What does it mean to truly learn in a space? And how much does the physical environment either enable or obstruct that process? These were the central questions explored at our recent NLA Education Expert Panel session at the end of August, where Dr Nagham El Elani of Newcastle University presented her research into embodied learning spaces — a project that challenges some of the most deeply ingrained assumptions about how schools are designed, furnished and used. 

Dr El Elani's study, conducted as a participatory action research project across two primary schools in the Northeast of England, began with a deceptively broad question: how can we better bridge physical and digital learning spaces? What emerged over three research phases was something more fundamental — a re-examination of the relationship between the body, movement and cognition in educational settings. 

Working closely with teachers and students, Dr El Elani began with an observation phase, attending classroom sessions, but also museum visits and workshops to understand how children navigated and engaged with different learning environments. One finding stood out immediately: students were barely moving during lessons. Mapped onto floor plans, their movements were almost entirely confined to their seats, with noticeable spikes in fidgeting and disengagement during longer, sedentary sessions. 

This led to the core concept underpinning the research: embodied learning — the idea that cognition does not occur in isolation from the body but is actively shaped by physical movement and sensory engagement.  

In phase two, student workshops explored which types of learning spaces they found interesting and why.. Themes including spaciousness, comfort, outdoor connection, quiet zones and access to digital technology emerged consistently. These informed a spatial intervention in phase three, where classroom layout was modified and new pieces of furniture were introduced. Lesson plans were adapted to include locomotive activities, where different spaces were used while giving the student the freedom to choose their location and partners. As a result engagement improved and teachers noticed stronger retention of learning content. 

From those findings, Dr El Elani developed an Embodied Learning Framework identifying five spatial modes — individual /reflective, teacher-centred / instructional, student-centred / group work, informal / collaborative and open / movement — and mapped these across a range of school environments: classrooms, internal extensions, circulation spaces, outdoor green pockets and 'embodied learning centres', similar to interactive museum installations embedded within the school itself. 

Importantly, the framework was not about building more space. It was about using existing space differently — reorganising furniture, removing clutter and enabling teachers to plan lessons that enabled students to move through a variety of spatial modes and learning tasks. 

We discussed various aspects of the framework which we think will resonate with anyone working at the intersection of education and the built environment. 

On the question of whether the framework could accommodate different learning styles, Dr El Elani explained that the most successful lessons were those that incorporated the full variety of learning activities across a range of spatial modes— reflective, paired, group and active — ensuring that no single learning method was neglected and it applied to all learners. This variety was the mechanism for inclusion and ensuring the information is embedded. 

The question of age range applicability was also explored. Dr El Elani confirmed that embodied learning principles translate effectively beyond primary school, drawing on her own teaching experience at further education level. However, she noted that the physical infrastructure — from outdoor charging points to sheltered external areas — often fails to support active learning across settings. Similar principles would also apply to Higher Education although universities often provide a better variety of settings for teaching and learning.  

We then discussed the DfE standard primary classroom of approximately 55 square metres, rectilinear and constrained by acoustic and daylighting requirements and how this could work with the framework. Dr El Elani suggested that a more flexible furniture specification and spatial management might be required. The idea of informal shared learning spaces between classrooms by selectively opening shared walls was floated as one relatively low-cost intervention. 

Panel members reflected on the persistent tension between designing for a specific head teacher's vision and creating environments resilient enough to serve the school well across decades and leadership changes. As one panellist noted, the DfE specification exists for good reason, but it can inadvertently limit the kinds of in-between, informal learning spaces that the research identifies. 

Perhaps the most resonant thread in the discussion was the significant drop-off in outdoor learning between early years provision — where indoor-outdoor free flow is often embedded by design — and primary school, where curriculum pressure increasingly drives children back to their seats. Dr El Elani's research suggests this is not inevitable, and that outdoor spaces, when thoughtfully integrated into subject teaching rather than treated as a separate break-time amenity, can meaningfully deepen learning. 

What Dr El Elani's research ultimately makes clear is that designing the building envelope for a school is not enough. The relationship between architectural intention and pedagogical practice requires active exploration and vision — through teacher engagement, student spatial awareness, and a shared language between designers and educators – to create truly transformative spaces. 

*The NLA Education Expert Panel meets regularly to explore research, policy and practice shaping the future of educational environments.*