View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Flexible Furniture to Support Inclusive Education: Developing Learner Agency and Engagement in Primary School

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Flexible Furniture to Support Inclusive Education: Developing Learner Agency and Engagement in Primary School
Language: English
Authors: Julia E. Morris (ORCID 0000-0003-4481-8050), Wesley Imms (ORCID 0000-0002-3131-8711)
Source: Learning Environments Research. 2025 28(2):223-248.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 26
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Inclusion, Student Needs, Furniture, Classroom Environment, Space Utilization, Classroom Design, Student Empowerment, Learner Engagement, Teaching Methods, Self Management, Student Centered Learning, Teacher Attitudes, Peer Teaching
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1007/s10984-024-09522-z
ISSN: 1387-1579
1573-1855
Abstract: To ensure quality and equitable education requires an understanding of how all learners function within a learning environment, and the ways in which teachers' pedagogy can support inclusive practice. Drawing on research from a rural school in Western Australia, this paper identifies how furniture can be used as a tool to support student agency and opportunity to meet individual learning needs. Across two years, the study employed a single-subject research design to explore the impact of differing furniture arrangements on students' agency and engagement, as well as teacher pedagogies. It used both quantitative and qualitative repeated measures with 9 teachers and their classes (over 500 students aged 7-11 years), as they changed from flexible to traditional furniture arrangements and back again (an A-B-A design). The study found students self-manage their physical, psychological and learning needs through furniture. It found teachers were more student-centred in their pedagogical practice in flexible furniture arrangements, and they believed the flexible arrangement supported more inclusive practice compared to the perceived individualised and isolated learning experiences in the traditional furniture arrangement. The data suggest that all learners, including those with additional needs, are more empowered by flexible environments, having autonomy to personalise their learning, and effectively offering/receiving support to their peers as they work together in the learning environment. It further suggests that teachers' ability to support learners is impacted when they can move effectively around the classroom, or when peer support is diminished in the learning environment.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1486006
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFhOCwXjn3lXSzvLddrWzqHAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDB2Q_QSOn6FLF_ChfgIBEICBm1JDkI9iAiWvDI1p-1qyO7yADdWkWlfGkw6O9FkqlgQStLez6CsGxEoZfXjWpzusmFlXMkqdh5wyCzXa9bASiwbxgon1BNuqDs566J3MDC1JVRut_RrOK4CxoshZiOqph2gVpT45h06AGDwv93Dw36V5cGQcyDDifo_95ISR5bb0bCpQoPzRrykOUESpGHyso60P2nNH3kR5vHST
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187436391;oje01aug.25;2025Aug22.05:50;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187436391-1">Flexible furniture to support inclusive education: developing learner agency and engagement in primary school </title> <p>To ensure quality and equitable education requires an understanding of how all learners function within a learning environment, and the ways in which teachers' pedagogy can support inclusive practice. Drawing on research from a rural school in Western Australia, this paper identifies how furniture can be used as a tool to support student agency and opportunity to meet individual learning needs. Across two years, the study employed a single-subject research design to explore the impact of differing furniture arrangements on students' agency and engagement, as well as teacher pedagogies. It used both quantitative and qualitative repeated measures with 9 teachers and their classes (over 500 students aged 7–11 years), as they changed from flexible to traditional furniture arrangements and back again (an A-B-A design). The study found students self-manage their physical, psychological and learning needs through furniture. It found teachers were more student-centred in their pedagogical practice in flexible furniture arrangements, and they believed the flexible arrangement supported more inclusive practice compared to the perceived individualised and isolated learning experiences in the traditional furniture arrangement. The data suggest that all learners, including those with additional needs, are more empowered by flexible environments, having autonomy to personalise their learning, and effectively offering/receiving support to their peers as they work together in the learning environment. It further suggests that teachers' ability to support learners is impacted when they can move effectively around the classroom, or when peer support is diminished in the learning environment.</p> <p>Keywords: Agency; Flexible furniture; Learning needs; Student engagement; Student-centred; Teacher-centred; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Inclusion and equity in education are an international (United Nations, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref1">48</reflink>]) and Australian priority. In Australia, the recently released Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability: Final report specifically identifies that learning environments need to be equitable and participatory for all learners (2023, Part 7), positing a link between the environment and inclusion of learners with disability. In short, all learners have an interrelationship with the environment (Benade, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>]), and for a learning environment to be inclusive, it must "work" for all learners (Anderson & Boyle, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]; Morris & Imms, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref4">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>This paper addresses the challenge of how we can better understand the way space-related practices assist in achieving this equity of participation for all learners. The study discussed in this paper did not explicitly set out to focus on inclusion and equity, yet it emerged as an important consideration in the furnishing of schools. Consequently, the emphasis in this paper is on how all students can be supported in a way that meets their own needs, specifically through identifying how students and teachers are manipulating furniture in their learning environment. Finally, and due to the emergent nature of this material, it suggests how a theoretical participatory framework from the applied health sciences can be retrospectively applied to these results to support ongoing research.</p> <p>A learning environment is made up of interrelated factors that impact student experience, and furniture is one approach to enhancing inclusivity (Higgins et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref5">23</reflink>]). The benefit of adapting furniture is that it is relatively low-cost, and an "easy" change to learning environments (Stewart, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref6">45</reflink>]). For this research, a binary was setup between what constituted traditional and flexible furniture arrangements, with definitions for each arrangement being decided by the participants in conjunction with the literature. As furniture within innovative learning environments is often adjustable or movable, it can be easily reconfigured to meet learners' needs and accommodate a range of teaching practices (Blackmore et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]; Saltmarsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref8">41</reflink>]). The flexible furniture arrangements in this study had a range of options in terms of configuration (such as group settings and individual spaces); they also included diverse options for the furniture items themselves, such as high and low tables, and hard and soft seating. The traditional furniture arrangement meant only having one type of desk and chair in the room which limited opportunities for different ways of working. As these definitions related to both the qualities of individual items of furniture as well as their arrangement in the classroom, this paper uses the terms flexible furniture and flexible furniture arrangements synonymously.</p> <p>Drawing on research from a rural school in Western Australia, this paper identifies how furniture can be used as a tool to support inclusion for all students. In line with Anderson and Boyle ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>]), this study took the approach that an inclusive learning environment is one that supports <emph>all</emph> learners to fully participate in their learning, and that inclusion is influenced by both teachers and students' practices in the environment (Morris & Imms, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref10">35</reflink>]; Charteris & Smardon, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>]). This paper identifies how students are given agency to meet their individual needs when provided with flexible furniture options in their classroom. It draws on teacher observations and interviews to articulate how teachers' pedagogical practices may contribute to or hinder what Kariippanon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref12">28</reflink>]) argue are two key aspects of full inclusion, student agency and engagement. It highlights how flexible furniture arrangements help teachers feel they are meeting all students' needs.</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-3">Literature review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187436391-4">Learning environments and how furniture supports students' engagement and inclusion</hd> <p>The learning environment influences how students experience education (Closs et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref13">15</reflink>]; Higgins et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref14">23</reflink>]). The built environment has been connected to both students' physical well-being, with sedentary behaviour linked to headaches and back problems (Awartani et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>]; Hinckson et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>]), mental health and social well-being (Francis et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref17">19</reflink>]) and even links between some learning environments and academic performance (Kariippanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>]). Therefore, the environment can be adapted to impact how students experience school, and when given agency, students can adapt the environment to meet their needs and enhance human relationships and interactions (Charteris & Smardon, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref19">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Flexible learning environments, which are characterised by having diverse zones for learning, have been shown to increase students' active, engaged learning (Talbert & Mor-Avi, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref20">47</reflink>]). Specific to primary school, the context for this study, students also report greater overall satisfaction with flexible learning environments (Attai et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]). In studies across both primary and secondary schools, Kariippanon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref22">29</reflink>]) and Kariippanon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref23">28</reflink>]) found flexible learning environments facilitated self-regulation, collaboration and agency, and were associated with more engaged and on-task behaviours. They also reported that the modified flexible environments were more inclusive (Kariippanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref24">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>The modified environment on its own cannot support inclusion; it is also required that practices within space are inclusive and give agency to all learners (Chateris & Smardon, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref25">11</reflink>]; Charteris & Smardon, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]; Morris & Imms, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref27">35</reflink>]). Flexible learning environments, like all learning environments, require reflexivity; a bidirectional relationship where practices inform the arrangement of space, and the space gives cues as to how it can be used to support quality teaching and learning (Cleveland, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref28">14</reflink>]). Building on the work of Charteris and Smardon ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref29">11</reflink>]), this study considers agency as new material; where "the mobility of furniture constituted agentic relational flows with opportunities for students' decision making about how they learn" (p. 19) and where space and the furniture within it constitute pedagogical objects that transform teaching and learning. Linked to this agency is the opportunity for students to develop self-regulation; if they have genuine choice in how and where they learn, they can explore how space can be adapted to support their development of behaviours, cognition and emotion (Boekaerts, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>]; Hadwin et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]). However, much of the literature on self-regulation and self-regulated learning to date has explored the role of instructional practice as opposed to the spatial elements (such as furniture) that can support students to develop as learners, although this is changing (Schunk & Greene, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref32">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>One criticism of more innovative or flexible learning environments is that they have features that can create hyperstimulation, with potential for increased negative impact on students with disability (Charteris et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>]). However, Rose-Munro ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref34">40</reflink>]) found flexible environments could accommodate students with hearing difficulties and home-like, retreat spaces within the environment support students with a range of neurodevelopmental conditions (Denning & Moody, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref35">17</reflink>]; Leifler, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref36">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Meeting individual needs can be achieved through flexible furniture (Stewart, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref37">45</reflink>]), which is one characteristic of the flexible learning environment as discussed in the literature (Mahat et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref38">34</reflink>]). Flexible furniture has been shown to impact on students' experience of schooling through increasing comfort and reducing negative behaviours associated with long periods of sitting (Kariippanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref39">28</reflink>]; Wingrat & Exner, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref40">49</reflink>]). Flexible furniture also affects students' awareness of the learning environment and is linked to increased comfort, collaboration and concentration (Starkey et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref41">44</reflink>]). To achieve this impact on students' experience, "Furniture selection goes beyond colour or size. Furniture must be flexible and functional and support the needs of individual students" (Stewart, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref42">45</reflink>], p. 41), part of providing authentic choice that can give students genuine agency in their learning (Charteris & Smardon, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref43">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-5">Teacher practices shaped by learning environments</hd> <p>The push towards constructivist, student-centred and future-focussed pedagogy has necessitated the rethinking of learning environments (Benade, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref45">4</reflink>]; Jonassen & Land, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref46">26</reflink>]; Kariippanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref47">30</reflink>]). While traditional environments support quality teacher-led, didactic instruction, more flexible environments are congruent with a greater variety of approaches to teaching and learning (Jonassen & Land, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers are often adept at adjusting the environment to support learners, including those with diverse needs (Denning & Moody, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref49">17</reflink>]; Leifler, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref50">33</reflink>]). Similar to students' experiences, working in more flexible learning environments supports more collaborative practices and gives flexibility to teaching practice (Benade, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref51">4</reflink>]). They encourage the development of social relations and community building as students have more agency to move throughout space, impacting also on how teachers engage with students in learning (Benade, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref52">4</reflink>]). Kariippanon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>]) found that there was a direct contrast between pedagogies depending on the environment, with traditional learning environments predominately having teacher-led instruction and flexible environments using more student-centred pedagogies. However, Blackmore et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref54">5</reflink>]) and Charteris and Smardon ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref55">11</reflink>]) note that there is a need for pedagogical responsiveness in flexible learning environments that promote different ways of being in space for both teachers and students. In the case of inclusion, there are implications for teachers' practice in that space can either promote historical values of sitting still or be used to mediate students' emotions and behaviour (Pluquailec, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref56">39</reflink>]). To consider the socio-spatial context requires explicit work by the whole-school community, as teachers are required to collaborate with others (e.g. teachers, service providers, parents and carers) as they develop and enact inclusive practices that meet students' needs (Morris & Imms, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref57">35</reflink>]; Sanahuja-Gavaldà et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref58">42</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-6">Literature summary and research questions</hd> <p>The literature on flexible furniture, flexible learning environments and inclusion shows the interconnectedness of space, student practices and teachers' practices, and this complexity must be considered in research and practice. It suggests there are more possibilities to engage students and promote inclusion, agency and self-regulation of learning when there the choice and potential for adaptation offered by flexible learning environments, but only if the reflexive relationship between space and practice is recognised (Cleveland, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref59">14</reflink>]; Mahat et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref60">34</reflink>]). It considers that furniture is one element of the learning environment that can enhance student agency and support inclusive teacher practice (Morris & Imms, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref61">35</reflink>]; Charteris & Smardon, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref62">11</reflink>]), but acknowledges that inclusive practices need to be developed with a wide range of stakeholder consultation to ensure that spaces are used to their full potential.</p> <p>This study was co-designed with the participating school, who wanted to understand the relationship between flexible furniture arrangements, students' engagement and teachers' practices. Consequently, the study was designed around two guiding questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How are student perceptions of their engagement in learning influenced by the furniture provided in their classrooms?</item> <p></p> <item> How do teaching styles (pedagogies) change with differing furniture arrangements?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0187436391-7">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187436391-8">Participants</hd> <p>The study ran over two years, in 2019 and 2021, with each year focussing on flexible furniture but being responsive to the school's needs in terms of how student engagement was considered and across what age ranges. In the first year (2019), five teachers participated in the study; four intervention teachers who experienced changing furniture arrangements and one teacher whose classes were a control group for the study. The control group classroom for 2019 was a predominantly traditional setting, with a small flexible arrangement at the rear of the room used as a breakout space. The participating teachers ranged from year 3 to year 6 classes (teaching students 8 to 11 years of age), and were convenience sampled via volunteerism. Students were also convenience sampled, as they belonged to volunteer teachers' classes. No student was excluded from this research, meaning the sample had students with diverse needs including autism, anxiety and additional behavioural or sensory needs, with students with disability making up approximately 20% of the student population (A. Dehring, personal correspondence, July 2021).</p> <p>The second year of the study (2021) used the same sampling approach and repeated the broad study design with an additional four teachers with year 2 to year 6 classes (teaching students 7 to 11 years of age). One teacher from the first year of the study agreed for their class to act as the control group for 2021, remaining in a flexible furniture arrangement for the year.</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-9">Research design</hd> <p>The study used a single-subject research design (SSRD), or single-case experimental design. In this design, a case is used as its own control group to explore changes based on an intervention (Krasny-Pacini & Evans, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref63">32</reflink>]). For this study, each classroom followed an A-B-A withdrawal design; term 2 of the academic school year was spent in their "normal" flexible furniture arrangement, in term 3 they changed to traditional arrangements, and they reverted back to the flexible arrangement in term 4. In the first year of the study (2019), one teacher started working in a traditional arrangement as this was their "normal" environment and then changed to a flexible arrangement for term 3. In the second year, all teachers started in a flexible arrangement.</p> <p>Figure 1 is an example of a flexible arrangement within the school. It shows a diversity of furniture items and qualities (e.g. low and high tables, soft and hard seating) that can be easily moved and reconfigured.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Example of a flexible furniture arrangement</p> <p>Conversely, the traditional arrangement (Fig. 2) did not have diversity; it had one type of chair and table arranged in rows, small groups or a horseshoe shape, and a central mat. While some traditional desks and chairs were included in the flexible arrangement, the flexible arrangement also brought in different furniture that was removed during the traditional arrangement.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Example of a traditional furniture arrangement</p> <p>Ethics approval was sought from both researchers' institutions, and permission was obtained from the WA Department of Education prior to recruitment. Consent was given by the principal, all participating teachers and participating students' parents or carers (with assent verbally given by students at the time of parental/carer consent).</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-10">Data collection</hd> <p>A repeated measures design was used in both years of the study, to collect the same data across the A-B-A phases of the study.</p> <p>Two student measures were used:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> A student survey done three times per term, either electronically through Qualtrics or hard copy where preferred.</item> <p></p> <item> A photovoice activity completed in the flexible furniture environment.</item> </ulist> <p>In 2019 the student survey was adapted from the Hart et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref64">21</reflink>]) Student Engagement in Schools Questionnaire (SESQ), originally designed for young adolescent students. To meet the aims of this research, two of the original scales were used: behavioural engagement (effort and persistence) and cognitive engagement. However, the scales required some modification to phrasing to make items appropriate for the study's primary school context. For example, changing "homework" to "independent work", "participate" to "join" and "concepts" to "ideas".</p> <p>The aim of the photovoice task was to collect qualitative data about the student's favourite items of furniture and their reason for using the furniture they chose. Students took a photograph of their favourite item of furniture and annotated the photograph to explain why they had chosen that item. The school made a slide per child (grouped in class presentations) on Google Slides to capture this information, and de-identified the data prior to sharing it with the researchers. These data were only collected in the flexible furniture phase as the diversity of furniture gave students choice in terms of what furniture to select; this choice was not possible in the traditional arrangement as every student used the same type of furniture, and their arrangement did not differ within the room.</p> <p>In 2021 the photovoice task remained the same, but the student survey was changed as the school was interested in new qualities of engagement they were encouraging in their learners based on the 2019 results, and each year of the study was considered discrete in terms of its focus (i.e. student data were not compared between 2019 and 2021). The new student survey included one scale on peer support for learning from Carter et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref65">9</reflink>]), an adapted scale on risk propensity from Chell and Athayde ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref66">13</reflink>]) and a researcher-developed scale on creative thinking, based on the work of Ovbiagbonhia et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref67">38</reflink>]) on creative self-efficacy and innovation competence. The full surveys are included in Appendix A. In addition, seven items were added that asked students to rate how the furniture in the classroom influenced these qualities.</p> <p>Two teacher measures were used:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 40-min teacher observations done 3–5 times per term using The Learning Environments Analysis Survey Application (LEASA), a second-generation iteration of Byers' ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref68">8</reflink>]) observation metric, completed by a school-based observer; and</item> <p></p> <item> Interviews conducted by researchers at the end of each term.</item> </ulist> <p>The tablet-based LEASA application has a number of pre-identified categories adapted from Byers ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref69">8</reflink>]), including the focus mode (e.g. student-centred or teacher-centred), student communities observed (e.g. individual, small group, whole class), teacher pedagogies (e.g. direct instruction, facilitation, providing feedback, class discussion) and learning activities (e.g. application and practice, summative assessment, creative activity). The observer clicks a timer on and off when certain categories are witnessed; for example, if the teacher was giving explicit whole class instruction at the beginning of a lesson, the observer would check the boxes for teacher-centred focus mode, direct instruction pedagogy and whole class community while this activity was happening and then turn these timers off when the class moved to a different activity or if the teacher changed pedagogical strategy. While observations can be limited by subjectivity depending on what the observer determines as "good practice" or the boundaries they put on the observation and interpretation of data (Edgington, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref70">18</reflink>]), the pre-determined categories and use of timers minimises interpretation. To enhance reliability of this tool, the research team trained a single observer who undertook all observations across the two years of the study to ensure consistency, with peer coding done during the training to ensure judgements were consistent.</p> <p>The structured interview each term sought teachers' reflections on their observation data output as well as perceptions of: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>) changes to the use of furniture, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>) the impact of those changes on their teaching and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref73">3</reflink>) the impact on student engagement. Data about inclusive practices were collected during the interviews, as the observation categories did not specifically capture this information due to the limits of the pre-determined and validated categories in Byers' ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref74">8</reflink>]) framework.</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-11">Data analysis</hd> <p>Typically, SSRD would use a visual analysis method, although statistical analysis may also be used (Krasny-Pacini & Evans, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref75">32</reflink>]). In this study, it was anticipated that visual analysis would not show consistent differences across the three phases (A-B-A) of the study as subject content, stage of a unit (early, middle, end) and other factors (e.g. time of day of the lesson, events happening in the community) would impact the pedagogies used by a teacher. Consequently, both visual analysis and statistical analysis were employed to explore differences across the aggregate data in both years. Data were not analysed year/classroom level as this was not permitted by research approval from the school's sector.</p> <p>Table 1 shows a breakdown of the analysis strategies applied to each type of data that are reported in this paper. The survey scales showed reliability for use within social science research, with alphas greater than 0.70 (Taber, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref76">46</reflink>]); <emph>a</emph> = 0.885 (behavioural engagement) and <emph>a</emph> = 0.998 (cognitive engagement) in 2019, and <emph>a</emph> = 0.960 (risk taking), <emph>a</emph> = 0.893 (peer support for learning) and <emph>a</emph> = 0.703 (creative thinking) in 2021. It was anticipated that Cronbach's alpha would be lower for the items on the specific relationship between furniture and risk taking, peer support and creative thinking as each of these dimensions were only measured by two items each. Analysis showed the alpha was acceptable for risk taking and furniture (<emph>a</emph> = 0.789) and for validity both items for peer support and furniture were retained for analysis even though the alpha was lower (<emph>a</emph> = 0.672). The two items that measured creative thinking and furniture did not have the reliability to be used as a scale (<emph>a</emph> = 0.045), and therefore, analysis for this construct was done on a single item: "The furniture in my classroom supports me to be creative."</p> <p>Table 1 Analysis applied to each data source relevant to reported analyses</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Data source</p></th><th align="left"><p>Year/s</p></th><th align="left"><p>Analysis</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Student survey</p></td><td align="left"><p>2019 and 2021</p></td><td align="left"><p>Descriptive statistics (min, max, range, mean, SD) for each phase</p><p>Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to compare A-B, B-A and A-A phase results as student data were matched</p><p>Hedge's <italic>g</italic> effect size between A-B, B-A</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Student photovoice</p></td><td align="left"><p>2019</p></td><td align="left"><p>Frequency for selection of each furniture item, and also frequency each theme (i.e. explanation for selection)</p><p>Two-level inductive thematic analysis using Braun and Clarke (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2006</xref>) for annotation data</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2021</p></td><td align="left"><p>Data were analysed deductively using the schema developed in 2019, but new codes were also added</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Teacher observation</p></td><td align="left"><p>2019 and 2021</p></td><td align="left"><p>Visual analysis across A-B-A phases</p><p>Mean, SD and Hedge's <italic>g</italic> effect size were computed</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Teacher interview</p></td><td align="left"><p>2019 and 2021</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inductive thematic analysis using Braun and Clarke's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2006</xref>) framework—including familiarisation, initial coding, searching for themes, reviewing themes and then naming and describing themes</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187436391-12">Results</hd> <p>The results are organised in two sections. First, students' results are presented to demonstrate how flexible furniture supported to students to self-manage their needs and engage in their learning. Second, teacher data are presented to evidence how teacher practices and workloads changed as a result of differing furniture arrangements, with a focus on how they felt this changed their ability to be inclusive in their pedagogical practice.</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-13">Student results: Learners' self-managing their needs and engagement through furniture</hd> <p>The photovoice data showed that students purposefully chose furniture to meet their physical and psychological needs. Table 2 shows photovoice data for the whole study. In both years of the study, furniture was primarily selected to aid concentration (2019: 15%; 2021: 20%) and to support comfort and safety (2019: 14%; 2021: 19%). Over 90% of students in both years of the study felt furniture played an active role in supporting their learning.</p> <p>Table 2 Photovoice data for the study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Code</p></th><th align="left"><p>Definition</p></th><th align="left"><p>2019</p><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>2021</p><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Aids concentration</p></td><td align="left"><p>Supports students' concentration on their own work by minimising distractions from peers or the surrounding environment</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Supports comfort and safety</p></td><td align="left"><p>Supports students to feel comfortable or relaxed while learning. Refers to both physical comfort but also emotional security</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Able to see the board</p></td><td align="left"><p>Location or physical characteristics of the item allow students good sight lines to the board or teacher's working space</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Reasonable amount of working space and/or storage space</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students have adequate room to spread their work out on a surface without disrupting others. This includes having storage for pencil cases or other items, so they do not minimise available working space</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Proximity to peers</p></td><td align="left"><p>Supports students to be physically closer to peers, regardless of whether they are working collaboratively or independently</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>No benefit listed</p></td><td align="left"><p>Student perceived no benefit from furniture in the classroom</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Allows students to focus on teacher</p></td><td align="left"><p>Supports students to see, hear or track teachers within the learning environment</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Good surface quality to work on</p></td><td align="left"><p>Supports students to work more easily with both traditional and digital technologies</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Accommodates own learning needs</p></td><td align="left"><p>Supports students to manage their individual needs; for example, accommodating back pain through seat selection, height through settings that do not cramp students, or using portable furniture to get closer to whiteboards to accommodate vision impairment</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Allows personal space</p></td><td align="left"><p>Supports independent learning by allowing students to move away from groups and have adequate space to work on their own</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Allows user movement</p></td><td align="left"><p>Supports students to physically move while they are learning; for example, wobbling on a stool or bouncing on an ottoman</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Proximity to "front" of classroom</p></td><td align="left"><p>Item supports learning by its position in the learning environment, namely, being close to the students' perceived "front" of the classroom</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Encourages self-management of behaviour</p></td><td align="left"><p>Supports students to manage their own behavioural needs; including physical needs (often movement) or intellectual needs (often minimising distraction through relaxed colours or limiting their view of the whole learning environment by facing walls)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Supports collaboration</p></td><td align="left"><p>Supports students to work collaboratively with their peers</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Good view</p></td><td align="left"><p>Supports students' learning needs (view of teacher, peers, resources) or mental health (view out a window) by providing visual access to desired stimuli</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Supports student mindfulness</p></td><td align="left"><p>Supports students to be more aware of their engagement in their immediate learning experience</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Proximity to ICT or required resources</p></td><td align="left"><p>Item supports learning by its position in the learning environment, namely, being close to charging points for digital devices, bookshelves for print resources and proximity to other resources like word walls</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2 shows that 16 discrete reasons were given in terms of why furniture was selected; the 17th code was "no benefit", which captured responses where students felt furniture did not have an impact on their learning. The range of codes demonstrates that students have diverse needs and preferences in terms of furniture and how they use it to support their learning.</p> <p>In terms of the most frequently selected responses, students explained that furniture described how comfort was linked to concentration; for example, "[soft seating] is more comfy and it helps me concentrate" (2019). They also described how furniture that can be moved or adjusted helped them; "you can maneuver [sic] to be in the right spot which helps you concentrate" (2019). While some students moved to be comfortable, others used comfort/discomfort as a concentration aid:[I sit on a soft seat at a group table but facing the wall]. It helps me to stay focused because I have to turn my head to socialise with my friends and if I do that too much my neck will start to hurt so, it helps me stay focused because I look at the wall and don't get distracted. (2019) Students also linked concentration to aspects of engagement; for example, one student described why she chose to sit at a group table in order to maintain on-task behaviours: "I can discuss if I am not sure of something, and it helps me get my work done on time" (2019). Potential for collaboration was seen as an important aspect of maintaining engagement in learning:It helps me to be able to cooperate and collaborate with my peers. The [round] table and chair makes me feel like I belong in a group and when I need help I can have it and when someone else needs help I can give it to them. (2021) While comfort was often linked to concentration (e.g. "I'm comfortable and focussed" (2019)), it was also a discrete code within the data. Students frequently commented on being able to adjust their body position on the furniture item, such as, "Because it is comfortable, and I can sit however I like" (2019) and "The chair is soft and squishy and I can change positions when I'm uncomfortable" (2021). They also described the support given by the item, "the cushioning is great" (2019) and "... it helps better [sic] because my back is more supported" (2021).</p> <p>Student agency and self-regulation were themes that emerged across a range of codes developed from the photovoice data; namely, accommodates own learning needs, encourages self-management of behaviour and supports student mindfulness. These ideas were evidenced through annotations such as:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> "[At the high tables] my feet [don't] touch the floor because when we had the other fernichair [sic] I used to mess around" (2019—Accommodates own learning needs)</item> <p></p> <item> "It's tall and high, but it also helps my back because its strait [sic] and you can't wobble on it [which helps me to manage my back injuries]" (2019—Accommodates own learning needs)</item> <p></p> <item> "I like how you can do small bounces on these [fitballs] which is relaxing." (2019—Encourages self-management of behaviour)</item> <p></p> <item> "The wheely chair helps me learn more because it supports my back and you can move freely around. On other pieces of furniture my back tends to hurt and it affects my learning" (2021—Encourages self-management of behaviour)</item> <p></p> <item> "It makes me not fiddle or be silly. It helps me stay still and I can work way better at this table and when I'm learning I focus more and I get things done." (2021—Supports student mindfulness)</item> <p></p> <item> "That there is only a max of two people sitting here which makes for less talk which results in focus." (2021—Supports student mindfulness)</item> </ulist> <p>While the photovoice data showed how students self-managed their needs using furniture, it did not explicitly ask students to comment on their engagement in learning. Consequently, the survey data were used to begin to examine the potential impact of furniture arrangements on students' engagement. Table 3 shows the student survey data on behavioural and cognitive engagement for 2019. This survey showed there was no change to their engagement in learning (Morris & Imms, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref77">35</reflink>]), despite students describing furniture as having an impact on their learning through the photovoice. While students maintained high engagement, the range across each phase showed there was variety in terms of responses from some students in this cohort.</p> <p>Table 3 Engagement survey (SESQ) results for 2019 sample</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Scale</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Baseline (A)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Intervention (B)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Withdrawal (A)</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Effect size</p><p>(A-B)</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Effect size (B-A)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>M</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p>Range</p></th><th align="left"><p>M</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p>Range</p></th><th align="left"><p>M</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p>Range</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="12"><p><italic>Behavioural Engagement</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>n<sub>A</sub> = 69</p><p>n<sub>B</sub> = 355</p><p>n<sub>A2</sub> = 308</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.25</p></td><td align="left"><p>.775</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 (2–5)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>.701</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 (2–5)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.29</p></td><td align="left"><p>.726</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 (2–5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.112</p></td><td align="left"><p>.056</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="12"><p><italic>Cognitive Engagement</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>n<sub>A</sub> = 69</p><p>n<sub>B</sub> = 363</p><p>n<sub>A2</sub> = 315</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>.822</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 (2–5)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>.732</p></td><td align="left"><p>4 (1–5)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.96</p></td><td align="left"><p>.842</p></td><td align="left"><p>4 (1–5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.120</p></td><td align="left"><p>.153</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The 2021 data focussed on qualities of creative thinking, propensity to take risks in relation to learning and peer support for learning. These three qualities showed no statistical change to students' engagement during the year (Morris & Imms, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref78">36</reflink>]); however, the results did show differences on the items related to how students felt furniture impacted their ability to engage in creative thinking, risk taking and peer support (Table 4). Statistically significant results were found on Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests for furniture to assist risk taking (traditional mean rank = 44.82, flexible mean rank = 31.72, T = 571.00, <emph>z</emph> = −5.440 (corrected for ties), N-Ties = 20, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, two tailed), and furniture to assist creative thinking for learning (traditional mean rank = 31.72, flexible mean rank = 45.44, T = 571.00, <emph>z</emph> = −5.496 (corrected for ties), N-Ties = 20, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, two tailed). A significant difference was also found for furniture for peer support (traditional mean rank = 28.73, flexible mean rank = 46.06, T = 431.00, <emph>z</emph> = −6.232 (corrected for ties), N-Ties = 19, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, two tailed). However, the change for peer support and learning should be further explored given the limited reliability reported on this scale.</p> <p>Table 4 Furniture and engagement student survey responses for 2021 sample</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Scale</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Baseline (A)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Intervention (B)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Withdrawal (A)</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Effect size (A-B)</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Effect size (B-A)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>M</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p>Range</p></th><th align="left"><p>M</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p>Range</p></th><th align="left"><p>M</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p>Range</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="12"><p><italic>Furniture to assist creative thinking</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>n<sub>A</sub> = 152</p><p>n<sub>B</sub> = 105</p><p>n<sub>A2</sub> = 75</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.791</p></td><td align="left"><p>5 (1 -5)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.35</p></td><td align="left"><p>.961</p></td><td align="left"><p>4 (2–5)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>.860</p></td><td align="left"><p>4 (2–5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.868</p></td><td align="left"><p>.719</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="12"><p><italic>Furniture to assist peer support for learning</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>n<sub>A</sub> = 153</p><p>n<sub>B</sub> = 104</p><p>n<sub>A2</sub> = 77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>.576</p></td><td align="left"><p>4 (2–5)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.73</p></td><td align="left"><p>.623</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 (1–4)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.96</p></td><td align="left"><p>.543</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 (2–5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.452</p></td><td align="left"><p>.388</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="12"><p><italic>Furniture to assist risk taking</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>n<sub>A</sub> = 152</p><p>n<sub>B</sub> = 104</p><p>n<sub>A2</sub> = 377</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.74</p></td><td align="left"><p>.951</p></td><td align="left"><p>4 (2–5)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.73</p></td><td align="left"><p>.983</p></td><td align="left"><p>4 (1–5)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>.833</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 (2–5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.045</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.278</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The results from the 2021 data also showed a diverse response to the items (indicated by range) but there were large effect sizes for both creative thinking and risk taking. The mean scores also showed lower agreement on traditional furniture supporting students to think creatively, support peers and take risks in learning, compared to the flexible arrangements.</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-14">Teacher results: furniture to support pedagogical choices and manage workload</hd> <p>The student data showed that engagement typically remained high across the two years of the study; however, teachers described how they had to "work harder" to keep engagement high when students were working within traditional furniture arrangements. Both visual and statistical analyses methods were applied to teacher data, as there was variance across observations each term. However, there was a consistent trend for teachers to use more student-centred pedagogies in flexible furniture arrangements in both years (shown in Figs. 3 and 4). In comparison, the frequency of student-centred to teacher-centred pedagogies was much closer in the traditional arrangement, with five of the eight observations having more teacher-centred practice in 2019 (shown in Fig. 3).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Frequency of teacher-centred and student-centred pedagogies in 2019 teacher observation data. Note: Figure does not include the reverse intervention teacher (the traditional-flexible-traditional room)</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Frequency of teacher-centred and student-centred pedagogies in 2021 teacher observation data. Note: Figure only includes data from two rooms, as these were the only two rooms where consistent observations were completed across all the A-B-A phases</p> <p>In 2021, a different trend was seen; teachers remained more student-centred in the traditional arrangement, but not to the same degree as the flexible arrangement. There was greater separation of the trendlines in the flexible arrangement (both baseline and withdrawal), with an increase in teacher-centred pedagogies in the traditional space (Fig. 4).</p> <p>To complement the visual analysis, statistical analysis was conducted. All phases showed overlap, but this was anticipated as teachers tend to employ a wide range of pedagogies across a teaching term. Consequently, trends in pedagogies across the three phases were looked at descriptively, shown in Table 5. These data indicated there was more time spent in teacher-centred practices on average in the traditional arrangement (intervention phase) in both years, and also a decrease in time spent on student-centred pedagogies in the traditional furniture arrangement.</p> <p>Table 5 Mean, standard deviation for teacher-centred and student-centred pedagogies across all phases</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Observation category</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>2019</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>2021</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Baseline (A)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Intervention (B)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Withdrawal (A)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Baseline (A)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Intervention (B)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Withdrawal (A)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="7"><p><italic>Teacher-focus</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>M</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>38.17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>50.36</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>29.50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21.70</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>38.34</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.83</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SD</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.013</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.531</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18.398</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.305</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>31.889</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.348</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="7"><p><italic>Student-focus</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>M</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>60.92</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>51.24</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>71.97</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>70.50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>63.52</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>84.28</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SD</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.936</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.351</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20.094</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.346</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>31.806</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.192</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>While the observation data showed a tendency for teachers to use more student-centred pedagogies in flexible arrangements, the interview data described in more detail how teachers felt their pedagogy was impacted by the furniture in their classrooms. While some teachers felt they could work effectively in both arrangements, the majority preferred teaching in the flexible environment so they could cater for all learners and learning. Teachers felt that in a flexible arrangement students had a "safe space", one that allowed them to take risks and "challenge themselves" (2021). They said students "worked more efficiently when they had choice where to work, who to work with ... That made my teaching easier" (2019). They would self-regulate more effectively by "[having the] freedom to move away from whatever was distracting them" (2021) and to allow each child to "have their own space" (2021), which was perceived as particularly important for students with additional needs. Teachers described peer interaction as being more effective in flexible arrangements as "when a kid has a problem, others would show them what to do ... [in a traditional arrangement] they stayed put in their seats, they weren't interested in each other" (2021). They also felt students were more likely to give and receive help "beyond their tight friendship groups—they were more supportive [in the flexible arrangement]" (2021).</p> <p>One impact of the traditional furniture arrangement was teacher workload, specifically an increase in preparation time and more directed planning of activities to engage students. Teachers spoke about how "Preparation had to be more specific. I noticed a quite different type of learning from the students, more process and skills, less self-direction, focus, motivation" (2019) and "It was a lot more work for me. I had to prepare for one-on-one instruction, I couldn't use the students' peer feedback with each other to facilitate, spur on learning" (2019). They also spoke about the environment limiting their ability to effectively support all learners, "I had to learn not to move [because I couldn't get through the narrow pathways in the classroom], to feed information ... students had to learn not to move, to rely only on the colleagues close by" (2019). Another impact of traditional furniture was a perceived decrease in engagement. Teachers spoke about student doing "just enough to get by" (2021) and not challenging themselves in their learning.</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-15">Discussion</hd> <p>It is common in mixed method studies that analyses uncover unexpected effects, that something is seen in one phase that was not shown in another. This was the case with this project; while inclusion was not a primary focus of the original study design, the data that emerged showed strong implications for inclusion when learning environments have flexible furniture.</p> <p>The first research question sought to understand the influence of furniture on student engagement, but the results suggest engagement in learning is closely linked to meeting individual learning and behavioural needs. Consequently, this study contributes to the field in highlighting how students purposefully adjust their use of space to enhance their learning and control stimulation to meet their personal needs. The student photovoice data indicated over 90% of students felt furniture impacted their learning, suggesting furniture's importance to support inclusive education in the design and use of learning environments, despite no statistical change to students' engagement, or their risk taking, creative thinking or peer support practices. It is possible the intervention (a 10-week school term) was not long enough to see significant changes on these qualities, or that when teachers' reported "working harder" in the traditional environment they were reducing differences in the students' experiences across the two furniture arrangements so that minimal change was evident in statistical measures.</p> <p>The analysis suggested flexible furniture arrangements supported students to be agentic, to collaborate and support peers and to personalise the environment to help self-regulation. They showed agency through adapting the environment to meet their needs, such as ensuring they felt comfortable and could concentrate using the furniture they had chosen. This sometimes meant adjusting how they used the furniture, such as moving the soft seats to either face their peers for collaboration or away from their peers to engage in independent work depending on the task. This use of the furniture by students supports Stewart ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref79">45</reflink>]), who discussed furniture selection for schools as needing to go beyond colour and size, instead addressing functionality. It also adds evidence that student agency can go beyond 'forced choice' of learning within the existing system/governance of schooling to a practice of students are working relationally and ecologically with the teacher and the environment (Charteris & Smardon, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref80">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref81">12</reflink>]). The results from this study suggest student voice is a critical part of their relationality in the environment, with students as young as 7 years of age making informed decisions about how to use furniture to support their learning.