Learning Environment in the Classroom of High School

- Linking physical setting with the child psychology -

Dr. Bijaya K. Shrestha

Head of Department, Department of Urban Design and Conservation [Master Program]
Khwopa Engineering College, P.O.Box: 84, Libali, Bhaktapur, Nepal
Tel.: [+977-1] 6614794 [off], 9841-347-187 [Mobile], Fax: [+977-1] 6615202
Email: bkshrestha@hotmail.com

Ar. Sushmita Shrestha

Master degree student of Department of Urban Design and Conservation
Khwopa Engineering College, Bhaktapur, Nepal
Email: smitashr82@hotmail.com

Abstract
Though classroom setting as a basic 'education unit' where children spend six to seven hours a day for the majority of the
learning contributing to students performance, health, attitudes and behaviours, is the most singular important design factor,
most of the schools in Nepal have ignored this fact. A comparative study of the classroom setting of three different high
schools namely 'Sikshya Sadan Secondary School' [SSSS] and Bal Niketan English Boarding School [BNEBS] in Banepa and
Save Our Soul School [SOSS] in Panauti is carried out based on the analytical framework - [i] physical size, shape and
density, [ii] Modular furniture and display area, [iii] ambient atmosphere [lighting and ventilation, acoustic and thermal
comfort, colour and texture], and [iv] linkage of classroom to other indoor and outdoor learning spaces to link the physical
setting with the child psychology through standard questionnaire survey, observation and interviewing the teachers and
management staffs. The detail analysis reveals that students of SSSS feel uncomfortable, give little attention in the lectures
and suffer from eye and throat problems as well as psychological stress in the classroom not only due to large number of
students sharing a common desk and bench [combined] by 4-5 persons without personal storage facility but also because of
positioning of windows at the back thereby creating glare in the blackboard. However, sufficient personal space in the
classroom with individual desk and bench with personal storage space for both teacher and students, adequate natural light
and cross-ventilation, use of board-marker and display of students works in the classroom all have created ambient
atmosphere in the classroom at SOS thereby enhancing better communication and friendship among classmates. Despite
small number of students at BNEBS and managed by private sector, the poor learning environment is mainly due to
conversion of bedroom of residential building into classroom for school. Nonetheless, the application of 'concept of child
psychology and user friendly' in classroom configuration to accommodate the needs of individual students and teachers, to
enhance diverse learning and teaching styles using multimedia, and above all to reflect today's education philosophy is
recommended to improve the existing classroom setting as well as for future classroom planning. Upgradation of the existing
'Education Act' and to incorporation of 'environmental psychology' in classroom design in the school design guidelines and
manuals prepared by the public, NGOs and UN agencies and finally training and educating the teachers, school management
committees is needed for long term sustainability.

Key Words: Classroom Setting, Learning Environment, Personal Space, Ambient Atmosphere, Child Psychology, Training
and Education, etc.

Overview and Study Objectives

Since children spend six to seven hours a day and about 14,000 hours between the ages of 5 and 18 at school
[Environmental Defense Fund, 1999], the classroom setting as a basic ‘educational unit’ where majority of learning occurs, is
the most singular important design factor in school planning [Gump, 1987]. The classroom configuration should
accommodate the needs of individual students and teachers, enhance diverse learning and teaching styles using multimedia,
and above all, reflect today’s educational philosophy, which aims for overall children’s development rather than focus on
academic program alone. Yet classrooms have historically suffered from a lack of attention, both in original design as well as
construction. Until recently, classroom design and school planning has been dominated by school administrators, public
officials, builders and others, who in most instances, do not occupy the buildings. Even architects designing school buildings

1
give little attention to the users' [students and teachers] needs and fail to incorporate the educators and psychologists'
findings. The overall result is the formation of poor classroom with adverse impacts on the academic performance of
students as well as on their health, attitudes and behaviours.
Assistance from the United Nations, international agencies including government of Nepal’s priority on school level
education have caused the establishment of numerous schools in different parts of Nepal. However, their quality and
students' performance are not satisfactory due to inefficient educational system, lack of community contributions, under-
utilisation of available physical and human resources, politicisation of the education sector with frequent strikes by teachers
and students, and ineffective school management. Unfortunately, little light has been thrown so far regarding the classroom
design, child psychology and their linkages to improve the learning environment in high schools. Against this background,
this paper aims to focus on learning environment in the classroom of high school, linking physical setting with the child
psychology on a comparative basis with fourfold objective. First, it reviews numerous literatures on classroom design, child
psychology and learning environment to establish an analytical framework. Second, it critically analyses the classroom design
of three existing high schools located in the periphery of the Kathmandu Valley and then conducts a comparative study
based on the established framework and the questionnaire survey to identify their impacts on student's academic
performance, health, attitude and behaviour. Third, it relates those numerous weaknesses with the existing legal and
institutional framework. Finally, it draws a conclusion and proposes some recommendations for future good classroom
setting.

Literature Review and Analytical Framework

The learning and teaching techniques as well as the classroom configuration has been changing with the need of society in
different time period: single teacher teaching multi aged students in a room with poor light and ventilation in the agricultural
society [Fielding et. al, 1998]; large group instruction and teacher centered lecture with standardization of curriculum in the
industrial age [1849-1950]; rectangular classroom with desk bolted to floor in row and column arrangement until mid 20th
century; educational reforms with ‘open plan’ schools having flexible folding and movable walls in the 1960s [Gump and Ross,
1979] and the concept of ‘house plan’ with self directed learning and interdisciplinary instruction in mid 1980s. Though
educational communities have recently begun to talk about multi-age learner groups, cooperative learning strategies,
integrated curriculum and interdisciplinary instruction, all the characters of the emerging knowledge-based paradigm in
education, majority of the schools in reality are still running in the ‘factory model’ buildings with industrial mode of
educational approach [Fielding et. al, 1998, Lackney, 2001]. In today’s information and knowledge based society, learning is
no longer a group of students in front of a teacher, feeding information through passive means for storage and regurgitation
in tests but rather an understanding to construct knowledge in meaningful ways for a particular purpose. Learning, an
individual's mental process is the result of unhampered participation in a meaningful setting rather than the product of
instruction [Illich, 1971]. Since age, sex, culture and individual character greatly influence one’s ability to learn, each student
in the classroom learns at different rate: some of them may be good in science and mathematics, others may be interested
in social science and artistic fields including in cognitive ability. Webster's New World Dictionary of the English Language
defines learning as 'the acquiring of knowledge or skill.' This as the 'acquisition metaphor' of learning is in contrast with a
'participation metaphor' of learning which is defined by a 'process of becoming a part of a great whole' [Sfard, 1998].
Learning, whether 'acquisition' or 'participation' is manifested by cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development
[Allen, 1972; Allen, 1974; Moore, 1986; Moore and Wong, 1997].
In the emerging knowledge-based paradigm of education, students learn through ‘multiple intelligences’ by creating
things, understanding with images, engaging in problem solving, working in teams and communicating their understanding
of a subject using multimedia, in addition to developing the sense of ownership, self-expression, participation and adult role.
Similarly, teachers act as discussion facilitators rather than dispensers of knowledge and guide students using a variety of
sources including computer-based instruction programs, the Internet, video, as well as books and lectures. Thus learning has
become an activity based and process oriented system opposed to the study of facts and contents and accent on memory,
practice and rote. In an interactive learning environment, children will be eager to put their new knowledge and skills into
practice. As children learn best when learning is active and student-centred rather than passive and teacher-centred, a good
classroom, where knowledge is discovered and discussed, rather than a room where information is simply transferred from
teachers to students should have adaptable and flexible spaces, aesthetically pleasing in terms of colours, textures, patterns
and should be clustered around a commons with outdoor accessibility [Butin, 2000]. The new learning and teaching
modalities demand for multi-purpose learning studios [where different children can be engaged in different tasks in various
activity zones] instead of traditional 'factory model' classrooms with fixed furniture [Nair 2002, Bingler, 1998; Taylor and
Vlastos, 1983]. Both cognitive and affective domains should be equally emphasised in teaching. Physical setting and the
ambient environment inside the classroom not only contribute to health and comfort of the students but also enhance
learning process. As the same classroom is used by many teachers for different subjects, the physical environment and the
facilities should be responsive to diverse learning and teaching styles as well as needs of individual teacher and students.
After reviewing numerous literatures on classroom design, school planning and management, for the purpose of
analysing the learning environment in the high school of Kavre district, an analytical framework is established with the
following four essential elements namely [a] Physical size, shape and density, [b] Modular furniture and display area, [c]
Ambient atmosphere, and [d] Linkage of classroom to other indoor and outdoor learning spaces.

2
Selection of the Case Study Schools
Three existing high schools namely 'Sikshya Sadan Secondary School' [SSSS], Banepa, 'Bal Niketan English Boarding School'
[BNEBS], Banepa, and 'Save Our Soul School' [SOSS], Panauti, all located in Kavre district with varying degree of similarities
and differences are selected to analyse the linkages of physical setting with child psychology on a comparative basis [Table
1]. In terms of overall physical facilities available to childrens and their involvement in extra-curricular activities including
curriculum design and qualification of teachers, BNEBS - a private school running in the existing residential building located
near the local bus stop - lies between the government managed SSSS running in the old school building located in the core
area and well privately planned and managed SOSS located far away from the neighbourhood areas. Though the excellent
School Leaving Certificate [SLC] examination result of SOS can be related with its diverse facilities, academic performance
alone is not sufficient to measure student's overall development. Nonetheless, students of all the three schools spend most
of their learning time in the enclosed classrooms of different physical and learning settings.

