Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student participation in learning environment improvement: analysis of a co-design project in a Finnish upper secondary school

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Learning Environments Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present educational design research involved analysing Finnish upper secondary school students’ participation in the improvement of their psychosocial and technology-enhanced physical learning environment (LE). It examined which LE characteristics students considered important when redesigning their LE, and whether they felt that their ideas for improvement had been taken into account in the LE change process and if there was an improvement in these characteristics. A Learning Environment Design (LED) framework balancing the various LE dimensions, namely, communality and individuality, comfort and health, novelty and conventionality, was utilised in the analysis for four sets of data collected for four cycles: (a) co-design activities (students, n = 11) and (b) student feedback (n = 175); (c) professional design evaluation (students, n = 2); and (d) student satisfaction survey (n = 83). Students considered all LE dimensions important. In addition, they felt that their wishes were generally taken into account in the redesign and also they perceived an improvement in most of the LE characteristics. Student involvement helped to avoid overly radical changes, fostered a participatory culture, and contributed to understanding what students view as important to their learning and wellbeing. The study demonstrated the usefulness of the LED-framework for LE design and suggests content-related design principles to serve as a starting point in LE improvement projects involving learners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs. (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barret, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J., & Kobbacy, K. (2013). A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, 59, 678–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius-White, J. D. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77, 113–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Besten, O., Horton, J., & Kraftl, P. (2008). Pupil involvement in school (re)design: Participation in policy and practice. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(4), 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1907). The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Electronic version by the University of Virginia American Studies Program 2003.

  • Duarte, A., Veloso, L., Marques, J., & Sebastiao, J. (2015). Site-specific focus groups: Analysing learning spaces in situ. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(4), 381–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, M. (2004). Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 295–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnish National Board of Education. (2003). National core curriculum for general upper secondary intended for young people. Vammala: Opetusministeriön julkaisuja.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flutter, J. (2006). ‘This place could help you learn’: Student participation in creating better school environments. Educational Review, 58, 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, R., & Holden, G. (2008). Student voice and future schools: Building partnerships for student participation. Improving Schools, 11(1), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. Newcastle: The Centre for Learning and Teaching: School of Education, Communication and Language Science, University of Newcastle.

  • Kangas, M. (2010). Finnish children’s views on the ideal school and learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 13, 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostenius, C. (2011). Picture this—Our dream school! Swedish schoolchildren sharing their visions of school. Childhood, 18(4), 509–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kujala, S. (2008). Effective user involvement in product development by improving the analysis of user needs. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27(6), 457–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, S. M., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2012). Student-centered learning environments: Foundations, assumptions, and design. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 3–25). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lievonen, M., Kinnunen, P., & Kankaanranta, M. (2014). Student views on ideal learning space: A case from upper secondary education. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2014 (pp. 511–514). Chesapeake: AACE.

  • Lodge, C. (2005). From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: Problematising student participation in school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 6, 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkelä, T., & Helfenstein, S. (2016). Developing a conceptual framework for participatory design of psychosocial and physical learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 19(3), 411–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkelä, T., Kankaanranta, M., & Helfenstein, S. (2014a). Considering learners’ perceptions in designing effective 21st century learning environments for basic education in Finland. The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership, 20(3), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkelä, T., Kankaanranta, M., & Gallagher, C. (2014b). Involving students in the redesign of learning environments conducive to learning and wellbeing. In Proceedings of the 6th Architectural Research Symposium in Finland 2014: Designing and Planning the Built Environments for Human Well-Being (pp. 268–282). Oulu, Finland.

  • Mäkelä, T., Lundström, A., & Mikkonen, I. (2015). Co-designing learning spaces: Why, with whom, and how? In S. Nenonen, S. Kärnä, J. Junnonen, S. Tähtinen, N. Sandström, K. Airo, & O. Niemi (Eds.), How to co-create campus? (pp. 197–211). Tampere: Suomen Yliopistokiinteistöt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M., & Thomas, P. (2008). Student participation in school design: One school’s approach to student engagement in the BSF process. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(4), 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O´Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student-centred learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers? In G. O’Neill, G. Moore, & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching. AISHE: Dublin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parnell, R., Cave, V., & Torrington, J. (2008). School design: Opportunities through collaboration. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(4), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plomp, T. (2007). Education design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 9–35). Enschede: SLO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, C., & Taylor, C. (2012). Student voice as a contested practice: Power and participation in two student voice projects. Improving Schools, 16(1), 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahlberg, P. (2011). The fourth way of Finland. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 173–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., Bransford, J., Kozma, B., & Quellmalz, E. E. (2012). New assessment and environments for knowledge building. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 231–300). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, C., Graham, A., & Thomas, N. (2015). Imagining an ideal school for wellbeing: Locating student voice. Journal of Educational Change, 16, 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Akker, J. (2007). Curriculum design research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 37–50). Enschede: SLO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veloso, L., Marques, J. S., & Duarte, A. (2014). Changing education through learning spaces: Impacts of the Portuguese school buildings’ renovation programme. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(3), 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scrimbner & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Woolner, P. (2009). Building schools for the future through a participatory design process: Exploring the issues and investigating ways forward. In Proceedings of BERA. Manchester.

  • Woolner, P., Hall, E., Wall, K., & Dennison, D. (2007). Getting together to improve the school environment: User consultation, participatory design and student voice. Improving Schools, 10, 233–248.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Physical and psychosocial environments associated with networked classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 8, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes) through the Indoor Environment Program (2011–2015) and the Finnish Cultural Foundation’s Central Finland Regional Fund. The co-design project was also chosen as one of the case studies in the European Policy Network on Key Competencies in School Education. All internal and external stakeholders participating in the study are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Tiina Mäkelä, Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen & Anna-Maija Poikkeus

  2. Faculty of Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Tiina Mäkelä

  3. Agora Center, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Sacha Helfenstein

Authors
  1. Tiina Mäkelä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sacha Helfenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anna-Maija Poikkeus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiina Mäkelä.

Appendix

Appendix

Survey questions used in the analysis presented in this article. (To see the complete survey, please contact the first author.)

Survey items were formulated guided by the conceptual framework (Mäkelä and Helfenstein 2016) but the final selection of items was based on the LE characteristics highlighted in the student designs and written feedback.

Student satisfaction survey:

Natural science classroom and hallway change as experienced by students

Background information

Group: ____ Age: ____ Gender: ____

I have spent time in the classroom before the redesign: Yes____ No ____

I have spent time in the hallway before the redesign: Yes ____ No ____

Compare your experiences of redesigned classroom and hallway to how you experienced them before. If you do not have previous experience in these spaces, you can compare them to your experiences of other classrooms and hallways at school. Evaluate the classroom and the hallway as a conjunct.

Survey items

Please rate the following 38 items depending on whether you think that, after the redesign, they have (a) improved (+ 1 or +2), (b) remained the same (0), or (c) worsened (−1, −2).

Areas for socialising

Teacher visibility

Teacher-led instruction

Possibilities for group work

Possibilities for pair work

Cosiness and comfort

No disturbance or distractions (peaceful ambient)

Safety aspects

Good soundproofing (e.g. less echo)

No disorganisation

Private spaces (where you can be by yourself)

Personalisation (possibilities to choose personally preferred ways of working)

Possibilities for individual work

Self-regulated learning (autonomous study)

Study during the breaks

Spaciousness

Enough seating space (no cramped)

Aesthetic pleasantness

Pleasant colour choices

Calming colours

Luminosity

Interior plants

Indoor air quality

Indoor air temperature

Ergonomics (furniture, working positions, etc.)

Spaces to rest

Spaces to relax

Use of technology

Educative design elements supporting learning natural sciences

Novel LE design (e.g. cushions and sofas)

Inspiring and motivating spaces

Use of books and other traditional materials

Conventional LE design (e.g. traditional desks, teacher’s desk)

Versatile tools and materials

Versatile teaching methods

Adaptability (e.g. furniture allowing multiple configurations)

Practical and functional equipment and spaces

Open-ended questions

What do you think is the best aspect of the redesigned learning environment? What could still be improved? How redesign has influenced the use of spaces during the breaks? How redesign has influenced teachers’ ways of working? How redesign has influenced students’ ways of working? In your opinion, what new ways of teaching and learning can redesigned spaces and equipment offer?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mäkelä, T., Helfenstein, S., Lerkkanen, MK. et al. Student participation in learning environment improvement: analysis of a co-design project in a Finnish upper secondary school. Learning Environ Res 21, 19–41 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9242-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9242-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation