research study about classroom environment

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 03 April 2023

The effect of classroom environment on literacy development

• Gary Rance 1 ,
• Richard C. Dowell 1 &
• Dani Tomlin 1  

npj Science of Learning volume  8 , Article number:  9 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

20k Accesses

2 Citations

306 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour

The physical characteristics of a child’s learning environment can affect health, wellbeing and educational progress. Here we investigate the effect of classroom setting on academic progress in 7–10-year-old students comparing reading development in “open-plan” (multiple class groups located within one physical space) and “enclosed-plan” (one class group per space) environments. All learning conditions (class group, teaching personnel, etc.) were held constant throughout, while physical environment was alternated term-by-term using a portable, sound-treated dividing wall. One hundred and ninety-six students underwent academic, cognitive and auditory assessment at baseline and 146 of these were available for repeat assessment at the completion of 3 school terms, allowing within-child changes across an academic year to be calculated. Reading fluency development (change in words read-per-minute) was greater for the enclosed-classroom phases ( P  < 0.001; 95%CI 3.7, 10.0) and the children who showed the greatest condition difference (i.e. slower rate of development in the open-plan) were those with the worst speech perception in noise and/or poorest attention skills. These findings highlight the important role classroom setting plays in the academic development of young students.

Similar content being viewed by others

Reading skills intervention during the Covid-19 pandemic

Schooling and covid-19: lessons from recent research on edtech, the role of the home in children’s critical reading skills development, introduction.

The move away from didactic teaching pedagogies for Primary School-aged children in the 1960s and 1970s led to the implementation of “open-plan” learning environments in schools around the world. The potential advantages of this classroom configuration (where multiple grades are located within a single physical space) are that they may create a less authoritarian environment 1 and support a greater range of learning methodologies and group sizes 2 , 3 . High levels of background noise and lack of acoustic privacy (created by greater numbers of students engaged in a variety of activities) within the same physical space have, however, been consistently identified by teachers and students as undesirable aspects of open-plan settings 4 . Furthermore, studies of these classroom spaces over the past four decades have consistently suggested that intrusive noise from adjacent class bases reduce speech intelligibility and increase distraction 4 . These in turn, create a significant educational risk as children spend much of their school time (45–60%) actively listening 5 and it is crucial that the classroom allows them to comfortably hear and understand both teachers and classmates.

Speech perception in the classroom is affected by a range of factors including room geometry, teacher voice characteristics, reverberation time and background noise. Of these, background noise exerts the greatest influence on intelligibility by masking and distorting the target signal 6 . Auditory masking essentially takes two forms (“energetic” and “informational”), both of which are relevant to the classroom environment 7 . Energetic masking (EM) occurs when the background noise corresponds in time and frequency content to the target, leading to an overlap of excitation in the auditory periphery 8 . This, in turn, reduces the audibility of the target rendering it unavailable for processing at higher levels. Energetic masking is a particular issue in open-plan settings as the level of ambient noise (resulting from movement of desks and chairs, computers etc) is directly related to the number of students within a physical space 9 . Informational masking (IM) is centred at higher levels in the auditory pathway and is the result of perceptual interference caused by meaningful noise sources such as speech 10 . It occurs as a consequence of either degraded “object formation” i.e. segregation of the target from extraneous speech (such as intrusive voices from a second class-base in an open-plan setting) or impaired “object selection” – where the listener is required to direct his/her attention to the target speech and while ignoring other voices 11 .

Background noise also affects non-auditory (cognitive) functions. Importantly, the nature or content of the competing signal plays a significant role in the degree of disruption. For example, studies with adults have consistently shown that serial-recall of visually presented items is impeded by “task-irrelevant” sounds such as single taker speech, or even meaningless speech sounds (for a review see Schlittmeier et al. 12 .) In children, this effect on short term memory is even more pronounced and has been attributed to two distinct mechanisms. Firstly, competing sounds that change over time may interfere with the ordering of remembered information. Secondly, irrelevant sounds may capture the listener’s attention if the signal is particularly salient such as significant words (e.g. a person’s name) or an unexpected sound (e.g. a slamming door) 13 , 14 . This latter mechanism is thought to be the more important in primary-school aged children who are particularly susceptible to sound-related distraction as a result of immature attention control processes 15 .

The presence of background noise can also have marked effects on the performance of academic tasks in school-aged children—especially when the masker involves meaningful speech. Klatte et al. 15 reviewed a series of studies evaluating the deleterious effect of noise on academic tasks including reading, spelling and arithmetic and found that most demonstrated impairments when the masker was a meaningful noise. Particularly affected were activities involving reading and writing, where the competing speech was thought to engage semantic functions which directly compete with the semantic processes involved in the task 16 . As such, we might expect performance on these core academic tasks to be adversely affected in the open-plan classroom setting, where irrelevant (but meaningful) speech from multiple class bases are a common occurrence.

Chronic exposure to high levels of background noise affects all aspects of classroom performance. Negative correlations have been demonstrated between classroom noise levels and the development of cognitive skills such as attention, concentration and memory 4 , 17 , 18 and, as a result, overall academic progress may be impacted. Shield and Dockrell 19 for example, in their large-scale study of classroom noise in UK primary schools found that Standardized Assessment Test (SAT) failure rates for mathematics, literacy and science in children aged 7- and 11 years increased by ≈5% for every 2 dB increase in classroom noise. Similarly, Puglisi et al. (2018) 20 found a correlation between classroom acoustics and reading speed in normally developing 7–8 year-old students. Reading acquisition seems to be particularly susceptible to sustained noise exposure 14 , 21 , 22 which may be a reflection of the fact that both speech perception and short-term memory are adversely affected by background noise and both play important roles in reading acquisition.

Despite the recent proliferation of open-plan classrooms there has been little research exploring the efficacy of these environments as learning spaces. In the current longitudinal study we measured within-child changes in reading fluency development as a function of classroom environment (open- vs enclosed-plan). Reading fluency was selected as primary outcome measure as we considered it likely to be affected by the sub-optimal acoustic characteristics of the open-plan setting and because it has been shown to be reflective of overall academic progress 23 , 24 . We also evaluated a range of cognitive and listening abilities to explore which learner characteristics might predispose a child towards a particular classroom setting.

Reading ability at baseline

Baseline reading ability across the whole cohort was normal. Mean fluency rate was 111.3 (SD = 39.6) words per minute which is consistent with published norms and 9/196 participants (4.6%) showed WARP scores outside age-corrected normative values 25 .

Correlations were calculated between baseline reading scores and participant demographic data, audiometric and cognitive assessments. Reading scores were significantly associated with IQ ( r  = 0.261, p  < 0.001), attention scores ( r  = 0.272, p  < 0.001), and working memory scores ( r  = 0.219, p  < 0.01). Baseline reading scores were not significantly correlated with participant age ( p  = 0.910) nor with speech recognition in noise ability ( p  = 0.709). There were significant correlations across the three cognitive assessments (Table 1 ).

The significant variables and “School” were combined in a general linear model to ascertain the independent predictors of baseline reading scores. This showed significant results for School ( F  = 4.93, p  < 0.001), IQ ( F  = 6.72, p  < 0.05) and Attention score ( F  = 7.47, p  < 0.01). Working memory score was not a significant independent predictor of reading ability in this analysis. Tukey post hoc comparisons of the scores for different schools showed that HA had a significantly lower mean reading score than FL, KI, and EN (Fig. 1 ). School FL also had a significantly better mean reading score than BR and PA.

The centre line of each boxplot represents the data median and the bounds of the box show the interquartile range. The whiskers represent the bottom 25% and top 25% of the data range—excluding outliers which are represented by an asterisk.

Reading fluency across the data collection period

A mixed effect analysis was undertaken for all children who completed baseline, open- and enclosed classroom reading assessments. Individual participants were considered as a random variable with fixed factors of classroom condition, order of assessment (enclosed first or open first), and year of assessment. Note that “School” could not be included in this analysis as it is confounded with “year” and “order”. That is, each participant group in a particular school and year had the same order of testing. IQ and attention scores were included as covariates based on the initial analysis of baseline reading scores. The condition factor was significant ( F  = 108.3, p  < 0.001) but “order” ( F  = 0.28, p  = 0.597) and “year” ( F  = 1.50, p  = 0.215) were not. IQ ( F  = 16.2, p  < 0.001) and attention score ( F  = 20.76, p  < 0.001) were both highly significant.

Tukey post hoc comparisons for the condition factor showed that the mean reading scores for open classroom ( M  = 128.3, p  < 0.001) and enclosed classroom ( M  = 132.1, p  < 0.001) were significantly higher than the baseline measurement ( M  = 111.3), indicating general improvement in reading fluency over the course of the study. The mean for enclosed classroom assessments was significantly higher than for open classroom ( p  < 0.05) in this analysis. The effect size for the difference between enclosed and open classroom scores based on the pooled standard deviation ( S  = 14.3) of the mixed effect model was 0.26 (weak).

Analysis of within-child changes across classroom conditions indicated higher rates of reading development during the enclosed study phases. Mean change in WARP score for enclosed school terms was 14.0 (SD = 12.4) words/min and for the open-plan terms was 7.2 (SD = 12.9) words/min ( t  = 4.24, p  < 0.001; 95% CI for paired difference: 3.7, 10.0 words/min). This difference is reflected in Fig. 2 which shows mean change-in-WARP scores calculated term-by-term for schools following a “Closed/Open/Closed” condition sequence (Panel a) and schools following an “Open/Closed/Open” (Panel B) schedule.

Panel ( a ) shows classes following the Enclosed/Open/Enclosed sequence and Panel (b) shows classes following the Open/Enclosed/Open sequence. The centre line of each boxplot represents the data median and the bounds of the box show the interquartile range. The whiskers represent the bottom 25% and top 25% of the data range—excluding outliers which are represented by an asterisk.

Factors affecting reading fluency development

A single score reflecting the reading development bias towards one or other of the classroom conditions was calculated for each student who completed the study protocol. This value, termed the “environment score”, was the difference between reading development rate for the enclosed and the open classroom conditions and was determined as follows:

Ninety-four of the 146 participants (64.4%) showed a positive ES indicating a higher rate of reading fluency development in the enclosed-plan study phases. Fig. 3 shows the distribution of ES values. The data were normally distributed with mean (6.70 words per minute) and median (7.0 words per minute) significantly above zero, that is, the enclosed classroom reading scores were significantly higher than for open classroom across the study. The effect size for the improvement in reading fluency for enclosed compared with open classroom, based on the standard deviation of the distribution (19.6) is 0.34. This is slightly different to the effect size derived from the mixed effects model, as that model includes all data whereas the ES distribution includes one score for each child completing the study protocol.

The centre line of the boxplot represents the data median and the bounds of the box show the interquartile range. The whiskers represent the bottom 25% and top 25% of the data range—excluding outliers which are represented by an asterisk.

A general linear model analysis with ES for each participant as the dependent variable was undertaken including School, baseline reading score, order of testing, age, IQ, attention scores, working memory, and speech recognition in noise scores as independent variables. Order of testing, age, working memory and IQ were not significant in the analysis. School ( F  = 3.24, p  < 0.01), Baseline reading score ( F  = 5.33, p  < 0.05), attention score ( F  = 10.52, p  < 0.01), and speech recognition in noise ( F  = 4.92, p  < 0.05) were significant independent predictors of the environment score (Fig. 4 ). Fig. 5 shows ES differences across schools. Results were broadly similar across sites, although Tukey post hoc comparisons did indicate a significant difference between school FL (which had the highest Environment Score) and the three schools with the lowest Environment Scores—PA, EN and HA.

Panel ( a ) shows ES versus baseline reading fluency, Panel ( b ) shows ES versus speech perception in noise and Panel ( c ) shows ES versus Attention.

The centre line of each boxplot represents the data median, and the bounds of the box show the interquartile range. The whiskers represent the bottom 25% and top 25% of the data range.

In this study, we explored the potential impact of learning environment on academic progress comparing the effect of open- and enclosed-plan classrooms on normally developing children aged 7–10 years. Overall, reading fluency development was greater in the enclosed classroom and the children who showed the greatest environment effect (i.e. bias towards the enclosed classroom) were those with the poorest attention and listening skills.

A child’s rate of academic progress is influenced by a range of factors, some of which are inherent “learner characteristics” and some environmental. Consistent with the literature, baseline reading fluency in our cohort was correlated with a number of intrinsic, cognitive features including non-verbal IQ, working memory and attention 24 , 26 , 27 . These factors were, however, highly correlated with each other, and contrary to previous studies, working memory was not a significant independent predictor of reading ability. Listening capacity also showed no relation to baseline reading fluency, suggesting that the participants’ ability to perceive speech in the presence of background noise had not been a factor in overall literacy development prior to the study.

Baseline reading ability varied across the school sites. This was likely associated with socio-economic factors as the two schools with the lowest mean baseline WARP scores (HA and PA) were in regional locations and had the lowest levels of socio-educational advantage (Table 2 ). It is well established that on average, a student attending a school with lower peer socioeconomic status (SES) will show poorer educational outcomes (including reading) than one attending a school with a higher SES 28 , 29 .

Classroom configuration had a significant effect on rate of literacy development. Day-to-day teaching pedagogies were not prescribed as part of the study, but as many environmental factors as possible (teaching staff, class groups, curricula etc) were held constant through the test period while the only change to the physical classroom environment was the term-by-term deployment of the portable, sound-treated dividing wall. Manipulation of this single variable was associated with clear differences in academic progress with 64% of students showing a higher rate of reading fluency development in the enclosed-classroom condition. Mean Δ WARP fluency score was 6.8 words/min lower for each school term spent in the open-plan condition. When extrapolated across a whole year this corresponds to a 27 word/min delay which is approaching a 1 standard deviation difference in overall reading performance for children in this age group 25 . What the long-term impact of delays of this order may be, and whether they would resolve spontanteously after a period in a more conducive learning environment is unclear, but it is well established that reading and academic deficits in primary school can persist into adolescence/adulthood and can cause psychosocial and behavioural issues as children become disengaged at school 30 , 31 .

The masking effect of increased noise is one possible explanation for diminished reading fluency development in the open-plan classroom configuration. Average background noise levels (recorded with class groups engaged in a range of quiet learning activities), were broadly similar to those reported previously for open-plan classrooms 4 and were higher (5.4 dB) than for the enclosed-plan configuration. In normally developing 7–10 year old children, a noise level difference of this order typically represents a decline in classroom speech intelligibility of ≈10–15% 32 raising the possibility that students would require a significantly higher degree of listening effort to hear and understand what is said in this more challenging acoustic environment 33 .

In addition to the level of background noise, the type of noise present in the open-plan classroom is likely to impede speech understanding and communication. Previous studies have reported high levels of disturbance and distraction in open settings even when background noise levels have been relatively low 4 , suggesting that the “informational masking” effects of meaningful noise (i.e. student and teacher voices from other class bases) limit how well a child can hear their own teacher 4 , 19 . Furthermore, visual distraction from movement in adjacent classes is also thought to affect a child’s ability to understand speech in the open-plan setting 19 .

The link between more challenging listening conditions in the open-plan classroom and restricted academic development may, in part, be explained by the theory of cognitive resource allocation. This theory proposes that a finite, interactive pool of cognitive resources, including memory and attention, are flexibly allocated to an activity depending on the demands of the task. If these resources are channelled elsewhere, task failure may occur. When an incoming auditory signal is masked or degraded, the listener can compensate, filling in the perceptual gaps with knowledge and context 34 . The greater the signal degradation, the greater the shift to predominantly top-down (knowledge based) listening to compensate and the greater the cognitive load 35 . Listening effort and resulting fatigue has been demonstrated in primary school children in typical classroom conditions 36 . Comprehension in such circumstances may be restricted if the resource limits are exceeded as the demands of auditory processing become more effortful 37 . Results of the current study provide support for this theory with students demonstrating the poorest listening in noise skills tending to be those with the greatest negative academic impact in the (noisier) open-plan study phases. i.e. with poorer access to the speech signal requiring creating greater listening effort in the classroom.

The lack of significant interaction between working memory and reading development in the different classroom environments suggests that more than cognitive resource limitations may underly the observed effect. An alternate explanation to listening effort needs to be considered. Although working memory was not a predictive factor, attention capacity was strongly correlated with academic performance bias. Students with the weakest attention showed relatively slower progress in the open-classroom setting. Whilst the masking effect of meaningful noise has been shown to disrupt short-term memory and auditory tasks (which aligns with cognitive resource theory) a recent review by Klatte and colleagues 15 , has shown that meaningful noise can also impact non-auditory tasks such as reading. This phenomenon has been termed the Irrelevant Sound Effect (ISE). The ISE has been proposed to be due to an increased attention burden when trying to ignore the competing signal 15 . The ISE effect of noise on non-auditory performance is greater the younger the children are, with an age effect proposed as further support for the influence of attention in the tasks as younger children have less attentional control. This effect of noise on non—auditory task performance is not reduced when non-meaningful sounds are utilised, further supporting the theory that it is disruption to attention that impacts learning.

The increased attention burden due to meaningful noise creates an increase in cognitive, rather than listening effort. This increased cognitive effort to supress the distraction in turn creates additional working memory load and thereby impacting on the learning occurring 38 . The ISE cognitive effort theory aligns with results of this study, in so far as children with poorer attention skills (and therefore at greater risk from the increased burden on attention) experienced the greatest learning impact.

Overall reading ability (baseline fluency score) was also a factor in classroom environment preference, with good readers typically showing greater reading development in the enclosed-plan condition. This outcome is unexpected, given the positive correlation between baseline reading ability and attention and warrants further investigation.

The extent to which meaningful noise will impact an individual is determined by the unique combination of intrinsic factors the child brings into the classroom. This was borne out by the findings of the current study where participants were not equally affected by classroom environment. While most showed a performance bias towards the enclosed plan setting, some were unaffected by the change in physical environment and small proportion even showed a significantly higher rate of academic development in the open-plan classroom. This latter group (typically comprising students with superior listening skills and/or better command of attention) may have been relatively unaffected by the extra acoustic challenges posed by the open classroom, allowing them to benefit from the pedagogical flexibility afforded by the setting. Children with poorer speech-in-noise or attention skills were, however, found to be at increased risk of either spending more time disengaged from educational activities in the open-plan environment or requiring more cognitive resources to maintain attention leaving fewer to facilitate their learning.

There were a number of study limitations. A more detailed analysis of acoustic conditions in the different classroom settings may have provided specific insights into the impact of background noise on learning in the open- and enclosed classroom settings. For example, to minimise classroom intrusion we took 10 min noise samples during reasonably consistent classroom activities (i.e. group work with minimal movement) and found that background noise levels were higher in the open-plan configuration. Sound-level recordings over a longer time-period (perhaps 8 h) would have provided more accurate noise estimates, taking into account level fluctuations over the course of the entire school day. Similarly, the A-weighted sound measures (which filter low-frequency energy) used in this study are likely to have underestimated the levels of background noise present in each classroom condition. We used the same weighting in both open- and enclosed-classroom recordings so the relative difference may not have been affected, but it is possible that one classroom condition had more low-frequency noise than the other. This is potentially important as low-frequency energy plays a critical role in listening effort and fatigue. As such, adding a measurement with the more linear dB(C) weighting could provide extra information about the degree to which low-frequency noise is an issue in different settings.

The findings of this study suggest a link between increased listening effort in the noisier/more distracting open-plan setting and the development of reading fluency. The present work cannot, however, be taken as proof of this relationship as there were no direct measures of listening effort. Future studies might include behavioural (response time on psychophysical tasks) and/or physiologic (pupil dilation) measures as evidence of a causal relationship 36 , 39 .

This study only considered reading fluency as a measure of academic progress and other aspects of learning development may be unaffected (or even augmented) by the open-plan classroom configuration. WARP reading fluency scores have, however, been strongly correlated in Australian students with each of the reading, writing, spelling, grammar and numeracy metrics from the National Assessment Program of Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) assessment, suggesting that WARP findings are a strong indicator of overall academic progress 24 .

Only children 7–10 years were enroled in the study and the data cannot be directly extrapolated to other age groups. It is, however, likely that younger students whose auditory neural systems are still developing and whose lower levels of linguistic knowledge would restrict their ability to compensate for missing information 32 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , would show even greater energetic and informational masking effects and greater learning consequences in the open-plan classroom. Furthermore, cognitive skill development occurs across childhood with the steepest rate of development between seven and nine years of age 44 , 45 , 46 . Younger students as a group, are therefore less likely to have the requisite cognitive resource pool to navigate the increased listening and attention challenges posed by the open-plan learning environment.

Participants in this study were all audiometrically normal throughout the data collection period and had no known cognitive or learning difficulties. Groups of children who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of noise on speech understanding including those who are hearing impaired 47 , those with auditory processing difficulties, those with language/learning disorders and those who are non-native speakers 4 , 24 are likely to show even greater learning delays in the open-plan classroom.

In summary, the results of this study highlight the important role classroom setting plays in the academic development of young students. Exposure to the open-plan classroom environment resulted in considerably slower rates of reading fluency development across the whole cohort and particularly in those children with relatively poor attention and/or speech in noise skills. This finding is likely associated with increased levels of background noise occurring as a result of higher student numbers and multiple class activities in the one physical space.

The results of this study further suggest that care must be taken if open-plan spaces continue to be utilised. Whilst positive learning and social development opportunities can be provided by open-plan classrooms, appropriate and adequate measures to facilitate speech access should be applied. These include acoustic treatment to maximise sound absorption of ceilings/wallsand lowered ceilings to optimise listening conditions 4 , 42 . Consideration should also be given to visual barriers or operable walls to minimise visual distractions. Careful intentional design of learning spaces to ensure that conditions are optimal for all students will likely have direct positive outcomes on the academic development of young students.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital and by the Research in Victorian Schools and Early Intervention Services office, Melbourne Australia and conformed to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Participation was voluntary and written consent was obtained from each child’s parent/guardian prior to study commencement.

Participating Schools

Data collection was carried out in 6 mainstream Primary Schools (four metropolitan and 2 regional) over a 4 year period (2016–2019) (Table 2 ). All of the schools were in residential areas with no local industrial activity. The teachers were asked to indicate if there had been any changes in the local environment (construction work, changes to aircraft flight paths etc) that had produced a noticeable change in environmental noise levels over the course of the study period. No changes were reported. Four sites participated for a single year, one for 2 years and one for 3 years. For schools participating over multiple calendar years, teaching staff and class locations were held constant, but different groups of students were evaluated each year. Schools were selected based on the availability of open-plan classrooms able to accommodate two separate class groups within a single physical space. As part of the study, each classroom was fit with a portable, dividing wall (HUFCOR Series 2700 Acoustic Accordion Door) allowing the space to be bisected. An “enclosed” environment could therefore be created with one class group on either side of the partition. Removal of the dividing wall created the “open plan” environment. The partition was sound-treated with a Weighted Sound Reduction Index (R W ) rating of 27 dB.

The class groups participating in this study were typical of those in Government Schools across the State of Victoria. Average class size (July 2021) reported for Year 3–6 classes was 23.2 students, and approximately 30% of schools were using open-plan spaces with two (or more) discrete class groups ( https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/department/brochurejuly.pdf ). In our study, individual class sizes ranged from 22 to 25 students. For the open-plan condition, two discrete class groups (each with their own teacher), were based in the same room which meant that at full attendance, between 44 and 50 children were physically located within the open-plan space. Over the course of each week in the open-plan condition there were some joint learning sessions (involving both teachers), but for the most part the two class groups worked independently—each managed by their own teacher. As such, when the class groups were separated for the enclosed classroom condition, there was no change to the teacher/student ratio.

Classroom acoustics

Acoustic sampling was undertaken at each site in both open and enclosed configurations. The classrooms were occupied in both conditions and the children were engaged in group work (with talking allowed) but minimal movement. Samples were taken at approximately the same time of day (45 min into the morning session). Recordings were obtained from the centre of each room using a SVAN971 (Class 1) sound level metre. Ten-minute noise samples (recorded in dBA) were obtained for each classroom configuration. Reverberation time (RT) was determined using the integrated impulse response technique according to the ISO 3382 measurement standard. Reverberation time was defined as the time taken for the level of a brief, broad-band stimulus (hand-clap) to decay by 60 decibels [RT(60)] and was the average of recordings at octave frequencies from 125 Hz to 8 kHz. As the acoustic spectra generated by a clap is somewhat variable, we maintained a regular hand configuration (cupped and at an angle) to optimise the low-frequency spectrum and minimise inconsistency. Noise level and RT(60) findings for each test site are shown in Table 2 . The rooms were typically well acoustically treated with carpeted floors, sound-absorbent pin-boards on walls and few exposed hard surfaces. As such, reverberation times were relatively low (i.e. within the range recommended for typically developing children) 48 and showed no difference between open and enclosed classroom conditions (Enclosed: mean=0.42, SD = 0.09 s; Open: mean=0.45, SD = 0.09 s, Paired-T: p  = 0.289, 95%CI: −0.03, 0.09). Background noise levels were also relatively low in the enclosed classroom condition, but showed a significant increase (5.4 dB) in the open-plan configuration (Enclosed: mean = 56.7, SD = 5.2 dB L Aeq, ; Open: mean = 62.1, SD = 4.2 dB L Aeq, , Paired-T: p  = 0.021, 95%CI: 1.20, 9.57). This difference is unlikely to have been the result of a change in the acoustic properties of the classrooms. Bisection of the space (by the accordion door) halves the volume of each room and splits the sound absorption area, but the overall sound power in each enclosed room is reduced as the number of students (the primary noise source) per classroom is also halved. As such, the noise level in open and enclosed conditions would be expected to be similar if only the physical properties of the spaces had changed. The reason for the measured difference (which was reasonably consistent across test sites [Table 2]), is unclear, but may reflect an increase in the activity noise made by students in the open-plan configuration. This phenomenon (known as the Lombard Effect) occurs when pupils feel they need to increase their vocal effort to both hear themselves and be heard in noisy situations. Increases in vocal output of approximately 6–7 dB have been reported for children in background noise levels equivalent to those observed for open-plan classrooms in this study (60–65 dBA) 49 .

Study design and participants

Over the course of one academic year, room configuration (open versus enclosed) was alternated term by term. Condition order was randomised across schools for the first year of participation. For those schools who took part across multiple years, condition order was alternated year by year. Four student groups followed an Open/Enclosed/Open condition sequence across Terms 2, 3 and 4, and five groups followed an Enclosed/Open/Enclosed schedule (Table 2 ).

Each child whose class was located within the room(s) undergoing condition change was invited to participate in the study. Only those students whose parent/guardian consented to have them take part in the data collection were included. The participation rate (across all test sites) was approximately 45%.

One hundred and ninety-six students (88 girls) aged between 7.0 years and 10.4 years (mean=8.6, SD = 0.5 years) underwent baseline evaluation. A breakdown of participant age range for each school is shown in Table 2 . One-hundred and forty-six children completed the longitudinal protocol allowing within-child comparison of development across open- and enclosed-plan study phases. Of the 146 evaluated across both open and enclosed terms, 73 were in classes undergoing the Open/Enclosed/Open schedule and 73 were in the Enclosed/Open/Enclosed (Table 2 ). All had normal sound detection levels (screened at 20 dBHL) for pure tones at octave frequencies between 250 Hz and 8 kHz. Each participant was considered by the primary classroom teacher to be typically developing and was enroled in Grade 3 or 4 at the time of the study.

Baseline data collection was undertaken at the beginning of Term 2 (3 months into the academic year [late March/early April]) and then repeated in the final week of Terms 2 (June), 3 (September) and 4 (December). Each school Term lasted 10 ± 1 weeks. Change values representing the difference in test score across each Term were determined. Where development across two terms with the same classroom condition was measured (eg. the Open-plan phases for class groups following Open/Enclosed/Open schedule) an average of the change values for the two terms was used.

For behavioural data collection each participant was removed from class and individually assessed in a quiet room with low levels of background noise (<40 dBA). Each child was evaluated one-on-one by an experienced study researcher.

Primary academic outcome measure for the study was reading fluency which is a strong predictor of educational outcomes in primary school children 23 , 24 . Furthermore, reading fluency has been demonstrated to be influenced by the acoustic environment with poorer classroom signal-to-noise ratio correlated with poorer performance 20 . Reading fluency was assessed using the Wheldall Assessment of Reading Passages (WARP) 25 . Participants were required to read three × 200 word passages and an average number of words correctly read per minute was calculated. Reported performance ranges (mean ± SD) for participant ages represented in the study were as follows: 7 years: 84 ± 37 words/min; 8 years: 109 ± 40 words/min; 9 years: 118 ± 39 words/min and 10 years: 135 ± 39 words/min. The WARP has been shown to have both high parallel form reliability (0.94–0.96) and internal consistency (0.97 to 0.99) 50 , 51 .

A range of participant characteristics thought likely to impact reading development were also evaluated at baseline and at each subsequent data collection point to explore interactions between cognitive and listening variables. Reading fluency is a complex skill relying on the integration of various higher-level processes including attention and working memory 52 , 53 . Similarly links have been found between attention and working memory with performance on auditory listening tasks 24 , 54 .

General cognitive ability was assessed using the Test of Non-Verbal Intelligence (TONI-4) 55 . This task required the completion of 10 visual patterns using multiple choice options which increased in complexity. The results provide information about a child’s intelligence with minimal linguistic influence and are compared to age-specific normative data to produce normalised IQ scores. The TONI has demonstrated high test-retest reliability with high correlation coefficients (0.89) and limited random measurement error 56 , 57 .

Auditory working memory was evaluated using the Digit Span (reversed) subtest of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4 (CELF-4) 58 . This test requires the repetition (in reverse order) of a series of numbers of increasing length and reflects auditory working memory, executive function and attentional control 59 , 60 . An age-corrected (scaled) digit span score was calculated for each child. Measures of reliability and validity of the CELF-4 are provided in the examiner’s manual with an internal consistency reliability coefficient of 0.78 and standard error of measurement of 1.41 provided.

Binaural speech perception ability was evaluated using the Listening in Spatialized Noise (LiSN-S) test. This assessment measures the participant’s capacity to segregate a target speech signal from competing speech noise 61 . The test stimuli (both target and noise) are administered under headphones, but a 3-dimensional auditory environment is created by synthesising the auditory signals with head-related transfer functions. Speech reception threshold ([SRT] signal-to-noise ratio required to identify 50% of the words in target sentences) was established for the DV90 listening configuration, where target speech and noise were different voices and presented from different directions. That is, the target signal was presented from 0 0 azimuth while the competing speech was presented from a 90 0 azimuth. Raw SRTs were age-corrected to produce a Z-score which was used in the analyses. This test has a demonstrated test-retest reliability coefficient of 0.7 62 .

Auditory and visual attention was assessed using the Integrated Visual and Auditory Continuous

Performance Test (IVA-CPT) 63 . Each child was presented with 500 trials of ‘1’s and ‘2’s in a pseudo-random pattern to assess sustained visual and auditory attention. Participants are required to click a computer mouse when the number “one” is seen or heard but to ignore any number “two” stimuli. The child’s scaled scores were calculated and compared with age and gender norms by the IVA-CPT software. An “Attention Quotient” based on both auditory and visual attention findings including measures of vigilance (omission errors), focus (variability in processing speed) and speed (reaction time) was used in the analyses. Average Attention Quotient score is 100 and the standard deviation 15. As reported in the Interpretation Manual, the IVA-CPT Attention Quotient has a test-retest r value of 0.74.

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed using the MINITAB 19 statistical package. All assumptions for parametric analyses were met. Normality of data distribution was assessed using Anderson-Darling Normality tests. Correlations were calculated for baseline reading scores against participant demographic data, audiometric and cognitive assessments and the significant factors were included as independent variables in a general linear modelling analysis with baseline reading score as the dependent variable. Mixed effect linear modelling was used to analyse the complete data set. This analysis included participant as a random variable, timing (year), order and classroom condition as categorical factors and the significant cognitive and audiometric measures as covariates. Finally, a general linear model analysis was conducted on the Environment Scores (difference for each child between reading development scores in open and enclosed classrooms) including demographic, cognitive and audiometric measures and baseline reading score as independent variables. In all multivariate analyses Tukey post-hoc tests were used to assess pairwise significant differences for categorical variables where appropriate.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study has been made available through the OSF Home data storage repository (Hyperlink: osf.io/5mn2b). Further information will be provided to suitably qualified researchers by the Corresponding Author upon request.

Maclure, S. Educational Development and School Building: Aspects of Public Policy 1945–1973. (Longman Publishing Group, 1984).

Brogden, M. Open plan primary schools: rhetoric and reality. Sch. Organ. 3 , 27–41 (1983).

Google Scholar  

Hickey, C. & Forbes, D. Open space learning: meeting modern needs or repeating past mistakes? Indep. Educ. 41 , 10–13 (2011).

Shield, B., Greenland, E. & Dockrell, J. Noise in open plan classrooms in primary schools: a review. Noise Health 12 , 225 (2010).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rosenberg, G. G. et al. Improving Classroom Acoustics (ICA): a three-year FM sound field classroom amplification study. J. Educ. Audiol. 7 , 8–28 (1999).

Yang, W. & Bradley, J. S. Effects of room acoustics on the intelligibility of speech in classrooms for young children. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 125 , 922–933 (2009).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pollack, I. Auditory informational masking. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 57 , S5–S5 (1975).

Article   Google Scholar  

Fletcher, H. Auditory patterns. Rev. Mod. Phys. 12 , 47 (1940).

Mealings, K. T., Buchholz, J. M., Demuth, K. & Dillon, H. Investigating the acoustics of a sample of open plan and enclosed Kindergarten classrooms in Australia. Appl. Acoust. 100 , 95–105 (2015).

Wightman, F. L. & Kistler, D. J. Informational masking of speech in children: effects of ipsilateral and contralateral distracters. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 118 , 3164–3176 (2005).

Bregman, A. S. Auditory Scene Analysis (MIT, 1990).

Schlittmeier, S. J., Weißgerber, T., Kerber, S., Fastl, H. & Hellbrück, J. Algorithmic modeling of the irrelevant sound effect (ISE) by the hearing sensation fluctuation strength. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 74 , 194–203 (2012).

Elliott, E. M. & Briganti, A. M. Investigating the role of attentional resources in the irrelevant speech effect. Acta Psychol. 140 , 64–74 (2012).

Klatte, M., Lachmann, T. & Meis, M. Effects of noise and reverberation on speech perception and listening comprehension of children and adults in a classroom-like setting. Noise Health 12 , 270 (2010).

Klatte, M., Bergström, K. & Lachmann, T. Does noise affect learning? A short review on noise effects on cognitive performance in children. Front. Psychol. 4 , 1–6 (2013).

Marsh, J. E., Hughes, R. W. & Jones, D. M. Interference by process, not content, determines semantic auditory distraction. Cognition 110 , 23–38 (2009).

Maxwell, L. E. & Evans, G. W. The effects of noise on pre-school children’s pre-reading skills. J. Environ. Psychol. 20 , 91–97 (2000).

Ronsse, L. M. & Wang, L. M. Relationships between unoccupied classroom acoustical conditions and elementary student achievement measured in eastern Nebraska. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 133 , 1480–1495 (2013).

Shield, B. M. & Dockrell, J. E. The effects of environmental and classroom noise on the academic attainments of primary school children. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 123 , 133–144 (2008).

Puglisi, G. E., Prato, A., Sacco, T. & Astolfi, A. Influence of classroom acoustics on the reading speed: a case study on Italian second-graders. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 144 , 144–149 (2018).

Evans, G. & Maxwell, L. Chronic noise exposure and reading deficits: the mediating effects of language acquisition. Environ. Behav. 29 , 638–656 (1997).

Klatte, M., Hellbrück, J., Seidel, J. & Leistner, P. Effects of classroom acoustics on performance and wellbeing in elementary school children: a field study. Environ. Behav. 42 , 659–692 (2010).

Bigozzi, L. et al. (2017). Reading fluency as a predictor of school outcomes across grades 4–9. Front. Psychol. 8 , 200 (2017).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tomlin, D., Dillon, H., Sharma, M. & Rance, G. The impact of auditory processing and cognitive abilities in children. Ear Hearing 36 , 527–542 (2015).

Madelaine, A. & Wheldall, K. Further progress towards a standardized curriculum-based measure of reading: Calibrating a new passage reading test against the New South Wales Basic Skills Test. Educ. Psychol. 22 , 461–471 (2002).

Kibby, M. Y. & Cohen, M. J. Memory functioning in children with reading disabilities and/or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a clinical investigation of their working memory and long-term memory functioning. Child Neuropsychol. 14 , 525–546 (2008).

Swanson, H. L., Zheng, X. & Jerman, O. Working memory, short-term memory, and reading disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. J. Learn. Disabilities 42 , 260–287 (2009).

Buckingham, J., Wheldall, K. & Beaman-Wheldall, R. Why poor children are more likely to become poor readers: the school years. Aust. J. Educ. 57 , 190–213 (2013).

Thomson, S. (2018). Achievement at school and socioeconomic background—an educational perspective. NPJ Sci. Learn. 3 , 1–2 (2018).

Beitchman, J. H. & Young, A. R. Learning disorders with a special emphasis on reading disorders: a review of the past 10 years. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 36 , 1020–1032 (1997).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tomblin, J. B., Zhang, X., Buckwalter, P. & Catts, H. The association of reading disability, behavioral disorders, and language impairment among second-grade children. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied Discip. 41 , 473–482 (2000).

Bradley, J. S. & Sato, H. The intelligibility of speech in elementary school classrooms. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 123 , 2078–2086 (2008).

Pichora-Fuller, M. K. et al. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hearing 37 , 5S–27S (2016).

Pichora-Fuller, M. K. Cognitive aging and auditory information processing. Int. J. Audiol. 42 , 26–32 (2003).

Pichora-Fuller, M. K. Use of supportive context by younger and older adult listeners: Balancing bottom-up and top-down information processing. Int. J. Audiol. 47 , S72–S82 (2008).

Brännström, K. J. et al. Listening effort and fatigue in native and non-native primary school children. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 210 , 105203 (2021).

Campbell, J. & Sharma, A. Compensatory changes in cortical resource allocation in adults with hearing loss. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 7 , 71 (2013).

Gisselgård, J., Petersson, K. M. & Ingvar, M. The irrelevant speech effect and working memory load. NeuroImage 22 , 1107–1116 (2004).

McGarrigle, R., Dawes, P., Stewart, A. J., Kuchinsky, S. E. & Munro, K. J. 2017. Measuring listening-related effort and fatigue in school-aged children using pupillometry. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 161 , 95–112 (2017).

Crandell, C. C. & Smaldino, J. J. Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Lang. Speech, Hearing Serv. Sch. 31 , 362 (2000).

Dockrell, J. E. & Shield, B. M. Acoustical barriers in classrooms: the impact of noise on performance in the classroom. Br. Educ. Res. J. 32 , 509–525 (2006).

Finitzo-Hieber, T. & Tillman, T. W. Room acoustics effects on monosyllabic word discrimination ability for normal and hearing-impaired children. J. Speech Hearing Res. 21 , 440–458 (1978).

Nelson, P. B. & Soli, S. Acoustical barriers to learning: children at risk in every classroom. Lang. Speech Hearing Serv. Sch. 31 , 356–361 (2000).

Gale, A. & Lynn, R. A developmental study of attention. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 42 , 260–266 (1972).

Rebok, G. W. et al. Developmental changes in attentional performance in urban children from eight to thirteen years. Child Neuropsychol. 3 , 28–46 (1997).

Towse, J. N., Hitch, G. J. & Hutton, U. A reevaluation of working memory capacity in children. J. Mem. Lang. 39 , 195–217 (1998).

Ching, T. Y. & Dillon, H. Major findings of the LOCHI study on children at 3 years of age and implications for audiological management. Int. J. Audiol. 52 , S65–S68 (2013).

American National Standards Institute. ANSI/ASA S12.60-2010 American National Standard Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines for Schools, Part 1: Permanent Schools (American National Standards Institute, 2010).

Whitlock, J. A. & Dodd, G. Speech intelligibility in classrooms: Specific acoustical needs for primary school children. Build. Acoust. 15 , 35–47 (2008).

Madelaine, A. & Wheldall, K. Towards a curriculum‐based passage reading test for monitoring the performance of low‐progress readers using standardised passages: a validity study. Educ. Psychol. 18 , 471–478 (1998).

