top of page
Anchor 1
The quality of education suffers when pedagogies are not aligned with physical learning spaces. Schools struggle to carry out educational change within the constraints of surrounding [unchanged] infrastructures.
—van Merriënboer et al., 2017, p. 253
Space & Learning
When it comes to learning environments, the research says learning takes place in situated contexts that are social and collective (Engeström, 2009; Lave & Wenger, 1991), placing the learning environment in a shared physical context. Lüdtke et al. (2009) define a learning environment as an institutionalized and naturally occurring group setting that stimulates learning in students—again, emphasizing the importance of community.
While the call for additional research of this educational field is valid, there is still "a considerable amount of literature on the physiological effects of specific environmental variables on the ability to teach and learn” (Clark, 2002, p. 14). Many influential progressives of the past century have expanded how we think about the spatial and environmental factors of education (Mah, 2015; Dewey, 1915; Hall, 1911). At the core of their beliefs lies the idea that the environment shapes the child and should therefore itself be shaped by evidence-based designs to maximize opportunities for psychological, physical, and social growth (Mah, 2015).
Respect for the physical environment has been key in the development of such educational pedagogies as Montessori, Reggio Emilia, and Steiner Waldorf, as well as in outdoor and nature education approaches. By comparing constructivist settings like these to the more “traditional” transmission mode of education, we can find insights into how physical and built environments can—and do—impact learners in all sorts of practical ways.
On this page we explore the connections between the built environment and learning. In the videos and ideas presented, we clearly see a theme of individualization, with its key elements of flexibility, connection, and ownership. These principles are truly as relevant to learning as they are to designing accessible built environments.
Talking about learning environments can be confusing.
Terms like 'classroom structure' and 'learning environment' are regularly used to refer to “the social, psychological or conceptual environment rather than to the physical learning environment or space” (Cleveland & Fisher, 2014, p 1). This can make discussing the physical environment confusing—but it deserves its own narratives. For decades, the emphasis placed by teachers, curriculum developers, and instructional designers on the “learning environment” focused on pedagogical and interpersonal issues, rather than spatial contexts (Weinstein, 1981).
Fortunately, recent researchers have identified classrooms as “places that can directly support or inhibit learning” (Clark, 2002, p. 9). We know that space itself is significant; now we just need ways to talk about that significance.
One researcher offers two basic convictions about space: that space “remains a fundamentally important mediator of human learning, and that it is produced socially within institutions in contingent, contextualised ways” (Bligh, 2019, p. 5). He suggests we need a common vocabulary for discussing learning spaces and debating how they work. Here, you’ll see a summary table of six types of learning spaces and the descriptions that accompany them.
Fortunately, recent researchers have identified classrooms as “places that can directly support or inhibit learning” (Clark, 2002, p. 9). We know that space itself is significant; now we just need ways to talk about that significance.
One researcher offers two basic convictions about space: that space “remains a fundamentally important mediator of human learning, and that it is produced socially within institutions in contingent, contextualised ways” (Bligh, 2019, p. 5). He suggests we need a common vocabulary for discussing learning spaces and debating how they work. Here, you’ll see a summary table of six types of learning spaces and the descriptions that accompany them.
Transmission learning isn’t necessarily outdated.
Often regarded as the ‘traditional’ or ‘conventional’ form of public education, the transmission model of learning was built on the notion of the teacher as an authority figure who imparts knowledge to awaiting ‘empty vessels’—that is, the students (Rodriguez, 2012). In this approach, teachers control what is taught as well as where, when, and under what conditions learning happens. Instruction is “predominantly a transmission of knowledge, skills, and values to students” with an emphasis on organization and structure on the part of the teacher (Chen & Brown, 2016, p. 351). This aligns with the concept of ‘transparent’ space, wherein students do not notice their learning environment, instead focusing on the content being presented to them (Bligh, 2019). Traditional classroom settings have been found to potentially impair student growth (Burke & Burke-Samide, 2004) but they do come with benefits as well.
