TR4 Web
TR4 Web
TR4 Web
net/publication/326415958
CITATIONS READS
63 7,005
5 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Terry Byers on 31 October 2018.
2
A Systematic Review of the Effects of Learning Environments on Student Learning Outcomes
Byers, T., Mahat, M., Liu, K., Knock, A., & Imms, W. (2018). Systematic Review of the Effects of Learning Environments on Student Learning
Outcomes. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, LEaRN. Retrieved from: http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/reports
© Innovative Learning Environments & Teacher Change, LEaRN, The University of Melbourne, 2018.
This publication copyright is held by Innovative Learning Environments & Teacher Change, LEaRN, and the University of Melbourne.
Except as permitted under the Australian Copyright Act 1968 no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
communicated or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission.
This research is supported by Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects funding scheme (project LP150100022). The
views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the literature contributions of graduate researchers in the ILETC project and for their participation at various
stages of the systematic review process. We would also like to thank the ILETC Chief Investigators for their input at various stages of phase
1 of the project.
Cover images: (front) Pegasus Primary School, Jasmax Architecture, Stephen Goodenough photography; (rear) Our Lady of Sion College,
Law Architects, Adam Thwaites photography.
Aim Results
The systematic review identified evidence that Of the 5,521 articles retrieved, 20 were included
different learning environments (blended, innovative in this review. The studies ranged from single-site
learning environment (ILE), open-plan and traditional) comparative studies through to quasi-experimental
have an impact on student learning outcomes. There randomised designs at multiple sites. Samples
are significant methodological questions around the ranged from 17 to 22,679 students from primary
availability and viability of empirical evidence. This and secondary schools. The review revealed that
systematic review investigated how researchers assessment regimes that favoured the prevailing
measure changes in academic outcomes attributed view of academic progress in the domains of literacy
to the intervention of changes to the primary and and numeracy were most common. Importantly, the
review identified few robust and valid instruments
secondary schooling learning environments.
that assessed the impact of different spatial
Method layouts on student learning in the 21st Century
learning domains of creativity, critical thinking,
A search of twelve databases, which integrated
communication, collaboration and problem-solving.
fields of education or design, identified those
studies that addressed student learning outcomes
Interpretation
in a range of environments in both primary and
The review presented a small number of studies
secondary educational settings. Quantitative data
with adequate quality, sampling and statistical
was extracted using a customised form, with
process to isolate and then evaluate the impact of
the application of various processes to assess
different learning environment types. These studies
bias, reliability and validity to document changes
presented evidence of a positive correlation between
in discrete measure/s of academic or learning
learning environments, and improvements in student
outcomes.
academic achievement. At the same time, the
review highlighted the need for further longitudinal
evaluation of how different learning environments
impact a broader spectrum of student academic
outcomes.
4
5
Contents
Overview 4
Introduction 8
Research Questions 10
Methods 10
Systematic Review Results 14
Risk of Sampling Bias and Quality Assessment 28
Discussion 32
Conclusions 38
References 42
6
Anglican Church Grammar School Centenary Library, Brand + Slater Architects. Christopher Frederick Jones photography.
7
Introduction
Rationale
School learning environments are a matter of global Development (OECD) countries, such as Australia
policy and systemic government investment (Dumont and New Zealand, to invest significant public funding
& Istance, 2010). The strategic reconsideration of in new school buildings. In Australia alone, more than
school learning spaces is a response to demographic, AU$16 billion was approved for investment in school
economic and technological changes that have building projects from 2009 (Wall, 2009).
altered the perceptions of what constitutes effective
Despite the current interest and systemic investment
teaching and learning (see MCEETYA, 2008; New
in school learning environments, there is a lack of
Zealand Ministry of Education, 2011; New Zealand
empirical data to adequately evaluate how existing
Ministry of Education, 2014; OECD, 2013). The
and alternative learning environments (blended, ILEs
narrative of ‘21st Century Learning’ (creativity, critical
and open) impact teaching and learning (Blackmore,
thinking, communication, collaboration and problem-
Bateman, O’Mara, & Loughlin, 2011; Brooks, 2011;
solving) has prompted some to question the efficacy
Gislason, 2010). Brooks is critical of the overt
of existing classroom models and to put forward
theorising around these new spaces, with a “dearth
blended, open and, more recently, innovative learning
of systematic, empirical research being conducted”
environments (ILEs) (See examples of Alterator &
on their impact on teaching and learning (p. 719). For
Deed, 2013; Benade, 2017; Dovey & Fisher, 2014;
Painter, Fournier, Grape, Grummon, Morelli, Whitmer,
Dumont & Istance; Imms, Cleveland, & Fisher, 2016).
& Cevetello (2013), this lack of evidence stems from
Debates around the form and function of what
the fact that there are very few methodologies and
constitutes an effective learning environment have led
metrics able to isolate and then assess how different
some Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
learning spaces affect both teachers and students.
8
There remains little understanding if, or to what
extent, different school learning environments affect
student academic or learning outcomes (Blackmore
et al., 2012).
Objectives
In the context of learning environment type/s (blended,
ILEs, open-plan and traditional), the objectives of this
review are:
9
Research Questions
Methods
Review methodology
The review adopted the principles and techniques and the breadth of studies retrieved in the search
of systematic reviews, which involved sifting necessitated a full-team discussion to determine the
abstracts, scrutinising full papers and abstracting final list of included articles. The potential for selection
data. One researcher performed the initial search bias was addressed by the disciplined process
and subsequent data extraction. Two members of followed by reviewers, sometimes bringing into the
the team checked each title and abstract to decide discussion their or another team member’s specific
whether the full paper should be read. The lead team understanding of the construct.
member was consulted if a difference of opinion
arose. Similarly, each full paper was read by at least Search strategy
two members of the team and agreement sought The database search for this systematic review
from the lead team member for any variations of was performed in January 2017 using EBSCOhost
opinions. Two other members of the team checked databases (Academic Search Complete, Avery Index
10% of the abstraction records. The complexity to Architectural Periodicals, Education Research
of the underlying construct of different learning Complete, Educational Administration Abstracts,
environments and student learning outcomes
10
ERIC), Proquest databases (Education Database, students in these schools. To ensure that relevant
Art and Humanities Database, Humanities Index, information was not missed, studies were included
PAIS), OVID, Informit, Scopus and Web of Science. that considered known student learning outcome
These databases integrate information from the measures, even if student learning outcomes were
fields of education and design and include articles not the primary study objective. In the current review,
addressing student learning outcomes in a range of the aim was to assess quantitative changes in
environments. A study protocol was not registered. student learning outcomes before and after assigned
Operational definitions were determined for each intervention(s); therefore, articles were included on the
aspect of our search, which related directly to the basis of discrete measure/s of academic or learning
research question and selection criteria (Table 1). outcomes.
