“You are a vital part of our community. We want you to feel safe, comfortable, challenged, inspired, proud—we believe in you and your future.”
How Physical Spaces Can Effect Learning: Excerpt taken from this report: (http://www.state.tn.us/tacir/PDF_FILES/Education/SchFac.pdf)
Effects of Physical Environments
The influence of the physical, “built” environment is often subtle, sustained, and quite difficult to measure with precision. But we all know from personal experience that settings do make a difference. Most people concede that their inner feelings upon entering a cathedral are different from the feelings they experience entering a cafeteria or a parking garage. For proof that the man-made environment does affect how we live and act within it one need only look to the business world. Commercial, retail, and entertainment industries spend billions of dollars annually to create mood or ambiance. They pay close attention to the formation of space because they know that it affects their profits. How many times have we judged the quality or appeal of a restaurant prior to sampling the cuisine? Individuals associate various feelings with their settings. The relationships among the actual, the experienced, and the perceived physical environments are a somewhat neglected, but nonetheless important, area of study.
Buildings, settings, and environments are accorded symbolic value by those who use them as well as by those who do not. Physical entities come to symbolize certain qualities, values, aspirations, and experiences for individuals. A school may symbolize opportunity, hope, stability, and a safe haven in a world of insecurity and transience or, to someone else, the school structure may symbolize failure and oppressive authority. The physical environment, however, rarely has direct unmediated impacts upon human health and well-being. It is the interaction of individual characteristics with physical features of the environment that we must examine to understand how environments—including schools—affect behavior.
As far back as the 1920s companies began to sponsor research into factors affecting the productivity of their employees. These early studies, then known as industrial psychology, and now as human factors engineering or ergonomics, were the first to establish the impact of the work environment or human activity. They showed that environmental improvements, such as lighting, ventilation, and space utilization, were related to greater productivity and higher employee satisfaction and morale.
Almost a half-century ago, the famous psychologist Abraham Maslow investigated the behavior of subjects in three different rooms: a “neutral” control room; a “beautiful” room; and an “ugly” room. Observations revealed that the subjects in the “ugly” room performed in measurable and different ways from the others. Maslow concluded that the “ugly” environment produced feelings of discontent, fatigue, and a desire to escape.
In 1966, Frederick Herzberg published his well-known “motivation-hygiene” theory of workers in industry. He found that tasks assigned to workers, if designed properly, formed what he called “motivators”, or things that made the workers feel good. The effects were generally long lasting. On the other hand, he found there were certain environmental (hygiene) factors that produced negative feelings toward work and general dissatisfaction. If these negative factors were allowed to persist, workers could become disinterested and passive, or even bitter and antagonistic toward the company. This theory has become well known to educators who study student motivation, and its insights can easily be applied to education.
Not long ago, health care research began to show a link between the hospital environment and patients’ healing. Researchers found, for example, that patients in a room with a window that had a view of a tree recovered more quickly than patients in an identical room that had no window. If adults in a work environment, or even in a hospital, are affected to such an extent by their surroundings, then it is logical to assume that children in school are similarly affected by their environment. Indeed, parents in one state confided to researchers that they couldn’t imagine working in an environment as dismal as the schools their children attended!
A study of working conditions in urban schools concluded that physical conditions do have direct positive and negative effects on teacher morale, a sense of personal safety, feelings of effectiveness in the classroom, and on the general learning environment. Building renovations in one district led teachers to feel a renewed sense of hope, of commitment, and a belief that district officials cared about what went on in that building. An improved physical environment affected the social climate of the school and that subsequently had a positive effect on learning.
Building a school is different from building an office building. The school building not only has to be functional and economical, it has to give a sense of self-worth to the student. It has to show the community’s commitment to education. Indeed, schools send an important message: we value our children. The building can either say to students: “Tough it out and get by—we’re not completely committed to your education;” or it can say: “You are a vital part of our community. We want you to feel safe, comfortable, challenged, inspired, proud—we believe in you and your future.” The message that the school building sends is not lost on teachers, students, or the community at large.
Even elementary school-age children are aware of the physical attributes of a setting. One study showed that children aged nine to eleven were more likely than adults to identify untidy classrooms, dirty bathrooms, and school walls painted one color as physical attributes that made their school not welcoming. A student may assume that authority figures in a poorly maintained building will accept or expect a lower standard of behavior and scholastic effort, because squalor is both a fact and metaphor. It tells a child what we think he or she is worth.
That the effects of building and classroom condition have been given minimal attention in many high schools is evidenced in a survey that appeared in Family Weekly magazine in Affect Education Outcomes/Introduction, August 1991. About 2,000 teens from across the nation were asked their opinions about various aspects of their schools. When ranking a list of factors in order of importance, thirty-three percent of the students placed “building maintenance and construction” as the number one item needing improvement. Parents responding to the same list ranked “lack of proper facilities” dead last. Their top priority was “controlling drugs and discipline”. So while parents may think that physical facilities are satisfactory (most parents never visit their child’s high school during classroom hours anyway), those who inhabit those facilities for up to seven hours a day think of them as “old, dirty, and looking like a jail.”
School facilities also seem to symbolize something to the community. In national opinion polls about whether or not schools were good, the public appeared to associate the quality of the school, and the level of student achievement, with the quality of the school building. Policymakers should never underestimate the impact of “pride of place” on students or the community. An attractive school is a source of pride and generates good will for public education. For students, it inspires good conduct, increases academic achievement, and reduces vandalism.
It has been said that a good teacher can teach anywhere and that a willing student is capable of learning in spite of the setting. There may be some truth to that. The issue is, however, whether teachers teach as well or students learn as much as they could have in better surroundings. It is simply a fact that the school environment itself has a largely untapped potential as an active contributor to the learning process
How Physical Spaces Can Effect Learning: Excerpt taken from this report: (http://www.state.tn.us/tacir/PDF_FILES/Education/SchFac.pdf)
Effects of Physical Environments
The influence of the physical, “built” environment is often subtle, sustained, and quite difficult to measure with precision. But we all know from personal experience that settings do make a difference. Most people concede that their inner feelings upon entering a cathedral are different from the feelings they experience entering a cafeteria or a parking garage. For proof that the man-made environment does affect how we live and act within it one need only look to the business world. Commercial, retail, and entertainment industries spend billions of dollars annually to create mood or ambiance. They pay close attention to the formation of space because they know that it affects their profits. How many times have we judged the quality or appeal of a restaurant prior to sampling the cuisine? Individuals associate various feelings with their settings. The relationships among the actual, the experienced, and the perceived physical environments are a somewhat neglected, but nonetheless important, area of study.
Buildings, settings, and environments are accorded symbolic value by those who use them as well as by those who do not. Physical entities come to symbolize certain qualities, values, aspirations, and experiences for individuals. A school may symbolize opportunity, hope, stability, and a safe haven in a world of insecurity and transience or, to someone else, the school structure may symbolize failure and oppressive authority. The physical environment, however, rarely has direct unmediated impacts upon human health and well-being. It is the interaction of individual characteristics with physical features of the environment that we must examine to understand how environments—including schools—affect behavior.
As far back as the 1920s companies began to sponsor research into factors affecting the productivity of their employees. These early studies, then known as industrial psychology, and now as human factors engineering or ergonomics, were the first to establish the impact of the work environment or human activity. They showed that environmental improvements, such as lighting, ventilation, and space utilization, were related to greater productivity and higher employee satisfaction and morale.
Almost a half-century ago, the famous psychologist Abraham Maslow investigated the behavior of subjects in three different rooms: a “neutral” control room; a “beautiful” room; and an “ugly” room. Observations revealed that the subjects in the “ugly” room performed in measurable and different ways from the others. Maslow concluded that the “ugly” environment produced feelings of discontent, fatigue, and a desire to escape.
In 1966, Frederick Herzberg published his well-known “motivation-hygiene” theory of workers in industry. He found that tasks assigned to workers, if designed properly, formed what he called “motivators”, or things that made the workers feel good. The effects were generally long lasting. On the other hand, he found there were certain environmental (hygiene) factors that produced negative feelings toward work and general dissatisfaction. If these negative factors were allowed to persist, workers could become disinterested and passive, or even bitter and antagonistic toward the company. This theory has become well known to educators who study student motivation, and its insights can easily be applied to education.
Not long ago, health care research began to show a link between the hospital environment and patients’ healing. Researchers found, for example, that patients in a room with a window that had a view of a tree recovered more quickly than patients in an identical room that had no window. If adults in a work environment, or even in a hospital, are affected to such an extent by their surroundings, then it is logical to assume that children in school are similarly affected by their environment. Indeed, parents in one state confided to researchers that they couldn’t imagine working in an environment as dismal as the schools their children attended!
A study of working conditions in urban schools concluded that physical conditions do have direct positive and negative effects on teacher morale, a sense of personal safety, feelings of effectiveness in the classroom, and on the general learning environment. Building renovations in one district led teachers to feel a renewed sense of hope, of commitment, and a belief that district officials cared about what went on in that building. An improved physical environment affected the social climate of the school and that subsequently had a positive effect on learning.
Building a school is different from building an office building. The school building not only has to be functional and economical, it has to give a sense of self-worth to the student. It has to show the community’s commitment to education. Indeed, schools send an important message: we value our children. The building can either say to students: “Tough it out and get by—we’re not completely committed to your education;” or it can say: “You are a vital part of our community. We want you to feel safe, comfortable, challenged, inspired, proud—we believe in you and your future.” The message that the school building sends is not lost on teachers, students, or the community at large.
Even elementary school-age children are aware of the physical attributes of a setting. One study showed that children aged nine to eleven were more likely than adults to identify untidy classrooms, dirty bathrooms, and school walls painted one color as physical attributes that made their school not welcoming. A student may assume that authority figures in a poorly maintained building will accept or expect a lower standard of behavior and scholastic effort, because squalor is both a fact and metaphor. It tells a child what we think he or she is worth.
That the effects of building and classroom condition have been given minimal attention in many high schools is evidenced in a survey that appeared in Family Weekly magazine in Affect Education Outcomes/Introduction, August 1991. About 2,000 teens from across the nation were asked their opinions about various aspects of their schools. When ranking a list of factors in order of importance, thirty-three percent of the students placed “building maintenance and construction” as the number one item needing improvement. Parents responding to the same list ranked “lack of proper facilities” dead last. Their top priority was “controlling drugs and discipline”. So while parents may think that physical facilities are satisfactory (most parents never visit their child’s high school during classroom hours anyway), those who inhabit those facilities for up to seven hours a day think of them as “old, dirty, and looking like a jail.”
School facilities also seem to symbolize something to the community. In national opinion polls about whether or not schools were good, the public appeared to associate the quality of the school, and the level of student achievement, with the quality of the school building. Policymakers should never underestimate the impact of “pride of place” on students or the community. An attractive school is a source of pride and generates good will for public education. For students, it inspires good conduct, increases academic achievement, and reduces vandalism.
It has been said that a good teacher can teach anywhere and that a willing student is capable of learning in spite of the setting. There may be some truth to that. The issue is, however, whether teachers teach as well or students learn as much as they could have in better surroundings. It is simply a fact that the school environment itself has a largely untapped potential as an active contributor to the learning process