UK higher education has faced numerous challenges in recent years, prompting universities, like the one featured in our research, to rethink their education strategies. One significant shift has been the move from pedagogies focused on passive information absorption to those that promote student-centred active learning. However, university spaces—especially lecture theatres originally designed for passive learning—can create tensions and barriers that hinder the adoption of these more interactive approaches.

This blog highlights findings from a recent paper that uses a mixed methods approach—combining automated occupancy data, observations and interviews—to explore ‘spatial’ transitions (the physical movement of students) between a traditional row-by-row lecture theatre and an adjacent breakout space. In investigating learning behaviours during these transitions, we uncovered associated ‘pedagogic’ and ‘agentic’ transitions and tensions between the timetabled and non-timetabled spaces.

Key findings: spatial, pedagogic and agentic transitions and tensions

The architectural layout, timetabled intention and historic function of the lecture theatre tend to shape fixed patterns of behaviour. For example, many educators who teach in such settings are familiar with students' reluctance to ask questions during class, even when invited do so. We defined this as a ‘failed’ pedagogic interaction, where the power dynamic within the classroom discouraged open student participation. To avoid perceived judgement from the class, students instead posed their questions to neighbouring peers during class (hidden pedagogic interactions) or to the lecturer immediately after class (postponed pedagogic interactions).

Interestingly, both students and lecturers found that handling these end-of-session questions was easier in the adjacent breakout space, revealing something about the relative agency students perceived in each of the spaces. The presence of informal furniture—like sofas and tables—seemed to invite more informal and supportive pedagogic interactions than the lecture theatre. This suggests that learning extends beyond the physical classroom, while also highlighting the limitations imposed by the architectural design of traditional lecture theatres.

Breakout space as a pedagogic extension

Our research revealed that the breakout space became an essential pedagogic extension of the lecture theatre, supporting key transitions that facilitated active learning. However, this space—like any other—was not politically neutral. In interviews, students described how their sense of ownership and agency within the breakout space fluctuated throughout the academic year and was affected by the presence of other users. This dynamic sense of agency and ownership indicated that the way students and staff perceived and used these spaces was constantly shifting.

Ecological approach to understanding learning spaces

Initially, our understanding of these complex transitions and tensions was constrained by traditional concepts and terminology. By adopting an ecological perspective, we were able to view the lecture theatre and breakout space as part of a dynamic, interconnected learning ecosystem. This approach allowed us to more effectively explore the pedagogic potential of these spaces, including for the purposes of active learning.

The application of the ‘ecotone’ concept—borrowed from ecology—was especially useful in framing the transitional nature of the space between the lecture theatre and breakout space. Much like ecotones in nature (such as estuarine intertidal zones), this in-between space represented a zone of transition and tension, shaped by the conflicting forces of timetabled and non-timetabled learning. It also offered unique pedagogic opportunities for innovative active learning interactions.

Conclusion: a holistic approach to learning spaces

This paper has highlighted spatial, pedagogic and agentic transitions that occurred between a timetabled lecture theatre and adjacent, non-timetabled breakout space. By taking an ecological approach, we gained a better understanding of this complexity.

We hope this research encourages educators and campus designers to think more holistically about how learning spaces are configured. In doing so, we can create environments that truly support student-centred active learning and foster the pedagogic interactions that make higher education more engaging and effective.