Table 1. Different aspects of case study schools

Particulars Sikshya Sadan Secondary Bal Niketan English Save Our Soul School
School [SSSS] Boarding School [BNEBS] [SOSS]
Location Layeku, Banepa Bus park, Banepa Shrikhandapur, Panauti
Established year 1918 1991 1999
Type Non-residential Non-residential Residential
Class level Preschool-10 Preschool-10 Preschool-10
Management Government Private Private
Fee structure [approx.] NRs. 150/month NRs. 750/month NRs. 400/month
Performance in SLC exam. [%] 70-80 90-100 100

Comparative Study of Classroom Settings of the Case Study Schools

Physical Size, Shape and Density
Though the size and shape of the classroom is determined by the total number of the students and the function of the room,
nonetheless, for the classroom of a high school reflecting today's educational trend, the required room size can be taken as
2.00 sq. m. per student, which accommodates seating for all the students including the support spaces such audio-visual
equipment, an instructor workstation, circulation, and setback from the chalkboard and adequate lecture space. Generally,
the maximum viewing distance of 7 m is considered as the maximum distance between the blackboard and the last row of
students in the classroom. Rooms wider than their depth usually present unacceptable viewing angles [more than 120°] for
the displayed and information written on the front blackboard. Moreover, the first row of the furniture should be minimum
1.3 m [preferably 2.0 m] from the blackboard wall. Nonetheless, students sitting in the classroom from any position should
be able to see anything presented visually, to hear any audible presentation and to be physically comfortable.

SSSS BNEBS SOSS

Fig. 1. Physical size, shape and density of classrooms of the case study schools

While comparing the physical size, shape and density of the classrooms of the case study schools with the ideal
classroom situation, in most cases, all the required criteria are not fulfilled [Figure 1 and Table 2] in many ways with
numerous consequences. First, there are not enough spaces for both teachers and students in the classroom at SSSS and
BNEBS. The classroom of SSSS accommodates 80 students, almost more than three times the preferred density with
allocation of just 0.35 sq.m. area per student whereas despite having just 19 students in the classroom of BNBES, the area
per student comes only 0.61 sq.m. Inadequate space in front of the blackboard for teacher in both cases has not only
hampered the diverse learning and teaching styles using multi media but has also made students difficult particularly sitting
on the extreme left and right sides in viewing at the blackboard. Second, the length of the classroom at SSSS and SOSS
[greater than 7.00m] and that of BNEBS [average length of 2.95m] is smaller than its width [3.9m] is not desirable. The
overall impact of such physical setting is not only development of strain on student's eyes, distraction in study and formation

3
of stress in children thereby increasing aggressive behaviour but also in reduction of student-teacher interaction, level of
participation in the classroom and reduction in the sense of place thereby reducing the scope of learning opportunities.

Table 2. Comparative study of classroom size, shape and density

Particulars Standard SSSS BNEBS SOSS
Classroom size [LXW] [sq. m] 48.0 [L<7 m] 6.75 X 4.2 = 28.35 3.9 X 3.0 = 11.7 7.86 X 6.3 = 49.51
Total no. of student 24 80 [3.33X24] 19 38 [1.58X 24]
Area per student [sq. m] 2.00 0.35 0.61 1.30
Distance of first row of bench from 2.00 0.90 0.73 2.00
blackboard wall [m]
Viewing angle at the centre of blackboard <120° 136° 131° 117°
Ratio of teacher to student 1:24 1:80 1:19 1:38

A 30-item questionnaire focusing on different aspects of classroom setting and its implication on student's class
attendance, health, attitude and behaviour is distributed to the whole students of grade eight to relate their response with
the theory of good classroom design. Almost all the students [except the 8 absent students at SSSS] responded the survey
by filling up of almost all the items. Though majority of the students of SSSS feel that their classroom size [94.44%], shape
[91.66%] is normal and O. K., however, nearly fifty five [54.94%] percent of responded prefer to reduce the number of
students in the classroom [Graph 1 and Photo 1]. In the case of SOSS, none of the students feel that their classroom is
congested and about 97.40% responded think that there is no need to either increase or decrease the present number of
students. Though only one tenth [10.53%] of students feel congestion in the classroom at BNEBS, majority of the responded
[63.16%] are in favour of changing the classroom shape. However, 73.68% of students are comfortable with the existing
density of the classroom. All the students of SOSS are happy with the existing classroom shape and number of students
[97.4%] with half of the students thinking their classroom either normal or spacious in terms of its size.

Graph 1. Comparative study of classroom size, shape and total number of students

SSSS BNEBS SOSS

Photo. 1. Congested classroom at SSSS and BNEBS compared to classroom of SOS

Modular Furniture and Student’s Display Area

Furniture layout in the classroom helps define the territoriality of individual students and instructor [teacher], the spaces of
niches and alcoves for varied activities and the display area, and above all, it enhances learning and teaching styles.

4
Moreover, it shapes the circulation pattern within the classroom contributing to teacher and student interaction and student’s
comfort and convenient in the learning process. Classroom configurations with movable and modular furniture and mobile
casework are likely to encourage more learning and teaching styles than those with fixed standard furniture, and built-in
casework. In such situation, teachers can create lively environment in the classroom by changing furniture layout for
individual and group work, presentation, student interaction, whole class discussion and so on, and even create new
atmosphere by providing a study carrels [William, 1993], creating a small library corner or developing a science centre within
the classroom to enhance students’ interest and participation.
Wall display, an essential personalizing feature of a classroom adds colour and diversity but reduces acoustical
reverberations in the classroom thereby not only enhancing the learning process but also increasing students’ sense of
personal value and level of arousal. A good classroom should contain three different functional walls: [a] Acquisition wall – at
the front holding the blackboard/whiteboard and the class notice board, [b] Maintenance walls – at the sides containing
windows and ventilator, and [c] dynamic wall – at the back containing students’ work, decoration and art works, etc.. The
front wall of the room behind the instructor area should have no protrusions [structural or otherwise] into the room so that
chalkboard, marker-boards, projection screens or information displays can be installed across the entire wall of the instructor
area. There should be no decorative elements such as paintings or other art work located within the classroom.
The fixed long bench and desk shared by many students without personal belonging storage provision at SSSS and
BNEBS is not suitable for students in many ways [Table 3]. Students in both classrooms have to keep their bags either at the
side or carry out by themselves during reading and writing activities. They find it difficult to stay in the congested classroom
without moving their bodies freely and need to disturb their friends while leaving and coming back to their seats. The case of
SOSS is quite different, as the common desk for two students with individual chair including personal belonging storage area
below the desk has made their study comfortable. Such flexible furniture can be configured into different setting for group
discussion within the same class room. Moreover, there are display board with variety of student's works on the back and
side walls which are missing in the previous two cases. In those schools, student's work and notice are haphazardly glued on
the wall.

Table 3. Comparative study of furniture layout, personal belonging storage and display area
Classroom features SSSS BNEBS SOSS
Bench size [m] 1.8 X 0.20 1.8 X 0.20 1.0 X 0.5
Desk 1.8 X 0.25 1.8 X 0.25 0.4 X 0.4
Desk/bench shared by students 4-5 2-3 2
No. of rows 9 3 5
Personal belonging areas No place No place Below the desk
Wall display area Haphazardly on different walls Haphazardly on different walls Back and side walls
Size of blackboard/whiteboard 2.3m X 1.2m 0.9m X 1.2m 2.5m X 1.2m

Though 56.96% of students prefer to have furniture shared by 3-4 students in their classrooms at SSSS, more than one
third [35.72%] are not satisfied with the existing furniture layout [Graph 2 and Photo 2]. One third [33.33%] of them like to
have classroom furniture shared by just two students with 6.9% preferring to have individual desk and chair. In this
classroom, only half [49.29%] of the students see clearly in the blackboard and nearly one fifth [18.32%] of students are
unable to see at all. As majority of the students [89.48%] at BNEBS do not see properly the written stuffs at the blackboard
in the classroom, nearly three fourth [73.69%] of students are unsatisfied with the existing furniture layout in the classroom.
However, 57.90% of students would like to have furniture shared by 3-4 students instead of sharing by only two. In terms of
furniture layout, the students of SOS are more satisfied compared to the earlier two cases. Here, 94.73% of students are
happy with the existing layout with common desk and individual chair. Such layout is preferred by majority [86.85%] of
students. Also, nearly three fourth [73.7%] of students can see clearly at the blackboard from any position of the classroom.

Graph 2. Comparative study of classroom furniture and student’s display area

5
 SSSS BNEBS SOSS
Photo 2. Lack of personal belonging spaces at SSSS and BNEBS but comfortable furniture at SOSS

Since there is no individual locker system in the common desk for keeping student’s personal belongings [books, copies,
instrument box and other stuffs] at SSSS and BNEBS, students are forced to keep their belongings either on the floor [below
the desk] or carry out by themselves during the entire classes. About 85% of students of SSSS and 73.69% of BNEBS have
responded that they have no place to keep their belongings in the classroom. It is only at SOS, where 83.79% of students
keep their personal stuffs in the individual locker below the desk.

Ambient Atmosphere [Lighting and Ventilation, Acoustic and Thermal Comfort]

Ambient atmosphere in the classroom is the product of room configuration, furniture layout, size, shape and position of
window opening, material finishes, texture and colour including positioning of electrical and mechanical fixtures. Quantity
and quality of natural lighting and air circulation, thermal condition and acoustic quality all have direct impact on students’
behaviour, health and academic performance [Probe, 1997; Kuller and Lindsten, 1992; Maiden and Foreman, 1998] as well
as on economic and energy saving. For instance, students in the classroom with sufficient natural light can increase their
academic performance by 5-14% [Nicklas and Bailey, 1995] whereas others working in the classroom without daylight
reduce their ability to concentrate or cooperate, and have an impact on annual body growth and absenteeism [Kuller and
Lindsten, 1992]. Similarly, daylit schools need 22-64% less energy compared to non-daylit schools. Moreover, the perception
of crowding is affected not only by space but also by room temperature and humidity including smell and sound. 'Air
pollution affects children more than adults because of their narrow airways, more rapid rate of respiration, and the fact that
they inhale more pollutants per pound of body weight' [Environmental Defense Fund, 1999]. Research indicates that children
learn most effectively in a non-threatening, comfortable environment. The use of natural lighting, wooden furniture with
comfortable upholstery, calming colours on the walls, and carpeting, all contribute to a school atmosphere that is conducive
to learning.
Though all the classrooms have sufficient window openings compared to the classroom area, the location of door and
window openings in relation to positioning of students bench and blackboard has created different ambient atmosphere in
the case study schools [Table 4]. Window openings at the back [and side walls] with door directly facing towards the
students at SSSS and BNEBS has not only resulted in uneven natural light distribution in the classroom with producing glare
on the blackboard but has also distracted students concentration towards the front opening. Opening on opposite walls with
natural lighting coming from left side of student's sitting position at SOSS has improved airflow, allowed sufficient natural
light and connected to the outside natural environment thereby complementing different activities such as group discussion,
studying and writing work, display work and so on. Students feel comfortable and stimulating inside the classroom due to
stronger colour with warm tones [cream colour with white ceiling] with provision of artificial lighting system and student's
display work on the side and back walls. The combination of white and chocolate colours without glass panels in the
windows at SSSS and sky blue colour without proper display area at BNEBS has made the classrooms in both cases
monotonous.

Table 4. Comparative study of door and window openings and floor area in the classrooms
Particulars SSSS BNEBS SOSS
Classroom floor area [sq. m.] 28.35 11.50 49.57
Openings area [sq. m.] 9.18 4.50 8.40
% of openings against floor area 32.38 39.13 16.94
Minimum opening area [%] [guidelines] 10 10 10

About 20.83% of students of SSSS, 42.10% of BNEBS and 86.48% of SOSS have responded that their classrooms have
enough light and ventilation [Graph 3 and Photo 3]. However, 6.95% of students of SSSS and 21.06% of BNEBS particularly

6
sitting on the right side corner feel that they have to study in the classroom without inadequate light and ventilation.
Majority of the students of SSSS [54.16%] and SOSS [87.00%] can listen to the lectures very clearly. However, the case of
BNEBS is different. Despite small classroom size and small number of students, only one tenth [10.52%] of students can
clearly listen teachers voice. Except the case for SOSS, 29.18% of students of SSSS and 26.33% of BNEBS can not listen
properly their teacher voice in the classrooms. Again, students of both SSSS [95.84%] and BNEBS [78.95%] feel discomfort
during the hot and cold days in their classroom due to poor door and window frames.

Graph 3. Comparative study of natural lighting and ventilation, comfort and convenient in listening the lecture in the classrooms

SSSS BNEBS SOSS

Photo. 3. Ambient atmosphere in the classroom of case study schools

At SSSS, the major disturbance [87.5%] comes from the back bench noise due to elongated classroom size and large
number of students whereas outside noise [78.96%], i.e., public bus park is the main disturbance factor at BNEBS [Graph 4].
However, other noise [44.46%] in some occasions rather than backbench, corridor or outside sound disturbs the classroom
activity at SOS. During the rainy and cloudy days, the classes at SSSS and SOSS run smoothly due to provision of artificial
lights whereas the same facility is not available at BNEBS.

Graph 4. Comparative study of different aspects of ambient atmosphere in the classrooms

7
Linkages to Outdoor Learning Spaces
As learning takes place in many different kinds and qualities of space, creation of network of diverse outdoor and indoor
activity areas is essential. Outdoor spaces enhance collaborative and interactive activities, stimulate interest and curiosity
and finally allow an experiential learning, which can not be achieved in indoor classrooms [Layton, 2001; Wagner, 2000].
Children better absorb and retain mathematics, science, language, arts and other skills that incorporate their immediate
environment and use all five senses [Lieberman and Hoody, 1998]. For children, time to be in nature offers unique benefits
to their cognitive, physical, emotional, and social development. Child development experts 'insist that free time and
unstructured play are vital for intellectual and emotional growth, as well as skills of negotiating and cooperating' [Johnson
and Susan, 1998]
Except the case for SOSS, the two case study schools do not have outdoor learning spaces linked with the classroom. In
these cases, some teachers take class outside in the ground of the school [Graph 5]. According to questionnaire survey, only
5.63% of students at SSSS and 26.31% at BNEBS have experienced of taking classes outside the room [sometimes] whereas
this figures goes upto more than fifty percent for the case of SOSS. Nearly one third of students of SOSS have felt that their
teachers never take any classes outside the room whereas 94.37% students at SSSS and 68.43% of BNEBS have similar
experience. However, in all three cases, the teaching styles are limited to talk, chalk and blackboard with only difference that
SOSS uses white board and marker whereas the remaining two dependent on traditional black board and dusty chalk. The
idea of using multi-media and other visual aids for teaching is yet to be realised in all cases. Also, students of these schools
stay in the same classroom whole day for learning different subjects. Similarly, teachers in these three schools generally
encourage group discussion in the classroom. Only 5.63% of students of SSSS, 22.23% of BNEBS and 32.43% of SOSS
mentioned that their teachers also prefer individual participation in the classroom.

Graph 5. Comparative analysis of learning and teaching methods including outdoor learning spaces

Implications in Student's Health, Attitude, Behaviour, Class Performance and Awareness Level [on
Earthquake Vulnerability]
As the classroom configuration of the three cases differs in terms of physical size, ambient atmosphere and student numbers,
such physical settings have numerous implications on student's health, attitude and behaviours and class performance. The
two major health problems for the students of SSSS are 'eye' [43.86%] and 'stress' [20.54%] [Graph 6].

SOSS
Case study schools

BNEBS

SSSS

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Student's response [%]
Eye Throad Stress Other
Graph 6. Comparative study of implication of physical settings on student's health

8
 The reasons are numerous: inadequate natural light with absence of artificial lighting facility, close proximity of student
sittings in front of dusty blackboard, poor visual angles for those students sitting at the extreme left and right sides as well
as in the last few benches and so on. Sharing of the uncomfortable benches [without back rest] by many students, lack of
storage place for keeping books and copies have further added stress to student. Despite small classroom with use of white
markers in the lectures, similar reasons have caused the 'eye' [42.10%] and 'stress' [42.10%] problems in the students of
BNEBS. Irregular shape of classroom with formation of 'glare' on the whiteboard on the one hand, and need of carrying out
one's bags even inside the classroom with sharing of benches by three students, on the other hand, have made students
uncomfortable during the lecture time inside the classroom. It is only at SOSS, where the major health problems are not
related with eye, throat and stress but something else. Compared to the previous two classrooms, only 27% of students
have 'eye' related health problem and 30.00% of student have complained about 'throat' problem.
While analysing the implication on student's attitude and behaviour, the 'friendship bond' and 'cooperative attitude' is
strong among the students of SOSS, where 42.10% of student have mentioned that they have a 'very good' friendship with
their classmates [Graph 7]. Only 8.45% of students of SSSS feel that they have'very good' friends. Again, 18.32% of
students of SSSS have 'bad' relation with their friends, which is just 5.28% and 2.64% in the case of BNEBS and SOSS
respectively. More than one fourth [25.37%] of students of SSSS have 'very often' quarrel with their friends in the classroom,
which is comparatively higher than that of BNEBS [15.78%] and SOSS [16.21%] cases. Such attitude and behaviours have
direct implication on the loss of personal stuffs in the classrooms. About one fourth of students [25.35%] of SSSS have
complained that they often loss something in the classroom, which is not the case in the remaining two cases. Compared to
the 10.52% and 42.10% of students of BNEBS and SOSS respectively, 42.10% of students of SOSS have never lost their
belongings in the classroom.

Graph 7. Comparative study of implication of physical setting in student's attitude and behaviour

Majority of students are weak in mathematics [49.41%] and English [34.11%] at SSSS whereas 42.87% of students of
SOSS and 52.63% of students of BNEBS are weak in other subjects rather than mathematics, science and English [Graph 8].
Almost all the students of SOSS [97.63%] are fully satisfied with their teachers whereas only 21.05% of students of BNEBS
mentioned that their teachers are good in teaching. Similar number of students at BNEBS thinks that their teachers are 'poor'
in the teaching job. In terms of absence in the class, students BNEBS comes to forefront, where 10.52% of students 'very
often' do not attend the classes. While asking about the regularity in the lectures, 85.29% of students of SSSS and 89.48%
of SOSS students replied that they often attend their classes in the schools respectively. Regarding awareness on
'earthquake' majority of students [71.05%] of students of SOSS have the knowledge of 'hiding under the bench and desk' in
case of occurrence of any earthquake during the class period. However, 26.31% of students do not have any idea in such
event, which is higher compared to the cases of SSSS [11.26%] and BNEBS [10.80%].

Graph 8. Comparative study of implication of physical setting in student’s class performance

9
 While asking students for two most liking elements in their classroom, they have mentioned numerous aspects which
can be broadly categorised into three elements namely people [teachers and students and their attitude and behaviour],
physical elements [classroom, blackboard, furniture, etc.] and stimulating learning environment [decoration, poster and
article display, trend of discussion, etc.]. Similarly, disliking elements in the classroom are also divided into three category
namely people [bad habit of students, fighting and quarrelling or making noise inside the class, etc.], physical elements
[congested classroom, uncomfortable furniture, etc.] and maintenance and operation [dirty floor and walls, broken glass
panels and door, poor wall painting, etc.]. The two major liking elements in the classrooms of SSSS and SOSS are people
[teachers and students] and physical elements whereas they are the physical elements and people for the students of
BNEBS [Graph 9]. Nearly half of the students of SOSS [49.27%] like the teacher attitude of helping and friendship among
their classmates, which is 47.10% for SSSS and only 19.35% for BNEBS. Big classroom, strong furniture, artificial lighting
facilities and white board and so on are the reasons given for liking physical elements of the classrooms, which varies from
case to case. About 64.51% of students of BNEBS gave first priority of liking for physical elements which comes to second
most liking elements for the students of SSSS [44.20%] and SOSS [37.68%]. Stimulating factors such as garden, decoration,
display of picture, articles, student's work and so on have become the third liking elements in all the three cases. Similarly,
majority of students mentioned the same thing, i.e., people and physical elements of the classrooms as the most disliking
elements at SSSS and SOSS. However, the reasons given for not liking are bad habits of students making noise, fighting with
their friends, teasing girls and so on. Absence of artificial lighting and ceiling fans, uncomfortable furniture without personal
belonging storage, bad surface of blackboard and so on are the major reasons for disliking physical elements of the
classroom. In the case of BNEBS, none of the students has complained regarding the people [students and teachers] but
their dissatisfactions are on the poor physical setting of the classroom [61.29%] with poor maintenance and operation
[38.71%]. About one fifth of students of SSSS and one tenth [10.00%] of SOSS are concerned with the dirty floor and wall
panting, broken glass and door panels, poor wiring and so on.
80
Liking elements
60
Student's response [%]

