Journal of Researches in Islamic Architecture

The physical learning environment plays a critical role in shaping students’ learning experiences by interacting with motivational and cognitive processes. Although Reeve’s Student Engagement model and McCloskey’s Executive Functions model help explain learning processes, their application to analyzing and designing physical learning environments remains underexplored. This study, therefore, examines these two models to analyze physical learning environments and compares their complementary analytical capacities.

The study employs a qualitative comparative approach based on documentary and library research. The research evaluates Reeve’s model—which focuses on motivational, behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agentic engagement—and McCloskey’s model—which emphasizes executive functions—in terms of their theoretical foundations, internal structures, and potential applications to learning environments. Furthermore, the study utilizes conceptual content analysis and deductive inference to investigate and compare their potential for analyzing spatial organization, functional uses, physical elements, and formal properties.

The findings indicate that the two models address complementary dimensions of the relationship between the physical environment and learning. Conceptually, Reeve’s model emphasizes intrinsic motivation, psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), and multiple forms of engagement. In contrast, McCloskey’s model focuses on neurocognitive processes through clusters of executive functions and four contextual arenas: intrapersonal, interpersonal, environmental, and symbolic systems. Methodologically, Reeve’s framework offers tools for analyzing motivation and engagement, while McCloskey’s framework supports the analysis of cognitive functions and the development of interventions based on cognitive neuroscience. Practically, Reeve’s model promotes learning environments that emphasize motivation, choice, interaction, flexibility, personalization, and learner-centered activities. Conversely, McCloskey’s model prioritizes concentration, minimized distractions, spatial order, visual clarity, and environments that support inquiry and problem-solving.

The study concludes that the two models are not conflicting but analytically complementary. Their integration provides a multilayered framework for understanding and designing physical learning environments that support both learner motivation and cognitive functioning.