Flexible learning spaces facilitate interaction, collaboration and behavioural engagement in secondary school

Autoři: Katharina E. Kariippanon aff001;  Dylan P. Cliff aff002;  Sarah J. Lancaster aff001;  Anthony D. Okely aff002;  Anne-Maree Parrish aff001
Působiště autorů: Early Start, School of Health and Society, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia aff001;  Early Start, School of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia aff002;  Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223607


Globally, many schools are replacing traditional classrooms with innovative flexible learning spaces to improve academic outcomes. Little is known about the effect on classroom behaviour. Students from nine secondary schools (n = 60, M age = 13.2±1.0y) were observed via momentary time sampling for a 30 minute period, in both a traditionally furnished and arranged classroom and a flexible learning space containing a variety of furniture options to accommodate different pedagogical approaches and learning styles. The teaching approaches in both conditions were documented. In traditional classrooms the approach was predominantly teacher-led and in the flexible learning space it was student-centred. Students in flexible learning spaces spent significantly more time in large group settings (d = 0.61, p = 0.001), collaborating (d = 1.33, p = 0.001), interacting with peers (d = 0.88, p = 0.001) and actively engaged (d = 0.50, p = 0.001) than students in traditional classrooms. Students also spent significantly less class time being taught in a whole class setting (d = -0.65, p = 0.001), engaged in teacher-led instruction (d = -0.75, p = 0.001), working individually (d = -0.79, p = 0.001), verbally off-task (d = -0.44, p = 0.016), and using technology (d = -0.26, p = 0.022) than in traditional classrooms. The results suggest that the varied, adaptable nature of flexible learning spaces coupled with the use of student-centred pedagogies, facilitated a higher proportion of class time interacting, collaborating and engaging with the lesson content. This may translate into beneficial learning outcomes in the long-term.

Klíčová slova:

Behavior – Education – Human learning – Learning – Schools – Teachers – Built environment – Pedagogy


1. Jonassen D., & Land S. Theoretical foundations of learning environments. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge; 2012.

2. Prain V., Cox P., Deed C., Edwards D., Farrelly C., Keeffe M. Characterising personalised learning. In: Prain V., editor. Personalising learning in open-plan schools. 2015.

3. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD Handbook for Innovative Learning Environments [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264277274-en

4. Kuhlthau C. Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century. In Center for International Scholarship in School Libraries (CISSL), Rutgers University, USA; 2015. p. 1–8.

5. Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Lancaster SL, Okely AD, Parrish AM. Perceived interplay between flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing. Learn Environ Res. 2018;21(3):301–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9254-9

6. NSW Department of Education. Future-focused learning and teaching [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/learning-for-the-future/future-focused-learning-and-teaching

7. Fisher K. Technology-enabled active learning environments: An appraisal. CELE Exch Cent Eff Learn Environ [Internet]. 2010;2010(6–10):1–8. Available from: https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=64138451&site=eds-live

8. Byers T, Imms W, Hartnell-Young E. Making the Case for Space: The Effect of Learning Spaces on Teaching and Learning. Curric Teach [Internet]. 2014;29(1):5–19. Available from: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.7459/ct/29.1.02

9. Cleveland B, Fisher K. The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literature. Learn Environ Res. 2014;17(1):1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-013-9149-3

10. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Education Policy Outlook 2015: Making Reforms Happen [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264225442-en

11. Fisher K. The translational design of schools: An evidence-based approach to aligning pedagogy and learning environments. Sense Publishing, Rotterdam; 2016.

12. Loughlin J. How photography as field notes helps in understanding the building the education revolution. Aust Educ Res 40 535 [Internet]. 2013; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0112-1

13. Veloso L, Marques J, Duarte A. Changing education through learning spaces: impacts of the Portuguese school buildings’ renovation programme. Cambridge J Educ [Internet]. 2014;44(3):401–23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.921280

14. Chandra V, Mills KA. Transforming the core business of teaching and learning in classrooms through ICT. Technol Pedagog Educ [Internet]. 2015;24(3):285–301. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.975737

15. Mulcahy D. Policy matters: de/re/territorialising spaces of learning in Victorian government schools. J Educ Policy [Internet]. 2016;31(1):81–97. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1099077

16. Ryan AM, Patrick H. The Classroom Social Environment and Changes in Adolescents’ Motivation and Engagement During Middle School. Am Educ Res J [Internet]. 2001;38(2):437–60. Available from: http://aer.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/00028312038002437

17. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Rev Educ Res [Internet]. 2004;74(1):59–109. Available from: http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/00346543074001059

18. Imms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T. & Murphy D. Technical Report: Type and Use of Innovative Learning Environments in Australasian Schools ILETC Survey 1 [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Nov 21]. Available from: http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/reports.

19. Blackmore J, Bateman D, Loughlin J, O’Mara J, Aranda G. Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes. 2011.

20. Byers T, Imms W, Hartnell-Young E. Comparative analysis of the impact of traditional versus innovative learning environment on student attitudes and learning outcomes. Stud Educ Eval [Internet]. 2018;58(July):167–77. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.07.003

21. Mulcahy D, Morrison C. Re/assembling ‘innovative’ learning environments: Affective practice and its politics. Educ Philos Theory [Internet]. 2017;49(8):749–58. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1278354

22. Sanoff H. School Building Assessment Methods. 2001.

23. Lackney J. Teacher environmental competence in elementary school environments. Child Youth Environ. 2008;18(2):133–59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.18.2.0133

24. Hillier B, Hanson J. The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.

25. Cleveland B. Addressing the spatial to catalyse socio-pedagogical reform in middle years education. In: Ken F, editor. The translational design of schools: An evidence-based approach to aligning pedagogy and learning environments. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.; 2016.

26. Neill S, Etheridge R. Flexible Learning Spaces: The Integration of Pedagogy, Physical Design, and Instructional Technology. Mark Educ Rev [Internet]. 2008;18(1):47–53. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10528008.2008.11489024

27. Gifford R. Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Colville: Colville: Optimal Books; 2002.

28. Brooks DC. Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. Br J Educ Technol. 2011;42(5):719–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01098.x

29. Sammons P., Taggart B., Sylva K., Melhuish E., Siraj-Blatchford I., Barreau S. et al. Variations in teacher and pupil behaviours in year 5 classes. 2006.

30. Volpe RJ, DiPerna JC, Hintze JM, Shapiro ES. Observing students in classroom settings: A review of seven coding schemes. School Psych Rev. 2005;34(4):454–74.

31. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis of the Behavioural Sciences. J C, editor. Academic Press, New York.; 1988.

32. MCEETYA. Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Education [Internet]. 2008;(December):20. Available from: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration_on_the_educational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf

33. Henry KL, Knight KE, Thornberry TP. School Disengagement as a Predictor of Dropout, Delinquency, and Problem Substance Use During Adolescence and Early Adulthood. J Youth Adolesc. 2012;41(2):156–66. doi: 10.1007/s10964-011-9665-3 21523389

34. Kearney CA. School absenteeism and school refusal behavior in youth: A contemporary review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2008;28(3):451–71. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.07.012 17720288

35. Conner JO, Pope DC. Not Just Robo-Students: Why Full Engagement Matters and How Schools Can Promote It. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42(9):1426–42. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9948-y 23592282

36. Wigfield A., Eccles J. S., Schiefele U., Roeser R., & Davis-Kean P. Development of achievement motivation. In: N DW& E, editor. Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3 Social, emotional, and personality development. 6th ed., p. New York: John Wiley.; 2006.

37. Fredricks J. A., McColskey W. The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In: Christenson SL. Reschly AWC, editor. Handbook of research on student engagement. 2012.

38. Fredricks JA, Filsecker M, Lawson MA. Student engagement, Context, And adjustment: Addressing definitional, Measurement, And methodological issues. Learn Instr. 2016;43:1–4.

39. Nguyen TD, Cannata M, Miller J. Understanding student behavioral engagement: Importance of student interaction with peers and teachers. J Educ Res [Internet]. 2018;111(2):163–74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1220359

40. Arbuckle C, Little E. Teachers’ perceptions and management of disruptive classroom behaviour during the middle years (years five to nine). Aust J Educ Dev Psychol. 2004;4:59–70.

41. Eccles J. S., Midgley C. Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In: Ames RA& C, editor. Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions. Vol 3. Academic Press, San Diego, CA:; 1989. p. 139–181.

42. Jones, RD, Marrazo, MJ, & Love C. Student engagement—creating a culture of academic achievement. 2008.

43. Davis M. H., McPartland JM. High school reform and student engagement. In: Christenson A. L. Reschly CW, editor. Handbook of research on student engagement. Boston, MA: Springer.; 2012. p. 515–539.

44. Cooper KS. Eliciting Engagement in the High School Classroom: A Mixed-Methods Examination of Teaching Practices. Am Educ Res J [Internet]. 2014;51(2):363–402. Available from: http://aer.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/0002831213507973

45. Wang M-T, Holcombe R. Adolescents’ Perceptions of School Environment, Engagement, and Academic Achievement in Middle School. Am Educ Res J [Internet]. 2010;47(3):633–62. Available from: http://aer.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/0002831209361209

46. Hattie J. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge, London; 2009.

47. Weinstein CS. The Physical Environment of the School: A Review of the Research. Rev Educ Res [Internet]. 1979;49(4):577–610. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00346543049004577

48. Jang H, Kim EJ, Reeve J. Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learn Instr [Internet]. 2016;43:27–38. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10
Nejčtenější tento týden