A framework for exploration of relationship between the psychosocial and physical learning environment

Abstract

In order to construct a shared body of knowledge, research involving the relationship between the psychosocial learning environment (PSLE) and the physical learning environment (PLE) needs a commonly-accepted conceptual framework. By means of a thematic literature review, we collected the main aspects of the PSLE and PLE, their definitions and their relations as identified by earlier research. These findings led to a conceptual framework that structures the dimension of the PSLE into the sub-dimensions of personal development, relationships, and system maintenance and change, and the dimension of the PLE into the sub-dimensions of naturalness, individualisation, and stimulation. For each of these sub-dimensions, the framework distinguishes an intended, implemented and attained representation. A conceptual PSLE-PLE Relationship (PPR) model enables relations to be visualised. The review confirms that PSLE and PLE are interrelated in interactions between different sub-dimensions and their representations. However, evidence regarding these relationships is still weak because of the limited number of studies and their methodological limitations.

Physical learning environments’ supportiveness to innovative pedagogies: students’ and teachers’ experiences

“…With the PPR framework, the empirical research can be analysed from an integrated psychosocial-physical perspective. In our review, we conclude that, compared with the PPR framework, recent empirical studies are often limited in their operationalisations, with the emphasis either on the PSLE or on the PLE (Baars et al, 2020). However, it can be questioned whether all subdimensions and aspects of the PPR framework are equally important for understanding how innovative PLEs are interpreted, used, and experienced by users.…”

“…Our earlier literature review (Baars et al, 2020) shows that an increasing number of empirical studies confirm a relationship between innovative PLEs and innovative PSLEs, but also that this relationship is more complex than would be expected (Mulcahy, 2016). An innovative PLE does not automatically lead to an innovative PSLE.…”

“…In our previous study, we developed a PSLE-PLE relationship (PPR) framework that guided the methodology of the present study (Baars et al, 2020). In the framework, we applied the authoritative conceptualisations of Moos (1980)-for the PSLE-and Barrett et al (2015) -for the PLE-to categorise all aspects as identified by previous research to be involved in the PSLE-PLE relationship (see Table 1).…”

A percepção de aprendizagem na pós-graduação brasileira durante a pandemia de Covid-19

“…Assim, se faz necessária uma mudança de comportamento em relação ao planejamento e à produção de soluções espaciais a partir da contribuição de professores e alunos (Kuuskorpi e González, 2011). Essas soluções proporcionam desafios e oportunidades para esses agentes que, em última instância, influenciam a efetiva utilização de um ambiente físico de aprendizagem por parte desses atores (Baars et al, 2021).…”

“…Ela é englobada pela climatização, iluminação (Zandvliet e Broekhuizen, 2017), acústica, estética, além da conectividade do ambiente. Esses fatores são de fundamental importância para que o ambiente físico seja propício as atividades de ensino e aprendizagem (Baars et al, 2021;Silva et al, 2019).…”