See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/384499814

The Physical Learning Environment: examining classroom design

Article in Learning Environments Research · March 2024

CITATION
S READS

0 1,010

1 author:

Noelia Alvarez
University of Derby
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Noelia Alvarez on 01 October 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Physical Learning environment:
Examining classroom design

A dissertation submitted to the University of Derby for the

degree of

B. Ed Primary Education with QTS

2024

Student ID:

100556357

Dissertation word count: 8580

Contents of dissertation

Chapter 1: Introduction.......................................................................................................2
Chapter 2: Literature Review..............................................................................................4
2.1 The learning environment.....................................................................................................4
2.2. The physical learning environment.......................................................................................5
2.3. The physical learning environment and the children............................................................5
2.4. The physical learning environment: IEQ and Structural factors.............................................7
2.5. Pedagogy, children’s views, and the physical learning environment........................................9
Chapter 3: Scope of the Study...........................................................................................11
Chapter 4: Methodology...................................................................................................12
4.1. Research Context...............................................................................................................12
4.2. Ethical considerations.........................................................................................................12
4.3. Research approach.............................................................................................................13
4.4. Research Methods.............................................................................................................15
4.4.2. Observations.....................................................................................................................................16
4.4.3. Collaborative Interviews...................................................................................................................17

Chapter 5: Findings and Discussion...................................................................................19

Theme 1: Seating arrangements................................................................................................19
1.1 Observational data...............................................................................................................................19
1.2 Interviews with the children and the teacher.......................................................................................22
Theme 2: Wall displays.............................................................................................................26
2.1. Observational data..............................................................................................................................26
2.2 Interviews with the children and the teacher.......................................................................................27

Chapter 6: Conclusion.......................................................................................................30
Reference list....................................................................................................................31
Appendix..........................................................................................................................40

1
Chapter 1: Introduction

Existing research has recognised the multidimensional nature of learning

environments (Tapia-Fonlem et al., 2020; Kangas, 2010; Obong et al.,
2010; Fraser, 1998). The various dimensions, namely, the social,
academic, cultural, and physical interact in diverse ways to create
learning environments based on the needs and preferences of students
and teachers (Malik and Rizvi, 2018). Among these, the physical
dimension, although often considered a secondary element in educational
research (Szpytma, 2019), can facilitate, or hinder distinct pedagogical
practices and impact students’ learning, engagement, and well-being
(Normusavi, 2020; Makela et al., 2016; Barret et al., 2013). Consequently,
as stated by Barret et al., (2015) a lack of alignment between teachers’
pedagogical practices and classroom design, will negatively affect
teaching and learning. Despite the impact of the classroom design on
learning, there is a notable lack of research in this area. In addition,
Cleveland and Fisher (2014) reported a lack of pedagogical perspective in
this area and observed that most studies focused on the physical
elements within the classrooms, instead of the alignment between spaces
and the intended teaching practices.

The physical learning environment is a fundamental aspect of schools

because only by understanding the relationship between the physical
learning environment and pedagogical approaches, teachers can make
sensible decisions about how to design their classrooms to enhance their
teaching practices and students’ learning experiences. This study aims to
encourage teachers to examine their physical environment under a
pedagogical approach and critically assess whether their classroom aligns
with and supports or hinders their teaching practices. This paper critically
examined two key structural elements within a primary classroom over
which teachers have some control, specifically, the seating arrangements
and the wall displays.

This dissertation has been motivated by the researcher’s experiences

2
working with distinct teachers, each of whom had their own unique
teaching styles and strategies to design their classrooms. After
experiencing these disparities, the researcher

3
considered how recently qualified teachers might approach the challenge
of designing their own classrooms for the first time.

Finally, It is hoped that this project will provide an important opportunity

to advance the understanding of the influence of the physical learning
environment on students and teachers. This study makes a major
contribution to research on the area of educational spaces by
demonstrating how teachers should reflect on their own practices when
designing their classrooms. In doing so, the following research questions
will try to be answered:
1) To what extent does the physical learning environment align with
the pedagogical approach of the class teacher?
2) What factors contribute to this alignment?
3) In what ways is the learning environment structured to effectively
cater to the diverse needs of children, and how do these
arrangements impact student engagement and learning outcomes?

4
 Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 The learning environment

In the field of education, various definitions of ‘learning environment’ are

found. The international organisation OECD (2019) described learning
environments as the context in which learning takes place. A further
definition is given by Tapia-Fonlem et al (2020), Kangas (2010), and
Fraser (1998), who suggested learning environments are composed of
distinct dimensions: physical, academic, social, institutional, and cultural.
However, there is no agreed definition in the literature on what specific
dimensions constitute the learning environment. For instance, Obong et
al., (2010) and Asiyai (2014) incorporated the aesthetic dimension, whilst
March (2020), dismissed the physical dimensions. However, Salkind
(2010) is critical of the tendency to divide the learning environment into
discrete elements since this leads to the interpretation of the various
dimensions as independent, without considering their interrelation.

Other authors (Gislason, 2010; Malik and Rizvi, 2018; Roskos and Neuman,
2011, Makela, 2018; Lam et al., 2018) have underlined the interaction
between the distinct dimensions to establish a productive learning
environment. This is exemplified in the meta-analysis study undertaken by
Malik and Rizvi (2018), which claimed that what generates a learning
environment, is the reciprocity between the human dimension and the
physical environment. Similarly, Gislason (2010) conducted three case
studies to explore the relationship between space, teaching, and learning
and concluded that the effectiveness of a particular learning environment
depends on whether the different dimensions are systematically linked
with one another. In this dissertation, the term ‘learning environment’ will
be used in its broadest sense when referring to the various dimensions
that interact to create a learning environment. Specifically, this study will
focus on one dimension of the learning environment: the physical
elements. Furthermore, the relationship between the social and academic
dimensions within the physical dimension will be examined.
5
2.2. The physical learning environment

Previous studies have broadly defined the physical dimension as all the
tangible components like lighting, materials, space, furniture, or colour
which support teaching and learning (Anekwe, 2006; Asiyai, 2014).
Moreover, the OECD (2011) and the Finish National Board of Education
(FNBE, 2020) offered a more detailed description by including further
requirements that must be met by these physical spaces. Some of these
requirements include supporting multiple and diverse teaching and
learning pedagogies, demonstrating an optimal and cost-effective building
performance, or guaranteeing students and teachers a safe and
comfortable environment. This definition is relevant to this study since it
highlights the significance of the physical dimension in facilitating
teaching and learning, as stated by Asiyai (2014).

Different criteria exist in the literature regarding the classification of the

various elements within a learning environment. Several authors
(Sylvestre, 2020; Nyabando and Evanshen, 2022 and Szpytma, 2019)
identified four systemic levels: the classroom, the school, the community,
and the society. In addition, other studies (Pazos, 2016; Cheryan et al.,
2014) set up two main categories: structural variables (size, layout,
furniture, seating arrangement, wall display) and environmental variables
(noise, temperature, luminosity, ventilation…). This dissertation will focus
on the classroom level and the structural aspects within the classroom
over which teachers have some degree of control.

2.3. The physical learning environment and the children

Bronfenbrenner’s theory on the Ecology of Human Development provides

a key framework for understanding the complex interactions between
individuals and their environment. This theory consists of a nested
environmental system ranging from the immediate microsystem to the
macrosystem, with each layer and the interactions between them
affecting the development of the child (Aubrey and Riley, 2019).
6
Consistent with the data obtained by Malik and Rizvi (2018) and Gislason
(2010), Bronfenbrenner’s theory suggests that it is not the physical space
itself but how it interacts with the other environmental systems that
influence students’ learning,

7
development, engagement, and well-being (Amali et al, 2023; Zaatari and
Maalouf, 2022). Notable examples of this are the studies carried out by
Ramli (2013) Greville- Giddings, (2022), and Fisher et al., (2014), which
illustrate how the classroom layout impacts teacher-student interaction
(microsystem) and school policies (mesosystem). Similarly, other authors
(Ford, 2016; Tondeur et al; 2015; Byers et al., 2018) focused on how
different cultural norms and educational approaches (macrosystems) may
influence the prioritization of certain aspects of the classroom’s physical
learning environment, such as emphasizing collaborative spaces over
individual study areas.

A number of authors (Normusavi 2020, Makela et al., 2016; Barret et al.,

2013; Higgins et al., 2015) have considered the effects of the physical
learning environment on children’s learning and well-being. Notably, these
studies are underpinned by a socio- constructivist approach to learning, in
which an active interaction is supposed between individuals and their
social and physical context (Makela et al., 2016). Furthermore, a
qualitative study by Bonem et al., (2020) described how the physical
environment can promote or hinder individual actions such as working
together, tidying up, or paying attention to the class teacher.

Back in 1936, Lewin (1936) explained how human conduct is influenced by

the environment and established the principles of environmental
psychology. A more recent research review by Gifford (2014), pointed out
that environmental psychology is now being used in several architectural
studies to inform architects by providing evidence-based insights into how
the built environment impacts human behaviour and cognition to create
spaces that support the intended uses. In the context of educational
research, a highly cited paper by Szpytma and Szpytma (2019), reviewed
and analysed different educational approaches to explore how
stakeholders can adapt the physical learning environment to meet the
needs of 21st-century education. Based on the findings, a virtual ideal
school environment called the ‘MoPLE21’ was designed. Throughout the
research, the authors underlined the importance of applying an

8
interdisciplinary approach integrating pedagogy, architecture, and
psychology to make this virtual model functional, inclusive, and valuable
to students’ learning and well- being. This view is supported by Deamer
(2020) and Fonsen and Soukainen (2020), who noted that only an
interdisciplinary approach to classroom design, ensures the

9
classroom reflects the intended educational practices and the needs of
the children within the class.

Alongside students’ academic outcomes, a democratic approach to

learning and classroom design found in the literature advocates for a
physical learning environment that not only impacts students’ academic
achievement but fulfils broader educational aims. According to Klawonn
(2010), Van Den Driessche (2007), and Szyptma (2019), the classroom
should be seen as more than just the place where teachers and students
come together to teach and learn. Instead, it should reflect the principles
and aims of a democratic society. Along the same line, Bingler (2022)
refused to consider school buildings as mere ‘containers’ and advocated
for strategically designing schools and classrooms to reflect principles of
collaboration, inclusivity, sustainability, and well-being. International
literature also confirms the social nature of classrooms, (Szympta, 2019
and OECD, 2017) claiming stakeholders are responsible for creating a
learning space that not only facilitates learning but also conveys
important values related to collective life and community.

2.4. The physical learning environment: IEQ and Structural factors.

Previous studies have analysed different ways to measure the effects of

the physical learning environment on learning. On the one hand, several
studies have investigated aspects of ‘Indoor Environmental Quality’ (IEQ),
including high noise levels (Jiang et al., 2020; Klatte et al., 2013; Hygge,
2014), lack of daylight (Heschong, 2002; Wirz- Justice et al., 2021), and
low temperature and ventilation (Wargocki and Wyon, 2007; Muhamad et
al., 2011). For example, Barret et al., (2015) assessed 153 classrooms to
identify the impact of IEQ on academic progress. The data obtained
concluded that together, IEQ factors account for 16% of the variance in
students’ academic achievement. However, the generalisability of the
findings of much-published research on this issue is problematic since
many of the studies focused on primary or secondary schools in England
and have measured learning in terms of formal academic progress, which
10
does not necessarily represent actual learning.

On the other hand, other authors have looked at the connection between
the structural elements of the classroom and motivation and learning
outcomes. The focus of these

11
studies includes classroom size (Blatchford et al., 2011; Wang, 2020 and
Zyngier, 2014), furniture (Purwaningrun et al., 2015), seating
arrangements (Tobia et al, 2022; Van Den Berg and Cillesen, 2015;
Wanarka and Ruhl, 2008), wall displays (Fisher et al., 2014 and Temli,
2016) or availability of ICT facilities (Bindu, 2016). A prominent example of
this is a review of empirical research by Wannarka and Ruhl (2008), which
pointed out that seating in rows is the best arrangement to encourage
good behaviour and concentration and is of most benefit to disruptive
students. In contrast, Ramli (2013) argued that traditional rows limit
interaction and collaboration and demonstrated that students tend to
prefer groups of tables. Concerning wall displays, Fisher et al. (2014)
observed that richly decorated classrooms usually showed higher levels of
disruptive behaviour and distraction among students. Nevertheless, these
findings have been strongly contested in the literature by several writers
who argued that wall displays serve as visual aids that can promote
classroom management (Almeda et al., 2014), stimulate the interest and
motivation of students, or serve as a supplementary teaching tool
(Thomson et al. 2007; Ramos and Barrios, 2020). The lack of consensus in
this area may be due to the different ages of the children as well as the
different teaching methods employed by the class teacher.

There are few studies in the literature on the area of physical learning
environments, since as stated by Szpytma (2019) it is often considered a
secondary element in educational research. Moreover, critics (Baticulon et
al., 2021; Brachtl et al., 2023; Baars et al., 2021; Fraser and Barry, 2023)
have reported that one of the main obstacles to research in this field of
study is the wide range of variables that are present in the same learning
environment, including light, temperature, colours, furniture, displays, air
quality or seating arrangements among others. Authors have argued that
the different variables interact in diverse ways and impact students’
motivation, concentration, or academic outcomes inconsistently. This
issue has been exemplified in a study by Loisos (1999), which reported
that primary students progressed up to 20% in mathematics and reading
in classrooms with larger windows and more daylight. However, the
follow-up study in 2003, which included other variables such as air quality
12
and thermal comfort along with daylight, revealed that the explanation
was more complicated, as daylight affected learning in both positive and
negative ways. In particular, this challenge to better understand and
evidence the holistic impact of classroom design on students, has
prompted the development of the

13
Holistic Evidence and Design Project (HEAD), which aims to provide
further insights into the combined effects of different physical elements in
practice (Barret et al., 2015).

2.5. Pedagogy, children’s views, and the physical learning

environment

An interesting research focus in this context, which is insufficiently

explored in the literature (Birdwell et al., 2016; Morrone and Roman,
2019), is the link between pedagogy and the physical learning
environment. A research review by Cleveland and Fisher (2014) examined
distinct approaches in the literature for evaluating educational spaces,
they observed that almost each of them lacked a pedagogical perspective
and concluded that nearly all approaches focused on the physical
elements within the classrooms, instead of the alignment between spaces
and the intended teaching practices. Gislason (2010) makes a similar
point in his study of architectural design in schools, arguing that few
studies have drawn concrete conclusions on how teaching and learning
are framed by the use and arrangement of the instructional space.
Moreover, a review by Ghaziani (2010) claimed that the majority of
research in this field, has not effectively integrated all the necessary
design factors in a way that would offer designers an effective frame to
work within when designing classrooms.

Another major source of uncertainty in the methods was pointed out by

Ghaziani (2010), who stated that few studies in this area have proposed
appropriate methods for the involvement of teachers. Makela et al.,
(2018) underlined that giving more emphasis to teacher’s views will
enhance a pedagogical approach in the design of physical learning
environments. Furthermore, the academic literature has revealed that
considering teacher’s needs and preferences in classroom design
enhances their well-being, job satisfaction, and ultimately, their
performance (Karthik and Stutsman, 2019; Monahan, 2023; Imms et al.,
2017). Other authors (Temli, 2016; Mokhtar et al., 2016 and Clinton and
14
Wilson, 2019), have argued that different teaching approaches may
require specific environmental configurations to be effective, by involving
teachers in the design process, their classrooms can be tailored to support
their teaching methods. For instance, an active learning pedagogy, to be
effective, should take place in a classroom that encourages student
participation and interaction, in

15
which children have access to technology or their seats are arranged in a
way that facilitates communication (Lam et al., 2018; Mokhtar et al.,
2016). A lack of alignment between teachers’ pedagogical approaches
and their classroom design is a common condition (Lam et al., 2021;
Birdwell et al., 2016) which has a considerable impact on learning
outcomes and teaching. Therefore, a key objective of this study is to help
teachers identify how structural aspects within their classroom enable or
hinder their educational practices.

According to a definition provided by Clarke (2010), a ‘learning

environment’ can be defined as the interaction between teachers’
pedagogical approaches and students’ preferences. This definition
underlines the importance of not only teachers but also children in the
construction of learning environments. Notably, previous studies have
used participatory research methods to explore children’s views on their
classrooms. In the program ‘Building Schools for the Future’ (Department
for Education, 2004), the importance of consulting teachers and students
in a participatory design approach was stressed by the UK government
(Merrienboer et al., 2017). Similar recommendations have been made in
countries such as Finland, Australia, and Canada (Niemi, 2021; Preiser and
Nasar, 2008). For many authors (Konings et al., 2014; Oonk, 2016)
integrating the insights from multiple stakeholders helps enhance the
design process’s quality. In contrast, however, Kirschner and Van
Merrienboer (2013) concluded in their research that students’
understanding of design is narrowed, and most of them are still unable to
manage their learning, leading them to make design choices that are not
always the best for them. Similarly, Woolner et al., (2012) stated that only
school children from the age of 9 can actively participate in research since
from that age, they begin to possess the sensitivity to understand their
environment. According to Konings et al., (2014), the goal of participatory
design is to emphasize collaboration among various stakeholders, not
reaching autonomous learning.

16
Chapter 3: Scope of the Study

The introduction and literature review sections have stressed the

importance of physical learning environments in promoting or impeding
learning, well-being, and teaching (Bonem et al., 2020; Fraser and Barry,
2023 and Nourmusavi et al., 2020). Additionally, the application of
Bronfenbrenner’s theory to physical learning environments was discussed,
along with how these environments are modified by other environmental
systems such as student-teacher interactions, school policies, culture
norms or educational approaches (Ford, 2016; Tondeur et al; 2015; Byers
et al., 2018). However, while several authors have explored the
relationship between learning environments and educational outcomes, a
gap was identified in the literature regarding how the physical learning
environment aligns with the pedagogical approaches of the class teacher
(Birdwell et al., 2016; Morrone and Roman, 2019).
Therefore, this study aims to make a major contribution to research by
focusing on the impact of pedagogy on the physical learning environment
and providing insights into the practical implications for the class teacher.
This dissertation will focus on examining the classroom level and the
structural aspects within the classroom over which teachers have some
control. Specifically, due to time constraints, this study focused on two
structural elements: the seating arrangement and the wall displays.
Observations and interviews were conducted in a primary school
classroom to ascertain answers to the following research questions:

4) To what extent does the physical learning environment align with

the pedagogical approach of the class teacher?
5) What factors contribute to this alignment?
6) In what ways is the learning environment structured to effectively
cater to the diverse needs of children, and how do these
arrangements impact student engagement and learning outcomes?

17
 Chapter 4: Methodology

4.1. Research Context

The school:

The study was carried out in a state school that operates as part of an
academy trust in the East Midlands with over 600 students from diverse
socio-economic backgrounds. The school facilities include well-equipped
classrooms with interactive whiteboards and laptops, a library, a music
classroom, and a large hall for physical education. The staff comprises 25
teachers and 3 ECTs, teaching assistants, administrative staff, and other
support personnel.

The classroom:
The participants were chosen from a Year 3 class. Children aged 8 and 9
participated in the study, making a total of 27 participants: 14 boys and
13 girls.). The class teacher mentioned he has a particular interest in
Physical Education; however, he is a specialist in Mathematics. He has
been working at the school throughout his entire teaching career, for over
16 years.

The classroom, with 72 m2, was set up as follows: on the top left corner there
was a large carpet placed next to the teacher’s desk and the interactive
whiteboard. Along the length of the classroom, facing the teacher’s desk
and the carpet, there were six rows of tables, one behind the other. In one
of the right corners, there was a reading area with a small sofa, a bean
bag chair and a bookshelf with books, dictionaries, and thesaurus. Six
large windows, a few shelves and cupboards, and cork boards covered the
classroom walls. (See appendix A).

4.2. Ethical considerations

18
In accordance with the British Educational Research Association guidelines
(2018), ethical considerations were contemplated throughout the research
process. Prior to the data collection, participants were provided with clear
information about the study

19
and informed consent was obtained from all participants, including
children, parents or carers, the class teacher and the headteacher. In
addition, the participants were informed on their right to withdraw from
the investigation at any stage. When interpreting the data, the privacy
and anonymity off all participants was protected. Finally, the data
collected was stored on a password-protected device and will be
eliminated after the finding’s dissemination.

4.3. Research approach

An interpretivist approach was employed in this investigation since it

acknowledges that the world is not straightforwardly perceivable but
constructed by each of us in diverse ways (Clough and Nutbrown, 2012).
The constructivist nature of interpretivism allowed the researcher to
explore how the physical world (the classroom) affects individuals
(teacher and students) Moreover, according to Thomas (2017) and Cohen
et al., (2018) interpretivism involves an in-depth and dynamic exploration
of the participants and how they explain their reality, and the researcher
and how he or she interprets this information.

For Gile (2009), given this subjectivity, there are difficulties in accepting
the reliability of interpretivist research. However, for Buckler et al., (2023)
and Meyrick (2006), the fact that the researcher interprets, does not
absolve him or her from the imperative to approach the research question
in a balanced and transparent way. This study focused on a particular
classroom, which might limit the generalizability of findings to broader
settings (Punch and Oancea, 2014). Nevertheless, for several authors
(Kvale et al., 2009; McAteer, 2013), in interpretivist research, the extent
to which the findings in one study can be generalized is judged based on
other studies within a similar theoretical approach and similar time, place,
people and social context.

A positivist approach was not deemed suitable for addressing the research
questions due to the complex nature of the issue under investigation

20
(Matias, 2021; Thomas, 2017). Positivism overlooks the contextual and
individual nature of classrooms by prioritizing other research outcomes
such as generalizability and validity (Charli, 2022). In addition, positivism
may as well overlook the perspectives of students and

21
teachers, whose views and experiences are crucial to understanding the
research questions (Punch and Oancea, 2014).

The present study employs an inductive enquiry, beginning with the

observation of the phenomenon: the relationship between classroom
design and pedagogical practices, and proceeds to derive generalisable
patterns from the data obtained (Salkind, 2010; Little, 2013). In deductive
research, the researcher usually follows a pre-existing theory to generate
hypotheses and test them (Cohen et al., 2018) however, the following
study operates within a relatively underexplored area with limited theory,
making this approach difficult to follow. To address the limitations of
inductive inquiry, data triangulation was used through employing various
research methods including observations, interviews, and drawings.

A case study research approach was selected since they better reflect the
relationship between a particular case and its context (Alvarez and
Fabian, 2012). Furthermore, they allow the researcher to employ diverse
methods to meet the individual needs of the participants (Little, 2013). In
the literature, authors like Quintao et al., (2020) have questioned the use
of case studies as a method of scientific research because it presents
some problems regarding validity and reliability. However, the researcher
considered that this approach better suits the aims of this research, since
it better reflects the relationship between a particular case and its context
(Alvarez and Fabian, 2012). Moreover, it allows for flexibility in the
collection and processing of data as well as the generation of contextual
knowledge on the research topic (Clough and Nutbrown, 2012). The study
aims to carry out a comprehensive exploration of the research questions
whilst managing the limited time and resources available when doing an
undergraduate dissertation, rather than providing a statistical
generalization (Needham et al., 2016)

Sampling:
The sample for this study comprises 27 children and their class teacher.
The selection of participants was a non-probability sampling method, as is

22
frequently the case in small-scale research (Buckler and Moore, 2023).
More specifically, it was a convenience sampling since the researcher
chose her placement class to conduct the study. As stated by Cohen et al.,
(2018), this sample is suitable for situations in which

23
the researcher does not plan to generalize their findings, is less complex
to set up, and is significantly less expensive, despite the drawbacks
resulting from its non- representativeness. Moreover, the researcher was
already familiar with the classroom dynamic, which facilitated data
collection and interpretation. The sample size was determined by the total
number of students in the class: 27 children. Although it is a relatively
small sample, the researcher decided it is sufficient for the qualitative
nature of the study that will focus on in-depth exploration.

4.4. Research Methods

A series of steps have been followed to answer the research questions.

The first step was interviewing the class teacher to obtain information
about her teaching style and the class routines. The researcher was
present in the classroom for two months so that the students become
familiar with her presence. During this time the observation schedules
were outlined. Then, formal observations began over a period of five days.
Following a preliminary analysis of the data, the students were asked to
make drawings and, finally, collaborative interviews were conducted with
the children about their drawings. The study utilized a multi-method
approach to research which consisted of observations, drawings and semi-
structured interviews. The researcher corroborated the different findings
and identified patterns by triangulating the data from these methods.

4.4.1. Interview with the class teacher

The class teacher was interviewed through a semi-structured interview to

find out further information about his pedagogical approach and teaching
philosophy. The potential of semi-structured interviews to be flexible and
expose opinions and issues (Newby, 2014), provided a comprehensive
understanding of the teacher’s opinions and feelings. This method
provided a structured yet flexible framework, that allowed the researcher
to pose open-ended questions and encourage the teacher to elaborate on
his teaching practices, experiences and views (McGrath and Coles, 2013).

24
When the interview questions were designed, they were categorized into
four themes: behaviour management, assessment practices, teaching
philosophy and pedagogical

25
strategies, to ensure a complete view of the teacher’s practice. Under the
same categories, another set of questions regarding the physical learning
environment were outlined. Once the interview was transcribed, a
thematic content analysis was carried out to identify common patterns
and themes. Through axial coding, the researcher established specific
codes and then, a table was created with the codes identified, descriptions
of each code, and passages of data that fit each code.

4.4.2. Observations

Observations were used to gain a comprehensive understanding of

children’s actions by capturing behaviours and interactions (Sharp, 2009;
Denzin et al., 2024). Several researchers such as Lam et al (2018),
Gislason (2010) or Birdwell et al (2018) have also utilised observational
tools to explore how certain physical elements or areas within the
classroom might facilitate or hinder different activities. Through
observations, the frequency of certain behaviours and activities in specific
spaces within the classroom were identified to evaluate the effect of the
physical environment in constraining or promoting different activities. As
stated by Harvey (2018), observations will help to quantify and measure
this frequency more precisely than relying on self-reported data.

To begin this process, the classroom was divided into 6 key areas: the
carpet, students’ tables, teacher’s table, storage cupboards, wall displays
and reading/calm down corner. Then, different behaviours or activities
observed within the classrooms were grouped into 9 different categories:
working independently, working collaboratively, tidying up, following
instructions, moving around, receiving feedback, disturbing peers, self-
regulating and listening. It should be noted that in this part of the
investigation, only the observed behaviour was recorded. The intention of
the students, or the subjective perception of the teacher was not
considered. However, the researcher recognized that these can be an
important source of information to explain behaviour (Punch and Oancea,
2014). Following this categorization, semi- structured observations were

26
conducted in the classroom for five days from 8:45 am to 12:15 pm.
During the observation, the observer annotated the frequency of each
activity as well as the specific area within the classroom where it was
being conducted. Additionally, the observer was granted the freedom to
annotate any details, situations,

27
or interactions they considered relevant. A semi-structured approach was
particularly useful for studying this classroom dynamics since it allowed
flexibility for spontaneous observations whilst at the same time, enabling
the researcher to set a schedule to determine what will be observed
(Sharp, 2009).

After all the data was collected, the frequency of each activity was
analysed and organised into tables, then the total number of times each
activity was carried out was calculated. This allowed for a deeper
understanding of the different teaching methods employed by the class
teacher, adding to the insights obtained from the interview alone. Lastly,
the annotations made by the observer were reviewed using a thematic
analysis to identify patterns and incidents.

4.4.3. Collaborative Interviews

To meet one of the key objectives of this study, a participatory approach

combining children’s drawings and group interviews was employed to
explore children’s perspectives on classroom design. As shown in
Normusavi et al., (2019), children prefer to use drawings rather than
words to convey their thoughts and emotions. According to Longobardi et
al. (2022), this method is not only convenient in this context but also an
enjoyable activity for children. In contrast, traditional research methods
such as questionnaires, observations and surveys often struggle to
capture the insights of young children (Sharp, 2009). Furthermore, there
are several studies in the literature (Normusavi et al., 2019; Baroutsis et
al., 2019) that have employed the drawing method to collect information
about children’s views on their learning environment. Nevertheless, for
Punch and Oancea (2014), interpreting these drawings can be challenging
and requires sensitivity. Kara et al. (2021) underlined that the lack of
depth in drawings and their susceptibility to external influences may pose
challenges for data gathering. In consequence, alongside drawings, to
further explore children’s perspectives, group interviews were conducted.

28
Group interviews provided deeper insights into children’s views. Punch
and Oancea (2014) claimed that group interaction can assist in bringing to
the surface aspects that might not otherwise be exposed. Similarly,
Buckler and Moore (2023) argued that when a group of children are used
to collaborative work, they feel more comfortable

29
expressing their ideas within a group context, mirroring collaborative
learning environments prevalent in the school. Denzin et al., (2024)
claimed it is essential to acknowledge the potential pitfalls of group
dynamics, such as the risk of overshadowing more introverted
participants. According to Punch and Oancea (2014) "Groupthink," in
which participants might adhere to the opinion of the majority of the
group instead of expressing their own opinions, may affect the objectivity
of the data analysis and evaluation.

Unstructured interviews, according to Atkins and Wallace (2012), allow

participants to articulate their thought in their own terms. The role of the
researcher will be that of a facilitator or moderator of the conversation,
guiding the interview but at the same time enabling the children to drive
the discussion. Nevertheless, the researcher considered the limitations of
unstructured interviews such as potential lack of consistency across the
interview, especially when interviewing children, and the possibility of
overlooking some research questions (Atkins and Wallace, 2012).

Once the interviews were conducted, they were analysed using a thematic
content analysis to examine common themes. These codes were then
compared to the codes identified during the interview with the class
teacher to establish commonalities and differences. The drawings were
analysed, and the results were compared with the facilities of the
classroom to determine which physical features are most desirable and
important to the children and which were irrelevant to them.

30
Chapter 5: Findings and Discussion

This chapter will present the data gathered in a Year 3 class in a state
school in the East Midlands. Structural aspects of the classroom,
specifically, the seating arrangements and the wall display, were
examined for this study. As mentioned in the literature review, a gap has
been identified in the literature regarding the alignment of physical
learning environments and teachers’ pedagogical approaches (Birdwell et
al., 2016; Morrone and Roman, 2019). The following chapter aims to
provide insights into this alignment by addressing the following research
questions:
1) To what extent does the physical learning environment align with
the pedagogical approach of the class teacher?
2) What factors contribute to this alignment?
3) In what ways is the learning environment structured to effectively
cater to the diverse needs of children, and how do these
arrangements impact student engagement and learning outcomes?
The chapter will begin by presenting the observations made by the
researcher about the seating arrangements since they were the most
frequently mentioned item. This will be followed by an analysis of the
seating arrangements from the perspective of the social, emotional, and
behavioural needs of the children, and then from the perspective of
academic achievement. Similarly, the observational data on the wall
displays will be presented, followed by a comparison between the
intended use of the wall displays and the actual use made by the children.

Theme 1: Seating arrangements

1.1 Observational data

Observational data was used to identify the type and frequency of

activities done by the children when they were seated at their tables.
Figure 1 illustrates the data collected through = observations during 5
school days, it shows how collaborative work was the most frequent
31
activity children in this classroom did at their tables, followed by listening
to the class teacher and receiving feedback.

32
 Figure 1: The activities performed seated during 5 days in a year 3 class

Figure 2 illustrates the average time in minutes children spent throughout

a day sitting at their tables compared to other areas in the classroom.
After determining how much time the children spent seated, we will now
focus on the pedagogical intentions of the class teacher and the strategies
he used to arrange the seats.

Figure 2: Minutes spent doing seated learning throughout 1 day in a year 3 class.

The tables in this class were organised in lines of 3 to 5 tables facing the
teacher’s table and the interactive whiteboard (See Appendix A).
33
Although the seats were

34
arranged in lines, the observations and the interview with the class
teacher revealed children were predominantly expected to work
collaboratively in most subjects except for mathematics. The observations
showed that when working in larger groups (at least three times a week),
children had to rearrange the seating layout moving their chairs and
tables to facilitate group work. This process led to significant time lost,
interruption of the lesson and children often misplacing their belongings,
particularly their pencil cases, and causing low-level disruptions. When
listening to the class teacher or working independently, children were
regularly sanctioned for talking and disturbing their peers (an average of 6
times every morning). This indicates that, as the teacher stated, the
purpose of these seated activities is to enhance the time on- task as well
as generate independent work.

As mentioned in the literature review, an effective learning environment is

established when the physical dimension is carefully aligned with the
teacher’s pedagogical approach (Gislason, 2010; Malik and Rizvi; 2018,
Roskos and Neuman, 2011; Makela, 2018 and Lam et al., 2018). Even
though the class teacher prioritizes collaborative learning, the seating
arrangement does not facilitate group work, leading to a negative impact
on the learning time. This aligns with the findings from studies by Lam et
al., (2021) and Birdwell (2016), which revealed that a lack of alignment
between teachers’ pedagogy and their classroom design is a common
condition which has an impact on learning outcomes and teaching.
However, while the seating arrangement may not be conducive to group
work, students engage in various activities including independent and
paired work, which do not require a rearrangement of the tables. This
finding is consistent with that of Santander (2022) and Canek (2022) who
also noted that it is challenging to accommodate these diverse learning
activities within a single seating arrangement. Several recent studies
(Cole et al., 2021; Sorrell, 2019) have begun to investigate classrooms
with flexible seating arrangements, where seating options are diverse
(chairs, bean bags, floor cushions, standing desks…) and can be easily
rearranged to suit diverse tasks. Nevertheless, further work is needed to

35
examine the effects of flexible seating in this particular classroom since it
poses a number of limitations including expenses, behaviour
management, children with special needs or space available (Wright,
2020; Cole et al., 2021)

36
The interview with the teacher and the collaborative interview with the
children revealed two main themes in relation to seating arrangements:
social and emotional needs and academic outcomes. The observational
data will now be compared with the information gathered from the
interviews.

1.2 Interviews with the children and the teacher

1.2.1 The social and emotional needs of the children

The class teacher reported using the seating arrangement to encourage

children’s social and emotional welfare and promote the integration of
specific students. Thus, demonstrating a commitment to establishing a
safe and inclusive space where all students feel valued (Berg and Stoltz,
2018). He outlined as a priority building positive relationships with the
most challenging students by seating them at the front closer to him: “It
really helped us build a stronger connection because we can communicate more
easily, I’ve noticed he feels more comfortable being closer to me.” In addition, he
aimed to promote the inclusion of some children who are isolated from the
group: “I sit them together, hoping they will find each other”, and considered the
personalities of the children when sitting them together “I sit child A next to
child B, who is very calm and quiet, to balance things out”.

On the question ‘how the learning environment is structured to effectively

cater to the diverse needs of children, and how do this impact student
engagement?’, this study found that the teacher adapted the seating
arrangement to meet the characteristics of the group and the needs of
individual pupils (Gest and Rodkin, 2011). According to Hoekstra et al.,
(2023), these strategies align with teacher’s strategies such as setting
expectations and grouping. Consistent with the literature, the teacher
reported a strong relationship between seating arrangements and
students’ well-being and social interactions (Byers et al., 2018; Wannarka
and Ruhl, 2008, Hulston, 2017; Tobia et al., 2020). As mentioned above,
the teacher prioritizes social integration when arranging seats. This
outcome is contrary to that of Kim et al (2020), who found that when
37
designing a seating arrangement, cultivating new friendships was deemed
to be the least significant for the teachers. In addition, Hoekstra et al.,
(2023) indicated that

38
practitioners often struggle to recognize social patterns accurately within
the class such as new friendships or bullying (Gest et al., 2014).

The data presented in Figure 3 illustrates that most children (9 children)

opted to draw the tables in groups, as shown in Figure 4, which might
indicate a preference for this seating arrangement. Conversely, only 4
children depicted tables arranged in rows, as shown in Figure 5, indicating
less preference for this seating arrangement.

Figure 3: The seating arrangements depicted in children’s drawings.

Figure 4: A child’s drawing of tables arranged in rows.

39
 Figure 5: A child’s drawing of tables arranged in groups.

However, these data must be interpreted with caution because the

drawings might lack depth and are susceptible to external influences
(Kara et al., 2021), as mentioned in the methodology chapter. For this
reason, the drawings acted as a prompt for further discussion with the
children (Clark, 2010; Hulston, 2017). When the researcher asked the
children about the seating layout in their drawings, two divergent and
often conflicting discourses emerged for seating in groups: friendship and
learning. Concerning friendship, a number of participants commented
they would like to sit in groups to be with their friends. Comments from
some of the children allude to this:

- Child C: “Because it feels nice to be close to my friends, we can talk, and I

feel safe and happy”.
- Child D: “That’s how we work sometimes in class, it would be fun to have the
tables like that all the time, so I can work with my friends every day.”

Nonetheless, some children acknowledged that working with their friends

might negatively affect their learning:

- Child E: “I know I will sometimes get distracted and talk too much’ ‘…and
sometimes get in trouble with Mr. S”
40
Conversely, a minority of participants expressed feelings of discomfort and
being distracted when working in groups, outlining a preference for
seating in rows. They described collaborative work, with children they may
not be friends with, as unsettling and disruptive to their learning:

- Child F: “It’s hard to focus when I’m worried about the others, I worry about
what they might think of me.”
- Child F: “Sometimes I have to wait for everyone, and I want to keep going.”

The data produced by the children matched with the data generated from the
interview with the teacher: they both recognized seated activities as an
opportunity to maintain and develop new friendships. Previous studies
(Hulston, 2017; Berg et al., 2018) have already identified the need for
students to be seated with their friends. However, consistent with the
literature (Adderley et al., 2015), students in this study also recognized
that this may impact their ability to focus on the given task. Thus,
demonstrating awareness of the tension between work output and
cultivating friendships (Alexander, 2010; Robinson, 2014).

1.2.2 The academic outcomes

The teacher indicated using seating arrangements to promote the

progress of individual students: “Students G and B are nearby because I know
they encourage one another and can work at a higher level”, and “These two sit
together because student H helps out J. It has been great to boost J’s confidence.”
In addition, he mentioned seating students at varying distances to him, to
either encourage students’ independence or give them extra support: “I
usually sit them at the back because I know I can trust them, they can work on their
own”.

Concerning the first research question, it was found that the strategies used
by the class teacher align with a socio-constructivist approach to
education that encourages collaboration between students. Furthermore,
it reflects the teacher’s commitment to adapting teaching, enabling each
student to progress at their own pace while providing support and
41
scaffolding when needed. Previous research has pointed out that the
seating layout may impact students’ interactions and attainment
(Wannarka and Ruhl,

42
2008; van den Berg and Cillessen, 2015; Tobia et al., 2020). As mentioned
in the literature review, such an argument is underpinned by a socio-
constructivist approach, since the physical environment can promote or
hinder actions such as low-level disruptions or asking more questions
(Makela et al., 2016; Bonem et al., 2020 and Fraser and Barry, 2023;
Wannarka and Ruhl, 2008). Consistent with the literature, this research
found that the purpose of the task, children’s preferences and teacher’s
expected behaviour should dictate seating arrangements (Hoekstra, 2023;
Berg and Cillesen, 2015).

Theme 2: Wall displays

2.1. Observational data

As was done previously, the data collected from the observations was
used to determine the type and frequency of activities carried out by the
children that involved using the wall displays in the classroom. From the
data in Figure 6, it can be seen that children used wall displays mainly
during collaborative and independent work. Although, occasionally, the
children use this as an opportunity to disturb their peers:

Figure 6: Activities performed involving the use of wall displays in a year 3 class.

43
However, looking back at Figure 2, we observe that compared to other
areas within the classroom, children do not regularly utilize the wall
displays. What is striking about this data is that students in this class pay
scant attention to wall displays. This aligns with findings from studies by
Almeda et al., (2014) and Cullingford (1978), which suggest that primary
school children do not often take notice of the information on wall displays
unless the class teacher deliberately calls their attention to a particular
piece of work. Nevertheless, Eckhoff (2019) noted that out of all the work
on display in the classroom, children only seem to recall their own. It is
important to note that, these results suggest that the effectiveness of
visual learning aids may be significantly diminished by the children’s lack
of engagement with wall displays. If they are not actively engaging with
the displays, they will not benefit fully from their educational value.
This data gathered during the observations will now be compared with the
interviews with the children and the class teacher. Through the interviews,
we aim to understand the pedagogical rationale and intended educational
purposes behind the design and use of wall displays and whether children
are aware of and engage with them in line with these intentions.

2.2 Interviews with the children and the teacher

2.2.1 The intended use of wall displays

The interview with the class teacher revealed that the intended purpose of
wall displays is to support children during independent work, especially
when it comes to arithmetic and writing:
“They are there to help the kids out when they are doing their own thing. There are
word banks, spelling lists, punctuation posters… and there’s some math stuff there
too for when they’re working on fractions.”
This may suggest that the teacher’s pedagogical strategy is focused on
encouraging student independence. He hopes to establish a sense of
confidence and autonomy in the learning process using wall displays. The
teacher stated:
“Instead of just relying on me to spell out words for them, it’s better if they get up
and check it out for themselves… It sticks in their heads more when they’ve had to
44
find it. It’s all about making sure they’re more independent”.

45
This finding is contrary to previous studies (Orts, 2006; Pointon and
Kershner, 1999) which have suggested that most teachers use wall
displays with decorative aims to showcase children’s work and their
learning journey across the curriculum. However, as stated in Tarr (2004),
it is important to acknowledge that teachers often have limited autonomy
over their classroom displays and are not only required to comply with the
school policies but also feel pressured to meet the expectations of parents
and colleagues regarding classroom aesthetics. The teacher mentioned:
“There’s always that pressure to make sure everything looks just right. It’s not always
easy to keep up with it all. The displays end up taking a backseat.”

2.2.2 The actual use of wall displays

Examining children’s drawings, the researcher observed that wall displays

were rarely depicted. Rather, children drew windows and/or the
whiteboard, as shown in Figure 7. Out of 27 drawings, only 4 included wall
displays like posters or word lists in their drawing.

Figure 7: Children’s drawings depicting windows and whiteboards.

An initial objective of the project was to identify to what extent the

physical learning environment aligns not only with the teacher’s
pedagogical approach but also with the needs and preferences of the
children. These results corroborate the findings made during the
observations: despite the teacher’s efforts and pedagogical intentions,
little attention is paid by the children to the wall displays. Such a strong
relationship between children’s actions and preferences and their physical
46
learning environment

47
was reported in the literature review (Bonem et al., 2020; Fraser and
Barry, 2023; Gislason, 2010).
Turning now to the collaborative interviews with the children, almost all of
them were aware of the purpose of wall displays within the classroom.
However, they admitted not utilizing them very often for various reasons.
This study found that the three main reasons why the children did not
used the wall displays were: they frequently forget that they are there,
they sometimes find them difficult to access and finally, they prefer to ask
the teacher since they think the displays are confusing:

Child G: “I just forget… I just want to start writing straight away”.

Child H: “I don’t use them (wall displays) because they are far from my desk. Like, I
feel shy about getting up and walking over to them. The spelling list is near A’s table,
and I don’t want to bother her”.
Child I: “They are confusing for me; I’d rather have the teacher, or my partner
explain things to me”.

Wall displays are regarded in the literature as a key element in the

classroom environment. As indicated in the literature review, widely
reported studies by Fisher et al., (2014) and Barret et al., (2013),
demonstrated that children in richly decorated classrooms exhibited a
higher level of distraction. In contrast to these findings, however, no
evidence of distractibility was found in the interviews or the observations.
Such inconsistency may be due to the age of the children and the type of
wall displays used by the class teacher, which mainly consisted of
commercial and simple posters. As suggested by Tarr (2004), didactic
commercial displays do not often stimulate students’ engagement since
they frequently fail to reflect their real interests. Finally, some authors
noted that there don’t appear to be any guidelines to assist teachers in
assessing the purpose of displays and evaluating commercial materials.

48
Chapter 6: Conclusion

This dissertation began from the viewpoint that only by understanding the
relationship between the physical learning environment and distinct
teaching methods, educators can make sensible choices on how to design
their classrooms to enhance their teaching and the students’ learning
experiences. This case study set out to establish whether the physical
learning environment of a particular classroom aligns with the
pedagogical approach of the class teacher. In addition, the effects of these
arrangements have been evaluated in relation to the needs and
preferences of the children within the classroom through collaborative
interviews and observations.

The relevance of this relationship was clearly supported by the findings

chapter. Firstly, the researcher identified a lack of alignment between the
teacher’s insistence on collaborative work and social interactions, and the
actual arrangement of tables in lines. However, the researcher
acknowledges that it is challenging to accommodate diverse learning
activities within a single seating arrangement. Additionally, even though
the literature recommends flexible seating arrangements (Cole et al.,
2021; Sorrell, 2019), further work is needed to examine the effects of
flexible seating in this particular classroom. Secondly, it was found that
despite the teacher’s efforts, children pay scant attention to wall displays.
This again shows a misalignment between the teacher’s intended purpose
and students’ preferences. Future research should explore how different
types of displays and posters may be more engaging for children. Finally,
a further study focusing on other structural elements of the classroom
such as the carpet area or the reading corner is suggested to develop a
deeper understanding of the alignment between the teacher’s
pedagogical approach and the classroom design.
An underlying aim of this research project was to enhance the
professional development of the researcher by providing insights into one
of the many concerns of newly qualified teachers: how to set up and

49
design their own classrooms. It is hoped that all the information presented
here will help new qualified teachers in this purpose of designing a space
that will foster their professional development.

50
Reference list

1. Adderly, J. Hope, A., Hughes, C., Jones, L., Messiou, K., and Shaw, P.
(2015) ‘Exploring Inclusive Practices in Primary Schools: Focusing on
Children’s Voices’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30 (1).
2. Ahmad, N., Shaharim, A., and Abdullah, L. (2017) ‘Teacher-Student
Interactions, Learning Commitment, Learning Environment and Their
Relationship with Student Learning Comfort’, Journal of Turkish Science
Education, 14(1), 57-72.
3. Alexander, R (2010) Children, their world, their education: final report and
recommendations. Cambridge Primary Review Trust. Available at:
https://cprtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CPR_revised_booklet
.pdf
4. Almeda, V., Scupelli, P., Baker, S., Weber, M. and Fisher, A. (2014)
‘Clustering of design decisions in classroom visual displays’, Proceedings
of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge,
pp. 44-48.
5. Amali, K., Ridzuan, M., Rahmat, H., Seng, Z., and Mustafa, C. (2023)
‘Exploring learning environment through Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological
Systems Theory’, Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development, 12(2), 144-162.
6. Asiyai, R. (2014) ‘Students' perception of the condition of their
classroom physical learning environment and its impact on their
learning and motivation’, College student journal, 48(4), 714-723.
7. Atkins, L. and Wallace, S. (2012) Qualitative Research in Education. First
Edition. London: Sage.
8. Baars, S., Schellings, L., Krishnamurthy, S., Joore, P., den Brok, J., and
van Wesemael, J. (2021) ‘A framework for exploration of relationship
between the psychosocial and physical learning environment’, Learning
Environments Research, 24, pp.43-69.
9. Baars., Schellings, M., Joore, P. and Wesemael, V., (2023) ‘Physical
learning environments’ supportiveness to innovative pedagogies:
students’ and teachers’ experiences’, Learning Environment Research, 26
(2), pp. 617-659.
51
10. Baroutsis, A., Kervin, L., Woods, A., and Comber, B. (2019)
‘Understanding children’s perspectives of classroom writing practices
through drawings’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 20(2), 177-
193.

52
11. Barret, P., Zhang, Y., and Barret, L. (2011) ‘A child’s eye view of
primary school- built environments’, Intelligent Buildings International, 3(2),
107-123.
12. Barrett, P. and Zhang, Y. (2012) ‘Teachers’ views on the designs of
their primary schools’, Intelligent buildings international, 4 (2), 89–110.
13. Barrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y., and 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.
14. Berg, M., Stoltz, S. (2018) ‘Enhancing social inclusion of children
with externalizing problems through classroom seating arrangements:
A randomized controlled trial’, Journal of Emotional and Behavioural
Disorders, 26 (1), pp. 31-41.
15. Bindu, C. (2016) ‘Impact of ICT on teaching and learning: a
literature review’,
International Journal of Management and Commerce Innovations, 4 (1), 24-31.
16. Birdwell, T., Roman, T., Hammersmith, L., and Jerolimov, D. (2016)
‘Active learning Classroom Observation Tool: A practical tool for
classroom observation and instructor reflection in Active Learning’,
Journal on Centres for Teaching and Learning, 28-50.
17. Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., and Brown, P. (2011) ‘Examining the
effect of class size on classroom engagement and teacher–pupil
interaction: Differences in relation to pupil prior attainment and
primary vs. secondary schools’, Learning and instruction, 21(6), 715-730.
18. Bonem, M., Fedesco, N., and Zissimopoulos, N. (2020) ‘What you do
is less important than how you do it: the effects of learning
environment on student outcomes’, Learning Environments Research,
23(1), 27-44.
19. Brachtl, S., Ipser, C., Keser, F., Oppl, S., Oppl, S., Pakov, E., and
Radinger, G., (2023) ‘Physical home-learning environments of
traditional and non-traditional students during the COVID pandemic:
exploring the impact of learning space on students’ motivation, stress
and well-being’, Smart learning environments, 10 (1), p.7.
20. Buckler, S., and Moore, H. (2023) Essentials of research methods in
education. Second Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publication.
21. Byers, T., Imms, W., and Hartnell-Young, E. (2018) ‘Comparative
53
analysis of the impact of traditional versus innovative learning
environment on student attitudes and learning outcomes. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 58, 167-177.

54
22. Canek, L. (2022) Seating arrangements in group discussions: the students’
attitudes, Master thesis. University of Graz. Available at:
https://unipub.uni- graz.at/obvugrhs/8543753 (Accessed 9th May 2024)
23. Cedric, C. (1978) ‘Wall displays-children’s reactions’, Education, 3-13,
12-14.
24. Chali, M., Eshete, S. and Debela, L. (2022) ‘Learning how research
design methods work: a review of Creswell’s Research Design:
Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches’, The
Qualitative Report, 27 (12), pp. 2956-2960.
25. Clark, A. (2010) Transforming Children’s Spaces: Children’s and Adults’
Participation in Designing Learning Environments. First Edition. London:
Routledge.
26. Clarke, A. (2010) Transforming children’s spaces: children’s and adults’
participation in designing learning environments. Second edition. London:
Routledge.
27. Clinton, V., and Wilson, N (2019) ‘More than chalkboards: classroom
spaces and collaborative learning attitudes’, Learning environments
research, 324-344.
28. Clough, P. and Nutbrown, C. (2012) A student guide to methodology
justifying enquiry. Third Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE.
29. Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K (2018) Research methods in
education, Eighth Edition, London: Routledge.
30. Cole, K., Schroeder, K., Bataineh, M. and Al-Bataineh, A. (2021)
‘Flexible Seating Impact on Classroom Environment’, Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 20(2), pp.62-74.
31. Deamer, P. (2020) ‘Design pedagogy: The new architectural studio
and its consequences’, Architecture MPS, 18 (1).
32. Eckhoff, A. (2019) ‘Public displays of children’s work in early learning
and elementary school settings as documentation of children’s learning
experiences’, International Journal of Early Childhood, 73-91.
33. Fonsen, E., and Soukainen, U. (2020) ‘Sustainable pedagogical
leadership in Finnish early childhood education (ECE): An evaluation by
ECE professionals’, Early childhood education journal, 48(2), 213-222.
34. Ford, A. (2016) ‘Planning classroom design and layout to increase
pedagogical options for secondary teachers’, Educational Planning, 23
55
 (1), 25-33.
35. Fraser, B. J. (1998) ‘Classroom environment instruments:
Development, validity, and applications’, Learning environments research,
1, 7-34.

56
36. Fraser, J. (2023) ‘The evolution of the field of learning
environments research’,
Education Sciences, 13 (3).
37. Gest, D., and Rodkin, P. (2011) ‘Teaching practices and elementary
classroom peer ecologies’, Journal of applied Developmental Psychology, 32
(5).
38. Gest, D., Madill, A., Zadzora, M., Miller, M., and Rodkin, C. (2014)
‘Teacher management of elementary classroom social dynamics:
Associations with changes in student adjustment’, Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 22(2).
39. Ghaziani, R. (2010) ‘School design: researching children’s views’,
Childhoods Today, 4 (1).
40. Gislason, N. (2010) ‘Architectural design and the learning
environment: a framework for school design research’, Learning
Environment Research, 13, 127- 128
41. Greville-Giddings, B. (2022) ‘Shaping the space: Learning
environment and SEMH’, Impact: The Chartered College.
42. Harvey, A. (2018) ‘Observe before you leap: why observation
provides critical insights for formative research and intervention design
that you will never get from focus groups, interviews or KAP Surveys’,
Global health, science and practice, 6 (2), 299-316.
43. Haverinen, U., and Shaughnessy, R. (2015) ‘Effects of classroom
ventilation rate and temperature on students’ test scores’, PLOS ONE,
10 (8).
44. Heschong, L., Wright, L., and Okura, S. (2002) ‘Daylighting impacts
on human performance in school’, Journal of the Illuminating Engineering
Society, 31(2), 101- 114.
45. Heschong, M (2002) ‘Windows and classrooms: a study of student
performance and the indoor environment’, Fair Oaks California Energy.
46. Hoekstra, A., Berg, H., Lansu, A., Mainhard, T., and Cillessen, H.
(2023) ‘Teachers’ goals and strategies for classroom seating
arrangements: A qualitative study’, Teaching and teacher education, 124,
p.104016.
47. Imms, W., and Byers, T. (2017) ‘Impact of classroom design on
teacher pedagogy and student engagement and performance in
57
 mathematics’, Learning Environment Research, 20, pp. 139-152.
48. Jiang, L., Huang, D., Liu, M., and Yang, W. (2020) ‘Beyond synthetic
noise: Deep learning on controlled noisy labels’, international conference
on machine learning, 4804-4815.

58
49. Kangas, M. (2010) ‘Finnish children’s views on the ideal school and
learning environment’, Learning Environment Research, 205-223
50. Kara, H., Lemon, N., Mannay, D., and McPherson, M. (2021) Creative
Research Methods in Education: Principles and Practices. First Edition. Policy
Press: Bristol
51. Kershner, R. (1999) ‘Making decisions about organising the
primary classroom environment as a context for learning: the views
of three experienced teachers and their pupils, Pam Pointon Research,
29.
52. Kim, S., Lin, J., Chen, J., Logan, J., Purtell, M., and Justice, M. (2020)
‘Influence of teachers’ grouping strategies on children’s peer social
experiences in early elementary classrooms’, Frontiers in Psychology, 11,
587170.
53. Klatte, M., Bergström, K., and Lachmann, T. (2013) ‘Does noise
affect learning? A short review on noise effects on cognitive
performance in children’, Frontiers in psychology, 4, 55965.
54. Könings, D., Seidel, T., and van Merriënboer, J. (2014) ‘Participatory
design of learning environments: integrating perspectives of students,
teachers, and designers’, Instructional Science, 42, 1-9.
55. Konings, D., Seidel, T., and van Merriënboer, J. (2014). ‘Participatory
design of learning environments: integrating perspectives of students,
teachers, and designers’, Instructional Science, 42, 1-9.
56. Kvale, S., Brinkmann S. (2009) Interviews: learning the craft of
qualitative research interviewing. Second Edition. London: Sage
Publications.
57. Lam, E., Chan, D., and Olawumi, O. (2021) ‘Effects of Pedagogical
transition on classroom design’, Edinburgh Napier University.
58. Lam, E., Wong, I., and Chan, D. (2018) ‘Impacts of Space and
Furniture Design on Student Learning’, Conference On Striving for Quality
Education–FSTE.
59. Little, T. (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods. First
Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
60. Longobardi, C., Bozzato, P., and Fabris, M. (2022) ‘The
representation of male and female gender role development in

59
 children’s drawings: an examination of 20 years of changes in Italian
culture and society’, Psychological Education Research, 30, 20-32.
61. Luz, A (2008) ‘The design of educational space: a process-centred
built pedagogy’,
International Conference on Engineering and product design education, 339-
343.