Sometimes associated with the ‘factory model’ of teaching, the transmission approach is more structured and predictable than some others, and has benefited schools and districts where funds were tight and efficiencies needed to be high. Known as a teacher-centered model, the transmission model generally requires a spatial format in which a teacher can lead learning through lectures and demonstrations, ‘transferring’ information to students who will presumably ‘receive’ the knowledge at the same rate (Chism, 2006). While this may not be every teacher’s style, it does have its merits. Direct instruction has been found to be better for learners than discovery learning due to cognitive theories that say the latter may overload a student’s working memory capacity (Rittle-Johnson, 2006). Whereas other spatial types may foster too much stimulation, ‘transparent’ spaces build on routines and standards that make the uses of these spaces highly predictable, so learners gain familiarity and reliability (Bligh, 2019). There is also the inherent benefit that this style makes a teacher better able to maintain physical distance and awareness of personal space during a time when health and safety protocols are paramount due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sometimes associated with the ‘factory model’ of teaching, the transmission approach is more structured and predictable than some others, and has benefited schools and districts where funds were tight and efficiencies needed to be high. Known as a teacher-centered model, the transmission model generally requires a spatial format in which a teacher can lead learning through lectures and demonstrations, ‘transferring’ information to students who will presumably ‘receive’ the knowledge at the same rate (Chism, 2006). While this may not be every teacher’s style, it does have its merits. Direct instruction has been found to be better for learners than discovery learning due to cognitive theories that say the latter may overload a student’s working memory capacity (Rittle-Johnson, 2006). Whereas other spatial types may foster too much stimulation, ‘transparent’ spaces build on routines and standards that make the uses of these spaces highly predictable, so learners gain familiarity and reliability (Bligh, 2019). There is also the inherent benefit that this style makes a teacher better able to maintain physical distance and awareness of personal space during a time when health and safety protocols are paramount due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
We're still learning how to make space for constructivist learning.
For decades, modern education research has provided support for student-centered pedagogies that move away from the transmission model. Constructivist learning formats are based on the concept that learning happens when learners actively create—or construct—their own knowledge (Elliot et al., 2000). We are all ‘meaning-makers’ in that we construct knowledge individually, but we need to be given conditions to do so (Phillips, 1995). Learning spaces designed specifically for student discovery and creation look quite different from those classrooms suited for direct instruction. So what are the most important principles to consider when designing learning spaces for student-centered learning?
We can look to psychologist Jean Piaget (1980) for help answering that question, with his work on learning as an active process. Piaget said the world must be experienced before we can truly understand it—a model known as cognitive constructivism (Phillips, 1995). Of course, experience requires room to move and experiment and play, so flexible, multi-purpose, open concept schools are becoming ever more popular, as discussed in the video ‘How academics are changing the way we build schools.’
In thinking about learning space we can also consider theories of social constructivism and look to Lev Vygotsky (1978), who told us learning is a social activity in which the environment plays a central role. In other words, the spaces and places we work in shape how we think and make meaning of the world. John Dewey (1938) called learning a community process that is reliant on interaction with others (McLeod, 2019). These ways of thinking give us clues to some of the most important aspects of constructivist-oriented learning spaces—dialogue, interaction, engagement, collaboration, and experience. Given these perspectives, it makes sense that spaces facilitating community and connection will be the most effective for student-centered learning. These spaces may take the form of one or more of Bligh’s (2019) space types, including socially integrated, cognitively integrated, associative, stimulating, and enabling spaces.
We can look to psychologist Jean Piaget (1980) for help answering that question, with his work on learning as an active process. Piaget said the world must be experienced before we can truly understand it—a model known as cognitive constructivism (Phillips, 1995). Of course, experience requires room to move and experiment and play, so flexible, multi-purpose, open concept schools are becoming ever more popular, as discussed in the video ‘How academics are changing the way we build schools.’
In thinking about learning space we can also consider theories of social constructivism and look to Lev Vygotsky (1978), who told us learning is a social activity in which the environment plays a central role. In other words, the spaces and places we work in shape how we think and make meaning of the world. John Dewey (1938) called learning a community process that is reliant on interaction with others (McLeod, 2019). These ways of thinking give us clues to some of the most important aspects of constructivist-oriented learning spaces—dialogue, interaction, engagement, collaboration, and experience. Given these perspectives, it makes sense that spaces facilitating community and connection will be the most effective for student-centered learning. These spaces may take the form of one or more of Bligh’s (2019) space types, including socially integrated, cognitively integrated, associative, stimulating, and enabling spaces.
Creating collaborative environments means getting creative.
In the Albemarle County Public Schools of Charlottesville, Virginia, classrooms have been re-designed on a budget with a focus on flexibility. The results have empowered student choice, increased student engagement, and improved student participation (Edutopia, 2015). Teachers have worked to create a variety of seating options for students, using inexpensive everyday items such as large buckets, plastic crates with plywood and foam tops, and floor pillows. School staff get busy at the end of every university school term, searching through real and online communities for used furniture (desks, lamps, even beds!) that college kids are discarding. One teacher’s classroom boasts a child’s bunk bed (perhaps a thrift store purchase), offering kid-friendly seating off the floor and tucked underneath. Other classroom furniture is donated by the families of students and comes in abundance as couches, armchairs, benches and more.
Offering students flexibility in where/how they sit and giving them ownership over their learning are benchmarks of success, according to research (Barrett et al., 2017; Dudek, 2015; Elkington & Bligh, 2019). Being able to easily restructure the layout of a classroom using bookshelves on wheels or desks that slide and stack allows for spatial flexibility in otherwise limiting interior spaces. With such a big part of modern curricula being designed for small group work and independent learning opportunities (rather than whole class instruction), adaptable spaces are among the most effective teaching tools.
Educational architect Laura Wernick explains the purpose of this new way of looking at learning space. She says neurological research is driving these changes. It has given us new insights into how we all learn—being active and fostering mind-body engagement really helps reinforce learning. For schools, this means having places where children can move around, build things, test things, plan things, show off things. There needs to be space for project-based activities and collaboration. Brains learn best when they work in concert with one another. We all learn in different ways, and schools need different types of spaces to support those different learning types (HMFH Architects, Inc., 2012).
Offering students flexibility in where/how they sit and giving them ownership over their learning are benchmarks of success, according to research (Barrett et al., 2017; Dudek, 2015; Elkington & Bligh, 2019). Being able to easily restructure the layout of a classroom using bookshelves on wheels or desks that slide and stack allows for spatial flexibility in otherwise limiting interior spaces. With such a big part of modern curricula being designed for small group work and independent learning opportunities (rather than whole class instruction), adaptable spaces are among the most effective teaching tools.
Educational architect Laura Wernick explains the purpose of this new way of looking at learning space. She says neurological research is driving these changes. It has given us new insights into how we all learn—being active and fostering mind-body engagement really helps reinforce learning. For schools, this means having places where children can move around, build things, test things, plan things, show off things. There needs to be space for project-based activities and collaboration. Brains learn best when they work in concert with one another. We all learn in different ways, and schools need different types of spaces to support those different learning types (HMFH Architects, Inc., 2012).
Outdoor learning can positively impact cognitive, social, and behavioural skills.
Outdoor play and experiences in nature can provide some of the most valuable opportunities for improving self-concept and self-esteem, developing cognitive autonomy and prosocial behaviour, and increasing group cohesion and belonging (Mutz & Müller, 2016). An inherently inclusive practice, it has been found to offer benefits for children of all abilities, including learners on the autism spectrum, those with socioemotional challenges, and children with behaviour and/or learning problems (O’Brien & Murray, 2006).
