the classroom environment and its effects on the …

Journal of Environmental Psychology (2002) 22, 139^1560272-4944/02/$-see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltddoi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0239, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENTAND ITS EFFECTSON THE PRACTICE OF TEACHERS

SANDRA HORNE MARTIN

Department of Design, Goldsmiths College, London, U.K.

Abstract

This study concerns the design of classroom environments and the impact of these environments on the prac-tice of teachers. It involves data gathered from primary and secondary schools, using lesson observations andteacher interviews. Behavioural mapping instruments were developed for the school-based data collection,and subsequent analysis is both qualitative and quantitative. A number of constructs have been developed,de¢ned and used to evaluate what happens within classrooms. Some of these constructs are physical (modesof layout), some are pedagogic (child-centred), and some involve combinations of data. The ¢ndings from theanalysis of teachers’ classroom behaviour have been related to the issues emerging from their interviews. Thisenabled examination of behaviour alongside statements of attitudes and beliefs about the role of the classroomenvironment. These data inform questions about teachers’ awareness of their surroundings; the extent towhich this awareness impacts on their teaching, and the extent to which teachers feel they have control overthe features of their classrooms. The article concludes by making the case for the importance of environmen-tal awareness in the training and retraining of teachers. Environmental competence is an important consti-tuent of the skilled teacher. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd

Introduction

This study explores relationships between the class-room environment and the practice of teachers.Progressively, during the early stages of this re-search, the relationship between the designed envir-onment and the behaviour and practice of teachersbecame the core of the study. It does not attemptto describe ‘ideal’ learning environments, but ratherto describe and analyse the e¡ects of existing learn-ing environments on the practice of teachers. It alsolooks at and seeks to understand how teachers be-have in a classroom environment. It is left for educa-tion experts to review the data and makejudgements about the quality of education in thatsetting.

What is the classroom environment?

When we go into a classroom, what do we ¢rst see?We see people doing things: sitting, standing, mov-ing, talking, in silence, writing, drawing, pointing,singing, ¢dgeting, crying, laughing, whispering, or

even sleeping. But one person (the teacher) seemsto be dominating the setting somehow, giving direc-tions that are usually carried out. And communica-tion seems to be always present, either by talking orwriting, or through gestures like the raising of anarm (Adams & Hiddle, 1970). A classroom environ-ment is much more than a place to house books,desks and materials.

A classroom is a system and can be better under-stood if it is seen that way. There is a complex rela-tionship between the physical structure andarrangement of the room, the teacher, the studentsand the distribution of space (Rivlin & Rothenberg,1976; Gump, 1987). We cannot ignore the fact thatclassrooms are both physical and organizationalunits and that the physical characteristics of a set-ting can in£uence both behaviour and educationalprogramme (Rivlin & Weinstein, 1984). The environ-ment of the classroom is a direct expression of theeducational philosophy and it takes an active partin the educational process (Proshansky & Wolfe,1975). It also has a preconceived cultural image(David, 1975) and this image is embedded in oursociety.

140 S. H. Martin

The role of the teacher

Roles involve sets of expected behaviours, butbehaviours are not always performed as expectedsince individuals di¡er. They di¡er according totheir competence, their motivation, their personalneeds and their values. Di¡erent individualswill perform di¡erently in the same role, becauserole requirements interact with personal character-istics (Hayman, 1975). At the same time, theteacher’s role is constantly changing from pro-viding direct teaching to planning, designingand organizing learning experiences for the stu-dents (Zalantino & Sleeman, 1975). More recentdevelopments encourage teachers to take therole of co-learner and mentor as well (Dick,1997).

The teacher, as much as children, has to accom-modate and adapt to the environment but the tea-cher’s role requires that he/she manipulates theenvironment for others. The teacher has to somehowcreate conditions under which certain stimulationbecomes salient to the pupils. The teacher receivesthe same stimulation from the environment,changes it for the use of pupils and receives feed-back from pupil’s behaviour. The teacher has thento process that information in relation to the educa-tional purposes and make sure that the behaviourwill bring about desirable pupil responses (Adams& Hiddle, 1970).

Teaching is necessarily interactive and peoplecentred (Johnson, 1990). This interaction is fre-quently mediated by equipment and materials andteachers adapt their teaching to the suppliesand equipment available (Johnson, 1990). The physi-cal environment is not a substitute for e¡ectiveteaching and educational planning. As an example,a well planned reading area will not eliminateeither the need for e¡ective teaching of reading orindeed, reading problems (Proshansky & Wolfe,1975). Every teacher, though, as David and Wright(1975) suggests, should become a designer, responsi-ble for preparing the environment to achieve his orher objectives.

The teacher’s role creates the learning environ-ment within an architectural facility. This view re-cognises the teacher-designed environment as anactive in£uence on the lives of children andteachers throughout the school day. In the processesof teaching and learning, the physical environmentarranged by the teacher provides the settingfor learning and at the same time acts as a partici-pant in teaching and learning (Loughlin & Suina,1982).

Teacher’s environmental awareness and competence

The learning environment can be a powerful teach-ing instrument at the disposal of the teacher, or itcan be an undirected and unrecognized in£uenceon the behaviours of both children and teachers.As Loughlin and Suina (1982) state, informed atten-tion to the arranged environment and the conscioususe of it to support teaching and learning goals,have not been widespread in schools, but under-standing environmental in£uences is important forall teachers, no matter what the age of the studentsor how formal or informal the methods. Lack ofawareness of physical and spatial needs in the class-room environment can interfere with the optimalfunctioning of the classroom. Proshansky and Wolfe(1975) found that a great deal of attention is gener-ally given to lesson plans but little attention isgiven to space planning.

In a seminar report by the Organisation for Eco-nomic Co-operation and Development (OECD) aboutthe quality of the physical environment of the schooland the quality of education, participants expressedmany opinions on the subject. Some of these are re-ported here and they were either based on researchor on personal opinions, but were all reported in ano⁄cial document by OECD (1988). They report thatteachers are responsible for spaces for teachingand learning and should attempt to make them ex-citing and stimulating and be prepared to developthem. They also mentioned that a lack of awarenessof the potential of an environment could be recti¢edthrough sta¡ training in issues concerning the en-vironment, including architecture and design. Theparticipants speculated that by raising such stan-dards amongst teachers, teachers would impart thisknowledge to their pupils who, in later life, wouldapply this understanding in their own environ-ments.

This raises questions about how teachers shouldbe trained to perceive the environment as part ofthe learning process, not just as furnishing, equip-ment and walls. Teachers have the ability to a¡ecta wide range of environmental qualities within theirclassroom such as personalization and ownershipand providing places for social interaction.

