Material Change : The Case of Co-located Schools

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Material Change : The Case of Co-located Schools © The Author(s) 2023 Published version Laihonen, Petteri; Szabó, Tamás Péter Laihonen, P., & Szabó, T. P. (2023). Material Change : The Case of Co-located Schools. In J. Ennser-Kananen, & T. Saarinen (Eds.), New Materialist Explorations into Language Education (pp. 93-110). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13847-8_6 2023 93 Chapter 6 Material Change: TheCase ofCo-located Schools PetteriLaihonen andTamásPéterSzabó Abstract In this chapter, our context is a co-located Swedish and Finnish medium high school campus. From a posthumanist viewpoint, we study the roles and functions of language(s) in the semiotic assemblages of learning environments and ask how language(s) feature as an integral and material part of the change in the spatial repertoire of learning environments. We investigate how the principle of separation of schools by medium of instruction, typical for Finnish education, becomes undermined through a new multilingual soundscape in the co-located schools, where the school community hears and uses many languages every day. In doing this, the colocated schools not only challenge Finnish language ideologies and practices, but may also promote language learning in a more effective manner than structured, curriculum based ‘planned’ forms of multilingual education. In the long run, the placing of Finnish and Swedish language schools in one location has led to teachers’ recognition of the new assemblage as a resource for pedagogical change. Keywords Co-located schools · Educational change · Learning environment · Posthumanism · Schoolscape · Semiotic assemblage Introduction In an article of Helsingin Sanomat (HS), a major Finnish newspaper, the journalist Jussi Konttinen asks who decided to design Finnish schools as open spaces and why. He concludes that new pedagogical norms of e.g. collaborative, studentcentred learning call for work in flexible groups of pupils and teachers. P. Laihonen (*) Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: [email protected] T. P. Szabó Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2023 J. Ennser-Kananen, T. Saarinen (eds.), New Materialist Explorations into Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13847-8_6 94 Further, the newspaper article argues that the old school buildings with permanent classroom walls do not enable such learning, because they are designed for static, set size groups and teacher-fronted teaching arrangements (Konttinen, 2020.) Teachers might cling on the pedagogical tradition and thus resist reform initiatives (cf. Brooks & Waters, 2018) such as the promotion of co-teaching, mentioned in the new Finnish National Core Curriculum (NCC, 2014) in force since 2016. However, according to the Helsingin Sanomat article cited above, there is no explicit normative central policy behind the trend of building open spaces. Konttinen (2020) argues that the decisions are made by private school architecture developers. In the opinion of the developers cited in the HS article, a change in the learning environment by building open learning environments, will help break teacher resistance and has the potential to bring about the needed change in pedagogical practices. In this chapter, which we approach from a posthumanist viewpoint (Pennycook, 2018), our focus lies on the roles and functions of language(s) in the spatial and semiotic assemblages of learning environments. Our goal is to investigate how language(s) feature as an integral and material part of the change in the spatial repertoire of learning environments with a focus on the undermining of the monolingual habitus and separation of languages in education. More specifically we ask, how changes in the physical learning environment initiate change in language practices and language ideologies circulated in the given school community? The significance of spatial arrangements, material objects (e.g. furniture), things, embodiment, senses and their potential with change in educational practices have been recognized by school environment developers in Finland (see Luminen etal., 2018; Konttinen, 2020) and elsewhere (see e.g. Chiles & Care, 2015; Brooks & Waters, 2018). However, language(s), their presence, forms of use and functions for learning have barely been included in such general level discussions on developing learning environments and their design. From a posthumanist perspective, Pennycook (2018, p.43) proposes that things or objects may have (partial) agency (see also Muhonen & Vaarala, Chap. 3, this volume). In this framework, material objects play a crucial role (they have “thingpower”,Pennycook, 2018, p.53) in shaping the activities such as communicative routines in a given context. Practices, that is, “repeated social and material acts that have gained sufficient stability to reproduce themselves” (p.53), as well as places, things, senses and bodies constitute the semiotic assemblage in which agency is distributed together with human intentions and competencies. Pennycook’s idea of spatial repertoires of languages or communicative resources explains the distribution of agency further. That is, sociolinguistic repertoires enacted for instance on a busy marketplace are understood best in terms of “spatial distribution, social practices and material embodiment rather than individual competence of the sociolinguistic actor” (Pennycook, 2018, p.47). Pennycook (2018, p.54) notices that the idea of assemblages was developed partly as “an argument against an overemphasis on the stability of things and […] languages as systems.” In this manner, an element of change in practices, or fluidity of language is always included in these assemblages. P. Laihonen and T. P. Szabó 95 Monolingual Habitus andtheSeparation ofLanguages inEducation The separation of different languages through and in schooling has a long history in language education (Gogolin, 1997). Typically, only one language operates as the language of instruction and administration nationwide. In most educational systems, the prevailing approach is to devote formal language arts classes to specific languages and, in the varied contexts of bilingual education, regulate how much each language is used in the teaching and learning of subject matter (see Gogolin, 1997; Piller, 2016; Gorter & Cenoz, 2017.) On the level of curricula, the question of separation of languages is changing in Finnish educational policy documents. In the current Finnish National Core Curriculum (NCC, 2014), there is on the one hand, an emphasis on multiculturalism and language awareness, and on the other hand, passages stressing language separation (e.g. recurrent reference to parallel multilingualism). That is, cultural and linguistic diversity is conceptualized as the parallel or separate existence and learning of different languages and associated cultural identities. For instance, in the case of bilingual education the teacher is stated to have “a monolingual role in the group” (NCC, 2014, p.154) and that “as the language of instruction changes, so does the teacher” (p.154). In sum, on the ideological level there is change, but in practice the traditional language education policy, as described by Gorter and Cenoz (2017, p.235), prevails: “When two or more languages are used at school, each language is usually assigned a specific time in the school timetable and it is often thought as desirable that only the target language is used in class.” It is thus clear that language pedagogies in Finland are designed to reproduce the monolingual habitus (Gogolin, 1997). In other words, in a traditional (Gorter & Cenoz, 2017, p.235) setup like the Finnish one, education is organized institutionally in a monolingual manner, following the principle of language separation and language isolation in bi/multilingual situations (Gorter & Cenoz, 2017), even though the participants of education are often multilingual (see also Piller, 2016, p.31). In a similar vein, Pennycook in Posthumanist Applied Linguistics criticizes the still current mainstream communicative language teaching method: Communicative language teaching assumes that to understand each other we should use one and only one language, thereby presupposing the notions that communication is the purpose of language, that single languages guarantee understanding and that intersubjective conformity is the goal of language education. (Pennycook, 2018, p.104) In other words, Pennycook finds the strive for total, diversity-free, shared and context independent understanding as the underlying reason for separating languages in education. On the top of its ontological and epistemological problems, this language ideology misses “the plurilingual nature of classroom interaction and communicative repertoires of both learners and teachers in multilingual settings” (Lin, 2013, p.522, cited in Pennycook, 2018, p.104). More recent theories of language include among others translanguaging, which promises a non-authoritative, genuinely multilingual, practice oriented and context sensitive approach to language 6 Material Change: TheCase ofCo-located Schools 96 teaching (see e.g. Li, 2018). However, as Pennycook (2018, p.130) warns, translanguaging pedagogies can easily get reduced to immaterial, cognitive bilingual activities, which often get further reduced to parallel use of two languages (see Heller, 2006). Schoolscapes andLinguistic Soundscapes There is now a fairly established field investigating how school premises and the material conditions are perceived and interpreted as facilitating or restricting school community members’ actions or pedagogical design (e.g. Chiles & Care, 2015). Ideas by Luminen etal. (2018) on learning environments serving the pedagogical reform (e.g. co-teaching) introduced in the current Finnish national curriculum (NCC, 2014) are based on the concept of open learning spaces, but they also include insights on furniture, learning technologies and details such as the use of colours or the suitable materials for sound insulation. However, language is notably absent from the guidelines of designing learning environments. Thus, the most influential sources behind many recently built schools in Finland (cf. Konttinen, 2020) offer no guidance on how material change could provide a remedy to the problem of the monolingual habitus in education. The concept of schoolscapes was introduced by Kara Brown (e.g. 2012) to build a theoretical lens to deal with language in materials terms. The concept of schoolscape has its history in the field of Linguistic Landscape research. Linguistic Landscape studies has begun as investigation of texts and later as study of broader visual semiotics. Schoolscape studies (see Szabó, 2015; Laihonen & Szabó, 2018) also look beyond policy and language practices and frame language and educational practices as spatialized and embodied. The term schoolscape, similarly to Pennycook’s (2018) semiotic assemblages, draws attention to the broad notion of varied and functional uses of language(s) (or (trans)languaging, see Jakonen et al., 2018) including traditional texts, images, sounds, digital literacy, mobile screens, virtual communication and all kinds of spatial and material arrangements of interaction in the learning environment (see also Muhonen & Vaarala, Chap. 3, this volume). Our rapidly changing and highly mobile contemporary world shapes and is shaped by the linguistic ecology of public spaces including schoolscapes. It is especially this spatial and material approach that can add significant insights to how schoolscapes shared by students and school staff with different language backgrounds can shape and enhance functional multilingual practices. Envisioning and designing learning environments that meet the needs of current and future learners both inside traditional school settings and outside them ‘in the wild’ is an essential task in applied linguistics and education research searching for new models of language teaching and learning (e.g. Kajander etal., 2015). The emerging body of schoolscape studies has asked among others, what does the environment offer for learning, and how images, multimodal texts and artefacts can be used to enhance (language) learning and communication? The topics have P. Laihonen and T. P. Szabó 97 become very diverse (for an overview see Laihonen & Szabó, 2018) and capturing change has been among the most popular ones. For example, Brown (2018) has explored changes triggered by the introduction of a new national and regional language educational policy in Estonia. Menken etal. (2018) in turn report on a project redesigning the linguistic landscapes of twenty-three New York City schools which resulted in an impressive policy and language pedagogy impact. For example, a school acquired multilingual resources for the school library (p.112). Such acquisitions enable learners to access demanding reading assignments, such as a novel, in their first language (p.115). Further, some schools replaced their English-only program to bilingual instruction as a result of a chain of changes induced by the redesign of the schoolscape (p.121). In his attempt to break the hierarchy of senses and investigate significant aspects of languages and senses – as part of semiotic assemblages – Pennycook (2018, Chap. 4), introduces the study of different scapes such as sensory, semiotic and linguistic landscapes, smellscapes, soundscapes and skinscapes. His research program manifests a recent extension of Linguistic Landscape research reaching to other senses, such as smell, touch and taste. Following Pennycook (2018, p.58) seeing and hearing have been considered as “higher” senses in comparison to smell, touch and taste, which have been long neglected in research. However, there have been few studies on the soundscape either. According to Scarvaglieri etal. (2013, p. 62), soundscape has been mainly studied from the perspective of acoustics. Human voices have been mentioned most often as disturbing noise, which should be controlled by the use of noise absorbing materials and other solutions (Mäkelä etal., 2018; Luminen etal., 2018). However, according to Scarvaglieri etal. (2013, p.644): “it is linguistic action that serves as a bridge between a physical space and its soundscape and the social space in which people live and interact”. Backhaus’ study (2016), investigating the pragmatics of English railroad announcements in Japan and Scarvaglieri etal. (2013) and Pappenhagen etal.’s (2016) investigation of “oral language diversity” at different districts of Hamburg, have been among the few examinations of languages in the soundscape yet. This chapter will extend the notion of schoolscape to include the soundscape as well. The Case ofCo-located Schools inFinland1 Finland is officially a bilingual country. Countries with more official languages typically have educational systems based on separation by the language of instruction (see Gorter & Cenoz, 2017). In the case of Finland there is a Finnish medium and a Swedish medium educational system, and Finnish-medium and Swedishmedium institutions typically have separate campuses. This might be the only way 1 Our ongoing research on co-located schools has been carried out in co-operation with Kati Kajander, Tuuli From, Fritjof Sahlström, Riikka Alanen and Hannele Dufva. We are grateful fortheir input tothis chapter. 6 Material Change: TheCase ofCo-located Schools 98 to provide equal opportunities for education for all speakers of the official languages and to shelter the lesser used national language, Swedish, from language shift to the language spoken by a numerical majority of inhabitants, Finnish. However, as a result of local economic exigency in Finland, there are a growing number of cases– approximately 40 to date (2020)– in which two autonomously administered schools with different languages of instruction have been co-located in a shared physical space (see From, 2020.) These schools have varying degrees of shared infrastructure and interaction, though mostly not with the intent of advancing pedagogical change or multilingualism in Finnish school environments (see Helakorpi et al., 2013; From, 2020). According to the Finnish regulations, a school can have only one language of instruction (and administration), and thus these co-located schools retain their institutional autonomy and they cannot formally merge due to the different languages of instruction (see From, 2020). Co-operation between the schools is not forbidden, and most often the co-located schools have begun to co-operate to a varying degree. For our research, co-located schools serve as accidental laboratories to examine the transformative potential of multilingual learning environments. Unlike bilingual programs, with parallel language policies and select pupil groups, co-located schools are non-choice and generated from economic concerns, making the use of educational spaces more efficient, which has been another justification behind the current trend of building open learning spaces in Finland (see Luminen etal., 2018). Lack ofPolicy andCo-located Schools According to the HS article we cited in the beginning of this chapter, there is “no law, official recommendation or a national political decision” behind the trend of building open learning environments in Finland. According to the journalist (Konttinen, 2020), in practice, architectural instructions, regulations and recommendations (cf. Luminen et al., 2018) have standardised open space schools in Finland. In the case of co-located schools there is no national policy either. Even though the phenomenon is quite widespread (ca. 40 shared campuses), the category of co-located schools has not been included in any policy documents. For example, Pyykkö (2017) in her comprehensive overview of the situation of multilingualism in Finland, does not mention co-located schools at all. There is no relevant pedagogical design in the Finnish National Curriculum either that could be connected to the tendency of co-locating schools. The only policy traceable behind the trend is the efficient and economical use of public-school space. Even though no national policy or recommendations on co-located schools can be found, there have been political discussions, mainly among the Swedish speaking public and political circles in Finland. The debates on co-located schools have focused on questions of space (i.e. the issue of a sheltered svenska rum [Swedish space] for Swedish language) rather than pedagogical programs or curriculum. There have been certain concerns about maintaining the autonomy of Swedish P. Laihonen and T. P. Szabó 99 medium education in Finland and on the feared negative effects the sharing of premises might have on the language development of the Swedish speaking pupils (see From, 2020). However, the discussions have reached a conclusion that the effects of co-locating depend heavily on local conditions, and thus the decision should be left to the municipal level (see Slotte-Lüttge etal., 2013). Local educational policy, even though covert, resonates with Pennycook’s criticisms of universalism (2018, p.36). In other words, a national one size fits all policy most often fails to do justice to diversity and the local cultural and material relations. Insights fromanInvestigation ofaCo-located High School Campus The empirical part of this chapter is based on the project Multilingual school– multilingual learning environment (see Szabó etal., 2018). We have been cooperating with two co-located high schools since their moving together in 2013. To generate data, we have initiated specific activities such as teacherand studentled walking tours (see Szabó, 2015, Szabó & Troyer, 2017) on campus, and a video recording session with students with the goal of presenting the co-located character of their schools to external audiences. We have been partners in the self-reflection process of the school communities to foster the renewal of their organizational practices. Both schools are located in a town with a Swedish speaking majority population in Western Finland. In 2013, the Finnish-medium general upper secondary school (in Finnish: lukio) moved to the building of the Swedish-medium general upper secondary school (in Swedish: gymnasium). Lukio’s buildings had poor indoor air quality and the town leadership considered moving the two schools together as the most cost-effective solution. The process of moving together took place on a tight schedule, the planning focused on infrastructure, facilities and spaces, and, according to our research participants, there was no plan on pedagogical co-operation (see Szabó etal., 2018). Changes intheLinguistic Landscape andSoundscape In our example, a Finnish medium high school (lukio hereafter) had moved into the Swedish medium high school’s (gymnasium hereafter) premises. However, as mentioned above, no pedagogical or administrative merger of the two schools took place. Instead, they remained two autonomous schools with different languages of instruction and administration. The merger was material, but some spaces remained separated. Most importantly, the staff’s premises were constructed separately. The distance between them was also considerable: the teachers’ lounge and offices for the gymnasium remained on the top floor and the new teachers’ lounge for lukio was constructed on the bottom floor. Also, the signs for the two teachers’ lounges and 6 Material Change: TheCase ofCo-located Schools 100 Fig. 6.1 Keep the door closed! in Finnish (top) and Swedish (bottom). (Photograph by Tamás Péter Szabó) different offices have remained monolingual, Swedish only for gymnasium and Finnish only for lukio. According to From’s (2020, p.8) analysis of a similar case, the organisation of separate teachers’ lounges enables the maintenance of separate social spaces and thus separate communities. The co-located schools sometimes have separate classrooms as well (see Helakorpi etal., 2013; From, 2020, p.6) for both schools, but this was not the case here. The schools shared most classrooms and all the larger spaces, such as the canteen and the gym. The signs in these locations were most often in Swedish, but also bilingual signs had begun to appear. The sign on Fig.6.1 has Finnish above Swedish. It appeared at the door of a storage room, mainly used by the Finnish medium school, since it was attached to an arts classroom used by a lukio teacher. Since the Finnish medium high-school moved into the building of a Swedish medium high-school this sign was most likely placed by lukio in the shared space. In this manner, the Finnish medium lukio, smaller also in size, indicates attunement in (re)construction of the schoolscape through the inclusion of Swedish in their signage. The movement towards bilingual schoolscape in such top-down regulatory signs indicates a change from separate spaces to a shared social space. On other occasions, signs in Finnish have appeared next to Swedish, which could be interpreted as symbolic occupation of a space. The two posters in Fig.6.2 can be found side by side in the school canteen. The posters are a part of Vilkas campaign by two major Finnish food companies promoting Finnish food products in canteens. Thus the images display vegetables and berries grown in Finland. They have a similar text in Swedish and Finnish (Eat well, every day in Swedish and You can always eat well in Finnish). The images display slightly different meals, typically lunch and breakfast. This kind of doubling of P. Laihonen and T. P. Szabó 107 In 2016, after several years have passed since the co-locating, teachers’ views have changed and the fears and presumptions about the change had turned to acceptance and among some to a curiosity and openness towards cooperation across the language border. Now, also some shared staff meetings have been organized to coordinate co-operation, creating a regular meeting place for teachers as well. Mainly the principals have become to stress the discourse of having two schools in the same building as a resource for both schools. In an interview in 2016, one of them concluded: and really it’s because we now had time for pedagogical planning. We can now plan together. and you know teaching and, let’s say, use shared resources. In both sides teachers have really good qualities which you notice, if you keep your eyes open so ((laughs)), so it’s worth taking the whole building into use picking the good sides of what there is. In this manner, the principal is seeing the larger diversity of teachers as a pedagogical asset. The principal also suggests “taking the whole building into use”, which can be interpreted as a maximal sharing of the material environment, instead of maintaining separate spaces. That is, resources and agency are understood as both human and material (cf. Pennycook, 2018, p.141). Conclusions Our analysis of a co-located campus as collection of “local language practices and assemblages” and “the ways in which people, politics, place, economics, policy and things come together” (Pennycook, 2018, p.142), indicates that a change in the material learning environment may promote linguistic diversity in education in a more forceful manner than structured, curriculum-based forms of designed multilingualism. The new, more vibrant and diverse semiotic assemblage of a co-located Swedish and Finnish medium high school analyzed in this chapter was in general becoming more multilingual and flexible. The schoolscape contained bilingual top-down signs, indicating that some spaces, such as the canteen or the student café, were actively shared by two institutions with different languages of instruction. Topdown signs and teachers’ language ideologies indicated a slow, gradual and cautious transformation, from the monolingual habitus and practices in the schoolscape as well as communicative practices and traditional educational language ideologies, towards an acceptance of bilingualism and opening up of spaces for community level bilingual activities (Pennycook, 2018, p.130). According to the teacher interviews, bilingualism did not include the professional level. On a professional level, the traditional idea (see Gorter & Cenoz, 2017) of the monolingual role model of a teacher as mentioned in the Finnish National Core Curriculum (2014, p. 154), holds sway. 6 Material Change: TheCase ofCo-located Schools 108 Bottom-up signs in a space controlled by students display fluid linguistic diversity, in other words, translanguaging practices. One token of transformation of spaces and typically normative objects to ‘common’ use (Pennycook, 2018, p.139) can be seen in the emerging translanguaging practices documented on the blackboard of the Calmer (see Fig.6.3), where no central authority appears to control the language practices (Pennycook, 2018, p.139). The student interviews in turn convinced us that the monolingual habitus in education can change already through a new multilingual soundscape, where the school community hears many languages every day. The shared, regular meeting places, such as the student café, were designed and transformed by the students and the material objects (e.g. furniture) and actions (e.g. buying coffee), where language as communication or as competences were argued to play a marginal role. This indicates that linguistic diversity is by no means conceptualized as a problem for the students unlike it was by the teachers in interviews. The semiotic assemblages of bottom-up meeting places were not designed according to the language of instruction (such as classrooms) or separated ownership and location according to the institution (such as teachers lounges). Thus, they appeared to be more open to ‘occupation’ (Pennycook, 2018, p.141) of the resources offered by the space and material objects there. This resulted in undermining the monolingual habitus of the national core curriculum and teacher profession, both defined by traditional norms of language use in education. Acknowledgements Laihonen’s work on this chapter has been supported by Academy of Finland grant nr. 299133. References Backhaus, P. (2016). Attention, please! A linguistic soundscape/landscape analysis of ELF information provision in public transport in Tokyo. In K.Murata (Ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts: Conceptualization, research and pedagogic implications (pp.194–209). Routledge. Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2018). Materialities and mobilities in education. Routledge. Brown, K. (2012). The linguistic landscape of educational spaces. In D.Gorter, H.Marten, & L.Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority languages in the linguistic landscape (pp.281–298). Palgrave. Brown, K. (2018). Shifts and stability in schoolscapes: Diachronic considerations of southeastern Estonian schools. Linguistics and Education, 44, 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. linged.2017.10.007 Chiles, P., & Care, L. (2015). Building schools: Key issues for contemporary design. Birkhäuser. From, T. (2020). ‘We are two languages here.’ The operation of language policies through spatial ideologies and practices in a co-located and a bilingual school. Multilingua, 39(6), 663–684. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi20190008 Gogolin, I. (1997). The “monolingual habitus” as the common feature in teaching in the language of the majority in different countries. Per Linguam, 13(2), 38–49. https://doi. org/10.5785/132187 Gorter, D., & Cenoz, J. (2017). Language education policy and multilingual assessment. Language and Education, 31(3), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2016.1261892 P. Laihonen and T. P. Szabó 109 Helakorpi, J., Ahlbom, I., From, T., Pörn, M., Sahlström, F., & Slotte-Lüttge, A. (2013). Särbo, sambo, kämppis: rektorers och lärares erfarenheter av kontakt och samarbete mellan samlokaliserade finskoch svenskspråkiga skolor. http://blogs.helsinki.fi/sprakmoten/files/2013/10/ Erillään_Särbo2013.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2020. Heller, M. (2006). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography. Continuum. Jakonen, T., Szabó, T.P., & Laihonen, P. (2018). Translanguaging as playful subversion of a monolingual norm in the classroom. In G.Mazzaferro (Ed.), Translanguaging as everyday practice (Multilingual Education) (pp.31–48). Springer. Kajander, K., Alanen, R., Dufva, H., & Kotkavuori, E. (2015). Kielimuureja vai yhteiseloa: odotuksia ja kokemuksia kahden kielen koulusta [Language walls or coexistence: expectations and experiences from bilingual schools]. In T.Jakonen, J.Jalkanen, T.Paakkinen, & M.Suni (Eds.), Kielen oppimisen virtauksia. Flows of language learning (AFinLA yearbook) (Vol. 73, pp.142–158). Suomen soveltavan kielitieteen yhdistys. Konttinen, J. (2020, January 27). Ei luokkia, ei seiniä: Koulut ovat nyt “avoimia oppimisympäristöjä”. Kuka niin päätti ja miksi? [No classrooms, no walls: Schools are now “open learning environments”. Who decided so and why?] (In Finnish) Helsingin Sanomat. Available at: https://www.hs.fi/sunnuntai/art-2000006383807.html Laihonen, P., & Szabó, T.P. (2018). Studying the visual and material dimensions of education and learning. Linguistics and Education, 44, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.10.003 Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039 Lin, A. (2013). Toward paradigmatic change in TESOL methodologies: Building plurilingual pedagogies from the ground up. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 521–545. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tesq.113 Luminen, H., Rimpelä, M., & Tarvainen, E. (2018). CookBook 2.0 EN. Finnish Education Group. Mäkelä, T., Helfenstein, S., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Poikkeus, A.-M. (2018). Student participation in learning environment improvement: Analysis of a co-design project in a Finnish upper secondary school. Learning Environments Research, 21, 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s1098401792420 Meinander, H. (2016). Språkfrågan, Finlandssvenskhetens uppkomst 1812–1922. Svenska Litteratursällskapet. Menken, K., Pérez Rosario, V., Alejandro, L., & Valerio, G. (2018). Increasing multilingualism in schoolscapes: New scenery and language education policies. Linguistic Landscape, 4(2), 101–127. https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.17024.men NCC. (2014). National core curriculum for basic education 2014 (English translation). Finnish National Board of Education. 2016. Pappenhagen, R., Scarvaglieri, C., & Redder, A. (2016). Expanding the linguistic landscape scenery? Action theory and ‘linguistic soundscaping’. In R. Blackwood, E. Lanza, & H. Woldemariam (Eds.), Negotiating and contesting identities in linguistic landscapes (pp.147–162). Bloomsbury. Pennycook, A. (2018). Posthumanist applied linguistics. Routledge. Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice. Oxford University Press. Pyykkö, R. (2017). Monikielisyys vahvuudeksi. Selvitys Suomen kielivarannon tilasta ja tasosta. Opetusja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2017:51 [Making multilingualism a strength. A report on the current state of Finland’s national language reserve. Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2017:51] (in Finnish). http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:9789522635358. Accessed 28 July 2020. Scarvaglieri, C., Redder, A., Pappenhagen, R., & Brehmer, B. (2013). Capturing diversity: Linguistic landand soundscaping in urban areas. In J.Duarte & I.Gogolin (Eds.), Linguistic superdiversity in urban areas (pp.45–73). Benjamins. Slotte-Lüttge, A., From, T., & Sahlström, F. (2013). Tvåspråkiga skolor och lärande– en debattanalys. In L.Tainio & H.Harju-Luukkainen (Eds.), Kaksikielinen koulu –tulevaisuuden monikielinen Suomi. Tvåspråkig skola -ett flerspråkigt Finland i framtiden (pp.221–244). Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. 6 Material Change: TheCase ofCo-located Schools 110 Szabó, T. P. (2015). The management of diversity in schoolscapes: An analysis of Hungarian practices. Apples Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9(1), 23–51. https://doi.org/10.17011/ apples/2015090102 Szabó, T.P., & Troyer, R. (2017). Inclusive ethnographies: Beyond the binaries of observer and observed in linguistic landscape studies. Linguistic Landscape, 3(3), 306–326. https://doi. org/10.1075/ll.17008.sza Szabó, T.P., Kajander, K., Alanen, R., & Laihonen, P. (2018). Zusammenarbeit über Sprachgrenzen hinweg: Sprachauffassungen von Lehrern in örtlich zusammengelegten Schulen mit Schwedisch und Finnisch als Unterrichtssprachen. Der Deutschunterricht, 70(4), 53–59. Petteri Laihonen, PhD, serves as Senior Researcher at the Centre for Applied Language Studies. Laihonen’s research deals with language ideologies and educational language policy in multilingual contexts. It develops sociolinguistic theory and extends research to Eastern Europe, and has societal impact on the life of research participants and investigated communities and institutions. Most recently, Laihonen has been developing extreme citizen science methods to study multilingualism in schools. Tamás Péter Szabó, PhD, serves as Senior Lecturer of Multilingualism and the Internationalizatoin of Teacher Education in the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. He has researched multilingual linguistic landscapes of education. He has led educational development project teams on creative education and translanguaging, as well as the FORTHEM Lab Multilingualism in School and Higher Education. Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. P. Laihonen and T. P. Szabó