University space for study, creativity, and development according to pedagogy students: reality versus expectations
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2026.23445Abstract
This paper presents the research results concerning the meaning of university space and its design for students. The issue of educational space is discussed in pedagogical research increasingly often; however, this still rarely concerns higher education, which is frequently treated as if it were independent from the space in which it takes place. During the study, verbal descriptions of desired university spaces were analyzed together with artworks on the same topic prepared by 276 pedagogy students at the University of Lodz in Poland. The results reveal a clear discrepancy between the educational spaces imagined by students and those that currently exist. For students, the shape and design of university buildings, their equipment, functions, and aesthetic qualities are highly important. Their expectations reflect social needs, their understanding of learning and teaching, and the need for freedom, especially in creative activity. A common feature of almost all analyzed works is the presence of qualities characteristic of Ray Oldenburg’s so-called “third place”: a neutral place that allows people to be with their friends, observe their surroundings, and present themselves to others. Today, “third places” are becoming increasingly important, yet this is still not adequately recognized in traditional university spaces. The design of university buildings should therefore reflect not only modern interior design trends but also a philosophy of education; awareness of educational goals and the needs of those who use these spaces should be the starting point for creating them. This paper contributes to filling the gap in academic reflection on the meaning of space in higher education, especially in relation to creativity.
Keywords:
knowledge-based economy, higher education, pedagogy of creativity, educational space, third placeHow to Cite
Share
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Beckers, R., Van der Voordt, T., & Dewulf, G. (2015). A conceptual framework to identify spatial implications of new ways of learning in higher education. Facilities, 33(1/2), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-02-2013-0013
Cagliari, P., Castagnetti, M., Giudici, C., Rinaldi, C., Vecchi, V., & Moss, P. (2016). Loris Malaguzzi and the schools of Reggio Emilia. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315778631
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publications.
Clark, H. (2002). Building education: The role of the physical environment in enhancing teaching and research. Institute of Education, University of London.
Cangdon, C., Flynn, D., & Redman, M. (2014). Balancing “We” and “Me”: The best collaborative spaces also support solitude. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/10/balancing-we-and-me-the-best-collaborative-spaces-also-support-solitude
Coburn, A., Vartanian, O., & Chatterjee, A. (2017). Building, beauty, and the brain: A neuroscience of architectural experience. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(9), 1521–1531. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01146
Designing Spaces for Effective Learning. A guide to 21st century learning space design. (2006). http://www.online-conference.net/jisc/content/designspaces.pdf
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications.
Downes, S. (2007). Learning networks in practice. National Research Council Canada.
Flick, U. (2007). Designing qualitative research. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208826
Friedman, J., & Worden, A. (2016). Creating interdisciplinary space on campus: Lessons from US area studies centers. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(1), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1128886
Grabowski, Ł., & Hebal-Jezierska, M. (2016). O różnych korpusowych metodach badawczych – próba krytycznej refleksji [On various corpus-based research methods – an attempt at critical reflection]. Komunikacja Specjalistyczna, 11, 65–83.
Imai, R., & Ban, M. (2016). Disrupting workspace: Designing an office that inspires collaboration and innovation. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, 1, 444–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/1559-8918.2016.01103
Jamieson, P. (2003). Designing more effective on-campus teaching and learning spaces: A role for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1–2), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144042000277991
Klus-Stańska, D. (2012). Wiedza, która zniewala – transmisyjne tradycje w szkolnej edukacji [Knowledge that enslaves: Transmissive traditions in school education]. Forum Oświatowe, 1/46, 212–240.
Laurence, A. (2005). AntConc: Design and development of a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom. In IPCC 2005. International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings (pp. 729–737). IEEE.
Laurence, G. A., Fried, Y., & Slowik, L. H. (2013). “My space”: A moderated mediation model of the effect of architectural and experienced privacy and workspace personalization on emotional exhaustion at work. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.011
Lee, J. H., & Lee, S. (2023). Relationships between physical environments and creativity: A scoping review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 48, Article 101276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101276
Nalaskowski, A. (2002). Przestrzenie i miejsca szkoły [School spaces and places ]. Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls.
Nycz, R. (2013). W stronę humanistyki innowacyjnej. Tekst jako laboratorium. Tradycje, hipotezy, propozycje [Towards innovative humanities: Text as a laboratory. Traditions, hypotheses, ideas]. Teksty Drugie, 1–2, 239–255.
Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. Paragon House.
Paul, A. M. (2021). The extended mind: The power of thinking outside the brain. HarperCollins.
Pawlikowska, A. (2012). Zastosowanie metod językoznawstwa korpusowego i lingwistyki kwantytatywnej w analizie dyskursu [Application of the methods of corpus linguistics and quantitative linguistics in discourse analysis.]. Oblicza Komunikacji, 5, 111–125.
Pawłowski, A. (2003). Lingwistyka korpusowa – perspektywy i zagrożenia [Corpus linguistics – perspectives and challenges]. Polonica, XXII–XXIII, 19–32.
Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11017.001.0001
Talbert, R., & Mor-Avi, A. (2019). A space for learning: An analysis of research on active learning spaces. Heliyon, 5(12), Article e02967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02967
Temple, P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: An under-researched topic. London Review of Education, 6(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460802489363
Thornburg, D. (2014). From the campfire to the holodeck – creating engaging and powerful 21st Century learning environments. Jossey-Bass.
Winnicka-Jasłowska, D. (2016). Przestrzeń nauki współczesnego uniwersytetu. Rola badań przedprojektowych w programowaniu nowych funkcji wyższych uczelni [The learning space of the contemporary university: The role of pre-design research in programming new functions of higher education institutions] [postdoctoral dissertation, Silesian University of Technology]. https://delibra.bg.polsl.pl/dlibra/publication/77479/edition/68568?language=en
View article in other formats
CrossMark check
Published
Issue
Section
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.