Theoretical frameworks for studying learning spaces

In this section, I justify the use of the theoretical framework chosen for my study, show how it relates to the data collection at City Green College and present my critique. I conclude the section by highlighting alternative theoretical frameworks I could have chosen for my study.

2.8.1 Theoretical framework for this study

The concept of Boys’ spatial triad is a relevant theoretical framework for the aims of this study. Boys (2011, p.11) suggests that space is made up of: 1.ordinary routines, 2.attempts to transform these ordinary routines and, 3.participants’ ‘perceptions of relationships to and negotiations with’ space to transform the ‘ordinary’ routines. This triad relates to my three research aims of identifying the spaces being used by the teachers in City Green College’s

practice through the use of the new learning spaces and exploration of the issues raised by teachers while attempting to use the new learning spaces at the college. Boys (2011) adapted Lefebvre’s (1991) triad to map the use of spaces in education. He also suggested that space was made up of a triad of elements: 1.spatial practices, 2.representations of space and,

3.representational perceptions of space. Boys considered Lefebvre’s triad to be too political and of its time, as Lefebvre based his framework on studies of urban environments in the 1970s and incorporated the ideology of Marxism to consider who controlled the space and who was controlled. Boys adapted Lefebvre’s framework to ensure it was more contemporary and suitable for the exploration of educational spaces.

Utilising Boys’ spatial triad, my study followed my aims and subsequent research questions by examining the use of the new learning spaces from three perspectives. Firstly, in my research, the ordinary routines in City Green College are identified by the learning spaces in which planned teaching and learning activities take place. It is possible to compare how the routine use of space had developed by examining historic observation notes from the old college building and observations of teaching practice in the new building. Secondly, my study examined the opportunities provided by the architecture of the physical spaces, supported by the virtual spaces, in City Green

College’s new building to potentially transform any ordinary routines from one expected status to another. The perception of the college management and the architects were explored to examine whether there was any expectation on their behalf that the space itself was to be used to encourage the

transformation of the routines of teachers towards another desired state i.e. to make use of spaces other than the classroom and increase independent learning. Thirdly, through interviews with the teachers, my research then explored the teachers' perception of these spaces and how they are negotiating their use, by discussing any issues or barriers they may have come across.

2.8.2 Critique of the theoretical framework

Even though it seems that Boys’ spatial triad is a framework that could be used to support my study, it needs to be noted that there is an assumption in the spatial triad that the educational spaces have been developed to support the transformation of new practices. There is little scope to explore the wider economic or environmental advantages of the new learning spaces. I need to be aware that this could lead to elements of learning spaces being

disregarded in my research and misleading conclusions being drawn. Boys’ work on space is a more pragmatic approach than Lefebvre’s (1991) work, which suggested that society and communities create their own space and that space forced by planners onto society would not work as intended. The architecturally developed environment at the centre of my study could create complex social interactions and communities of practice outside of the

observed sessions and defined learning spaces. However, observing the whole campus would be difficult and, therefore, is beyond the scope of this study and using Boys’ framework will enable the study to remain focused on the key areas. These areas include identifying the ordinary routines, exploring how the physical and virtual spaces may be being used to attempt to

transform these routines, and exploring how the teaching staff perceive these routines, including any transformation attempts.

Soja (1996) also amended Lefebvre’s work and suggested his own triad to explore the dynamic development of space. Soja’s study focused on what he termed the ‘Thirdspace’, how users actually use the space despite its planned objectives. However, it is Boys’ framework that allows an examination of the negotiations that teachers make to use the learning spaces and the attempt to use space to transform ordinary routine that fits with the hypothesised

organisational objectives of the FE College in this study. Boys’ framework is focused more on education than the more general spaces explored by Lefebvre and Soja.

2.8.3 Alternative theoretical frameworks

Other studies have used alternative frameworks to study educational space. Smith (2017) explored how the new learning spaces impacted on how staff and students interacted. However, unlike Smith, my study examines a

different viewpoint by focusing on how teachers interact with the spaces. My study is closer to Deed and Lesko (2015), who made use of a case study approach using interviews and observations to identify the relationship between the configuration of the learning spaces and the reaction of the teacher. However, they examined the developments of new buildings through teacher habitation3 _{as a form of system adoption. I considered using the} school climate model suggested by Owens and Valesky (2007). Their model

evidenced the relationship between school design and teaching and learning. However, Owens and Valesky’s focus was predominately on ecology, how the users relate to each other within the space and how the space effects these relations and the link between their findings and teaching was ill-defined. My research is less concerned with the ecology, as defined by Owens and Valesky, and more on the staff culture and organisational elements of an FE college.