1.
Introduction
In recent years, the broadening
field of research on the role of motivation and emotions in
learning has produced important new information on how to
optimally arrange the study environment (see e.g.
Csíkszentmihályi, 2014; Dweck, 2006; Heikkilä & Lonka,
2006; Heikkilä, Lonka, Nieminen & Niemivirta, 2012; Hidi
& Renninger, 2006; Job, Walton, Bernecker & Dweck,
2015; Lindblom-Ylänne & Lonka, 2000; Mälkki, 2010; Ryan
& Deci, 2009; Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich &
Linkins, 2009; Tuominen-Soini, Salmela-Aro & Niemivirta,
2008). Strikingly, even though knowledge on the study
environment, and especially its social attributes, is vast,
knowledge on how the physical environment is related to
psychological and pedagogical phenomena as yet remains
scarce (Sandström, Sjöblom, Mälkki
& Lonka, 2013; Beard 2009, 2012; Lansdale, Parkin,
Austin & Baguley, 2011; Lonka, 2012; Woolner, Hall,
Higgins, McCaughey & Wall, 2007). Intellectual and
emotional functioning is always nested in the physical
environment, even when working in virtual learning
environments. However, most of the research on physical
environment has traditionally focused on minimizing its
negative effects on health or determining how individuals
interact with the environment on a perceptual level (see
e.g. Alfonsi, Capolongo & Buffoli, 2014; Evans,
Bullinger & Hygge, 1998; Parsons & Hartig, 2000;
Ulrich, 1981), rather than on unveiling the role of the
physical environment with regard to cognitive and emotional
functioning. This study examines the role of the physical
environment in supporting learning and basic psychological
needs.
Previous research has indicated
that the physical environment is far from irrelevant with
regard to intellectual functioning: The design and
functionality of the physical environment contribute to
physically distributed intelligence (Norman, 1993), stress
over safety issues and the cognitive capacity available for
higher intellectual functioning such as learning (Sandström,
Sjöblom, Mälkki
& Lonka, 2013). Being organized in a given way, the
physical space also conveys assumptions and ideologies
(Beard, 2012; Beard & Price, 2010) e.g. on the activity
taking place and, as such, tunes the users into different
mental modes and roles (Mälkki, Sjöblom & Lonka, 2014).
Thus, similarly to the social environment, the physical
environment can be seen as either facilitating learning and
well-being or posing a challenge to them. Moreover, of
particular interest is the emotional experience related to
the activity taking place in a given physical space. This
experience may likely bear meaning in the process of forming
a relation to the place and, more broadly, of developing
one’s identity as a professional in a given field.
In modern-day society people spend
most of their time in indoor environments, and new
multidisciplinary information is needed on how to design
these spaces to best support the activity expected to take
place in them. Both human resources and physical spaces are
valuable and costly resources: Typically around 90% of
business operating costs consist of direct or indirect staff
costs (Alker et al., 2015), and as to physical spaces,
expensive indoor environments need to be used efficiently.
At the same time, the industry policy of most Western
societies prioritizes innovation. We need to acquire further
knowledge on how to facilitate the thriving of the human
potential by creating fruitful grounds for it. When
designing physical learning spaces, it is essential to not
only take into account the most fundamental needs of the
students, but also to gain understanding on the relations
between the physical surroundings and the more refined
psychological processes. These issues are focal in both
learning environments and environments dedicated to other
purposes, such as work or recreation.
Finally, it is not quite enough to
focus on the design and functionality of physical space and
tools as such. The use of available premises and equipment
is essentially determined by the social practices applied in
them; for instance, technology advances learning only
through transformed social practices (Hakkarainen, 2009;
Paavola, Lipponen & Hakkarainen, 2004). Thus, although
in this article we examine the role of the physical
environment in the fulfillment of basic psychological needs,
we do not assume that it is only a matter of a relation
between the individual and the physical environment. Rather,
we approach the theme from the perspective that the users’
experience of the physical environment is mediated by social
practices and culturally shared meanings. In a broader
sense, we are approaching the intriguing interplay between
the human and the material, as well as the intellectual and
the emotional.
2. Theoretical
framework
2.1
Basic psychological needs
In
this study we approach questions of learning and well-being
with regard to the physical learning environment from the
perspective of basic psychological needs as laid out by the
self-determination theory developed by Deci and Ryan (1985,
2000, 2008; Ryan & Deci 2000, 2009). This is a
macro-theory of human motivation, personality development
and well-being that focuses
especially on volitional behavior and the surrounding
conditions that support it (Ryan, 2009).
The
theory views all human beings as inherently self-determined,
actively evolving organisms, with a natural aspiration for
continuous psychological development and growth. However, in
order to these propensities to be actualized, the
satisfaction of basic psychological needs must be
sufficiently supported. According to the theory, the social
and cultural environment can support the satisfaction of
basic psychological needs and the self-determined behavior
to varying degrees. Thus, the process of growth is
essentially seen to take place in relation to the
surrounding conditions that, for their part, contribute to
the individuals’ possibilities to embrace their full,
natural potential. Aligned with this emphasis, it is
also relevant to study in more detail how the physical
environment may, for its part, contribute to the interaction
between the individual and the environment and the
fulfilment of basic psychological needs (E.
Deci, personal communication with the first author, October
28, 2014).
Self-determination
theory
is currently one of the most prevalent and utilized theories
on motivation. In the decades following the formal
introduction of the theory in the 1980s, research on the
theory has dramatically increased. Consequently, the theory
has been subject to criticisms and suggestions for further
development as well. A common criticism of the theory is its
cultural applicability, posing that the core features of the
theory, such as the need for autonomy, are mainly
descriptive of a Western individual, rather than of people
raised in and surrounded by more collectivist cultures (e.g.
Iyengar & DeVoe, 2003; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
However, further research has verified that psychological
needs are equally imperative with regard to psychological
well-being in both individualistic and collectivist cultures
(e.g. Chirkov,
Ryan, Kim & Kaplan, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2006).
The
formal framework of self-determination theory consists of
five mini-theories (Ryan, 2009). This study focuses on the
mini-theory of basic psychological needs. The theory states
that all people, universally and regardless of their age or
gender, share the same basic psychological needs, namely the
needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. These needs
are seen to be central prerequisites with regard to healthy
human functioning.
Autonomy
refers
to perceiving oneself as the origin or source for one’s own
behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Connell, 1989;
Ryan & Deci, 2002, 2006), competence refers to a felt
sense of confidence and effectance in one’s own actions
(Ryan & Deci, 2002), and relatedness refers to feeling
connected and having a sense of belonging with regard to
both other individuals and with one’s community (Baumeister
& Leary, 1995; Ryan, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2002). In
order to function effectively and to be psychologically
healthy, these needs must be sufficiently satisfied (Deci
& Ryan, 2008).
