Journal of Educational Administration

The influence of school architecture on academic achievement

C. Kenneth Tanner
Article information:
To cite this document:
C. Kenneth Tanner, (2000),"The influence of school architecture on academic achievement", Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 38 Iss 4 pp. 309 - 330
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230010373598
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

Downloaded on: 08 November 2014, At: 06:21 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 48 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2652 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Cynthia L. Uline, C. Kenneth Tanner, (2009),"Effects of school design on student outcomes", Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 47 Iss 3 pp. 381-399
David Medd, (1970),"NEW EDUCATION NEW DESIGN", Education + Training, Vol. 12 Iss 5 pp. 177-183
Professor Julie McLeod, Julie Willis, (2014),"From home to civic: designing the Australian school", History of
Education Review, Vol. 43 Iss 2 pp. 138-151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/HER-02-2014-0009

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549136 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com

The influence of school School

architecture and
architecture on academic achievement

achievement
C. Kenneth Tanner 309
Department of Educational Leadership, School Design and Planning Received May 1999
Laboratory, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA Revised November 1999
Accepted February 2000
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

Keywords Schools, Design, Success, Planning, Architecture

Abstract Limited, dated information is available to school administrators concerning the
influence that the built learning environment has on academic achievement. Given the population
increases, volatile standardized test scores, demand for new schools, and deplorable conditions of
school facilities in the United States, it is timely to investigate this neglected aspect of educational
research. In the face of radical technological changes and curriculum innovations, much of the
new public school architectural design is tied firmly to past and outdated practices. Currently
reform advocates push for program change to occur, while voicing minimal concern for the often
obsolete and shabby physical environments of the schools where the program improvement is to
evolve. With these problems representing the educational need, the specific purpose of this study
was to determine how school architectural design factors might influence student achievement
scores in elementary schools. A total of seven design factors were found to correlate with student
learning outcomes.

Over the last 15 years, our expectations for public education have increased
markedly. Waves of school reform have passed with the intent on raising
standards for students, teachers, and administrators. While the effects of the
restructuring movement are still under examination, we find that some
students are mastering and many teachers are teaching content that was
unheard of in the 1980s. By way of example, fifth grade students in some
schools in the USA are expected to develop Internet Web pages and be able to
describe advantages and disadvantages of various computer processing,
storage, retrieval, and transmission techniques. Teachers, to stay abreast of
new curricula, cultural changes, instructional theory, and educational
technology, are expected to fulfill more requirements than ever. Their
certification is tougher to obtain and continued education more rigorous.
Standards for school administrators have also improved.
Unfortunately, the one part of our education system that we do not hold to a
higher standard is the way schools are planned, designed, and built. ``Wolves at
the Schoolhouse Door,'' brought to our attention the questionable state of the
USA's public school infrastructure (Education Writers Association, 1989). The
USA's General Accounting Office (General Accounting Office, 1995a) attached
a dollar figure to the problem, estimating US$112 billion in needed construction
just to bring schools up to basic health and safety standards. Public school
Journal of Educational
Administration,
I wish to acknowledge the assistance of Ms Elizabeth Jago in developing the instrument and Vol. 38 No. 4, 2000, pp. 309-330.
collecting the date set. Her experience as an elementary school teacher was invaluable. # MCB University Press, 0957-8234
 Journal of districts in the USA put more than US$15 billion worth of construction in place
Educational during 1999, by far the most construction completed in the nation's history.
Administration Increases in school construction are taking place in a marketplace classified
by DeJong as ``lacking a vision'' (Butterfield, 1999). At the University of
38,4 Georgia's School Design and Planning Laboratory (SD&PL), there is concern
for the vision as well as tax money being spent on the reproduction of faulty,
310 educationally unsound, and dated architectural designs. In May of 1997, the
SD&PL was created to conduct research, provide service to schools, and offer
graduate courses in school facilities planning, school facilities management,
and school design. A major goal of the laboratory is to help make physical
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

learning environments more ``teacher and learner-friendly'' in a multicultural

society. Specific attention is focused on the SD&PL's implementation of
technology for instruction, service, and research. The laboratory depends on
research to enhance teaching and service.

Perspective and context of the problem

Henry Barnard (1848), the first USA Commissioner of Education, began his
classic work, School Architecture, by stating the common errors in school
architecture. He noted that public schools are almost universally badly located,
exposed to noise, dust and danger of the highway, unattractive, if not positively
repulsive in their external and internal appearance. He further elaborated on
the fact that schools were built at the least possible expense of material and
labor and also charged that schools are too small, badly lighted, not properly
ventilated, imperfectly warmed, not properly furnished, lacking appropriate
apparatus and fixtures, and deficient in outdoor and indoor arrangements.
Barnard's concern for trees, shrubbery, and flowers for the eye was also noted.
Given the current state of school architecture in the USA, many of Barnard's
concerns are still valid. In fact, with overcrowding in schools, we are
experiencing a new culture of ``slum architecture'' in public schools ± trailers
(schools on wheels).
An expeditious review of the broader international scene in school design
has revealed a similar problem. Seaborne (1971) conducted a study of English
schools. The purpose of his research was to open up questions relating to
primary school design for more general discussion by showing the relevance of
past experience to present problems and by sampling views of teachers and
architects. In line with the problem dealt with in this current study, Seaborne
(1971a) noted that schools in use at the time of his study were all designed with
certain educational and architectural aims in mind. ``At some periods the
architectural aspect has overwhelmed the educational ± as, for example, where
a school built in the 1840s (and still in use today) was given lancet windows of
perfect Gothic design without apparently taking account of the lack of natural
light inside the building which resulted'' (Seaborne, 1971a, p. 5).
Regarding other regions of the world, Vickery and Kayser (1972) compiled a
comprehensive book on school buildings in Asia. Their work was aimed at
improving quality ± a feature of Asian educational endeavor in the 1970s. The
 purpose of their work was to stimulate discussion on the main factors affecting School
the design, costs, and use of primary and secondary general schools in the architecture and
special context of the Asian region. As compared to the 1970s, by the end of the achievement
twentieth century their study called for larger schools, more years in school,
more subjects, and a reduction from 50 to 30 students per class in primary
schools.
By far, the most comprehensive historical investigation of school 311
architecture (1370-1870 and 1870-1970) has been published by Seaborne (1971b)
and Seaborne and Lowe (1977). These works examined English school
buildings from the educational as well as the architectural point of view. ``Even
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

those schools with little or no architectural merit are often important from the
educational and sociological points of view'' (Seaborne, 1971a, p. xxi). As school
curriculum changes and educational reform creeps incrementally through our
schools, school organization, administration, and physical structure also
change, albeit at a seemingly slower pace. ``Similarly, the ideas of educational
reformers, if they are really to take effect, must sooner or later be expressed in
organizational and architectural terms. Changes in the curriculum and methods
of teaching are also likely to be reflected in the layout of buildings and the
arrangement of classes'' (Seaborne and Lowe 1977, pp. 277-8).
Two major international organizations that foster interest in educational
architecture and help set standards and maintain a tie between educators and
architects are PEB and CEFPI. The Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OCED) supports the Program on Educational Building
(PEB). PEB promotes the international exchange of ideas, information,
research, and experience in all aspects of educational building. Overriding
concerns of the program are to ensure that the maximum educational benefit is
obtained from past and future investment in educational buildings and
equipment, and that the building stock is planned and managed in the most
efficient way (PEB Exchange, 1998). Another organization with similar goals is
the Council of Educational Facility Planners International. CEFPI focuses on
training educational planners and architects in all areas of schoolhouse
planning and emphasizes best practices that influence the school building
industry. The CEFPI is involved in some pure research efforts that deal with
where children learn. CEFPI is a centerpiece for sharing information
concerning educational facilities.

Problem
With trends moving toward improvements in school programs, many
standards for the physical aspects of school design do not lend themselves well
to educational reform measures. For example, high levels of cognitive
achievement are impossible to meet in large classes and crowded schools
(Achilles et al., 1998). Learning and health are impaired by lack of natural light.
Communications barely exist between the research branches of education and
architecture.
 Journal of Because increasing student populations need learning environments now,
Educational the pressure on political leaders and school boards is to act in haste. Our main
Administration concern in the USA is whether school districts will respond to these new
challenges in a positive, educationally sound manner. Regarding the issue of
38,4 responsiveness, there is some good news. Several states are demanding
improvements in educational planning and design. For example, California
312 requires that school planners have special certification. In 1998, Florida
adopted the Smart Schools Clearinghouse, West Virginia enacted a law
requiring a Registered Educational Facility Professional (a planning certificate
sponsored by CEFPI) on all new school building projects, and Mississippi
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

launched the Education Design Institute. Legislation similar to the West

Virginia law is pending in the State of Georgia. A new certification program in
school design and planning is offered by the Department of Educational
Leadership at the University of Georgia, although it is not currently required
by state law.
Standards have been raised for our students, teachers, and administrators,
yet, when school building design is considered, we continue to struggle,
seemingly content on just getting by. An impenetrable roof, solid walls, and an
adequate mechanical system continue to be the standard even when designing
``new facilities'' (Bradley, 1998). Educational administrators and planners have
an opportunity to study and positively influence the designs of the next
generation of schools. Before building a school that will serve a community for
50 years, we should consider the research question: How does the school's
architectural design influence student learning? The purpose of this study was
to answer this question in light of issues pertaining to existing school facilities.

Rationale
One reason to conduct research on educational architecture is the investment of
billions of dollars on school construction in the USA and at the international
level. However, my assumption that ``bad school houses are silent killers of
teaching and student learning'' is even more reason to study the relationship
between the physical environment and academic achievement.
What are school design patterns? The SD&PL set out to address this
question by reviewing the educational and architectural literature. The first
line of reasoning was that the school environment influences behavior and
attitude. Next, behavior and attitude influence learning; therefore, the physical
environment must affect learning. Barker (1968) noted that in order to study the
environment-behavior relations both the environment and the behavior must
be measured independently. In the study reported here, an attempt was made to
measure the environment through the assessment of design patterns. Learning
behavior was measured by a standardized test.

School design patterns

Architecture, the physical form of social institutions, must respond to changes
in conventions of behavior and it may stimulate new ways of behaving
 (Ackerman, 1969). Students' interactions with physical settings often become School
their primary medium for learning. Physical arrangements of classroom space architecture and
and class size communicate expectations for behavior reinforced by achievement
institutional policy decisions. Within the school setting, attachments to objects
and places are central to the emotional life of the young child (David and
Weinstein, 1987). These facts provide a basis for some important propositions:
(1) Environmental experiences in childhood continue to be influential
313
throughout life; therefore, the way a school is designed and built can
influence student learning (David and Weinstein, 1987).
(2) Planners, teachers, school administrators, architects, and designers
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

must recognize the emerging impressions on students formed by the

architecture and physical attributes of spaces within schools (Kunz,
1998).
(3) Built environments have direct and symbolic impacts on children (David
and Weinstein, 1987).
These propositions lend themselves well to a pattern language for schools.
According to Alexander et al. (1977), global patterns define environments.
Patterns may also be designed and built. Design patterns provide a scheme for
spaces, including height, size, gardens, roof angle, position on the land, and
scale, for example. They bring order out of nothing (Alexander, 1979). Selected
design patterns supported by best practices and research provided a
foundation for this study.
The promenade (Alexander, 1979) was included in this study as a pattern
that possibly influences learning because most schools in the USA offer bus
and automobile loading and unloading zones. This is usually a covered
walkway, and often becomes the first part of the school structure seen by
students each day. The promenade, a global design pattern for schools in the
USA, may also be a place where students ``hang out'' and socialize. It might also
be an area for free time or ``recess.''
Outdoor learning environments are becoming more popular as curriculum
innovation seeks to involve students in the study of ecology and greener
environments. Often overlooked considerations for schools include the design
and development of green areas, natural quiet areas, and play areas. The
developing interest in outdoor learning brings the design of outdoor rooms into
focus (Freeman, 1995). Accordingly, we might expect to provide a place for
animals, which helps to teach a sense of responsibility and values.
Historically, play areas have been a part of all schools. The school must
include places for indoor and outdoor play, since it is through play that children
acquire social, cognitive, and physical skills (Gaunt, 1980). The difficult aspect
of getting approval for adequate play areas and equipment is that the general
public does not see play as an important aspect of learning.
A design that has mixed reviews among educators and architects involved
in planning and designing public schools is the campus plan. This plan draws
 Journal of from the architecture of Thomas Jefferson and is well documented by Vickery
Educational (1998). The school campus may reflect design aspects concerning the ethnic,
Administration religious, and cultural background of the students, the economic mix of
parents, and the educational profile of the community. Special spaces can be
38,4 designed to accommodate these social and cultural concerns (Bingler, 1995;
Crumpacker, 1995). Designers should work to establish the school as a model of
314 society that requires ``. . . students [to] take most of the responsibility for
learning . . . and . . . discipline'' (Alexander et al., 1977, p. 418).
Maintaining privacy for the student in a school setting is a difficult design
feature to place on the agenda given the concern for student safety and
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

security. Proshansky and Fabian (1987) provide support for places of privacy
in schools. This is as much an interior design feature as a total school feature
and may become easier to achieve through the arrangement and design of
school furniture than through structural design.
Instructional neighborhoods have gained a place in the school design world
with the completion of Celebration School (Frantz and Collins, 1999). The
instructional neighborhood is a place where teachers and students constitute a
small community or a ``family'' in a ``house.'' To this end, the design includes
suites, each with classrooms, lounge space for adults, office space for teachers,
lockers, private bathrooms, window seats, terraces, hallway display cases, and
small seminar rooms (Genevro, 1992). This design characteristic has also
received a mixed reception from parents and educators, given that it requires
not only a curriculum design change, but also special training for teachers and
school administrators.
A point of reference for the school is a significant architectural design trait
that allows for architectural creativity. Furthermore, a main building that
stands out (something that serves as a welcoming center and a place from
which to observe campus activities) helps to keep the child oriented. This
design feature heightens the sense of community and stimulates students'
imagination.
Scale is just one of many vehicles of communication (Ackerman, 1969).
Adherence to scale is necessary to produce user friendly schools. Some design
features may shock adults but be student friendly. For example, ``. . . you're at
the front door (of Crow Island School), and what you notice is that the door
handle is too low. Too low for you, just right for children'' (Meek and Landfried,
1995, p. 53). Other aspects of scale include windows low enough for children to
``see out,'' hand rails at three levels and classrooms that resemble children's
rooms at home. Herbert (1998) reported some reflections from alumni of Crow
Island School: ``The light switches were at my level and the auditorium had
benches, starting with the little ones in front . . . Everything was within my
reach'' (Herbert, 1998, p. 70). Building to the scale of children promotes a sense
of belonging.
Exposing children to harmful forms of lighting in poorly designed schools is
reason enough for us to seriously consider Alexander's notion of ``wings of
light.'' ``Windows (views) overlooking life'' is another positive aspect for
 translation to the school environment. Light is the most important School
environmental input, after food and water, in controlling bodily functions architecture and
(Wurtman, 1975). Lights of different colors affect blood pressure, pulse, achievement
respiration rates, brain activity, and biorhythms. Full-spectrum light, required
to influence the pineal gland's synthesis of melatonin, which in turn helps
determine the body's output of the neurotransmitter serotonin, is critical to a
child's health and development (Ott, 1973). To help reduce the imbalances 315
caused by inadequate exposure to the near ultra-violet and infra-red ends of the
spectrum, full-spectrum bulbs that approximate the wavelengths provided by
sunshine should replace standard fluorescent and tungsten bulbs (Hughes,
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

1980). There is ample evidence that people need daylight to regulate ``circadian
rhythms'' (Alexander et al., 1977, p. 527). Poorly lit classrooms can cause
students to experience a daily form of ``jet lag.'' Furthermore, forms of
fluorescent lighting may affect some students and teachers by causing mild
seizures.
Pathways, a pattern akin to the promenade, are important because they are
the highways through the building and within classrooms. Clearly marked
pathways to activity areas improve utilization of space. Built learning
environments need pathways to the outside and also indoor pathways and
streets (hallways). Pathways perform a vital role in the way people interact
with buildings (Alexander et al., 1977). Like the point of reference, pathways
help to keep the child oriented.
The context of the school (location and proximity) entails access through
roads and streets and public and private transportation. A safe context is vital
to learning environments. Context also includes the school's activity nodes that
may be interpreted as ``cooperating facilities.'' For example, context may
involve the simple design pattern of locating natural or outdoor learning areas
for the study of science near the indoor science classrooms. Context also
extends into the cultural and social dimensions of the community. A school
having mobile classrooms (often called trailers in the USA) is out of context in
an upper class neighborhood. Slum architecture in a school is out of context in
any neighborhood.
Modified open spaces allow freedom of movement and help minimize
student traffic congestion. These areas provide for more encounters with
activity centers and greater engagement in developmentally oriented behavior
(Moore, 1987).
The geometric orientation of the built environment (siting) is important for
lighting and can influence the utilization of the school. Proper orientation
provides, for example, a cool side and a warm side, a calm side and a windy
side, and views of nature. Good design ensures access to the sunny side of the
structure and makes outdoor space usable (positive outdoor space ± flower and
vegetable gardens, for example).
There are other important design patterns borrowed from Alexander et al.
(1977) that may be linked to pattern language theories for educational
architecture. These include activity pockets, climate control, learning
 Journal of signature, inviting lunchroom atmosphere, a centralized administrative area,
Educational acoustics, integrated technology for teachers and students, a safe location,
Administration storage spaces, background detail, visual stimulation, places for personal
artifacts, hierarchy of open space (views into larger spaces), living views
38,4 (gardens, trees, grasslands, animals), friendly walkways (arcades), the
development of connecting circulation patterns ± inside and outside the
316 structures ± with goals (paths with goals ± designated places for displaying
student work or meaningful posters ± benches, etc.), ample personal space per
site and per learning area, activity pockets for small work groups, intimacy
gradients to create a sequence from public to private spaces, common areas for
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

informal contact, a friendly entrance area for each structure and each learning
neighborhood, generous circulation patterns to minimize congestion
(crowding), bathrooms in every classroom for comfort and safety (Bete, 1998),
ample storage, adequate size of the spaces (rooms) and variation of ceiling
heights and designs, number of learning spaces per site and per neighborhood,
private spaces for children to reflect, and a positive lunchroom atmosphere.
Finally, design features that enhance school safety and security are vital. In
the wake of school violence there are various theories that are being advanced.
For example, large monolithic buildings with a labyrinth of hallways
(Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado) could be a safety and security
hazard for students and school personnel. Smaller schools with ample exits
might be an alternative. Further, supervisable circulation patterns (Moore and
Lackney, 1995) is a design pattern that will probably become a standard
requirement for the twenty-first century school.

Quality and functionality as an aspect of design

A significant amount of the reform movement deals with the teaching of
values. To this end it is important to infuse physical settings for children with
the sense of being in nature (Prescott, 1987). Natural things have unending
diversity, people do not create them, and they offer a feeling of timelessness.
Views overlooking life provide quality to the school's learning environment,
while allowing spaces for small animals in schools offers students the
opportunity to ``care for life.'' According to Barnard (1848), schools need trees,
shrubbery, and flowers for the eye.
Quality and functionality in buildings are generated, not made, by ordinary
actions of the people. This theory advocates group planning which may be a
significant aspect of the language of design (Alexander et al., 1977).
Participatory design, a significant part of quality based on ownership of the
plan, recognizes that the student, the teacher, the parent, the administrator, and
the architect are all vital ingredients in the process of educational change
(Sanoff, 1994).
Aggression and destructive behavior are increased as the number of
children in a room increase according to Rivlin and Wolf (1972). Some of the
consequences of high density conditions that involve either too many children
or too little space are: excess levels of stimulation; stress and arousal;
 reductions in desired privacy levels; and loss of control (Wohlwill and van School
Vliet, 1985). High density and crowding detract from the quality and architecture and
functionality of the school. achievement
Finn (1998) reported that the size of a class influences academic
performance. Academic performance of ``at risk'' students in elementary
schools is significantly higher when there are from 13 to 17 students per class
(Achilles et al., 1998). Larger schools (with 1,000 or more students) discourage a 317
sense of responsibility and meaningful participation (Moore and Lackney,
1995). Size matters (Black, 1996).
Although not exhaustive, this review is a beginning in the quest to identify
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

school design patterns that influence student learning. The concept of patterns
is grounded in publications by Alexander et al. (1977) and Alexander (1979).
Recent works by Sanoff (1994), Moore and Lackney (1995) and Brubaker (1998)
offer additional theories on how to shape the learning environment to support
educational objectives.

A scale to measure school design

This summary of the SD&PL's first review of related literature was
compressed and validated as an instrument for measuring the degree to which
a design pattern exists in a school. Within the instrument there are four
descriptors which are most likely to be associated with each pattern: f =
functionality of the pattern, a = adequacy of the pattern, s = safety associated
with the pattern, and q = quality of the pattern. The degree of each descriptor's
presence is assigned to each design pattern by the evaluator. With safety and
security as a dominant guideline, the SD&PL's original 39 relevant design
patterns are:
(1) Promenade. Walkways linking main outside areas, ideally placing
major activity centers at the extremes (f).
(2) Green areas. Outside spaces, close to the school building, where trees,
grass or gardens may be seen (but no cars or roads) (q).
(3) Quiet areas. Solitary places where students may go to pause and refresh
themselves in a quiet setting:
. inside places (q);
. outside places (q).
(4) Play areas. Special locations where children are given the opportunity to
be together, use their bodies, build muscles, and test new skills. Using
imagination and releasing energy are two important activities seen in
these areas (f).
(5) Campus plan. Several natural and built structures that may be connected
by walkways (sometimes covered), pathways, and/or promenades that
complement the delivery of the educational program (f).
 Journal of (6) Entrance area. A friendly space connecting the outside world to the
Educational inside world. This age appropriate space should be inviting and highly
Administration visible for students and visitors. It should evoke a ``welcome'' feeling (f).
38,4 (7) Private spaces for children. Social places where a small group of children
may go to be alone (i.e. reading areas, quiet places, reflection areas,
listening areas, etc.):
318 . inside (f);
. outside (f).
(8) Instructional neighborhoods. Places (perhaps wing(s) of the building)
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

that include teacher planning spaces, flex zones (places for multiple use),
small and large group areas, wet areas for science and art, hearth areas,
and restrooms. The hearth area is a place used for reading and quiet
time:
. teacher planning areas (f);
. flex zones (f);
. small group areas (f);
. large group areas (f);
. wet areas for science (f);
. wet areas for art (f); and
. hearth areas (f).
(9) Outdoor rooms. Defined outdoor learning environments ± enough like a
classroom, but with the added beauties of nature (f).
(10) Circulation patterns. Indoor spaces for circulation should be broad and
well-lit allowing for freedom of movement:
. within learning environments (f);
. among learning environments (f).
(11) Reference. Main building has an obvious point of reference among the
school's buildings. It is a focal point where paths and buildings connect.
This design feature heightens the sense of community. It stimulates
students' imagination (f).
(12) Building on student's scale. A place designed and built to the scale of
children (e.g. door handles or handrails low enough for children to reach
to accommodate their heights).
. light switches (f);
. seats fit children (f);
. door handles (f);
. hand rails (f);
. shortened steps (f);
 . water fountains (f); and School
. views (doors/windows that allow the student to see the outside architecture and
easily) (f). achievement
(13) Administration centralized. Administrative offices are grouped together
in a centralized area allowing for connection and convenience. If there
are schools within a school or a campus plan, the person in charge 319
should be readily accessible (at least for the safety of the children) (f).
(14) Acoustics. Control of internal and external noises levels (q).
(15) Windows. Spaces bringing natural light into the learning environment.
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

Windows may have some form of glare control, but should be in use
(when glare is not a problem), and be without painted obstructions and
other devices that restrict views. Windows should invite the outdoors
inside:
. views overlooking life (a);
. unrestricted views (when glare is not a problem) (a); and
. adequacy of natural light (includes skylights and borrowed light ±
natural or reflected light) (a).
(16) Intimacy gradients. A sequence from larger to smaller-public to private
spaces, giving the effect of drawing people into the area. These are
usually found in main entrances, but may be used throughout the
learning environment (q).
(17) Technology for students. Spaces with computers, compact disks,
learning packages, Internet connections, television, and video:
. computers are placed within the learning environment in a manner
that complements teaching and learning. Computers appear as an
integral part of the curriculum (a);
. computer laboratories are not arranged in a rigid, institutionalized,
manner (a);
. the teacher can easily view all computer screens from one location
(a).
(18) Technology for teachers. Computers (including laptops), multimedia and
Internet connections are easily accessible. Teachers have access to
technology (outside the media center) for use in research and planning
lessons (a).
(19) Pathways. Clearly defined areas that allow freedom of movement among
structures. These play a vital role in the way people interact with
buildings. Pathways may also connect buildings to one another so that a
person can walk under the cover of arcades (f).
(20) Context. The school and grounds are compatible with the surroundings
and sufficient to facilitate the curriculum and programs (q).
 Journal of (21) Learning zones:
Educational . variety of indoor spaces developed to meet individual learning styles
Administration (a);
38,4 . variety of outdoor areas developed to meet individual learning styles
(a).
320 (22) Climate control. A quiet system designed to maintain a comfortable
temperature in the classroom learning environment (a).
(23) Safe location. The site and learning environments are free of excessive
non-pedestrian traffic and noise. Natural or built barriers may protect
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

these areas (s).

(24) Storage. Secured spaces for teachers and students to store their personal
belongings, tools and supplies (a).
(25) Ceiling heights. A variation of ceiling heights allows individual comfort
and intimacy within the school (a).
(26) Background detail. Spaces for colorful displays on walls and doors (e.g.
light switches, wall outlets, louvers, and surface raceways) that might be
unnoticed by adults (q).
(27) Visual stimulation. Walls and finishes should effectively display color
and vivid patterns (q).
(28) Personal artifacts. Places designed for items of a personal nature that
relate to each student (a).
(29) Natural light/full spectrum. Artificial light plus natural light from the
outside, preferably on two sides of every room (a).
(30) Living views. Views of indoor and outdoor spaces (gardens, animals,
fountains, mountains, people, etc.). These allow minds and eyes to take a
break (q).
(31) Paths with goals. Places designed to provide focal points when walking
to particular locations. (e.g. displays of students, work, meaningful
posters, benches, or plants) (f).
(32) Personal space. Places for children to participate in activities and tasks
without being jammed (crowded) (a).
(33) Activity pockets. Spaces designed for small group work (a).
(34) Outdoor spaces. Places which are defined; may be surrounded by wings
of buildings, trees, hedges, fences, fields, arcades or walkways (f).
(35) Learning signature. The school's focus and passion. If, after touring the
school, you have to ask if the school has a learning signature, the school
probably does not have one (q).
(36) Animal life. Places in a school or on the school grounds for animals to
live (includes butterfly houses, bird houses, trees, etc.). Caring for
 animals helps teach the students a sense of responsibility and respect School
(values) (q). architecture and
(37) Bathrooms in classrooms. Bathrooms contribute to the comfort, safety, achievement
and convenience of the students and teachers (s).
(38) Lunchroom atmosphere. An inviting setting, including ample lighting
and space, allowing students to eat comfortably. A positive atmosphere 321
gives students a sense of worth and value (q).
(39) Overall impression. Judged on whether the learning environments are
student friendly and teacher friendly and meet the educational
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

program's needs (f) (a) (s) (q).

Scoring and reliability of the instrument

Assigned values, representing the degree to which each pattern is perceived to
be present, formulate a design score per pattern. In turn, the summation across
patterns results in a total score. Given that the instrument is valid and reliable,
schools having high design scores, on the average, would approximate ideal
learning environments. Weights for the 39 items were not included in this
study, but will be determined through further validation. The reliability
(Cronbach's alpha) coefficient was determined to be 0.90 for this sample. It is an
indication of consistency and will vary with each set of evaluators and
circumstances. The test-retest measurement of reliability is 0.82 (Tanner, 1999).
Most items may be judged according to functionality, others are classified
according to the degree of adequacy or quality, with safety being the main
concern in each case. For most design patterns in the scale, the descriptors
pertaining to functionality, adequacy, safety, and quality are considered, but
the scoring was based on the perceived dominant descriptor for each item in
this initial study. This aspect needs some further clarification and cross-
validation, especially as the newer versions are developed. The degrees of
functionality, safety, adequacy, and quality are measured with a ten-point
Likert scale, where 10 = 100 per cent, 1 = 10 per cent, and ``not present or very
weak'' = no response (0 per cent). A school's design score is the summation of
points across all items. The decision to use a ten-point scale was based on
works by Gagne and Allaire (1974) who showed the efficiency of an eight-point
scale, Selltiz et al. (1959) who made a clear distinction between objects and
humans in terms of degree to which they possess a given characteristic, and
Likert (1967), who used the 20-point scale in his classic work on ``Linking pin
theory.''

Sample
After completing this first version of the design assessment scale, attention
was turned toward finding a sample of schools where further validation of the
instrument could be completed and comparisons made between design scores
and standardized measures of cognitive learning. The population for this study
included 44 elementary schools (representing 22,679 students) in 13 contiguous
 Journal of school districts in the State of Georgia. Students' percentile reading and
Educational mathematics performance scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills for 1996-97
Administration were collected for each school.
One objective was to select schools from each end of the scoring spectrum on
38,4 the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The rationale was that if we could
determine a sample of schools with significantly different test scores, our work
322 would be facilitated in measuring the design patterns of the schools. The study
included schools with significantly different scores on the ITBS (see Tables I
and II). Furthermore, if test scores were significantly different, then the
question of whether or not design patterns were different could be the sole
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

focus.
Before selecting the sample, a multiple regression analysis was completed
by using socioeconomic variables and composite percentile reading and
mathematics scores. This was done to eliminate sampling bias. To accomplish
this, the ITBS scores served as the dependent variables, while the independent
variables included the percentages of students receiving free lunch, remedial
instruction, special education instruction, and special assistance instruction.
None of the four variables were significant predictors of the ITBS scores.
Therefore, no adjustment of ITBS scores was necessary to select the sample.
That is, the study included actual instead of predicted test scores.

ITBS scoresa
(reading and mathematics
School Rank fifth grade) Classification

Aa 44 146 Urban
B 43 136 Rural
C 42 135 Rural
D 41 128 Suburban
E 40 127 Suburban
F 39 126 Urban
G 38 125 Rural
H 37 101 Urban
S 8 89 Rural
T 7 87 Urban
U 6 86 Urban
V 5 83 Urban
Wb 4 75 Urban
X 3 74 Rural
Y 2 70 Suburban
Z 1 67 Suburban
Table I.
Sample by rank and Notes: a Percentile scores; b
School principals would not allow researchers to tour the school
score buildings and grounds
 ITBS score School
School Rank (reading and mathematics) Design score architecture and
achievement
High
B 43 136 257
C 42 135 284
D 41 128 203
E 40 127 288
323
F 39 126 254
G 38 125 242
H 37 101 241
Mean = 125 Mean = 253
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

SD = 11.6 SD = 28.8
Low
S 8 89 271
T 7 87 261
U 6 86 210
V 5 83 96
X 3 74 114
Y 2 70 208
Z 1 67 160 Table II.
Mean = 79 Mean = 189 Design and ITBS
SD = 8.9 SD = 68.1 scores by school

The state-adopted curriculum was followed in all schools; therefore, students

were exposed to similar academic experiences. Student turnover, teacher
training, and formal education of teachers did not differ significantly among
schools.
Because none of the socioeconomic variables could be linked to a statistically
significant effect on the ITBS scores (the variance was homogenous), a ranking
of the fifth grade composite reading and mathematics scores for 1996-1997 (1
low to 44 high) was used to select the bipolar sample of 16 schools (Table I).
Fifth grade test scores were used since these students had experienced the
learning environments for at least six years (k ± 5). The sample was drawn
from the upper 20 per cent (eight) and lower 20 per cent (eight) of the population
(n = 44). Two principals refused to provide a guided tour of their schools;
therefore, these schools (A and W) were eliminated from the study (see Table I).
Data were collected in the winter and spring of 1998. My graduate research
assistant and I visited each of the 14 schools (housing approximately 8,400
students). We completed a comprehensive tour of each facility complex and
grounds. The graduate research assistant had six years of experience as an
elementary school teacher and had been trained in the use and scoring of the
assessment scale. In order to maintain consistency and obtain reliable
responses, we were the only persons involved in assigning design scores (a
factor that minimized variance). Conversations with principals and teachers
regarding school design features were completed during the tour. The average
tour and discussion required from three to four-and-a-half hours. Special effort
 Journal of was made to emphasize only positive design features in the school during our
Educational conversations. Since there were 39 items, a school's total score could range from
Administration 0 to 390.
Independently, we completed the assessment within one hour following the
38,4 tour. We did not check to see whether we were visiting a school in the top or the
bottom portion of the sample. No discussions took place regarding the items or
324 the assigned scores prior to the initial rating. Once the ratings were completed,
we determined a composite score for each school. This task was completed on
the same day of each visit. When compromise was necessary to arrive at a
score, it was based on our knowledge of research and best practices found in
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

the literature.

Findings
The ITBS scores were significantly different for the two parts of the sample
(F = 69.0; p < 0.05) as supported by the data in Table II. Next, a test was made
between the design scores to determine if they were also significantly different
(alpha = 0.05 for all statistical calculations in this study). An analysis of
variance test for the high and low ranked schools was completed and a
statistically significant difference between design score means was found
(F = 5.27, p < 0.05). Further, a Pearson's correlation of 0.62 was found between
the design scores and the ITBS scores (p < 0.05).
At this point it can be concluded that the composite design scores are
significantly correlated to ITBS scores in this sample. Exactly which design
variables are the best predictors of ITBS scores, however, cannot be determined
from this statistic.
Next, a correlation analysis was completed to determine the relationships
between the composite ITBS scores and the 39 design patterns. Seven variables
revealed significant correlations with the ITBS scores. All significant
correlations were positive. These were as follows: context (r = 0.62; p = 0.02);
outdoor rooms (r = 0.75; p = 0.02); pathways (r = 0.79; p = 0.01); outdoor space
(r = 0.55; p = 0.05); technology for students (r = 0.65; p = 0.01); technology for
teachers (r = 0.65; p = 0.01); and overall impression (r = 0.65; p = 0.01).
Following the correlation analysis, a multiple regression analysis was
completed to determine if these seven variables would predict the ITBS scores.
Since F (6,1) = 2.9; p = 0.42 (Table III), variances among the seven
independent variables' regression coefficients were assumed to be equal. Since
tolerance limits were reached, variable 40 (technology for students) did not
enter the regression equation. A low tolerance indicated that the larger portion
of the predictive power of variable 40 had already been accounted for by the
other six predictor variables in the equation. Given the R square of 0.95, we
may conclude that the seven design variables account for approximately 95 per
cent of the variability of the ITBS scores in this sample.
Since the above analysis was forced to include all the variables and yielded
questionable beta weights, a backward regression analysis was completed to
determine if the greater part of the prediction could be attributed to a small
 School
Analysis of patterns
Multiple R 0.97250
architecture and
R square 0.94575 achievement
Standard error 13.77360

Analysis of variance DF SS MS
Regression 6 3307.16289 551.19382 325
Residual 1 189.71211 181.71211
Notes: F = 2.90542; Significant F = 0.4212

Variables in equation Beta weights T Significant T

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

Compatible with context ±0.12 ±0.22 0.86

Outdoor rooms 0.20 0.26 0.83
Pathways 0.57 2.03 0.29
Positive outdoor spaces 0.62 0.87 0.54
Computers for students 0.82 1.93 0.30 Table III.
Overall impression ±0.35 ±0.57 0.67 Analysis of patterns

number of the variables. Through backward elimination, four predictor

variables (alpha to enter = 0.05) were found. The adjusted R2 of 0.86 indicated
that the partial regression coefficients were significantly different from zero
(F = 11.6; p < 0.05). This suggests a strong prediction equation as presented in
Table IV.
The backward solution starts out with the squared multiple correlations of
all independent variables with the dependent variable. The independent
variables are deleted from the regression equation one at a time. This makes it
possible to observe which variable adds the least R2 when entered last. When
the deletion of any one variable produces a meaningful or significant loss to R2,
the analysis is terminated.
The variables revealed in Table IV show the best predictors (pathways,
positive outdoor spaces, computers for teachers, and overall impression).
Outdoor rooms (defined outdoor learning environments) and compatibility
with context did not enter the prediction equation.

A pattern language
The discovery of relationships between design characteristics and academic
achievement should help in future school planning activities by pointing to
design patterns that complement learning. This study was limited by sample
size, and a larger sample in a replication study might help substantiate the
findings herein.

Patterns that were not statistically significant predictors

Two design patterns should receive honorable mention in this study and must
be tested in a larger study. They certainly correlate positively to ITBS scores
although they did not prove to be significant predictors (alpha = 0.05). First,
``compatibility with context'' may be too difficult to determine on the basis of
 Journal of Multiple R 0.96921
Educational R square 0.93938
Administration Adjusted R square
Standard error
0.85854
8.40627
38,4
Analysis of variance DF Sum of squares Mean square
Regression 4 3284.87908 821.21977
326 Residual 3 211.99592 70.66531
Notes: F = 11.62126; Significant F = 0.0360

Variables in the equation

Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

Variable B SE B Beta T Sig T

Pathways 6.920958 2.017853 0.548956 3.430 0.0415

Positive O/D space 14.529375 4.280323 0.810255 3.394 0.0426
Computers for teachers 6.943602 1.374665 0.861863 5.051 0.0150
Overall impression ±10.797772 6.623027 ±0.403164 ±1.630 0.2015
(Constant) ±9.156450 31.346092 ±0.292 0.7892

Variables not in the equation

Variable Beta in partial Min toler T Sig T
Table IV.
The prediction Context ±0.116104 ±0.207518 0.153791 ±0.300 0.7925
equation Outdoor rooms 0.196072 0.249988 0.098550 0.365 0.7500

one measurement scale. Perhaps this variable could be refined. Next, ``clearly
defined outdoor rooms'' may have been displaced by variables related to
outdoor learning. Both variables may be the victims of some rater bias as well
as the small sample.

Patterns that predict achievement

Under similar conditions as found in this study, the following design patterns
predict ITBS scores:
Technology for teachers. Computers were found to be an integral part of the
building design in schools where students earned high ITBS scores.
Accessibility was the essential feature. Teachers need well defined, convenient
office clusters, with telephone, Internet, and fax (Fiske, 1995; Moore and
Lackney, 1995). Schools with high ITBS scores and design scores provided
computers in several locations, arranged in spaces accessible to teachers and
students. Unfortunately, Internet access was extremely restricted in the 14
schools.
Pathways. School building and grounds having high scores on ``clearly
defined areas for freedom of movement'' correlated significantly with students'
high ITBS scores. Freedom of movement within the school and among learning
environments was one of the significant design patterns discovered in this
study. Lack of expansive pathways implies higher density and other
restrictions that influence learning. Crowding and density have been associated
 with decreased attention, lower task performance, behavioral problems, and School
social withdrawal (Aiello et al., 1985; Wohlwill and van Vliet, 1985). architecture and
Supervisable circulation paths play a major role in student safety, since achievement
supervising teachers need clear views of corridors and hallways to monitor
student activity (Moor and Lackney, 1995).
Overall impression. The overall impression of the learning environment is a
reflection of the personality of place. A positive climate sends subtle messages 327
telling students and visitors that a school is not sterile, empty, or lifeless
(Hansen and Childs, 1998). Students attending schools receiving high ratings
on this variable tended to score high on the ITBS. The overall positive
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

impression of a school implies the presence of friendly student and teacher

learning environments.
Positive outdoor spaces. Students attending schools with poorly designed
and maintained outdoor spaces had lower ITBS scores. It is clear to me that
positive outdoor spaces invite nature to blend with the school's function and
form. It is important for children to have the sense of being in a natural setting
(Prescott, 1987). A positive outdoor area gives a feeling that the school's
learning environments are ``in harmony with nature.'' A positive outdoor space
may also be a ``built'' environment.

Discussion
There were other patterns that I expected to correlate positively with the ITBS
scores. ``Wings of light'' or classrooms with windows was one pattern that did
not emerge as a predictor. Even where schools were found with adequate
windows for natural light, the windows were often covered with blinds,
curtains, or blocked by displays of students' work. So, the presence of windows
in a classroom does not necessarily mean that natural light is allowed inside.
Many schools did not have a learning signature (they lacked any detectable
passion for anything other than day-to-day survival). Planned quiet areas were
rare. The design pattern, ``safe location,'' was violated by busy streets and noise
pollution in some schools. Recall that this was also a concern of Barnard (1848).
None of the elementary schools were designed exclusively to the scale of
students.
On the qualitative side of this study, I observed that schools which were in
harmony with nature tended to have students who earned high ITBS scores.
These schools were supported by positive outdoor spaces. The design concept
referred to as ``in harmony with nature'' was found in several urban settings.
There were urban schools whose students had high scores on the ITBS. These
schools were far removed from forest lands, but they had a curriculum focus on
plants and provided a natural habitat for animals. Children were in charge of
caring for animals and monitoring gardens, bird houses, and butterfly houses,
for example. None of the low scoring schools had any noticeable positive
outdoor spaces. One outstanding urban school had devoted an area to a small
barn and pasture that contained chickens, goats, and sheep. Students were in
 Journal of charge of taking care of these animals. The attachment to objects and places
Educational are central to the emotional life (affective and behavioral dimensions of
Administration learning) of the young child (David and Weinstein, 1987).
38,4 Conclusion
A pattern language that evolved from the study of this sample may be
328 described as ``on the average, ``clearly defined pathways'', ``positive outdoor
spaces'', ``computers for teachers'', and a ``positive overall impression'' are
statistically significant predictors of high ITBS scores.'' Students attending
schools with these characteristics scored higher on the ITBS than their
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

counterparts.

References and further reading

Achilles, C.M., Finn, J.D. and Bain, H.P. (1998), ``Using class size to reduce the equity gap'',
Educational Leadership, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 40-3.
Ackerman, J.S. (1969), ``Listening to architecture'', Harvard Educational Review: Architecture and
Education, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 4-10.
Aiello, J.R., Thompson, D.E. and Baum, A. (1985), ``Children, crowding, and control: effects of
environmental stress on social behavior'', in Wohlwill, J.F. and van Vliet, W. (Eds),
Habitats for Children: The Impacts of Density, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
NJ, pp. 97-124.
Alexander, C. (1979), The Timeless Way of Building, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. and Silverstein, M. (1977), A Pattern Language, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
Barker, R.G. (1968), Ecological Psychology, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CT.
Barnard, H. (1848), School Architecture, H.W. Derby & Co, Cincinnati, OH.
Bete, T. (1998), ``The school of the future'', School Planning and Management, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 70-3.
Bingler, S. (1995), ``Place as a form of knowledge'', in Meek, A. (Ed.), Designing Places for
Learning, ASCD, Alexandria, VA, pp. 23-30.
Black, S. (1996), ``Size matters'', The Executive Educator, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 31-3.
Bradley, W.S. (1998), ``Expecting the most from school design'', unpublished manuscript, Thomas
Jefferson Center for Educational Design, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Brubaker, C.W. (1998), Planning and Designing Schools, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Butterfield, E. (1999), ``The future of the classroom: an interview with William DeJong'', School
Construction News, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 12-14.
Crumpacker, S.S. (1995), ``Using cultural information to create schools that work'', in Meek, A.
(Ed.), Designing Places for Learning, ASCD, Alexandria, VA, pp. 31-42.
David, T.G. and Weinstein, C.S. (1987), ``The built environment and children's development'', in
Weinstein, C.S. and David, T.G. (Eds), Spaces for Children: The Built Environment and
Child Development, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-40.
Education Writers Association (1989), ``Wolves at the schoolhouse door: an investigation of the
condition of public school buildings'', AASA, Washington, DC.
Finn, J.D. (1998), ``Class size and students at risk'', Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. US Department of Education, Washington, DC.
 Fiske, E.B. (1995), ``Systematic school reform: implications for architecture'', in Meek, A. (Ed.), School
Designing Places for Learning, ASCD, Alexandria, VA, pp. 1-10.
architecture and
Frantz, D. and Collins, C. (1999), ``Nothing to celebrate'', Teacher Magazine, Vol. 23 No. 10,
October, pp. 27-33. achievement
Freeman, C. (1995), ``Planning and play: creating greener environments'', Children's
Environments, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 381-8.
GagneÂ, F. and Allaire, D. (1974), ``Summary of research data on the reliability and validity of a 329
measure of dissatisfaction derived from Reality-Desires discrepancies'', INRS Education
(Document 0774-02), University Du Quebec.
Gaunt, L. (1980), ``Can children play at home?'', in Wilkinson, P.F. (Ed.), Innovation in Play
Environments, Croom Helm, London, pp. 36-51.
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

General Accounting Office (1995a), School Facilities: America's Schools Not Designed or Equipped
for 21st Century (GAO/HEHS-95-95), April, USGAO, Washington, DC.
General Accounting Office (1995b), School Facilities: Conditions of America's Schools (GAO/
HEHS-95-61), February, USGAO, Washington, DC.
Genevro, R. (1992), New Schools for New York: Plans and Precedents for Small Schools, Princeton
Architectural Press, New York, NY.
Hansen, J.M. and Childs, J. (1998), ``Creating a school where people like to be'', Educational
Leadership, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 14-17.
Herbert, E.A. (1998), ``Design matters: how school environment affects children'', Educational
Leadership, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 69-70.
Hughes, P.C. (1980), ``The use of light and color in health'', in Hastings, A.C., Fadiman, J. and
Gordon, J.S. (Eds), Health for the Whole Person: The Complete Guide to Holistic Medicine,
Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 71-83.
Kunz, W.S. (1998), ``Research: pictures at an exhibition'', The Educational Facility Planner, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 5-9.
Likert, R. (1967), The Human Organization, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Meek, A. and Landfried, S. (1995), ``Crow Island School: 54 years young'', in Meek, A. (Ed.),
Designing Places for Learning, ASCD, Alexandria, VA, pp. 51-9.
Moore, G.T. (1987), ``The physical environment and cognitive development in child-care centers'',
in Weinstein, C.S. and David, T.G. (Eds), Spaces for Children: The Built Environment and
Child Development, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 41-72.
Moore, G.T. and Lackney, J.A. (1995), ``Design patterns for American schools: responding to the
reform movement'', in Meek, A. (Ed.), Designing Places for Learning, ASCD, Alexandria,
VA, pp. 11-22.
Ott, J. (1973), Health and Light, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
PEB Exchange (1998), ``The OCED programme on educational building'', The Journal of the
OCED Programme on Educational Building, Vol. 35 No. 3, October, p. 2.
Prescott, E. (1987), ``Environment as an organizer in child-care settings'', in Weinstein, C.S. and
David, T.G. (Eds), Spaces for Children: The Built Environment and Child Development,
Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 73-88.
Proshansky, H.M. and Fabian, A.K. (1987), ``The development of place identity in the child'', in
Weinstein, C.S. and David, T.G. (Eds.), Spaces for Children: The Built Environment and
Child Development, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 21-40.
Rivlin, L.G. and Wolf, M. (1972), ``The early history of a psychiatric hospital for children:
expectations and reality'', Environment and Behavior, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 33-72.
Sanoff, H. (1994), School Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
 Journal of Seaborne, M.V.J. (1971a), The English School: Its Architecture and Organization 1370-1870,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Educational Seaborne, M.V.J. (1971b), Primary School Design, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Administration Seaborne, M.V.J. and Lowe, R. (1977), The English School: Its Architecture and Organization
38,4 Volume II 1870-1970, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M.D. and Cook, S.W. (1959), Research Methods in Social Relations, Holt,
330 Rinehart, and Winston, New York, NY.
Tanner, C.K. (1999), ``The design assessment scale'', a paper presented to the Council of
Educational Facility Planners, International, Baltimore, MD, 1-5 November.
Vickery, D.J. and Kayser, R.A. (1972), School Building Design Asia, Kularatne and Co., Colombo,
Sri Lanka.
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

Vickery, R. (1998), The Meaning of the Lawn: Thomas Jefferson's Design for the University of
Virginia, Verlag und Datenbank fuÈr Geisteswiss, Weimar.
Wohlwill, J.F. and van Vliet, W. (1985), Habitats for Children: The Impacts of Density, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Wurtman, R.J. (1975), ``The effects of light on the human body'', Scientific American, Vol. 233
No. 1, pp. 68-77.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Paula Cardellino, Roine Leiringer. 2014. Facilitating change in primary education: the role of existing
school facilities in ICT initiatives. Facilities 32:13/14, 845-855. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Naif Alghamdi. 2014. Larry Smith and Abdulrahman Aboummoh (eds): Higher education in Saudi Arabia:
Achievements, challenges and opportunities. Higher Education . [CrossRef]
3. Hwan-Hee Choi, Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer, Fred Paas. 2014. Effects of the Physical Environment on
Cognitive Load and Learning: Towards a New Model of Cognitive Load. Educational Psychology Review
26, 225-244. [CrossRef]
4. Seng Yeap Kong, Sreenivasaiah Purushothama Rao, Hamzah Abdul-Rahman, Chen Wang. 2014. School
as 3-D Textbook for Environmental Education: Design Model Transforming Physical Environment to
Knowledge Transmission Instrument. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 23, 1-15. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

5. Shaljan Areepattamannil, Berinderjeet Kaur. 2013. FACTORS PREDICTING SCIENCE

ACHIEVEMENT OF IMMIGRANT AND NON-IMMIGRANT STUDENTS: A MULTILEVEL
ANALYSIS. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 11, 1183-1207. [CrossRef]
6. Che Nidzam Che Ahmad, Kamisah Osman, Lilia Halim. 2013. Physical and psychosocial aspects of the
learning environment in the science laboratory and their relationship to teacher satisfaction. Learning
Environments Research 16, 367-385. [CrossRef]
7. Peter Barrett, Lucinda Barrett, Fay Davies. 2013. Achieving a step change in the optimal sensory design
of buildings for users at all life-stages. Building and Environment 67, 97-104. [CrossRef]
8. Peter Barrett, Yufan Zhang, Joanne Moffat, Khairy Kobbacy. 2013. A holistic, multi-level analysis
identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment 59, 678-689.
[CrossRef]
9. Jenifer Marley, MaryEllen C. Nobe, Caroline M. ClevengerUtilization of Post-Occupancy Evaluations in
LEED Certified K-12 Schools 862-868. [CrossRef]
10. 2012. Children's Movement in an Integrated Kindergarten Classroom: Design, Methods and Preliminary
Findings. Children, Youth and Environments 22, 145-177. [CrossRef]
11. 2012. Exploring School and Classroom Environments in Irish Primary Schools. Children, Youth and
Environments 22, 178-197. [CrossRef]
12. Peter Barrett, Yufan Zhang. 2012. Teachers’ views on the designs of their primary schools. Intelligent
Buildings International 4, 89-110. [CrossRef]
13. Roine Leiringer, Paula Cardellino. 2011. Schools for the twenty-first century: school design and
educational transformation. British Educational Research Journal 37, 915-934. [CrossRef]
14. Altuğ Kasalı, Fehmi Doğan. 2010. Fifth-, sixth-, and seventh- grade students’ use of non-classroom spaces
during recess: The case of three private schools in Izmir, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30,
518-532. [CrossRef]
15. Sheila M. Fram. 2010. One educational built environment. Journal of Educational Administration 48:4,
468-489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Inci Basa. 2010. Project Selection in the Design Studio: Absence of Learning Environments. The
Educational Forum 74, 213-226. [CrossRef]
17. Dr Cynthia L. Uline, C. Kenneth Tanner. 2009. Effects of school design on student outcomes. Journal of
Educational Administration 47:3, 381-399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 18. Dr Cynthia L. Uline, Cynthia L. Uline, Megan Tschannen‐Moran, Thomas DeVere Wolsey. 2009. The
walls still speak: the stories occupants tell. Journal of Educational Administration 47:3, 400-426. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
19. Niaz Ahmed, David T. Gamage, Jaratdao Suwanabroma, Takeyuki Ueyama, Sekio Hada, Etsuo Sekikawa.
2008. The impact of quality assurance measures on student services at the Japanese and Thai private
universities. Quality Assurance in Education 16:2, 181-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Cynthia Uline, Megan Tschannen‐Moran. 2008. The walls speak: the interplay of quality facilities, school
climate, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration 46:1, 55-73. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
21. Pamela Woolner, Elaine Hall, Steve Higgins, Caroline McCaughey, Kate Wall. 2007. A sound foundation?
What we know about the impact of environments on learning and the implications for Building Schools
for the Future. Oxford Review of Education 33, 47-70. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by ONDOKUZ MAYIS UNIVERSITY At 06:21 08 November 2014 (PT)

22. Dorit Tubin. 2006. Typology of ICT Implementation and Technology Applications. Computers in the
Schools 23, 85-98. [CrossRef]
23. Julia Christensen Hughes. 2003. Developing a classroom vision and implementation plan. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning 2002:10.1002/tl.v2002:92, 63-72. [CrossRef]