The physical environment in schools has in the literature of late been gaining recognition as a potential factor supporting educational change. This article draws a single case out of a research sample of 20 schools in Iceland to relate an inventive design process as the school was being developed and study the current state of established school practice. The main aim is to reveal educational ideas behind a relatively progressive school design and determine how they have turned out in everyday school life. Data include observations, surveys among staff members and interviews with both school leaders and teachers. The school was designed as an open plan building intended to enhance individualised learning and team teaching with strong ties to the wider community. A decade later, the original policy is still relatively firmly in place, in particular at the primary level, while teachers at the lower secondary level have been bending somewhat the initial design plan, leaning towards traditional teaching methods and more confined classroom layouts.
BennettN.AndreaeJ.HegartyP.WadeB. (1980). Open plan schools: Teaching, curriculum, design. Windsor, UK: NFER Publishing Company for the School Council.
2.
BlackmoreJ.BatemanD.LoughlinJ.O’MaraJ.ArandaG. (2011). Research into the connections between built learning spaces and student learning outcomes: A literature review. Melbourne, Australia: State of Victoria (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development).
3.
BlossingU.NyenT.SöderströmÅ.TønderA. H. (2015). Local drivers for improvements capacity: Six types of school organisations. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
4.
CaseyJ. (2009). Interdisciplinary approach: Advantages, disadvantages, and the future: Benefits of interdisciplinary studies. ESSAI, 7, Article 26. Retrieved from http://dc.cod.edu/essai/vol7/iss1/26.
5.
CopaG. H.PeaseV. H. (1992). A new vision for the comprehensive high school: Preparing students for a changing world. St. Paul: Department of Vocational and Technical Education, University of Minnesota.
6.
Fasteignastofa Reykjavíkur & Fræðslumiðstöð Reykjavíkur. (2004). Húsnæði grunnskóla Reykjavíkur: Greining á þörf fyrir byggingar og endurbætur [School buildings in Reykjavik: Analysis of needs for new buildings and renovations. A report made in collaboration between Reykjavík City Educational Department and Reykjavík City Building Department.] Reykjavik, Iceland: Author.
7.
FullanM. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
8.
GislasonN. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environment Research, 13, 127–145.
9.
GrímssonH.SigurðardóttirA. K. (2013). Námsumhverfi 21. aldar: Væntingar og veruleiki [Learning environment for the 21st century. Expectations and reality]. Uppeldi og menntun, 22(1), 9–31.
10.
HopkinsD.StringfieldS.HarrisA.StollL.MackayT. (2014). School and system improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25, 257–281.
11.
HulténM. (2013). Boundary objects and curriculum change: The case of integrated versus subject-based teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45, 790–813. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.812245.
12.
JacobsH. H. (1989). The growing need for interdisciplinary curriculum content. In JacobsH. H. (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 1–11). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
13.
JilkB. A. (2002). Design down process: Designing a school in Iceland with its users (PEB Exchange, Programme on Educational Building, 2002/12). OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/730618174512.
14.
JilkB. A. (2005). Place making and change in learning environments. In DudekM. (Ed.), Children’s spaces (pp. 30–43). Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
15.
KKE Architects. (2001). The design down process: Summary report for new grunnskóli í Grafarholti Reykjavík, Iceland. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
16.
LandS.HannafinM. J.OliverK. (2012). Student-centered learning environments: Foundations, assumptions and design. In JonassonD.LandS. (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 3–25). New York, NY: Routledge.
OECD Programme on Educational Building & Department for Education and Skills. (2006). 21st century learning environment. Paris: OECD Publishing.
19.
ÓskarsdóttirG. G. (2001). Lýsing á undirbúningsferli hönnunar frá hinu almenna til hins sérstæða Design [Description of design preparation through the Design Down Process]. Reykjavík, Iceland: Fræðslumiðstöð Reykjavíkur.
20.
OterkiilC.ErtesvågS. K. (2012). Schools’ readiness and capacity to improve matter. Education Inquiry, 3, 71–92.
21.
ParnellR. (2015). Co-creative adventures in school design. In WoolnerP. (Ed.), School design together (pp. 123–137). London, England: Routledge.
SanoffH. (2009). Schools designed with community participation. In WaldenR. (Ed.), Schools for the future. Design proposals from Architectural psychology (pp. 123–142). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
24.
SigurðardóttirA. K. (2007). Þróun einstaklingsmiðaðs náms í grunnskólum Reykjavíkur [The development of individualised learning in compulsory schools in Reykjavík]. Netla – Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun. Retrieved from http://netla.khi.is/greinar/2007/012/index.htm.
25.
SigurðardóttirA. K. (2010). Professional learning community in relation to school effectiveness. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54, 395–412.
26.
SigurðardóttirA. K.HjartarsonT. (2011). School buildings for the 21st century. Some features of new school buildings in Iceland. CEPS Journal, 1(2), 25–43.
TeddlieC.ReynoldsD. (Eds.). (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London, England: Routledge/Falmer.
29.
TseH. M.Learoyd-SmithS.StablesA.DanielsH. (2014). Continuity and conflict in school design: A case study from Building Schools for the Future. Intelligent Building International, 7(2–3), 64–82. doi:10.1080/17508975.2014.927349
30.
TyackD.CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
TörnquistA. (2005). Skolhus för tonåringar: Rumsliga aspekter på skolans organisation och arbetssätt [School buildings for teenagers: Spatial aspects of school organisation and practice]. Stockholm, Sweden: Arkus.
32.
VelosoL.MarquesJ. S.DuarteA. (2014). Changing education through learning spaces: Impacts of the Portugese school buildings’ renovation programme. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(3), 401–423. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2014.921280
33.
WaldenR. (Ed.). (2009). Schools for the future: Design proposals from architectural psychology. Cambridge, UK: Hogrefe & Huber.
34.
WoolnerP. (2010). The design of learning spaces. New York, NY: Continuum.
35.
WoolnerP.ClarkA. (2015). Developing shared understanding of learning environment. In WoolnerP. (Ed.), School design together (pp. 167–183). London, England: Routledge.
36.
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. doi:10.1177/1365480211434796
