Skip to main content

The evaluation of physical learning environments: a critical review of the literature

Abstract

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beare, H. (2000). Creating the future school. London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  5. CABE. (2006). Assessing secondary school quality: Research report. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  6. CDE. (1978). Facilities performance profile: An instrument to evaluate school facilities. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  7. CERD. (2010). Learning landscapes in higher education. Lincoln: Centre for Educational Research and Development, University of Lincoln.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cooper, I. (2001). Post-occupancy evaluation—Where are you? Building Research & Information, 29, 158–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dewey, J. (1966). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dewey, J. (1971). The child and the curriculum. The school and society (11th ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dudek, M. (2008). Schools and kindergartens—A design manual. Berlin: Birhauser.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Edwards, R., & Clarke, J. (2002). Flexible learning, spatiality and identity. Studies in Continuing Education, 24, 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

  21. Fisher, K. (2004). Revoicing classrooms: A spatial manifesto. Forum, 46(1), 36–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

  23. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Habermas and Foucault: Thinkers for civil society? The British Journal of Sociology, 49, 210–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. FNI. (2011). Educational Facilities Effectiveness Instrument. Lutz, FL: Fielding Nair International. http://goodschooldesign.com/Default.aspx. Accessed 6/6/11.

  25. Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents, and consequences. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hadjri, K., & Crosier, C. (2008). Post-occupancy evaluation: Purpose, benefits and barriers. Facilities, 27(1/2), 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  29. HEFCE. (2006). Guide to post occupancy evaluation. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Heppell, S., Chapman, C., Millwood, R., Constable, M., & Furness, J. (2004). Building learning futures. Building futures. www.buildingfutures.org.uk. Accessed 4/8/08.

  31. 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.

  32. Hirst, P. (2005). Foucault and architecture. In P. Hirst (Ed.), Space and power: Politics, war and architecture (pp. 155–178). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hunley, S., & Schaller, M. (2006). Assessing learning spaces. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 1–11). Washington, DC: Educause.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. Joseph, J. (2003). Social theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

  38. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Leaman, A., Stevenson, F., & Bordass, B. (2010). Building evaluation: Practice and principles. Building Research & Information, 38, 564–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee, N., & Tan, S. (2011). A comprehensive learning space evaluation model. Strawberry Hills, NSW: Australian Teaching and Learning Council.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

  43. Massey, D. (1999). Power geometrics and the politics of space-time: Hetter Lecture. Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  45. McGregor, J. (2004a). Editorial. Forum, 46(1), 2–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. McGregor, J. (2004b). Spatiality and the place of the material in schools. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 12, 347–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. McGregor, J. (2004c). Space, power and the classroom. Forum, 46(1), 13–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. McLaren, P. (2007). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. London: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Monahan, T. (2000). Built pedagogies and technology practices: Designing for participatory learning. Paper presented at the Participatory Design Conference, Palo Alto, CA.

  50. Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space and built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Monahan, T. (2005). Globalization, technological change, and public education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Moos, R. H. (1987). Person-environment congruence in work, school, and health care settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 231–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Newton, C., & Fisher, K. (2009). Take 8, Learning spaces: The transformation of educational environments for the 21st Century. Manuka, ACT: Australian Institute of Architects.

    Google Scholar 

  56. OECD. (2006). Design quality indicator for schools in the United Kingdom. PEB Exchange, 8, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  57. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  58. OECD. (2009b). Evaluating quality in educational spaces: OECD/CELE pilot project. CELE Exchange, 9, 1–6.

  59. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  61. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Preiser, W. F. E. (1995). Post-occupancy evaluation: How to make buildings work better. Facilities, 13(11), 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  66. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Roberts, L. W. (2008). Measuring school facility conditions: An illustration of the importance of purpose. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 368–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sanoff, H. (2001). School building assessment methods. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.

    Google Scholar 

  71. SFC. (2006). Spaces for learning: A review of learning spaces in further and higher education. Edinburgh: Scottish Funding Council.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Stevenson, K. (2007). Educational trends shaping school planning and design: 2007. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Tanner, C. K., & Lackney, J. A. (2006). Educational facilities planning. Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Taylor, A. (2009). Linking architecture and education: Sustainable design for learning environments. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

    Google Scholar 

  76. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Temple, P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: An under-researched topic. London Review of Education, 6, 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Turpin-Brooks, S., & Viccars, G. (2006). The development of robust methods of post occupancy evaluation. Facilities, 24(5/6), 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Upitis, R. (2010). Raising a school: Foundations for school architecture. South Frontenac, ON: Wintergreen Studios Press.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  81. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 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.

  83. Weinstein, C. S. (1979). The physical environment of the school: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 49, 577–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Whyte, J., & Gann, D. M. (2001). Closing the loop between design and use: Post-occupancy evaluation. Building Research & Information, 29, 460–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design: Environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Zhang, Y., & Barrett, P. (2010). Findings from a post-occupancy evaluation in the UK primary schools sector. Facilities, 28(13/14), 641–656.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Zimmerman, A., & Martin, M. (2001). Post-occupancy evaluation: Benefits and barriers. Building Research & Information, 29, 168–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Zimring, C. M., & Reizenstein, J. E. (1980). Post-occupancy evaluation: An overview. Environment and Behavior, 12, 429–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Cleveland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Contemporary education
  • Evaluation
  • Methodologies
  • Methods
  • Pedagogies
  • Physical learning environment
  • Post-occupancy evaluation