More
specifically,
the satisfaction of basic psychological needs is relative to
the activity and functioning pursued; needs may be seen to
specify necessary nutriments with regard to healthy
development and vitality as well as constructive and
creative outputs (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Thus, rather than
being a goal in itself, the satisfaction of basic
psychological needs is seen to facilitate intrinsic
motivation, learning and well-being (Niemiec & Ryan,
2009; Ryan & Deci, 2009) as well as eudaimonic happiness
(Ryan, Huta & Deci, 2008).
The
theory of basic psychological needs is widely studied
empirically, including in the context of learning in higher
education (see e.g. Black & Deci, 2000). In particular,
the need for autonomy and the possibilities to support it
have acquired much needed attention in the context of
learning and instruction (see e.g. Jang,
Reeve & Deci,
2010; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Soenens,
Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens & Dochy,
2012; Vansteenkiste et al., 2012). However, the research has
predominantly focused on the social aspects of the learning
environment, such as the interaction between the students
and the teacher, while the research on the psychological
needs of an individual with regard to the physical
environment has been extremely scarce (see e.g. Gay, 2008;
Gay, Saunders, & Dowda, 2011; Rutten, Boen &
Seghers, 2012).
2.2
The learning environment
Similarly
to the research on the basic psychological needs, research
on learning environments has mainly focused on the social
learning environment while the physical learning environment
has for the most part been ignored. For example, Lave and
Wenger’s idea of legitimate peripheral participation (1991)
places high importance on social engagements that provide
the proper context for learning to take place. By participating in
the activities of an expert community, a novice is gradually
able to assimilate the professional practices and become
part of the community. These kinds of views stress the role
of the social learning environment in the development of
professional abilities, yet neglect the physical
environments in which the social activity takes place.
Empirical research on physical environments, on
the other hand, has traditionally focused on factors related
to physical health or discomfort (e.g. Küller &
Lindsten, 1992; Winterbottom & Wilkins, 2009). Knowledge
on how the physical environment, i.e. physical spaces, tools
and equipment, is related to psychological and pedagogical
phenomena is still rare (Lansdale,
Parkin, Austin & Baguley, 2011; Lonka, 2012; Woolner,
Hall, Higgins, McCaughey & Wall, 2007). While the
importance of individual characteristics and the social
environment should not be underestimated (e.g. Perry, Turner
& Meyer, 2006),
the role of the physical environment in the learning process
calls for more rigorous attention in the field of learning
research. More knowledge is
needed on how the physical environment can support learning,
well-being, engagement and commitment.
Research
on learning environments has shown that the physical
environment conveys assumptions (Beard, 2012; Beard &
Price, 2010) and
activates students’ previous assumptions regarding similar
environments (Mälkki, Sjöblom & Lonka, 2014). The
assumptions conveyed by the physical environment may involve
underlying conceptions on the learning process and the roles
of the participants: An auditorium implies a different
positioning and division of roles than a classroom where the
desks are organized in groups and the teacher has no central
position but is instead moving around the classroom on a
chair. This demonstrates how the physical space itself tunes
the students into different mental modes and roles. The
arrangement of physical space in ways that the participants
are not used to may as such turn into a disorienting
dilemma, challenging existing conceptions and ways of
thinking and possibly triggering reflection (Mälkki, Sjöblom
& Lonka, 2014). Thus, the space or equipment cannot be
seen as a separate entity, detached from the present
culture. Rather, social practices are embedded in the
physical arrangements (Hakkarainen, 2009) and also have an
impact on how the physical environment is perceived and
experienced by the users.
Along with
the idea of socially and physically distributed cognition (Hakkarainen,
Palonen, Paavola & Lehtinen, 2004; Hutchins, 2000,
2006), physical
environments also vary with regard to the degree they
facilitate the activity that is expected to take place in
them. For example, the space may be equipped with modern
technology and devices that assist the learning process,
which makes the learning process markedly different from one
that is carried out without any needed assistance, such as
calculators, to begin with. The very fact that learners are
able to choose a suitable environment for different learning
tasks is helpful with regard to completing the tasks. A
concrete example of this might be having to work on a group
assignment in a silent library hall or endeavoring to
understand new theoretical material in a noisy hallway.
In fact,
the physical environment consists of affordances that may,
at best, facilitate the development of new skills, help
people overcome the limitations of their own capabilities
and make them feel like active agents; or in contrast, the
lack of needed affordances may pose a significant challenge
to carrying out the expected activities, handicapping the
cognitive functioning in the space and making people feel
incapable of performing the expected tasks (Sandström, Sjöblom, Mälkki & Lonka,
2013; Norman,
1993; Sandström, Eriksson, Lonka & Nenonen, 2015). Thus,
the physical environment for its part offers a varying
degree of procedural facilitation (Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1987) of the aspired activity. If for instance
students lack enough space for their work or constantly have
to worry about unclear safety issues, these issues
inevitably take a toll on the cognitive resources available
for learning (Sandström, Sjöblom, Mälkki & Lonka,
2013; see
also Sandström, Ketonen & Lonka, 2014).
Thus, a dysfunctional environment may be handicapping with
regard to intellectual activity at the most basic level.
Consequently, we postulate that the design and the
functionality of the physical environment play a role in the
students’ experiences related to the basic psychological
needs.
2.3
The context of the study: exploring the basic
psychological needs in a chemistry laboratory learning
environment
In
our study we focus on beginning university chemistry
students’ learning, in particular on their experiences
during laboratory work, in order to unveil the dynamics
between physical environment and basic psychological needs.
Chemistry as a study context offers an intriguing and
relevant terrain for researching this interplay. Namely, the
physical laboratory environment, which includes not only
desks and chairs but also the diverse and complex laboratory
instrumentation, is especially focal in learning chemistry.
Focusing on the experiences of first-year students is
fruitful from the perspective of their emerging sense of
relatedness to the professional field. Furthermore, sense of
autonomy and competence are expected to develop in a study
context, which, similarly to a working environment,
represents a performance-oriented environment. In addition,
the aforementioned topics may be particularly present in the
students’ experiences in the beginning stage of their
studies.
As
argued earlier in the text, current research on basic
psychological needs in study contexts has focused especially
on students’ sense of autonomy. This is a central question
as a study context has traditionally been an environment
where the action to a large extent is guided by the teacher,
while at the same time, the students have the need to
develop their sense of autonomy and competence in the field.
This need for a constructive friction between the students’
existing capabilities and an appropriate amount of guidance
provided by the teacher has also been addressed by Vermunt
and Verloop (1999).
In
our view, it is important to look more closely at the
emerging sense of relatedness with regard to the study
community and the physical premises, and more generally, to
the professional field. In the chemistry context this may
have particular importance: For example, in Finland many
students discontinue their chemistry studies after a year or
two. For some of these students, this may be due to a
transfer to pursue studies in the faculty of medicine, where
the chemistry studies serve as a platform to develop the
abilities needed to be accepted into that faculty. However,
this is not the case for all of the students who drop out of
their chemistry studies.
In
order to increase understanding on student experiences in
the chemistry learning context, it is particularly
interesting to examine the role of the physical learning
environment from the viewpoint of psychological needs and
the support the physical environment could offer for
learning. What are the most central characteristics
of the physical environment that contribute to emerging
experiences of competence, autonomy and relatedness? If we are
able to consider the psychological needs of the students when
designing learning spaces, we can create a fruitful ground for
thriving, productive students and, at best, further current
understanding on how to design leading university campuses
(Lonka, 2012; Nenonen, Kärnä, Junnonen, Tähtinen &
Sandström, 2015).
3. The
aims of the study
This
study
explored the role of the physical environment with regard to
learning from the perspective of basic psychological needs.
The research questions were as follows: 1. What is the role
of the physical environment in the experience of the basic
psychological needs? 2. What is the role of the physical
environment in the learning process from the perspective of
the basic psychological needs?
Aligned
with
the theory of basic psychological needs, we postulated that
the satisfaction of these needs is not a goal as such, but
rather a facilitator with regard to productivity and
well-being. Consequently, it was relevant to study the
experience of the basic psychological needs in relation to
the activity pursued, that is, learning. We hypothesized
that if the physical environment contributes to the
experience of basic psychological needs, this may have a
mediating effect on the process of learning; by supporting
the fulfillment of basic psychological needs, the physical
environment may facilitate learning and study engagement.
In
addition, we aimed at furthering the interactional
perspective of the theory of basic psychological needs by
considering the role of the physical environment in
facilitating or posing a challenge to the fulfillment of the
core needs. Rather than focusing on individual experiences
regarding the core needs, our emphasis was on exploring the
dynamics of the phenomenon on a more theoretical level. In
order to capture the diversity and depth of the student’s
experiences regarding this fairly new research topic, the
study approached the relations between the physical
environment and basic psychological needs with qualitative
methodology. While much of the research on motivation is
based on self-report questionnaires in order to measure
individuals’ views and beliefs, classroom observations and
interviews can provide a richer depiction of situated
motivation (Wigfield, Cambria & Eccles, 2012).
4. Method
4.1
Participants
The
participants of the study were beginning-stage chemistry
students (n=21, representing both genders) from a Finnish
university. The participants were selected based on their
willingness to participate as well as the appropriate timing
of their current laboratory project; in other words,
participation in the interview and selection for a
particular focus group also depended on whether they were
able to leave their laboratory work for an hour to complete
the interview.
4.2
Materials
The
data consists of focus group interviews and questionnaires
that were completed by each participant individually before
entering the interview. The questionnaire served as an
orientation to the interview, whereas the qualitative
analysis is based on the material from the focus group
interviews.
The
questionnaire included both open-ended and multiple choice
questions. The themes of the questionnaire focused on
helpful and challenging aspects of the physical environment
with regard to learning as well as typical study-related use
of physical spaces, equipment and technological devices:
a) Sources
of interest and engagement in the laboratory work
(open-ended),
b) Sources
of challenge and difficulty in the laboratory work
(open-ended),
c) Typical
study-related use of technological tools in learning
(multiple choice questions assessing the frequency of the
use on a scale 1-6; e.g. smartphone, laptop),
d) Typical
study-related use of spaces in learning (multiple choice
questions assessing the frequency of the use on a scale 1-6;
e.g. library, hallways, cafeterias, home),
e) Concrete
tools, equipment or other aspects of the laboratory work
that are experienced as particularly well-functioning or
engaging (open-ended),
f) Concrete
tools, equipment or other aspects of the laboratory work
that are experienced as particularly cumbersome or
counterproductive with regard to learning (open-ended),
g) Other
comments and suggestions with regard to the physical
learning environment (open-ended).
The
interview elaborated on the same questions with the group.
4.3
Procedures
4.3.1
Interviews
Semi-structured
focus-group
interviews in groups of three to four students were
collaboratively carried out by two of the authors. The
interviews were conducted contextually in the middle of a
laboratory work session. The students completed the
questionnaires in the actual laboratory space, an organic
chemistry laboratory, and the interviews were carried out in
an adjoining room in order to ensure privacy and focused
environment. By having the students complete the
questionnaire individually before entering the interview, we
aimed at giving the students the space to reflect on the
topics based on their own experience and perspective first,
and the views could then be elaborated further in the group.
The
interviews followed an interpretivist approach (Scott &
Usher, 1999; Williams, 2000), aiming at "making sense of
actor's actions and language within their 'natural' setting"
(Williams, 2000). The method of the interview was designed
to leave space for the participants to freely discuss themes
that they experienced as important.
As
the topic of the research is rather new, the structure of
the questionnaire and the interview had to be open enough
not to restrict the participants but to genuinely leave
space for unexpected material and directions, regardless of
the preconceptions or hypotheses of the researchers.
Moreover, the phenomena and the related experiences are such
that a clearly articulated view from the students is hardly
expected; rather, the data had to be approached in a
holistic way to seek understanding on the phenomena. Thus,
the questions were formed rather open so that the interview
and the discussion in the groups could develop the topics
further. As a result, the interview data brought about a
rich milieu of aspects of the students’ experiences, beyond
the expected themes and hypotheses.
4.3.2
Analysis
The
interviews were transcribed verbatim, and the transcriptions
were then analyzed by the authors iteratively with the help
of the Atlas TI program. Repeated stages of individual and
collaborative analysis were conducted to find central
categories and patterns in the reported experiences.
The
initial stage of the analysis and classification was data
driven in order to capture unforeseen observations and
patterns in the data. When the researchers gathered to
discuss the initial results of the first round of analysis
that each had conducted individually, it was noted that
despite the differences in the conceptualizations and
terminologies of the classifications among the researchers,
many of the central themes and categories fell into the
dimensions of basic psychological needs. The results of the
first round of analysis supported the theory of basic
psychological needs as a relevant theoretical approach
through which to frame the findings and acquire further
understanding on the role of the physical environment in the
learning process. The following rounds of analysis focused
on elaborating specifically on this approach with continued
iterative individual and collaborative rounds.
Indeed,
the
theory of basic psychological needs was not yet our
framework when collecting data. We aimed at more generally
unveiling the role of the physical environment in the
learning process. Along with the data-driven analyses and
initial findings, we started seeing the relevance of further
rounds of analysis from the perspective of basic
psychological needs. Consequently, the analysis is by no
means exhaustive with regard to the relation between basic
psychological needs and the physical environment but rather
an opening for research on the topic.
This
study
was a deepening reanalysis of previously analyzed data (Sandström, Sjöblom, Mälkki & Lonka,
2013)
on the chemistry laboratory as a physical learning
environment. The previous study shed light on the role of
the physical space in the learning process: The physical
space may contain guidance implemented in it, and the
physical space and its usability contribute to the students'
sense of safety, which in turn is crucial when students are
expected to engage in demanding cognitive activities.
However, early in the initial phases of analysis, it seemed
that in addition to the aforementioned findings, the data
also offered intriguing perspectives on the dynamics between
the physical environment, learning and experiences of
oneself as a learner in that given environment, which
deserved a deepening reanalysis.
The
authors represented different fields of expertise, namely
educational psychology, clinical psychology, adult education
and linguistics. The analysis aimed at utilizing and
building on the diversity of the scholarly backgrounds of
the researchers to explore different approaches to the
phenomena as well as reach understanding on the core
features presented in the data. As with the participants of
the study, we aimed at both capturing the individual
approaches and views as well as elaborating them further by
combining the views and abilities of the whole group
collaboratively.
Most
of
the work on the study was carried out collaboratively, with
the team of researchers working on the material and writing
the text in the same physical space, which added value to
the depth of the analysis, as opposed to each researcher
separately adding their own share of expertise to the study
(Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola & Lehtinen, 2004).
Moreover, the researchers altered and modified the physical
spaces in which they were working during the research
process. Choosing a suitable physical space with the
required technological tools to accommodate a given work
assignment, for example, a collaborative writing session,
brought further understanding on the role of the physical
space in the work process itself.
The
approach to the current study was abductive by nature; by
utilizing the theory in the analysis of the data, we aimed
at a deeper understanding of the phenomenon as well as at
furthering the theory. Our main focus was on the dynamics
between the physical environment and the experiences of the
learner rather than on a purely deductive approach driven by
an emphasis on testing the theory. From a methodological
point of view, our aim was not to cover all possible
variations of the interplay between the physical environment
and the psychological needs in the context of chemistry
studies. Rather, our study was aimed at serving as an
opening for research on previously unmapped ground. Even
though the sample size can be seen as a limitation of the
study and a broader sample could have been advantageous,
from a theoretical point of view (see Mälkki, 2012) the data
were rich and offered relevant material for an exploratory
analysis on the dynamics of the topic.
5. Results
In
the following sections we will focus on how the three core
needs, autonomy, competence and relatedness (Ryan &
Deci, 2002), manifest in relation to the physical
environment and the learning context. As our approach
stretches the theory of psychological needs out of its usual
sphere of application, we employed an abductive approach to
be open to dynamics of the phenomenon that are not readily
conceptualized in self-determination theory. For analytical
clarity, we will in the following first examine each
dimension individually, and secondly we will discuss how
these dimensions are intertwined in the data.
5.1
Autonomy
5.1.1
Physically mediated guidance and the use of modern
technological devices in supporting students’ sense of
autonomy
Within
the
context of learning and instruction, the issue of autonomy
is often regarded to predominantly concern the balance
between the control over one’s work and the received
guidance, which is usually seen as socially mediated.
Students need sufficient guidance and should not be
“abandoned,” but the teacher should not regulate or perform
on behalf of the students the tasks and challenges that they
already master, thus disturbing the sense of autonomy
experienced by the students.
As
for the laboratory as a physical entity, guidance may be
seen not merely as socially mediated but also as physically
mediated (Sandström, Sjöblom, Mälkki & Lonka,
2013;
Hutchins, 2006); information may be embedded in the physical
space itself. For instance, different tags and signs can be
seen as affordances (Norman, 1993) that assist individual
information processing. They help people overcome the
boundaries of their intellectual capacities. Thus, the
workspace itself can be seen as cognitively structuring,
also with regard to the clarity of close surroundings such
as desks. Architecturally, the space itself may also
communicate information, which is the case, for instance,
when signs in a hallway are not needed to locate the
corridor to the restrooms.
On
the other hand, a lack of needed information or tools
provided by the physical environment can reduce one’s
prerequisites for performing various tasks, either practical
or intellectual, in the space. Not only does this happen
factually, but this may also challenge the experiences of
one’s own ability and autonomy, at worst bringing about a
sense of inability due to a dysfunctional environment. In
this sense, properties of the physical surroundings become
incorporated as capabilities of the individual. The
information embedded in the physical environment may also
reduce the need to seek instructions for tasks on the very
basic level of functioning, such as finding the appropriate
equipment to perform a given task. In contrast, if a student
is not capable of navigating independently in the space
without constantly asking for information on the most basic
level, this can be harmful not only for the process of
learning but also for the sense of autonomy experienced by
the student.
In
fact, the guidance provided by the physical space itself may
be seen as more supportive of the autonomy of the students
as they take on a more active role when searching for the
needed information from the physical environment, as opposed
to being socially given the information that the teacher
assumes that they need. They are “the origin or source for
one’s own behavior” (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci,
2002), and the more they can autonomously direct their
study-related behavior in meaningful ways, the more they
themselves are in control of the learning process. For these
purposes, the physical environment may provide not only
information and guidance, but also tools for searching for
the requisite information. For example, the students
described their frequent use of modern technology, such as
smartphones, tablets and laptops, in searching for relevant
information. The use of modern technologies was experienced
as handy and quick in comparison to searching for the
information from the library. It also seemed that the use of
modern technology was at times more supportive of the
students’ sense of autonomy as it reduced the need to lean
on the teacher as a source of information within the
laboratory space. However, some students found that the
physical space did not accommodate the use of modern tools
as well as they would have hoped. The students reported that
workspaces crowded with chemical equipment often did not
leave room for laptops even though they would have been an
important part of the study process.
While
independent
search for information requires self-directedness, it also
changes some of the social aspects of having to ask for
additional information. Instead of presenting his or her
imperfections, the student can independently approach the
question and, optimally, succeed in solving it. At best,
this may foster the student’s sense of autonomy. In
addition, providing information in excess through various
physical modalities is hardly a risk, whereas with socially
mediated guidance this can often be a challenge:
At times the assistant may come and do the
thing for you, and it would be nicer to get to do it
yourself, just to take the instructions and try to get
something out of it. Sometimes when you’ve wanted help,
verbally or such, then the assistant has come and put
together that instrument there and taken care of it.
The independent work to me too is great,
really... At least for me, even though group work is okay
and nice but if the other person gets things faster and
better, then I’m just like, the other person says well go
find this and I do and I’m getting nothing about anything,
--- so then you have to take responsibility for your own
work and understanding too.
Indeed,
in
light of this data, the role of socially mediated guidance
in learning was as underlined as it was dilemmatic. By
socially mediated guidance we refer to the support that the
student receives in the learning process either from
teachers or from fellow students. While the students
appreciated the space and freedom to process things
themselves and be independently responsible for their
progress in the chemistry tasks, they felt a strong need for
reassurance that they are progressing in the right
direction. Many students emphasized the importance of
receiving social confirmation and affirmation for their
assumptions either from their peers or from the teacher.
