Role of learning spaces in learning languages

This article presents a Iiteratme review of selected studies devoted to the research of the features of learning spaces and their impact on the development of language competencies of teachers and students. The presented review is a part of a comprehensive project to develop a conceptual framework and conduct empirical research based on “English Only Space" (EOS) - an innovative learning space implemented at Atyrau State University.

When designing EOS. the author used an approach that defines, under the learning space, or. according to the OECD Concept (2013), the physical environment of learning, “physical spaces (including formal and non-formal) in which teachers and students interact, content (content), equipment and technology.” Practical decisions in designing this learning space were based on a detailed analysis of the latest publications from different disciplines, comparing various authors’ views and determining new trends in a number of fields such as philology, applied linguistics, pedagogy. psychology, and ecology. Such approach allowed achieving conditions when language teaching and learning turns into an instrument of interdisciplinary cognition, and the physical environment provides affordances formanaging resources efficiently in order to achieve maximum learning outcome.

At the same time, die present literature review served as a driver for an active start for further practice-oriented research in EOS based on two assumptions: the need to search and develop unique ways of learning English, exploring a wide range of influencing (environmental) factors; the fulfillment of the main purpose of the space if it promotes and supports experiences that promote learning and the achievement of learning outcomes.

Introduction

“We have 2I^st-Century students.

20^th-century teaching practices and 19'^h-century learning spaces. " Unknown

Why this topic?

The present paper is an attempt to review the research and literature related to the impact of learning spaces on teaching and learning English from the conceptual, theoretical and empirical perspectives.

On the global scale, the need for such review can be justified by two reasons. The first one is an increasing demand for learning English in the majority of the developing countries. The rise is driven by the decisive dominant role of English as the primary language for international communication in the world. (Canagarajah. 2014; Smith. 2015) Stakeholders on institutional and individual levels, such as governments, higher education institutions, secondary schools, and different language learning centers, as well as administrators, teachers, parents and above all, students, demonstrate a genuine interest in the most efficient, affordable and accelerated ways for improving teaching practices and learning outcomes in language learning. Such quest across the globe fosters a high number of both theoretical and applied research on the factors affecting teaching and learning English (Islam, 2017; Mirhadizadeh, 2016; Willy A. Renandya, 2013; Yurtscven, Alci, & Karata§, 2014).

The second reason for choosing the indicated topic is related to the changing paradigms in many aspects of higher education; whether it be the format of delivery, new technological shifts, design thinking approaches to planning and management or the learning environments and physical spaces that post-secondary institutions operate in and provide for their stakeholders. The author has observed from her personal experience, the increase in the number of universities that start including the redesigning of learning spaces into their strategic development plans and establish specialized Stmctures for those purposes. It resonates with the perception of learning space as "a fundamentally important mediator of human learning, and that it is produced socially within institutions in contingent, contextualized ways'’ expressed by Brett Bligh in his chapter "Wiry we need to talk about learning spaces" written for the latest ‘A Case Studies Series on Future Learning Spaces' (2019). Therefore the review at the intersection of two domains, learning spaces in higher education and learning English seem to be strategically and practically usefid for researchers as well as practitioners in higher education.

On the individual scale, the need for such review is triggered by the failure of the author to place the English Only Space' (EOS) project, developed and implemented by her in the Atyrau State University in western Kazakhstan, into the existing scholarship domain of learning spaces. The EOS is the ample space comprising fourteen open micro studios united by the study abroad theme that aims at preparing learners for real-life situations. Each studio represents a logical step on the path that one who travels abroad for educational purposes would usually follow from the customs control in the airport to the most probable daily life settings in a new country, such as hotel, university, library, bank, hospital, cinema, shops, police department, and coffee shop. The core assumption underlying the EOS project was that such physical space on campus would facilitate and accelerate the transfer of learning.

Thus, the personal reason for the review is an urge to explore theoretical and conceptual premises for locating the EOS as a space for teaching and learning English in the mainstream, scholarship on learning spaces and finding the right niche, through the thorough analyses of the past research accomplishments in the field of learning spaces and its variations, i.e. formal and informal, traditional and new, physical and virtual, and others.

Stimulated by the abovementioned needs and reasons, the author attempts to deliver a literature review that would contribute to the understanding of learning spaces as related to learning languages, in particular, English.

The background and aim

The Glossary of Education Reform indicates the physical space as a part of the definition of what ‘a learning environment' refers to (Partnership, 2013). This definition would allow us to trace the theoretical premises of a learning space back to the first half of the 20^th century. Particularly in the 1930s, the learning environment theory emerged with the study by Kurt Lewin, who challenged the common understanding, widespread among the contemporary theorists of that period, about the behaviour of people being shaped only by their previous experience. Lewin developed the field theory arguing that it was the environment and its interaction with an individual's characteristics that determined human behaviour. Meanwhile, in his book, he also elaborated on the concept of ‘a life space’ but related to a person's environment that would not encompass any physical setting. (Lewin, 2013)

One of the very first theoretical studies of space that introduced the concept of space in the social context and fostered the development of the space-related discourse was done by the French sociologist, Henri Lefebvre in 1970s. In his prominent work The Production of Space, first published in 1974 and later translated into English in 1991, he argued that space was a value-driven complex social construction that shaped space-related perceptions and experiences. He shifted the research from space itself to processes that were involved in the production of space. (Lefebvre. 1991).

The Lefebvre's work appeared in the period between the 1950s and 1970s when the mainstream scholarship in architecture and design was inspired by the trend of integrating psychology to understand how physical environments shape the way people behave. It would have led to establishing a new interdisciplinary area of scholarship, i.e. Environmental Psychology. (Painter. Fournier, & Grape. 2013)

In its turn. Environmental Psychology led to the new academic field of Social Ecology that fostered a new stream of academic scholarship and explored the interdependence of people and the environment. Both had impact on the studies in the later periods around 1980s and 1990s. which also examined physical environments mainly from the social and ecological perspectives, though with lesser optimism than in the previous decade, but with a few occasional papers limited to exploration of the meaning, planning and design of physical spaces for educational purposes.

One of the earliest and rarest scholarly works in this field that explored academic environments were the studies by Rudolf Moos (1974, 1979). His major work on Evaluating Educational Environments explored the level of environmental influences on stability and change in the behaviour and attitude of students in a post-secondary context. It inspired similar studies in primary and secondary education, for instance, a study by Herbert Walberg (1991), as reported by Zandvlict. The latter underlined that "the work of both Walberg and Moos launched the field of learning environment research and provided a conceptual foundation for what is being researched today” (Zandvliet, 2014) Nevertheless, physical spaces were not put into focus in the abovementioned studies.

Thus, the quick overview of research and literature in retrospect revealed that study of spaces in educational contexts was predominantly the part of the mainstream scholarship on learning environments, sometimes being used interchangeably with the latter.

During the first two decades of the 21^st century, however, plenty of works have emerged and contributed profoundly to our understanding of learning spaces. Analyses of three substantial reports on literature related to learnings spaces ( Temple. 2007; Blackmore, 2011; Hanover Research Report, 2017) and the most cited articles demonstrate that learning spaces are studied from the multiple perspectives such as design and planning, curriculum and learning activities, teaching and learning, technology, evaluation as well as the different levels of contemporary education, i.e. primary, Secondan^r and post-secondary (Blackmore et al., 2011; Boys, 2011; Byers et al., 2014; Ellis & Goodyear, 2016; Granito & Santana, 2013; Oblinger, 2006; Painter et al.. 2013; Temple, 2007, 2008).

Meanwhile, in connection with what term Teaming spaces' applies, we also may observe multiple perspectives and different approaches. At first place, the term 'space' itself has a wide range of meanings as an overview of existing literature published after 2000s highlights. According to Tumbull.

Space is a particularly popular trope. We are bombarded with mental/cognitive space, discursive space, knowledge space, social space, architectural space, object space, EuclideanZCartesian space, dwelling space, body space, haptic space, optical space, acoustic space, personal space, existential space, network space, communications space, travelling space, narrative space, memory space, sacred space, geographic space, cartographic space, space-time, cosmological space, abstract space, mathematical space. (2002, p. 135)

Не also proposes to categorize all these meanings of ‘space’ into four groups such as discursive, cognitive, existential and material but warns that they ‘flow into each other’ and may constitute higher-order spaces, i.e. social space of knowledge space (Turnbull. 2002, p. 135).

Meanwhile, as the papers under consideration has revealed when it comes to Teaming spaces' some authors operate with the term without questioning it, while some provide own definitions of a learning space (Jisc, 2006; Temple, 2007; Boys, 2011; Lange et al., 2014; Drew et al., 2014 ). One conclusion the author of the present review has derived from these readings; however, is that ‘a learning space' had not been considered a synonym to ‘a learning environment' any longer. The author suggested that it would pave the way to a more significant number of empirical studies specifically designed to reach evidence-based results on learning spaces influence on teaching and learning.

One more conclusion that the author achieved by the preliminary revision of the available body Ofliterature are two areas that remain under-researched in the domain of learning spaces.

The first area is the learning spaces in language learning, in particular English. The second one is connected to what the author calls Themed learning spaces' and presents a challenge for an author to define which theoretical and conceptual domain they belong to. In this regard, the author considers two sub-areas for examination: ‘experiential learning' and ‘simulation’ in learning languages, mainly English.

Based on this preliminary analysis, the aim of the present literature review can be stated as to present the current status of research on learning spaces and their impact on learning languages, mainly English. The objectives related to the aim are:

• To analyze the research-based information on how physical learning spaces influence the transfer of learning;
• To identify the main body of literature on the role of physical learning spaces in language learning.
• To explore the experiential learning and simulation approaches as an analogy for EOS.

Research Questions

The main research question

The overarching research question of the present literature review is defined in order to keep the general flow of the paper narrowed to the topic and to prevent any dispersed discussions. The main question for this review is formulated as ‘Wliat are the theoretical roots and current approaches to the study of how physical learning spaces influence the transfer of learning?'

The following sub-questions would evolve from what we would have learned during the research and lead to the main research question, though they have not been considered and discussed separately.

1. What are the ways learning spaces impact learning languages?
2. Wliat is the role of experiential learning and simulations in learning languages?
3. ‘What are the theoretical and empirical premises for the assumption that themed learning spaces will be beneficial to learning languages?' Are there any cases of ‘themed learning spaces' similar to English Only Space project implemented in Atyrau University? How can the latter be defined best?

Review Methodology

Identification, selection and analysis of the literature

The literature for this review was sourced from the online databases using EBSCO such as Academic Search Premier. Education Source, and ERIC, provided by the university library. The consultations with Ms Mclisa Smith, the librarian for the Faculty OfEducation at SFU were helpful at an initial phase for identifying the available sources.

An initial sampling of approximately forty sources allowed determining the types of the literature body for the present review such as peer-reviewed periodicals, books in both printed and digital formats, reports on existing literature by non-governmental research institutions, dissertations, conference proceedings, magazines and websites.

The selection was made according to the following inclusion criteria:

1. Relevance to the topic, i.e. learning spaces and their impact on learning languages,
2. Availability in languages the author can read confidently: English. Russian, Turkish, and French.
3. They are dated in the period from 2000 to present with some exceptions for the historical evidence.
4. Proved source for the ‘grey’ literature.

From the disciplinary perspective, the research and literature covered in this review can be affiliated with the number of disciplines such as environmental studies, psychology, sociology, pedagogy, design, linguistics, teaching and learning English.

Methodologically, the quantitative and qualitative studies are covered in order to allow the synthesis of both approaches. However, a particular focus is devoted to the research using cases studies as the principal methodology.

The initial stage using a Boolean search included such parameters as “learning space*” OR “physical space*” AND “language” NOT “technology” and showed 2. 468 results. The second search included the transfer of learning “((“simulation” OR “experiential learning”) NOT “((“computer-based” OR “virtual”))” AND "(“language” OR “English”)”which resulted in 25,124 articles. The third search included “simulation” NOT “computer-based” AND “learning a language” which resulted in 630 articles. The last search was conducted, including the parameters “themed learning space*” OR “physical space*” AND "language” presented 80 results.

The complementary search using the terms “physical learning spaces” AND “language” was conducted on Google Scholar, and the first six pages of results were reviewed. Backward chaining allowed examining the papers that cited the sources identified as the most relevant ones to this literature review.

Review limitations

Of the thirty-eight original studies which were determined as appropriate to the present review, three types of sources were excluded or under consideration for exclusion for non- compliance with the selection criteria.

The first one is the substantial bulk of articles, excluded from this review, that was predominantly on virtual and digital learning spaces.

The second type is the works without the indicated author. For example, the digital report titled ‘Literature review: New Classroom Designs' by the Hanover Research Group (2017), presents a compelling framework and design for this genre: however, the lack of information on the authors puts it under consideration for exclusion.

The third type of literature is questioned because of the format available at the moment of the study. For instance, the review of the book that the author could not access in full has a high degree of relevancy but remains a limited source of information to include it into the study.

Findings and Discussions Learning and space

The most frequently used term in this literature review, as well as the myriad of other studies, is ‘learning' which has a meaning that is unquestioned and taken-for-granted. Nevertheless, as any other concept considered in educational research, there are many competing views on what learning is. Anna Sfard (1998) claimed that a single and straightforward conception of learning would not be enough and proposed 'two metaphors for learning' with a focus on higher education. The first and initial metaphor is ‘learning as acquisition’ that implies bearing some self-sustaining entity such as knowledge or skills while moving across time and contexts. The second and recent one is ‘learning a participation’ that implies knowing, becoming a part of the practice, inquiry and shared activities w here a learner is interested in participating in activities rather than being an owner of possessions. (Sfard, 1998, p.6). Sfard underlines that:

Wliile the acquisition/participation division is ontological in nature and draws on two radically different answers to the fundamental question, 'What is this thing called learning?' the individual/social dichotomy docs not imply a controversy as to the definition of learning, but instead rests on differing visions of the mechanism of learning. (Sfard. 1998. p. 7)

The two metaphors of learning suggested by Sfard were complemented by Paavola et al. (2004) with the third metaphor, i.e. ‘learning as knowledge creation' that implied collaborative creation of new knowledge, ideas, practices and artefacts. (2004. p. 573)

In connection to the goals of this literature review, all three metaphors have a direct implication for understanding the relations between learning and space (Goodyear et al.. 2004), because this relationship may qualitatively differ as well as the affordances of a learning space from the perspective of a particular metaphor.

In addition to understanding the very notion of learning, for speakers of some languages other English, the difference between Teaming' and ‘studying' also can be confusing. Meanwhile, there is a distinction between them, especially for post-secondary students. By the most basic explanation, the former means ‘what students do' while engaging purposefullv in any educational activity and resulting with either or both coming to understand and acquiring a skill, whereas the latter implies a broader range of activities carried out by students while enacting their role as students (Ellis et al.. 2016). Furthermore, the same authors indicate that “ One can then become a little more ambitious about learning and its relationship to learning space and say that university spaces ought to support effective learning, not merely studying.'’ (ibid., p. 154).

Furthermore, the metaphors of learning resonate with four characteristics of learning that have been identified by Bransford et al. in their seminal work exploring how people learn: the necessity of initial learning; the importance of abstract and contextual knowledge; the conception of learning as an active and dynamic process; and the notion that all learning is transfer. (Bransford et al., 2000)

Learning space, transfer of learning and learning outcomes

The last characteristic of learning provided by Bransford et al. (2000) is of particular interest for the purposes of this review. If all learning is transfer, then the question is how physical learning space may impact it. Unfortunately, the ways in which space is seen as a site for transfer of learning has not been widely considered as the readings covered by this review demonstrate and since Flutter has asserted it in 2006 by stating that “little is known about the relationship between the [school's] physical environment and learning”. In the study. Flutter argues that physical changes in the schools' environment fostered improvements in learning, providing specific examples of changes in learning outcomes. (Flutter, 2006)

As mentioned above, despite the extensive body of research work on learning spaces, the number of evidence-based ones on their impact on the transfer of learning is limited. So far, one of the largest studies relevant to this question in the post-secondary context was published in 2005 in UK, where between 1996 and 2001 staff and students of five universities were surveyed regarding the impact of physical spaces on their campus, including the effect on their performance. (CABE. 2005) The respondents among students claiming improvement totaled at about 50% and indicated three factors related to new campus buildings such as motivation of students, facilitated inspiration among students and “finally they provided key facilities critical to course content” (CABE, 2005, p.39). However, there are many unclear aspects of how buildings provided these benefits reported by the survey, though the representatives of the institutions insisted that “students [are] doing better because they are inspired by their surroundings... new buildings raise expectations and raise hopes. It sends a message to students that this is something different and better.” (Lee, 2007). Even though the data supporting the assumptions in the report is limited, there is some overlapping evidence with Rutter et al. who concluded in their study that well-kept physical learning environments in schools led to improvements in learning. (Rutter et al., 1979)

There is another experiment carried out “in a specially redesigned classroom to facilitate group interaction” by MIT in the US as reported by Temple (2007. p. 68) that supports the claims in the CABE survey. The researchers assessed student learning before and after studying in the new learning environment, as compared with a control group of students taught under normal conditions, and revealed that students “have improved their conceptual understanding of the subject matter to a significantly higher extent than their control group peers'’ (Dori and Belcher, 2005). Temple further emphasizes that “the conclusion from the literature points to the link between space design and learning outcomes being weak at best, and it may often easily be masked by a number of other factors. A high proportion of the literature makes unsupported, or anecdotal, claims about the benefits of new designs or new configurations of existing space. Where they are presented, empirical findings are usually flawed, as they either tend to report changed student attitudes (rather than learning outcomes) or where learning outcomes are reported, they fail to take account of observer effects of various kinds.” (Temple, 2007, p. 69)

Wliile the empiric research on how physical spaces impact transfer of learning remain limited, the ways of how learning spaces may influence learning languages are even less studied.

Learning spaces and language

One of the latest studies on learning spaces provides an alternative definition of a learning space as “a space being collaboratively constructed between teacher and students through linguistic means and within which meaning is negotiated and shared through common language" (Drew et al., 2014, p. 107)

Wliile this definition does not imply a physical space, brings the tandem of ‘a learning space - language' into a focus. Especially in the context of recent developments in theory in the social and human sciences, particularly from what Fenwick et al. (2011) underlined as the socio-material perspectives. A substantial body of research from various disciplines, such as anthropology, archaeology, sociology, technology and science, particularly in the light of human-computer interaction, have been exploring “the connections between the material world and human activity, thought and language” (Barad, 2003; 2007; Orlikowski, 2007, 2010; Suchman. 2007; Boivin. 2008; Sorensen. 2009; Bijker, 2010; Ingold. 2010, 2013; Miller. 2010; Faulkner et al., 2011; Leonardi et al.. 2012) and evidence-based studies in urban studies, architecture and design adapted “a critical-emancipatory approach to rethinking connections between place, tools, artefacts and human activity” (Ellsworth. 2005; Dovey. 2008, 2010; McFarlane. 2010, 2011; Awan et al.. 2011; Boys, 2011).

The author assumes that these theoretical premises will allow more focused evidencebased studies on 'learning space - language learning' interaction taking place in the short-term future. Because, while in connection to language learning and teaching the studies for many decades focused predominantly on classrooms as the primary physical location for learning languages, the last decade showed that there is an expansion of researchers' focus beyond the classroom. Nevertheless, the classroom-related discourse is crucial for our understanding of how learning occurs in any space and how spaces might impact learning.

At first glance, even then it would be difficult to understand such impact without careful consideration of stakeholders involved in the physical setting because only those who operate in a space could attribute and shape meanings related to it. As indicated by Leander (2002), implying that the direct influence of social activities and practices taking place across space, “practices themselves generate locations” (p. 3). It is echoed by De Certeau (2012) who defines space as “a practised place” while referring to “the effects of human action on a place”. Thus, it is through the connection to actions, roles, processes, and outcomes of people involved in a space that we can reveal its impact on learning languages. However, da Silva Reis (2018) claims that “we can equally explore how spaces generate or change the practices and the participants' roles” and “space is, therefore, neither static nor neutral.”(p,181)

In addition, as reported by Leimie Scott-Weber (2018), the research related to brain science also highlights the contribution of physical spaces to learning, in particular to how the brain gathers information.

These two statements by da Silva Reis (2018) and Scott-Weber are probably the most important finding for this part of the review. Both statements have fostered the author to accelerate further research in this context but in relation to language learning.

Nevertheless, the dominating number of most recent studies has been implemented on learning languages in virtual or blended spaces rather than in new forms of physical settings. Moreover, even though a limited number of studies on language learning in physical, social spaces and the self-access centres could be observed, (van Lier, 2008; Murray, 2013; Murray and Fujishima, 2016).

Unfortunately, while the reviewed papers on language education in majority explored how students or teachers transformed the classroom learning space, the author failed to determine in the given period the most suitable research body that would show concrete evidence of formal physical learning spaces' direct impact on learning languages. Nonetheless, she is determined to continue her search and aims at the more targeted research work further. Another assumption that the author considers is that this situation might be signaling about the emerging stage of a new interdisciplinary approach from conceptual, theoretical, methodological and empirical stances.

Experiential learning, simulation and themed learning spaces in language learning

The timely bits of advice provided by the professors O'Neill and Zandvliet brought the author to the research body related to such approaches as ‘simulation’ and ‘experiential learning', predominantly in the areas distant from language learning. The case studies selected for the review comprise findings from the experiments and applications in training nurses, pilots and managers (Rooney and Nystrom, 2018; Smith 1974; Kosfalvi and Oliver, 2015). Therefore, at this stage of the research process, the author focuses on the exploration of these two approaches while making an attempt to draw an analogy for the themed learning spaces such as ‘English Only Space'.

Even though Kolb (1984) defined experiential learning as "a process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (p. 38) almost four decades ago. today it still pertains its popularity among researchers across disciplines (Sheehan. McDonald. Mark. & Spence, 2009). Studies by proponents experiential learning praise the benefits and opportunities it offers for learning (MacGregor and Semler, 2012).

In classroom contexts, it is usually provided in the form of games, role-plays, and simulations, however, the classroom itself as space is vital for learning. Thus as Kolb indicated (1984). “Essentially, learning takes place through the experiences which the learner has; that is, through the reactions, he makes to the environment in which he is placed.” (p. 63)

Moreover, it was pointed out that the experiential classroom could provide a transitional space as reported from the psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott (1989) by Kosfalvi and Oliver (2015) that allowed students' transition from not knowing to know and what was more crucial from “play at” activities to real situations (p.722). Tire latter resonates with the experiences taking place in EOS.

Another approach that is under consideration in this part of the literature review is ‘simulation'. As argued by some researchers, the quest for authentic learning has propelled demands in universities for simulation and spaces based on it for students acquiring professional practices (Serrano et al., 2017). Examples would encompass microteaching spaces for educators, courts for lawyers, simulation labs for pilots, nurses and doctors (Bond et al., 2015; Cooper et al., 2010; Solomon, 2007). As indicated by Rooney and Nystrom (2018), the term itself is “broadly defined as the imitation of a process or situation” (p. 54). They emphasize in their conclusion of the study “Simulation: A complex pedagogical space' that

Our accounts of the simulation laboratory have presented it as a space of flux. Role cards, scenarios, and various clothing items transform students into real professionals (albeit temporarily). Educators transform into doctors who managed patient conditions and orchestrated attending nurses, yet they simultaneously remain educators who direct observing students' focus at pivotal moments. The simulation space is, therefore, not only space where humans transform, but where humans and human activity transform the space as well.(p.61)

