Advertisement

Learning Environments Research

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 301–320 | Cite as

Perceived interplay between flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing

  • Katharina E. KariippanonEmail author
  • Dylan P. Cliff
  • Sarah L. Lancaster
  • Anthony D. Okely
  • Anne-Maree Parrish
Original Paper

Abstract

In recognition of the evolving learning needs of twenty-first century school students, changes to teaching practices and the incorporation of technology are increasingly accompanied by modifications to the built classroom environment. Typically rows of desk and chairs are replaced with a range of furniture that can be configured in various ways to facilitate teaching and learning. This article explores the perceived relationship between these flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and wellbeing outcomes. The perceptions and experiences of 12 school principals, 35 teachers and 85 students from four primary and four secondary schools in Australia were examined. Flexible learning spaces were reported to facilitate student-centred pedagogy and selfregulation, collaboration, and student autonomy and engagement. Modified spaces were reportedly more enjoyable, comfortable and inclusive and allowed greater interaction. The findings are discussed in light of Beaton’s five key design principles of student-centred learning environments to explore the connection between the physical classroom environment and teaching and learning. Self-Determination Theory is used to interpret how elements of the physical space facilitate the creation of a social environment that encourages greater motivation to learn and increases student wellbeing. The research contributes to an understanding of how flexible learning spaces are used and with what effect, thereby addressing a present gap in the literature.

Keywords

Autonomy Collaboration Engagement Learning environment Physical environment Student-centred Wellbeing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the Futures Learning Unit of the NSW Department of Education and Training, especially Kathleen Donohoe and Robert Fraser, for their support and funding. We also thank the participating schools, principals, teachers and students who shared their views with us. This research was conducted with the support of an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

References

  1. Aminian, S., Hinckson, E. A., & Stewart, T. (2015). Modifying the classroom environment to increase standing and reduce sitting. Building Research and Information, 43(5), 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Awartani, M., Whitman, C., & Gordon, J. (2008). Developing instruments to capture young people’s perceptions of how school as a learning environment affects their well-being. European Journal of Education, 43(1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baeten, M., Dochy, F., Struyven, K., Parmentier, E., & Vanderbruggen, A. (2016). Student-centred learning environments: An investigation into student teachers’ instructional preferences and approaches to learning. Learning Environments Research, 19, 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, P., Dvies, F., Zhang, Y., & Barrett, L. (2015). The impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. Building and Environment, 89, 118–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benware, C. A., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes. Victoria: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.Google Scholar
  7. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byers, T., et al. (2014). Making the case for space: The effect of learning spaces on teaching and learning. Curriculum and Teaching, 29(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carson, V., Cliff, D. P., Janssen, X., & Okely, A. D. (2013). Longitudinal levels and bouts of sedentary time among adolescent girls. BMC Pediatrics, 13(173), 1–6.Google Scholar
  12. Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE). (2015). Student wellbeing: Literature review. Sydney, NSW: NSW Government, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Chandra, V., & Mills, K. A. (2015). Transforming the core business of teaching and learning in classrooms through ICT. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cleveland, B. (2016). Addressing the spatial to catalyse socio-pedagogical reform in middle years education. In K. Fisher (Ed.), The translational design of schools: An evidence-based approach to aligning pedagogy and learning environments (pp. 27–50). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  18. Fisher, K. D. (2005). Linking pedagogy and space. http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/knowledgebank/pdfs/linking_pedagogy_and_space.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2017.
  19. Fisher, K. D. (2010). Technology-enabled active learning environments: An appraisal. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, K. (2016). The translational design of schools: An evidence-based approach to aligning pedagogy and learning environments. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Colville: Optimal Books.Google Scholar
  22. Gislason, N. (2009). Mapping school design: A qualitative study of the relations among facilities design, curriculum delivery, and school climate. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(4), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA). (2017). Green schools. Green Building Council of Australia. https://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/221/3293/Green%20Schools_Lowres.pdf. Accessed 14 September 2017.
  24. Harrington, D. M., Dowd, K. P., Bourke, A. K., & Donnelly, A. E. (2011). Cross-sectional analysis of levels and patterns of objectively measured sedentary time in adolescent females. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8, 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. Newcastle: Centre for Learning and Teaching School of Education, Communication and Language Science, University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
  27. Imms, W., Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2016). Pursuing that elusive evidence about what works in learning environment design. In W. Imms, B. Cleveland, & K. Fisher (Eds.), Evaluating learning environments: Snapshots of emerging issues, methods and knowledge (pp. 3–18). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2015). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO LLC.Google Scholar
  30. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Niemiec, C., & Ryan, R. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144.Google Scholar
  32. NSW Government, Department of Education. (2015). First look at NSW classrooms of the future. Media Release. http://www.dec.nsw.gov.au/about-us/news-at-det/media-releases1/first-look-at-nsw-classrooms-of-the-future.
  33. NSW Government, Department of Education. Futures Learning Unit. (2016). Learning space. https://education.nsw.gov.au/futures-learning/learning-space.
  34. Owen, N., Salmon, J., Koohsari, M. J., Turrel, G., & Giles-Corti, B. (2014). Sedentary behaviour and health: Mapping environmental and social contexts to underpin chronic disease prevention. British Journal of Sports Medecine, 48, 174–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Prain, V., Cox, P., Deed, C., Dorman, J., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., et al. (2013). Personalised learning: Lessons to be learnt. British Educational Research Journal, 39, 654–676.Google Scholar
  37. Prain, V., Cox, P., Deed, C., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., Keeffe, M., et al. (2015). Characterising personalised learning. In V. Prain et al. (Eds.), Personalising learning in open-plan schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ritchie, J. L., Lewis, J., McNaughton Nicholls, C., & Ormston, R. (2014). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Rose-Munero, L. (2016). Evaluating learning environments for the inclusion of students with hearing difficulties. In W. Imms, B. Cleveland, & K. Fisher (Eds.), Evaluating learning environments: Snapshots of emerging issues, methods and knowledge (pp. 131–144). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ryan, R., & Deci, L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stern, N., & Etheridge, R. (2008). Flexible learning spaces: The integration of pedagogy, physical design, and instructional technology. Marketing Education Review, 18(1), 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2010). Teach as you preach: The effects of student-centred versus lecture-based teaching on student teachers’ approaches to teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  45. Ucci, M., Law, S., Andrews, R., Fisher, A., Smith, L., Sawyer, A., et al. (2015). Indoor school environments, physical activity, sitting behaviour and pedagogy: A scoping review. Building Research and Information, 43(5), 566–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wingrat, K., & Exner, C. (2005). The impact of school furniture on fourth grade children’s on-task and sitting behaviour in the classroom: A pilot study. Work, 25(3), 263–272.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katharina E. Kariippanon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dylan P. Cliff
    • 2
  • Sarah L. Lancaster
    • 1
  • Anthony D. Okely
    • 2
  • Anne-Maree Parrish
    • 1
  1. 1.Early Start, School of Health and Society, Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  2. 2.Early Start, School of Education, Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations