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

net/publication/234625948

School Design

Article · January 1994

CITATIONS READS

0 20,901

1 author:

Henry Sanoff
North Carolina State University
61 PUBLICATIONS 2,926 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Sanoff on 25 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

CH A P T E R

School Environments
15
Henry Sanoff and Rotraut Walden

Abstract
Education reform has focused primarily on teaching methods and course content. As a result
instructional materials have been updated and instructional methods improved. However, what
has received too little attention is the physical environment in which education occurs. Highly
qualified teachers do not want to work in outdated, unattractive facilities. Parents are much more
discerning about which school their child will attend, including the physical appearance of the school
and modern technology available. School systems have discovered that schools with “sick” internal
physical environments have an adverse effect on student learning and teacher performance. There
are a growing number of studies linking student outcomes whose physical environments support the
educational process.
Key Words. high-performance schools, post-occupancy evaluation, classroom design, green schools,
building performance, health, learning, teaching, social behavior, well-being, future directions

Introduction Historical Evolution of American

A growing understanding of how our learn-
ing environments affect people suggests that a
school building is an important tool for learning
and teaching, and, like any tool, can enhance or
hinder the process. School facility factors such as
building age and condition, quality of mainte-
nance, lighting, color, noise, temperature, and air
quality can affect student health, safety, sense of
self, and psychological state (National Research
Council, 2007). Research has also shown that the
quality of facilities influences citizen perceptions
of schools and can serve as a point of community
pride and increased support for public education
(Uline, Tschannen-Moran, & Wolsey, 2008). The
goal then is to create school facilities that reflect
everything known today about providing the best
possible education for all students in the twenty-
first century.
School Buildings
The physical environment is one of the impor-
tant components of an institutional system, such as
schools (Wolfe & Rivlin, 1987). Physical changes
in school architecture have always been influenced
by the social, political, economical, and educational
ideologies of the times. These changes shaped soci-
ety’s conceptions of children’s development and atti-
tudes toward the educational practices, as well as the
types of educational facilities.
There have been major turning points in educa-
tion from the Colonial period and the one-room
schoolhouse to the Common School movement
starting in the 1840s, continuing with the pro-
gressive education movement in the late 19th cen-
tury and the first half of the 20th century, later
focusing on open education and compensatory
education.