5.1.2
The volitional nature of the study activities
Finally,
when
asked about the meaning of the physical environment in their
studies, throughout the data many of the students mentioned
how being able to practice in the actual laboratory brought
a sense of meaning and purpose to their studies. The
activities performed in the laboratory demonstrated why they
were there in the first place, what they would be doing in
the future, and why they should proceed and advance in their
studies:
Here the students are doing their work and
the assistants are only there to see that nothing
particular is happening. In the future if you’re working
in the laboratory, there will probably be no one telling
you to “do this, do this”. Instead, you have to use your
own head when you’re working there, and here you get to
practice that.
For me too, with this instrumentation that
I’ve never got to use before, it is a fine feeling of ‘hey
this is how it works’; there are levers and tubes and
glass and all kinds of things gathered there. It is
awfully great to get to use things that you never have
before. And overall, the engagement of the laboratory
work, that feeling when you’ve actually succeeded, you
have that aspirin weighed, measured, everything checked –
that feeling: yes I’ve accomplished something today! Even
though it’s nothing bigger than some ten grams of aspirin,
still.
As
was clearly manifested in the students’ reports, the
physical spaces and tools enabled study processes that were
highly valued by the students and appeared to strengthen not
only the sense of autonomy but also competence and
relatedness to their professional community.
5.2
Competence
5.2.1
The importance of practical conditions on
intellectual and emotional functioning: Ergonomics,
usability and the fluency of the activity in the physical
environment
In
a study context the need to be able to perform and
accomplish tasks is accentuated. A predominant feature of a
chemistry laboratory as a study context is that it involves
concrete activities with physical equipment and tools. When
asked about helpful and challenging aspects of the physical
learning environment, the students brought up the importance
of ergonomics in the laboratory settings. They mentioned how
their work can be significantly disturbed by challenging
external conditions, for example, when they have to work in
unergonomic positions. This was evident in the experience of
a student who reported having at times to do his laboratory
work “in a highly
confined space in a fetus-like position.”
With
that
example in mind, one may recognize how the physical
environment may have a fundamental effect in hindering or
disturbing the student in applying his competence to the
task at hand. The
questions of usability were equally important regarding
modern tools such as technological devices and software. If
the prerequisites for accomplishing a task are not taken
care of and the environment does not provide the needed
procedural facilitation, the student cannot experience him-
or herself as competent in the given physical environment.
In consequence, these kinds of external factors may lower
the internal sense of competence; the functionality of the
physical environment may not only have an enabling role with
regard to the concrete activity, but there is an essentially
emotional component to this as well. Equipment and tools,
traditional or modern, a chair or a smartphone, may hinder
one’s experienced competence but also elevate it and take it
to the next level.
5.2.2
The physical environment and tools: tangible
indications of competence and sources of engagement
On
the other hand, the students frequently brought up that
proper and well-functioning practical tools offered them a
concrete indication of competence and accomplishment as well
as a source of engagement in the learning process:
I do like it that with the kind of proper
practical tools one can practice making real things, that
it’s not just all on the pages of the books, that it
motivates and in my opinion grows that confidence, hey I
could do this, hey this resulted in such a good yield. For
me, that inspires me to go forward in the studies.
It
appeared that at best, the equipment offered stimulus for a
positive, reinforcing cycle when the student was able to
master, put together and utilize equipment initially
experienced as strange and intimidating due to its
complexity and sophistication:
To me, successful reactions or syntheses help
me greatly [to engage in learning]. And special and new
equipment too, that you get to familiarize yourself a
little with, you wonder what to do with them and they look
completely strange, and you have absolutely no clue what
to do with them. And then someone clears that up for you
and you’re like “Aah okay!” It is so nice! … Especially
when putting together the distillation apparatus for the
first time, it was absolutely horrible, and such an awful
chaos! But now that you’ve done a fair amount of that,
you’re, well… it is wonderful to notice that it doesn’t
take 15 minutes of agonizing anymore, you take the right
instruments almost automatically.
In
these cases the elements of the physical environment that
used to communicate strangeness became familiar and
meaningful. Instead of communicating difficulty and
incapability, they offered a sense of mastery as well as an
indication of progress in the learning process. More
broadly, the mere observation that with time and practice
the student could navigate and function in an environment
that in the beginning had been fairly demanding may also be
seen as a positive indicator of the learning process and the
development of competence in the context. This kind of
feedback on one’s abilities, stemming from the mundane
concrete doings in the laboratory and involving both the
cognitive and the emotional dimension, may be seen to be
functional in nature as it is not given by someone else but
emerges through the experience of success in a practical
task.
5.2.3
The challenges of competent functioning in the
complex physical environment: Providing cognitive
structuring and procedural facilitation in the space
itself
In
order to successfully function in the laboratory
environment, the students need to not only have the
appropriate theoretical grounding and understanding of the
phenomena, but they also need to familiarize themselves with
the social practices of applying the information in practice
in a given field. This is not straightforward as the shared
practices are often in the form of an expert’s silent
information, which can be best assimilated by participating
in the actual procedures and operations, or by becoming part
of the professional community. This, however, may be
challenging as the time spent in the actual laboratory
setting is limited.
Many
students
reported feeling that they were expected to be more
competent in laboratory work than their actual level of
competence was. The laboratory environment was highly
complex and demanding for them to begin with. For example,
the students mentioned that watching a security video once
does not necessarily mean that they have assimilated the
information and would be able to take the crucial points
into account when working in the laboratory setting. This,
for many students, resulted in recurrent uncertainty and
pondering over safety issues:
In theory you do know these things since
you’ve studied the course on safe work in the laboratory,
but then when you come to strange circumstances like
these, it may happen that that part of your brain is not
working, and you’re like, there’s all the rest of the
hustle and bustle and the poisons there.
In
terms of the theory of flow (Csíkszentmihályi, 1988; see
also Inkinen et al., 2013), if the challenges of the task
are considerably higher than the students’ abilities to
respond to them, the students are at risk of experiencing
predominantly worry and anxiety, which does not facilitate
their learning or well-being. If students are frequently
experiencing failure and inability with regard to the
expectations rather than meeting the expectations and
noticing progress in their learning, the students’ sense of
competence in the given physical environment may be
hindered. The more complex the activity and the environment,
the more cognitive structuring is needed. As mentioned
earlier in the text, by physical means this scaffolding can
be provided e.g. by adding tags, signs and information
boards as well as paying attention to the overall clarity of
the physical environment.
5.3
Relatedness
Within
research
on learning, relatedness has mainly been studied in relation
to a given social community, such as a professional
community, instructors or peer students. Although feelings
of relatedness may not be connected to the mere physical
surroundings, we considered it important to study the role
of the physical environment from the viewpoint of an
emerging sense of relatedness to a professional community.
More specifically, based on the analysis, it appeared that
the students referred to the role of the physical
environment as part of their experiences of belonging to
given physical premises or the lack of belonging. Therefore,
in the following we will also use the notion of belonging
when approaching questions of relatedness with regard to the
physical environment.
While
the
dimensions of autonomy and competence were particularly
central in the interview data, experiences of relatedness
were less prevalent, which seems to be an important
observation since within the field of chemistry there seems
to be a challenge with regard to students' commitment to
their studies and to the professional field.
As
the students described their relation to the physical space,
two central themes became relevant. Firstly, the students
perceived different kinds of study activities to belong to
different physical surroundings and associated a certain
value to them. Secondly, as elaborated earlier, how the
physical environment accommodates the activities expected to
be performed in it has importance with regard to the
emerging sense of competence. Consequently, the study
activity, be it fluent or laborious, contributes to how easy
or difficult it is for the students to proceed and succeed
in their study tasks and influences how the students view
themselves when working in that particular environment. In a
broader sense, this bears relevance to their developing
sense of relatedness to the professional field. In the field
of chemistry, the laboratory surroundings are an especially
central if not inseparable feature of the work itself, and
therefore chemistry offers an intriguing terrain for
studying the role of the physical environment with regard to
a broader formation of relatedness. In the following we will
discuss each of these points in more detail.
5.3.1
From hallways to lecture rooms: Spaces of status,
ownership and functionality
With
regard
to physical space and the sense of relatedness, for the
students it was important to have certain physical spaces as
anchors for their activities so that they could repeatedly
utilize certain spaces instead of floating around without a
“home” for their activities. When asked about their
preferred study environments, the students seemed to
experience most ownership and belonging with regard to
spaces where the activity is not instructed but rather
informal, such as the tables and chairs in the hallways,
libraries, the student union room and, obviously, home, that
is, spaces which the students were able to enter and use on
their own and where the role of teacher was not as
predominant. In fact, the spaces in which the students
seemed to experience belonging often were also such that
supported the students’ sense of autonomy, both with regard
to being able to choose and enter the space rather freely
and self-directedly, as well as to the nature of the
activity taking place in the space. Indeed, just the very
fact of being able to choose between differentiable and
flexible spaces in order to best accommodate the given study
activity may be seen as supporting students’ sense of
autonomy and their active role in guiding their own learning
process.
While
most
of the spaces utilized by the students were not officially
designated for any specific task, the students nevertheless
seemed to have a clear vision regarding which spaces they
would use for which study activity. For informal tasks, such
as group work, the students reported choosing mainly
informal environments, such as university hallways,
cafeterias or public transportation. The faculty library or
classrooms, instead, were perceived as natural venues for
pursuing more serious and ambitious studying.
Further,
the
students associated a certain value with certain study
environments. Some students seemed to regard as “proper
learning” those study activities that were situated in
formal learning environments. For pursuing “serious study
activities,” students reported choosing formal study
environments, such as the faculty library. The laboratory
environment, clearly being a formal learning environment,
was regarded as an environment where serious study activity
and “proper learning” takes place. In contrast, the
activities conducted in informal environments, such as group
assignments, were not described as worthy and official,
albeit that these study activities may be highly essential
in the process of learning. In fact, based on the students’
reports, collaborative study activities were not recognized
as learning as clearly as individual work, either when
instructed by a teacher or accomplished alone.
Specifically
with
regard to the laboratory environment and the related sense
of belonging, some of the students indicated that in their
experiences the laboratory space is not a space that belongs
to them in the first place. Rather, many students perceived
themselves as visitors in this space that is occupied by
others, such as teachers, more advanced students and the
researchers who are its main users.
5.3.2
Welcoming,
functional and dysfunctional spaces: Allowing users to be
human
The
issue of belonging may also be seen as related to how the
space communicates with work and tasks. Thus questions of
usability become relevant: The dysfunctionality or
impracticality of the environment does not support
experiences of one or one’s work belonging in the given
space. The space can be seen as inviting or welcoming in
relation to the individual’s own functioning; for instance,
how the space is designed to meet the ergonomic needs of
users builds experiences of fluency vs. laboriousness:
Maybe the most important thing in interior
design would be functionality, as you have people of
different sizes, the adjustability of the surroundings, so
that the work would be ergonomic. If you have to reach
something from high above, that you would have some tool
or a strategy, whatever it is, so that you can reach
things from above safely. At times when you are taking
those poisons from somewhere terribly high, me too, a
small person, it is a bit like, will it come down and will
my hand slip…
If
the environment is predominantly uncomfortable and
performing tasks in it is cumbersome, this does not enhance
the experience of being capable or, more broadly, belonging
to function in that space:
Sometimes you kind of know what you’re doing
or what you’d like to do, but somehow you can’t as the
instrument…or the practicalities don’t always work. There
is no space or there are too many flies in the ointment to
be able to do a simple thing.
If you’re working in a fume cupboard with
acid solution, you need pH paper, if I do that I first
pass three chairs, three buddies, I only get to the
hallway there. Then I walk past devices where there are
possibly people working so I have to dodge them too, and
then I get to the assistants’ room where there are three
other people asking them something. I stretch there and I
take the pH paper... At worst there are so many things in
the way, to sum it up, there are many switchbacks there.
How
the space communicates with the student’s needs or
expectations may also stem from the way the student is able
and allowed to individually customize the space and the
facilities according to his or her own preferences, thus
bringing about a personal touch with regard to the given
physical surroundings. For instance, the student should be
able to adjust the equipment to meet his or her ergonomic
needs or to customize the environment to adapt to personal
work habits as opposed to being forced to work in a space
occupied by another person who has completely opposite
habits. For example, the students had varying preferences
regarding the need for clarity versus stimuli from the
proximal surroundings and differed as to what point they
started to feel the need to clear the space or wash the
glassware. Whereas some students wished to have all their
equipment immediately available and within reach, other
students experienced this kind of abundance as overwhelming
and chaotic, disturbing both their cognitive processing and
conduction of practical tasks.
Specifically
related
to chemistry laboratory work, an important issue is also how
the environment allows the students to be human. That is to
say, at the beginning of studies it is natural to make
mistakes and break glassware or other equipment by accident.
The students described the importance of the policy in the
faculty regulations on whether the students need to pay none
of the expenses, part of them or all of them, as this
influences their confidence to practice the work that they
do not yet master. In a broader sense, these kinds of
background factors may also have an impact on the students’
perception of how effortless it is to be working in the
space and whether it is meant for their work and
incompleteness in the first place.
5.3.3
The
challenges of forming a relationship with a space and place:
Esthetics and uninviting spaces
In
addition to the various subtler indications of the students’
experienced relatedness either to the physical space that
they inhabit, their peers or the field in general, the data
also included indications of spaces experienced as actually
uninviting. Some students described experiences of
unpleasantness or repulsiveness, such as a space being
esthetically so unsightly that it may actually have an
alienating influence on the user: One student described as a
freshman coming to the study premises full of enthusiasm,
but considered changing the major because of the highly
uninviting physical surroundings. In this case the student
was never in close enough proximity to form a personal
relationship with the physical study environment, as this
was actually prevented by the strong initial sensation of
the facilities as non-welcoming and uninviting. Thus the
comfort, coziness and even the materials of the physical
space are not irrelevant in the process of forming a
relationship to the space and place. As another example,
many students mentioned the relevance of the colors in the
physical environment. They were hoping for fresh, calming
colors, as opposed to mirthless or exceedingly bright colors
that were felt to be jarring and almost obtrusive in the
study environment.
While
the
possible lack of esthetic beauty or the experience of
distaste may not, as such, prevent the experience of
belonging to the physical surroundings within the study
environment, it certainly does not improve the situation.
The aforementioned aspects of pleasantness may be seen to
point to matters that might, for their part, create
beneficial circumstances for the experience of belonging to
emerge.
5.4
Conclusions on the intertwinedness of the basic
psychological needs within the context of chemistry
studies: The physical environment as a gateway to a
professional community and practices
Above
we
have considered the needs for autonomy, competence and
relatedness as separate dimensions. These dimensions,
however, are not detached from each other; we have held to
this division for analytic purposes. Rather, as is implicit
in the analysis above, the dimensions of autonomy,
relatedness and competence are essentially intertwined. In
the following, we will specifically explicate this
intertwinedness in the studied chemistry context.
Within
the light of the basic psychological needs, what at first
came across in the students’ reports was their relation to
autonomy. Namely, they appeared to emphasize the need for
self-directedness already in their first year of studies.
This may derive from the fact that the laboratory as a space
offered them a direct connection to their possible future
job in the laboratory, and thus they were constantly
mirroring their everyday laboratory chores to the
expectations of the profession: an independent role in a
laboratory, possibly working alone or as the only chemist on
the premises. With this vision in their minds, they desired
to form a similarly self-driven and independent work ethos
already at the beginning of their studies.
As
the profession of a chemist can be seen not only as an
academic profession but also as handicraftmanship, the
relation between the future profession and the novice stage
courses is much closer than in many other academic fields in
which the first years of studies are often mainly filled
with theoretical courses. The laboratory environment
represents a physical professional environment that the
student is able to enter at an early stage of studies and,
with practice, to increasingly master. Indeed, the students
often seemed to experience that the work in the laboratory
bridged the gap between the rookie and professional stages:
by accomplishing their concrete study tasks in the
laboratory, they were doing similar tasks as professionals,
which served as a gateway to the professional practices of
chemists. This advance in study practices can also be seen
as progress in terms of legitimate peripheral participation
(Lave & Wenger, 1991); as the students are admitted to
participate in procedures in a given professional context,
they become involved in the professional community and
culture and its shared social practices and are able to
proceed from the fringe areas of professional abilities
towards more internalized and well-established professional
practices and expertise. From the viewpoint of basic
psychological needs, an environment that supports feelings
of efficacy as well as a connection with those who convey it
is most likely to promote internal motivation (Ryan, 2009).
As the students experience the laboratory environment as
closely representing their future workplace and mirror their
actions to their future role as a professional, it is
particularly important to pay attention to how the initial
experiences of working as a chemist in a laboratory setting
are built. Here the design of a functional and pedagogically
purposeful environment becomes central.
To conclude, based on the results, we suggest that the experience of a given physical space builds through the activities performed in that space. The functionality and usability of the space and tools are highly important as they contribute to the fluency of the activity taking place, which builds the students’ view of themselves acting in that given environment. When a student experiences the space as a place that involves equipment and functions that he or she can master and perceives him- or herself as someone successfully functioning in that environment, he or she is more likely to experience belonging to that environment and context. Thus, how the physical environment manages to accommodate the most mundane everyday activities may, for the users, build on a broader experience of relatedness. This may be of importance when building a professional identity and creating a sense of belonging to a professional community. Thus, by providing sufficient or even optimal premises for study activities, the physical environment may facilitate this process to varying degrees.
Table 1
Summary of results
|
Conclusion |
Examples from the data |
Practical implications |
|
Physically
mediated guidance and the use of modern
technological devices may support students’ sense of
autonomy and competence. |
Students were
hoping for clear, well-structured spaces, where the
basic-level information may be implemented in the
space, or the students can acquire it with the help
of technological devices, in order to enable them to
navigate and function in the space in a
self-directed manner. Socially mediated guidance was
regarded as important in confirming one’s
assumptions, in a facilitating rather that
instructing manner. |
It is
important to distinguish between physically and
socially mediated guidance and their purposeful
roles. Physically mediated guidance should be more
widely acknowledged and utilized in communicating
information on a basic level, such as where to find
needed equipment or dispose of substances, whereas
social guidance is needed in the more complex
cognitive processing. |
|
The physical
environment may complement the students’ existing
competence and offer procedural facilitation for
their learning processes. |
The
chemistry laboratory as a new and complex working
environment seemed to be highly challenging, if not
intimidating for the students at first. However, if
the students were able to successfully enter and
learn to master the equipment and the space, it
offered them fruitful and highly engaging learning
experiences. |
Students
should be provided with suitable spaces and tools as
well as sufficient guidance in using them in order
to ensure the scaffolding of the learning processes
by both physical and social means. The more complex
the activity and the environment, the more cognitive
structuring is needed. |
|
Being able to
utilize diverse learning environments in a
self-directed manner may support students’ sense of
autonomy in directing and regulating their own
learning process. |
The students
associated certain study activities as well as a
certain value, status and ownership to different
learning environments. Formal learning environments,
such as lecture halls, libraries and laboratories,
as well as the formal and focused learning
activities occurring in them, were often perceived
as more “proper” than the informal and collaborative
learning environments and activities, even though
the latter were experienced as crucial in the
learning process. |
Flexible,
diverse and freely accessible spaces should be
available for students in order to accommodate the
variety of study activities as well as support
students’ sense of autonomy and relatedness.
Informal environments may promote more sense of
belonging and ownership in novice students; the
possibility to act in a professional work
environment may bridge the gap between the rookie
and professional stages and also bring a sense of
meaning and purpose to the studies. |
|
The
functionality of the physical environment
contributes to the cognitive processes of the users
as well as to the related emotional experience of
oneself acting in the given environment.
Consequently, the physical environment may be
instrumental in the development of the students’
sense of relatedness to the professional community. |
For
the students the laboratory strongly represented
their future work environment as chemists, and the
experiences occurring in it were frequently mirrored
to their future professional identity. The
functionality of the physical environment and the
fluency of the activity appeared to contribute to
students’ sense of belonging to the professional
context. |
Special attention should be paid to the
functionality of the physical environment as well as
the fluency of short periods of practical work, as
the experience of a physical environment builds
through the activity performed in the environment. |
6. Discussion
In
this study we analyzed the role of the physical environment
in learning and well-being from the viewpoint of
self-determination theory and basic psychological needs. The
physical environment may support not only learning and
well-being, but also autonomy, competence and relatedness
with regard to the learning environment and the professional
field. In the following we will elaborate on the broader
theoretical and practical implications of the results.
The
physical space and tools can be seen as facilitating or
posing a challenge to study activities and cognitive
functioning by various means. The physical environment not
only influences the cognitive learning process but
inevitably gives rise to an emotional experience, as well.
