is, however, obvious that in those four schools, teachers and
leaders struggled as they tried to implement new practices in the new building. Indi-
vidualised learning, one of the main aims among those who participated in the design
process, was not enhanced in any of these four schools when compared to the other
nineteen schools in the sample. The teachers generally agreed that there was good
morale in the school in which they worked, discussion was open and there was strong
emphasis on cooperation amongst staff members. Teacher collaboration, another
aim of the design, measured stronger in two of the schools compared to the average in
all twenty schools. Team teaching appeared to be more common in the open schools
than in the cluster schools. Doors and movable boundaries between classrooms in
cluster schools were meant to increase flexibility and team teaching, but in all of the
observed lessons these doors/walls were closed. The teachers in the clusters, how-
ever, expressed more satisfaction with the physical environment than in open schools.
In none of the four schools, did the teachers consider this new learning environment
more suitable for the teaching methods they preferred to use than teachers who taught
in alternative accommodation. These findings raise the question of whether or not
teachers have received adequate instructions, training and support to take advantage
of these “new” work environments.
Keywords: School buildings, learning environment, design process, educational policy