The search terms were developed using related
literature and chosen by team consensus based on
their theoretical and practical significance. Search
terms addressed the concepts of student learning
outcomes and different learning environment type/s,
and the use of intervention-based study designs.
Where available, exploded search terms were used,
as well as associated terminology in the title, abstract,
and, where appropriate, the keywords of the articles.
Boolean operators helped narrow the search to
relevant research fields.
Selection criteria
An ILE is defined by the OECD (2013, p. 11) as “an
organic, holistic concept – an ecosystem that includes
the activity and the outcomes of the learning”. The
concept embraces the learning taking place as well
as the setting. The OECD describes ILEs as multi-
modal, technology-infused and flexible learning
spaces that are responsive to evolving educational
practices (OECD, 2015). The selection criteria for this
review (Table 2) aimed to document how researchers
perceived student learning outcomes and therefore
focused on the definitions they provided. To ensure
the inclusion of a comprehensive breadth of articles,
the application of the selection criteria did not use
operational definitions of student learning outcomes.
The population of interest in this review was both
primary and secondary school students. Therefore,
studies were limited to those which involved
11
Table 1: Study search terminology
12
Table 2: Slection criteria
Data collection and assessment of quality and selection). While, assessments of internal
consistency and reliability were made on the relevant
Covidence was the primary screening and data
aspects of the COnsensus-based Standards for
extraction tool used for the systematic review.
the selection of health Measurement INstruments
The evaluation of sampling bias, reliability and (COSMIN) checklist (Terwee et al., 2012).
validity ascertained the quality of selected studies.
The Cochrane Collaboration tool assessed the risk Synthesis of studies
of selection, detection, attrition and reporting bias A two-part narrative approach analysed the results
(Higgins et al., 2011). Even though the tool was of the selected studies. First, the research questions
developed specifically for assessing randomised of this review framed the analysis of findings of the
control trials, it presented a viable means to evaluate selected studies. Second, a synthesis of the collective
a wider variety of methodological designs of the results addressed potential gaps and issues and
selected studies. A summary of the relevant measures established a frame for future meta-analysis.
utilised by the selected studies was summarised to
outline key characteristics, differences and similarities
across the final study selection. The work of Campbell
and Stanley (1963) informed the assessment of the
internal validity (history, instrumentation, maturation
13
Systematic Review Results
The initial database search revealed 5,521 articles languages other than English, non-peer reviewed
after applying filters based on the selection criteria: journal articles and articles published before 1960.
primary and secondary students in quantitative Appraisal of titles and abstracts excluded 4,409
intervention-based and single-case experimental articles, with 72 articles undergoing full-text review.
studies, published as full texts in peer review journals Only 20 of these made the final analysis; 51 did not
between 1960 and 2016. Figure 1 displays the number have student academic or learning outcomes as a
of references yielded during the initial database search dependent variable or statistically analysed changes
and subsequent stages of the review. Following this in measures of achievement.
identification, the number of references was reduced
to 4,481 after the removal of duplicates, articles in
Records identified
through database
searching
(n = 5,521)
Identification
Records after
duplicates removed
(n = 1,040)
Studies included in
qualitative synthesis
(n = 0)
Included
Studies included in
quantitative synthesis
(n = 20)
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the articles yielded during the systematic review process (including removal of duplicates and
references that did not align with selection criteria). The demographic descriptors of participants in each of the studies, the student
outcomes measured and study characteristics are shown in Table 3.
14
Table 3: Demographic descriptors, student outcomes measured and study characteristics.
15
Instrument Use Theory Focus of study LE Effects on SO Effect size
Multimedia aligned NDf To examine the effects Generative Students performed better FCC
tests: Fraction of of enhanced anchored maths LEf. on both curriculum aligned 0.75
the Cost Challenge instruction (EAI) on the tests: FCC & KCC which were
(FCC), Kim’s Komet maths achievement multimedia and hands-on, but KKC
Challenge (KKC) Vs. (particularly fraction showed no improvement in 0.78
Traditional: Fractions knowledge) of students the fractions computation test
computation test, of low achievement and standardised tests.
Standardized tests due to challenging
behaviours.
Test scores ND To assess the Trad.h LE Vs The blended LE improved NDf
achievement of two blended or student achievement in
groups of students e-learning comparison to the trad.
over two years: one LE. However, the comfort with
traditional, and one blended LE differed and was
blended, to determine independent of test-score.
whether ICT has an
impact on achievement.
Scale of Attitudes ND To determine the Laboratory Post-tests of academic ND
towards Learning academic achievement control achievement, retention and
and Teaching of students in Web system positive attitude after doing
Process and the Design in an LCS and (LCS) vs Web design were higher in
Achievement Tests Trad. LE. Trad. LE. the LCS LE. The Trad. LE also
(pre- and post-tests) improved achievement.
16
First Author, Year, Title Sample Characteristics Student Outcome
Measures
n Age (M, SD, Ra) Sex (Mb:Fc) Level
Primary (P)
Secondary (S)
Reiss, S., (1975). Total = 182 (30 R = 7-8 (15:15) per P Persistence,
Persistence, per six schools school achievement
achievement, approx.)
and open-space
environments. Open = 85
Closed = 88
17
Instrument Use Theory Focus of study LE Effects on SO Effect size
18
First Author, Year, Title Sample Characteristics Student Outcome
Measures
n Age (M, SD, Ra) Sex (Mb:Fc) Level
Primary (P)
Secondary (S)
Barrett, P., (2015). The Total = 3,766 R = 5-11 (1,883:1,883) P Reading, Writing and
impact of classroom Mathematics progress
design on pupils’ Year 1 = 447 points added to create
learning: Final results Year 2 = 606 an Overall Progress
of a holistic, multi-level Year 3 = 744 score
analysis.
