Advertisement

Learning Environments Research

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 127–145 | Cite as

Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research

  • Neil Gislason
Original Paper

Abstract

This article develops a theoretical framework for studying how instructional space, teaching and learning are related in practice. It is argued that a school’s physical design can contribute to the quality of the learning environment, but several non-architectural factors also determine how well a given facility serves as a setting for teaching and learning. Supporting evidence for this argument is drawn from research on school climate and organisation, as well as from the author’s study of three open-plan high schools. Facilities design, educational practice, school culture, and student learning are found to be interrelated aspects of a school’s total learning environment.

Keywords

Architectural design Educational facilities Learning environments School climate Small schools 

References

  1. Ahrentzen, S., & Evans, G. W. (1984). Distraction, privacy, and classroom design. Environment and Behavior, 16, 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aladjem, D. K., & Borman, K. M. (2006). An introduction to comprehensive school reform. In D. K. Aladjem & K. M. Borman (Eds.), Examining comprehensive school reform (pp. 1–9). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  3. Applebee, A. N., Adler, M., & Flihan, S. (2007). Interdisciplinary curricula in middle and high school classrooms: Case studies of approaches to curriculum and instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 1002–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker, R. G., & Gump, P. V. (1964). Big school, small school: High school size and student behaviour. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barron, J. S. B., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennet, N., Andreae, J., Hegarty, P., & Wade, B. (1980). Open plan schools: Teaching, curriculum, design. Berkshire, UK: NFER Publishing Company for the Schools Council.Google Scholar
  7. Cotterell, J. L. (1984). Effects of school architectural design on student and teacher anxiety. Environment and Behavior, 16, 455–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doppelt, Y. (2006). Teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of science-technology learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 9, 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Earthman, G. I. (2004). Prioritization of 31 criteria for school building adequacy. Baltimore, MD: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from http://www.schoolfunding.info/policy/facilities/ACLUfacilities_report1-04.pdf.
  10. Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  11. Fishbaugh, M. S. E. (1997). Models of collaboration. Cambridge, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Harvard Educational Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments development: Validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gamoran, A., Secada, W. G., & Marrett, C. B. (2000). The organizational context of teaching and learning: Changing theoretical perspectives. In M. T. Halliman (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 37–63). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Gislason, N. (2009a). Mapping school design: A qualitative study of the relationship between facilities design, curriculum delivery, and school climate. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(4), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gislason, N. (2009b). School design: History, case studies, and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  17. Graue, E., Hatch, K., Rao, K., & Oen, D. (2007). The wisdom of class-size reduction. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 670–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hackman, D. G. (2004). Scheduling to promote personalized learning. In A. Fymier & R. G. Joekel (Eds.), Changing the school learning environment: Where do we stand after decades of reform? (pp. 73–107). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.Google Scholar
  19. Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: The Centre of Learning and Teaching, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/en/Design-Council/Files/System-Files/Download/.
  20. Lezotte, L. W., & Jacoby, B. C. (1990). A guide to the school improvement process based on effective schools research. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd.Google Scholar
  21. Martin, S. H. (2002). The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of teachers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Moore, G. T. (1987). The physical environment and cognitive development in child-care centers. In C. S. Weinstein & T. G. David (Eds.), Spaces for children: The built environment and child development (pp. 41–71). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  24. Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings, and policy implications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. National Centre for Education Statistics. (2008). High School for Recording Arts. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/globallocator/sch_info_popup.asp?Type=Public&ID=270016002955.
  26. Ogawa, R. T., Crain, R., Loomis, M., & Ball, T. (2008). CHAT-IT: Toward conceptualizing learning in the context of formal organizations. Educational Researcher, 37, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2007). Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and school reform (9th ed.). Toronto, Canada: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Peponis, J., Bafna, S., Bajaj, R., Bromberg, J., Congdon, C., Rashid, M., et al. (2007). Designing space to support knowledge work. Environment and Behavior, 39, 815–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Picus, L. O., Marion, S. F., Calvo, N., & Glenn, W. J. (2005). Understanding the relationship between student achievement and the quality of educational facilities: Evidence from Wyoming. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schneider, M. (2002). Do school facilities affect academic outcomes? National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Retrieved November 23, 2006, from www.edfacilities.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf.
  31. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Vernez, G., & Goldhaber, D. (2006). Implementing comprehensive school reform models. In D. K. Aladjem & K. M. Borman (Eds.), Examining comprehensive school reform (pp. 179–218). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  33. Woolner, P., Hall, E., Wall, K., Higgins, S., Blake, A., & McCaughey, C. (2005). School building programmes: Motivations, consequences and applications. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: The Centre for Learning and Teaching, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www.cfbt.com/PDF/91078.pdf.
  34. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  35. York-Barr, J., Ghere, G., & Sommerness, J. (2007). Collaborative teaching to increase ELL student learning: A three-year urban elementary case study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12, 301–335.Google Scholar
  36. Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design: Environment/behaviour/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  37. Zepeda, S. J., & Mayers, R. S. (2006). An analysis of research on block scheduling. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations