PERTANIKA JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

Many countries are keen to enhance existing learning spaces beyond the status quo, as non-traditional learning spaces can be leveraged to cultivate talent and ability in the 21st century. Recently, many primary schools have begun to practice planning and constructing non-traditional learning. This review highlights the available evidence on the considerations, challenges, and existing learning space design guidelines based on primary-school research conducted from 2000 to January 2024. The Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases are intensively searched for research conducted in primary school settings in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The finding shows optimism regarding non-traditional learning spaces fostering more flexible, innovative, and open learning environments that support and assist student-centred pedagogical approaches, and it summarises the three results from the seven aspects. The primary considerations are physical space and pedagogical organisational design, challenges from users and designers and current research and guidelines for users and designers. Based on the three study results, this research proposes suggestions for physical learning spaces. There is an urgent need to design guidelines to promote primary school learning efficiency and create an environment that students and teachers like.

• Abdollahi, A., Panahipour, S., Tafti, M. A., & Allen, K. A. (2020). Academic hardiness as a mediator for the relationship between school belonging and academic stress. Psychology in the Schools, 57(5), 823-832. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22339

• Ahmad, C. N. C., Shaharim, S. A., & Abdullah, M. F. N. 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.

• Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087315

• Attai, S. L., Reyes, J. C., Davis, J. L., York, J., Ranney, K., & Hyde, T. W. (2021). Investigating the impact of flexible furniture in the elementary classroom. Learning Environments Research, 24(2), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09322-1

• Baloğlu, Y. B. (2019). Re-defining the boundaries at schools: Perspectives from teachers’ interpretations of sources of spatial change. International Journal of Architectural Research, 14(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-04-2019-0088

• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.013

• Barrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y., & Barrett, L. (2016). The holistic impact of classroom spaces on learning in specific subjects. Environment and Behavior, 49(4), 425-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516648735

• Bluteau, J., Aubenas, S., & Dufour, F. (2022). Influence of flexible classroom seating on the wellbeing and mental health of upper elementary school students: A gender analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 821227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.821227

• Bøjer, B. (2019). Unlocking learning spaces: An examination of the interplay between the design of learning spaces a nd pedagogical practices. Rune Fjord Studio & The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts. https://adk.elsevierpure.com/ws/portalfiles/portal/63453689/Bodil_Bojer_PhDthesis_Unlocking_Learning_Spaces.pdf

• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

• Brown, J., McLennan, C., Mercieca, D., Mercieca, D. P., Robertson, D. P., & Valentine, E. (2021). Technology as thirdspace: Teachers in Scottish schools engaging with and being challenged by digital technology in first COVID-19 lockdown. Education Sciences, 11(3), Article 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030136

• Campbell, M., Saltmarsh, S., Chapman, A., & Drew, C. (2013). Issues of teacher professional learning within ‘non-traditional’ classroom environments. Improving Schools, 16(3), 209-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480213501057

• Cardellino, P., & Woolner, P. (2019). Designing for transformation – a case study of open learning spaces and educational change. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 28(3), 383-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2019.1649297

• Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203591093

• Carvalho, L., Nicholson, T., Yeoman, P., & Thibaut, P. (2020). Space matters: Framing the New Zealand learning landscape. Learning Environments Research, 23(3), 307-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09311-4

• Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-013-9149-3

• Dash, S. P., & Thilagam, N. L. (2022). A systematic review on inter-relationship of residential neighborhood characteristics on quality of life of elderly. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 30(4), 1533-1566. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.30.4.05

• Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2006). Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable knowledge base. Management Decision, 44(2), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610650201

• Deppeler, J., Corrigan, D., Macaulay, L., & Aikens, K. (2022). Innovation and risk in an innovative learning environment: A private public partnership in Australia. European Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 602-626. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211030400

• Dolan, P., Sturm, B., & Wollmuth, C. (2006). Prairie crossing charter school: Comfort as a principal component of high performance school design. Journal of Green Building, 1(3), 17-25. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.1.3.17

• Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2014.882376

• Furió, D., Juan, M. C., Seguí, I., & Vivó, R. (2015). Mobile learning vs. traditional classroom lessons: A comparative study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12071

• Ghadwan, A. S., Ahmad, W. M. W., & Hanifa, M. H. (2022). Financial planning for retirement models: An integrative systematic review. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 30(2), 879-900. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.30.2.24

• Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environments Research, 13(2), 127-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-010-9071-x

• Grannäs, J., & Stavem, S. M. (2021). Transitions through remodelling teaching and learning environments. Education Inquiry, 12(3), 266-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2020.1856564

