PICTURING MEANING: ICELANDIC STUDENTS

PICTURING MEANING: ICELANDIC STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR PURPOSE-BUILT SCHOOL

by Anna Peterson

Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Education in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Education

Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada (September, 2009)

Copyright © Anna Peterson, 2009

ABSTRACT

Current trends in education and school architecture reflect a growing awareness of the interconnectedness of people and spaces. Spaces acquire meaning through the experiences of those who use them and can contribute to the development of a sense of place. Purpose-built schools have long been valued and built in Iceland. The broad purpose of this study was to explore Icelandic students’ perceptions of their purpose-built school. Specific research questions included: (a) What spaces in purpose-built schools are important to students? (b) What happens in these spaces? (c) What meaning, if any, do these identified spaces hold for students? and (d) In ascribing meaning to some of the identified spaces, do students develop a sense of place? This phenomenological research initiative used an emergent design methodology. Seven Grade 9 and three Grade 10 students were recruited for this study. Primary data sources included students’ photographs of important school spaces, individual photo-elicitation interviews, and walking tours. Participants identified 25 important school spaces and 7 issues of concern within these spaces. Further analysis examined participants’ complex construction of importance and meaning. Participants described that school spaces were more likely to become meaningful places, when the design of the educational facility was in harmony with students’ experiences. The results of this study should raise awareness of the importance of building such schools in Canada and encourage the inclusion of students’ unique perspectives in the design of future schools.



ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am honoured to have shared this journey with so many. Thank you Takk Fyrir: Dr. Rena Upitis for asking me what I really wanted to do and helping to make a dream my reality. You challenge me to redefine what is possible. Dr. Stephen Elliott, for trusting in my ability to make sense from nonsense. To the architects, for designing a school that captured my imagination 3,858 km away. Sigrún, Ása, Harpa, Gulla, Fjóla, Inga, Þóra, Vera, Olga, Erla for lending me your voices. Auður, for believing in the research. Dr. Jóhanna Einarsdóttir for uniting my photographic imagination and my research. Dr. Birna Bjarnadóttir and Dr. Peter Weiss for working between systems. To my parents, for nurturing body, mind, and spirit. To my brothers, for seeing the world through different eyes. To my family in Iceland, for welcoming me home. To public swimming pools, for soaking in silence.



iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1 Study Context and Specific Research Questions ............................................................. 1 Overview of the Thesis .................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2: RELATED LITERATURE .......................................................................... 5 School Architecture ......................................................................................................... 5 The Evolution of Modern School Architecture in North America................................ 5 Current School Construction and Renovation ........................................................... 12 Educational Facility Planning and Research Organizations .................................... 14 Research on School Architecture and Education....................................................... 16 Complexity Science ....................................................................................................... 20 Embodied Knowledge.................................................................................................... 23 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 26 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 27 Cultural Consideration: Before Conducting Research in Iceland .................................. 27 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................... 28

iv

Site Selection ................................................................................................................. 29 Participant Selection ...................................................................................................... 32 Methodological Overview ............................................................................................. 33 Focus Group Interviews ............................................................................................. 34 Interview with the Architect ....................................................................................... 35 Field Notes and Researcher’s Photographs .............................................................. 35 Photographs, Photo-Logs, and Photo-Elicitation Interviews .................................... 35 Camera Selection.................................................................................................... 37 Steps in the Research Process .................................................................................... 38 Focus Group Interview One ................................................................................... 38 Assignment of the Photography Research Tasks .................................................... 38 Photo-Elicitation Interview Instructions ................................................................ 40 Photo-Elicitation Interviews ................................................................................... 41 Focus Group Interview Two ................................................................................... 42 Data Organization and Analysis .................................................................................... 42 Inter-Rater Reliability ................................................................................................ 44 Individual and Composite Profiles of Important School Spaces ............................... 46 Validity and Trustworthiness ..................................................................................... 47 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 48 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS—PHOTOGRAPHS AND PHOTO-ELICITATION INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................... 50 Photographs ................................................................................................................... 51 Descriptions of Important Interior and Exterior School Spaces and Issues of Concern 56



v

Important Interior School Spaces .............................................................................. 58 Dining Hall ............................................................................................................. 58 Locker Area and Lockers........................................................................................ 63 Library .................................................................................................................... 65 Long Hallway ......................................................................................................... 68 Art Room ................................................................................................................. 73 Sofa Area ................................................................................................................ 76 Important Exterior School Spaces ............................................................................. 79 Playground ............................................................................................................. 79 Football Court ........................................................................................................ 83 Natural Space Between School Wings .................................................................... 85 Walking Tour Results .................................................................................................... 87 Issues of Concern ........................................................................................................... 91 Maintenance Issues .................................................................................................... 92 Drinking Water........................................................................................................... 93 Temperature ............................................................................................................... 94 Bathroom Privacy ...................................................................................................... 96 Focus Group Interview Two .......................................................................................... 98 CHAPTER 5: RESULTS—CONSTRUCTING IMPORTANCE AND MEANING ..... 101 Analysis of Participants’ Self-Selected Photographs, Photo-Elicitation Interviews, and Walking Tour Transcripts ............................................................................................ 101 Constructing Importance: Towards a Sense of Place .............................................. 102 From Importance to Meaning and a Sense of Place ................................................ 107



vi

Analysis of Issues of Concern ..................................................................................... 110 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 112 The Contribution of Complexity Science .................................................................... 113 Image-Based Research ................................................................................................. 114 Harmonizing Student Experiences and Educational Facilities .................................... 115 Balance Between Open and Closed Spaces ............................................................. 116 Balance Between Physical Facility Conditions and User Needs ............................. 117 Balance Between Students’ Age, Development Stages, and School Design ............ 117 Balance Between Collective and Personal Spaces .................................................. 118 Balance Between Work and Restful Spaces ............................................................. 118 Balance Between Indoor and Outdoor Learning Environments .............................. 119 In Conversation with the Architect .............................................................................. 119 Limitations ................................................................................................................... 121 Suggestions for Further Research ................................................................................ 122 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................. 123 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 124 APPENDIX A: LETTER OF INFORMATION ............................................................. 134 APPENDIX B: CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE ............................................................ 137 APPENDIX C: CONSENT FORM FOR TAKING/USING PHOTOGRAPHS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS ....................................................................................... 139 APPENDIX D: FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW ONE QUESTIONS ............................ 140 APPENDIX E: PHOTO-LOG ......................................................................................... 141

vii

APPENDIX F: PHOTO-ELICITATION INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .......................... 142 APPENDIX G: SAMPLE OF PHOTO-ELICITATION INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION.......................................................................................................... 144 APPENDIX H: FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW TWO QUESTIONS ........................... 148



viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Inter-Rater Reliability Table 2: Number of Photographs of Important Interior School Spaces Table 3: Number of Photographs of Important Exterior School Spaces Table 4: Most Frequently Photographed School Spaces Table 5: Number of Photographs of Issues Identified in School Spaces Table 6: School Spaces Chosen for the Walking Tour



ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Floor plan of Crow Island School in Winnetka, Illinois. (p. 9) Figure 2. Floor plan for a classroom at Crow Island School. (p. 10) Figure 3. Lækjarskóli was chosen as the research site. (p. 30) Figure 4. Lækjarskóli’s football court and the stream in the distance (L), primary, middle, and senior students’ wings (C), and the hallway to senior students’ classrooms and the dining hall (R). (p. 31) Figure 5. Template used to create the individual profiles. (p. 46) Figure 6. Sigrún’s first photograph of the football court. (p. 51) Figure 7. Sigrún later photographed the football court and her friedns’ imaginative play. (p. 51) Figure 8. Interior view of the dining hall and the curved wall of windows on the right. (p. 58) Figure 9. Curved glass wall of the dining hall at Lækjarskóli. (p. 59) Figure 10. Exterior view of the dining hall and adjacent patio space. (p. 62) Figure 11. Lockers on the ground floor senior wing. (p. 63) Figure 12. Design makes it difficult to access lockers. (p. 63) Figure 13. Interior view of a locker. (p. 64) Figure 14. Lækjarskóli’s library. (p. 66) Figure 15. Computers for student use in the library. (p. 67) Figure 16. Participant’s photograph of the bookshelf in the library, which holds the first book she read by herself. (p. 68)



x

Figure 17. Looking down the long hallway from the second floor of the senior wing. (p. 69) Figure 18. View of the long hallway from the Primary students’ wing. (p. 70) Figure 19. Student artwork hanging in the long hallway. (p. 70) Figure 20. Round tables in the long hallway. (p. 71) Figure 21. Exterior view of the wall of windows in the long hallway. (p. 72) Figure 22. Wall of windows in art room (photographed in November at 4:30pm). (p. 73) Figure 23. Lækjarskóli’s art room. (p. 74) Figure 24. Exterior view of the art room (second floor on the left). (p. 75) Figure 25. View from the long hallway and the art room walls of windows. (p. 76) Figure 26. The sofas in the senior wing. (p. 76) Figure 27. Senior students on the sofas between classes. (p. 77) Figure 28. Students relaxing on the sofas. (p. 78) Figure 29. Playground at Lækjarskóli for students from Grades 2 to 7. (p. 79) Figure 30. Playground structures. (p. 80) Figure 31. Benches in the playground. (p. 81) Figure 32. Natural lava rock formation in the playground. (p. 82) Figure 33. Lækjarskóli’s football court. (p. 84) Figure 34. Natural space between the primary wing (R) and the middle wing (L). (p. 86) Figure 35. Natural space between the wings seen from the long hallway. (p. 87) Figure 36. Natural space and patio adjacent to the dining hall. (p. 89) Figure 37. Sigrún’s photograph of the lava rocks in the playground. (p. 89) Figure 38. Harpa’s photograph of Lækjarskóli. (p. 90)



xi

Figure 39. Ása’s photo of the bike racks. (p. 90) Figure 40. Erla’s photo of the water fountain. (p. 91) Figure 41. In heavy rain, a puddle of water forms in the hallway. (p. 92) Figure 42. School sinks are too shallow to fill water bottles. (p. 94) Figure 43. Wall of windows in the hallway to senior students’ classrooms. (p. 95) Figure 44. Bathroom in the classroom. (p. 97) Figure 45. Photographing the football court through play. (p. 115) Figure 46. Playing with the camera to photograph the football court. (p. 115) Figure 47. Þóra Guðjónsdóttir’s photograph of the hallway to the classrooms (# 1 of 12 photos). (p. 144)



xii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Study Context and Specific Research Questions Philosophies of education have changed over time but school architecture has not kept pace. The factory model schools of the past no longer meet the needs of students, teachers, and the communities they serve. The study of school architecture is expanding to address this gap. To date, research on the interrelationship between school architecture and education has focused primarily on the correlation between students’ academic achievement and specific design features, such as the amount of natural light, temperature, and acoustic quality in classrooms (Heschong Mahone Group, 1999; McCardle 1966; National Research Council of the National Academies, 2007). There is scant research exploring students’ experiences of the impact of school architecture. Current trends in education and architecture, however, reflect a growing awareness of the interconnectedness of people and spaces and that “...places are …[neither] containers for experience nor simply stages for interactions between people” (Greenman, 1988, p. 5). Spaces acquire meaning through the experiences of those who use them: people and the spaces they occupy shape each other and both contribute to what happens in these spaces. Kim Rasmussen makes a key distinction between space and place. While space can be described as a distance stretching out in all directions, place “...refers to a special, more delimited setting; a space with specific meanings and attributes” (Rasmussen, 2004, p. 165). She further defines place “...as that which human consciousness experiences as having meaning and that which causes a given physical locality to take on existence and character” (Rasmussen, 2004, p. 165). Edward Relph captures the interconnectedness of

1

spaces and places as follows: “spaces provide the context for places, but derive [their] meaning from particular places” (Relph, 1976, p. 8). Yi-Fu Tuan (1977) describes how a space gradually becomes a place once one experiences it over time and once feelings and their meanings are attributed to it. “If we think of space as that which allows movement then place is pause; each pause in movement makes it possible for location to be transformed into place” (Tuan, 1977, p. 6). For the purposes of the present study, a sense of place is defined as the intersection of the physical and social environment, the activities therein, and the meaning people associate with their experiences of the place (Shamsuddina & Ujang, 2008). Place has the potential to build a sense of belonging and caring essential for happiness or, conversely, the lack of these fundamental connections can lead to disruption and violence (Noddings, 2005). Gradle (2007) captures this sentiment in the following words: “Being placed in the world feeds us spiritually, nurtures us physically, and connects us functionally” (p. 1513). While many post World War II schools have addressed technological changes, the significance of place has been marginalized. However, as Powell (2004) claimed: If we want flexible thinkers, people who can make connections across different ideas, issues and concerns and act accordingly, then we need to question how our current learning environments are structured, and how we might design learning environments that educate for the whole person, providing for a continuity and scaffolding of experience. (p. 144) Therefore, it is important to explore how a school’s architectural design influences students’ experiences of school spaces. The broad purpose of the present study was to examine Icelandic students’ perceptions of their purpose-built school. Purpose-built schools are defined as those which (a) facilitate the “...generat[ion] of knowledge through

2

the use of many learning methods and activities” (Upitis, 2004, p. 32), (b) that are in harmony with their natural and cultural surroundings (Upitis, in press), and (c) where many of the educational facilities planning principles, such as those identified by the National Clearinghouse on Educational Facilities (NCEF), have been integrated. An Icelandic school was chosen as the site for the study because of the country’s long history of valuing and building purpose-built schools. Four specific research questions were developed to explore students’ unique perceptions and experiences of school spaces. The specific research questions include: 1. What spaces in purpose-built schools are important to students? 2. What happens in these spaces? 3. What meaning, if any, do the identified spaces hold for students? 4. In ascribing meaning to some of the identified spaces, do students develop a sense of place? The present study is a reflection of the belief that students are knowledgeable about the school spaces they inhabit and actively soliciting their voices can contribute to the work of architects and educational facility planners. However, there is a dearth of qualitative research exploring the transformation of school spaces into meaningful places. Furthermore, the contribution of students’ sense of place has not been adequately explored and should be considered in the design of educational facilities. Overview of the Thesis This thesis is divided into six chapters. The first chapter describes my ongoing interest in school architecture and the interconnectedness of people and spaces, before outlining the context of the research and the specific research questions.



3

Chapter 2 provides a review of relevant literature and research. A brief overview of the evolution of school architecture in North America is presented to provide a context for the current boom in school construction and renovation. Studies exploring the relationship between a school’s architectural design and academic achievement are reviewed. The chapter concludes with a description of complexity science and embodied knowledge and the ways in which these informed the study design. Chapter 3 describes the specific methodology used to collect and analyze the data. This chapter outlines the steps in the research process and concludes with a discussion of strategies used to enhance the validity and trustworthiness of the data. Specific findings are presented in Chapter 4. The chapter begins with a description of participants’ photographs of important school spaces. This data is combined with the photo-elicitation interview transcript data to present detailed descriptions of the most salient interior and exterior school spaces. These descriptions are enhanced with related photographs and participants’ quotes. Issues of concern within school spaces are also presented. An analysis of the data regarding the specific research questions is presented in Chapter 5. This chapter examines factors participants used to construct the importance and meaning of the identified school spaces. Chapter 6 discusses the findings and limitations of the study. This final chapter explores the contribution of image-based research and the importance of balance and harmony between students’ experiences and the design of educational facilities.



4

CHAPTER 2 RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents a review of the literature and relevant research regarding the complex interrelationship between school architecture and education. The chapter begins with a brief historical overview of the evolution of school architecture in North America. This contextual information is followed by a description of current school construction initiatives; organizations dedicated to the exchange of research and best practices in educational building; and current research on the relationship between school architecture and education. The chapter concludes with a description of complexity science and embodied knowledge and the ways in which they informed the study.

School Architecture The Evolution of Modern School Architecture in North America Architecture reflects what a culture, a belief system or a society as a whole agrees is important (Van Pelt, 2008). Modern school architecture in Western countries developed in response to the prevailing economic, societal, and political influences of the time. From the mid 1600s to the mid 1800s necessary skills and knowledge were learned informally from parents, older siblings, and community members. The spoken word was the form of day-to-day communication and illiteracy was high. The first schools were set up in private homes or churches and later timber framed one-room schoolhouses. These buildings were simply furnished, poorly ventilated, depended on oil lamps for light, and wood burning stoves for heat. Due to the relatively small size of the communities, one



5

teacher was responsible for teaching children of many ages. Learning was often by rote and self-paced depending on a child’s developmental level and ability. The school building, along with the church, was often a focal point for community life. Toward the end of this time period, schools in more urban areas were essentially multi-room variations of the one-room schoolhouse. During the mid 1800s to the mid 1900s rapid mechanization led to the development of railroads and factories that mass-produced a large range of goods [textiles, firearms, sewing machines, farm implements, and cars] (Shadwell, 1999). The possibility of work, in settings other than the home, led to a massive population shift from rural to urban city centres. As a consequence of these lifestyle changes, people became less self-sufficient. Greater levels of interdependency fuelled the need for specialized divisions of labour and coordination between different levels of skill. This led educational reformers, such as Horace Mann (1838) and Henry Barnard (1838), to argue that family members and informal apprenticeship practices were no longer sufficient and that public schooling was essential for future success. Their influence contributed to the establishment of a public education system supported by local property taxes. During this time, urban school buildings often replicated the one-room schoolhouse model. They featured a double-loaded corridor (rooms on both sides) of selfcontained classrooms (or multiple levels of stacked classrooms) and an administrative centre. These schools came to be known as factory model schools. Their architectural design was a reflection of the educational system of the day, which valued repetition and uniformity (Dudek, 2000). Most schools had a timber frame, brick walls, and pitched roofs and were usually built on small parcels of land with no landscaping. Students were



6

separated into groups based on age. The average class size was 50 or more students in a classroom approximately 7 metres by 9 metres. Rows of desks were often bolted to the floor. The goal of the school system was to prepare students for the workplace. An overt curriculum of literacy and numeracy was overlaid with a covert curriculum of punctuality and discipline that often “neutralized the potential for schools to develop creativity and freedom of expression as part of the educative process” (Dudek, 2000, p. 10). In 1906, “only six percent of the population graduated from high school. ...It was a time when only a minority of people - say a fifth to a quarter - [were needed] to do the thinking for the entire system” (Fiske, 1995, p. 3). As the compulsory education system grew and became more formal, younger students were required to attend and students’ length of stay at school was extended. Barnard (1838), the first United States Commissioner of Education, is credited with integrating the concerns of architecture and pedagogy. Barnard took issue with the poor quality of school environments and suggested models of good school architecture. He was among the first to differentiate between school architecture and school construction. He suggested the architect is “...ultimately concerned with the cultural, spiritual and humane [aspects of schools], while the builder is primarily concerned with [the school’s] physical structure, reasonable cost, and the service of function” (McClintock & McClintock, 1970, as cited in Tanner & Lackney, 2006, p. 7). Toward the end of the nineteenth century, school design and construction began to incorporate other functions. School corridors were widened to accommodate increased traffic flow, cloakrooms were added to classrooms, and a large open room was added to host whole-school events. Early in the new century student populations increased



7

dramatically, as a result of mass immigration to North America (Martin & Midgley, 2003). The rapid influx of school age children resulted in the building of many new public schools, prompted the development of separate middle and high schools, and hastened the addition of many auxiliary spaces such as gymnasiums for physical education, laboratories, art studios, and spaces in which home arts and vocational skills could be taught. During the late 1800s and the early decades of the twentieth century, scholars such as Friedrich Froebel in Germany, Maria Montessori in Italy, and John Dewey in North American built on the work of Johann Pestalozzi to challenge the traditional methods of teaching and building schools. They argued that the needs of the economy, the church or the country should not take priority over the development of the child. This progressive movement championed the ideas that play and social experiences were as essential to normal growth as intellectual and manual skills. The thinking of these and other scholars led to the development of experimental or laboratory schools and ultimately to pedagogical and architectural changes. Many of these schools recognized the potential of architecture to work in harmony with pedagogy as a three-dimensional textbook. Since the 1950s, economic and societal changes have occurred at an exponential rate. The nature of work has changed extensively and commerce has expanded to embrace a world market. As a result, economic success required a greater knowledge base and the ability to interface effectively with others. The impact on families and communities was no less dramatic. The nuclear family of the middle half of the twentieth



8

century in North American has adapted to integrate many models of adult habitation (single parent families, blended families, adults living on their own). The baby boom after World War II created a massive need for new school construction. Once again, this led to a proliferation of standardized plans, oftensubstandard construction, and little or no awareness of the relationship between physical environments and learning. School buildings of this period were often one-story, flatroofed, and usually had walls made of brick or more likely concrete. Happily, not every school board missed the opportunity to design schools that reflected the educational beliefs and curricular imperatives of the time. The Crow Island School in Winnetka, Illinois is a lasting example of an effective integration of curriculum and school design. Figure 1 illustrates the floor plan of Crow Island School. The Crow Island School valued the “mastery of basic skills, along with attention to social development, creative activities, and experiential learning” (Meek, 1995, Figure 1. Floor plan of Crow Island School in Winnetka, Illinois (Tanner & Lackney, 2006).

p. 55). This one-story facility features

an asymmetrical clock tower, which functions as both a chimney and as a welcoming main entrance. The architectural design of Crow Island School has many attractive features consistent with its educational philosophy and curricular directives. The school is scaled to fit the needs of children; the ceiling height was lowered from 12 feet to 9 feet, doorknobs and blackboards were lowered, and appropriately sized moveable furniture was chosen. Each L-shaped one-room school module (classroom) provides lots of natural



9

light through two walls made almost entirely of windows, a washroom, separate wet and dry spaces, and access to a small flagstone courtyard enclosed on three sides that functions as an outdoor classroom. The floor plan of a classroom at Crow Island School is described in Figure 2. In response to the severe shortage of schools needed to accommodate the baby boom, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) formed a Committee on School Buildings in 1953. This committee included a number of national organizations including the US Office of Education and Teachers College of Columbia Figure 2. Floor plan for a classroom at Crow Island School (Tanner & Lackney, 2006).

