See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282348767

Learning Environment: The Influence of School and Classroom Space on

Education

Chapter · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

9 32,255

1 author:

Ulrike Stadler-Altmann
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano
69 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Schulnetzwerk Alternative kompetenzorientierte Bewertungsmodelle View project

EDUSPACES – RÄUME FÜR KOOPERATIVEN THEORIE-PRAXIS-TRANSFER View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ulrike Stadler-Altmann on 11 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 547
Learning environment

CHAPTER 23

Learning environment: The influence of school and classroom space on

education

Ulrike Stadler-Altmann

This chapter presents an overview of the theoretical and empirical research on the

influence of the constructed environment on education. It brings together research from

different traditions – the field of architecture as it relates to the design of schools and

classrooms and the fields of education and social psychology – and looks at the

connections that can be drawn between teacher–student interactions and the

surroundings in which those interactions take place.

The chapter first discusses the framework for evaluating learning environments. It then

illustrates the influence of school architecture on school design and culture, and on

classroom architecture and classroom activities. In particular, it examines teaching and

learning in these constructed environments by depicting how teachers and students deal

with school buildings and classroom conditions. The most powerful research seeks to

display connections between the classroom as a constructed environment and the

pedagogy and social psychology that takes place in that environment. The chapter

concludes with some questions for future research.

 548
Learning environment

Framework for evaluating learning environments

Is there an influence of school or classroom buildings and space on education? The use

of the school and classroom – that is, the relationships between the classroom and its

arrangement with the conduct of lessons within that classroom – plays an insignificant

role in the international educational research. Rather, the focus is on the teaching and

learning activities, and the school space and classrooms in which these activities take

place are often not even considered. Only a few educational researchers focus on the

relationship between the architecture of the school and classrooms and the learning that

takes place within these schools and classrooms (Higgins et al. 2005; Woolner 2010).

Among the first studies to discuss the potential influences of the learning environment

are those of Moos (1979), Steele (1973) and Bronfenbrenner (1981, 2005). These

studies present models of the relationship between environments and students’

outcomes, as well as reflecting on the importance of the environment to learning.

The model developed by Moos emphasizes the relevance of the physical setting, as part

of the environmental system, to student outcomes. Moos states that ‘architecture and

physical design can influence psychological states and social behavior’ (Moos 1979: 6).

Over the years, Moos’ model has influenced research on architecture and education that

has identified other influences that the physical environment can have on student

achievement and behavior.

Steele (1973) analyzes the basic functions of school architecture and classrooms, five of

which became important for subsequent educational research (see Weinstein 2007;

Weinstein et al. 2011). The five functions are security and shelter, pleasure, symbolic
 549
Learning environment

identification, task instrumentality, and social contact (for a detailed discussion, see the

section on classroom space). According to Steele, these basic functions must be fulfilled

for effective teaching and learning, especially in the classroom.

Bronfenbrenner (1981, 2005) sees the social ecological dimension for teaching and

learning in schools and classrooms. The benefit of this theory for creating learning

arrangements is illustrated by Sacher (2006) in his Didaktik der Lernökologie. He shows

how the social surrounding could be used for designing teaching and learning in

classrooms.

This fundamental research of Bronfenbrenner, Moos and Steele helps to organize and

understand existing research and to formulate strategies for further conceptual and

practical advances. The following discussion offers an overview of this field of research

and presents some interesting aspects for further study in the area of teaching and

learning in schools and classrooms.

Higgins et al. (2005: 5) use the research questions about the physical conditions of

schools and classrooms and the consequences of these physical conditions for teaching

and learning for their overview. These questions are modified and used in this chapter to

highlight the effect of school and classroom space on teachers’ and students’ behavior,

learning and teaching, and achievement.

Although the work by Moos and Steele discussed above goes some way to

understanding current research, nonetheless the research on learning environments is

 550
Learning environment

sparse and has no overarching focus, as Gislason (2011) and Higgins et al. (2005: 6)

have demonstrated:

The empirical research that exists on the impacts of environment on teaching

and learning tend to focus more upon some elements (for example, noise) and to

fail to synthesize understandings (for example the implication of noise and

temperature research tend to conflict). Cultural and geographical differences also

highlight the importance of sensitivity to context. For these reasons it is very

difficult to make judgments about which areas are ‘worth’ focusing on.

Consequently, the next two sections focus on research on school building and classroom

design from an architectural point of view. This is followed by a section that approaches

the subject from an educational point of view.

School space

The importance of school buildings and classroom spaces for teachers’ and students’

practice had been ignored for many years (see Martin 2002): Most teachers do not think

about their school and their classrooms as a built environment for teaching and learning.

Rather, they focus on the restrictions of their school building and their classrooms (see

Walden 2009; Weinstein 2007, 2011). Students also see the bad conditions in their

classrooms and their schools. However when asked in more detail – for example in the

studies of Woolner et al. (2007, 2011, 2012, 2013) – teachers and students were able to

communicate the school buildings and classrooms they desired. If we thought about

better conditions for teaching and learning in our schools and classrooms, we would
 551
Learning environment

realize that a focus on the constructed environment and its possibilities would support

teaching and learning. The perspective of teachers and students needs to be seen and

included in the research questions.

School architecture

Henry Sanoff (1994, 1996) discusses school design and the possibilities of designing a

responsive school and shows that the school building is an important factor for

successful schools. Rotraut Walden (2009: 75), in writing about schools for the future,

outlines the main aspects for ‘a positive educational quality of the learning

environment’, such as, color scheme, form design, lighting, heating, cooling and

ventilation, acoustics and noise, furniture, and equipment. Her work also corresponds to

Steele’s (1973) findings which state that physical settings serve a number of basic

functions (see the next section).

As outlined by Gislason (2011), there are many studies on building quality and

academic outcomes, which focus on indoor air quality, lighting, noise and acoustics,

occupant density and thermal comfort. The importance of these environmental factors is

recognized by architects and building engineers. However, these empirical studies have

only considered the surroundings as important factors for well-being in schools, and do

not provide any detailed evidence of their importance for teaching and learning.

Research has also shown that the quality of facilities influences the citizens’ perceptions

of schools and thus can serve as a point of community pride and increased support for

public education (Uline et al. 2008).

 552
Learning environment

School design and culture

School design influences school culture and changes the way of teaching and learning.

Or is it the other way round – have the changes in teaching and learning over the past

two hundred years changed the school design and school culture? Most of the research

in this field postulates changes in teaching and learning which have influenced the

school building and classroom design (see Gislason 2011). Both for Europe and for the

United States, Gislason finds two developments in school history which have a strong

effect on school design and school culture: first, ‘the single-grade classroom replaced

the multi-grade school-room’ (Gislason, 2011: 1) and second, ‘a growing interest in

non-traditional educational practices has prompted architects to develop a variety of

experimental design solutions’ (Gislason, 2011: 1).

Pamela Woolner (2010) describes three principles for understanding how schools are

judged over time: the value of community recognition, the importance of good design

and the importance of evaluation continuing over time.

The influence of school buildings on education

Higgins et al. (2005: 7) provide an overview of the research findings in this field, which

are still state-of-the-art:

• There is strong, consistent evidence for the effect of basic physical variables (air

quality, temperature, noise) on learning.

• Once minimal standards are attained, evidence of the effect of changing basic

physical variables is less significant.

 553
Learning environment

• There is conflicting evidence, but forceful opinions, on the effects of lighting

and color.

• Other physical characteristics affect students’ perceptions and behavior, but it is

difficult to draw definite, general conclusions.

• The interactions of different elements are as important as the consideration of

single elements.

Classroom space

Little is known about how teachers and students deal with the school and classroom

environment for their teaching and learning (Stadler-Altmann 2013). To describe ideal

learning environments, this section will illustrate some relationships between the

constructed environment of the classroom and the educational processes that take place

within them.

Most of the educational research is based on the work of Steele (1973), who illustrated

the function of various classroom settings. He states that the physical environment can

influence the way teachers and students feel, think and behave. Following his

considerations, Weinstein (2007, 2011) argues that five of Steele’s functions – security

and shelter, pleasure, symbolic identification, task instrumentality, and social contact –

are especially important for teaching and learning in classes:

Security and shelter: These are the most fundamental functions of all built

environments. Physical security is a precondition that must be satisfied, at least to some

extent, before the environment can serve students’ and teachers’ other, higher-level
 554
Learning environment

needs. Additionally, psychological security is also an important precondition; that is, the

feeling that school and classrooms are save and good, comfortable places to be.

Pleasure: Equally important is the fact that teachers and students find their classrooms

attractive and pleasing. Some educational studies demonstrate that an aesthetically

pleasing environment can influence behavior: attractive classrooms have a positive

effect on attendance and feeling of group cohesion (Horowitz and Otto 1973) and on

participation in class discussions (Sommer and Olson 1980).

Symbolic identification: This is the so called personality of classrooms and schools,

when they are designed by teachers and students in a daily routine.

Task instrumentality: This function describes the ways in which the environment helps

us to carry out the tasks teachers want to accomplish.

Social contact: The arrangements of desks, for example, promote social contact or give

space for individual work. So teachers could plan clusters for student interaction. The

way students are arranged can also affect the interaction between teachers and students.

A number of studies have found that in classrooms where desks are arranged in rows,

the teacher interacts mostly with students seated in front and in the center of the

classroom. Students in this ‘action zone’ participate more in class discussions and

initiate more question and comments. These functions of the classroom settings

discussed above provide the background theory for many studies and research projects.

Other studies concern the design of classroom environments and the effect of these

environments on the practice of teachers (Martin 2002).

There is little on the use of the classroom in the empirical educational research. Where it

has been considered, one focus has been on the questions of how teachers deal with
 555
Learning environment

room conditions, how they position themselves in the classroom, how they move

through the classroom and how the teacher’s body language, expressed therein,

influences lessons. A second focus has been whether changes in classroom architecture

(cf. Buddensiek 2008; Rittelmeyer 2010) affect the level of classroom activity (cf.

Steele 1973; Weinstein 2007; Weinstein et al. 2011). The following discussion

examines whether teachers change their teaching in school or classroom spaces that

have been changed according to their wishes, on the basis that the classroom, as a

constructed environment, influences both well-being and classroom activities (cf.

Forster 1997; Rittelmeyer 2010).

However, before crucial aspects of teacher’s practice and students’ response are

outlined, consider the environmental situation in German and English. Most of the

European and American classrooms are planned in the same way. As a consequence of

the fact that most of our schools are planned and built in the nineteenth century (see

Buddensiek 2008; Tanner and Lackney 2006), the governmental guidelines for school

architecture are still often based on these traditions (see Rittelmeyer 2010). As Tanner

and Lackney (2006) have shown in their History of Education Architecture, there was

and still is a relevant discussion and critique on school building and classroom design.

The progressive movement of the late nineteenth century has had a strong influence on

school architecture, with new forms of school buildings being designed. These schools

are often private schools; for example the Laboratory School of John Dewey, the

Waldorf School of Rudolf Steiner and the schools in the tradition of Maria Montessori.

One can also find influences of the progressive movement in public schools (see Tanner

and Lackney 2006). In general, though, traditional classrooms and traditional furniture
 556
Learning environment

still prevails, in that most of these traditional classrooms were planned as rooms for

teaching in front of the class and for teacher-centered instruction (for more details, see

Buddensiek 2008; Montag Stiftung 2011).