Wheldall, K. & Madelaine, A. A curriculum-based passage reading test for monitoring the performance of low-progress readers: the development of the WARP. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 47 , 371–382 (2000).

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. In The Role of Fluency in Reading Competence, Assessment, and Instruction (eds Kame’enui, E. J. & Simmons, D. C.) pp 239–256 (Routledge, 2001).

Jacobson, L. A. et al. Working memory influences processing speed and reading fluency in ADHD. Child Neuropsychol. 17 , 209–224 (2011).

Dillon, H. & Cameron, S. Separating the causes of listening difficulties in children. Ear Hearing 42 , 1097 (2021).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brown, L., Sherbenou, R. & Johnsen, K. J. Test of Non-Verbal Intelligence 4th edn. (Pro-Ed Austin, 2010).

McGhee, R. L. & Lieberman, L. R. Test-retest reliability of the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI). J. Sch. Psychol. 28 , 351–353 (1990).

Chen, K. W. et al. Test-retest Reliability and Convergent Validity of the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence in Patients with Schizophrenia 4th edn. (BMC Psychiatry, 2021).

Semel, E., Wiig, E. & Secord, W. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF-4) 4th edn. (The Psychological Corporation, 2003).

Rosen, V. M. & Engle, R. W. The role of working memory capacity in retrieval. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 126 , 211–227 (1997).

St Clair-Thompson, H. L. Backwards digit recall: a measure of shortterm memory or working memory? Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 22 , 286–296 (2010).

Cameron, S. & Dillon, H. Development of the listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S). Ear Hearing 28 , 196–211 (2007).

Cameron, S., Glyde, H. & Dillon, H. Listening in Spatialized Noise—Sentences Test (LiSN-S): Normative and retest reliability data for adolescents and adults up to 60 years of age. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 22 , 697–709 (2011).

Sandford, J. A. & Turner, A. Integrated Visual and Auditory Attention Continuous Performance Test www.braintrain.com (1995).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported a series of research grants provided by the Victorian Department of Education and Training (2016-17; 2018-19) and by a grant from the Collier Foundation (2017–18). G.R. received funding support from the HEARing CRC (Centre for Research Cooperation) and from the Graeme Clark Chair in Audiology & Speech Science. The funders had no role in study design, data collection/analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. We express our gratitude to the students who took part in the project, to the University of Melbourne staff (Anna Dobbyn Terrell, Jocelyn Phillips, Grace Nixon) and to the 20+ Master of Clinical Audiology candidates who contributed to data collection. Thanks also to Mary Mavrias from the Department of Education and Training who assisted with the classroom hardware (acoustic partitions) and to the teachers and schools who accommodated the project in their facilities.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The University of Melbourne, Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Gary Rance, Richard C. Dowell & Dani Tomlin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

G.R. and D.T. were involved in the conception/design of the study, acquisition and analysis of data and drafting of the manuscript. R.D. was involved in data analysis and manuscript preparation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary Rance .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rance, G., Dowell, R.C. & Tomlin, D. The effect of classroom environment on literacy development. npj Sci. Learn. 8 , 9 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-023-00157-y

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2022

Accepted : 10 March 2023

Published : 03 April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-023-00157-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Machine learning investigation of optimal psychoemotional well-being factors for students’ reading literacy.

• Xuetan Zhai

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Classroom Learning Environments: Retrospect, Context and Prospect

• First Online: 23 November 2011
• pp 1191–1239

Cite this chapter

• Barry J. Fraser 4  

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE,volume 24))

14k Accesses

156 Citations

This chapter reviews four decades of research within the burgeoning field of classroom learning environments. One major thrust is a review of the development, validity and use of several frequently-used and extensively-validated learning environment questionnaires such as the Science Laboratory Environment Inventory, Constructivist Learning Environment Survey and the What Is Happening In this Class?, as well as some recent questionnaires such as the Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory and Constructivist-Oriented Learning Environment Survey. Another purpose of this chapter is to review several lines of past learning environment research, including associations between student outcomes and the learning environment, evaluation of educational innovations, teachers’ action-research attempts to improve their classroom environments, links between educational environments, and cross-national studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Afari, E., Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Khine, M. S. (in press). Students’ perceptions of the learning environment and attitudes in game-based mathematics classrooms. Learning Environments Research.

Google Scholar  

Aldridge, J. M., Dorman, J. P., & Fraser, B.J. (2004). Use of multitrait-multimethod modelling to validate actual and preferred forms of the Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Inventory (TROFLEI). Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology , 4 , 110–125.

Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). A cross-cultural study of classroom learning environments in Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments Research , 3 , 101–134.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Outcomes-focused learning environments: Determinants and effects (Advances in Learning Environments Research series). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2011). Monitoring an outcomes-focused learning environment: A case study. Curriculum Perspectives, 31 (1), 25–41

Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Bell, L., & Dorman, J. P. (in press). Using a new learning environment questionnaire for reflection in teacher action research. Journal of Science Teacher Education.

Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Huang, I. T. -C. (1999). Investigating classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. Journal of Educational Research , 93 , 48–62.

Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Ntuli, S. (2009). Utilising learning environment assessments to improve teaching practices among in-service teachers undertaking a distance education programme. South African Journal of Education , 29 , 147–170.

Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Sebela, M. P. (2004). Using teacher action research to promote constructivist learning environments in South Africa. South African Journal of Education , 24 , 245–253.

Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Taylor, P. C., & Chen, C. -C. (2000). Constructivist learning environments in a cross-national study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journal of Science Education , 22 , 37–55.

Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Laugksch, R. C. (2011). Relationship between the school-level and classroom-level environment in secondary schools in South Africa. South African Journal of Education , 31 , 127–144.

Aldridge, J. M., Laugksch, R. C., & Fraser, B. J. (2006a). School level environment and outcomes-based education in South Africa. Learning Environments Research , 9 , 123–147.

Aldridge, J. M., Laugksch, R. C., Seopa, M. A., & Fraser, B. J. (2006b). Development and validation of an instrument to monitor the implementation of outcomes-based learning environments in science classrooms in South Africa. International Journal of Science Education , 28 , 45–70.

Allen, D., & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Parent and student perceptions of classroom learning environment and its association with student outcomes. Learning Environments Research , 10 , 67–82.

Beck, J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers’ beliefs regarding the implementation of constructivism in their classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education , 11 , 323–343.

Bock, R. D. (Ed.). (1989). Multilevel analysis of educational data . San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Brekelmans, M., Levy, J., & Rodriguez, R. (1993). A typology of teacher communication style. In Th. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like ? (pp. 46–55). London, UK: Falmer Press, London.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Burden, R., & Fraser, B. J. (1993). Use of classroom environment assessments in school psychology: A British perspective. Psychology in the Schools , 30 , 232–240.

Burden, R. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1994). Examining teachers’ perceptions of their working environments: Introducing the School Level Environment Questionnaire. Educational Psychology and Practice , 10 , 67–73.

Cannon, J. R. (1995). Further validation of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey: Its use in the elementary science methods course. Journal of Elementary Science Education , 7 (1), 47–62.

Chionh, Y. H., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Classroom environment, achievement, attitudes and self-esteem in geography and mathematics in Singapore. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education , 18 , 29–44.

Cho, J. -I., Yager, R. E., Park, D. Y., & Seo, H. A. (1997). Changes in high school teachers’ constructivist philosophies. School Science and Mathematics , 97 , 400–405.

Cressell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research , Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Créton, H., Hermans, J., & Wubbels, Th. (1990). Improving interpersonal teacher behaviour in the classroom: A systems communication perspective. South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education , 18 , 85–94.

den Brok, P., Fisher, D., Rickards, T., & Bull, E. (2006). Californian science students’ perceptions of their classroom learning environments. Educational Research and Evaluation , 12 , 3–25.

den Brok, P., Telli, S., Cakiroglu, J., Taconis, R., & Tekkaya, C. (2010). Learning environment profiles of Turkish secondary biology students. Learning Environments Research , 13 , 187–204.

Dhindsa, H. S., & Fraser, B. J. (2004). Culturally-sensitive factors in teacher trainees’ learning environments. Learning Environments Research , 7 , 165–181.

Docker, J. G., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1989). Differences in the psychosocial work environment of different types of schools. Journal of Research in Childhood Education , 4 , 5–17.

Dorman, J. P. (2001). Associations between classroom environment and academic efficacy. Learning Environments Research , 4 , 243–257.

Dorman, J. P. (2003). Cross-national validation of the What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire using confirmatory factor analysis. Learning Environments Research , 6 , 231–245.

Dorman, J. P. (2008). Use of multitrait-multimethod modelling to validate actual and preferred forms of the What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire. Learning Environments Research , 11 , 179–197.

Dorman, J. P., Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2006). Using students’ assessment of classroom environment to develop a typology of secondary school classrooms. International Education Journal , 7 , 909–915.

Dorman, J. P., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Teachers’ perceptions of school environment in Australian Catholic and government secondary schools. International Studies in Educational Administration , 24 (1), 78–87.

Dorman, J. P., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Psychosocial environment and affective outcomes in technology-rich classrooms: Testing a causal model. Social Psychology of Education , 12 , 77–99.

Dorman, J. P., Fraser, B. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1997). Relationship between school-level and classroom-level environments in secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration , 35 , 74–91.

Ferguson, P. D., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Changes in learning environment during the transition from primary to secondary school. Learning Environments Research , 1 , 369–383.

Fisher, D. L., & Cresswell, J. (1998). Actual and ideal principal interpersonal behaviour. Learning Environments Research , 1 , 231–247.

Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1981). Validity and Use of My Class Inventory. Science Education , 65 , 145–156.

Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1983a). A comparison of actual and preferred classroom environment as perceived by science teachers and students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 20 , 55–61.

Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1983b). Use of WES to assess science teachers’ perceptions of school environment. European Journal of Science Education , 5 , 231–233.

Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1991). School climate and teacher professional development. South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education , 19 (1), 17–32.

Fisher, D. L., Grady, N., & Fraser, B. (1995a). Associations between school-level and classroom-level environment. International Studies in Educational Administration , 23 , 1–15.

Fisher, D. L., Henderson, D., & Fraser, B.J. (1995b). Interpersonal behaviour in senior high school biology classes. Research in Science Education , 25 , 125–133.

Fisher, D., Henderson, D., & Fraser, B. (1997). Laboratory environments & student outcomes in senior high school biology. American Biology Teacher , 59 , 214–219.

Fisher, D. L., & Khine, M.S. (Eds.). (2006). Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments: Worldviews . Singapore: World Scientific.

Fisher, D. L., & Waldrip, B. G. (1997). Assessing culturally sensitive factors in the learning ­environment of science classrooms. Research in Science Education , 27 , 41–49.

Fraser, B. J. (1979). Evaluation of a science-based curriculum. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Educational environments and effects: Evaluation, policy, and productivity (pp. 218–234). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Fraser, B. J. (1981a). Test of Science Related Attitudes (TOSRA) . Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Fraser, B. J. (1981b). Using environmental assessments to make better classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 13 , 131–144.

Fraser, B. J. (1982). Development of short forms of several classroom environment scales. Journal of Educational Measurement , 19 , 221–227.

Fraser, B. J., & Butts, W. L. (1982). Relationship between perceived levels of classroom individua­lization and science-related attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 19 , 143–154.

Fraser, B. J. (1986). Classroom environment . London, UK: Croom Helm.

Fraser, B. J. (1987). Use of classroom environment assessments in school psychology. School Psychology International , 8 , 205–219.

Fraser, B. J., Docker, J. G., & Fisher, D. L. (1988). Assessing and improving school climate. Evaluation and Research in Education, 2 , 109–122.

Fraser, B. J. (1990). Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire . Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493–541). New York: Macmillan.

Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), The international handbook of science education (pp. 527–564). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Fraser, B. J. (1999). ‘Grain sizes’ in learning environment research: Combining qualitative and quantitative methods. In H. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research (pp. 285–296). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Fraser, B. J. (2001). Twenty thousand hours. Learning Environments Research , 4 , 1–5.

Fraser, B. J. (2002). Learning environments research: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In S. C. Goh & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in educational environments: An international perspective (pp. 1–25). Singapore: World Scientific.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fraser, B. J., Aldridge, J. M., & Adolphe, F. S. G. (2010a). A cross-national study of secondary science classroom environments in Australia and Indonesia. Research in Science Education , 40 , 551–571.

Fraser, B. J., Aldridge, J. M., & Soerjaningsih, W. (2010b). Instructor-student interpersonal interaction and student outcomes at the university level in Indonesia. The Open Education Journal , 3 , 32–44.

Fraser, B. J., Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Assessment of learning environments: Manual for Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI) (third version). Perth, Australia: Western Australian Institute of Technology.

Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1983a). Development and validation of short forms of some instruments measuring student perceptions of actual and preferred classroom learning environment. Science Education , 67 , 115–131.

Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1983b). Student achievement as a function of person-environment fit: A regression surface analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 53 , 89–99.

Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1983c). Use of actual and preferred classroom environment scales in person-environment fit research. Journal of Educational Psychology , 75 , 303–313.

Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1986). Using short forms of classroom climate instruments to assess and improve classroom psychosocial environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 5 , 387–413.

Fraser, B. J., Fisher, D. L., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996, April). Development, validation, and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Fraser, B. J., Giddings, G. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1995). Evolution and validation of a personal form of an instrument for assessing science laboratory classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 32 , 399–422.

Fraser, B. J., & Kahle, J. B. (2007). Classroom, home and peer environment influences on student outcomes in science and mathematics: An analysis of systemic reform data. International Journal of Science Education , 29 , 1891–1909.

Fraser, B. J., & Lee, S. S. U. (2009). Science laboratory classroom environments in Korean high schools. Learning Environments Research , 12 , 67–84.

Fraser, B. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1995). Science laboratory classroom environments at schools and universities: A cross-national study. Educational Research and Evaluation , 1 , 289–317.

Fraser, B. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Giddings, G. J. (1993). Development and cross-national validation of a laboratory classroom environment instrument for senior high school science. Science Education , 77 , 1–24.

Fraser, B. J., & O’Brien, P. (1985). Student and teacher perceptions of the environment of elementary-school classrooms. Elementary School Journal , 85 , 567–580.

Fraser, B. J., & Rentoul, A. J. (1982). Relationship between school-level and classroom-level ­environment. Alberta Journal of Educational Research , 28 , 212–225.

Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. (1989). Student perceptions of psychosocial environments in classrooms of exemplary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education , 11 , 14–34.

Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. (1991). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in classroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 271–292). London, UK: Pergamon.

Fraser, B. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1986). Validity and use of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment in higher education. Higher Education , 15 , 37–57.

Fraser, B. J., Treagust, D. F., & Dennis, N. C. (1986). Development of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment at universities and colleges. Studies in Higher Education , 11 , 43–54.

Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences . London, UK: Pergamon.

Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (2005). Research on teacher-student relationships and learning environments: Context, retrospect and prospect. International Journal of Educational Research , 43 , 103–109.

Fraser, B. J., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W., & Hattie, J. A. (1987a). Syntheses of educational productivity research. International Journal of Educational Research , 11 , 145–252.

Fraser, B. J., Welch, W. W., & Walberg, H. J. (1986). Using secondary analysis of national assessment data to identify predictors of junior high school students’ outcomes. Alberta Journal of Educational Research , 32 , 37–50.

Fraser, B. J., Williamson, J. C., & Tobin, K. (1987b). Use of classroom and school climate scales in evaluating alternative high schools. Teaching and Teacher Education , 3 , 219–231.

Giallousi, M., Gialamas, V., Spyrellis, N., & Pavlaton, E. (2010). Development, validation, and use of a Greek-language questionnaire for assessing learning environments in grade 10 chemistry classes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 8 , 761–782.

Goh, S. C., & Fraser, B.J. (1996). Validation of an elementary school version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction. Psychological Reports , 79 , 512–522.

Goh, S. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Teacher interpersonal behaviour, classroom environment and student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore. Learning Environments Research: An International Journal , 1 , 199–229.

Goh, S. C., & Khine, M. S. (Eds.). (2002). Studies in educational learning environments . Singapore: World Scientific.

Goh, S. C., Young, D. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1995). Psychosocial climate and student outcomes in elementary mathematics classrooms: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Experimental Education , 64 , 29–40.

Goldstein, H. (1987). Multilevel models in educational and social research . London, UK: Charles Griffin.

Haertel, G. D., Walberg, H. J., & Haertel, E. H. (1981). Socio-psychological environments and learning: A quantitative synthesis. British Educational Research Journal , 7 , 27–36.

Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963) Organizational climate of schools . Chicago, IL: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago.

Harwell, S. H., Gunter, S., Montgomery, S., Shelton, C., & West, D. (2001). Technology integration and the classroom learning environment: Research for action. Learning Environments Research , 4 , 259–286.

Helding, K. A., & Fraser, B. J. (in press). Effectiveness of NBC (National Board Certified) teachers in terms of learning environment, attitudes and achievement among secondary school students. Learning Environments Research .

Hodson, D. (1988). Experiments in science and science teaching: Educational Philosophy and Theory , 20 (2), 53–66.

Huang, S.-Y. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Science teachers’ perceptions of the school environment: Gender differences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 46 , 404–420.

Idiris, S., & Fraser, B. J. (1997). Psychosocial environment of agricultural science classrooms in Nigeria. International Journal of Science Education , 19 , 79–91.

Jegede, O. J., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1995). The development and validation of a distance and open learning environment scale. Educational Technology Research and Development , 43 , 90–93.

Jegede, O. J., Fraser, B. J., & Okebukola, P. A. (1994). Altering socio-cultural beliefs hindering the learning of science. Instructional Science , 22 , 137–152.

Johnson, B., & McClure, R. (2004). Validity and reliability of a shortened, revised version of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES). Learning Environments Research , 7 , 65–80.

Johnson, B., & Stevens, J. J. (2001). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the School Level Environment Questionnaire (SLEQ). Learning Environments Research , 4 , 325–344.

Khine, M. S., & Fisher, D. L. (Eds.). (2003). Technology-rich learning environments: A future perspective . Singapore: World Scientific.

Khoo, H. S., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Using classroom psychosocial environment in the evaluation of adult computer application courses in Singapore. Technology, Pedagogy and Education , 17 , 67–81.

Kim, H. B., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1999). Assessment and investigation of constructivist science learning environments in Korea. Research in Science and Technological Education , 17 , 239–249.

Kim, H. B., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). Classroom environment and teacher interpersonal behaviour in secondary science classes in Korea. Evaluation and Research in Education , 14 , 3–22.

Koul, R. B., & Fisher, D. L. (2005). Cultural background and students’ perceptions of science classroom learning environment and teacher interpersonal behaviour in Jammu, India. Learning Environments Research , 8 , 195–211.

Lee, S. S. U., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (2003). Teacher-student interactions in Korean high school science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 1 , 67–85.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology . New York: McGraw.

Book   Google Scholar  

Logan, K. A., Crump, B. J., & Rennie, L. J. (2006). Measuring the computer classroom environment: Lessons learned from using a new instrument. Learning Environments Research , 9 , 67–93.

Lightburn, M. E., & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom environment and student outcomes among students using anthropometry activities in high school science. Research in Science and Technological Education , 25 , 153–166.

MacLeod, C., & Fraser, B. J. (2010). Development, validation and application of a modified Arabic translation of the What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire. Learning Environments Research , 13 , 105–125.

Majeed, A., Fraser, B. J., & Aldridge, J. M. (2002). Learning environment and its association with student satisfaction among mathematics students in Brunei Darussalam. Learning Environments Research , 5 , 203–226.

Maor, D., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluating inquiry-based computer assisted learning. International Journal of Science Education , 18 , 401–421.

Marjoribanks, K. (1991). Families, schools, and students’ educational outcomes. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 75–91). London, UK: Pergamon.

Martin-Dunlop, C., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment and attitudes associated with an innovative course designed for prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 6 , 163–190.

McRobbie, C. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1993). Associations between student outcomes and psychosocial science environment. Journal of Educational Research , 87 , 78–85.

Midgley, C., Eccles, J. S., & Feldlaufer, H. (1991). Classroom environment and the transition to junior high school. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 113–139). London, UK: Pergamon.

Mink, D. V., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Evaluation of a K–5 mathematics program which integrates children’s literature: Classroom environment and attitudes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 3 , 59–85.

Moos, R. H. (1974). The social climate scales: An overview . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moos, R. H., & Trickett. E. J. (1974). Classroom Environment Scale manual . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moos, R. H. (1978). A typology of junior high and high school classrooms. American Educational Research Journal , 15 , 53–66.

Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings and policy implications . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moos, R. H. (1981). Manual for work environment scale . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Moos, R. H. (1991). Connections between school, work, and family settings. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 29–53). London, UK: Pergamon Press.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality . New York: Oxford University Press.

Nix, R. K., & Fraser, B. J. (2011). Using computer-assisted teaching to promote constructivist practices in teacher education. In B. A. Morris & G. M. Ferguson (Eds.), Computer-assisted teaching: New developments (pp. 93–115). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Nix, R. K., Fraser, B. J., & Ledbetter, C. E. (2005). Evaluating an integrated science learning ­environment using the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey. Learning Environments Research , 8 , 109–133.

Ogbuehi, P. I., & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Learning environment, attitudes and conceptual development associated with innovative strategies in middle-school mathematics. Learning Environments Research , 10 , 101–114.

Oh, P. S., & Yager, R. E. (2004). Development of constructivist science classrooms and changes in student attitudes toward science learning. Science Education Journal , 15 , 105–113.

Peiro, M. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Assessment and investigation of science learning environments in the early childhood grades. In M. Ortiz & C. Rubio (Eds.), Educational evaluation: 21st century issues and challenges (pp. 349–365). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Pickett, L. H., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Evaluation of a mentoring program for beginning teachers in terms of the learning environment and student outcomes in participants’ school classrooms. In A. Selkirk & M. Tichenor (Eds.), Teacher education: Policy, practice and research (pp. 1–15). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Quek, C. L., Wong, A. F. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Student perceptions of chemistry laboratory learning environments, student-teacher interactions and attitudes in secondary school gifted education classes in Singapore. Research in Science Education , 35 , 399–321.

Rentoul, A. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1979). Conceptualization of enquiry-based or open classroom learning environments. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 11 , 233–245.

Rentoul, A. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1983). Development of a school-level environment questionnaire. Journal of Educational Administration , 21 , 21–39.

Rickards, T., den Brok, P., & Fisher, D. L. (2005). The Australian science teacher: A typology teacher-student interpersonal behaviour in Australian science classes. Learning Environments Research , 8 , 267–287.

Robinson, E., & Fraser, B. J. (in press). Kindergarten students’ and parents’ perceptions of science classroom environments: Achievement and attitudes . Learning Environments Research.

Scott, R. H., & Fisher, D. L. (2004). Development, validation and application of a Malay translation of an elementary version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI). Research in Science Education , 34 , 173–194.

Scott Houston, L., Fraser, B. J., & Ledbetter, C. E. (2008). An evaluation of elementary school science kits in terms of classroom environment and student attitudes. Journal of Elementary Science Education , 20 , 29–47.

Sinclair, B. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2002). Changing classroom environments in urban middle schools. Learning Environments Research , 5 , 301–328.

Sink, C. A., & Spencer, L. R. (2005). My Class Inventory – Short Form as an accountability tool for elementary school counsellors to measure classroom climate. Professional School Counseling , 9 , 37–48.

Spinner, H., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Evaluation of an innovative mathematics program in terms of classroom environment, student attitudes, and conceptual development. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 3 , 267–293.

Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person-environment congruence in education and industry . New York: Wiley.

Stern, G. G., Stein, M. I., & Bloom, B. S. (1956). Methods in personality assessment . Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research , 27 , 293–302.

Teh, G., & Fraser, B. J. (1994). An evaluation of computer-assisted learning in terms of achievement, attitudes and classroom environment. Evaluation and Research in Education , 8 , 147–161.

Teh, G., & Fraser, B. J. (1995). Associations between student outcomes and geography classroom environment. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education , 4 (1), 3–18.

Telli, S., den Brok, P., & Cakiroglu, J. (2010). The importance of teacher-student interpersonal relationships for Turkish students’ attitudes towards science. Research in Science and Technological Education , 28 , 261–276.

Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning ­environments. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), The international handbook of science education (pp. 623–640). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tobin, K., Kahle, J. B., & Fraser, B. J. (Eds.). (1990). Windows into science classes: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning . London, UK: Falmer Press.

Trickett, E. J., & Moos, R. H. (1973). Social environment of junior high and high school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology , 65 , 93–102.

Wahyudi, & Treagust, D. F. (2004). The status of science classroom learning environments in Indonesian lower secondary schools. Learning Environments Research , 7 , 43–63.

Walberg, H. J. (Ed.). (1979). Educational environments and effects: Evaluation, policy, and productivity . Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Walberg, H. J. (1981). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In F. Farley & N. J. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education: The state of the union (pp. 81–108). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Walberg, H. J. (1986). Synthesis of research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 214–229). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Walberg, H. J., & Anderson, G. J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal of Educational Psychology , 59 , 414–419.

Walberg, H. J., Fraser, B. J., & Welch, W. W. (1986). A test of a model of educational productivity among senior high school students. Journal of Educational Research , 79 , 133–139.

Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research , 8 , 267–287.

Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education , 38 , 321–341.

Wong, A. L. F., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Environment-attitude associations in the chemistry laboratory classroom. Research in Science and Technological Education , 14 , 91–102.

Wong, A. F. L., Young, D. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1997). A multilevel analysis of learning environments and student attitudes. Educational Psychology , 17 , 449–468.

Wubbels, Th., Brekelmans, M. Y. & Hooymayers, H. (1991). Interpersonal teacher behaviour in the classroom. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 141–160).London, UK: Pergamon Press.

Wubbels, Th., & Levy, J. (Eds.). (1993). Do you know what you look like: Interpersonal relationships in education . London, UK: Falmer Press.

Wubbels, Th., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher–student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research , 43 , 6–24.

Yarrow, A., Millwater, J., & Fraser, B. (1997). Improving university and primary school classroom environments through preservice teachers’ action research. International Journal of Practical Experiences in Professional Education , 1 (1), 68–93.

Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2004). Learning environments in information and communications technology classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education , 13 , 97–123.

Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Physical and psychosocial environments associated with networked classrooms. Learning Environments Research , 8 , 1–17.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia

Barry J. Fraser

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry J. Fraser .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Science & Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, West Australia, Australia

The Graduate Centre, City University of New York, New York, 10016-4309, New York, USA

Kenneth Tobin

Ctr. Mathematics & Science Education, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Rd., Kelvin Grove, 4059, Queensland, Australia

Campbell J. McRobbie

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Fraser, B.J. (2012). Classroom Learning Environments: Retrospect, Context and Prospect. In: Fraser, B., Tobin, K., McRobbie, C. (eds) Second International Handbook of Science Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_79

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_79

Published : 23 November 2011

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-1-4020-9040-0

Online ISBN : 978-1-4020-9041-7

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Exploring the influence of perceived classroom environment on learner autonomy in a chinese efl learning context.

• 1 Faculty of Education, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China
• 2 School of Foreign Languages, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China
• 3 Centre for English and Additional Languages, Lingnan University, Hong Kong, China

Developing learner autonomy has been a critical task in English teaching that requires a clear understanding of the feature of classroom environment. This study aims to examine how senior high school students perceive classroom environment and learner autonomy, and how classroom environment exerts its influence on learner autonomy in Chinese EFL learning context. Participants ( N  = 565) from 15 classes located in northeast of China were selected to fill in an adapted version of What is Happening in This Class (WIHIC) and English Autonomous Learning Ability scale. Interview was conducted to confirm and illustrate the quantitative findings. The results revealed that senior high students had favorable perceptions of English classroom environment and learner autonomy. Grade differences existed in their perceptions. Moreover, we found that 53.7% of the variance in learner autonomy was accounted for by students’ perceptions of English classroom environment, which indicated that English classroom environment had significantly positive effects on learner autonomy. Specifically, task orientation, student involvement, teacher support and finding references were strong predictors to learner autonomy. The possible reasons for the findings were discussed and recommendations for future research were given.

Introduction

In the field of 21st-century English language education, life-long learning and the learner-centered movement have created new challenges for students’ learning and teachers’ teaching, thus both language teachers and students need to reconsider their roles. Teachers are expected to become lifelong learners themselves and they play a crucial role in promoting their students’ autonomous learning ability ( Ahmadianzadeh et al., 2020 ; Wang and Ryan, 2020 ; Ludwig and Tassinari, 2021 ; Ozer and Yukselir, 2021 ). As suggested by Holec (1981) , the ultimate goal of education is to develop high level learner autonomy and help learners become autonomous learners. Learner autonomy, therefore, is one crucial factor in students’ learning and has increasingly attracted the attention of researchers and educators and becomes a central issue in the context of language learning and teaching in recent decades ( Phan and Hamid, 2016 ; Lin and Reinders, 2019 ).

China published the New English Curriculum Standard in 2017, putting forward new requirements and expectations for English teaching and learning in senior high schools. There are four core competences that senior high students should possess and one of them is learning ability which refers to the awareness and ability that learners autonomously use and adjust English learning strategies, widen the English learning channel, and improve their learning effectiveness. The cultivation of learning ability can help learners improve their self-management, form good learning habits and learn English in an autonomous and effective way ( Ministry of Education, 2018 ). It can be noted that autonomous learning, or in other words, learner autonomy, is given special attention in English language education reform in China.

Considerable research has stressed the critical role of learner autonomy in students’ learning. Cotterall (1995) demonstrates the effects of learner autonomy from the perspective of philosophy (maximizing learners’ rights to make choices), pedagogy (increasing efficiency and sense of security in learning) and practice (realizing proficiency). In addition, Benson (2007) comments that, learner autonomy closely interacts with a wide range of fields of language education, including motivation, individual difference, learning strategies, self-regulation as well as teacher development while Nakata (2010) believes that learner autonomy contributes to better outcomes in language acquisition. Learner autonomy also functions as a channel for learners’ individual and collaborative agency through which learners gradually develop language proficiency ( Little, 2020 ).

Considering the importance of learner autonomy, different conditions have been put forward in the literature to promote the development of learner autonomy. Benson (2001) has highlighted that learner autonomy could develop if students are actively involved in the learning process and are given choices and flexibility of change. Kumaravadivelu (2011) has proposed different teaching strategies for teachers contributing to the promotion of learner autonomy. For instance, teachers can encourage learners to write diaries and journal entries, and enable them to develop critical thinking ability and interpretive capabilities. Teachers are also expected to play a role of facilitator to support students’ decision making, a resource provider to make him or herself a convenient resource when it is necessary, and a counselor to satisfy the ongoing need of students ( Phan and Hamid, 2016 ; Ozer and Yukselir, 2021 ). Based on the literature, it is important to note that there is consensus on the great impact of classroom environment. Growing literature acknowledging that classroom environment is the key to developing learner autonomy has been published both in English ( Ames, 1992 ; Eshel and Kohavi, 2003 ; Eneau and Develotte, 2012 ) and in Chinese ( Sun, 2004 ; Fan, 2006 ; Li and Yin, 2010 ; Li, 2014 ; Li and Guo, 2015 ). As Paris and Paris (2001) point out, classroom environment can provide learner autonomy with social and material support by developing students’ cognitive strategies and motivation. Sun (2004) also argues that by giving learners supportive classroom environment, learners are able to maximize individual agency and autonomy in their learning.

Although much has been written about the key role of the classroom environment in improving learner autonomy theoretically, little empirical research has investigated the actual relationship between the two. The existing literature has yielded a dearth of empirical studies with regard to learner autonomy in senior high schools’ classroom environment in Chinese EFL context. It is necessary, therefore, to gather more critical and insightful evidence to authenticate how English classroom environment influences and shapes senior high students’ learner autonomy in the local context of China. Therefore, this study aims to examine senior high students’ perception of learner autonomy and the English classroom environment and explore how their perceptions of the English classroom environment influence learner autonomy. The following research questions are addressed in the study:

1. How do Chinese senior high school students perceive leaner autonomy?

2. How do Chinese senior high school students perceive their English classroom environment?

3. How does the perceived English classroom environment influence leaner autonomy in Chinese senior high schools?

Literature review

Conceptual framework of learner autonomy and classroom environment.

Several attempts are made to define learner autonomy and the most remarkably robust and widely cited definition is Holec’s (1981) in which learner autonomy is regarded as the ability to take charge of one’s own learning and it was not inborn but developed either by formal learning or through natural means. Dickinson (1987 , p.11) agrees with Holec and defines learner autonomy as “the situation in which the learner is totally responsible for all of the decisions concerned with his learning and the implementation of those decisions.” Little (1991) further adds a psychological dimension and points out that autonomy is a capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action, which indicates that the underlying psychological capacities are the core of learner autonomy.

Leaner autonomy is featured as complexity, multidimensionality, and variable manifestation ( Benson, 2013 ), and there is a large body of literature highlights that leaner autonomy is a complex construct with different levels. For instance, Nunan (1997) proposes a five-level learner autonomy model of awareness, involvement, intervention, creation and transcendence. The basic level requires learners to be aware of learning goals, content and strategies followed by a deeper level in which they could be actively involved in learning and making choices. Learners would intervene in the learning process and adjust their learning goals, content and strategies in the third level. Whereas more autonomous learners develop learning content, create learning tasks, and go beyond the classroom, linking what they have learned to the outer world. In the field of language learning, Littlewood (1997) proposes a methodological framework for developing learner autonomy, which involves a three-stage model of language acquisition, learning strategies and individual development. Learners can use language independently to communicate with others in real situation in stage one. Stage two involves the ability of taking responsibility for learning and applying meaningful strategies and in the final stage, learner autonomy involves developing “greater generalized autonomy as individuals.” Similarly, Scharle and Szabo (2000) also describe three stages of becoming autonomous, which consist of raising awareness, changing students’ attitude and practicing new roles and habits, and transferring learners’ roles.

The understanding of classroom environment can track back to Lewin (1936) which firstly realizes the relationship between individuals and the environment, laying foundation for later research on learning environment. The classroom environment has been defined from different perspectives. For instance, from the physical perspective, Knirk (1979) defines classroom environment as a kind of learning site or place, which consists of classroom, library, playground, laboratory, school buildings and the learning areas at home. Fraser (1981) extends this understanding of classroom environment by arguing that it not only includes the classroom space, but also the relationship between teachers and students in a classroom, classroom quality, and classroom atmosphere. Later, Fraser (1986) further elaborates four components in the classroom environment including physical things, social interaction with others, the features of the members (teachers and students), and systems, concepts and values. The psychological aspects of the classroom environment have also been recognized. For example, Fan and Dong (2005) explain that classroom environment is the combination of physical, social and psychological factors where physical environment refers to the natural settings, teaching facilities and time–space environment, social environment includes the interaction between teachers and students, students and students, goal orientation, classroom rules and disciplines, and psychological environment concerns teachers’ and students’ personality traits, mental state and the psychological atmosphere in the classroom. This present study only discusses the social and psychological environment, focusing on learner-teacher interaction and learners’ psychological factors.

Measurement of learner autonomy

With increasing research interest, the trajectory of learner autonomy research gradually shifts to classroom application and empirical investigation. Researchers develop a number of valid instruments to measure learner autonomy in different learning phases ( Xu et al., 2004 ; Macaskill and Taylor, 2010 ; Oguz, 2013 ; Lin and Reinders, 2019 ), and investigate students’ and teachers’ beliefs, perceptions and readiness for learner autonomy in various educational contexts ( Tanyeli and Kuter, 2013 ; Xiang and Wu, 2016 ; Bozkurt and Arslan, 2018 ; Lin and Reinders, 2019 ). There are a number of studies showing the close relationship between leaner autonomy and other key issues in learning and teaching, such as motivation ( Huang and Liaw, 2007 ; Nakata, 2010 ; Calafato, 2020 ), self-regulation ( Stefanou et al., 2013 ), learner achievement ( Ghorbandordinejad and Nasab, 2016 ), teachers’ behavior and instruction ( Grosmann and Wilde, 2020 ), language policy ( Rivers, 2011 ; Phan and Hamid, 2016 ), and technology ( Reinders and White, 2011 ; Lai, 2019 ; Stockwell and Reinders, 2019 ).

In the field of EFL learning and teaching, Liu and Li (2008) investigate 1,153 Chinese senior high school students’ learner autonomy and find that they have a negative perception of learner autonomy. Students in rural area have less favorable perceptions than those in urban schools while female students have better autonomy than male students. In the context of Chinese college English courses, Lin and Reinders (2019) examine undergraduates and teachers’ beliefs, practice and readiness for learner autonomy. The findings show that students and teachers are psychologically ready for autonomy, but not technically or behaviorally well-prepared. The Chinese English Curriculum Standard for Senior High School is the most important official plan on EFL teaching at upper secondary level in the country and its latest revision issued in 2017 puts special emphasis on the cultivation of learner autonomy. How do Chinese senior high students perceive their learner autonomy in the current stage? What problems do they encounter in developing their learner autonomy? This study tries to investigate senior high students’ perceptions of English learner autonomy and explore their difficulties in achieving autonomy.

Measurement of classroom environment

Catering to different types of classroom environments, a variety of instruments are developed in recent decades. Firstly, The Learning Environment Inventory designed by Walberg and Anderson (1968) consists of 18 scales and 105 items whereas the Classroom Environment Scale includes nine dimensions (involvement, affiliation, teacher support, task orientation, competition, order, rule clarity, teacher control, and innovation) and 90 items ( Trickett and Moos, 1973 ). My Class Inventory ( Fisher and Fraser, 1981 ) is designed for science classroom environment and is a simplified version of the Learning Environment Inventory which contains five dimensions. What Is Happening In This Classroom (WIHIC; Fraser et al., 1996 ), which has been the most frequently used by researchers, contains 90 items and nine scales at first and is refined to 56 items with seven scales. Most of the above instruments are developed for math and science class and the existing instruments for English classroom are limited. Therefore, considering the characteristics of English classroom, Soebari and Aldridge (2015) adapts WIHIC by replacing the sub-scale “investigation” with “finding reference”.

Classroom environment has been widely researched in different disciplines such as Math ( Aluri and Fraser, 2019 ), Science ( Fraser and Aldridge, 2010 ), and Biology ( Zeidan, 2010 ). It has also been studied in terms of EFL learning in different context which focuses on instruments development, learners and teachers’ perceptions of actual classroom environment ( Goksu, 2015 ), and how English classroom environment exerts its influence on learners’ achievement ( Gedamu and Siyawik, 2015 ), attitude ( Lim and Fraser, 2018 ), and engagement ( Hoi, 2022 ). For instance, Goksu (2015) examines how 166 Turkish high school students perceive their English classroom environment and the findings reveal that participants have positive perceptions and there are no grade and gender differences in their perceptions. In addition, Gedamu and Siyawik (2015) explore the association between secondary school students’ perceived English classroom environment and English learning achievements in Ethiopia. The results indicate that task orientation, student involvement, and teacher support positively correlate with their English language test score. Lim and Fraser (2018) conduct their research in Singaporean primary school and find that English classroom environment seems to have positive correlation with attitude to English learning and academic efficacy. Furthermore, research conducted in China ( Liu and Liu, 2012 ) which focuses on the correlation between senior high school students’ perceptions of English classroom environment and academic outcome shows that students perceive their English classroom environment positively and female students tend to have better perceptions than male students do. The study also indicates that task orientation contributes to learner outcome.

Developing learner autonomy in English classroom environment

Different research has increasingly stressed the interplay between the classroom environment and learner autonomy. According to Willis (2011) , classroom learning is mutual work between students and teachers and learner autonomy is usually developed in classroom setting. Teachers should take on the responsibilities to create positive classroom environment in which students could recognize their own role and be more autonomous in learning. Furthermore, Li and Yin (2010) investigate 1,995 middle school students in Hong Kong and find that teacher support and involvement contribute to learner motivation and the use of self-regulated learning strategies. Both teacher-centered and learner-centered classroom environments are helpful in cultivating learner autonomy. The above findings are in line with Sungur and Güngören’s (2009) research which reaches the conclusion that students’ perceived science classroom environment positively associates with learner regulation and science achievement. In another research on undergraduate students in a private university finds that problem-based and project-based classroom environments support students’ engagement in self-regulation learning ( Stefanou et al., 2013 ). It can be seen from the previous research that classroom environment plays a facilitated role in enhancing learners’ engagement and responsibility in learning.

In the context of EFL learning, some empirical studies in China shed some lights on the impact of the English classroom environment on learner autonomy. Li (2014) , for example, explores the correlation between non-English major undergraduates’ perception of English classroom environment and their learner autonomy. The findings indicate that they perceive classroom environment favorably and their autonomous learning ability is at a moderate level. The classroom environment’s influence on learner autonomy is greater than learner autonomy’s effects on classroom environment. Students involvement, students responsibility, task orientation and teacher support are the most significant predictors of learner autonomy. Similarly, the investigation of Li and Guo (2015) suggests that classroom environment of non-English major undergraduates contributes to their learner autonomy. Specifically, both teaching (teacher leadership, teaching innovation, and teacher support) and learning (partner relationships, class involvement, and task orientation) in English classroom environment favorably correlate with learner autonomy.

Reviews of research clearly indicate that western scholars noticed the critical role of classroom environment on the development of learner autonomy ( Ames, 1992 ; Willis, 2011 ; Doğan and Mirici, 2017 ). However, little empirical research was conducted to investigate the actual relationship between them and to what extent the former may contribute to the latter in EFL learning. A number of Chinese scholars tries to fill this gap by investigating the correlation between English classroom environment and learner autonomy at tertiary level ( Li, 2014 ; Li and Guo, 2015 ). However, how English classroom environment influences learner autonomy at secondary level is under-researched. It is, therefore, necessary to understand what elements in English classroom environment make it more or less likely that learners will develop leaner autonomy in secondary school context. The present study attempts to address this gap in the literature by exploring senior high school students’ perceptions of English classroom environment and learner autonomy and how the perceived classroom environment influences learner autonomy.

Materials and methods

Research design.

A mixed method design was carried out in the study. Two questionnaires were employed to examine students’ perception of English classroom environment and learner autonomy. Interviews with students were conducted to elicit in-depth data about their feelings and opinions related to their English classroom and their own English learning habits and methods.

Participants

The sample comprised a total of 565 students from two senior high schools, in Jilin and Liaoning province located in northeast China. The participants were from 11 classes each of which involved 45–51 students and they all learned English as a Foreign Language. With regard to age, it ranged from 15 to 17. There were 301 students at grade 10 (53.3%) and 264 students at grade 11 (46.7%). Grade 12 students were excluded from the present research for the reason that they were preparing for the college entrance examination, and it was hard to find enough time to complete the questionnaire and conduct interviews. The distribution of gender was relatively balanced in the study which consisted of 281 male students (49.7%) and 284 female students (50.3%).

Data instruments

English autonomous learning ability.

The questionnaire English Autonomous Learning Ability ( Xu et al., 2004 ) was adopted in the present research to quantitatively measure students’ perception of learner autonomy. It is composed of five sub-scales and 32 items. Each of the first three sub-scales contains five items, in which learners self-report their perceptions of knowing the teaching purpose and requirements, setting learning goals and making plans, and using different learning strategies, respectively. The fourth sub-scale consists of seven items assessing how learners monitor their use of strategies. The fifth sub-scale includes 10 items that measures how learners monitor and assess their English learning process. This questionnaire uses Likert scales with five categories of points (1—Almost Never, 2—Seldom, 3—Sometimes, 4—Often, and 5—Almost Always) to solicit students’ responses to learner autonomy. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.94, which suggested a high reliability. Regarding the validity, the questionnaire was proved to be valid (X2/df = 2.80, RMSEA = 0.05, IFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90).

What is happening in this class

What is Happening in This Class (WIHIC) is one of the most frequently used instruments to measure the classroom environment and was developed by Fraser et al. (1996) . Seven scales and 56 items were included in WIHIC, namely students’ cohesiveness, teacher support, involvement, investigation, task orientation, cooperation and equity. Soebari and Aldridge (2015) adapted WIHIC to measure students’ perceptions of English classroom environment by replacing the investigation sub-scale with finding reference. The reason it that investigation is most frequently used in science classes while finding information with the help of dictionary or reference books is more commonly used in English classes. There are two reasons for choosing the revised version of WIHIC. First, the adapted version considers the features of English classroom, thus it is more suitable for the present study than the original version of WIHIC. In addition, it is widely used and has proved to be more valid and reliable. Accordingly, an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95 was found and a high validity was reported for the revised WIHIC in the present study (X2/df = 2.51, RMSEA = 0.05, IFI = 0.90, CEI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90).

Data collection

As previously mentioned, both quantitative methods and qualitative methods were used to collect data from the senior high school students via questionnaire and interview which allowed a more in-depth understanding of students’ perceived learner autonomy and English learning environment through triangulation. First, revised WIHICH and English Autonomous Learning Ability questionnaires were distributed to 600 students anonymously in 2019. Then, based on different gender and grades, eight students were selected purposefully for an interview that lasted for an average of 30 min. There were two female students and two male students from grade 10 and grade 11, respectively. Since the participants would better express their opinions in mother tongue, Mandarin was used in all interviews. The interviews were recorded and transcribed into written text to help illustrate the research findings.

Data analysis

For the quantitative data, the scores obtained from two questionnaires were analyzed in SPSS 20.0. Specifically, descriptive analysis was applied to evaluate students’ general perceptions of English classroom environment and learner autonomy. Besides, an independent-sample t -test was used to explore whether there were gender and grade level differences in their perceptions. To investigate the relationship among the seven sub-scales of WIHIC and five sub-scales of English Autonomous Learning Ability, a two-tailed Pearson Product–Moment Correlation was conducted at a significant level of 0.05. Multiple regression analysis was carried out to examine how students’ perceptions of English classroom environment influences their perceptions of learner autonomy and we used beta weights of multiple regressions to see each predictor variable’s relative contributions. With regard to the qualitative data, the interviews were classified into different sections that are parallel with the sub-scales in the two questionnaires. Finally, students’ citations in the interview were used in presenting the qualitative data results and they were given number as G10F1 or G11M1 based on their grade and gender.

Students’ perceptions of learner autonomy

As shown in Table 1 , the mean score of learner autonomy scale is 3.43 (SD = 0.63), which indicates that senior high students have a positive attitude toward learner autonomy in English learning than average level. Generally speaking, they are ready to take responsibilities for their English learning. Specifically, knowing teaching purpose and requirements scale has the highest mean score (M = 3.65, SD = 0.74) and using different learning strategies has the lowest mean score (M = 3.31, SD = 0.78). The qualitative data also shows that senior high students know what they are expected and what they should do in English learning (see extract 1), but they lack enough knowledge of English learning strategies in listening, speaking, reading, and writing (see extract 2).

Extract 1 I am not clear about teaching purposes because my teacher hardly explains that to us. Most of the time, I just complete tasks and answer questions. I know the requirements for English learning very well. Our teacher made all the rules and requirements clear when we entered high school. For example, we should stay focused, take notes if necessary, keep writing individual diary, preview the reading passage in each unit, and review on time (G10F1).

Extract 2 I usually do a lot of exercises and then I can find the rules. Doing exercise is helpful to improve my English. As for reading and writing, I think it’s necessary to memorize more vocabulary, which makes reading and writing easier…In my opinion, English writing is similar to Chinese writing. I get used to organizing the structure and sentences in Chinese and then translating them into English (G10M2).

Table 1 . Descriptive analysis of learner autonomy.

The findings presented in Table 2 demonstrate that no statistically significant difference is found in gender for most of the dimensions of learner autonomy. However, the analysis also shows that female students outperform male students on the sub-scale of knowing teaching purpose and requirements ( t  = −2.09, p  < 0.05). Regarding the grade difference, the analysis indicates that there is a statistically significant difference for most of the sub-scales. Grade 11 students score significantly higher than grade 10 students on the sub-scales of knowing teaching purpose and requirements ( t  = −2.85, p  < 0.01), using different learning strategies ( t  = −8.05, p  < 0.001), monitoring the use of strategies ( t  = −6.32, p  < 0.001), and monitoring and assessing English learning process ( t  = −5.27, p  < 0.001). Considering the qualitative data, it also shows that grade 11 students employ more diverse learning methods (see extract 3) while grade 10 students lack the knowledge of different learning strategies on listening, speaking, reading and writing, and they rely heavily on memorization and doing exercise (see extract 4).

Extract 3 I practice English by taking part in some activities in our school, such as English Corner and drama performance. I also use some applications namely English Dubbing and Scallop Vocabulary to practice my oral English and enlarge my vocabulary (G11M2).

Extract 4 I practice my English by doing exercise, by which I can find the rules and get good grades in the exams…I also spend lots of time remembering vocabulary and paragraphs in the reading passages (G10M1).

Table 2 . The results of gender and grade differences in learner autonomy.

Students’ perceptions of English classroom environment

Descriptive statistics for students’ perceptions of English classroom environment are presented in Table 3 . It can be seen that students have positive classroom environment perceptions in EFL classes (M = 3.70, SD = 0.55). Among the seven sub-scales, student cohesiveness is scored highest by students (M = 4.08, SD = 0.60), and finding reference obtains the lowest mean (M = 3.34, SD = 0.80). It indicates that sample senior high school students have a close relationship with their peers and they tend to help and support each other in English class. On this issue, one participant G10F2 said:

Extract 5 My classmates often help me learn English. If I have trouble in some grammar rules, they are willing to explain that to me. They do not laugh at me even if I ask a very simple question or make a silly mistake. Sometimes I cannot follow the teacher’s speed in class, my classmates lend their notes to me (G10F2).

Table 3 . Descriptive analysis of English classroom environment.

Table 4 presents the analysis of gender and grade differences on the sub-scales of the WIHIC. The results of independent t-test show that of all seven sub-scales examined, only student involvement is found to have significant gender difference ( t  = 2.91, p  < 0.05). Male students outperform female students regarding their perceptions of student involvement, and they tend to be more active and better involved in class than female students do. The following extract confirms this finding.

Extract 6 Our English teacher always encourages us to be active and brave in English class. However, I usually participate in activities and express myself only if I am quite confident about the topic and know the exact answers. Before expressing my ideas, I must think it over and organize my words ahead of time. I am a little bit worried about whether my answers are correct (G11F1).

Table 4 . The results of gender and grade differences in English classroom environment.

As to the grade differences, grade 11 students’ perceptions of teacher support ( t  = −5.91, p  < 0.001), student involvement ( t  = −4.54, p  < 0.001), finding reference ( t  = −3.32, p  < 0.01), and equity ( t  = −2.02, p  < 0.05) are significantly higher than grade 10 students.

Influence of English classroom environment on learner autonomy

The second research question aims to investigate the effects of students’ perceived English classroom environment on learner autonomy. Table 5 presents the results of multiple regression analysis between the predictor variable and dependent variables. Accordingly, the combination of English classroom environment variables significantly predict learner autonomy ( F  = 164.24, p  < 0.05). Adjusted R 2 is 0.537, which indicates that 53.7% of the variance in learner autonomy is accounted for by students’ perceptions of English classroom environment. Additionally, as indicated in Table 5 , task orientation is the most significant predictor of students’ perceptions of learner autonomy ( β  = 0.378; t  = 9.689, p  < 0.001). Student involvement ( β  = 0.258; t  = 5.741, p  < 0.001), teacher support ( β  = 0.123; t  = 2.906, p  < 0.01), and finding reference ( β  = 0.125; t  = 3.540, p  < 0.01) also positively contribute to learner autonomy.

Table 5 . Results of multiple regression analysis between English classroom environment and learner autonomy.

In this study, we aim to examine senior high students’ perceived learner autonomy, classroom environment, and the interplay between them in Chinese EFL learning context. The first goal is to investigate their perceptions of learner autonomy and the results display that they perceive it positively, which indicates that they can take some responsibilities for English learning. This finding contradicts the previous study reporting that Chinese senior high students have a poor perception of English learner autonomy, and specifically, they cannot use and monitor strategies effectively in reading and writing ( Liu and Li, 2008 ; Wang and Hao, 2010 ). This can be partly accounted for by the Core Competency Reform in basic education in China which began with the new curriculum standard issued in 2017. The shift of control from teachers to students is gradually recognized and English teachers are becoming more leaner-centered and humanistic in language teaching. For instance, they prepare learning materials with guided questions, asking students to preview before the class, discuss with peers in class, and solve the problems they encountered ( Meng, 2018 ). Meaningful, individualized and project-based homework is given to students, which emphasizes students own enquiry and activities. This way of teaching highlights the significance of students’ freedom and responsibilities in English learning and helps them control and regulate the learning process autonomously. Therefore, with the progress of Core Competency Reform, Chinese senior high school students in the present study have higher level of English learner autonomy compared with students in last decade.

Furthermore, we also find that grade 11 students report a higher level of perception than grade 10 students in most sub-scales of learner autonomy, which shows that learner autonomy increases with progression through learning. While this finding is inconsistent with the previous studies ( Lee et al., 2009 ; Xiong et al., 2017 ) which draw the conclusion that lower graders have better perceptions of learner autonomy than higher graders, it is conceivable in the context of this study. As is noted in the interview, grade 10 students experience frustration and encounter some difficulties at the beginning of high school study. It is difficult for them to make decision and regulate learning process independently in a transition period. However, due to the increase of learning experience, grade 11 students have clearer awareness of their own strengths and weaknesses, and they are more familiar with English learning process. Thus they can choose a variety of appropriate learning methods flexibly according to their own situation and manage the learning process independently. With regard to the gender differences on students’ learner autonomy, the result in the present research indicates that there is no significant gender differences, which is congruent with the findings of Lee et al. (2009) . Both male and female students are responsible for goal-making, planning, initiating and evaluating their English learning strategies. However, some studies report a gender difference on students’ learner autonomy and find that girls view themselves more autonomous than boys ( Liu and Li, 2008 ; Wang and Hao, 2010 ).

The second aim of this study is to examine Chinese high school students’ perceptions of English classroom environment and the findings indicate that they have a positive attitude toward that. This result is in line with previous research suggesting favorable classroom environment in EFL context ( Liu and Liu, 2010 ; Goksu, 2015 ; Lim and Fraser, 2018 ). High school students feel a sense of academic and emotional support from their teacher and peers and they are actively involved in English class. As indicated by Pishghadam et al. (2020a) , if students gain emotional support and have high level of emotioncy (a blend of individuals’ emotions and senses), they tend to show more willingness in involvement. High school students also perceive their English classroom task-oriented, equal and cooperative, which might be explicated in terms of the idea of activity-based and competency-oriented English teaching which have been highlighted since the Core Competency Reform stared ( Ministry of Education, 2018 ). Contextualized, topic-specific and problem-solving activities are presented in class. They are relevant to students’ interests and goals as well as connected to students’ lives ( Li and Tian, 2021 ). Activity-based English classroom can enhance students’ motivation and participation, and create opportunities for learner interaction and collaboration, thus eliciting positive cognitive response from students.

The finding regarding the gender differences shows that no statistically significant gender difference exists in the perceptions of English classroom environment. It is in parallel with the previous study conducted by Goksu (2015) in Turkish EFL context. Although some studies find that female students better perceive classroom environment than male students in many aspects, such as task-orientation, cooperation ( Liu and Liu, 2012 ; Tshewang et al., 2017 ; Lim and Fraser, 2018 ) and teacher support ( Gherasim et al., 2013 ), our research indicates that male students outperform female students in student involvement scale, suggesting that they are more engaged in English classroom. This might be explained with regard to the social-cultural factors that many Chinese girl students, relative to the male counterparts, are more cautious and conservative in nature. They tend to engage in the classroom activities unless they are fully well-prepared and confident about themselves. In addition, we do find significant grade differences in most dimensions of classroom environment. Compared with grade 10 students, grade 11 students tend to have more favorable perceptions of teacher support, student involvement, finding reference and equity. One possible reason is that grade 11 students are gradually familiar with their English class and teacher’s teaching style, and benefit from teacher’s scaffolding. For another, facing the pressure of University Entrance Examination, they become more responsible for themselves and try to find resources to deal with problems in their English learning.

The last purpose of the research is to investigate the influence of classroom environment on learner autonomy in Chinese EFL context. Overall, results suggest that senior high school students’ perceived classroom environment exerts positive influence on their learner autonomy. It could be supported by Li’s research (2014) conducted at tertiary level which reports the significant role of classroom environment in the development of learner autonomy. He also argues that teacher support, task orientation, student involvement, and student responsibility have significant effects on students’ abilities to make learning plans, use and monitor strategies, and assess English learning process.

Specifically, our results identify four vitally important variables that have positive effects on learner autonomy, namely task orientation, student involvement, teacher support, and finding reference. Firstly, task orientation refers to the extent to which students attach importance to complete planned tasks, focus on subject matter and coordinate class activities ( Lai et al., 2015 ), and it is the strongest predictor of Chinese senior high school students’ learner autonomy. The result confirms the findings of Li and Guo (2015) who report that the more task-oriented university students are, the more independent they will be. One possible reason is that classroom characterized with high task orientation develop students’ habits of making preparations before the class, keeping focus on learning goals in class, and employing different methods to complete goals and tasks. Accordingly, it leads to students gradually assume responsibilities in learning and practicing English. Second, the significant effect of student involvement on learner autonomy is congruent with considerable previous studies ( Patrick et al., 2007 ; Li and Guo, 2015 ; Wang and Ryan, 2020 ). As Holec (1981) stated, centering the focus on learning rather than teaching is the core concept of learner autonomy. By actively engaging in classroom activities, such as group discussion, individual study, group presentation, and peer feedback, students are placed at the centering of learning, taking control and exercising agency. Learner autonomy is fostered when students have opportunities to makes choices over their learning behavior and manage learning process actively. Third, teacher support contributes to students’ autonomous learning, and it echoes the findings of the research of Lee et al. (2009) which find that teacher support is the most influential factor of Hong Kong students’ self-regulated learning and strategy use. As is mentioned in previous research ( Patrick et al., 2007 ), if students view their English teacher as being academically and emotionally supportive, they are more likely to develop clear orientation to English learning, fully engage in academic activities with self-regulated learning strategies, and promote their intrinsic motivation. Hence, their willingness to engage language learning and autonomous learning ability is facilitated. Fourth, finding reference refers to the extent to which English classroom emphasizes the skills and process of solving problems by using references (such as dictionary, reference book, technology tools, etc.) to find information and resources by students themselves ( Soebari and Aldridge, 2015 ). Classroom that encourages finding references develops a better awareness and behavior for taking more responsibilities in solving problems in language learning. Students are equipped with the ability to learn English with various channels and reference on their own even if they are remote from classroom, thereby promoting leaner autonomy.

Limitations and recommendations for future research

The present research provides an empirical validation for senior high school students’ perception of leaner autonomy and classroom environment in Chinese EFL context after the Core Competency Reform. It expands our knowledge of learner autonomy to its association with the English classroom environment and documents how English classroom environment positively influences students’ autonomous learning ability. Moreover, it casts lights on the directions for improving learner autonomy by cultivating task-oriented, teacher-supported, engaging and independent classroom environments. Despite the above contributions, some limitations of this study also need to be noted. First, this study only includes participants from northeast of China, which may render the generalization of the study finds. Larger sample size and equal distribution of participants are needed in future research to verify the findings of this research. In addition, although we confirm classroom environment’s positive effects on learner autonomy, it has to admit that there are some other possible influencing variables that are overlooked in the present research. For instance, some socio-cultural variables and psychological variables may influence students’ perceptions of classroom environment and learner autonomy, which should be taken into consideration for future studies when conducting research in various context. Socioculturally, culture affects individuals’ thoughts, behavior and language learning. The relationship between language and culture is called “cultuling” by Pishghadam et al. (2020b) and they also pointed that cultural memes, defined as cultural genes and units of cultural transmission, shape individuals’ beliefs and behavior ( Pishghadam et al., 2020b ). In other words, students with different cultural backgrounds and cultural memes may have different language learning behavior in their English classroom and diverse perceptions of their classroom environment. Psychologically, learners’ emotional involvement can impact language learning ( Akbari and Pishghadam, 2022 ). For instance, emotioncy, a newly-developed concept that emphasizes the intertwined state between emotions and senses ( Pishghadam et al., 2015 ), also impacts individuals’ cognition, thoughts, behavior and interaction ( Pishghadam et al., 2020b ). In language learning, learners gain high level of emotioncy when teachers have sufficient emo-sensory intelligence and provide multiple senses in classroom environment, leading to learners’ active involvement and willingness to communicate and interact with others ( Pishghadam et al., 2015 , 2019 , 2022 ; Akbari and Pishghadam, 2022 ). It is highly recommended to include these variables in future research, such as cultural memes, emotioncy, and motivation, which may play a mediating or moderating role between classroom environment and learner autonomy.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Northeast Normal University. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

This work was supported by National Social Foundation of China: The career trajectory of female primary school teachers and its influencing factors (Grant number: BHA180155).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Ahmadianzadeh, B., Seifoori, Z., and Tamjid, N. H. (2020). Exploring EFL teachers’ beliefs about and practices of learner autonomy across experience and licensure. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 14, 97–113. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2018.1501694

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Akbari, M. H., and Pishghadam, R. (2022). Developing new software to analyze the emo-sensory load of language. J. Bus. Commun. Technol. 1, 1–13. doi: 10.56632/bct.2022.1101

Aluri, V. L. N., and Fraser, B. J. (2019). Students’ perceptions of mathematics classroom learning environments: measurement and associations with achievement. Learn. Environ. Res. 22, 409–426. doi: 10.1007/s10984-019-09282-1

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 261–271. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning . London: Longman.

Google Scholar

Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Lang. Teach. 40, 21–40. doi: 10.1017/S0261444806003958

Benson, P. (2013). Learner autonomy. TESOL Q. 47, 839–843. doi: 10.1002/tesq.134

Bozkurt, N., and Arslan, F. Y. (2018). Learner autonomy in language learning: Syrian refugee EFL learners' perceptions and readiness. Multidisciplin. J. Educ. Res. 8, 115–145. doi: 10.17583/remie.2018.3028

Calafato, R. (2020). Learning Arabic in Scandinavia: motivation, meta-cognition, and autonomy. Lingua 246, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102943

Cotterall, S. (1995). Developing a course strategy for learner autonomy. English Lang. Teach. J. 49, 913–921. doi: 10.1093/elt/49.3.219

Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doğan, G., and Mirici, İ. H. (2017). EFL instructors’ perception and practices on learner autonomy in some Turkish universities. J. Lang. Linguist. Stud. 13, 166–193.

Eneau, J., and Develotte, C. (2012). Working together online to enhance learner autonomy: analysis of learners’ perceptions of their online learning experience. ReCALL 24, 3–19. doi: 10.1017/S0958344011000267

Eshel, Y., and Kohavi, R. (2003). Perceived classroom control, self-regulated learning strategies, and academic achievement. Educ. Psychol. 23, 249–260. doi: 10.1080/0144341032000060093

Fan, C. (2006). The impact of classroom environment on learner autonomy and the implications on school education. Educ. Sci. Forum 3, 5–9. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-4289.2006.03.002

Fan, C., and Dong, Q. (2005). The status quo, meaning, and trend of classroom environment research. Comparat. Educ. Res. 8, 61–66. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003.7667.2005.08.013

Fisher, D. L., and Fraser, B. J. (1981). Validity and use of the my class inventory. Sci. Educ. 65, 145–156. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730650206

Fraser, B. J. (1981). Learning environment in curriculum evaluation: A review evaluation in education series Pergamon.

Fraser, B. J. (1986). Classroom Environment . London: Croom Helm.

Fraser, B. J., and Aldridge, J. M. (2010). A cross-national study of secondary science classroom environments in Australia and Indonesia. Res. Sci. Educ. 40, 551–571. doi: 10.1007/s11165-009-9133-1

Fraser, B. J., Fisher, D. L., and McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Development, validation and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association , New York.

Gedamu, A., and Siyawik, Y. (2015). The relationship between students' perceived EFL classroom climate and their achievement in English language. Sci. Technol. Arts Res. J. 3, 187–192. doi: 10.4314/star.v3i4.27

Gherasim, L. R., Butnaru, S., and Mairean, C. (2013). Classroom environment, achievement goals and maths performance: gender differences. Educ. Stud. 39, 1–12. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2012.663480

Ghorbandordinejad, F., and Nasab, A. (2016). Examination of the relationship between autonomy and English achievement as mediated by foreign language classroom anxiety. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 14, 739–752. doi: 10.1007/s10936-015-9371-5

Goksu, A. (2015). High school students’ perceptions of classroom learning environments in an EFL context. Revista De Cercetare Si Interventie Sociala 51, 72–89.

Grosmann, N., and Wilde, M. (2020). Promoting interest by supporting learner autonomy: the effects of teaching behaviour in biology lessons. Res. Sci. Educ. 50, 1763–1788. doi: 10.1007/s11165-018-9752-5

Hoi, V. N. (2022). A synergetic perspective on students' perception of classroom environment, expectancy value belief, and engagement in an EFL context. Lang. Teach. Res. , 1–25. doi: 10.1177/13621688221075781

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning . New York: Pergamon Press.

Huang, H. M., and Liaw, S. S. (2007). Exploring learners’ self-efficacy, autonomy and motivation toward e-learning. Percept. Mot. Skills 105, 581–586. doi: 10.2466/pms.105.2.581-586

Knirk, F. C. (1979). Designing productive learning environment . Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2011). Language teacher education for a global society: A modular model for knowing, analyzing, recognizing, doing, and seeing . New York: Routledge.

Lai, C. (2019). Technology and learner autonomy: an argument in favor of the nexus of formal and informal language learning. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 39, 52–58. doi: 10.1017/S0267190519000035

Lai, H., Chou, W., Miao, N., Wu, Y., Lee, P., and Jwo, J. (2015). A comparison of actual and preferred classroom environments as perceived by middle school students. J. Sch. Health 85, 388–397. doi: 10.1111/josh.12263

Lee, J. C. K., Yin, H., and Zhang, Z. H. (2009). Exploring the influence of the classroom environment on students' motivation and self-regulated learning in Hong Kong. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 18, 219–232. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.06.006

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology . New York: McGraw.

Li, G. (2014). Correlation between college English classroom environment and English autonomous learning ability. J. Educ. Stud. 10, 94–101. doi: 10.14082/j.cnki.1673-1298.2014.02.001

Li, G., and Guo, F. (2015). The influence of classroom environment on college students’ learner autonomy. Foreign Lang. Foreign Lang. Teach. 1, 62–68. doi: 10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.004056

Li, T., and Tian, J. (2021). The dilemma and transcendence of the implementation of English learning activity concept. Curric. Teach. Material Method 41, 96–102. doi: 10.19877/j.cnki.kcjcjf.2021.05.014

Li, Z., and Yin, H. (2010). The influence of classroom environment on Hong Kong students’ learner autonomy- a discussion on teacher-center and student-center. Peking Univ. Educ. Rev. 8, 70–82. doi: 10.19355/j.cnki.1671-9468.2010.01.008

Lim, C., and Fraser, B. J. (2018). Learning environments research in English classrooms. Learn. Environ. Res. 21, 433–449. doi: 10.1007/s10984-018-9260-6

Lin, L., and Reinders, H. (2019). Students’ and teachers’ readiness for autonomy: beliefs and practices in developing autonomy in the Chinese context. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 20, 69–89. doi: 10.1007/s12564-018-9564-3

Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems . Dublin: Authentik.

Little, D. (2020). Language learner autonomy: rethinking language teaching. Lang. Teach. 55, 64–73. doi: 10.1017/S0261444820000488

Littlewood, W. (1997). “Self-access: why do we want it and what can it do?” in Autonomy and Independence in language learning . eds. P. Benson and P. Voller (London: Routedge), 79–92.

Liu, H., and Li, Y. (2008). Senior high school students’ autonomy in English learning: an investigation and its implications. Curric. Teach. Materials Method 28, 47–52. doi: 10.19877/j.cnki.kcjcjf.2008.12.012

Liu, L., and Liu, Y. (2010). The construction and initial application of secondary English classroom environment. Theory Pract. Foreign Lang. Teach. 4, 71–78.

Liu, L., and Liu, Y. (2012). Associations between students’ outcomes and classroom environment in senior high school English class. Theory Pract. Foreign Lang. Teach. 4, 76–82.

Ludwig, C., and Tassinari, M. G. (2021). Foreign language learner autonomy in online learning environments: the teachers’ perspectives. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. , 1–18. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2021.2012476

Macaskill, A., and Taylor, E. (2010). The development of a brief measure of learner autonomy in university students. Stud. High. Educ. 35, 351–359. doi: 10.1080/03075070903502703

Meng, Q. (2018). The reflection and promotion of the English teaching reform from the perspective of key competency. Curric. Teach. Material Method 39, 107–143. doi: 10.19877/j.cnki.kcjcjf.2019.06.015

Ministry of Education (2018). English curriculum standard for senior high school . Bejing: Beijing People’s Education Press.

Nakata, Y. (2010). Toward a framework for self-regulated language-learning. TESL Can. J. 27, 1–10. doi: 10.18806/tesl.v27i2.1047

Nunan, D. (1997). “Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy,” in Autonomy and Independence in language learning . eds. P. Benson and P. Voller (London: Routedge), 192–203.

Oguz, A. (2013). Developing a scale for learner autonomy support. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 13, 2187–2194. doi: 10.12738/estp.2013.4.1870

Ozer, O., and Yukselir, C. (2021). Am I aware of my roles as a learner? The relationships of learner autonomy, self-direction and goal commitment to academic achievement among Turkish EFL learners. Lang. Aware. , 1–20. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2021.1936539

Paris, S. G., and Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self -regulated learning. Educ. Psychol. 36, 89–101. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4

Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., and Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. J. Educ. Psychol. 99, 83–98. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83

Phan, T. T. H., and Hamid, M. O. (2016). Learner autonomy in foreign language policies in Vietnamese universities: an exploration of teacher agency from a sociocultural perspective. Curr. Issu. Lang. Plan. 18, 39–56. doi: 10.1080/14664208.2016.1201231

Pishghadam, R., Al Abdwani, T., Kolahi Ahari, M., Hasanzadeh, S., and Shayesteh, S. (2022). Introducing metapathy as a movement beyond empathy: a case of socioeconomic status. Int. J. Soc. Cult. Lang. 10, 35–49. doi: 10.22034/ijscl.2022.252360

Pishghadam, R., Ebrahimi, S., and Derakhshan, A. (2020a). Cultuling analysis: a new methodology for discovering cultural memes. Int. J. Soc. Cult. Lang. 8, 17–34.

Pishghadam, R., Ebrahimi, S., Naji Meidani, E., and Derakhshan, A. (2020b). An introduction to cultuling analysis in light of variational pragmatics: a step toward euculturing. J. Res. Appl. Linguistics 11, 44–56. doi: 10.22055/RALS.2020.15473

Pishghadam, R., Jajarmi, H., and Shayesteh, S. (2015). Conceptualizing sensory relativism in light of emotioncy: a movement beyond linguistic relativism. Int. J. Soc. Cult. Lang. 4, 11–21.

Pishghadam, R., Makiabadi, H., Shayesteh, S., and Zeynali, S. (2019). Unveiling the passive aspect of motivation: insights from English language teachers’ habitus. Int. J. Soc. Cult. Lang. 7, 15–26.

Reinders, H., and White, C. (2011). Learner autonomy and new learning environment. Lang. Learn. Technol. 15, 1–3.

Rivers, D. J. (2011). Strategies and struggles in the ELT classroom: language policy, learner autonomy, and innovative practice. Lang. Aware. 20, 31–43. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2010.537343

Scharle, A., and Szabo, A. (2000). Learner autonomy: A guide to developing learner responsibility Cambridge University Press.

Soebari, T. S., and Aldridge, J. M. (2015). Using student perceptions of the learning environment to evaluate the effectiveness of a teacher professional development programme. Learn. Environ. Res. 18, 163–178. doi: 10.1007/s10984-015-9175-4

Stefanou, C., Stolk, J. D., Prince, M. J., Chen, C., and Lord, S. M. (2013). Self-regulation and autonomy in problem- and project-based learning environments. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 14, 109–122. doi: 10.1177/1469787413481132

Stockwell, G., and Reinders, H. (2019). Technology, motivation and autonomy, and teacher psychology in language learning: exploring the myths and possibilities- corrigendum. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 39, 40–51. doi: 10.1017/S0267190519000084

Sun, H. (2004). Construct language learning environment for learner autonomy. Technol. Enhanc. Foreign Lang. Educ. 99, 64–67.

Sungur, S., and Güngören, S. (2009). The role of classroom environment perceptions in self-regulated learning and science achievement. Element. Educ. Online 8, 883–900.

Tanyeli, N., and Kuter, S. (2013). Examining learner autonomy in foreign language learning and instruction. J. Educ. Res. 53, 19–36.

Trickett, E. J., and Moos, R. H. (1973). Social environment of junior high and high school classrooms. J. Educ. Psychol. 65, 93–102. doi: 10.1037/h0034823

Tshewang, R., Chandra, V., and Yeh, A. (2017). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of classroom learning environment in Bhutanese eighth-grade mathematics classes. Learn. Environ. Res. 20, 269–288. doi: 10.1007/s10984-016-9225-6

Walberg, H. J., and Anderson, G. J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 59, 414–419. doi: 10.1037/h0026490

Wang, X., and Hao, T. (2010). The orientation of learner autonomy in middle school English teaching: an empirical study based on meta-cognitive theories. Curric. Teach. Material Method 30, 66–71. doi: 10.19877/j.cnki.kcjcjf.2010.05.014

Wang, Y., and Ryan, J. (2020). The complexity of control shift for learner autonomy: a mixed-method case study of Chinese EFL teachers' practice and cognition. Lang. Teach. Res. , 1–26. doi: 10.1177/1362168820957922

Willis, J. (2011). Affiliation, autonomy and assessment for learning. Assess. Educ. 18, 399–415. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2011.604305

Xiang, M., and Wu, Y. (2016). An investigation of university EFL teachers’ belief on leaner autonomy. Foreign language and foreign. Lang. Teach. 216:115-123+147-148. doi: 10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.004300

Xiong, C., Chai, J., and Dong, S. (2017). A study on the learning autonomy of Chinese middle school students. Educ. Res. 5, 196–112.

Xu, J., Peng, R., and Wu, W. (2004). Investigation and analysis on English autonomous learning ability of non-English major undergraduates. Foreign Lang. Teach. Res. 1, 65–69.

Zeidan, A. (2010). The relationship between grade 11 Palestinian attitudes toward biology and their perceptions of the biology learning environment. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 8, 783–800. doi: 10.1007/s10763-009-9185-8

Keywords: learner autonomy, English classroom environment, high school students, EFL, Chinese context

Citation: Yang S, Liu L and Hunt N (2022) Exploring the influence of perceived classroom environment on learner autonomy in a Chinese EFL learning context. Front. Psychol . 13:1063473. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1063473

Received: 07 October 2022; Accepted: 25 October 2022; Published: 29 November 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Yang, Liu and Hunt. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Liyan Liu, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

How Inclusive Interactive Learning Environments Benefit Students Without Special Needs

Silvia molina roldán.

1 Department of Pedagogy, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain

Jesús Marauri

2 Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

Adriana Aubert

3 Department of Sociology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Ramon Flecha

Associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Growing evidence in recent years has led to an agreement on the importance and benefits that inclusive education has for students with special educational needs (SEN). However, the extension and universalization of an inclusive approach will also be enhanced with more evidence on the benefits that inclusion has for all students, including those without SEN. Based on the existing knowledge that learning interactions among diverse students are a key component of educational inclusion, the aim of this study is to identify the impact on students without SEN of being educated with students with SEN in shared, inclusive, interactive learning environments. Data were collected in three schools using a qualitative approach with a communicative orientation. Semistructured interviews were held with teachers as well as community volunteers participating in the schools. Further, focus groups were conducted with students and teachers. The results show that students without SEN benefit from participating in interactive learning activities with peers with SEN in different ways: (1) they learn to respect others, accept differences, and acknowledge different abilities, thereby creating opportunities for new friendships to develop; (2) they learn about abilities related to helping others participate and learn, to be patient and to gain the satisfaction in helping others learn and behave better; and (3) they benefit from the cognitive effort required to explain themselves and from the contributions of peers with SEN from which they can learn.

Introduction

The extension and universalization of an inclusive approach is a goal and a challenge for educational systems around the globe, as reflected in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Inclusive education means that all children learn together in schools that recognize and respond to the diverse needs of students, ensure quality education for all through appropriate curricula, organization, teaching strategies and resource use ( UNESCO, 1994 ), and overcome the barriers to the presence, participation, and achievement of all students in general education classes ( UNESCO, 2017 ). However, the original idea of inclusive education focuses on the education of a particular group of students—those with special educational needs (SEN)—to overcome practices of special education that have traditionally segregated students based on a medical model of disability ( Kurth et al., 2018 ). In this regard, inclusive education is generally acknowledged as the venue to enhance both the learning and social development of students with disabilities and other SEN, and therefore the way to fulfill their right to shared quality education in mainstream settings ( United Nations, 2007 ). Consequently, discourse, arguments and research about inclusive education have often centered on the collective of students with SEN, and growing evidence has led to an agreement on the benefits that inclusive education has for these students, as found in reviews of recent research. For instance, the meta-analysis conducted by Oh-Young and Filler (2015) compared the outcomes of students with disabilities between placement settings and found that students in more integrated settings outperformed those in more segregated settings, both in the academic and social domains. The recent review of research by Kefallinou et al. (2020) concluded that there is plenty of research that justifies inclusion both from the educational and the social angles, due to the proven positive effects of educational inclusion on the academic outcomes of students with disabilities, and its positive impact on the subsequent social inclusion of people with disabilities in terms of further academic opportunities and qualifications, access to employment and developing personal relationships within the community.

Because inclusive education is about quality education for all, it is important to look at the potential benefits of inclusion for all students. In this regard, the fact that most of the research on inclusive education concerns categories of learners, particularly those with disabilities and other SENs, may cause us to overlook the impacts on other collectives of learners and may not be consistent with a definition of inclusive education geared toward all learners ( Messiou, 2017 ). The objective of extending and universalizing an inclusive approach would benefit from evidence showing that it is positive—or at least not negative—for all students, including those without SEN.

For this reason, some studies have considered the impact of inclusion on students without special needs. Some of these studies have examined the development of students’ attitudes, empathy and understanding of others. For instance, Smith and Williams (2001) showed that children without disabilities can be sensitive to the consequences of different types of impairments and generally have a positive perception of the capabilities of children with different kinds of impairments, which has positive implications for inclusion. Tafa and Manolitsis (2003) found that typically developing children educated in inclusive programs with children with SEN have increased respect, awareness, and acceptance of their peers’ needs, develop less prejudices, and learn to be more helpful and supportive toward people with disabilities, according to parents’ perspectives. This is consistent with other studies that concluded that inclusive education can play a role in challenging disabling attitudes by transforming non-disabled children’s attitudes toward people with disabilities, therefore contributing to building a more inclusive society ( Beckett, 2009 ). Grütter et al. (2017) analyzed the role of friendship between students with and without SEN and found that opportunities to forge close friendships between students with and without SEN enhance the positive attitudes of students without SEN toward students with SEN; this suggests that inclusive education may benefit from educational practices that actively promote friendship among students with and without SEN. Research has also studied the impact of inclusion on the development of cognitive abilities such as theory of mind (ToM), finding that children without SEN educated in inclusive classes with children with SEN develop a better ToM than their peers educated in traditional classes ( Smogorzewska et al., 2020 ). According to Smogorzewska et al. (2020) , a greater understanding of diversity, tolerance, acceptance of others and the use of prosocial behaviors in inclusive classrooms seem to promote ToM development.

