Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Movement and engagement in flexible, technology-enhanced classrooms: investigating cognitive and emotional engagement from the faculty perspective

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Learning Environments Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main objective of the study was to understand specific ways in which a flexible, technology-enhanced space can create opportunities for student engagement. Despite a few studies that address classroom elements such as furniture, researchers argue for more-holistic attention to the materials of learning environments to better support the activities in which students engage. To address this gap, we designed this qualitative case study of the role of the physical structure of flexible classrooms on college students’ engagement. Findings from the analysis of the data can be classified into three areas: (a) flexible room layout and movable furniture enabled participants to create settings that could support students’ group interactions; (b) flexible room layout and movable tools enabled people to move around to enhance student–to–student and teacher–to–student interaction; and (c) through the movement of furniture and tools and movement of people, participants were able to easily transition between different activities. The easy movement of tools and furniture widens the range of available classroom configurations to optimize engagement opportunities. Similarly, the flexibility of the classroom allows for the relatively easy movement of people. Our data suggest that such flexibility can facilitate interaction and engagement among students and instructors to create opportunities to promote both cognitive and emotional engagement. Findings underscore the critical role of space, furniture, and tools in the creation of learning environments that support student engagement in higher-education settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, S. (2006). First questions for designing higher education learning spaces. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(1), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 141–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. https://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30036968/blackmore-researchinto-2011.pdf

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learningenvironments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. (pp. 475–488). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 719–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D. C. (2012). Space and consequences: The impact of different formal learning spaces on instructor and student behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2). http://www.partnershipsjournal.org/index.php/jls/article/viewArticle/285.

  • Bunnell, A., Hensley, E., Williams, R., Carpenter, R., Strong, K., & Winter, R. (2016). Mapping the hot spots: A zoning approach to space analysis and design. Journal of Learning Spaces, 5(1), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2014). Making the case for space: The effect of learning spaces on teaching and learning. Curriculum and Teaching, 29(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/29.1.02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, T., Mahat, M., Liu, K., Knock, A., & Imms, W. (2018). Systematic review of the effects of learning environments on student learning outcomes. University of Melbourne, LEaRN. http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/reports

  • Chandler, W. L. (2009). A teacher space or a learner place: Reconsidering the classroom environment. International Journal of Learning, 16(9), 261–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructinggroundedtheory. (2nd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, B. W. (2009). Engaging spaces: An investigation into middle school educational opportunities provided by innovative built environments: A new approach to understanding the relationship between learning and space. International Journal of Learning, 16(5), 385–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-013-9149-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, B., & Soccio, P. (2015). Evaluating the pedagogical effectiveness of learning spaces. In: Living and learning: Proceedings of the 49th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association, pp. 507–516.

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2018). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developinggroundedtheory. (3rd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J. L., Sherin, M. G., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903452884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhita, M., Lohman, B. J., Matjasko, J. L., & Farb, A. F. (2012). Engagementacrossdevelopmentalperiods. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. (pp. 45–63). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2016). Models of learning space: Integrating research on space, place and learning in higher education. Review of Education, 4(2), 149–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (2007). Ways of seeing video: Towards a phenomenology of viewing minimally edited footage. In R. Goldman, R. D. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Videoresearchinthelearningsciences. (pp. 145–155). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. (pp. 97–131). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEARNINSTRUC.2016.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). Theinterpretationofcultures. . Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhagen, S. W. (2017). Welcome to your world:How the built environment shapes our lives. . HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harbour, K. E., Evanovich, L. L., Sweigart, C. A., & Hughes, L. E. (2015). A brief review of effective teaching practices that maximize student engagement. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jankowska, M., & Atlay, M. (2008). Use of creative space in enhancing students’ engagement. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290802176162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction, 43, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEARNINSTRUC.2016.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao, H. S. (1976). On educational ergonomics. Ergonomics, 19(6), 667–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layder, D. (2013). Doing excellent small-scale research. . Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, N., & Tan, S. (2011). A comprehensive learning space evaluation model. Australian Teaching and Learning Council.

  • Liem, G. A. D., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Peer relationships and adolescents’ academic and non-academic outcomes: Same-sex and opposite-sex peer effects and the mediating role of school engagement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02013.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. . Jossey-Bassm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space & built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmann, F. M. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. . Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oblinger, D. (2005). Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces. Educause Quarterly, 28(1), 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearshouse, I., Bligh, B., Brown, E., Lewthwaite, S., Graber, R., Hartnell-Young, E., et al. (2009). A study of effective models and practices for technology supported physical learning spaces (JELS). . JISC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietarinen, J., Soini, T., & Pyhältö, K. (2014). Students’ emotional and cognitive engagement as the determinants of well-being and achievement in school. International Journal of Educational Research, 67, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 185–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (2014). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives andpracticalapproaches for diverse populations. . Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Radcliffe, D. (2008). A pedagogy-space-technology (PST) framework for designing and evaluating learningplaces. In D. Radcliffe, W. Wilson, D. Powell, & B. Tibbetts (Eds.), Learning spaces in highereducation:Positiveoutcomesbydesign. The University of Queensland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay, C. M., Guo, X., & Pursel, B. K. (2017). Leveraging faculty reflective practice to understand active learning spaces: Flashbacks and re-captures. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 42–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rands, M. L., & Gansemer-Topf, A. M. (2017). The room itself is active: How classroom design impacts student engagement. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(1), 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, C., & Mishra, P. (2018). Learning environments that support student creativity: Developing the SCALE. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rook, M. M., Choi, K., & McDonald, S. P. (2015). Learning theory expertise in the design of learning spaces: Who needs a seat at the table? Journal of Learning Spaces, 4(1), 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T. J. (2007). The ergonomics of learning: Educational design and learning performance. Ergonomics, 50(10), 1530–1546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. D., Brooks, D. C., & Baepler, P. (2011). Pedagogy and space: Empirical research on new learning environments. Educause Quarterly, 34(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C., Pintrich, P. R., & Karabenick, S. A. (2005). Assessing academic self-regulated learning. In K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development. (pp. 251–270). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. A., & Taylor, D. J. (2012). A self-regulated learning perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. (pp. 635–651). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Casestudyresearch:designandmethods. (4th ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: 10 proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, C.-M., & Kuh, G. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:rihe.0000015692.88534.de.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Saliha Ozkan Bekiroglu

  2. Teaching and Learning With Technology Department, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Crystal M. Ramsay & Jenay Robert

Authors
  1. Saliha Ozkan Bekiroglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Crystal M. Ramsay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jenay Robert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saliha Ozkan Bekiroglu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ozkan Bekiroglu, S., Ramsay, C.M. & Robert, J. Movement and engagement in flexible, technology-enhanced classrooms: investigating cognitive and emotional engagement from the faculty perspective. Learning Environ Res 25, 359–377 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09363-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09363-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation