¹û¶³´«Ã½

Literature review

With a literature review of 64 studies, the first part of Baars’ research identified key aspects involved in the interaction between the physical environment and the teaching methods, and what relationships between aspects were examined.

The analysis showed that research often focused on the impact of the physical environment on learning outcomes, but less attention has been given to the impact on teaching methods and daily interactions.

Based upon the review, Baars developed a framework to pinpoint the relationship between physical environment and learning in the daily practice.

Experiences

The second part of Baars’ PhD research explored the opinions and experiences of different people involved in the development and use of innovative learning environments at NHLS University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands: students, teachers, architects, managers and policy makers.

Students and teachers described how their innovative physical environment affected their daily activities for learning. Their experiences confirmed and nuanced the relations as mentioned in the literature review. This shows that innovative learning spaces work best when teachers and students are involved in shaping and managing them.

However, school’s organization does not always support such user control. Interviews with architects, policymakers, and facilities managers revealed a dilemma: they all recognized the benefits of empowering teaching teams, but they often hesitate to involve them. Reasons for not sharing control in decision making concerned competing priorities (such as functional versus economical) and the limited experience of the teaching teams with the use of innovative learning spaces.

Year-long pedagogical use and insights

The third part of Baars’ PhD research followed a year-long pedagogical use of a new physical environment - to understand how different people - from students to policymakers - learn from users’ experiences.

With interviews, observations, and daily logs, this part of the research compared initial expectations with actual experiences. The findings showed a major gap: once the environment was in use, users made little effort to evaluate and adjust the learning space or its use based on evolving insight.

Teachers were focused on keeping their education running, while managers and policymakers did not systematically monitor how the environment supported teaching and learning.

Attention returned to the use of space once the interviews were concluded, after which findings were discussed, and improvements made. Giving teaching teams more control is important but appeared not enough to exchange experiences and improve practices.

From theory to practice

In conclusion, Baars’s research confirms that pedagogical practices and learning spaces are deeply connected and their relationship constantly evolving. To optimize this relationship, schools and universities need to encourage collaboration between all involved, from students to policymakers.

According to Baars, this could be done by providing ongoing support for teachers and students to tailor their teaching and learning practices to the physical learning environment and vice versa, for example. In addition, Baars argues that establishing feedback systems could help with the continual improvement of learning environments.

By using the framework developed in this study, school organizations can enhance the knowledge exchange for collectively creating more effective and engaging learning environments in which the physical environment supports new ways of teaching and learning.

Title of PhD thesis: Supervisors: Pieter van Wesemael, Gonny Schellings and Peter Joore.