</p> <p>Peer support and collaboration were also a feature in flexible classrooms, with students explaining that furniture such as round tables allowed them to offer and receive help from their peers so that could stay engaged in learning. Teacher data suggested that the same peer support was not often afforded in traditional furniture arrangements as students could only rely on the peers closest to them as opposed to those who could best offer support and felt students also did not challenge themselves as much in the traditional environment. This finding is consistent with Kariippanon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref82">29</reflink>]) who found more instances of collaboration and inclusion in flexible environments. Starkey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref83">44</reflink>]) also found students' collaboration, comfort and concentration were high in flexible furniture settings, and the primary students in this study also identified these as benefits to having flexible furniture in their classrooms. The relational aspect of agency was also present in Charteris and Smardon ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref84">11</reflink>]), and these data give further evidence that learner agency does not need to be compliant to teacher demands (Charteris & Smardon, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref85">12</reflink>]); in fact, the teacher interview data suggested that aspects of compliance were seen as negative if they minimised students' opportunities for learning and shifted teaching and learning practice to a content-driven exercise as opposed to encouraging the development of self-regulated learning.</p> <p>While self-regulation was not an initial focus of the study, it was implicit in many of the annotations made by the students when they commented on their engagement in learning and is consistent with the results of Kariippanon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref86">29</reflink>]) and Kariippanon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref87">28</reflink>]). Flexible furniture supported students to personalise the space to meet their own learning needs, as well as helping them to be mindful and self-regulate their behaviour. Students purposefully selected furniture arrangements that would assist them to stay engaged, which sometimes included moving (either bouncing on a fitball or wobble stool, or alternating sit/stand at high tables) to both meet physical and behavioural needs. These adjustments to furniture were possible as students had agency to adapt the environment to meet personal needs when in the flexible arrangement. Being able to select furniture that meets personal needs can help to counter some of the negative physical effects of sedentary behaviour in schools (Awartani et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref88">3</reflink>]; Hinckson et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref89">24</reflink>]; Wingrat & Exner, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref90">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>The second research question aimed to better understand how furniture might influence teachers' practices. The observation data were consistent with Kariippanon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref91">28</reflink>]), finding that teachers appeared to be more student-centred in flexible arrangements and teacher-centred in traditional furniture arrangements. This result was in spite of a whole-school inquiry learning pedagogical model that tended towards student-centred inquiry (and may be a reason for less drop in student-centred pedagogy during the intervention phases). There is an alignment between flexible spaces and more constructivist, student-centred approaches (Benade, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref92">4</reflink>]; Jonassen & Land, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref93">26</reflink>]; Kariippanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref94">30</reflink>]), supported in this study by teachers' comments on the impact of furniture arrangements on their workload. To plan and implement student-centred approaches that are differentiated and inclusive of all learners can increase teacher workload, as this planning takes more time than a one-size-fits-all approach (Koutsouris et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref95">31</reflink>]). The analysis suggested teachers felt they had to work harder to maintain engagement and enthusiasm in learning when in the traditional furniture arrangement and felt students "worked more efficiently" in the flexible arrangement, thereby decreasing their workload. Movement, or lack thereof, was also a factor that impacted pedagogy and workload. Teachers felt the traditional environment challenged their movement around the room as they had to squeeze between groups or rows of desks, and consequently, spent more time sharing content from the front of the room. This is another example of the interconnectedness between space and pedagogy; if space cannot be adapted to suit teachers' needs there is potential loss of the diverse practices that flexible environments are designed to meet (Morris & Imms, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref96">35</reflink>]). Conversely, both teachers and students reported opportunities to be flexible, adaptive and therefore, agentic in the flexible furniture arrangement. Both the student photovoice and teacher interview data suggested there was a benefit to learning when the space provided more variety as it encouraged self-regulated learning practices to be driven by students' needs and gave power to the students to use the affordances of space as a result.</p> <p>Teachers commented that it was easier for students to have "their own space" in flexible arrangements. As the flexible arrangements had both some desks and chairs as well as more "home-like" furniture, their comments reflected the findings of Denning and Moody ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref97">17</reflink>]) who suggest that these settings can support the inclusion of students with additional needs. Teachers also felt that students were more proactive in supporting each other in the flexible furniture arrangement and sought help from a wider range of students. These reflections are indicative of the flexible furniture arrangement supporting greater inclusion for all learners and are consistent with the community building affordance of a flexible learning environment (Benade, 2020).</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-16">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>This study is descriptive in nature and concurs with existing literature on the effect of flexible furniture on students and teachers' practices. One challenge of implementing SSRDs in schools is practicality; for example, phases for the study needed to be controlled by the academic year as holidays were the least disruptive time to swap classroom furniture. This means there may be carry over effects from one phase to another, resulting in overlap. Non-overlap is also made difficult in the school setting as it is naturalistic and testing conditions are not controlled; repeated measures were used to mitigate against variance and including nine teachers helped to show areas of consistency across a wider sample. Furthermore, while every effort was made to match samples it was not always possible; students and teachers had absences and statistical testing was adjusted where required. In addition, we acknowledge that best practice for observation is to have two observers and reliability reported using statistical indicators, but it was impracticable to have multiple observers in this study due to staffing constraints and the distance between the researchers and the school site. The school's focus on inquiry learning that promoted student-centred practices may also have influenced teachers' pedagogies, and future research could explore if the same trends are found in schools that implement different visions for learning or where explicit professional learning is used to link pedagogical practice to learning environment changes or affordances (which did not occur in this study). Finally, this study sought to explore how all students use furniture to support their engagement in learning. The findings suggest that students use furniture to make personal accommodations, and future research could explore how students with specific needs or traits use furniture to determine if there are common behaviours or furniture types that should be considered in the design and use of learning environments.</p> <p>Student voice in the design and provision of furniture, a deeper exploration of teacher practice in varying furniture arrangements and how this impacts inclusion and equity, and the impact of furniture arrangements on teachers' workload and well-being are other areas for future research as both teachers and students are impacted by the design of school spaces. The specific link between teacher pedagogical approaches and students' development of twenty-first century learning skills is also an area for future work, given that our data found students feel flexible furniture (where student-centred pedagogies were higher) helped them to develop creative thinking and risk taking, but there was no statistical change to these actual skills within this study.</p> <p>These results carry significant implications for further research. They align to a comprehensive theoretical framework developed by paediatric clinical specialists addressing the needs of children with early-onset disabilities (Imms et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref98">25</reflink>]). Called the <emph>Framework of Participation Related Constructs</emph> (fPRC), it reverses deficit disabilities treatment processes that have traditionally judged disabilities against a normed population, to instead look to how the individual is situated within her/his/their lived environment. The framework covers eight constructs, briefly summarised by the following explanation. We all live in an environment, which in turn is constructed of the context of how we inhabit his space. That context is made up of how we participate, whether we attend and how we choose to involve ourselves in that space. What cannot be overlooked, however, is our personal attributes: our own preferences, our sense of self and our activity competencies. These personal attributes then engage with our environment through a range of two-way relationships; for example, we can make choices or we can comply, we can engage or just observe, we can "act" or we can actually learn.</p> <p>The significant outputs from the study described in this paper include these emergent "inclusion" findings, the possibility that students and teachers unintentionally or occasionally intentionally use furniture as part of the context to "level the playing field" for those with disadvantage. It is beyond the scope of this brief paper to retrospectively apply our findings to the fPRC, to explore this phenomenon more fully, but that is the nature of research—one finding opens the door to the next level of understanding, and future research can look to drawing from other fields to better understand how individual students' needs are met through their complex interactions with teachers, peers and spaces.</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-17">Conclusion</hd> <p>Learning environments must ensure all students' needs are met to acquire equity of education. The learning environment has been linked to students' outcomes (Kariippanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref99">27</reflink>]) as well as their development of core competencies, such as collaboration (Blackmore et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref100">5</reflink>]; Kariippanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref101">30</reflink>]). This study did not differentiate students with additional needs from a "mainstream" cohort, but rather took the perspective that all students have diverse needs, and the learning environment needs to ensure it caters for this diversity (Anderson & Boyle, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref102">2</reflink>]). The results of the study suggest that flexible furniture arrangements can help all students find a place they feel comfortable and can concentrate on learning. Flexible furniture arrangements were associated with more inclusive peer-to-peer interactions, such as offering and receiving help from a wide range of students. Regardless of age, students chose (and sometimes adapted) furniture to meet their own physical and behavioural needs. Similarly, teachers felt flexible environments provided more inclusiveness for students, with students challenging themselves more, being more open to help and collaborate and having more agency to act within a class community than was evidenced in the traditional furniture arrangement.</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-18">Author's contribution</hd> <p>All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by JM and WI. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JM, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-19">Funding</hd> <p>This study was funded by Beparta under grant number G1004043. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-20">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187436391-21">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors have no potential conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-22">Ethical approval</hd> <p>The study received programme/project ethical approval from the University of Melbourne (Ref: 1851092), project approval from Edith Cowan University (Ref: 22389 MORRIS). Permission was obtained from the Department of Education WA (Ref: D19/0054670).</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-23">Informed consent</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from the school principal, participating teachers and participating parents/guardians and students.</p> <hd id="AN0187436391-24">Appendix A: Student survey items</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Year</p></th><th align="left"><p>Survey dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Original survey attribution</p></th><th align="left"><p>Items in student survey for this study</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>2019</p></td><td align="left"><p>Behavioural engagement: Effort and persistence</p></td><td align="left"><p>Adapted from Hart et al.'s (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2011</xref>) Student Engagement in Schools Questionnaire (SESQ) as the original scale is for adolescents</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. I try hard to do well in school</p><p>2. In class, I work as hard as I can</p><p>3. When I'm in class, I join in class activities</p><p>4. I pay attention in class</p><p>5. When I'm in class, I just act like I'm working</p><p>6. In school, I do just enough to get by</p><p>7. When I'm in class, my mind wanders</p><p>8. If I have trouble understanding a problem, I go over it again until I understand it</p><p>9. When I run into a difficult homework problem, I keep working at it until I think I've solved it</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>Adapted from Hart et al.'s (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2011</xref>) Student Engagement in Schools Questionnaire (SESQ) as the original scale is for adolescents</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. When learning new information, I try to put the ideas into my own words</p><p>2. I try to connect what I am learning with my own experiences</p><p>3. I make up my own examples to help me understand the important ideas I learn from school</p><p>4. When learning things for school, I try to see how they fit together with other things I already know</p><p>5. I try to match what I already know with things I am trying to learn for school</p><p>6. I try to understand how the things I learn in school fit together with each other</p><p>7. When learning, I try to combine different pieces of information in new ways</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>2021</p></td><td align="left"><p>Creative thinking</p></td><td align="left"><p>Research team developed based on Ovbiagbonhia, Kollöffel & den Brok's (2019) work on creative self-efficacy and innovation competence</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. I keep an open mind when learning</p><p>2. I enjoy thinking about complex problems</p><p>3. I like to come up with new or different solutions to a problem, not just the obvious answer</p><p>4. I enjoy it when learning challenges my thinking</p><p>5. I can easily connect different ideas when learning</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Peer support for learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Direct from Carter et al, (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2012</xref>) in a validated Student Engagement Instrument—Elementary tool</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Other students care about me</p><p>2. Students at my school are there for me when I need them</p><p>3. Other students like me the way I am</p><p>4. I enjoy talking to students here</p><p>5. Students here respect what I have to say</p><p>6. I have friends at school</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Risk taking</p></td><td align="left"><p>Adapted from Chell and Athayde's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2009</xref>) risk propensity scale in the Youth Innovation Skills Measurement Tool as</p><p>the original scale is for adolescents</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. When I make choices I want to be as sure as possible what the consequences will be for me</p><p>2. I want my school work to provide me with chances to show that I can overcome problems</p><p>3. I would not take a risk on a class activity if it would spoil my chances of getting good grades at school</p><p>4. I am afraid of failing at tests or assessments</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Furniture and learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Research team developed specifically for this project</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. The furniture in my classroom helps me to work with other students (peer support)</p><p>2. The furniture in my classroom makes me feel isolated or lonely (peer support)</p><p>3. The furniture in my classroom gives me space to solve complex problems (creative thinking)</p><p>4. The furniture in my classroom supports me to be creative (creative thinking)</p><p>5. The furniture in my classroom helps me to solve problems outside my comfort zone (risk taking)</p><p>6. The furniture in my classroom helps me to try a range of solutions when working out problems (risk taking)</p><p>7. The furniture in my classroom supports my learning (general)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187436391-25">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187436391-26"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref21" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Attai SL, Reyes JC, Davis JL, York J, Ranney K, Hyde TW. Investigating the impact of flexible furniture in the elementary classroom. Learning Environments Research. 2021; 24; 2: 153-167. 10.1007/s10984-020-09322-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson J, Boyle C. Looking in the mirror: Reflecting on 25 years of inclusive education in Australia. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2019; 23; 7–8: 796-810. 10.1080/13603116.2019.1622802</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref15" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Awartani M, Whitman CV, Gordon J. Developing instruments to capture young people's perceptions of how school as a learning environment affects their well-being. European Journal of Education. 2008; 43; 1: 51-70. 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2007.00337.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Benade L. Is the classroom obsolete in the twenty-first century?. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2017; 49; 8: 796-807. 10.1080/00131857.2016.1269631</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blackmore, J, Bateman, D, Loughlin, J, O'Mara, J, & Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connection between built learning spaces and student outcomes: Literature review. https://<ulink href="http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/publ/research/publ/blackmore%5flearning%5fspaces.pdf">www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/publ/research/publ/blackmore%5flearning%5fspaces.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref30" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Boekaerts M. Bringing about change in the classroom: Strengths and weaknesses of the self-regulated learning approach–EARLI Presidential Address, 2001. Learning and Instruction. 2002; 12; 6: 589-604. 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00010-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3; 2: 77-101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref68" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Byers TCleveland B, Mitcheltree H, Imms W. Development of an observation metric for linking pedagogy, technology, and space. What's working? Informing education theory, design and practice through learning environmental evaluation. 2016; LEaRN University of Melbourne: 77-88</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref65" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Carter CP, Reschly AL, Lovelace MD, Appleton JJ, Thompson D. Measuring student engagement among elementary students: Pilot of the student engagement instrument—Elementary version. School Psychology Quarterly. 2012; 27; 2: 61-73. 10.1037/a0029229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charteris, J, Anderson, J, & Page, A. (2021). Psychological safety in innovative learning environments: planning for inclusive spaces. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1974108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charteris J, Smardon D. A typology of agency in new generation learning environments: Emerging relational, ecological and new material considerations. Pedagogy, Culture and Society. 2018; 26; 1: 51-68</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charteris J, Smardon D. Dimensions of agency in flexible learning spaces: Developing assessment capability. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2019; 44; 7: 1-17</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chell, E, & Athayde, R. (2009). The identification and measurement of innovative characteristics of young people: Development of the youth innovation skills measurement tool. NESTA: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cleveland, B. (2016). Addressing the spatial to catalyse socio- pedagogical reform in middle years education. In K. Fisher (Ed.), The translational design of schools: An evidence-based approach to aligning pedagogy and learning environments. Sense Publishers.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-364-3_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Closs L, Mahat M, Imms W. Learning environments' influence on students' learning experience in an Australian faculty of business and economics. Learning Environments Research. 2022; 25; 1: 271-285. 