University. In 1958, the Ford Foundation agreed to fund the work of this committee and created the

Educational Facilities Laboratories (EFL). The purpose of this independent, non-profit research organization was to “stimulate research, and disseminate information useful to those who select sites, plan, design, construct, modernize, equip, and finance educational structures and the tools therein” (Marks, 2009, p. 1). Over its 28-year history (1958– 1986), the EFL had: a greater impact on educational facilities than any other single force in the history of American education. [The] EFL’s greatest single contribution was to institutionalize progressive thought in school construction and equipment. It forced educators to think about function and architects to think about how to build to carry out the function.” (Marks, 2009, p. 7) The EFL also brought about significant development in construction materials, recommended the joint-use occupancy of buildings, and fostered increasing community

10

participation in the planning of new schools. The demise of the EFL and related organizations, such as the School Planning Laboratories of Stanford University and the University of Tennessee, left a gap in formal school facilities planning and training. “The termination of these programs was evidenced in the 1990s as graduates of these programs retired from service” (Tanner & Lackney, 2006, p. 15). The interrelationship between school architecture and education continued to evolve despite the disintegration of educational facility planning programs and organizations. The development of the computer and the Internet throughout the 1980s and 1990s has had a huge impact on education and the design of schools. As computers became more affordable, they were placed in designated areas within the school. With the advent of laptop computers, wireless technologies, and hand-held devices, technological resources can increasingly be accessed by students of all ages and their use has been integrated into the curriculum. For example, the United Kingdom’s Futurelab is dedicated to developing innovative digital technologies that support new approaches to education in the 21st century (Futurelab, 2008). Another decision integral to contemporary school architecture is whether or not to build environmentally sustainable new schools (solar energy, geo-thermal heating and cooling, effective air exchange and heat recovery systems). The same choice needs to be considered when older schools are upgraded. Sustainable schools (new or renovated) cost less to operate in the long run but, unfortunately, are still more expensive to build or refurbish. When school budgets are limited, the use of environmentally conscious or green technologies is often bypassed. Decisions regarding sustainable building may have health as well as financial repercussions. “Data from the 1996/97 National Population



11

Health Survey (NPHS) in Canada found the prevalence of active asthma [asthma diagnosed by and treated by a physician] was 9.9 percent among children and teens” (National Asthma Control Task Force, 2000, p. 6). The prevalence of asthma in Canadian children under 14 years of age has increased from 2.5 percent to 11.2 percent between 1978 and 1995 (National Asthma Control Task Force, 2000). While there are a number of factors contributing to the increased incidence of asthma in Canada, the poor quality of current school environments is an important factor. High levels of dust and mould are common and have recently prompted a closer evaluation of physical plant (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) systems and other materials used in schools (National Research Council of the National Academies, 2007). Students and teachers spend many hours a day in school buildings and their health and ability to learn can be directly affected by school construction and design. Current School Construction and Renovation Many schools in North America are aesthetically and pedagogically deficient (Fiske, 1995; Meek, 1995; Orr, 1992, 1999; Upitis, in press). Some scholars have characterized school architecture as: ...a pendulum swinging back and forth from individual classroom cells to the open plan, from national priority to national disgrace. ...We are a nation [USA] of great resources but limited attention spans. When we set out minds to a task we usually do it well...[and then stop doing it]. Eventually a crisis develops and we rediscover the importance of whatever we stopped doing. (Brubaker, 1993, p. 3) This description fits the situation in Canada equally well. This is a prime time to be thinking about school architecture, as many nations around the world are making the renovation of existing schools and the construction of new schools a priority. The

12

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF) school construction cost data for 2008 (Kindergarten to Grade 12 schools) reported that $36.9 billion USD were spent on additions, alterations, and new school construction in the United States. Between January and March 2009, a total of 1,053 school construction projects were underway in the United States at a cost of $5.7 billion USD. By 2011, annual school construction spending is forecasted to increase to $40 billion USD (NCEF, 2009). Similarly, the United Kingdom has recently undertaken: ...a massive investment in the design and building of new schools ...for the 21st century. The economically and architecturally ambitious Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme is setting out to rebuild or renew every secondary school in England over the next 10–15 years. (Rudd, Gifford, Morrison & Facer, 2006, p. 1) Canada is part of this trend as well, although it is more challenging to assess the retrofit of existing schools and new school construction because education is a provincial responsibility. Each province has separate priorities and too often these priorities are not related to how architectural design can support student learning. In September of 2006, Alberta committed $303 million in school construction guided by their multi-year Schools for Tomorrow plan. On October 31, 2007, the Education Minister of Ontario announced that 100 new schools would be built across Ontario in the next few years as part of the government’s Good Places to Learn initiative. One billion dollars in funding was dedicated to this project. These new schools were in addition to the 200 schools already opened or currently under construction during the McGuinty government’s mandate (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2005). Ontario’s Good Places to Learn initiative has five objectives, only one of which addresses students. This objective, student programming needs to drive facilities planning, is specifically mentioned as

13

“...not the most important factor” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2005). The Ontario government is more concerned with guidelines for school closures and funding criteria. It is important to note that during times of economic crisis, governments often continue to invest in infrastructure, including the construction of new schools and the renovation of aging facilities. Educational Facilities Planning and Research Organizations To optimize school design, more research is needed to determine how architecture affects students’ and teachers’ school experiences. Two organizations actively supporting educational facility planning research are the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development’s (OECD) Programme on Educational Building (PEB) and the United States’ National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF). Canada does not have a national organization to recommend and share best practices in the architectural design of schools. The PEB “…promotes the international exchange of ideas, information, research and experience in all aspects of educational building. ...The overriding concerns of the program are to ensure that the maximum educational benefit be obtained from ...educational buildings” (Programme on Educational Building, 2008). While the PEB is open to all OECD member countries, Canada has not taken advantage of this membership opportunity. The province of Quebec, which boasts some of the best-designed educational facilities in Canada, is an associate member of the PEB. The NCEF was developed by the U.S. Department of Education in 1997 to provide information on planning, designing, funding, building, improving, and maintaining safe, healthy, high performance schools. The NCEF drew from the reflective



14

practice of educators and design professionals and the empirical research of environmental psychologists and educational researchers—although student voices were largely absent—to develop over thirty global school design principles (Earthman, 2004). These principles were developed to aid school districts and architects to create facilities that enhance desired educational outcomes. These school design principles can be categorized into five areas: (a) site and building organization, (b) primary education, (c) shared school and community resources, (d) architectural character and features, and (e) site design and outdoor learning spaces (Lackney, 2000). The underlying premise of each school design principle is that “...all learning environments should be learner-centered, developmentally and age-appropriate, safe, comfortable, accessible, flexible, and equitable in addition to being cost-effective” (Lackney, 2000, p. 1). Examples of some of the principles include creating smaller schools, providing a home base for every learner, providing resource-rich well-defined activity pockets, encouraging educational leadership by decentralizing administrative space, maximizing natural and full-spectrum lighting, and providing facilities accessible for use by the community. The design principle, planning schools as neighbourhood-scaled community learning centres, deserves special consideration. All too often the transformative potential of schools is overlooked. Educational facilities which are accessible to the whole community can “create an increased involvement and awareness of the educational process ” (Lackney, 2000, p. 5). Budgetary constraints are another reality encouraging the wider use of schools. For example, Mark Dudek (2000) describes how “...schools in the United Kingdom spend approximately £400 million a year on heating and cause the production of 6 million tons of carbon dioxide” (Dudek, 2000, p. 102). Therefore, it



15

makes good sense to use buildings that would otherwise sit empty for a large part of the day. While any one school is unlikely to address all of the school design principles, they are useful guidelines. However, even where guidelines are available, their use is not mandatory. If a school district needs new schools quickly, they are more likely to build schools as inexpensively as possible and to use the same design at multiple sites. Too often, this approach results in large schools being built wherever land is cheapest and results in more children having to be bussed to a school out of their neighbourhood. If the school is far away from many students’ homes, parental involvement in the school community is compromised. Research on School Architecture and Education “There is a wealth of research data to suggest that physical facility conditions affect educational outcomes such as academic achievement and behaviour, but such data are sporadic” (Tanner & Lackney, 2006, p. 289). McCardle (1966) demonstrated that students needed less time to complete assignments and made significantly fewer errors in thermally controlled (temperature and humidity) classrooms. Optimum temperatures (and related humidity) for women were found to be half a degree Celsius higher on average than for men and young children preferred a cooler temperature than adults (approximately one degree Celsius). Similarly, the acoustic quality of a classroom can affect the performance of intellectual tasks and health (National Research Council of the National Academies, 2007). Noisy environments have been shown to contribute to deficits in mental concentration, more errors on difficult tasks, greater likelihood of students giving up on tasks before the time allocated has expired, and increases in blood pressure (Evans, Kliewer, & Martin, 1991). A classroom’s acoustics are composed of



16

three factors including (a) ambient noise level (background noise generated by such things as the hum of the heating system), (b) reverberation time (time interval between the time a sound is turned off or ends and is last heard), and (c) the signal to noise ratio. Signals are what people desire to hear. Noises are those sounds, which interfere with hearing what is desired. Schools are full of hard surfaces such as concrete walls, high ceilings and chalkboards, which contribute to long reverberation times. Undesirable noise levels are high in most schools and result from nearby vehicular traffic or voices from other classrooms or students in the hallway (Lackney, 1999). In 1999, the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) conducted a study of the condition of America’s public school facilities (2000). In part, this study explored 11 design classifications to determine if cognitive learning in elementary schools correlated with the school’s physical environment. Related design features were clustered into design classifications such as location of school site, movement patterns, day lighting and views, outside learning areas, etc. The study was conducted across 24 elementary schools (approximately 11,500 students) located in the west-central part of the state of Georgia, USA. A 10-point Likert scale was developed to assess the physical environment of schools (independent variable). This tool was utilized during site visits to each school by the same researcher, who was trained in school design and assessment. The dependent variable was an assessment instrument made up of the average composite grade level academic achievement scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) obtained from the Georgia Public Education Report Card for Parents. These scores were adjusted for the following covariates: (a) number of students from different cultural groups, (b) teachers’ level of preparation and years of experience, (c) the number of



17

gifted students, and (d) a proxy for socioeconomic status as estimated by the number of students in each school receiving state-supported school benefits. A number of research methods were used to validate the tools developed for the study and to assess the data collected (i.e., correlational multiple regression). While data were collected for students in both Grades 3 and 5, the data for the older students was more statistically significant. Nine school design classifications correlated with higher academic achievement scores for Grade 5 students. The most significant link existed between instructional neighbourhoods (flexible spaces students and teachers used to manage their own time and space) and academic achievement. This finding supports the importance of Moore and Lackney’s (1995) observation that higher order thinking and more diverse ways of learning are supported by an assortment of spaces of various sizes, such as studios with workstations and research areas for each student. The concept of personal and collective workspaces in contrast to a piece of public space has major implications for school architecture. The second major finding of this study was the relationship between instructional laboratories and academic achievement. Instructional laboratories encompass special-purpose spaces such as music or art studios and spaces that integrate technology and learning. Access to technology and arts-based programming appear to support academic success. Other relationships were also found to exist between academic achievement and movement patterns, colour, and outside learning areas. Large-scale quantitative studies firmly established that students learn more and better in small schools and that fewer students drop out than from larger schools (Howley, 1994; Lee & Smith, 1995; Pittman & Haughwout, 1987). In a review of the literature, Raywid (1999) suggested the optimum size of learner groups should be



18

between 60–75 students in pre-school, 200–400 students in elementary or middle school, and 600–800 students in high school. Some of the many benefits of smaller schools include: (a) greater opportunity for students to participate in extracurricular activities and leadership roles, (b) higher student satisfaction, (c) greater participation in social organizations, and (d) lower levels of crime and serious student misconduct. A strategy often used to reduce the detrimental effects of large schools is to create what has come to be known as schools within schools. Parts of the school are dedicated to specific activities or students in the same grade(s) are grouped together. This strategy ameliorates some of the difficulties inherent in the building of large schools. The school chosen for the current research was built to serve approximately 450 students from Grades 1 to 10. Classrooms for students of similar ages (Grades 1 to 4, Grades 5 to 7, and Grades 8 to 10) are grouped together in separate wings. The school also has a number of specialized classrooms and studios, as well as an adjacent physical education facility. School architecture and education share more than academic outcomes. “When children attend a school designed with their needs in mind, they ... demonstrate a more natural disposition to respectful behaviour and a willingness to contribute to the classroom community” (Herbert, 1998, p. 69). When people feel valued, they are more likely to develop a connection or bond with the place that fosters such feelings (Noddings, 2005). School architecture can contribute to the development of these feelings and foster students’ sense of place. For example, an age-appropriate, highly visible school entrance can evoke a strong sense of welcome. Lots of alternate pathways to reach a central focal point (an all-purpose meeting space such as a courtyard) within a school or campus community invite further exploration of the school. Windows and transitional



19

spaces elicit a connection with the natural world. Variety in ceiling heights, a mixture of public and private spaces, colour choices, lighting, and furnishings (especially soft furnishings such as rugs and couches) all communicate a feeling of home-like surroundings that foster a sense of wellbeing. School design can have a profound effect on students’ attachment to and engagement with learning environments and experiences. One important observation about these studies is that most used quantitative research approaches to study the relationship between educational outcomes and specific design features. Most studies were devoid of students’ perspectives and none explored how students experienced purpose-built schools. As a result, there is a need for qualitative research in this field, especially to explore how students experience their school environments. To address this gap in our understanding, the current research asked students to photograph important school spaces in their purpose-built school. Photoelicitation interviews were used to explore students’ lived experiences of the identified important school spaces and to determine what meaning, if any, the school spaces held for the students. An understanding of how students construct the importance and meaning of school spaces supports the holistic design of future educational facilities.

Complexity Science The application of complexity science as a conceptual framework for this study can be understood through an examination of how our understanding of human cognition has evolved. In the 1950s, behaviourist models of learning predominated. However, this linear model (stimulus-response, conditioning) could not account for many aspects of human cognitive functioning. Major shifts occurred in the study of human cognition with



20

the development of the Harvard Center for Cognitive Studies in 1960 and with the advent of the modern computer. Psychologists began to view cognition as “a matter of developing internal representations of a reality that [was] perceived to be external to and independent of the cognizing agent” (Davis & Sumara, 1997, p. 106). These representational models of cognition tended to draw on prevailing technologies (computers) for their defining imagery. This pervasive metaphor reduced the mind to a machine capable of inputting, processing, storing, and retrieving information (Reynolds, Sinatra & Jetton, 1996). All of these models essentially viewed the universe as mechanistic and ultimately predictable (Davis, Sumara & Luce-Kapler, 2000). Complexity science first arose as a defined field of study in the latter half of the 20th century, when various branches of science and mathematics evolved into new areas (Capra, 1998; Johnson, 2001; Maturana & Varela, 1987). By the 1970s more holistic philosophies (constructivism and social constructivism) of cognition emerged in which learning was “...understood as a participation in the world, a co-evolution of knower and known that transforms both” (Davis, Sumara & Luce-Kapler, 2000, p. 64). The metaphor and language describing these theories shifted to that of biology and ecology. The language of complexity science continues to evolve. Davis and Sumara ask the question, “...how does one refer to complexity research? As a theory? As a science? As an attitude? ...[and have] opted for the phrase complexity thinking” (2006, p. xii). In contrast to analytic science, “complexivists have argued that a hard-and-fast definition of the movement is impossible. Complexity thinking is not...defined in terms of its modes of inquiry. There is no complexity scientific method” (Davis & Sumara, 2006, p. 4). An important distinction within complexity science is the differentiation between systems



21

that are complicated (clocks and computers) and those that are complex (human beings and human communities). Complicated systems can be understood through an analysis of their component parts and how they go together. With this knowledge, it is possible to confidently predict how the larger system will work. Complex systems, however: are more dynamic, more unpredictable [and] more alive ... even the most profound knowledge of the subsystems ...will not help us to predict or to control the behaviours of such systems. ...It is the relations among [subsystems], not the [subsystems] themselves, that are productive and, as such, of interest. (Davis & Sumara, 1997, p. 113–114) Studies evoking a complexity framework are not looking for cause and effect relationships and, therefore, do not attempt to control the relationships between elements or agents in the system nor between subsystems and the whole. Rather, the focus is to explore the dynamic, changing interplay between agents and how they negotiate (adapt) the productive tensions between them. The complexity science framework has been applied to myriad phenomena in the social sciences and used by educators to describe classrooms and schools (Davis & Sumara, 2006). Several key conditions foster the rise of complex systems. These include redundancy, diversity, neighbour interactions, decentralized control, and enabling constraints (Johnson, 2001). Redundancy (common elements) strengthens a system and is present in most classrooms because children of similar ages are grouped together. Diversity is also needed to enable a system to adapt to new situations in flexible ways. Redundancy and diversity work together through neighbour interactions where diverse ideas come into contact to contradict, harmonize, or amplify one another. The system’s internal integrity rests on the immediate interdependencies and not on a centralized authority (Upitis, 2004). Complexity science also implies that biological and cultural

22

systems shape and are themselves shaped by learners (Davis & and Sumara, 2006; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; Tomasello, 2000). Architecture embodies both biological and cultural systems by its very nature, as do the students who occupy the space (Upitis, 2004). The complexity science framework supports multiple modes of inquiry and cross-disciplinary research—in this case, the intersection between architecture and education. It is one thing to identify a purpose-built school based on facilities design principles and quite another to describe how students experience the school and ascribe meaning to the spaces they inhabit. Therefore, this examination of students’ perceptions of their purpose-built school looked for ways that school spaces were flexible to accommodate new situations, ways that particular spaces might be experienced differently by different students, and ways in which these spaces acted as enabling constraints to allow for the emergence of unexpected phenomena and learning. This study describes a dynamic system and was open to unpredictable relationships amongst the students and the school spaces they occupied.

Embodied Knowledge Traditional theoretical constructs of human cognition have embraced the division between the mind and the body. Plato and Aristotle were among the earliest philosophers to explore the idea of mind/body dualism. Dualism claims that the mind and the body are separate and that mental phenomena are essentially non-physical. René Descartes expanded this form of thinking in the 16th century. As a result, separation of the mind and body is entrenched in many people’s ways of being. This duality persists in everything from our institutions (Western medicine) to our everyday language (“mind



23

over matter”). Our educational practices often educate “...from the neck up, leaving the rest of the body to act largely as a physical support rather than actively involved in our quest for knowledge, thinking and understanding” (Powell, 2004, p. 193). Powell further observes that “the embodied experience of traditional schooling… is often an anaesthetic experience devoid of any heightened sensory experience or perception” (Powell, 2004, p. 193)—an anaesthetic experience that can be reinforced by school architecture (Upitis, in press). Recent advances in neuroscience and brain imaging have revealed the dynamic nature of the human brain and its interconnectivity with the rest of the body (Davis & Upitis, 2004). Even with these advances, sophisticated imaging technologies are only able to indicate “...where activity occurs, but [nothing] about what is happening” (Berninger & Corina, 1998, p. 346). Imaging technologies only examine individual brains (which have a wide range of normal), and are limited in what they reveal about “...the interaction of brains with other brains in a social context” (Berninger & Corina, 1998, p. 348). We learn about the world and ourselves through moving, touching, breathing, talking, eating, playing, and singing. Chilean biologist, philosopher, and neuroscientist, Francisco Varela (1999) developed the term cognition as enaction, implying that “our understanding of ourselves emerges from our … experiences [with and in] the world” (Sumara & Upitis, 2004, p. v). Physical exploration of the world is an accepted form of knowledge development for young children. With adulthood, our awareness of embodied knowledge decreases as once conscious movements become well-practiced, unconscious embodied knowledge (Powell, 2004). However, as musician Wayne Bowman claims, all “human knowledge draws its sustenance from corporeal roots [and that the] mind is



24

inextricably biological and embodied; what it can know is always grounded in the material and experiential world” (Bowman, 2004, p. 30). Embodied knowledge is integral to the current research initiative in several ways. “Boundaries between the body and its environment are porous allowing and facilitating interactions that are important if not fundamental” (Bowman, 2004, p. 47). These permeable boundaries facilitate the interconnectedness between people and their environments through which both are transformed. Students experience purpose-built schools with their bodies, as they relate to both animate (peers, plants, wild places) and inanimate (playground structures, art supplies, furniture) objects. Interrelationships between complex systems (students, schools, school systems, communities) are dynamic, unpredictable, and embedded in the larger context. Experiential learning is also culturally mediated; it has the potential to make learning easier or more difficult. “Cultural constraints refer to how a culture enhances and restricts (a) what is possible and probable, (b) what is accessible, (c) what is valued, and (d) what is supported” (Walsh, 2004, p. 101). An exploration of the interdependencies of these complex groups is guided by the belief that “the body is minded, the mind is embodied, and both body and mind are culturally-mediated” (Bowman, 2004, p. 36). According to Nili Portugali (2006) “the purpose of architecture … is first and foremost to create a human environment for human beings. Buildings affect our lives and the fate of the physical environment in which we live” (p. 21). Too often architecture is what Portugali terms as mechanistic-fragmentary. This architectural approach “…separates elements and creates an environment of autonomous fragments …arous[ing] a feeling of detachment and alienation” (p. 23). In contrast, Portugali suggests architects



25

have a responsibility to utilize a holistic-organic approach when making architectural decisions. This architectural approach “…regards the physical environment as a system or a dynamic whole, the existence of which depends on the …ever-changing interactions among the parts” (Portugali, 2006, p. 23). The challenge for contemporary architecture is to integrate modern technology in the creation of buildings that become meaningful places in our lives. The holistic-organic approach echoes the fundamental tenets of complexity science and embodied knowledge. Architectural design is fundamental to our experience of space. The design of meaningful places in schools requires an understanding of the dynamic interrelationship between students, school architecture, and education. Summary A review of the literature and relevant research on school architecture, complexity science, and embodied knowledge has provided a context for the study. The integration of these distinct bodies of knowledge was integral in the identification of appropriate methodological choices and data collection instruments. The following chapter describes the specific methodology developed to explore Icelandic students’ perceptions of their purpose-built school.



26

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

Phenomenological research initiatives seek to “...gain a deeper understanding of the nature or meaning of our everyday experiences” (Patton, 2002, p. 104). In this qualitative methodology, the study of the phenomenon takes precedence over the number of sites or participants in the study. A phenomenological approach was used to explore Icelandic students’ perceptions of school spaces in their purpose-built school. An emergent design methodology was used to adapt to the particular circumstances in the setting and to modify data collection methods as necessary throughout the study. This approach is consistent with a phenomenological design, complexity theory (relationships between sub-systems are unpredictable), and the use of photo-elicitation interviews (participant choices influence the direction of the interview). The following pages describe the study design more fully, including cultural and ethical considerations, site selection, participant selection, an overview of methodological strategies, and a description of the steps in the research process. This chapter also describes how the data were organized and analyzed, as well as approaches to enhance the validity and trustworthiness of the study.

Cultural Consideration: Before Conducting Research in Iceland While I am of Icelandic heritage, it was important for me to become more familiar with Icelandic history, language, and educational philosophy before undertaking this study. Knowledge of Iceland’s cultural and linguistic context was necessary to facilitate



27

credible data collection and analysis. While English is widely spoken in Iceland, the country’s first language is Icelandic. Formal English instruction begins in Grade 4 and is one of three languages Icelandic students need for university entrance (Gunnlaugsdóttir, n.d). On June 24, 2008, I travelled to Iceland’s capital, Reykjavík. Over the following weeks, I participated in two courses related to Icelandic culture and language. From June 26 to July 17, 2008, I completed a guided Field Study course offered by the Department of Icelandic Language and Literature at the University of Manitoba. This course explored both ancient and contemporary Icelandic culture and language and involved travel to many parts of Iceland. I also took advantage of the Intensive Language Preparation Course for Foreign Exchange Students hosted by the University Centre of the West Fjords in Isafjörður (August 3–23, 2008). Upon completion of these courses, I visited several purpose-built compulsory schools and arranged for accommodation in Reykjavík.

Ethical Considerations Researchers [reflecting wider societal norms] do not have a culture of listening to children, and children are not accustomed to being asked their opinions. It is uncommon for children’s knowledge and understanding of their own learning to be used to improve teaching and learning. (Smith, Duncan & Marshall, 2005, p. 474) For some researchers, however, a shift in thinking is occurring in which childhood and children are increasingly seen as “...worthy of investigation in their own right, separate from their parents or caregivers” (Einarsdóttir, 2005, p. 524). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Iceland in 1992, had a major impact on education and educational research in Iceland. The work of Jóhanna Einarsdóttir at the University of Iceland’s Faculty of Education is an excellent example of

28

(a) the philosophical and ethical underpinnings regarding the inclusion of young people in research, (b) Icelanders’ awareness of the importance of and commitment to building purpose-built schools, and (c) the use of photography in research with students. Einarsdóttir (2005) states that, “...children, just like adults, hold their own views and opinions, ...have the right to express their ideas, and ...are capable of expressing their ideas” (p. 524). In this paradigm, children are seen as active participants in research rather than objects of study (Epstein, Sevens, McKeenver, & Baruchel, 2006). Ethical clearance was obtained from the General Research Ethics Board (GREB) at Queen’s University in May 2008. According to the Icelandic Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, the only ethical clearance required to conduct research at a school in Iceland is written permission from the principal. After consent was obtained from the principal of the site chosen for this study, consent was obtained from study participants and their parents for (a) participation in the study, (b) the researcher to take photographs of participants, and (c) the use of participants’ photographs in future publications. As part of this process, participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. See Appendix A for the Letter of Information, Appendix B for the Consent to Participate, and Appendix C for the Consent Form for Taking/Using Photographs of Research Participants. Participants’ identity was kept anonymous by the assignment of pseudonyms at the beginning of data collection.

Site Selection The Icelandic Ministry of Education, Science and Culture website provides contact information and a detailed description of all schools in Iceland



29

(http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/institutions). Compulsory Schools or Grunnskólar are for students between the ages of 6 and 16 years in Grades 1 to 10. Before leaving Canada, I contacted each school that met the selection criteria, described the research study, and explored the school’s interest to participate. Final site selection was made in Iceland, after visiting several interested schools that fit the following criteria: (a) purpose-built compulsory school, (b) built within the last 10 years, (c) located in an urban area, and (d) school interest and agreement to participate in the study. Every five years, the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development’s (OECD) Programme on Educational Building (PEB) assembles an international jury to study pedagogical information, photographs, and architectural plans of schools in member countries. The most recent edition of the PEB: Compendium of Exemplary Educational Facilities (2006) highlighted 65 exemplary educational facilities in 20 countries. Lækjarskóli, one of four schools in Iceland featured in this publication, was selected as the research site.

Figure 3. Lækjarskóli was chosen as the research site.

Lækjarskóli is located in the city of Hafnarfjörður and serves approximately 550 students from Grades 1–10. Hafnarfjörður is home to approximately 22,000 residents and is located 10 kilometres from downtown Reykjavík. In 1877, Lækjarskóli was a small

30

timber frame schoolhouse located near a stream that flows out to the North Atlantic. The name Lækjarskóli is derived from the Icelandic words for stream (lækur) and school (skóli). In the 1930s, a new, larger concrete facility was built a little further upstream in the traditional school architectural style of this period. In 2000, the Hafnarfjörður city council voted to replace this aging facility. This large-scale construction project was undertaken through a Public-Private Partnership (PPP). Lækjarskóli was built by Ístak Ltd. and is owned and operated by Nýsir Group, a private company that heads a consortium of building contractors and banks. The cost of this 6,800m2 facility was estimated at $20 million Euros (or over $32 million CAD), while the estimated cost to build the adjacent Lækjarskóli Sports Centre was $6 million Euros (or over $9. 6 million CAD). Lækjarskóli was completed in 2002 and leased to the city of Hafnarfjörður for 25 years (until 2027). The Lækjarskóli Sports Centre was completed in 2005 and leased to the city of Hafnarfjörður for 25 years (until 2030). Under the PPP contract, the Nýsir Group is responsible for the management and operational costs of the facility including cafeteria services for students and staff, cleaning services, and supervision staff for lunchtime and yard duty. At the end of the contracts, the buildings will remain the property of Nýsir Group.

Figure 4. Lækjarskóli’s football court and the stream in the distance (L), primary, middle, and senior students’ wings (C), and the hallway to senior students’ classrooms and the dining hall (R).



31

The site selected for the new school was a lava field in a protected nature reserve approximately one kilometre from the old school. Proximity to the old school building was an important consideration, as the vast majority of students walk to school. While there was some initial controversy about building in a protected nature area, this concern was ameliorated by an architectural design that blended with the natural surroundings. Lækjarskóli is built mainly of glass, stone, and wood and the curved windows in the dining hall were patterned on the original winding access road (SR, ARCH). Throughout the school, large walls of windows allow everyone inside to enjoy beautiful views and the swans on the stream. The school incorporates a space for special needs students (aged 6–12) and a multicultural unit for foreign students of all ages. Together with general teaching classrooms, Lækjarskóli offers specially designed classrooms for woodworking, textile crafts, music, art, and cooking, as well as science and computer labs. All classrooms have at least one computer with Internet access. Students and community members can modify the school’s dining hall for large events and social activities. The Lækjarskóli Sports Centre, adjacent to the main school building, provides all students with easy access to a gymnasium and a geo-thermally heated indoor swimming pool. The Lækjarskóli Sports Centre is open to the public before and after school hours.

Participant Selection On September 24, 2008, I invited students in two Grade 9 classes and two Grade 10 classes to participate in the study. With the help of Auður, the teacher assigned to assist me, I introduced myself as a graduate student from Canada and provided an



32

overview of the research. Because English is at least a second language for these students, I read the Letter of Information aloud and described the purpose of the Consent Forms and how they were to be completed. Auður acted as a translator to ensure that students’ questions were fully addressed and that the description of the study and follow up instructions were understood. Interested students were provided with an envelope containing a Letter of Information about the study and Consent Forms. I was prepared to provide this information package in Icelandic, but no such request was made. Students were asked to take the Letter of Information and Consent Forms home to discuss their participation in the study with their parents, and to return the signed Consent Forms to the school secretaries in the main office. The study group was limited to the first 10 students who met the following criteria: (a) currently enrolled at Lækjarskóli, (b) a resident of Iceland for a minimum of three years, (c) proficient in conversational English (English language instruction begins in Grade 4), and (d) returned correctly completed Consent Forms to the main office. Study group participants were selected based on the date and time they submitted their consent forms. The schools secretaries recorded this information. The study group consisted of 10 girls, seven from Grade 9 and three from Grade 10.

Methodological Overview Once the research site and study participants were identified a variety of research activities were undertaken over a two-month period, beginning in late September and ending in late November 2008. These activities included an introductory focus group interview, a meeting to assign the photography related



33

research tasks, individual photo-elicitation interviews, a concluding focus group interview, and an interview with one of the school’s architects. The focus group interviews and the interview with the architect were conducted to provide a greater understanding of the research context and were not used to address the research questions. Participants’ self-selected photographs and individual photoelicitation interviews, which included a walking tour of each participant’s most important school space were the primary data sources used to answer the research questions. Each of these research approaches will be described more fully in the following pages. Focus Group Interviews To explore the essence of the experience of a phenomenon, focus group interviews can yield high quality data by giving participants the opportunity to share their experiences in a social context and to hear and respond to the views of others. Typical focus groups involve 6 to 10 people of similar backgrounds engaged in a 1 to 2 hour interview (Patton, 2002). In this study, however, two shorter focus group interviews were conducted with all ten participants. Although the participants were known to each other, their established relationships did not impact the quality of the data. The first focus group interview was conducted at the beginning of the study to explore the diversity of participants’ daily lived experiences at Lækjarskóli. A second focus group interview was held at the end of the study to collectively explore the impact of specific design features on participants’ experiences of school spaces. At this time, participants also had the opportunity to make suggestions for future school design and to share what it was like to



34

participate in the study. Relevant information from the second focus group interview is integrated into the Discussion Chapter. Interview with the Architect After completing data collection, I met with Sturla Ragnarsson, an architect with the Icelandic firm that won the design competition to build Lækjarskóli. The purpose of this interview was to explore the firm’s architectural vision, to inquire about the design process, and to learn more about Lækjarskóli’s design specifications. Relevant information from this interview is integrated into the Discussion Chapter. Field Notes and Researcher’s Photographs Descriptive field notes were kept throughout the study to record pertinent observations, evolving impressions, and reflections about the significance of my experiences (Patton, 2002). A photographic record was also created to capture and explore the details of Lækjarskóli’s architectural design. These photographs were excluded from the results of this study. Photographs, Photo-Logs, and Photo-Elicitation Interviews Researchers have a responsibility to formulate supportive frameworks through which students can effectively communicate and to develop creative ways of deciphering their perspectives (Smith, Duncan & Marshall, 2005). Photography and photo-logs, in combination with interviews, narratives, and walking tours, have been used to conduct research in many disciplines including anthropology, education, and community health (Collier, 1967). With the development of user-friendly and relatively inexpensive technologies, the combination of photography and interviews is gaining recognition for



35

the ability to “...establish rapport, share in the narrative of the experience and delve into the meaning of both the photographs and the experiences” (Loeffler, 2004, p. 4). Students seldom communicate in the rigid question-and-answer format of traditional interviews (Epstein et al., 2006). Image-based research methods combine tactile artifacts with verbal language and are particularly beneficial when working with young children or students with varying language proficiency skills (Einarsdóttir, 2005). To facilitate participants’ recollection of experiences or the object(s) they had intended to capture, a written photo-log can be used in combination with photography. The use of multiple senses “...sharp[ens] the memory, and give[s] the interview an immediate character of realistic reconstruction” (Collier & Collier, 1986, p. 106). Integrating photographs into the interview process can also yield rich data by evoking the complex emotional context of participants’ experiences. Collier and Collier (1986) note that “...photographs are charged with psychological and highly emotional elements and symbols” (p. 108). The “emotional content extracted from and projected onto the photographs [during photo-elicitation interviews] affords the researcher a greater understanding of participants’ experiences than from the spoken or written word alone” (Carlsson, 2001 as cited in Loeffler, 2004, p. 3). Using a camera can be an empowering experience and there are many advantages to this highly collaborative approach (Loeffler, 2004). When “...children take pictures to describe their opinions and feelings about their lives, they are active. They are creating meaning as they capture meaningful parts of their lives” (Rasmussen, as cited in Einarsdóttir, 2005, p. 527). The freedom to take personally relevant photographs also shifts the locus of power to the student rather than the researcher. When interviews are



36

incorporated with photographs, students are the experts as they interpret and explain the photos they have taken (Einarsdóttir, 2005). Since students choose what to photograph, they set the tone of the interview requiring researchers to adapt interview questions to the photos and the interviewee’s “...pace, style, and playfulness” (Digital Youth Research, 2006). Sometimes others—such as peers, family—may influence what photographs are taken and the narrative surrounding the photographs. Researchers working with complexity science do not see this as a limitation because they “...view all data as constructs developed through the relationship of the researcher, research participants, research context, and means of data generation” (Moreland & Cowie, 2005, p. 77). Camera Selection Digital cameras were used in this study. By a show of hands, almost all students in Grades 9 and 10 had their own digital camera (or access to a family digital camera) and were familiar with and confident in the use of digital camera technology. Additional features (zoom, instant image review, etc.) are standard on digital cameras and enhanced the quality of the data collected. Furthermore, digital photographs are simple to manipulate, can be readily transferred between people, and easily uploaded into coding software. If a student was interested to participate but did not have access to a digital camera, a 27-exposure disposable camera and image processing costs would have been made available. All students who chose to participate in the study, however, had their own digital camera.



37

Steps in the Research Process Focus Group Interview One Within a week of identifying the study group, an introductory meeting was held with all participants. This meeting had two major purposes. 1. The meeting began with an introductory activity to support the formative stage of the group, after which I ensured that each participant had access to and knowledge about how to use digital cameras and printers. 2. An audio-recorded, focus group interview was held to elicit students’ perspectives of their daily lived experiences at Lækjarskóli. Questions explored a variety of topics including: How do you get to school? How is the school day organized? Where at school do you spend most of your time? What do you do during the breaks? Do you buy lunch from the cafeteria or bring a lunch from home? Do you use the school in the evening? See Appendix D for the interview questions. Participants responded to these and other similar interview questions individually and collectively. The meeting concluded with an opportunity for participants to ask questions. Students were asked to bring their digital cameras to the next meeting, which was scheduled jointly for the following week. Assignment of the Photography Research Tasks Once again, this meeting had multiple purposes. 1. At the beginning of the meeting, participants were given five minutes to take two photographs of grey objects on the ground floor senior wing of the school. This exercise ensured that all participants were confident in the use of their camera and that instructions were clearly communicated and understood.



38

2. Each participant was asked to take a self-portrait. These photos were used to organize records of the participants’ photographs. 3. After these short activities, instructions were provided about how to keep a photo-log. The photo-log template is provided in Appendix E. For each photograph, participants were asked to record (a) the date, (b) the space in which the photo was taken, and (c) what they were intending to capture in either the individual photo or cluster of photos (Moreland & Cowie, 2005). At the time of the photo-elicitation interviews, photologs were available to help participants accurately recall the circumstances of the chosen photographs. 4. The final purpose of this meeting was to ask participants to photograph important school spaces (either inside or outside spaces on school property) over the course of the following school week. Study participants were instructed that they could take photographs of anything in these spaces and for any reason (positive or negative), as long as the primary focus of the photograph remained the school space. All photographs were to be respectful of the people and places involved. Participants were reminded that Icelandic privacy laws prohibited the taking of photographs during class time. Classroom spaces could be photographed before or after class time. Participants were invited to take as many photographs as they liked, as long as they took a minimum of 27 photos. Participants were asked not to delete any of their photographs to eliminate self-censorship at this stage. At the end of the data collection period and prior to the photo-elicitation interviews, participants were asked to copy their photographs onto a memory stick and to transfer these to my computer.



39

Photo-Elicitation Interview Instructions In preparation for the interview, participants were provided with the following instructions: 1. Select and print 11 photographs (minimum size 13 x 17 centimetres) of their choice. No selection criteria were provided, as each participant had their own reasons for choosing which photographs to bring to the interview. Participants were supplied with photo paper and assistance was provided for those who did not have access to a colour printer. While participants’ photographs could have been displayed digitally on a laptop during the interviews, I felt it was important to have a physical artifact that could be manipulated. Printed photographs helped to facilitate the expression of participants’ complex experiences of school spaces and avoided potential problems or distractions related to the use of a computer. Participants were asked to bring their photo-logs to the interview having highlighted sections relevant to the photographs selected for discussion. 2. Of the 11 photographs chosen for the photo-elicitation interview, participants were asked to identify the photograph of their most important school space and to share the identified space with me as part of a walking tour. The purpose of this embodied sharing of space was to foster a deeper communication of students’ experiences of their chosen space. 3. Participants were asked to select an interview time during the following week that best fit with their schedule. Smith, Duncan, and Marshall (2005) note that the time between the taking of photos and interviews should be as short as possible to facilitate accurate participant reflection.



40

Photo-Elicitation Interviews The photo-elicitation interviews were held in prearranged spaces at Lækjarskóli. The interviews were audio-recorded and approximately 45 minutes in length. All participants were able to adequately express themselves in English during the interview. Had a participant felt unable to confidently express themselves in English, they would have been encouraged to share their thoughts as best they could in English and to complete their thoughts in Icelandic. While arrangements were made with a person unrelated to the study to translate Icelandic responses into English, this accommodation was not required. Each audio-recorded interview was transcribed. To ensure that I did not have any pre-conceived impression of participants’ photographs and related experiences, each participant’s self-selected photographs and photo-log were shared with me for the first time during the interview. To facilitate discussion, photographs were spread out on the table and participants identified the photograph of their self-selected most important school space. Participants then chose the order in which they wished to discuss the remaining photographs and numbered them accordingly. These numbers helped to structure the interview and, in no way, reflected a rank order of importance. Participants were asked to refer to each photograph by the assigned number to assist with accurate transcription. The photograph of participants’ most important school space was discussed last, as part of a walking tour of the space where the photo was taken. The photo-log was collected together with the printed photographs at the end of each photo-elicitation interview. Participants were actively involved in directing the discussion during the interview. Photo-elicitation interviews required that I be responsive to participants, while ensuring that the research questions were addressed. See Appendix F for sample photo-



41

elicitation interview questions and Appendix G for an excerpt from a photo-elicitation interview transcript. Focus Group Interview Two An audio-recorded focus group interview was conducted with all participants to explore what it was like for them to participate in the study. Some of the questions included: What was it like to take photographs of your school? Did your participation in this study change the way you look at your school? What design features at Lækjarskóli do you like and why? What design features would you change and why? Is there anything about Lækjarskóli that you would like to add? If you were asked to help design a school in the future, what spaces would be important to include and what would they look like? See Appendix H for the interview questions. Participants were asked if they wanted to share their photographs with each other, with the school community or with the public, and if so, in what way(s) they would like to display their work (use a digital projector, create a photo exhibition, etc.). A culminating activity can be used to acknowledge the participants’ work and could be a way to thank the school for supporting the research study. At the time, however, other school priorities took precedence and the study came to a natural conclusion.

Data Organization and Analysis Pseudonyms were assigned to each student participant, the teacher who assisted with the study, and the architect. A system was created to manage data from each source by pseudonym. Data sources included participants’ self-selected photographs and photoelicitation interview and walking tour transcripts. These were analyzed using ATLAS.ti (1997). Participants’ photographs discussed at the photo-elicitation interviews were



42

coded to identify important school spaces. When the focus of the photograph also reflected a particular artefact (e.g., students’ artwork) or a specific feature (e.g., flooring), a secondary code was assigned to capture these details within the primary space. For example, the playground was coded first by space (playground) and secondly by the identified features (benches, lava rock, play structures). Occasionally, the focus of a photograph was an issue of concern rather than a specific school space. In such instances, photographs were coded by issue and not by the school space in which they occurred. Participants indicated this distinction at the time of the photo-elicitation interviews and described how issues of concern occurred across school spaces. Each audio-recorded photo-elicitation interview and walking tour was transcribed in full. All of these transcripts were read and carefully re-read together with participants’ photographs, as part of identifying meaningful segments and assigning descriptive codes. This process facilitated the identification of patterns and themes across the data, as they related to the specific research questions. Relevant portions of the focus group interviews and the interview with the architect were transcribed. Transcripts were carefully read several times to identify salient data. These contextual sources of information contributed to ideas developed in the final chapter. Transcripts are cited using participant’s initials, an abbreviation indicating the specific interview (FG1=Focus Group One, PE=Photo-Elicitation Interview, WT=Walking Tour, FG2=Focus Group Two, ARCH=Architect Interview), and the page number of the referenced text. For example, a direct quote from Sigrún Ingadóttir’s photo-elicitation interview is referenced as follows: (SI, PE, p. 8).



43

Inter-Rater Reliability To increase the reliability of the identified codes and to enrich the data analysis, a second reader was engaged to read and code the most dense photo-elicitation interview transcript together with the corresponding photographs. This process was undertaken to determine the degree of agreement between our interpretations of the data. A high level of inter-rater reliability indicates consistency in measurement and increases the external validity of the themes identified by demonstrating that they are not the result of the researcher’s personal bias (Ryan & Bernard, 2000). I met with the second reader, a Master of Education graduate with seven years teaching experience, to conduct a brief training session. The second reader coded the photo-elicitation interview transcript and accompanying photographs according to the code list developed by the researcher. Eight codes were selected to measure inter-rater reliability. These included: Comments on design, Important because, What happens, Movement patterns, Rules, Temperature, View, and Sofas. Table 1 shows the degree of agreement between the researcher and the second reader on the chosen codes. Minor discrepancies in coding were discussed and resolved.



44

Table 1 Inter-Rater Reliability ________________________________________________________________________ Transcript Code Researcher’s Second Calculated Percentage Code Reader’s Code Inter-rater Reliability CR= 2M N1 +N2 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– (ÞG, PE) Comments on 32 29 58 95.0% Design 61 Important Because

38

37

74 75

98.6%

What Happens

43

49

86 92

93.4%

Movement Patterns

21

25

42 46

91.3%

Rules

27

28

54 57

94.7%

Temperature

8

7

14 15

93.3%

View

5

6

10 11

90.9%

Sofas

4

4

8 100.0% 8 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– M = # of times the two coders agreed; N1 +N2 = sum of coding decisions made by each coder



45

Individual and Composite Profiles of Important School Spaces After establishing inter-rater reliability, the coded photo-elicitation interview transcripts and their corresponding photographs were used to create an individual profile for each participant. This profile organized participants’ responses to the specific research questions according to their photographs of important school spaces. Figure 5 illustrates the template used to create the individual participant profiles. Photo School Space

Importance Personal

Collective

What Happens Time Line

Personal

Collective

Meaning Time Line

Personal

Collective

Figure 5. Template used to create the individual profiles.



The individual profiles captured the identification of important school spaces, participants’ experiences of what happened in these spaces, and whether or not these spaces were meaningful. The individual profiles were used to create composite profiles for each important interior and exterior school space. This composite description organized participants’ collective responses to the research questions by school space. During the photoelicitation interviews, participants narratives occasionally extended beyond the photograph under discussion to include relevant anecdotes about school spaces captured in other photographs. Relevant anecdotes were included in the description of the appropriate school space, as part of the creation of the composite profiles. The process of creating composite profiles also led to the identification of important issues within school spaces. A separate composite description was created to capture participants’ collective experience of the issues identified.



46

Time Line

Validity and Trustworthiness A variety of data collection and analysis techniques were used to enhance the validity and trustworthiness of this study. A comfortable working relationship was developed with the staff and teachers at Lækjarskóli before data collection began. To encourage students to share their experiences of school spaces with me, as a visiting researcher rather than a teacher, I did not participate in any academic instruction with the students at Lækjarskóli. Acceptance of my presence reduced the impact of the Hawthorne effect on the data collected and increased the validity of the study. Differences in language and culture were addressed in many ways to ensure the validity of the data. These included the researcher’s living and studying in Iceland for three months before beginning data collection, choosing participants with good conversational English skills, integrating participants’ language (“closet” instead of “locker”) into interview questions, and offering participants the opportunity to express themselves in Icelandic, if the depth of their experiences were too complex to communicate in English alone. Interview questions were sometimes rephrased and responses checked with participants to ensure intended meanings were clearly communicated. All of these approaches together with an accurate and complete record of the data afforded by the photographs and the audio-recorded interviews contributed to the validity of the data. Auður, a teacher fluent in both Icelandic and English, worked with me throughout the study. During informal meetings, Auður helped to confirm observations, subtle differences in language, and participants’ meanings. The trustworthiness of the coded



47

data was further enhanced by the high degree of congruity between the researcher and a second well qualified reader. Data collection occurred over a long period of time in the students’ natural setting to more accurately reflect participants’ lived experiences of their school. Multiple sources of data were collected, which yielded different insights and increased the credibility of the findings. Triangulation across multiple data sets enhanced the validity of the data collection and analysis process. Descriptive field notes were kept throughout the study to chronologically record the names, dates, and locations of all study related activities. To monitor and evaluate the impact of my subjectivity, I engaged in the reflexive practice of recording the evolution of my ideas, details of my experiences and impressions of school spaces, and the rationale for all decisions made as part of the emergent design process. The validity of the data were also enhanced through a record of data management techniques including code lists developed for the photographs and photo-elicitation interview transcripts, as well as the creation of individual and composite profiles of important school spaces. Summary This chapter outlined the methodological elements of the study. It described the cultural and linguistic adaptations undertaken before beginning the research, ethical considerations, and how both the site and participants were selected. A brief overview of methodological choices was followed by a description of the specific steps in the research process. The chapter concluded with an explanation of the ways in which the data was organized and analyzed. This last section also provided an account of the percentage of inter-rater reliability, how individual and composite profiles of important school spaces



48

were developed, and the approaches used to enhance the validity and trustworthiness of the study. The following chapter describes the results obtained from participants’ photographs, photo-elicitation interviews and walking tours.



49

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS: PHOTOGRAPHS AND PHOTO-ELICITATION INTERVIEWS

The dynamic nature of the nested systems under study posed a unique challenge to the presentation of the results. I have chosen to report students’ perceptions of their purpose-built school systematically to facilitate the integration of multiple data sets. This chapter begins with a description of participants’ photographs of important school spaces. The next section provides a composite description of six interior and three exterior school spaces. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the walking tour results, issues of concern identified within school spaces, and a summary of the findings from the second focus group interview. All of the participants reported that they enjoyed the challenge of identifying what spaces to photograph and how best to capture them as a digital image. Participants’ photographs reflected interior and exterior school spaces that were important for both positive and negative reasons. Occasionally, participants chose to focus on particular artefacts or specific features within the selected space. Participants engaged in the opportunity to take photographs of important school spaces at Lækjarskóli in a variety of ways. Consistent with complexity science, they chose to work both independently and in small groups, while still producing their own sets of images. At times, participants’ self-organization led to the inclusion of non-study group members. For example, Þóra, Sigrún, and Ása worked together as a small group and invited two non-study group friends to take part in their photographs of the football court. The following photographs demonstrate one of the creative ways in which



50

participants’ engaged with the task of photographing important school spaces. The first photograph of the football court shows two people standing in this large space. Shortly thereafter, the group discovered Figure 6. Sigrún’s first photograph of the football court.

a discarded red jacket and it quickly became their football. Sigrún’s photograph of a jacket-ball goal beautifully captures this school space and portrays the groups’ imaginative play with the camera.

Figure 7. Sigrún later photographed the football court and her friends’ imaginative play.

Photographs Study participants were asked to take a minimum of 27 photographs of important school spaces. All but one participant exceeded this requirement; on average each student took 57 photographs with the range being from 20 to 111 photographs. The process of selecting 11 photos to discuss at the interview was challenging for some of the students. In fact, three of the participants brought 12 photos to the interview because they didn’t want to give up the opportunity to discuss the extra photograph. Two participants brought fewer than 11 photographs to the interview. In one instance this was due to running out of printer ink and the second was due to a shorter time to take pictures due to illness. Consistent with emergent design, a decision was made to proceed with the photographs available at the time of the scheduled interview. A total of 99 photographs were reviewed at the photo-elicitation interviews. The study evaluated only the photographs participants



51

selected to discuss at the interviews, as these held the greatest importance for each of the study group members. Participants printed their photographs in a variety of ways. Although most of the photographs were printed as requested (minimum 13 x 17 centimetres), one student printed each of her selected photographs in a larger format (US Letter size) to better illustrate some of the details she wished to discuss. The majority of photos were printed in colour, a few were printed in black and white and one participant printed several of her pictures in both black and white and colour. The coloured parts of these photos beautifully illustrated the part(s) of the photograph the student wished to emphasize. For example, Sigrún printed a photograph of the football court (Figure 6) in black and white, except for the bright green artificial turf of the playing field, to demonstrate the contrast in colour between the soccer pitch and the natural surroundings of the schoolyard. Participants identified 15 important interior school spaces (56 photos), 10 important exterior school spaces (35 photos), and five school-related issues (11 photos). The most frequently photographed interior school space was the long hallway (14 photos) followed by the dining hall (10 photos). Table 2 outlines the important interior school spaces chosen and the frequency with which participants photographed each of these spaces. It is important to note that few photographs were taken of classroom spaces. This may be a reflection of participants’ views of important school spaces or a consequence of Icelandic privacy laws, which prohibited the taking of photographs during class time (photographs could be taken before and after class).



52

Table 2 Number of Photographs of Important Interior School Spaces –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Important Interior Total Number Areas of Focus Number of School Space

of Photographs

Within Spaces

Photographs

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Long Hallway 14

Dining Hall

Hallway to Classrooms

Lockers

Library

Art Room

Classroom



Long Hallway

9

Long Hallway–Floor

2

Long Hallway–Plants

1

Long Hallway–Student Artwork

2

Dining Hall

9

Dining Hall–Study Space

1

Hallway to Classrooms

4

Hallway to Classrooms–Windows

3

Lockers

5

Own Locker

1

Library

1

Library–Books

2

Library–Computers

1

Art Room

1

Art Room –Windows

1

Classroom

1

Classroom–Furniture

1

10

7

6

4

2

2

53

Elevator

2

Shoe Area

2

Sofas

3

Bathroom

1

Computer Room

1

Front Entrance Area

1

Primary Wing

1

Stairwell

1

Table 3 lists the ten important exterior school spaces identified by participants and the frequency with which they were photographed. The playground, including such features as the benches, lava rock and playground structures, was the most frequently photographed exterior school space. Other photographs explored such diverse areas as the students’ bike rack area, the natural space between the wings, and the long awaited, newly built football court. Table 3 Number of Photographs of Important Exterior School Spaces ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Important Exterior Total Number Areas of Focus Number of School Spaces

of Photographs

Within Spaces

Photographs

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Playground 8

Football Court



Playground

1

Playground–Benches

2

Playground–Lava Rock

2

Playground–Structures

3

6

54

Primary Wing

4

Natural Space Between the Wings

3

Sports Hall

3

Back View of the School

2

Front Entrance

2

Natural Space Adjacent to the Dining Hall

2

Bike Rack Area

1

Garbage Area 1 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Table 4 outlines the six most frequently photographed school spaces independent of their location in the school (interior or exterior spaces). Of this number, participants identified four interior school spaces (the long hallway, hallway to classrooms, the dining hall, and the lockers) and two exterior school spaces (the playground and the football court).

Table 4 Most Frequently Photographed School Spaces –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Most Frequently Photographed Number of Interior Exterior School Spaces

Photographs

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Long Hallway 14 • Dining Hall

10

Playground

8

Hallway to classrooms

7



55

• • •

Football Court

6

•

Lockers 6 • __________________________________________________________________ Table 5 shows the distribution of photographs that represented five issues of concern identified by participants. The majority of these photographs highlighted maintenance issues and access to drinking water.

Table 5 Number of Photographs of Issues Identified in School Spaces ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Photographs of Issues Within Spaces Number of Photographs ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Maintenance Issues 4 Access to Drinking Water

2

Safety

2

Signage

2

Food 1 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Results derived from participants’ photographs identified important school spaces and issues of concern at Lækjarskóli. A more complete understanding of these spaces was obtained when the photographs were examined together with the transcripts of the photoelicitation interviews and walking tours.

Description of Important Interior and Exterior School Spaces and Issues of Concern The results obtained from an assessment of each participant’s self-selected photographs and the transcripts of the individual photo-elicitation interviews provided a



56

more comprehensive picture of important school spaces than the information obtained from the photographs alone. For example, the interviews indicated that some spaces, such as the sofas and the art room, were actually more important to participants than the number of photographs taken of these spaces would indicate. Only reporting the results of the most photographed school spaces would have missed some of the most salient data collected. The photo-logs were available for use during the photo-elicitation interviews but were rarely used because the time between the taking of the photos and each photoelicitation interview was relatively short (approximately one week). Most students also reported that they reviewed their photos, as part of choosing which 11 to bring to the interview, within a day or two of the actual interview. As a result, the participants knew their photos well and why they had chosen them. The complexity science framework facilitated the examination of the intersection between two nested systems; participants and the school spaces they identified. Redundancy existed among the study participants (all female, similar ages) and in their common experiences of school spaces. Participants’ also described a wide range of experiences and perceptions of school spaces (diversity). Further, the composite descriptions reflect how redundancy and diversity worked together through neighbour interactions to support participants’ construction of importance and meaning regarding school spaces. Participants’ comments about the impact of the school’s design on their experiences are also included, together with their suggestions of ways to improve the identified spaces.



57

The descriptions of these spaces incorporated information from all data sets to address the four research questions—what happened in these spaces, what made them important and/or meaningful for the participants, and whether or not meaningful spaces contributed to the development of a sense of place. Field notes were used to provide relevant contextual information. Detailed results regarding five interior school spaces and three exterior school spaces are now presented. The order in which they appear does not reflect an implicit or explicit (number of photographs taken, type of school space, etc.) prioritization. Rather, the order of presentation is a reflection of the unpredictable evolution of the study of a complex system. Participant and researcher photographs are used to illustrate the following descriptions. Important Interior School Spaces Dining Hall All members of the study group identified the dining hall as an important space in the school. “Every learner goes there to eat; everyone is there each day” (HA, PE, p. 4). It was the second most frequently photographed interior school space (seven participants took 10 photographs of the dining hall). The ceiling in the dining hall is 9 m high and supported by five steel pillars. This space features two walls (south and south-western) Figure 8. Interior view of the dining hall and the curved wall of windows on the right.



made entirely of glass, a cafeteria, and a sunken

58

eating area with maple floors. The larger south-western wall is curved and offers a view of the adjacent patio space, the football court, and the stream. Arranged in this space are approximately 15 rectangular tables for groups of six, six round tables for groups of four, and one longer rectangular table for a group of ten. On the ground floor, the cafeteria and the music room are adjacent to this space. A catwalk hallway is used to access the library on the second floor. Students can look down over the dining hall and locker areas from the catwalk. All participants described using the dining hall on a daily basis, especially as a place to eat. During the 20minute morning break between Figure 9. Curved glass wall of the dining hall at Lækjarskóli.

classes, students are welcome to

serve themselves a bowl of oatmeal (free of charge), to toast bread they have brought from home, or to buy Icelandic doughnuts and sandwiches from the small student-run shop. Lækjarskóli, like many Icelandic schools, offers students and staff a flexible and affordable meal plan. Students select the day(s) they wish to eat lunch at school and pay once a month (approximately $3.00 CAD per meal). While well intentioned, cafeteria food seems to have the same reputation the world over “sometimes it is good, but not very often” (GB, PE, p. 9). Discussions about eating led participants to identify some of the rules about the use of this space. If students eat lunch at school, they are expected to buy lunch from the cafeteria (many students walk home for lunch). The dining hall is “the only place we can



59

eat. If we go somewhere else with the food, we get a minus point” (IO, PE, p. 3). One participant explained that cleaning the dining hall is the students’ responsibility: “A few times a year you [students from each class] have to clean here. The class gets money for this and then it’s a lower price for field trips” (HA, PE, p. 6). Participants described using the dining hall as a study space during breaks or spare classes. “We need to have this space in the school [because] we can’t get into the classrooms in breaks” (SI, PE p. 6). One participant noted that, “there are only four tables upstairs [in the library] and they are all small ones, and often someone else is using them. I think it’s really important to have a space where you can work without having to be on the floor or something” (ÞG, PE, p.18). Another student described how, “[between classes], it’s not much noise here” (ÁM, PE, p. 7) and how she enjoyed working in this space. All participants also identified the dining hall as an important place to hang out with friends and talk or play cards. Using her photograph of the dining hall Ása indicated, “I always sit here with my friends, at this table [pointing], and we are always talking and stuff” (ÁM, PE, p. 7). The dining hall can be converted for school performances and large events, and is used after-hours by Vitinn, Lækjarskóli’s in-house youth program. This active youth program for students from Grades 5–10 organizes social activities such as movie nights, games nights, and school dances. In describing the function of this space after-hours, Þóra commented, “It’s not a very good design because there’s really no stage for us and we always have to drag the tables [out of the way] and the pillars are often in the way”



60

(ÞG, PE, p. 8). The dining hall is also available for members of the community to rent for large social gatherings or as a venue for public meetings. In describing their lived experiences of the dining hall, participants spoke about movement patterns and the furniture available in this space. For some the dining hall was a “comfortable place to be” (GB, PE, p. 9), while others described the dining hall as “very crowded; you have like this much space [hands showing 10 cm] to move” (VT, PE, p. 16). Because of limited space, “we can’t have our school bags at the cafeteria” (IO, PE, p. 3). One participant expressed frustration at the contradiction between a crowded dining hall and the vaulted ceiling. “There’s nothing up there [pointing to the ceiling]; why have it so big?” (IO, PE, p. 13). She suggested doubling the floor space by adding a loft-like second story to the dining hall. Many participants described how the choice and arrangement of furniture in the dining hall impacted their use of this space. They wished more large tables were available. “If we all want to be together, there is only one big table” (IO, PE, p. 11). Þóra described how, “we usually drag more chairs up to the table and just squish, so on the little table we are usually twice as many as the chairs usually are” (ÞG, PE, p. 8). Þóra went on to describe how the chairs “take up a lot of space because of the arched back and it’s kind of hard to stack them on the table because you have to turn them upside down and they are always getting in the way” (ÞG, PE, p. 8). In discussing particular features of this space, the students often commented on the high ceiling, the windows, and the adjacent patio space. Participants described the dining hall as very open and Sigrún thought the ceiling was cool because, “it’s not like a normal ceiling. It goes like this [making a curved motion with her hand]. …All the school goes vroom [she says while throwing her hands in the air to indicate the great height of



61

the ceiling]” (SI, PE p. 23). On sunny days, the dining hall is suffused with light and the room can become hot and stuffy because, “…you can’t open the windows” (HA, PE, p. 6). At other times of the year, the wall of windows can contribute to the room being cold. Adjacent to the dining hall is a wooden deck and a small grassy area. This space is accessed through the emergency door in the dining hall. While this space is available to students between classes and during the lunch break, it is seldom used because it is not protected from the elements Figure 10. Exterior view of the dining hall and adjacent patio space.

and is devoid of furniture. Participants’

described sitting on the wooden deck only on those few days warm enough to sunbathe. The dining hall became a meaningful place in participants’ lives by providing a venue for shared social interaction and the exchange of ideas and information. It also offered a quiet place to study between classes and during spare classes. Participants often described their place within the larger space by using personal pronouns and the language of ownership. For example, Sigrún said, “This is my table, me and my friends always go here in the breaks and eat here, nobody else sits here” (SI, PE, p. 5). Þóra summarized how this important school space became a meaning place for her and others saying, “because this space, we use it every day and at the Vitinn events. We have fun memories from past parties and [school dances]” (ÞG, PE, p. 9)



62

Locker Area and Lockers Five of the participants identified the lockers as an important space in the school. A total of six locker-related photos were discussed during the photo-elicitation interviews. Lockers are provided for students in Grades 8 to 10. They are located on the ground floor of the senior wing next to the main entrance and in an alcove on the second floor. At the beginning of the school year, students are assigned a locker or, depending on availability, Figure 11. Lockers on the ground floor senior wing.

they can request a specific locker. Each locker is

equipped with a key lock. Students pay a deposit of 1000 ISK (approximately $10 CAD) for the key. The deposit is returned at the end of the school year, if the key is returned to the main office. The school keeps a duplicate copy of all locker keys and “if you forget your key, the houseman [custodian] has [an] extra key you can take for the day and then give back” (FE, PE, p. 16). The lockers are stacked in rows of three. Most senior students access their lockers at similar times—at the beginning and end of the school day and at break times between classes. Participants described how the stacked design of the lockers and the relatively small locker area restricted access to individual lockers. “No one wants to be Figure 12. Design makes it difficult to access lockers.



63

here [pointing to the bottom row]. Kids put their bags on the floor and, if you have a [locker] here, you have to move all the bags” (FE, PE, p. 16). Þóra shared a similar experience saying, “it’s really uncomfortable being on the bottom line because then you always have to go down on your knees [to get your books]” (ÞG, PE, p. 16). Harpa described her experience, “I am in the middle [row] and everyone puts their backpacks here [on the floor] and I can’t get in [to my locker]” (HA, PE, p. 9). “Because there are three lockers in a row, if I have a locker up here and someone else has their locker open here [middle row] and is taking books, I have to wait for them to go before I can get to my locker” (ÞG, PE, p. 16). When asked how they might change this space to make it more functional, all of the participants suggested having bigger lockers in a larger area. The interior space of an individual locker measures approximately 70 cm x 40 cm x 45 cm. All five participants commented on the interior design of the lockers. “I took a picture of the lockers because they are not the typical ones [like] you see in the movies that are just metal from top to bottom. I think these look a lot nicer, but I think they are kind of small; you can’t get all your books to fit in there” Figure 13. Interior view of a locker.

(ÞG, PE, 15). All agreed that the lockers were too small to

accommodate “large folders …your coat and your backpack” (ÞG, PE, p. 15). Each locker has one shelf in the middle, but “there are only two places to set your books, so it’s not really organized” (SI, PE, p. 12). In describing the shelf, Þóra described how “you can ask the houseman for a tool to move the shelf up and down, but that’s just kind of trouble” (ÞG, PE, p. 15).



64

Participants commented on the functionality of the lockers and indicated that they used them to store personal items and books between classes. An added benefit of the lockers for Harpa was that, “I don’t forget things at home because I have a [locker]” (HA, PE, p. 9). Sigrún identified the lockers as important because, “I use it a lot and I like it” (SI, PE, p. 11). Other participants identified the lockers as important because, “when I have many books in my backpack it’s really heavy” (HA, PE, p. 9). During the interview Þóra laughed and said, “they are always advertising to have a healthy back …and don’t have more than 20 percent of your body weight in your backpack. I think you should have a place you can put all that [coat and books] other than a backpack” (ÞG, PE, p. 16). All five participants described the lockers as a meaningful place in the school. The lockers are an important part of students’ transition from the younger grades to the greater independence and responsibility of the senior grades. “When you go up to eighth grade, you get a locker and I thought it was really cool. Now you get to go to many different classrooms and you have to be responsible for all your books” (SI, PE, p. 11). The lockers provide students with a personal space within the school. Standing next to her locker, Inga said, “I wanted to show you because the lockers mean much to older kids” (IO, PE, p. 29). Library The library is located on the second floor. This room features a small sofa space with magazine racks, a desk for the school librarian, rows of bookshelves, two chess tables, and eight computers along the back wall.



65

Participants explained that, “we can take three books at one time and, if you don’t make them go back, we have to pay for them” (IO, PE, p. 10). In describing the library’s holdings, a couple of participants wished, “there could be more books for the bigger kids. Not just for the good readers, but for the bad readers too” (IO, PE, p. 7). They also wished that more copies of some books were available. “If I want to have one book and my friend wants to have the same book, so we can talk about it, we can’t because there is only one [copy]” (IO, PE, p. 11). Þóra also identified the need for “a more easy way to find books” (ÞG, PE, p. 18), such as a computer catalogue system like the one used at the town library. Figure 14. Lækjarskóli’s library.

Several participants identified the library as “a place to [study] and get books” (HA, PE, p. 4). However, participants often reported that the study space in the library was too small. “Everyone wants to go [to the library], because there’s a place to study but it’s always full” (IO, PE, p. 7). Harpa added, “there are so many people up there, you have to run there to get a place” (HA, PE, p. 4). Þóra described how she “would like to have a study space that’s well organized and that has lots of tables so you can do your homework” (ÞG, PE, p. 19). Participants described the library computers as an important resource “if you need to do some work for classes” (HA, PE, p. 4). Inga added, “if you don’t have a printer at



66

home, then you can go there to print” (IO, PE, p. 7). Participants described having to “ask the library woman before we go to the computer, [because] people who are doing projects have to finish first” (FE, PE, p. 5). The computers were important because: they help us, otherwise we have to do it all at home. They are fine computers, but there could be more of them. When we work there [in the library], all eighth, ninth, and tenth graders have to do it at the same time. There are just eight computers and we are so many [150 students]. (FE, PE, p. 5) The computers in the library are connected to the Internet, but access is limited to Google Figure 15. Computers for student use in the library.

searches for school related projects and students

“can’t go on the computer, if you just want to check [email]” (IO, PE, p. 7). Participants identified the library as an important space to hang out with friends. Vera said, “I hang out a lot here with my friends in the big [lunch] break. We play cards and talk” (VT, PE, p. 7). Several participants associated the library with the chance to play games. “I like the library because we play chess in the breaks and it’s fun” (FE, PE, 14). Inga also described, “in the recess we want to go there, [because] you can read magazines and play chess” (IO, PE, p. 7). Vera enjoyed being in this space because, “you’re not allowed to have a lot of noise” (VT, PE, p. 9). Playing games in the library, however, can be noisy at times. Inga described how the librarian sometimes “kicked us out because we were in chess and all the kids got so excited” (IO, PE, p. 8). All five participants, who took photographs of the library, agreed, “the library is really cosy but I



67

would have more space there and more sofas” (VT, PE, p. 7). Inga suggested there could be “more sofa space to relax and just read” (IO, PE, p. 8). Inga expressed the view that the library space was designed more “for the little kids” (IO, PE, p.10). Always teddy bears everywhere. I don’t mean to take all the teddy bears away, just put them somewhere for the little kids to play with when they come in. But they can’t play with the [teddy bears] because they have to be quiet. Why are they there if you can’t use them? (IO, PE, p. 10) The library was a meaningful place for participants because it afforded students the opportunity to study, to work on school projects, to play cards or chess together, and to hang out with friends during the morning recess, the lunch hour, or during a spare class. Vera summarized the collective meaning of the library as follows: “[it’s a place where] we can learn and still have fun” (VT, PE, p. 8). The library was a particularly meaningful place for one of the participants. In her photograph of a bookshelf in the library, she proudly pointed out

Figure 16. Participant’s photograph of the bookshelf in the library, which holds the first book she read by herself.

a specific book, as she explained that this was the first Icelandic book she had read all by herself. Long Hallway The long hallway connects Lækjarskóli’s three main wings (green wing for students in Grades 8 to 10; red wing for students in Grades 5 to 7; yellow wing for students in Grades 1 to 4). Participants reported that, “it’s easy [to find your way around



68

the school] because [the wings are] almost all the same, just different colours” (GB, PE, p. 5). Specialized classrooms are arranged along the ground floor of this central corridor, while the administrative offices and school services are located on the second floor. The western wall of this corridor is made almost entirely of glass. The second floor hallway is a catwalk, so that the full height of the space is preserved. “It’s really nice to Figure 17. Looking down the long hallway from the second floor of the senior wing.

have two floors open to the ceiling. But I don’t like the bars [in the railing] because, if you have

something little and you drop it, you have to go all the way down and pick it up” (OS, PE, p. 2). The long hallway was the most photographed interior school space. A total of eight participants took 14 photographs of this space. Participants often photographed this space because, “it’s really beautiful and it shows really much of the inside of the school” (ÁM, PE, p. 5). Participants described walking in this space to access the specialized classrooms, the bathrooms, the lockers on the second floor, the main office, or the nurse’s station. Þóra described using this space with her friends saying, “[we are] usually just walking all together from one class to another” (ÞG, PE, p. 5). All of the participants agreed, “we have really long hallways here” (ÁM, PE, p. 5). To facilitate movement in this space, “you always have to walk on the right side so you don’t bump into each other” (EH, PE, p. 2). In describing the same rule, Ása added,

69

“we are always joking that we are like cars, always on the right side” (ÁM, PE, p. 6). Gulla decided to photograph this space “because the school is so long. I have art class over there and you have to walk all the hall” (GB, PE, p. 4). While participants often thought the long hallway “looks cool” (GB, PE, p. 4), they disliked having to walk its length several times a day: I chose this photo because the hallway is very long and I think that’s both a good thing and a bad thing. When you are late and going to class on the other end, you have to run all the way and then we get tired. …It’s a good thing I guess, Figure 18. View of the long hallway from the Primary students’ wing.

because it’s extra exercise. (ÞG, PE, p. 4)

Running, however, is generally not allowed, especially down the length of the second floor because, “you can always hear when someone is running” (ÞG, PE, p. 5). In describing the long hallway, Þóra said, “I think design wise it’s very nice, but it’s kind of cold because it’s all gray” (ÞG, PE, p. 5). Erla suggested that this space would be “more cosy if it [was] not so gray” (EH, PE, p. 5–6). Ása also indicated that the long hallway “works well, but it is very much just black and white. I would have it with more colours” (ÁM, PE, p. 6). While participants often wished “there could be a little bit more colour” (EH, PE, p. 3), they recognized that “it’s kind of hard to put colours in there [long hallway] because of all the windows” (ÞG, PE, p. 6). Þóra also commented on the absence of plants in the senior wing and suggested that,



70

Figure 19. Student artwork hanging in the long hallway.

“maybe more plants” (ÞG, PE, p. 6) could be added. Student artwork also helped to add colour to this space. Þóra described, “on the lower part of the wall, there are pictures that students have done in art class. I think that’s very nice you can go and see what has been going on in art class” (ÞG, PE, p. 6). Participants often commented on the flooring chosen for the ground floor of the long hallway. Olga said, “I really like the floor, it’s smooth and it’s warm [because] it has hot water under the floor” (OS, PE, p. 6). Others, however, indicated that, “the stone floor is very hard to clean, so it’s not very clean” (ÁM, PE, p. 5). Many of the participants described how, “when you are walking on the tiles, the edges are so sharp they often tear your socks, so when you get home you always have holes in your socks” (ÞG, PE, p. 4). Participants discussed possible solutions to these problems such as, “I would have maybe wood floors, like these [pointing to second floor of the long hallway in her photograph], or just more smooth tiles, something that’s still pretty” (ÞG, PE, p. 6). Several participants identified the three round tables in the middle of the long hallway as a place “we like to sit because [there is] not a lot of noise and all that” (VT, PE, p. 5). Fjóla added, “if you don’t want to sit in the lunch room and the sofas are always full, we sit here until the woman comes and tells us to go [back to the green area]” (FE, PE, p. 11). Participants enjoyed using this space, but all indicated, “we can’t sit here [at the tables] in the Figure 20. Round tables in the long hallway.



breaks. I don’t know why. We have class here and

71

here [pointing to the doors in the hallway] but we can’t wait here. We are told to go again to the green area” (FE, PE, p. 10). Fjóla suggested that she “would change this rule where you can’t be here [tables in red hall]. It’s a nice place, there are three tables, but there could be maybe four” (FE, PE, p. 11). Participants’ description of the long hallway included a range of comments about the wall of windows. Vera provided a simple description of her photograph of this space, “I was going to class when I took this picture and the sun was so beautiful” (VT, PE, p. 5). Þóra described how, “it’s really nice that you can see outside, all the windows makes it more alive” (ÞG, PE, p. 5). Erla, however,

Figure 21. Exterior view of the wall of windows in the long hallway.

indicated that she enjoyed the view and “often look outside, but didn’t think about it” (EH, PE, p. 13). Gulla was less impressed and said, “I think the big wall of windows is supposed to look good from the outside, not inside” (GB, PE, p. 4). Temperature issues were consistently associated with the large wall of windows. “I took this photo because there are so many windows and they are so big that when it gets cold, the school will be very cold” (EH, PE, p. 1). Inga added, “there are too many windows. If it’s hot we can’t be where the windows are and there are windows everywhere, so we are all crowded because it’s too hot to be in the sun” (IO, PE, p. 5).



72

All eight participants who photographed the long hallway cited its central importance to school function. “It’s not really an important place to me, but in the school’s structure it is. It’s the main hallway and from it you get to the other hallways.” (ÞG, PE, p. 5). Other participants described feeling comfortable in this space because, “I am often here with my friends” (FE, PE, p. 11). Several participants also identified privacy issues related to the long hallway. “I took this photo because all the windows here, I think we don’t have any privacy. Like the cars around, they can all see if there is something here [where the hallway to the classrooms joins the long hallway]” (IO, PE, p. 4). One participant identified a second privacy issue related to the washrooms in the long hallway. She indicated that, “I would not have the toilet here [in the hallway], because everyone is always trying to lock you in there or open the door” (VT, PE, p. 6). Art Room The art room is spacious with high ceilings and is located in the primary wing of the school. To maximize the view of the stream and to balance movement patterns throughout the school, the art room is in the opposite end of the school from the dining hall. Natural light filters through a large window on the east wall and the western wall is made entirely of glass. The room is painted white while the floor is finished with grey linoleum rather than the slate tiles used throughout Figure 22. Wall of windows in art room (photographed in November at 4:30pm).



the ground floor of the school. The computer lab is

73

suspended one floor above and overlooks the art room through an interior glass wall. While these windows were intended to share the view, Inga described how, “the kids [in the computer room] are always looking down at us and it’s not good because, [giggling] we don’t want anyone to see pictures if they are ugly. But we don’t take much notice because we are all stuck in our work” (IO, PE, p. 20). In Iceland, students attend art classes from Grades 1 to 8. Gulla described how, “there are always small groups in art. The class is [divided into] two groups; one is in art while the other is in cooking lessons and then they switch after half a year” (GB, PE p. 12). Þóra related, “we were in art until eighth grade and then we could choose if we wanted to keep on or not. I chose not [to continue], because I always like[d] art but it was never my strongest subject” (ÞG, PE p. 17). Inga said, “I feel good [in the art room] because I can do whatever I like there” (IO, PE, p. 19). She chose to continue her art studies in Grade 9 and commented, “I love this room, I love the art room because I want to be there. There are not many kids in my class because we could choose [art class] and we want to be there” (IO, PE, p. 19). Seven large tables in the art room can be arranged to accommodate a variety of working groups and projects. Inga commented, “it’s a big room and there are many tables, they’re big, not just ones like this [pointing to the classroom desk]” (IO, PE, p. 21). An assortment of reference books, still life objects, and stuffed Icelandic Figure 23. Lækjarskóli’s art room.



74

birds are arranged throughout the room to assist students. Inga photographed the birds and whispered, “they killed the birds. I think that’s disgusting, but we can draw them and I think that’s nice” (IO, PE, p. 19). Along one wall, there are three sinks, adequate counter space, and numerous cupboards for art supplies. In describing her photograph of this space, Inga pointed to the cupboards and said, “I can tell you everything that’s in here! Pencils, sharpeners, everything to do with hands. Here are the paint brushes and the [watercolour] paint. Here is the paint in tubes and here is all the stuff that kids have done” (IO, PE, p. 21). Adjacent to the art room is a smaller room with a kiln and shelves for students’ pottery. This space doubles as a storage room and a place to house larger student artwork. Participants photographed both interior and the exterior views of the art room. In describing her photograph of the exterior of the primary wing, Þóra commented, “I picked this photo because I think it’s a beautiful sight. It has [all] kind[s] of angles, it’s not just square and [lots of] windows. You can see, in here, is the arts classroom” (ÞG, PE, p. 17). Fjóla photographed the interior of the art room because, “I like the art room and I like the architect because he has the idea you can just Figure 24. Exterior view of the art room (second floor on the left).

look out the window, no other classroom has those big windows” (FE, PE, p. 10).



75

Participants often commented on the wall of windows in the art room and described how the view complemented their experiences of drawing and painting. “There’s just all kinds of glass, so you see outside, it’s very cool, so when you are drawing you have a good view.” (SI, PE, p. 14). Þóra described, “the art classroom is really beautiful I think because, when you are in there you have all these windows and if you’re drawing or painting a picture, you can use the view outside to paint something that’s outside” (ÞG, PE, p. 17). Fjóla described a similar experience, “I really like the view, because some people can’t think of anything to draw, and they just look outside, and maybe they see a dog or a duck or kids playing in the kindergarten” (FE, PE, p. 9).

Figure 25. View from the long hallway and the art room walls of windows.

Within a year of being build, the art room at Lækjarskóli won an international design award. Sigrún and Þóra recalled the professional photographers who came from abroad to photograph this space. Upon hearing of the award, Þóra said, “I always thought it was a beautiful school, so I was really proud at that moment” (ÞG, PE, p. 17). The Sofas The sofas, as they are affectionately known, are both furniture and the contours of an important school space. On the ground floor of the senior wing, three or four black leather sofas and a billiard table are arranged in a space bordering several high traffic areas. Where the front entrance, the lockers, the dining hall, the long

Figure 26. The sofas in the senior wing.

76

hallway, and the hallway to the senior classrooms come together, senior students congregate to talk with friends and relax during the breaks. Þóra described the sofas as her “favourite place because you can just sit there and chat, when you’re waiting for a class to begin or something” (ÞG, PE B, p. 19). Harpa observed that often “the tenth graders take all the sofas and there is nothing [else] to sit on out there” (HA, PE, p. 14). This space receives a lot of indirect natural light from the walls of windows in the front entrance, the dining hall, and the hallways. While the sofas are often arranged facing each other, they are sometimes lined up side by side against the long green wall. A flat screen television is mounted high in one corner and functions as an electronic bulletin board to notify senior students of schedule changes and upcoming events. When asked about the rules in this space, Sigrún said, “just don’t kick your mate or something, but not like you can’t stand there or you can’t do this, nothing like that” (SI, PE, p. 20). Participants consistently described the sofas as a cosy place to relax and hang out. Vera and Erla commented on the ambience of the space and the softness of the sofas. Erla went on to suggest, “I think [the sofas] also need pillows” (EH, PE, p.12). At the beginning of the school year, there were four sofas. By October there were only three and Inga described how, “[there are] seven classes Figure 27. Senior students on the sofas between classes.

with thirty people and we are all crowded in the sofas” (IO, PE, p. 27). Each sofa can comfortably accommodate three

or four adults. Senior students, however, often pile in one on top of the other, making space for as many as ten people in one sofa. Olga described how, “the [sofa] material is



77

really often breaking because there are so many kids in one [sofa]” (OS, PE, p.3). When the comfortable places have all been taken, students “…who don’t have a seat on the sofas sit on the billiard table” (GB, PE, p. 14) or stand together in small groups. During school hours, a wooden top and a heavy canvas cover protect the billiard table. Students are allowed to play billiards after school during Vitinn activities. Between classes senior students are allowed to stay inside, but not allowed to stay in the classrooms. Participants indicated that the sofas were “the place where we are in our free time” (GB, PE, p. 13). In the nearby dining hall, “there’s lots of seats, we can use” (HA, PE, p. 12) but, “it’s very funny, people just talk in groups and stand here [instead], not many people sit in the dining room” (SI, PE, p.19). Participants described the sofas as the only place to sit that wasn’t a table or desk with an accompanying chair. Olga observed that it was “really awesome to just relax in the sofas” (OS, PE, p. 3). Ása felt that, “it’s really cool that we can come here and just be” (ÁM, PE, p. 16). Gulla chose the sofas as her walking tour site, during which she described the significance of this space in the following words: “It’s this big place, where everyone can be and talk together; a hang [out] place” (GB, PE, p. 15). Sigrún captured the essence of the sofas in the following words: “we Figure 28. Students relaxing on the sofas.

need to have this space in the school” (SI, PE, p. 6).



78

Important Exterior School Spaces Playground Students from Grades 2 to 7 access a variety of play spaces in the circular playground at Lækjarskóli. The playground was built below the level of the road and the parking lot to protect students from the surrounding traffic. The play Figure 29. Playground at Lækjarskóli for students from Grades 2 to 7.

space is ringed by the school

(each wing has its own access), the Sports Centre, a parking lot, a doctor’s office, and a retirement residence. In describing this space, Inga remarked on the multigenerational presence. “The old people here [pointing to a building at the edge of her photograph] …they think it’s so fun to see little people play and I think that’s nice” (IO, PE, p. 17). The playground was identified as an important school space by six participants, who took a total of eight photographs of this space. While the playground was the most photographed exterior school space, none of the participants reported using this space on a regular basis. Þóra described how, “when we get into the high school level, we get to stay inside for the recess. I think [teachers] are thinking that we can take responsibility for our health” (ÞG, PE, p. 11). Participants’ descriptions and experiences of the playground, therefore, stem more from lasting memories and less from current utility.



79

The playground provided students with spaces to climb, swing, teeter-totter, jump, and run. Þóra said: I took this photo because I think it’s a nice playground. It’s really clean and I think it’s kind of fun. It has lots of play toys, basketball courts and football courts, and it has a—we always called it a castle [a multi-function play structure]. (ÞG, PE, p.

Figure 30. Playground structures.

10) However, the playground did not always complement participants’ experiences of this space: I think there is just too little place for all the kids; we are many kids at the school. …When we were jump-roping, there was no place to be, we were always going on [bumping into] something else. There’s always something in the way. (IO, PE, p. 17) Pointing to her photograph, Gulla indicated, “this is the basketball [area] and here is the football [area] and it’s kind of small” (GB, PE, p. 6). Inga added, “if you lose the [foot]ball, it always goes here [pointing to the swings]” (IO, PE, p. 15). Participants often commented on the gravel play space and the bright yellow benches. Þóra described how, “the stones are kind of a downside because, when you are running about and you fall, you always manage to scrap yourself or get hurt on the stones. It would be better to have grass because it’s softer” (ÞG, PE, p. 10). Harpa described the atmosphere of the gravel and concrete playground saying: “It was raining when I took this picture, and you can see that, when there’s no children, it looks dead [because] there is no grass” (HA, PE, p. 7). Several participants identified the distinctively designed bright yellow individual ‘benches’. Gulla commented, “I’ve never

80

used them. I don’t know why they are there” (GB, PE, p. 6). She explained, “sometimes you see kids just sitting here” (GB, PE, p. 6). She also commented on the Figure 31. Benches in the playground. fact that the benches are arranged in a way that does not facilitate conversation. While an individual student may occasionally sit on a yellow bench, many participants pointed out that, “there are no seats out there, you have to run or stand” (HA, PE, p. 7). Steinnun remarked, “even just benches we could sit in” (IO, PE, p. 16) became more important because older students often spent more time talking together in groups than running around. The swings were a significant part of the playground for many participants. Inga said, “I like the swings, always when I went outside I wanted to be in the swings, but there was always someone else” (IO, PE, p. 16). Pointing to her photograph she added, “you see; there are many kids who aren’t swinging in this picture” (IO, PE, p. 16). Gulla also described, “there are just six swings and they were always taken, maybe there could be more swings” (GB, PE, p. 8). Several participants identified the natural lava rock formations as an important part of the playground. Participants ascribed lasting significance to the lava rock feature because, “it was so important to me when I was little” (SI, WT, p. 26). Playing on the lava rocks at school was an extension of other meaningful play experiences for Sigrún. She described how, “I liked playing on the rocks because, at my house, you walk five minutes and there are lots of rocks there” (SI, WT, p. 26). Sigrún also described playing games such as, “police and bad boys …and the boys would run after you until the bell for



81

class” (SI, WT, p. 26). Ása also associated the lava rocks with snowball fights. “I remember it on winter days when the kids go up and, whenever someone goes out of the school, they were just hitting them with snowballs” (ÁM, PE, p. 13). I asked Ása if students were allowed to throw snowballs and she replied in all innocence, “not at the school, because all the windows, we may break them or something” Figure 32. Natural lava rock formation in the playground.

(ÁM, PE, p. 13). Reflecting on her experiences of playing on the lava rocks, Ása said, “I

thought it was more fun than to be on the toys [playground structures] because we were like, you have to do that with that, but here you can do whatever you want” (ÁM, PE, p. 13). Participants’ fond memories of the playground were often associated with their experiences in the younger grades. Gulla described how the playground is: not a comfortable place for my age, because it’s kind of just for the younger kids. When we were in seventh grade, we always had to be outside in the free time, and we thought the playground wasn’t really fun. We just went outside and waited until we could go inside because there wasn’t a lot to do. (GB, PE, p. 7) Inga went on to describe how, “ even if we want to go outside, we can’t go because [the playground toys are] too little and the little kids are always here” (IO, PE, p. 15). Gulla suggested that the playground:



82

would be important to me if there was more stuff for the older kids to do. …I would put a bigger basket[ball] and football ground, maybe some benches and a skateboard ramp. I wouldn’t use it but there are so many kids who would. (GB, PE, p. 6) While all of the participants indicated that they preferred to remain indoors during the recess, Þóra said: If there’s snow we go out. Then there’s always a snowball fight between the high school students and the younger kids. The first to fifth grade kids are always running about and there are snowballs everywhere. It’s really, really fun. (ÞG, PE, p. 11) Participants identified the playground as important because of past experiences and its importance for younger students. Some participants described the playground as important because, “when I was younger, I really often played there, [and] I liked it” (ÁM, PE, p. 13). Others identified the importance of having a space where “everybody comes together and plays something” (GB, PE, p. 6). Thinking of the younger students, Þóra said, “I think it’s nice to have a big versatile playground, so everyone can do something they like …kids should be able to get out and do something fun, instead of just standing there or walking around” (ÞG, PE, p. 11). Football Court This structure was built to accommodate the playing of both football and handball. Designed for use in schoolyards, the court is surrounded by a wooden fence to help keep the ball in play and to prevent children from running after the ball into traffic areas. “I think it’s a good design and it is used in many, many schools over the country. The Iceland football man [head of the Icelandic Football Association] says he wants to put one in every school” (SI, PE, p. 3). All of the participants were “looking forward to

83

getting the football court” (SI, PE, p. 3) and were excited when “it finally came this summer [2008]” (FE, PE, p. 6). Harpa was eager to describe the transformation of the site saying, “there was a house here [and, when I came back from vacation,] there wasn’t a house there anymore, it was

Figure 33. Lækjarskóli’s football court.

like, whoa, there’s a [football] court there now” (HA, PE, p. 3). Ása shared with me, “I remember when we were always [asking] ‘when does it come, the fake grass, and the teachers always said, ‘it’s going to come, it’s going to come’ but it never came. Now I feel great that it came” (ÁM, PE, p. 14). A total of six photographs of this space were discussed by five participants at the photo-elicitation interviews. These participants described using the football court during “the breaks and sometimes in classes; when you are lucky, we can go out there” (SI, PE, p. 3). “Sometimes we use it for outside football, it’s really nice to have” (ÞG, PE, p. 18). But Ása added, “I don’t really like gymnastics outside [in the football court] because we are just in the same clothes and we run and we go back to school” (ÁM, PE, p. 14). Many of the participants also described the football court as a space to hang out with friends. “I think it’s an important place for kids; it’s a place to be in the recess and a place to play football” (ÞG, PE, p. 18). Þóra described that the football court was also used for “organized competitions at school, in football and handball. It’s open to people from other schools, too, and you can sometimes even see grownups playing football there. I



84

think it’s nice to have an open football court” (ÞG, PE, p. 18). In summary, Fjóla says, “[the football court] is really nice and kids use it very often” (FE, PE, p. 6). Half of the study group members identified the football court as an important space at Lækjarskóli. While one participant reported using the football court on a regular basis, another indicated that the football court “has no meaning for me because I don’t use it …but, all the kids who play football love it and I think it’s an important part of the school” (FE, PE, p. 7). While four out of five participants indicated they did not use this space on a regular basis, they all agreed, “some people just love football and that’s important” (ÞG, PE, p. 19). Another reason the football court was important to participants was that while “there are two football areas in the playground …they are just concrete not grass” (ÞG, PE, p.18). “It’s not really fun to play on them [football areas in the playground]” (ÁM, PE, p. 4) and “it really sucks to fall down on the [concrete]” (HA, PE, p. 4). By comparison, the new football court “is big and has walls so the ball doesn’t often go out and the fake grass is better to play on than concrete and it has lines on it, which is not often” (SI, PE, p. 3). Ása also mentioned, “it’s nice to have the view” (ÁM, PE, p. 14). The bright green artificial surface of the playing field was a welcome contrast to the late autumn and early winter landscapes. Natural Space Between the Wings This natural space is located between the senior wing and the middle wing of the school. A second, almost identical space, lies between the middle and primary wings. The natural space between the wings is enclosed on three sides and protected from the wind. The smaller, north facing windows of the senior classrooms join the east facing wall of



85

windows in the long hallway which connects to the south facing wall of windows of the hallway to the classrooms in the Figure 34. Natural space between the primary wing (R) and the middle wing (L).

middle wing. A 1.5 m wide wooden deck runs along

two sides; the length of the long hallway and along the hallway to the classrooms as far

as the emergency exit stairs. This space is accessible through the ground floor emergency exit doors in the hallways and the second story fire exit. This natural space is mostly grass and a central landscaped flowerbed reflects the local flora—small trees and berry bushes. The space opens onto the football court and a walkway that connects the school with the public access path along the stream. When students emerge from class, the first thing they see is this natural space. As students travel between classes, they again have uninterrupted views of natural spaces. While these spaces are highly visible, they are rarely used unless students are accompanied by a teacher. Fjóla photographed this space because, “I don’t understand why we cannot be there. It is the schoolyard. If it’s sunny, you can lie here on the wood [or] just sit and sun bathe” (FE, PE, p.4). Sigrún explained, “in really rare times we get to go [into this space], if it’s really good weather outside. We take our books and [have class] in this space [and] that was great” (SI, PE, p. 25).



