Approaches in strengthening learning-place nexus need not be radical as schools align their adopted learning principle with learning environment. This descriptive study examined the school stakeholders’ perspectives of a learning space which became the basis for redesigning the Science and Computer classrooms in De La Salle University-Dasmarinas Senior High School. Qualitative data gathered through focus group discussions from purposively sampled participants representing the administration and teachers and students from the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics and Technical-Vocational-Livelihood Information and Communication Technology strands were processed using sentiment and thematic analyses. Results show participants’ collective positive sentiment for the current classrooms in the High School Complex which should be redesigned following four defining features, namely spatial flexibility, innovative furnishing, technology integration, and comfortable environment. In consideration of the cited features, the FlexITeCS (Flexible, Innovative, Technology-friendly, and Comfortable Space) Design Idea was proposed to guide the decision in redesigning the Science and Computer learning spaces. Its application should be in reference to the attainment of three specific design goals, such as: creating a flexible space with innovative furniture, integrating technology-friendly solutions, and maintaining users’ comfortability. The result of the present study is hoped to contribute to the existing literature on the importance of building learning environments that compliment teaching and learning particularly in Senior High School.
Keywords: learning space, active learning, senior high school, learning-place nexusBarnitt, H. (2003). Lighting for the future. Building services journal: The magazine for the CIBSE, 25(1), 38-39.
Burke, C., & Grosvenor, I. (2003). The school I’d like: Children and young people’s reflections on an education for the 21st century. Routledge.
Cardellino, P., & Woolner, P. (2020). Designing for transformation–a case study of open learning spaces and educational change. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 28(3), 383-402.
Cavanagh, R. (2012). Associations between the Classroom Learning Environment and Student Engagement in Learning 1: A Rasch Model Approach. Australian Association for Research in Education (NJ1).
Chiang, C. & Lai, C. (2008). Acoustical environment evaluation of joint class- rooms for elementary schools in Taiwan. Build. Environ. 43, 1619–1632.
Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17(1), 1-28.
Earthman, G. (2004). Prioritization of 31 criteria for school building adequacy. Available at: http://www.aclu-md.org/facilities_report.pdf
Earthman, G., & Lemasters, L. (2011). The influence of school building conditions on students and teachers: A theory-based research program. The ACEF Journal, 1(1), 15-36.
Esmaeel, A., Starovoytova, D., Maube, O., & Asad, R. (2020). Design of Classroom Furniture for Use at Tertiary Institutions.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Heluish, C. (2009). Pilot study: qualitative evaluation of students’ experience of new learning spaces, InQbate-CETL D, Universities of Sussex, and Brighton: 20.
Heschong, L., Wright, R. L., & Okura, S. (2002). Daylighting impacts on human performance in school. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 31(2), 101-114.
Ismail, A. S., & Abdullah, S. (2018). Learning Space in Public Secondary Schools for Students Psychological Development and Well Being. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(3.25), 365-374.
Johnson, C., & Lomas, C. (2005). Design of the learning space: Learning and design principles. EDUCAUSE Review, 40, 16-28.
Lewinski, P. (2015). Effects of classrooms’ architecture on academic performance in view of telic versus paratelic motivation: a review. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 746.
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, 9(3).
Murphy, S., Buckle, P. & Stubbs, D. (2004). Classroom posture and self-reported back and neck pain in schoolchildren. Applied Ergonomics, 35(2), 113–120
Quirk, T. J., Quirk, M. H., & Horton, H. F. (2020). Random Number Generator. In Excel 2019 for Biological and Life Sciences Statistics (pp. 21-36). Springer, Cham.
Rands, M. L., & Gansemer-Topf, A. M. (2017). The room itself is active: How classroom design impacts student engagement. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(1), 26.
Stewart, K., & Williams, M. (2005). Researching online populations: the use of online focus groups for social research. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 395-416.
Ţălu, Ş. (2019). Implications of modern digital technologies in higher education. world, 10, 11.
Tao, Y., Lau, S. S. Y., Gou, Z., Zhang, J., & Tablada, A. (2019). An investigation of semi-outdoor learning spaces in the tropics: Spatial settings, thermal environments, and user perceptions. Indoor and Built Environment, 28(10), 1368-1382.
Uduku, O. (2015). Spaces for 21st-century learning. In Routledge handbook of international education and development (pp. 216-229). Routledge.