Year 4 = 656
Year 5 = 708
Year 6 = 606
Barrett, P., (2017). Total = 3,766 R = 5-11 (1,883:1,883) P Reading, Writing and
The holistic impact (same as 2015 Mathematics progress
of classroom spaces study) points added to create
on learning in specific an Overall Progress
subjects. Blackpool = 715 score
Hampshire = 1,535
Ealing = 1,480
19
Instrument Use Theory Focus of study LE Effects on SO Effect size
20
First Author, Year, Title Sample Characteristics Student Outcome
Measures
n Age (M, SD, Ra) Sex (Mb:Fc) Level
Primary (P)
Secondary (S)
Chang, C. Y., (2006). Total = 155 Mean of 16 years (74:81) S Earth Science Learning
Preferred - Actual Outcomes Inventory
learning environment -Students’ perceptions
“spaces” and earth on preferred/actual
science outcomes in learning environment
Taiwan. and the students’
learning achievement
and attitude
Note. a Age range; b Number of males; c Number of females; d Secondary years of schooling; e-Learning environment; f
Not disclosed; g Primary years of schooling; h Traditional
21
Instrument Use Theory Focus of study LE Effects on SO Effect size
22
Participants Byers et al., 2014; Chandra & Lloyd, 2008; Cicek &
Taspinar, 2016; Kazu & Demirkol, 2014; Shamaki,
The number of student participants in each of the
2015). The majority of studies utilised an amalgam of
studies ranged from 17 to 22,679 students (average
standardised test measures. Most prominently used
of 1,665). The age of students in the final studies
was the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), followed by
ranged from 5-18yrs. Equitable distribution of boys
the California Achievement Test (CAT) and the English
and girls occurred in the respective samples, with the
National Curriculum Key Stages 1 and 2 tests. The
only exception being the Byers, Imms, and Hartnell-
external, standardised nature of these items presented
Young (2014) study (with an all-boys school as the
a reliable and valid means to facilitate generalisable
site). In many instances, authors either undertook a
analysis across multiple schools (see Barrett, Davies,
randomised selection process or ensured the sample
Zhang, & Barrett, 2015, 2017; McRobbie & Fraser,
reflected key student demographic characteristics
1993; Reiss & Dyhdalo, 1975; Tanner, 2000, 2008;
(i.e. ethnicity, socio-economic status and location)
Uline & Tschannen-Moran, 2008).
with equitable distribution between control and
intervention groups. A high proportion of the selected Even though this review focused on measures around
studies engaged in pre-testing of student academic student academic learning outcomes, many utilised
performance to show that they were statistically assessment of student attitudes to learning and
similar. Consequently, these sampling measures observations of students in various spatial layouts.
moderated the incidence of selection bias that would Some used repeated measure surveys to elicit
distort the statistical analysis of the between-group student attitudinal responses (see Byers et al., 2014;
comparisons. Chang, Hsiao, & Barufaldi, 2006; Chang, Hsiao, &
Chang, 2011; Cicek & Taspinar, 2016; Fößl, Ebner,
Outcomes and Measures
Schön, & Holzinger, 2016; Gilavand, Espidkar, &
The student outcomes identified in this review Gilavand, 2016). In others, comparative observations
were measured using computations of observed of traditional learning environments and ILEs (Fößl
participation behaviours, a variety of standardised et al., 2016; Gilavand et al., 2016; Solomon &
tests, general achievement tests, prior achievement Kendall, 1976) focused on discerning the differences
data and participant surveys. The range of measures in pedagogies and learning experiences. Finally, a
used to determine student outcomes is displayed in small number of studies (Barrett et al., 2015, 2017;
Table 4. Tanner, 2000, 2008) assessed the physical design
parameters (i.e. individualisation and stimulation)
The assessment of student learning outcomes
and environmental factors (i.e. light, temperature and
covered a range of assessment devices and types
air quality) to investigate the potential impact of the
across the 20 studies. Seven studies utilised school-
physical classroom features on student academic
based assessment to determine the impact of different
progress.
learning environment types on student academic
achievement. These school-based assessments
were in English, Mathematics and Science (see
23
Table 4: Student outcomes, measures and constructs of final articles.
24
First author, year Measure Student outcome Construct
McRobbie, C. J., (1993). The Science Laboratory Student outcomes SLEI: Contains 35 items,
Environment Inventory with 7 assessing each of
(SLEI): student outcome the five scales (left) which
measures included four were scored on a 5-point
attitude measures and Likert scale (almost never,
two inquiry skill. seldom, sometimes,
often, very often).
Ozerbas, M. A., (2016). Academic Success Test Academic success AST: a multiple-choice
(AST) test of 24 items and a
maximum score of 100
(no points were taken
away for wrong answers).
Content includes 7th-
grade math lessons,
specific features of
circles.
Online Technologies Self- Competency with the OTSES: 33-item scale,
Efficacy Scale (OTSES) internet with four sub-scales of
Internet competencies,
Synchronous interaction,
Asynchronous interaction
I and Asynchronous
interaction II.
Reiss, S., (1975). Persistence test: A Persistence Persistent test: the
Behavioural post-test average time the child
measuring persistence worked on a puzzle
with puzzle-making. (consisting of problems
1 and 2 of the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for
Children (WISC) Block
Design Test and Problems
9 and 10 of the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale
(WAIS) Block Design
Test).
The Stanford Preschool Expectancies about locus SPIES: is scored in the
Internal-External Scale of control and behaviour internal direction, and
(SPIES) of children in theoretically represent expectancies
relevant situations for internal control of
positive events (I+) and
negative events (I-) and
the sum of these 2 (total I).
The California Academic achievement CAT: Standard
Achievement Test (CAT) administration in California
near the end of the school
year provides a percentile
ranking of each student.
Shamaki, T. A., (2015). General achievement test Academic achievement -
25
First author, year Measure Student outcome Construct
26
First author, year Measure Student outcome Construct
Byers, T., (2014). English and Mathematics English and Mathematics Achievement: A+-E-
school-based academic achievement
assessment
Student attitudinal data Learning and A nine-item, five-point
instrument? engagement Likert scale survey
measuring the effect
of learning space on
students’ learning and
engagement.
Academic Assessment Academic achievement Standardised test.
Services Cognitive
Ability Tests: Verbal and
Non-Verbal Reasoning
standardised data (as a
proxy of cognitive ability)
Chang, C. Y., (2006). Earth Science Learning Students’ learning ESLOI: Divided into
Outcomes Inventory achievement and attitude. two sections with a
(ESLOI)-including the ATESI: attitude towards total of 60 items. The
attitudes toward the earth science and ESAT: first, is the ATESI which
earth science inventory achievement in earth consists of 30 items with
(ATESI) and Earth Science science bipolar disagree/agree
Achievement Test (ESAT) on statements on a 1–5
Likert scale, and second,
the ESAT, with another 30
MCQ items.
Chang, C. Y., (2011). Earth Science Learning Students’ learning ESLOI: Divided into
Outcomes Inventory achievement and attitude. two sections with a
(ESLOI)-including the ATESI: attitude towards total of 60 items. The
attitudes toward the earth science and ESAT: first, is the ATESI which
earth science inventory achievement in earth consists of 30 items with
(ATESI) and Earth Science science bipolar disagree/agree
Achievement Test (ESAT) on statements on a 1–5
Likert scale, and second,
the ESAT, with another 30
MCQ items.
Gilavand, A., (2016). Academic Achievement Academic achievement AAMQH: 29 items based
Motivation Questionnaire and motivation on ten (in this case 9)
of Hermance (AAMQH) characteristics that
distinguish those of high
and low achievement
motivation.
Tanner, C. K. (2000). ITBS: Mathematics and Academic achievement ITBS: Standardised
Reading subtests achievement in Reading
and Mathematics tests
that result in measures
such as National Grade
Equivalents (NGE).
27
Risk of Sampling Bias and Quality Assessment
decreased the incidence of selection bias. There were established the quality of individual studies. Due to
instances where randomisation was not employed. the single intervention or site designs of many studies
However, sampling bias was moderated through pre- in the final selection, the internal validity guidelines
testing of IQ, socioeconomic status or achievement of Campbell and Stanley (1963) were applied to
scores to establish that the comparative samples assess the validity in terms of history, instrumentation,
were not statistically different (Byers et al., 2014; maturation and selection. The remaining studies had
Cicek & Taspinar, 2016; Forman & McKinney, 1978; designs that incorporated multi-sites and random
selection of participants to establish generalisable
28
Table 5: Assessment of sampling bias of selected studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.
Note + - ?
Low risk High risk Unknown risk
evidence. Regarding checks for reliability, the articles assessment of the quality of methodologies and
were evaluated by reported measures of internal measures were beyond the scope of the intervention-
consistency and inter-rater reliability as dictated by the based design of the selected studies. The application
COSMIN checklist (Terwee et al., 2012). The rationale of the COSMIN checklists four-point criterion of
for not using the COSMIN criteria to assess the validity “excellent”, “good”, “fair” and “poor” for both
of this selection is due to its focus on assessing large reliability and validity provided an efficient means for
sample, randomised control trials. The checklists establishing the overall assessment quality (“strong”,
29
“moderate”, “low” and “unknown”) of each study’s 2015; Barret et al., 2017; Byers et al., 2014; Forman
design and measures. & McKinney, 1978; Gilavand et al., 2016; Kazu &
Demirkol, 2014; Reiss & Dyhdalo, 1975; Shamaki,
The quality of the selected articles ranged from low
2015; Solomon & Kendall, 1976). These articles often
to strong, with the majority falling into the category of
had rigorous elements to the validity of their design,
moderate (Table 6). The studies identified as strong
methods and means of analysis or application of
in terms of quality (Chang et al., 2006; Chang et al.,
measures of internal consistency and reliability, but
2011; Cicek & Taspinar, 2016; Ozerbas & Erdogan,
not both. Some tended to be based on location-
2016; Tanner, 2000, 2008; Uline & Tschannen-Moran,
specific assessments of student learning outcomes,
2008) were best described as large, multi-site,
while, others did not utilise or report the statistical
randomised comparative studies that tended to utilise
processes and reliability measures that were evident
assessment through existing external, standardised
in studies of strong quality. The remaining articles
testing instruments. Not only were their designs
suffered significant methodological and statistical
rigorous, but they utilised, and reported in detail,
deficiencies that lowered the quality of their findings.
intra-rater reliability and internal consistency through
There were correlations between the quality of these
Cronbach’s alpha. A larger group of studies were
studies and the higher incidence of sampling bias.
assessed as having moderate quality (Barrett et al.,
Table 6: The overall score for the quality of selected studies using the COSMIN 4-point checklist.
First author, year History Instru- Maturation Selection Internal Reliability Overall
mentation consistency result
Bottge, B., (2006) Poor Good Poor Poor Excellent Excellent Low
Chandra, V., (2008) Good Good Good Fair Poor Poor Low
Cicek, F .G., (2016) Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Strong
Forman, S. G., (1978) Excellent Excellent Excellent Fair Fair Poor Moderate
Fößl, T., (2016) Poor Good Poor Poor Good Good Low
McRobbie, C. J., (1993) Poor Good Poor Poor Good Good Low
Ozerbas, M. A., (2016) Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Strong
Reiss, S., (1975) Poor Excellent Good Good Poor Poor Moderate
Shamaki, T. A., (2015) Good Good Good Excellent Poor Poor Moderate
Solomon, D., (1976) Good Excellent Excellent Fair Good Good Moderate
Tanner, C. T., (2008) Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Strong
Uline, C., (2008) Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Strong
Kazu, I. Y., (2014) Excellent Good Excellent Good Fair Poor Moderate
Barrett, P., (2015) Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Good Moderate
Barrett, P., (2017) Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Good Moderate
Byers, T., (2014) Excellent Good Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Moderate
Chang, C. Y., (2006) Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Strong
Chang, C. Y., (2011) Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Strong
Gilavand, A., (2016) Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Fair Excellent Moderate
Tanner, C. K. (2000) Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Strong
30
Hiukkavaara School and Community Centre, Lukkaroinen Architects / Ecophon Saint Gobain, Juha Sarkkinen photography.
31
Discussion
The review sought to establish an evidence base for a negative impact on student academic achievement.
the connection between learning environment type/s The collective evidence presented by the relatively
(blended, ILEs, open-plan and traditional) and their small number of studies does suggest some
impact on student learning outcomes. A descriptive correlation between the design, function and nature
critique is presented based on an analysis of the final of the physical learning environment and learning
selection of 20 studies, centred on the review’s three outcomes.
research questions.
In this sample, there were only three studies that
What evidence exists that different learning reported effect sizes. The Fößl et al. (2016) and
environments have an impact on student Bottge et al. (2006) studies reported effect sizes that
learning outcomes? ranged from d = .31 to d = .78 respectively. However,
The systematic review identified a small number both had questionable validity and reliability due to
of studies that presented empirical evidence of the issues of high sampling bias and relatively low
the impact of different learning environments, in quality. Byers et al. (2014), with effect sizes of d =
particular ILEs, on student academic outcomes. .40 and .41 for English and Mathematics respectively,
These studies presented evidence that different presented a more valid and reliable assessment of
learning environments, in particular, those aligned the impact of ILEs in comparison to traditional layouts
with the premise of ILEs, can positively impact on student academic achievement. Unlike the Fößl
student academic achievement. However, studies et al. (2016) and Bottge et al. (2006) studies, Byers
in the sample that compared open-plan learning et al. (2014) utilised a between-group comparison
environments with traditional classroom spaces of classes randomly assigned to the different spatial
suggested that the open-plan setting correlated with layouts, while controlling for the influence of student
32
cognitive ability. An external, normed measure of non- parameters of Naturalness (light, temperature and
verbal and verbal reasoning was used as a proxy for air quality), Individualisation (ownership, flexibility and
student cognitive ability. It showed that students in an connection) and Level of Stimulation (complexity and
ILE outperformed their cognitively matched peers by colour) for a large multi-site sample (n = 3, 766). The
approximately two grade points (on a 15-point grade earlier study (2015) applied correlations of student test
scale from A+ to E-) on school-based and moderated results on Overall Progress on the National Curriculum
tests. (NC) - Key Stages 1 and 2, against environmental
measures (ascertained through hard measures of the
Several studies utilised linear modelling to discern how
environment), and showed all ten parameters were
various designs or physical factors correlated with
positively correlated with progress. Multilevel (HLM
student academic outcomes but did not report effect
- Two level) modelling portioned between student
sizes. Tanner (2000) identified seven design factors
(highest) and classroom levels. School level variables
that were found to correlate with student learning
accounted for little variance (3%). Naturalness
outcomes as assessed by the Iowa Test of Basic
parameters (light, temperature and air quality) had
Skills (ITBS) standardised test. Tanner highlighted
a large effect of 28%. Variation between the most
that ‘compatibility with context’, ‘clearly defined
effective classroom (Overall progress of 16.05 NC out
pathways’, ‘positive outdoor spaces’, ‘computers for
of 50 points) and the least effective (8.12 NC points),
teachers’ and ‘positive overall impression’ had the
resulted in a 7.93 NC point difference. The impact
greatest positive correlation with increased academic
of the classroom environmental factors, therefore,
performance on the ITBS from a significant sample
explains 16% of the variation in students’ academic
(n = 22, 678) of students from 44 elementary/primary
progress. The most recent study (2017), utilised the
schools. In a later smaller study (n = 1, 916), Tanner
same data set from the 2015 study but focused on
(2008) investigated the design pattern effect of
three region-types in the United Kingdom (Blackpool,
movement and circulation (MC), large group meeting
Hampshire and Ealing). Applying a similar analytical
places (LGMP), daylighting and views (DLV), and
process, the authors ascertained the percentage
instructional neighbourhoods (IN) on achievement
improvement of 9.3% (Reading), 8.4% (Writing)
on the ITBS test. In a sample from 24 elementary/
and 11.7% (Maths) due to physical environmental
primary schools, Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM)
parameters. Barrett et al. (2017) summarise that for
analysis was able to discern between 2% and 7%
each of the different subject models, the aspects of
additional variance in student achievement on the
the classroom environment taken together explained
ITBS, even after controlling for school social and
approximately 10% of the variability in student
economic status.
performance.
In a similar vein to the Tanner studies, Barrett et
Another group of studies compared student academic
al. (2015, 2017) sought to establish those specific
achievement in a blended digital/physical learning
environmental or physical conditions (i.e. air quality,
environment to that of a traditional classroom setting.
lighting, noise, temperature, ventilation) that were
Chandra and Lloyd (2008) found that a student
optimal for student learning in existing classroom
sample in the blended learning environment showed
spaces. Both Barrett et al. studies focused on the
improved student achievement (average +5.1 with
33
a decrease in SD of – 3.8) from the pre-testing, ITBS for traditional classrooms and open-plan spaces
whereas, the students in a traditional environment were 57.45 (SD = 6.33) and 47.62 (SD = 11.81)
showed a mean post-test decline (average -2.3 respectively. Through a cluster analysis, Solomon
with a decrease in SD of – 0.7). Similarly, Cicek and and Kendall (1976) evaluated person-environment
Taspinar (2016) and Kazu and Demirkol (2014) found interactions showing lower academic achievement in
students in a blended LE outperformed their peers in an open-plan space on CAT and ITBS instruments,
a more traditional LE with statistically significant (p < but with higher assessment in creativity, co-operative
0.05) between-group differences. While, Ozerbas and behaviour and involvement. Similarly, Reiss and
Erdogan (2016) applied two-factor ANOVAs to show Dyhdalo (1975) found that students in open-spaces
a meaningful difference in the academic performance were more persistent in their learning, but performed
of students in a digital classroom compared to those lower on the CAT instrument than those students
in a traditional classroom (with no access to digital who remained in the traditional classroom.
technology) [F(1, 56) = 13.041, p < .05]. Collectively,
these studies suggest that students who experience What measurement tools have been
designed and used for measuring student
a blended LE facilitated by the integration of digital
outcomes in different learning environment
technology achieved relatively higher academic types?
success than their peers in a conventional, traditional
Various measurement tools were utilised to evaluate
classroom environment.
