Design and layout of educational environments

 

Introduction

 

Think of a room that you have been taught in that you feel was ideal for teaching purposes.

One student’s Ideal Primary Room

 

 

One student’s ideal Secondary English room

Other things

 

 

Think of a room or rooms that were not appropriate for effective learning.

 

One student’s badly designed IT Secondary room

 

One student’s badly designed Secondary small room used by many subjects

 

One student’s badly designed Small multi-subject room

·        Too cramped

·        Hot and stuffy

·        Yucky colour

·        Broken window

·        Cold in winter

·        No blind

·        Windows do not open

·        Broken table and chairs

 

Environmental psychology

 

Relationship between behaviour and environment.

 

·        Noise

·        Light

·        Crowding

·        Temperature

·        Design

 

Early research would be lab studies looking at the effect of noise, etc.

 

Problems with generalising.

 

Later work looked at environmental context.

Environmental determinism, the effects of the environment on behaviour.

 

Fails to tell us about the interaction between environment and behaviour.

 

Extreme form is known as ‘architectural determinism’ – ‘people can adapt to any arrangement of space and that behaviour in a given environment is caused by the characteristics of the environment’ (Corsini and Auerbach 1996).  A determinist view.

 

May be true of being in a lift.

Supermarket the design will have some effect on your behaviour but will not totally control your behaviour.

 

Personality is a key factor.

 

Complex relationship between environment and behaviour.

 

Physical features of the learning environment.

 

Schools have to provide a variety of learning spaces.

Classrooms, science labs, art rooms, small intimate rooms

Spaces for PE

Music and Drama. (DfE 1992)

 

Moyles lists key features of the learning environment:

Class base

Resources

Outside area

Physical area (How big is the classroom?)

Other people (classroom assistants)

Corridors

Use of space and its impact on movement (seating arrangements, small groups vs. rows)

Presentation of materials and displays

Library

Furniture/furnishings tables desks chairs, shelving units, play equipment, etc

Accessibility of resources and materials

Resource centre

Sound, acoustics

 

Outside environment, wildlife areas, playgrounds.

Lighting

 

 

Heat

 

 

Visual impact, décor, displays

 

 

Safety constraints

 

 

 

Teacher needs to organise room for effective learning to take place.

The general appearance of the room indicates to pupils the care that goes into their learning (Kyriacou 1991).

The arrangement of the classroom should enable the students to learn more quickly and effectively, and promote learning that is more enjoyable (Bull and Solity, 1987).

 

Effects of physical features on performance and feelings

 

Use of physical area: seating arrangements.

Seating arrangement

Advantages

Disadvantages

Circle or semicircle -

Teacher can see everybody.

Students can see each other.

Good for discussions.

 

Difficult to write.

Classroom control might be difficult.

Noise.
  • Rows

Discourage non-productive talk.

Focused on work.

Exams

Whole class teaching.

Lectures

Individual work

Working in pairs.

 
  • Clusters of desks
  •  
  •  
  • Activity zones
  •  
  •  

 

Musgrave (1975) Two types of classroom arrangements:

  1. Home-Base - suitable for a wide range of lessons
  2. Special Formations - suited to a particular lesson

Home-Base

Horizontal rows (see above) can be used for independent seatwork, presentations and recitations. The students are focussed on the teacher. Students can easily work in pairs. Best for demonstrations because students are close to the teacher. Not suitable for lessons where the students are supposed to interact.

Circles (see above, where a semi-circle is shown but students can encircle the teacher entirely) are good for student interaction. Good for discussions and seatwork. Poor for group presentations and can make class control difficult.

Clusters of Four (see above) are also good for student interaction. Students can talk, help one another, share materials and work on group tasks. Poor for whole-class presentations and class control is made more difficult.

Special Formations

 

Activity Zones

Pros

Cons

Getzels (1974) higher activity

 

Wilkinson (1988) maximum use of outside of room, leaving plenty of room in the centre

Problem with seeing the teacher and board, so design should allow students to swivel round in order to be addressed by the teacher (Moyles 1992).

Nash (1981), Field (1988) activities are more complex, more commitment and concentration.

Cullingford (1991) students prefer to have their own desk; own personal space; creates a sense of ownership.

 

How do teachers teach when students are grouped?

 

Gavienas (1999)

One primary school with 11 classrooms.

May not generalise.

Small groups or clusters.

Teacher addresses each group one at a time.  Students are left with a follow-up task.

53 out of 72 of these follow-up tasks were written work.

66 out of 72 of these tasks were to be completed individually, in silence.

Interviews with teachers found that there were no educational reasons for the grouping.

Just practical reasons.  Access to students and it is easier for students to share materials.

Galton and Williamson (1992) found that students were seated in ability groups 50% of the time, but worked together only 5% of the time.

Gavienas (1999) ‘the practice of seating children in social groups, but requiring them to work individually may be counter productive.  If we persist in seating children together in social groups, but try to prevent them from talking to each other, we might be creating new tensions.’

 

The ADHD Classroom

'The ideal ADHD classroom combines the seemingly contra­dictory attributes of consistency and flexibility, a consistent predictable setting which provides much structure, limited distraction and flexibility in addressing each student's individual learning style' (Detweiler et al. 1995, p. 5). Such classrooms would have the following characteristics:

. Small class sizes - ten or fewer children - with a teacher and one support assistant.

. A room with four walls and no open space leading into other classrooms.

. No changing of teachers. Subjects always taught in the same order.

. Soundproofing of rooms. Few distractions.

. Daily individualised programmes and weekly schedules on each desk for easy access.

. Separate study booths, or offices, for each child.

. A 'time out' room near by.

. A fan in each study booth, to be used by students to block out extraneous noise.

 

Multi-sensory rooms

 

Multi-sensory rooms offer a range of experiences involving sight, sound, touch and smell, and are particularly suitable for students with complex physical, sensory and learning needs (DfE 1992).

These rooms can be used for relaxation. A white room is designed for deep relaxation and offers soothing lights and comfortable music.

 A dark room can offer those visually impaired students with some useful residual vision a chance to react to visual stimuli in a dark environment where the contrast is at its greatest and the visual stimuli can be controlled (Gerald 1998). Light and sound effects are controlled by switches which students with complex needs can be taught how to use, thus giving the student a sense of control over their environment. The use of such multi­sensory rooms can be linked to National Curriculum assessments such as Key Stage 1, Programme of Study: 'Controlling and Modelling: recognise that controls are integral to many everyday devices' (Shaw 1998).

Environmental implications for autistic students

One difficulty that some individuals with high-functioning autism talk about is distortions in sensory perception. 'When I was a child, loud sounds like the school bell hurt my ears like a dentist drill hitting a nerve' (Grandin 1998, p. 2).

 Preston (1998) notes that while some autistic individuals respond with fear to sounds such as the tearing of a piece of paper, they might seem to not hear or ignore sounds such as a huge clap of thunder, which frighten other children.

Grandin (1998) further com­ments that some autistic individuals are sensitive to visual distractions and fluorescent lights.

Grandin (1998) suggests that bells could be tolerated if muffled slightly by stuffing the bell with tissue. The sound of scraping chairs, which can be experienced as painful, could be silenced by placing a slit tennis ball on the leg-ends or by laying down a carpet. Light bulbs should be replaced before they wear out, as newer bulbs flicker less.

 

Open Classroom

Students have more opportunity to explore the learning environment. Do not have students sitting in rows.

Difficult to assess this design, as the effect of the design is confounded by the teaching style. The teaching style allows more freedom. We cannot be sure whether any improvement in student performance is owing to the design of the classroom or the teaching style.

Rivlin and Rothenberg (1976) found that many teachers do not use the open plan classroom as intended. Children are made to work at their desk, engaged in much writing. Areas are blocked off into `traditional classrooms' by strategically placing bookshelves and cupboards around the space. Teachers do not seem to know how to arrange the furniture. There are also co-ordination problems between staff.

 

Partitions that can be adjusted in height are a good idea. Some visual contact can be kept with the rest of the activities going on around, but some degree of privacy is maintained (Evans and Lovell, 1979). Research into partitioning in the nursery school suggests that young children prefer social contexts rather than the privacy of small activity spaces. As they get older it seems they retain this preference but realise that they need more peace and quiet to think!! It is also important to realise that partitioning aids control of the children where their own ability to control themselves may be limited; as with young children or children with learning difficulties (as with ADHD).

Urban children do not do well in open-plan classrooms (although Brindishe Community school in Lewisham is an urban open-plan nationally recognised beacon school!), whereas suburban children do not do any worse than they would otherwise do in a traditional school. (Traub and Weiss 1974). This finding is not that encouraging!

Some factors that interact with the success or failure of open classrooms are:

The main problems with open-plan classrooms are:

Do not foster adequate educational benefits to outweigh these problems (Bennett et al., 1980)

If the only measure of success for a particular classroom design is academic success of the children, then a design like the open classroom would probably not be seen in a favourable light. If the measures were concerned with learning how to learn, learning social responsibility and acquisition of cultural values, then perhaps the traditional classroom would not fare so well.

Resources

 

Nash (1981) – need to be organised logically and need to be near at hand.

Teacher needs to explain the system.  Encourage students to use the resources.

Empower the students, by letting them know that the resources are there for them to use as and when they feel it necessary to use them.

 

Sound / Acoustics

 

54% of classroom teachers and 77% of PE teachers surveyed stated that noise caused problems with communication most of the time (Edwards 1997).

Average sound level of a teacher’s voice is 65-70 dBA.  The typical classroom has a background noise level ranging from 55 to 75 dBA.

 

Background noise causes problems for students, particularly:

·        Young children

·        Non-native English speakers

·        Children with articulation problems

·        Individuals with language learning disorders and / or listening difficulties

·        Individuals with minimal hearing loss or recurring ear infections.

 

Maxwell and Evans (2000) research on the effects of noise on young children has centred on motivation and cognition, including memory, attention and achievement.

Evans and Maxwell (1997) link between chronic noise exposure and reading.

2 schools

Noisy school near an airport, with a plane flying overhead every 6 minutes.  The decibel level was in the 90’s.

Tested children from both schools under quiet conditions.  Poorer reading levels in the noisy school.

Conclusions

Language skills are related to reading skills and noise affects both.  Excessive noise makes it difficult to discriminate between meaningful language and background noise.

Maxwell and Evans (2000) studied pre-reading skills in 4 yr olds, in a day care centre.

Noisy (peak 96.8 – 99.1 dBA, average 75.8- 77.1 dBA)

Natural study and the management installed sound-absorbent panels.

After renovation peak 87.2-95.2 dBA, average 69.4 – 73.9 dBA.

Higher scores on reading after renovation.

Teachers thought children had better language skills and better performance on cognitive language skill measure.

 

Loud noise impairs intellectual performance on complex tasks, even when you think you have adjusted to it. Children in elementary schools that were beneath the flight path for Los Angeles International Airport (noise level above 95dB) were compared with children in quieter classrooms (Cohen et al, 1986). The two groups were matched in age, ethnicity, race, hearing loss and social class. Children in the noisy schools had higher blood pressure, were more distractible, and had more difficulty with complex puzzles and maths problems than children in quieter schools.

Solvable or unsolvable task was given before the children's performance was assessed. They were also allowed to choose a game. The 'noisy' children were less likely to solve the solvable task. There was no effect of the 'prior to assessment' task (the giving of the solvable or unsolvable task prior to the assessed task). 'Noisy' children gave up more quickly. They were less likely to take advantage of the choice offered. They did not habituate (get used) to the aircraft noise. The longer they were at a 'noisy' school, the more distractible they became. The effect on children who lived in the noisy area was greater than just the effect of attending a 'noisy' school.

Children raised in noisy environments also have trouble learning how to discriminate between irrelevant noise and the relevant task. They either tune out too much in the environment or cannot tune out enough (Cohen, Glass & Phillips, 1979).

Cohen, Glass and Singer (1973)

Large high-rise apartment complex over a noisy highway in New York City. Noise loudest on ground floor and least noisy at the top. They controlled for social class and air pollution. Children on the lower floors had poorer hearing discrimination and poorer reading ability.

Bronzaft and McCarthy (1975)

They studied children taught in classes either side of a school. One side faced a noisy railway track. 11% of teaching time was lost on the noisy side, and reading ability was down.