40

20

0
SSSS BNEBS SOSS
20

40

60
Disliking elements
80
Classrooms of school
People Physical elements Stimulating learning environment/
Maintenance and operation

Graph 9. Most liking and disliking elements in the classroom

Legal and Institutional Framework

The existing educational legislations [Education Act 1971, Teachers Service Commission Regulation 2057 BS, etc.] including
the building bylaws are simply inadequate and ineffective whereas the responsible institutions [District Education Office,
(National) Private and Boarding School Organisation Nepal (N) PABSON, etc.] have poor technical and managerial
capabilities to address numerous issues related to classroom setting, child psychology and their implication on students'
health, attitude and behaviour and academic performance. The reasons are numerous.
First, the required pre-requisite conditions to establish a new school are vague, confusing and insufficient, as no
qualitative and quantitative specifications are set in terms of light and ventilation, thermal comfort and acoustic, size, shape
and furniture layout in the classroom, facilities in the library and laboratory, and so on. Once can get permission to run a
new school from the Education Office by filling up of a simple prescribed form irrespective of its teaching styles, educational
facilities and building structure. Second, the School Management Committee [SMC] comprising parents, teachers and
educationalists including representative of the District Education Office [DEO] is ineffective to monitor the academic activities
and school facilities. For instance, the existing Education Act requires each classroom area not less than 1 sq. m. per student,
however, both SSSS and BENBS do not meet this standard. Third, though the existing building bylaws requires school
building to have at least 3 m wide setback around the building, 15% of the plot area allocation for parking and maximum of
40% ground coverage, the previous two schools do not fulfil these requirements. The bylaws are applicable only for new
construction and there is no legal barrier for converting the existing residential building into school. Fourth and last, many
aspects of classroom design such as need of minimum of 10% opening [of the total floor area of classroom], minimum area

10
of 1.2 sq. m. per student in the classroom size, preferred distance of 2 m. between the blackboard and first row of student’s
bench and so on have been mentioned in the recent school design guidelines prepared by Department of Education and
other agencies. However, they are simply suggestive and not mandatory. Moreover, the concerned stakeholders are little
aware about such guidelines and the monitoring system is weak and ineffective. As a result, classroom settings in the high
schools are not upto standard as per such guidelines.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Learning environment in the classroom of three case study schools has varying degree of similarities and differences. On the
comparative analysis basis, the classroom of SOSS is better in terms of physical size and shape with sufficient spaces of
teachers and students, ambient atmosphere and outdoor environment compared to the remaining two. Nonetheless, this
well designed classroom still lacks many aspects required by today’s educational philosophy and consideration of child
psychology linking with the physical setting. For instance, the importance of use of multi media, small group discussion and
so on is not yet realised. Also, the high number of students in the classroom has numerous negative consequences. On the
other hand, the government school, i.e., SSSS has to be improved in many aspects ranging from improving the physical
setting of classroom to linking it to ‘child psychology’ and applying it in the learning and teaching techniques. Adaptation of
residential building for school [and converting bed room into classroom] has resulted in many problems on student’s comfort,
convenient and health problems in the case of BNEBS. All these problems can not be regulated by the existing legal and
institutional mechanism. As a result, such practice has been continuously unabated. To reverse this wrong trend, the
following recommendations are suggested for future classroom design as well as improving the classroom in the existing
schools.

