Tag: environments

How Software Interoperability Enables Truly Flexible Learning Environments
Educational institutions are under increasing pressure to deliver adaptable learning experiences Yet many legacy systems weren’t built to work well enough together to support this.

When tools don’t communicate or assessments won’t transfer between platforms, each new integration feels like a problem waiting to happen. As hybrid learning, digital access, and new assessment formats become the new norm, this disjointedness can delay change, increase IT issues, and disrupt the learner experience.

Below, we uncover how solution interoperability solves these challenges, and how a standards-driven approach can help you build scalable, future-proof, flexible learning environments.

Key Takeaways
- Interoperability supports flexible learning environments across devices, platforms, and locations by ensuring all digital tools work together seamlessly.
- Open standards—such as LTI, PCI, and the QTI standard—ensure system compatibility and reduce vendor lock-in.
- Benefits of interoperability include scalability, reduced vendor dependency, consistency in user experience, and a future-proofed digital learning ecosystem.
- To adopt interoperability, institutions should choose tools that adhere to 1EdTech standards, minimize proprietary integrations, and continue to monitor and improve once systems are in place.
What Is Interoperability?

Interoperability is the ability of different systems, tools, and applications to work together and transfer data and content easily without custom fixes.

For example, in an educational context, this could mean that a test created on one tool can be delivered on another.

In short, interoperability allows your “digital ecosystem” to operate as a single, unified environment, rather than a mismatch of disconnected tools.

What Interoperability Means in Modern Education

When systems are interoperable, students and administrators can easily move between devices, platforms, and learning locations. In an increasingly hybrid educational context, this is necessary to future-proof education and learning.

Similarly, institutions can pick and choose the tools they use, streamlining interchangeability without worrying about tiresome technical issues. As a result, this also lowers the strain on IT departments, who can spend a lot of time maintaining and fixing custom integrations.

Overall, interoperability turns technology into an enabler of a high-quality, flexible learning environment by allowing users to enjoy a consistent experience, regardless of the device they’re using or their location.

How Open Standards Enable Flexible Learning Environments

Open standards are technical rules and specifications created by trusted organizations, such as 1EdTech, that help different tools work together and “speak the same language”—even if they’ve been developed by different companies.

Platforms designed around these standards are easier to integrate and evolve. This increases flexibility and ensures institutions can continue adopting new technologies without unnecessary disruption.

Open standards therefore play a key role in supporting the interoperability of educational systems. Let’s take a closer look at some important examples.

The QTI (Question and Test Interoperability) standard

The QTI standard is a universal, 1EdTech–certified format for creating, sharing, and delivering assessment content. It defines a common structure for questions, response types, scoring rules, metadata, and test layouts so that items can move smoothly between different authoring tools, assessment platforms, and learning systems.

By standardizing how questions are described and exchanged, QTI eliminates the need to recreate items for each new platform, thus preserving instructional intent, reducing duplication of effort, and lowering long-term maintenance costs.

Educators and assessment providers can author content once and deploy it anywhere that supports the standard. QTI also supports accessibility, multimedia, and advanced interaction types, ensuring that modern assessments can be delivered consistently and equitably across systems. As a result, QTI forms the backbone of interoperable digital assessment ecosystems.

Portable Custom Interaction (PCI)

The PCI standard makes it possible to create advanced, interactive questions for online assessments that work across different testing systems using the QTI and APIP (Accessible Portable Item Protocol) standards. PCIs are a type of Technology Enhanced Item (TEI) that move beyond traditional question types and offer a better way of assessing 21st-century skills.

Complex question formats—such as virtual labs, drawing or annotation tasks, or simulations —are supported and all assets and data can be easily transferred between standards-based platforms seamlessly.

Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI)

Learning Tools Interoperability refers to a standard “plug-in system” for educational technology. It connects tools to learning management system (LMS) platforms—such as Moodle or Canvas—securely and quickly.

LTI also allows students to move easily between systems, encouraging a smoother user experience and enabling new apps or tools to be added easily.

If LTI didn’t exist, each tool would need a custom-built integration, which could result in increased technical faults and glitches, causing more issues than it solves. As a result, LTI is ideal for institutions managing large technological ecosystems.

Mathematical Markup Language (MathML)

If written in plain text, complex mathematical symbols such as fractions and square roots can become corrupted when displayed on different devices or screen sizes. MathML is the solution, offering a standardized format for math notation that all platforms and systems can read and display correctly. Put simply: It’s the universal language of math for the internet.

OpenID Connect (OIDC)

OpenID Connect provides a “secure single sign-on” for all systems. This eliminates the need for multiple usernames and passwords, making sign-in easier and, in turn, saving both money and time that would otherwise be spent contacting help desks for password resets.

Security issues are also reduced, as OIDC supports multi-factor authentication—such as 2FA or biometric security—helping to safeguard sensitive data.

OneRoster

OneRoster is a 1EdTech standard designed to simplify how schools and districts exchange class rosters, course information, enrollment data, and grades between their various learning systems. Without a common data format, institutions often rely on manual uploads or custom integrations that are time-consuming and prone to errors.

By providing a consistent, secure way to share student and classroom information, OneRoster ensures that learning platforms, SISs (Student Information Systems), and assessment tools always have the correct data—automatically and in real time. This reduces administrative workload, minimizes data mismatches, and accelerates the setup of new digital tools.

Because OneRoster is vendor-neutral and widely adopted, institutions gain the flexibility to choose from a broad ecosystem of applications without worrying about whether those tools can “talk to” their existing systems. In this way, OneRoster strengthens interoperability and contributes directly to more streamlined digital learning environments.

Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT)

Computer Adaptive Testing is an assessment approach in which the difficulty of each question adjusts dynamically based on a student’s performance. To make CAT possible across different platforms, systems must be able to exchange item data, scoring logic, metadata, and test results reliably and consistently.

The 1EdTech Computer Adaptive Testing standard provides a way to streamline interoperability between adaptive testing engines, item banks, and assessment delivery platforms, effectively eliminating the need for proprietary development.

When these systems share a common language, adaptive testing becomes more scalable and cost-effective for institutions. Schools can mix and match content providers, analytics tools, and test delivery systems while maintaining a seamless experience for students and educators. This flexibility ultimately supports richer, more personalized assessment strategies aligned to modern learning needs.

Benefits of Interoperability for Educational Institutions

Here are some of the main advantages for educational institutions that adopt interoperability.

Multi-device and multi-context delivery

Interoperability supports remote, hybrid, and in-person learning across multiple devices, without duplicating content or manually tweaking systems. As a result, students can expect the same smooth learning experience whether they’re using a tablet at home or working on a computer in the classroom.

Streamlined access through SSO

When systems follow open standards, tools can be launched directly from platforms educators and students already know, such as their LMS, without extra passwords, unfamiliar portals, or confusing navigation.

Using standards like OpenID Connect (OIDC) and LTI, institutions can offer secure single sign-on, allowing test-takers to begin an exam with one click and administrators to manage access seamlessly. This reduces disruption, eliminates confusion, and minimizes support requests related to login issues, making the entire assessment experience smoother and more reliable.

Supports diverse learners and SEND requirements

When all tools and technologies work well together, learning is more consistent and adaptable. This is especially important for students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), who may rely on different devices or assistive technology more frequently. Interoperability ensures test-taker accommodations and accessibility settings “travel with them” across systems, reducing barriers to learning.

Less involuntary lock-in

Interoperability frees institutions from rigid, closed ecosystems, making it easier to adopt the right tools on their own terms. Because data and content can easily move between systems, there is less dependency on a single vendor and institutions are less vulnerable to price increases or limited feature sets.

Better scalability
As more students join, new tools are added, and programs inevitably grow, interoperable systems can scale with ease. There’s no need for costly custom integrations, and new apps can be added to existing workflows quickly and safely.

Future-proofed infrastructure

As technology advances, you might worry that your digital infrastructure may become outdated. However, interoperability ensures your systems remain compatible, even if new tools, formats, or devices emerge.

Less strain on IT departments

Without the need for custom integrations to make your educational systems mesh, tools are much less likely to break. In turn, IT departments can focus on the important, bigger-picture tasks rather than constant troubleshooting.

How Institutions Can Adopt Interoperability Successfully

To develop an interoperable technological landscape, institutions should adopt the following approach.

Choose platforms built to connect easily with others

Prioritize systems with a modern and demonstrable application programming interface (API) that aligns with industry-recognized open standards. These platforms are designed for flexibility, reducing the friction and cost often associated with integrating new tools into your existing stack.

Require proof of adherence to 1EdTech standards

Request that vendors supply proof of certification (e.g., LTI Advantage or the QTI standard) before adopting any new potential systems. This provides an independent guarantee that the tool is technically compliant and will operate reliably with your other standards-aligned systems.

Tools such as TAO—known for supporting QTI, PCI, LTI, OneRoster, MathML, and other open standards—show how a standards-first approach can make digital learning ecosystems more stable and adaptable.

Avoid custom and proprietary integrations

Steer clear of custom fixes—such as rewriting formatting rules or using local plugins—as these are high-risk, require ongoing patching, and are highly likely to break every time systems update.

Avoiding proprietary integrations—such as eBooks that only work on certain readers, or content libraries that only display inside a specific LMS—also helps reduce your reliance on a single vendor or its developers.

Educate staff

Interoperability is a cultural shift as much as a technical one. Thorough training and education for staff that focuses on why interoperability matters and how it supports adaptive and effective learning is key to ensuring successful compliance.

Test, monitor, and improve

Implement rigorous testing of tools in a sandbox environment before going fully live. Once systems have been launched, continue to monitor their integrity and effectiveness, using analytics to confirm that all tools are working together seamlessly and reliably.

By following these steps, you can build a strong, sustainable foundation for digital transformation.

Conclusion

Interoperability is fundamental in building flexible, modern, and future-proofed learning environments.

When institutions use interoperable systems, they lay the foundations for a stronger digital ecosystem—without being constrained by outdated systems. By choosing tools that prioritize and follow 1EdTech-aligned standards, institutions can reduce vendor dependence, lower long-term costs, and create seamless, enjoyable experiences for both students and teachers.

Learn more about interoperability assurances by reading our step-by-step guide, or find out more about TAO’s certification in open standards.

Get Started With an Interoperable Assessment Ecosystem

As a standards-driven open platform, TAO gives you the flexibility to streamline operations and develop a future-proofed digital learning strategy—all without being locked in.

Explore authoring tools that let you create rich, interactive items with ease, intuitive reporting features that turn assessment data into clear insights, and reliable delivery capabilities that support scalable testing across different devices and learning environments.

If you want to evolve your digital assessment ecosystem, schedule a demo with TAO today and see what true interoperability looks like in practice.

FAQs

What is interoperability, and why is it important?

Interoperability refers to different technology systems that can connect, share information, and work together easily without custom fixes. This makes tools easier to use, reduces technical problems, supports flexible learning across devices, and allows institutions to switch vendors without losing any content or data.

What are flexible learning environments?

Flexible learning environments are learning setups that allow students to learn anywhere, anytime, and on any device. This can include online, hybrid, self-paced, or on-the-go learning. Interoperability is a key component in providing this, as flexible learning environments work best when technology systems connect smoothly.

What is an example of learning tools interoperability?

A simple example of learning tools interoperability is connecting an external learning app—such as a quiz platform or digital textbook—to an LMS such as Canvas, Blackboard, or Moodle. For example, when a student uses a learning tool such as a quiz app via LTI, the score they earn in that tool is automatically sent back to the LMS and appears in the gradebook.
Source link
November 20, 2025
There Are No “Shy Students”, Only Poor Learning Environments – Faculty Focus
As we learn more about how to improve classrooms in higher education, the concept of the “shy student” is a recurring one that serves as a convenient shorthand for describing students who don’t speak up. As a result, some faculty members may be frustrated with students who are less vocal in group activities and conclude that it’s part of a student’s personality.

But what if the problem is not with the student but the classroom itself? Insights in educational sciences suggest that engagement in the classroom isn’t just about a student’s innate disposition. In fact, it’s more likely to be a result of poor instructional practices or a failure to understand differences in context or culture. We can create more equitable spaces that value a broader range of student voices by rethinking how we define engagement and redesigning our learning environments.

The Research on Participation and Personality

Popular writing on the topic of education styles sometimes reinforces the idea of a “shy student”. It’s common when referring to students who are more forthcoming with answers or discussion that we use the words “extroverted” or “introverted”. However, although these traits can sometimes be visible in the actions of students, research suggests that this isn’t in fact an obstacle for all students to participate in meaningful and mutually beneficial interactions. Traditional classroom settings have often rewarded more rapid and spontaneous verbal responses, but this can unintentionally privilege extroverted communication styles.

Susan Cain’s well-known work on introversion explains how, although some students seem reserved, their presence in the classroom can complement more outgoing students. This is particularly true when conversations between the two veer between the lighthearted and the serious. “Extroverts need to know that introverts…may be only too happy to be tugged along to a more lighthearted place,” Cain writes about the variety in classroom conversations, adding that quieter students “should know that they make it safe for others to get serious.”

Analyses in educational psychology suggest that classroom participation is less about innate personality and more about whether students feel psychologically safe and intellectually respected to speak out.

Research by scholars such as Mary-Ann Winkelmes on transparency in learning and teaching (known as the TILT framework) boosts students’ motivation by showing them the purpose behind their work. Students that understand the reason and method of a given task and connect it to their learning are more inclined to invest in it fully and participate more actively.

Similarly, the concept of “academic behavioral confidence” (or ABC), explored by researchers like Paul Sander suggests that confidence in higher education is malleable and responsive to classroom environments. Rather than assuming students are shy, we must ask whether we’ve fostered a learning environment in which students feel secure in sharing their thoughts.

The Role of the Classroom Environment

The design of a classroom plays a crucial role in shaping student participation. Lecture halls at traditional universities, with imposing tiered seating, can sometimes reinforce passivity. We all remember the time when lecturers would insist on the Socratic method and ask us questions point-blank as a means to illustrate knowledge! On the other hand, an active learning environment encourages dynamic learning spaces, smaller group discussions, and alternative forms of communication (through text or anonymous participation, for example).

The use of calling on students in the lecture room can inadvertently silence students who need more time to process. Inclusive teaching practices, such as think-pair-share, anonymous polling, or discussion boards, provide multiple modalities for students to contribute.

To this end, Cognitive Psychologist Stanislas Dehaene’s four pillars of learning—attention, active engagement, error feedback, and consolidation—can help articulate the design of a better higher education classroom. By fostering environments that capture students’ attention, be it through interactive or varied teaching methods, educators can cater to diverse learning styles.

Getting students to actively engage can be encouraged through collaborative activities or real-time responses. This ensures that all students participate and learn at their own pace. Providing immediate and constructive feedback on errors will additionally bolster students in their understanding of a topic.

Lastly, creating opportunities for consolidation, such as through spaced repetition or reflection sessions, allows all learners to reinforce and retain knowledge. This makes learning accessible and effective for everyone. Educators can scaffold this participation by providing low-risk entry points into discussion, validating diverse contributions, and offering constructive feedback that encourages further exploration.

Strategies for More Engaging Classrooms

Fostering participation among students who choose not to speak up requires careful planning and collaboration within higher education departments. As Head of Learning Innovation at Wooclap, here are several strategies that I’ve seen in action to help promote more engagement in the classroom:
1. Redefine Participation: Expand the definition of participation to include active listening, written reflections, online discussion posts, as well as creative endeavors. Make these forms of engagement visible and valued when grading a student.
1. Use Diverse Modalities: Offer students different ways to contribute. This can be done verbally, in writing, through technology, or in small groups. Digital Tools that allow for non-verbal or anonymous engagement can be leveraged to make quieter voices more audible.
1. Set Clear Expectations: Use transparent teaching methods to clarify what participation looks like and why it matters. Share examples and model respectful discourse to encourage more engaging discussions.
1. Create Psychological Safety: Cultivate an environment where students feel comfortable taking risks. This can include normalizing uncertainty, encouraging questions, and quickly intervening against microaggressions or dominance in discussions.
1. Solicit Feedback and Adapt: Regularly check in on students to see how classroom structures are working for them. Use anonymous surveys to gauge comfort levels and adjust practices accordingly.
Designing for All Voices

Higher education instructors shouldn’t be quick to judge students who are less vocal during class. In many cases, choosing not to speak up might be a rational response to a classroom design that is overbearing or limiting in its structure for more thoughtful and reflective judgment.

Designing great learning environments that adhere to the four pillars of education, as articulated by Stanislas Dehaene, can help educators support all students and not just those who are the quickest to speak. By doing so, we can shift the narrative away from having “shy students” to fixing the systems that fail to engage them. We can improve on these systems by reimagining participation, embracing diverse communication styles, and prioritizing inclusion in our pedagogy.

Arlène Botokro has a decade of experience at the crossroads of pedagogy and digital transformation, working internationally. She has played a pivotal role in shaping Wooclap’s impact in higher education since joining the company in 2020. As Senior Manager of Education Partnerships and Innovation Projects Lead, she built strategic collaborations with leading universities, ensuring Wooclap’s solutions align with research-driven best practices. Her international experience spans the U.S., France, and Ghana with projects across multiple countries, including previous roles at Sciences Po and consulting in innovation for the publishing sector. This diverse background has given her a deep understanding of how digital learning practices can be adapted across different educational and corporate environments. Arlène continues to expand her knowledge in neuroeducation through coursework at Harvard University, reinforcing her commitment to integrating cutting-edge research into EdTech solutions.

References

Susan Cain, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, (Penguin Books, 2012).
Source link
October 3, 2025
Creating learning environments that work for BTEC entrants to higher education

We know that past learning experiences directly correlate to progress and preparedness for higher education study. But are we to accept that the adverse relationship with outcomes for different students’ entry routes is driven by academic performance at university?

There is evidence that students who enter with vocational qualifications are more likely to drop out or get a lower degree classification because of poorer academic performance. This lack of progression is alarming, and initiatives steered to increase progression opportunities that support better overall performance remain both a challenge and a strategic priority for the university sector. HESA statistics for the 2021–22 academic year show the “dropout rate” for first year students with vocational qualifications continues to increase by one percentage point across the sector year on year.

Furthermore, there remains a consistent four percentage point awarding gap between those with vocational and those with traditional qualifications. Despite their higher dropout and non-progression rates, students progressing from vocational qualifications represent a significant growing pathway into HE and many who progress, go on to graduate with at least a 2.1.

A 2022 Nuffield report on the relationship between 16-19 subject, higher education choices and graduate outcomes found “…a weakening of the relationship between entry qualifications and outcomes once comparing individuals with similar module scores.” This implies that educators have a significant part to play in ensuring approaches to setting, measuring and enhancing performance are fair and equitable. Specifically, inclusive assessment design should be central to the educational experience, ensuring all students can fulfil their potential irrespective of their route to HE.

A very particular set of skills

Ongoing work on student engagement such as this 2023 framework for inclusive and effective student engagement from QAA, has demonstrated clear benefits from creating communities that build identity and belonging though adopting inclusive approaches, enhancing student engagement, motivation and progression. Applying these principles means recognising that students entering HE from vocational routes like BTECs possess unique skills.

Through their studies they have developed hands-on learning and real-world application, giving them practical skills directly relevant to their chosen field. Additionally, they engage in self-directed projects and coursework, fostering independence and time management skills essential for managing university workloads. Many vocational courses offer work placements, providing valuable career insights that foster a professional mind-set from day one. Unlike traditional A levels, BTECs are assessed through coursework and practical assessments, helping students develop strong research, critical writing, and project management skills.

All of the above combines with a wealth of lived experience – BTEC students often come from diverse educational backgrounds – which enhances these students’ adaptability and resilience. Furthermore, the emphasis on practical achievements and continuous assessment fosters a positive mindset and a sense of belonging and community. These skills provide vocational students with a solid foundation for success in HE. So what are we not getting right?

Like many other universities, we recognise each cohort is unique and a one size fits all approach may not have sustained impact. Learning, teaching, and assessment design should provide an equitable experience for all students regardless of prior learning experiences and route into HE. We have streamlined our approaches, drawing on evidence of what is “working” to enable us to embed efficient and effective approaches to being intentionally inclusive within assessment design.

Five ways to inclusion

It’s early days, but we are already seeing improvements in the number of students that are passing all modules first time from a variety of entry routes and through approaches that celebrate and embrace the unique skillsets of all students. Through five interconnected themes we are making steady and sustained progress through exploring inclusive assessment practices and reviewing the narrative of learning.

Supporting student confidence is foundational to academic success. We have found that developing shared assessment literacies can help students recognise their capabilities and potential. This can directly speak to the unique skillset that students bring from a range of diverse routes: for example, creating Hidden Curriculum Guides that unpack unfamiliar language and concepts, drawing from past experiences to socialises the unknown so that students can feel confident in their understanding and learning journey.

Embedding effective pedagogical approaches employs a blend of student-centred and humanistic methods to create dynamic and responsive learning environments. These approaches are tailored to meet the specific needs of students. Evidence-based approaches include empowering students to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application for life-wide learning and preparedness for the journey ahead. These examples not only integrate effective pedagogical approaches but support a range of skillsets, positioning the educational experience through empathy and compassion in developing supportive transition and orientation interventions and deepening the shared understanding of lived experiences.

Assessment diversity and timely feedback are crucial. Our commitment to inclusive assessment practices creates space where all students can demonstrate their knowledge and skills effectively. Through co-created integrated approach to inclusive assessment, we have produced a set of inclusive assessment and feedback principles: clear, understood, authentic, robust and personalised.

Creating a sense of belonging is vital for student engagement and retention. Inclusive classroom environments that celebrate diversity and foster community connections help students feel valued and supported. Harnessing the practice elements will bring a newfound confidence to the forefront of the learning experience. Flipping the classroom, so students have a more meaningful experience creates a sticky campus, and a strong sense of togetherness which particularly suit students that have entered HE via a vocational route. Initiatives such as peer mentoring and collaborative projects have been successful in creating a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere.

Recognising and valuing the diverse entry backgrounds of students not only enhances learning but also promotes equity and inclusion by drawing on the value of their individual learning experiences to enhance their learning journey. We identified the need for targeted support mechanisms that bolster student confidence during the transition to and through HE. Our emphasis on the importance of diverse pedagogical approaches, inclusive assessment practices, and feedback mechanisms provided solid foundations.

Learning from programme teams about what works to maximise real-world learning from current practice is essential to building trust. Our five-phase approach provides a scaffolding based on our unique learning journey. The challenge remains for us as a sector to address and share knowledge holistically, which draws from evidence-based practice with the aim of enhancing student outcomes. Working collegiately with the student body, this is both an urgent and important issue to address with the growing number of students joining universities from vocational routes. There is a government push to increase capacity for vocational routes in HE and so if universities are to stay relevant in this space, there is an urgency to find solutions, learning from programme leaders who are passionate and best placed to know students. Together and collaboratively, we can drive forward real intervention with sustained impact, it matters for student success.

For more about the authors’ work to create inclusive learning environments see the special editions of Innovative practice in higher education and Pedagogy collating evidence shared at our learning and teaching festivals in 2023 and 2024.

Source link

April 29, 2025
5 Strategies to Create Inclusive Learning Environments for International Students – Faculty Focus

The United States (U.S.) remains a top choice for international students pursuing higher education, with approximately six percent of the student population consisting of international students (Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange, 2024). This data underscores their integral role in higher education. One of the major challenges international students faces is adapting to a new educational system and culture while striving to integrate seamlessly into their new environment. Many international students bring deeply ingrained learning experiences from their home countries, which may differ significantly from those in the U.S. These differences profoundly shape their approach to education, influencing their self-esteem and academic success. This article explores these experiences, offering insights for educators on how to foster supportive and inclusive learning environments, particularly from an Asian perspective.

Personal Experience

I was an international student myself, so I can empathize with the challenges faced by the current generation of international students. While platforms like the internet and American media provide some understanding of American culture, nuances are often missed. I vividly recall the sense of isolation in the classrooms and at conferences, where engaging in conversations felt daunting. Introducing and joining conversations with others was challenging; the most I could do was to wave and acknowledge my presence. These experiences highlight the importance of creating environments where international students feel safe, supported, and included.

1. Cultural Perspectives on Authority

International students often approach interactions with educators with profound reverence, influenced by cultures that value authority and rules. This reverence may lead to reserved behavior in the classroom, hindering active participation. Rather than engaging in active discourse, they tend to listen attentively to their educators and accept their viewpoints unquestioningly, even if they conflict with their knowledge and understanding. This deference to authority may manifest as reticence, timidity, or reluctance to participate in class activities and discussions (Wan, 2021). For international students, this act of showing respect is vital, as they fear failure in the course if their communication style is perceived as disrespectful. Consequently, they do not advocate for themselves in academic settings and function best when following rules set by a person of authority.

To address this, educators can empower international students to express themselves more freely, by adopting strategies that foster a supportive and less intimidating learning environment. One approach is to adjust the tone of communication to be less stern or serious, creating a more welcoming atmosphere for dialogue. Additionally, providing alternative avenues for communication, such as writing on sticky notes or offering anonymous feedback options, can offer students a sense of safety and anonymity when expressing their thoughts. Furthermore, educators can encourage peer support by allowing students to bring a classmate along when seeking clarification or discussing concerns with educators. This approach can help alleviate feelings of intimidation and apprehension, as students may feel more comfortable and supported when engaging with professors alongside a peer. By acknowledging and accommodating cultural perspectives on authority, educators can promote inclusivity and empower international students to participate actively in their academic journey.

2. Adapting to Autonomy in the Classroom

Cultural backgrounds and language barriers contribute to international students’ hesitance to participate vocally in class. Students who come from educational backgrounds where autonomy in the classroom was not encouraged may struggle to adapt to the interactive and participatory learning environments often found in Western educational settings. Additionally, if English is not spoken as their first language, these students fear that their foreign accent may impede understanding. They quickly become sensitive to others’ evaluations and doubt their ability to communicate clearly, leading them to feel uncomfortable when speaking up in class (Hsu & Huang, 2017). Consequently, they may prefer to take on a passive observer role rather than participating actively. Moreover, international students may not perceive their personal views and experiences as significant, fearing that they may not align with the local context in the US.

Creating a safe space in the classroom for international students is crucial. These students must feel valued and have their dignity upheld. Educators must provide clear guidelines to foster participation, encouraging active engagement and the sharing of diverse perspectives. Turn-taking may not occur naturally for international students, so assigning specific roles to each group member to present their ideas can be effective. Appoint a leader who will ensure each group member’s voice is heard. Educators must also be cautious when addressing incorrect answers to prevent students from being discouraged from taking risks in responding in the future. A face-saving act plays an important role for international students when their answers are off- tangent.

3. Feedback and Revising

International students may not be familiar with the process of feedback and revising their work. These students have often been taught to get it right the first time and may not be accustomed to opportunities for revision. In some cases, they may not even receive feedback and might not understand what constructive feedback looks like.

Educators should familiarize students with feedback processes and create a supportive environment for revising work based on feedback. Help these students become accustomed to the various forms of feedback they may receive in your classroom. Emphasize that feedback is a way to help them improve their work and is not a personal attack.

4. Peer Support

International students often fear being judged by their educators if they ask questions that reveal their lack of understanding or knowledge. Additionally, there is a cultural perception among some international students that questioning authority, such as educators, may be viewed negatively. Therefore, seeking assistance from peers can feel less intimidating as peers may be perceived as more approachable and understanding of their struggles. Educators should view this reliance on peer support as a natural part of the adjustment process for international students. Allowing them time to acclimate to unfamiliar academic expectations and social dynamics will help them feel confident enough to engage directly with educators. Be accessible and supportive. Let the students know that you are approachable and happy to answer any questions no matter how simple or complex.

5. Creating a Sense of Belonging

International students often experience isolation in classrooms, making it crucial for educators to foster a sense of belonging. Cultural differences, such as the U.S. emphasis on independence versus the collectivistic nature of many Asian cultures, can make classroom interactions challenging. This unfamiliarity can lead to disengagement and alienation.

Despite appearing integrated, international students may struggle to form meaningful connections with American peers, leading to self-isolation. They often gravitate toward friends from their home country, limiting engagement in classroom discussions and peer support networks. This lack of engagement with local students can hinder their ability to form meaningful personal connections, access peer support, and fully participate in classroom discussions, all of which are essential for academic and social success.

Educators can help by designating peer mentors or teaching assistants to offer guidance. Assigning clear roles in group activities ensures inclusivity, while providing instructions and exemplars in advance helps international students prepare and participate more confidently. Allowing students to preview tasks before class gives them time to seek clarification, fostering comfort and engagement. These strategies create a more inclusive learning environment, enhancing both academic success and emotional well-being.

Conclusion

Creating a safe, supportive, and inclusive learning environment is essential for all students, including international students. Since international students may encounter cultural differences in their new learning environment, educators must implement culturally responsive support strategies. These strategies help foster an inclusive setting, enabling all students to succeed both academically and personally. By adopting these five inclusive practices in the classroom, educational experiences can be enriched for both international and domestic students, promoting a sense of belonging for everyone.

Thilagha Jagaiah is an Associate Professor of Special Education in the Education Department at the University of Hartford. She prepares pre-service teachers to develop essential teaching and assessment skills, equipping them to become highly effective licensed educators for PreK-12 students. Her research focuses on enhancing the teaching and learning of writing, with a specific emphasis on how sophisticated sentence structures can improve writing quality and how optimal trunk support can enhance engagement for students with trunk deficits in inclusive classrooms.

References

Hsu, C.-F. (Sandy), & Huang, I.-T. (Joyce). (2017). Are international students quiet in class? The influence of teacher confirmation on classroom apprehension and willingness to talk in class. Journal of International Students, 7(1), 38-52. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v7i1.244

International Students Enrollment Trends, 1948/49 – 2023/24. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.opendoorsdata.org

Wan, Y. W. (2021). Why are they so quiet? Exploring reticent and passive East Asian ESL students in the U.S. classroom. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 11, 942-954. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2021.116073

Source link

April 14, 2025
Possible futures for working environments

by Nic Kipar

This blog follows an earlier short review of the literature and is based on the author’s experience in a range of universities. It suggests how working environments might change in practice, with illustrations from the author’s own institution, the University of Glasgow.

Introduction

In thinking about working environments, the most effective approach is to ask individuals how they work best. This enables them to thrive in the environment most suited to themselves and the particular activity they are undertaking. More importantly, staff should be given the freedom to experiment with different settings, without others imposing judgments based on their own limited perspectives. This openness fosters a supportive and adaptable workplace, enabling everyone to find the spaces that best suit their work and wellbeing.

Embracing new thinking

Traditionally, we have not considered whether staff on our campuses are enjoying their work environments and are able to be their most creative and effective selves. This oversight stands in contrast with the University Value of Curiosity and Discovery: “Embracing new thinking and innovation in a spirit of open minded collaboration that positively impacts on ourselves, our University, our city, society and the world.”

In response, the University of Glasgow has recently begun incorporating a co-design element into its Workspace Futures Programme, starting with a ‘diagnose’ phase. Yet I still wonder: are we thinking boldly enough? Are we exploring possibilities that reach beyond our usual perspectives and assumptions?

Let me pose a provocation from my colleague Dr Nathalie Tasler (personal communication, November 2024):

Remember the Disney movie Aladdin? “Phenomenal cosmic powers… itty-bitty living space!” So how can our immensely talented and creative colleagues thrive when their environment is filled with “stop rules” (Runco, 2007)? In social psychology, stop rules are constraints—often invisible—that limit our thinking, stifle creativity, and shut down possibility thinking (Craft, 2005; Lin, 2020) before they even have a chance to take shape. When workplaces impose these restrictions, whether through rigid protocols, uninspiring spaces, or unspoken norms, how can we expect innovation and fresh ideas to flourish? What would it take to create a work environment where potential isn’t confined, but unleashed?Transforming everyone’s spaces

While we have been focused on transforming student study spaces and creating vibrant, open campuses that attract students and the public alike, we may be neglecting the needs of our own staff. The University of Edinburgh (Bayne, presentation in November 2024) uses the term “buzz” to describe the energy of a thriving campus, drawing inspiration from the University of Warwick’s public events, like World Cup screenings in collaboration with local businesses, that created memorable, widely shared experiences. Edinburgh’s themes of Belonging and buzz; Sanctuary and beauty; Sustainable connections; Mobility, flexibility and flow, and Openness, public co-creation and surfacing resonate with our work on student spaces, but have we fully explored the potential of spaces that could truly empower our staff work best depending on their known, or yet unknown preferences?

Understanding individual preferences in workspace design is challenging. Environmental needs are deeply personal, shaped by complex and unique factors. This makes it impossible to assume that one person’s ideal workspace will suit everyone. When we project our own preferences onto others, we risk introducing bias and overlooking or misjudging their needs. These hidden barriers are created by a world design with certain people in mind, leaving others feeling excluded. They make aspects of society accessible to some while shutting out others. These mismatches are the building blocks of exclusion, making people feel unwelcome or unable to fully participate (Holmes, 2018).

It is one thing to offer flexible options for staff to work from home or from a campus office. But we should also look closely at the campus itself, at how we treat these spaces and how they treat us. Typically, we arrive on campus, head into buildings and into offices or meeting rooms, and operate within closed-off spaces that might be limiting our ability to think creatively or envision the future. It makes me wonder: Are we missing something essential?

An office is an office is an office?

We expect our staff to innovate and imagine exciting futures, yet how can we foster that kind of thinking when we confine people to uninspiring spaces? A room does not need to have white walls or dull furniture to feel stifling; even a vibrant, biophilic space can feel restrictive if it is still just four walls. What if we reimagined our workplaces so that, rather than feeling like “just another day at the office”, staff actually felt genuinely inspired to be there?

At present, we do not offer staff the full range of spaces that might suit different types of work or support them in ways they find personally meaningful. Why is it, for example, that a staff member working in an on-campus café among students is often seen as “not really working”? Such assumptions are outdated, belonging to a pre-digital era. Why do we still insist that all staff need traditional offices, all the time?

Offices have their purpose, of course, but not all office types are effective for all needs. Open-plan offices with cubicles, for instance, combine the worst aspects of every workspace model. Various issues are associated with open office spaces featuring cubicles, which are often regarded as suboptimal work environments. Common problems include lack of privacy, increased noise levels, and the inability to control one’s environment, which can lead to diminished productivity, lower job satisfaction, and elevated stress levels. The systematic literature review by Colenberg et al (2021) finds a link between cramped cubicle setups in open spaces and decreased physical and mental health due to poor environmental control. I recall working in university offices in the early 1990s, when alternative approaches were simply unimaginable. Back then, an office with your name on the door was a status symbol and a sign of belonging. But why are we still behaving as though we are living in the 20th century?

Spaces designed to fit people, not making people fit

James McCune Smith Learning Hub (JMS) © UofG

If someone can concentrate deeply and produce creative, high-quality work in a bustling student study space like the James McCune Smith Learning Hub (JMS,) or in a moderately busy area like the Mazumdar-Shaw Advanced Research Centre (ARC) lobby, who are we to judge? For some, the energy of a café may be the perfect environment to spark ideas and focus, while others need absolute silence and solitude to work through complex problems. Some might prefer a quiet, shared workspace, finding comfort in the presence of others without the noise. Many benefit from working at home, or outside if weather permits, while others feel more motivated and inspired by coming onto campus.

Ultimately, as long as staff are accessible when needed and are delivering excellent work, there is no “right” way to structure a work environment. What works for one person may not work for another, and that is precisely the point: a truly supportive workplace recognises and respects individual preferences and needs. By allowing each person the freedom to choose the space that best supports their productivity and wellbeing, we create a culture that values flexibility and respects diversity in how we all work best.

Mazumdar-Shaw Advanced Research Centre (ARC) © UofG

Welcoming variation and diversity as agents for evolution

The psychologist Dr Lorna Champion (personal communication, November 2024) summarised this succinctly: “Evolution is based on variation. If a characteristic supports the survival then it is retained and handed on, because of difference, we evolve. If we don’t have variation then we stagnate.” It is time to embrace new thinking, to break from outdated models, and to create environments that truly support and inspire staff to thrive.

Nic Kipar leads the Academic and Digital Development team at the University of Glasgow. She played an instrumental role in the creation of the James McCune Smith Learning Hub, focusing on inclusive active learning. Nic co-leads the Enhancing Learning & Teaching Practice workstream, contributing to the university’s Learning & Teaching strategy and planning for the upcoming Keystone building, which will feature large interdisciplinary labs. Nic also chairs a working group on Pedagogy in Superlabs, pioneering these innovative spaces for the university.

Like this:

Like Loading…

Categories: Higher Education | Tags: activity-based workspaces, creative spaces, learning spaces, Office, university environment, working environment, workspace | Permalink.

Author: SRHE News Blog

An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

Source link

November 15, 2024
Working environments: a short overview of the literature

by Nic Kipar

We rarely consider whether staff on our campuses are enjoying their work environments and are able to be their most creative and effective selves. We should ask individuals how they work best, to enable them to thrive. Staff should be given the freedom to experiment with different settings, without others imposing judgments based on their own limited perspectives. Here in the first of two blogs Nic Kipar reviews what we know from research about working environments; the second blog will look at what this might mean in practice.

Control over the workspace

A growing body of research underscores the significant role that control over the physical workspace plays in employee wellbeing, productivity, and job satisfaction. Studies consistently show that providing employees with autonomy over their work environment – such as control over lighting, workspace flexibility, and layout adjustments – can reduce stress and improve mental health (Colenberg et al, 2021). This sense of control fosters a positive psychological environment, as evidenced in both Swedish and Dutch Masters and PhD research. For example, Ghaemi Flores (2023) found that agile and activity-based workspaces, which allow for greater personal control, are rated more favourably by employees. Similarly, van der Vleuten-Chraibi (2019) observed that control over light levels even in shared spaces enhances workspace satisfaction and productivity.

Despite these benefits, the hierarchical tradition in workspace allocation—where higher-ranking employees receive designated offices—remains a barrier to the adoption of more flexible environments. Ghaemi Flores (2023, p44) notes that overcoming this cultural resistance is crucial for a successful transition to activity-based work settings.

Research also challenges the assumption that open-plan offices facilitate collaboration. Instead, these layouts often lead to increased distractions and reduced personal control, negatively impacting both productivity and employee wellbeing (Bernstein and Turban, 2018). Open-plan designs, especially cubicles, have been shown to disrupt natural collaboration, as employees may withdraw to avoid noise and distractions.

This body of research collectively suggests that providing employees with control over their workspace fosters a healthier, more satisfying work environment, positively affecting both personal and organisational outcomes.

Wellbeing and working environments

The psychological dimension of workspace design is essential to employee wellbeing and productivity. Ruohomäki et al (2015) identify key factors, such as privacy, personal space, and control over tasks and schedules, as critical for reducing distractions and supporting mental focus. Research by Danielsson and Bodin (2008) further supports the idea that private and agile office environments contribute to better emotional health, largely due to the sense of control they afford employees. Lee and Brand (2005) also proposed that offering more flexibility and control over workspaces could lead to significant benefits for occupants. This is consistent with findings by Laughton and Thatcher (2019, p837) that shared offices and agile spaces promote psychological wellbeing more effectively than reservable spaces or open-plan offices.

Morrison and Macky (2017) applied the established Job Demands-Resources model to explore the demands of shared work environments and hot-desking arrangements and found that open offices increase cognitive demands on employees, leading to higher job dissatisfaction. Similarly, Cvijanovic (2019) found that customised workspaces are linked to higher job satisfaction and lower stress, although they do not necessarily enhance productivity. High social density within a workspace has also been shown to reduce perceived control (MacMillan, 2012). The study by Cobaleda Cordero et al (2019) of wellbeing related to working spaces also supports these findings.

The role of greenspace in workplace wellbeing

Access to greenspace within the workplace has been shown to positively affect employee wellbeing. Research by Bratman et al (2015) and Berman et al (2008) showed that walking in nature or even viewing pictures of nature can improve directed attention and cognition, the latter supporting the theory of Attention Restoration. (Attention Restoration Theory, developed by psychologists Stephen Kaplan and Rachel Kaplan in the late 1980s, proposes that exposure to natural environments can help restore mental focus and relieve “attention fatigue.” This fatigue arises when we rely on directed, or focused, attention for extended periods.) Gilchrist et al (2015) went further by finding that time spent in workplace greenspace, as well as views of natural elements like trees and flowering plants, significantly boosted wellbeing. Interestingly, the mere presence of these natural elements, rather than subjective satisfaction with the view, appears to be sufficient to yield benefits.

A systematic review by Ricciardi et al (2022) suggests that greenspace exposure may benefit cognition, according to recent advances in environmental psychology. The review included six longitudinal and 19 cross-sectional studies focusing on schoolchildren, adults, and the elderly. Most studies used the Landsat Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, which is a widely used measure of live green vegetation on Earth, calculated from satellite images, to measure greenspace exposure and examined outcomes such as academic achievement, global cognition, attention/executive functions, and memory. Although findings are inconsistent, they indicate a potential cognitive benefit from exposure to greenspace.

Activity-based workspaces

Activity-Based Workspaces (ABWs) are designed to offer flexibility by providing different spaces tailored to specific tasks, encouraging employees to choose environments that support their current work needs. Originally introduced to stimulate creativity in IT start-ups, ABWs are intended to facilitate both collaborative and focused work. However, Haapakangas et al (2023) found that the use of ABWs varies widely among employees, influenced by factors such as age, job role, and ergonomic satisfaction. High cognitive demands and collaborative tasks were associated with more active workspace switching, while distractions in ABWs led to frustration and a decrease in perceived environment fit. Haapakangas et al (2018) noticed that difficulties in locating available workspaces led to frustration and perceptions of time loss and recommend implementing real-time information systems to help employees locate suitable workspaces and accessible quiet zones to address privacy needs.

Clearly, there will always be a need for quiet working spaces, which also highlights the benefits of flexible working that includes home office work (should the individual wish to do so and has a quiet home office working space, which may not be possible for everyone).

The value of silence, and the value of controlled noise

Silence in the workplace offers numerous benefits, such as enhancing wellbeing, productivity, emotional regulation, and focus for all employees, but particularly for neurodiverse employees or those sensitive to noise. Quiet spaces reduce sensory overload and support productivity, especially for individuals on the autism spectrum or those with sensory processing disorders (Asselineau et al, 2024, Cox et al, 2024, Szulc, 2024). Open-plan offices, however, often contribute to decreased wellbeing due to limited privacy and excessive noise (Delle Macchie et al, 2018, Laughton, 2017).

Interestingly, silence can have the opposite effect on some, with controlled noise being beneficial for some individuals and tasks. Research on ADHD (Sikström and Söderlund, 2007; Söderlund et al, 2007; Söderlund et al, 2010) suggests that moderate background noise may enhance focus by helping the brain filter distractions. ADHD is linked to unusual functioning of the brain’s dopamine system, a neurotransmitter crucial for motivation, attention, and learning. Under typical conditions, stable dopamine levels allow the brain to regulate its responses to new stimuli, “dampening” reactions to prevent overstimulation. However, in individuals with ADHD, dopamine levels are lower than average, which causes the brain to overreact to external stimuli, leading to heightened sensitivity and difficulty filtering out distractions. In environments with moderate stimulation (like gentle noise or activity), people with ADHD can often focus well. This phenomenon, known as “stochastic resonance”, suggests that a moderate level of noise can improve cognitive performance by making it easier to distinguish important signals. Though it may seem counterintuitive, the right amount of noise can push a weak signal over a “detection threshold,” allowing it to stand out more clearly.

Stochastic resonance, observed across systems from biological networks to electronics, demonstrates how controlled noise can sometimes enhance performance. In the brain, this effect helps neurons respond more effectively to subtle stimuli. For individuals with ADHD, who typically have lower dopamine levels, computational models suggest that a slightly higher level of background noise may be needed to achieve this beneficial effect, enabling the brain to filter out distractions. However, both extremes – very quiet (low stimulation) or highly chaotic (high stimulation) environments – can impair focus. Empirical evidence supports this theory, indicating that tailored environmental adjustments, such as specific levels of background noise, can help individuals with ADHD better manage distractions and maintain concentration.

Studies by Vostal et al (2013) also highlight the need for adjustable acoustic environments for those with ADHD, as a controlled level of noise or visual simplicity can improve task engagement. In classrooms, Batho et al (2020) found that quiet zones or low-level background noise are beneficial, depending on the cognitive task – findings that may be relevant to workplace design as well.

It is not only the noise or activity in an environment that can be beneficial; the environment itself plays a crucial role. Kat Holmes notes that “the objects and people around us influence our ability to participate” (Holmes et al, 2018, p2). Certain settings can create a sense of belonging, such as the feeling of being part of a learning community in student study spaces, which can enhance concentration and productivity. Humans are inherently social beings, shaped by evolution to thrive in environments that support connection – provided there are also sufficient opportunities for solitude and silence when needed.

Summary

This short literature review underscores the importance of control, flexibility, and environmental sensitivity in workplace design. The research suggests that workplaces need to cater to individual preferences and diverse needs to create supportive and inclusive environments that foster both personal and organisational success. No preference is better or worse, it all depends on the individual and what works best for them.

Nic Kipar leads the Academic and Digital Development team at the University of Glasgow. She played an instrumental role in the creation of the James McCune Smith Learning Hub, focusing on inclusive active learning. Nic co-leads the Enhancing Learning & Teaching Practice workstream, contributing to the university’s Learning & Teaching strategy and planning for the upcoming Keystone building, which will feature large interdisciplinary labs. Nic also chairs a working group on Pedagogy in Superlabs, pioneering these innovative spaces for the university.

References

Asselineau, A, Grolleau, G and Mzoughi, N (2024) ‘Quiet environments and the intentional practice of silence: Toward a new perspective in the analysis of silence in organizations’ Industrial and organizational psychology, 17(3), pp 326-340

Batho, LP, Martinussen, R and Wiener, J (2020) ‘The Effects of Different Types of Environmental Noise on Academic Performance and Perceived Task Difficulty in Adolescents With ADHD’ Journal of attention disorders, 24(8), pp 1181-1191

Bayne, S (2024) Future of learning spaces University of Edinburgh: Learning & Teaching Design workshop, 28.10.2024

Bayne, S, Wood, H-R, Simmonds, R, Drysdale, T, Murray, E, Lamb, J, Christie, B. and Nicol, . (2024) Futures For Our Teaching Spaces: principles and visions for connecting space to curriculum Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh

Berman, MG, Jonides, J and Kaplan, S (2008) ‘The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting With Nature’ Psychological Science, 19(12), pp 1207-1212

Bernstein, ES and Turban, S (2018) ‘The impact of the ‘open’ workspace on human collaboration’ Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological sciences, 373(1753), pp 1-8

Bratman, GN, Daily, GC, Levy, BJ and Gross, JJ (2015) ‘The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, pp 41-50

Champion, L. (2024) RE: Evolution is based on variation. Personal communication to Kipar, N., 05.11.2024

Cobaleda Cordero, A, Babapour, M and Karlsson, M (2019) ‘Feel well and do well at work: A post-relocation study on the relationships between employee wellbeing and office landscape’ Journal of corporate real estate, 22(2), pp 113-137

Colenberg, S, Jylhä, T and Arkesteijn, M (2021) ‘The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being – a literature review’ Building research and information: the international journal of research, development and demonstration, 49(3), pp 352-366

Cox, CB, Krome, LR and Pool, GJ (2024) ‘Breaking the sound barrier: Quiet spaces may also foster inclusivity for the neurodiverse community’ Industrial and organizational psychology, 17(3), pp 350-352

Craft, A (2005) Creativity in schools: tensions and dilemmas London/New York: RoutledgeFalmer

Cvijanovic, M (2019) The relationship between workspace and office placement and workforce productivity and wellbeing Doctor of Philosophy, Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Danielsson, CB and Bodin, L (2008) ‘Office Type in Relation to Health, Well-Being, and Job Satisfaction Among Employees’ Environment and behavior, 40(5), pp 636-668

Delle Macchie, S, Secchi, S and Cellai, G (2018) ‘Acoustic Issues in Open Plan Offices: A Typological Analysis’ Buildings (Basel), 8(11)

Ghaemi Flores, S (2023) From cubicles to collaboration: A study on the transformation of government office spaces driven by cost-efficiency, digitilization, and modernization Master of Science, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

Gilchrist, K, Brown, C and Montarzino, A (2015) ‘Workplace settings and wellbeing: Greenspace use and views contribute to employee wellbeing at peri-urban business sites’ Landscape and urban planning, 138, pp. 32-40

Haapakangas, A, Hallman, DM, Mathiassen, SE and Jahncke, H (2018) ‘Self-rated productivity and employee well-being in activity-based offices: The role of environmental perceptions and workspace use’ Building and environment, 145, pp 115-124

Haapakangas, A, Sirola, P and Ruohomäki, V (2023) ‘Understanding user behaviour in activity-based offices’ Ergonomics, 66(4), pp 419-431

Holmes, K (2018) Mismatch: how inclusion shapes design Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press

Laughton, K-A (2017) The Effects of Workspace Office Layout on Aspects of Employee Wellbeing MA, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

Laughton, K-A and Thatcher, A ‘Health and Wellbeing in Modern Office Layouts: The Case of Agile Workspaces in Green Buildings’ Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018), Florence, Italy: Springer International Publishing, pp 831-840

Lee, SY and Brand, JL (2005) ‘Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes’ Journal of environmental psychology, 25(3), pp 323-333

Lin, Y-S (2020) ‘Possibility Thinking’ The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp 1-9

Morrison, RL and Macky, KA (2017) ‘The demands and resources arising from shared office spaces’ Applied ergonomics, 60, pp 103-115

Ricciardi, E, Spano, G, Lopez, A, Tinella, L, Clemente, C, Elia, G, Dadvand, P, Sanesi, G, Bosco, A and Caffò, AO (2022) ‘Long-Term Exposure to Greenspace and Cognitive Function during the Lifespan: A Systematic Review’ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18)

Runco, MA (2007) Creativity: theories and themes: research, development, and practice Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier Academic Press

Ruohomäki, V, Lahtinen, M and Reijula, K (2015) ‘Salutogenic and user-centred approach for workplace design’ Intelligent Buildings International, 7(4), pp 184-197

Sikström, S and Söderlund, G (2007) ‘Stimulus-Dependent Dopamine Release in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder’ Psychological Review, 114(4), pp 1047-1075

Söderlund, G, Sikström, S and Smart, A (2007) ‘Listen to the noise: noise is beneficial for cognitive performance in ADHD’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(8), pp 840-847

Söderlund, GBW, Sikström, S, Loftesnes, JM and Sonuga-Barke, EJ (2010) ‘The effects of background white noise on memory performance in inattentive school children’ Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6(1)

Szulc, JM (2024) ‘Embracing silence: Creating inclusive spaces for autistic employees’ Industrial and organizational psychology, 17(3), pp 357-359

Tasler, N (2024) RE: Aladdin Personal communication to Kipar, N 05.11.2024

van der Vleuten-Chraibi, S (2019) Lighting in multi-user office environments: improving employee wellbeing through personal control PhD, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven

Vostal, BR, Lee, DL and Miller, F (2013) ‘Effects of Environmental Stimulation on Students Demonstrating Behaviors Related to Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Review of the Literature’ International Journal of Special Education, 28(3), pp 32-43

Like this:

Like Loading…

Categories: Higher Education | Tags: academic work and physical environment, activity-based workspaces, creative activity, greenspace, learning environments, noise, university environment, well-being, working environment, workspace | Permalink.

Author: SRHE News Blog

An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

Source link

November 12, 2024

blog.college-counseling.com

blog.college-counseling.com

Blog
About
Contact us

Remove Me From Your Mailing List
CCPA Privacy Rights Request Form
Do Not Share or Sell My Personal Information
Privacy Policy

Signup

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Email

Email Password

Password