Methods for inclusive design processes at the early stages of a research project in School Environments

This paper explores the use of participatory methods prior to designing interventions within a research project at a primary school in central Sweden. The approach presented in the paper is based on the principles of participatory design (PD), to enhance the use of these methods within the areas of educational research (ER), lighting, and architecture. This approach aims to include participants of educational spaces and incorporate their views prior to design interventions. Two workshops were designed to support teachers’ participation through hands-on activities. Twenty-eight teachers participated in the workshops. Scale models corresponding to two of the school’s classrooms were used to initiate discussions regarding the interconnection between spatial layouts, lighting, and learning activities. The workshops’ data collection analysis assisted the research group in understanding the school’s spatial and learning characteristics. The information gathered from the workshops provided additional knowledge and informed the research project in a way that allowed for further development and changes within the project related to the additional variables measured along with light. According to the analysis, there is a correlation between the activity and the desired layout of the space, while the type of equipment also varies according to the task.


Introduction
As part of a research project studying the opportunities for lighting design to support teaching and learning, the authors' research group conducted on-site workshops at a Swedish school.The school accommodates a testbed for a larger research project exploring innovative school lighting beyond retrofitting solutions.With the following workshop investigation, the research team's goal is to discuss with the teachers and elicit their input for the research project before the data collection and intervention processes.The principle of participatory design (PD) and the benefits of this approach are evaluated and applied in the workshops' development.
Educational research (ER) can be defined as a systematic attempt to gain a better understanding of the educational process while aiming to improve its efficiency [1].It is referred to as the application of scientific methods to the study of educational problems.Educational research can be divided into several subcategories, although the present study focuses on action research (AR) and participatory design Social action is achieved by social change, which in this project relates to exchanging information and input so that research is informed by stakeholders and the results produced are valuable for the community.Action research aims to produce social change and management.Thus participants' viewpoints are of great importance for the project.Action research follows the scheme of planning an action (activity or intervention), performing this action, analysing the collected data, and concluding with a result that can be further generalised [3,4].Participatory design research (PDR) is considered a type of action research methodology that focuses on the participants' feedback [5,6].Participatory design focuses on allowing participants to become co-researchers, supporting the principle of listening to others' voices during the design process.It is often referred to as "co-operative design" or "codesign", although both terms fall underneath the participatory design methodology.
Among other factors, educational reforms called for redesigning and rethinking educational spaces.Therefore participatory processes were in focus to assist the design processes.The shift in pedagogy from teacher-centred to learner-centred (pupil-centred) approaches [7][8][9] called for constructing and redesigning school facilities across Europe [10].To support the educational shift from a teacher-centred approach towards a learner-centred knowledge, spatial changes needed to be reflected in the learning environment (LE) [11], and an approach to that is for learners and teachers to become co-designers of their own LE [12,13].In parallel, examples of open-plan schools that came from collaborative design processes between educators, architects and designers revealed a different pattern of use compared to similarly designed schools without users' participation throughout the design process [14].Research on the various levels of participants' involvement explored at which level each group (teachers, pupils, parents, and school staff) needed to be consulted [15].Participatory practices were previously used in evaluating and designing office spaces [17], with positive outcomes in employee satisfaction, work engagement and performance [18][19][20].Due to the various educational reforms [7,8] and the lack of adequately designed spaces to accommodate these changes [21,22], participatory methods were increasingly incorporated into educational research [13].Soon enough, it became apparent that design does not necessarily determine how an educational space will be used [15].Supporting the argument that further research is required to reveal and map the extent of a physical space's influence on changes in educational processes in a school environment [20][21][22][23][24], the presented workshop investigation aims to: a. Identify potential interrelations between the space, the available equipment, and the current learning activity.b.Reveal the role of lighting, as an environmental factor, in supporting the various learning tasks based on teachers' proposals and feedback.c.Explore the integration of participatory processes for case study research within education.