Outdoor spaces are known to contribute to healthy development for children and young people in terms of providing space for gross motor play; opportunities for challenge, risk, and boundary awareness; observations of organic processes and natural flux; valuing food production, nurturing plants, harvesting food; and linking ecology to reading, writing, art, science, and social studies (Herrington, 2015; Smith et al., 2017; O’Brien, 2005).
Outdoor education has roots in the open-air school movement of the 1900s–1930s, when children with tuberculosis were offered learning opportunities in a context that could also meet their needs for health and safety (Fesler, 2000). This model has been experiencing a recent resurgence in the wake of the coronavirus COVID-19, as schools look for options on how to safely operate despite the threat of an air-borne pathogen that spreads in closed spaces (Shkolnikova, 2020). However, outdoor learning is not new to schools like Prestolee in Kearsley, England, which uses seamless flow between indoor and outdoor environments to counter the “artificial and damaging division between ‘work’ (indoors) and ‘play’ (outdoors)” (Dudek, 2015, p. 11; Burke, 2005). The UK’s Forest School initiative uses a child-centered lens to guide students in individual and directed learning in a woodland setting or other natural environment. Students learn and develop through discovery, creativity, imaginative play, problem solving, and a healthy concept of risk and personal safety (Smith et al., 2018).
Outdoor spaces are known to contribute to healthy development for children and young people in terms of providing space for gross motor play; opportunities for challenge, risk, and boundary awareness; observations of organic processes and natural flux; valuing food production, nurturing plants, harvesting food; and linking ecology to reading, writing, art, science, and social studies (Herrington, 2015; Smith et al., 2017; O’Brien, 2005).
Outdoor education has roots in the open-air school movement of the 1900s–1930s, when children with tuberculosis were offered learning opportunities in a context that could also meet their needs for health and safety (Fesler, 2000). This model has been experiencing a recent resurgence in the wake of the coronavirus COVID-19, as schools look for options on how to safely operate despite the threat of an air-borne pathogen that spreads in closed spaces (Shkolnikova, 2020). However, outdoor learning is not new to schools like Prestolee in Kearsley, England, which uses seamless flow between indoor and outdoor environments to counter the “artificial and damaging division between ‘work’ (indoors) and ‘play’ (outdoors)” (Dudek, 2015, p. 11; Burke, 2005). The UK’s Forest School initiative uses a child-centered lens to guide students in individual and directed learning in a woodland setting or other natural environment. Students learn and develop through discovery, creativity, imaginative play, problem solving, and a healthy concept of risk and personal safety (Smith et al., 2018).
A learning commons can foster community.
The conceptual and physical design of Centerview Elementary School in Minnesota is the result of a prioritization of flexibility in a learning space. The school gives students choice in how and where they learn, which is known to be associated with academic success (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1984). Centerview showcases interconnected spaces tied to activities of learning, not specific subject areas.
Designed by teachers to support a fundamental shift towards personalized learning, the school operates around a community hub called the learning commons. Rather than maintaining the traditional idea of a library or media center, the learning commons was designed as a flexible, central location for school resources and amphitheatre-style seating around a stage backed by digital wall panels that can turn the space into a student gallery. Instead of dedicated art, music, and science rooms, there are flex labs that house all the resources needed for any type of learning. Standard classrooms were replaced with learning studios with retractable glass walls, so that learning is transparent and collaborative.
This design enables teachers to use various spaces throughout the school day to ultimately reach the goal of personalized learning. Educators continue to have conversations with students about what makes them feel valued, be inspired, and have a sense of belonging, which have academic and personal benefits for learners (Berryman & Eley, 2019).
Designed by teachers to support a fundamental shift towards personalized learning, the school operates around a community hub called the learning commons. Rather than maintaining the traditional idea of a library or media center, the learning commons was designed as a flexible, central location for school resources and amphitheatre-style seating around a stage backed by digital wall panels that can turn the space into a student gallery. Instead of dedicated art, music, and science rooms, there are flex labs that house all the resources needed for any type of learning. Standard classrooms were replaced with learning studios with retractable glass walls, so that learning is transparent and collaborative.
This design enables teachers to use various spaces throughout the school day to ultimately reach the goal of personalized learning. Educators continue to have conversations with students about what makes them feel valued, be inspired, and have a sense of belonging, which have academic and personal benefits for learners (Berryman & Eley, 2019).
This learning space is designed to foster independence and connectedness.
Designed by Takaharu Tezuka, this bespoke kindergarten in Japan illustrates some of the ways architecture can change behaviour and influence learning. The principles of resilience and freedom of choice are innately part of this building, which is an open-concept circular structure that is completely open to the outdoors most of the year. There are no boundaries separating the interior and exterior spaces and no boundaries dividing the classrooms. Children can often feel the need to escape from a learning environment for a number of reasons; in this school, they can do so freely. Rather than hiding, children can simply change their environment by moving to a different space, an option facilitated by the clear sightlines maintained by the open nature of the building. The noise level serves as a calming background for most of the children, who can be observed achieving high levels of concentration amidst the activity around them—just as they did in utero.
The interior ceilings and rooftop play area were intentionally designed at a low height, so that children can see and be seen from the ground level. Large trees were incorporated into the building itself, growing up through the classrooms into net-enclosed openings in the ceiling and continuing tall above the play roof. Here, children learn through experience—they not only test their own personal boundaries but learn how to trust themselves and help one another in the process. As Tezuka says in his TED Talk, “kids need small doses of danger.” The environment cultivates athletic abilities, social skills, personal awareness, gross motor skills, problem-solving capacities, and a healthy appreciation for human resilience in its relationship to nature. This school is all about removing boundaries so kids can learn to be themselves and find their own way of fitting into the larger community.
The interior ceilings and rooftop play area were intentionally designed at a low height, so that children can see and be seen from the ground level. Large trees were incorporated into the building itself, growing up through the classrooms into net-enclosed openings in the ceiling and continuing tall above the play roof. Here, children learn through experience—they not only test their own personal boundaries but learn how to trust themselves and help one another in the process. As Tezuka says in his TED Talk, “kids need small doses of danger.” The environment cultivates athletic abilities, social skills, personal awareness, gross motor skills, problem-solving capacities, and a healthy appreciation for human resilience in its relationship to nature. This school is all about removing boundaries so kids can learn to be themselves and find their own way of fitting into the larger community.
Sometimes constructivist learning needs to happen in a conventional classroom.
Not all educators get to teach in state-of-the-art schools, but that doesn’t mean those of us working in old buildings can’t still make a difference for our students. Furniture arrangement, seating position, and aesthetic quality are some of the main physical dimensions within a teacher’s control that appear to have an impact on student behaviour and attitudes (Barrett et al., 2017; Chung & Wong, 2007; Waldecker, 2005; Weinstein, 1981). These elements of the classroom can have both direct and indirect effects on behaviour. The direct influences come from physical barriers and challenges posed by spatial properties, such as students not being able to hear one another or carry on a discussion because they are seated in separate rows. The indirect influences on behaviour include the feelings and perspectives evoked by spatial properties, such as how desks in rows might give the impression the teacher values independence over collaboration and participation (Weinstein, 1981).
According to Weinstein & Weinstein (1979), “open space schools constituted the first major architectural departure from traditional ‘egg-crate’ buildings in one hundred years” (p. 210). In recent decades, the common consensus has become that “contemporary learning space design must take into account a broad spectrum of learning activities and environments necessary for students to realise a richer educational experience” (Elkington, 2019, p. 3). As a teacher, you might find yourself modelling skills, guiding student dialogue, or offering collaborative activities. Research says all of these teaching approaches should be situated in authentic contexts to motivate and interest learners (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Boyle, 1996). Authenticity of experience isn’t the only important element, however. Equally important is giving students a sense of ownership in their work, which means making sure your teaching space isn’t designed to explicitly show or tell students what to do and how to do it—no matter how ‘conventional’ your classroom space might be (Oliver, 2000). The significance of the space surrounding the learner, the resources available to them, and the opportunities for collaboration and real life experience are key for independent discovery and knowledge creation.
