Information from the abstract
Against the backdrop of the paradigm shift toward a learning-centered model in higher education, flexible public spaces (FPS) in higher education institutions have emerged as critical campus venues supporting students' informal learning (IL). Existing studies have focused mostly on formal instructional contexts and objective spatial attributes, while operational quantitative assessment tools for Chinese university public spaces and integrated measurement of students' subjective learning experiences remain scarce. Employing an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design with a cross-sectional approach, this study examines the characteristics, internal associations, and subjective perceived pathways of students' IL in highly flexible FPS, based on 296 valid questionnaires and seven semi-structured interviews from four universities in Zhejiang Province. The study focuses on descriptive exploration and only examines statistical associations between variables; no causal inferences are drawn. Results show that students' overall IL experiences in highly flexible FPS are at a moderately high level, with significant positive correlations among learning satisfaction, self-efficacy and learning engagement. Qualitative analysis identifies three subjective perceptual pathways: atmospheric catalysis, autonomy enhancement, and social triggering, as well as an inherent tension between spatial openness and learning focus. These findings provide empirical references for the functional optimization of campus public spaces.
Why this record is monitored
This record has an Impact Signal of 83/100 based on recency, source, collaboration, and bibliographic signals. It prioritizes monitoring and is not a judgment of research quality.
Related topics: Educational Environments and Student Outcomes · Facilities and Workplace Management · Online and Blended Learning
Thai researcher and institutional participation
Juncheng Yang · Dhurakij Pundit University
Data limitations
This page is a bibliographic record based on abstract-level information, not a full analysis or quality assessment. Verify the DOI and original article before citation.