This article critically reviews the methodologies and methods that have been used for the evaluation of physical learning environments. To contextualize discussion about the evaluation of learning spaces, we initially chart the development of post-occupancy evaluation (POE) for non-domestic buildings. We then discuss the recent evolution of POE into the broader evaluative framework of building performance evaluation. Subsequently, a selection of approaches used to evaluate higher education and school learning environments are compared and critically analyzed in view of contemporary approaches to teaching and learning. Gaps in these evaluative approaches are identified and an argument is put forward for the evaluation of physical learning environments from a more rigorous pedagogical perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Aldridge, J., Fraser, B., Bell, L., & Dorman, J. (2012). Using a new learning environment questionnaire for reflection in teacher action research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 259–290.
Beare, H. (2000). Creating the future school. London: Routledge Falmer.
Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2005). Fix it and they might stay: School facility quality and teacher retention in Washington D.C. Teachers College Record, 107, 1107–1123.
CABE. (2005). Picturing school design. A visual guide to secondary school buildings and their surroundings using the Design Quality Indicator for Schools. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.
CABE. (2006). Assessing secondary school quality: Research report. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.
CDE. (1978). Facilities performance profile: An instrument to evaluate school facilities. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
CERD. (2010). Learning landscapes in higher education. Lincoln: Centre for Educational Research and Development, University of Lincoln.
CIC. (2011, September). Design quality indicators for schools. London: Construction Industry Council. http://www.dqi.org.uk/website/dqiforschools/default.aspa. Accessed 12/7/11.
Clarke, H. (2001, September). Building education: The role of the physical environment in enhancing teaching and learning. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association annual conference, University of Leeds.
Cleveland, B. (2009). Engaging spaces: An investigation into middle school educational opportunities provided by innovative built environments: A new approach to understanding the relationship between learning and space. The International Journal of Learning, 16, 385–397.
Cleveland, B. (2011). Engaging spaces: Innovative learning environments, pedagogies and student engagement in the middle years of school. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Cohen, R., Standeven, M., Bordass, W., & Leaman, A. (2001). Assessing building performance in use 1: the Probe process. Building Research & Information, 29(2), 85–102.
Comber, C., & Wall, D. (2001). The classroom environment: A framework for learning. In C. Paechter, R. Edwards, R. Harrison, & T. Twining (Eds.), Learning, space and identity (pp. 87–101). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Cooper, I. (2001). Post-occupancy evaluation—Where are you? Building Research & Information, 29, 158–163.
Dewey, J. (1966). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Dewey, J. (1971). The child and the curriculum. The school and society (11th ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Dudek, M. (2008). Schools and kindergartens—A design manual. Berlin: Birhauser.
Edwards, R., & Clarke, J. (2002). Flexible learning, spatiality and identity. Studies in Continuing Education, 24, 153–165.
Eigenbrode, S. D., O’Rourke, M., Wulfhorst, J. D., Althoff, D. M., Goldberg, C. S., Merrill, K., et al. (2007). Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience, 57, 55–64.
Fisher, K. (2002). Schools as ‘prisons of learning’ or, as a ‘pedagogy of architectural encounters’: A manifesto for a critical psychological spatiality of learning. Unpublished PhD thesis, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Fisher, K. (2004). Revoicing classrooms: A spatial manifesto. Forum, 46(1), 36–38.
Fisher, K. (2005). Linking pedagogy and space: Planning principles for Victorian schools based on the principles of teaching and learning. www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/assetman/bf/Linking_Pedagogy_and_Space.pdf. Accessed 25/8/11.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for civil society? The British Journal of Sociology, 49, 210–233.
FNI. (2011). Educational Facilities Effectiveness Instrument. Lutz, FL: Fielding Nair International. http://goodschooldesign.com/Default.aspx. Accessed 6/6/11.
Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents, and consequences. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Hadjri, K., & Crosier, C. (2008). Post-occupancy evaluation: Purpose, benefits and barriers. Facilities, 27(1/2), 21–33.
Hartnell-Young, E. (2006). Teachers’ roles and professional learning in communities of practice supported by technology in schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 461–480.
HEFCE. (2006). Guide to post occupancy evaluation. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Heppell, S., Chapman, C., Millwood, R., Constable, M., & Furness, J. (2004). Building learning futures. Building futures. www.buildingfutures.org.uk. Accessed 4/8/08.
Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Wooler, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A literature review. London: The Design Council. www.design-council.org.uk. Accessed 5/4/10.
Hirst, P. (2005). Foucault and architecture. In P. Hirst (Ed.), Space and power: Politics, war and architecture (pp. 155–178). Cambridge: Polity.
Hunley, S., & Schaller, M. (2006). Assessing learning spaces. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 1–11). Washington, DC: Educause.
Jamieson, P., Dane, J., & Lippman, P. C. (2005). Moving beyond the classroom: Accommodating the changing pedagogy of higher education. Paper presented at the Forum of the Australian Association for Institutional Research. Retrieved from http://www.aair.org.au/pages/forum-2005. Accessed 11/8/11.
JISC. (2006). Designing spaces for effective learning: A guide to 21st century learning space design. Joint Information Systems Committee Development Group. www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/learningspaces.pdf. Accessed 31/5/11.
Joseph, J. (2003). Social theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lackney, J. A. (1999). Assessing school facilities for learning/Assessing the impact of the physical environment on the educational process. Paper presented at the Urban Educational Facilities for the 21st Century: CEFPI North East Chapter First Annual Conference, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leaman, A., Stevenson, F., & Bordass, B. (2010). Building evaluation: Practice and principles. Building Research & Information, 38, 564–577.
Lee, N., & Tan, S. (2011). A comprehensive learning space evaluation model. Strawberry Hills, NSW: Australian Teaching and Learning Council.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lippman, P. C. (2007). Developing a theoretical approach for the design of learning environments. Paper presented at the Connected: International Conference of Design Education, University of New South Wales, Australia.
Massey, D. (1999). Power geometrics and the politics of space-time: Hetter Lecture. Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg.
Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage Publications.
McGregor, J. (2004a). Editorial. Forum, 46(1), 2–5.
McGregor, J. (2004b). Spatiality and the place of the material in schools. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 12, 347–372.
McGregor, J. (2004c). Space, power and the classroom. Forum, 46(1), 13–18.
McLaren, P. (2007). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. London: Pearson Education.
Monahan, T. (2000). Built pedagogies and technology practices: Designing for participatory learning. Paper presented at the Participatory Design Conference, Palo Alto, CA.
Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space and built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 1–19.
Monahan, T. (2005). Globalization, technological change, and public education. New York: Routledge.
Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Moos, R. H. (1987). Person-environment congruence in work, school, and health care settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 231–247.
Newmann, F. (1992). Higher-order thinking and prospects for classroom thoughtfulness. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 62–91). New York: Teachers College Press.
Newton, C., & Fisher, K. (2009). Take 8, Learning spaces: The transformation of educational environments for the 21st Century. Manuka, ACT: Australian Institute of Architects.
OECD. (2006). Design quality indicator for schools in the United Kingdom. PEB Exchange, 8, 1–3.
OECD. (2009a). OECD Centre for Effective Learning Environments (CELE, formerly PEB). International pilot study on the evaluation of quality in educational spaces (EQES), User manual. Final version. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2009b). Evaluating quality in educational spaces: OECD/CELE pilot project. CELE Exchange, 9, 1–6.
Ornstien, S. W., Moreira, N. S., Ono, R., Franca, A. J. G. L., & Nogueira, R. A. M. F. (2009). Improving the quality of school facilities through building performance assessment: Educational reform and school building quality in Sao Pauol, Brazil. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 350–367.
Pearshouse, I., Bligh, B., Brown, E., Lewthwaite, S., Graber, R., Hartnell-Young, E., et al. (2009). A study of effective models and practices for technology supported physical learning spaces (JELS). Nottingham: JISC.
Powell, D. (2008). Evaluation and the pedagogy-space-technology framework. In D. Radcliffe, W. Wilson, D. Powell, & B. Tibbetts (Eds.), Learning spaces in higher education. Positive outcomes by design: Proceedings of the next generation learning spaces 2008 colloquium. St Lucia, QLD: The University of Queensland.
Preiser, W. F. E. (1995). Post-occupancy evaluation: How to make buildings work better. Facilities, 13(11), 19–28.
Preiser, W. (2001). The evolution of post-occupancy evaluation: Toward building performance and universal design evaluation. In J. Vischer (Ed.), Post-occupancy evaluation: A multifaceted tool for building improvement, learning from our buildings: A state-of-the-practice summary of post-occupancy evaluation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Preiser, W. F. E. (2002). Toward universal design evaluation. Paper presented at the 17th conference international association for people-environment studies; culture, quality of life and globalization: Problems and challenges for the new millennium, Corunna, Spain.
Preiser, W. F. E., & Nasar, J. L. (2008). Assessing building performance: Its evolution from post-occupancy evaluation. International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 84–99.
Preiser, W. F. E., & Vischer, J. (2005). The evolution of building performance evaluation: An introduction. In W. Preiser & J. Vischer (Eds.), Assessing building performance (pp. 3–14). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Radcliffe, D. (2008). A pedagogy-space-technology (PST) framework for designing and evaluating learning places. In D. Radcliffe, W. Wilson, D. Powell, & B. Tibbetts (Eds.), Learning spaces in higher education: Positive outcomes by design. St Lucia, QLD: The University of Queensland.
Radcliffe, D., Wilson, W., Powell, D., & Tibbetts, B. (Eds.). (2008). Learning spaces in higher education. Positive outcomes by design: Proceedings of the next generation learning spaces 2008 colloquium. St Lucia, QLD: The University of Queensland.
Roberts, L. W. (2008). Measuring school facility conditions: An illustration of the importance of purpose. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 368–380.
Sanoff, H. (2001). School building assessment methods. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
SFC. (2006). Spaces for learning: A review of learning spaces in further and higher education. Edinburgh: Scottish Funding Council.
Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. London: Verso.
Stevenson, K. (2007). Educational trends shaping school planning and design: 2007. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Tanner, C. K., & Lackney, J. A. (2006). Educational facilities planning. Boston: Pearson Education.
Taylor, A. (2009). Linking architecture and education: Sustainable design for learning environments. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Temple, P. (2007). Learning spaces for the 21st century: A review of the literature. London: London Centre for Higher Education Studies, Institute of Education, University of London.
Temple, P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: An under-researched topic. London Review of Education, 6, 229–241.
Turpin-Brooks, S., & Viccars, G. (2006). The development of robust methods of post occupancy evaluation. Facilities, 24(5/6), 177–196.
Upitis, R. (2010). Raising a school: Foundations for school architecture. South Frontenac, ON: Wintergreen Studios Press.
Vischer, J. (2001). Post-occupancy evaluation: A multifaceted tool for building improvement, learning from our buildings: A state-of-the-practice summary of post-occupancy evaluation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Walker, S., & Fraser, B. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The distance education learning environments survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8, 289–308.
Wall, K., Dockrell, J., & Peacey, N. (2008). Primary schools: The built environment (Primary Review Research Survey 6/1). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
Weinstein, C. S. (1979). The physical environment of the school: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 49, 577–610.
Whyte, J., & Gann, D. M. (2001). Closing the loop between design and use: Post-occupancy evaluation. Building Research & Information, 29, 460–462.
Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design: Environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Zhang, Y., & Barrett, P. (2010). Findings from a post-occupancy evaluation in the UK primary schools sector. Facilities, 28(13/14), 641–656.
Zimmerman, A., & Martin, M. (2001). Post-occupancy evaluation: Benefits and barriers. Building Research & Information, 29, 168–174.
Zimring, C. M., & Reizenstein, J. E. (1980). Post-occupancy evaluation: An overview. Environment and Behavior, 12, 429–450.
We would like to thank Professor Tom Kvan, Dean of Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning at The University of Melbourne and Director of the Learning Environments Applied Research Network (LEaRN) for commissioning this literature review. In addition, we would like to thank LEaRN partners Catholic Education Office Melbourne and Karolinska Institute, for their support. We are indebted to Associate Professor Clare Newton and LEaRN Executive Officer Alan Gilmour and for their editorial advice and general support during the writing of this article.
About this article
Cite this article
Cleveland, B., Fisher, K. The evaluation of physical learning environments: a critical review of the literature. Learning Environ Res 17, 1–28 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-013-9149-3
- Contemporary education
- Physical learning environment
- Post-occupancy evaluation