According to Weinstein & Weinstein (1979), “open space schools constituted the first major architectural departure from traditional ‘egg-crate’ buildings in one hundred years” (p. 210). In recent decades, the common consensus has become that “contemporary learning space design must take into account a broad spectrum of learning activities and environments necessary for students to realise a richer educational experience” (Elkington, 2019, p. 3). As a teacher, you might find yourself modelling skills, guiding student dialogue, or offering collaborative activities. Research says all of these teaching approaches should be situated in authentic contexts to motivate and interest learners (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Boyle, 1996). Authenticity of experience isn’t the only important element, however. Equally important is giving students a sense of ownership in their work, which means making sure your teaching space isn’t designed to explicitly show or tell students what to do and how to do it—no matter how ‘conventional’ your classroom space might be (Oliver, 2000). The significance of the space surrounding the learner, the resources available to them, and the opportunities for collaboration and real life experience are key for independent discovery and knowledge creation.
Architecture is holding education hostage.
Education is changing today more than ever—but our school buildings aren’t. We need advancements in the environments where we’re supposed to learn if we’re going to keep up with evolving pedagogies and new approaches to teaching. All too often, students and teachers aren’t included in the design process of new schools, leading to missed opportunities for aligning the environment with the culture and vision of the school community. Buildings are designed to last 100 years, so once the design foundation is established, it’s literally set in stone.
In his TEDx Talk, Danish Kurani describes a creative new way to design schools. His objective is to find designs that support students in personalizing their education and learning in the ways that are best for them. But how do we decide what the “right” environment looks like? Kurani says to think about our homes: each room offers a functional design to help us achieve the purpose of the space. Applying this idea to the school design process, teachers at one school realized they wanted spaces for students to learn and share ideas in any way they wanted—large groups, independently, presentation style, gallery style, etc. Students were surveyed to find out what they envisioned as an ideal learning space, and teachers designed new learning tools to incorporate as permanent resources in the new classrooms.
After one year using the new learning spaces, teachers reported the outcomes they observed. Students were more confident, more comfortable taking risks, worked together more collaboratively, and spoke up more frequently. Of course, all schools will have different needs: for instance, getting students excited about specific topics or types of learning; inviting parents to be more involved in the learning process; or cultivating cultures based on openness and trust. Therefore, all schools need to engage in a collaborative redesign process before decisions to change the building and its spaces are made. WHERE we learn is a key part of HOW we learn, so intentional redesign of our learning environments is a must.
In his TEDx Talk, Danish Kurani describes a creative new way to design schools. His objective is to find designs that support students in personalizing their education and learning in the ways that are best for them. But how do we decide what the “right” environment looks like? Kurani says to think about our homes: each room offers a functional design to help us achieve the purpose of the space. Applying this idea to the school design process, teachers at one school realized they wanted spaces for students to learn and share ideas in any way they wanted—large groups, independently, presentation style, gallery style, etc. Students were surveyed to find out what they envisioned as an ideal learning space, and teachers designed new learning tools to incorporate as permanent resources in the new classrooms.
After one year using the new learning spaces, teachers reported the outcomes they observed. Students were more confident, more comfortable taking risks, worked together more collaboratively, and spoke up more frequently. Of course, all schools will have different needs: for instance, getting students excited about specific topics or types of learning; inviting parents to be more involved in the learning process; or cultivating cultures based on openness and trust. Therefore, all schools need to engage in a collaborative redesign process before decisions to change the building and its spaces are made. WHERE we learn is a key part of HOW we learn, so intentional redesign of our learning environments is a must.
bottom of page