Teacher Perceptions of a 21st Century Classroom

Abstract

Despite the uncertainty in the rapidly changing world, many countries expect their educational institutions to be ready for the future. To meet these expectations, educational policymakers bring in new changes. One of these transformational changes is the “Future Classroom Lab (FCL),” coordinated by the European Schoolnet with 15 countries, including the Turkish Ministry of National Education. These classrooms reconsider the changing roles of teachers and students, the traditional classroom layout, and propose solutions for more effective learning experiences for the 21st century. This study, based on the qualitative method, aims to introduce the opinions of teachers from different levels of education about future classrooms to determine what is expected regarding the new educational environments in terms of teachers, schools, students and classrooms. A case study design is used within the research, and criterion sampling is employed. The data is collected via semi-structured interviews. This study presents educational stakeholders with the desired framework concerning future classrooms in line with 21st century schools. The results imply that there is a need for new classrooms along with technology integration and pedagogy to keep up with the developing world. To achieve sustained growth, policymakers should focus more on technology-assisted, flexible learning zones and the technology competent leaders and teachers.

Keywords

• Educational Technology,School Management,Flexible Learning Zones,Future Classroom Lab,Classroom Design

References

1. Arstorp, A. T. (2018). Future classroom labs in Norwegian pre-service teacher education. In: Wu TT., Huang YM., Shadiev R., Lin L., Starčič A. (Eds) Innovative Technologies and Learning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99737-7_30
2. Assche, F. V., Anido, L., Griffiths, D., & Lewin, C. (2015). Re-engineering the uptake of ICT in schools. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19366-3
3. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2009). Shaping the future: How good education systems can become great in the decade ahead. McKinsey Company. Retrieved from http://www.eurekanet.ru/res_ru/0_hfile_1906_1.pdf
4. Chan, T. W. (2010). How East Asian classrooms may change over the next 20 years. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 28-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00342.x
5. Ayre, J. (Ed.) (2017). Guidelines on exploring and adapting learning spaces in schools. European Schoolnet (EUN Partnership AISBL), Brussels. Retrieved from http://files.eun.org/fcl/Learning_spaces_guidelines_Final.pdf
6. Durak, H. Y., & Seferoglu, S. S. (2017). Examination of teachers’ sense of burnout in terms of various variables. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(2), 759-788.
7. Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230310464648
8. Freeman, A., Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Giesinger, C. H. (2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K–12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from https://www.nmc.org/publication/nmccosn-horizon-report-2017-k-12-edition/

9. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(4), 233-252
10. Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11. Kocak, A., & Arun, O. (2006). The sampling problem in content analysis studies. Selçuk Iletisim, 4(3), 21-28. Retrieved from http://josc.selcuk.edu.tr/article/view/1075000231
12. Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120-124.
13. Kuuskorpi, M. K., & Gonzalez N.C. (2011). The future of the physical learning environment: School facilities that support the user. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg0lkz2d9f2-en.
14. Lackney, J. (2000). Thirty-three educational design principles for schools and community learning centers, Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED450544
15. Long, P. D., & Ehrmann, S. C. (2005). The future of the learning space: breaking out of the box. EDUCAUSE review, 40(4), 42-58.
16. Neill, S., & Etheridge, R. (2008). Flexible learning spaces: The integration of pedagogy, physical design, and instructional technology. Marketing education review, 18(1), 47-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2008.11489024
17. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2006), PEB Compendium of Exemplary Educational Facilities: 3rd Edition, Programme on Educational Building - PEB Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264014923-en.
18. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Schooling redesigned: Towards innovative learning systems, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264245914-en
19. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Publishing, Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/2030/oecd-education-2030-position-paper.pdf
20. Pedro, N., Baeta, P., Paio, A., Pedro, A., & Matos, J. F. (2017). Redesigning classrooms for the future: gathering inputs from students, teachers and designers. In 11th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (pp. 7908-7917). Valencia: IATED
21. PWC. (2017). Breaking down the walls, Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com.au/education/breaking-down-the-walls-2017.pdf
22. Sahin, I., Celik, I., Akturk, A. O., & Aydin, M. (2013). Analysis of relationships between technological pedagogical content knowledge and educational internet use. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 110-117.
23. Santally, M. I., Cooshna-Naik, D., & Conruyt, N. (2014). A model for the transformation of the Mauritian classroom based on the Living Lab concept. In 2014 IST-Africa Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-10). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAFRICA.2014.6880603
24. Sardinha, L., Almeida, A. M. P., & Barbas, M. P. (2017, June). The classroom physical space as a learning ecosystem-bridging approaches: Results from a web survey. In Conference on Smart Learning Ecosystems and Regional Development (pp. 39-50). Springer, Cham.
25. Sheffield, R., Blackley, S., & Moro, P. (2018). A professional learning model supporting teachers to integrate digital technologies. Issues in Educational Research, 28(2), 487-510.
26. Sezgin, F., Erdogan, O., & Erdogan, B. H. (2017). Technology self-efficacy of teachers: A holistic analysis on teacher and student views. Egitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 7(1), 180-199.
27. Steelcase Education. (2014). Learning spaces classroom. Retrieved from https://www.steelcase.com/content/uploads/2018/05/Insights-and-Applications-Guide-Classroom-Section.pdf
28. Thornburg, D. D. (2004). Campfires in cyberspace. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(10), 3-10.
29. Turksoy, E., & Taslidere, E. (2016). Effect of instruction enriched with active learning tecniques on 5th grade students’ academic achievement and attitudes towards science technology course. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 17(1), 57–77.
30. Vecchia T. D. & Saltidou, E. (2018). Guidelines for school leaders encourage and support the uptake of innovation in schools, European Schoolnet (EUN Partnership AISBL), Brussels
31. Wall, G. (2016). The impact of physical design on student outcomes. Commissioned for the New Zealand Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Primary-Secondary/Property/Design/Flexible-learning-spaces/FLS-The-impact-of-physical-design-on-student-outcomes.pdf
32. Yang, Z., Becerik-Gerber, B., & Mino, L. (2013). A study on student perceptions of higher education classrooms: Impact of classroom attributes on student satisfaction and performance. Building and Environment, 70, 171-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.030
33. YEGITEK[General Directorate of Innovation and Educational Technologies]. (2018). Öğretmenler için geleceğin sınıflarını tasarlama rehberi [A guide for designing future classes for teachers]. Retrieved from http://fclturkiye.eba.gov.tr/2018/09/21/ogretmenler-icin-gelecegin-siniflarini-tasarlama-rehberi/
34. Yildirim, B. (2018). Research on teacher opinions on stem practices. Egitim Kuram ve Uygulama Arastirmalari Dergisi, 4(1), 42-53. Retrieved from http://ekuad.com/articles/stem-uygulamalarina-yonelik-ogretmen-goruslerinin-incelenmesi.pdf
35. Yildirim, I., Basaran, M., Cucuk, E., & Yokus, E. (2018). Development of inquiry based teaching self-efficacy scale for stem+s education: Validity and reliability study. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(3), 40-55.
36. Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.