A Systematic Review on Social and Physical Factors Influencing Students’ Performance in Informal Learning Spaces

Abstract

The informal learning spaces (ILSs), as the core carrier supporting students’ autonomous learning and social interaction, have become an indispensable component of modern campuses. However, existing research still has limitations, including the ambiguous definition of ILSs and the lack of analysis of the synergy between social and physical dimension factors and students’ performance. To further explore the above problems, this review conducted a systematic review, in which all included literature was analysed following the PRISMA guidelines. This review retrieved 33 empirical studies from multiple databases in the fields of education, architecture and library science published from 2000 to 2025. The results of this review show that ILSs can be defined as dynamic ecosystems primarily designed to support self-directed and collaborative learning. The ecosystem integrates technological infrastructure, flexible layouts and social interaction to accommodate diverse learning needs. Meanwhile, ILSs’ design needs to coordinate and balance the multiple influencing factors across the social and physical dimensions. Although synthesising findings inevitably involves subjective judgement, this review can provide design guidelines for educators, architects, and policymakers that account for both students’ needs and adaptive functional configurations, thereby offering a practical path to achieving inclusive learning environments and sustainable campus development.

1. Introduction

The evolution of higher education has increasingly emphasised the role of physical and virtual environments in shaping learning experiences. Over the past two decades, Informal Learning Spaces (ILSs) have become vital for addressing students’ diverse needs [1,2]. ILSs, ranging from libraries and cafés to digitally mediated platforms, are designed to foster intellectual socialisation, peer interaction, and interdisciplinary engagement by integrating physical and digital infrastructures to support connected learning across fragmented contexts [3], while flexible spatial configurations enable serendipitous peer interactions that enhance community building [3,4]. Importantly, the design and use of university spaces, especially when jointly designed and produced with other institutions, are closely aligned with sustainability principles, encompassing environmental efficiency, social equity, and the long-term adaptability of learning infrastructures [5]. Despite the increasing emphasis on ILSs by educators and architects, the ambiguity of the concept in a multidisciplinary context, and the determinants of students’ performance within ILSs remain underexplored. Therefore, it is necessary to rigorously synthesise interdisciplinary evidence.

Despite widespread recognition of ILSs as an important environment for self-directed learning, definitions of ILSs remain inconsistent across disciplines, leading to multidimensional interpretations and a lack of standardised definitions. From an educational perspective, ILSs are emphasised as catalysts for collaborative learning and social knowledge construction. Cunningham and Walton [6] demonstrated that the geographical proximity of ILSs to academic departments fosters stable learning communities. These spatially anchored communities provide a physical foundation for collaborative engagement. Furthermore, this review identified functional distinctions between library and other ILSs, revealing how these ILSs support discipline-specific collaboration across diverse academic cohorts. Architectural research prioritises the physical dimension factors of ILSs, focusing on elements such as lighting, thermal comfort, and spatial flexibility. For instance, Cox [7] identified sensory factors such as air quality and lighting as critical to user behaviour, while Riddle and Souter [8] established seven design considerations, including comfort, aesthetics, flow, equity, blending, affordances, and repurposing, to guide functional space planning. In library science, ILSs are framed as extensions of library services, emphasising resource accessibility and user support. For example, Walton and Matthews [9] advocated that university libraries should take the lead in evaluating ILSs, such as using them to analyse students’ usage behaviours, whereas Ramsden [10] highlighted the role of library staff in guiding space utilisation and evaluating students’ behaviours. These divergent disciplinary perspectives underscore the absence of a unified framework for ILSs’ classification, necessitating interdisciplinary approaches to bridge theoretical and practical gaps in learning space design.

Determinants of students’ performance in ILSs are frequently broken down into social or physical domains, with limited integration into an overall framework. Social dimension factors, such as students’ need for privacy, are rarely examined together with physical dimension factors, such as lighting, despite evidence of their interdependence [11]. It is crucial to pay attention to the synergistic effect of social and physical dimension factors on students’ performance, as such an integrated perspective is consistent with the goal of educational sustainability. Equitable access to inclusive learning environments fosters academic retention and reduces disparities among diverse student populations. To address these gaps, this review aimed to synthesise empirical evidence on ILSs in higher education by addressing the following two research questions:

(1)

How can an interdisciplinary synthesis advance the conceptual understanding of ILSs in higher education?

(2)

What factors affect students’ performance in ILSs?

The significance of this review lies in its multidimensional contributions to understanding and optimising ILSs. By systematically summarising and comparing the concept of ILSs over the past 25 years, this review can bridge the fragmented understanding of ILSs across disciplines. Meanwhile, analysing how social and physical dimensions affect students’ performance provides a practical framework for spatial design, helping architects deeply consider how to achieve a balance between psychological and physiological comfort to improve students’ learning efficiency and satisfaction. Importantly, the adaptability of ILSs offers inherent potential for sustainable educational practices, as their diverse designs and multifunctional layouts align with resource-efficient campus development. As universities globally invest in ILSs to enhance inclusivity and innovation, this review provides timely insights for policymakers, educators, and architects navigating the complexities of 21st century education.

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement to ensure methodological rigour, transparency and reproducibility (Supplementary Materials). This systematic review study aimed to answer the following two questions: (1) How can an interdisciplinary synthesis advance the conceptual understanding of ILSs in higher education? (2) What factors affect students’ performance in ILSs? Literature search and collection, inclusion and exclusion selection criteria and data synthesis were conducted in this part. The selection of these questions was driven by critical gaps in the literature, including the ambiguity of the concept of ILSs in a multidisciplinary context and the current fragmented research on the effects of social and physical dimensions on students’ performance.

2.1. Literature Search and Collection

A comprehensive multi-database search was conducted from September 2025 to January 2026 using Web of Science, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, and Scopus in the fields of architecture, education and library sciences. The following terms were used for these queries based on the research questions of this review, which are, respectively, named ‘informal learning spaces’, ‘higher education’, ‘university student’, ‘indoor environment quality’, ‘social dimension factor’, ‘physical dimension factor’ and ‘spatial design’. To ensure both foundational and contemporary insights, the search was restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles published in English from 2000 to 2025. Review journal articles, conference proceedings, books, and book chapters were excluded to prioritise methodological rigour. Search terms were iteratively refined through pilot testing to optimise sensitivity and specificity.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

This systematic review includes any research that contains the key terms ‘informal learning spaces’, ‘higher education’, ‘university student’, ‘indoor environment quality’, ‘social dimension factor’, ‘physical dimension factor’, and ‘spatial design’. The selected studies in this review were filtered through the following inclusion criteria: (1) Only studies published in English and published in the last 25 years (from 2000 to 2025) were selected. This period was chosen because it better reflects the most outstanding work and the recent enthusiasm for the interdisciplinary field covered in this review. (2) Research methods involve empirical data analysis, such as qualitative or mixed research methods, to ensure a sufficiently scientific methodology suitable for further and rigorous analysis. (3) The study population must be university students in higher education. (4) Only those studies that pertain to ILSs or open-plan learning environments in higher education from architectural or urban planning contexts were selected. (5) Studies focused on research related to ILS design, student behaviour or environmental psychology. Exclusion criteria included non-empirical, non-English studies, pre-2000 publications, non-student populations, and publications beyond the defined topical scope.

2.3. Data Synthesis

The screening process was rigorously visualised through the flowchart in Figure 1, which systematically detailed the progression from identification (1466 studies) to final inclusion (33 studies). Figure 1 explicitly reported exclusion rationales and study allocations.

After 1466 articles were retrieved based on the above inclusion and exclusion criteria, the two-phase workflow, comprising deduplication and two-stage screening, was conducted to minimise bias and enhance the reliability of study selection. Initial deduplication was performed using EndNote 20, a reference management software, to eliminate redundant articles across the four databases, including Web of Science, ScienceDirect, ProQuest and Scopus. As outlined in Figure 1, a total of 298 duplicates were identified and removed from the initial pool of 1466 articles, resulting in 1168 unique studies for subsequent screening.

The literature screening process rigorously followed a two-stage screening to ensure methodological transparency and reproducibility. Title and abstract screening, detailed in Figure 1, was conducted independently by two reviewers, Author 1 and Author 3, on 1168 deduplicated articles using a standardised form that applied the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. 228 articles were resolved through iterative discussions, with unresolved conflicts adjudicated by a third reviewer (Author 2). A total of 932 articles were excluded, primarily due to irrelevance to ILSs (451), non-empirical methodologies (187), or non-student populations (294). For full-text assessment, the remaining 236 studies underwent eligibility evaluation. Author 1 and Author 3 independently annotated articles using a structured template to document study objectives, methodologies, geographical contexts, and alignment with research questions and the relevant findings. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, with studies scoring below 60 excluded to prioritise rigour, including those with inadequate sample sizes or insufficient reporting of validity or reliability. Final exclusions (n = 203) were catalogued as follows: scope mismatch (n = 141), pre-2000 publications (n = 28), non-English studies (n = 23), and methodological weaknesses (n = 11). The final synthesis of 33 studies is also shown in Figure 1 and Appendix A. The literature screening process minimised selection bias while ensuring alignment with the study objectives.

The potential for reporting bias was assessed by examining the included studies for any apparent omissions or skew in the findings. The overall certainty of evidence was assessed based on the methodological rigour of the included studies, the consistency of findings across disciplines, and the relevance to the research questions. The synthesised findings are presented through a narrative synthesis, supported by summary tables and a conceptual diagram. Given the qualitative and narrative nature of this synthesis, meta-analysis and associated statistical examinations were not performed.

All screening data were archived on the authors’ laptops and on the Baidu Web disc for long-term preservation and to facilitate auditability and future replication.

3. Conceptual Review Based on Interdisciplinary Context

The 33 studies synthesised in this review were published from 2000 to 2025; most were empirical research that employed various qualitative and mixed-methods approaches to explore an interdisciplinary synthesis of the concept of ILSs and the social and physical dimensions that influence students’ performance in ILSs. Geographically, the studies encompassed diverse higher education contexts. The evaluation of publication and reporting biases did not identify strong indications of systematic bias. Based on an assessment of the methodological rigour of the included studies and the recurrent thematic consistency across disciplines, the body of evidence provides a moderately certain foundation. This evidence base informs the following interdisciplinary conceptual review of ILSs and the subsequent synthesis of factors across the social and physical dimensions.

3.1. Informal Learning

Before discussing ILSs, formal learning and informal learning need to be explored first. There are a variety of uses and definitions of formal and informal learning in the literature. To clarify the core distinctions between formal and informal learning, this section synthesises and contrasts them across six key perspectives derived from the literature: learning purpose, learning form, learning content, learning place, learning subject, and type of knowledge (as summarised in

Table 1. Characteristics of formal learning and informal learning.

Perspective	Formal Learning	Informal Learning	References
Learning purpose	Assessed based on performance results or certificates	Normally has no fixed learning objectives or performance evaluations	[12,13]
Learning form	Learning content and methods are pre-designed	Spontaneous learning by individuals or in collaboration	[14,15]
Learning content	Pre-planned with clear content	Broad in content and controlled by individuals or groups	[14]
Learning place	Organised and structured learning environment (e.g., classrooms, laboratories)	Relaxed and free learning environment with no restriction on location	[12]
Learning subject	Structured courses Teacher-led	No fixed structure Learner-led	[13,14,16,17]
Type of knowledge	Explicit knowledge (declarative knowledge, technical specifications)	Tacit knowledge (experience, social skills)	[16]

). Learning purpose, denoting the ultimate goal and evaluation criteria of a kind of learning activity; learning form, referring to the structure and organisation of the learning process; learning content, indicating the specific scope and substance of the knowledge or skill involved; learning place, describing the characteristics of the physical or virtual environment where learning occurs; learning subject, representing the role that holds initiative and control in the learning environment; and type of knowledge, which captures the nature of the knowledge acquired. Table 1 summarises the typical characteristics and distinctions between formal and informal learning across these six perspectives, based on the existing literature, thereby providing a basic structure for understanding the essential characteristics of informal learning.

Early definitions by Schugurensky [13] and Lohman [14] distinguish informal from formal learning across key perspectives, particularly learning subject, learning purpose, and learning form. Schugurensky [13] fundamentally defined informal learning as learner-driven activities that occur outside institutional curricula, in contrast to the structured, teacher-led paradigm of formal learning. Schugurensky’s [13] point addressed the learning subject and purpose. In the same year, Lohman [14] pointed out that formal learning is designed and the learning forms are constructed, and the learning content can remain unchanged for a long time. In terms of learning form, Lohman [14] noted that informal learning can be planned or unplanned and encompasses a broader range of learning content, such as action imitation, exploratory development, and context awareness. Furthermore, Lohman [14] clarified that the distinction between formal and informal learning fundamentally concerns the learning subject. Formal learning is typically organised and delivered by the school district, whereas informal learning is self-initiated, with its goals and processes autonomously controlled by learners.

Subsequent research by Jamieson [17] and Beddie and Halliday-Wynes [12] deepened the understanding of learning subject, purpose, and place. According to Table 1, Jamieson [17] contributes to the perception of learning subjects. He defined informal learning as a complex network of interactions and experiences in which knowledge is constructed by individuals or groups through active engagement, thereby emphasising the learner-led nature of the process. Jamieson [17] also believed that informal learning was generally viewed as other activities students engaged in outside formal classrooms, including course reading, classroom preparation, homework, and project activities. Informal learning also involves social interaction, and distinguishing pure social activities from it is not easy, suggesting that informal learning lacks a fixed structure. In parallel, Beddie and Halliday-Wynes [12] were cited for the perspective of learning purpose and learning place. They proposed that formal learning refers to learning through educational institutions, adult training centres, or workplace teaching programmes, which are usually recognised through qualifications or certificates. Informal learning refers to learning that results from daily work-related, family, or leisure activities, typically with no fixed learning objectives and occurring in a relaxed, free-learning environment with no restrictions on location.

In the 21st century, the conceptualization of informal learning has evolved to reflect its growing importance. As presented in Table 1, Greenhow and Lewin [16] contributed to the perception of learning subjects and types of knowledge. They presented formal learning as structured, curriculum-aligned activities occurring in physical or virtual classrooms, with standardised assessments and teacher-led goals. In contrast, informal learning is a self-directed social practice. Learners enhance their experiences and improve their social skills through non-institutional compulsory learning, which underscores the acquisition of tacit knowledge, such as experience and social skills, during the informal learning process. Greenhow and Lewin’s [16] view aligns with the ongoing pedagogical transformation noted by [15]. They proposed that due to pedagogical transformation, informal learning is becoming equally important to formal learning. Twenty-first-century learning environments are networked with broadband and mobile communication tools, leading to learners who are more active and more inclined to use mobile communication tools in their daily learning activities. More concisely, these devices inevitably change the ways students communicate, cooperate, develop and transmit knowledge and information. Consequently, students are moving away from the old norm of formal, face-to-face learning and toward the new norm of informal, non-face-to-face learning.

The comparisons outlined above demonstrate that informal learning is fundamentally distinct from formal learning across multiple perspectives. Informal learning is spontaneous, individual or collaborative learning behaviour that emphasises self-directed learning or knowledge sharing. The driving force for learning mainly comes from learners’ own desire for knowledge or skills. Informal learning is a form of learning driven by existing problems with strong practicality. The synthesis of these perspectives, including learning purpose, form, content, place, subject, and knowledge type, provides a comprehensive understanding of the nature of learning. Crucially, all these defining characteristics should be incorporated into ILS design to effectively support students’ diverse ways of learning outside the classroom.

3.2. Systematic Synthesis of the Definition of ILSs

From a pedagogical perspective, the core of ILSs lies in supporting a process in which teachers do not deliver knowledge but rather construct it through active engagement in meaningful experiences. Students identify ILSs as their own spaces and use them for both recreational activities and learning. In other words, students themselves also have a sense of self-learning and self-regulatory ability. ILSs can be defined as any spaces outside classrooms that can be used for learning by students with a high degree of freedom. Jackson and Shenton [18] emphasised two essential features of ILSs: providing learning spaces and fostering learners’ interaction with others. Therefore, ILSs are ideally suited to promote informal learning processes, and their characteristics encourage students to engage in both individual and collaborative learning.

The expansion of information and communication technologies has established a new way of learning and teaching for students and teachers, necessitating an upgrade to the physical learning ecosystem [19]. Advancements in information and communication technologies have fostered a new way of learning in which learners can learn anytime, anywhere, and everywhere [20]. Face-to-face pedagogical methods have been separated from traditional classroom time, leading to informal learning outside the classroom, such as in libraries, corridors, and cafés. Due to the social nature of the learning process, which requires feedback and interaction among students, ILSs enable students to get to know one another and interact in a variety of ways. Furthermore, to meet the expectations of future students, universities must be more creative and innovative in using, reconfiguring, or building new ILSs.

In response to these challenges, the design of educational buildings should arrange and engage ILSs with adequate social and physical features, thereby creating student-centred, technology-supported, and innovative learning environments from an architectural perspective [15]. The public image of contemporary university campuses is gradually providing students with greater flexibility, collaboration, engagement, and independence [15,21]. Students typically spend more time in ILSs, which offer opportunities to adjust the layout of learning spaces to accommodate students’ varied needs. To create a dynamic atmosphere, the layout, furniture, and available technologies in these spaces aim to enhance movement and flow, reflecting the multiple tasks and relationships that occur or may form within them [22]. ILSs aim to promote a free and open culture to encourage student interaction and engagement, as well as the pursuit of independent learning [23,24].

In the practical context of campuses, ILSs manifest in various forms. Carnell [25] found that the spaces between classrooms and lecture halls are well used by students, as they are happy to study there. Harrop and Turpin [2] argued that ILSs refer to non-discipline-specific spaces frequented by both students and staff for self-directed learning activities, which can be within or outside library spaces. Research and practice in library science have significantly enriched the concept of ILSs, transforming libraries from traditional repositories into some of the most essential ILSs on campuses. The concept of a model library on campus is shifting toward ILSs that encourage individually focused work, collaborative learning, active student interaction, and relaxation [21]. Libraries on campus are evolving to reflect the new learning paradigm by offering a range of ILSs. Common learning areas are a typical example of ILSs, which are usually located within a university library or learning centre [22]. To meet the growing demand for ILSs, some campuses are creating social hubs, learning streets, and other designated spaces to promote social and learning-related activities outside the classroom [26].

In summary, campus learning spaces can be viewed as a continuum between formal learning spaces and ILSs. As shown in Figure 2, formal learning spaces are designed for conventional teaching or for specific use by specific students and primarily comprise classrooms, laboratories, computer labs, lecture halls, and meeting rooms. In contrast, ILSs include all spaces outside the classroom where knowledge-sharing and learning activities can take place, including libraries, common centre, cafés, corridors and other in-between spaces. As carriers of informal learning behaviour, ILSs are complex network spaces that can be generated across a wide range of physical environments, including the internal and external spaces of university campuses. With the transformation of contemporary teaching concepts, spaces that support student learning behaviour have evolved from traditional classrooms to a space system that includes classrooms, buildings and campuses. Furthermore, Doshi et al. [1] concluded that students’ learning behaviour is clearly connected to the physical space. It is also necessary to understand what students want from ILSs, how they use them and how these spaces can be improved.

By synthesising the definitions above, it is evident that ILSs are a composite concept that integrates concerns from multiple disciplines. Education research reveals the role of ILSs in supporting learning behaviours; architecture and design disciplines respond by shaping their physical spaces and environments; and library science has crucially promoted the transformation and practice of libraries, which are among the core carriers of ILSs on campuses. Despite the disciplines having different focuses, these perspectives collectively shape an understanding of ILSs as a dynamic ecosystem primarily designed to support self-directed and collaborative learning. This ecosystem integrates technological infrastructure, flexible layouts, and social interaction to accommodate diverse learning needs, which aligns with the shift toward hybrid and self-directed educational models in the 21st century.

4. A Synthesis of Factors Influencing Students’ Performance

With the development of information and communication technologies, students can study anywhere and anytime, enabling every square metre of the built environment to support their learning activities. Notably, students’ choice of a specific learning space is more closely related to the actual and perceived quality of factors in the social and physical dimensions than in other ILSs. In other words, the psychological and physical responses to social or physical factors can affect students’ performance in ILSs. It is crucial to explore the mechanisms underlying the factors that affect students’ performance in ILSs, including their social and physical dimensions.

4.1. Social Dimension Factors of Interaction and Privacy

Some researchers have focused on social factors that affect students in educational settings (as shown in

Table 2. Summary of social dimension factors.

	Interaction	Privacy
Crook and Mitchell [23]	√
van Sprang et al. [27]	√
Hurst et al. [28]	√
Beckers et al. [20]	√	√
Soares et al. [29]	√
Storvang and Nguyen [30]	√
Wu et al. [31]		√
Kim and Yang [21]	√	√
Zhang et al. [32]	√	√
Kedia and Mishra [33]	√
Huang and Lajoie [34]	√

). To understand how the actual interaction in the current variety of learning spaces supports or hinders students’ learning experiences and how students organise their own activities in these spaces, Crook and Mitchell [23] identified four interaction categories. The first type of interaction was focused collaboration, likely planned and strongly outcome-oriented. The second type of interaction was intermittent exchange, where students gathered for independent study, allowing occasional and improvised to-and-fro of questions or comments. The third type of interaction was a serendipitous encounter, in which students occasionally met with peers and briefly discussed study-related issues. The fourth type of interaction was ambient social interaction, in which students recognised the importance of simply being there as participants in a study community. Crook and Mitchell’s [23] research laid a foundation for understanding students’ interactions in ILSs.

Multiple empirical studies have supported the educational value of interaction in ILSs. From the perspective of teaching and learning practice, Hurst et al. [28] demonstrated that instructional models that integrate daily interaction effectively enhance students’ core competencies, such as critical thinking and problem-solving. From the perspective of space functions and roles, van Sprang et al. [27] constructed a conceptual model to describe the impact of the work environment on satisfaction and productivity. They pointed out that the space should take into account both the functions of supporting the internalisation and externalisation of knowledge, and regarded interaction as the key to individual productivity. The case study conducted by Storvang and Nguyen [30] further suggests that learning spaces should be designed as “organisational meeting places” that eliminate disciplinary silos and promote spontaneous encounters and teamwork among students. From the perspective of environmental perception and experience, Soares et al. [29] revealed that creativity could not be explained simply by analysing spatial configurations, but also depended on the combination of physical features, positive experiences, and a sense of place that enabled trust and interaction.

It is noteworthy that research on interaction in special contexts has been further deepened. Given the background of efforts to prevent the rapid transmission of the virus among students during the COVID-19 epidemic, the unexpected disruption of face-to-face learning has led to a rapid shift in pedagogical methods, driving the rapid development of online instruction. To understand the factors impacting university students’ learning performance after the adoption of online learning due to COVID-19, Kedia and Mishra [33] found that instructor–student interaction was positively associated with students’ learning performance through student engagement. In contrast, peer interaction had a minor influence on learners’ performance. Extending Kedia and Mishra’s [33] finding, Huang and Lajoie [34] defined socio-emotional interaction as a social process in which students strive to maintain cohesive, respectful interactions. They proposed that when socio-emotional interaction occurs, learners can adopt a higher level of thinking by obtaining insights and immediate feedback from peers [34].

Privacy has also received widespread attention as a critical requirement for ensuring focused learning and psychological comfort. Wu et al. [31] pointed out that privacy is a key dimension of spatial hierarchy. They found that the more formal the students’ learning process is, the more likely they are to choose quieter, more private areas for studying. To address students’ learning space preferences in higher education, Beckers et al. [20] surveyed 697 business management students at a Dutch university of applied sciences. Their study illustrated that quietness is a key reason for students’ preferences for learning spaces that offer the possibility of retreat, highlighting the importance of providing environments that balance social interaction with individual privacy.

However, a synthesis of multiple studies indicates that students’ learning space preferences are not determined by a singular need for either interaction or privacy [20], but are shaped by a dynamic balance between the two. Research further reveals the practical mechanism for balancing privacy and interaction: students’ preferences can be accommodated through different space layouts, such as active-public, active-private, quiet-public, and quiet-private zones [32]. Even in the post-pandemic context, the concurrent demand for face-to-face interaction and privacy persists. Students require both private individual study spaces to support focused learning and task completion, as well as open spaces suitable for social interactions [21]. Consequently, interaction and privacy are not mutually exclusive but are two integrated factors that require synergistic consideration in ILS design.

4.2. Physical Dimension Factors

Students’ performance in ILSs is systematically influenced by various physical factors. Through a systematic review of the existing literature, this review identifies nine key physical dimensions affecting students’ performance, namely temperature, sound environment, lighting, air quality, layout, crowdedness, comfort of furniture, adjustability of furniture, and facility. To establish a clear analytical framework, these nine physical dimension factors are synthesised into three comprehensive categories, which are indoor environmental quality factors, spatial configuration factors, and ergonomic and technological factors. Classifying temperature, sound environment, lighting, and air quality under indoor environmental quality factors follows the established academic standards in the fields of architecture and environmental sciences. Temperature, sound environment, lighting, and air quality collectively constitute the physical foundation affecting students’ comfort and cognitive performance. In this review, layout and crowdedness are grouped as spatial configuration factors primarily because these two physical dimension factors influence students’ behavioural patterns and social interactions. Comfort of furniture, adjustability of furniture, and facility are categorised as ergonomic and technological factors, as these three physical dimension factors provide the most direct physical components to support the realisation of various learning activities. Synthesising the nine physical dimension factors into these three categories aims to systematically and hierarchically reveal the pathways through which the physical dimension influences learning behaviours. Table 3 presents these nine physical dimension factors and provides an overview of the studies associated with each.

4.2.1. Indoor Environmental Quality Factors

Temperature is widely recognised as a critical factor in indoor environmental quality, yet its perceived importance relative to other environmental factors varies across studies. While Huang et al. [35] and Andargie and Azar [36] identified thermal discomfort as a primary amplifier of dissatisfaction and a key mediator of cognitive performance, Kang et al. [37] found that occupants in research offices prioritised sound environment over thermal conditions. Furthermore, the specific effects of temperature are moderated by individual differences and task types. For instance, Yang and Moon [38] identified thermoneutral conditions (25 °C) as optimal for balancing multisensory comfort, whereas Mahyuddin [39] observed that low temperatures primarily caused comfort complaints without leading to significant health issues.

The sound environment emerges as a dominant factor in spaces requiring concentration. Cha and Kim [40] identified noise as a top concern in academic libraries, where conversational disruptions and ambient sounds deter spatial choice and productivity. Kang et al. [37] reinforced Cha and Kim’s points by revealing that occupants prioritise sound environment quality over temperature and lighting. Yang and Moon [38] further demonstrated that acoustic comfort exhibits the strongest correlation with overall environmental satisfaction. Regarding low decibel sound levels, Mahyuddin [39] found that intermittent noise in quiet learning spaces significantly reduced occupants’ satisfaction. Furthermore, Khoshbakht et al. [41] and Zhang et al. [42] emphasised that task type and individual differences significantly influence occupants’ sensitivity to the sound environment. Notably, Wu et al. [31] and Kim and Yang [21] noted that while adaptable sound environments can support group discussions, even minor or intermittent noises can cause considerable distraction in quiet zones.

Lighting conditions exert both direct and indirect effects on students’ performance, with natural light often prioritised. Satisfaction with illumination is closely tied to specific task requirements [35]. Natural lighting continues to be valued for its positive impacts on mood, satisfaction, and performance [21,27]. However, the interaction between lighting and other environmental factors is complex. Yang and Moon [38] revealed that brighter visual conditions are perceived more favourably only when the sound environment and thermal comfort are also satisfied. Inadequate lighting, particularly for tasks requiring visual precision, is associated with eye strain and reduced concentration [39], underscoring the need for task-specific lighting standards.

Air quality, although a fundamental component of indoor environmental quality, can sometimes be overshadowed by more immediately perceptible factors such as temperature and sound environment. Andargie and Azar [36] established a direct link between poor air quality and impaired cognitive performance. Huang et al. [35] noted that concerns about air quality often become salient only when thermal and acoustic stressors are minimised. The significance of air quality is also context-dependent. For instance, Kang et al. [37] ranked air quality as the third most important factor for research productivity, while Mahyuddin [39] directly linked high occupancy density to degraded air quality and increased health symptoms in a library setting, underscoring the critical role of air quality in long-term occupant well-being.

4.2.2. Spatial Configuration Factors

Layout significantly influences students’ comfort, behaviours and collaboration. It was regarded as one of the strongest physical dimension factors affecting occupants’ productivity, which in turn directly affects concentration and collaborative interaction [27]. Poor layouts can lead to negative effects across multiple dimensions. For instance, Cha and Kim [40] noted that inefficient layouts exacerbate perceptions of crowding and spatial inadequacy, thereby reducing the efficiency of space utilisation. Kang et al. [37] further linked poor layouts to visual and auditory distractions. In contrast, positive layout strategies can improve learning outcomes. Nja et al. [43] demonstrated that U-shaped spatial layouts enhance teacher-student interaction and academic outcomes compared to fixed-row arrangements. Wu et al. [31] pointed out that flexible designs, such as movable furniture, enable ILSs to quickly adjust their layout to adapt to different learning activities. Furthermore, layout preferences are context-specific. Khoshbakht et al. [41] contrasted academic and commercial settings, noting that academics favour smaller, private workspaces, whereas commercial environments prioritise open layouts for teamwork.