Classroom architecture

As Martin (2002: 143) explains, ‘the hierarchy of design-ability is a construct that

measures the degree of control of change that teachers have over the physical elements

of the classroom setting. In examining teacher’s use of the classroom space,

architectural elements have been classified in terms of hard (fixed features) and soft

architecture (semi-fixed, semi-flexible and flexible features)’. Teachers generally

manipulate the environment for their students in changing the arrangements of desks

and chairs to improve their teaching and the students’ learning. Martin (2002) shows

there is a strong relationship between the pedagogical ideas of the teachers and their

dealing with the classroom conditions, but often the teachers have no ideas about how to

change classrooms to improve their teaching.

Classroom activities: Teaching and learning

Higgins et al. (2005) point out that, despite the fact that we still find traditional

classrooms in use, ‘at the same time our understanding of learning itself is changing.

Research on learning styles, formative assessment, multiple and emotional intelligences,

constructivism and so on have combined with the rapid development of technology-

enabled, peer-to-peer and self-directed learning to facilitate very different approaches to

the 30-students-in-rows model. But despite these changes, we do not yet have a robust

research base for integrated and personalized learning environments’ (Higgins et al.
 557
Learning environment

2005: 3). As a result, teachers have to deal with traditional room settings while at the

same time they often want to teach in a modern and future-centered way.

Teaching

Teaching is necessarily interactive and people-centered. This interaction is frequently

mediated by equipment and materials and teachers adapt their teaching to supplies and

equipment available. In traditional classrooms, teachers have only limited space for

their movement and their interaction with their students. As illustrated by Müller

(2008), even within bad room conditions there exist some possibilities to activate and to

motivate students; for instance, the teacher’s movement can produce interaction with

and between the students.

All these proxemics are examined by Sacher (2000) in his study of teachers’ movement

in the classroom. Sacher found a relationship between the different moving schemes of

teachers and the teachers’ interaction with students: He found relationships between the

different ways in which teachers moved around the classroom and their interactions

with students. Sacher’s examples illustrate the individual use of constructed

environments; the different ways in which teachers use classrooms that are poorly

designed. However, it needs to be clarified that we cannot say anything about the

pedagogical interaction from these observation results.

More detailed are the observations by Martin (2002). She demonstrated in her study,

that there is a relation between the teaching environment and the teachers’ pedagogy.
 558
Learning environment

Her focus was on the teacher and on the classroom physical environment. Martin

explored the technique of behavioral mapping (see Prosansky et al. 1974) and

interviews. Her examples are based on extremes in classroom organization, mobility,

and degree of centeredness, and illustrate the link to pedagogy. For example, one of the

cases is teacher-centered whereas the other is child-centered, yet both are very much

related to how the classroom is organized, and how the teacher moves within this

arrangement (for more detail, see Martin 2002: 145).

All these research examples of teachers’ movement in classes exemplify that there are

interesting findings about the teacher’s practice in the classroom and that teaching is

necessarily interactive and people centered. This interaction is frequently mediated by

the constructed environment.

Learning

The results from most educational empirical research show the teachers’ reactions to the

constructed environment and the consequences on their practice. Furthermore, the

students’ action in classroom is initially a reaction to and interaction with the

classroom’s arrangement and secondly with the learning possibilities which these

arrangements include.

Teachers talked a lot about where students take their seats in the classroom (for

classroom seating location, see Montello, 1988), when they are asked about the

students’ activities during one lesson. Sacher (2000) shows different positions in the
 559
Learning environment

classroom and finds a zone of action, which is also revealed by Martin (2002) and

others in their studies. Sacher postulates five reasons for teacher–student interaction

related to the teacher’s movement in the classroom: support, discipline, confidence,

attraction, and indifference. Each reason for the interaction was based on the teacher’s

movement and instruction. Sacher (2000) also illustrates that teachers give more support

and confidence when the classroom arrangement features more space and more

possibilities for different working forms.

Tagliacollo et al. (2010: 201) also highlight the interaction between performance and

room arrangement by stating that:

students’ motivation for learning determines concomitantly students’ seat choice

and school performance. Therefore, we suggest that displacing students to a

frontal seat position in the classroom to improve learning performance is probably

not a desirable alternative; instead, the teacher should consider raising the

students’ motivation.

Classrooms’ influence on education

The previous sections have provided an overview of the studies in the field of learning

environment. Many educational studies initially focused on the design and the

architecture of schools and classrooms. Secondly, these studies often discussed

connections between the school building/classroom architecture and teaching and

learning. Only a few studies in the past discussed the influence of school buildings and

classrooms architecture on educational processes, shown in teachers’ and students’

 560
Learning environment

interaction during the lessons. Nowadays, more studies seek information on direct and

indirect influences by stating that teachers and students must be part of the research

project over the whole research process (see Woolner et al. 2010, 2011), not only as

objects of the research, but also as subjects.

Martin (2002: 154) states: ‘As Moore and Lackney (1993) reflect over their findings, it

is not unreasonable to suggest that more positive attitudes and behaviors on the part of

both teachers and children may reflect positively on improved academic achievement,

therefore the environment seen as having an indirect effect on achievement’.

Martin concludes that the training of teachers after and during research projects thus

represents a matter of greatest importance in order to understand the effects which the

classroom has on teachers

We (the author and colleagues) examined teachers and students in two school projects

which included teacher training in the understanding and planning of learning areas in

the teacher training aspect of the projects (see Sacher and Stadler-Altmann 2006;

Scheunpflug, et al. 2012; Stadler-Altmann 2010). i This research is discussed next as an

example of modern research in the field of learning environment.

When Martin (2002) examined teachers’ environmental awareness, she used three types

of attitudes which she labeled the imprisoned, the free and the simply confused. She

describes imprisoned teachers as ‘teachers that do not perceive their surroundings in a

constructive way and do not seem to perceive how much impact that setting is having

on his/her teaching and class’ (Martin, 2002: 53). The simply confused teachers are
 561
Learning environment

aware of the effect of the setting on themselves and on the students. However, some of

these teachers are victims of their own classroom settings, because they knew

something was not working well but they were not able to find a solution. The free

teachers were aware of their surroundings and deliberately used them.

In our projects, most teachers were in the category simply confused and some in the

category free. Both school projects pursued the main goal of improving teaching and

learning in the way the teacher preferred. We evaluated the changes in daily school life

and daily instruction in the classes. The teachers who participated in the projects

suggested that their teaching would be more successful if they were allowed to plan

their individual classrooms for the students’ learning, a so-called ‘Lernraum’ (‘learning

classroom’). When we evaluated this change of teachers’ thinking about teaching and of

classroom arrangements, we found that teachers now focused more on student-centered

lessons, talked more about learning strategies and initiated many more cooperative

learning settings (see Martin, 2002; Scheunpflug et al. 2012 Woolner et al. 2012). The

teachers themselves named some useful arrangements and focused on innovative

aspects such as:

• a classroom floor plan suitable for various instructional methods

• furniture that enabled opportunities for small group learning and individual

study

• the stimulation of all senses, without becoming distracted

• good environmental conditions

• areas for retreat and individual privacy.

 562
Learning environment

After four years of work on the school project KOMPASS, we have discovered some

positive changes (Scheunpflug et al. 2012) in teachers’ satisfaction with their work in

their individual support for students, increased self-efficacy and better learning

atmosphere.

In the SELF school project, we detected that the students’ perception of learning

atmosphere and class atmosphere exercises an influence on their evaluation of their

abilities and their self-concept (see Stadler-Altmann, 2010). This result is not surprising

as it replicates similar studies. However, more interesting are some results in the

aggregate value of class atmosphere; these effects could be supported by the classroom

arrangement, the constructed environment, because these shown classroom

arrangements are preconditions for changing teaching and learning.

As illustrated by these examples, the research process must be a part of school- and

teaching development. As an aspect of school development, the focus on the learning

environment has to be part of the communication, both discussions and planning in

schools and with teachers and students. These results are also pointed out by Higgins et

al. (2005: 7) in his research overview of learning environments:

• Much of what is known about student comfort, particularly in terms of furniture,

has yet to be translated into actual school/classroom environments.

• Since different room arrangements serve different purposes, it is necessary for

classrooms to have some degree of flexibility.

• Some improvements to the classroom environment may save time, which is then

available for learning.

 563
Learning environment

• ‘Ownership’ of space and equipment by both teachers and students is important.

• Ownership and engagement are ongoing elements, so there has to be a balance

(in display of student work, for example) between permanent and fresh

elements.

• Some physical elements in the classroom improve comfort, well-being and

probably attitude – and so, perhaps, improve achievement.

Most of the educational research found in the field of the learning environment centers

more on the perspectives of teachers. Consequently, there is a big challenge for further

research to focus on the students’ perspective.

Further research

As shown in Blackmore and colleagues‘ literature review (2011), there are still many

gaps in the research on the relationships between school architecture, classroom design

and learning environment; for example:

• in the design phase (ibid.: 11) of new school buildings and/or re-design

• within the transition phase (ibid.: 19) between teaching and learning in old and

new designed learning spaces

• in the consolidation phase (ibid.: 32–33) in new designed learning spaces

• in the sustainability/re-evaluation phase (ibid.: 36)

However there are also some further educational research problems which need to be

addressed. As outlined in the previous sections, there needs to be more research which

integrates students in the research process. As illustrated by Woolner and others (2010),

students could be an important partner in the research about school design/architecture

 564
Learning environment

and classrooms. She and others used an interesting research design ‘diamond ranking

activity’ (see Clark et al. 2013) to involve students of all ages and teachers.

Based on the class atmosphere model by Eder and Mayr (2000), it is necessary to find a

more detailed model which features factors of individual well-being in class as well as

the specific interaction between students and teachers in class dealing with classroom

and school conditions. Then it could be possible to understand the effectiveness of

group competition and cohesion in class, and the effects of the classroom environment.

The classroom atmosphere is a very relevant variable in this context and we need more

studies which connect the atmosphere and the learning environment.

Finally, as Hattie writes, ‘the remarkable feature of the evidence is that the biggest

effects of student learning occur when teachers become learners of their own teaching,

and when students become their own teachers. When students become their own

teachers they exhibit self-regulatory attributes that seem most desirable for learners

(self-monitoring, self-evaluation, self-assessment, self-teaching)’ (Hattie, 2009: 22).

Thus, teachers and students need to be supported in this change of views about their

teaching and learning, and in understanding the influence of the constructed learning

environment on that.

Conclusion

The educational and social psychology research on learning environment is still

growing, but, as Higgins et al. state, ‘it is extremely difficult to come to firm conclusion

about the impact of learning environments because of the multi-faceted nature of

 565
Learning environment

environments and the subsequent diverse and disconnected nature of the research

literature” (2005: 6). Hence research in this field must take into consideration the

complexity of teaching and learning in schools and classes.

 566
Learning environment

References

Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J. and Aranda, G. (2011) Research

into the Connection between Built Learning Spaces and Student Outcomes,

Literature Review, Paper No. 22, Melbourne, Australia: Education and Policy

Research Division, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.

Available at https://www.deakin.edu.au/arts-ed/efi/pubs/deecd-reports-

blackmore-learning-spaces.pdf)

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1981) Die Ökologie der menschlichen Entwicklung: Natürliche

und geplante Experimente [The Ecology of Human Development. Natural and

Planned Experiments], Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005) Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives

on Human Development, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Buddensiek, W. (2008) ‘Lernräume als gesundheits- & kommunikationsfördernde

Lebensräume gestalten. Auf dem Weg zu einer neuen Lernkultur‘ [Schoolrooms

supporting health and communication. A Way to a new Learning-Culture], in: G.