276

15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 276 6/8/2012 9:46:58 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
State-mandated public education did not exist
prior to the 19th century (Wolfe & Rivlin, 1987).
Education was usually for the elite, through tutor-
ing and one-room schoolhouses accommodat-
ing all ages of students with the teacher presiding
over instruction. The common school movement
brought the idea of equal opportunity for every-
body to be educated regardless of economical, racial,
or class background (Rothman, 1980). During this
progressive period American business and industry
rapidly expanded and the school was viewed essen-
tially as a workplace (factory) and students’ learn-
ing was perceived in terms of productivity. Teachers
were referred to as the factory workers and students
as the raw material to be turned into the product,
which was to meet the needs of the early 20th cen-
tury. The common school movement, however, gave
rise to the public education system and the principle
of free schooling (Pasalar, 2003).
During the first quarter of the 20th century, as
school populations grew due to urbanization, the
need for larger district schools became clear. In
the meantime, the idea of elementary and second-
ary schools appeared, which later included middle
schools as well. Buildings designed to specialize in
the housing of junior high and high school education
programs were constructed, and many more types of
auxiliary spaces were added. The junior high school
was created with the purpose of easing the transition
from elementary school settings to the departmental-
ized high school settings and solving the problem of
general overcrowding (Rieselbach, 1992).
Reform Pedagogy (1890–1932)
During the late 19th century, a progressive move-
ment emerged in Europe as well as in the United
States as a general critique of the public educational
system. A central principle of the progressive move-
ment was the concept of child-centered education,
in contrast to the teacher-centered methods where
education was shaped according to course content
delivered by formal lectures.
This brief sketch of the history of school build-
ings would be incomplete without mentioning the
reform movements, which began around the turn
of the 20th century. The term “educational reform”
of this period actually refers to a multitude of ped-
agogical ideas within an overall movement in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries (1890–1932)
that began to take a stand against the predomi-
nant “drill schools,” with their remoteness from real
life, intellectualism, and authoritarianism (Oelkers,
1996, p. 39; cf. Borrelbach, 2009).The progressive
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 277
movement is traced primarily to educators such
as Georg Kerschensteiner and Peter Petersen in
Germany, Maria Montessori in Italy (1988), and
John Dewey (1916/1967) in the United States.
The integration of work into the educa-
tional process was promoted primarily by Georg
Kerschensteiner (1854–1932) in the work school
(Arbeitsschule) movement he started. Between
1890 and 1933, the concept of “work school”
became a synonym for the entire reform pedagogy
movement and was considered the essential “new
school.” Kerschensteiner saw the activity in the
work school primarily as the combination of man-
ual work and intellectual scrutiny of that activity.
He was a determined opponent of the traditional
“book learning” and accused it of being one-sided
and remote from reality, in that it focused prima-
rily on intellectual abilities, while the majority of
the students would have to pursue work involving
manual activities in their later life (Scheibe, 1999,
p. 180; cf. Borrelbach, 2009).
Peter Petersen (1854–1952) sought to realize the
union of individual and an educational community
primarily through a new organization of the school.
He abandoned the principle of separation of grades
and instead introduced “tribe” groups of students
teamed up according to subject interest or other
aspects. They included two or three age groups, so
that students of very different ages were working
together. With these organizational changes and
more differentiated instructional content, Petersen
achieved a loosening of the rigid structures of the
old school, and a more flexible educational process.
However, Petersen saw school reform not only as
organizational change, but also as a design challenge
(Oelkers, 1996, p. 190). He felt that development
of a new school architecture was needed. For this, he
proposed to redesign the classrooms as “school liv-
ing rooms.” Students were offered a variety of work
materials, books, and objects, so as to turn these
school living rooms into the best possible, stimu-
lating instructional environment (cf. Dreier et al.,
1999, p. 35). According to Petersen, other necessary
spatial conditions for a positive community life were
“easily integrated outdoor areas, inviting entrances,
spacious break areas, and generously designed hall-
ways and assembly areas.” A good aesthetic design
would give the children “opportunities for retreat
and relaxation” (Petersen, 1927, p. 7).
The Italian physician Maria Montessori (1870–
1952) opened her first children’s homes (case dei
bambini) in 1900. She was motivated by her belief
that schools of that time were designed for adults,
Sanoff, Walden 277
6/8/2012 9:46:58 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
with long hallways and bare, monotonous class-
rooms. Her educational philosophy was dominated
by the principle of individual self-guided activity
and her child-centered approach. Her ideas gener-
ated not only new didactic materials but also val-
uable concepts for the design and organization of
living spaces for children. She started from the belief
that from the moment of birth, every child has “the
ability to develop into an independent human being
through active exploration and learning processes”
(Dreier et al., 1999, p. 35; cf. Borrelbach, 2009).
John Dewey (1859–1952) suggested that educa-
tion be based on a broader concept, making it an inte-
gral part of the life process whereby students would
learn by doing and interacting with one another
(Alexander, 2000). Many educators believed that
programs needed to fit the child, but not that the
child should fit the program. Consequently, school-
ing in the United States dramatically changed. In the
period between World War I and II, the spatial lay-
out characteristics of the school architecture evolved
as a result of the pedagogic findings, the advent of
the modern movement in the architecture, and the
measures taken by the hygienists for the prevention
of disease. In finger plan organizations, classrooms
were connected to spaces for communal activities,
and at the same time aimed to provide appropriate
ventilation, lighting, orientation, and immediate
contact with external space. For the first time class-
rooms were connected to the outdoors (courtyards,
open playfields) introducing nature as part of the
learning experience in addition to classroom activi-
ties. However, the classrooms, which were often
located along the corridor in a linear development,
were still a major component of the school.
The Progressive Movement
Throughout the industrialized era (1945–1960),
in combination with the idea of mass production,
prototype school buildings were created conveying
a minimalist approach toward educational space—
strict standards and institutional and economic
restrictions. The education system and the archi-
tectural trend, in general, involved the “factory”
approach based on the construction of fast and eco-
nomical school buildings without questioning its
uniqueness and fit to the educational process (Taylor,
1975). Cultural, geographic, social, and ideological
aspects were not a priority compared to the inter-
ests of a universality that promotes more democratic
and universal values in the school architecture. Due
to economic constraints in budgets for school con-
structions, the attention and interests focused on
278 School Environments
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 278
the infrastructure of the school with less interest in
pedagogy, social organization, spatial layout, and
other physical features. During the same period the
trend shifted toward creating more scaled, flexible,
and convertible spaces that can adopt continuously
changing and developing pedagogy.
In 1959 J. Lloyd Trump prepared a report empha-
sizing the necessity of improving the quality of sec-
ondary education and school environments for the
future. Commissioned by the National Association
of Secondary School Principals, this plan influenced
the development of many schools during that per-
iod. According to the report, the secondary school
of the future would not need to have standard
classroom units of 25 to 35 students meeting five
days a week. In terms of student-teacher relation-
ships, the secondary schools would provide closer
relationships. The teacher in this case would be a
consultant rather than a taskmaster. Since students
have different learning styles, the plan suggested the
pursuit of specialized studies. According to Trump,
space within the building would be planned for
what would be taught, as well as how it should be
taught. Spatial flexibility was one of the variables to
be considered. The Trump plan suggested that large
rooms be flexible enough to be divided into smaller
seminar rooms for small-group discussions.
The 1960s and 1970s brought new develop-
ments in the education system and a thorough
analysis of children’s developmental needs. The idea
of “open design” was introduced, offering changes
in the organization and the structure of the class-
rooms and overall school building (Barth, 1972;
Silberman, 1973). The “baby boom” in the 1960s
along with the suburban expansion and the develop-
ment of new areas led to an increase in the construc-
tion of school buildings. The schools constructed
had architectural and programmatic variety. Open-
space school and informal education were part of
that experimentation.
Open-space education originated from the
need to find an answer to the problem of educat-
ing children of varying performance levels in dif-
ferent groups. However, open-design schools were
less a philosophic commitment than a matter of
cost and efficiency over buildings with partitions.
The educational model offered child-centered
learning, which emphasized a flexible grouping of
students, individualized instruction, open access
to learning materials, and the use of all available
spaces such as rooms, corridors, and outdoor areas
(Wolfe & Rivlin, 1987). The idea provided spaces
that encouraged mobility, communication, social
6/8/2012 9:46:58 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
interaction, cooperation, and group projects among
the students. They were the symbols of “modern”
school design and were widely adopted.
However, the idea of open-design school was
not accompanied by informal or open teaching.
There were even attempts to implement informal
or open education in settings where school build-
ings were traditionally designed (Wolfe & Rivlin,
1987). Therefore, the idea later failed due to the
disorder caused by the incompatible teaching activi-
ties and school buildings. Problems, such as visual
distraction and noise as well as territorial need for
different activity settings, were experienced as well
(Taylor, 1975; Gump, 1991; Sanoff, 2002). Many
of those schools implementing the open-design
idea have undergone changes returning to the tra-
ditional way of divided classroom arrangements
(Sanoff, 2002). There are continuing mismatches
between the educational philosophies and prac-
tices. Although the current schooling system in the
United States is experimenting with a student-cen-
tered education model in innovative small schools,
emphasizing learning through continuous interac-
tion among peers and teachers, it is still possible to
observe teachers’ control and dominance on student
activities restricting students’ use of different spaces
(Cushman, 1999).
School Size
In the 1970s and 80s, the United States and
other countries built very large schools in most of
their cities. Reasons for this were the expectation of
economic advantages as well as the benefit of being
able to offer students a wider and more compre-
hensive curriculum. A trend of separating the large
schools into smaller, more personal units developed
(Duke & Trautvetter, 2001). The goal was, among
other things, that a greater significance would be
attributed to the personalization of schools. This
was shown through decorations, involvement in
school clubs, break rooms, works of art, and the
overall feeling that “I would like to be here.”
The small school literature began with large-
scale quantitative studies of the late 1980s and
early 1990s that firmly established small schools
as more productive and effective than large ones.
These studies, involving large numbers of students,
schools, and school districts, found a strong rela-
tionship between higher academic achievement and
lower enrollment (Lee & Smith, 1995; Eckman &
Howley, 1997). A study commissioned by the US
Department of Education noted that the value of
small schools in increasing achievement, graduation
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 279
rates, and satisfaction, and in improving behavior
has been confirmed with clarity and a high level of
confidence (Raywid, 1999). Students make more
rapid progress toward graduation (McMullan, Sipe,
& Wolf, 1994). They are more satisfied with small
schools, fewer of them drop out than from larger
schools (Pittman & Haoghwout, 1987), and stu-
dents behave better in smaller schools (Stockard &
Mayberry, 1992).
According to Wasley et al. (2000), the advantages
of smaller schools seem to outweigh those of bigger
schools. Isolation, which reveals itself through alien-
ation, vandalism, theft, and violence, can be avoided
in smaller schools (cf. Linneweber, Mummendey,
Bornewasser, & Löschper, 1984). Smaller schools
enable children of minorities and those from under-
privileged backgrounds to progress rapidly and
encourage teachers to invest their experiences for
the benefit of the students (Wasley et al., 2000, p.
2). Barker and Gump already demonstrated in their
classic 1964 study (cf. Helmke & Weinert, 1997,
p. 94) that students in smaller schools are more
inclined to take part in school activities, despite the
fact that larger schools may have more opportuni-
ties to offer these kinds of activities to students.
A report by Carnegie Corporation’s Council on
Adolescent Development (1988) revealed that ado-
lescents had been experiencing massive, impersonal
schools with unconnected curricula and high stu-
dent population. The idea of creating smaller learn-
ing environments was introduced in the 1990s and
was implemented by educational planners. Smaller
learning environments were generated through the
creation of “academic houses” (or classroom clus-
ters forming a separate unit) accommodating 200 to
300 students. In each academic unit, students and
teachers were organized into teams where there were
interactive educational and social activities. Other
plans emerged to create schools within schools
within new and existing schools, sometimes referred
to as a neighborhood plan or learning community
(McAndrews & Anderson, 2002).
More recently the idea of smaller schools with
more specialized curriculum and educational activi-
ties, such as magnet or academic house schools, has
started to be widespread within the United States,
thus the school environment attributed to the new
views in educational process concerning the organ-
ization of flexible classroom spaces and the number
of laboratories or project rooms supporting students’
practices. In general, the school environment aimed
to offer more stimuli to students who operate in a
framework of freedom in a more balanced network
Sanoff, Walden 279
6/8/2012 9:46:58 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
of social relations. The goal was integrating youth
into various social roles, allowing equal opportunity
for each child, and promoting their psychological,
social, and moral development and hence, their per-
sonal fulfillment.
Educational research indicates that participation
in school activities, student satisfaction, social con-
nectedness, and achievement are greater in small
schools relative to large schools (Barker & Gump,
1964; Blundell Jones, 2007; Cotton, 1996; Sanoff,
2009), while disciplinary problems, incidents of
vandalism, truancy, drug use, and drop-out rates are
lower (Fowler & Walberg, 1991).
Learning Environment
Learning is defined as a relatively long-lasting
change in behavior that results from experience.
Good teaching can be found in poorly built schools,
just as poor teaching can be found in well-built
schools. However, it is widely accepted that build-
ings can both promote as well as hinder learning
(Weinstein, 1979).
In the results of the PISA study (Program for
International Student Assessment; Lemke et al.,
2001; OECD, 2004), education ministers, supervi-
sory school authorities, and planners deal with the
effects of environment on the performance as well as
the social and emotional competence of students in
kindergarten, grade schools, and tertiary schools The
concept of the environment as the “third teacher”
alongside the children and actual teachers is the cen-
tral issue within the question of how to optimize con-
ditions for in-school learning (Edwards, Gandini, &
Forman, 1998). Loris Malaguzzi (1920–1994), one
of the most important “Reggio” pedagogues, made
the following fundamental statement: in addition to
the teacher and fellow students, the building acts as
a third “teacher” (1984).
Various studies have shown that schools need to
be able to meet very diverse educational demands.
Schools need to be places of living and learning, and
meeting points for social learning, which promotes
conflict resolution and encourages individuality and
open exchange of ideas. A large volume of evidence
shows a correlation between environmental con-
ditions in schools and academic performance (cf.
Linneweber, 1996, p. 386; Gifford, 2007). The cen-
tral focus of the dispute is also found in this chapter,
in the analysis of the effects of the physical environ-
ment. Well-planned school buildings can promote
the development of successful, motivational learn-
ing methods that contribute to a love of learning
and generate a desire to achieve. Students are the
280 School Environments
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 280
ones responsible for the future of the global market
and the social utility of our economic system.
Gump (1978) determined that a person spends
on average 14,000 hours in the learning environment
from kindergarten to the 12th grade. The results of
the international PISA study became well known in
numerous countries, and since 2003, 7,200 of more
than 40,000 schools in Germany were reconfigured
to become full-time schools, open all year, in the
hope that this concept would help improve student
performance. During this time, the Federal Ministry
of Education and Research invested four billion euros
to help fund the shift to full-time schools.
There is a demand for today’s schools to be more
responsive (Sanoff, 2001), to be places where stu-
dents and teachers engage in learning and teach-
ing inside and outside of the classroom. The goal
is a school that responds to the development needs
of adults and teenagers. A multitude of learning
methods and social forms should be applied, such
as small-group work, lectures, learning by doing,
individual assignments, and study centers (Jacobs,
1999; Lackney, 2009). In addition to target-ori-
ented learning, incidental learning also takes place.
The areas in which students spend their free time
should also be included in the planning. The social
realm should allow room for eating, drinking, play-
ing, and reflection. Also important is the flexibility
to be used by various groups, children, adults, and
disabled people (cf. Lackney, 2000).
User Evaluation of School Buildings
Based on numerous studies, Ahrentzen, Jue,
Skorpanich, and Evans (1982) developed a system
of classification for the study of stress in elementary
school settings. In the 1970s, the avoidance of stress
was a subject of major interest, followed by the facil-
itation of academic performance and creativity. The
system of classification (cf. Moos, 1979) is based on
the “fit” of personal characteristics to environmental
properties. According to Ahrentzen et al., students
will exert more effort for the completion of a diffi-
cult task in settings that meet their expectations and
their needs.
Barker’s concept of “behavior setting” (Barker,
1968; Schoggen, 1989) influenced Gump (1991;
see also Schmittmann, 1985; Ströhlein, 1998) in his
definition of the main factors of his analysis as phys-
ical environment (interior design and architecture),
roles (e.g., teachers and learners), and behavior pro-
grams. Barker is concerned with the synomorphic
relationships between these components. Gifford
(2007) referred to almost the same relationships
6/8/2012 9:46:58 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
between personal characteristics of students, the
physical features of the learning setting, and the
social-organizational climate.
There are other measuring tools that include the
psycho-social school environment: for example,
those from Moos (1979); Anderson and Walberg
(1974); Fisher and Fraser (1983); and Fraser,
Anderson, and Walberg (1982). The current con-
tribution, however, is principally concerned with
the effects of the physical environment on the expe-
rience and behavior of students and teachers (see
Gump, 1991, p. 723). Interviews, questionnaires,
and role-playing games have been developed in
recent years, especially by Henry Sanoff (cf. Tanner,
1999) to measure and evaluate features of the phys-
ical environment. Sanoff (2002) encouraged the
local community, students, parents, and teachers to
participate in the design and building process. At
the same time, he developed methods for evaluating
school buildings (2001a).
In 2001, the Federal Facilities Council (FFC,
2001) defined post-occupancy evaluation (POE) as
“a process of systematically evaluating the perfor-
mance of buildings [or places] after they have been
built and occupied for some time. POE differs from
other evaluations of building performance in that it
focuses on the requirements of building occupants,
including health, safety, security, functionality and
efficiency, psychological comfort, aesthetic quality,
and satisfaction.” (p. 1)
And also: “As POEs have become broader in scope
and purpose, POE has come to mean any activity
that originates out of an interest in learning how a
building [or place] performs once it is built (if and
how well it has met expectations) and how satisfied
building users are with the environment that has
been created. POE has been seen as one of a number
of practices aimed at understanding design criteria,
predicting the effectiveness of emerging designs,
reviewing completed designs, supporting building
activation and facilities management, and link-
ing user response to the performance of buildings.
POE is also evolving toward more process-oriented
evaluations for planning, programming, and capital
asset management” (FFC, 2001). Typical methods
used in conducting POEs are interviews, checklists,
behavioral observations, and surveys. Each method
reveals different insights into how satisfactorily the
building performs for its occupants.
School Condition
There is growing evidence of a correlation
between the adequacy of a school facility and
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 281
student behavior and performance. Numerous
studies conducted over the past three decades have
found a statistically significant relationship between
the condition of a school or classroom and student
achievement. In general, students attending school
in newer, better facilities score 5 to 17 points higher
on standardized tests than those attending in sub-
standard buildings (Earthman, 1999; Earthman &
Lemasters, 1996).
A study of working conditions in urban schools
concluded that physical conditions do have direct
positive and negative effects on teacher morale, a
sense of personal safety, feelings of effectiveness in
the classroom, and on the general learning envi-
ronment. Building renovations in one district led
teachers to feel a renewed sense of hope, and of
commitment, and a belief that district officials cared
about what went on in that building. An improved
physical environment affected the social climate of
the school, and that subsequently had a positive
effect on learning (Duke, 1988).
Two scholars have done comprehensive, non-
overlapping compilations of research findings on
the relationship of school facility condition to stu-
dent achievement and behavior. In 1979, Weinstein
published a review of 141 published studies and 21
papers presented at professional conferences. Three
years later, McGuffey (1982) completed another
review of the research, discussing 97 published
studies. Following is a summary of research on spe-
cific quality factors and their effect on educational
outcomes.
In the mid-1990s, American industrial designer
Ruth Lande Shuman initiated the “Publicolor”
school design program in New York. “Jail-like”
school buildings with “industrial, hostile appear-
ances” were “brightened” by lighter colors and
decorated with more variety. The results: lower
dropout rates of students, fewer discipline issues,
and marked increases in concentration during les-
sons. These studies in the psychology of color show,
for example, that drab colors or bad lighting can
create—even if the effect is slight—a depressive
mood among students and teachers, which, in
turn, influences learning and learning environment
(http://catalystsdr.com/2011/06/from-a-can-of-
paint-publicolor%E2%80%99s-use-of-design-in-
transforming-schools-and-students/). In elementary
school classrooms, warm, bright colors complement
the students’ extroverted nature, while cool colors
facilitate the ability for middle and high school stu-
dents to relax and focus concentration (Mahnke,
1996). Wohlfarth (1985) also showed that certain
Sanoff, Walden 281
6/8/2012 9:46:58 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
colors have measurable and predictable effects on
the autonomic nervous system of people. In numer-
ous studies, he found that blood pressure, pulse, and
respiration rates increase most under yellow light,
moderately under orange, and minimally under
red, while decreasing most under black, moderately
under blue, and minimally under green.
Gifford (2007) explored whether the mainte-
nance of a school has an influence on students. He
proposes that satisfied teachers (and therefore better
teachers) more often work in attractive schools. It is
clear in the results that students who are taught in
new or newly renovated schools are more satisfied.
It is important to point out that some of the
scholarly research on school facilities and student
performance has reached a negative conclusion.
Although most scholars who have studied the ques-
tion concur that achievement suffers in poor school
environments, most are deeply skeptical about stud-
ies linking improved achievement with top-notch
buildings. They point out that much of the work
establishing such a link has been done by graduate
students, and that many of the facility assessments
were done by volunteers, or school officials, and may
have lacked rigorous checklists. Some studies failed
to control for critical variables, such as teacher expe-
rience. Critics also point to anomalies in findings—
correlations on math scores, but not reading scores
or vice versa; three-year studies that found linkage in
two years, but not in the third; one study in which
disciplinary incidents were more common in a new
school than in older ones; and the fact that some of
the research has been commissioned or sponsored
by groups of architects or facility planners—people
who have a vested interest in proving a link.
Visual Appearance
Buildings, settings, and environments are
accorded symbolic value by those who use them.
Physical entities come to symbolize certain qualities,
values, aspirations, and experiences for individuals.
A school may symbolize opportunity, hope, stabil-
ity, and a safe haven in a world of insecurity and
transience, or, to someone else, the school structure
may symbolize failure and oppressive authority.
A study from Rittelmeyer (1994; cf. 2004;
Forster & Rittelmeyer, 2010) develops conclusions
regarding the impact of improvements to aesthetic
form by means of renovation or reconstruction
of schools. Approximately 600 youths were asked
about their preferences and dislikes with regard to
certain structural forms, colors, and interior decora-
tions. According to this study, school buildings are
282 School Environments
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 282
perceived as emotional gestures (that is, they appear
to be lively, cheerful, sad, brutal, and so on); students
see spatial features such as facades, color schemes,
and landscaping as interaction partners. The effect
of the elements of structure and color produce a
background mood for the observers. Rittelmeyer
(2004) named three quality-criteria for an existing
or planned school to be beautifully, appealingly,
attractively, or pleasantly effective: (1) inspiring, (2)
unrestricted, and (3) warm or soft to reinforce the
significance of buildings’ form, Rittelmeyer (2004)
cited an American study, according to which higher
levels of performance were achieved in positively
rated school buildings (Earthman, 1999, 2004),
and a German study (Klockhaus & Habermann-
Morbey, 1986), which determined that less vandal-
ism occurs in such buildings.
In The Psychology of Vandalism, Goldstein (1996)
included a basic study by Pablant and Baxter (1975),
which confirms the correlation between wanton
destruction and the aesthetic quality as well as the
degree of maintenance of school property. Schools
with fewer instances of vandalism are characterized
by excellent maintenance of the building and sur-
rounding playgrounds. The age of the school shows
no correlation with the frequency of vandalism.
Schools with low rates of destruction are generally
found in districts with a variety of buildings (e.g.,
commercial buildings, churches) in the surrounding
area. Of schools with high rates of destruction, 81%
are found near unoccupied land, such as parks and
sports fields. Schools with low rates of vandalism
can usually be seen by neighbors because they are
better lit, which makes it easy to view the property.
Classroom Design
One hundred fifty years ago, classrooms repre-
sented a common teaching method. Today teaching
methods have changed, but often the design of the
classroom has remained static. An examination of
current learning styles and teaching methods sug-
gests a new form of learning environment character-
ized by different activity settings and small-group
activities.
To experience healthy development, students
require certain needs to be met. School-agers require
diversity in activities and in places where they are
performed, which entails different opportunities
for learning and different relationships with a vari-
ety of people (Levin & Nolan, 2000). In a school
that responds to its students’ need for diversity, one
would not find students all doing the same thing,
at the same time, in similar rooms. One would not
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
expect to see students sitting in neat rows of desks,
all facing teachers who are lecturing or reading from
textbooks. Instead, in responsive schools, students
and teachers would be engaged in different learn-
ing activities in and out of the classroom. A variety
of teaching methods including small-group work,
lectures, learning by doing, individualized assign-
ments, and learning centers would be used (Jacobs,
1999; Lackney, 2009).
Teachers are much more influenced by the
physical environment than they realize. Malcolm
Seabourne, a historian of school buildings in
England, suggests that the building made the
teaching method (Robson, 1972). The separate
classroom was a sign that teachers were trusted to
be independent and had greater privacy. The class-
room was designed and built to represent and shape
a particular form of teaching behavior. The way a
school is designed to work reflects social ideas about
institutions and the education these institutions
are created to further (Grosvenor et al., 1999). The
shape of spaces, furniture arrangements, and signs
are physical cues that transmit silent messages, and
both teachers and students will respond. These
environmental messages stimulate movement, call
attention to some things but not others, encourage
involvement, and invite students to hurry or move
calmly. This environmental influence is continuous,
and how well it communicates with the users will
depend on how well the environment is planned.
Classroom arrangement is not a mere technicality,
or a part of the teacher’s style. It reflects assump-
tions about the teaching-learning process and its
outcomes.
Classroom Seating
The usual classroom seating arrangement of rows
headed by a teacher at the front usually assumes
that all information comes from the teacher. This
arrangement assumes a teacher-centered classroom
where the learning process depends upon the teach-
er’s direction. Considering the new thinking about
how students learn, Halstead (1992) envisioned the
classroom of tomorrow where classrooms would be
like studios where students would have their own
work space. In addition, there would be work spaces
for cooperative learning by groups of different sizes,
quiet private areas for one-on-one sessions, and
places where students could work independently.
Mobility and centeredness influence teachers’
movement patterns and how they interact with stu-
dents in the classroom. Student-centered classrooms
are those where there is greater teacher movement
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 283
and more interaction with students. The most
teacher-centered classrooms, for example, have a
seating arrangement organized in a circle (Horne,
2000).
Although transaction theories of student/teacher
participatory interaction (STPI) have been discussed
in the educational literature for decades (Dewey,
1916; Friere, 1970; Krebs, 1982), more recently
there has been research describing a correlation
between STPI and student motivation to partici-
pate (SMP) in the classroom (Dormody & Sutphin,
1991; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Similarly, if
students experience the classroom as a supportive
place where there is a sense of belonging, they tend
to participate more fully in the process of learning
(Brophy, 1987).
Research comparing the behavior of effective
teachers with that of less effective teachers has clearly
revealed the importance of monitoring the class
during seatwork periods. Such monitoring involves
teachers’ moving around the classroom, being aware
of how well or poorly students are progressing with
their assignments, and working with students one-
to-one as needed. The most effective teachers:
• Have systematic procedures for supervising
and encouraging students while they work
• Initiate more interactions with students
during seatwork periods, rather than waiting for
students to ask for help
• Have more substantive interactions with
students during seatwork monitoring, stay
task-oriented, and work through problems with
students (Brophy, 1979)
Classroom Privacy
The complexity of the concept makes it diffi-
cult to come up with clear specifications regarding
the optimal room setup. Some basic information,
though, should be outlined. Every student needs a
certain amount of privacy (Gifford, 2007), which
varies from individual to individual. Many studies
(cf. Gifford, 2007, p. 312) concur that a high class-
room density negatively affects students’ perfor-
mance when they undertake complex assignments,
work in small groups, or accomplish tasks, when
they need maneuverability, or when games or teach-
ing materials are sparse.
Just like classroom density, the location of a stu-
dent’s seat can influence his or her performance,
well-being, and social behavior. Thus, places in the
middle of the classroom toward the front offer an
optimal position for higher performance (Becker,
Sommer, Bee, & Oxley, 1973; cf. Bell, Greene,
Sanoff, Walden 283
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
Fisher, & Baum, 2001, p. 263). According to the
sources of McAndrew (1993), the area of the class-
room toward the rear is associated with the freedom
to interact with classmates while at the same time
being outside the control of the teacher. As a result,
students arrange themselves within the different
rows (Hillmann, Brooks, & O’Brien, 1991). A study
by Marx, Fuhrer, and Hartig (1999) researched the
relationship between the location of the seat in the
classroom and the number of questions asked by
fourth graders. The results showed that children
seated in a semicircle asked more questions than
those seated in rows, and that social interaction was
encouraged when individual students could make
face-to-face contact. Therefore, seating arrangement
can influence communication between students.
“Soft classrooms” have semicircular benches cov-
ered with pillows, adjustable lighting, a small rug,
and a few pieces of movable furniture. Student par-
ticipation noticeably improves in a soft classroom
(Sommer & Olsen, 1980).
The “open-plan classroom,” which developed in
the 1970s in many American schools, can have a rel-
atively negative influence on the performance of the
average student (Bell, Switzer, & Zipursky, 1974;
Wright, 1975). It is important that the type of class-
room matches the teaching method and meets the
students’ and teachers’ needs for privacy and intel-
lectual stimulus. Likewise, the type of classroom
should agree with the kind of activity and the length
of time needed for it.
Glass et al. (1982) believed that when a class
reaches 20 to 25 students, each additional student
makes a relatively small difference (cf. Schnabel,
2001, p. 482). They concluded that smaller classes of
15 or fewer students result in better learning environ-
ments in almost every regard, including teacher and
student attitudes, interaction, and performance.
Information Technology Classroom
Since the early 1900s technology, beginning with
film, then radio, television, and video, has been
brought into the learning environment; currently the
computer, tablets, and SMART Boards have been
introduced into instructional settings. However,
none of these past or current technologies are being
fully integrated into educational programs, as was
anticipated (Weiss, 2007). One reason is that the
design of the physical environment does not support
the integration of technology (Oliver & Lippman,
2007; Weiss, 2007). Learning environments should
be programmed, planned, and designed to support
the intended learning activities.
284 School Environments
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 284
There is a growing spirit of innovation in school
design and planning worldwide. Information tech-
nology introduced into schools promotes individ-
ual learning and a closer link with the community.
More schools tend to introduce new learning meth-
ods, such as interdisciplinary, hands-on, and self-
learning. The establishment of networking between
school and community also depends on information
technology (IT). Satellite schools, homeschooling,
and off-campus learning at various sites are increas-
ing in popularity. According to my current research,
these trends are seen not only in Japan but also in
the United States and several European countries
(Yanagisawa, 2009).
From the viewpoint of IT application and indi-
vidual learning, there are necessary conditions for IT
schools. To additionally enhance these schools as inno-
vative, the following elements should be considered:
• Spaces for self-learning with IT facilities in
all parts of the school
• Accessible learning resource center as a core
of the school
• School furniture and workstations designed
for information technology
• Development of educational software and
curriculum
• Promotion of human resources to support
information technology, i.e., on-campus/off-
campus training for teachers, staff, librarians,
and volunteers (Yanagisawa, 2009)
Outdoor Environment
Today, school activities involve more than sim-
ply listening or writing. Learning can take place in
many different kinds and qualities of space. In addi-
tion, students’ activities outdoors (e.g., playgrounds)
have shown to be more creative than in classrooms
or traditional playgrounds (Lindholm, 1995), with
positive effects on learning and cognitive qualities
(Fjortoft & Sageie, 1999; Fjortoft, 2004). Schools
in which children take on an active role outside
of the classroom, and schools with an attractive
exterior, seem to be ideal schools for children (cf.
Gifford, 2007; cf. Wasley et al., 2000). Louv (2008)
helped connect the idea of using natural landscaping
expressly to K–12 schools. He described American
children’s “nature-deficit disorder,” or how child-
ren are increasingly becoming disconnected from
nature. Louv attributed the trend to several causes:
a more technological society, parents’ fear of strang-
ers, less access to natural settings, and so on. But the
case he and other child and environmental advocates
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
have made for the benefits of exposing children to
the natural world has given schools cause to exam-
ine their own surroundings and opportunities for
outdoor learning and play. Studies now show that
connecting students to the environment improves
not only their physical well-being, but also their
social and educational aptitude. A 2006 Canadian
study (Dyment, Bell, & Lucas, 2009), for instance,
found that students who interact on school grounds
with diverse natural settings were more physically
active, more creative, more aware of nutrition, and
more cooperative with one another.
Natural Materials, Niches, and Paths
According to McAndrew (1993; cf. Flade, 1998;
Weinstein & Pinciotti, 1988; Lindholm, 1995;
Forster & Rittelmeyer, 2010), schoolyards and
playgrounds can be viewed as learning environ-
ments where children learn about social skills and
cognitive abilities. How does a playground need to
look to provide students with the necessary intel-
lectual stimulation? It should contain various niches
that stimulate all the senses and are connected by
paths. Additionally, schoolyards and playgrounds
that are loosely structured, for example, adventure
playgrounds with mountains of tires, stimulate
children’s creativity. Moore (1989) proposed inte-
grating nature and natural materials. An especially
suitable material is wood with rounded edges and
corners. Another possibility for improving school-
yards and playgrounds is the introduction of safe
entrances and exits to create a meeting place for
children and adults and thus creating possibilities
for social contact. In this way, delinquency can be
better controlled.
High-Performance Schools
One proposed solution to the problems facing
school facilities is to design and construct high-per-
formance schools. The terms “high performance,”
“sustainable,” and “green” are used to describe
schools that minimize environmental harm, maxi-
mize the performance of facilities, cost less over the
life of the building, and create educational envi-
ronments that are optimal for learning (Gelfan &
Freed, 2010). Although these terms do not neces-
sarily have the same meaning, practitioners often
use them interchangeably and define them similarly.
These terms will also be used interchangeably in this
paper to reflect the wording of the authors being
cited.
School systems in the United States are struggling
to build new schools and renovate aging ones to
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 285
accommodate increasing enrollments and new tech-
nologies. Given the high cost of new construction
as well as the costs of operating, maintaining, and
retrofitting the current, declining building stock,
many school systems are recognizing the benefits
of high-performance schools. High-performance
schools, also called green or sustainable schools,
are designed, constructed, and maintained to be
resource-efficient, healthy, comfortable, safe, secure,
adaptable, and easy to operate and maintain. They
cost less to operate and create environments that
enhance learning. Additionally, high-performance
schools reduce adverse impacts resulting from the
construction and operation of built facilities on the
natural environment. For example, preserving natu-
ral vegetation reduces overall disturbance to the site.
And designing to reduce impervious surfaces miti-
gates storm-water runoff caused by construction
and protects the hydrologic functions of the site.
Given the level of interaction between people
and their environments and other confounding
factors, establishing cause-and-effect relationships
between an attribute of a school building and its
effect on students, teachers, and staff is difficult.
The effects of the built environment will necessarily
appear to be small, given the number of variables
(Bosch, 2004). Empirical measures do not, however,
necessarily capture all relevant considerations that
should be applied when evaluating research results.
Qualitative aspects of the environment are also
important. However, there is value in attempting to
identify design features and building processes and
practices that may lead to improvements in learn-
ing, health, and productivity for students, teachers,
and other school staff, even if empirical results are
less than robust.
Design Guides
As school systems seek to improve the perfor-
mance of their facilities and reduce costs, they are
relying on (or creating) a variety of guides to assist
them with design, construction, and operation/
maintenance. These documents are often region-
specific and reflect the priorities of the authoring
agency, but they may also be appropriate for other
regions and used by school systems across the
country. Intended to educate stakeholders about
the concepts of high-performance facilities, these
documents are important vehicles for implement-
ing research in sustainability, school design, envi-
ronment and behavior, and related fields. However,
to date, there have been no reviews of the guidance
documents to examine their focus and content.
Sanoff, Walden 285
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
Without a doubt, those involved with the develop-
ment of these guidance documents have reviewed
similar documents when developing their guides;
however, this information has not been published.
Also, these reviews were conducted for the purpose
of developing a guidance document, rather than for
identifying additional opportunities for providing
information to stakeholders (Bosch, 2003).
A consortium of state and utility leaders in
California launched an effort in 2001 to develop
energy and environmental standards specifically for
schools. The Collaborative for High Performance
Schools (CHPS, often pronounced “chips”) aims to
increase the energy efficiency of California schools
by marketing information, services, and incentive
programs directly to school districts and designers.
The CHPS website defines green schools as having
the following 13 attributes: “healthy, comfortable,
energy efficient, material efficient, water efficient,
easy to maintain and operate, commissioned, envi-
ronmentally responsive site, a building that teaches,
safe and secure, community resource, stimulating
architecture, and adaptable to changing needs”
(CHPS, 2005). Green school objectives are to be
achieved through guidelines that are similar to the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) rating system but specifically geared to
schools. Green school guidelines move well beyond
design and engineering criteria for the buildings
themselves, addressing land use, processes for con-
struction and equipment installation, and operation
and maintenance practices. They include design and
engineering techniques to meet specific objectives:
• Locating schools near public transportation to
reduce pollution and land development impacts
• Placing a building on a site so as to minimize
its environmental impact and make the most of
available natural light and solar gain
• Designing irrigation systems and indoor
plumbing systems to conserve water
• Designing energy and lighting systems to
conserve fossil fuels and maximize the use of
renewable resources
• Selecting materials that are nontoxic,
biodegradable, and easily recycled and that
minimize the impacts on landfills and otherwise
reduce waste
• Creating an indoor environment that provides
occupants with a comfortable temperature, and
good air quality, lighting, and acoustics
Green school guidelines also recommend con-
struction techniques to meet objectives such as the
286 School Environments
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 286
appropriate storage of materials on construction
sites to avoid water damage, the reduction of waste
materials and appropriate disposal to reduce resource
depletion, and the introduction of commissioning
practices to ensure the performance of building sys-
tems (US Green Building Council, 2007).
Effects of Green Schools on Health
and Performance
There are no well-designed, evidence-based stud-
ies concerning the overall effects of green schools on
the health or development of students and teach-
ers, in part because the concept of green schools is
quite new. There are, however, studies that exam-
ine specific building features often emphasized in
green school design and the effects of these com-
ponents on health and learning (National Research
Council, 2007).
Evidence-based design is a field of study that
emphasizes the importance of using credible data
to influence the design process. The approach has
become popular in health-care architecture in
an effort to improve patient and staff well-being,
patient healing process, stress reduction, and safety.
School districts do not typically pursue high-
performance design merely to be good stewards of
the natural environment. There is convincing evi-
dence of multiple benefits from using high-perfor-
mance, green design, such as an association between
excess moisture, dampness, and mold in buildings
and adverse health outcomes, particularly asthma
and respiratory symptoms, among children and
adults (Lstiburek & Carmody, 1994). Sufficient
scientific evidence exists to conclude that there is
an inverse association between excessive noise levels
in schools and student learning (National Research
Council, 2007). The impacts of excessive noise vary
according to the age of students, because the abil-
ity to focus on speech sounds is a developmental
skill that does not mature until about the ages of 13
to 15. Thus, younger children require quieter and
less reverberant conditions than do adults who hear
equally well. As adults, teachers may not appreciate
the additional problems that excessive noise creates
for younger students (Picard & Bradley, 2001).
Human perception of the thermal environment
depends on four parameters: air temperature, radi-
ant temperature, relative humidity, and air speed
(Kwok, 2000). Perception is modified by personal
metabolic rates and the insulation value of cloth-
ing. Thermal comfort standards are essentially based
on a set of air and radiant temperatures and relative
humidity levels that will satisfy at least 80% of the
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

occupants at specified metabolic rates and clothing student performance. Variables describing a better
values. There is a literature on the effects of temper- view out of windows always entered the equations
ature and humidity on occupant comfort and pro- as positive and highly significant, while variables
ductivity, primarily from studies in office buildings describing glare, sun penetration, and lack of visual
(Fanger, 2000; Seppännen & Fisk, 2005; Wyon, control always entered the models as negative.
2004; Wang et al., 2005). These studies show that (Heschong-Mahone, 2003, p. viii)
productivity declines if temperatures go too high
Classroom lighting and thermal comfort are
(Federspiel et al., 2004). The temperature, airflow,
commonly cited by teachers as determinants of their
and humidity of a classroom will affect the quality
own morale and the engagement of their students
of work produced by students. It is agreed among
(Corcoran, Walker, & White, 1988; Jago & Tanner,
researchers that a classroom with a temperature above
1999). Lemasters (1997) identified 53 studies that
80 degrees Fahrenheit is a very poor environment for
linked design features to student achievement.
learning. When a classroom is too warm, it induces
School systems, like other public and private
drowsiness and fatigue, increases respiration, and cre-
organizations, are becoming increasingly aware that
ates conditions favorable to disease. When the human
design and construction strategies that reduce harmful
body is fighting to stay alert and is uncomfortable, it
impacts on the natural environment also contribute
is not concentrating on the academic work at hand.
to creating a more productive and economically feasi-
Students make “greater gains in academic achieve-
ble facility. Case studies of schools provide evidence of
ment in climate controlled schools as opposed to
these benefits. In this day of increasing school enroll-
those students in non–climate controlled schools”
ment and tight construction budgets, cost savings are
(Jago & Tanner, 1999, 2005). However, there is
often used to justify high-performance design. The
a paucity of studies investigating the relationship
Sustainable Building Industry Council estimates that
between room temperatures in schools and occupant
school districts can achieve 30–40% savings on util-
comfort or productivity (Mendell & Heath, 2004).
ities if sustainable design and construction practices
Between 1999 and 2003, the Heschong-Mahone
are utilized for new schools.
Group conducted several studies investigating
In addition to cost savings, high-performance
the effect of daylighting on student performance
strategies such as daylighting, improved thermal
(National Research Council, 2007). In the 1999
comfort, better indoor air quality, and increased
study, data were obtained from three elemen-
interaction with the natural environment are believed
tary school districts located in Orange County,
to enhance learning, provide a valuable commun-
California; Seattle, Washington; and Fort Collins,
ity resource, and minimize adverse impacts on the
Colorado (Heschong-Mahone, 1999). The study
environment. Those who pursue high-performance
looked for a correlation between the amount of
design and construction have common goals, such as
daylight provided by each student’s classroom envi-
environmental protection, eco-education, and supe-
ronment and test scores. Close examinations of the
rior building performance. “Ecologically friendly” is
findings indicate a very small effect and one that
considered one of the top 10 design and planning
cannot be justified as reliable (Boyce, 2004). These
solutions for school facilities today (Kennedy, 2003).
results could not be replicated in a subsequent study.
Principles of sustainable design are incorporated to
Among the authors’ conclusions of more detailed
teach resource conservation, reduce resource use,
statistical analysis were that sources of glare nega-
and to enhance the learning environment.
tively affect student learning; direct sun penetration
into classrooms, especially through unshaded sun-
facing windows, is associated with negative student School Trends
performance, likely causing both glare and thermal School facilities are powerful indicators of com-
discomfort; blinds or curtains allow teachers to con- munity values and aspirations. They not only sup-
trol the intermittent sources of glare or visual dis- port the academic needs of students they serve, but
traction through their windows; when teachers do can also address the social, educational, recreational,
not have control of their windows, student perfor- and personal needs of the members of the broader
mance is negatively affected (Heschong-Mahone, community. It has been argued that successful
2003, p. ix). They summarized that schools strengthen a community’s sense of identity
and coherence.
characteristics describing windows were generally Educational reform, however, has focused pri-
quite stable in their association with better or worse marily on what is taught, and how it is taught. As