how student learning outcomes differed in the various
The review sample revealed that changes or learning environment types. The studies in the final
improvements to the traditional school learning review with high statistical power achieved through
environment did not always correlate with positive large samples and strong quality and reliability (Barrett
effects on academic achievement. In the comparison et al., 2015, 2017; Chang et al., 2006; Chang et al.,
of open and traditional classrooms during the 1970’s 2011; Cicek & Taspinar, 2016; Ozerbas & Erdogan,
Open Plan Movement, Forman and McKinney (1978), 2016; Tanner, 2000, 2008; Uline & Tschannen-Moran,
Reiss and Dyhdalo (1975) and Solomon and Kendall 2008) typically utilised assessment through large-
(1976) found varied trends in student academic scale, standardised assessment instruments. The
performance. All three studies found that students in CAT, ITBS and National Curriculum Key Stages 1
a traditional classroom outperformed their peers in and 2 testing instruments were the most commonly
open-plan spaces on standardised assessment (CAT utilised and provided reliable and valid comparative
- California Achievement Test and ITBS test). Forman means to determine student progress against the
and McKinney (1978) analysed class means of mandated curriculum, often in literacy (i.e. Reading
comparative open and traditional settings for girls and and Writing) and numeracy (i.e. Mathematics). These
boys. Next, a series of 2 x 2 (Sex x Group) ANOVAs comparative studies assessed outcomes not typically
were run using ITBS standard score means and associated with 21st Century learning. Importantly,
Wallach-Kogan total fluency. Across the comparative the narrative of 21st Century learning underpins the
sample, students in traditional classrooms showed current impetus to reconsider the type and function
higher achievement than those in open environments of school learning environments. However, the most
(F(1, 16) = 7.59, p < 0.1). The composite means of the reliable and rigorous studies within this sample do
34
not evaluate how different learning environment types tools focus on eliciting students’ perceptions on
affect the outcomes associated with this 21st Century preferred/actual learning environment to their learning
perspective. achievement and attitude. These studies found, in
particular, Chang et al. (2011), that students preferred
A smaller number of studies, often involving a
those environments where both student- and teacher-
single research site, utilised existing school-based
centred instructional approaches coexisted (Student–
assessment instruments as a measure of student
Teacher-Balanced Instructional Model - STBIM) over
achievement. Various studies (such as Byers et al.,
a teacher-centred learning environment (Teacher-
2014; Chandra & Lloyd, 2008; Cicek & Taspinar, 2016;
Centred Instructional Model). Furthermore, STBIM
Kazu & Demirkol, 2014; Uline & Tschannen-Moran,
achievement in and attitude toward earth science
2008) utilised existing school-based assessment
were enhanced when the learning environment was
regimes. In these cases, the research context belied
congruent with their learning environment preference.
the context of the study and the utilisation of existing
assessment techniques. Often, the studies did not What elements of student learning are
detail specific features or elements of the nature quantified by the identified measurement
and type of assessment, which made assessing the tools?
internal consistency or reliability through the COSMIN The dominant use of existing school-based
process difficult. However, one study (Byers et al., assessment or external standardised testing regimes
2014) outlined the application of a criterion based favoured a particular view of student learning. Often
system, which assessed English and Mathematics the testing focused on student progression in areas
subjects based on basic knowledge and procedures of literacy and numeracy, with a specific focus on
through to more applied, complex or open-ended standardised assessment. There is little mention,
tasks that required higher-order processes. besides Bottge et al. (2006), Byers et al. (2014),
Chang et al. (2011) and Cicek and Taspinar (2016),
The interrogation of the sample revealed few
about the influence on student problem-solving skills.
measurement tools that were explicitly utilised
However, these studies reported an overall level of
to measure the incidence and nature of those
achievement, making it difficult to determine if, and
experiences that best exemplify 21st Century learning.
to what extent, different learning environment types
The Fraction of the Cost Challenge (FCC) and Kim’s
affected student success in the domain of problem-
Komet Challenge (KKC) in the Bottge et al. (2006)
solving. This lack of evidence is a critical finding of this
study focused on assessing student responses to
review. Much of the narrative in the current literature
more demanding open-response tests. These tests
suggests that different spatial layouts (i.e. blended,
specifically focused on how students integrated
ILEs and open) are more likely to facilitate 21st Century
their understanding of two different sets of discrete
learning experiences than existing conventional or
mathematical concepts to solve a novel problem/
traditional classroom spaces (Benade; Dovey &
task. The Chang et al. (2011, 2006) studies created
Fisher; Dumont & Istance). The sample presented
and trialled the Earth Science Classroom Learning
in this review did not present specific measures to
Environment (ESCLE) and Earth Science Learning
assess the impact on the achievement of students
Outcomes Inventory (ESLOI) metrics. Together these
35
as creative and critical thinkers engaged as problem sufficient for an ensuing meta-analysis. Furthermore,
solvers and working in collaboration with peers. the nature of the methods and means of analysis
does support the assertion of Painter et al. (2013)
Limitations that there are few evaluative methods and metrics
The systematic review yielded a small number of currently available to adequately assess the impact
studies that met its stated criteria. With only 20 of different classroom layouts, ILE or traditional, on
studies included in this sample, such a number student learning outcomes.
would appear to support the assertions made by
previous reviews of the literature by Blackmore et al.
(2011), Brooks (2011), Gislason (2010) and Painter
et al. (2013) that cite a lack of substantive, empirical
evidence about the impact of different spatial
layouts on student outcomes. Studies that exhibited
high statistical power through large samples and
strong quality and reliability typically assessed the
environmental or physical aspects of the space.
These did not discriminate how the specific design,
affordance or pedagogical use of ILEs or traditional
classrooms impacted student academic outcomes.
Their objective lens was unable to deeply explore
the nuances of the spaces, their use and contextual
factors at the various sites. Furthermore, these studies
utilised existing large-scale, standardised assessment
instruments. Some argue that such testing regimes
promote a type of teaching and learning not
aligned with narrative behind 21st Century learning
imperatives, which underlie the current interest and
investment in different spatial layouts.
36
Phoenix College , Y2 Architecture, Zac Couyant photography.
