Trends and Gaps in Learning Space Research: A Systematic Review

Abstract

This study presents a bibliometric analysis to explore the development trends, conceptual structure, and interdisciplinary gaps within the academic literature on learning spaces. As physical, digital, and hybrid learning environments continue to evolve, research on learning spaces has gained prominence. However, most existing literature is shaped predominantly by educational sciences, with limited representation of spatial design and architectural perspectives. This study aims to map the field systematically and provide a comprehensive understanding of both its strengths and limitations. A total of 2,819 publications indexed in the Web of Science database were analyzed. The bibliometric process employed VOSviewer and Bibliometrix software to generate co-authorship networks, keyword co-occurrence maps, thematic clusters, and country-level collaborations. In addition, a trigram analysis was applied to article abstracts to compare the alignment between author-defined keywords and the actual thematic content. The results identified 13 thematic clusters, primarily centered around pedagogical frameworks, teacher education, digital learning environments, and student engagement. A notable discrepancy was found between frequently used keywords and the core themes emerging from article abstracts, indicating conceptual misalignment in the field. Temporal analysis also revealed a recent shift—particularly after 2020—toward topics such as digitalization, hybrid learning, and artificial intelligence. Findings suggest that learning spaces should be explored not only from pedagogical perspectives but also through spatial and architectural lenses. Accordingly, stronger collaboration between educational sciences and spatial design disciplines is recommended. By objectively mapping publication patterns, this bibliometric analysis offers valuable insight and direction for future interdisciplinary research on learning environments.

Keywords

• educational research
• learning environments
• learning spaces
• bibliometric analysis
• bibliometric mapping

Öğrenme Alanı Araştırmalarındaki Eğilimler ve Boşluklar: Sistematik Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Bu çalışma, öğrenme mekânlarına ilişkin akademik literatürün gelişim eğilimlerini ortaya koymak, kavramsal yapısını analiz etmek ve alandaki disiplinler arası boşlukları belirlemek amacıyla bibliyometrik bir analiz gerçekleştirmektedir. Özellikle fiziksel, dijital ve hibrit öğrenme ortamlarının dönüşümüyle birlikte, öğrenme mekânları üzerine yapılan araştırmalar önem kazanmıştır. Ancak bu alandaki yayınların büyük bölümü eğitim bilimleri perspektifinde şekillenmekte, mekânsal tasarım ve mimarlık gibi alanlar literatürde sınırlı ölçüde temsil edilmektedir. Bu çalışma, öğrenme mekânı araştırmalarını sistematik bir biçimde haritalayarak alana ilişkin güçlü ve zayıf yönleri bütüncül bir çerçevede değerlendirmeyi hedeflemektedir. Araştırmada, Web of Science veri tabanından elde edilen 2.819 yayın analiz edilmiştir. Bibliyometrik analiz sürecinde VOSviewer ve Bibliometrix yazılımları kullanılmış; anahtar kelime eş-oluşumları, tematik kümeler, atıf ilişkileri ve ülke iş birlikleri görselleştirilmiştir. Ayrıca yayın özetlerine uygulanan trigram analizi, yazarların tanımladığı anahtar kelimeler ile makalelerin gerçek içeriği arasında kavramsal tutarlılık olup olmadığını test etmek amacıyla kullanılmıştır. Analizler sonucunda 13 tematik küme belirlenmiş ve bu kümelerin büyük ölçüde pedagojik kuramlar, öğretmen eğitimi, dijital öğrenme ortamları ve öğrenci katılımı gibi konular etrafında yoğunlaştığı tespit edilmiştir. Yazar anahtar kelimelerinde sıklıkla yer alan kavramlar ile makale özetlerinde vurgulanan kavramlar arasında anlamlı farklar bulunmuş; bu durum, alanın kavramsal olarak henüz yeterince bütünleşmediğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, zaman serisi analizleri öğrenme mekânları araştırmalarının 2020 sonrasında dijitalleşme, hibrit öğrenme ve yapay zekâ gibi kavramlara yöneldiğini ortaya koymuştur. Çalışmanın bulguları, öğrenme mekânlarının pedagojik boyutlarıyla birlikte fiziksel ve mekânsal özelliklerinin de araştırma odağı hâline gelmesi gerektiğine işaret etmektedir. Bu bağlamda, eğitim bilimleri ile mimarlık ve mekân tasarımı arasında daha güçlü iş birlikleri geliştirilmesi önerilmektedir. Bibliyometrik analizler, alandaki yayın eğilimlerini nesnel ve kapsamlı biçimde ortaya koyarak, gelecek araştırmalar için yönlendirici bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• eğitim araştırması
• öğrenme ortamları
• öğrenme mekanları
• bibliyometrik analiz
• bibliyometrik haritalama

References

1. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
2. Aydınoğlu, A. U., İlhan, A., & Özer, Ö. K. (2022). Bi̇r Sosyal Bi̇li̇mler Araştirma Yöntemi̇ Olarak Bi̇bli̇yometri̇: Akademi̇k Gi̇ri̇şi̇mci̇li̇k Örneği̇. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1124926
3. Baepler, P., Walker, J., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s Not About Seat Time: Blending, Flipping, and Efficiency in Active Learning Classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006
4. Beckers, R., van der Voordt, T., & Dewulf, G. (2016). Learning Space Preferences of Higher Education Students. Building and Environment, 104, 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.013
5. Bennett, S. (2007). Designing for Uncertainty: Three Approaches. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2006.12.005
6. Bouilheres, F., Le, L., McDonald, S., Nkhoma, C., & Jandug-Montera, L. (2020). Defining Student Learning Experience Through Blended Learning. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 3049–3069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10100-y
7. Bryant, J., Matthews, G., & Walton, G. (2009). Academic Libraries and Social and Learning Space: A Case Study of Loughborough University Library, Uk. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 41(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000608099895
8. Byers, T., Hartnell-Young, E., & Imms, W. (2018). Empirical Evaluation of Different Classroom Spaces on Students’ Perceptions of the Use and Effectiveness of 1-to-1 Technology. In British Journal of Educational Technology (Vol. 49, Issue 1, pp. 153–164). WILEY. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12518

9. Clement, M., & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teachers’ Professional Development: A Solitary or Collegial (ad)venture? Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(1), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00051-7
10. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science Mapping Software Tools: Review, Analysis, and Cooperative Study Among Tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
11. Crabb, M., Clarke, D., Al Waer, H., Heron, M. J., & Laing, R. (2019). Inclusive Design for Immersive Spaces. Routledge, 22(sup1), 2105–2118. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1594934
12. Cremin, T., Myhill, D., Eyres, I., Nash, T., Wilson, A., & Oliver, L. (2020). Teachers as Writers: Learning Together with Others. Literacy, 54(2), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12201
13. Davis, J. C. (n.d.). Learning spaces implementation: Operationalized theory in bidding documents [Ed.D.]. Retrieved March 30, 2025, from https://www.proquest.com/docview/305311604/abstract/CAB1478A03974D23PQ/1
14. Diodato, V. P., & Gellatly, P. (2013). Dictionary of Bibliometrics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203714133
15. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2020). Forty-Five Years of Journal of Business Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.039.
16. Elkington, S., & Bligh, B. (2019). Future Learning Spaces: Space, Technology and Pedagogy. The Higher Education Academy. https://research.tees.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/6770557/Future_Learning_Spaces.pdf
17. Fisher, K., & Newton, C. (2014). Transforming the Twenty-First-Century Campus to Enhance the Net-Generation Student Learning Experience: Using Evidence-Based Design to Determine What Works and Why in Virtual/Physical Teaching Spaces. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(5), 903–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.890566
18. Flecha, R., & Soler, M. (2013). Turning Difficulties into Possibilities: Engaging Roma Families and Students in School Through Dialogic Learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.819068
19. Harrop, D., & Turpin, B. (2013). A Study Exploring Learners’ Informal Learning Space Behaviors, Attitudes, and Preferences. Taylor & Francis, 19(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2013.740961
20. Hilbert, M., & López, P. (2011). The World's Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information. Science, 332(6025), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200970
21. Holley, D., & Dobson, C. (2008). Encouraging Student Engagement in a Blended Learning Environment: The Use of Contemporary Learning Spaces. Learning Media and Technology, 33(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880802097683
22. Jamieson, P., Fisher, K., Gilding, T., Taylor, P. G., & Trevitt, A. C. F. (2000). Place and Space in the Design of New Learning Environments. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/072943600445664
23. Jing, Y., Zhao, L., Zhu, K., Wang, H., Wang, C., & Xia, Q. (2023). Research Landscape of Adaptive Learning in Education: A Bibliometric Study on Research Publications from 2000 to 2022. Sustainability, 15(4), 3115. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043115
24. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2009). The Learning Way Meta-cognitive Aspects of Experiential Learning. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108325713
25. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2010). Learning to Play, Playing to Learn a Case Study of a Ludic Learning Space. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(1), 26–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811011017199
26. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566
27. Matthews, L. E., Jessup, N. A., & Sears, R. (2021). Looking for “Us”: Power Reimagined in Mathematics Learning for Black Communities in the Pandemic. In Educational Studies in Mathematics (Vol. 108, Issues 1–2, SI, pp. 333–350). SPRINGER. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10106-4
28. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2010). Personalised and Self Regulated Learning in the Web 2.0 Era: International Exemplars of Innovative Pedagogy Using Social Software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1100
29. Montgomery, S. (2014). Library Space Assessment: User Learning Behaviors in the Library. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(1), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.11.003
30. Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software Tools for Conducting Bibliometric Analysis in Science: An up-to-Date Review. Profesional de La Información, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
31. Norberg, A., Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2011). A Time-Based Blended Learning Model. On the Horizon, 19(3), 207-+. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748121111163913
32. Oblinger, D. (n.d.). Leading the Transition from Classrooms to Learning Spaces. Educause Review. Retrieved February 12, 2025, from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2005/1/leading-the-transition-from-classrooms-to-learning-spaces
33. Pegrum, M., Oakley, G., & Faulkner, R. (2013). Schools Going Mobile: A Study of the Adoption of Mobile Handheld Technologies in Western Australian Independent Schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.64.
34. Pulak, I. (2016). Traditional and Digital Personal Learning Environment in Experiences of University Students. Inderscience Publishers, 26(4), 419–419. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijceell.2016.10001921
35. Ramos, S. A. M., Rodríguez‐Reséndiz, J., Gutiérrez, A. F., Sevilla-Camacho, P. Y., & Mendiola-Santibañez, J. D. (2021). The Learning Space as Support to Sustainable Development: A Revision of Uses and Design Processes. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 13(21), 11609–11609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111609
36. Rehm, M., & Notten, A. (2016). Twitter as an Informal Learning Space for Teachers!? The Role of Social Capital in Twitter Conversations Among Teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.015
37. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., Withey, R., Jamali, H. R., Dobrowolski, T., & Tenopir, C. (2008). The Google Generation: The Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future. Aslib Proceedings, 60(4), 290–310. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530810887953
38. Scott-Webber, L. (2004). In Sync: Environmental Behavior Research and the Design of Learning Spaces. the Society for College and University Planning. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:60432168
39. Selvaratnam, R. (2021). The Link Between Learning Spaces and Employability Outcomes. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 10(2), 48–53.
40. 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
41. Tomkins, L., & Ulus, E. (2016). "Oh, Was That “Experiential Learning”?!’ Spaces, Synergies and Surprises with Kolb’s Learning Cycle. Management Learning, 47(2), 158–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507615587451
42. Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2021). Transitioning to E-Learning During the Covid-19 Pandemic: How Have Higher Education Institutions Responded to the Challenge? Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6401–6419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10633-w
43. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
44. Van Note Chism, N., & Bickford, D. J. (2002). Improving the Environment for Learning: An Expanded Agenda. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002(92), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.83
45. Woolner, P., & Hall, E. (2010). Noise in Schools: A Holistic Approach to the Issue. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(8), 3255–3269. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7083255
46. Yang, J., Yu, H., & Chen, N. (2019). Using Blended Synchronous Classroom Approach to Promote Learning Performance in Rural Area. Computers & Education, 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103619