After the results of this study was known, the authorities installed acoustic ceiling tiles in the classroom and sound-absorbing pads on the railway tracks. There was a recovery in the reading scores (Bronzaft 1985).

Damon (1977) found that children living near noisy roads were more likely to miss school.

Hombrick-Dixon (1986)

Children from noisy day centres compared with children from quiet day centres. In a laboratory they were exposed to noise. Psycho-motor task performance improved for 'noisy day centre' group, but the opposite was found for the 'quiet day centre' group.

Use of positive reinforcement to control noise

Schmidt and Ulrich (1969)

2nd and 4th grade pupils made 52dB of noise. They were told that they could earn extra minutes of gym for each 12 minute period that the noise was less than 42dB. Noise reductions were achieved.

Wilson and Hopkins (1973)

7th and 8th grade home economics pupils were allowed to listen to their favourite radio channel if the noise was less than 70dB.

Results

 

Noise level

Percentage of time

Before

Greater 70dB

30

During

Greater 70dB

5

Prevention

Ward and Snedfield (1973)

Highway planned next to school. Tapes were played at traffic noise levels. Learning was disrupted.

Heat and Performance

Pepler (1972)found that non-air conditioned schools, in the summer, produced a wider distribution of test scores (variance), compared with air-conditioned schools.

Benson and Zieman (1981) found that heat helped some pupils, and hindered others. [A good link here with learning styles ].

Lighting

 

Good quality lighting is very important.

Very young children need to see the teacher’s facial expressions.  So teacher should not be in the shadows (Neill 1991).

Important for visually impaired students.

Glare can be a problem.

For visually impaired students you need high contrasts (e.g. door handle different colour and tone from door). (Ackerly and Lomas 1998).

 

Crowding

At home

Saegart (1982) found that children from over-crowded homes were more likely to:

  1. be rated, by their teachers, as having behaviour problems
  2. be hyperactive
  3. have lower reading scores

At school

Baron and Rodin (1978) found that as class size increases, so does learned helplessness (see Seligman 1975). Students in large classes feel they have less control of reinforcement. Less opportunity for the teacher to give personal praise. This leads to learned helplessness.

Early studies in environmental psychology suggested that crowding (or inadequate space) would lead to aggression in children; therefore this should be taken into consideration when planning an appropriate environment. However, Connolly & Smith 1974), did not find that less space meant more aggression in infant school children. They found, not surprisingly that wider space led to a greater quantity of motor activity, such as running, jumping and skipping. When the available space was reduced these same behaviours took a different form (e.g. more use of climbing frames and slides). The quantity of play equipment had a more marked influence. When the amount of equipment was reduced, the children had to do more sharing, but this was of an alternating or parallel form, rather than co-operative sharing and signs of stress such as increased thumb sucking and aggression resulted.

A later study by Connolly and Smith looked at the effect of different types of physical play equipment. They found that play sessions with large objects such as a Wendy house, toy box and lid, stools, climbing frames etc, produced more talking, more physical contact, more gross motor activity and more co-operation than similar sessions with jigsaws, tea sets, blocks, a telephone and other small objects. The fantasy content of the interactions between the children, although less easy to evaluate, also appeared to be higher in the large toy sessions (they lined chairs up as trains and the Wendy house became a pretend theatre).

Class size

 

Nfer Press release 1998 suggested that large classes (over 30) undermine teacher’s morale and adversely affect the quality of education received.

Head teachers say that good teachers can teach large classes but at the expense of decreased motivation, self-esteem and morale.

Teachers report that large classes mean they spend all their time managing them and not actually teaching individual children.

All teachers managed to teach all of the national curriculum, but they felt dissatisfied.

Teachers felt that large class sizes had a negative effect on student behaviour and learning.

Johnson and Jamison (1998) state that government inspectors say that there are benefits in reduced class sizes, particularly for Key Stage 1 (ages 5-7).  However, the quality of teaching is a more important factor than class size.

 

Summary of teacher’s views on class size

Larger classes

Smaller classes

Pupils receive less attention

More attention

Restricted range of activities

More varied teaching and learning styles possible

Whole class teaching used for control

Whole class teaching only used when necessary

Little group work

Plenty of group work

Restricted opportunities for individual assessment and feedback

More time for assessment and feedback

Few practical activities

More reasonable workload for teachers so they can concentrate their energies on the needs of their students

 

Territoriality

Haber (1980) found that in traditional lecture classes 75% of students claimed a particular seat, and occupied it more than half of the time. In informally run classes this occured only 30% of the time. 83% chose the same seat as on the last three occasions.

Marking - the placing of books and possessions to defend a territory is found in libraries and cafeterias, etc (Fisher & Byrne, 1975).

Males are more territorial (have larger territories) than females (Mercer and Benjamin, 1980).

 

Level of arousal

Level of arousal can be manipulated by having exciting wall displays and other interesting objects around, to make a complex environment.

Too much information around the classroom will lead to information overload, whereas too little will lead to the students becoming bored and under-aroused. As you will know from elsewhere, the optimum level of arousal is somewhere between being over and under aroused (i.e. a moderate level of arousal). An argument for a complex environment would be that this provides more material for the children to become interested with. An argument for simple surroundings is that there is less opportunity for the child to become distracted. Porteous (1972) found that there was greater learning in a less complex environment. Overload and distraction seem to be important problems in classroom design. Creekmore (1987) suggests that each classroom should contain three different types of walls:

  1. Acquisition wall: placed at the front, holding the blackboard/whiteboard and the class notice board. Only new concepts or ones that the children are struggling with should be placed here.
  2. Maintenance walls are placed at the sides. Material on these walls has already been covered and helps them to fully understand the concepts.
  3. Dynamic wall: placed at the back; containing students' work, temporary notices, Christmas decorations, etc.

Personal Space

Hall's (1963) four communication distances

Distance

Appropriate Relationships and activities

Sensory Qualities

Less than 46cm

Intimate contacts. Physical Sports

Touch is the main means of communication. Intense sensory awareness

Personal Distance. 46cm to 1.22m

Close friends or acquaintances

Visual and verbal communication

Social Distance. 1.22m to 3.66m

Impersonal, businesslike contacts

Less detailed visual communication. Normal voice level. Touch not possible.

Public distance. Greater than 3.66m

Formal contacts. eg as in a lecture between student and lecturer.

No detailed visual communication. Exaggerated non-verbal behaviours to replace the subtle NVC of closer distances.

The concepts of personal space and territoriality have also been applied to the learning environments. In a study by miller (1978) students received instruction from their teacher at one of the four personal space zones defined by Hall (see above table). Miller found that when the instruction occurred at a close distance, it produced the greatest learning. In other words, if the teacher is in a one-to-one session with a student, then the effectiveness of the interactions is dependent on the space between them. However, since close personal space is traditionally an expression of trust and personal intimacy, it would seem necessary that the student and teacher should already have a good relationship, since otherwise such an experience could be quite anxiety-producing for the student.

Skeen (1976) found that a subject performed poorly at a serial learning task when the experimenter was at the intimate distance (see above table). Subject performed better at the personal distance.

Kinarthy 1975) found that the students sitting in the middle front sections of a class fared better. Sitting in the centre at the front:

  1. Promotes verbalization except for very low verbalizers.
  2. Facilitates attention (Komeya 1976)
  3. Improves grades (Becker et al 1973).

The brightest students might have opted to sit at the front, so Kinarthy randomly allocated where the students were to sit.

Sommer (1967) found that there was a relationship between where students sat and their participation in class (see table below).

Percentage of participation in class activities, depending upon seating position (Sommer 1967)

 

Instructor

 

57%

61%

57%

37%

54%

37%

41%

51%

41%

31%

48%

31%

Adams and Biddle (1970) found that verbal interaction followed a similar pattern, and labelled the centre line 'The Action Zone'. In some classes, however, the Action Zone is to one side of the class or focused around a particular learning area (Good 1983).

 

To read more:

The Physical Environment of the College Classroom and its Effects on Students
by Tim Griffin

Barker R.G. (1968) Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for studying the environment of Human Behaviour , Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Bell P.A., Fisher, Baum and Greene (1997, 4th Ed) Environmental Psychology , Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Bentham., Susan. (2002), Psychology and Education, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-22763-1.

Woolfolk Anita E. (1990) Educational Psychology, Prentice Hall

Old version of this page



Return to Gary Sturt's Homepage _