37
Conclusions
The objectives of the review are three-fold. First, to The paucity of quality evaluation is
identify what empirical evidence exists that assesses worrying.
the impact of different learning environment types What the review deems robust research on this
(blended learning, ILEs, open-plan and traditional) topic is limited to 20 papers published since 1960,
on student learning outcome measures (those with of which only three report a statistical effect. Of
published evidence of reliability and validity). Second, these three, only one provides information that
it seeks to identify what measurement tools are used comprehensively addresses internal validity issues.
to address this challenge. Finally, it seeks to identify This robust systematic review confirms the frequently
the types of evidence these tools elicit. In other words, stated claim that little empirical evidence exists to link
what proof exists, how is it being gathered, and student learning outcomes to spatial designs (see,
what specific knowledge is actually sought? These for example, Blackmore, et al., 2011; Brooks, 2011;
parameters reflect criticisms regarding our history of Cleveland & Fisher, 2014; Gislason, 2010; Painter et
learning environment evaluations; namely that they al., 2013). In addition, it would appear that in the 2010s
frequently compare ‘apples to oranges’, have poor we continue to, on occasion, repeat errors from the
sample size and other internal validity issues, utilise 1970s where the considerable inconsistency in the
tools that bias traditional classroom settings (Gray, design of learning space evaluations means that ‘not
1978; Doob, 1974), and are most often studies all studies [could be] considered [methodologically]
conducted three or more decades ago (Imms, in equal’ (Marshall, 1981, p.82).
press).
The studies that met the review’s criteria ranged from
A number of issues are clearly identified in the review. single-site comparative through to quasi-experimental
randomised designs across multiple sites. Their
38
samples sizes ranged widely (17 to 22,000) across for between 10-16% of the variance in student
primary and secondary schools. The former tended academic scores compared to traditional designs (for
to address student academic outcomes through example, see Barrett et al. 2015 and 2017). Blended
existing school-based assessment or bespoke learning environments (technology plus ILEs) account
measures of creative, critical-thinking, or problem- for a statistically significant improvement in student
solving testing instruments. The latter, with significant academic scores (Chandra & Lloyd, 2008; Cicek &
statistical power and very large samples from multiple Taspinar, 2016; Kazu & Demirkol, 2014; Ozerbas &
schools, assessed the impact of different learning Erdogan, 2016). It must be stressed that this growing
spaces through systemic, standardised literacy and evidence is limited in scope; as an indicator, there
numeracy testing regimes. The review identified a are insufficient studies that report an effect size, to
dearth of instruments providing evidence of the impact warrant any meta-analysis on this topic.
of ILEs on learning styles deemed characteristic of
21st century needs. An issue is that historically, the evaluation
tools utilised do not always measure
the learning characteristics ILEs were
Emerging (but limited) evidence shows a
designed to achieve
trend that spatial design does positively
impact student learning outcomes Evaluations of learning spaces from the 1970s
Of the studies that meet the criteria for inclusion in consistently failed to define key concepts; they were
this review, inconsistent findings emerge concerning predominately based on ‘snapshots’ rather than
reports of the impact of space on student learning longitudinal designs, and mostly used low sample sizes
outcomes. Of interest, the range of findings correlates (Gray, 1978). Their irregularity of findings indicated
to what might be called a historical ambiguity. poor consistency between measures of ‘openness’
Studies from the 1970s that met the review criteria and outcome variables (Jackson, 1980) with, in some
consistently found that students in traditional cases, the impact of ‘open learning’ being assessed
classrooms out-performed ‘open classroom’ like- despite the fact it occurred in traditional classroom
ability peers (for example, Forman & McKinney, 1978; settings (McPartland & Epstein, 1977). During this
Reiss & Dyhdalo, 1975; Solomon & Kendall, 1976). In era, the tools being used to quantitatively measure the
contrast, contemporary studies consistently find the impact of open learning designs were often designed
opposite; when accounting for student difference, for traditional settings and were unable to capture
students in (what could be described as) ILEs are data on the characteristics of student learning that
found to significantly outperform like-ability peers in were the predominant driver of good open space
a range of key academic subjects (for example see design (Imms, Cleveland & Fisher, 2016).
Brooks, 2011; Byers et al., 2014). Space can account This review suggests a similar phenomenon
for between 7-10% of the variance in academic scores occurring in contemporary evaluations, but now
between classes taught in traditional compared to mediated by a subsequent three decades of research
innovative spaces (see, for example, Tanner, 2000 and that has provided more nuanced understandings
2008). The improved ‘building-performance’ of ILE of the significance of surface-to-deep learning. A
designs (lighting, acoustics, air quality, etc.) accounts cautionary finding from this review is that recent
39
evaluations of the impact of learning space design on al. (2006) and Chang et al. (2011) addressed the
student learning outcomes rarely focus on students’ deep learning issue and included data that showed
learning processes. They consistently utilise either student preference for learning environments that
large-scale standardised testing or smaller school- facilitated student-centered learning approaches
based assessments that favour particular types of over the teacher-centric classrooms. Byers et al.
student learning – most often measures of literacy (2014) have developed the Single Subject Research
and numeracy. The benefit here is the validity very Design approach, borrowed from the applied health
large sample sizes provide. The caution is regarding sciences, to isolate space as a variable and report
attributing meaning to results from these approaches. confidence intervals on perceptions of engagement
On balance, large statistically powerful studies of and teaching performance.
this type lack space-specific items particular to
This review finds that very few quality evaluations
21st century learning – the very issue ILE designs
exist regarding the impact of ILEs on student learning
were asked to accommodate. In comparison, the
outcomes. It finds an historical disjuncture, with two
review’s selection process (in particular its use of the
‘eras’ of evaluation (1970s versus the 2000s) differing
Cochrane Collaboration Tool) illustrates how smaller
in terms of primary findings. It finds that methodological
ILE-bespoke studies that can address 21st century
weaknesses accounts for this difference, with recent
learning characteristics are prone to criticisms of
studies enjoying access to larger sample sizes and
internal validity and reliability.
advanced evaluation methods. It finds the focus of
This does not mean a narrative is not emerging; skills), but still remains methodologically problematic.
there is a growing body of research that may It finds a trend is becoming evident that suggests ILEs
eventually prove ILEs’ worth beyond just literacy/ have a positive impact on student learning outcomes.
numeracy measures. A finding of this review is that, While this is optimistic, it cautions over-stating of this
of the few studies considered ‘robust’, some have trend at this time.