[a] Classroom should be self sufficient with modular furnishing, multi-media material and modern communication
technology and link it internally to an information technology [IT] unit and further to informal meeting spaces in the corridor
and externally to semi covered spaces adjacent to the classroom and further to the outdoor learning spaces and finally to
the larger gardens or landscape area, which links the students of the classroom to the global family, school family [friends
and teachers] as well as to natural family and community [Figure 2];

Family
Activity
Friends +
teachers Informal learning space
(school family)
Global family Information technology

Classmate family Classroom

Natural family Semi-covered learning space

Outdoor learning space
Community Community interaction
family

Fig. 2. Conceptual design of a typical classroom and its linkage with surrounding learning environment

[b] Even the newly published school design guidelines along with other similar booklets on student’s health, sanitation and
hygiene lack the emerging concepts of 'child friendly design' and 'environmental psychology', which should be incorporated
in planning and designing of classrooms [and schools], as shown in the proposed typical classroom design [Figure 3]; and

11
[a] Classroom based on modern educational philosophy - health and sanitation [b] Classroom - variety of spaces and linkages
Fig. 3. Plan and view of the typical classroom design

[c] A new legal and institutional mechanism has to be developed so that all the concerned stakeholders [students, parent-
teacher association, school management committee, child club and so on] can participate in the process. Combination of
flexible design guidelines, various types of incentives and various programs on public education and community awareness
complement the implementation process. It will also discourage the existing trend of converting the existing residential
buildings into schools [bedrooms into classrooms].

Key References

Allen, Lady of Hurtwood, [1974], Planning for Play, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Allen, S. [1972], Picking the right flooring, American School and University, 45[1].

Bingler, S. [1998], "Less is More: Collaborative Learning Environments for the Next Century." In Learning by Design.
Alexandria, Va.: National School Boards Association.

Brandes, Donna and Ginnis, Paul [1996], A Guide to Student-Centred Learning,' Stanley Thornes [Publisher] Ltd. UK.

Butin, D. [2000], Classrooms. Washington, D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities,
http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/classrooms.pdf

Environmental Defense Fund. [1999, September], Making Our Children’s Schools Safer and Healthier, [Environmental
Defense Fund, 1999].

Fielding, R. et al [1998], 'Changing Patterns in Educational Facilities,' At REFP Workshop conducted at the CEFPI Vancouver
Conference, http://www.designshare.com/Research/ChangingPatterns/ChangingPatterns1.htm

Gump, Paul V. [1987], School and classroom environments, in Daniel Stokols and Irwin Altman [eds], Handbook of
Environmental Psychology, Vol. 1, New York: John Wiley, pp. 691-732.

Gump, P. V. and Ross, R. [1979], What's happening in school of open design? and JSAS Catalogue Selected Documents in
Psychology, 9, 12:11816.

Illich, Ivan [1971], Deschooling Society, Harper and Row.

Johnson, J. and Susan J. S., [1998], Designing School Sites and Surrounds as Learning Environments, 1999 ASLA Annual
Meeting Proceedings. Washington, DC: American Society of Landscape Architects.

12
Kuller, R. and Lindsten, C [1992], 'Health and Behaviour of Children in Classrooms with and without Windows,' Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 12, pp 305-317 in Patricia Plympton [2000], 'Daylighting in Schools: Improving Student
Performance and Health at a Price Schools can Afford,' Conference paper presented at the American Solar Energy Society,
Madison, Wisconsin, NREL?CP-550-28049.

Lackney, J. A. [2001], Classrooms of the Future: Thinking out of the Box, A paper presented at the Ninth Annual Michigan
Educational Facilities Conference, Shanty Creek’s Summit Conference Center, September 4, online

Layton, R. [2001], ‘Environmental: The Great Outdoors,’ American School and University, PRIMEDIA Business Magazines and
Media Inc.

Lieberman, G. A. and Hoody, L. [1998], ‘Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the Environment as an integrating Context for
Learning,’ San Diego, Calif.: State Education and Environment Roundtable.

Maiden, J. & Foreman, B. A. [1998], 'Cost, Design and Climate: Building a Learning Environment,' School Business Affairs, 64
[1], 40-44.

Miller, M. [1995], Schools: Factory is Out, Learning centre is in, online http://www.djc.com/special/design95/10002598.html

Moore, G. T., [1986], Effects of the spatial definition behaviour settings on children's behaviour: A quasi-experimental field
study, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6:205-231.

Moore, R. C. and Wong, H. H., [1997], Natural Learning: Creating Environments for Rediscovering Nature's Way of Teaching.
Berkeley, Calif.: MIG Communications.

Nair, Prakash [2002], OECD programme on Educational Building, Intenational Seminar on Educational Infrastructure, Mexico,
24-27 February (organised by the OECD Programme on Educational Building [PEB], the Mexican Ministry of Education and
the Administrative Board of the Federal School Construction Programme [CAPFCE], Mexico.

Nicklas, M. H. and Bailey, G. B.[1995], 'Energy Performance of Daylit Schools in North Carolina,' Raleigh: Innovative Design.
Online: http://www.deptplanetearth.com/pdfdocs/energydaylit.pdf.

PROBE: Developing Education Policy Issues [1997, Spring]. Washington D.C.: National Education Knowledge Industry
Association Communications.

Sfard, A. [1998], On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One, Educational Researcher, March: 4-
13.

Taylor, A. & Vlastos, G. [1983], School zone, Learning environments for children. Corrales, NM: School Zone, Inc.

Wagner, C. [2000], ‘Planning School Grounds for Outdoor Learning,’ National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities,
Washington D.C. http://www. Edfacilities.org

Williams, J. E. [1993], Principles of discipline. The American School Board Journal, February.

13