Based on these conclusions, the author assumes that simulation can be considered as the best fitting approach to examining EOS. However, when it comes to EOS. the major challenge is related to the very definition of such spaces. Conditionally the term Themed learning spaces' has been used throughout the process. The most important finding of this part of the provisional literature review is based on the author's discovery that she could not find an exact analogy to the themed learning spaces at the scale of EOS. However, building on-premises of empiricism, the author wonders whether it could be instrumental in applying phenomenography, as a methodology evolved on an empirical basis, to EOS. Drawing on explanation provided by Ellis and Goodyear (2016) in their study on ‘models of innovative learning spaces’, the author has found intriguing that "phenomenography suggests that any phenomenon can be understood in terms of how we experience its structure (its elements or parts) and its reference (the meaning it embodies)’’ (p.26). They further suggested that "the Stmcture of learning space involves mutually shaping interactions between different kinds of nested learning spaces (i.e. spaces within spaces) and different kinds of nested learning purposes.” (Ellis and Goodyear, 2016, p.26) which resonates w ith the structure of EOS.

Conclusion

This review is based on the author's assumptions related to the ‘English Only Space' project that stemmed from her intuitive belief in the impact physical spaces might have on faculty members and students experiences and thus their learning. Prior to EOS, she had a chance to observe positive outcomes from another project that she initiated and established the network of Lego-studios connecting ten secondary schools on the provincial level. While it was not a new idea, such space-related projects as Maker Spaces, studio-based teaching, innovation hubs, flipped classrooms and others have been a commonplace these days, the most important observation was the learning outcomes of the students: the students, previously reluctant to create, have been actively involved in developing tangible projects. This fact had inspired the EOS; however, it would not be built driven by the knowledge and assumptions based on theoretical and empirical premises. The value of this particular review' that it has given such a quick start to developing those foundations for conducting further research and practical study in EOS.

Yet, while it is clear from the literature review that there is still no concrete evidence related to positive impact of learning spaces on learning English and it is instead an indirect association between themed learning spaces and meaningfi.il transfer of learning, the author concludes that there is a need for more empirical studies to conduct on the EOS premises based on two assumptions. First, it would be a unique way to foster learning English among students and faculty members. Second, if space promotes and supports experiences to foster learning and learning outcomes, then the primary purpose of the space can be considered as realized.

References

1. Blackmore. J.. Victoria. Department OfEducation and Early Childlrood Development. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/publ/researcli/publ/blackmore_leaming_spaces.pdf
2. Boys. J. (2011). Towards creative learning spaces: Rethinking the architecture of post- compulsory education. Abingdon. Oxon; New York: Routledge.
3. rooks. D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning: Impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 719-726. https://doi.Org/10.llll/j.1467-8535.2010.01098.x
4. Byers, T., Imins, W., Hartnell-Young, E. (2014). Making the Case for Space: The Effect of Learning Spaces on Teaching and Learning. Curriculum and Teaching. 29(1). 5-19. https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/29.1.02
5. Canagarajah, S. (2014). In Search of a New Paradigm for Teaching English as an International Language. TESOL Journal, 5(4). 767-785. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.166
6. Dugdale. S. (2009). Space Strategies for the New Learning Landscape. EDUCAUSE Review, 44(2). 50-52. Retrieved from https://www-leamtechlib-org.proxy.lib.sfn.ca/p/105200/
7. Ellis, R. А., & Goodyear. Р. (2016). Models of learning space: Integrating research on space, place and learning in higher education. Review of Education, 4(2). 149-191. https ://doi. org/10.1002/rev3.3 056
8. Granito, V. J., Santana. M. E. (2013). Psychology of Learning Spaces: Impact on Teaching and Learning: (623792013-001) [Data set], https://doi.org/10.1037/e623792013-001
9. Islam, R. (2017). Investigating Factors that Contribute to Effective Teaching-Learning Practices: EFL/ESL Classroom Context. English Language Teaching, 10(4). 15. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.vl0n4pl5
10. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11. Kolb, A. Y., Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enliancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy OfManagement Learning & Education. 4. 193-212.
12. Temple, P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: An under-researched topic. London Review of Education, 6(3), 229-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460802489363
13. Zandvliet, D. B. (2014). PLACES and SPACES: Case studies in the evaluation of post- secondary'. place-based learning environments. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 41, 18-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.09.011