Brägger, N. Posse and G. Israel (eds), Bildung und Gesundheit – Argumente für

eine gute und gesunde Schule (pp. 1–28), Bern: h.e.p. Verlag.

Clark, J., Laing, K., Tiplady, L. and Woolner, P. (2013) Making Connections: Theory

and Practise of Using Visual Methods to Aid Participation in Research,

Newcastle, UK: Research Centre for Learning and Teaching, Newcastle

University.
 567
Learning environment

Eder, F. and Mayr, J. (2000) Linzer Fragebogen zum Schul- und Klassenklima für die 4.

– 8. Klassenstufe (LFSK 4-8) [Linzer Questionnaire for School- and

Classconditions], Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Forster, J. (1997) ‘Kind und Schulraum – Ansprüche und Wirkungen. Eine

interdisziplinäre Annäherung an pädagogische Fragestellungen‘ [Child and

School Environment – Requirements and Impact], in: G. Becker, J. Bilstein and E.

Liebau (eds) Räume bilden. Studien zur pädagogischen Topologie und

Topographie (pp. 175–194), Seelze: Kallmayer.

Gislason, N. (2011) Building Innovation. History, Cases, and Perspectives on School

Design, Big Tancook Island, Canada: Backalong Books.

Hattie, J. (2009) Visible Learning. A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to

Achievement, London: Routledge.

Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P. and McCaughey, C. (2005) The Impact of

School Environments: A Literature Review, London: Design Council.

Horowitz, P. and Otto, D. (1973) The Teaching Effectiveness of an Alternative Teaching

Facility, Alberta, Canada: University of Alberta.

Martin, S.H. (2002) ‘The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of

teachers’, Journal of Environmental Psychology 22: 139-156.

Montag Stiftung Urbane Räume, Montag Stiftung Jugend und Gesellschaft (2011) (eds)

Vergleich ausgewählter Richtlinien zum Schulbau – Kurzfassung [Comparison of

selected guidelines for School Buildings], Heft 1, Reihe: Rahmen und Richtlinien

für einen leistungsfähigen Schulbau in Deutschland.

 568
Learning environment

Montello, D. R. (1988) ‘Classroom seating location and its effects on course

achievement, participation, and attitudes’, Journal of Environmental Psychology,

8: 149-157.

Moos, R. H. (1979) Evaluating Educational Environments, San Francisco, Washington,

London: Jossey-Bass.

Müller, W. (2008) ‘Der Lehrer auf der Bühne des Klassenraums. Wirkungen der

Raumregie’ [Teacher on Stage of the Classroom. Effects of the Stage Directions],

Pädagogik, 60: 26-30.

Prosansky, E. and Wolfe, M. (1974) ‘The physical setting and open education’, School

Review, 82: 557-574.

Rittelmeyer, C. (2010) ‘Wie wirkt Schularchitektur auf Schülerinnen und Schüler? Ein

Einblick in Ergebnisse der internationalen Schulbauforschung’ [Do School

Buildings Affect Students? Results of the International Research on School

Buildings], in Gestaltung von Schulbauten. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag aus

erziehungswissenschaftlicher, Zürich: Stadt Zurich, Schulamt.

Sacher, W (2000) Proxemik im Klassenraum. Studien zu Nähe und Distanz im

Schulalltag [Proxemics in the Classroom. Studies of Closeness and Distance in

Daily School], SUN-Reihe Nr. 11, Nürnberg.

Sacher, W. (2006) Didaktik der Lernökologie. Lernen und Lehren in unterrichtlichen

und medienbasierten Lernarrangements [Didactics of Learning-Ecology], Bad

Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

Sacher, W. and Stadler-Altmann, U. (2006), SELF – Selbstkonzept fördern durch

lehrplankonforme Förderung. Bericht über die Durchführungsphase [SELF –

 569
Learning environment

Improving Self-concept through Encourage. Research Report] 01.10.2005 –

31.10.2006, unveröffentl. Forschungsbericht, 250 S.

Sanoff, H. (1994) School Designs, New York: Wiley.

Sanoff, H. (1996) ‘Designing a responsive school’, The School Administrator, 53: 18-

22.

Scheunpflug, A., Stadler-Altmann, U. and Zeinz, H. (2012) Bestärken und Fördern.

Wege zu einer veränderten Lernkultur in der Sekundarstufe I [Confirm and

Encourage. Ways to change Learning Culture], Seelze: Klett Kallmeyer.

Sommer, R. and Olson, H. (1980) ‘The soft classroom’, Environment and Behavior, 12:

3-16.

Stadler-Altmann, U. (2010) Das Schülerselbstkonzept. Eine empirische Annäherung

[Students Self-Concept. An empirical Approach], Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

Stadler-Altmann, U. (2013) ‘Lehren und Lernen in gebauter Umgebung. Anmerkungen

zur medialen Nutzung des Klassenraums’ [Teaching and Learning in a

Constructed Environment], in K. Westphal and B. Jörissen (eds) Vom Straßenkind

zum Medienkind. Raum- und Medienforschung im 21 (pp. 176–196), Jahrhundert:

Juventa.

Steele, F. I. (1973) Physical Settings and Organisation Development, Reading MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Tagliacollo, V. A., Volpato, G. L. and Pereira Junior, A. (2010) ‘Association of student

position in classroom and school performance’, Educational Research, 1: 198-

201.

Tanner, C. K. and Lackney, J. A. (2006) Educational Facilities Planning. Leadership,

Architecture, and Management, Boston, New York, San Francisco: Pearson.

 570
Learning environment

Uline, C. L., Tschannen-Moran, M. and DeVere Wolsey, T. (2007 ‘The walls still

speak: The stories occupants tell’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Walden, R. (2009) Schools for the Future. Design Proposals from Architectural

Psychology, Cambridge, Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber.

Weinstein, C.S. (2007) Middle and Secondary Classroom Management. Lessons from

Research and Practice, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Weinstein, C. S. and Romano Mignano, A. J. (2011) Elementary Classroom

Management. Lessons from Research and Practice, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Woolner, P. (2010) The Design of Learning Spaces, London, New York:

continuumbooks.com.

Woolner, P., Clark, J., Hall, E., Tiplady, L., Thomas, U. and Wall, K. (2010) ‘Pictures

are necessary but not sufficient: using a range of visual methods to engage users

about school design’, Learning Environments Research, 13: 1-22.

Woolner, P., Clark, J., Laing, K., Thomas, U. and Tiplady, L. (2012), ‘Changing spaces:

preparing students and teachers for a new learning environment’, Children, Youth

and Environments, 22: 52–74.

Woolner, P., Clark, J., Laing, K., Tiplady, L. and Thomas, U. (2013) ‘Teachers

preparing for changes to learning environment and practices in a UK secondary

school’, paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research

conference, Istanbul.

Woolner, P., Hall, E., Wall, K. and Dennison, D. (2007) ‘Getting together to improve

the school environment: user consultation, participatory design and student voice’,
 571
Learning environment

Improving Schools, 10: 233–248. Retrieved from

http://imp.sagepub.com/content/10/3/233 November 19, 2013.

Woolner, P., McCarter, S., Wall, K. and Higgins, S. (2011) ‘Changed learning through

changed space. When can a participatory approach to the learning environment

challenge preconceptions and alter practice?’, paper presented at the American

Educational Research Association annual meeting, New Orleans, Louisana.

<5358 WORDS>

i
The two school projects are SELF and KOMPASS. The sample for the SELF project

includes 2,873 students in the second year of secondary school, in 87 classes from 24

Bavarian grammar schools. For more details, see Sacher and Stadler-Altmann 2006;

Stadler-Altmann 2010. The KOMPASS sample includes 2,100 students in the second

year of secondary school, in 77 classes from 20 Bavarian secondary schools. For more

details, see Scheunpflug, Stadler-Altmann and Zeinz 2012.

View publication stats