Other studies have explored the impact on academic learning. Although some studies find that the presence of SEN students in regular classes is related to slightly lower performance of their peers without SEN (e.g., Hienonen et al., 2018 ), the conclusions of different reviews of research suggest the contrary. Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) revealed that inclusive education has neutral to positive effects for both students with and without SEN compared to non-inclusive education, especially regarding academic achievement. Focusing on the impacts of students without SEN, Kalambouka et al. (2007) showed no evidence of adverse effects of the inclusion of children with SEN, indicating that most findings involved positive or neutral effects on children without SEN. Similarly, Szumski, Smogorzewska and Karwowski’s meta-analysis (2017) underscored a significant and positive—although weak—effect of the presence of students with SEN on the academic achievement of students without SEN. In none of the examined conditions were significant negative impacts found; in contrast, they were at worst neutral and positive in many cases. More recently, Kefallinou et al. (2020) signaled in their review that the inclusion of students with disabilities did not negatively affect the learning outcomes or the social development of their peers without disabilities, and there was a small—but positive—impact on the academic achievement of students without SEN. In addition, the benefits of inclusive education were connected to effective classroom practices characterized by learning interactions, such as cooperative and dialogic learning, peer tutoring, or collaborative problem-solving, which are beneficial for all learners in the classroom ( Kefallinou et al., 2020 ). As argued in these studies, the results support the idea that inclusive education is not against the right of the majority of students to receive quality education, as not only students with SEN, but also those without SEN, may benefit from being educated together.

One of the key characteristics of inclusive educational environments is the opportunity to have rich and diverse learning interactions among heterogeneous students. The role of social interactions in children’s learning and development has long been investigated by psychologists of education since the onset of the sociocultural theory of learning ( Vygotsky, 1978 ; Bruner, 1996 ). Bruner’s concept of communities of mutual learners helps us to understand the benefits of learning interactions between peers in contexts of diversity. According to Bruner (1996) , group work in schools in the form of communities of mutual learners allows for an equilibrium between individuality and group effectiveness, ensuring that everyone progresses according to their ability and giving all children the opportunity “to enter the culture with awareness of what it is about and what one does to cope with it as a participant” (p. 82). Interactive learning spaces, especially when they are mediated by dialogue, permit collective thinking and learning, enhance academic achievement, social skills, and social cohesion, and are especially beneficial for vulnerable groups of students ( Fernández-Villardón et al., 2020 ; García-Carrión et al., 2020 ). Hence, the objectives of inclusive education would be better attained when such interactive and dialogic learning environments are promoted.

Interactive groups (IGs) and dialogic literary gatherings (DLGs) are specific interactive learning environments that take into account the value of diversity, interaction, and dialogue for learning. Both IGs and DLGs have been identified as successful educational actions (SEAs) that foster successful educational outcomes in diverse student populations ( Flecha, 2015 ). In IGs, classrooms are arranged into small groups of heterogeneous students (e.g., 4–5 students each) who work on instrumental learning activities (especially literacy and math) proposed by the teacher using interaction and dialogue to help each other solve the activity, while a volunteer from the community (e.g., a family member, a former student, or a neighbor) supports each group, dynamizing students’ interactions and mutual help. IGs boost students’ academic learning and—due to the solidary bases of the IG, where students are prompted to help each other—improve the school climate; new friendships are also encouraged, as well as multicultural coexistence ( García-Carrión and Díez-Palomar, 2015 ; Valero et al., 2018 ; Zubiri-Esnaola et al., 2020 ).

Dialogic literary gatherings consist of debating books from classical literature that students have previously read. After agreeing to the chapters that will be discussed at the next gathering, students read the text individually or with help from their family members, a teacher, or a peer, and select a piece of text they found relevant to share at the gatherings. There, they discuss and reflect on the text based on the principles of dialogic learning ( Flecha, 2000 ). DLGs contribute not only to a better understanding of the text, but also enhance students’ reading, reasoning, and argumentative abilities, and deepen understanding of others’ perspectives and emotional well-being ( García-Carrión, 2015 ; Garcia et al., 2018 ; Foncillas et al., 2020 ).

Both DLGs and IGs have been implemented with students with SEN included in mainstream classrooms, and shared with students without SEN. The interactive learning environments created through IGs and DLGs improve the learning and relationships of students with SEN; therefore IGs and DLGs encompass inclusive learning environments ( Duque et al., 2020 ). Less is known about the impact of IGs and DLGs on students without SEN when they are shared with students with SEN. The aim of this study is to identify impacts for students without SEN of being educated with students with SEN in shared, inclusive, interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs.

Materials and Methods

This research is a qualitative study of schools that implement interactive learning environments—specifically interactive groups (IGs) and dialogic literary gatherings (DLGs)—with students with and without special needs. The study was conducted within the framework of a broader competitive research project titled “Interactive learning environments for the inclusion of students with and without disabilities: Improving learning, development and relationships” (INTER-ACT). More specifically, this study is part of the project’s second objective: “To analyze in depth successful cases of schools implementing IGs and DLGs with students with disabilities to identify the best conditions to increase the impact on the improvement of learning, development, and relationships.”

The specific objectives of this study were: (1) to determine whether participating in IGs and DLGs with students with SEN has an impact in terms of learning and/or development for children without SEN; (2) to identify types of impacts on students without SEN as a result of participating in IGs and DLGs with students with SEN; and (3) to understand how these impacts are related to being educated with students with SEN in shared, inclusive, interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs.

Data from the three mainstream educational centers that participated in the second objective of the INTER-ACT project were considered. These centers were one primary school, one primary and secondary school, and one secondary school that educate students with and without special needs in shared learning environments, and which have already implemented interactive learning environments (IGs and DLGs) in the framework of an inclusive project. The schools were selected for their participation in the INTER-ACT project according to the following criteria: (a) schools that had been organizing classrooms in IGs and/or DLGs for at least two academic years; (b) these schools serve a higher percentage of students with disabilities than the average in the region; (c) these schools implement IGs and DLGs inclusively, involving students with SEN with their peers who do not have SEN; and (d) these schools had observed improvements in their students, recorded through quantitative or qualitative evidence, since they have implemented IGs and/or DLGs.

Data Collection

Qualitative data were collected in each school with the aim of understanding, from the participants’ experiences, how the interactive learning environments that were being facilitated with students with and without SEN contributed to students’ cognitive and social development. The data collection techniques used were semistructured interviews with teachers and community volunteers participating in the schools, and focus groups with students and teachers (see Table 1 ). For the purpose of data collection, students with SEN were considered those with an official report that entailed learning difficulties in the school context. Conversely, students without SEN were those without an official report and who did not present particular learning difficulties in the school context. Purposeful sampling was employed to select participants who could be especially knowledgeable about the object of study. In all cases, the participants selection was agreed with the school principals to select those participants that could be more representative. All data collection techniques were carried out on the school premises for the participant convenience. Interviews with teachers lasted between 60 and 75 min. The duration of the focus groups was approximately 40 min for teachers and between 30 and 45 min for students. In the case of volunteers, interviews lasted approximately 20 min.

Data collection techniques implemented in each school.

Participant teachers in the interviews and in the focus groups were selected based on their experience of implementing IGs and/or DLGs with students with and without SEN. All of them had been implementing IGs and/or DLGs and all of them had—at the moment of the data collection or in the past—students with SEN participating in IGs and/or DLGs together with students without SEN.

Two interviews with teachers were conducted, one in school 1 and one in school 3. They were female teachers in both cases. The teacher interviewed at school 1 was the school principal and a language teacher who implemented DLGs with the two sixth-grade classes, which contained five students with SEN. She had more than 10 years of experience facilitating IGs and DLGs. The teacher interviewed in school 3 taught the third grade of compulsory secondary education. In that class, eight students had SEN.

Two focus groups were held with teachers, one in school 1 and one in school 2. In school 1, four female teachers participated. One of them was a teacher in the first and second grades of primary education, another was a teacher in the third and fourth grades, and two more were teachers in the fifth and sixth grades. They had between 4 and 12 years of experience in the school implementing IGs and/or DLGs. In school 2, three female teachers participated. One of them was a teacher of first and second grade, another was a special education teacher, and the third was a teacher of second grade of compulsory secondary education and educational advisor. They had between 1 and 10 years of experience in the school implementing IGs and/or DLGs.

Three focus groups were held with students, two in school 1 and one in school 3. In school 1, one focus group was conducted with each of the two sixth-grade classes. They have been implementing IGs since second grade and DLGs since third grade. In these classes, cases of special needs included hearing impairment and intellectual disability (one boy), intellectual disability (one boy), dyslexia (two boys and one girl) and ADHD (one boy). Five students participated in the first focus group (three boys and two girls), and seven participated in the second focus group (five girls and two boys). In the first group, there was one girl and one boy with SEN, and in the second group, there was one boy with SEN. In school 3, one focus group was conducted with two girls: one in second grade of compulsory secondary education, and one in third grade of compulsory secondary education. Both participated in IGs and DLGs. One of them had special needs (a syndrome entailing visual and hearing impairment, as well as an intellectual disability) and participated in IGs and DLGs with her classmates without special needs, while the other student did not have SEN and had a classmate with autism who participated in IGs and DLGs along with the rest of the class.

Finally, two interviews were conducted in school 2 with two male volunteers who participated in IGs in classes containing students with and without SEN. One of them had taken part in IGs in preprimary and primary education classes for 2 years, while the other had participated in IGs for 3 years in fifth and sixth grades of primary education and in third grade of compulsory secondary education.

Both the interviews and the focus groups included questions regarding, on the one hand, the characteristics of the implementation of the interactive learning environments and, on the other, the impacts on the participating students. The data collection was conducted using a communicative orientation that involves creating the conditions for egalitarian dialogue between researchers and the end-users of research to reach a shared interpretation of the reality being studied ( Gómez et al., 2019 ). Sample questions for teachers and volunteers included: “How would you describe the interactions between students with SEN and their peers without SEN when they participate in IGs and/or DLGs?” “Have these interactions between students changed over time?” “Have you observed an impact on students that could be related to such interactions?” Sample questions for students were: “How do you work in IGs and DLGs with your classmates?,” “When you or some of your classmates have some difficulties when participating in IGs or DLGs, what do you do?,” “Have you improved on something since you have taken part in IGs and DLGs?,” “And your classmates?,” “Can you give an example?”

Before data collection, school boards and individual participants were informed about the aims of the research. All participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that the data would be recorded anonymously. Informed consent was obtained from the participant teachers and community volunteers and from the parents or guardians of the minors. To ensure ethical integrity of the study, the research responded to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by UNESCO, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2000/C 364/01) regarding scientific and ethical procedures, the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ( ALLEA, 2017 ), the Ethics Review Procedure established by the European Commission (2013) for EU research, and the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. The study was fully approved by the Ethics Board of the Community of Researchers on Excellence for All (CREA).

Data Analysis

Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcriptions were subsequently revised to identify the excerpts that referred to interactions between students with and without SEN that could indicate an impact on students without SEN. A second reading was conducted to identify recurrent themes that emerged from the excerpts, and three main themes were identified that led to the inductive creation of the three categories of analysis: (1) impact on students’ attitudes, (2) impact on students’ social skills, and (3) impact on students’ academic learning and cognitive development (see Table 2 ). One researcher coded the excerpts according to the categories created; some excerpts were assigned to more than one category. Subsequently, a second researcher revised the coded excerpts, taking into account the definition of the categories. The second researcher agreed on the coding and proposed the assignment of some of the citations to additional categories. The final coding was agreed upon by both researchers.

Categories of analysis.

The results of our analysis allowed us to identify a series of impacts for students without SEN of sharing interactive learning environments with students with SEN. According to the categories of analysis, our findings show that participating together in learning activities, mediated by interaction and dialogue, allows students without SEN to: (1) build understanding and respectful attitudes toward diversity; (2) learn about social abilities related to facilitating others’ learning; and (3) enhance opportunities for academic learning and cognitive development as a result of engaging in learning together, exchanging questions and knowledge. As seen in Table 2 , the category with a higher number of quotes is (1) impact on students’ attitudes, with more than half of the quotes referring to such an impact, followed by (2) impact on students’ social skills, and finally by (3) impact on students’ academic learning and cognitive development.

Building Positive Attitudes Toward Diversity in Interactive Learning Environments Shared With Peers With Special Needs

Category 1 included evidence regarding the attitudes of students without SEN toward students with SEN when they learned together in IGs and/or DLGs. Participants in the three schools, including teachers, students and volunteers, provided evidence in this regard.

When students without SEN share interactive learning environments with students with SEN, they have unique opportunities to learn firsthand about diversity. They share their learning time and space with peers of the same age, who often need special attention because of their individual characteristics, which differ to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways from those of most students. This is a necessary first step to develop positive attitudes on diversity and educational and social inclusion, which cannot be completely achieved when education on respect for diversity, valuing its potential, and educational and social inclusion is not based on the daily experiences of sharing these learning opportunities with individuals with SEN, who have a face and a name. However, interactive learning environments allow students to share not only learning space and time, but also interactions and dialogue around shared learning activities (such as solving a math problem or sharing a personal reflection on an excerpt from a book), which create opportunities to learn about diversity and its value based on the personal experiences of those individuals with whom the activity is shared. In this way, students can learn about diversity with those children who have not only a name and a face but also a personality, preferences, and struggles.

Ana, a secondary education student without SEN who has a classmate with autism spectrum disorder, Jose, explained that getting to know him in the school allowed her to learn about diversity in a way that she could not have done before:

• Until I first entered this school last year, I had no idea what the communication and language classroom was, I had no idea that there were people with ASD who could be in schools like this, I was not aware at all of this. However, when I arrived in this school, they put me in the class with Jose, and when I saw him, I said “wow” and I don’t know, from that moment on, he transmitted something to me that made me feel that he was special and that I was going to help him in some way. In addition, as time went by, Jose turned my life around. (Student, school 3)

The interactive learning environment fostered in the classroom, where students learn in dialogue with others, is, according to teachers, what generates the opportunity to acknowledge diversity, while students learn that it is part of human diversity and normalize it:

• I believe that it favors inclusion, for sure, because they talk constantly, leaving the classic model of children sitting alone, individually. So yes, they are all integrated. As she said, they always look the same to each other; they do know that one has more difficulties in one thing or another, but they all treat each other equally. (Teachers’ focus group, school 1)

Teachers in the different schools reported a change in attitudes in their students without SEN, who in the interactive learning environments learned about difference, learned to accept it, and to be more respectful about it. Teachers referred, on the one hand, to children’s acknowledgement of individual differences in their peers’ learning process, which became evident as learning activities were shared among the class, either in small interactive groups or in dialogic literary gatherings with the entire class. Students understood that children could learn at different paces and that they can need different kinds of support or adapted materials, but this does not mean that they cannot share the experience of learning; as one teacher explained: “a dynamic of respect and understanding that not everyone does the same has been created” (Teacher, school 1). Importantly, being aware of these differences does not turn into a stigmatization of students with SEN; in contrast, knowing them allows their peers to learn more about their weaknesses, and to better understand their performance in class. The example of shared reading activities illustrates this impact on students’ attitudes:

• And the other students, for me this is important, they respect their reading rhythm, they respect it, they know that, depending on which children, they go slowly because they have difficulties, but nobody says so, because we all know that they have difficulties and that they go at their own pace and, if they read it slowly, they understand it well. (Teacher, school 1)

Special needs can be related to areas of curricular learning, but can also be expressed in other ways. Teachers’ experience shows that in interactive learning environments, children learn to be more understanding about other types of difficulties, such as behavioral problems that their classmates may exhibit. Although it may sometimes be annoying, they develop the understanding that these children do not have, at that moment, the ability to behave better and learn to accept it, while teachers work to improve children’s ability to control their behavior. This is the case of what this teacher explained:

• There are days when these children—I’m thinking of another one who hasn’t taken the medication—then, he comes in very nervous, he doesn’t stop making noises, he doesn’t shut up. Obviously, holding the gatherings in these conditions is very hard, but they are there, and the group already understand that this child acts this way because he has no other way to do it. Therefore, I think that they have all learned to accept the difference. (Teacher, school 1)

Overall, these episodes show the opportunities created for children without SEN to better understand children with SEN, to be more sensitive to others’ needs, and to be more empathetic. From the perspective of teachers, interactive learning environments such as DLGs entail the learning of values that facilitate the transformation of attitudes. These values emerge from the reading of classic works of literature, which is characteristic of a DLG, where topics such as love, friendship, truth, loyalty, and courage become part of the debate:

• In the gatherings many values arise, students work a lot on values and then have a more complete experience, and they share, and they make. They feel empathy for each other. (.) in the classroom it is very difficult for them to put themselves in the other’s place (.) but in the gatherings it isn’t, empathy does come out. (Teacher, school 1)

This learning of values and empathy is also related to the fact that in DLGs, children often link the episodes of reading to episodes about their own lives or other realities they know of. This is how children expressed this idea in their own way:

• Because when we give our opinion in the gatherings, sometimes he explains something of his life, and so when he says it, we know slightly more about him, and he says more and more things about his life, and so we get to know each other better and become [better] friends, because in this way we get to know each other much more easily. (Student, school 1)

In this process of knowing their classmates with SEN better as a result of sharing interactive learning environments, children also learn that each individual has different abilities, that all of them may need help at some point, and can help others as well, and that the best learning outcomes are obtained when they share these abilities and help each other. IGs facilitate this process, as in IGs all group members are expected to ensure that all other members understand the activity and complete it; therefore, everyone shares the knowledge and abilities they have and that can contribute to the group work. Teachers in one of the schools reflected on this idea, which also contributed to the change of perceptions and attitudes mentioned, as typically developing students realize that students with SEN have challenges but also have abilities: “In those moments they have truly helped each other. Then, they have realized that it is not always the same people who have to help, but they, who have a challenge, are good at it.” (Teachers’ focus group, school 1)

This acknowledgement of diversity (including difficulties, but also possibilities and diverse abilities), which is due to sharing interactive learning environments, facilitates overcoming prejudices. Students with SEN start to be seen not only as those with poor learning, that always struggle and usually need help, but also as students who are capable of learning and making progress, as one teacher noted:

• Academically brilliant boys and girls, who perhaps in third grade looked at these classmates and even knowing them since they were in preschool [3 or 4 years old] thought, “Well, this is clear, they don’t know anything,” have made a positive change because they see these children as classmates with the possibility of learning. (Teacher, school 1)

As shown in this quote from a teacher’s interview, it was not the fact of being educated in the same classroom with SEN students that shaped a realistic perception of their difficulties and capabilities (since both SEN and typically developing students had been educated together for years). Rather the opportunity to learn in interactions with SEN students allowed students without SEN to transform their perceptions and attitudes. Along the same lines, in view of Ana, sharing learning opportunities with her classmate Jose entailed learning that everyone has both difficulties and abilities, and that these can be overcome:

• Jose has taught me that many times people have barriers, because we all have barriers, whether it is at the time of learning, at the time of adults finding a job. Whatever, anything, but there is always a way to overcome them, always, and Jose has taught me many things. In fact, I think he has taught me more than I have taught him. (Student, school 3)

This involved shifting the focus from difficulties to possibilities and transforming learning expectations toward them. Importantly, the peer group learned that students with SEN were not only able to learn, but also contributed to the learning of others, which reinforces this change in expectations and the overcoming of prejudices. This might help typically developing students learn to value people not only based on their more evident characteristics—as may be the case with SEN in the school context—but also to pay attention to other traits (which are sometimes hidden) that can give a broader picture of a person and allow for identifying other enriching features. According to teachers, interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs permit this to happen:

• And from that moment on, I think, that’s when we all realized that children like Javi can participate by making very good contributions, and that girls like Laura don’t know everything. I think that this was a very important moment. (Teacher, school 1)

Further, this greater knowledge of peers with SEN and the development of respect for diversity has led in some cases to the blossoming of new friendships. Ana talked about her special relationship with Jose as something that makes going to school more meaningful for her: “And one of the reasons why I love coming to school is to have Jose’s smile there every morning (.) and it’s something I wouldn’t change for anything in the world” (Student, school 3). Blanca, a girl with SEN in the same secondary school, explained something similar in terms of when she thinks of her classmate and friend Jaume:

• Like Ana said, she is very happy with Jose. I am exactly the same with Jaume (.) I am very happy with him and I am happy to have him as a friend, and he is special and very important to me. (Student, school 3)

The building of these friendships not only has had an impact within the school, but has also transferred and expanded the benefits of interactions between students with and without disabilities to new contexts outside school premises and across time, as a teacher in that school explained:

• [His] friendship within the school [was] prolonged on weekends (.) He has come to meet [his] friends of the classroom to go out to dinner 1 day, to see a movie and that is very interesting (.) I think the fact of having worked in groups has facilitated doing things, not only in his group of six, because these groups have been changing more or less. (Teacher, school 3)

Learning Social Skills Related to Helping Others Participate and Learn

Category 2 included evidence regarding an impact on the social abilities of students without SEN as a result of learning together with students with SEN in IGs and/or DLGs. Participants in the three schools, including teachers, students and volunteers, offered evidence in this regard.