60
62. Lynch, S. and Mcloughlin, G. (2018) ‘Optimizing the learning
environment for students in physical education: Integrating theories of
motivation’, Active Healthy Journal, 25(1), pp.35-40.
63. Mäkelä, T., and Helfenstein, S. (2016) ‘Developing a conceptual
framework for participatory design of psychosocial and physical
learning environments’, Learning Environments Research, 19, 411-440.
64. Mäkelä, T., Helfenstein, S., Lerkkanen, K., and Poikkeus, A. M. (2018)
‘Student participation in learning environment improvement: Analysis
of a co-design project in a Finnish upper secondary school’, Learning
Environments Research, 21, 19- 41.
65. Malik, H., and Rizvi, A. (2018) ‘Effect of Classroom Learning
Environment on Students' Academic Achievement in Mathematics at
Secondary Level’, Bulletin of Education and research, 40(2), 207-218.
66. March, F. (2020) ‘Learning environments for the professional
development of practitioners’, REDU: revista de docencia universitaria,
18(1), 169-191.
67. Matias, C. (2021) The handbook of critical theoretical research methods in
education. Second Edition. London: Routledge.
68. McAteer, M. (2013) Action research in education. First Edition. Los
Angeles: SAGE Publications.
69. Merriënboer, J., McKenney, S., Cullinan, D., and Heuer, J. (2017)
‘Aligning pedagogy with physical learning spaces’, European Journal of
Education, 52(3), 253-267.
70. Meyrick, J. (2006) ‘What is good qualitative research? A first step
towards a comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality’, Health
Psychology, 799-808.
71. Mokhtar, F., Jiménez, M., Heppell, S., and Segovia, N. (2016).
Creating learning spaces with learners for the third millennium.’ Bordón:
revista de pedagogía. 27- 56
72. Morrone, A., and Roman, T. (2019) ‘Creating a research based ALC
Master Plan’, The Voice of the Higher Education Technology Community.
73. Muhamad N., Kamaruzzaman, N., Sulaiman, R., and Mahbob, S.
(2011) ‘Indoor air quality at school: ventilation rates and it impacts
towards children’, 2nd International Conference on Environmental Science and

61
Technology.

62
74. Nedelcu, A. (2013) ‘Analysing students’ drawings of their classroom:
A child- friendly research method’, Revista de Cercetare şi Intervenţie
Socială, (42), 275- 293.
75. Needham, D., and Palaiologou, I., and Male, T. (2016) Doing research
in education: theory and practice. London: SAGE Publications.
76. Niemi, K. (2021) ‘The best guess for the future? Teachers’
adaptation to open and flexible learning environments in Finland’,
Education Inquiry, 12(3), 282-300.
77. Norwalk, E., Hamm, V., Farmer, W., and Barnes, L. (2016) ‘Improving
the school context of early adolescence through teacher attainment to
victimization: Effects on school belonging’, The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 36(7).
78. Nourmusavi, S., Karimi, R., and Mirbazel, S. (2020) ‘Ideal physical
features of environmental design in children’s hospital: Using children’s
perspectives’, Facilities, 38(5-6), 445-466.
79. Nyabando, T., and Evanshen, P. (2022) ‘Second grade students’
perspectives of their classrooms’ physical learning environment: A
multiple case study’, Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(5), 709-720.
80. Obong, L. Okey, S. and Okaba, A. (2010) ‘Strategies for school
environment management in Nigerian secondary schools: A case study
of Calabar, Nigeria, International Education Studies, 3 (1), 196-205.
81. Oonk, C. (2016) Learning and teaching in the regional learning environment:
enabling students and teachers to cross boundaries in multi-stakeholder
practices, Doctoral thesis. Wageningen University and Research.
Available at:
https://www.proquest.com/openview/6d3ea6d668f82557fe5e5cfcb3bd3
a93/1?pq- origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y (Accessed 9th May
2024)
82. Orts, J. (2006) ‘The Classroom Environment: Problems and

Solutions,’ E-Journal pdf, 4 (3), 29-37.

83. Pazos, M. S. (1986) ‘Spatial design of the classroom and school

behaviours’,
Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica, 4.
84. Preisser, E., and Nasar, J. (2008) ‘Assessing building performance: Its
63
 evolution from post-occupancy evaluation’, International Journal of
Architectural Research, 2 (1), 282-300.
85. Punch, K and Oancea, A. (2014) Introduction to research methods in
education. Second Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE

64
86. Quintao, C., Andrade, P., and Almeida, F. (2020) ‘How to improve the
validity and reliability of a case study approach?’, Journal of
interdisciplinary studies in Education, 9(2), pp. 264-275
87. Ramos, G. and Barrios, L. (2020) ‘Content and language integrated
learning through wall display’, Escuela Abierta, 29-46.
88. Robinson
, C. (2014) Children, their Voices and their Experiences of School: what does
the evidence tell us? Cambridge Primary Review Trust. Available at:
https://cprtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/FINAL-VERSION-
Carol- Robinson-Children-their-Voices-and-their-Experiences-of-
School.pdf

(Accessed 14th April, 2024)

89. Roman, T., Frazee, R., and Johnson, C. (2022) ‘Helping teachers to
create engaging and inclusive learning environments with open-access
resources, tools, and supportive communities’, Impact: The Chartered
College.
90. Roskos, K. and Neuman, B. (2011) ‘The Classroom Environment:
First, last and always’, The Reading teacher, 65 (2), 110–114.
91. Salkind, J. (2010) Encyclopaedia of research design. First Edition. Los
Angeles: SAGE.
92. Santander, M (2022) How seating arrangements play a role in classroom
management, PhD thesis. St Thomas University. Available at:
https://www.proquest.com/openview/5a65c98140bbfa8c48f3150099a16
748/1?pq
-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y (Accessed: 23rd April 2024)
93. Sharp, J. (2009) Success with your education research project. Second
Edition. Exeter: Learning Matters.
94. Sorrell, M. (2019) ‘Perceptions of flexible seating’, Journal of Teacher
Action Research, 5(2),
95. Szpytma, C., and Szpytma, M. (2019) ‘Model of 21st century physical
learning environment (MoPLE21)’, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 34.
96. Temli, Y. (2016) ‘Effective Learning Environment Characteristics as a
Requirement of Constructivist Curricula: Teachers' Needs and School

65
 Principals' Views’, International Journal of Instruction, 9(2), 183-198.
97. Thomas, G (2017) How to do your research project: a guide for
students in education and applied social sciences. Third edition. Los Angeles:
SAGE.
98. Thomson, P., Hall, C., and Russell, L. (2007) ‘If these walls could
speak: Reading displays of primary children’s work’, Ethnography and
Education, 2 (3), 381-400.

66
99. Tobia, V., Sacchi, S., Cerina, V., Manca, S. and Fornara, F. (2022)
‘The influence of classroom seating arrangement on children’s
cognitive processes in primary school: the role of individual variables’,
Current Psychology, 41(9), pp.6522-6533.
100. Tondeur, J. Bruyne, E., Driessche, M., McKenney, S., and Zandvliet,
D. (2015) ‘The physical placement of classroom technology and its
influences on educational practices’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 45
(4), 537-556.
101. Van Den Berg, H. and Cillessen, H. (2015) ‘Peer status and
classroom seating arrangements: A social relations analysis. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 130, 19-34.
102. Wang, T., Degol L., Amemiya, J., Parr, A., and Guo, J. (2020)
‘Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychological
wellbeing: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, Developmental
Review, 57.
103. Wannarka, R. and Ruhl, K. (2008) ‘Seating arrangements that
promote positive academic and behavioural outcomes: a review of
empirical research’, Support for learning, 23 (2), 89-93.
104. Wargocki, P., and Wyon, P. (2007) ‘The effects of moderately raised
classroom temperatures and classroom ventilation rate on the
performance of schoolwork by children, HVACR Research, 13 (2), 193-
220.
105. Wirz-Justice, A., Skene, J., and Münch, M. (2021) ‘The relevance of
daylight for humans’, Biochemical pharmacology, 191, 114304.
106. Wright, S. (2020) ‘Flexible seating in the classroom’, Early Childhood
Education Commons.
107. Zaatari, W., and Maalouf, I. (2022) ‘How the Bronfenbrenner bio-
ecological system theory explains the development of students’ sense
of belonging to school’, SAGE Open, 12(4).
108. Zyngier, D. (2014) ‘Class size and academic results, with a focus on
children from culturally, linguistically, and economically
disenfranchised communities’, A journal of evidence reviews in key policy
areas, (1), 1-24.

67
 Appendix

 Appendix A

68

View publication
stats