CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ VIEWS ON THE PHYSICAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN TURKEY

Year 2021, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 180 - 192, 30.06.2021

Mehmet Gültekin Gözde Özenç İra

Abstract

School buildings with inadequate infrastructure and old-fashioned architectural styles cause problems, especially in developing countries. This study aims to examine the views of primary school teachers on the physical learning environments of primary schools. A case study method was adopted in this study. The participants of the study consisted of 14 classroom teachers working in rural and urban areas. The synchronous online focus group interviews were conducted using Zoom, a commercial web conference service, as a data collection method. A content analysis method was used in the analysis of the data. The analyses of the semi-structured interviews with the classroom teachers produced four categories-i.e., planning related shortcomings, infrastructure deficiency, child-friendly schools, and the advantages of these schools. Responses of classroom teachers working in urban areas mostly focused on the crowding of schools. On the other hand, the answers from the classroom teachers working in rural areas mostly focused on the physical infrastructure of primary schools. Furthermore, suggestions from all participants pointed out that primary schools must have a more child-friendly characteristic. The physical learning environments of primary schools require compliance with the needs of modern pedagogy. In light of the findings, some suggestions were have been made for primary schools in Turkey.

Keywords

The physical learning environment, primary school, school buildings.

References

• Adıgüzel, A. (2012). The validity and reliability study about school attitude scale. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 11(40), 30-45.
• Akbaba, A., & Turhan, M. (2016). Investigating teachers’ views about physical problems of primary schools (Van sample). Karadeniz Technical University Institute of Social Sciences Journal of Social Sciences. 6(12), 341-357.
• Bardone, A., & Gargiulo, C. (2014). Learning in twenty-first century schools: Norms and costs of school infrastructure. Inter-American Development Bank.
• Barrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y., & Barrett, L. (2015). The impact of classroom design on pupils' learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. Building and Environment, 89, 118-133.
• Başar, M. A. (2000). İlköğretim okullarının işgören ve fiziki olanakları [Employment and physical facilities of primary schools]. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 8, 134-140.
• Benade, L. (2019). Flexible learning spaces: Inclusive by design? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 54, 53–68.
• Craissati, D., Devi Banerjee, U., King, L., Lansdown, G., & Smith, A. (2007). A human rights based approach to education for all. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative enquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. California, CA: SAGE.
• Dejong, W. (1997). Building change into new buildings. School Administrator, 54(6), 10-13.
• Directorate of Strategy Development. (2015). Ministry of National Education 2015-2019 strategic plan [Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı 2015-2019 stratejik planı]. Ankara: MoNE.
• EDUSPACES21. (2016). Physical and architectural learning environment: Educational spaces 21. open up!. Warsaw: Center for Citizenship Education Foundation.
• Frith, K. (2015). Inside school design: The role of interior design in cultural change. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Swinburne University of Technology: Melbourne, Vic. Retrieved from http://hdl. handle. net/1959.3/414201.
• Göçen, A., Eral S. H., & Bücük, M. H. (2020). Teacher perceptions of a 21st century classroom. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 7(1), 85-98. doi: https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.638110
• Güner, F., & Kartal, H. (2020). Review of classroom teachers’ standpoints for elementary schools in the context of schools’ readiness. Education and Science, 45(203), 411-437. doi: 0.15390/EB.2020.8681
• Hacettepe University, the Faculty of Education. (2020). PISA and Turkey (2000-2018). Ankara. Retrieved from http://www.egitim.hacettepe.edu.tr/belge/pisaveturkiye.pdf
• Hanover Research. (2011). School structures that support 21st century learning. Washington DC. Retrieved from https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/legacy_assets/www/bda59d16b8-School_Structures.pdf
• Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. London: Design Council, available at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.231.7213&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Işıkoğlu-Erdoğan, N., & Şimşek, Z. C. (2014). Investigation of school readiness of first grade children, parents and teachers. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education, 3(2), 62-70.
• Kopec, D. (2006). Environmental psychology for design. NY: Fairchild Publication.
• Köse, Ç., & Barkul, Ö. (2012). A study on the problems of the implementation of project type primary structures. Megaron Architecture, 7(2), 94-102.
• Mcmichael, C. A. (2004). Perspectives of school planners and architects and professional educators regarding elementary school facility design characteristics (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Georgia, Athens. Retrieved from https://athenaeum.libs.uga.edu/handle/10724/22179
• Mellor, J. E. (2016). An Action Research investigation into the innovation of a creative pedagogic approach within a secondary school Building Schools for the Future project. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation), University of Leicester, UK.
• Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Nair, P., & Fielding, R. (2013). The language of school design: Design patterns for 21st century schools (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, USA: Designshare.com.
• OECD. (2018). PISA 2015: Results in focus. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Pereira, P. R. P., Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., & Deliberador, M. S. (2018). Analysis support for the design process of school buildings. Ambiente Construído, 18(3), 375-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1678-86212018000300287
• Radmard, S., Karataş, İ. H., & Öksüz-Gül, F. (2021). The design and aesthetics of school structure: A content analysis of national and international perspectives. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 36(2), 406-429.
• Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education. (2015). Educational buildings minimum design standards guide. Retrieved from http://erbaa.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2016_12/06090414_2015_egitim_yapilari__asgari_tasarim_standartlari___klavuzu.pdf
• Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education. (2019b). 2019-2023 strategic plan. Retrieved from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2020_03/31150840_stratejik_plan_2019_2023.pdf
• Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education. (2020a). Schools get life. Retrieved from http://okullarhayatolsun.meb.gov.tr/?
• Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education. (2020b). Special education institutions standards directive. Retrieved from http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2020_03/13113722_OZEL_OYRETYM_kURUMLARI_STANDARTLAR_YONERGESY_11.03.2020_tarihli_ve_5331494_sayYlY_Makam_Oluru.pdf
• Stipanovic, N., & Pergantis, S. I. (2018). Inclusive education for international students: Applications of a constructivist framework. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 17(1), 37-50.
• Stricherz, M. (2000). Bricks and mortarboards. Education Week, 20(14), 30–32.
• Şensoy, S. A., & Sağsöz, A. (2015). Relation between pupils academic achievement and pyhsical conditions of classrooms. Kırşehir Faculty of Education Journal (JKEF), 16(3), 87-104.
• Şişman, E. E., & Gültürk, P. (2011). A research on primary schoolyards in terms of landscape planing and design: Tekirdag. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 8(3), 53-60.
• Tanner, C. K. (2009). Effects of school design on student outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 381-399.
• Trosper, S. T. (2017). Safe school building characteristics in Virginia’s elementary schools: architect and principal perspectives (Doctoral dissertation). The Virginia Polytechnic Institute, USA. Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/85258/Trosper_ST_T_2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
• Wright, N., Thompson, T., & Horne, T. (2021). Talking spaces: Architects and educators. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-021-00193-5
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences] (11. Ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
• Yılmaz, A. (2012). The evaluation of the primary schools’ physical structure in terms of education. Balikesir University The Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 15(28), 78-107.