86

All of the participants who photographed or commented on this space wished they could use the space more often and found it “…very weird because why are we having [this space] here, [when] you couldn’t play there” (SI, PE, p. 25). Ása echoes this sentiment saying, “I would allow us to be there in the breaks, in the grass. It’s much better to be in grass than some stones [like in the playground]” (ÁM, PE, p 4). At the same time, she wonders, “maybe the grass will not be really good, if everybody is going to be there” (ÁM, PE, p. 4). Erla captures the feeling many participants expressed about Figure 35. Natural space between the wings seen from the long hallway.

this natural space between the school wings in her

comment, “I like it because you can be in the middle, just sitting here; it’s cosy” (EH, PE, p. 7). Olga envisioned this natural space as an outdoor area for senior students, because she felt it was “really important [that senior students] have space to have fun and room to play” (OS, PE, p. 9). She chose this space for her walking tour because she felt strongly about the inclusion of natural spaces at school. “It’s really great to have nature at school. The stream is like a really happy place. The grass and the stream and the trees; there is almost everything here. … I walk past [this space] really often and it’s beautiful” (OS, PE, p. 9). Walking Tour Results The walking tours added a further dimension to the photo-elicitation interviews. The embodied sharing of each participant’s most important school space provided the opportunity to explore important features of the space first hand and facilitated the recall

87

of memories associated with the chosen spaces. Eight different school spaces were chosen for the walking tours. These included five exterior and three interior school spaces (two participants chose the locker area). One walking tour focused on an issue (access to drinking water) rather than a particular school space. The following table illustrates the school spaces and issue chosen for the walking tour:

Table 6 School Spaces Chosen for the Walking Tour ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Space Selected for the Exterior Interior Issue Walking Tour

Space

Space

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Bike Rack Area • Front Entrance (exterior view)

•

Natural Space Adjacent to the Dining Hall

•

Natural Space Between the School Wings

•

Playground

•

Dining Hall

•

Lockers

••

Sofas

•

Access to Drinking Water

•

The walking tour comments regarding the natural spaces between the school wings, the playground, the dining hall, and the locker area have been integrated into the earlier discussion of these spaces. The walking tour results regarding the remaining spaces and issue (bike rack area, the exterior view of the front entrance to the school,



88

natural space adjacent to the dining hall, and the issue of access to drinking water) are described with particular emphasis on what happened in these spaces and the importance and meaning these spaces and issue held for the participants. On our walking tour, Þóra took me to the exterior space adjacent to the dining hall. This space was used for a variety of activities including a place to eat lunch or to study on warm days. It Figure 36. Natural space and patio adjacent to the dining hall.

was also the site of Spring Festival

activities for the younger children. Þóra spoke of how she had “really fun memories” (ÞG, WT, p. 15) of this space over the years. She described playing inside an inflated castle during Spring Festivals as a younger child. She also described a more recent experience of this space saying, “[after finishing our work] in this one class, we went outside and played games here on the grass and just lying and sunbathing” (ÞG, WT, p. 15). Þóra also shared, “I like how everything is mirrored in the windows, when you are outside. I think it’s a really nice place” (ÞG, WT, p. 15). Sigrún also chose an exterior space to share on our walking tour. She chose a pile of lava rock on the edge of the middle school playground. Enthusiastically she stated, “I decided to show you this [space] because we Figure 37. Sigrún’s photograph of the lava rocks in the playground.



89

always played on it; we would run up

and down …and play games and [have] snowball fights” (SI, WT, p. 26). She went on to describe how she enjoyed that “…there was always something new to look at [from the top of the rock]” (SI, WT, p. 27). At the conclusion of the walking tour, Sigrún expressed how “it’s nice to have rocks here; it’s like nature you know. …I love it so much” (SI, WT, p. 26–27). Harpa’s walking tour picture was her favourite. “I love this picture, the best picture I think. It’s the front of the school and it’s really nice” (HA, WT, p.

Figure 38. Harpa’s photograph of Lækjarskóli.

15). While walking together in this space, Harpa shared her first memory of this space. “The first time my mom showed me the school, it was so different [from the school she had attended previously]” (HA, WT, p. 15). Harpa went on to describe how her first sight of the school helped her to feel positive about attending Lækjarskóli. Ása chose the bike rack area for her walking tour. One of her reasons for choosing this space was that “before, we had nowhere you can put the bike in and lock it” (ÁM, WT, p. 10). Ása went on to describe that she “ ...did go for the class with my friend and we talk[ed] to the headmaster to get [this bike rack]. Figure 39. Ása’s photo of the bike racks.

It wasn’t here before and it took like a year to get it” (ÁM, WT, p. 10). During the walking tour, Ása

communicated a sense of accomplishment at the successful installation of the bike racks.



90

Erla was the only participant to take advantage of the walking tour to champion an issue. She chose to take me to one of the school water fountains. While she said, “I think [the water fountain is cute” (EH, WT, p. 14), she used this opportunity to reiterate her concerns about the warmth of the drinking water from the fountains and the difficulty of Figure 40. Erla’s photo of the water fountain.

accessing cold drinking water from the bathroom sinks. This issue will be described more fully in the following section.

Issues of Concern As reported earlier, 11 participant photographs identified 5 issues of concern within spaces at Lækjarskóli. These included maintenance issues, access to drinking water, issues related to fire safety, signage within the school, and food. Two other issues of concern were identified during the photo-elicitation interviews, temperature and bathroom privacy, bringing the total number of school-space related issues to seven. Not surprisingly, some of these issues were difficult to capture in a photograph. Only one participant expressed concern about the issue of food. She was unhappy with the quality of food and range of food choices offered by the school cafeteria and with a number of rules governing the use of the dining hall. Two participants identified an issue related to signage within the school. While they were happy with most of the signs (washroom and exit signs), they wished rooms only labelled with numbers were also labelled with a description of their function. “[Sometimes] it’s really confusing for me because there are so many numbers and I don’t really know what door it is. I just [come to] know what is



91

what” (OS, PE, p. 6). Two participants also expressed an issue related to fire safety. They lauded the ready accessibility of fire extinguishers and hoses but were concerned about fire exit doors being used when they were supposed to remain shut. Olga stated, “it’s really important to feel safe at school” (OS, PE, p. 4). They also expressed concern about the infrequency of fire drills; one said that they never had them (EH, PE, p. 7), while the other stated “we have done that [fire drills] but not really often. I don’t remember the last time (OS, PE, p. 4). The remaining issues—maintenance issues, the availability of drinking water, temperature, and bathroom privacy—are now discussed in greater depth including the space(s) in which the issue occurred, a description of the issue itself, and why these issues were important or meaningful for participants. Maintenance Issues Several maintenance issues were identified, including an area with chipped paint and a concern that the area designated for the school’s garbage was not always adequate to the task. However, the most frequently identified maintenance issue related to water leaking into the school. Two participants brought photographs of water on the floor to their photo-elicitation interviews. Several other students mentioned this issue as part of their discussion of photographs of the hallways and classrooms. Both of the photographs of the water leak were taken in the same space; the ground floor hallway to the classrooms in the senior wing of the school. The puddle of water occurs at the far Figure 41. In heavy rain, a puddle of water forms in the hallway.



end of the hallway in front of the emergency

92

exit door. The hallway is fairly narrow and provides access to four classrooms. Students typically wait in this area until their teachers arrive to open the classroom doors. Whenever there is a significant rainfall (fairly frequent in Iceland), a large area of this floor is flooded with water. The size of the puddle varies but is sufficiently extensive at times to disrupt the use of the hallway. According to Ása, “one time there was really really bad weather and [the rain] flowed into the English room” (ÁM, PE, p. 1). Participants were uncertain about the cause of the leak but described the water as dripping from the ceiling. They also described similar water leaks in the same area of the middle school wing (red corridor) and in the shoe area near the school’s front entrance. This maintenance issue was important to participants because it was a long-standing problem. “It’s been [this way] like three years or something” (SI, PE, p. 19). Some participants wondered why such a problem existed in such a new school and why it hadn’t been fixed. The most meaningful aspect of this maintenance issue resulted from the fact that most students in the school wear socks rather than indoor shoes, so such a puddle was a real threat to keeping their feet dry. This issue is summed up by Fjóla, when she says,“[we have to] watch to not step in the water ...and stand here, where the water isn’t. [I don’t like] when we accidentally step in the water” (FE, PE, p. 3) Drinking Water A total of four drinking fountains are available at Lækjarskóli; two on each storey of the building. The water fountains are located in the long hallway in the spaces between the senior and middle school wings and the middle and primary school wings. Participants identified two aspects of this issue that were important to them. Erla identifies the first when she states, “...water that comes out of [the water fountain] is not



93

good; it’s warm” (EH, WT, p. 14). Sigrún echoes this sentiment adding, “we always drink from the tap [in the washroom or the cafeteria]” (SI, PE, p. 17). Herein lies the second part of this issue. “All the sinks in the school are very shallow and, when you get water in your bottle, you have to bend it” (SI, PE, p. 17). Drinking water temperature and the ability to readily refill their water bottles is a important issue to some of the participants. In their own words, “…really, it’s very hard to get water. I would get water often, if there was [an] easier [way]” (SI, PE, p. 17). They went

Figure 42. School sinks are too shallow to fill water bottles.

on say “[this is] a flaw in the school;



…[sinks would have been better if they] would have been deeper …[or] have the taps higher” (SI, PE, p. 17). Temperature Every participant spoke either directly (focus of their self-selected photo) or indirectly (an aspect of a related photo) about the temperature in the hallways and the dining hall. As Erla commented, “…there are so many windows and they are so big. When it gets cold, the school will be very cold. In the summer, the sun shines always through the windows and it’s very hot” (EH, PE, p. 1). It is impossible to describe this issue without reference to the country’s geographic location. Iceland is situated in the North Atlantic just south of the Arctic Circle. The warm Atlantic current tempers the island’s weather, so the country does not experience the extreme warmth or cold of

94

Canadian summers or winters. Hours of daylight are another important factor to take into consideration. In the summer, Iceland experiences 24 hours of visible light. In the depth of winter, the days shorten to only four hours of daylight. During the time of the study, the sun rose around 9:00 a.m. and set about 5:30 pm and the temperature hovered within five degrees above or below zero degrees Celsius. Participants were able to appreciate both aspects of the many windows in the dining hall and hallways. “[All the windows] is good and bad. It’s good to see the view and the kids playing outside but [these spaces get] really hot or cold” (OS, PE, p.2–3). They described the blinds on the dining hall windows as being able to reduce the amount of direct sunlight, while

Figure 43. Wall of windows in the hallway to senior students’ classrooms.

still allowing people to see outside.

However, the mechanism to control the window blinds is located in the teacher’s room. Changing the position of the blinds in the dining hall required asking the school maintenance staff. According to one participant, students never ask for the blinds to be adjusted. When the window blinds are not in place and are needed, sunlight streams directly into the dining hall. As a result, students alter their seating arrangements or sit on an angle to avoid looking directly into the sunlight. Windows in the long hallway and the hallway to the classrooms are not equipped with window blinds. Direct sunlight in the hallways to the classrooms resulted in students standing with their backs to the windows



95

or staying in shady spots in the long hallway to avoid the heat until the teacher arrived to open the classroom door. Further complicating this issue is the fact that few of the windows in these spaces open. The windows that open are located near the top of these spaces and are beyond student access. Emergency exit doors in the dining hall and at the ends of the hallways to the classrooms are supposed to remain closed, but are often left open in an attempt to reduce the temperature and increase the airflow in this space. Inability to change the temperature in these spaces was particularly meaningful to the participants. They commented that it was discouraging not to have any way to alter the temperature in the hallways (no window blinds, the few windows that open are located at ceiling height, emergency doors in the hallways are to remain closed). Bathroom Privacy The issue of privacy related to the many windows in the hallways was discussed as part of the description of the long hallway. As a result, this section will focus on privacy regarding the use of the bathrooms. One of the participants, Gulla, brought a photo of a bathroom in the senior wing to discuss at the photo-elicitation interview. However, she was not the only one to speak of a lack of privacy related to the use of bathrooms. At Lækjarskóli, all of the bathrooms available to the senior students are built for single use. Each of these bathrooms contains one sink and toilet and is large enough to accommodate a wheelchair. Three such bathrooms are located in the senior wing; two next to the shoe room on the main floor and one in the second floor long hallway. An identical bathroom is also available in each classroom.



96

While the bathroom in the classrooms was frequently used by students to rinse their hands or by female students to adjust their makeup, every participant who spoke about this issue clearly stated they never used these facilities for their original purpose. Participants explained their reluctance to use the toilets in this space because, “…everyone can hear what you are doing in there. I don’t use them. I just use the ones in the hallways” (HA, PE,, p. 6). An important factor regarding the use of the bathroom in the classrooms is that students are Figure 44. Bathroom in the classroom.

not allowed to be in the classrooms during breaks. Another privacy issue regarding the use of bathrooms was the ease with



which these doors could be opened while the bathrooms are in use. “[The bathroom door is] so easy to unlock. …You just take something like a coin and …put it in the lock” (OS, PE, p. 9). One other irritating aspect about the bathrooms is how soap used to wash one’s hands can bubble back up through the floor drain in the bathroom. The lack of privacy regarding use of the school bathrooms appeared to be very meaningful to many of the study participants. It was important enough to change the behaviour of the majority, if not all, senior students. Participants reported that no senior students used the toilet in the classrooms saying, “…it’s just not comfortable” (GB, PE, p. 7). One participant described how some students used the bathrooms, “…two and two together, one is outside and one inside” (IO, PE, p. 1), so there was no risk to their privacy. With so few bathrooms and over approximately 200 senior students, participants described how they sometimes needed to wait to use a bathroom but that “there are



97

enough toilets but more would be useful” (GB, PE, p. 7). Factors contributing to the adequacy of bathrooms may be the fact that many students live near the school and go home for lunch or during long breaks between scheduled classes.

Focus Group Interview Two Participants’ responses to the second focus group interview questions paralleled the information provided during the individual photo-elicitation interviews. This suggested that a point of data saturation had been reached. However, it was helpful to meet with study participants at the end of the project to collectively discuss (a) what it was like for them to participate in the study, (b) how the school’s design influenced their use of school spaces, (c) any additions or clarifications regarding their comments about the school, (d) changes they would make to Lækjarskóli, and (e) suggestions for future school design. Their comments indicated they enjoyed the process, especially taking photographs. When asked if taking pictures of their school had altered how they saw the school, they responded, “no, it’s about the same” (FG2, p. 1). When I enquired about the ways in which the school’s design contributed or detracted from their use of school spaces, they indicated that the school was “nice to look at but not as nice to use” (FG2, p. 2). Their responses to this question focused on temperature issues and the fact that they wished the school had more cosy spaces. One participant responded that she liked that “you can change the lighting (brighter or dimmer) in the classrooms or light only one part, especially during the parts of the year when it is dark outside” (FG2, p. 2). Another



98

commented that she liked the smaller windows in the classrooms because they can be opened and because they had curtains. When I asked if there was anything else participants’ wanted to add or clarify about Lækjarskóli, one person reiterated that, “it’s always safe at the school” (FG2, p. 3). Other participants joined the discussion adding that they were use to having surveillance cameras at the school. They felt the cameras were “good to be able to see, if somebody should steal something” (FG2, p. 3). They stated fights (except for snowball fights) were rare at the school and that students don’t bring things they aren’t supposed to into the school except for candy and cigarettes. Students go off school property to smoke. When the group was asked to consider changes they would make to Lækjarskóli, they recommended the addition of more sofas, an after-school space better designed to meet their needs (stage, stackable chairs), bigger lockers, one space that combined lockers with a sofa space and pool table, and a small kitchen for student use. They also addressed a few school rules they would change, including being able to chew gum at school and allowing food to be consumed in the classrooms. Before concluding the interview, I asked the group to imagine they had been tasked with designing a school for students in Grades 8–10. They eagerly engaged in this exercise and identified many creative ideas. These ranged from having fewer windows and windows that opened; to separate bathrooms for girls and boys that contained many toilets; to bigger classrooms; more computers; and a photography dark room. They spoke of having a well-organized large library area with an extensive collection of books, lots of study tables, dedicated Internet-connected computers, and quiet reading areas. They also spoke of building a large area in which students could come together for school and



99

after-school events. “I think it’s really important to have a place where you can have events and parties …just to bring everyone closer and have a community; a school community” (FG2, p. 4). However, their major thrust was for the addition of a “place where you can sit between classes” (FG2, p. 4) and “be with friends” (FG2, p. 4). They indicated that this space should be “cosy” and “not so big, not so open that kids are just like some here and some here” (FG2, p. 4). In this space they would put “sofas and some tables, so we can be just talking or playing cards or something” (FG2, p. 5). They would also add a TV to this space, especially one that provided information about school events, schedule changes, etc. They talked of adding soft comfortable pillows and maybe a carpet to this imaginary space. Another participant suggested that it was important to have music in this space. The others quickly agreed even suggesting it would be good to have music in all the common areas and “not music that would cause you to fall asleep” (FG2, p. 5). Sigrún suggested that it was important that students also have access to a quiet, green space in or outside the school building that students could use at any time of the day.



100

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS: CONSTRUCTING IMPORTANCE AND MEANING

The complexity of participants’ experiences of school spaces was captured through the use of multiple data sets. This chapter begins with an analysis of participants’ self-selected photographs and is followed by an analysis of the results obtained from a joint examination of the photographs and the photo-elicitation interviews. School spaces were analyzed collectively to identify how participants constructed importance and what factors contributed to important spaces becoming meaningful places in the participants’ lives.

Analysis of Participants’ Self-Selected Photographs, Photo-Elicitation Interview and Walking Tour Transcripts Participants made thoughtful choices about what spaces to photograph, how to photograph the chosen spaces, and printed their photographs in creative ways. This was evidenced by the relevance of participant photographs to the research tasks and the attention given to framing the image to best illustrate the selected space. An analysis of participants’ self-selected photographs indicated that both interior and exterior school spaces were important, however, no single school space was identified as important by all participants. The most frequently photographed interior school space was the long hallway. Eight out of ten participants took a total of 14 photographs of this space. The most frequently photographed exterior school space was the playground. Six out of ten participants took a total of 8 photographs of this space. The number of photographs taken



101

of a specific school space or the number of participants who photographed a given space is only one way of identifying the importance of school spaces. When all of the data sets were used to analyze important school spaces, no new important school spaces were identified but it became clear that some rarely photographed spaces, such as the art room and the sofas were more important to participants than indicated by the photographs alone. Each participant was asked to share her most important school space as part of a walking tour. The inclusion of walking tours, as part of the photo-elicitation interviews, further encouraged the embodied exploration of school spaces. This exercise facilitated participants’ sharing of relevant aspects of the space [“I always sit there with my friends at this table [pointing]” (ÁM, PE, p. 7)] and enhanced the recall of experiences. Participants’ memories were often of happy experiences shared with classmates (class held outside) or other students at the school (snowball fights in the playground). This embodied sharing of space often led to a more extensive description of the meaning of the space for participants than the photographs or interviews alone. For example, Harpa chose to show me the front of the school, as seen from the curb. Being together in this space helped her to more fully communicate the significance of the first moments she saw the school. Constructing Importance: Towards a Sense of Place One of the purposes of this study was to identify (a) which spaces were important to students, (b) what happened in these spaces, (c) what, if any, meaning these spaces held for participants, and (d) in ascribing meaning to some identified spaces, determining if students developed a sense of place. Important interior and exterior school spaces and



102

issues have been identified. What happens in these spaces has been described, as part of the description of specific spaces in the results. Because most of the spaces were used as one might anticipate, I have chosen not to provide an additional analysis of their respective functions. A space’s utility (what happens) was only analyzed further if it was central to participants’ construction of importance or meaning. Participants cited both personal and collective reasons, when identifying important school spaces and issues. For example, Sigrún took a photograph as she was walking to school in the dark to share, “this is how I see my school every morning” (SI, PE, p. 14). The data also hold myriad examples of collective importance. In describing her photograph of the sports hall, Sigrún commented, “we love having the gym and the swimming pool so near” (SI, PE, p. 9). Important school spaces identified for collective reasons also reflected an awareness of a space’s importance to others. In describing her photograph of the football court, Þóra noted, “it’s not a very important part of my life, but some people they just love football, so I think that’s important to them and I think it’s nice” (ÞG, PE, p. 19). At other times, school spaces were identified as important because of their role in the school’s function. In describing her photograph of the long hallway, Gulla states, “this shows how long the school is … I use [the hallway] when I walk to classes” (GB, PE, p. 4-5). Time was a central factor in determining the importance of school spaces. Participants’ photographs reflected both past and present experiences of the chosen spaces. Þóra’s past experience of the playground outside the primary wing of the school prompted her to photograph this space. She described its importance to her when she stated, “we used to use this playground and the [basket] swing a lot, because you could be



103

maybe three in the swing at a time. You can just lay there and watch the sky, it was really fun” (ÞG, PE, p. 17). Other participants’ photographs focused on the recent or current importance of a particular space, such as the installation of the football court or the identification of “their” table in the dining hall. Participants’ photographs frequently reflected several aspects of importance simultaneously. A given space could have both personal and collective importance either in the present or the past. For example, participants identified the dining hall as an important space for different reasons at different times. It was often an important personal space to eat, to study, or to hang out with friends. At other times the dining hall was seen as an important collective space, especially when used for the after school Vitinn program and school dances. Participants experienced the same school space in different ways. As a result, the importance attributed to a particular space varied. For example, all of the participants discussed the wall of windows in the long hallway. The majority of participants commented on this feature with regard to temperature issues in the hallways, a few commented on the view, and one participant reported feeling uncomfortable with the lack of privacy. At times, school spaces were recognized for their importance to the smooth functioning of the school, even if they were not personally important to the participants. The most frequently identified school spaces in this category were the long hallway and the hallways to the classrooms. One participant described the long hallway as the backbone or spine uniting the different parts of the school (EH, PE). Key-operated



104

elevators were also recognized for their role in facilitating mobility for a student in a wheelchair and for transporting equipment and supplies. Participants felt it was important to photograph and discuss both positive and negative aspects of school spaces at Lækjarskóli. For example, Erla chose to photograph a potted tree in the long hallway stating, “I like it, I think it’s cool. Everything is so grey and, when this came, it’s just freshening up” (EH, PE, p. 3). Erla went on to describe that, “in every hallway, there is some kind of plant [except] where the teenagers are because, I don’t know, maybe we just ruin it or something” (EH, PE, p. 3). In describing her photograph of the sports hall, Þóra commented: I like that when you’re swimming you have all these windows and, in the summer when the sun is shinning in, the swimming pool is really beautiful because the light dances off the water and the whole room kind of lights up. I think I would like to have [the water] a little bit colder because I find it uncomfortable swimming in warm water. (ÞG, PE, p. 12) Half of the participants took at least one photograph to identify important issues of concern at the school. Two participants took photographs of the puddle of water that collects at the end of the hallway to the classrooms. Ása described, “here the school is not really good because always, when it rains, [water] comes in” (ÁM, PE, p. 1). Þóra photographed the garbage area and described it as, “very shabby and unclean and dirty. If there is stuff lying around, you get really in a bad mood, or at least I do. I like having things in order and clean” (ÞG, PE, p. 9). Participants’ decision to identify both positive and negative aspects of school spaces brought a balanced perspective to the study. Participants assigned importance to school spaces based on their potential for shared social interaction. Every participant described the sofas as an important space in the school, even though only two participants chose to photograph this space. The

105

collective importance of this space is intriguing because the sofas were a social space between several other physical spaces including the front entrance, the lockers, the dining hall, the hallway to the senior classrooms, and the entrance to long hallway. In describing her photograph of this unique space, Sigrún captured the essence of its importance in the following words: You go here and you get to relax and hang and talk to your friends. It’s very cosy to sit in the sofas, but you have to be very quick to get one sofa. Then everyone gets in, like ten [people] in one sofa or something, and it’s important because we can’t be this way in any other space. (SI, PE, p. 21) It is interesting to ponder why so few photographs were taken of this important school space, although participants eagerly discussed it at the photo-elicitation interviews. Was it because the importance of this space was derived primarily from its social context and not its physical dimensions? Did the presence of lots of people limit participants’ choice to photograph this space or their ability to capture specific features? Or was it too intimate a space; a place participants were willing to talk about but not share in photographs? Observations in this space suggested that senior students’ desire for social interaction prompted the collective creation of this unique shared space, despite its lack of physical dimensions. Between classes the sofas are abuzz with activity and it’s possible that participants were reluctant to bring a camera into this dynamic. Importance was also assigned to school spaces based on their potential to meet personal needs. Half of the study group members identified the lockers as an important part of the school and two participants chose the lockers as their most significant school space during the walking tours. Participants’ photographs and descriptions of this space extended beyond the function of the lockers (to store personal belongings) because the



106

lockers represented the only personal space available to participants at Lækjarskóli. Even though they were sometimes dissatisfied with the overall design of the individual lockers and the locker areas, the importance of personal space was not diminished. Many factors were intricately interwoven as part of the complex process participants used to inform their decisions about the importance of school spaces. In summary, school spaces became important when one or more of the following conditions were met: (a) they were used frequently, (b) they held personal and/or collective significance, (c) were associated with important past or present experiences, and (d) contributed in a meaningful way to the function of the school for self and others. From Importance to Meaning and a Sense of Place Not all important school spaces were meaningful places. For example, Ása identified the shoe area as an important space in the school because of its function, but did not ascribe any additional meaning to this space. In other instances, important school spaces were meaningful to some participants but not to others. For example, the football court was identified by half of the participants as an important school space, although only one of them used it regularly. All identified this space as a meaningful place for students who loved to play football. An important school space became a meaningful place in participants’ lives, when they developed an emotional attachment with the space over time. When describing meaningful spaces, participants’ often used demonstrative language [“I wanted to show you because” (IO, PE, p. 29)], feeling words [“I love to be there” (HA, PE, L477)], and possessive language [“this is my table …nobody else sits here” (SI, PE, p. 4)]. Ása was the only participant who identified the bike racks as an important part of the school.



107

While her photograph communicated the importance of this space, its complex meaning was only revealed when she explained how she and others had successfully advocated to have bike racks installed adjacent to the senior wing of the school. Failure to develop an emotional connection with a space identified as important illustrates how some spaces can be important but not meaningful and, therefore, not a part of a student’s sense of place. For example, Harpa identified and photographed the playground as an important space in the school. The following dialogue is a good example of the lack of an emotional relationship with an important space: Harpa:

Researcher:

[I chose to photograph this space] because it’s special. It’s just concrete here. There’s no grass out there, just stones and it’s kind of dead. It was raining when I took this picture and you can see that, when there are no children, it looks dead. Is the playground an important place at the school?

Harpa:

Yes, because when I go outside on the breaks I used to be there.

Researcher:

When you are in this space now, how does it feel?

Harpa:

Just nothing, just space. (HA, PE, p. 7)

Many school spaces at Lækjarskóli became meaningful places for the study participants. A particular book on a specific bookshelf in the library held a unique sense of meaning for Harpa. The lava rock formation in the playground held a deep sense of place for Sigrún. Both Fjóla and Inga were emotionally attached to their personal locker spaces. Others developed their own sense of place by regularly eating at the same table in the dining hall. Other important school spaces became meaningful places, when participants developed an emotional attachment to the space. The dining hall, the library and even parts of the hallways became meaningful places to hang out with friends. The dining hall became an especially meaningful place, when it was used for Vitinn activities.



108

The most meaningful collective social space was the sofas. All of the participants ascribed a strong sense of place to this part of the school. School rules are necessary for the smooth functioning of any school. Some rules, however, have the potential to facilitate or hinder the transformation of important school spaces into meaningful places in students’ lives. In describing her photograph of the playground, Ása spoke of the delightful school-wide snowball fights that take place when it snows. By allowing students to freely engage in this activity and to take responsibility for the snowballs they threw, the snow-covered playground became a meaningful place for many students at Lækjarskóli over the years. Had the rules regarding snowball fights been more stringent, as they are in many Canadian schools, the playground may have been a less meaningful school place. At other times, school rules hindered the transformation of important school spaces to meaningful places. Three participants photographed the natural green space between the senior and middle school wings. This space was identified as important because, on rare occasions, classes were held outside and participants were allowed to use the small wooden deck in this space. In describing her photograph, Ása commented, “when we are outside in the breaks, we are not allowed to go there” (ÁM, PE, p. 4). Participants wished they could change this rule, as it restricted their experiences of this space and limited its potential to become meaningful. School spaces were more likely to become meaningful places in participants’ lives if their experiences of these spaces resulted in lasting memories. The art room at Lækjarskóli provides an excellent example of how participants’ memories of a space contributed to the development of meaning. In Iceland, students attend regular art classes from Grades 1 to 8. In Grade 9, students have the opportunity to select continued studies



109

in art or other elective subjects. Only one member of the study group was currently studying art. Only two participants chose to photograph the art room but seven participants discussed this space during the photo-elicitation interviews. All of these participants appeared to enjoy their past and present experiences in this space. Participants described in detail some of the art room’s many features (the vaulted ceiling, the large wall of windows, the view over the stream) even though they haven’t used this space since Grade 8. During the interview, Þóra recalled, “I remember in fourth grade, it got an award for the best designed art class in Iceland. At that moment I was really proud of my school” (ÞG, PE, p.17). Participants’ memories associated with this space contributed to its enduring meaning.

Analysis of Issues of Concern Participants’ raised issues of concern in the context of ways to improve school spaces at Lækjarskóli. Their comments were intended as constructive criticism rather than complaints. Many of the identified issues were beyond the control of participants (or other students) to change, effectively manage, or fix. For example, two participants photographed the puddle of water that collected in the hallway every time it rained heavily. Participants wondered why this long-standing problem had not yet been addressed in such a new school and were frustrated that they had no opportunity to deal with the problem; even the mops are out of reach. Temperature issues are another good example of participants’ inability to control an important issue. The architectural design features several walls of windows that make it difficult to regulate the temperature in the school. While some of the windows have blinds, others do not and the electronic control



110

for the blinds is located in the teacher’s staffroom. A few windows open as vents but these are located at ceiling height and are beyond students’ access. The identified issues significantly impacted participants’ experiences of school spaces. For example, the large puddle of water on the floor in an already narrow hallway restricted participants’ movements and made it more difficult to avoid stepping in the puddle in sock feet. Regarding the issue of temperature, participants described wearing their jackets in class when it was cold and hiding in the shadows to avoid the heat of the direct sunlight. Where possible, students developed creative solutions to address issues of concern. For example, some participants used the bathrooms in the hallway in pairs and students adapted the function of the bathrooms in the classrooms. This chapter presented an analysis of the data with specific reference to the research questions. Important school spaces and what happens in these spaces was addressed before analyzing ways in which participants constructed importance and meaning. It was determined that an emotional attachment over time to meaningful school spaces contributed to participants’ development of a sense of place.



111

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION

This chapter begins with a brief overview of the evolution of the study with particular emphasis on the research questions. Consideration is given to the ways in which the study was enriched by a complexity science framework and the use of an image-based research methodology. This is followed by a description of how participants’ construction of importance and meaning supports a need for balance between student experiences and the design of educational facilities. In conclusion, this chapter will briefly explore my conversation with one of Lækjarskóli’s architects, limitations of the study, suggestions for further research, and the significance of the study. This study arose from an interest in the interrelationship between school architecture and education. A review of the history of school architecture in North America led to the identification of numerous factors that have influenced school construction over the years. Further review of the literature uncovered a growing body of research regarding contemporary educational facilities planning (NCEF, PEB) and its impact on learning. Students’ voices, however, were rarely included in research studies or in the school design process. As countries around the world undertake the construction of new schools and the renovation of existing schools, it is important that students’ perceptions of their purpose-built schools be explored. This research was conducted in a school recognized by the Programme on Educational Building (Lækjarskóli) in Iceland, a country that has long valued education and invested vast sums of money in innovative



112

school construction. I was particularly interested to discover what spaces in a purposebuilt school were important to students, what happened in these spaces, what meaning, if any, these spaces held for students, and, in ascribing meaning to some of the identified spaces, determining if students develop a sense of place.

The Contribution of Complexity Science Complexity science was integral to the exploration of students’ perceptions of important school spaces at Lækjarskóli. Participants shared a number of common elements (redundancy); all were female, in either Grades 9 or 10, had attended the school for a minimum of three years, and were proficient in conversational English. They also experienced the same school spaces over time, adopted similar movement patterns, and followed the daily school schedule. Complex systems also require diversity to adapt to new situations in flexible ways. None of the study group members had ever participated in a research study and were intrigued to be asked about their school. Diversity also existed among the study group: participants had different interests, attended a variety of classes, and experienced school spaces in ways that were uniquely their own. Redundancy and diversity work together in a complex system through neighbour interactions, where communication is most likely to occur. All study group members used the senior wing of the school and participated in similar social and academic experiences. The nature of the research tasks, the use of digital cameras, and school spaces acted as enabling constraints to allow for the emergence of unexpected phenomena and learning. For example, some participants chose to work together to take photographs of important school spaces and extended the research tasks by exploring the capabilities of



113

their cameras and the possibilities of digital photography. Participants identified some school spaces (art room, football court) for their ability to facilitate the emergence of meaningful activities for themselves or others. Complexity science accommodated different experiences of the same space and how school spaces were created (sofa area) or adapted (classroom bathrooms) to accommodate particular situations or needs. This framework was integral to the identification of factors participants’ used to construct importance and meaning and accommodated the identification of issues of concern within school spaces.

Image-Based Research During the second focus group interview, all participants communicated that they enjoyed taking photographs and sharing stories of their lived experiences of school spaces at Lækjarskóli. Participants with a keen interest in photography accomplished the research tasks while simultaneously engaging in a personal exploration of digital photography. While it was not anticipated, some participants chose to create an individual photographic record of important school spaces in the company of other study-group members or friends unrelated to the study. The integration of this social dynamic supported the creative and interactive exploration of school spaces. The following images illustrate how taking photographs of the football court evolved into unique ways of capturing the space through spontaneous play.



114

Figure 45. Photographing the football court through play.

Figure 46. Playing with the camera to photograph the football court.

The use of an image-based research methodology may have prompted the sharing of a meaningful moment in this important school space. Students are capable of expressing their opinions and describing their school experiences (Einarsdóttir, 2005). This study joins the work of others (Hubner, 2005; Jilk, 2003) to advocate for the active solicitation of students’ voices throughout the design process of educational facilities. The choice to use photographs, photo-elicitation interviews, and walking tours enriched the data by helping participants to identify and describe important school spaces, stimulated the recall of significant memories, and facilitated the expression of the complex emotional context of their experiences (Collier & Collier, 1986; Loeffler, 2004; Einarsdóttir, 2005, Smith, Duncan & Marshall, 2005).

Harmonizing Students Experiences and Educational Facilities Participants assigned importance to different spaces for a multitude of reasons. As a result, a careful integration of data from many sources contributed to the identification of factors participants’ used as part of assigning importance to school spaces. These included personal and/or collective importance, importance to school function for self or others, frequency of use, and association with past or present experiences. Some

115

important spaces were transformed into meaningful places for participants when they developed an emotional attachment with the space (Rasmussen, 2004; Tuan, 1977). At times, individual participants developed a sense of place that was uniquely their own. At other times, participants developed a collective sense of place, such as for the sofas. As the following section describes, the data also gave rise to a key insight regarding the relationship between school spaces and what happens in these spaces. Important school spaces are more likely to become meaningful places when there is balance and harmony between the design of educational facilities and students’ experiences. School architecture plays a significant role in the creation and arrangement of design elements (balance) that support congruity between school spaces and students’ experiences (harmony). The investigation of school spaces at Lækjarskóli identified several design elements, which either supported or constrained the establishment of this important unity. These design elements are described below. Balance Between Open and Closed Spaces The analysis of important school spaces demonstrated how particular design features worked in one space and not in another. Participants often commented on the view afforded by the floor to ceiling wall of windows in the art room. In this space, the windows contributed to their experiences of drawing and painting by providing ample natural light, spectacular views of a protected nature area, and an ever-changing source of inspiration. In contrast, participants rarely commented on the identical view seen through the hallway windows. In this space, the windows sometimes contributed to a sense of being on display. Another example at Lækjarskóli involved the question of ceiling height. Participants often commented that the vaulted ceiling in the art room added to their sense



116

of creative freedom. Conversely, some participants experienced the high ceilings in the dining hall as a poor use of space. The open design of this space lacked the intimacy many people sought as part of sharing a meal. These examples underline the importance of harmonizing design features with the purpose of the space. Balance Between Physical Facility Conditions and User Needs Physical facility conditions can have a disproportionate impact on one’s experience of space (Tanner & Lackney, 2006; McCardle, 1966; National Research Council of the National Academies, 2007). Temperature was an issue at Lækjarskóli as a result of the many windows and the long periods of daylight and darkness. When physical facility conditions are in balance with human sensitivities, they are invisible. When a space is too hot or too cold, everything that happens in that space is impacted. When physical facility conditions become a distraction, they interfere with educational moments. Balance Between Students’ Ages, Development Stages, and School Design School architecture needs to complement the ages and developmental stages of students. Participants’ reaction to the bathrooms in the classrooms best illustrates the impact of an imbalance between students’ developmental stage and school design. While the design of these bathrooms may have worked well for students in younger grades, study participants associated the bathrooms in the classroom with an embarrassing lack of privacy and never used them as intended. Participants described how they adapted the function of the bathrooms to suit their needs by creating an open door social space to fill water bottles, check make-up or wash hands. Bathrooms in the classrooms would have



117

been meaningless for senior students had they not successfully altered their function and their experiences of them over time. Participants described the playground as a meaningful place for them between Grades 1 and 5 because it provided age appropriate activities. In Grades 6 and 7, however, the playground offered fewer activities that were meaningful to older students. This example underscores the importance of designing school spaces that echo students’ changing needs, so they retain their potential to be meaningful places. Balance Between Collective and Personal Spaces At Lækjarskóli, participants identified a variety of important collective spaces, such as the sofas, the dining hall, and the playground. However, the only relevant personal space they identified was their locker. Personal spaces are an integral part of students’ developing sense of self. A space to store personal belongings is not equivalent to a home base for every learner (Tanner & Lackney, 2006). This example illustrates the need to provide students with a balance between collective and personal spaces. Balance Between Work and Restful Spaces Classes and individual study can be stressful. It is important that schools have comfortable spaces for students to step away from their studies, to relax with their friends or to sit quietly by themselves. The most significant social space for senior students at Lækjarskóli was the sofas. Participants’ ascribed many meaningful experiences to this space despite its limitations. The fact that 210 students were deeply attached to three sofas speaks to the importance of including such spaces in school design. While participants indentified several spaces where they could be together with friends, the only space they identified where they could sit quietly or be alone was the bathroom. Study



118

participants indicated they would welcome the addition of indoor and outdoor restful spaces at their school. Balance Between Indoor and Outdoor Learning Environments The integration of indoor and outdoor learning spaces is essential for a balanced education. All too often, outdoor school spaces are valued for their contributions to play and not recognized for their contributions to learning. In describing the natural spaces adjacent to the dining hall and between the school wings, participants did not recognize the educational potential of these outdoor spaces. Learning, however, occurs in all kinds of spaces. Outdoor school spaces could be used to grow vegetable gardens, to explore natural flora and fauna, and to support students’ large-scale projects in woodworking and art. The identification of a wide range of important school spaces at Lækjarskóli speaks to the complex interaction of students and their learning environments. Students experience school spaces differently at different times for different reasons. When a balance exists between student experiences and the design of educational facilities, students are more likely to engage in meaningful ways with school spaces and learning experiences.

In Conversation with the Architect Lækjarskóli was designed with vision and built with care. In designing this award winning school, the architects successfully integrated this large building with its natural surroundings. The design also incorporated several ways of integrating the school and the surrounding community. While the school’s library was originally envisioned as a



119

community library, lack of funding and changing city dynamics prevented the realization of this idea. On the other hand, the Lækjarskóli Sports Centre has become an important facility for both the school and the community. Another important aspect of the architectural vision for Lækjarskóli was to provide students and teachers with clearly defined work and leisure spaces. This was accomplished by designing open leisure spaces that afford unrestricted natural views (walls of windows in the hallways and the dining hall) in contrast to more closed workspaces that encourage students to study by providing smaller windows and less distracting views. High quality construction materials were imported and, as a result, the building has not required any significant maintenance since its construction. To ensure excellent indoor air quality, the air in the building is exchanged approximately twice an hour. The architectural design also included a unique colour scheme for each school wing to facilitate students’ orientation and movement patterns. The colours chosen were inspired by the work of a famous Icelandic painter. At its core, however, Lækjarskóli is a traditional school dressed in modern architecture. Although a beautiful school, the design of this facility does not deviate substantially from the standard arrangement of individual classrooms along a central corridor. As the architect explained, “functionally, it is an old fashioned school, but the architecture is very, very modern; lots of glass and steel” (SR, ARCH, p. 6). This lack of innovation was a direct result of a closed design process, which restricted the architects to the specifications outlined in a 50-page manual developed by the Hafnarfjörður City Council. The architect went on to contrast the design and construction of Lækjarskóli



120

with his experiences of using the Design Down Process (DDP). This collaborative design approach allowed him the architectural freedom to respond to the needs of stakeholders rather than simply presenting them with a finished building. The architect believes that collaboration in school design is essential because “school architecture is very, very important to learning” (SR, ARCH, p. 8). As North America, Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and Europe undertake the enormous task of building the schools of tomorrow, we are presented with a tremendous opportunity for innovation in school design. An understanding of the complex relationship between school architecture and student experience is essential to build educational facilities suffused with the potential to become meaningful places in the lives of students.

Limitations I have limited Icelandic cultural experience and language skills and, as a result, the potential for misinterpretation existed. To mitigate this limitation, I moved to Iceland in June and stayed for six months. Before data collection began in September, I travelled to many parts of the island and completed two university courses focused on Iceland’s medieval and contemporary culture and language. Once settled in Reykjavík, I visited several purpose-built schools before choosing Lækjarskóli as the research site. I visited the school on several occasions prior to data collection to familiarize myself with the research environment and to develop a working relationship with a resource person fluent in Icelandic and English.



121

Other study limitations included a relatively small number of participants, all of whom were female and spoke English as their second or third language. Expressing complex ideas in English had the potential to be difficult for some participants. To address this concern, senior students with a minimum of five years English instruction were recruited for the study. During the photo-elicitation interviews and walking tours, participants had the option to supplement their responses in Icelandic and a resource person, unrelated to the study, was available to assist with translation. Although this option was available, it was not necessary. All participants were able to confidently express themselves in English.

Suggestions for Further Research This study explored the unique perceptions and experiences of 10 female students at Lækjarskóli. The research could be extended to include a larger, more diverse study group. Furthermore, a comparison of students’ experiences of purpose-built schools within a country or across the international community could contribute to the design and construction of future schools. While it was beyond the scope of the current study, an exploration of the influence of purpose-built schools on the experiences and practices of teachers is an important avenue for further research. Similarly, an examination of parents’ and community members’ experiences of the design and construction of purpose-built schools could be used to inform future collaborative design processes. It would also be interesting to assess the current knowledge of politicians, policy makers, architects, and educators regarding school architecture’s contribution to learning



122

and the development of students’ sense of place. Another important avenue for further study is the examination of school architecture’s contribution to curriculum initiatives and the development of meaningful places in schools.

Significance of the Study This study provided an opportunity to explore the interconnectedness of people and spaces through the art of digital photography. Participants’ thoughtful photographs and insightful narratives clearly demonstrated the efficacy of photo-elicitation interviews in educational research. Actively soliciting students’ voices has much to contribute to our understanding of their lived experiences of purpose-built schools. This study adds to the knowledge base on school architecture and education and supports the need for crossdisciplinary collaboration to effectively design purpose-built educational facilities. It is hoped the results of this research will further an awareness and valuing of the impact of school architecture on learning in Iceland and, by extension, in other countries as well.



123

REFERENCES

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press. Barnard, H. (1838). School architecture. New York: Teachers College Press [1970]. Berninger, V. W., & Corina, D. (1998). Making cognitive neuroscience educationally relevant: Creating bidirectional collaborations between educational psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 343–354. Bowman, W. (2004). Cognition and the body: Perspectives from music education. In L. Bresler (Ed.), Knowing bodies, moving minds: Towards embodied teaching and learning (pp. 29–50). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Brouillette, M., & Utt, R. D. (1999). Partnerships in school construction. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=1782 Brubaker, C. W. (1999). Emerging trends in school design. In B. E. Graves (Ed.) School ways: The planning and design of America’s schools (pp. 3–11). New York: McGraw-Hill. Brubaker, C. W. (1998). Lessons in high school planning and design. MASS Magazine: Architecture and Children, Learning Environments and Design Education, 11(Fall), 26–33. Cappello, M. (2005). Photo interviews: Eliciting data through conversations with children. Field Methods, 17(2), 170–182. Capra, F. (1998). Ecology and community. Mass Magazine: Architecture and



124

Children, Learning Environments and Design Education, 11(Fall), 34–40. Collier, J., Jr. (1967). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Collier, J., Jr., & Collier, M. (1986). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of Teaching: A Genealogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (1997). Cognition, complexity, and teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 105–125. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luck-Kapler, R. (2000). Engaging minds: Learning and teaching in a complex world. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Davis, B., & Upitis, R. (2004). Pending knowledge: On the complexities of teaching and learning. JCT: Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 22(3), 113–128. Digital Youth Research. (2006). Digital photo-elicitation for digital youth (Working Paper). University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved March 3, 2008, from http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkley.edu/node/43 Dudek, M. (2000). Architecture of schools: The new learning environments. Oxford: Architectural Press. Earthman, G. I. (2004). Prioritization of 31 criteria for school building adequacy. Baltimore, MD: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland.



125

Einarsdóttir, J. (2005). Playschool in pictures: Children’s photographs as a research method. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 523–541. Epstein, I., Stevens, B., McKeever, P., & Baruchel, S. (2006). Photo elicitation interview (PEI): Using photos to elicit children’s perspectives [Electronic version]. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), Article 1. Retrieved March 2, 2008 from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_3/HTML/epstein.html Evans, G.W., Kliewer, W., & Martin, J. (1991). The role of the physical environment in the health and well-being of children. In H.E. Schroeder (Ed.), New Directions in Health Psychology Assessment (pp. 127–157). New York: Hemisphere. Fiske, E. B. (1995). Systemic school reform: Implications for architecture. In A. Meek (Ed.), Designing Places for Learning (pp. 1–10). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Futurelab. (2008) Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.futurelab.org.uk Gradle, S. (2007). Spiritual ecology in art education: A re-vision of meaning. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International Handbook of Research in Arts Education (pp. 1501– 1516). Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Greenman, J. (1988). Caring spaces, learning places: Children’s environments that work. Redmond, WA: Exchange Press. Gunnlaugsdóttir, M. (n.d.). The situation of modern language learning and teaching in Europe. Retrieved November 26, 2007 from http://www.ecml.at/documents/members/Iceland_newNR.pdf Herbert, E. (1998). Design matters: How school environment affects children. Educational Leadership, 56(1), 69–70.



126

Heschong Mahone Group (1999). Daylighting in schools. Fair Oaks, CA: Heschong Mahone Group. Howard, J. (2002). Eliciting young children’s perceptions of play, work and learning using the activity apperception story procedure. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 489–502. Howard, V. A. (1992). Learning by all means: Lessons from the arts. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Howley, C. (1994). The academic effectiveness of small-scale schooling (an update). ERIC Digest. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED372897) Hubner, P. (2005). Children make their school: Evangelische Gesamtschule Gelsenkirchen. Stuttgart, Germany: Axel Menges. Jilk, B. (2003). Freedom and creativity: A story of learning, democracy and the design of schools. PEB exchange: The journal of the OECD programme on educational building, 47, 9–10. Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. NY: Scribner. Kirova, A., Mohamed, F., & Emme, M. (2006). Learning the ropes, resisting the rules: Immigrant children’s representation of the lunchtime routine through fotonovela. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 4(1), 73–96. Lackney, J. (1999, September). The relationship between environmental quality of school facilities and student performance. Energy Smart Schools: Opportunities to Save Money, Save Energy and Improve Student Performance (pp. 1–7). Washington,



127

DC: U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science Sponsored by the Environmental Energy Study Institute. Lackney, J.A. (2000). Thirty-three Educational design principles for schools and community learning centers. National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS), National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF), Washington, D.C. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. NY: Basic Books. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241–270. Loeffler, T. A. (2004). A photo elicitation study of the meanings of outdoor adventure experiences [Electronic version]. Journal of Leisure Research, 1–12. Retrieved January 12, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3702/is_200410/ai_n9467847 Mann, H. (1838). The Common School Journal, 1(1), 1–15. Marks, J. (2009). A History of Educational Facilities Laboratories [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Retrieved March 9, 2008 from http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/efl2.pdf Martin, P., & Midgley, E. (2003). Immigration: Shaping and reshaping America. Population Bulletin, 58(2). Maturana H. R., & Varela F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston, MA: New Science Library. McCardle, R. (1966). Thermal Environment and Learning. Missouri, University of Missouri.



128

McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. New York: Pearson Education. Meek, A. (1995). Preface: The importance of the school as place. In Anne Meek (Ed.). Designing Places for Learning (pp. v–vi). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Moore, G.T., & Lackney, J.A. (1995). Design patterns for America’s schools: Responding to the reform movement. In Meek, A. (Ed.) Designing places for learning (pp. 11–22). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Moreland, J., & Cowie, B. (2005). Exploring the methods of auto-photography and photo-interviews: Children taking pictures of science and technology. Waikato Journal of Education, 11, 73–87. National Asthma Control Task Force. (2000). The Prevention and management of asthma in Canada: A major challenge now and in the future [Electronic version]. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/pma-pc00/pdf/asthma00ee.pdf National Center for Educational Statistics (2000). Condition of America’s public school facilities: 1999. Washingston, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Research Council of the National Academies. (2007). Green schools: Attributes for health and learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Clearinghouse on Educational Facilities. (2009). U.S. K-12 school construction data 1999-2008. Washington, DC: National Institute of Building Sciences.



129

Retrieved March 18, 2009 from http://www.ncef.org/cd/School-ConstructionData-1999-2008.pdf Noddings, N. (2005). Place-based education to preserve the earth and its people. In N. Noddings (Ed.), Educating citizens for global awareness (pp. 57–68). New York: Teacher’s College Press. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2005). Good places to learn: Renewing Ontario’s schools [Electronic version]. Retrieved March 24, 2008 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/learn/index.html Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecological Literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Orr, D. W. (1999). Reassembling the pieces: Architecture as pedagogy. In Steven Glazer (Ed.). The Heart of Learning: Spirituality in Education (pp. 139–149). NY: Penguin. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. Pittman, R. B., & Haughwout, P. (1987). Influence of high school size on dropout rate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(4), 337–343. Plympton, P., Conway, S., & Epstein, K. (2000, June). Daylighting in schools: Improving student performance and health at a price schools can afford. Paper presented at The American Solar Energy Society Conference, Madison, Wisconsin. Program on Educational Building. (2006). Compendium of exemplary educational facilities (3rd ed.). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.



130

Portugali, N. (2006). The act of creation and the spirit of a place: A holisticphenomenological approach to architecture. London: Axel Menges. Powell, K. (2004). The apprenticeship of embodied knowledge in a taiko drumming ensemble. In L. Bresler (Ed.), Knowing bodies, moving minds: Towards embodied teaching and learning (pp. 183–195). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Rasmussen, K. (2004). Places for children—children’s places. Childhood, 11(2), 155– 173. Raywid, M. (1999). Current research on small schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED425049) Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. London: Pion. Reynolds, R. E., Sinatra, E. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1996). Views of knowledge acquisition and representation: A continuum from experience centered to mind centered. Educational Psychologist, 31, 93–104. Rudd, T., Gifford, C., Morrison, J., & Facer, K. (2006). What if…? Reimagining learning spaces [Electronic version]. Research Report: Futurelab, retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications_reports_articles/openi ng_education_reports/Opening_Education_Report128/ Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (2nd ed., pp. 769–802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shadwell, A. (1999). Industrial Efficiency. New York: Routledge.



131

Shamsuddina, S., & Ujang, N. (2008). Making places: The role of attachment in creating the sense of place for traditional streets in Malaysia. Habitat International, 32, 399–409. Smith, A., Duncan, J., & Marshall, K. (2005). Children’s perspectives on their learning: exploring methods. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 473–487. Sumara, D., & Upitis, R. (2004). Knowing bodies. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 2, v–xii. Tanner, C. K., & Lackney, J. (2006). Educational facilities planning: Leadership, architecture, and management. New York: Pearson Education. Tomasello, M. (2000). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Upitis, R. (in press). Raising a school: Foundations for school architecture. Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Upitis, R. (2004). School architecture and complexity. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 1(1), 19–38. Van Pelt, R. J. (2008, March 15). Best lecturer series. [T.V. Ontario]. Toronto: T.V. Ontario. Varela, F. J. (1999). Ethical know-how: Action, wisdom, and cognition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.



132

Walsh, D. J. (2004). Frog boy and the American monkey: The body in Japanese early schooling. In L. Bresler (Ed.), Knowing bodies, moving minds: Towards embodied teaching and learning (pp. 97–109). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.



133

APPENDIX A LETTER OF INFORMATION Picturing Meaning: Icelandic Students’ Perceptions of their Purpose-Built School Dear student and parent/guardian, I am writing to request your participation in a research project aimed at better understanding how students’ experience school spaces at Lækjarskóli. The goal of this research is to gain knowledge about students’ lived experiences of their school, which has the potential to contribute to the design of future schools. I am a graduate student in the Master of Education program at Queen’s University, which is located in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. I have come to Iceland to do this research because several schools in Iceland have been recognized for their excellence in school architecture by the 2006 PEB: Compendium of Exemplary Educational Facilities. This research has been cleared by Queen’s University General Research Ethics Board. It has also been discussed with Þórir Ólafsson at Iceland’s Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and Haraldur Haraldsson at Lækjarskóli. I wish to document what school spaces students identify as having importance to them. To do this, you/your child will be asked to take 27 or more photographs of indoor and/or outdoor spaces at Lækjarskóli over a one-week period. Three group meetings (each approximately 15–20 minutes in length) will also be held (two in preparation for taking photos and a third meeting after photos have been taken). One individual interview (30– 45 minutes), which includes a short walking tour, will also be conducted to examine 11 self-selected photographs of important school spaces. Meetings and the interview dates and times will be jointly determined by you/your child and the researcher. All meetings and interviews will be held in a quiet, public space at Lækjarskóli, as prearranged with Haraldur Haraldsson. Parts of two of the three group meetings and the individual interview will be audio-recorded and later transcribed. Digital copies of your photographs and transcriptions of the audio-tapes will be maintained as computer files. Although students names and contact information will be collected, confidentiality will be protected to the fullest extent possible by assigning each student a pseudonym to protect your/your child’s identity. All data will be stored in a password-protected computer, which will be kept in a locked space. As required by Queen’s University, all data will be safely retained for a period of five years. Although other students will know of your participation in the study through the group interviews, all participants will be asked to keep our conversations confidential to the extent possible.



134

Students will be asked to use their own digital cameras to take photographs. If a student does not have a digital camera, I will ask them to obtain the use of a digital camera, if possible. If students only have access to a film-based camera, these will be permitted. If such a camera is used, I will reimburse the student’s costs of developing film equal to the amount needed to purchase a disposable camera. Any student wishing to participate in the study, who does not have access to a camera of any kind, will be provided with a disposable camera. The researcher will not assume any costs regarding the potential damage or loss of a camera used as part of the study. Students will be asked to burn their photos onto a compact disk or to upload them to the researcher’s computer using a memory stick, and to print 11 colour photographs (12.7 x 17.8 centimetres). Photo paper will be supplied and assistance will be provided to students who do not have access to a colour printer. Participation is voluntary. Participants are free to withdraw from the study at any time, and to request the return or removal of all or part of their data without consequences. There are no known risks, discomforts or inconveniences associated with participation in the research study. You are not obliged to answer any questions that you may find objectionable or which make you feel uncomfortable. All students in Grade 9 and 10 were invited to participate in this study. If you consent to participate in this study, I ask that you and your parent (if you are under 16 years of age) sign the accompanying Consent Forms and return them to Sólrun Helgadóttir in the school office as soon as possible. Your signature on this form indicates that you understand the procedures involved and that you consent to participate. The first 10 people to return both correctly completed Consent Forms will constitute the study group. The data will be used for research purposes only and are totally unrelated to course or school requirements at Lækjarskóli. If your data are made available to other researchers for secondary analysis, used at conferences or included in publications of various types, including journal articles, professional publications, newsletters, books and instructional materials for schools, your identity will not be attached in any way. Each study participant will be asked to take a photograph of themselves. This photograph will be used to facilitate data organization and may be used in a future publication or at a conference presentation. A Consent Form for Taking and Using Photographs of the Research Participants is also included. Please keep this letter for your information. Should further information be required before you can make a decision about participation, please contact me at the following email address [email protected] or feel free to telephone me, Anna Peterson, at +354–692–7107. For questions, concerns or complaints about the research ethics of this study, you can contact my supervisor, Dr. Rena Upitis, by email at [email protected], the

135

Education Research Ethics Board at [email protected] or the chair of the General Research Ethics Board, Dr. Stephen Leighton, (613) 533–6000, Ext. 77034 (email: [email protected]). Thank you for considering participating in this study. Yours sincerely,

Anna Ingibjörg Peterson



136

APPENDIX B CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE Picturing Meaning: Icelandic Students’ Perceptions of their Purpose-Built School ________________________________________________________________________ •

I have read and retained a copy of the letter of information and I have had any questions answered to my satisfaction.

•

I understand that I am being asked to participate in the research project entitled Picturing Meaning: Icelandic Students’ Perceptions of their Purpose-Built School.

•

I am aware of the purpose and procedures of this study, and I have been informed that parts of two group interviews (15–20 min.) and one individual interview (30– 45 min.) will be recorded by audiotape.

•

I understand that participation is voluntary. I am free to withdraw from this study at any time and to request the return or removal of all or part of my data with no consequences to myself.

•

I understand that there are no known risks, discomforts or inconveniences associated with participation in the research study.

•

I understand that confidentiality will be protected, how my name will be removed from the data, and have been informed of the steps that will be taken to ensure appropriate access and storage of the data.

•

I agree to permit the researcher to contact me in the future to clarify any data.

If I have any questions about this project, I understand that I can contact the principal investigator, Anna Peterson by telephone at +354–692–7107 or by email at [email protected] or her supervisor, Dr. Rena Upitis, at [email protected]. I am also aware that for questions, concerns or complaints about the research ethics of this study, I can contact the Education Research Ethics Board at [email protected] or the chair of the General Research Ethics Board, Dr. Stephen Leighton, (613) 533-6000, Ext. 77034 (email: [email protected]). Please sign one copy of this Consent Form and return to Anna Peterson, care of Sólrun Helgadóttir in the main office at Lækjarskóli. Retain the second copy for your records.



137

I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THIS CONSENT FORM AND I AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY. Student's name (Please print): ___________________________________________ Signature of the Student: ________________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________ Telephone number: ______________________________ Email address: __________________________________ I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THIS CONSENT FORM AND I AGREE TO ALLOW MY SON/DAUGHTER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY. Parent's name (Please print): ____________________________________________ Signature or parent/guardian: _____________________________________________ Date: ___________________________________________ Telephone number: ________________________________ Please print your email or postal address at the bottom of this sheet, if you wish to receive a copy of the results of this study. _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________



138

APPENDIX C CONSENT FORM FOR TAKING/USING PHOTOGRAPHS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS Picturing Meaning: Icelandic Students’ Perceptions of their Purpose-Built School ________________________________________________________________________ Please sign one copy of the Consent Form for taking/using photographs of the research participants and return to Anna Peterson, care of Sólrun Helgadóttir in the main office at Lækjarskóli. Retain the second copy for your records. Full name of the participant (PLEASE PRINT): _________________________________ Please complete either Section A or Section B Section A I agree to allow Anna Peterson to take/use my photographs for one or more of the following purposes: (1) For data organization purposes

(2) Publication in a journal (3) Presentation at a conference

Student signature: ____________________________ Parent signature: _____________________________ Student signature: ____________________________ Parent signature: _____________________________ Student signature: ____________________________ Parent signature: _____________________________ Date: ______________________________________

I understand that neither my name nor my child's name will be associated with the work. Section B I prefer not to have my photographs shown at conferences or reproduced in any form. Student signature: ______________________________ Parent signature: _______________________________ Date: ________________________________________

139

APPENDIX D FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW ONE QUESTIONS

Key questions are in bold type followed by possible related follow-up questions. Tell me about your school. How do you get to school? How is the school day organized? What do you do between classes? Where do you go? Do you buy lunch from the cafeteria or bring a lunch from home? Where in the school do you spend most of your time? Which parts of the school do you use most (academic and non-academic spaces)? Which parts of the school do you use least? Do you use the school after school hours? If so, for what purpose(s)?



140

APPENDIX E PHOTO-LOG

Date



Where was photo taken?

What’s in the photo?

141

Other comments

APPENDIX F PHOTO-ELICITATION INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Key questions are in bold type followed by possible related follow-up questions. Tell me about your photograph(s). How best to sort and discuss the photographs? Number photos from 1 to 11. What is important to you about this space? Why did you choose to photograph this space? Why did you want to tell me about this space? What’s happening in this space? What do you do in this space? Who is usually there with you? How do school rules impact your use of this space? How does this space affect your work? How do you feel when you are in this space? Do you feel comfortable in this space? Do you feel safe in this space? What meaning does this space have for you? How does this space contribute to what you do at school (learning, movement, interact with people and objects)? Does your experience of this space change with the season/time of the school year? How much time do you spend outside during the school day? Do you ever have class outside?

142

Where do you have your best ideas at school? Where do you do your best work? Is there anything about your photographs or your school that you would like to tell me that I haven’t thought to ask? Walking tour questions: Of all the spaces in the school, what is most important to you about this space? Why did you want to bring me here? What happens in this space? What do you/others do in this space? What meaning does this space have for you? How do you feel when you are in this space? What features in this space influence your experience? How do these features contribute to what you do in this space?



143

APPENDIX G SAMPLE OF TRANSCRIPTION

Participant ID: ÞG Interview Name: Þóra Guðjónsdóttir Interview Type: PE (Photo-Elicitation interview) Site/Location: Conference room at Lækjarskóli Country: Iceland Interview Date: October 15, 2008 Interviewer ID: AP Transcribed by: Anna Peterson

Figure 47. Þóra Guðjónsdóttir’s photograph of the hallway to the classrooms (# 1 of 12 photos).

Duration: 53min20sec –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ##AP##

Before we begin, I’d like to confirm that you’ve read and signed the consent forms together with your parents. ##ÞG## Yes ##AP## And you’ve had any questions about the study answered before we start? Yes ##AP## And you understand that your participation in this study is entirely voluntary ##ÞG## Yes ##AP## And that you don’t have to answer any questions that make you uncomfortable, and you can



144

withdraw from this study at anytime. ##ÞG## Yes Great, how long have you been a student at this school? This building, since third grade, but I’ve been in Lækjarskóli the school since first grade. First I was in the Lækjarskóli old building, then another building, which is not used today by Lækjarskól, and then I came here for third grade Do you have any brothers or sisters at this school? No, well they were in this school, but they are older so they are in university now I see you’ve printed twelve photos and numbered them in the order you’d like to talk about them. Let’s have a look at the first photo. Yeah, this is my first photo. I took this picture because I wanted to show the hallways. I think they are very beautiful because of the windows and seen from the outside I think it’s very elegant and clean and pretty, but in the summer when the sun is shining, because there are so many windows the heat gets pretty unbearable, you just can’t be in there, you have to open all the windows and still, it’s really really hot Do the windows in the hallways open? No, not really, sometimes they are open, here they are open (pointing to the top of the window), but there is an emergency door here and we usually open that when we are waiting for teachers to come or something or we just wait in the shadows (laughing) (Laughing) What else do you do in this space? When the bell rings, we walk upstairs and we wait and we talk and push each other’s buttons (laughing) just messing around How many classes wait in this hall? Usually three, but this class isn’t used that much, it’s a computer class, so usually we are just two in this hallway, but there are three rooms, so there should be three classes waiting Is there enough space in the hallway for everyone to wait comfortably? Yeah, but as I said before, you are always bumping into someone, you’re all just in one big pile (laughing) and then it gets really really hot

145

Why was this space important for you to photograph? Because of this I think, because of the heat difference. In the winter it gets really cold also because of the windows, and I just thought it was pretty and because of the space What do you like about the design? I think the fact that it’s not just even lines and it’s kind of a designee thing, it’s not just white walls and gray floors and, you know, cold. It’s kind of pretty and open, and the hardwood floors and the windows and the view, you can see outside Do you like being able to see outside? Yeah! I think it’s really nice, it’s nice to see the outside and you can always open the door and walk outside and get a little fresh air Are you allowed to go outside? We are not exactly allowed to open it because it’s an emergency door, but we kinda do and no one really cares, it’s just you know formal stuff I notice there are some coat hooks on the wall here ... Yeah Are there enough places for everyone to hang their jackets? Yeah, because there are more on the lower floor, but many people put their coats and jackets in their lockers. I always lock my coat in my locker. They were just recently put outside, they were always in the classrooms When did they move the coat hooks outside? Just this fall I think Which do you find easier to use? The hooks outside the classroom I think, because inside we’re hanging them up and then maybe you forgot them when you were leaving and when you were going to get it there was no one in the classroom, and then you had to get someone to open the classroom, so it’s much easier this way but it’s also not as safe, someone could take it Does that happen often?

146

No, not often I think. But once my coat was taken and I never saw it again, but not often I think Is this hallway a comfortable space to use? Um yeah, but temperature wise no Does this space function well as a hallway? Yeah, I think so, you can walk around and you wait here and it’s kind of evened out so one class here and one class here and one class here and you shouldn’t be all in a pile, even though everyone is just because they are talking and stuff like that Is there anything about this space that you would like to change? Mm, maybe I would maybe want to change the heating, but I don’t know how I would change it. Maybe more easier to open windows How does your experience of this space change with the seasons? Temperature wise pretty much and the view, you can always see the weather and if there’s snow and you really want to go outside and you can open the door and if there’s snow on the stairs you can take snow, often when we are waiting there people go outside, take some snow, and then someone gets snow on their back (laughing) and it just drips (Laughing) That’s the worst! Is there anything else about this space you’d like to tell me about? Mm, I don’t think so, when we are waiting for the teachers we are supposed to form lines but no one does it, but there’s supposed to be one line here from this classroom and one line here up to this for the classroom in the middle and then a line here along the windows for the class that’s in there. And that’s pretty clever, it would be nice, but no one does it (laughing) no one stands in line Anything else about this photo? I don’t think so, no



147

APPENDIX H FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW TWO QUESTIONS

Key questions are in bold type followed by possible related follow-up questions. What was it like to take photographs of your school? What did you enjoy about this activity? What was challenging about photographing important school spaces? Where my instructions clear and easy to follow? Did you have any challenges using your camera and printer? Did your participation in this study change the way you look at your school? What design elements and features at Lækjarskóli do you like and why? What design elements and features would you change and why? What are your favourite places at Lækjarskóli and why? What are your least favourite places at Lækjarskóli and why? If you were asked to help design a school in the future, what spaces would be important to include and what would they look like? Is there anything about Lækjarskóli that you would like to add?



148