‘The best guess for the future?’ Teachers’ adaptation to open and flexible learning environments in Finland

References

• Alterator, S., & Deed, C. (2013). Teacher adaptation to open learning spaces. Educational Research, 23(3), 315–330.
   Google Scholar
• Arvaja, M., Sarja, S., Niemi, K., & Pakkanen, M. (2020). Ilmiöpohjainen oppiminen valokeilassa. Ymmärryksen rakentaminen ja refleksiivisyys yliopisto-opintojen alkuvaiheessa. Kasvatus, (1), 6–20.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, P.S., & Zhang, Y. (2009). Optimal learning spaces: Design and implications for primary schools Salford University.
   Google Scholar
• Benade, L. (2015). Teachers’ critical reflective practice in the context of twenty-first century learning. Open Review of Educational Research, 2(1), 42–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benade, L. (2016). Is the classroom obsolete in the twenty-first century? Journal of Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49, 796–807.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biesta, G. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes: Literature review. Victoria: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Retrieved from https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/programs/infrastructure/blackmorelearningspaces.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Boys, J. (2011). Where’s the theory. In A. Boddington & J. Boys (Eds.), Re-shaping learning: A critical reader: The future of learning spaces in post-compulsory education (pp. 49–66). New York: Sense Publisher.
   Google Scholar
• Cardellino, P., & Woolner, P. (2019). Designing for transformation – A case study of open learning spaces and educational change. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 1, 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Carvalho, L., Nicholson, T., Yeoman, P., & Thibaut, P. (2020). Space matters: Framing the New Zealand learning landscape. Learning Environments Research. doi:10.1007/s10984-020-09311-4
   Google Scholar
• Carvalho, L., & Yeoman, P. (2018). Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces: Connecting theory, design and practice. British Educational Research Journal, 44(6), 1120–1137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corsaro, W. (2003). We’re friends, right? Inside of kid’s culture. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, H., Tse, H. M., Stable, A., & Cox, S. (2019). Design as a social practice: The experience of new-build schools. Cambridge Journal of Education, 49(2), 215–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deed, C., & Lesko, T. M. (2015). ‘Unwalling’ the classroom: Teacher reaction and adaptation. Learning Environment Research, 18, 217–231.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Gislason, N. (2009). Mapping school design: A qualitative study of the relations among facilities design, curriculum delivery, and school climate. The Journal of Educational Research, 40(4), 17–33.
   Google Scholar
• Gislason, N. (2015). The open plan high school: Educational motivations and challenges. In P. Woolner (Ed.), School design together (pp. 101–119). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Micro-studies of the public order. New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania publications in conduct and communication.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greeno, J. (2006). Learning in activity. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital. Transforming teaching in every school. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Imms, W., & Byers, T. (2017). Impact of classroom design on teacher pedagogy and student engagement and performance in mathematics. Learning Environment Research, 20, 139–152.
   Google Scholar
• Kariippanon, K. E., Cliff, D. P., Lancaster, S. L., Okely, A. D., & Parrish, A. M. (2018). Perceived interplay between flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing. Learning Environments Research, 21(3), 301–320.
   Google Scholar
• Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 329–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273–290.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education. (2014). Finnish National Curriculum. (2014). National Board of Education. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/download/163777_perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2014.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2013). Interactional space and the study of embodied talk-in-interaction. In P. Auer, M. Hilpe, & A. Stukenbrock (Eds.), Space in language and linguistics: Geographical, interactional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 247–275). Berlin: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Niemi, K. (2016). Moral beings and becomings: Children’s moral practices in classroom peer interaction (Dissertation). Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research, 549.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2017). The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments. Paris: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Integrating theory and practice London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2012). Eight challenges for interview researchers. In J. F. Gubrium, et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 555–570). London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Säljö, R. (2010). Learning and technologies, people and tools in co-ordinated activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 489–494.
   Google Scholar
• Saltmarsh, S., Chapman, A., Campbell, M., & Drew, C. (2015). Putting “structure within the space”: Spatially un/responsive pedagogic practices in open-plan learning environments. Educational Review, 67(3), 315–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigurðardóttir, A. K. (2018). Student-centred classroom environments in upper secondary school: Students’ ideas about good spaces for learning versus actual arrangements. In L. Benade & M. Jackson (Eds.), Transforming education: Design, technology, government (pp. 183–197). Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sigurðardóttir, A. K., & Hjartarson, T. (2016). The idea and reality of an innovative school. From inventive design to established practice in a new school building. Improving Schools, 19(1), 62–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szczesiul, S., & Huizenga, J. (2014). The burden of leadership: Exploring the principal’s role in teacher collaboration. Improving Schools, 17(2), 176–191.
   Google Scholar
• Tuncer, S., & Licoppe, C. (2018). Open door environments as interactional resources to initiate unscheduled encounters in office organizations. Culture and Organization, 24(1), 11–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, A., Jackson, M. & Benade, L. (2018). Modern Learning Environments: Embodiment of a Disjunctive Encounter. In L. Benade & M. Jackson (Eds.), Transforming Education: Design, Technology, Government (pp. 3–17). Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, A. (2018). Selling new learning spaces – Flexibly anything for the 21st century. In L. Benade & M. Jackson (Eds.), Transforming education: Design, technology, government (pp. 95–106). Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Woolner, P. (2010). The design of learning spaces. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Woolner, P., McCarter, S., Wall, K., & Higgins, S. (2012). Changed learning through changed space: When can a participatory approach to the learning environment challenge preconceptions and alter practice? Improving Schools, 15(1), 45–60.
   Google Scholar
• Yeoman, P. (2018). The material correspondence of learning. In R. A. Ellis & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Spaces of teaching and learning: Integrating perspectives on research and practice. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Yeoman, P., & Wilson, S. (2019). Designing for situated learning: Understanding the relations between material properties, designed form and emergent learning activity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50, 2090–2108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar