Who Needs What When: Design of Pluralistic Learning Environments

  • Martin L. Krovetz


Throughout the centuries theologians have argued about the one true religion, politicians have argued about the ideal form of government, and educators have argued about the best method of teaching. It is time that we acknowledged that, at least in the last situation, there is no “one best.” It seems to this author, as a social psychologist and a high school administrator, that it is just as ridiculous to assume that all students learn best in the same way as to assume that all people will behave in the same manner given a certain set of controlled circumstances. Social psychologists have turned to probability and statistics and hypothesize that more people will behave thusly in one environment than in another environment. In education this is not good enough. We should not say that since a majority of students appear to function adequately in the traditional school environment, we will assume that it is best for everyone. I personally would question the use of the word majority in this context, but that is not the point. The point is that schools must begin to offer a plurality of learning environments, allowing teachers and students to function in environments conducive to their personal teaching and learning styles. At the same time, research should be aimed at determining what variables create effective learning environments.


Internal Student Cognitive Style Personal Space Traditional School Twelfth Grader 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barker, R. G., and Gump, P. Big school, small school. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  2. Brunetti, F. A. Open space: A status report. School environment study. Stanford, Calif.: School Planning Laboratory, School of Education, Stanford University, 1971.Google Scholar
  3. Brunetti, F. A. Noise, distraction, and privacy in conventional and open school environments. In W. Mitchell (Ed.), Environmental design: Research and practice. Proceedings of EDRA Conference, January 1972. Pp. 12-2-1–12-2-6.Google Scholar
  4. Chance, J. E. Internal control of reinforcements and the school learning process. Paper read at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, Minn., 1965.Google Scholar
  5. Chase, R. A. Behavioral biology and environmental design. In M. Hammer, K. Salzinger, and S. Sutton (Eds.), Psychopathology. New York: Wiley, 1972. Pp. 175–191.Google Scholar
  6. Cockburn, I. The open school: An annotated bibliography. ERIC,February, 1974, ED 082292.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, R. D., and York, R. L. Equality of educational opportunity. Superintendent of Documents Catalog No. FS 5.238:38001, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.Google Scholar
  8. Crandall, V. D., Katkovsky, W., and Crandall, V. J. Children’s beliefs in their control of reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations. Child Development, 1965, 36, 91–109.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. David, T. G. Environmental literacy. School Review, 1974, 82, 687–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, W. L., and Phares, E. J. Internal-external control as a determinant of information-seeking in a social influence situation. Journal of Personality, 1967, 35, 547–561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, W. L., and Phares, E. J. Parental antecedents of internal-external control of reinforce-ment. Psychological Reports, 1969, 24, 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Desor, J S. Toward a psychological theory of crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1972, 21,79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doctor, R. M. Locus of control of reinforcement and responsiveness to social influence. Journal of Personality, 1971, 39, 542–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fantini, M. Public schools of choice. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974.Google Scholar
  15. Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., and Newcomb, T. Some consequences of deindividualization in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 382–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Getzels, J. W. Images of the classroom and visions of the learner. School Review, 1974, 84, 527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gillis, J S., and Jessor, R. Effects of brief psychotherapy on belief in internal control: An exploratory study. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice,1970, 7, 135–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gore, P. Individual differences in the prediction of subject compliance to experimenter bias. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962.Google Scholar
  19. Gore, P., and Rotter, J. B. A personality correlate of social action. Journal of Personality, 1963, 31, 58–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffin, W., and Veitch, R. Hot and crowded: Influences of population density and temperature on interpersonal affective behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 17, 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gump, P., and James, E. Child development and the man-made environment: A literature review and commentary. Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, 1973.Google Scholar
  22. Holt, J. Involving the user in school planning. School Review, 1974, 82, 707–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnston, K. D., and Krovetz, M. L. Levels of aggression in a traditional and pluralistic school. Educational Research, 1976, 18, 146–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karabanek, S. A. Balance of success and failure as a function of achievement motives and locus of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 21, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katkovsky, W., Crandall, V. D., and Good, S. Parental antecedents of children’s beliefs in internal-external control of reinforcements in intellectual achievement situations. Child Development, 1967, 38, 765–776.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kiehlbauch, J. B. Selected changes over time in internal-external control expectancies in a reformatory population. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, 1967.Google Scholar
  27. Krovetz, M. L. Explaining success and failure as a function of one’s locus of control. Journal of Personality, 1974, 42, 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leitman, A., and Churchill, E. H. A classroom for young children: Approximation No. 1. In C. H. Rathbone (Ed.), Open Education: The Informal Classroom, New York: Citation Press, 1971, Pp. 168–184.Google Scholar
  29. Maslow, A. H., and Mintz, L. Effects of esthetic surroundings: 1. Initial short-term effects of three esthetic conditions upon perceiving “energy” and “well-being” in faces. Journal of Psychology, 1956, 41, 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newman, R., and Pollack, D. Proxemies in deviant adoloscents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, 6–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Phares, E. J. Internal-external control as a determinent of amount of social influence exerted. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 642–647.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Phares, E. J. Internal-external control and the reduction of reinforcement value after failure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 37, 386–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Phares, E. J. Locus of control: A personality determinant. General Learning Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  34. Pines, H. A., and Julian, J. W. Effects of task and social demands on locus of control differences in information processing. Journal of Personality, 1972, 40, 407–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Proshansky, E., and Wolfe, M. The physical setting of open education. School Review, 1974, 82, 557–574.Google Scholar
  36. Ramirez, M. Cognitive styles and cultural democracy in education. Social Science Quarterly, March, 1973, 895–904.Google Scholar
  37. Rogers, J. A. Relationships between sociability and personal space preference at two different times of day. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1972, 35, 519–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rolfe, H. C. Differences in space use of learning situations in small and large classrooms. Unpublished dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1961.Google Scholar
  39. Rothenberg, M., and the children of P.S. 3. Planning at P.S. 3. Unpublished manuscript, City University of New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  40. Rotter, J. B. Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs,1966, 80 (Whole No. 609).Google Scholar
  42. Schwebel, A. I., and Cherlin, D. L. Physical and social distancing in teacher-pupil relationships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 543–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seeman, M. Alienation and social learning in a reformatory. American Journal of Sociology, 1963, 69, 270–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seeman, M., and Evans, J. W. Alienation and learning in a hospital setting. American Sociological Review, 1962, 27, 772–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sommer, R. Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.Google Scholar
  46. Sommer, R., and Becker, K. D. Room density and user satisfaction. Environment and Behavior,1971, 3, 412–417.Google Scholar
  47. Straits, B. C., and Sechrest, L. Further support of some findings about characteristics of smokers and non-smokers. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 27, 282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strickland, B. R. The prediction of social action from a dimension of internal-external con-trol. Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 66, 353–358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Toffler, A. Future Shock. New York: Random House, 1970.Google Scholar
  50. Valins, S., and Baum, A. Residential group size, social interaction and crowding. Environment and Behavior, 1973, 5, 421–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilkinson, R. Some factors influencing the effect of environmental stressors upon performance. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 260–272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Witkens, H. A. The role of cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student relations. Educational Testing Service, February, 1972.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin L. Krovetz
    • 1
  1. 1.Carmel High SchoolCarmelUSA

Personalised recommendations