Studying relational spaces in secondary school: Applying a spatial framework for the study of borderlands and relational work in school improvement processes
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2014
Studying relational spaces in secondary school: Applying a spatial framework for the study of borderlands and relational work in school improvement processes
This article introduces a theoretical framework for studying school improvement processes such as making school environments safer. Using concepts from spatial theory, in which distinctions between mental, social and physical space are applied makes for a multidimensional analysis of processes of change. In a multilevel case study, these were combined with task perception analysis, where all categories of personnel and management in the school were studied. The results indicated the significance of borderlands in the school for helping students, of organizational transgressions aimed at ‘making things work’ and of social spaces created in the borderlands that contributed to the necessary social glue in the school. This theoretical framework offers alternative and fruitful lenses which can enrich studies of school improvement processes.
AbawiL. (2013). School meaning systems: The symbiotic nature of culture and ‘language-in-use’. Improving Schools, 16, 89–106.
2.
AlerbyE.BengtssonJ.BjurströmP.HörnqvistM.-L.KroksmarkT. (2006). Det fysiska rummets betydelse i lärandet [The learning impact of the physical space]. In: Resultatdialog 2006: Forskning om utbildningsvetenskap [In: Results Dialogue 2006: Educational research]. Stockholm, Sweden: Vetenskapsrådet [National Research Council].
3.
BallS. J.MaguireM.BraunA. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. London, England: Routledge.
4.
BarretP.ZhangY.MoffatJ.KobbacyK. (2013). A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, 59, 678–689.
5.
BjurströmP. (2004). Att avskaffa klassrummet: om skolans föränderliga arkitektur. In SelanderS. (Red.), Kobran, nallen och majjen: tradition och förnyelse i svensk skola och skolforskning [Cobra phone, cell phone and the teacher: tradition and renewal in Swedish schools and school research] (pp. 37–53). Stockholm, Sweden: Liber.
6.
BoyatzisR. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
8.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9.
DaviesB.GannonS. (Eds.). (2009). Pedagogical encounters. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
10.
EdlingS.FrelinA. (2013). Doing good? Interpreting teachers’ given and felt responsibilities for the pupil’s well-being in an age of measurement. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19, 419–432.
11.
FisherK. (2004). Revoicing classrooms: A spatial manifesto. Forum, 46, 36–38.
FrelinA. (2013). Exploring relational professionalism in schools. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
14.
FrelinA.GrannäsJ. (2010). Negotiations left behind: In-between spaces of teacher-student negotiation and their significance for education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42, 353–369.
15.
FrelinA.GrannäsJ. (2013). Managerialism and the production of present and absent presences in education. Journal of Pedagogy, 4, 139–161.
16.
FrelinA.GrannäsJ. (in preparation). Navigating middle ground. A spatial perspective on the borderlands of teacher-student relationships in secondary school. In ZandvlietD. B.MainhardM. T. (Eds.), Interpersonal relationships in education: From theory to practice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
17.
FrostR.HoldenG. (2008). Student voice and future schools: Building partnerships for student participation. Improving Schools, 11, 83–95.
18.
GordonT.HollandJ. (2003). Nation space: The construction of citizenship and difference in schools. In BeachD.GordonT.LahelmaE. (Eds.), Democratic education: Ethnographic challenges (pp. 24–38). London, England: Tufnell Press.
19.
GrannäsJ.SäfströmC. A. (2006, March9–11). What is private and what is public in young people’s learning of democracy. Paper presented at the Nordic Educational Research Association, Örebro, Sweden.
20.
KelchtermansG. (1993). Getting the story, understanding the lives: From career stories to teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 443–456.
21.
KelchtermansG. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-understanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 257–272.
22.
LefebvreH. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
23.
MasseyD. B. (2005). For space. London, England: SAGE.
24.
McGregorJ. (2003). Spatiality and teacher workplace cultures: The department as nexus. In EdwardsR.UsherR. (Eds.), Space, curriculum and learning (pp. 45–59). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
25.
McGregorJ. (2004a). Editorial. Forum, 46, 2–5.
26.
McGregorJ. (2004b). Space, power and the classroom. Forum, 46, 13–18.
27.
PonsO.OlivaJ.-M.MaasS.-R. (2010). Improving the learning process in the latest prefabricated school buildings. Improving Schools, 13, 249–265.
28.
PopkewitzT. S. (1998). Struggling for the soul: The politics of schooling and the construction of the teacher. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
29.
PopkewitzT. S.LindeF. (2009). Kosmopolitism i skolreformernas tidevarv: vetenskap, utbildning och samhällsskapande genom konstruktioner av barnet [Cosmopolitanism and the Age of School Reform. Science, Education, and Making Society by Making the Child]. (1. uppl. ed.). Stockholm, Sweden: Liber.
30.
TannerC. K. (2000). The influence of school architecture on academic achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 309–330.
31.
TannerC. K. (2009). Effects of school design on student outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 381–399.
32.
WoolnerP.HallE.WallK.DennisonD. (2007). Getting together to improve the school environment: User consultation, participatory design and student voice. Improving Schools, 10, 233–248.
33.
WoolnerP.McCarterS.WallK.HigginsS. (2012). Changed learning through changed space: When can a participatory approach to the learning environment challenge preconceptions and alter practice?Improving Schools, 15, 45–60.
34.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