Study design
An investigation consisting of a series of workshops was conducted, with the goal being to inform, discuss and gain feedback from the teachers regarding the use of the space and educational facilities.Three workshops were designed, each focusing on a specific characteristic (furniture layout, type of activity, lighting) of the use and design of two primary school classrooms.The workshops focused on understanding: 1) How educational space is used.
2) The type of activities that are performed in the classroom.
3) The teaching and learning processes conducted by the teachers.
The given tasks focused on activities initiated by the teachers and performed by the pupils to provide the researchers with the teachers' perspective.At the same time, researchers had a chance to communicate and discuss the project's goals with the teachers through collaborative and interactive work.The activities targeted to the teachers were designed to provide them with a basic understanding of how: to incorporate/use lighting: a) in their work, and b) to define different spaces and educational activities.The interaction between the researchers and teachers during the workshops aimed to provide both groups (teachers and researchers) with input and knowledge.The workshops had an informative character for the researchers, helping them better understand the needs and challenges of the school environment.Feedback from the teachers suggests that the workshops were also informative to them, in relation to the lighting aspect and the way it can be part of their daily work.

Workshop process model
A series of workshops were designed as part of a wider research study that aimed to enhance and support collaboration and exchange of input through teachers' participation in the design process.In this paper, two out of the three workshops are presented.Each workshop aimed to answer two questions on spatial or lighting characteristics.In the first two workshops, scale models of existing classrooms were used.Two out of four scale models represented renovated classrooms; the other two corresponded to traditional classrooms.The renovated classrooms resulted from a long-term intervention that aimed to reshape and redesign the school's building facilities.The classrooms are located in different buildings within the school.Different grades use the classrooms, thus certain variations derive from the curriculum and the use of space.The first workshop aimed to answer the following questions: • Is the layout affected by the different subjects within the weekly curriculum?
• Are there differences between teacher-oriented and pupil-oriented activities in relation to preferred furniture layout?
The outcome of this workshop aimed to understand the classrooms' spatial qualities and the value they held for the teaching and learning processes.For this workshop, four scale models were made in total.The argument for modelling existing spaces was motivated by the teachers' familiarity with these spaces, their challenges, and characteristics.Thus, their feedback would be site-specific and valuable for the workshop and the research project.The first workshop had two working sessions, and both focused on proposed furniture layouts for specific activities that were suggested by the teachers.The suggested activities in the workshop were derived from the school's weekly schedule and a series of observations performed by the research team prior to the workshops.
The second workshop aimed to answer questions about the classroom's lighting, encouraging the teachers to focus on the challenges, issues, and qualities of light.The research team's objective was to answer the following questions after the workshop: • Should the lighting be designed based on the furniture layout proposals?• How much flexibility regarding lighting (intensity, placement, color appearance) is required in relation to the teaching activities?
During the second workshop, two working sessions took place.The initial session focused on an additional layout proposal, and the second session focused on the lighting parameters.The same scale models were used for both workshops.The teachers participating in the workshops also taught in the actual classrooms upon which the scale models were based during the academic year.

Teacher workshops
The workshops were part of a design process where researchers, architects, and pedagogues participated to inform each other and facilitate the project's development following the PD research principles of participants' inclusion and consultation.The first workshop had an informative character and it primarily focused on the research team, while further exploring the everyday use of the space, furniture layouts, and potential spatial issues.The second workshop focused more on lighting, providing mutual input through conversations between the researchers and the teachers.The lighting-related workshop aimed to link spatial characteristics and learning activities to lighting.The goal was to assist the users of the space to understand the reason lighting is important and explore ways to incorporate it into everyday activities.The preparation stage for the workshops included the construction of classroom models on a scale of 1:20.To minimize the effect of texture and color the models were white with light grey floors.The openings and overall layout of the classroom corresponded to the school's physical spaces.The 3Dprinted furniture was also white to create contrast between the floor area and tables, chairs, and cabinets.Information regarding the existing furniture in both buildings was collected upfront to have scale models of the same equipment for both workshops.The equipment used in Building C (traditional classroom) was allocated to the model of Building C (Hus C), and the new equipment for Building F (renovated classroom) was allocated to the Building F (Hus F) models.
Four models each including the normal amount of equipment for each room were prepared for the workshop.The number of tables and chairs corresponded to the current teaching technique used in the school: collaborative learning.According to collaborative learning, pupils need to work in groups of four or five.Tables and chairs for twenty-eight pupils were distributed in each model to form groups of four and five pupils per table.Even though not all grades have twenty-eight pupils, all groups worked with the same number of tables and chairs to keep a consistent working pattern throughout the workshop.In both workshops, teachers from all grades participated.Therefore, there were four working groups corresponding to the models.The school administration informed the research team that the teachers already had working groups based on the grades they worked with, therefore, the same groups were used for the workshops.
A summary of the workshop's outline is illustrated in Figure 1.Building F (Hus F) currently hosts kindergarten and grades 1-3.Building C (Hus C) is used for grades 4-6 and grade 9. Corresponding to the number of models, there were four working groups during the workshops.Teachers working in Building C (Hus C) were assigned to the Building C (Hus C) models, and teachers working in Building F (Hus F) worked with one of the Building F (Hus F) models.The teachers whose subjects required the use of a specific space (workshop space, art room, or other spaces) formed a group and worked with Building F (Hus F).Summarizing the group distribution, three groups worked with the spaces daily, and one group was allocated to a different space from the one they use.There were twenty-eight participants in total.Prior to the workshop, consent forms were provided to the teachers so that the results would be further analyzed and used within the larger research project.The first workshop took place on the afternoon of the 26th of October, 2022.It was a two and a half hours workshop from 14.00 to 16.30 CET, consisting of two separate working sessions with the teachers.The initial part of the workshop was a ten-minute introduction to the working sessions.The first session focused on teacher-centred activities (e.g.presentation, discussion) and the groups were asked to discuss and suggest a preferred layout for each activity.Worksheets were given to each group, and one of the participants was responsible for filling out their group's worksheet.The groups were asked to work with the model and the 3D-printed furniture to try different furniture configurations before deciding on the configuration that, in their opinion, was the most optimal for the corresponding activity.During the second working session, the groups of teachers focused on pupil-centred activities (e.g.individual and group work between pupils).For every activity, a preferred scenario was proposed by each group.A feedback session including all groups was held at the end of the workshop.

Second workshop.
The second workshop was held on the morning of the 1st of November 2022 from 8.00 to 12.00 CET.The initial part of the workshop included a brief introduction to the working sessions and the distribution of the worksheets to each working group.The models were set up following the placement of the first workshop, and the working groups were kept the same.The first session was based on the feedback discussion from the previous workshop; therefore, the target was to propose an ideal furniture layout scenario for two additional activities (test and playtime).During the second session, the furniture layout on the models was set based on the suggestions of workshop 1, and the variable at this point was the type of lighting each group would like to suggest.During workshop 1 each group suggested a specific layout for the same activities.For the second workshop, the furniture layout needed to be the same to work with the lighting.The teachers were asked to vote between the proposals they made during the first workshop.After voting, the furniture were set according to the preferred layout in the models.As a result, each group with the same scale model would work with the same layout.The variable explored during this workshop was the lighting; therefore, the furniture layout needed to be constant.Light fixtures, paper diffusers, and three different light filters were given to each group.At the end of the second session, a questionnaire was given to the teachers summarising all the questions from the worksheets of the two workshops to collect data from all the participants consistently.After the questionnaire, another feedback session took place to discuss the working sessions and the teachers' suggestions and thoughts on the workshop.

Results
This section presents the data and analysis of the initial two workshops.The results are presented chronologically following the workshops' order.Data was collected through photographs, smaller group discussions, feedback sessions with all the participants, and a questionnaire.Additionally, facilitators filled out observation logs to monitor the process and workflow during the workshops.This paper focuses on the collected data from three out of four groups.The group of teachers who did not use the chosen classrooms, represented by the scale models, was excluded from the present analysis and will be presented separately.