10.1007/s10984-021-09361-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Commonwealth Royal Commission into into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report.https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denning, C. B, & Moody, A. K. (2018). Inclusion and autism spectrum disorder: Proactive strategies to support students. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edgington, U. (2017). Subjectivity and objectivity in observations. In Emotional labour and lesson observation: A study of England's further education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2991-2_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis J, Strobel N, Trapp G, Pearce N, Vaz S, Christian H, Runions K, Martin K, Cross D. How does the school built environment impact students' bullying behaviour? A scoping review. Social Science and Medicine. 2022; 314; 115451: 1-13. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115451</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hadwin AF, Järvelä S, Miller MSchunk DH, Greene JA. Self-regulation, co-regulation and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. 2017; Routledge: 83-106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hart, S. R, Stewart, K, & Jimerson, S. R. (2011). The Student Engagement in Schools Questionnaire (SESQ) and the Teacher Engagement Form-New (TERF-N): Examining the preliminary evidence. Contemporary School Psychology,15, 67–79.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Higgins, S, Hall, E, Wall, K, Woolner, P, & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. University of Newcastle.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hinckson E, Salmon J, Benden M, Clemes SA, Sudholz B, Barber SE, Aminian S, Ridgers ND. Standing classrooms: Research and lessons learned from around the world. Sports Medicine. 2016; 46; 7: 977-987. 10.1007/s40279-015-0436-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Imms C, Granlund M, Wilson PH, Steenbergen B, Rosenbaum PL, Gordon AM. Participation, both a means and an end: A conceptual analysis of processes and outcomes in childhood disability. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2016; 59; 1: 16-25. 10.1111/dmcn.13237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jonassen, D, & Land, S. (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Ellis YG, Ucci M, Okely AD, Parrish AM. School flexible learning spaces, student movement behavior and educational outcomes among adolescents: A mixed-methods systematic review. Journal of School Health. 2021; 91; 2: 133-145. 10.1111/josh.12984</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kariippanon, K. E, Cliff, D. P, Lancaster, S. J, Okely, A. D, & Parrish, A.-M. (2019). Flexible learning spaces facilitate interaction, collaboration and behavioural engagement in secondary school. PLOS One, 14(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223607</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Lancaster SL, Okely AD, Parrish A-M. Perceived interplay between flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing. Learning Environments Research. 2018; 21; 3: 301-320. 10.1007/s10984-017-9254-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Okely AD, Parrish A-M. The 'why' and 'how' of flexible learning spaces: A complex adaptive systems analysis. Journal of Educational Change. 2020; 21; 4: 569-593. 10.1007/s10833-019-09364-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koutsouris G, Bremner N, Stentiford L. Do we have to rethink inclusive pedagogies for secondary schools? A critical systematic review of the international literature. British Educational Research Journal. 2023; 50; 1: 260-286. 10.1002/berj.3926</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krasny-Pacini, A, & Evans, J. (2018). Single-case experimental designs to assess intervention effectiveness in rehabilitation: A practical guide. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 61(3), 164–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2017.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leifler E. Teachers' capacity to create inclusive learning environments. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies. 2020; 9; 3: 221-244. 10.1108/IJLLS-01-2020-0003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahat, M, Bradbeer, C, Byers, T, & Imms, W. (2018). Innovative learning environments and teacher change: Defining key concepts. University of Melbourne. <ulink href="http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/reports">http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/reports</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, J. E, & Imms, W. (2020). Plans to pedagogy activity report 2019: What impact does 'innovative' furniture have on student engagement and teacher practices? Edith Cowan University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, J. E, & Imms, W. (2022). Designing and using innovative learning spaces: What teachers have to say. IUL Research, 3(6), 7–25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, D. J. (2020). Relationships between innovative learning environments, teacher mind frames and deep learning. [Doctoral disseration]. University of Melbourne. <ulink href="http://hdl.handle.net/11343/290169">http://hdl.handle.net/11343/290169</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ovbiagbonhia AR, Kollöffel B, den Brok P. Educating for innovation: Students' perceptions of the learning environment and of their own innovation competence. Learning Environments Research. 2019; 22; 3: 387-407. 10.1007/s10984-019-09280-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pluquailec J. Affective economies, autism, and "challenging behaviour": Socio-spatial emotions in disabled children's education. Emotion, Space and Society. 2018; 9: 9-14</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose-Munro, L. (2021). Innovative Learning Environments, Are They Inclusive? Why Evaluating the Speaking, and Acoustic Potential of the Space Matters. In W. Imms & T. Kvan (Eds.), Teacher Transition into Innovative Learning Environments: A Global Perspective (pp. 151–165). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7497-9_13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saltmarsh S, Chapman A, Campbell M, Drew C. Putting "structure within the space": Spatially un/ responsive pedagogic practices in open-plan learning environments. Educational Review. 2015; 67; 3: 315-327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanahuja-Gavaldà JM, Olmos-Rueda P, Morón-Velasco M. Collaborative support for inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 2016; 16; 1: 303-307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schunk, D. H, & Greene, J. A. (2018). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Starkey L, Leggett V, Anslow C, Ackley A. The use of furniture in a student-centred primary school learning environment. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies. 2021; 56; 1: 61-79. 10.1007/s40841-020-00187-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stewart D. Versatile spaces: Using furniture to create spaces for varied needs, even on a budget. American School and University. 2008; 80; 9: 41-45</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taber KS. The use of cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education. 2018; 48: 1273-1296. 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Talbert, R, & Mor-Avi, A. (2018). A space for learning: A review of research on active learning spaces. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/vg2mx</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations. (2015). The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wingrat JK, Exner CE. The impact of school furniture on fourth grade children's on-task and sitting behavior in the classroom: A pilot study. Work. 2005; 25; 3: 263-272</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Julia E. Morris and Wesley Imms</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref98"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1486006
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Flexible Furniture to Support Inclusive Education: Developing Learner Agency and Engagement in Primary School
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Julia+E%2E+Morris%22">Julia E. Morris</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4481-8050">0000-0003-4481-8050</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wesley+Imms%22">Wesley Imms</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3131-8711">0000-0002-3131-8711</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Learning+Environments+Research%22"><i>Learning Environments Research</i></searchLink>. 2025 28(2):223-248.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 26
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Needs%22">Student Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Furniture%22">Furniture</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Space+Utilization%22">Space Utilization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Design%22">Classroom Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Empowerment%22">Student Empowerment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Management%22">Self Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Centered+Learning%22">Student Centered Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Teaching%22">Peer Teaching</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10984-024-09522-z
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1387-1579<br />1573-1855
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: To ensure quality and equitable education requires an understanding of how all learners function within a learning environment, and the ways in which teachers' pedagogy can support inclusive practice. Drawing on research from a rural school in Western Australia, this paper identifies how furniture can be used as a tool to support student agency and opportunity to meet individual learning needs. Across two years, the study employed a single-subject research design to explore the impact of differing furniture arrangements on students' agency and engagement, as well as teacher pedagogies. It used both quantitative and qualitative repeated measures with 9 teachers and their classes (over 500 students aged 7-11 years), as they changed from flexible to traditional furniture arrangements and back again (an A-B-A design). The study found students self-manage their physical, psychological and learning needs through furniture. It found teachers were more student-centred in their pedagogical practice in flexible furniture arrangements, and they believed the flexible arrangement supported more inclusive practice compared to the perceived individualised and isolated learning experiences in the traditional furniture arrangement. The data suggest that all learners, including those with additional needs, are more empowered by flexible environments, having autonomy to personalise their learning, and effectively offering/receiving support to their peers as they work together in the learning environment. It further suggests that teachers' ability to support learners is impacted when they can move effectively around the classroom, or when peer support is diminished in the learning environment.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1486006
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1486006
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10984-024-09522-z
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 26
        StartPage: 223
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Furniture
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Space Utilization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Empowerment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Centered Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Flexible Furniture to Support Inclusive Education: Developing Learner Agency and Engagement in Primary School
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Julia E. Morris
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wesley Imms
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1387-1579
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1855
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Environments Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1