Conference Program

Democratic learning in schools does not only take place through formal curricula or participatory structures, but emerges through everyday practices in which power, voice and responsibility are negotiated. This paper examines how democratic competencies and participatory cultures can emerge when children are not only consulted but actively involved in decision-making processes concerning their school environment. It presents an exploratory practice-based study conducted in a primary school in Düsseldorf located in a socially and structurally challenging context, where questions of voice, recognition and shared responsibility are particularly significant.
Over a period of 32 weeks, a mixed-age group of 14 pupils (Grades 1 to 4) participated a non-instructional project format in which every Friday three hours were reserved for self-chosen, collaborative inquiry (Rasfeld, 2019). Within this framework, children investigated their school as a shared democratic space. Democracy was not addressed as a curricular topic, but as a lived practice enacted through observation, discussion, negotiation and collective decision-making. The pupils analysed everyday spatial experiences of wellbeing, exclusion and belonging and developed proposals for change.
Participation deliberately extended beyond the project group. Based on questionnaires and spatial analyses developed with the children, the entire school community of approximately 320 pupils was involved in reflecting on school spaces, preferred atmospheres and needs. The project group acted as representatives and mediators, collecting, analysing and communicating the perspectives of their peers. Central democratic decisions were made collaboratively, including the selection of colours, furniture and spatial arrangements for shared school spaces.
A key moment in the process was the participation of the pupils in a study visit to the Didacta fair, one of the largest educational trade fairs in Europe. There, the children discussed spatial concepts directly with architects and furniture manufacturers and compared professional design approaches with their own analyses. Drawing on the results of the school-wide survey, they took part in collective decision-making about which furniture and design elements would ultimately be purchased and implemented. This step marked a shift from consultation to shared responsibility for concrete outcomes.
Methodologically, the study combines participatory spatial inquiry, pedagogical interior architecture and Post-Occupancy Evaluation with child-centred questionnaires, spatial mapping, photographic documentation, reflective diaries, focus groups and interviews. The participatory design of the process was informed by insights from the Erasmus+ project CLEAR on learning environments. The analytical framework further draws on theories of democratic education and participation (Biesta, 2022), spatial justice (Soja, 2010) and socio-spatial agency (Dovey & Fisher, 2014), as well as research on participatory school environments (Woolner, 2015; Sigurðardóttir, 2020).
The findings show that being listened to, taken seriously and entrusted with real decisions strengthened pupils’ sense of self-efficacy and transformed patterns of acceptance within the school community. The paper argues that participatory engagement with school space can function as a powerful form of democratic education, demonstrating that even young children are capable of informed, collective decision-making. It contributes to Scuola Democratica debates by illustrating how democracy can be learned and practised through the shared shaping of everyday environments, fostering a future-oriented school culture grounded in participation, spatial justice and collective care.

School buildings function as public spaces in which participation, access and everyday forms of democratic practice are materially shaped. From a spatial justice perspective, educational environments can be understood as democratic territories in which freedoms are unevenly distributed and continuously renegotiated (Soja, 2010). While research on learning environments has often focused on architectural typologies or degrees of openness, this paper shifts attention to small-scale spatial interventions that structure everyday use, interaction and decision-making, drawing on understandings of educational space as a socio-spatial assemblage rather than a fixed architectural form (Dovey & Fisher, 2014).
The paper draws on two qualitative case studies from different educational contexts: a primary school participating in the German Startchancen programme and an adult education centre (Volkshochschule) located in a listed historic building in Hamburg. Although differing in age groups, institutional logics and architectural conditions, both cases reveal how spatial micro-infrastructures shape democratic practices in everyday educational life. The analysis is informed by approaches from pedagogical interior architecture and is based on qualitative documentation of spatial transformations, user feedback and observed patterns of spatial appropriation.

In the primary school case, four previously underused rooms were transformed into differentiated learning environments, including a storytelling space, an experimental research room, a construction and movement space, and a flexible makerspace. These spatial changes resulted in a redistribution of everyday freedoms, conceptualised by the school as a freedom matrix that differentiates where, how and with whom learning can take place. Rather than prescribing behaviour, the spaces enabled pupils and teachers to negotiate learning situations, responsibilities and supervision in practice. Democratic action emerged through everyday decisions about use, access and movement within the school.
The adult education case in Hamburg focuses on spatial micro-infrastructures such as accessible drinking-water points, informal meeting niches and reprogrammed circulation areas. In a context characterised by voluntary participation and diverse user groups, these elements function as low-threshold spaces of encounter and self-organisation. They support informal interaction, collective responsibility and negotiated use without requiring formal participation structures. The democratic quality of these spaces lies in their capacity to invite appropriation and shared use across institutional roles.

Across both cases, the findings suggest that democracy in educational spaces is not primarily produced through architectural openness or formal participation formats, but through spatially distributed micro-infrastructures that enable everyday negotiation. These elements create conditions for agency, accessibility and shared responsibility by embedding democratic possibilities into routine practices. Educational spaces thus become democratic territories not through symbolic design gestures, but through spatial arrangements that make everyday decision-making, encounter and co-presence possible. By foregrounding spatial micro-infrastructures as democratic enablers, the paper contributes to debates on spatial justice and co-governance in school-building processes and argues for a shift from large-scale architectural concepts to the socio-spatial effects of small, distributed intervention.

School building processes are typically organised as linear, technical and administrative procedures, while schools themselves function as complex democratic institutions. This paper addresses this structural tension by reframing school construction and transformation as a form of democratic governance rather than a purely instrumental planning task. Following Lefebvre’s understanding of space as socially produced (Lefebvre, 1991), educational buildings are conceptualised as outcomes of negotiated social practices rather than neutral containers.

The theoretical framework combines perspectives from democratic participation (Arnstein, 1969), spatial justice (Soja, 2010) and school development theory (Biesta, 2011; Fielding, 2012). Participation is not treated as a single event but as a continuous relational practice embedded in institutional decision-making. From this perspective, school building becomes a pedagogical and political process in which power, knowledge and responsibility are distributed unevenly across actors and phases.

Empirically, the paper draws on an ongoing European practice-based research project that developed a visual school building compass (CLEAR, 2025). Using co-creation workshops as a design-research method (Sanoff, 2007), practitioners and researchers jointly mapped actor-specific process lines—such as school leadership, students, school authorities and external partners—across the full lifecycle of a school building, from early needs assessment (Phase 0) to long-term use and evaluation (Phase 10). A metro-map metaphor was used to visualise simultaneity, intersections and temporal asymmetries between actors.

The findings reveal that dominant linear planning models obscure the fact that actors operate with different temporal logics and degrees of agency. A comparative focus on Germany and the Netherlands illustrates how participation cultures shape these dynamics. While student participation in Germany is often limited to early consultation and post-occupancy feedback, Dutch practices more frequently integrate students through continuous information, reflection and contextualised engagement during planning and construction. These practices align with Fielding’s concept of democratic partnership, emphasising understanding and agency rather than constant co-decision (Fielding, 2012).

The paper argues that continuous intelligibility of processes—rather than maximal participation—supports democratic competence, spatial literacy and institutional trust (Biesta, 2011). By foregrounding participation as an infrastructural condition of governance, the proposed compass offers a transferable analytical and practical tool. It contributes to debates on democratic education by demonstrating how spatial transformation processes can actively cultivate democratic culture within and beyond schools.

This contribution presents the results of a research project commissioned by GAM Gonzagarredi Montessori and conducted by the EDENLAB research laboratory of the Faculty of Education at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano between 2022 and 2024.

The study investigates the educational, aesthetic, and inclusive potential of the Edugreen furnishing line, specifically designed to support the structured introduction of indoor plants in educational settings. While previous research has documented the positive effects of indoor greenery on students’ well-being, stress reduction, and cognitive performance (Han, 2009; Li & Sullivan, 2016; Lindemann-Matthies et al., 2021; Meng et al., 2023), limited attention has been paid to how purpose-designed furniture can mediate the pedagogical integration of plants across different school contexts.

The project is grounded in a theoretical framework that combines environmental psychology, ecological education, and inclusive design. Plants are conceived as “didactic mediators” (Weyland & Boaretto, 2022), capable of fostering ecological awareness, responsibility, and care practices. In line with the idea of architecture as pedagogy (Orr, 1993) and with the concept of schools as dwelling spaces for living and learning (Weyland & Sigillo, 2025), the introduction of plants contributes to shaping the school as a learning landscape in which space actively participates in knowledge construction. Moreover, understanding the school as public space in action (Viteritti & Weyland, 2026) highlights how spatial quality is co-constructed through daily practices, material arrangements, and shared responsibility. The research adopts principles of Universal Design and Universal Design for Learning (Mace et al., 1996; CAST, 2024), ensuring accessibility, flexibility, autonomy, and legibility for all users, consistent with inclusive education perspectives (Booth & Ainscow, 2014) and the ICF framework (WHO, 2001).

