Although the use of enclosed learning space appears to influence both attention and learning in undergraduates, this issue has rarely been investigated. This study used four types of desktop spaces with different degrees of enclosure, namely, unenclosed, enclosed on one side, enclosed on two sides and enclosed on three sides, with enclosure degrees of 0, 25, 50 and 75%, respectively. Subjective evaluations, attention tests and eye tracking were used to analyze the effects of the four types of enclosure on attention in 38 undergraduates. Subjective evaluations showed that the three-sided enclosure was favoured by 52.63% of the undergraduates, 84.21% of which considered that it contributed to improved attention. The objective data showed that quiz times were shortened by 25.95% in unenclosed spaces compared with 75%-enclosed spaces, with increases in the mean pupil diameter, area of interest attention and target fixation rate of 11.36, 8.15 and 6.89%, respectively. These results indicated that the attention level increased in correspondence with the degree of enclosure of the learning space and that highly enclosed spaces were more conducive to attention and learning in undergraduates. This suggests that relatively closed spaces should be recommended to learning institutions to improve the learning efficiency of undergraduates.
KahnemanD. Attention and effort. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973, p. 246.
2.
SrinivasanNSrivastavaPLohaniMBaijalS. Focused and distributed attention. Prog Brain Res2009; 176: 87–100.
3.
MackworthJF. Vigilance, arousal and habituation. Psychol Rev1968; 75: 308–322.
4.
SalmiJRinneTDegermanASalonenOAlhoK. Orienting and maintenance of spatial attention in audition and vision: multimodal and modality-specific brain activations. Brain Struct Funct2007; 212: 181–194.
5.
MackworthJF. Vigilance, arousal and habituation. Psychol Rev1968; 75: 308–322.
6.
SalmiJRinneTDegermanASalonenOAlhoK. Orienting and maintenance of spatial attention in audition and vision: multimodal and modality-specific brain activations. Brain Struct Funct2007; 212: 181–194.
7.
LiuFYanLMengXZhangC. A review on indoor green plants employed to improve indoor environment. J Building Eng2022; 53: 104542.
8.
WuJHouZShenJLianZ. Quantitative effect on work performance considering interactions among multiple indoor environmental factors. Build Environ2020; 185: 107286.
9.
WanDJiangJLiuYWangYXuYLiuJ. Student responses to classroom thermal environments in rural primary and secondary schools in winter. Build Environ2017; 115: 104–117.
10.
GaoYNHeFHMengXWangZYZhangMYuHTGaoWJ. Thermal behavior analysis of hollow bricks filled with phase-change material (PCM). J Build Eng2020; 31: 101447.
11.
DrummondSPAGillinJCBrownGG. Increased cerebral response during a divided attention task following sleep deprivation. J Sleep Res2001; 10: 85–92.
12.
AlbertellaLPelleyMELChamberlainSRWestbrookFLeeRSCFontenelleLFGrantJESegraveRAMcTavishEYücelM. Reward-related attentional capture and cognitive inflexibility interact to determine greater severity of compulsivity-related problems. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry2020; 69: 101580.
13.
AlzeerG. Spatializing higher education: Emirati women learners’ hot and cold spaces. Int Stud Soc Educ2018; 07: 46–62.
14.
BeckersRVoordtTVDDewulfG. A conceptual framework to identify spatial implications of new ways of learning in higher education. Facilities2015; 33: 2–19.
15.
ChangCHsiaoCHChangYH. Science learning outcomes in alignment with learning environment preferences. J Sci Educ Technol2011; 20: 136–145.
16.
KhoshbakhtMBairdGRasheedEO. The influence of work group size and space sharing on the perceived productivity, overall comfort and health of occupants in commercial and academic buildings. Indoor Built Environ2021; 30: 692–710.
17.
AcarH. Learning environments for children in outdoor spaces. Procedia Soc Behav Sci2014; 141: 846–853.
18.
FadjarajaniSAs’ari1R. Analysis of the function of city parks as green open space and education (Study in the city of Tasikmalaya, West Java Province, Indonesia). IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci2020; 412: 012001.
19.
MealingsKTBuchholzJMDemuthKDillonH. Investigating the acoustics of a sample of open plan and enclosed Kindergarten classrooms in Australia. Appl Acoust2015; 100: 95–105.
20.
ShiSGouZChenLHC. How does enclosure influence environmental preferences? A cognitive study on urban public open spaces in Hong Kong. Sustainable Cities Soc2014; 108: 1–9.
21.
HarropDTurpinB. A study exploring learners’ informal learning space behaviors, attitudes, and preferences. New Rev Acad Librariansh2013; 19: 58–77.
22.
MahatMImmsW. The space design and use survey: establishing a reliable measure of educators’ perceptions of the use of learning environments. Aust Educ Res2021; 48: 145–164.
23.
ByersTMahatMLiuKKnockAImmsW. Systematic Review of the Effects of Learning Environments on Student Learning Outcomes-Technical Report 2018(7). Melbourne: University of Melbourne, LEaRN, 2018.
24.
WalterC. A framework for creating creative workspaces. In: Proceedings of the 13th European conference on knowledge management (ECKM). Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Cartagena, Spain, 6–7 September: 2012: 1267–1274.
25.
ThoringKDesmetPBadke-SchaubP. Creative environments for design education and practice: A typology of creative spaces. Des Stud2018; 56: 54–83.
26.
HessEHPoltJM. Pupil size as related to interest value of visual stimuli. Science1960; 132: 349–350.
27.
WeiskrantzLCoweyABarburJL. Differential pupil-lary constriction and awareness in the absence of striate cortex. Brain1999; 122: 1533–1538.
28.
LoewenfeldIA. The pupil: anatomy, physiology and clinical applications. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999, pp. 2223–2223.
29.
HeoHLeeWOShinKYParkKR. Quantitative measurement of eyestrain on 3D stereoscopic display considering the eye foveation model and edge information. Sensors2014; 14: 8577–8604.
30.
ZhengBJiangXTienGMeneghettiAPantonONMAtkinsMS. Workload assessment of surgeons: correlation between NASA TLX and blinks. Surg Endosc2012; 26: 2746–2750.
31.
BitkinaOParkaJKimHK. The ability of eye-tracking metrics to classify and predict the perceived driving workload. Int J Ind Ergon2021; 86: 103193.
32.
MallickRSlaybackDTouryanJRiesALanceB. The use of eye metrics to index cognitive workload in video games. In: 2016 IEEE Second Workshop on Eye Tracking and Visualization (ETVIS), Baltimore, USA, 23-23 October 2016: 60–64.
33.
KrejtzKDuchowskiATNiedzielskaABieleCKrejtzI. Eye tracking cognitive load using pupil diameter and microsaccades with fixed gaze. PLoS One2018; 13(9): e0203629.
34.
ZhangMXuCBMengLMengX. Outdoor comfort level improvement in the traffic waiting areas by using a mist spray system an experiment and questionnaire study. Sustainable Cities Soc2021; 71: 102973.
35.
LöwensteinO. Experimentelle Beitrage zur Lehre von den katatonischen Pupillenveriinderungen. Monatsschr Psychiatr Neurol1920; 47: 194–215.
36.
ChamberlainL. Eye tracking methodology; theory and practice. Qual Market Res2007; 10: 217–220.
37.
CaiBSunSLiZZhangXKeYYangeJLiXApplication of CRISPR/Cas9 technologies combined with iPSCs in the study and treatment of retinal degenerative diseases. Eye Genet2018; 137: 679–688.
38.
LiuTYuizonoT. Mind mapping training’s effects on reading ability: detection based on eye tracking. Sensors2020; 16: 4422.
39.
RenZYuanXZhaoRXuJYuanZAiJZuoZCaiD. Acupuncture for insomnia attention deficit and the influence of nerve electrophysiology. World J Acupunct Moxibustion2018; 28(3): 161–166.
40.
De VoogdELWiersRWSaleminkE. Online visual search attentional bias modification for adolescents with heightened anxiety and depressive symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. Behav Res Ther2017; 92: 57–67.
41.
YanGXiongJZangCYuLBaiX. Review of eye-movement measures in reading research. Adv Psychol Sci2013; 21: 4589–4605.
42.
PurvesDAugustineGJFitzpatrickDHallWCLaMantiaAMcNamaraJWilliamsSM. Contribution of Retinal Circuits to Light Adaptation Neuroscience. 3nd edition. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associates, 2004.
43.
Norberg-SchulzC. Intentions in architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968.
KimJDe DearR. Workspace satisfaction: the privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. J Environ Psychol2013; 36: 18–26.
46.
PriceIFMatzdorfFSmithLAgahiH. The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities2003; 21: 212–222.
47.
EpsteinRKanwisherN. A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature1998; 392: 559–568.
48.
GurungRARWeidertJJeskeA. Focusing on how students study. J Scholarship Teach Learn2010; 10: 28–35.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
