Abstract
The present study shows how the mixed-methods approach can be used in capturing and organising learning environment (LE) characteristics for the participatory design of psychosocial and physical LEs involving learners. Theoretical constructs were tested and further elaborated on in the analysis of two similar educational design research studies: one conducted with 7- to 14-year-old learners in Finland (n = 80); and the other in Spain (n = 76). Cross-analysis of the numeric, visuospatial and verbal data collected, combined with theoretical and practical considerations, was used to develop a conceptual framework for LE co-design, which draws attention to the importance of balancing communality with individuality, comfort with health, and novelty with conventionality. In line with other studies, in this conceptualisation, flexibility and functionality are seen as central enablers for quality twenty-first century LEs. The knowledge exchange between two countries and the constructs developed in this cross-cultural analysis contribute to the creation of shared content-related design principles for future learning environments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aldridge, J., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). A cross-cultural study of classroom learning environments in Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments Research, 3, 101–134.
Awartani, M., Whitman, C. V., & Jean Gordon, J. (2008). Developing instruments to capture young people’s perceptions of how school as a learning environment affects of their well-being. European Journal of Education, 43(1), 51–70.
Bagot, K. L. (2004). Perceived restorative components: A scale for children. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(1), 120–140.
Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J., & Kobbacy, K. (2013). A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, 59, 678–689.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17, 1–28.
Crespo, J., & Pino, M. (2007). Description of environmental factors in schools: Lessons from a study in North-west Spain. Review of Education, 53, 205–218.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1907). The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education, (Electronic version by the University of Virginia American Studies Program 2003). Available from http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper2/Dewey/TOC.html. Retrieved 30 May 2015
Elen, J., Clarebout, G., Léonard, R., & Lowyck, J. (2007). Student-centered and teacher-centered learning environments: What students think. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 105–117.
Engeström, Y. (2009). From learning environments and implementation to activity systems and expansive learning. An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 17–33.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33.
Gee, L. (2006). Human-centered design guidelines. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 128-140). Educause. (www.educause.edu)
Ghaziani, R. (2010). School design: Researching children’s views. Childhoods Today, 4(1), 1–27.
Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environments Research, 13, 127–145.
Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. Newcastle: The Centre for Learning and Teaching. School of Education, Communication and Language Science, University of Newcastle.
Horne Martin, S. (2002). The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of teachers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 139–156.
Kangas, M. (2010). Finnish children’s views on the ideal school and learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 13, 205–223.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
Kostenius, C. (2011). Picture this—our dream school! Swedish schoolchildren sharing their visions of School. Childhood, 18(4), 509–525.
Kuuskorpi, M., & Cabellos, N. (2011). The future of the physical learning environment: School facilities that support the user (CELE Exchange, Centre for Effective Learning Environments, 2011/11). Paris: OECD Publishing.
Linnankylä, P., & Malin, A. (2008). Finnish students’ school engagement in the light of PISA 2003. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 583–602.
Liu, C. J., Zandvliet, D. B., & Hou, L.-L. (2012). The learning environment associated with information technology education in Taiwan: Combining psychosocial and physical aspects. Learning Environments Research, 15, 379–402.
Mäkelä, T., Kankaanranta, M., & Helfenstein, S. (2014). Considering learners’ perceptions in designing effective 21st century learning environments for basic education in Finland. The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership, 20(3), 1–13.
Marchand, G. C., Nardi, N. M., Reynolds, D., & Pamoukov, S. (2014). The impact of the classroom built environment on student perceptions and learning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 187–197.
Papatheodorou, T. (2002). How we like our school to be… Pupils’ voices. European Educational Research Journal, 1, 445–467.
Pieters, J. M. (2004). Designing artefacts for inquiry and collaboration when the learner takes the lead. European Educational Research Journal, 3(1), 77–100.
Piispanen, M. (2008). Good learning environment: Perceptions of good quality in comprehensive school by pupils, parents and teachers. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Plomp, T. (2007). Education design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 9–35). Enschede: SLO.
Sanoff, H., Pasalar, C., & Hashas, M. (2001). School building assessment methods. Raleigh, NC: School of Architecture, College of Design, North Carolina State University.
Scardamalia, M., Bransford, J., Kozma, B., & Quellmalz, E. E. (2012). New assessment and environments for knowledge building. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 231–300). Dordrecht: Springer.
Schrittesser, I., Gerhartz-Reiter, S., & Paseka, A. (2014). Innovative learning environments: About traditional and new patterns of learning. European Educational Research Journal, 13(2), 143–154.
Staffans, A., Teräväinen, H., Meskanen, S., & Mäkitalo, A. (2008, April). Collaborative planning and design and students’ epistemic agency. In Paper presented at Architectural Inquiries conference, Göteborg, Sweden.
Sulonen, J., & Sulonen, K. (2014). The grammar of a modern school building: A comparative study on schools and the changing ways of learning. In M. Kuuskorpi (Ed.), Perspectives from Finland—Towards new learning environments. Tampere: Finnish National Board of Education.
UNESCO. (2012). A place to learn: Lessons from research on learning environments (Technical paper No. 9). Montreal: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Institute for Statistics.
van den Akker, J. (2007). Curriculum design research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), An introduction to educational design research (pp. 37–50). Enschede: SLO.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, M.-T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 633–662.
Wolff, S. J. (2002). Design features for project-based learning. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
Woolner, P., Clark, J., Hall, E., Tiplady, L., Thomas, U., & Wall, K. (2010). Pictures are necessary but not sufficient: Using a range of visual methods to engage users about school design. Learning Environments Research, 10, 1–22.
Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Physical and psychosocial environments associated with networked classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 8, 1–17.
Acknowledgments
The study was funded by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes) through the Indoor Environment Program (2011–2015) and the Finnish Cultural Foundation’s Central Finland Regional Fund. We are especially grateful to the teachers and young co-designers at the participant schools, as well as to various researchers, research assistants and other colleagues who contributed to this study and/or to the development of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Material package for the learning environment design workshops
Appendix: Material package for the learning environment design workshops
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mäkelä, T., Helfenstein, S. Developing a conceptual framework for participatory design of psychosocial and physical learning environments. Learning Environ Res 19, 411–440 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-016-9214-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-016-9214-9