40
41
References
Alterator, S., & Deed, C. (2013). Teacher adaptation to open learning spaces. Issues in Educational Research,
23(3), 315-330. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier23/alterator.html
Barrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y., & Barrett, L. (2015). The impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning:
Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. Building and Environment, 89, 118-133. doi:10.1016/j.
buildenv.2015.02.013
Barrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y., & Barrett, L. (2017). The holistic impact of classroom spaces on learning in
specific subjects. Environment and Behavior, 49, 425-451. doi:10.1177/0013916516648735
Benade, L. (2017). Is the classroom obsolete in the twenty-first century? Educational Philosophy and Theory,
49(8), 796-807. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1269631
Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., O’Mara, J., & Loughlin, J. (2011). Research into the connection between built
learning spaces and student outcomes: Literature review. Melbourne: Victorian Department of Education and
Early Childhood Development. Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/programs/
infrastructure/ blackmorelearningspaces.pdf
Bottge, B., Rueda, E., & Skivington, M. (2006). Situating math instruction in rich problem-solving
contexts: Effects on adolescents with challenging behaviors. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 394-407.
doi:10.1177/019874290603100401
Brooks, D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 719-726. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01098.x
Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2014). Making the case for space: The effect of learning spaces on
teaching and learning. Curriculum and Teaching, 29, 5-19. doi:10.7459/ct/29.1.02
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Chandra, V., & Lloyd, M. (2008). The methodological nettle: ICT and student achievement. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 39, 1087-1098. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00790.x
Chang, C. Y., Hsiao, C. H., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2006). Preferred - Actual learning environment “spaces” and earth
science outcomes in Taiwan. Science Education, 90, 420-433. doi:10.1002/sce.20125
Chang, C. Y., Hsiao, C. H., & Chang, Y. H. (2011). Science learning outcomes in alignment with learning
environment preferences. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 136-145. doi:10.1007/s10956-
010-9240-9
Cicek, F. G., & Taspinar, M. (2016). Laboratory control system’s effects on student achievement and attitudes.
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 64, 247-264. doi: 1610.14689/ejer.2016.64.14
Cleveland, B. & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the
literature. Learning Environments Research,17, 1-28.
Doob, H. (1974). Summary of research on open education: An ERS research brief. Arlington, VA: Educational
Research Service.
Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of
Architecture, 19, 43-63. doi:10.1080/13602365.2014.882376
Dumont, H., & Istance, D. (2010). Analysing and designing learning environments for the 21st century. In H H.
Dumont, D. Istance & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice, 19-34.
Paris: OECD publications. doi: 10.1787/9789264086487-en
Forman, S. G., & McKinney, J. D. (1978). Creativity and achievement of second graders in open and traditional
classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 101-107. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.70.1.101
Fößl, T., Ebner, M., Schön, S., & Holzinger, A. (2016). A field study of a video supported seamless-learning-
setting with elementary learners. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 321-336.
Gilavand, A., Espidkar, F., & Gilavand, M. (2016). Investigating the impact of schools’ open space on learning
and educational achievement of elementary students. International Journal of Pediatrics, 4, 1663-1670.
doi:10.22038/ijp.2016.6672
42
Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research.
Learning Environments Research, 13, 127-145. doi:10.1007/s10984-010-9071-x
Gray, W. (1978). Open areas and open education re-examined: A research study. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 3(1), 50-72.
Higgins, J. P., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Jüni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., … Sterne, J. A. (2011). The
Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, d5928. doi:10.1136/
bmj.d5928
Imms, W. (in press). Innovative learning spaces: Catalysts/agents for change, or ‘just another fad’? In S.
Alterator & C. Deed (Eds.). School space and its occupation: The conceptualisation and evaluation of new
generation learning spaces. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Imms, W., Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2016). Pursuing that elusive evidence about what works in learning
environment design. In W. Imms, B. Cleveland, & K. Fisher, Evaluating learning environments (pp. 3-17).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Jackson, G. (1980). Methods for integrative reviews. Review of Educational Research, 50, 438-460.
Kazu, I. Y., & Demirkol, M. (2014). Effect of blended learning environment model on high school students’
academic achievement. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 78-87.
Marshall, H. (1981). Open classrooms: Has the term outlived its usefulness? Review of Educational Research,
51(2), 181-192.
MCEETYA. (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne, Australia:
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved from: http://www.
curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.
pdf
McPartland, J. & Epstein, J. (1977). Open schools and achievement: Extended tests of a finding of no
relationship. Sociology of Education, 50(2), 133-144.
McRobbie, C. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1993). Associations between student outcomes and psychosocial science
environment. The Journal of Educational Research, 87, 78-85. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1993.9941170
New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2011). The New Zealand school property strategy 2011-2021. Wellington,
New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Education. Retrieved from: http://gdsindexnz.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/10/The-New-Zealand-School-Property-Strategy-2011-2021.pdf
New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2014). The Ministry of Education’s statement of intent 2014-2018.
Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://www.education.govt.
nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Publications/ Statements-of-intent/2014SOI.pdf
OECD. (2013). Innovative Learning Environments. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development. doi: 10.1787/9789264203488-en
OECD. (2015). Schooling redesigned: Towards innovative learning systems. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development. doi:10.1787/9789264245914-en
Ozerbas, M. A., & Erdogan, B. H. (2016). The effect of the digital classroom on academic success and online
technologies self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 203-212.
Painter, S., Fournier, J., Grape, C., Grummon, P., Morelli, J., Whitmer, S., & Cevetello, J. (2013). Research on
learning space design: Present state, future directions. (n.p) Society of College and University Planning.
Reiss, S., & Dyhdalo, N. (1975). Persistence, achievement, and open-space environments. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 67(4), 506-514.
Shamaki, T. A. (2015). Influence of learning environment on students’ academic achievement in mathematics:
A case study of some selected secondary schools in Yobe State-Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice,
6(34), 40-44.
Solomon, D., & Kendall, A. J. (1976). Individual characteristics and children’s performance in open and traditional
classroom settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 613-625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.68.5.613
Tanner, C. K. (2000). The influence of school architecture on academic achievement. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38, 309-330. doi:10.1108/09578230010373598
Tanner, C. K. (2008). Explaining relationships among student outcomes and the school’s physical environment.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 444-471. doi: 10.4219/jaa-2008-812
43
Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2012). Rating the
methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the
COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21, 651-657. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1
Uline, C., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2008). The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and
student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 46, 55-73. doi:10.1108/09578230910955818
Wall, C. (2009). Building the Education Revolution: National coordinator’s implementation report (February-
September 2009). Canberra, Australia: Australian Federal Government. Retrieved from http://apo.org.au/
node/19434
44
Our partners
EDUCATION
45
1 View publication stats