Methodologically, the study follows a qualitative multi-site research design combining experimentation and observation across educational levels. In the Faculty of Education, Edugreen prototypes were installed in two classrooms and common areas, transforming them into experimental green learning environments. University students participated through a Photovoice methodology (Santinello et al., 2022), documenting and reflecting on their experiences via a digital Padlet (“My Green University”). In parallel, an action-research process was conducted at the Monini kindergarten (Umbertide, Italy), where two classrooms were newly equipped with Edugreen furnishings as part of a broader pedagogical reorganization explicitly centered on plant-based interaction. Teachers used structured observation grids assessing functional qualities (e.g., modularity, ergonomics, durability) and aesthetic-pedagogical dimensions (e.g., creativity, sociality, interdisciplinarity, physical participation), complemented by open-ended reflections. Data were analyzed through qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 2022).

The cross-context experimentation demonstrates the adaptability of the furniture to diverse age groups and pedagogical practices. Modularity and mobility facilitate flexible spatial configurations and plant exposure. Vertical structures support observation of plant growth and responsibility routines. The “little house” element functions as a multifunctional micro-environment for rest, dialogue, reading, and imaginative play. Across settings, participants reported enhanced environmental quality and stronger engagement with sustainability-related themes.

The findings confirm that the experimentally monitored introduction of plants, supported by inclusive furnishings, enhances aesthetic quality, perceived well-being, and ecological competences, enabling schools to act as living laboratories of sustainability, care, and shared responsibility.

Discussion on the subject of how to design an optimal learning environment has always reflected constantly changing educational, social, and technological circumstances, and it continues to do so. Despite being a small field of research, it has attracted attention since its origins in the 19^th century (Renz, 2016). However, particularly in the past decade, this state of upheaval in school construction not only intensifies the interest in research but also (re-)vitalize planning processes through participation procedures. As an integral part of democracy, participation plays a key role in shaping educational spaces.

Just as users can be involved conceptually at the beginning of a construction project, participation is also possible after a school building has been inhabited. This method of Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) was defined by Preiser et al. (1988, p. 3) as ''a process of systematically evaluating the performance of buildings after they have been built and occupied for some time''. It aims to improve the fit between users and their buildings (Zimmerman & Martin, 2001).

The aim of this work was to develop a empirically tested method for evaluating school buildings (with the aim of improving them). Building on existing post-occupancy evaluation methods (e.g. Cleveland et al., 2016), it is carried out using the data-driven index creation MARI method (Fluck & Lichtenberg, 2021). The benefits of such formative models are still largely unknown in the social sciences and therefore underestimated (Fluck & Lichtenberg, 2021; Jarvis, MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2003).

Testing at six schools with a total of more than 700 students (aged 11 to 19), has shown that the questionnaire could be further developed: Among other things, it is still too complex and should therefore be simplified, especially for younger students. Overall, however, this Post-Occupancy Evaluation for Learning Environments (POELE) proves to be a robust testing tool that provides a sound basis for the comprehensive assessment of school buildings.

Democratic societies rely on shared epistemic infrastructures through which citizens can evaluate evidence, interpret knowledge claims, and participate in collective deliberation. Public reasoning in elections, policy debates, and civic decision-making depends upon institutional environments that stabilize norms of evidence, credibility, and argumentation (Habermas, 1996; Dewey, 1916). Historically, educational institutions—particularly schools, libraries, laboratories, and archives—functioned as core components of this democratic epistemic architecture. These environments cultivated not only cognitive competencies but also material practices of inquiry through which knowledge could be publicly encountered, scrutinized, and debated (Freire, 1970).
However, contemporary informational ecosystems are increasingly structured by algorithmically mediated media systems. Social media platforms, search engines, and artificial intelligence infrastructures shape the circulation of knowledge through computational systems that rank, recommend, and personalize information flows (Gillespie, 2014). While these technologies expand access to information, they also introduce new epistemic challenges. Algorithmic amplification can accelerate the diffusion of misinformation across networked communication environments (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018), while personalization mechanisms fragment shared informational contexts that historically supported democratic deliberation (Sunstein, 2018; Pariser, 2011). At the same time, the economic logics of platform capitalism prioritize engagement and behavioral prediction over epistemic reliability, transforming information environments into systems optimized for attention extraction (Zuboff, 2019). These developments contribute to what may be described as algorithmic epistemology, in which the circulation and interpretation of knowledge are increasingly governed by opaque computational infrastructures rather than institutional processes of verification.
Parallel transformations are occurring within educational environments themselves. The increasing digitization of education has reduced the material presence of traditional knowledge infrastructures such as libraries, archives, and collections of demonstrative objects. Although digital technologies broaden access to information, they can also weaken the spatial and institutional environments through which knowledge becomes socially visible and collectively interpretable.
This article argues that educational architecture plays a critical but underexamined role in sustaining democratic epistemology. Drawing on democratic theory, media studies, science and technology studies, and architectural theory, the article proposes Epistemic Infrastructure Theory, which conceptualizes educational environments as spatial systems that stabilize democratic knowledge practices. Institutional architectures shape patterns of attention, interaction, and authority, thereby influencing how knowledge claims are encountered and evaluated (Foucault, 1977; Koolhaas, 1995; Lefebvre, 1991).
To explore this argument, the article introduces a speculative architectural model: the Epistemic School. The Epistemic School conceptualizes educational buildings as spatial infrastructures designed to support democratic knowledge production. Rather than treating libraries, classrooms, laboratories, and digital systems as separate functions, the model integrates them into a distributed epistemic landscape composed of knowledge commons, algorithm observatories, evidence forums, and research laboratories. Within this framework, architecture functions as a visible interface through which students encounter not only information but also the processes through which knowledge is produced, validated, and debated.
By re-materializing epistemic infrastructures within educational environments, the Epistemic School seeks to strengthen the cognitive and institutional capacities necessary for democratic participation in algorithmically mediated societies. In doing so, the article reframes educational architecture as a crucial component of democratic knowledge systems in the digital age.

Preparing teachers for complex, collaborative practice requires environments that render teaching and learning visible, improvable, and collectively owned. Research shows spatial configuration shapes encounter and co-presence (Hillier & Hanson, 1984; Gehl, 2011) and that active, dialogic pedagogies improve outcomes (Freeman et al., 2014; Baepler, Walker, & Driessen, 2014). Grounded in progressive and situated learning traditions—experience, participation, and iterative design (Dewey, 1938; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Brown & Duguid, 1991)—this contribution presents a deployable framework that uses experimental architecture, biophilic infrastructures, and curated objects/displays to catalyze pedagogical experimentation in teacher and pedagogue education.

We operationalize six principles.

1) Visibility with care—curated transparency (glazing, permeable screens, writable surfaces) makes processes observable while protecting privacy and psychological safety, aligning with evidence on space, movement, and co-presence. Documentation walls and “learning galleries” situate the environment as a third teacher (Malaguzzi, 1998).

2) Adaptability via a kit-of-parts—mobile partitions, lightweight furniture, and infrastructural spines enable sub-hour transitions across seminar, studio, micro‑teaching, critique, and gallery modes (Hertzberger, 2008; Nair & Fielding, 2005; Oblinger, 2006).

3) Embedded capture and feedback—discreet audio/video with clip marking and annotation stations support high-impact, evidence-informed debriefs (Hattie, 2009).

4) Activity zoning and acoustic ecology—differentiated zones (quiet nooks, open studios, coaching alcoves) and treatments sustain parallel activities without interference (Fisher, 2005; OECD, 2017).

5) Governance as pedagogy—daily stand-ups, rotating stewardship, and equitable booking democratize space use and build professional agency (Stoll et al., 2006; Biesta, 2010).

6) Biophilic and green infrastructures—courtyards, planted atria, and indoor biophilia provide restorative, instruction-ready spaces linked to attention and stress recovery (Kuhnert & Ngo, 2022), implemented via evidence-informed patterns (Browning, Ryan, & Clancy, 2014) with inclusive planting and IAQ safeguards (Wells, 2000).

Objects and Displays as Pedagogical Mediators: Tangible artifacts function as cognitive and boundary objects that anchor abstract ideas and bridge communities (Norman, 1991). Process boards, exemplars, and visible rubrics support metacognition and assessment for learning, augmented with scannable links to micro‑video and portfolios (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011).

Implementation: A living-lab model progresses from a minimal viable studio through co-design sprints that generate and test “pattern cards,” scaling into a program-wide pattern language and cyclical reviews (Sanders & Stappers, 2008; Mulgan, 2014; Kolb, 1984). Inside–outside gradients prioritize outdoor classrooms and green courtyards as first-class learning zones.

Evaluation and Ethics: Mixed methods triangulate space-use analytics (heat maps, dwell times, setup/reconfiguration metrics), interaction analysis (turn-taking, wait time, proximity networks), and indicators of professional growth (self-efficacy, feedback literacy, authentic performance), interpreted via theory-informed rubrics to avoid simplistic “furniture effects” (Jamieson, 2003; Imms, Cleveland, & Fisher, 2016). Universal design ensures accessibility and sensory wellbeing (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014).

Significance: The model aligns architectural and educational logics under a shared ethos of inquiry, offering a portable blueprint—principles, patterns, workflows, and evaluation instruments—adaptable to diverse contexts and resources. By making space, green infrastructure, and curated objects/displays central to practice and reflection, teacher education becomes continuous design research, fostering equitable participation, attention restoration, and feedback-rich cultures.