28 Kostas Dimopoulos
b) Students‘ seating arrangement seems readily adaptable since in the classroom there
are only three revolving round tables and a large number of light wooden chairs
which can be quite easily moved.
c) The learning environment is multi-sensory consisting of a large number of artifacts
with variable functionality. A quick inspection shows that in this classroom one can
find three wall displays, a laboratory bench (against which the teacher leans), two
sets of printed leaflets and a PC screen on the red work bench in the forefront, two
pieces of furniture used for storage (a series of drawers on the far right of the picture
and one cupboard on the upper surface of which a student on the left seems to take
notes on) and two grey netbooks on the two revolving tables.
d) The classroom contains at least two temporary writing surfaces, one whiteboard at
the front (just behind the teacher) and one PC screen on the red surface at the
forefront of figure 9.
e) The material environment encourages increased students‘ mobility and vision.
Specifically, the classroom is a visually open setting with hardly any barrier
restricting eye-contact between students, students and teacher or students and
material objects. Furthermore, the transparent large sized windows at the left hand
side allow students‘ gazes to travel outside the classroom. Similar low levels of
control also apply to the students‘ mobility. This is realized by: the multiple access
points leading into the classroom (one can identify at least three such points in the
figure), the large free area at the back of the classroom, the wide spaces separating
the various items of furniture and students‘ irregular seating arrangement.
f) The only element that seems to contribute to a somehow stronger framing is a
marked difference in some qualities of the material culture of the classroom
signifying explicit hierarchical relationships between the teacher and her students.
Such qualities concern the leather covered iron chair of the teacher, in contrast with
the wooden chairs of the students, the big office against which the teacher leans as
opposed to the round tables that most of the students share, as well as the personal
dress (causal) code of the teacher in contrast with the uniform school dress code of
the students.CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS FOR LEARNERS AND
EDUCATIONAL POLICY
From the preceding analysis, it has been hopefully become clear that the pedagogic
transition from modern to post-modern schooling has been accompanied by a radical change
in the material culture of schools. The change can be briefly described as a trend towards
weakening classifications and framing especially as far as the regulative discourse is
concerned. In essence the change in the material culture of schools has followed such a
direction so as to enable the realization of the different educational ideals of each phase.
This finding by itself is a clear demonstration of the fact that school buildings are not
inert containers of the educational process, but shape it in decisive ways. Teachers‘ and
pupils‘ everyday behaviours shape and in turn are shaped by school culture which is
manifested visually in the material environment as well as the patterned behaviours that
constitute social structure. However, this by no means implies that school material culture