Photo registration
As presented in Figure 2, a matrix was created to illustrate the differences between the teachers' groups' suggestions that corresponded to the same activities.The horizontal axis is the activity scenario, and the vertical axis is the group number and the corresponding scale model.The activity scenarios were predefined by the research group and were the same for all working groups.The first and third groups used the same layout for teacher-centred activities (presentation or other activity led by the teacher).The second group proposed two different layouts for the same activities.Regarding pupil-centered activities, all the groups had different suggestions for individual and group work.
The group that worked with Building F (Hus F) included both spaces for each scenario.One of the differences between the four activities in Building F (Hus F) is that the smaller rooms on the right part of the scale model are used in addition to the main space for the pupil-centered activities.For the group scenario, there are more chairs in the smaller rooms compared to the individual activity.Additionally, for the individual activity in Building F (Hus F), the tables in the bigger classroom are not placed side by side but seem scattered over the room, allowing for personal working space for each pupil.The comparison between the two groups that worked with Building C (Hus C) showed that both groups preferred using one of the classroom spaces for teacher-centred activities and the pupils' individual activities.The second group proposed using two classrooms for the pupils' group activities, while group three only used one for the two spaces for the same activity.Both groups' layouts for the "teacher presentation" scenario are not fixed to a single focal point in the space, but the chairs are placed in different orientations.The available equipment in each classroom (monitors, smart boards) facilitates this choice, allowing everyone to see the presentation regardless of their seating orientation.The third group proposed the same layout for the presentation scenario and other teacher-centred activities, while the second group suggested having different layouts for each teacher-centred activity.According to the worksheet notes, the additional teacher-centred activity needs to promote discussions within the group, therefore a more organic layout is proposed by group two.Both groups appear to be consistently using one of the two spaces for three out of four scenarios.This choice corresponds to and is influenced by the current use of the classroom spaces according to the school's schedule.Regarding the pupil-centred activities, the second group suggested having a layout for the individual activity, which was more relatable to traditional classroom layouts having a specific orientation and focal point.However, the tables' orientation is different since they face the wall opposite to the one with windows.
The second workshop focused on pupil-centred activities corresponding to group and individual work.Figure 3 illustrates the proposed lighting scenarios for the group activity in Building C (Hus C).Both groups of Building C (Hus C) suggested using ceiling spotlights.The main difference between the two groups is the spotlights' placement.In the bottom illustration, the ceiling spots in the left room follow the furniture configuration.The teachers mentioned that these spots are to be used as personal lighting for the pupils working on the curved seating area below them.They suggested having additional ceiling lights for general illumination.The seating areas closer to the window (bottom illustration) have pendants as individual lights for the pupils working in those areas.Additionally, different sizes of round pendants were proposed for the group tables and the middle space.The classroom space on the right part of the illustration has a series of ceiling lights for general lighting.The teachers suggested using a few floor lamps to move them around the classroom according to their needs.Additionally, they mentioned that floor lamps would be more accessible for the pupils to use, especially considering that they might need to move in the space based on the given tasks during the courses.

Questionnaire
The questionnaire consisted of eighteen questions in total.Some of the questions were similar to the ones in the worksheets that the teachers needed to fill out during the workshops.Due to variations in the type and number of fully filled-out worksheets after the first workshop, a questionnaire was made for the second workshop to collect participants' responses consistently.There were nine multiple-choice questions, five semantic differential ratings questions, and four open-ended questions.Twenty-eight questionnaires were collected and sorted based on the building each group worked with during the workshop.Seventeen out of twenty-eight responses were used for the analysis.Three responses were eliminated due to lack of information, and the remaining eight responses came from teachers using other spaces within the school facilities.Their responses will be presented separately.The number of participants is defined by the total number of teachers employed at the school.The workshops focused on the understanding and development of activities based on the schools' educational structure, therefore the workshops are site and content-specific.
The first part of the questionnaire focused on the type of equipment used in the three scenarios: a) presentation, b) group activity, and c) individual activity.The multiple-choice questions corresponding to these scenarios are at the top of Figure 4.The answers to the multiple-choice questions are summarized in the Figure below.According to the results, digital equipment (projectors, screens, and smart boards), except laptops, is mostly used for presentations.Analog tools (books and paper) are mostly used for individual activities.Laptops were chosen for group and individual activities even though the number of answers related to the "individual activity" scenario was higher.Screens and whiteboards were also preferred tools for presentation and group activity.Smart boards were chosen for the presentation and group activity scenario rather than for the individual activity.Compared to the rest of the digital tools, smart boards are the least preferred choice.A parameter that should be mentioned at this point is that smart boards are a fairly new addition to the school's equipment and have been used for less than a year, therefore the teachers might not be as familiar with them as the rest of the given choices.Compared to the individual scenario, chalkboards were chosen mostly for the presentation and group activity scenarios.Overall, the responses indicated that tools that require the user to move in order to use them (screens, smart boards, projector -that are controlled via a laptop) are linked to the first two scenarios (presentation and group activity), while tools that can be used in a more static situation were preferred for the individual activities.Both the presentation and group activity scenarios may require the teacher or pupils to move in the classroom.
The second part of the questionnaire focused on the lighting aspect.The semantic differential rating questions were analyzed separately for each building since the lighting equipment and spatial elements differ considerably in Building F, which was recently renovated.One of the primary outcomes from the second part of the questionnaire is that the pupils do not change or choose the lighting in Building C (traditional classroom).The teachers responded that they chose and changed the lighting more often in Building F (Hus F) compared to Building C (Hus C).This outcome might be affected by the newly installed lighting in Building F (Hus F) that allows choosing between different lighting scenes.Teachers from both buildings mentioned that there were issues related to glare in the classrooms in both buildings.Glare in Building C (Hus C) was mentioned in relation to daylight.
The open-ended questions were also linked to lighting and the view from the windows.Most responses mentioned that the view can be distracting, especially if, at the time of the course, another grade is having a break.However, two responses mentioned that if the classroom is on a higher floor the view is not distracting for the pupils due to lack of direct visual contact with the yard.It was mostly when the screens or smart boards needed to be used that the teachers wanted to block the daylight to create the conditions for the screen to be visible.The answers varied quite significantly when asked if they would like to change the lighting and what type of changes they would prefer.Specific attributes were mentioned in some answers, such as "In the autumn and winter I would change the light to warmer", or the ability to dim the lights.Almost all responses were positive when asked if they would like to control the lighting.Some even mention the possibility of giving pupils control over the lighting.

Feedback sessions
At the end of each workshop, a feedback session took place, to discuss and get an overview of the working sessions.The feedback sessions were informative and influenced the workshop's flow.In particular, after the first feedback session, an additional working session was added to the second workshop, after the teacher's comments about having an additional scenario for the furniture layout.The second feedback session influenced the outline and preparation of the third workshop, adding presentations and longer working sessions so that the teachers could familiarize themselves with the equipment.
The main points from the first workshop focused on the worksheets' length and the fact that it was not possible for all teams to consistently keep notes.As a result, a questionnaire was made, summarizing the main points and questions of the worksheets from both workshops.Additionally, at the end of the first feedback session, the teachers mentioned that using the scale models could be implemented in their own work since it helps them test different layouts much faster.
During the second feedback session, the discussion focused on the lighting parameter.The teachers mentioned that they would like to have more time for the lighting task.Furthermore, a wider variety of equipment would be preferable during that workshop.All groups focused on the way lights should be controlled, which is consistent with the responses collected from the questionnaire.One of the groups supported the idea that the pupils should also be in control of the lighting, while teachers from other groups focused more on describing fixtures that are not available at this point at the school.Overall, the feedback sessions assisted in summarizing ideas, bringing everyone together to discuss the group proposals, and most importantly their comments regarding the workshops resulted in alterations in the working sessions themselves.

Discussion
The scope of this workshop investigation was to explore potential interrelations between spatial elements and learning activities at a primary school in central Sweden.Additionally, the lighting The aspect of participatory research highlights the importance of inclusivity, collaboration, and interdisciplinarity in research and application, as indicated in post intervention interviews and feedback sessions.The participants' suggestions and comments on further improving the project show their involvement beyond the intervention phase [11,21].In particular, the extended architectural interventions in Greek schools showed that the pupils' attitude towards the space itself had changed, since they respected and took care of the additions and alterations within their classrooms and school space [12].
The workshops' results, pointed out that the learning environment plays a crucial role in the activity that takes place in the classroom.The spatial characteristics, such as size and height, the architectural characteristics, such as windows, and access to the corridor space, but also the furniture layout, were all mentioned throughout the workshops by the teachers.The teachers' proposals suggested that the furniture layout should not be static since the learning processes have become dynamic, and therefore require more flexibility in terms of spatial design.
In addition to this, the workshops played a central role for the main research project per se, in terms of providing information to the research team and discussing potential issues.Comments and feedback from the workshop were used to re-shape the overall research project itself since the workshops took place before the data collection processes.Additional variables for data collection, such as, for example, noise, were added to the experiment's design for the school based on the feedback session.It was particularly interesting that during the group discussions, some of the teachers referred to issues related to noise, apart from lighting or limited availability of equipment.This investigation showed that initiating discussions at an early phase is important both for researchers and participants since it allows for the creation of a common ground and understanding of everyone's work and role within the project.Furthermore, this investigation underlines the importance of PD within ER and pre-intervention discussions with the participants for an overall understanding of the school's function and needs.Overall, the workshops assisted in shaping the primary research and the data collection variables based on the teachers' comments.

Limitations
However, there were certain limitations to the approach described here, specifically, regarding the workshops' length and the complexity of activities.There was a difference between the first and second workshop when comparing similar working sessions and a learning curve of the process was obvious.The same activity during the second workshop took less time as the teachers were more familiar with the models and the equipment.Additionally, the level of participation was not always the same within the groups' participants, since some of them were more active than others.Therefore, there were differences regarding the group dynamics among the working groups, which might have potentially affected the results.An attempt to minimize these biases was the use of individual questionnaires, which allowed the collection of feedback at individual, group, and overall discussion level.In relation to the second workshop, which focused more on the lighting component, there were differences in teachers' existing experience and familiarity with lighting parameters, such as: lights' correlated colour temperature (CCT) and dimming.The teachers who worked in Building F (Hus F) were using newly installed lighting with a greater control capability compared to Building C (Hus C) spaces, in which traditional lighting systems are installed.These differences resulted in a variety of comments and suggestions.Furthermore, the workshops were framed around the schools' pedagogical approach and teaching technique and the data are linked to certain spatial typologies, thus a generalisation of these results to other school environments may not be appropriate.The two workshops presented in this paper are part of a bigger research project that focuses on lighting interventions in school environments.The analysis and overall discussions with the teachers resulted in alterations regarding the project itself.There were two main sections of the research projects that were affected by these workshops: -The outline and preparation of the third workshop.
-The design of the main experiment for the data collection.The third workshop, focusses on lighting placement in relation to activities for which different tools are used (paper and laptops).Through a 1:1 mock-up, the research team and teachers discussed the interrelation between furniture layout and lighting on a different scale.Furthermore, the main experiment, which focuses on lighting will include additional parameters (noise and temperature) in the data collection phase.These parameters were mentioned in the initial observation phase and further discussed during the workshops.As a result, the research group re-shaped the experiment's design to accommodate the teachers' comments.

Conclusion
This paper explores the use of participatory methods within a research project studying the opportunities for lighting design interventions to support teaching and learning at a Swedish school.The presented workshop investigation illustrates the research group's goal to hold discussions with the teachers prior to the data collection and intervention processes.The workshop sessions, discussions and feedback sessions were structured to support the principles of PD within ER and include the teachers at a preintervention stage in the project.The analysis showed that the equipment, both the furniture equipment and the digital tools, is used in different ways according to the task that is performed in the classroom.Additionally, the layout can change to support and enhance collaborative teaching.In relation to lighting, some of the teachers were supportive of the idea of controlling the light themselves, but also to give over some control to the pupils to define their own lighting, and therefore their learning environment.There were certain limitations, since the workshops were designed to explore a certain teaching technique and specific classroom spaces.Overall, the initial approach to work along with the teachers at a pre-intervention phase was perceived in a positive way since they had the opportunity of informing the research group regarding current issues and problems.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Photo registrations of the preferred furniture layout configurations from the first workshop.Rows 1 and 2 correspond to teacher-centred activities and rows 3 and 4 are related to pupil-centred activities.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Lighting proposals for the group work activity scenario in Hus C, comparison between the second and third group.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Type of equipment used for each activity based on teachers' feedback.The last choice marked as "Hoover camera" was a suggestion made by one of the groups.
.1088/1755-1315/1320/1/012027 10 component was presented and discussed in relation to the furniture layout and learning activity.The workshops were initially used as a means of participatory practice within a larger research project that explores lighting interventions in school environments beyond retrofitting solutions.