Search

This study highlights how 20 Swedish principals, school managers and architects involved in planning, construction and reconstruction of primary and secondary school buildings at regional, municipal and local levels represent good learning environments. Drawing on semi-structured interviews, the analysis focuses on how the stakeholders understand the physical, pedagogical and social aspects of learning environments, including the power relations and principles of control that are embedded in their understandings. The findings indicate two orientations when the interviewees discuss good learning environment, an orientation towards clearer boundaries and control in physical, pedagogical and social spaces (strong classification and framing), and an orientation towards weaker boundaries and control (weak classification and framing). The first orientation is directed towards what, in previous research and policy discourses, is described as traditional school design, whereas the second rejects some basic principles of traditional school design and aligns with what is commonly described as innovative school design.

This study highlights how 20 Swedish principals, school managers and architects involved in planning, construction and reconstruction of primary and secondary school buildings at regional, municipal and local levels represent good learning environments. Drawing on semi-structured interviews, the analysis focuses on how the stakeholders understand the physical, pedagogical and social aspects of learning environments, including the power relations and principles of control that are embedded in their understandings. The findings indicate two orientations when the interviewees discuss good learning environment, an orientation towards clearer boundaries and control in physical, pedagogical and social spaces (strong classification and framing), and an orientation towards weaker boundaries and control (weak classification and framing). The first orientation is directed towards what, in previous research and policy discourses, is described as traditional school design, whereas the second rejects some basic principles of traditional school design and aligns with what is commonly described as innovative school design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the purposes of this study, we investigated how special educational needs activities were carried out in the available physical space for preschool children with language difficulties in Belarus and Norway. Muller’s and Bernstein’s concepts were used to recognise patterns of knowledge construction in special needs education. A qualitative comparative case study approach was used, and through video observations, four categories were identified that exposed various positions within the continuum of the following binary pairs: regulated – flexible; pre-defined – diffuse; consequential – casual; repetitive – disruptive. The preschools in both countries showed different profiles. The Belarusian preschools were oriented towards the first notion in the binary pairs, while the Norwegian preschools leaned towards the latter. The implications of the study’s results deal with the question of preschool staff preparation, knowledge construction in special needs education, construction and content of curricular documents and the question of promoting a closer dialogue between different practices.

For the purposes of this study, we investigated how special educational needs activities were carried out in the available physical space for preschool children with language difficulties in Belarus and Norway. Muller’s and Bernstein’s concepts were used to recognise patterns of knowledge construction in special needs education. A qualitative comparative case study approach was used, and through video observations, four categories were identified that exposed various positions within the continuum of the following binary pairs: regulated - flexible; pre-defined - diffuse; consequential - casual; repetitive - disruptive. The preschools in both countries showed different profiles. The Belarusian preschools were oriented towards the first notion in the binary pairs, while the Norwegian preschools leaned towards the latter. The implications of the study’s results deal with the question of preschool staff preparation, knowledge construction in special needs education, construction and content of curricular documents and the question of promoting a closer dialogue between different practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]