Engaging spaces: Innovative learning environments, pedagogies and student engagement in the middle years of school. Benjamin William Cleveland B Ag Sci., Grad Dip Ed. Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy July 2011 Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning The University of Melbourne Produced on archival quality paper Abstract This interdisciplinary research project was conducted as part of an Australian Research Council Linkage project entitled Smart Green Schools. Calling principally on the disciplines of architecture, education and human geography, it investigates the relationships between innovative middle years‘ learning environments, pedagogies and student engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004). The study is contextualized within current discourses about the influence of globalisation on education provision (Monahan, 2005), the construction of innovative building typologies for education (Burke & Grosvenor, 2008; Dudek, 2008) and middle years‘ education reform (Pendergast & Bahr, 2005; Carrington, 2006). In the pursuit of new knowledge about how middle years‘ learning environments may be designed and used to support contemporary approaches to teaching and learning, field-based qualitative research was conducted across three case study sites using multiple case study (Bryman, 2004), ethnographic (Hammersley, 1999) and participatory action research (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007; Mattsson & Kemmis, 2007) methodologies. Data were collected using a variety of social research methods including participant observation (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007), semi- structured interviews (Kvale, 1996) and focus group forums (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). In addition, two design workshops were conducted. This data was analysed using a process of thematic narrative analysis (Riessman, 2008). Using a range of theoretical frameworks to interpret and discuss the data collected, the study initially investigated why schools wished to develop new socio-spatial contexts for learning and the processes by which they pursued these objectives. Later, the study focused on how pedagogical objectives influenced the design of the built environment and how the built environment subsequently influenced pedagogies. In evaluating the effectiveness of the changes made, the influence of new socio-spatial contexts for learning on student engagement was explored. The findings of the study indicated that the effectiveness of innovative learning environments was a product of how well the environment aligned with particular pedagogies, curricula, assessment practices, and social factors. Furthermore, effectiveness was associated with how well the environment supported a range of complex interactions (Law & Urry, 2004; Heylighten, Cuillers & Gershenson, 2007). Innovative learning environments functioned best when students were able to take ownership of their learning, work with some autonomy and interact directly and indirectly with peers, teachers, technologies and the physical environment. i Regarding student engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004), a new sub-type of this construct - ‗geographical engagement‘ - was found to be associated with students‘ ownership and mastery of their environment and expressed by students in the ways they socially produce space (Soja, 1989; Lefebvre, 1991) to support their learning activities and by their ability to engage in learning with some autonomy. In response to current discourse about flexible learning environments (Woodman, 2011), it is suggested that reflexive, not flexible, learning environments are needed, as the utility of flexible spaces is limited by the environmental competencies of users. While flexibility suggests that spaces may respond to the needs of inhabitants, it suggests nothing about the role that space can play in informing teachers and students about how they might engage in particular learning activities. Reflexive spaces, on the other hand, suggest to users how they might participate in learning activities and enable them to fine tune learning settings to suit their pedagogical needs. In conclusion, it is suggested that not only can well designed innovative learning environments support middle years‘ reform agendas, but that middle years‘ reform agendas need to address changes to the built environment. ii Declaration This is to certify that: (i) The thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD except where indicated in the Preface, (ii) Due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used, (iii) The thesis is fewer than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices. _______________________ Benjamin William Cleveland iii Preface The following conference papers presented material from this research: Cleveland, B. (2009). Engaging spaces: an investigation into middle school educational opportunities provided by innovative built environments. A new approach to understanding the relationship between learning and space. Paper presented at the 16th International Conference on Learning, University of Barcelona, Spain. The following peer-reviewed journal articles presented material from this research: Cleveland, B. (2009). Equitable pedagogical spaces: teaching and learning environments that support personalization of the learning experience. Critical and Creative Thinking, 17(2), 59-76. Cleveland, B. and Woodman, K. (2009). Learning from past experiences: School building design in the 1970s and today, 58-67. In C. Newton and K. Fisher Eds. TAKE 8. Learning spaces: The transformation of educational spaces for the 21st century. Manuka, ACT: Australian Institute of Architects. Cleveland, B. (2009). Engaging spaces: An investigation into middle school educational opportunities provided by innovative built environments. A new approach to understanding the relationship between learning and space. The International Journal of Learning, 16(5), 385-398. Cleveland, B. (2008). Rethinking middle school building design to support progressive educational pedagogies. Critical and Creative Thinking, 16(1), 59-77. The following report presented material from this research: Cleveland, B. (2010). The role of space in creating new socio-spatial contexts for learning, 15-16. In Smart Green Schools the unofficial overview. iv Acknowledgements This research was funded by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council Linkage Grant Scheme. The Chief Investigators of the grant entitled Smart Green Schools were Clare Newton, Dr Sue Wilks, Dr Kenn Fisher, Dr Dominique Hes and Professor Kim Dovey. Respectively, they come from the diverse fields of architecture, education, education planning, sustainability and urban design. The Industry Partners were the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, the Victorian Government Architects Office, Rubida Research, Mary Featherston Design, Hayball, H2o Architects, McGauran Giannini Soon Architects, McBride Charles Ryan Architects and SBE Melbourne. Ken Woodman, an architect, and I received postgraduate scholarships to complete PhDs as part of the project. There are a number of people I wish to thank personally for assisting and supporting my work on this PhD. I will be eternally grateful for the advice and guidance of my principal supervisor Dr Sue Wilks. In equal measure, she provided both encouragement and critical evaluation of my work throughout the duration of this project. Without Sue‘s assistance the iterative process that led to this dissertation would not have been possible. In particular, I wish to thank her for teaching me how to conduct and report qualitative research. I am also thankful for the advice of my second supervisor, Clare Newton. Her architectural perspective was instrumental in maintaining the interdisciplinary nature of the research and her involvement in the research process and her feedback on my progress was invaluable. I am indebted to Dr Kenn Fisher, Dr Dominique Hes and Dr Kim Dovey for their assistance in formulating the direction of the research and for their feedback. Their insights regarding the theoretical frameworks which informed the design of the study and the analysis the field-data were of great assistance. I am also indebted to Dr Ruth Beilin for her advice regarding the methodologies and methods that were employed in the study. The constructivist process through which this project was developed was supported by many people. Of these, I wish to thank a few in particular: my fellow PhD candidate Ken Woodman for the long conversations we had about learning and space and the convergence of both, as well as Mary Featherston and Richard Leonard (both industry partners), who shared their insights into school design and construction with me. This project would not have been possible without the willing participation of school leaders, teachers and students. I am especially thankful to the three school principals who volunteered the participation of their schools. The fieldwork phase of the study was not only productive and v informative but also enjoyable due to the active participation of those involved in the case study schools. I wish to thank both my parents for discussing issues about schooling and education with me for many years (both were teachers) and I am specifically thankful to my father, Bill, for proof-reading this dissertation. Finally, I wish to thank my loving wife Bella and our son Raphael (who was born during my candidacy) for being my best supporters.