• Gremmen, M. C., van den Berg, Y. H. M., Segers, E., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2016). Considerations for classroom seating arrangements and the role of teacher characteristics and beliefs. Social Psychology of Education, 19(4), 749-774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-016-9353-y

• Gultekin, M., & Ira, G. O. (2022). Pedagogy-driven design fundamentals of 21st century primary schools’ physical learning environments. Journal of Education and Future, (21), 99-110. https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.805905

• Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

• Harouni, H. (2013). Lived-in room: Classroom space as teacher. Berkeley Review of Education, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.5070/b84110012

• Herman, F., & Tondeur, J. (2021). Untangling the sociomateriality of the classroom: Biographies of school spaces (c. 1960–2014). Oxford Review of Education, 47(5), 681-695. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2021.1924654

• Hoon, L. N., & Shaharuddin, S. S. (2019). Learning effectiveness of 3D hologram animation on primary school learners. Journal of Visual Art and Design, 11(2), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.5614/j.vad.2019.11.2.2

• Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203818336

• Jagust, T., Boticki, I., & So, H. J. (2018). A review of research on bridging the gap between formal and informal learning with technology in primary school contexts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(4), 417-428. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12252

• James, S. (2011). Independent report: Review of education capital (Report No. DFE-00073-2011). U.K. Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-education-capital

• Johler, M., Krumsvik, R. J., Bugge, H. E., & Helgevold, N. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of their role and classroom management practices in a technology rich primary school classroom. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 841385. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.841385

• Joint Information Systems Committee. (2006). Designing spaces for effective learning: A guide to 21st century learning space design. https://www.d41.org/cms/lib/IL01904672/Centricity/Domain/422/learningspaces.pdf

• Kariippanon, K. E., Cliff, D. P., Lancaster, S. L., Okely, A. D., & Parrish, A.-M. (2017). Perceived interplay between flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing. Learning Environments Research, 21(3), 301-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9254-9

• Killeen, J. P., Evans, G. W., & Danko, S. (2003). The role of permanent student artwork in students sense of ownership in an elementary school. Environment and Behavior, 35(2), 250-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502250133

• Lee, K. S., Kim, H. J., & Kang, J. (2019). From uniformity to sustainable diversity: Exploring the design attributes of renovating standardized classrooms in Korea. Sustainability, 11(20), Article 5669. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205669

• Lee, S. (2019). Restructuring types of classroom space. Journal of Korea Intitute of Spatial Design, 14(5), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.35216/kisd.2019.14.5.53

• Li, P. P., Locke, J., Nair, P., & Bunting, A. (2005). Creating 21st century learning environments. In PEB Exchange, Programme on Educational Building (Vol. 10; pp. 15-26). OECD iLibrary. https://doi.org/10.1787/558676471016

• Liu, Q. Y., Ang, L. H., Waheed, M., & Kasim, Z. M. (2022). Appraisal theory in translation studies—a systematic literature review. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 30(4), 1589-1605. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.30.4.07

• López-Chao, V., Amado Lorenzo, A., Saorín, J. L., De La Torre-Cantero, J., & Melián-Díaz, D. (2020). Classroom indoor environment assessment through architectural analysis for the design of efficient schools. Sustainability, 12(5), Article 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052020

• Mackey, J., O’Reilly, N., Jansen, C., & Fletcher, J. (2018). Leading change to co-teaching in primary schools: A “down under” experience. Educational Review, 70(4), 465-485. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1345859

• Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002

• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8(5), 336-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007

• Mokhtarmanesh, S., & Ghomeishi, M. (2019). Participatory design for a sustainable environment: Integrating school design using students’ preferences. Sustainable Cities and Society, 51, Article 101762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101762

• Mulcahy, D., & Morrison, C. (2017). Re/assembling ‘innovative’ learning environments: Affective practice and its politics. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(8), 749-758. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1278354

• National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. (2021). Study quality assessment tools: Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools

• Niemi, K., Minkkinen, J., & Poikkeus, A.-M. (2022). Opening up learning environments: Liking school among students in reformed learning spaces. Educational Review, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2098927

• Nyabando, T., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01183-4

• Oliveras-Ortiz, Y., Bouillion, D. E., & Asbury, L. (2021). Learning spaces matter: Student engagement in new learning environments. Journal of Education, 201(3), 174-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057420908062

• Osman, K., Ahmad, C. N. C., & Halim, L. (2011). Students’ perception of the physical and psychosocial science laboratory environment in Malaysia: Comparison across subject and school location. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1650-1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.347

• Reh, S., Rabenstein, K., & Fritzsche, B. (2011). Learning spaces without boundaries? Territories, power and how schools regulate learning. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(1), 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2011.542482

• Reinius, H., Korhonen, T., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). The design of learning spaces matters: Perceived impact of the deskless school on learning and teaching. Learning Environments Research, 24(3), 339-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09345-8

• Rönnlund, M., Bergström, P., & Tieva, Å. (2021). Tradition and innovation. Representations of a “good” learning environment among Swedish stakeholders involved in planning, (re)construction and renovation of school buildings. Education Inquiry, 12(3), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2020.1774239

• Saltmarsh, S., Chapman, A., Campbell, M., & Drew, C. (2015). Putting “structure within the space”: Spatially un/responsive pedagogic practices in open-plan learning environments. Educational Review, 67(3), 315-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2014.924482

• Sato, H., & Bradley, J. S. (2008). Evaluation of acoustical conditions for speech communication in working elementary school classrooms. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(4), 2064-2077. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2839283

• Shaffril, H. A. M., Ahmad, N., Samsuddin, S. F., Samah, A. A., & Hamdan, M. E. (2020). Systematic literature review on adaptation towards climate change impacts among indigenous people in the Asia Pacific regions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, Article 120595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120595

• Sigurdardottir, A. K., & Hjartarson, T. (2016). The idea and reality of an innovative school: From inventive design to established practice in a new school building. Improving Schools, 19(1), 62-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480215612173

• Starkey, L., Leggett, V., Anslow, C., & Ackley, A. (2021). The use of furniture in a student-centred primary school learning environment. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 56, 61-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-020-00187-9

• Swartz, A. M., Tokarek, N. R., Strath, S. J., Lisdahl, K. M., & Cho, C. C. (2020). Attentiveness and fidgeting while using a stand-biased desk in elementary school children. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), Article 3976. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113976

• Szpytma, C., & Szpytma, M. (2022). School architecture for primary education in a post-socialist country: A case study of Poland. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 52(4), 519-542. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1777843

• To, P. T., & Grierson, D. (2019). An application of measuring visual and non-visual sensorial experiences of nature for children within primary school spaces Child-nature-distance case studies in Glasgow, Scotland. Archnet-IJAR, 14(2), 167-186. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-05-2019-0139

• Tokarek, N. R., Cho, C. C., Strath, S. J., & Swartz, A. M. (2022). The impact of stand-biased desks on afterschool physical activity behaviors of elementary school children. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(13), Article 7689. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137689

• Uduku, O. (2015). Spaces for 21st-century learning. In Routledge Handbook of International Education and Development (pp. 196-209). Routledge.

• Vijapur, D., Candido, C., Göçer, Ö., & Wyver, S. (2021). A ten-year review of primary school flexible learning environments: Interior design and IEQ performance. Buildings, 11(5), Article 183. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11050183

• Wallace, A. L., Swartz, A. M., Cho, C. C., Kaiver, C. M., Sullivan, R. M., & Lisdahl, K. M. (2022). Stand-biased desks impact on cognition in elementary students using a within-classroom crossover design. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), Article 5684. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095684

• Wang, X., & Wang, T. (2020). The mutability of pedagogical practice and space use: A case study of collaborative learning and classroom space in a Chinese primary school. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 52(5), 729-747. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1811640

• Whitehouse, D. (2009). Designing learning spaces that work: A case for the importance of history. History of Education Review, 38, 94-108. https://doi.org/10.1108/08198691200900016

• Woolner, P. (2014). School design together. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315774107

• World Economic Forum. (2020). Schools of the future: Defining new models of education for the fourth industrial revolution. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Schools_of_the_Future_Report_2019.pdf

• Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971

• Yao, F., Bo, G., & Zitong, W. (2024). Association between visual distance and students’ visual perception comfort in primary and secondary classrooms. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 23(2), 569-581. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2023.2245019

• Yeoman, P. (2018). The material correspondence of learning. In R. A. Ellis & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Spaces of teaching and learning: Integrating perspectives on research and practice (pp. 81-103). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7155-3_6

• Zairul, M., Azli, M., & Azlan, A. (2023). Defying tradition or maintaining the status quo? Moving towards a new hybrid architecture studio education to support blended learning post-COVID-19. Archnet-IJAR, 17(3), 554-573. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-11-2022-0251

• Zhang, D., Ortiz, M. A., & Bluyssen, P. M. (2019). Clustering of Dutch school children based on their preferences and needs of the IEQ in classrooms. Building and Environment, 147, 258-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.10.014