In a study by Lackney (1997), it emerged that tea-chers feel that some environmental qualities are inpart their responsibility even if they are unable tocontrol them. This again raises questions about theneed for educators to become more aware of the po-tential and opportunities that the physical settingpresents to them. Knowledge of the relationshipsbetween physical surroundings and actions should

The Classroom Environment and its E¡ects on the Practice of Teachers 141

be a practical tool the teacher can use. Loughlinand Suina (1982) believe that a well trained teachercan predict behaviour in classroom settings. Thisseems to be another piece of evidence leading tothe need for teachers to understand space. The abil-ity to predict behaviour in certain settings wouldprobably mean that teachers could arrange settingsto promote particular actions. It will be interestingto see in this study, the extent to which teacherscan deliberately use organized space to facilitatechildren’s movement and support activities forlearning.

Methodology

The research questions for this study provided astructure for planning the work and the methodsto be applied. The main question: ‘What are thee¡ects of the classroom environment on the practiceof teachers?’ led to several secondary levels of ques-tioning. There are questions associated with teach-ing and the role of the teacher: ‘What is thestructure of lessons in terms of blocks of activityand the di¡ering uses of the classroom environ-ment?’; questions associated to the physical organiza-tion of the classroom: ‘How is the room being usedduring the structured elements of the lesson?’; ques-tions associated with teachers’ feeling of control overthe physical environment of the classroom: ‘To whatextent are teachers in control of their physical set-ting? Do they use it deliberately?’; and questionsconcerning the implications of the study: ‘Is it possi-ble to support or improve the design and use ofclassroom spaces?’

These questions led to the development of re-search instruments. The focus will always be on theteacher and on the classroom physical environment.

Data was gathered through teachers in theirworking environment, that is, through observationof lessons and through interviews with the teachersin the classroom. The work explores what teachersdo in the classroom, identifying the relationshipsbetween teaching, activities and use of space.

Developing the research instruments was a chal-lenging and organic process. It was clear that a planof the room would be necessary in order to identifywhat was going on in the space. Having a grid onwhich I could sketch the room and locate the tea-cher and the pupils in the room was, therefore, the¢rst step. I explored the technique of behaviouralmapping used by environment^behaviour research-ers such as Proshansky and colleagues (Proshansky& Altman, 1979; Proshansky & Fabian, 1987;

Proshansky & Wolfe, 1975; Proshansky et al., 1976;Rivlin and Rothenberg, 1976; Rivlin and Weinstein,1984; Rivlin and Wolfe, 1985; Sommer, 1972; Ittlesonet al., 1974, 1976). The end result of the developmentprocess has been a combination of methodologiesthat has created a unique set of instruments andsome unique data analysis approaches for an empiri-cal study. The instruments are divided in twogroups: behavioural mapping and interviews.

The analysis of the data developed constructswhich were cross-referenced generating a series oftrend relationships. The interviews were then ana-lysed in order to enrich and validate the results ofthe observation data.

The sample

The educational context in the U.K. NationalCurriculum (5^16 years old) and U.K. schools is di-vided into primary and secondary schools. In pri-mary schools the teaching spaces are normallygeneral while in secondary schools they become spe-cialized. Therefore, since I was interested in thecomplete range of 5^16, the logic was to sampleyear groups in primary schools and subjects insecondary.

A total of 61 lessons were observed in 12 di¡erentschools (24 in primary schools and 37 in secondaryschools). A total of 39 teachers were interviewed (13primary teachers and 26 secondary teachers).

The numbers chosen were judged to be su⁄cientto collect a signi¢cant quantity of data in a varietyof settings to be analysed through the frameworkestablished. The data collection took one wholeschool year with dates of collection scatteredthroughout the year.

Lesson observations data analysis

Constructs and de¢nition of terms

The analysis developed for this research generateda series of constructs that produced tools for adeeper examination of the data. These constructsand de¢nitions need to be clari¢ed before furtherexamination of the data. The constructs are bondedwith the research instruments and the ¢ndings be-coming a unique way of visually ‘seeing’ a lesson.They are an important component of this research,as the technique becomes a tool for a visually de-scriptive instrument both of how teachers structuretheir lessons, and of the areas of the room that theyuse with that speci¢c structure.

142 S. H. Martin

Clusters of activitiesAll the lessons observed were classi¢ed in clusters ofactivities that characterize a lesson independently ofthe subject or type of room. There are ¢ve identi¢edclusters as follows:

1. Introduction. Activities usually present at thebeginning of each lesson which include pupilsarriving and registration;

2. Teacher teaching. The focus of attention is theteacher; usually the whole class is focused onthe teacher;

3. Pupils on task. The focus of the activity is onpupils working either individually or in-groups. Most teacher^pupil(s) interactionsoccur in this cluster;

4. Transition. The focus is dispersed, there isusually a lot of movement in the class aspupils are completing tasks and sharingwork with peers and teacher;

5. Conclusion. The focus is on cleaning up thetables, tidying up and packing. Pupils leavethe room and it is the end of the class.

These are the focus of the lessons at speci¢c timesduring the observations (minute by minute timesampling).

Lesson pro¢lesThe clusters of activities described are used in theanalysis to identify what the focus of attention isat a determined time of the lesson. There are ¢veidenti¢ed clusters but they are not necessarily pre-sent in every single lesson. The presence or not of acluster can inform a certain pedagogy used by theteacher and that can be illustrated by a lesson pro-¢le. A lesson pro¢le is created by plotting theamount of time spent in each cluster and coded toillustrate the distribution of clusters during the per-iod of a lesson (Figure 1), thus creating a pro¢le.Sixty-one lesson observations generated 61 di¡erentlesson pro¢les.

Cluster columns

The clusters of activities also generated cluster col-umns. A cluster column is a construct created by

FIGURE 1. The lesson pro¢le.

plotting the percentages of time spent in each clus-ter during the lesson, informing what proportion ofthe lesson was spent in each cluster (Figure 2).

Teacher teaching and pupils on task

The ¢ve lesson clusters demonstrate that most ofthe duration of a lesson is spent on teacher teachingand pupils on task at varying points in the lesson.The lessons that are focused (for 50% or more ofthe time) on the teacher teaching have been labelledas having a teacher-centred pedagogy. The onesfocused (for 50% or more of the lesson time) on pu-pils on task have been labelled as having a child-centred pedagogy. It was found that not every tea-cher fell in either category. Of the total number ofteachers observed (61 observations), 16 were neitherteacher centred nor child centred creating a middlegroup in which teachers have a dominantly ‘ba-lanced’ pedagogy.

The ‘shape’ of lessons

The lesson pro¢les were grouped into ¢ve di¡erentstructures of lessons. These pictures illustrate theorder in which events took place in a lesson inform-ing visually the type of lesson that occurred. The¢rst type is the ‘Conventional’ pro¢le. Lessons followthe conventional order, that is, an introduction per-iod, followed by the teacher teaching the wholeclass and setting up an activity, followed by the ac-tivity being pursued by the pupils (pupils on task)and then the conclusion of the lesson. Transitionperiods might be present or not.

The second type is the ‘Teacher initiated iterative’pro¢le. Here, lessons begin with teacher directedinput and follow intermittent teacher teaching andpupils on task activities. The teacher sets up tasksin smaller steps. There is an interaction of pupil ac-tivity and teacher activity. There usually is an intro-duction period and a conclusion period whiletransitions might be present or not.

The third type encountered is the inversion of thesecond; that is, it follows a ‘Pupil initiated iterative’pro¢le. In this case, pupils usually know what thetask is when arriving in the class. As they arrive,

FIGURE 2. The cluster column.


they start working on the task autonomously. Then,following teacher intervention, there are intermit-tent pupils on task and teacher teaching activities.Here again, there usually is an introduction periodand a conclusion period while transitions might bepresent or not.

The essential di¡erence between the ‘Teacherinitiated iterative’ pro¢le and the ‘Pupil initiatediterative’ pro¢le is the original source of activity(the teacher or pupil). The fourth and ¢fth pro¢lesare similar in that they do not have one of the mainclusters present (either teacher teaching or pupilson task). One follows the ‘Teacher dominated’ pro-¢le: that is, there are no pupils on task present.The whole lesson is focused on the teacher teaching.The other follows the ‘Pupil dominated’ pro¢le, thatis, there is no teacher teaching present, the wholelesson is focused on the pupils on task.

Hierarchy of designability

The hierarchy of designability is a construct thatmeasures the degree of control of change that tea-chers have over the physical elements of the class-room setting. In examining teachers use of theclassroom space, architectural elements have beenclassi¢ed in terms of hard (¢xed features) and softarchitecture (semi-¢xed, semi-£exible and £exiblefeatures). The classi¢cation is a further developmentof Steele’s (1973) division of space.

Hard architecture. There are elements in the class-room that cannot normally be changed by a teacher.Hard architecture elements are ¢xed features of theenvironment, the shell of the room, walls, windows,and doors. Teachers generally perceive these fea-tures as unchangeable and feel that they have nocontrol or little control of change over them.

Soft architecture. There are elements in the class-room that can be changed in varying degrees. Theseare features of the soft architecture. These can besemi-¢xed, changeable with some e¡ort (e.g. built-in furniture, sinks, sockets, and radiators, in ge-neral, the services concerning water, electricityand gas). Semi-£exible features are heavy elements(e.g. ¢ling cabinets, bookshelves) often perceived byteachers as relatively ¢xed. Flexible features are ele-ments that can be easily moved (e.g. chairs, tables).

Figures for each of the features have been gener-ated through the layout of the room. The elements ofthe environment were classi¢ed according to thefeatures described. The total area of the room wasthen calculated as well as the area of semi-¢xed,semi-£exible and £exible features. The free £oorarea was also included in these calculations.

Flexibility factor

Classrooms are physical entities that have both¢xed and £exible features as described above, thatis, there are elements within a room that are mova-ble by the teacher and elements that are ¢xed. Thepercentages of these were calculated in relation tothe total area of the room. With these data, it waspossible to measure the £exibility factor of eachclassroom. The sum of the semi-£exible and £exiblefeatures plus the £oor space results in the £exibilityfactor. The £exibility factor is the total area in eachroom that allows change to be made by the teacherwith varying degrees of e¡ort.

Mobility factor

The £oor plan of the classrooms provided a startingpoint for the development of the behavioural maps.A grid layout was used to identify and classify thephysical elements within the room and the teacher’smovement was tracked and recorded (Figure 3) to-gether with the activity and personal interactions.The observations were continuous throughout theduration of the lesson. The tracking was coded ac-cording to the cluster of activity (Introduction,Teacher teaching, Pupils on task, Transition andConclusion). This identi¢es where the teacher waswithin the room during a speci¢c focus.

The teacher was the focus of the observation andthe combined data show the route taken by the tea-cher within the room. The total area covered by theteacher (in square metres) during the lesson issummed. This is the mobility factor. A percentageis then calculated in relation to the total area ofthe room.

FIGURE 3. Teacher’s movement tracked during a lesson.

144 S. H. Martin

Density

The amount of space per pupil in a classroom is thedensity of the room. It is measured in square metresper pupil.

Degree of centredness

Teachers have a tendency to spend extended periodsof time at speci¢c locations in the room. Certainareas were identi¢ed as being more used thanothers. The percentage of time spent in each squaremetre where the teacher was located was calculatedin relation to the total time of the lesson.

Selecting the higher percentage in each class-room, that is, the square metre in each classroomwhere the teacher spent the higher percentage oftime in relation to the rest of the room, we havethe degree of centredness. Where a teacher spendsat least 20% of their time at a speci¢c square metreof the room has been de¢ned as ‘centres’ and theycan be either single or double. If neither, they arenon-centred.

Single centred teachers are the ones that havechosen a speci¢c ‘centre’ in the classroom where agreat part of the duration of the lesson is spent.Double centred teachers were found to have twocentres, that is, there were two di¡erent areas inthe room where the teacher spent at least 20% of

the total time of the lesson. Non-centred teachersdid not spend 20% or more of the lesson time atany speci¢c area of the room. They are the ‘all overthe place’ teachers.

The degree of centredness then is de¢ned asbeing the time spent by the teacher at speci¢c loca-tions as a percentage of the total lesson time.

Interactions

Part of the data collected included the teacher inter-actions at each speci¢c time of observation duringthe lesson. Teachers could interact with the wholeclass, with an individual pupil, with a group ofpupils, with some other person like a visitor at thedoor or have no interpersonal interaction. Theamount of time spent on each interaction and thepercentage in relation to the whole time of the les-son was calculated.

Layout classi¢cation

Room layouts have been analysed using two factors:

(1) in terms of the way children are seated; and(2) in terms of the special resources and

functions of the room required for teaching.

The way children sit and work is directed by theteacher’s view of an e¡ective layout. The specialist


functions of the room in£uence the equipment, ser-vices and other features that are additional to theseating plan. These two factors generate di¡erentcombinations of the structure of the layout of theroom.

The four types of seating arrangement encoun-tered in the observations done are:

(1) Rows. The room is organized in rows,usually, tables facing one direction and/orfacing the teacher;

(2) Groups. The room is organized in groups;(3) Combination. The room had both rows and

groups combined;(4) Horseshoe or Circle. The room is organized

in an open or closed circle, with an openinner area.

The three types of layout of the resources andfacilities encountered in the rooms observed are:

(1) Multiple activities room. The room hasdi¡erent areas for specialist activities suchas a reading corner or a wet area;

(2) Single specialist room. The room hasspecialist facilities of a single kind such asa computer or a science lab;

(3) General room. If tables and chairs areremoved only storage or general purposefurniture would be left.

Each room is classi¢ed as a combination of the twofactors above, for example, the classroom in

FIGURE 4. The example is a multiple activities centres classroom org

Figure 4 is a multiple activities room organized ingroups. Features of the seating arrangement aregenerally £exible. Features related to the resourcesand functions of the room are varied (semi-¢xed,semi-£exible and £exible) as it becomes more specia-lized.

Results of observations

With all of the constructs and de¢nitions explained,it is possible to demonstrate how powerful theseinstruments are when looking at them together.The classroom in Figure 5 was a teacher-centred les-son with 79% of the lesson time spent on the tea-cher teaching the whole class. There is no Pupils-on-task cluster of activities present in this lesson,characterizing it as a Teacher dominated pro¢le.The teacher’s location remained stable at the frontof the class with a mobility factor of 20% and a de-gree of centredness of 50%. The layout is in rowsand it is a general space with a £exibility factor of99%.

The instrument, as seen, can be useful for bothresearchers and teachers. A teacher could self as-sess herself/himself in the use of the classroom set-ting and re£ect on her/his lesson, her/his pedagogyrelated to the setting, her/his mobility, the layout,her/his chosen routes and a combination of allthese. These few images have an numerous arrayof information for the teacher, the school, the

anised in groups with the teachers mobility tracked.

FIGURE 5. An example of a classroom visual data including maps, pro¢les and cluster columns.

146 S. H. Martin

researcher and whoever wants to be informed onhow classrooms are used.

Trend relationships in teachers’ use of the classroomenvironment

The use of constructs generated a large amount ofdata. The results could not all be presented here.The most signi¢cant relationships that emergedare described below.

Flexibility. The £exibility factor encountered variedfrom 56 to 99% in the 61 rooms analysed. Of these,88% of the rooms have a £exibility factor of over80% of the total area. This might appear a very high¢gure and indeed it is because by these de¢nitions,quite a high proportion of the classroom is actuallyadjustable.

The least £exible rooms tend to be of a single ac-tivity-centre nature (single specialist) while themost £exible rooms tend to be general spaces. Gen-eral spaces are characterized as having less semi-¢xed features while single specialist facilities havea higher proportion of these features present in theclassroom (Horne, 1999).

It was found that in the primary school class-rooms observed, as £exibility increases, there is atendency for teacher’s mobility to increase as well(Figure 6) with a Pearson correlation (r) of 0?46.

Mobility. The mobility factor encountered variedfrom 7 to 68% of the area of the classrooms in theobserved lessons.

The main mobility trend relationship found wasthat the more the teacher moves in the room, thedenser the class is. Or we could say that the morespace a child has, the less the teacher moves (Figure7). On the face of it, this might appear counter intui-tive; however, one might explain it by suggestingthat in more tightly packed rooms, it is more di⁄-cult for pupils to move. In order to make more con-tact, the teacher tends to be more mobile whereaswhen pupils can be move, they ‘go’ to the teacherand consequently, the teacher tends to be less mo-bile.

There is a relationship between the nature of theinteractions of the teacher and mobility, which isconsistent with what we would intuitively expect.Where teachers address the whole class, they areless mobile with an inverted Pearson correlation (r= �0?42). Where teachers address groups or indivi-dual pupils, they are more mobile with a positivecorrelation (r = 0?41).

Pedagogy. Lessons with the highest proportions ofpupils on task are the ones that have the mostspace, and are the least dense. On the other hand,an inverse relationship exists between the ‘teacherteaching’ cluster and density. The denser the

FIGURE 6. As £exibility increases, so does mobility in primary schools.

FIGURE 7. The more the teacher moves, the denser a classroom is.


classroom, the tendency is to have a more teachercentred lesson (r = �0?68).

The most ‘teacher-centred’ classrooms are orga-nised as circles/horseshoe. Again, this appearscounter intuitive as we tend to think of circles as‘inclusive’, but they are really controlling. The circlecould be considered as one long continuous row andthat would explain why the pedagogy that occurs inthese settings tends to be teacher centred.

Most child-centred lessons in secondary schoolstend to occur in multiple activities facilities class-rooms while the least child centred lessons tend tooccur in single activity centre facilities.

When teachers interact more often with groups orindividual pupils, rooms tend to be organized ingroups and be multiple activities centres facilities.When the pedagogy is child-centred, rooms tend tobe organized in groups and to be multiple activities

centres facilities which is consistent with thegroups and individual pupils interactions.

These ¢ndings related to layout lead me to specu-late as to whether teacher-centred teachers createrow type classrooms or whether row type class-rooms lead teachers to teach in a teacher-centredmode. When interviews are analysed later in this ar-ticle, some other issues emerge related to the orga-nization of the classrooms. These issues lead toteachers’ awareness of space.

Practical subjects vs academic subjects. ‘Practical’subjects have been de¢ned as the ones that areusually taught in workshops/studios and ‘academic’subjects are the ones that are generally taught ingeneral classrooms which is consistent with the De-partment for Education and Employment (DfEE,1996) de¢nition in their most recent area guidelines.

148 S. H. Martin

The data identi¢ed a relationship between the ris-ing density of the room and the amount of timefocused on the teacher. The evidence suggests atrend that when the focus is on the teacher teaching,the lesson tends to happen in more dense classroomsand more ‘academic’ subjects. The inverse relation-ship occurs between rising pupil autonomy, the den-sity of the room and the practicality of the subject inthe observed classrooms. The evidence suggests thatchild centred lessons tend to happen in less denseclassrooms and more ‘practical’ subjects. Figure 8 il-lustrates this trend found in the data.

Teachers in ‘academic’ subjects tend to be moremobile and the classrooms denser. As the subjectgets ‘practical’, there is an inversion in the trend;teachers are less mobile while rooms are less dense(Figure 9). There is more space per pupil. When or-

FIGURE 8. The data suggests a trend that when the focus is on therooms and more ‘academic’ subjects. The inverse relationship occurpracticality of the subject. Child-centred lessons tend to happen in l

ganizing these data for analysis, these subjects werenot separated by their ‘academic’ or ‘practical’ char-acteristics. These results come from analysis of mo-bility and density and the order in which thesubjects emerged.

‘Academic’ classrooms tend to be more £exiblerooms than ‘practical’ workspaces. The proportion ofsemi-¢xed, semi-£exible and £exible features in therooms can explain this. ‘Practical’ classrooms requirethe use of ¢xed, wired or plumbed equipment andservices that are either semi¢xed or semi-£exiblefeatures causing a decrease in the £exibility factor.

Interview data analysis

Whether the pedagogy used by teachers is linked tothe way the rooms are organized, or whether the

teacher teaching, the lesson tends to happen in more dense class-s between rising pupil autonomy, the density of the room and theess dense classrooms and more ‘practical’ subjects.

FIGURE 9. Teachers in ‘academic’ subjects tend to be more mobile and the classrooms denser. As the subject gets ‘practical’, there is aninversion in the trend; teachers are less mobile while rooms are less dense.


teachers organize the rooms to support their prac-tice and their chosen styles of teaching could notbe identi¢ed by the observations alone. The onlyway to get at these was to interview teachers abouttheir use of the classroom and their perceptions oftheir relationship with the space. Using the con-structs described and explained above, teachers’ in-terviews were analysed and explored in order toenrich the ¢ndings and to better understand thesecomplex relationships.

Classroom satisfaction. Teachers were asked if theclassrooms that they taught in were suitable fortheir teaching to take place and if they were satis-¢ed with the environment. Forty-one percent of theteachers interviewed were satis¢ed with their class-room environment.

. . . this room is exactly how I want it to be. (Second-ary Science teacher)

Twenty-one percent of the teachers interviewed hadmixed feelings towards their classroom setting.

It is not perfect . . . the board: I would like it furtherover . . . It needs to be further over so that all (pu-pils) can see without me being in the way. . . . Whenit was redesigned they were very good in askingwhat I wanted. I wanted something £exible, so thefurniture is all movable . . . (Secondary Science tea-cher)

Twenty percent of the teachers interviewed de-monstrated being unsatis¢ed with their rooms.

. . . it’s too formal, it’s too in rows and what you ac-tually ¢nd with that is that the girls would tend tocongregate to one side and the boys congregate onthe other or you get the front-to-back split . . . (Sec-ondary English teacher)

Could it be that one of the factors contributing toteacher dissatisfaction is a sense of remotenessfrom their problems? They are the professionals inthe classroom responsible for the amount and typeof learning which occurs; however, they have verylittle input concerning school appearance (Jones,1981). I would add to Jones’ argument that the lackof involvement in planning the environment mightresult from teachers not knowing how to deal withthe environment, and consequently, not being ableto be involved in any kind of planning or input.

Mobility. Some teachers made comments abouttheir own mobility in the classroom and these werelinked with the circulation of the room. But inter-estingly these movements were related with theirown teaching style as the example below illustrates.We can then attempt to say that the mobility of theteacher is related to the chosen pedagogy.

What I also change is my position in the room, sofor a lot of the time I don’t stay at the front of theclassroom. I come to my desk usually to talk to theclass because everybody can see me from the waythe furniture’s laid out, . . ., but if I don’t need thatsituation, then the tables are regrouped or removedso that the children can sit in a semi-circle or some-thing like that. (Secondary English teacher)

Lesson planning. Teachers were asked about howthey perceived the impact of the classroom settingon their planning or even if they took into consid-eration the space in which they would teach beforeactually planning their lessons. Fifty-four percent ofthe teachers expressed that the classroom environ-ment has an impact on the planning of their lessons

150 S. H. Martin

while 21% believed there was no impact or no rela-tion between the classrooms and their planning.

Teaching style vs layout. Teachers were asked if theybelieved that their teaching style was in£uenced bytheir setting and what they thought were the fea-tures that a¡ected their teaching. There was a gen-eral consensus of the relationship between theclassroom environment and the teaching style.

. . . fundamentally because I designed the room to belike me, so it’s got to be that way, doesn’t it, and if Iwant to teach in a certain way, then I will just movethe classroom. (Secondary Science teacher)

Teacher-centred/child-centred. Teachers that use ateacher-centred pedagogy tend to believe that thereis a relationship between their teaching style andthe layout of the room (86% of the teacher-centredteachers). Although they do demonstrate this per-ception of impact on their teaching style, they statethat they do not take into consideration the environ-ment when planning their lessons.

Teachers that use a child-centred pedagogy have adi¡erent response to teachers that use a teacher-centred pedagogy. While there is a tendency for tea-cher-centred teachers to believe that the room hasno impact on their planning, child-centred teachersdo believe there is an impact (58%). This impact canbe either positive or negative. The teacher below, forinstance, uses her planning in a very positive ap-proach.

. . . I’ve got some lessons that are content based thatwork very speci¢cally on the arrangement of theclassroom, in particular like a drama, somethingon how gas works, for example, and . . . we’d use apiece of drama about gas particles and how theymove, and in order to represent the sealed container, these (teacher is pointing the furniture) fourdesks block . . . that one, that one, that one and thatone are the sealed container and the children arethe particles moving around, inside . . . but it hasto work round me rather than the other way round.(Secondary Science teacher)

The child-centred teachers that do not believethey take into account the rooms when planningtheir lessons have mixed perceptions in terms ofthe interference of e¡ects that the layout of theroom has on their teaching style. They quote bothpositive and negative perceptions on the fact.

Child-centred teachers also tend to believe thattheir teaching style is related to the layout of theirrooms (69%).

. . . My whole teaching style has changed as a resultof having the library because I taught very formallybefore . . . as the time goes on and as I become more

established within the school, then I look to changemy styles because I want the children to develop amore adult learning style, a more mature learningstyle so of course you have to model the behaviourand so forth . . . (Secondary English teacher)

There are some teachers that responded bothpositively and negatively to this issue. Theydemonstrate a confused perception of how the envir-onment a¡ects their teaching but still express thefeeling of a relationship between the way they teachand the organization of the room.

Teachers that use a balanced pedagogy tend tobelieve that the room has an impact on their plan-ning and this impact tends to be positive (82%).

. . . You mean do I take into account the layout(when planning)? . . . I’m lucky that being able tomove furniture around as the class requires is notreally a big worry . . . and rather than change my les-son to suit the room, I can change the room to suitmy lesson. (Secondary Science teacher)

Teachers that use a balanced pedagogy ¢nd thatthere is a relationship between their teaching styleand the layout of the room (73%).

. . . I will change the format of the classroom de-pending on the type of lesson that I want to teach.(Secondary Maths teacher)

Lesson planning vs layout vs teacher style. From theevidence exhibited above we can see di¡erent pat-terns of teachers’ attitudes depending on their style.Teacher centred teachers tend to believe that the en-vironment has no impact on the planning of theirlessons. Child centred teachers, on the other hand,believe there is an impact, either positive or nega-tive. Teachers that use a balanced pedagogy tend tobelieve that the room has a positive impact on theirplanning.

When it comes to questioning whether there is arelationship between their chosen styles and the or-ganization of their rooms, they all agree there is arelationship even though the responses on theirplanning vary in nature.

Hierarchy of designability. The hierarchy of designa-bility is a construct that measures the degree of con-trol of change that teachers feel they have over thephysical elements of the classroom setting. Teacherssense of control have been scored in two ways. The¢rst one scans across all teachers’ responses in rela-tion to the elements of control (semi-¢xed, semi-£ex-ible and £exible features). The second examinesteachers’ individual responses in terms of the de-gree of control scores. The higher the score (0^3),the higher the degree of control of change a teacher


perceives himself/herself having over the classroomsetting.

As one might expect, the interviews con¢rmedthat the degree of control of change that teachersfeel they have over the features of the classroom en-vironment increases, as the £exibility of the fea-tures increases (Figure 10). In other words, mostteachers perceive having control over £exible fea-tures of the classroom environment. Some teachersperceive having control over semi £exible featureswhile very few teachers perceive having control overthe semi-¢xed features of their rooms.

When we examine teachers’ perception of semi-£exible features, we ¢nd they have mixed under-standings of how to deal with these features.Although these features are movable and change-able, teachers demonstrated di¡erent perceptions ofchange. Some teachers feel they have control oversemi £exible features while others feel no controlof change over these same features. By de¢nition,semi £exible features are clearly movable althoughheavy and are perceived by some teachers as beingmovable, as they are, and by others as being ¢xed.

Teachers that have control over semi-£exible fea-tures tend to have mixed feelings or to be unsatis-¢ed with their classrooms. They also tend to haveboth positive and negative comments on the circula-tion of their rooms. Being more critical about theirown surroundings may mean that these teachers aremore aware of their own surroundings and are morelikely to make changes as they feel more empoweredin terms of their degree of control.

There was also a tendency for teachers of practi-cal subjects (usually taught in workshops/studios,for example, Design and Technology and Art) to bemore in control of these features. The relationshipbetween their teaching style and layout is also gen-

FIGURE 10. Teacher’s hierarchy of designability.

erally agreed here. These teachers also tend to use achild-centred pedagogy as their teaching style.

Teachers have also been individually scored intheir degree of control of change according to theirstatements given on the interviews. Teachers thatscored ‘0’ have no control over any feature of the ar-chitecture. Teachers that scored ‘1’ have control overone feature of the soft architecture (always the £ex-ible features). Teachers that scored ‘2’ have controlover two features of the soft architecture (semi-£ex-ible and £exible features). Teachers that scored ‘3’have control over all features of the soft architec-ture (semi-¢xed, semi-£exible and £exible features).Figure 11 illustrates that most of the teachers followthe expected behaviour of feeling in control over the£exible features of soft architecture but not theother features within the hierarchy of designability.

A striking di¡erence was found when the data issplit between practical and academic subjects. Thehigher number of teachers in practical subjectsscore a degree of control ‘2’ while in academic sub-jects score a degree of control ‘1’ (Figure 12). It canbe said then that teachers that teach practical sub-jects tend to have a higher degree of control ofchange than teachers do in academic subjects. Theyteach subjects that sensitize them to their environ-ment.

Teachers that are satis¢ed with their classroomsettings and the ones that have mixed positive andnegative perceptions or are simply unsatis¢ed withtheir rooms have similar results to the di¡erenceencountered between practical and academic sub-jects’ teachers. The higher number of satis¢ed tea-chers score a degree of control ‘1’ while when theyare not, scored a degree of control ‘2’ (Figure 13).This demonstrates that satis¢ed teachers tend tohave a more limited degree of control of change

FIGURE 11. Teachers’ degree of control of change.

FIGURE 12. Practical and academic subjects’ teachers’ degree ofcontrol of change.

FIGURE 13. Di¡erence on the degree of control of change betweenteachers that are satis¢ed with their settings and teachers thatare not.

152 S. H. Martin

than the ones that ¢nd more problems with theirsettings. Perhaps, dissatisfaction with the classroomphysical environment is the ¢rst step towards tak-ing control over it.

But can we say that unsatis¢ed teachers tend toteach practical subjects or that teachers that teachpractical subjects tend to be unsatis¢ed? We cannotgeneralize but we can say that practical teachersthat score high (degree of control 2 or 3) tend to beunsatis¢ed or have mixed feelings in relation totheir classroom setting. But being unsatis¢ed doesnot mean that the teacher teaches a practical sub-ject, it means that the teacher tends to questionmore about the setting.

Summary of results

What can we say about teachers’ perceptions of theuse of their classroom settings? How do teachers re-act towards their physical space? Do teachers feel

empowered or defeated by their environments?How do di¡erent perceptions demonstrate di¡erentattitudes towards the space?

Teacher-centred lessons in the classrooms ob-served tended to occur in classrooms with lessspace and higher density of pupils. There was alsoa tendency for the classrooms where these lessonstook place to be general spaces and the seating ar-rangements were mostly organised in rows. Also,teachers of ‘academic’ subjects tended to work to-wards a more teacher-centred pedagogy. Strikingly,these same teacher-centred teachers tended to beproportionally more mobile as the classrooms weredenser. It seems to be that teacher-centred teacherstended not to take into consideration their physicalspace when planning, contradicting their commentson how they felt that the rooms a¡ected their teach-ing style.

Child-centred lessons in the classrooms observedtended to occur in the rooms with a higher propor-tion of space per pupil. There was also a tendencyfor the classrooms where these lessons took placeto be multiple activities facilities when seatingarrangements tended to be organized in-groups.Also, it was found that teachers in ‘practical’ sub-jects tended to work towards a child-centred peda-gogy and proportionally were less mobile (thanteacher-centred teachers) in more spacious class-rooms. An argument for this ¢nding is that whenpupils have more space to move around the setting,teachers tend to move less. A great percentage ofchild-centred teachers were found to take into con-sideration their teaching space when planning theirlessons and that their teaching style was de¢nitelya¡ected by their settings.

The interviews revealed that hard architectureseems to be taken as immutable as teachers wouldnot even comment on it. It is seen as just a shelterand what is inside is more reachable for teachers interms of possible change. This forti¢es the argu-ment of concentrating the study on the soft archi-tecture where teachers would feel more in controlof di¡erent features. Teachers seem to be aware thatthe setting a¡ects their teaching styles and a largeproportion of teachers take into account their class-room spaces when planning their lessons. Whatseems to be controversial among teachers is theirperception of control over di¡erent features of thesoft architecture, mixed and confused perceptionsespecially when semi £exible features are con-cerned.

The data identi¢es a link between teacher satis-faction with their settings and their feeling of con-trol. The tendency is that the higher the degree of


control, the more dissatis¢ed the teacher seems tobe. And unsatis¢ed teachers had a tendency to bechild-centred teachers, teaching practical subjects,and aware of the impact of their rooms on bothplanning and teaching style. But it is important tonote that not all unsatis¢ed teachers fell in the ca-tegories above.

When I examine teachers’ environmental aware-ness, I could indicate three types of attitudes. Ifound teachers that do not perceive their surround-ings in a constructive way and do not seem to per-ceive how much impact that setting is having onhis/her teaching and class. These teachers, conse-quently, do not act when a problem arises. I alsofound teachers who were aware of the impact ofthe settings on themselves and on the children.Some of these teachers were victims of their ownclassroom settings, as they knew something wasnot working well but they could not do anything to¢nd a solution. Then we also ¢nd teachers that areaware of their surroundings and deliberately usethem. These are the environmentally aware teachersbut they are not as common place as ideally wemight wish.

Discussion

The imprisoned, the free and the simply confused

The imprisoned:

. . . there’s so little room to move . . .

. . . we can’t do large work very easily because there’shardly anywhere to put it . . .. . . the £oor slopes and everything rolls o¡ thetables . . .. . . there’s nowhere for drawing or preparation work. . . (Secondary Art teacher)

The confused:

No, do I take the classroom into account as an en-vironment (when planning). Not at all. (Primary tea-cher)

Then this same teacher contradicts herself:

In fact I start the year by changing the classroomlots of times until you get to know the children.Usually I have two long tables in a group. Thisyear in the autumn term I have actually changedlike this (shows the room). In fact I had all of theirdesks in rows because I ¢nd this year group isquite poor and they didn’t complete a lot of theirwork and that they would talk to each other andnot complete their work so I tried it in rows. NowI actually ¢nd that very very intimidating becauseall the children are looking that way . . . (Primaryteacher)

Then once more she contradicts herself:

I don’t ¢nd it (the room) interferes at all (with myteaching) . . . (Primary teacher)

The free:

The thing I would say is that nothing is impossiblewithin a room, you know . . . It is just the vision ofthe teacher, I think, it’s important . . . and the for-ward thinking of the teacher as well. (SecondaryDesign and Technology teacher)

Progressively, I have become interested in the en-vironmental awareness that teachers display. Itseems reasonable to assert that teachers wouldprize wisdom above ignorance. At least, therefore, Iwould hope and expect that teachers would wish tobe aware of the relationships that have been identi-¢ed in this study between their behaviour in theclassroom and the design of it. I also assume thatthey would like to be autonomous professionalsmaking deliberate choices in their teaching, ratherthan having their hand forced, and their behaviourcontrolled, by the chance allocation of an inheritedclassroom. Habitual ways of seeing and thinkingabout classrooms create an obstacle to seeing alter-native possibilities. Loughlin and Suina (1982)argued that schools are behind in the process of ac-cepting the in£uences that the environment has onthose who occupy it. These in£uences have alreadybeen recognized by professionals in other ¢eldssuch as supermarkets, museums and o⁄ces. Studiesby Adams and Hiddle (1970), Sommer (1972), and Da-vid and Wight (1975) observed how thearrangements of space in£uence interactions andcould predict patterns of participation in classactivities, patterns of which teachers were notaware. In later studies by Lackney (1997), he foundthat teachers felt that environmental qualities arein part their responsibility even when they are un-able to control them or do not know how to tacklethe problems which relate to some of the ¢ndingsof this study.

Re£ecting over the data and ¢ndings, it is clearthat teachers that question more about their ownsettings have a tendency to be less satis¢ed withtheir classrooms. When a teacher does not recognisethe role of the environment, it is unlikely thatchange will occur. On the other hand, dissatisfac-tion with the environment seems to be a ¢rst steptowards change. The positive recognition that theenvironment could be better planned is a ¢rst stepto the empowerment of the teacher. The data pre-sented here suggests that although some teachersquestion and tend to recognize problems with their

154 S. H. Martin

setting, they may stop once that recognition ismade, not taking any further step towards beingmore proactive in changing the space. This attitudemight be described as awareness without compe-tence.

There seems to be a need for teachers to learnhow to question their settings in a constructiveway, looking for solutions and being proactive infeeling in control of change over the changeable fea-tures. Taking a proactive attitude would permit theteacher to experiment, and with experimenting ¢ndout what works and what does not work, since eachteacher and each group of students will be di¡erent.The classroom cannot be allowed to exist as a staticfeature. It needs to be questioned, challenged andtransformed. According to Trancik and Evans(1995), the ability to control the environment leadsto feelings of accomplishment and independencewhereas a lack of control may result in helplessness.When teachers realise that they have control, theycan feel empowered by the same environment thatonce would have defeated them.

Awareness can make a person sensitive to subtleaspects of the environment and bring to light theadverse e¡ects of a bad environment. In a sense,the goal in developing environmental awareness isto reach a new understanding of how the environ-ment relates to human activity.

But awareness, by itself is not enough. A teachermight be able to identify problems occurring in asetting but be unable to use this knowledge to carryon a meaningful dialogue with the environment totransform it to ¢t their requirements. Awareness isthe ¢rst step, but may not prompt any movementaway from passivity. It may not be enough toprovoke teachers to take action and rearrange asetting. Moving from awareness to competence re-quires that we overcome passivity, making activechoices and experimenting with a variety of spatialalternatives. This enables the teacher to challengeand develop the environment.

The title of this study refers to the ‘practice ofteachers’. The practice of teachers is their pedagogy,and as I have demonstrated in this study, there is arelationship between the teaching environment andthe teachers’ pedagogy. The examples below (Figure14) illustrate these relationships. These are extremeexamples and the data from this research show thatthere is a continuum between these extremes, but Iuse them here to demonstrate how in£uential theserelationships are. The example shown is based onextremes in classroom organization, mobility, anddegree of centredness and shows the link with peda-gogy. One of the cases is teacher-centred and the

other is child-centred, and they are very much re-lated to how the classroom is organized, and howthe teacher moves within this arrangement.

Furniture arrangements, aesthetic appeal, thepresence or not of windows show non-signi¢cant dif-ference in terms of student achievement in researchundertaken by Weinstein (1979). On the other hand,there is enough evidence that the physical environ-ment can a¡ect ‘non-achievement’ behaviour andattitude of both teacher and pupils as found in re-search by Weinstein (1979), Garbarino (1980), Mooreand Lackney (1993), Johnson (1990) and Lackney(1994). As Moore and Lackney (1993) re£ect overtheir ¢ndings, it is not unreasonable to suggest thatmore positive attitudes and behaviours on the partof both teachers and children may re£ect positivelyon improved academic achievement, therefore theenvironment seen as having an indirect e¡ect onachievement. Johnson (1990) also found that the im-pact of the school’s physical setting on the teachersa¡ect their desire to continue teaching.

I would hope that teachers in their classroomslearn to understand their environments, redesign-ing them to ¢t their requirements. To that extent,every teacher becomes a designer, responsible forpreparing the environment to achieve his or hereducational purposes.

This study illuminates the relationship that existsbetween teachers’ practice and the environment inwhich they operate. I have argued that teachersshould be self aware of these relationships and thatthis awareness should not be left to chance butrather should be deliberately developed in them.The training of teachers in understanding thee¡ects that the classroom has on them is thereforeclearly a matter of importance. However, it appearsthat it is not an o⁄cial requirement in the U.K. Inneither the standards for new teachers or subjectleaders (TTA, 1998a, b, c) are there any signi-¢cant mention of the impact of the classroom envir-onment on teaching. The only mentions are eitherhighly generalised or relate to health and safety.None of these references relate to understandingthe setting and learning about the relationshipsthat exist between the setting and the practice ofteachers. Since so little understanding is re-quired, it is reasonable to suppose that there isequally little training for teachers in this area. Itcan be argued, however, that without it, theywill be professionally impoverished and pedagogi-cally impaired.

As referred in the Introduction, this study aimedto describe and analyse the e¡ects of existinglearning environments on the practice of teachers

FIGURE 14. Extremes in the use of the classroom environment.


seeking an understanding of how teachers behave ina classroom environment. It was beyond the scope ofthe study to prepare a training programme for tea-chers to enable them to become more aware andmore competent in their design of the classroomenvironment. Nonetheless, some suggestions areclearly open in terms of the use of the developed re-search instruments. Auditing the space is a usefulexercise for teachers as they realize how much oftheir rooms is actually £exible (using the semi-¢xed,semi-£exible and £exible scale). It would not be di⁄-cult to develop instruments speci¢cally for teachertraining using the ones developed during this re-search. Teachers could also evaluate their own per-

ceptions of the space with the use of theseinstruments. They would permit teachers to learnhow to observe; how to see space from di¡erent per-spectives, gaining a fresh understanding of thespace.

Every teacher and every child in every lesson is insome kind of classroom. It is an inevitable part ofthe educational scene. I believe that a professionalteacher should know how to use it e¡ectively.

Notes

Report requests and correspondence should be ad-dressed to [email protected]

156 S. H. Martin

References

Adams, R. S. & Hiddle, B. J. (1970). Realities of Teaching ^Explorations withVideo Tape. USA: Holt, Rinehart andWinston, Inc.

David, T. G. & Wright, B. D. (Eds) (1975). Learning Environ-ments. Chicago. The University of Chicago Press.

DfEE/A&B (1996). Area Guidelines for Schools ^ BuildingBulletin 82, London: HMSO.

Dick, J. (1997). The Learner-Centered Environment Using the‘Fat L’ Shaped Classroom. Paper presented at the En-vironmental Design Research Association Conference28 in Montreal-Canada, 7^11 July, 1997.

Garbino, J. (1980). Some thoughts on school size and itse¡ects on adolescent development, Journal of Youthand Adolescence, 9(1), 19^31.

Gump, P. V. (1987). School and classroom environments. InD. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds) Handbook of Environmen-tal Psychology. U.S.A: Wiley-Interscience Publication,pp. 691^732.

Hayman Jr., J. L. (1975). System theory and human organiza-tion: an introduction. In S. D. Zalantino P. J. Sleeman(Eds) A Systems Approach to Learning Environments,USA: Meded Projects, Inc. pp. 2^28.

Horne, S. C. (1999). The Classroom Environment and itsE¡ects on the Practice of Teachers, Unpublished Ph.D.,Goldsmiths College, University of London.

Ittelson, W., Rivlin, L., et al. (1974). An Introduction to En-vironmental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.

Ittelson, W., Rivlin, L., et al. (1976). The use of behavioralmaps in environmental psychology. In H. M.Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson & L. G. Rivlin (Eds). Envir-onmental Psychology ^ People and Their Physical Set-tings. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp.340^351.

Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers at Work: Achieving Successin Our Schools. New York: Basic Books.

Jones, A. S. (1981). A new breed of learning environment con-sultants. In P. J. Sleeman & D. M. Rockwell (Eds)Designing Learning Environments. New York: Long-man pp. 46^68.

Lackney, J. (1994). Educational Facilities: The Impact andRole of the Physical Environment of the School onTeach-ing, Learning and Educational Outcomes, Publicationsin Architecture and Urban Planning F University ofWisconsin-Milwalkee, Milwalkee, WI, USA.

Lackney, J. (1997). Who is Managing What?: Placemakingand Facility Management of Environmental Quality inSchool Environments, Unpublished Paper Poster pre-sented at the Environmental Design Research Asso-ciation Conference 28 in Montreal, May 7^11, 1997.

Loughlin, C. E. & Suina, J. H. (1982). The Learning Envir-onment: an Instructional Strategy. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Moore, G. & Lackney, J. (1993). School design: crisis, edu-cational performance and design applications, Chil-dren’s Environments, 10(2), 99^112.

OECD (1988). The Quality of the Physical Environmentof the School and the Quality of Education. Organisa-tion for Economic Co-operation and Development,France.

Proshansky, H. & Altman, I. (1979). Overview of the ¢eld.In W. P. White (Ed.), Resources in Environment and Be-haviour. Washington, DC: American Psychological As-sociation pp. 3^36.

Proshansky, H. & Fabian, A. K. (1987). The development ofplace-identity in the child. In C. S. Weinstein & T. G.David (Eds), Spaces for Children FThe Built Environ-ment and Child Development. New York: PlenumPress..

Proshansky, H. & Wolfe, M. (1975). The physical settingand open education, In T. G. David & B. D. Wright(Eds). Learning Environments. Chicago: The Universityof Chicago Press pp. 691^732.

Proshansky, H., Ittelson, W., et al., Eds (1976). Environmen-tal Psychology F People and Their Physical Settings.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Rivlin, L. G. & Rothenberg, M. (1976). The use of space inopen classrooms. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson& L. G. Rivlin (Eds), Environmental PsychologyFPeo-ple and Their Physical Settings, New York: Holt, Rine-hart and Winston pp. 479^489.

Rivlin, L. G. & Weinstein, C. S. (1984). Educationalissues, school settings, and environmental psy-chology, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4,347^364.

Rivlin, L. G. & Wolfe, M. (1985). Institutional Settings inChildren’s Lives. New York: a Wiley-Interscience.

Sommer, R. (1972). Design Awareness. San Francisco: Rine-hart Press.

Steele, F. I. (1973). Physical Settings and Organization De-velopment. U.S.A: Addison-Wesley.

Teacher Training Agency (1998a). National Standards forHeadteachers, TTA, United Kingdom.

Teacher Training Agency (1998b). National Standards forQuali¢ed Teacher Status, TTA, United Kingdom.

Teacher Training Agency (1998c) National Standards forSubject Leaders, TTA, United Kingdom.

Trancik, A. M. & Evans, G. W. (1995). Spaces ¢t forchildren: competency in the design of daycarecenter environments, Children’s Environments, 12,311^319.

Weinstein, C. S. (1979). The physical environment of theschool: a review of the research, Review of Educa-tional Research, 49(Fall), 577^610.

Zalantino, S. D. & Sleeman, P. J. (1975). A Systems Ap-proach to Learning Environments. USA: Meded Pro-jects, Inc.

the classroom environment and its effects on the …

Documents