Sanoff, Walden 287

15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 287 6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
a result, curricula have been strengthened, instruc-
tional strategies improved, and instructional materi-
als updated. However, what has received too little
attention is the physical environment in which edu-
cation occurs. School systems find that parents are
much more discerning about which school their
child will attend, including the physical appearance
of the school and the amount of modern technol-
ogy available. In addition, school systems have dis-
covered that schools with “sick” internal physical
environments are shunned by prospective teachers
and parents alike (Stevenson, 2006). Widespread
misconceptions reinforce the view that the quality
of school building has no impact on academic per-
formance. Consequently, a gap exists between the
educators’ view of improving quality and the pro-
cess of planning schools.
It is also becoming more evident that students
function best in different educational settings
according to their abilities; consequently, identi-
cal schools in terms of facilities do not equate with
equal opportunity for students. School systems in
the United States are offering parents and children
more choices about the school a child attends. The
one-size-fits-all approach is gradually disappearing
and may give way to smaller and more diverse learn-
ing environments that give parents and students
more choices and options about what, where, and
how they learn. Therefore, the focus is shifting away
from district-wide planning that provides equality of
school facilities toward plans that meet the unique
program needs of each school (Stevenson, 2002).
And as parents have more choices about where to
send their children, it follows that they demand
schools that are personalized and fit their needs.
Very different scenarios may affect what spaces
will be included in future building designs (Butin,
2000). One view of the future suggests that standard
academic classrooms will disappear. In their place,
specialized labs and learning centers will become the
norm (Lackney, 1999, 2009). Those with this vision
maintain that separating learning into academics,
arts, vocational, and the like is a false dichotomy
(Chan, 1996). Instead, they view learning as holistic
with, for example, art incorporated into language
arts or math taught with specific job skills or voca-
tions in mind. In this scenario, classrooms must be
multipurpose, allowing a blending of traditional
instruction with meaningful and diverse hands-
on, lab-type experiences that may include anything
from pottery making to dramatic arts. This idea of
personalized learning environments, which has gen-
erated immense interest in the design of classroom
288 School Environments
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 288
clusters, house plans, and school-within-school set-
tings, has magnified the role student commons can
play in a school’s overall design, serving as a hub for
an academic wing or providing a space for alterna-
tive teaching strategies.
Another scenario sees the development of more
shared school facilities. In this view, future schools
will be created or redesigned so that instructional and
support spaces can also be used by social and com-
munity organizations or even businesses. Schools as
community learning centers have been supported
by research documenting the importance of active
parental involvement, the growing importance of
lifelong learning, and recognition that communi-
ties have many assets to offer that are themselves
important learning tools. This awareness presents
an opportunity to reconsider what constitutes an
appropriate learning environment and to identify
those factors that can enhance student achieve-
ment. Sharing instructional and support facilities is
expected to be beneficial to both the school and the
community. In such settings, students have access
to a wide array of community and business exper-
tise that can bring the curriculum to life—and those
who do not normally have access to school facilities
find that the facilities better justify the money spent
upon them. In any of the scenarios, school facilities
would be different from what exists today. The key
to successful planning is to provide the most flexible
and adaptable spaces possible in our schools.
The previous trends suggest how school facili-
ties may be different in the future. Though the
possibility may be remote, another scenario exists:
schools as we know them will disappear (Northwest
Educational Technology Consortium, 2002). If one
thinks about the combination of the rapid devel-
opment of technology and the increasing lack of
confidence parents have in public education, the
disappearance of the brick-and-mortar structure
called school is possible. The child has access to les-
sons prepared by the most knowledgeable profes-
sionals in the world and can interact electronically
with teachers and students in other countries as part
of language, geography, or political studies instruc-
tion. Parents who homeschool increasingly use tech-
nology to access instructional materials. Students in
remote areas of Canada and Australia, hundreds
of miles from a school building, attend school by
logging on to their computers. Technology allows
a high school student in a rural location to take a
course online from a teacher in another town.
The question, perhaps, is not whether it is possi-
ble that schools will cease to exist, but how virtual
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN

schools will grow and to what extent. No one knows, of the schools into a model for evaluating school
but it raises some interesting issues about how buildings.
much to invest in physical structures, what kind of The following should be avoided with regard to
life expectancy they should have, and whether the schools in the future (Walden, 2009):
future emphasis needs to be on schools as traditional
• Buildings that are too large and lead to
learning environments or schools as production and
anonymity
broadcast centers. It also raises a question about the
• A lack of protection against delinquency,
fundamental purpose of schooling. If technology
accidents, and violence due to insufficient visibility
consumes much of the instructional delivery of the
for supervisory staff and unsafe paths, stairs, and
future, who or what will assume responsibility for
playground equipment
the socialization process that schools have tradition-
• Buildings that are too small and allow little
ally been held accountable for?
space for project groups because of a lack of
Another new element to consider in school
specialty rooms
design is the reality that there are more active partic-
• An overly narrow connection between the
ipants who want a voice in how new school facilities
main entrance and the classrooms
are designed. Community-based groups, municipal
• Wasted energy due to drafty and poorly
agencies, and universities are just a few of the groups
insulated buildings
in the past decade that have voiced their ideas. This
• Dark hallways and rooms that require
activism has led to a greater need for authentic cit-
artificial lighting
izen engagement and growing acceptance of shared
• Low ceilings
space and public-private partnerships. In the coming
• Classrooms that are too small or have
decade educators and facility planners may increas-
insufficient learning materials for students
ingly be thinking about the needs of preschool
• Designing classrooms while considering only
children and senior citizens. In this new era of life-
a few learning methods, such as presentations and
long learning, educators and architects will have
testing knowledge
to expand their vision of who uses these facilities
• Too few or low-quality public facilities for
and be keenly aware of changing demographics. It
teachers and students (technical equipment,
may be necessary to move away from the traditional
ergonomic furniture, noise), too few rooms for
emphasis of creating facilities for seniors only and
administration, or rooms that are too small
consider approaches that let the generations mingle
• Ineffective sound insulation
to keep retirees active and current (Sullivan, 2002).
• No wheelchair accessible facilities for
Schools can achieve more innovative approaches to
people with disabilities (lacking elevators, ramps,
learning by creating learning environments in non-
handrails, electric door openers, etc.)
traditional settings, such as museums and shopping
• Poor building maintenance, which leads to an
malls, as well as by encompassing community needs
increase in vandalism
(Nathan & Thao, 2007).
• General lack of cleanliness, due to materials
that are difficult to clean, and insufficient waste
Conclusion: Schools of the Future
collection
In a qualitative study, which Walden and
Borrelbach (2010) reported on, architects from six Numerous physical factors have contributed to
innovative schools answered interview questions student and teacher dissatisfaction with the school
about “schools of the future.” Intelligently designed environment. School appearance, whether the
schools should offer their users opportunities to result of poor design or lack of proper maintenance,
make changes to the environment in response to is a contributing factor to student motivation and
their own degree of excitement, stress, and fatigue, teacher performance.
since the users are experts regarding their own needs Schools of the future should consider (Walden,
(cf. Linneweber, 1993). Innovative school build- 2009):
ings around the world were described in a work by
• The right of all users to take part in decision-
Walden (2009). A team of authors from the United
making
States, Japan, and Germany evaluated 23 trend-
• The importance of a clear orientation that
setting school buildings from 11 countries and 5
begins at the entrance
continents and organized certain characteristics

Sanoff, Walden 289

15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 289 6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
• The use of the building by community
members outside of class time
• The appropriateness of the space design for
and the various teaching and learning methods,
such as hands-on project-based learning, team
teaching and learning, presentations, and small-
group lessons, using common designs, such as large
classrooms and relaxation rooms
• Division into reasonable units (schoolhouses)
within the school complex, each grade with up to
160 students and organized into small numbers of
students per class
• The introduction of learning studios, suites,
and communities for as many as 150 to 160
students of different age ranges; the encouragement
of social and emotional learning (Lackney, 2009)
• The use of modern information technology;
LAN, WLAN Internet connections in all areas of
the school along with the promotion of face-to-
face social contact and flexible, individual learning
areas for self-guided learning, (covered) outdoor
classrooms
• The use of environmentally friendly,
sustainable, low-maintenance, and durable
building materials
• The opportunity to personally regulate
environmental stress factors (lighting, darkness,
glare, ventilation, heat, sunshine, protection from
rain, acoustics, noise, etc.) and to use sensorial
technology
• The importance of natural, glare-free lighting
• The flexibility and multifunctional nature of
rooms
• A setup of classrooms and hallways that offers
opportunities for privacy
• The importance of providing privacy for
teachers (separated and spacious teacher areas;
group office rooms especially for all-day lessons)
• The importance of being able to have
experiences with all senses (cf. Kükelhaus & zur
Lippe, 1992)
In contrast to the one-size-fits-all approach to
school design, schools of the future need to pro-
vide formal as well as informal places for learning.
Clearly not all learning occurs in the classroom.
Opportunities for peer interaction constitute an
important aspect of informal learning. Similarly, the
design process needs to be more inclusive, provid-
ing opportunities for the participation of students,
teachers, and parents.
In the meantime, the building of schools
is being addressed by various authors, who all
290 School Environments
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 290
establish a connection to the process of learning to
competently contribute to future innovation and
sustainability in the interaction with the built envi-
ronment (Wüstenrot-Stiftung, 2004; Buddensiek,
2001; Engel & Dahlmann, 2001; Kroner, 1994;
Rittelmeyer, 2009; Schavan, 2001; Watschinger
& Kühebacher, 2007; Wüstenrot-Stiftung, 2004;
cf. for the Anglo-American room: Dudek, 2000,
2007; Gifford, 2007; Sanoff, 1994, 2002; Tanner
& Lackney, 2006).
Future Directions
Decisions about school facilities tend to be made
by a few people who are not themselves building
users. Involving a building committee does not by
itself always solve the problem of gaining school-
wide support. Future efforts need to focus on
methods of involving a full range of stakeholders in
the design and planning process. Similarly, school
building performance from the occupants’ perspec-
tive continues to be a neglected ingredient in the
building process. The improvement of the research
instruments used, specifically the system to assess
the quality of school buildings, remains a constant
research challenge.
There are isolated examples of school designs
that support personalized, self-directed learning,
such as variable- and flexible-size space, and indi-
vidual work spaces, as well as spaces for collabora-
tion. However, they do not reflect the mainstream
of school designs, which are guided by traditional
specifications. The gap between how children learn
and the places that support this learning needs to be
carefully examined, particularly since school build-
ings today are constructed to support many future
generations of children.
References
Ahrentzen, S., Jue, G.M., Skorpanich, M.A., & Evans, G.W.
(1982). School environments and stress. In G. W. Evans
(Ed.), Environmental stress (pp. 224–255). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International com-
parisons in primary education. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1974). Learning environ-
ments. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Evaluating educational perfor-
mance (pp. 81–98). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods
for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Barker, R. G., & Gump, P. V. (1964). Big school, small school.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Barth, R. S. (1972). Open education and the American school.
New York: Agathon.
Becker, F. D., Sommer, R., Bee, J., & Oxley, B. (1973). College
classroom ecology. Sociometry, 36, 514–525.
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
Bell, A. E., Switzer, F., & Zipursky, M. (1974). Open-area educa-
tion: An advantage or disadvantage for beginners? Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 39, 407–416.
Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001).
Environmental psychology (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt College Publishers.
Blundell Jones, P. (2007). Peter Hübner: Architektur als sozialer
Prozeß. Architecture as Social Process. Stuttgart/London:
Edition Axel Menges.
Borrelbach, S. (2009). The historical development of school
buildings in Germany. In R. Walden (Ed.), Schools for the
future: Design proposals from architectural psychology (pp.
45–74). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
Bosch, S. J. (2003). Sustainability in public facilities: Analysis of
guidance documents. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 17(1), 9–18.
Bosch, S. J. (2004). Identifying relevant variables for understanding
how school facilities affect educational outcomes. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Georgia Institute of Technology.
Boyce, P. R. (2004). Reviews of technical reports on daylight and
productivity. Troy, NY: Lighting Research Center. Retrieved
from www.daylightdividends.org.
Brophy, J. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of
Educational Leadership, 71, 733–750.
Brophy, J. (1987, October). Synthesis of research strategies
for motivating students to learn. Journal of Educational
Leadership, 45(2), 40–48.
Buddensiek, W. (2001). Zukunftsfähiges Leben in Häusern des
Lernens. Göttingen, Germany: Verlag Die Werkstatt.
Butin, D. (2000). Classrooms. Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Chan, T. C. (1996). Environmental impact on student learning.
Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State College.
Corcoran, T., Walker, J. and White, J. (1988). Working in
Urban Schools. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational
Leadership.
Cotton, K. (1996). School size, school climate, and student per-
formance. School Improvement Research Series, Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR. Retrieved
January 15, 2002, from www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020.
html.
Cushman, K. (1999, November). How small schools increase
student learning (and what large schools can do about it).
NAESP, Principal Magazine.
Dewey, J. (1967). Democracy and education. London: Macmillan.
(Originally published 1916).
Dormody, T. J., & Sutphin, H. D. (1991, December). Student/
teacher participation interaction, motivation, and satisfac-
tion during group problem solving. Journal of Agricultural
Education.
Dreier, A., Kucharz, D., Ramseger, J., & Sörensen, B. (1999).
Grundschulen planen, bauen, neu gestalten. Empfehlungen
für kindgerechte Lernumwelten [Planning, building, and
renovating elementary schools: Recommendations for child-
appropriate learning environments]. Jubiläumsband zum
dreißigjährigen Bestehen des Grundschulverbandes, Arbeitskreis
Grundschule e.V. Frankfurt a.M.
Dudek, M. (2000). Architecture of schools: The new learning envi-
ronments. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
Dudek, M. (2007). Schools and kindergartens: A design manual.
Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
Duke, D. L. (1988). Does it matter where our children learn?
Paper prepared for an invitational meeting of the National
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 291
Academy of Sciences, Thomas Jefferson Center for
Educational Design. Charlottesville: University of Virginia
Press.
Duke, D. L., & Trautvetter, S. (2001). Reducing the negative effects
of large schools. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities.
Dyment, J. E., Bell, R., & Lucas, A. (2009). The relationship
between school ground design and physical activity. Children’s
Geography, 7(3), 261–276.
Earthman, G. I. (1999). The quality of school buildings, student
achievement, and student behavior. Bildung und Erziehung,
52, 353–372.
Earthman, G. I. (2004). Prioritization of 31 criteria for school
building adequacy. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State
University: Blacksburg, VA
Earthman, G. I., & Lemasters, L. K. (1996). Review of research on
the relationship between school buildings, student achievement,
and student behavior. Scottsdale, AZ: Council of Educational
Facility Planners International.
Eckman, J. M., & Howley, C. B. (1997). Sustainable small schools.
Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education
and Small Schools.
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1998). The hundred
languages of children. The Reggio Emilia approach advanced
reflections. CT: Ablex.
Engel, O., & Dahlmann, Y. (2001). Pädagogische Architektur.
Wege zu einer menschenwürdigen Schulgestaltung.
Abschlussarbeit an der Heilpädagogischen Fakultät der
Universität Köln: Seminar für Sozialpädagogik.
Fanger, P. O. (2000). Indoor air quality in the 21st century: The
search for excellence. Indoor Air, 10, 68–73.
FFC. (2001). Learning from our buildings: A state-of-the-prac-
tice summary of post-occupancy evaluation. Federal Facilities
Council Technical Report No. 145. Washington, DC:
Federal Facilities Council.
Federspiel, C. C., Fisk, W. J., Price, P. N., Liu, G., Faulkner,
D., . . . Lahiff, M. (2004). Worker performance and ventila-
tion in a call center: Analyses of work performance data for
registered nurses. Indoor Air, 14(Suppl. 8), 41–50.
Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, D. J. (1983). Validity and use of the class-
room environment scale. Educational Evaluation & Policy
Analysis, 5, 261–271.
Fjortoft I (2004). Landscape as Playscape: The Effects of Natural
Environments on Children’s Play and Motor Development.
Children, Youth and Environments, 14 (2), 21–44.
Fjortoft, I., & Sageie, J. (1999). The natural environment as a
playground for children: Landscape description and analyses
of a natural playscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48,
83–97.
Flade, A. (1998). Evaluation eines innerstädtischen Schulhofs.
In F. Dieckmann, A. Flade, R. Schuemer, G. Ströhlein, &
R. Walden (Eds.), Psychologie und gebaute Umwelt (pp. 243–
247). Darmstadt, Germany: IWU.
Forster, J., & Rittelmeyer, C. (2010). Gestaltung von Schulbauten.
Ein Diskussionsbeitrag aus erziehungswissenschaftlicher Sicht
[Design of school buildings: A contribution to the discus-
sion from a pedagogical perspective]. Zurich, Switzerland:
Education Authority.
Fowler, W., & Walberg, H. J. (1991). School size, characteristics,
and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
13, 189–202.
Fraser, D. L., Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1982).
Assessment of learning environments: Manual for learning
Sanoff, Walden 291
6/8/2012 9:46:59 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
environment inventory (LEI) and my class inventory. Bentley,
Australia: Western Australian Institute of Technology.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York:
Continuum.
Gelfan, L., & Freed, E. (2010). Sustainable school architecture:
Design for primary and secondary schools. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and prac-
tice (4th ed.). Colville, WA: Optimal Books.
Glass, G. V., Cahen, L. S., Smith, M. L., & Filby, N. N. (1982).
School class size: Research and policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goldstein, A. P. (1996). The psychology of vandalism. New York:
Plenum.
Grosvenor, I., Lawn, M., & Rousmaniere, K. (1999). Silences
and image: The social history of the classroom. New York: Peter
Lang.
Gump, P. V. (1978). School environments. In I. Altman & J.
F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Children and the environment (pp. 131–
174). New York: Plenum.
Gump, P. V. (1991). School and classroom environments. In D.
Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psy-
chology (Vol. 1, pp. 691–732). New York: Wiley.
Halstead, H. (1992, October). Designing facilities for a new gen-
eration of schools. Educational Technology, 32(10) 46–48.
Helmke, A., & Weinert, F. E. (1997). Bedingungsfaktoren
schulischer Leistungen. In F.E. Weinert (Ed.), Enzyklopädie
der Psychologie, Themenbereich D: Praxisgebiete, Serie I:
Pädagogische Psychologie, Band 3: Psychologie des Unterrichts
und der Schule (pp. 71–176). Göttingen, Germany:
Hogrefe.
Heschong-Mahone Group. (1999). Daylighting in schools: An
investigation into the relationship between daylighting and
human performance. Fair Oaks, CA: Heschong-Mahone
Group.
Heschong-Mahone Group. (2003). Windows and classrooms:
A study of student performance and the indoor environment.
P500–03–082-A-7. Fair Oaks, CA: Heschong-Mahone
Group.
Hillmann, R. B., Brooks, C. I., & O’Brien, J. P. (1991).
Differences in self-esteem of college freshmen as a function
of classroom seating-row preference. Psychological Record, 41,
315–320.
Horne, S. C. (2000). The children/youth environment and
its effects on the practice of teachers. Proceedings of the
31st EDRA conference: Building Bridges: Connecting People,
Research, and Design. EDRA: San Francisco, CA.
Jacobs, E. (1999). Cooperative learning: An educational innova-
tion in everyday classrooms. Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Jago, E., & Tanner, K. (1999). Influence of the school facility on
student achievement: Thermal environment. Athens: University
of Georgia. Retrieved from www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/research-
abstracts/thermal.html.
Jago, E., & Tanner, K. (2005). Influence of the school facility on
student achievement. Athens: University of Georgia.
Kennedy, M. (2003). History in the making. American School &
University, 75, 1–10.
Klockhaus, R., & Habermann-Morbey, B. (1986). Psychologie des
Schulvandalismus. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Krebs, A. H. (1982). Critical points in problem solving. Journal
of Agricultural Education, 54(10), 5–7.
Kroner, W. (1994). Architecture for children. Karl KrSmer Verlag:
Stuttgart.
292 School Environments
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 292
Kükelhaus, H., & Lippe, R. zur (1992). Entfaltung der Sinne.
Ein “Erfahrungsfeld” zur Bewegung und Besinnung (2nd
ed.). Frankfurt, Germany: Fischer alternativ Taschenbuch
4065.
Kwok, A. G. (2000). Thermal comfort concepts and guidelines.
In J. D. Spengler, J. M. Samet, & J. F. McCarthy (Eds.),
Indoor air quality handbook (15.1–15.13). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lackney, J. A. (1999). Reading a school building like a book: The
influence of the physical school setting on learning and liter-
acy. Jackson: Educational Design Institute, Mississippi State
University.
Lackney, J. A. (2000). Thirty-three educational design principles for
schools and community learning centers. Jackson: Educational
Design Institute, Mississippi State University.
Lackney, J. A. (2009). A design language for schools and learn-
ing communities. In R. Walden (Ed.), Schools for the future:
Design proposals from architectural psychology (pp. 155–168).
Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restruc-
turing and size on early gains in achievement and engage-
ment. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241–270.
Lemasters, L. (1997). A synthesis of studies pertaining to facili-
ties, student achievement, and student behavior. Blacksburg:
University of Virginia, Educational Leadership and Policy
Studies Center.
Lemke, M., Calsyn, C., Lippman, L., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg,
D., . . . Bairu, G. (2001). Highlights from the 2000 Program
for International Student Assessment (PISA). OECD,
Retrieved from . http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.
asp?pubid=2002116
Levin, J., & Nolan, J. F. (2000). Principles of classroom manage-
ment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Lindholm, G. (1995). Schoolyards: The significance of place
properties to outdoor activities in schools. Environment and
Behavior, 27, 259–293.
Linneweber, V. (1993). Wer sind die Experten?—“User needs
analysis” (UNA), “post occupancy evaluation” (POE),
und Städtebau aus sozial- und umweltpsychologischer
Perspektive. In H. J. Harloff (Ed.), Psychologie des Wohnungs-
und Siedlungsbaus: Psychologie im Dienste von Architektur und
Stadtplanning (pp. 75–85). Gottingen, Stuttgart: Verlag fur
Angewandte Psychologie.
Linneweber, V. (1996). Lernumwelt: Schule. In L. Kruse, C. F.
Graumann, & E. D. Lantermann (Eds.), Ökologische psychol-
ogie (pp. 383–388). München, Germany: PVU.
Linneweber, V., Mummendey, A., Bornewasser, M., & Löschper,
A
G. (1984). Classification of situations specific to field and
behavior: The context of aggressive interactions in schools.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 281–295.
Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from t
nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin.
Lstiburek, J., & Carmody, J. (1994). The moisture control hand-
book: Principles and practices for residential and small commer-
cial buildings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. I
Mahnke, F. (1996). Color and the human response. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Malaguzzi, Loris. (1984).. L’occhio se salt ail muro. Catalog of the
Exhibit. Regione di Emilia Romagna: Comune di Reggio
Emilia, Assesserato Istruzione.
Marx, A., Fuhrer, U., & Hartig, T. (1999). Effects of classroom
seating arrangements on children’s question-asking. Learning
Environments Research, 2(3), 249–263.
6/8/2012 9:47:00 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
McAndrew, F. T. (1993). Environmental psychology. Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
McAndrews, T., & Anderson, W. (2002). Schools within schools.
ERIC Digest 154. College of Education, Eugene, University
of Oregon, Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
McGuffey, C. (1982). Facilities. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.),
Improving educational standards and productivity (pp. 237–
288). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
McMullan, B. J., Sipe, C. L., & Wolf, W. C. (1994). Charters
and student achievement: Early evidence from school restructur-
ing in Philadelphia. Bala Cynwyd, PA: Center for Assessment
and Policy Development.
Mendell, M. J., & Heath, G.A. (2004). Do indoor pollutants
and thermal conditions in schools influence student per-
formance? A critical review of the literature. Indoor Air, 15,
27–52.
Montessori, M. (1988). The Montessori Method. New York:
Random House.
Moore, R. (1989). Playgrounds at the crossroads. In I. Altman &
E. Zube (Eds), Public spaces and places. New York: Plenum.
Moos, R. F. (1979). Evaluating education environments. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nathan, J., and Thao, S. (2007). Smaller, safer, saner, success-
ful schools. Minneapolis, MN: Center for School Change.
Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
National Research Council. (2007). Green schools: Attributes for
health and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
Northwest Educational Technology Consortium. (2002). Virtual
schools: What do educational leaders need to know? Paper
presented at the 2002 NCCE Conference, Seattle, WA.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development). (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world:
First results from PISA 2004. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd
/1/60/34002216.pdf
Oelkers, J. (1996). Reformpädagogik: Eine kritische Dogmengeschichte
[Reform pedagogy: A critical history of dogma]. Weinheim,
Germany: Juventa.
Oliver, C., & Lippman, P. C. (2007). Examining space and place in
learning environments. Paper presented at the CONNECTED
International Conference on Design Education, July 9–12,
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Pablant, P., & Baxter, J. C. (1996). Environmental correlates of
school vandalism. In A. P. Goldstein (Ed.), The psychology of
vandalism (pp. 213–233). New York: Plenum.
Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 1975, 41, 270–279.
Pasalar, C. (2003). The effects of spatial layouts on students’ interac-
AQ: Please
tions in middle schools. doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from
provide
author http://www2.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/record/NCSU1698934
names and Petersen, P. (1927). Der Jena- Plan einer freien allgemeinen
title for the Volksschule [The Jena Plan for a free common elementary
reference
school]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
“Journal
of the Petersen, P. (1930–1934). Der große Jena- Plan. Schulleben und
American Unterricht einer freien Volksschule. Das gestaltende Schaffen.
Institute of Die Praxis der Schulen nach dem Jena- Plan [The Greater
Planners.
Jena Plan: Life and instruction in a free elementary school:
1975, 41,
270–279” Creative activity: The practice of schools according to the
Jena Plan]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
Picard, M., & Bradley, J. S. (2001). Revisiting speech interfer-
ence in classrooms. Audiology, 40, 221–244.
Pittman, R. B., & Haoghwout, P. (1987). Influence of high
school size on dropout rate. Education Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 9(4), 337–343.
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 293
Raywid, M. A. (1999). Current literature on small schools.
Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education
and Small Schools.
Rieselbach, A. (1992). Building and learning. In Architectural
League (Eds.), New schools for New York: Plans and precedents
for small schools. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Rittelmeyer, C. (1994). Schulbauten positiv gestalten. Wie
Schüler Farben und Formen erleben. Wiesbaden, Germany:
Bauverlag.
Rittelmeyer, C. (2004). Zur Rhetorik von Schulbauten. Über die
schülergerechte Gestaltung des architektonischen Ausdrucks.
Die Deutsche Schule, 96(2), 201–208.
Rittelmeyer, C. (2009). Schule als gestalteter Raum: Schularchitektur.
In S. Hellekamps, W. Plöger, & W. Wittenbruch (Eds.), Handbuch
Schule (pp. 505–511). Paderborn, Germany: Schöningh.
Robson, E. R. (1972). School architecture. Leicester, UK: Leicester
University Press.
Rothman, D. J. (1980). From conscience to convenience: The asy-
lum and its alternatives in progressive America. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown.
Sanoff, H. (1994). School design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sanoff, H. (2001). A visioning process for designing respon-
sive schools. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities.
Sanoff, H. (2002). Schools designed with community participation.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities.
Sanoff, H. (2009). Schools designed with community participa-
tion. In R. Walden (Ed.), Schools for the future: Design propos-
als from architectural psychology (pp. 123–142). Göttingen,
Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
Schavan, A. (2001). Schulen in Baden-Württemberg. Moderne
und historische Bauten zwischen Rhein, Neckar und Bodensee.
Stuttgart, Germany: Hohenheim Verlag.
Scheibe, W. (1999). Die reformpädagogische Bewegung 1900–1932.
Eine einführende Darstellung [The reform pedagogy movement
1900–1932: An introduction]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
Schmittmann, R. (1985). Architektur als Partner für Lehren und
Lernen. Eine handlungstheoretisch orientierte Evaluationsstudie am
Großraum der Laborschule Bielefeld. Frankfurt, Germany: Lang.
Schnabel, K. (2001). Psychologie der Lernumwelt. In A. Krapp &
B. Weidenmann (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie. Ein Lehrbuch
(4th ed., pp. 467–511). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz/PVU.
Schoggen, P. (1989). Behavior settings: A revision and extension of
Roger G. Barker’s ecological psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Seppänen, O., & Fisk, W. J. (2005). Control of temperature for
health and productivity in offices. ASHRAE Transactions,
111, 680–686.
Silberman, C. E. (1973). The open classroom reader. New York:
Vintage Books.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the
classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student
engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.
Sommer, R., & Olsen, H. (1980). The soft classroom.
Environment and Behavior, 12, 3–16.
Stevenson, K. R. (2002). Ten educational trends shaping school pla-
nning and design. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse
for Educational Facilities.
Stevenson, K. R. (2006). Educational facilities within the con-
text of a changing 21st-century America. Washington, DC:
National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Sanoff, Walden 293
6/8/2012 9:47:00 PM
 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 06/08/12, NEWGEN
Stockard, J., & Mayberry, M. (1992). Effective educational
environments. Newbury Park, CA: ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 350 674.
Ströhlein, G. (1998). Beiträge zur Evaluation schulischer
Umwelten. In F. Dieckmann, A. Flade, R. Schuemer, G.
Ströhlein, & R. Walden (Eds.), Psychologie und gebaute
Umwelt (pp. 178–181). Darmstadt, Germany: IWU.
Sullivan, K. (2002). Catching the age wave: Building schools
with senior citizens in mind. Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.
Tanner, C. K. (1999). The school design assessment scale:
Validity, reliability, and weights. Paper presented at CEFPI
Annual Conference, Baltimore, MD.
Tanner, C. K., & J. Lackney. (2006). Educational architecture:
Planning, designing, constructing, and managing environments
for learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Taylor, A. P. (1975). School zone: Learning environments for child-
ren. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Trump, J. L. (1959). Images of the future: A new approach to the
secondary school. Washington, DC: National Association of
Secondary School Principals.
US Green Building Council. (2007). LEED for schools. Green
School Buildings website.
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1586
Uline, C. L., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Wolsey, T. D. (2008).
The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, school
climate, and student achievement. Journal of Educational
Administration, 46(1), 55–73.
Walden, R. (Ed.). (2009). Schools for the future: Design proposals
from architectural psychology. (T. Mann, Trans.). Göttingen,
Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
Walden, R. (2010). Lernumwelten. In V. Linneweber, E. D.
Lantermann, & E. Kals (Eds.), Umweltpsychologie (Bd. 2,
Spezifische Umwelten und Umweltprobleme). Enzyklopädie
der Psychologie (N. herausgegeben von Birbaumer et al.).
Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Walden, R., & Borrelbach, S. (2010). Schulen der Zukunft.
Gestaltungsvorschläge der Architekturpsychologie (6th ed.).
Heidelberg, Germany: Asanger.
294 School Environments
15_Clayton_Ch15.indd 294
View publication stats
Wang, D., Federspiel, C. C., & Arens, E. (2005). Correlation
between temperature satisfaction and unsolicited complaint
rates in commercial buildings. Indoor Air, 15, 13–18.
Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N. E., King, S.
P., . . . Powell, L. C. (2000). Small schools: Great strides. New
York: Bank Street College of Education.
Watschinger, J., & Kühebacher, J. (Eds.) (2007), Schularchitektur
und neue Lernkultur. Neues Lernen—Neue Räume. Bern,
Switzerland: h.e.p. verlag ag/Ott Verlag.
Weinstein, C. S. (1979). The physical environment of the school:
A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 49,
577–610.
Weinstein, C. S., & Pinciotti, P. (1988). Changing the school-
yard: Intentions, design decisions, and behavioral outcomes.
Environment and Behavior, 20(3), 345–371.
Weiss, A. (2007), Creating the ubiquitous classroom: Integrating
physical and virtual learning spaces. International Journal of
Learning, 14(3). 77–84.
Wohlfarth, H. H. (1985). The effects of color-psychodynamic
environmental color and lighting modification of elemen-
tary schools on blood pressure and mood: A controlled
study. International Journal for Biosocial Research, 7(1),
9–16.
Wolfe, M., & Rivlin, L. G. (1987). The institutions in child-
ren’s lives. In C. S. Weinstein & T. G. David (Eds.), Spaces
for children: The built environment and child development.
New York: Plenum.
Wright, R. J. (1975). The affective and cognitive consequences of
an open education elementary school. American Educational
Research Journal, 12, 449–468.
Wüstenrot-Stiftung, H. (Ed.). (2004). Schulen in Deutschland:
Neubau und Revitalisierung. Stuttgart, Germany: Krämer.
Wyon, D. P. (2004). The effects of indoor air quality on perfor-
mance and productivity. Indoor Air, 14(7), 92–101.
Yanagisawa, K. (2009). Trends in the design and planning of
schools from the viewpoint of information technology and
communication. In R. Walden (Ed.), Schools for the future:
Design proposals from architectural psychology (pp. 143–154).
Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
6/8/2012 9:47:00 PM