Does Physical Environment Contribute to Basic Psychological Needs? A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Learning in the Chemistry Laboratory

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the role of the physical environment in the learning process from the perspective of basic psychological needs and found that the usability and functionality of spaces and tools contributed to not only the fluency of the intellectual activity but also to the related emotional experience of oneself acting in a particular environment.

Abstract: The role of motivation and emotions in learning has been extensively studied in recent years; however, research on the role of the physical environment still remains scarce. This study examined the role of the physical environment in the learning process from the perspective of basic psychological needs. Although self-determination theory stresses the role of the social and cultural environment, as yet the role of the physical environment has been unexplored. The study focused on beginning chemistry university students’ (n=21) experiences in a chemistry laboratory. The data consisted of focus-group interviews and self-report questionnaires. The results indicate that the physical environment can support or thwart the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs. The usability and functionality of spaces and tools contributed to not just the fluency of the intellectual activity but also to the related emotional experience of oneself acting in a particular environment. The physical environment was a source of procedural facilitation: It complemented and challenged the students’ existing skills, contributing to their experiences of autonomy and competence. The everyday successes or struggles in the laboratory built on the students’ developing professional identity as well as their sense of belonging to the professional community. This study demonstrates that the design and functionality of the physical environment has a significant role in users’ intellectual and emotional functioning. It is essential to utilize psychological and pedagogical knowledge when designing or renovating work and learning environments in order to fully make use of the potential of physical environments as part of human performance.

Summary

1. Introduction

• In recent years, the broadening field of research on the role of motivation and emotions in learning has produced important new information on how to optimally arrange the study environment (see e.g.
• This study examines the role of the physical environment in supporting learning and basic psychological needs.
• These issues are focal in both learning environments and environments dedicated to other purposes, such as work or recreation.

2.1 Basic psychological needs

• This is a macro-theory of human motivation, personality development and well-being that focuses especially on volitional behavior and the surrounding conditions that support it (Ryan, 2009).
• In the decades following the formal introduction of the theory in the 1980s, research on the theory has dramatically increased.
• More specifically, the satisfaction of basic psychological needs is relative to the activity and functioning pursued; needs may be seen to specify necessary nutriments with regard to healthy development and vitality as well as constructive and creative outputs (Deci & Ryan, 2002).

2.2 The learning environment

• Similarly to the research on the basic psychological needs, research on learning environments has mainly focused on the social learning environment while the physical learning environment has for the most part been ignored.
• These kinds of views stress the role of the social learning environment in the development of professional abilities, yet neglect the physical environments in which the social activity takes place.
• Research on learning environments has shown that the physical environment conveys assumptions (Beard, 2012; Beard & Price, 2010) and activates students’ previous assumptions regarding similar environments (Mälkki, Sjöblom & Lonka, 2014).
• Along with the idea of socially and physically distributed cognition (Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola & Lehtinen, 2004; Hutchins, 2000, 2006), physical environments also vary with regard to the degree they facilitate the activity that is expected to take place in them.
• The space may be equipped with modern technology and devices that assist the learning process, which makes the learning process markedly different from one that is carried out without any needed assistance, such as calculators, to begin with.

2.3 The context of the study: exploring the basic psychological needs in a chemistry laboratory

• In their study the authors focus on beginning university chemistry students’ learning, in particular on their experiences during laboratory work, in order to unveil the dynamics between physical environment and basic psychological needs.
• Namely, the physical laboratory environment, which includes not only desks and chairs but also the diverse and complex laboratory instrumentation, is especially focal in learning chemistry.
• Furthermore, sense of autonomy and competence are expected to develop in a study context, which, similarly to a working environment, represents a performance-oriented environment.
• In their view, it is important to look more closely at the emerging sense of relatedness with regard to the study community and the physical premises, and more generally, to the professional field.
• This is not the case for all of the students who drop out of their chemistry studies.

3. The aims of the study

• This study explored the role of the physical environment with regard to learning from the perspective of basic psychological needs.
• Aligned with the theory of basic psychological needs, the authors postulated that the satisfaction of these needs is not a goal as such, but rather a facilitator with regard to productivity and well-being.
• Rather than focusing on individual experiences regarding the core needs, their emphasis was on exploring the dynamics of the phenomenon on a more theoretical level.
• While much of the research on motivation is based on self-report questionnaires in order to measure individuals’ views and beliefs, classroom observations and interviews can provide a richer depiction of situated motivation (Wigfield, Cambria & Eccles, 2012).

4.1 Participants

• The participants of the study were beginning-stage chemistry students (n=21, representing both genders) from a Finnish university.
• The participants were selected based on their willingness to participate as well as the appropriate timing of their current laboratory project; in other words, participation in the interview and selection for a particular focus group also depended on whether they were able to leave their laboratory work for an hour to complete the interview.

4.2 Materials

• The data consists of focus group interviews and questionnaires that were completed by each participant individually before entering the interview.
• By having the students complete the questionnaire individually before entering the interview, the authors aimed at giving the students the space to reflect on the topics based on their own experience and perspective first, and the views could then be elaborated further in the group.
• The following rounds of analysis focused on elaborating specifically on this approach with continued iterative individual and collaborative rounds.
• The previous study shed light on the role of the physical space in the learning process:.
• The authors main focus was on the dynamics between the physical environment and the experiences of the learner rather than on a purely deductive approach driven by an emphasis on testing the theory.

5. Results

• In the following sections the authors will focus on how the three core needs, autonomy, competence and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2002), manifest in relation to the physical environment and the learning context.
• As their approach stretches the theory of psychological needs out of its usual sphere of application, the authors employed an abductive approach to be open to dynamics of the phenomenon that are not readily conceptualized in self-determination theory.
• For analytical clarity, the authors will in the following first examine each dimension individually, and secondly they will discuss how these dimensions are intertwined in the data.

5.1 Autonomy

• 1.1 Physically mediated guidance and the use of modern technological devices in supporting students’ sense of autonomy Within the context of learning and instruction, the issue of autonomy is often regarded to predominantly concern the balance between the control over one’s work and the received guidance, which is usually seen as socially mediated.
• As for the laboratory as a physical entity, guidance may be seen not merely as socially mediated but also as physically mediated (Sandström, Sjöblom, Mälkki & Lonka, 2013; Hutchins, 2006); information may be embedded in the physical space itself.
• On the other hand, a lack of needed information or tools provided by the physical environment can reduce one’s prerequisites for performing various tasks, either practical or intellectual, in the space.
• In contrast, if a student is not capable of navigating independently in the space without constantly asking for information on the most basic level, this can be harmful not only for the process of learning but also for the sense of autonomy experienced by the student.
• It is awfully great to get to use things that you never have before.

5.2 Competence

• The importance of practical conditions on intellectual and emotional functioning: Ergonomics, usability and the fluency of the activity in the physical environment.
• If the prerequisites for accomplishing a task are not taken care of and the environment does not provide the needed procedural facilitation, the student cannot experience him- or herself as competent in the given physical environment.
• And special and new equipment too, that you get to familiarize yourself a little with, you wonder what to do with them and they look completely strange, and you have absolutely no clue what to do with them.
• The challenges of competent functioning in the complex physical environment: Providing cognitive structuring and procedural facilitation in the space itself.

5.3 Relatedness

• Within research on learning, relatedness has mainly been studied in relation to a given social community, such as a professional community, instructors or peer students.
• At worst there are so many things in the way, to sum it up, there are many switchbacks there.
• How the space communicates with the student’s needs or expectations may also stem from the way the student is able and allowed to individually customize the space and the facilities according to his or her own preferences, thus bringing about a personal touch with regard to the given physical surroundings.
• As another example, many students mentioned the relevance of the colors in the physical environment.

5.4 Conclusions on the intertwinedness of the basic psychological needs within the context of

• Above the authors have considered the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness as separate dimensions.
• Physically mediated guidance should be more widely acknowledged and utilized in communicating information on a basic level, such as where to find needed equipment or dispose of substances, whereas social guidance is needed in the more complex cognitive processing.
• The physical environment may complement the students’ existing competence and offer procedural facilitation for their learning processes.
• Flexible, diverse and freely accessible spaces should be available for students in order to accommodate the variety of study activities as well as support students’ sense of autonomy and relatedness.

Full text

https://helda.helsinki.fi
Does Physical Environment Contribute to Basic Psychological
Needs? A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Learning
in the Chemistry Laboratory
Sjöblom, Kirsi
2016-02-10
Sjöblom , K , Mälkki , K , Sandström , N & Lonka , K 2016 , ' Does Physical Environment
Contribute to Basic Psychological Needs? A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on
Learning in the Chemistry Laboratory ' , Frontline Learning Research , vol. 4 , no. 1 , pp.
17--39 . https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v4i1.217
http://hdl.handle.net/10138/232963
https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v4i1.217
cc_by_nc_nd
publishedVersion
Downloaded from Helda, University of Helsinki institutional repository.
This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.
Please cite the original version.

!
!
!
!
!
!"#$%&'$()*(+"$'$,)-(.(+"/0)1#&23)4#2)5)67859:)5;<=>)
?@@4)77>A <=5A>))
)
Corresponding author: Kirsi Sjöblom, Research Group of Educational Psychology, Department of Teacher Education,
Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, P.B. 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 5), 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland.
E-mail: kirsi.sjoblom@helsinki.fi DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14786/flr.v4i1.217
Does Physical Environment Contribute to Basic Psychological Needs?
A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Learning in the
Chemistry Laboratory
Kirsi Sjöblom, Kaisu Mälkki, Niclas Sandström, Kirsti Lonka
University of Helsinki, Finland
Article received 1 / October / revised 28 December / accepted 8 January / available online 10 February !
Abstract
The role of motivation and emotions in learning has been extensively studied in recent
years; however, research on the role of the physical environment still remains scarce.
This study examined the role of the physical environment in the learning process from the
perspective of basic psychological needs. Although self-determination theory stresses the
role of the social and cultural environment, as yet the role of the physical environment
has been unexplored. The study focused on beginning chemistry university students’
(n=21) experiences in a chemistry laboratory. The data consisted of focus-group
interviews and self-report questionnaires. The results indicate that the physical
environment can support or thwart the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs. The
usability and functionality of spaces and tools contributed to not just the fluency of the
intellectual activity but also to the related emotional experience of oneself acting in a
particular environment. The physical environment was a source of procedural
facilitation: It complemented and challenged the students’ existing skills, contributing to
their experiences of autonomy and competence. The everyday successes or struggles in
the laboratory built on the students’ developing professional identity as well as their
sense of belonging to the professional community. This study demonstrates that the
design and functionality of the physical environment has a significant role in users’
intellectual and emotional functioning. It is essential to utilize psychological and
pedagogical knowledge when designing or renovating work and learning environments in
order to fully make use of the potential of physical environments as part of human
performance.
Keywords: self-determination theory; basic psychological needs; physical environment;
learning environment; indoor environment; usability

Sjöblom(et(al(
(
(
| FLR!
!
18!
1. Introduction
In recent years, the broadening field of research on the role of motivation and emotions in learning
has produced important new information on how to optimally arrange the study environment (see e.g.
Csíkszentmihályi, 2014; Dweck, 2006; Heikkilä & Lonka, 2006; Heikkilä, Lonka, Nieminen & Niemivirta,
2012; Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Job, Walton, Bernecker & Dweck, 2015; Lindblom-Ylänne & Lonka, 2000;
Mälkki, 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2009; Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich & Linkins, 2009; Tuominen-Soini,
Salmela-Aro & Niemivirta, 2008). Strikingly, even though knowledge on the study environment, and
especially its social attributes, is vast, knowledge on how the physical environment is related to
psychological and pedagogical phenomena as yet remains scarce (Sandström, Sjöblom, Mälkki & Lonka,
2013; Beard 2009, 2012; Lansdale, Parkin, Austin & Baguley, 2011; Lonka, 2012; Woolner, Hall, Higgins,
McCaughey & Wall, 2007). Intellectual and emotional functioning is always nested in the physical
environment, even when working in virtual learning environments. However, most of the research on
physical environment has traditionally focused on minimizing its negative effects on health or determining
how individuals interact with the environment on a perceptual level (see e.g. Alfonsi, Capolongo & Buffoli,
2014; Evans, Bullinger & Hygge, 1998; Parsons & Hartig, 2000; Ulrich, 1981), rather than on unveiling the
role of the physical environment with regard to cognitive and emotional functioning. This study examines
the role of the physical environment in supporting learning and basic psychological needs.
Previous research has indicated that the physical environment is far from irrelevant with regard to
intellectual functioning: The design and functionality of the physical environment contribute to physically
distributed intelligence (Norman, 1993), stress over safety issues and the cognitive capacity available for
higher intellectual functioning such as learning (Sandström, Sjöblom, Mälkki & Lonka, 2013). Being
organized in a given way, the physical space also conveys assumptions and ideologies (Beard, 2012; Beard
& Price, 2010) e.g. on the activity taking place and, as such, tunes the users into different mental modes and
roles (Mälkki, Sjöblom & Lonka, 2014). Thus, similarly to the social environment, the physical environment
can be seen as either facilitating learning and well-being or posing a challenge to them. Moreover, of
particular interest is the emotional experience related to the activity taking place in a given physical space.
This experience may likely bear meaning in the process of forming a relation to the place and, more broadly,
of developing one’s identity as a professional in a given field.
In modern-day society people spend most of their time in indoor environments, and new
multidisciplinary information is needed on how to design these spaces to best support the activity expected to
take place in them. Both human resources and physical spaces are valuable and costly resources: Typically
around 90% of business operating costs consist of direct or indirect staff costs (Alker et al., 2015), and as to
physical spaces, expensive indoor environments need to be used efficiently. At the same time, the industry
policy of most Western societies prioritizes innovation. We need to acquire further knowledge on how to
facilitate the thriving of the human potential by creating fruitful grounds for it. When designing physical
learning spaces, it is essential to not only take into account the most fundamental needs of the students, but
also to gain understanding on the relations between the physical surroundings and the more refined
psychological processes. These issues are focal in both learning environments and environments dedicated to
other purposes, such as work or recreation.
Finally, it is not quite enough to focus on the design and functionality of physical space and tools as
such. The use of available premises and equipment is essentially determined by the social practices applied
in them; for instance, technology advances learning only through transformed social practices (Hakkarainen,
2009; Paavola, Lipponen & Hakkarainen, 2004). Thus, although in this article we examine the role of the
physical environment in the fulfillment of basic psychological needs, we do not assume that it is only a
matter of a relation between the individual and the physical environment. Rather, we approach the theme
from the perspective that the users’ experience of the physical environment is mediated by social practices
and culturally shared meanings. In a broader sense, we are approaching the intriguing interplay between the
human and the material, as well as the intellectual and the emotional.

Sjöblom(et(al(
(
(
| FLR!
!
19!
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Basic psychological needs
In this study we approach questions of learning and well-being with regard to the physical learning
environment from the perspective of basic psychological needs as laid out by the self-determination theory
developed by Deci and Ryan (1985, 2000, 2008; Ryan & Deci 2000, 2009). This is a macro-theory of human
motivation, personality development and well-being that focuses especially on volitional behavior and the
surrounding conditions that support it (Ryan, 2009).
The theory views all human beings as inherently self-determined, actively evolving organisms, with
a natural aspiration for continuous psychological development and growth. However, in order to these
propensities to be actualized, the satisfaction of basic psychological needs must be sufficiently supported.
According to the theory, the social and cultural environment can support the satisfaction of basic
psychological needs and the self-determined behavior to varying degrees. Thus, the process of growth is
essentially seen to take place in relation to the surrounding conditions that, for their part, contribute to the
individuals’ possibilities to embrace their full, natural potential. Aligned with this emphasis, it is also
relevant to study in more detail how the physical environment may, for its part, contribute to the interaction
between the individual and the environment and the fulfilment of basic psychological needs (E. Deci,
personal communication with the first author, October 28, 2014).
Self-determination theory is currently one of the most prevalent and utilized theories on motivation.
In the decades following the formal introduction of the theory in the 1980s, research on the theory has
dramatically increased. Consequently, the theory has been subject to criticisms and suggestions for further
development as well. A common criticism of the theory is its cultural applicability, posing that the core
features of the theory, such as the need for autonomy, are mainly descriptive of a Western individual, rather
than of people raised in and surrounded by more collectivist cultures (e.g. Iyengar & DeVoe, 2003; Markus
& Kitayama, 1991). However, further research has verified that psychological needs are equally imperative
with regard to psychological well-being in both individualistic and collectivist cultures (e.g. Chirkov, Ryan,
Kim & Kaplan, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2006).
The formal framework of self-determination theory consists of five mini-theories (Ryan, 2009). This
study focuses on the mini-theory of basic psychological needs. The theory states that all people, universally
and regardless of their age or gender, share the same basic psychological needs, namely the needs for
autonomy, competence and relatedness. These needs are seen to be central prerequisites with regard to
healthy human functioning.
Autonomy refers to perceiving oneself as the origin or source for one’s own behavior (Deci & Ryan,
1985; Ryan & Connell, 1989; Ryan & Deci, 2002, 2006), competence refers to a felt sense of confidence and
effectance in one’s own actions (Ryan & Deci, 2002), and relatedness refers to feeling connected and having
a sense of belonging with regard to both other individuals and with one’s community (Baumeister & Leary,
1995; Ryan, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2002). In order to function effectively and to be psychologically healthy,
these needs must be sufficiently satisfied (Deci & Ryan, 2008).
More specifically, the satisfaction of basic psychological needs is relative to the activity and
functioning pursued; needs may be seen to specify necessary nutriments with regard to healthy development
and vitality as well as constructive and creative outputs (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Thus, rather than being a goal
in itself, the satisfaction of basic psychological needs is seen to facilitate intrinsic motivation, learning and
well-being (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2009) as well as eudaimonic happiness (Ryan, Huta &
Deci, 2008).
The theory of basic psychological needs is widely studied empirically, including in the context of
learning in higher education (see e.g. Black & Deci, 2000). In particular, the need for autonomy and the
possibilities to support it have acquired much needed attention in the context of learning and instruction (see

Sjöblom(et(al(
(
(
| FLR!
!
20!
e.g. Jang, Reeve & Deci, 2010; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Soenens, Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens &
Dochy, 2012; Vansteenkiste et al., 2012). However, the research has predominantly focused on the social
aspects of the learning environment, such as the interaction between the students and the teacher, while the
research on the psychological needs of an individual with regard to the physical environment has been
extremely scarce (see e.g. Gay, 2008; Gay, Saunders, & Dowda, 2011; Rutten, Boen & Seghers, 2012).
2.2 The learning environment
Similarly to the research on the basic psychological needs, research on learning environments has
mainly focused on the social learning environment while the physical learning environment has for the most
part been ignored. For example, Lave and Wenger’s idea of legitimate peripheral participation (1991) places
high importance on social engagements that provide the proper context for learning to take place. By
participating in the activities of an expert community, a novice is gradually able to assimilate the
professional practices and become part of the community. These kinds of views stress the role of the social
learning environment in the development of professional abilities, yet neglect the physical environments in
which the social activity takes place.
Empirical research on physical environments, on the other hand, has traditionally focused on factors
related to physical health or discomfort (e.g. Küller & Lindsten, 1992; Winterbottom & Wilkins, 2009).
Knowledge on how the physical environment, i.e. physical spaces, tools and equipment, is related to
psychological and pedagogical phenomena is still rare (Lansdale, Parkin, Austin & Baguley, 2011; Lonka,
2012; Woolner, Hall, Higgins, McCaughey & Wall, 2007). While the importance of individual
characteristics and the social environment should not be underestimated (e.g. Perry, Turner & Meyer, 2006),
the role of the physical environment in the learning process calls for more rigorous attention in the field of
learning research. More knowledge is needed on how the physical environment can support learning, well-
being, engagement and commitment.
Research on learning environments has shown that the physical environment conveys assumptions
(Beard, 2012; Beard & Price, 2010) and activates students’ previous assumptions regarding similar
environments (Mälkki, Sjöblom & Lonka, 2014). The assumptions conveyed by the physical environment
may involve underlying conceptions on the learning process and the roles of the participants: An auditorium
implies a different positioning and division of roles than a classroom where the desks are organized in
groups and the teacher has no central position but is instead moving around the classroom on a chair. This
demonstrates how the physical space itself tunes the students into different mental modes and roles. The
arrangement of physical space in ways that the participants are not used to may as such turn into a
disorienting dilemma, challenging existing conceptions and ways of thinking and possibly triggering
reflection (Mälkki, Sjöblom & Lonka, 2014). Thus, the space or equipment cannot be seen as a separate
entity, detached from the present culture. Rather, social practices are embedded in the physical arrangements
(Hakkarainen, 2009) and also have an impact on how the physical environment is perceived and experienced
by the users.
Along with the idea of socially and physically distributed cognition (Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola
& Lehtinen, 2004; Hutchins, 2000, 2006), physical environments also vary with regard to the degree they
facilitate the activity that is expected to take place in them. For example, the space may be equipped with
modern technology and devices that assist the learning process, which makes the learning process markedly
different from one that is carried out without any needed assistance, such as calculators, to begin with. The
very fact that learners are able to choose a suitable environment for different learning tasks is helpful with
regard to completing the tasks. A concrete example of this might be having to work on a group assignment in
a silent library hall or endeavoring to understand new theoretical material in a noisy hallway.
In fact, the physical environment consists of affordances that may, at best, facilitate the development
of new skills, help people overcome the limitations of their own capabilities and make them feel like active
agents; or in contrast, the lack of needed affordances may pose a significant challenge to carrying out the

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "Does physical environment contribute to basic psychological needs? a self-determination theory perspective on learning in the chemistry laboratory sjöblom, kirsi" ?

The role of motivation and emotions in learning has been extensively studied in recent years ; however, research on the role of the physical environment still remains scarce. This study examined the role of the physical environment in the learning process from the perspective of basic psychological needs. The study focused on beginning chemistry university students ’ ( n=21 ) experiences in a chemistry laboratory. The data consisted of focus-group interviews and self-report questionnaires. This study demonstrates that the design and functionality of the physical environment has a significant role in users ’ intellectual and emotional functioning. It is essential to utilize psychological and pedagogical knowledge when designing or renovating work and learning environments in order to fully make use of the potential of physical environments as part of human performance. 

Q2. What future works have the authors mentioned in the paper "Does physical environment contribute to basic psychological needs? a self-determination theory perspective on learning in the chemistry laboratory sjöblom, kirsi" ?

This may derive from the fact that the laboratory as a space offered them a direct connection to their possible future job in the laboratory, and thus they were constantly mirroring their everyday laboratory chores to the expectations of the profession: an independent role in a laboratory, possibly working alone or as the only chemist on the premises. As the profession of a chemist can be seen not only as an academic profession but also as handicraftmanship, the relation between the future profession and the novice stage courses is much closer than in many other academic fields in which the first years of studies are often mainly filled with theoretical courses. As the students experience the laboratory environment as closely representing their future workplace and mirror their actions to their future role as a professional, it is particularly important to pay attention to how the initial experiences of working as a chemist in a laboratory setting are built. Informal environments may promote more sense of belonging and ownership in novice students ; the possibility to act in a professional work environment may bridge the gap between the rookie and professional stages and also bring a sense of meaning and purpose to the studies.