Learning Environments Research

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 221–248 | Cite as

Designing science laboratories: learning environments, school architecture and teaching and learning models

  • Luísa VelosoEmail author
  • Joana S. Marques
Original Paper


This article on secondary schools science laboratories in Portugal focuses on how school space functions as a pedagogical and political instrument by contributing to shape the conditions for teaching and learning dynamics. The article places the impact of changes to school layouts within the larger context of a public school renovation programme, discussing how school space functions as a pedagogical and political instrument. The focus is on science laboratories as a particular learning environment for science education. The study, conducted between 2010 and 2011 in 13 renovated schools within the framework of the Portuguese Secondary School Modernisation Programme, drew on document analysis, interviews, pupil and teacher surveys and site-specific focus groups. One of the main findings is that teachers found that science laboratories were the most controversial and debated of all the renovated learning spaces. Considering that the science laboratory layout was intended to be universal across all schools, there was little intervention by the architects responsible for the renovation of the schools. Focusing on the analysis of the decision to change the science laboratory design within the aims of the education policy, this article discusses how teachers’ criticisms were a response to some of the educational policy goals underlying the renovation of school buildings and the potential impact on science education, namely, the relationship between flexibility of space organisation and pedagogical approaches.


Learning environments School architecture Science education Science laboratory 


  1. Arzi, H. J. (1998). Enhancing science education through laboratory environments: More than walls, benches and widgets. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 595–608). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baseya, J. M., & Francis, C. D. (2011). Design of inquiry-oriented science laboratory: Impacts on students’ attitudes. Research in Science & Technological Education, 29(3), 241–255. doi: 10.1080/02635143.2011.589379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benito, A. (2003). The school in the city: School architecture as discourse and as text. Pedagogica Historica, 39(1/2), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, R., Fuller, A., & Waters, J. (Eds.). (2012). Changing spaces of education: New perspectives on the nature of learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, I. (1981). The politics of education and architectural design: The instructive example of British primary education. British Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Design Share. (2002). Educational Specifications Forum. Retrieved from Accessed Dec 19 2015.
  7. Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: The school as sociospatial assemblage. Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43–63. doi: 10.1080/13602365.2014.882376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duarte, A., Veloso, L., Marques, J. S., & Sebastiao, J. (2015). Site-specific focus groups: Analysing learning spaces. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(4), 381–398. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2014.910743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernandes, J., Teodoro, V., & Boavida, C. (2009). Laboratórios escolares: Espaços para aprendizagem activa—Aspectos essenciais. Lisboa: Parque Escolar. Accessed Jan 30 2016.
  10. Fisher, K. (1998). The Netherlands’ study house: New designs for new pedagogies (PEB Exchange, Programme on Educational Building). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/485766121470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering and mathematics. PNAES, 111(23), 8410–8415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gieryn, T. (2002). What buildings do. Theory and Society, 21, 35–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gislason, N. (2007). Placing education: The school as architectural space. Paideusis, 16(3), 5–14.Google Scholar
  14. Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environments Research, 13, 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gulson, N., & Symes, C. (2007). Theories of education: Policy and geography matters. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  16. Hargreaves, A. (1988). Teaching quality: A sociological analysis. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(3), 211–231.Google Scholar
  17. Heitor, T. et al. (2009). Portugal’s Secondary School Modernisation Programme. CELE Exchange 2009/6. Retrieved from Accessed Apr 1 2015.
  18. Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., & Woolner, P. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. Newcastle: Design Council/The Centre for Learning and Teaching.Google Scholar
  19. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1993). The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hofstein, A., Levy, T., & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry-type laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environment Research, 4, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kock, A., Sleegers, P., & Voeten, M. (2005). New learning and choices of secondary school teachers when arranging learning environments. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 799–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lackney, J. (1994). Educational facilities: The impact and role of the physical environment on teaching, learning and educational outcomes. Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin University, Center for Architecture and Urban Planning. Retrieved from> 09/08/2010. Accessed Oct 15 2010.
  25. Lawanson, O. A., & Gede, N. T. (2011). Provision and management of school facilities for the implementation of UBE Programme. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 1(4), 47–55.Google Scholar
  26. Lippman, P. (2010). Evidence-based design of elementary and secondary schools: A responsive approach to creating learning environments. New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Mahony, P., Hextall, I., & Richardson, M. (2011). Building schools for the future: Reflections on a new social architecture. Journal of Education Policy, 26(3), 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College London.Google Scholar
  29. Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space & built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  30. Moniz, G. C. (2009). A Construção do Programmea Liceal: Arquitectura. Política e Ensino. Arquitectura, 21(4), 28–36.Google Scholar
  31. Moniz, G. C. (2012). Intervenção sobre o Espaço Liceal Moderno: Problemas. Estratégias e Respostas. Anuário do Património, 1(1), 172–179.Google Scholar
  32. Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Newton, C., Wilks, S., Hes, D., Aibinu, A., Crawford, R. H., Goodwin, K., et al. (2012). More than a survey: An interdisciplinary post-occupancy tracking of BER schools. Architectural Science Review, 55(3), 196–205. doi: 10.1080/00038628.2012.697864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nidzam, C., Ahmad, C., Osman, K., & Halim, L. (2013). Physical and psychosocial aspects of the learning environment in the science laboratory and their relationship to teacher satisfaction. Learning Environment Research, 16, 367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184.Google Scholar
  36. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflexions (Nuffield Foundation). London: King’s College London.Google Scholar
  37. Pacheco, J. (2008). Escola da Ponte: Formação e transformação da educação. Pétropolis: Vozes.Google Scholar
  38. Parque Escolar. (2009). Manual do Projecto de Arquitectura. Lisboa: Parque Escolar.Google Scholar
  39. Piggott, A. (2011). Science laboratory in secondary schools: Recommended science laboratory standards for architects and designers. Essex, UK: Gratnells. Retrieved from Accessed Jul 11 2013.
  40. Rodrigues, M. de Lurdes (2010). A escola pública pode fazer a diferença. Coimbra: Almedina.Google Scholar
  41. Schneider, M. (2002). Do school facilities affect academic outcomes? National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Retrieved from Accessed Apr 1 2015.
  42. Siorenta, A., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2008). Physics instruction in secondary schools: An investigation of teachers’ beliefs towards physics laboratory and ICT. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(2), 185–202. doi: 10.1080/02635140802037328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor, A. (2009). Linking architecture and education: Sustainable design of learning environments. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tilling, S., & Dillon, J. (2007). Initial teacher education and the outdoor classroom: Standards for the future. Preston Montford: Field Studies Council/Association for Science Education.Google Scholar
  45. Trickett, E. J., & Moos, R. H. (1973). Social environment of junior high and high school classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(1), 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Upitis, R. (2004). School architecture and complexity. Complicity An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 1, 19–38.Google Scholar
  47. Veloso, L., Marques, J., & Duarte, A. (2014). Changing education through learning spaces: Impacts of the Portuguese school buildings renovation programme. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44, 401–423. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2014921280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Washor, E. (2003). Innovative pedagogy and school facilities—The story of MET School in Rhode Island: A drama, history. Doctoral thesis and design manifesto, Design Share. Retrieved from Accessed Oct 19 2010.
  49. Woodman, K. R. (2011). Re-placing flexibility: An investigation into flexibility in learning spaces and learning. PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  50. Woolner, P., Clark, J., Hall, E., Tiplady, L., Thomas, U., & Wall, K. (2010). Pictures are necessary but not sufficient: Using a range of visual methods to engage users about school design. Learning Environments Research, 13, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Woolner, P., Clark, J., Laing, K., Thomas, U., & Tiplady, L. (2012). Changing spaces: Preparing students and teachers for a new learning environment. Children, Youth and Environments, 22(1), 52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Woolner, P., Hall, E., Higgins, S., McCaughey, C., & Wall, K. (2007). A sound foundation? What we know about the impact of environments on learning and the implications for Building Schools for the Future. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. York-Barr, J., Ghere, G., & Sommerness, J. (2007). Collaborative teaching to increase ELL student learning: A 3-year urban elementary case study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 12(3), 301–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro de Investigação e Estudos de Sociologia (CIES-IUL)Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL)LisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Universidade de São Paulo (USP)São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations