Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Student engagement is fundamental to a learner-centered curriculum across the United States. This study examined behavioral, cognitive, and emotional aspects of student engagement as related to classroom design in 189 health science students in four different courses. Measures of student engagement in two sections of the same class were compared according to classroom space design: grouped tables or traditional rows. Results indicated that students in lecture-based classes showed higher cognitive engagement in classrooms organized in traditional rows, whereas students in group-focused classes showed higher cognitive engagement in classroom space organized around grouped tables. Results did not support the current belief that innovative seating improves student engagement across all contexts. The relationship between student engagement and classroom design must be considered along with class format and learning objectives.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahlfeldta

Mehtab

Sellnow

(2005). Measurement and analysis of student engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use, Higher Education Research & Development, 24 (1) 5–20.

Anderson

Krathwohl

D. A.

(2001) Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives New York: Longman.

Coates

(2006). Student engagement measuring and enhancing engagement with learning. Proceedings of a Symposium, New Zealand Universities Academic Audit UnitAAU Series on Quality, No. 10.

Graetz

K.A.

(2006). The psychology of learning environments. In Oblinger

(Ed.) (2006). Learning spaces. Washington, DC: Educause.

Herman Miller (2006). Rethinking the classroom: Spaces designed for active and engaged learning and teaching. Retrieved at: http://www.hermanmiller.com/research/solution-essays/rethinking-the-classroom.html

Hunley

Schaller

(2009). Assessment: The key to creating spaces that promote learning. Educause, 44(2), 26-30.

Kao

, (1976). On educational ergonomics. Ergonomics, 19 (6), 667-681.

Kuh

G.D.

(2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey Bass).

Kuh

G. D.

(2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5-21.

10.

Lopez

Gee (2006). The learning studios project Estrella Mountain Community College. In Oblinger

(Ed.)Learning spaces. Washington, DC: Educause.

11.

Mappiasse

(2006). Developing and validating instruments for measuring democratic climate of the civic education classroom and student engagement in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, International Education Journal, 7(4), 580-597.

12.

Oblinger

(Ed.). (2006). Learning spaces. Educause. Ebook: Retrieved at http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102e.pdf

13.

Smith

T.J.

(2007). The ergonomics of learning: Educational design and learning performance. Ergonomics, 50 (10), 1530-1546.

14.

Smith

T.J.

(2013). Designing learning environments to promote student learning. Ergonomics in all but name. Work, 44, S39-S60.

15.

Tagg

(2003). The learning paradigm college. San Francisco, CA: Anker Publishing.

Classroom Design and Student Engagement

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References