Home⇛Asia Pacific Journal of Management and Sustainable Development⇛vol. 12 no. 2 Part 4 (2024)

Inclusive Classroom, Space Design, and Academic Performance of Teachers in A China Comprehensive University

Hu Fang | Beverly T. Caiga

Discipline: Teacher Training

 

Abstract:

This research explored the complex relationships between inclusive classroom design, spatial flexibility, and teacher academic performance, while addressing the growing need for a better understanding of how these variables interact, especially in relation to demographic factors such as age, experience, and subject specialization. Utilizing a descriptive research method, the study aimed to offer insights into the foundational connections between these elements, with the goal of informing strategies for creating more effective teaching environments.The findings revealed significant disparities based on demographic factors, with younger teachers, those in STEM fields, and urban-based faculty demonstrating higher levels of academic productivity and engagement in classrooms designed to promote inclusivity and flexibility. The research also underscored the generally positive impact of well-designed classroom spaces on overall teaching quality, but it highlighted concerns regarding the limitations of rigid classroom layouts, which may hinder dynamic teaching methods.Moreover, the study found a strong correlation between flexible spatial design and teacher engagement, indicating that as classroom environments became more adaptable, teachers were more likely to employ diverse instructional techniques, ultimately enhancing their academic performance. Consequently, the research proposed several recommendations for the improvement of inclusive classroom design, urging universities to prioritize investment in flexible, accessible, and technology-enhanced learning spaces that can support the varied teaching needs of faculty members. These insights contribute to the broader discussion on improving academic outcomes through thoughtful space design, offering valuable guidance for comprehensive universities in China as they seek to enhance both teaching effectiveness and overall academic performance.



References:

  1. Khan, A., & Ali, S. (2021). Impact of institutional Khan, A., & Ali, S. (2021). Impact of institutional support on university faculty research performance. Higher Education Research.
  2. Baguisa, L. R., & Ang-Manaig, K. (2019). Knowledge, skills and attitudes of teachers on inclusive education and academic performance of children with special needs. International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 1409-1425.
  3. Jin, S., & Peng, L. (2022). Classroom perception in higher education: The impact of spatial factors on student satisfaction in lecture versus active learning classrooms. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 941285.
  4. Molina Roldán, S., Marauri, J., Aubert, A., & Flecha, R. (2021). How inclusive interactive learning environments benefit students without special needs. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 661427.
  5. Abouelela, A. (2022). The effectiveness of the role of interior design in creating functional and institutional happiness for work environments: King Faisal university as a model. Designs, 6(3), 45.
  6. Tiutiunnikov, L. (2018). Distractions in the office environment of start-up companies.
  7. Cacique, M., & Ou, S. J. (2022). Biophilic design as a strategy for accomplishing the idea of healthy, sustainable, and resilient environments. Sustainability, 14(9), 5605.
  8. Panagopoulos, T., Sbarcea, M., & Herman, K. (2020). A biophilic mindset for a restorative built environment. Landscape Architecture and Art, 17(17), 68-77.
  9. Kellert, S. R. (2018). Nature by design: The practice of biophilic design. yale university press.
  10. Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers. Ascd.
  11. Khan, R., & Ahmed, M. (2023). Institutional support and research productivity of university lecturers. Higher Education Studies.
  12. Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Secondary lenses on learning participant book: Team leadership for mathematics in middle and high schools, 313-344.
  13. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American economic review, 100(2), 267-271.
  14. Vargas, A., & Campbell, D. (2020). The impact of flexible classroom design on faculty teaching and student learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Spaces, 29(5), 201-214.
  15. Poed, S., Cologon, K., & Jackson, R. (2022). Gatekeeping and restrictive practices by
  16. Johnson-Smith, T. (2014). Student engagement and academic achievement in technology enhanced and traditional classroom environments.
  17. Johnson, L., & Wang, X. (2021). Assessing the impact of barrier-free environments on learning outcomes. International Journal of Accessibility Studies, 14(1), 45-59.
  18. Chen, Y., & Thomas, S. (2020). Interactive teaching methods: A review of their impact on student performance. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 31(1), 50-65.
  19. Johnson, A., & Miller, B. (2020). Enhancing teacher engagement through institutional support: Impacts on student performance. Journal of Educational Development, 45(3), 245-260.
  20. Garcia, L., & Patel, R. (2020). Composite analysis of educational indicators: Balancing accessibility, needs, and interaction. Educational Review Quarterly, 45(3), 112-125.
  21. Brown, D., & Wilson, K. (2019). Satisfaction with educational environments: A composite review of key indicators. International Journal of Educational Development, 39(4), 98-110.
  22. Smith, C. M. (2023). Culturally Inclusive Instructional Strategies Implemented by Designers-by-Assignment in Higher Education Student Services. The Florida State University.
  23. Wack, N. M. (2021). Bridging barriers in inclusive classrooms: Avenues for communication between general education teachers and families.
  24. Vargas, A., & Campbell, D. (2020). The impact of flexible classroom design on faculty teaching and student learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Spaces, 29(5), 201-214.
  25. Rahman, M., & Hasan, M. (2022). Motivational factors and research output of university lecturers. Journal of Educational Research.
  26. Wright, J., & Bennett, S. (2021). Faculty perceptions of academic freedom and its relationship to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Higher Education Policy, 40(3), 222-235.
  27. Azemati, H., Aminifar, Z., & Pourbagher, S. (2018). Effective Environmental Factors on Designing Productive Learning Environment. 8-1, (22) 11
  28. Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and teacher education, 19(2), 149-170.
  29.  Nwuke, T. J., & Nwanguma, T. K. (2024). Provision and Utilization of Physical Resources for Effective Teaching and Learning Effectiveness in Public Universities in Rivers State.
  30. Birch, D. A., & Videto, D. M. (2015). Promoting health and academic success: The whole school, whole community, whole child approach. Human Kinetics.
  31. Farid, N., Kaleem, K., & Khan, N. (2020). Exploring the Role of Principals in Developing Conducive Schools Environment for Learning. Research Journal of Social Sciences and Economics Review, 1(2), 79-84.
  32. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of information technology for teacher education, 9(3), 319-342.
  33. Petersen, K. H. (2020). Increasing accessibility through inclusive instruction and design. Disability as diversity: A guidebook for inclusion in medicine, nursing, and the health professions, 143-173.
  34. Wilson, D., & Conyers, M. (2020). Five big ideas for effective teaching: Connecting mind, brain, and education research to classroom practice. Teachers College Press.

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic