What do flexible learning spaces mean for curriculum organisation in secondary schools?

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 30
Author(s):  
Megan Taylor
PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. e0223607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharina E. Kariippanon ◽  
Dylan P. Cliff ◽  
Sarah J. Lancaster ◽  
Anthony D. Okely ◽  
Anne-Maree Parrish

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 918-923 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharina E. Kariippanon ◽  
Dylan P. Cliff ◽  
Anthony D. Okely ◽  
Anne-Maree Parrish

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 569-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharina E. Kariippanon ◽  
Dylan P. Cliff ◽  
Anthony D. Okely ◽  
Anne-Maree Parrish

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Wood

Insecurity about the knowledge and skills required for a world that appears to be rapidly changing, and confusion over how designed space can best support students’ learning have given rise to innovative educational and architectural responses including the ‘flexible learning space’. However, while the language used to describe learning spaces is developing quickly, conceptual clarity lags far behind. It is unclear what flexibility of a space really means, what (or whether) it demands of its users nor what constraints or contexts might limit the nominal flexibility of a learning space. This chapter calls attention to shortcomings in the theorising behind the terms of the debate and points the finger at the ambiguity of the language used. The risks are great – for designers as for users – because unless we can gain some common control over what is meant by flexible space and its implications for those who work in schools, we risk overestimating the powers of space and underestimating what is asked of people in their work. The chapter provides a first attempt at clarifying some of these issues of language and concepts.


Author(s):  
Liuda Radzeviciene ◽  
Lina Miliūnienė ◽  
Rytis Aluzas

Study present the research aimed to reveal the situation of non-formal students’ activity. The process of non-formal education tends characterized by creating more flexible learning spaces, developing more caring and less hierarchical relationships, and aiming to meet participants’ needs. According to the research, the results discussed in two aspects: a) non – formal education implemented out of comprehensive school and b) non – formal education implemented in the comprehensive school. Having compared the attendance of non – formal education activity at school and out of comprehensive school according to gender, the results have shown that girls’ and boys’ choice of activity types is similar; girls are more involved into non – formal activities organized out of comprehensive school. Reasons participating in the activities of non – formal education are primary associated with general psychological status, life goals, motives and interests of students. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document