School Environment

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
CH A P T E R
15
School Environments
Henry Sanoff and Rotraut Walden
Abstract Education reform has focused primarily on teaching methods and course content. As a result instructional materials have been updated and instructional methods improved. However, what has received too little attention is the physical environment in which education occurs. Highly qualified teachers do not want to work in outdated, unattractive facilities. Parents are much more discerning about which school their child will attend, including the physical appearance of the school and modern technology available. School systems have discovered that schools with sick internal physical environments have an adverse effect on student learning and teacher performance. There are a growing number of studies linking student outcomes whose physical environments support the educational process. Key Words. high-performance schools, post-occupancy evaluation, classroom design, green schools, building performance, health, learning, teaching, social behavior, well-being, future directions
Introduction
A growing understanding of how our learning environments affect people suggests that a school building is an important tool for learning and teaching, and, like any tool, can enhance or hinder the process. School facility factors such as building age and condition, quality of maintenance, lighting, color, noise, temperature, and air quality can affect student health, safety, sense of self, and psychological state (National Research Council, 2007). Research has also shown that the quality of facilities influences citizen perceptions of schools and can serve as a point of community pride and increased support for public education (Uline, Tschannen-Moran, & Wolsey, 2008). The goal then is to create school facilities that reflect everything known today about providing the best possible education for all students in the twentyfirst century.
Historical Evolution of American School Buildings

The physical environment is one of the important components of an institutional system, such as schools (Wolfe & Rivlin, 1987). Physical changes in school architecture have always been influenced by the social, political, economical, and educational ideologies of the times. These changes shaped societys conceptions of childrens development and attitudes toward the educational practices, as well as the types of educational facilities. There have been major turning points in education from the Colonial period and the one-room schoolhouse to the Common School movement starting in the 1840s, continuing with the progressive education movement in the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, later focusing on open education and compensatory education.
276
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 276
6/8/2012 9:46:58 PM
State-mandated public education did not exist prior to the 19th century (Wolfe & Rivlin, 1987). Education was usually for the elite, through tutoring and one-room schoolhouses accommodating all ages of students with the teacher presiding over instruction. The common school movement brought the idea of equal opportunity for everybody to be educated regardless of economical, racial, or class background (Rothman, 1980). During this progressive period American business and industry rapidly expanded and the school was viewed essentially as a workplace (factory) and students learning was perceived in terms of productivity. Teachers were referred to as the factory workers and students as the raw material to be turned into the product, which was to meet the needs of the early 20th century. The common school movement, however, gave rise to the public education system and the principle of free schooling (Pasalar, 2003). During the first quarter of the 20th century, as school populations grew due to urbanization, the need for larger district schools became clear. In the meantime, the idea of elementary and secondary schools appeared, which later included middle schools as well. Buildings designed to specialize in the housing of junior high and high school education programs were constructed, and many more types of auxiliary spaces were added. The junior high school was created with the purpose of easing the transition from elementary school settings to the departmentalized high school settings and solving the problem of general overcrowding (Rieselbach, 1992).
Reform Pedagogy (18901932)

During the late 19th century, a progressive movement emerged in Europe as well as in the United States as a general critique of the public educational system. A central principle of the progressive movement was the concept of child-centered education, in contrast to the teacher-centered methods where education was shaped according to course content delivered by formal lectures. This brief sketch of the history of school buildings would be incomplete without mentioning the reform movements, which began around the turn of the 20th century. The term educational reform of this period actually refers to a multitude of pedagogical ideas within an overall movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (18901932) that began to take a stand against the predominant drill schools, with their remoteness from real life, intellectualism, and authoritarianism (Oelkers, 1996, p. 39; cf. Borrelbach, 2009).The progressive
movement is traced primarily to educators such as Georg Kerschensteiner and Peter Petersen in Germany, Maria Montessori in Italy (1988), and John Dewey (1916/1967) in the United States. The integration of work into the educational process was promoted primarily by Georg Kerschensteiner (18541932) in the work school (Arbeitsschule) movement he started. Between 1890 and 1933, the concept of work school became a synonym for the entire reform pedagogy movement and was considered the essential new school. Kerschensteiner saw the activity in the work school primarily as the combination of manual work and intellectual scrutiny of that activity. He was a determined opponent of the traditional book learning and accused it of being one-sided and remote from reality, in that it focused primarily on intellectual abilities, while the majority of the students would have to pursue work involving manual activities in their later life (Scheibe, 1999, p. 180; cf. Borrelbach, 2009). Peter Petersen (18541952) sought to realize the union of individual and an educational community primarily through a new organization of the school. He abandoned the principle of separation of grades and instead introduced tribe groups of students teamed up according to subject interest or other aspects. They included two or three age groups, so that students of very different ages were working together. With these organizational changes and more differentiated instructional content, Petersen achieved a loosening of the rigid structures of the old school, and a more flexible educational process. However, Petersen saw school reform not only as organizational change, but also as a design challenge (Oelkers, 1996, p. 190). He felt that development of a new school architecture was needed. For this, he proposed to redesign the classrooms as school living rooms. Students were offered a variety of work materials, books, and objects, so as to turn these school living rooms into the best possible, stimulating instructional environment (cf. Dreier et al., 1999, p. 35). According to Petersen, other necessary spatial conditions for a positive community life were easily integrated outdoor areas, inviting entrances, spacious break areas, and generously designed hallways and assembly areas. A good aesthetic design would give the children opportunities for retreat and relaxation (Petersen, 1927, p. 7). The Italian physician Maria Montessori (1870 1952) opened her first childrens homes (case dei bambini) in 1900. She was motivated by her belief that schools of that time were designed for adults, Sanoff, Walden 277
6/8/2012 9:46:58 PM
with long hallways and bare, monotonous classrooms. Her educational philosophy was dominated by the principle of individual self-guided activity and her child-centered approach. Her ideas generated not only new didactic materials but also valuable concepts for the design and organization of living spaces for children. She started from the belief that from the moment of birth, every child has the ability to develop into an independent human being through active exploration and learning processes (Dreier et al., 1999, p. 35; cf. Borrelbach, 2009). John Dewey (18591952) suggested that education be based on a broader concept, making it an integral part of the life process whereby students would learn by doing and interacting with one another (Alexander, 2000). Many educators believed that programs needed to fit the child, but not that the child should fit the program. Consequently, schooling in the United States dramatically changed. In the period between World War I and II, the spatial layout characteristics of the school architecture evolved as a result of the pedagogic findings, the advent of the modern movement in the architecture, and the measures taken by the hygienists for the prevention of disease. In finger plan organizations, classrooms were connected to spaces for communal activities, and at the same time aimed to provide appropriate ventilation, lighting, orientation, and immediate contact with external space. For the first time classrooms were connected to the outdoors (courtyards, open playfields) introducing nature as part of the learning experience in addition to classroom activities. However, the classrooms, which were often located along the corridor in a linear development, were still a major component of the school.
The Progressive Movement

Throughout the industrialized era (19451960), in combination with the idea of mass production, prototype school buildings were created conveying a minimalist approach toward educational space strict standards and institutional and economic restrictions. The education system and the architectural trend, in general, involved the factory approach based on the construction of fast and economical school buildings without questioning its uniqueness and fit to the educational process (Taylor, 1975). Cultural, geographic, social, and ideological aspects were not a priority compared to the interests of a universality that promotes more democratic and universal values in the school architecture. Due to economic constraints in budgets for school constructions, the attention and interests focused on 278 School Environments
the infrastructure of the school with less interest in pedagogy, social organization, spatial layout, and other physical features. During the same period the trend shifted toward creating more scaled, flexible, and convertible spaces that can adopt continuously changing and developing pedagogy. In 1959 J. Lloyd Trump prepared a report emphasizing the necessity of improving the quality of secondary education and school environments for the future. Commissioned by the National Association of Secondary School Principals, this plan influenced the development of many schools during that period. According to the report, the secondary school of the future would not need to have standard classroom units of 25 to 35 students meeting five days a week. In terms of student-teacher relationships, the secondary schools would provide closer relationships. The teacher in this case would be a consultant rather than a taskmaster. Since students have different learning styles, the plan suggested the pursuit of specialized studies. According to Trump, space within the building would be planned for what would be taught, as well as how it should be taught. Spatial flexibility was one of the variables to be considered. The Trump plan suggested that large rooms be flexible enough to be divided into smaller seminar rooms for small-group discussions. The 1960s and 1970s brought new developments in the education system and a thorough analysis of childrens developmental needs. The idea of open design was introduced, offering changes in the organization and the structure of the classrooms and overall school building (Barth, 1972; Silberman, 1973). The baby boom in the 1960s along with the suburban expansion and the development of new areas led to an increase in the construction of school buildings. The schools constructed had architectural and programmatic variety. Openspace school and informal education were part of that experimentation. Open-space education originated from the need to find an answer to the problem of educating children of varying performance levels in different groups. However, open-design schools were less a philosophic commitment than a matter of cost and efficiency over buildings with partitions. The educational model offered child-centered learning, which emphasized a flexible grouping of students, individualized instruction, open access to learning materials, and the use of all available spaces such as rooms, corridors, and outdoor areas (Wolfe & Rivlin, 1987). The idea provided spaces that encouraged mobility, communication, social
6/8/2012 9:46:58 PM
interaction, cooperation, and group projects among the students. They were the symbols of modern school design and were widely adopted. However, the idea of open-design school was not accompanied by informal or open teaching. There were even attempts to implement informal or open education in settings where school buildings were traditionally designed (Wolfe & Rivlin, 1987). Therefore, the idea later failed due to the disorder caused by the incompatible teaching activities and school buildings. Problems, such as visual distraction and noise as well as territorial need for different activity settings, were experienced as well (Taylor, 1975; Gump, 1991; Sanoff, 2002). Many of those schools implementing the open-design idea have undergone changes returning to the traditional way of divided classroom arrangements (Sanoff, 2002). There are continuing mismatches between the educational philosophies and practices. Although the current schooling system in the United States is experimenting with a student-centered education model in innovative small schools, emphasizing learning through continuous interaction among peers and teachers, it is still possible to observe teachers control and dominance on student activities restricting students use of different spaces (Cushman, 1999).
School Size
In the 1970s and 80s, the United States and other countries built very large schools in most of their cities. Reasons for this were the expectation of economic advantages as well as the benefit of being able to offer students a wider and more comprehensive curriculum. A trend of separating the large schools into smaller, more personal units developed (Duke & Trautvetter, 2001). The goal was, among other things, that a greater significance would be attributed to the personalization of schools. This was shown through decorations, involvement in school clubs, break rooms, works of art, and the overall feeling that I would like to be here. The small school literature began with largescale quantitative studies of the late 1980s and early 1990s that firmly established small schools as more productive and effective than large ones. These studies, involving large numbers of students, schools, and school districts, found a strong relationship between higher academic achievement and lower enrollment (Lee & Smith, 1995; Eckman & Howley, 1997). A study commissioned by the US Department of Education noted that the value of small schools in increasing achievement, graduation
rates, and satisfaction, and in improving behavior has been confirmed with clarity and a high level of confidence (Raywid, 1999). Students make more rapid progress toward graduation (McMullan, Sipe, & Wolf, 1994). They are more satisfied with small schools, fewer of them drop out than from larger schools (Pittman & Haoghwout, 1987), and students behave better in smaller schools (Stockard & Mayberry, 1992). According to Wasley et al. (2000), the advantages of smaller schools seem to outweigh those of bigger schools. Isolation, which reveals itself through alienation, vandalism, theft, and violence, can be avoided in smaller schools (cf. Linneweber, Mummendey, Bornewasser, & Lschper, 1984). Smaller schools enable children of minorities and those from underprivileged backgrounds to progress rapidly and encourage teachers to invest their experiences for the benefit of the students (Wasley et al., 2000, p. 2). Barker and Gump already demonstrated in their classic 1964 study (cf. Helmke & Weinert, 1997, p. 94) that students in smaller schools are more inclined to take part in school activities, despite the fact that larger schools may have more opportunities to offer these kinds of activities to students. A report by Carnegie Corporations Council on Adolescent Development (1988) revealed that adolescents had been experiencing massive, impersonal schools with unconnected curricula and high student population. The idea of creating smaller learning environments was introduced in the 1990s and was implemented by educational planners. Smaller learning environments were generated through the creation of academic houses (or classroom clusters forming a separate unit) accommodating 200 to 300 students. In each academic unit, students and teachers were organized into teams where there were interactive educational and social activities. Other plans emerged to create schools within schools within new and existing schools, sometimes referred to as a neighborhood plan or learning community (McAndrews & Anderson, 2002). More recently the idea of smaller schools with more specialized curriculum and educational activities, such as magnet or academic house schools, has started to be widespread within the United States, thus the school environment attributed to the new views in educational process concerning the organization of flexible classroom spaces and the number of laboratories or project rooms supporting students practices. In general, the school environment aimed to offer more stimuli to students who operate in a framework of freedom in a more balanced network Sanoff, Walden 279
6/8/2012 9:46:58 PM
of social relations. The goal was integrating youth into various social roles, allowing equal opportunity for each child, and promoting their psychological, social, and moral development and hence, their personal fulfillment. Educational research indicates that participation in school activities, student satisfaction, social connectedness, and achievement are greater in small schools relative to large schools (Barker & Gump, 1964; Blundell Jones, 2007; Cotton, 1996; Sanoff, 2009), while disciplinary problems, incidents of vandalism, truancy, drug use, and drop-out rates are lower (Fowler & Walberg, 1991).
Learning Environment
Learning is defined as a relatively long-lasting change in behavior that results from experience. Good teaching can be found in poorly built schools, just as poor teaching can be found in well-built schools. However, it is widely accepted that buildings can both promote as well as hinder learning (Weinstein, 1979). In the results of the PISA study (Program for International Student Assessment; Lemke et al., 2001; OECD, 2004), education ministers, supervisory school authorities, and planners deal with the effects of environment on the performance as well as the social and emotional competence of students in kindergarten, grade schools, and tertiary schools The concept of the environment as the third teacher alongside the children and actual teachers is the central issue within the question of how to optimize conditions for in-school learning (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998). Loris Malaguzzi (19201994), one of the most important Reggio pedagogues, made the following fundamental statement: in addition to the teacher and fellow students, the building acts as a third teacher (1984). Various studies have shown that schools need to be able to meet very diverse educational demands. Schools need to be places of living and learning, and meeting points for social learning, which promotes conflict resolution and encourages individuality and open exchange of ideas. A large volume of evidence shows a correlation between environmental conditions in schools and academic performance (cf. Linneweber, 1996, p. 386; Gifford, 2007). The central focus of the dispute is also found in this chapter, in the analysis of the effects of the physical environment. Well-planned school buildings can promote the development of successful, motivational learning methods that contribute to a love of learning and generate a desire to achieve. Students are the 280 School Environments
ones responsible for the future of the global market and the social utility of our economic system. Gump (1978) determined that a person spends on average 14,000 hours in the learning environment from kindergarten to the 12th grade. The results of the international PISA study became well known in numerous countries, and since 2003, 7,200 of more than 40,000 schools in Germany were reconfigured to become full-time schools, open all year, in the hope that this concept would help improve student performance. During this time, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research invested four billion euros to help fund the shift to full-time schools. There is a demand for todays schools to be more responsive (Sanoff, 2001), to be places where students and teachers engage in learning and teaching inside and outside of the classroom. The goal is a school that responds to the development needs of adults and teenagers. A multitude of learning methods and social forms should be applied, such as small-group work, lectures, learning by doing, individual assignments, and study centers (Jacobs, 1999; Lackney, 2009). In addition to target-oriented learning, incidental learning also takes place. The areas in which students spend their free time should also be included in the planning. The social realm should allow room for eating, drinking, playing, and reflection. Also important is the flexibility to be used by various groups, children, adults, and disabled people (cf. Lackney, 2000).
User Evaluation of School Buildings

Based on numerous studies, Ahrentzen, Jue, Skorpanich, and Evans (1982) developed a system of classification for the study of stress in elementary school settings. In the 1970s, the avoidance of stress was a subject of major interest, followed by the facilitation of academic performance and creativity. The system of classification (cf. Moos, 1979) is based on the fit of personal characteristics to environmental properties. According to Ahrentzen et al., students will exert more effort for the completion of a difficult task in settings that meet their expectations and their needs. Barkers concept of behavior setting (Barker, 1968; Schoggen, 1989) influenced Gump (1991; see also Schmittmann, 1985; Strhlein, 1998) in his definition of the main factors of his analysis as physical environment (interior design and architecture), roles (e.g., teachers and learners), and behavior programs. Barker is concerned with the synomorphic relationships between these components. Gifford (2007) referred to almost the same relationships
6/8/2012 9:46:58 PM
between personal characteristics of students, the physical features of the learning setting, and the social-organizational climate. There are other measuring tools that include the psycho-social school environment: for example, those from Moos (1979); Anderson and Walberg (1974); Fisher and Fraser (1983); and Fraser, Anderson, and Walberg (1982). The current contribution, however, is principally concerned with the effects of the physical environment on the experience and behavior of students and teachers (see Gump, 1991, p. 723). Interviews, questionnaires, and role-playing games have been developed in recent years, especially by Henry Sanoff (cf. Tanner, 1999) to measure and evaluate features of the physical environment. Sanoff (2002) encouraged the local community, students, parents, and teachers to participate in the design and building process. At the same time, he developed methods for evaluating school buildings (2001a). In 2001, the Federal Facilities Council (FFC, 2001) defined post-occupancy evaluation (POE) as a process of systematically evaluating the performance of buildings [or places] after they have been built and occupied for some time. POE differs from other evaluations of building performance in that it focuses on the requirements of building occupants, including health, safety, security, functionality and efficiency, psychological comfort, aesthetic quality, and satisfaction. (p. 1) And also: As POEs have become broader in scope and purpose, POE has come to mean any activity that originates out of an interest in learning how a building [or place] performs once it is built (if and how well it has met expectations) and how satisfied building users are with the environment that has been created. POE has been seen as one of a number of practices aimed at understanding design criteria, predicting the effectiveness of emerging designs, reviewing completed designs, supporting building activation and facilities management, and linking user response to the performance of buildings. POE is also evolving toward more process-oriented evaluations for planning, programming, and capital asset management (FFC, 2001). Typical methods used in conducting POEs are interviews, checklists, behavioral observations, and surveys. Each method reveals different insights into how satisfactorily the building performs for its occupants.
School Condition
There is growing evidence of a correlation between the adequacy of a school facility and
student behavior and performance. Numerous studies conducted over the past three decades have found a statistically significant relationship between the condition of a school or classroom and student achievement. In general, students attending school in newer, better facilities score 5 to 17 points higher on standardized tests than those attending in substandard buildings (Earthman, 1999; Earthman & Lemasters, 1996). A study of working conditions in urban schools concluded that physical conditions do have direct positive and negative effects on teacher morale, a sense of personal safety, feelings of effectiveness in the classroom, and on the general learning environment. Building renovations in one district led teachers to feel a renewed sense of hope, and of commitment, and a belief that district officials cared about what went on in that building. An improved physical environment affected the social climate of the school, and that subsequently had a positive effect on learning (Duke, 1988). Two scholars have done comprehensive, nonoverlapping compilations of research findings on the relationship of school facility condition to student achievement and behavior. In 1979, Weinstein published a review of 141 published studies and 21 papers presented at professional conferences. Three years later, McGuffey (1982) completed another review of the research, discussing 97 published studies. Following is a summary of research on specific quality factors and their effect on educational outcomes. In the mid-1990s, American industrial designer Ruth Lande Shuman initiated the Publicolor school design program in New York. Jail-like school buildings with industrial, hostile appearances were brightened by lighter colors and decorated with more variety. The results: lower dropout rates of students, fewer discipline issues, and marked increases in concentration during lessons. These studies in the psychology of color show, for example, that drab colors or bad lighting can createeven if the effect is slighta depressive mood among students and teachers, which, in turn, influences learning and learning environment (http://catalystsdr.com/2011/06/from-a-can-ofpaint-publicolor%E2%80%99s-use-of-design-intransforming-schools-and-students/). In elementary school classrooms, warm, bright colors complement the students extroverted nature, while cool colors facilitate the ability for middle and high school students to relax and focus concentration (Mahnke, 1996). Wohlfarth (1985) also showed that certain Sanoff, Walden 281
6/8/2012 9:46:58 PM
colors have measurable and predictable effects on the autonomic nervous system of people. In numerous studies, he found that blood pressure, pulse, and respiration rates increase most under yellow light, moderately under orange, and minimally under red, while decreasing most under black, moderately under blue, and minimally under green. Gifford (2007) explored whether the maintenance of a school has an influence on students. He proposes that satisfied teachers (and therefore better teachers) more often work in attractive schools. It is clear in the results that students who are taught in new or newly renovated schools are more satisfied. It is important to point out that some of the scholarly research on school facilities and student performance has reached a negative conclusion. Although most scholars who have studied the question concur that achievement suffers in poor school environments, most are deeply skeptical about studies linking improved achievement with top-notch buildings. They point out that much of the work establishing such a link has been done by graduate students, and that many of the facility assessments were done by volunteers, or school officials, and may have lacked rigorous checklists. Some studies failed to control for critical variables, such as teacher experience. Critics also point to anomalies in findings correlations on math scores, but not reading scores or vice versa; three-year studies that found linkage in two years, but not in the third; one study in which disciplinary incidents were more common in a new school than in older ones; and the fact that some of the research has been commissioned or sponsored by groups of architects or facility plannerspeople who have a vested interest in proving a link.
perceived as emotional gestures (that is, they appear to be lively, cheerful, sad, brutal, and so on); students see spatial features such as facades, color schemes, and landscaping as interaction partners. The effect of the elements of structure and color produce a background mood for the observers. Rittelmeyer (2004) named three quality-criteria for an existing or planned school to be beautifully, appealingly, attractively, or pleasantly effective: (1) inspiring, (2) unrestricted, and (3) warm or soft to reinforce the significance of buildings form, Rittelmeyer (2004) cited an American study, according to which higher levels of performance were achieved in positively rated school buildings (Earthman, 1999, 2004), and a German study (Klockhaus & HabermannMorbey, 1986), which determined that less vandalism occurs in such buildings. In The Psychology of Vandalism, Goldstein (1996) included a basic study by Pablant and Baxter (1975), which confirms the correlation between wanton destruction and the aesthetic quality as well as the degree of maintenance of school property. Schools with fewer instances of vandalism are characterized by excellent maintenance of the building and surrounding playgrounds. The age of the school shows no correlation with the frequency of vandalism. Schools with low rates of destruction are generally found in districts with a variety of buildings (e.g., commercial buildings, churches) in the surrounding area. Of schools with high rates of destruction, 81% are found near unoccupied land, such as parks and sports fields. Schools with low rates of vandalism can usually be seen by neighbors because they are better lit, which makes it easy to view the property.
Classroom Design Visual Appearance

Buildings, settings, and environments are accorded symbolic value by those who use them. Physical entities come to symbolize certain qualities, values, aspirations, and experiences for individuals. A school may symbolize opportunity, hope, stability, and a safe haven in a world of insecurity and transience, or, to someone else, the school structure may symbolize failure and oppressive authority. A study from Rittelmeyer (1994; cf. 2004; Forster & Rittelmeyer, 2010) develops conclusions regarding the impact of improvements to aesthetic form by means of renovation or reconstruction of schools. Approximately 600 youths were asked about their preferences and dislikes with regard to certain structural forms, colors, and interior decorations. According to this study, school buildings are 282 School Environments One hundred fifty years ago, classrooms represented a common teaching method. Today teaching methods have changed, but often the design of the classroom has remained static. An examination of current learning styles and teaching methods suggests a new form of learning environment characterized by different activity settings and small-group activities. To experience healthy development, students require certain needs to be met. School-agers require diversity in activities and in places where they are performed, which entails different opportunities for learning and different relationships with a variety of people (Levin & Nolan, 2000). In a school that responds to its students need for diversity, one would not find students all doing the same thing, at the same time, in similar rooms. One would not
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
expect to see students sitting in neat rows of desks, all facing teachers who are lecturing or reading from textbooks. Instead, in responsive schools, students and teachers would be engaged in different learning activities in and out of the classroom. A variety of teaching methods including small-group work, lectures, learning by doing, individualized assignments, and learning centers would be used (Jacobs, 1999; Lackney, 2009). Teachers are much more influenced by the physical environment than they realize. Malcolm Seabourne, a historian of school buildings in England, suggests that the building made the teaching method (Robson, 1972). The separate classroom was a sign that teachers were trusted to be independent and had greater privacy. The classroom was designed and built to represent and shape a particular form of teaching behavior. The way a school is designed to work reflects social ideas about institutions and the education these institutions are created to further (Grosvenor et al., 1999). The shape of spaces, furniture arrangements, and signs are physical cues that transmit silent messages, and both teachers and students will respond. These environmental messages stimulate movement, call attention to some things but not others, encourage involvement, and invite students to hurry or move calmly. This environmental influence is continuous, and how well it communicates with the users will depend on how well the environment is planned. Classroom arrangement is not a mere technicality, or a part of the teachers style. It reflects assumptions about the teaching-learning process and its outcomes.
and more interaction with students. The most teacher-centered classrooms, for example, have a seating arrangement organized in a circle (Horne, 2000). Although transaction theories of student/teacher participatory interaction (STPI) have been discussed in the educational literature for decades (Dewey, 1916; Friere, 1970; Krebs, 1982), more recently there has been research describing a correlation between STPI and student motivation to participate (SMP) in the classroom (Dormody & Sutphin, 1991; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Similarly, if students experience the classroom as a supportive place where there is a sense of belonging, they tend to participate more fully in the process of learning (Brophy, 1987). Research comparing the behavior of effective teachers with that of less effective teachers has clearly revealed the importance of monitoring the class during seatwork periods. Such monitoring involves teachers moving around the classroom, being aware of how well or poorly students are progressing with their assignments, and working with students oneto-one as needed. The most effective teachers: Have systematic procedures for supervising and encouraging students while they work Initiate more interactions with students during seatwork periods, rather than waiting for students to ask for help Have more substantive interactions with students during seatwork monitoring, stay task-oriented, and work through problems with students (Brophy, 1979)
Classroom Privacy Classroom Seating

The usual classroom seating arrangement of rows headed by a teacher at the front usually assumes that all information comes from the teacher. This arrangement assumes a teacher-centered classroom where the learning process depends upon the teachers direction. Considering the new thinking about how students learn, Halstead (1992) envisioned the classroom of tomorrow where classrooms would be like studios where students would have their own work space. In addition, there would be work spaces for cooperative learning by groups of different sizes, quiet private areas for one-on-one sessions, and places where students could work independently. Mobility and centeredness influence teachers movement patterns and how they interact with students in the classroom. Student-centered classrooms are those where there is greater teacher movement The complexity of the concept makes it difficult to come up with clear specifications regarding the optimal room setup. Some basic information, though, should be outlined. Every student needs a certain amount of privacy (Gifford, 2007), which varies from individual to individual. Many studies (cf. Gifford, 2007, p. 312) concur that a high classroom density negatively affects students performance when they undertake complex assignments, work in small groups, or accomplish tasks, when they need maneuverability, or when games or teaching materials are sparse. Just like classroom density, the location of a students seat can influence his or her performance, well-being, and social behavior. Thus, places in the middle of the classroom toward the front offer an optimal position for higher performance (Becker, Sommer, Bee, & Oxley, 1973; cf. Bell, Greene, Sanoff, Walden 283
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
Fisher, & Baum, 2001, p. 263). According to the sources of McAndrew (1993), the area of the classroom toward the rear is associated with the freedom to interact with classmates while at the same time being outside the control of the teacher. As a result, students arrange themselves within the different rows (Hillmann, Brooks, & OBrien, 1991). A study by Marx, Fuhrer, and Hartig (1999) researched the relationship between the location of the seat in the classroom and the number of questions asked by fourth graders. The results showed that children seated in a semicircle asked more questions than those seated in rows, and that social interaction was encouraged when individual students could make face-to-face contact. Therefore, seating arrangement can influence communication between students. Soft classrooms have semicircular benches covered with pillows, adjustable lighting, a small rug, and a few pieces of movable furniture. Student participation noticeably improves in a soft classroom (Sommer & Olsen, 1980). The open-plan classroom, which developed in the 1970s in many American schools, can have a relatively negative influence on the performance of the average student (Bell, Switzer, & Zipursky, 1974; Wright, 1975). It is important that the type of classroom matches the teaching method and meets the students and teachers needs for privacy and intellectual stimulus. Likewise, the type of classroom should agree with the kind of activity and the length of time needed for it. Glass et al. (1982) believed that when a class reaches 20 to 25 students, each additional student makes a relatively small difference (cf. Schnabel, 2001, p. 482). They concluded that smaller classes of 15 or fewer students result in better learning environments in almost every regard, including teacher and student attitudes, interaction, and performance.
There is a growing spirit of innovation in school design and planning worldwide. Information technology introduced into schools promotes individual learning and a closer link with the community. More schools tend to introduce new learning methods, such as interdisciplinary, hands-on, and selflearning. The establishment of networking between school and community also depends on information technology (IT). Satellite schools, homeschooling, and off-campus learning at various sites are increasing in popularity. According to my current research, these trends are seen not only in Japan but also in the United States and several European countries (Yanagisawa, 2009). From the viewpoint of IT application and individual learning, there are necessary conditions for IT schools. To additionally enhance these schools as innovative, the following elements should be considered: Spaces for self-learning with IT facilities in all parts of the school Accessible learning resource center as a core of the school School furniture and workstations designed for information technology Development of educational software and curriculum Promotion of human resources to support information technology, i.e., on-campus/offcampus training for teachers, staff, librarians, and volunteers (Yanagisawa, 2009)
Outdoor Environment
Today, school activities involve more than simply listening or writing. Learning can take place in many different kinds and qualities of space. In addition, students activities outdoors (e.g., playgrounds) have shown to be more creative than in classrooms or traditional playgrounds (Lindholm, 1995), with positive effects on learning and cognitive qualities (Fjortoft & Sageie, 1999; Fjortoft, 2004). Schools in which children take on an active role outside of the classroom, and schools with an attractive exterior, seem to be ideal schools for children (cf. Gifford, 2007; cf. Wasley et al., 2000). Louv (2008) helped connect the idea of using natural landscaping expressly to K12 schools. He described American childrens nature-deficit disorder, or how children are increasingly becoming disconnected from nature. Louv attributed the trend to several causes: a more technological society, parents fear of strangers, less access to natural settings, and so on. But the case he and other child and environmental advocates
Information Technology Classroom

Since the early 1900s technology, beginning with film, then radio, television, and video, has been brought into the learning environment; currently the computer, tablets, and SMART Boards have been introduced into instructional settings. However, none of these past or current technologies are being fully integrated into educational programs, as was anticipated (Weiss, 2007). One reason is that the design of the physical environment does not support the integration of technology (Oliver & Lippman, 2007; Weiss, 2007). Learning environments should be programmed, planned, and designed to support the intended learning activities. 284 School Environments
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
have made for the benefits of exposing children to the natural world has given schools cause to examine their own surroundings and opportunities for outdoor learning and play. Studies now show that connecting students to the environment improves not only their physical well-being, but also their social and educational aptitude. A 2006 Canadian study (Dyment, Bell, & Lucas, 2009), for instance, found that students who interact on school grounds with diverse natural settings were more physically active, more creative, more aware of nutrition, and more cooperative with one another.
Natural Materials, Niches, and Paths

According to McAndrew (1993; cf. Flade, 1998; Weinstein & Pinciotti, 1988; Lindholm, 1995; Forster & Rittelmeyer, 2010), schoolyards and playgrounds can be viewed as learning environments where children learn about social skills and cognitive abilities. How does a playground need to look to provide students with the necessary intellectual stimulation? It should contain various niches that stimulate all the senses and are connected by paths. Additionally, schoolyards and playgrounds that are loosely structured, for example, adventure playgrounds with mountains of tires, stimulate childrens creativity. Moore (1989) proposed integrating nature and natural materials. An especially suitable material is wood with rounded edges and corners. Another possibility for improving schoolyards and playgrounds is the introduction of safe entrances and exits to create a meeting place for children and adults and thus creating possibilities for social contact. In this way, delinquency can be better controlled.
accommodate increasing enrollments and new technologies. Given the high cost of new construction as well as the costs of operating, maintaining, and retrofitting the current, declining building stock, many school systems are recognizing the benefits of high-performance schools. High-performance schools, also called green or sustainable schools, are designed, constructed, and maintained to be resource-efficient, healthy, comfortable, safe, secure, adaptable, and easy to operate and maintain. They cost less to operate and create environments that enhance learning. Additionally, high-performance schools reduce adverse impacts resulting from the construction and operation of built facilities on the natural environment. For example, preserving natural vegetation reduces overall disturbance to the site. And designing to reduce impervious surfaces mitigates storm-water runoff caused by construction and protects the hydrologic functions of the site. Given the level of interaction between people and their environments and other confounding factors, establishing cause-and-effect relationships between an attribute of a school building and its effect on students, teachers, and staff is difficult. The effects of the built environment will necessarily appear to be small, given the number of variables (Bosch, 2004). Empirical measures do not, however, necessarily capture all relevant considerations that should be applied when evaluating research results. Qualitative aspects of the environment are also important. However, there is value in attempting to identify design features and building processes and practices that may lead to improvements in learning, health, and productivity for students, teachers, and other school staff, even if empirical results are less than robust.
High-Performance Schools
One proposed solution to the problems facing school facilities is to design and construct high-performance schools. The terms high performance, sustainable, and green are used to describe schools that minimize environmental harm, maximize the performance of facilities, cost less over the life of the building, and create educational environments that are optimal for learning (Gelfan & Freed, 2010). Although these terms do not necessarily have the same meaning, practitioners often use them interchangeably and define them similarly. These terms will also be used interchangeably in this paper to reflect the wording of the authors being cited. School systems in the United States are struggling to build new schools and renovate aging ones to
Design Guides
As school systems seek to improve the performance of their facilities and reduce costs, they are relying on (or creating) a variety of guides to assist them with design, construction, and operation/ maintenance. These documents are often regionspecific and reflect the priorities of the authoring agency, but they may also be appropriate for other regions and used by school systems across the country. Intended to educate stakeholders about the concepts of high-performance facilities, these documents are important vehicles for implementing research in sustainability, school design, environment and behavior, and related fields. However, to date, there have been no reviews of the guidance documents to examine their focus and content. Sanoff, Walden 285
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
Without a doubt, those involved with the development of these guidance documents have reviewed similar documents when developing their guides; however, this information has not been published. Also, these reviews were conducted for the purpose of developing a guidance document, rather than for identifying additional opportunities for providing information to stakeholders (Bosch, 2003). A consortium of state and utility leaders in California launched an effort in 2001 to develop energy and environmental standards specifically for schools. The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS, often pronounced chips) aims to increase the energy efficiency of California schools by marketing information, services, and incentive programs directly to school districts and designers. The CHPS website defines green schools as having the following 13 attributes: healthy, comfortable, energy efficient, material efficient, water efficient, easy to maintain and operate, commissioned, environmentally responsive site, a building that teaches, safe and secure, community resource, stimulating architecture, and adaptable to changing needs (CHPS, 2005). Green school objectives are to be achieved through guidelines that are similar to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system but specifically geared to schools. Green school guidelines move well beyond design and engineering criteria for the buildings themselves, addressing land use, processes for construction and equipment installation, and operation and maintenance practices. They include design and engineering techniques to meet specific objectives: Locating schools near public transportation to reduce pollution and land development impacts Placing a building on a site so as to minimize its environmental impact and make the most of available natural light and solar gain Designing irrigation systems and indoor plumbing systems to conserve water Designing energy and lighting systems to conserve fossil fuels and maximize the use of renewable resources Selecting materials that are nontoxic, biodegradable, and easily recycled and that minimize the impacts on landfills and otherwise reduce waste Creating an indoor environment that provides occupants with a comfortable temperature, and good air quality, lighting, and acoustics Green school guidelines also recommend construction techniques to meet objectives such as the 286 School Environments
appropriate storage of materials on construction sites to avoid water damage, the reduction of waste materials and appropriate disposal to reduce resource depletion, and the introduction of commissioning practices to ensure the performance of building systems (US Green Building Council, 2007).
Eects of Green Schools on Health and Performance

There are no well-designed, evidence-based studies concerning the overall effects of green schools on the health or development of students and teachers, in part because the concept of green schools is quite new. There are, however, studies that examine specific building features often emphasized in green school design and the effects of these components on health and learning (National Research Council, 2007). Evidence-based design is a field of study that emphasizes the importance of using credible data to influence the design process. The approach has become popular in health-care architecture in an effort to improve patient and staff well-being, patient healing process, stress reduction, and safety. School districts do not typically pursue highperformance design merely to be good stewards of the natural environment. There is convincing evidence of multiple benefits from using high-performance, green design, such as an association between excess moisture, dampness, and mold in buildings and adverse health outcomes, particularly asthma and respiratory symptoms, among children and adults (Lstiburek & Carmody, 1994). Sufficient scientific evidence exists to conclude that there is an inverse association between excessive noise levels in schools and student learning (National Research Council, 2007). The impacts of excessive noise vary according to the age of students, because the ability to focus on speech sounds is a developmental skill that does not mature until about the ages of 13 to 15. Thus, younger children require quieter and less reverberant conditions than do adults who hear equally well. As adults, teachers may not appreciate the additional problems that excessive noise creates for younger students (Picard & Bradley, 2001). Human perception of the thermal environment depends on four parameters: air temperature, radiant temperature, relative humidity, and air speed (Kwok, 2000). Perception is modified by personal metabolic rates and the insulation value of clothing. Thermal comfort standards are essentially based on a set of air and radiant temperatures and relative humidity levels that will satisfy at least 80% of the
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
occupants at specified metabolic rates and clothing values. There is a literature on the effects of temperature and humidity on occupant comfort and productivity, primarily from studies in office buildings (Fanger, 2000; Seppnnen & Fisk, 2005; Wyon, 2004; Wang et al., 2005). These studies show that productivity declines if temperatures go too high (Federspiel et al., 2004). The temperature, airflow, and humidity of a classroom will affect the quality of work produced by students. It is agreed among researchers that a classroom with a temperature above 80 degrees Fahrenheit is a very poor environment for learning. When a classroom is too warm, it induces drowsiness and fatigue, increases respiration, and creates conditions favorable to disease. When the human body is fighting to stay alert and is uncomfortable, it is not concentrating on the academic work at hand. Students make greater gains in academic achievement in climate controlled schools as opposed to those students in nonclimate controlled schools (Jago & Tanner, 1999, 2005). However, there is a paucity of studies investigating the relationship between room temperatures in schools and occupant comfort or productivity (Mendell & Heath, 2004). Between 1999 and 2003, the Heschong-Mahone Group conducted several studies investigating the effect of daylighting on student performance (National Research Council, 2007). In the 1999 study, data were obtained from three elementary school districts located in Orange County, California; Seattle, Washington; and Fort Collins, Colorado (Heschong-Mahone, 1999). The study looked for a correlation between the amount of daylight provided by each students classroom environment and test scores. Close examinations of the findings indicate a very small effect and one that cannot be justified as reliable (Boyce, 2004). These results could not be replicated in a subsequent study. Among the authors conclusions of more detailed statistical analysis were that sources of glare negatively affect student learning; direct sun penetration into classrooms, especially through unshaded sunfacing windows, is associated with negative student performance, likely causing both glare and thermal discomfort; blinds or curtains allow teachers to control the intermittent sources of glare or visual distraction through their windows; when teachers do not have control of their windows, student performance is negatively affected (Heschong-Mahone, 2003, p. ix). They summarized that
characteristics describing windows were generally quite stable in their association with better or worse
student performance. Variables describing a better view out of windows always entered the equations as positive and highly significant, while variables describing glare, sun penetration, and lack of visual control always entered the models as negative. (Heschong-Mahone, 2003, p. viii)
Classroom lighting and thermal comfort are commonly cited by teachers as determinants of their own morale and the engagement of their students (Corcoran, Walker, & White, 1988; Jago & Tanner, 1999). Lemasters (1997) identified 53 studies that linked design features to student achievement. School systems, like other public and private organizations, are becoming increasingly aware that design and construction strategies that reduce harmful impacts on the natural environment also contribute to creating a more productive and economically feasible facility. Case studies of schools provide evidence of these benefits. In this day of increasing school enrollment and tight construction budgets, cost savings are often used to justify high-performance design. The Sustainable Building Industry Council estimates that school districts can achieve 3040% savings on utilities if sustainable design and construction practices are utilized for new schools. In addition to cost savings, high-performance strategies such as daylighting, improved thermal comfort, better indoor air quality, and increased interaction with the natural environment are believed to enhance learning, provide a valuable community resource, and minimize adverse impacts on the environment. Those who pursue high-performance design and construction have common goals, such as environmental protection, eco-education, and superior building performance. Ecologically friendly is considered one of the top 10 design and planning solutions for school facilities today (Kennedy, 2003). Principles of sustainable design are incorporated to teach resource conservation, reduce resource use, and to enhance the learning environment.
School Trends
School facilities are powerful indicators of community values and aspirations. They not only support the academic needs of students they serve, but can also address the social, educational, recreational, and personal needs of the members of the broader community. It has been argued that successful schools strengthen a communitys sense of identity and coherence. Educational reform, however, has focused primarily on what is taught, and how it is taught. As Sanoff, Walden 287
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
a result, curricula have been strengthened, instructional strategies improved, and instructional materials updated. However, what has received too little attention is the physical environment in which education occurs. School systems find that parents are much more discerning about which school their child will attend, including the physical appearance of the school and the amount of modern technology available. In addition, school systems have discovered that schools with sick internal physical environments are shunned by prospective teachers and parents alike (Stevenson, 2006). Widespread misconceptions reinforce the view that the quality of school building has no impact on academic performance. Consequently, a gap exists between the educators view of improving quality and the process of planning schools. It is also becoming more evident that students function best in different educational settings according to their abilities; consequently, identical schools in terms of facilities do not equate with equal opportunity for students. School systems in the United States are offering parents and children more choices about the school a child attends. The one-size-fits-all approach is gradually disappearing and may give way to smaller and more diverse learning environments that give parents and students more choices and options about what, where, and how they learn. Therefore, the focus is shifting away from district-wide planning that provides equality of school facilities toward plans that meet the unique program needs of each school (Stevenson, 2002). And as parents have more choices about where to send their children, it follows that they demand schools that are personalized and fit their needs. Very different scenarios may affect what spaces will be included in future building designs (Butin, 2000). One view of the future suggests that standard academic classrooms will disappear. In their place, specialized labs and learning centers will become the norm (Lackney, 1999, 2009). Those with this vision maintain that separating learning into academics, arts, vocational, and the like is a false dichotomy (Chan, 1996). Instead, they view learning as holistic with, for example, art incorporated into language arts or math taught with specific job skills or vocations in mind. In this scenario, classrooms must be multipurpose, allowing a blending of traditional instruction with meaningful and diverse handson, lab-type experiences that may include anything from pottery making to dramatic arts. This idea of personalized learning environments, which has generated immense interest in the design of classroom 288 School Environments
clusters, house plans, and school-within-school settings, has magnified the role student commons can play in a schools overall design, serving as a hub for an academic wing or providing a space for alternative teaching strategies. Another scenario sees the development of more shared school facilities. In this view, future schools will be created or redesigned so that instructional and support spaces can also be used by social and community organizations or even businesses. Schools as community learning centers have been supported by research documenting the importance of active parental involvement, the growing importance of lifelong learning, and recognition that communities have many assets to offer that are themselves important learning tools. This awareness presents an opportunity to reconsider what constitutes an appropriate learning environment and to identify those factors that can enhance student achievement. Sharing instructional and support facilities is expected to be beneficial to both the school and the community. In such settings, students have access to a wide array of community and business expertise that can bring the curriculum to lifeand those who do not normally have access to school facilities find that the facilities better justify the money spent upon them. In any of the scenarios, school facilities would be different from what exists today. The key to successful planning is to provide the most flexible and adaptable spaces possible in our schools. The previous trends suggest how school facilities may be different in the future. Though the possibility may be remote, another scenario exists: schools as we know them will disappear (Northwest Educational Technology Consortium, 2002). If one thinks about the combination of the rapid development of technology and the increasing lack of confidence parents have in public education, the disappearance of the brick-and-mortar structure called school is possible. The child has access to lessons prepared by the most knowledgeable professionals in the world and can interact electronically with teachers and students in other countries as part of language, geography, or political studies instruction. Parents who homeschool increasingly use technology to access instructional materials. Students in remote areas of Canada and Australia, hundreds of miles from a school building, attend school by logging on to their computers. Technology allows a high school student in a rural location to take a course online from a teacher in another town. The question, perhaps, is not whether it is possible that schools will cease to exist, but how virtual
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
schools will grow and to what extent. No one knows, but it raises some interesting issues about how much to invest in physical structures, what kind of life expectancy they should have, and whether the future emphasis needs to be on schools as traditional learning environments or schools as production and broadcast centers. It also raises a question about the fundamental purpose of schooling. If technology consumes much of the instructional delivery of the future, who or what will assume responsibility for the socialization process that schools have traditionally been held accountable for? Another new element to consider in school design is the reality that there are more active participants who want a voice in how new school facilities are designed. Community-based groups, municipal agencies, and universities are just a few of the groups in the past decade that have voiced their ideas. This activism has led to a greater need for authentic citizen engagement and growing acceptance of shared space and public-private partnerships. In the coming decade educators and facility planners may increasingly be thinking about the needs of preschool children and senior citizens. In this new era of lifelong learning, educators and architects will have to expand their vision of who uses these facilities and be keenly aware of changing demographics. It may be necessary to move away from the traditional emphasis of creating facilities for seniors only and consider approaches that let the generations mingle to keep retirees active and current (Sullivan, 2002). Schools can achieve more innovative approaches to learning by creating learning environments in nontraditional settings, such as museums and shopping malls, as well as by encompassing community needs (Nathan & Thao, 2007).
of the schools into a model for evaluating school buildings. The following should be avoided with regard to schools in the future (Walden, 2009): Buildings that are too large and lead to anonymity A lack of protection against delinquency, accidents, and violence due to insufficient visibility for supervisory staff and unsafe paths, stairs, and playground equipment Buildings that are too small and allow little space for project groups because of a lack of specialty rooms An overly narrow connection between the main entrance and the classrooms Wasted energy due to drafty and poorly insulated buildings Dark hallways and rooms that require artificial lighting Low ceilings Classrooms that are too small or have insufficient learning materials for students Designing classrooms while considering only a few learning methods, such as presentations and testing knowledge Too few or low-quality public facilities for teachers and students (technical equipment, ergonomic furniture, noise), too few rooms for administration, or rooms that are too small Ineffective sound insulation No wheelchair accessible facilities for people with disabilities (lacking elevators, ramps, handrails, electric door openers, etc.) Poor building maintenance, which leads to an increase in vandalism General lack of cleanliness, due to materials that are difficult to clean, and insufficient waste collection Numerous physical factors have contributed to student and teacher dissatisfaction with the school environment. School appearance, whether the result of poor design or lack of proper maintenance, is a contributing factor to student motivation and teacher performance. Schools of the future should consider (Walden, 2009): The right of all users to take part in decisionmaking The importance of a clear orientation that begins at the entrance
Conclusion: Schools of the Future

In a qualitative study, which Walden and Borrelbach (2010) reported on, architects from six innovative schools answered interview questions about schools of the future. Intelligently designed schools should offer their users opportunities to make changes to the environment in response to their own degree of excitement, stress, and fatigue, since the users are experts regarding their own needs (cf. Linneweber, 1993). Innovative school buildings around the world were described in a work by Walden (2009). A team of authors from the United States, Japan, and Germany evaluated 23 trendsetting school buildings from 11 countries and 5 continents and organized certain characteristics
Sanoff, Walden
289
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
The use of the building by community members outside of class time The appropriateness of the space design for and the various teaching and learning methods, such as hands-on project-based learning, team teaching and learning, presentations, and smallgroup lessons, using common designs, such as large classrooms and relaxation rooms Division into reasonable units (schoolhouses) within the school complex, each grade with up to 160 students and organized into small numbers of students per class The introduction of learning studios, suites, and communities for as many as 150 to 160 students of different age ranges; the encouragement of social and emotional learning (Lackney, 2009) The use of modern information technology; LAN, WLAN Internet connections in all areas of the school along with the promotion of face-toface social contact and flexible, individual learning areas for self-guided learning, (covered) outdoor classrooms The use of environmentally friendly, sustainable, low-maintenance, and durable building materials The opportunity to personally regulate environmental stress factors (lighting, darkness, glare, ventilation, heat, sunshine, protection from rain, acoustics, noise, etc.) and to use sensorial technology The importance of natural, glare-free lighting The flexibility and multifunctional nature of rooms A setup of classrooms and hallways that offers opportunities for privacy The importance of providing privacy for teachers (separated and spacious teacher areas; group office rooms especially for all-day lessons) The importance of being able to have experiences with all senses (cf. Kkelhaus & zur Lippe, 1992) In contrast to the one-size-fits-all approach to school design, schools of the future need to provide formal as well as informal places for learning. Clearly not all learning occurs in the classroom. Opportunities for peer interaction constitute an important aspect of informal learning. Similarly, the design process needs to be more inclusive, providing opportunities for the participation of students, teachers, and parents. In the meantime, the building of schools is being addressed by various authors, who all 290 School Environments
establish a connection to the process of learning to competently contribute to future innovation and sustainability in the interaction with the built environment (Wstenrot-Stiftung, 2004; Buddensiek, 2001; Engel & Dahlmann, 2001; Kroner, 1994; Rittelmeyer, 2009; Schavan, 2001; Watschinger & Khebacher, 2007; Wstenrot-Stiftung, 2004; cf. for the Anglo-American room: Dudek, 2000, 2007; Gifford, 2007; Sanoff, 1994, 2002; Tanner & Lackney, 2006).
Future Directions
Decisions about school facilities tend to be made by a few people who are not themselves building users. Involving a building committee does not by itself always solve the problem of gaining schoolwide support. Future efforts need to focus on methods of involving a full range of stakeholders in the design and planning process. Similarly, school building performance from the occupants perspective continues to be a neglected ingredient in the building process. The improvement of the research instruments used, specifically the system to assess the quality of school buildings, remains a constant research challenge. There are isolated examples of school designs that support personalized, self-directed learning, such as variable- and flexible-size space, and individual work spaces, as well as spaces for collaboration. However, they do not reflect the mainstream of school designs, which are guided by traditional specifications. The gap between how children learn and the places that support this learning needs to be carefully examined, particularly since school buildings today are constructed to support many future generations of children.
References
Ahrentzen, S., Jue, G.M., Skorpanich, M.A., & Evans, G.W. (1982). School environments and stress. In G. W. Evans (Ed.), Environmental stress (pp. 224255). New York: Cambridge University Press. Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1974). Learning environments. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Evaluating educational performance (pp. 8198). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Barker, R. G., & Gump, P. V. (1964). Big school, small school. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Barth, R. S. (1972). Open education and the American school. New York: Agathon. Becker, F. D., Sommer, R., Bee, J., & Oxley, B. (1973). College classroom ecology. Sociometry, 36, 514525.
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
Bell, A. E., Switzer, F., & Zipursky, M. (1974). Open-area education: An advantage or disadvantage for beginners? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 407416. Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental psychology (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers. Blundell Jones, P. (2007). Peter Hbner: Architektur als sozialer Proze. Architecture as Social Process. Stuttgart/London: Edition Axel Menges. Borrelbach, S. (2009). The historical development of school buildings in Germany. In R. Walden (Ed.), Schools for the future: Design proposals from architectural psychology (pp. 4574). Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber. Bosch, S. J. (2003). Sustainability in public facilities: Analysis of guidance documents. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 17(1), 918. Bosch, S. J. (2004). Identifying relevant variables for understanding how school facilities affect educational outcomes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia Institute of Technology. Boyce, P. R. (2004). Reviews of technical reports on daylight and productivity. Troy, NY: Lighting Research Center. Retrieved from www.daylightdividends.org. Brophy, J. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Leadership, 71, 733750. Brophy, J. (1987, October). Synthesis of research strategies for motivating students to learn. Journal of Educational Leadership, 45(2), 4048. Buddensiek, W. (2001). Zukunftsfhiges Leben in Husern des Lernens. Gttingen, Germany: Verlag Die Werkstatt. Butin, D. (2000). Classrooms. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Chan, T. C. (1996). Environmental impact on student learning. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State College. Corcoran, T., Walker, J. and White, J. (1988). Working in Urban Schools. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership. Cotton, K. (1996). School size, school climate, and student performance. School Improvement Research Series, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR. Retrieved January 15, 2002, from www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020. html. Cushman, K. (1999, November). How small schools increase student learning (and what large schools can do about it). NAESP, Principal Magazine. Dewey, J. (1967). Democracy and education. London: Macmillan. (Originally published 1916). Dormody, T. J., & Sutphin, H. D. (1991, December). Student/ teacher participation interaction, motivation, and satisfaction during group problem solving. Journal of Agricultural Education. Dreier, A., Kucharz, D., Ramseger, J., & Srensen, B. (1999). Grundschulen planen, bauen, neu gestalten. Empfehlungen fr kindgerechte Lernumwelten [Planning, building, and renovating elementary schools: Recommendations for childappropriate learning environments]. Jubilumsband zum dreiigjhrigen Bestehen des Grundschulverbandes, Arbeitskreis Grundschule e.V. Frankfurt a.M. Dudek, M. (2000). Architecture of schools: The new learning environments. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press. Dudek, M. (2007). Schools and kindergartens: A design manual. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhuser. Duke, D. L. (1988). Does it matter where our children learn? Paper prepared for an invitational meeting of the National
Academy of Sciences, Thomas Jefferson Center for Educational Design. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. Duke, D. L., & Trautvetter, S. (2001). Reducing the negative effects of large schools. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Dyment, J. E., Bell, R., & Lucas, A. (2009). The relationship between school ground design and physical activity. Childrens Geography, 7(3), 261276. Earthman, G. I. (1999). The quality of school buildings, student achievement, and student behavior. Bildung und Erziehung, 52, 353372. Earthman, G. I. (2004). Prioritization of 31 criteria for school building adequacy. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University: Blacksburg, VA Earthman, G. I., & Lemasters, L. K. (1996). Review of research on the relationship between school buildings, student achievement, and student behavior. Scottsdale, AZ: Council of Educational Facility Planners International. Eckman, J. M., & Howley, C. B. (1997). Sustainable small schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1998). The hundred languages of children. The Reggio Emilia approach advanced reflections. CT: Ablex. Engel, O., & Dahlmann, Y. (2001). Pdagogische Architektur. Wege zu einer menschenwrdigen Schulgestaltung. Abschlussarbeit an der Heilpdagogischen Fakultt der Universitt Kln: Seminar fr Sozialpdagogik. Fanger, P. O. (2000). Indoor air quality in the 21st century: The search for excellence. Indoor Air, 10, 6873. FFC. (2001). Learning from our buildings: A state-of-the-practice summary of post-occupancy evaluation. Federal Facilities Council Technical Report No. 145. Washington, DC: Federal Facilities Council. Federspiel, C. C., Fisk, W. J., Price, P. N., Liu, G., Faulkner, D., . . . Lahiff, M. (2004). Worker performance and ventilation in a call center: Analyses of work performance data for registered nurses. Indoor Air, 14(Suppl. 8), 4150. Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, D. J. (1983). Validity and use of the classroom environment scale. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 5, 261271. Fjortoft I (2004). Landscape as Playscape: The Effects of Natural Environments on Childrens Play and Motor Development. Children, Youth and Environments, 14 (2), 2144. Fjortoft, I., & Sageie, J. (1999). The natural environment as a playground for children: Landscape description and analyses of a natural playscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 8397. Flade, A. (1998). Evaluation eines innerstdtischen Schulhofs. In F. Dieckmann, A. Flade, R. Schuemer, G. Strhlein, & R. Walden (Eds.), Psychologie und gebaute Umwelt (pp. 243 247). Darmstadt, Germany: IWU. Forster, J., & Rittelmeyer, C. (2010). Gestaltung von Schulbauten. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag aus erziehungswissenschaftlicher Sicht [Design of school buildings: A contribution to the discussion from a pedagogical perspective]. Zurich, Switzerland: Education Authority. Fowler, W., & Walberg, H. J. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 189202. Fraser, D. L., Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Assessment of learning environments: Manual for learning
Sanoff, Walden
291
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
environment inventory (LEI) and my class inventory. Bentley, Australia: Western Australian Institute of Technology. Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gelfan, L., & Freed, E. (2010). Sustainable school architecture: Design for primary and secondary schools. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (4th ed.). Colville, WA: Optimal Books. Glass, G. V., Cahen, L. S., Smith, M. L., & Filby, N. N. (1982). School class size: Research and policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Goldstein, A. P. (1996). The psychology of vandalism. New York: Plenum. Grosvenor, I., Lawn, M., & Rousmaniere, K. (1999). Silences and image: The social history of the classroom. New York: Peter Lang. Gump, P. V. (1978). School environments. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Children and the environment (pp. 131 174). New York: Plenum. Gump, P. V. (1991). School and classroom environments. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 691732). New York: Wiley. Halstead, H. (1992, October). Designing facilities for a new generation of schools. Educational Technology, 32(10) 4648. Helmke, A., & Weinert, F. E. (1997). Bedingungsfaktoren schulischer Leistungen. In F.E. Weinert (Ed.), Enzyklopdie der Psychologie, Themenbereich D: Praxisgebiete, Serie I: Pdagogische Psychologie, Band 3: Psychologie des Unterrichts und der Schule (pp. 71176). Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Heschong-Mahone Group. (1999). Daylighting in schools: An investigation into the relationship between daylighting and human performance. Fair Oaks, CA: Heschong-Mahone Group. Heschong-Mahone Group. (2003). Windows and classrooms: A study of student performance and the indoor environment. P50003082-A-7. Fair Oaks, CA: Heschong-Mahone Group. Hillmann, R. B., Brooks, C. I., & OBrien, J. P. (1991). Differences in self-esteem of college freshmen as a function of classroom seating-row preference. Psychological Record, 41, 315320. Horne, S. C. (2000). The children/youth environment and its effects on the practice of teachers. Proceedings of the 31st EDRA conference: Building Bridges: Connecting People, Research, and Design. EDRA: San Francisco, CA. Jacobs, E. (1999). Cooperative learning: An educational innovation in everyday classrooms. Albany: State University of New York Press. Jago, E., & Tanner, K. (1999). Influence of the school facility on student achievement: Thermal environment. Athens: University of Georgia. Retrieved from www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/researchabstracts/thermal.html. Jago, E., & Tanner, K. (2005). Influence of the school facility on student achievement. Athens: University of Georgia. Kennedy, M. (2003). History in the making. American School & University, 75, 110. Klockhaus, R., & Habermann-Morbey, B. (1986). Psychologie des Schulvandalismus. Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Krebs, A. H. (1982). Critical points in problem solving. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(10), 57. Kroner, W. (1994). Architecture for children. Karl KrSmer Verlag: Stuttgart.
Kkelhaus, H., & Lippe, R. zur (1992). Entfaltung der Sinne. Ein Erfahrungsfeld zur Bewegung und Besinnung (2nd ed.). Frankfurt, Germany: Fischer alternativ Taschenbuch 4065. Kwok, A. G. (2000). Thermal comfort concepts and guidelines. In J. D. Spengler, J. M. Samet, & J. F. McCarthy (Eds.), Indoor air quality handbook (15.115.13). New York: McGraw-Hill. Lackney, J. A. (1999). Reading a school building like a book: The influence of the physical school setting on learning and literacy. Jackson: Educational Design Institute, Mississippi State University. Lackney, J. A. (2000). Thirty-three educational design principles for schools and community learning centers. Jackson: Educational Design Institute, Mississippi State University. Lackney, J. A. (2009). A design language for schools and learning communities. In R. Walden (Ed.), Schools for the future: Design proposals from architectural psychology (pp. 155168). Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241270. Lemasters, L. (1997). A synthesis of studies pertaining to facilities, student achievement, and student behavior. Blacksburg: University of Virginia, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Center. Lemke, M., Calsyn, C., Lippman, L., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., . . . Bairu, G. (2001). Highlights from the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). OECD, Retrieved from . http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo. asp?pubid=2002116 Levin, J., & Nolan, J. F. (2000). Principles of classroom management. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Lindholm, G. (1995). Schoolyards: The significance of place properties to outdoor activities in schools. Environment and Behavior, 27, 259293. Linneweber, V. (1993). Wer sind die Experten?User needs analysis (UNA), post occupancy evaluation (POE), und Stdtebau aus sozial- und umweltpsychologischer Perspektive. In H. J. Harloff (Ed.), Psychologie des Wohnungsund Siedlungsbaus: Psychologie im Dienste von Architektur und Stadtplanning (pp. 7585). Gottingen, Stuttgart: Verlag fur Angewandte Psychologie. Linneweber, V. (1996). Lernumwelt: Schule. In L. Kruse, C. F. Graumann, & E. D. Lantermann (Eds.), kologische psychologie (pp. 383388). Mnchen, Germany: PVU. Linneweber, V., Mummendey, A., Bornewasser, M., & Lschper, G. (1984). Classification of situations specific to field and behavior: The context of aggressive interactions in schools. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 281295. Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin. Lstiburek, J., & Carmody, J. (1994). The moisture control handbook: Principles and practices for residential and small commercial buildings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Mahnke, F. (1996). Color and the human response. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Malaguzzi, Loris. (1984).. Locchio se salt ail muro. Catalog of the Exhibit. Regione di Emilia Romagna: Comune di Reggio Emilia, Assesserato Istruzione. Marx, A., Fuhrer, U., & Hartig, T. (1999). Effects of classroom seating arrangements on childrens question-asking. Learning Environments Research, 2(3), 249263.
292
School Environments
6/8/2012 9:47:00 PM
AQ: Please provide author names and title for the reference Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 1975, 41, 270279
McAndrew, F. T. (1993). Environmental psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. McAndrews, T., & Anderson, W. (2002). Schools within schools. ERIC Digest 154. College of Education, Eugene, University of Oregon, Clearinghouse on Educational Management. McGuffey, C. (1982). Facilities. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Improving educational standards and productivity (pp. 237 288). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. McMullan, B. J., Sipe, C. L., & Wolf, W. C. (1994). Charters and student achievement: Early evidence from school restructuring in Philadelphia. Bala Cynwyd, PA: Center for Assessment and Policy Development. Mendell, M. J., & Heath, G.A. (2004). Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in schools influence student performance? A critical review of the literature. Indoor Air, 15, 2752. Montessori, M. (1988). The Montessori Method. New York: Random House. Moore, R. (1989). Playgrounds at the crossroads. In I. Altman & E. Zube (Eds), Public spaces and places. New York: Plenum. Moos, R. F. (1979). Evaluating education environments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Nathan, J., and Thao, S. (2007). Smaller, safer, saner, successful schools. Minneapolis, MN: Center for School Change. Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. National Research Council. (2007). Green schools: Attributes for health and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Northwest Educational Technology Consortium. (2002). Virtual schools: What do educational leaders need to know? Paper presented at the 2002 NCCE Conference, Seattle, WA. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2004). Learning for tomorrows world: First results from PISA 2004. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd /1/60/34002216.pdf Oelkers, J. (1996). Reformpdagogik: Eine kritische Dogmengeschichte [Reform pedagogy: A critical history of dogma]. Weinheim, Germany: Juventa. Oliver, C., & Lippman, P. C. (2007). Examining space and place in learning environments. Paper presented at the CONNECTED International Conference on Design Education, July 912, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Pablant, P., & Baxter, J. C. (1996). Environmental correlates of school vandalism. In A. P. Goldstein (Ed.), The psychology of vandalism (pp. 213233). New York: Plenum. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 1975, 41, 270279. Pasalar, C. (2003). The effects of spatial layouts on students interactions in middle schools. doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http://www2.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/record/NCSU1698934 Petersen, P. (1927). Der Jena- Plan einer freien allgemeinen Volksschule [The Jena Plan for a free common elementary school]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Petersen, P. (19301934). Der groe Jena- Plan. Schulleben und Unterricht einer freien Volksschule. Das gestaltende Schaffen. Die Praxis der Schulen nach dem Jena- Plan [The Greater Jena Plan: Life and instruction in a free elementary school: Creative activity: The practice of schools according to the Jena Plan]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Picard, M., & Bradley, J. S. (2001). Revisiting speech interference in classrooms. Audiology, 40, 221244. Pittman, R. B., & Haoghwout, P. (1987). Influence of high school size on dropout rate. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(4), 337343.
Raywid, M. A. (1999). Current literature on small schools. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Rieselbach, A. (1992). Building and learning. In Architectural League (Eds.), New schools for New York: Plans and precedents for small schools. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Rittelmeyer, C. (1994). Schulbauten positiv gestalten. Wie Schler Farben und Formen erleben. Wiesbaden, Germany: Bauverlag. Rittelmeyer, C. (2004). Zur Rhetorik von Schulbauten. ber die schlergerechte Gestaltung des architektonischen Ausdrucks. Die Deutsche Schule, 96(2), 201208. Rittelmeyer, C. (2009). Schule als gestalteter Raum: Schularchitektur. In S. Hellekamps, W. Plger, & W. Wittenbruch (Eds.), Handbuch Schule (pp. 505511). Paderborn, Germany: Schningh. Robson, E. R. (1972). School architecture. Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press. Rothman, D. J. (1980). From conscience to convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in progressive America. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Sanoff, H. (1994). School design. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Sanoff, H. (2001). A visioning process for designing responsive schools. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Sanoff, H. (2002). Schools designed with community participation. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Sanoff, H. (2009). Schools designed with community participation. In R. Walden (Ed.), Schools for the future: Design proposals from architectural psychology (pp. 123142). Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber. Schavan, A. (2001). Schulen in Baden-Wrttemberg. Moderne und historische Bauten zwischen Rhein, Neckar und Bodensee. Stuttgart, Germany: Hohenheim Verlag. Scheibe, W. (1999). Die reformpdagogische Bewegung 19001932. Eine einfhrende Darstellung [The reform pedagogy movement 19001932: An introduction]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Schmittmann, R. (1985). Architektur als Partner fr Lehren und Lernen. Eine handlungstheoretisch orientierte Evaluationsstudie am Groraum der Laborschule Bielefeld. Frankfurt, Germany: Lang. Schnabel, K. (2001). Psychologie der Lernumwelt. In A. Krapp & B. Weidenmann (Eds.), Pdagogische Psychologie. Ein Lehrbuch (4th ed., pp. 467511). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz/PVU. Schoggen, P. (1989). Behavior settings: A revision and extension of Roger G. Barkers ecological psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Seppnen, O., & Fisk, W. J. (2005). Control of temperature for health and productivity in offices. ASHRAE Transactions, 111, 680686. Silberman, C. E. (1973). The open classroom reader. New York: Vintage Books. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571581. Sommer, R., & Olsen, H. (1980). The soft classroom. Environment and Behavior, 12, 316. Stevenson, K. R. (2002). Ten educational trends shaping school planning and design. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Stevenson, K. R. (2006). Educational facilities within the context of a changing 21st-century America. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Sanoff, Walden
293
6/8/2012 9:47:00 PM
Stockard, J., & Mayberry, M. (1992). Effective educational environments. Newbury Park, CA: ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 674. Strhlein, G. (1998). Beitrge zur Evaluation schulischer Umwelten. In F. Dieckmann, A. Flade, R. Schuemer, G. Strhlein, & R. Walden (Eds.), Psychologie und gebaute Umwelt (pp. 178181). Darmstadt, Germany: IWU. Sullivan, K. (2002). Catching the age wave: Building schools with senior citizens in mind. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Tanner, C. K. (1999). The school design assessment scale: Validity, reliability, and weights. Paper presented at CEFPI Annual Conference, Baltimore, MD. Tanner, C. K., & J. Lackney. (2006). Educational architecture: Planning, designing, constructing, and managing environments for learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Taylor, A. P. (1975). School zone: Learning environments for children. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Trump, J. L. (1959). Images of the future: A new approach to the secondary school. Washington, DC: National Association of Secondary School Principals. US Green Building Council. (2007). LEED for schools. Green School Buildings website. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1586 Uline, C. L., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Wolsey, T. D. (2008). The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 5573. Walden, R. (Ed.). (2009). Schools for the future: Design proposals from architectural psychology. (T. Mann, Trans.). Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber. Walden, R. (2010). Lernumwelten. In V. Linneweber, E. D. Lantermann, & E. Kals (Eds.), Umweltpsychologie (Bd. 2, Spezifische Umwelten und Umweltprobleme). Enzyklopdie der Psychologie (N. herausgegeben von Birbaumer et al.). Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Walden, R., & Borrelbach, S. (2010). Schulen der Zukunft. Gestaltungsvorschlge der Architekturpsychologie (6th ed.). Heidelberg, Germany: Asanger.
Wang, D., Federspiel, C. C., & Arens, E. (2005). Correlation between temperature satisfaction and unsolicited complaint rates in commercial buildings. Indoor Air, 15, 1318. Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N. E., King, S. P., . . . Powell, L. C. (2000). Small schools: Great strides. New York: Bank Street College of Education. Watschinger, J., & Khebacher, J. (Eds.) (2007), Schularchitektur und neue Lernkultur. Neues LernenNeue Rume. Bern, Switzerland: h.e.p. verlag ag/Ott Verlag. Weinstein, C. S. (1979). The physical environment of the school: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 49, 577610. Weinstein, C. S., & Pinciotti, P. (1988). Changing the schoolyard: Intentions, design decisions, and behavioral outcomes. Environment and Behavior, 20(3), 345371. Weiss, A. (2007), Creating the ubiquitous classroom: Integrating physical and virtual learning spaces. International Journal of Learning, 14(3). 7784. Wohlfarth, H. H. (1985). The effects of color-psychodynamic environmental color and lighting modification of elementary schools on blood pressure and mood: A controlled study. International Journal for Biosocial Research, 7(1), 916. Wolfe, M., & Rivlin, L. G. (1987). The institutions in childrens lives. In C. S. Weinstein & T. G. David (Eds.), Spaces for children: The built environment and child development. New York: Plenum. Wright, R. J. (1975). The affective and cognitive consequences of an open education elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 12, 449468. Wstenrot-Stiftung, H. (Ed.). (2004). Schulen in Deutschland: Neubau und Revitalisierung. Stuttgart, Germany: Krmer. Wyon, D. P. (2004). The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity. Indoor Air, 14(7), 92101. Yanagisawa, K. (2009). Trends in the design and planning of schools from the viewpoint of information technology and communication. In R. Walden (Ed.), Schools for the future: Design proposals from architectural psychology (pp. 143154). Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
294
School Environments
6/8/2012 9:47:00 PM

School Environment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

School Environment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

Henry Sanoff and Rotraut Walden

Historical Evolution of American School Buildings

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

Reform Pedagogy (18901932)

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

The Progressive Movement

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

User Evaluation of School Buildings

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

Classroom Design Visual Appearance

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

Classroom Privacy Classroom Seating

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

Information Technology Classroom

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

Natural Materials, Niches, and Paths

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

Eects of Green Schools on Health and Performance

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

Conclusion: Schools of the Future

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

You might also like