Crowdedness, which reflects subjective density perceptions, also affects students’ performance. Cha and Kim [40] ranked it among the top five library stressors, as high occupancy limits personal space and increases distractions. Mahyuddin [39] found that high occupancy density is associated with poor air quality and increased respiratory symptoms, such as coughing, among occupants. Students noted that crowding was more likely in open-plan spaces for group work and lounge areas [21].

4.2.3. Ergonomic and Technological Factors

The comfort of furniture is a core physical dimension that affects students’ perceptions of space and preferences, with evidence supporting this across studies. Beckers et al. [20] found that furniture comfort is one of the most important factors for students when evaluating the learning environment. Cha and Kim [40] identified furniture comfort as one of the top five factors influencing spatial choice in academic libraries, emphasising that ergonomic seating directly enhances perceived efficiency, particularly in high-density areas. Kang et al.’s [37] research deepened these points, confirming that insufficient seat comfort is significantly associated with figure experiences during long-term research tasks. This discovery is consistent with the finding of Kim and Yang [21] that furniture comfort is particularly prominent in long-term learning situations that require sustained concentration.

Adjustability of furniture emerges as an essential design characteristic in ILSs. The adjustability of furniture, such as movable seating, can provide students with autonomy to reorganise learning spaces and stimulate spontaneous social interaction, which is regarded as a key physical dimension of public spaces that supports creativity [29]. Wu et al. [31] found that adjustable, modular furniture is essential for supporting diverse activities in an informal learning environment. Nja et al. [43] found that U-shaped seating arrangements in classrooms enhance teacher-student interaction while allowing reconfiguration for collaborative activities, demonstrating how spatial adaptability mediates academic outcomes. Students expect that learning spaces can provide movable and fixed furniture of different heights to meet individualised needs [21].

In the context of ILSs, this review defines ‘facility’ as technological hardware and network services that support diverse learning activities, primarily comprising hardware devices such as computers, charging stations, and printing facilities, as well as network services such as Wi-Fi coverage and computer access. Wu et al. [31] identified IT-rich facilities, including Wi-Fi coverage, computer access, and charging stations, as critical design characteristics in ILSs, enabling diverse activities such as group collaboration and individual study. The study highlights that students prioritise IT infrastructure adaptability, as these facilities support technology-dependent tasks and enhance spatial utility. Beckers et al. [20] found that students believed that the presence of printing facilities in the learning environment was almost as significant as desktop computers. In Kim and Yang’s [21] study, students noted that whiteboards and screens were very useful for studying with friends or working on group projects.

In summary, students’ performance in ILSs is synergistically influenced by social and physical factors. The social dimension factors focus on interaction and privacy. While the physical dimension factors are categorised into three distinct groups: indoor environmental quality factors, spatial configuration factors, and ergonomic and technological factors. The influence of these factors does not exist in isolation; instead, they exhibit a significant synergistic relationship. Therefore, the key to optimising ILSs lies in going beyond the isolated consideration of a single factor and integrating social and physical dimensions into a collaborative system that can respond to students’ diverse learning behaviours.

Table 3. Summary of physical dimension factors.

	Indoor Environmental Quality Factor				Spatial Configuration Factor		Ergonomic and Technological Factor
	Temperature	Sound Environment	Lighting	Air Quality	Layout	Crowdedness	Comfort of Furniture	Adjustability of Furniture	Facility
Huang et al. [35]	√		√	√
van Sprang et al. [27]			√		√
Cha and Kim [40]		√			√	√	√
Beckers et al. [20]							√		√
Kang et al. [37]	√	√		√	√		√
Andargie and Azar [36]	√			√
Yang and Moon [38]	√	√	√
Mahyuddin [39]	√	√	√	√		√
Khoshbakht et al. [41]		√			√
Soares et al. [29]								√
Wu et al. [31]		√	√		√			√	√
Kim and Yang [21]		√	√			√	√	√	√
Nja et al. [43]					√			√
Zhang et al. [42]		√

Table 3. Summary of physical dimension factors.

	Indoor Environmental Quality Factor				Spatial Configuration Factor		Ergonomic and Technological Factor
	Temperature	Sound Environment	Lighting	Air Quality	Layout	Crowdedness	Comfort of Furniture	Adjustability of Furniture	Facility
Huang et al. [35]	√		√	√
van Sprang et al. [27]			√		√
Cha and Kim [40]		√			√	√	√
Beckers et al. [20]							√		√
Kang et al. [37]	√	√		√	√		√
Andargie and Azar [36]	√			√
Yang and Moon [38]	√	√	√
Mahyuddin [39]	√	√	√	√		√
Khoshbakht et al. [41]		√			√
Soares et al. [29]								√
Wu et al. [31]		√	√		√			√	√
Kim and Yang [21]		√	√			√	√	√	√
Nja et al. [43]					√			√
Zhang et al. [42]		√

5. Discussion

This review reveals the ambiguity of ILS concepts due to differences in disciplinary focus. This review integrates perspectives from these disciplines to propose ILSs as a dynamic ecosystem primarily designed to support self-directed and collaborative learning. The ecosystem integrates technological infrastructure, flexible layouts and social interaction to accommodate diverse learning needs. The resulting conceptual framework breaks through early fragmentation analysis by emphasising the multifunctionality of ILSs across the formal-informal continua, thereby filling a gap in standardised definitions. The research findings support Doshi et al.’s [1] assertion that students’ learning behaviour is clearly connected to the physical space. At the same time, this review responds to the viewpoint of Ramu et al. [15] on the collaboration between pedagogical goals and spatial design, emphasising the necessity of cooperation in the design practice.

However, this review also highlights the difficulties encountered in integrating multiple disciplinary perspectives to define ILSs. Education research reveals the role of ILSs in supporting learning behaviours, architecture and design disciplines respond by shaping their physical spaces and environments, and library science has crucially promoted the transformation and practice of libraries. Although this review seeks to bridge differences in core concerns and assessment criteria across these disciplines, misalignment of goals or design compromises may still occur in the planning and evaluation of ILSs. Therefore, future research and practice should not merely focus on integrating multidisciplinary concepts, but rather on developing spatial planning guidelines or decision-support tools that guide actual design with the integration of interdisciplinary knowledge. It is also essential to acknowledge a limitation of this review’s methodology. While the systematic search and screening process followed established protocols, the synthesis of findings across architectural, educational, and library science disciplines inevitably involved subjective judgement.

Compared with the fragmented views in previous research, this review reveals a comprehensive perspective on the determinants of students’ performance in ILSs. For instance, Beckers et al. [20] emphasised that students’ learning space preferences are primarily determined by the type of learning activities rather than by social or physical factors. Similarly, Cha and Kim [40] emphasised singular physical dimensions, such as noise control and furniture ergonomics, without integrating social dimension factors. These seemingly different viewpoints are not contradictory but reveal the complexity and multidimensionality of students’ preferences for ILSs. This review demonstrates that social and physical dimension factors do not operate in isolation but synergistically influence students’ performance, collectively meeting the needs of diverse learning activities, as empirically supported by Beckers et al. [20] and Zhang et al. [32]. It is particularly important to note that the synergy between the social and physical dimension factors often exhibits a dynamic interrelationship. For instance, ILSs with high privacy (social dimension factor) can reduce the interference of the sound environment (physical dimension factor) on students’ attention. Flexible space layout (physical dimension factor) can actively stimulate or inhibit different interaction patterns (social dimension factor). Existing studies mainly focus on the influence mechanism of the sign factor and lack exploration of the mechanisms underlying the complex interactions between social and physical dimension factors, which constitute a key direction for future research.

Furthermore, the sustainability connotation of ILSs should be elaborated more comprehensively. It should not merely remain at the common levels, such as resource efficiency and environmental protection, but also be deeply integrated into the dimensions of educational equality and the long-term adaptability of learning infrastructures. The design of ILSs with social sustainability should enable effective use by students from diverse backgrounds with different needs through the collaborative integration of multiple factors across the social and physical dimensions, thereby promoting educational equality and inclusiveness. Meanwhile, the flexibility and adaptability of ILS design not only meet the current needs of the blended learning model but also represent a strategic resilience for future transformations in education models. The collaborative design of social and physical dimension factors integrates education equality, long-term spatial adaptability, and social inclusivity into the planning and evaluation framework for ILSs. This integration represents a critical pathway to sustainable campus development and offers clear design guidance for educators, architects, and policymakers.

6. Conclusions

Through a systematic literature review, this study critically synthesises 33 empirical studies published from 2000 to 2025, aiming to address the following two research questions: (1) How can an interdisciplinary synthesis advance the conceptual understanding of ILSs in higher education? (2) What factors affect students’ performance in ILSs?

Regarding the first research question on conceptual advancement, this review integrates interdisciplinary perspectives from education, architecture, and library science. It conceptualises ILSs as dynamic ecosystems primarily designed to support self-directed and collaborative learning. The ecosystem integrates technological infrastructure, flexible layouts and social interaction to accommodate diverse learning needs. By integrating fragmented definitions of ILSs across disciplines, a theoretical basis can be established for designing learning spaces aligned with the 21st century educational paradigm.

Regarding the second research question on students’ performance determinants, the synthesis of multidisciplinary evidence identifies two synergistic factors: the social and physical dimensions. The social dimension factors include interaction and privacy, and the physical dimension factors are further classified into three comprehensive categories: indoor environmental quality factors, spatial configuration factors, and ergonomic and technological factors. Students’ performance is shaped by the synergistic influence of these social and physical dimensions, which collectively support students’ diverse learning activities and individual preferences.

The findings of this review have dual implications for both theory and design practice. Theoretically, conceptualising ILSs as a dynamic ecosystem provides an interdisciplinary foundation for future research. In practice, the successful design of ILSs must adopt an integrated perspective that coordinates both social and physical dimensions in spatial planning. This necessitates a flexible balance between privacy and interaction, along with the precise configuration of physical environmental factors to meet students’ diverse needs and individual preferences. Ultimately, this holistic design approach positions ILSs as a key vehicle for enhancing students’ learning outcomes, fostering educational equality, and advancing sustainable campus development.