For instance, if the physical environment poses a challenge
to study activities, and because of this the students
constantly feel incompetent in the learning context, this
experience builds on their views of themselves acting in
that particular environment, and consequently, they may be
less likely to frequently and willingly approach the same
environment in the future. Moreover, in order to reduce
unnecessary anxiety over tough challenges with regard to
their existing abilities, as well as to provide optimal
grounds for learning to occur, it would be important to
complement the students’ existing competence by offering
procedural facilitation and support in both the physical and
social environment. The emotional experience resulting from
the concrete activities taking place in the physical space
can support committing to that particular working
environment, as well as the broader context related to it,
such as the professional community of chemists.
Recent
pedagogical
research has emphasized the emotional components of the
learning process, such as interest and engagement (see e.g.
Csíkszentmihályi, 2014; Heikkilä, Niemivirta, Nieminen &
Lonka, 2011; Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Inkinen et al.,
2013; Lonka 2012; Lonka & Ketonen 2012), as opposed to
more traditional views concerning merely cognitive aspects
of learning. Furthermore, engagement in learning has been
approached through conceptualizing cyclical stages in the
learning process and defining optimal practices. We want to
shed light on the role of the physical environment in the
learning process: how the physical environment may support
or hinder learning practices, and how that, in turn,
contributes to the emotional experience and sense of
commitment or the lack of it. This broadened viewpoint
involving the role of the physical environment in learning
may be utilized in envisioning a more holistic approach to
engaging learning. The
functionality and usability of the space and the equipment,
the guidance implemented in the space as well as other
support available (peers, teacher) all play key roles in the
learning process.
From
the viewpoint of self-determination theory, physical
environment represents a novel context for the application
of the theory. Based on this study, similarly to social and
cultural environment, physical environment can also support
or thwart the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs.
Furthermore, this study raises theoretical questions
concerning the role of the three basic psychological needs
as well as their interrelations in different contexts. While
the fulfillment of all three needs is essential, within the
light of these data it strongly appeared that in a study
context, perhaps similar to other contexts that are highly
demanding in relation to existing abilities, the dimension
of competence seemed to be very central, if not a
prerequisite, for experiences of autonomy or belonging to
emerge. For example, it is challenging for students to
develop a sense of belonging to the professional community
if they mostly feel incapable of performing basic tasks and
thus find themselves incompetent in the field in general.
While the developers of the theory strongly emphasize the
importance of all three needs as well as the synergy between
them, depending on the nature of the activity, relatedness,
for instance, may at times be less central to intrinsic
motivation than autonomy and competence (Deci & Ryan,
2000). On the other hand, in other occasions, such as with
children or adolescents who are at risk of dropping out of
school, it may be most crucial to support the experience of
relatedness (E. Deci, personal communication with the first
author, October 28, 2014).
Furthermore,
it has been acknowledged that the dimensions of competence,
autonomy and relatedness are strongly interrelated, and for
instance, an autonomy-supporting atmosphere will assist in
promoting relatedness and competence as well (Deci &
Ryan, 1987; Wolters & Gonzalez, 2008). Acknowledging
these previously researched viewpoints, we wish to both
emphasize the importance of promoting the fulfillment of all
three basic needs in the learning context as well as further
examine their interrelations and prerequisites. In our view
the three dimensions may not in all contexts be equally
interrelated and in identical interaction with each other.
Instead, they may be interdependent or sequential depending
on the context. This context-driven analysis of the
underlying dynamics may be an intriguing terrain for further
research on the theory. What is of particular interest in
the field of higher education is how the basic psychological
needs interact with vital study-related phenomena such as
the commitment to studies and the development of
professional identity, and how to best take this into
account when designing learning processes.
This
study demonstrates the importance of the physical
environment for intellectual as well as emotional
functioning. The intellectual functioning of an individual
is always nested in a given physical environment, even when
the work is carried out in a virtual environment. In fact,
it may be that the impact of the physical environment on
psychological functioning is often highly underestimated.
With regard to future research it would be intriguing to
untangle the effects that different physical space solutions
have on human functioning. It is likely to make a difference
whether one is working in a familiar workspace or in
increasingly common open-plan multispace offices, not only
with regard to ergonomics but also with regard to
experiences of belonging or recovery. For instance,
experiences of ownership and relatedness or beneficial,
uplifting and inspiring mental modes can be supported by
various means in both stable and mobile offices. In addition
to the focal social aspects such as the shared culture of
the community, some physically mediated options might
include customizing the physical space with personal items
but also utilizing modern and mobile technological means,
such as customized technological tools or screen savers.
Moreover, the bodily dimensions of office environments
beyond ergonomics offer an intriguing aspect to the
psychophysical experience. For instance, the possibilities
that the spaces or furniture offer for varied bodily
postures and physical movement all contribute not just to
physical health but also to the psychological experience and
functioning.
To
conclude, it is essential to utilize psychological and
pedagogical knowledge when designing work and learning
environments. By considering the interplay between the
material world and human functioning, we can create fruitful
ground for thriving users and develop novel design for
leading university campuses and other indoor environments.
Keypoints
Similarly to social
and cultural environment, physical environment can also
support or thwart the fulfillment of the basic psychological
needs. Learning and wellbeing can be facilitated by
developing physical environments that support the basic
psychological needs.
The
physical environment contributes to the cognitive
functioning of the users as well as to the related emotional
experience of oneself acting in the given environment. For
example, a well-structured physical environment may offer
physically mediated guidance, cognitive structuring and
procedural facilitation for the students’ learning
processes. It may complement the students’ existing
competence and scaffold the students’ sense of control in
situations where the challenge of the task is experienced as
high.
Physical
spaces and tools should be utilized in offering students
functional feedback, engaging learning experiences and
gateways to practicing their future profession. In order to
support the basic psychological needs as well as help the
students to regulate their own learning process the students
should be provided with suitable spaces and tools as well as
sufficient guidance and autonomy in using them. Special
attention should be paid to the functionality of the
physical environment, as the experience of a physical
environment builds through the activity performed in the
environment.
The results provide both theoretical and
practical value in understanding the role of the physical
environment as part of human functioning and serve as an
opening to a previously unexplored ground. By bringing together the theoretical approaches
of socially and physically distributed intelligence and
research on motivation, this study demonstrates the importance of the
physical environment for intellectual as well as emotional
functioning. The intellectual functioning of an individual
is always nested in a given physical environment, even when
the work is carried out in a virtual environment. Utilizing
psychological and pedagogical knowledge is essential when
designing or renovating work and learning environments in
order to fully make use of the potential of physical
environments as part of human performance.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Tekes (The Finnish
Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation) RYM Indoor Environment project (project number
462054), the Academy of Finland project Mind the Gap
(project number 1265528) as well as personal grants from
Finnish Cultural Foundation (1st and 3rd autor) and Alfred
Kordelin Foundation (2nd author).