In addition to the transformation of thoughts, attitudes and the acknowledgment of others’ abilities and difficulties, engaging in learning interactions with peers with SEN helps to develop a series of social skills. Children acquire these skills because they are necessary to interact with their classmates in IGs and DLGs, specially with those with SEN. These interactive learning environments pose this demand, and these skills become part of the repertoire of abilities that children can use in multiple contexts and with diverse people. First, in interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs, children are expected to help each other; thus, children progressively get used to and develop this ability to support their peers, as well as receiving help when necessary. Both teachers and volunteers reflected on the way children learned about this ability through time: “Last year I did notice a change, yes (.) in the end they learn to collaborate, above all, to help each other, and that it goes well, and the work comes out, which is what we are looking for.” (Volunteer, school 2)

With the practice of helping each other in interactive and diverse learning environments, children come to see that collaboration among all helps everyone’s learning, as it allows for one to take advantage of the diverse abilities in the group; therefore, they become progressively more motivated and more proficient in this activity:

• Everyone has some skills; some have some skills for one thing and others have some skills and some abilities for another. After all, if there is a collaboration between all, it is where you have to reach an end, and they help each other to reach this end. (Teacher, school 2)

Once they acquire this ability, they use it to help anyone who needs it, including children with more learning difficulties; they normalize helping others and realize they can make a difference in the learning opportunities of the students with the most difficulties. Therefore, and as a volunteer explained, all students in her class were willing to help those who were more in need: “Yes, let’s say, the whole group was dedicated to helping them” (Volunteer, school 2). Consequently, when they share learning activities with students who especially struggle with learning, they find the opportunity to strengthen this ability to help. Blanca explained something similar when not just one, but three classmates went to help her with the activity:

• For example, in History, we also do [interactive] groups. We were doing a mapping exercise and (.) I got lost a little bit, then I asked my classmate sitting next to me to help me and so on, then she came to help me, then two more came to help me, and I was happy because I did not make myself clear, I got nervous, I did not know how to do it, then (.) they came to help me (.), and that is the best thing about being in a group. (Student, school 3)

Second, in this attempt to help their peers with SEN and facilitate their participation in interactive learning environments, they learn to adjust their interactions to the particular needs of each child. For instance, they learn to be patient and to give the necessary time when their peers have a slower learning pace, which is an evidence of the empathy developed:

• In the gatherings they have also learned to give time. For example, a girl I have in class has a hard time explaining herself, but in the end, she gets it out. Therefore, they have learned to be patient with her and not to stand up and let her talk. Then, in the end, they realize that she does, that she gets out, that she explains well. (Teacher, school 1)

In this regard, they learn to provide adjusted support, building on the abilities they acknowledge in these peers, and try to find alternative ways so that these children can participate in the activity. This entails a metacognitive effort when they try to understand what these children know and how they can help them participate in the activity and progress in their learning.

• The atmosphere in the classroom, when there is a group with a child with SEN, the others, as they live it in their daily life, apart from understanding the difficulty he has and stay on their level, they also look for ways in which he can participate and get involved in some way in the activity. (Teacher, school 1)

This effort to facilitate the learning and participation of children with SEN becomes part of the class routine. so as the teachers explained, it unites the group around this shared purpose and the group members become more sensitive to the needs of their peers. This is also achieved thanks to the guidance that teachers and volunteers provide in order to help typically developing students adjust the support they offer to their SEN peers, and also to encourage typically developing students to help their SEN peers while avoiding overprotection:

• In other words, their classmates, or at least what I experience from my class, they are very supportive and, as Maria said, they are very sensitive on this subject. In this case, I have two students [with SEN], and they take care of them, not too much, because they must be reminded to let them think, too. However, they do take them very much into account in regard to working in [interactive] groups. They try to make sure they can participate like everyone else. Of course, within their possibilities. (Teacher, school 1)

As a result, the situations created not only turn into a higher ability to help others, but also in the satisfaction of seeing others learn better due to their help, which reinforces this behavior. Teachers noted this impact on children: “They help each other and it is going very well; and they love it, it is something they like very much” (Teacher, school 2), as well as students themselves: “And, when you help him and you see that he understood it, you feel satisfied” (Student, school 2). “When I help Joan or even when Joan helps me more, I feel more fulfilled with myself, happier” (Student, school 3). Such rewarding experiences motivates them to continue participating in these activities and to help others, which benefits everyone’s learning.

Enhancing the Opportunities for Academic Learning and Cognitive Development

Category 3 included evidence regarding opportunities for the academic learning and cognitive development of students without SEN when they learned together with students with SEN in IGs and/or DLGs. Participants in school 1 and school 2, including teachers, students and volunteers, mentioned this type of impact.

Sharing learning activities with students with SEN in interactive learning environments triggers an additional cognitive effort for typically developing children when they try to explain themselves to their peers with SEN. It entails, on the one hand, putting oneself in the other’s shoes, trying to understand his/her difficulties and thinking of how to help him/her overcome these difficulties, thus gaining from the cognitive effort made and reinforcing their learning. On the other hand, it also entails discovering one’s own difficulties when trying to make oneself be understood and to do one’s best to achieve it. In this regard, such situations allow students who do not usually have learning challenges to experience them, and underscore the need to make an effort to achieve their objective, which contributes to being more empathetic and understanding of their peers with SEN and, sometimes, humbler regarding their own abilities, as one volunteer explained:

• They do this effort of trying to make them be understood by the other, and this is very interesting, as the know-it-all can see his/her own limitations with respect to the others. Therefore, it demands a much greater effort from oneself than usual. (Volunteer, school 2)

In addition, in interactive learning environments, students without SEN can learn from the explanations and contributions of children with SEN. IGs and DLGs are characterized by promoting a framework of open and egalitarian dialogue where all contributions are valued based on validity claims (i.e., the value of the contribution’s content, regardless of who made the contribution, and in this case, regardless of whether it is a student with or without SEN). Learning from students with SEN can occur both in IGs and in DLGs when these students have a good understanding of the concepts they are working on. As noted by one teacher, these episodes are opportunities for the entire group to learn:

• Children with many special difficulties, have been the ones who have given the clarification, the definition, the explanation for the rest of the group to understand, and this has created a situation, which is not seen, but it is noticed, of improvement for all. (Teacher, school 1)

In DLGs, it also occurs when children with SEN share the paragraph or idea they selected to bring to the gathering, or when they raise doubts about the meaning of particular words that other students had not paid attention to—although they might not understand it either—and this opens up a debate on the meaning of that word or on the ideas of that paragraph that may have not existed without the participation of these children. In the following quote from a teacher, we find first a reference to those situations when a child with SEN does not understand something and their peers explain it to him/her, provoking the additional cognitive effort of trying to make something be understood. Next, we find the reference to these other situations when children with SEN contribute to the group bringing their questions, doubts, and interventions to the gathering, opening a learning opportunity for all:

• If they do not understand it, their classmates explain the meaning to them. Then, when we do this rereading of the chapter or the pages, other vocabulary words often appear that, perhaps nobody had chosen or they do not know the meaning of, and then another debate starts about knowing what it means. Or someone raises their hand and says, “I had not chosen this because when I read it perhaps it did not catch my attention, but now when I reread the chapter, I want to comment on it,” and right after it is commented on. This is done both by children with SEN and by the rest of the class, regardless of their level of ability and everything else. A climate is created that is similar to magic. (Teacher, school 1)

According to the participants’ experiences, interactive learning environments shared between students with and without SEN create the opportunity for all to acknowledge that everyone has abilities and difficulties. Children with SEN can surprise others with their questions, responses, and contributions, generating new opportunities for learning, and everyone can learn that children without SEN do not always know everything. As one teacher explained based on her experience over the years, the fact that children with SEN share interactive learning environments with their peers without SEN has not only benefitted these SEN children, but also the dynamics of the classroom, as it is enriched with diversity, and therefore becomes a benefit for all:

• The fact that these children are in the group—and I can talk about it already for the past 4 years—has improved the dynamics of the gatherings. I think it has been beneficial for everyone, and I am sure it has, because they make interventions that even they themselves are often surprised to have made, and their peers have seen this. (Teacher, school 1)

Interactive groups and DLGs are interactive learning environments that have already been demonstrated to be inclusive and lead to positive academic and social impacts for students with SEN ( Duque et al., 2020 ). The study presented here is the first to analyze the potential impacts of IGs and DLGs on students without SEN when they share these interactive learning environments with students with SEN. The results of our study show that students without SEN can benefit from participating in interactive learning environments (such as IGs and DLGs) with peers with SEN in at least three different ways: (1) building positive attitudes as they learn to respect others, accept differences, and acknowledge different abilities, creating opportunities for new friendships; (2) enhancing their social skills, as they learn about abilities related to helping others participate and learn, to be patient, and gain satisfaction from helping others learn; and (3) producing opportunities to enhance academic learning and foster cognitive development, as they gain from the cognitive effort needed to explain themselves and from the contributions of peers with SEN from which they can learn. Importantly, we did not find negative impacts for students without SEN or for those with SEN as a result of sharing these interactive learning environments. In contrast, all impacts identified—either at the attitudinal, social, or cognitive level—were positive for both groups of students.

In the cases studied, children without SEN developed positive attitudes toward diversity in IGs and DLGs. This is in the line of previous research which found that inclusive educational environments are related to more positive attitudes toward diversity, and especially more positive attitudes among typically developing peers toward children with disabilities or other SEN ( Smith and Williams, 2001 ; Beckett, 2009 ). It is also consistent with research that found that solidarity can be learned in the school context and that it contributes to creating genuine attitudes of inclusion beyond the norms that benefit everyone ( Hernández Arteaga et al., 2020 ).

Additionally, we found that students without SEN had the opportunity to develop social skills when they learned together with students with SEN in IGs and DLGs. Identifying particular types of classroom arrangements and learning dynamics (such as IGs and DLGs) that help one to cultivate such attitudes and skills is important not only for students with SEN—who are more respected, accepted, and integrated in their group of peers—but also beneficial for students without SEN. Attitudes of understanding diverse identities; the values of justice, equality, dignity and respect; cognitive skills (including the ability to adopt a multiperspective approach); social skills (such as empathy and conflict resolution), communication skills and aptitudes for interacting with diverse people, and the capacity to act collaboratively and responsibly have been highlighted as key competences necessary in the 21st century ( UNESCO, 2014 ).

Moreover, we found a positive impact of the interactive learning environments created with IGs and DLGs on opportunities for the learning and cognitive development of children without SEN. This is in line with previous research comparing the learning outcomes of students without SEN, who are educated with students with SEN, and those who are not, which overall revealed no negative impacts on these students but, on the contrary, positive impacts or neutral in the worst cases ( Kalambouka et al., 2007 ; Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ; Szumski et al., 2017 ; Kefallinou et al., 2020 ).

These findings should be taken cautiously. On the one hand, because the study is based on a reduced sample, the conclusions cannot be generalized. On the other hand, because data were collected in schools that were already implementing IGs and DLGs, a pre-post intervention comparison cannot be made to ascertain the changes that occurred in students without SEN due to sharing IGs and DLGs with students with SEN. Finally, the qualitative nature of the data facilitates an understanding of the reality studied but does not allow for a precise assessment of the impacts on students without SEN. Subsequent research could expand the analysis to a broader sample and include an examination of quantitative data, especially of students’ academic progress, since the third category of analysis (impact on students’ academic learning and cognitive development) is the one for which we obtained the least evidence.

However, as the first study on this topic, this research enables an initial approximation based on the participants’ experiences, which is consistent with previous knowledge and can be the basis for further investigation. First, it is in line with the results of previous research on DLGs and IGs which shows their impact on improving students’ academic learning, a better understanding of others and positive coexistence ( García-Carrión, 2015 ; García-Carrión and Díez-Palomar, 2015 ; Garcia et al., 2018 ; Valero et al., 2018 ; Foncillas et al., 2020 ; Zubiri-Esnaola et al., 2020 ). Our study suggests that sharing IGs and DLGs with students with SEN creates new conditions in which these improvements can be promoted. Second, it is aligned with past research on inclusion, which has associated the benefits of inclusive education with classroom practices characterized by interaction, dialogue, and collaboration ( Kefallinou et al., 2020 ), all of which are characteristics of IGs and DLGs and could thus explain the benefits observed. Third, it is in line with theoretical contributions that refer to the relevant role of peer help and other forms of sharing learning interactions. When children try to explain learning content to their peers with SEN or try to help them solve a problem, they expand what Vygotsky called the zone of proximal development (1978) or what Bruner called scaffolding (1996). Both authors emphasized (stemming from the sociocultural theory of learning) the importance of interactions for children’s learning and argued that these interactions could emerge not only from adults but also from more capable peers. Interactions allow for the creation of shared learning ( Mercer and Littleton, 2007 ), and our data indicate that more capable peers can also benefit from these interactions and find opportunities to advance their learning and cognitive development. Indeed, research has suggested thinking of the zone of proximal development not in terms of knowledge transmission, but as an encounter of consciousness that mutually benefits the participants in the interaction ( Roth and Radford, 2010 ).

Although further research is necessary to have a more precise description of the impact of IGs and DLGs for students without SEN when they share these learning environments with students with SEN, the evidence presented can contribute to the understanding that inclusive education not only benefits the most vulnerable students (such as students with disabilities and other SENs), but can also benefit all students when interactions and dialogue are promoted in contexts of diversity. Therefore, it is the right of everyone—with or without SEN—to be educated in inclusive, interactive learning environments, as they produce unique conditions for the academic and human development of all students.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Board of the Community of Researchers on Excellence for All (CREA). Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

RF conceptualized the research. SM conducted the literature review, a preliminary analysis of the data, and a first draft of the manuscript. JM revised the data analysis. RF, AA, and JM revised the manuscript and provided feedback and corrections. SM revised the final version of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding. This study was funded by INTER-ACT: Interactive learning environments for the inclusion of students with and without disabilities: improving learning, development and relationships, The Spanish National Program for Research Aimed at the Challenges of Society, Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness. Reference Number: EDU2017-88666-R.

• ALLEA (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Available online at: https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf [accessed January 5, 2021] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckett A. E. (2009). Challenging disabling attitudes, building an inclusive society: considering the role of education in encouraging non-disabled children to develop positive attitudes towards disabled people. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 30 317–329. 10.1080/01425690902812596 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruner J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duque E., Gairal R., Molina S., Roca E. (2020). How psychology of education contributes to research with social impact on the education of students with special needs: the case of successful educational actions. Front. Psychol. 11 : 439 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission (2013). Ethics for Researchers. Facilitating Research Excellence in FP7. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89888/ethics-for-researchers_en.pdf [accessed January 5, 2021] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Villardón A., Álvarez P., Ugalde L., Tellado I. (2020). Fostering the social development of children with special educational needs or disabilities (send) through dialogue and interaction: a literature review. Soc. Sci. 9 : 97 . 10.3390/socsci9060097 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flecha R. (2000). Sharing Words: Theory and Practice of Dialogic Learning. Lanham, M.D: Rowman & Littlefield. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flecha R. (2015). Successful Educational Action for Inclusion and Social Cohesion in Europe. Berlin: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foncillas M., Santiago-Garabieta M., Tellado I. (2020). Análisis de las tertulias literarias dialógicas en educación primaria: un estudio de caso a través de las voces y dibujos argumentados del alumnado. Multidisciplinary J. Educ. Res. 10 205–225. 10.17583/remie.2020.5645 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia C., Gairal R., Munté A., Plaja T. (2018). Dialogic literary gatherings and out-of-home child care: creation of new meanings through classic literature. Child Fam. Soc. Work 23 62–70. 10.1111/cfs.12384 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Carrión R. (2015). What the dialogic literary gatherings did for me. Qualitative Inquiry 21 913–919. 10.1177/1077800415614305 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Carrión R., Díez-Palomar J. (2015). Learning communities: pathways for educational success and social transformation through interactive groups in mathematics. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 14 151–166. 10.1177/1474904115571793 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Carrión R., López, de Aguileta G., Padrós M., Ramis-Salas M. (2020). Implications for social impact of dialogic teaching and learning. Front. Psychol. 11 : 140 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gómez A., Padrós M., Ríos O., Mara L. C., Pukepuke T. (2019). Reaching social impact through communicative methodology. researching with rather than on vulnerable populations: the roma case. Front. Educ. 4 : 9 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Grütter J., Gasser L., Malti T. (2017). The role of cross-group friendship and emotions in adolescents’ attitudes towards inclusion. Res. Dev. Disabil. 62 137–147. 10.1016/j.ridd.2017.01.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernández Arteaga I., Fernández López K. M., Estela Vasquez A. C., Mestizo Nuzcue E. J. (2020). Educación y solidaridad: un camino hacia la inclusión educativa. Soc. Educ. History 9 227–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hienonen N., Lintuvuori M., Jahnukainen M., Hotulainen R., Vainikainen M. P. (2018). The effect of class composition on cross-curricular competences – Students with special educational needs in regular classes in lower secondary education. Learn. Instruction 58 80–87. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalambouka A., Farrell P., Dyson A., Kaplan I. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educ. Res. 49 365–382. 10.1080/00131880701717222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kefallinou A., Symeonidou S., Meijer C. J. W. (2020). Understanding the value of inclusive education and its implementation: a review of the literature. Prospects 49 135–152. 10.1007/s11125-020-09500-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurth J. A., Miller A. L., Toews S. G., Thompson J. R., Cortés M., Dahal M. H., et al. (2018). Inclusive education: perspectives on implementation and practice from international experts. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 56 471–485. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mercer N., Littleton K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking, a Socio-Cultural Approach. Milton Park: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Messiou K. (2017). Research in the field of inclusive education: time for a rethink? Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 21 146–159. 10.1080/13603116.2016.1223184 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oh-Young C., Filler J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 47 80–92. 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth W. M., Radford L. (2010). Re/thinking the zone of proximal development (Symmetrically). Mind Cult. Act. 17 299–307. 10.1080/10749031003775038 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruijs N. M., Peetsma T. T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educ. Res. Rev. 4 67–79. 10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith L. A., Williams J. M. (2001). Children’s understanding of the physicals cognitive and social consequences of impairments. Child Care Health Dev. 27 603–617. 10.1046/j.1365-2214.2001.00236.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smogorzewska J., Szumski G., Grygiel P. (2020). Theory of mind goes to school: does educational environment influence the development of theory of mind in middle childhood? PLoS One 15 : e0237524 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0237524 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Szumski G., Smogorzewska J., Karwowski M. (2017). Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: a meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 21 33–54. 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tafa E., Manolitsis G. (2003). Attitudes of Greek parents of typically developing kindergarten children towards inclusive education. Eur. J. Special Needs Educ. 18 155–171. 10.1080/0885625032000078952 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for action on special needs education: Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education, Access and Quality. Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2014). Global Citizenship Education. Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2017). A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Available online at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html [accessed January 5, 2021] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valero D., Redondo-Sama G., Elboj C. (2018). Interactive groups for immigrant students: a factor for success in the path of immigrant students. Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 22 787–802. 10.1080/13603116.2017.1408712 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Boston: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zubiri-Esnaola H., Vidu A., Rios-Gonzalez O., Morla-Folch T. (2020). Inclusivity, participation and collaboration: learning in interactive groups. Educ. Res. 62 162–180. 10.1080/00131881.2020.1755605 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

This paper reviews the field of classroom environment research by exploring four areas: historical perspectives, methodological issues, previous research, and current and future directions for research. The modern era of classroom environment research began with independent research agendas of Moos and Walberg in the USA in the 1960s and 1970s. It has been extended by a host of researchers, the most notable being Fraser in Australia. While the study of learning environments is now a firmly established international research field with its own Special Interest Group in the American Educational Research Association and international journal (Learning Environments Research), researchers have not lost sight of the implications of their research for policy and practice, especially in classrooms.

the field with which the scientist must deal is the "life space" of the individual. This life space consists of the person and the psychological environment as it exists for him. (Cartwright 1975, p. 11)

Students seem quite able to perceive and weigh stimuli and to render predictively valid judgments of the cohesiveness, democracy, goal direction, friction, and other psychological characteristics of the social environment of their classes. These molar judgments may mediate the multiplicity of molecular events of instruction and other classroom activities and properties. (Walberg 1976, p. 160)